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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248 
THE RESULTS
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
While it's quite possible to predict what's going to happen in many CM tests, we had no idea what to expect from our roll-down trialsother than the fact that Continental was predicting that our Eco-Plus Long Distance-shod artic would roll further down the track, thereby endorsing its lower rolling resistance credentials. But even we were surprised by the difference. Based on the average of the five runs of both sets of tyres, the Eco-Plus artic rolled 119.75m (or 11%) further down the track, stopping after 1,203.08m compared with the Regional Traffic's final roll-out figure of 1,083.33m. So far, so blah, .. but apart from the fact that the Eco-Plus tyre does have a better rolling resistance, what exactly do those figures mean?
In Germany, Continental has developed its own fuel-saving cost calculations based on the Eco-Plus tyre's improved rolling resistance, and based upon that computation, Sanders reports that, using our test result of an 11% improvement in rolling distance, an operator switching from Regional-Traffic to Eco-Plus would gain a fuel saving of between 2.21% and 3.68%. This not only sounds achievable to us, but more importantly, believable, especially at a time when operators are justifiably wary of any product promising double-digit fuel savings Moreover, our test results corroborate Conti's own modest claims for Eco-Plus, as Sanders explains: We tend to give a figure of about 4% in terms of its fuel saving."