1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
THE RESULTS At the risk of stating the obvious, the
24th January 2008, Page 45
24th January 2008
Page 45
Page 45, 24th January 2008
— THE RESULTS At the risk of stating the obvious, the
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
aim of the trial was to achieve a benchmark figure for these two types of trailer. It didn't take long for the testte establish that there was a distinct difference, but the question was: just how big was it?
The results garnered from running with a GCW of 15 tonnes at 85km/h were dramatic. After running the first set of laps with the trailers, we found a 7% difference between the two designs. After the second set of laps that gap widened to 8.6%.
This gave us an average improvement of 7.8%.
• First 10 miles: Sloping roof saves 7% • Second 10 miles: Sloping roof saves 8.6% • Overall average: Sloping roof saves 7.8%