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 
TRAILER AERODYNAMICS
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'Teardrop' trailers thrown into doubt by MIRA study
THE FUEL-EFFICIENCY gains of a so-called 'teardrop' trailer are no better than those of a 4.1m-high trailer, says one trailer manufacturer.
The research, by automotive institute MIRA on behalf of Lawrence David, tested a variety of trailer styles and designs by using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling techniques and found that compared with a standard 4.5m trailer with optimised cab deflector, a teardrop trailer saved 5.1% almost the same as a 4.1m trailer. The teardrop trailer will impact on fuel, but it also impacts on load volume," says Lawrence David technical director Brian Timpson. "Clearly, if you can't use the space in the teardrop, which can be difficult to fill operationally, then you are better off with a standard 4.1m curtainsider and just avoid the problems of low bridges.
"Operators have to consider what benefits these new trailer types bring."
• For more on the MIRA research, turn to page 42.