Trailer Tails

i assume they work
truckers dont give a shit about PR and that looks fiddly as shit to erect for no good reason

>tfw they work
>tfw they won't be a thing in Europe until they're yesterday's news because legislators can never get their heads out of their asses in time
Parliamentary democracy was a mistake.

It's because racetruck

>>17303370
Semis in EU can't go more than 80 kmh anyway so it wouldn't make a difference.

Hooray for EU legislation

>>17303374
>implying it doesn't vary by country
>implying they're not electronically limited to 90
>implying they don't go 90 anyway
Also even at 90 they'll make a difference. The rear of a vehicle is hugely neglected in aerodynamics.

>>17303378
I went from a hatchback to a wagon and I thought
>damn is all that wind noise coming off the back?
Then I moved to a fastback
>wew listen to that tire noise

>>17303335
The company that manufactures them convinced trucking companies they work and would save them money when in reality they save a fraction of a mile per gallon. If I remember correctly it would take something like 5 years for the gas savings to cover the extra cost of them on a trailer

>>17303395
This is what I figured. It doesn't look like it reduces that much drag. Skirts make sense but tails just seem like a meme.

>>17303395
5 years is a decent return on investment for that, though.

I think it'd be more effective if they were simply inflated by the airflow across the trailer, and then collapsing away out of the way of the doors when not in use.

>>17303378
>The rear of a vehicle is hugely neglected in aerodynamics.
wew fuggen lad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback

>>17303606
>I think it'd be more effective if they were simply inflated by the airflow across the trailer
What you are describing is known as an 'air brake'.

File: 1473496678605.png (17KB, 501x526px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 501x526px

>>17303370
its fine as it is
>tfw driving closely behind a truck when travelling
it works for MY fuel effeciency