Why are semi trucks in the US and Europe so different? (2018) (2024)

Ford used to make some cab-over semi trucks that were very popular in the US during the 80's and early 90's and resembled very closely the European designs of today.

I think it's pretty obvious and comes down to a few things:

* European trucks typically run shorter hauls, and do not require a bunk in the cab as often as multi-day cross-country runs.

* European Semi's need to accommodate all countries' roads and parking lots. This means the much wider range of nonstandard roads, docks, fueling stations and parking lots extends much farther towards the "small" side. Tight streets and parking lots - making it necessary for the truck to be shorter for tighter turns and parking compatibility.

* It has been proven that a cab-forward design is safer for avoiding accidents directly in front of the vehicles, something that is more focused on in the EU.

* The least obvious but possibly the most relevant reason why it remains: Having and ingraining differing standards makes it harder for a single competitor to play into the both markets. EU is largely locked down by EU manufacturers since any US manufacturers would have to significantly change their design and production to sell there.

The fuel economy point seems to be a distant consideration since the majority of drag economy comes from the trailer and not the tractor.

European semis all have a bunk beds, for two. They don't feature a kitchen though, and in the evenings the truckers gather in truck stops which serve humongous servings. These truck stops are all along the freeways all over Europe.

There is a maximum vehicle length though, and a maximum weight, the former ensures vehicle maneuverability, the latter serves road stability, bridge specifications, optimized no-waste parking provisions for pass-through parking spots in said truck stops edit: and ferry capacity. Ireland, Finland are connected by Ferry.

Manufacturing is pretty much internationalized, reusing parts and designs globally. Freightliner and Daimler are one company, for example.

Fuel economy is indeed a point, albeit the combo of trailer and truck define the overall fuel economy. As the trailer usually is equivalent to a standard 40ft container, the ideal truck has a boring standard form, too.

The text is German, the pictures are self explanatory-ish though wrt optimal and sub optimal wind résistance:https://en.vda.de/dam/vda/publications/FAT-SCHRIFTENREIHE%20...

99.9% of US trucks do not have a kitchen either, unless you count a microwave as a 'kitchen'. Truck drivers also stop at truck stops in the US for food, fuel, a shower, sleep, however many long haul trucks are now team operations - one guy drives and the other one sleeps.

There is something like a 70-90% parts commonality between a sleeper cabover and a conventional tractor, indeed - the only parts that differ are body, frame, and a couple interior pieces - even drivetrains are shared - and commonly shared between europe and NA - though European engines do not have the best reputation among US drivers (neither the Volvo or Mercedes Class 8 engine is well thought of - parts are expensive and take a long time, and sadly they're needed with alarming frequency). Indeed, many interior parts can be shared between a cabover and conventional truck, including the dash, and most of the interior appointments.

I do a lot of research for historical things and often want results from other languages and have found on Google if you search for something and then click the settings icon and then click languages you can choose multiple results for "Currently showing search results in:" which will give you results in the languages you choose.

I typically do this in incognito windows as I do not always want for instance English and Italian results.

Have u seen any studies on how to add a detachable battery pack to an existing truck configuration?

For example, a 2mx2mx0.5m pack can be slotted between the cabin and trailer.

A 2mx6mx0.25cm can be laid on the roof ?

Etc..

(I have seen demos of an Australian truck where the fossil engine is removed, and the pack is inserted from the front.)

I suspect all of this is wrong.

The maximum length of an articulated vehicle in Germany (and most of europe) is 16.5m or 54 ft. [1]

The maximum length of a vehicle in California is 65 ft. California is one of the more restrictive states when it comes to vehicle length simply because of the age of the road network.

The longest vehicle you'll see in the states are turnpike doubles, which are around 130 ft long, the longest total permitted vehicle length in Europe is 65 ft.

The US used cabovers before vehicle length rules were liberalized, and thats why we don't anymore, drivers prefer conventional trucks, the ride better, largely handle better, and are safer for the driver.

[1] https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/dimensions...

"The maximum length of a vehicle in California is 65 ft. California is one of the more restrictive states when it comes to vehicle length simply because of the age of the road network."

Sort of.

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-a...

The STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982) trucks can have unlimited length cabs but are primarily limited to interstates and marked state routes.

As someone who drove trucks and was licensed in California - California has other rules that limit, including axle to tandem limits, and not allowing triples or turnpike doubles (both of which are allowed elsewhere, but not federally required). The unlimited length of tractor has practical considerations too, there are reasons why 95% of the long haul fleet is conventional condo sleepers (notwithstanding the folks who drive a RV style sleeper, with a little living area in it) - and 95% of the local fleet are conventional day cabs, mostly driver preference.

So while yes, I used California's state limit as an easy from of comparison, because it is one of more restrictive western states - you're correct in that the STAA allows a longer tractor. In the end, the rules are lightly enforced - but the state limits guide the total length of combination. It's why (for example) you almost never see doubles being pulled by anything other than a day cab.

Bit of a sh*tshow of authorities for any given piece of road but generally speaking it's the city streets and town-level jurisdictions that get restrictive moreso than interstates and major highways.

There is also the weight factor - even if you could legally have 90ft trailers and 25ft cabs, it would probably put you over the weight limit for many roadways and negate the savings.

Are they better for pedestrians, cyclists, bikers and other drivers, though? I imagine it's much easier to see things in front of you with the cabover design.

Personally I'd optimize a bit more for everyone else's safety, since you know, there's more of them. Plus a semi is a multi-ton missile going 90kmph.

Can you share evidence they aren’t better?

School buses typically have a large nose in front of the driver. Are they unsafe?

Those hunking blocks of sheet-metal in the US that you call school buses (alternatively, prisoner transport)? Well, yeah. European buses share much with their truck counterparts, except the massively better visibility all around:

https://www.mercedes-benz-bus.com/content/dam/mbo/markets/co...

I can't really share any studies, but some people seem to have more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195371

Intuitively it would make sense that being able to see in front of you with no obstruction would have an impact on safety. How much, I can't say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> School buses typically have a large nose in front of the driver. Are they unsafe?

Guess what, European buses don't have a nose, either :-)))

Truck accidents where the truck plows into another vehicle are relatively rare. We know because they're recorded by the DOT, and kept as statistics. You're more likely to take them our with the trailer than driving over the front of them.

I have seen four wheelers do all sorts of stupid sh*t around trucks, stuff that endangers everyones lives, I want that extra little bit of hood in front of me.

I agree that going to a hybrid model is good, where its a short nose conventional cab, like the Cascadia - rather than a long hood-high hood model.

> Truck accidents where the truck plows into another vehicle are relatively rare.

Interesting, in Germany there happen 4 truck accidents on highways every day, every third one of those is a truck driving into the end of a traffic jam [0], in total they apparently cause more deaths than speeding [1].

[0] https://www.autofahrerseite.eu/sicherheit/524-lkw-unfall-sta...

[1] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/lkw-unfaelle-fordern-...

Driving a cabover would seem to not help in those situations, somewhat obviously.

A cabover has better close up visibility, not distance.

It's there, but there are issues:

https://trid.trb.org/view/1756275

< California is one of the more restrictive states when it comes to vehicle length simply because of the age of the road network.

What makes the road network in CA so old compared to eastern states that had roads built so much earlier?

California has A LOT of roads given its size, and density is focused in the big cities, so you have a lot of country roads to maintain with limited revenue to maintain them.

A lot of highways in California have warnings like "no services for 100 miles" and you won't encounter a lot of other vehicles (similar to Nevada and Oregon adjacent).

> The first freeway ever was made in California

What road is that? How about the Pennsylvania Turnpike?

That is a toll road and highway, not a freeway. Definitely some definition slicing going on - the 110 in SoCal was the first recognized freeway [https://www.motortrend.com/features/1804-americas-first-free...]

Differences are typically that a freeway is designed and constructed to allow maximum speed and no interruptions/stops (hence all the on/off ramps, lack of lights, lack of toll booths), and is available to the general public for use without significant restrictions or costs.

Which make it far easier to use, faster, etc. the interstate highway system was designed largely using the model.

Haha, yeah the whole ‘high speed’ thing is pretty much only at 2am on a Wednesday in many parts of California now.

One key thing at the time I believe was the grade separation/right of way stuff, which I think had only occurred on toll roads for any distance before.

Previously almost all highways ended up having to stop or intersect with other roads (and hence stop signs, or traffic lights, or whatever). Most highways are still that way, outside of major arterials.

Most major arterial highways are the same as freeways now everywhere of course, but I think that’s more about economic factors. California I think was just the first mover on it (and got exposed to those same economic factors earlier than most).

At the time (and still does, though it gets less press now), California was a huge oil state, and was at the forefront of designing and building refineries too.

Incidentally, Finland and Sweden constitute something like 20% of the EU's total area, and both have relatively small urban centres scattered all around the place.

It's pretty natural both have somewhat differing regulations in regards to transportation.

The article brings all of this up, as well as the prevalence of "sleeper" cabs in US but not EU. This all seems pretty obviously likely to contribute.

One non obvious thing in article; apparently up until 1986 both US and Europe had a strict limit on length of trailer + truck, which is a clear incentive to shorter cabs (gets you more trailer). In 86 US relaxed this, correlates pretty well with the fall off on cab-over designs.

In the US I see many dump trucks pulling trailers with a very long extension rod (the thing that connects to the motorized truck; I don’t know the actual name for it). Even on the Puget Sound I see them entering the ferries with a ton of wasted space.

Do you have any idea why dump trucks make them self so much longer without providing any more load capacity?

Edit: Here is an example. You could fit another truck in the space between the truck and the trailer: https://d2uhsaoc6ysewq.cloudfront.net/53248/Dump-Trucks-West...

The bit between the truck and trailer is a drawbar. As mentioned, it is indeed mainly for manoeuvreability. In Australia, that combination is called a 'truck and dog', the dog being the rear trailer. The front axle(s) on the dog are steerable by the drawbar. The upshot of this combination is that you can tip the truck without having to disconnect the trailer, by 'folding' the combination up on itself, turning the whole lot into a U-shape.

As for load, these trucks are completely loaded, there is no waste. This is simply because the things that a tipper transports (bitumen, dirt, grain, gravel etc.) are very dense. Load limits, at least in Australia, are based on the amount of axles under the vehicle, so the only way to increase the load capacity of these trucks is to increase axle count. Example: https://www.aeitransport.com.au/biggest-load-to-be-moved-in-...

The image of the truck and dog you linked seems especially long. This might be a specialised setup for roadworks, where the driver can actually tip the load (in a controlled manner) through the drawbar and drive the dog over the top of it. The longer drawbar would leave room for the tipping body on the truck to raise completely, and also lower the angles experienced by the hitch if the driver offloads too much material between the truck and dog.

I'm late to this party, but I didn't see an answer that got to one of the big reasons for the large distance between a truck and trailer. There are laws about weight, specifically measurements called bridge and inner bridge.

My father and grandfather spent a lot of time reading the laws and charts every time they'd build out a new truck or trailer to try and maximize what they could haul. More axels allows for more weight, that seems obvious, but more distance is required between the truck and trailer as well.

It gets to be a really fun problem when one state wants a tongue/drawbar length of 28' and the neighboring state says that is too long and only wants 16'. What to do? Make the length adjustable and switch it over at the state line.

The last and biggest combo they ran was over 100' long, 9 axels, 34 tires and hauled 80,000 pounds. I don't remember the gross weight.

And the 'dinette' is literally a fold down table in front of the bunk.

Cabovers had all of those things too.

I doubt euro trucks had different chassis designs if trucks were owned by truckers.

But trucking in Europe is a mess with massive companies squeezing truckers and importing cheaper workers from wherever to keep salaries low and conditions sh*tty.

At least one sector where Europe out-big-corps US?

European cabovers have beds[1]. Sometimes a double bunk[2]. But they don't have a living area with kitchen etc. like American conventional trucks often do.

> makes it harder for a single competitor to play into the both markets

I don't think this is the case, because many of the top European and American brands are owned by the same conglomerates. For example Paccar owns DAF in Europe and Kenworth and Peterbilt in America.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3O3ixew1kA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flScrV0pQwU

> * European trucks typically run shorter hauls, and do not require a bunk in the cab as often as multi-day cross-country runs.

I find it hard to believe. There are tons of trucks, having multi-day cross-country runs. I know a few truckers, they all have. They sleep in their cabs. Sometimes there are 2 truckers, so they can swap whenever limits reached.

I see trucks from different countries any time I hit the road. If you ride on German autobahn, there is a never-ending stream of trucks from different countries.

Although runs appear shorter in the EU, they're still multi-day. Lisbon to Edinburg is a 2000 mile drive. Most drivers kip in their cabs, not at home.

IMO it's entirely down to the road networks. Driving across the US is like driving across one very broad road network. Driving across Europe is like driving on many fragmented, narrow road networks.

Europe consists of 44 different countries with sometimes vastly different developed, and funded, infrastructure.

There is a big difference between the motorways in a country like the Netherlands vs those in Moldova [0]

There is often also vastly different regulations in terms of vehicle safety requirements, and many other differences, the combination of which also leads to quite different per capita traffic deaths [1]

[0] https://landgeist.com/2021/09/07/the-best-and-worst-roads-in...

[1] https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/07/which-countries-in-europ...

It has been proven that a cab-forward design is safer for avoiding accidents directly in front of the vehicles, something that is more focused on in the EU.

Ironic, because back in the 70's when there were more CoE designs driving around in the US, it was generally known through crash tests that CoE cab trucks were a lot less safe than conventional cab trucks in front-end collisions because of the driver's distance to the collision.

If CoE trucks have gotten safer in front-end collisions, it's because a lot of engineering work has been done to mitigate this old problem.

Testing by Volvo determined that in a front-on collision the engine of a conventional cab ended up in the cabin crushing driver. This was the primary reason for CoE adoption in Europe. Similar to cars before safety cells and crumple zones became the norm.

Common perception in America (contrary to actual testing) believed having all that bulk in front made a conventional truck safer.

Maybe dumb question- I've never been in a truck. Wouldn't the distance from seat to window be ~pretty much the same whether it's CoE or conventional?

There's a hood in front of you for conventional, and I guess crumple zone deceleration comes in to play there? But as this article mentioned US trucks have a much higher average/top speed so you're probably just as likely to go through the window.

> > It has been proven that a cab-forward design is safer for avoiding accidents directly in front of the vehicles

> Ironic, because back in the 70's when there were more CoE designs driving around in the US, it was generally known through crash tests that CoE cab trucks were a lot less safe than conventional cab trucks in front-end collisions

That's not ironic: safety in collisions from one direction and safety for avoiding collisions from the same direction are very different and often opposed things.

The 70's were 50 years ago.

Back then we barely had seat belts, let alone airbags, adaptive cruise control, automated braking in case of collision, blind spot detectors, etc.

Another reason is that longer trucks are harder to overtake on motorways, the longer the truck the higher the risks for accidents. Europe has smaller highways and country roads.

Furthermore truck logistics in the USA is mainly based on FTL (full truck load), which means the truck just drives from A to B. In Europe LTL (less than truck load) is more common, which means pickup and delivery on multiple stops. This requires a better maneuverability, hence shorter trucks.

LTL also makes more sense with shorter trailers, since you can unload and reload the trailer quickly without having to play Jenga at the dock. It also encourages depot-to-depot runs vs supplier-to-client, which leads to the average trip length being shorter.

Another factor unmentioned is the amount of independent truckers in the US who own their trucks and who primarily do longhaul sorties spanning a week or more. Can't find any data on this but it is a very commonplace thing in the US for truckers to live in their trucks more than their homes and I'm not sure that is the case in the EU.

Just because the distances are shorter doesn't mean they drive to the destination and back again.

They could easily have multiple destinations they drive to one after the other, with different cargo each time

This Tesla was pushed for half a mile seemingly oblivious to the driver of this conventional cab semi.

https://youtu.be/A5GePY23FxI

In Australia I've found the European style far more common, contrary what is suggested in the article.

While we're on the topic of trucks, I've always had this pointless desire to get a non-synchronous transmission truck driver's licence. I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes - something I imagine will soon be a thing of the past. Regrettably, there's no real reason for me to get it.

For now, the rational part of my brain is keeping this in check.

> I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes. However, there's absolutely no reason for me to get it.

I guarantee you would quickly abandon this double clutching "fun" at real trucking job because it is very tiring when you need to change gears a lot for example when there are a lot of intersections and turns. AFAIK most/all drivers in USA don't use clutch at all (for anything other than starting and stopping the vehicle) in non-synchronized transmission trucks for that very reason. Switching gears without clutch is easier and faster when you learn how to do it smoothly.

That being said... I strongly suggest you to try either American or Euro Truck simulator games. If you have a steering wheel and gearbox controllers for your computer, you can indeed have a lot of fun and gain some gear shifting and big truck driving skills at much lower cost than in real life while still having kind of real feeling.

Were they timed to make it reasonable to go directly from n to n+1 or did you have to shift to neutral, wait, then upshift?

I have a not-so-old Audi with a known-bad gearbox w/ faulty synchros and because it is a turbo you really can’t upshift in that band when/where the gears are lined up without losing too much power so I have learned to time how long I should wait in neutral (for the RPMs to drop) before completing the upshift. Non-sequential downshifting after slowing down from a higher gear is much harder though - you really have to play it by ear based off the sound/RPMs and the current speed both. And it’s a six speed with considerably less slop than the old Beetles used to have.

The trick is to match the rpms as the engine drops naturally you just slot it in gear at the right moment. If you do it often enough at some point you don't even notice anymore until you try to drive another vehicle, at which point hilarity will ensue.

Those old beetles were just four speeds, pretty beefy gears. I never managed a good downshift though, I would cheat and very briefly depress the clutch so it wouldn't slip. Do it too long and you'd get that horribly expensive smell. I was dirt poor and got the car for free so I really couldn't complain. Baby blue. And it taught me to be very careful on wet surfaces with a rear mounted engine (took out a bicycle stand with it in front of one of the busiest coffee places in Amsterdam West, "Tramlijn Begeerte" (dutch translation of a 'streetcar called desire'). Funny little car.

For the downshifting, you can speed things up if you spin up the input shaft by putting the gear selector in neutral with the clutch engaged (foot off it) and rev the engine to increase the speed of the input shaft, then clutch back in, and select the lower gear (now with the input shaft going faster [as is needed], the synchros have much less work to do to engage the lower gear).

I had an old Alfa Romeo that was fantastic overall but had a pretty terrible transmission, especially when cold. You do learn quickly how to get by. :)

This works for upshifting too, it's known as double clutching.

If you have a turbo diesel it's a good skill to learn as you can shift smoothly while still keeping the turbo spooled up and not cause as much wear on the gearbox.

The whole article seems full of conjecture and generalisation.

A big example:

> Another advantage of a conventional cab design is that the truck can be more economical. Surely they usually pull heavier loads, but if there were two trucks, one a cab-over and another one a conventional cab design, and they had the same powertrain and the same cargo, the conventional cab truck would most likely use less fuel. Of course, that is just in theory – in reality there are too many factors to consider.

I don't know... power, load and fuel economy is the kind of data that's extremely available about motor vehicles... this is something we can't figure out? Or were they just writing hearsay to push content and get clicks? ("Subscribe to our facebook. Loads of content coming soon!")

Lots of conjecture. The reality is most of the drag is encountered on the trailer, tires and underside. This is the reason you now see "skirts" on almost all trailers, and the general reduction in distance between tractor and trailer and not long airplane-like tractors.

More important to fuel economy is maximizing cargo per trip, as having 20% more cargo in the trailer has no impact on aerodynamics and minimal contribution to rolling resistance and acceleration losses. This is the main argument against the length restrictions in the EU. Longer trailers + more aerodynamic tractors would lead to a significant increase in fuel economy - albeit at the cost of road safety: EU records nearly identical deaths per year for trucking related accidents as the US - around 5000 - but has 300% as many trucks on the road and 50% more population than the US.

> Or were they just writing hearsay to push content and get clicks?

I think this is a very uncharitable interpretation. It has been decades in the US and Canada since cab overs fell out of style and thus you can't buy ones that take the same trade-offs as your average conventional truck. Comparing trucks designed for completely different regulatory, geographical, and practical constraints isn't going to net something useful so we have to make estimated guesses. It seems like it would be similar to comparing the fuel economy of an an unladen F-150 with an unladen F-350; They might do similar things but in practice there are so many capability trade-offs that it isn't a particularly interesting thing to do. As they said:

> that is just in theory – in reality there are too many factors to consider.

In Australia, I think the default style has changed over time. Back in the 1980s, Mack and Kenworth were the dominant brands. Now there's more of a mix, with the likes of Volvo and Scania doing well, but Mack and Kenworth are still in the top 10.[1]

[1] https://www.trucksales.com.au/editorial/details/2020-truck-s...

I see. It could be a metropolitan/regional divide too. Most the trucks I see are metropolitan traversing from the port to inner city destinations.

I imagine the composition is different on, say, the Nullarbor plain.

That's an interesting point about the metro/regional divide. It could be that livestock haulage is more invested in the "conventional" style. I was quite familiar with one local haulage company growing up, and checking their website it seems like their entire fleet is still "conventional"![1]

[1] https://www.martinshaulage.com.au/

You can get a Truck Simulator game, and purchase gaming equipment for it. You can have a real life steering wheel, shifter, and pedals.

Image of such a setup: https://imgur.com/xUdS3wD taken from the trucksim subreddit.

> I've always had this pointless desire to get a non-synchronous transmission truck driver's licence. I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes. However, there's absolutely no reason for me to get it.

> For now, the rational part of my brain is keeping this in check.

You're not alone! I have the exact same desire.

I have a lot of friends that are recreationally pilots or boat captains so I don't think it's that strange.

> I've always had this pointless desire to get a non-synchronous transmission truck driver's licence. I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes - something I imagine will soon be a thing of the past. Regrettably, there's no real reason for me to get it.

Look out. I know a guy who caved in and learned. Then decided he doesn't like computers all that much and he doesn't _really_ need that software engineer salary, especially if he can cut on rent by sleeping in his truck.

I have heard of it but haven't really looked into it.

There's something appealing in the physical labour of feeling and manipulating the clutch and gearbox, that a simulator might not capture, but I will it check it out.

Big Mutha Truckers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mutha_Truckers

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. At one point it was the lowest rated game ever on metacritic.

The opponents don't move, there is no clipping of obstacles, and once you cross the finish line you are greeted with a screen proudly saying "You're Winner!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing

Let's not forget the missing speed cap for the reverse gear. You can accelerate to over 1000 mph and fly off the map.

Obviously, the game developers were unexperienced and couldn't deliver a functioning product. What's amazing is that the company had the audacity to sell it in stores nevertheless.

It sort of depends where you are - I think most of the ones people in cities would see are cab over but the moment you head rurally it’s almost exclusively conventional - Kenworth and Western Star are by far and away the biggest brands. Try driving up or down the Newell Highway - conventional would outnumber cab over 10-20:1

Driving a road ranger gearbox is a lot of fun. And a jake brake makes an awesome sound! I agree with the comment below me - you almost never use the clutch, just match revs to gear. It’s a nice skill, you can do it in any manual vehicle but you’re more likely to torch the transmission in the average car - Toyota landcruisers are good practice though

I looked into this. It's very doable and easy. It's funny but the actual thing that annoys me is that if you want to get an A when you already have a C and M1, you then need to do the C and M1 tests again. And to be honest, the M1 written test is pretty hard (like at least 10x harder than the C). I obviously passed it on my first attempt but I definitely know people who decided to just keep their out of state motorcycle license instead.

EDIT in response to reply: I actually don't think it's obvious that if you get C, M1, and A separated by a month that you should do 1+2+3 tests but that if you get C+C separated by years you do 1+0 tests.

I've always had this pointless desire to get a non-synchronous transmission truck driver's licence. I just think it'd be fun learning to drive an 18 speed crash box with double clutching and clutch brakes

I once had a commercial license paid for by a grant program as part of that job. I had to give it up when I moved states and no reason to redo it. I regret it a lot because it was useful in many ways. Probably different in Australia, but having a odd set of skills never hurt my life.

I was going to recommend taking the three-day Skip Barber open wheel class, but looks like they've switched that to the Mygale Formula 4 cars with a sequential gearbox. When I did it, they were Dodge powered with the old straight-cut gears with dog rings.

I suspect you could find a Formula Dodge or Formula Ford racing series with an intro class if you just want to learn the gearbox aspects, plus then you can learn to rotate a car with the steering wheel, the gas, and the brake pedal. ;)

Sometimes you can take a CDL course for cheap. I did years ago and it was fun.

I wouldn’t get the license though as even minor traffic violations can become a pain in the butt.

If it's when they are slowing down it's likely the jake-brakes j-brakes you are hearing especially if they have straight pipes. Diesel engines don't have engine braking by design so a mechanism was added to the heads to create artificial engine braking that can be toggled on per head.

[ Edit for clarification: ] I have created some confusion with this statement. For clarification diesel engines never had engine braking due to the lack of a throttle plate but this has been worked around with add-ons using different techniques. On a big-rig this is jake-brakes. On smaller modern vehicles this is usually a small turbo or an exhaust baffle. The operator of a modern diesel vehicle will effectively experience engine braking when they let off the throttle. On older diesel pickups and cars there was no engine braking.

>>Diesel engines don't have engine braking by design

First time I hear about this. I've driven and owned plenty of diesel vehicles in my life and diesel engines definitely do have engine braking(unless it's different in semis? but I don't see why it would be - just leave it in gear and let it slow down?)

The engine itself has no braking due to the lack of the variable air-intake that gasoline engines have that would otherwise starve the engine for air especially when downshifting and closing the throttle.

Specifically on non-big-rigs, modern diesel cars and pickups create engine braking using a small turbo and tighten the spline or in some cases have an exhaust feedback baffle or flap, varies with year/model. Big rigs still use jake-brakes.

Interesting. I was only taught engine breaking from the practical perspective of down-shifting, but not the details of why it works. I understood the implicit effects of shifting down - maintaining the same high RPM with the same high resistance as a vehicle slows... but never gave much thought to what exactly those resistances were, I just assumed it was a combination of friction, compression, driving an alternator, other arbitrary mechanical losses etc.

Would there really be no significant braking effect without that "high manifold vacuum"? I suppose the engine does have a lot of mass so I could believe the effect could be too slow to be useful.

Gasoline engines have a throttle plate that, when you let off the throttle, prevents intake air from reaching the cylinders. The pistons try to draw air into the cylinders and create a pretty decent vacuum. (Respect to the throttle plate. :-))

Diesel engines don't; the throttle controls fuel flow into the cylinders. Let off the throttle and air flows through the intake, cylinders, and exhaust just without producing any power.

The effects of friction are roughly the same on both engines, and they are what engine designers and builders want to minimize to maximize fuel efficiency and power.

I've done what feels like engine braking in "consumer" diesel trucks. Since I never had to flip switches or anything, how does the engine know how to enter into this "engine braking" mode?

Never even crossed my mind that diesels don't natively engine brake. Then again how diesels work is a bit of a mystery to me... mostly because I never bothered to look into it much.

Newer diesel engines use a turbo or baffle. Most commonly a turbo to create effective braking. This is operationally superior to jake-brakes in that the mechanism is tied into the ECM and transmission allowing for things like cruise control to function as expected. Jake-brakes on the other hand require a bit of technique by the driver to use correctly and avoid jack-knifing the vehicle with its trailer, especially on ice. Some modern pickups can even be put into "towing mode" to make better use of the add-on braking mechanism and allow cruise control to work downhill.

I suppose this the right time for an important PSA. If anyone tows something heavy in an older diesel pickup be aware the only braking you have is what your brake pedal provides. Glaze those brakes and you are going on an exciting adventure.

For anyone wishing to experiment:

You can test the petrol-car-vacuum braking theory if you have an older manual petrol car with a cable from the accelerator to the butterfly valve of the throttle. While driving at 50kph, put into neutral, turn off the ignition, engage a lower gear, release clutch. Test pressing and releasing the accelerator pedal while using engine braking and feel for a difference.

SAFETY: 1. Don’t turn off the ignition all the way and lock the steering (although I admit that is very exciting to have steering locked into one direction, I don’t recommend trying it). 2. Be mentally prepared to lose power steering and power brakes. 3. Only on wide straight roads with no other traffic and safe ways to stop. 4. Probably other warnings specific to your vehicle, and situation. 5. I recommend against trying it on an automatic trans.

If your diesel has turbo vanes controlling the braking, you could probably test it out the same way (presuming electronics are disabled when ignition is off).

Another way to test things is to remove relevant fuses.

Disclaimer: there are lots of ways to screw up even being careful - I do not recommend learning by failure in deadly situations.

Diesel engines do not have engine breaking? Are you sure? For me, engine breaking is just the fact that the engine, without power, have moving pieces which, by inertia, is going to slow down the vehicle. Diesel engine being heavier than "regular" engine, the engine brake effect is more important.

At least that's my experience with the cars I used to own.

Edit: For the record, my experience is for 4-strokes diesel engines. Apparently, 2-strokes are still in use in the US.

Diesel engines have no throttle plate that controls the airflow into the engine.

The closed throttle plate in a gasoline engine is what creates a gasoline engine's brake effect, by pulling a vacuum in the intake below the closed throttle plate, which produces the brake effect.

With no throttle plate, the remaining mechanical components in a diesel engine provide minimal friction, certainly not enough to produce any brake effect.

The jake brake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_brake) converts the diesel engine into a huge air compressor when activated, which provides an engine brake effect. Unfortunately it also often creates a very distinctive, and often loud, sound from the exhaust as well.

> With no throttle plate, the remaining mechanical components in a diesel engine provide minimal friction, certainly not enough to produce any brake effect.

I'm not sure if maybe we have different definitions of "braking", but a diesel engine definitely slows down a car when one throttles down. The vehicle slows down faster than when on neutral, and the braking power depends on which gear is engaged, which seems to indicate very much that there is engine braking going on.

Posters point wasn't that the vehicles you drive didn't effectively have engine breaking, but that in diesel designs this is something that had to be added intentionally - with [edit gas engines] you get it whether you want it or not.

Fun fact - the effect can be strong enough on a high compression motorcycle engine to break your rear tire free (obviously lots of other parameters there).

Interesting.

But what do you mean by 4 cycles. The diesel engines I know all have 4 cycles. I though 2 cycles engines were found on old tractors from the 50s no?

Edit: Looking at [0], assuming this is true, I understand the confusion now. It seems, in the US, heavy duty diesel engines are 2 strokes which, apparently, do not have engine braking.

Me being sloppy, of course you can have 2-stroke or 4-stroke diesels. Edited to improve.

The main thing going on here isn't the cycles, it's the lack of a throttle plate. With these designs the amount of air entering cylinder doesn't relate to your throttle position.

If you come off the throttle every compression cycle a "full" cylinder of new air gets compressed, then decompresses and pushes against the piston. In normal operation the energy is re-transferred to the crank (with some loss). It sort of "bounces". But with a compression brake, you force the engine to do the work of compressing that air, but then full open the exhaust valve to let the pressure escape... much more energy lost each cycle, which transfers through drive train and slows you down.

In comparison to typical ICE: in that case when you come off the throttle, the intake is sealed off, so the cylinder on intake stroke is "sucking" against a closed path, which loses energy. Similar effect, different cause.

I think you misread; I should have been clearer. This is how I understand/remember it although to be fair it's been a while since I've worked on either so might mess it up a bit.

Anyway it has nothing to do with compression or the intake valve in either case. Compression happens in both cases, and doesn't affect anything.

In diesel, Jake type breaks steal energy by opening the exhaust valve right after TDC, e.g. what would be the power stroke. The energy stored in compressed air escapes out the exhaust valve rather than being (mostly) reclaimed by the crank on expansion - this slows down the crank and hence (if not in neutral) the vehicle slows. NB this is not when the exhaust valve would normally open, but rather a cycle earlier.

In gas, on the intake stroke the intake is blocked (not by the valve, further up by throttle) so the intake motion creates vaccuum - this takes energy, which slows down the crank, and hence etc. etc. The exhaust valve doesn't change timing.

The latter approach only works if you have something blocking the intake "above" the intake valve. In a diesel engine the airflow is kept the same and the fuel adjusted (unlike gas) so there is no natural mechanism to do this with the throttle.

> With no throttle plate, the remaining mechanical components in a diesel engine provide minimal friction, certainly not enough to produce any brake effect.

I don't understand. I've driven multiple diesel engine cars throughout the years, and they most definitely have a brake effect. I'm not even sure they brake less than the gasoline cars I've driven. Easily enough to slow down for taking an exit from the freeway, for example, when shifting down appropriately. To the point that there regularly are situations when I lightly press the brake pedal not to brake but to simply light the brake lights, if there are cars behind me.

It does sound plausible that the lack of a throttle leads to less or no brake effect, but it simply doesn't fit my observations.

I'm talking about regular cars here, both recent and less recent (the oldest one was built in 1989).

Maybe there are different diesel engine types with different brake capabilities? Or do some gasoline engines brake much more than what I'm used to, and my reference for what is and isn't significant braking is all wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Cta2cC2Co

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking#Diesel_engines

See @ska's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195348

Diesel engines might not have throttle plate but they use injection which certainly do not inject air when acceleration is released, so the cylinders will act exactly the same way. Reading the web I see conflicting account on this subject. Strange...

Also, I though that modern petrol engines did not have throttle plates anymore and use the same injection system than diesel engines (no more carburetors).

> use injection which certainly do not inject air when acceleration is released,

FWIW injectors don't inject air; the airflow is separate, get's compressed (and hence heated) then the fuel is injected, then bang (in diesel)

>work the same way as 4cyl

I'm not sure what you mean, both Otto and Diesel cycles are four-stroke.

In petrol engines power is usually controlled by throttle plate which limits volume of air going into cylinder, and enough fuel is added during the intake stroke (either by injection or carburetor) to have combustion close to stoichiometric.

In diesel engines there's no throttle plate and engine always runs on lean mixture, and power is controlled only by amount of injected fuel, which is done after air is already compressed and hot.

Point was injectors inject fuel not air...

I think we cross-edited, remaining confusion I think was about 2 vs 4 stroke but it's not really relevant so I had adjusted with a nod to when diesel injection occurs in 4.

The fuel system doesn't provide restriction on the air going through the engine.

A diesel engine that's not dumping in fuel (because your foot isn't on the pedal) has about as much engine braking as a gas engine that's run out of fuel but the operator has floored the pedal.

A gas engine has a throttle that can restrict airflow. A diesel can either be equipped with an exhaust brake or compression brake. The latter is tons more effective but louder.

Diesel engines themselves have no engine braking. Each personal vehicle implementation of diesel engines have worked around this using different techniques. The most common outside of big-rigs is a turbo that tightens a spline or closes a feedback baffle.

To the operator of the vehicle it will appear there is engine braking on modern diesel engines. Older pickups and cars have no engine braking.

> Older pickups and cars have no engine braking.

So what did they do on long downhill mountain passes? Just ride the brakes? Were the brakes designed to accommodate being ridden for so long?

Asking 'cause I downshift all cars I drive when going down mountain passes...

They would drive slowly and carefully and take alternate routes when possible.

Just ride the brakes?

No that will overheat and glaze the brakes. That is why long steep hills initially had run-away ramps created. The run-away ramps are still used but not nearly as much as they used to be. In many places alternate routes were created for people towing heavy things. A good example of this is the grapevine on I-5 in southern California. There is a truck route and the main route. That also has many run-away ramps.

> In many places alternate routes were created for people towing heavy things.

That, uh, sounds pretty inconvenient!

So without engine brakes if you downshift in an older diesel does the engine just rev right up and the car doesn't even bother to act like it is slowing down? That has to be pretty weird....

Eastbound on Interstate-40 on the eastern slope of the Appalachians the truck speed limit at the top of the pass is 35mph and there are very, very many warning signs including radar-activated lights. There are also three or four runaway-truck ramps (filled with loose gravel) that are somewhat frequently used, and often trucks pulled over to the side to let their brakes cool.

(The Rockies have even more of this sort of thing, but I haven't been out there in quite a while. :-( )

It very much slows down. Just not quite as much as a gas engine. You still have friction losses (especially as you get higher rpm), losses from alternator, water pump, engine fans, oil pump, etc.

One of my vehicles is a VW Jetta TDI (diesel, ALH engine).

A Jake brake is for long descents, it essentially uses the engine to slow down instead of the brakes to avoid overheating them.

Normal diesels do engine braking just fine, but not aggressive enough to shed speed on a long descent without over-revving, and you really don't want to do that with a diesel engine.

Exactly. The irony of Mercedes-Benz engineers marveling at how unsophisticated a simply-engineered vehicle is brought a smile to my face. Most owner-operator truck drivers want to be able to fix and maintain their trucks on their own, not bring the truck into the dealer every 3 months like some temperamental S-class.

Although I guess Mercedes was still pretty reliable back in the 80's.

I've often wondered about this. Here in North America we only get the Mercedes models that need their disc rotors replaced every 30k, and we see nothing of the indestructible and serviceable models that seem to wind up in places without posh MB dealerships.

I've always thought that this was because NA has air pollution laws that are strictly and honestly enforced and that that would make diesel cars difficult to offer.

>I've always thought that this was because NA has air pollution laws that are strictly and honestly enforced and that that would make diesel cars difficult to offer.

Yes, the US regulates NOx emissions much more than Europe. This makes it very hard to offer passenger diesel engines in the US. On the other hand, the EU regulates/taxes CO2 emissions, which the US does only indirectly through CAFE (fuel efficiency) regulations.

How is US fuel efficiency, though?

In Europe cars using 5 liters per 100 km (~48 miles per gallon for the SI-resistant amongst us) are very common.

Much worse than that. There may be a few non-hybrid models that can get that high, but they're very uncommon. You have to remember the best selling "car" in the US is a Ford F-150. They're also exempt from CAFE as I understand it, as they're classified as light trucks rather than cars.

This almost certainly has more to do with how low our gas tax is compared to almost every other developed country though, than any direct regulation.

In the US their Sprinters compare to the competition about the same way an S-class compares to a Camry. In both cases it's generally considered ill-advised to own it into old age.

I wouldn't call that "entirely different"

Sprinters routinely clock half a million K. You need to maintain them but that goes for all vehicles.

And they are still below that 3500 kg limit. It really starts at Atego:

https://www.mercedes-benz-trucks.com/nl_NL/models/atego-cons...

I've seen some of this. People were bitching about their MBs not lasting long enough: turns out they were skimping on the oil, using regular oil rather than the synthetic oil those engines need. Synthetic oil is a lot more expensive but it lasts much longer. But America likes its oil changes, every ridiculously low number of miles because they believe that is what will make their cars last, rather than to use quality oil to begin with.

MB engines are indestructible if treated properly, they routinely outlast the body of the vehicles, they have oversized oil pumps, use chains rather than timing belts (a common failure point) and in general are designed to last.

There is plenty wrong with MB, their electronics absolutely suck and don't get me started on their software or their over priced parts. But their engines are solid.

You really think that owner operators repair their own trucks? That doesn't make any economic sense. This is not a hobby, they need to drive to make money not to play truck repairman.

I'm always astonished how US Americans try to justify poor engineering with "advantage of simplicity". It's like arguing that you want to program using punch cards because that makes you feel closer to the machine and you have a "physical" copy of your programs.

>US Americans

This is a side note, does this bother anybody else? I'm at least a teensy bit bothered by it. I know the point is to reduce ambiguity between the U.S.A and Latin/North/Central/South America, but it still feels a bit condescending, like we're not even allowed to have a unique name anymore or even have a say in we should call ourselves/be called in our native language (and it doesn't help that the only time I hear "US Americans" is when someone is talking sh*t about us). There's only one country on the continent with the word America in its name. I'm curious if I'm the only one who feels this way or if I'm overthinking it.

> reduce ambiguity between the U.S.A and Latin/North/Central/South America,

And the continent 'America'.

Just for comparison: what do you think 'South Africa' (the country, not the region ;) should be called?

> but in Germanic languages (like English)

Well, yes, in theory you could use 'Amerikas' in German, but nowadays that's mostly because of a bad translation. It actually is correct German to speak of 'both America' - 'beide Amerika' (in singular).

https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Amerika

> So, for people to bring it over as 'America' can sometimes be seen as pedantry instead of insightfulness.

Of course it is pedantry.

The grandparent might just be German using a literal translation. In German, it is pretty common to call Americans "US-Amerikaner", even when we are not talking sh*t about you.

The sh*t-talking is by the way something you should not take too serious. I have seen it directed at Germany from smaller European countries as well. It is just natural to target the bigger, more powerful neighbour, especially when he behaves a bit too full of himself.

Just think of Don Draper answering to "I feeld bad for you!" with "I don't think about you at all."

>There's only one country on the continent with the word America in its name.

Not just the continent(s). The United States of America is the only country in the world with the word "America" in its name.

>I know the point is to reduce ambiguity between the U.S.A and Latin/North/Central/South America

This is only a thing in Spanish. In Portuguese, Americans (that is, those from and of the USA) are often called americanos. In French, américain is much more commonly used than États-Unien.

The Spanish meaning of americano that does not include Americans in this way is very unusual among major Western languages (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_%28word%29#Other_lang...>). I don't mean to say that the equivalent of "American" in those languages is the only way to refer to those of the USA, or that equivalents to "USA" and such don't exist. In Portuguese, Italian, and German, however, saying Americano/Americano/Amerikanisch would generally be understood as referring to that of the USA without additional context, as opposed to a Brazilian or Argentinean, in a way that Americano wouldn't in Spanish.

Further, in Spanish the ambiguity is worse. "Los Estados Unidos" is another term for the US, despite the existence of Mexico (AKA United Mexican States / Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Norteamericano for "American" is also used, despite that term literally including those living in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

(Yes, I know that in practice, Spanish speakers understand that "Los Estados Unidos | EE. UU" and "Norteamericano" refers to the US and its residents. That's my point; shouldn't "Americans" also be understood in context that way?)

>but it still feels a bit condescending, like we're not even allowed to have a unique name anymore or even have a say in we should call ourselves/be called in our native language (and it doesn't help that the only time I hear "US Americans" is when someone is talking sh*t about us)

Correct; those who use it think that they are making a sly subtle dig against the warmongering imperialistic USAmericans.

You really think that owner operators repair their own trucks? That doesn't make any economic sense. This is not a hobby, they need to drive to make money not to play truck repairman.

I've known several owner-operators, friends of family mostly, and yes, they routinely strip and repair their own kit. It's a lot cheaper and very often faster than taking it into a shop.

I'm always astonished how US Americans try to justify poor engineering with...

O_o

Simplicity also means less time in the shop when needed too, they usually charge by the hour. Also in the 80s I could totally see that. On the side of the road, hood up fix it right there. Remember they probably had CB radio which is limited range, no phone and the closest town is 50 miles behind you.

Also depending on the job it can make very good economic sense to DIY. My brother in law just had to fix something on his car. They quoted him 2500. He fixed it himself for about the cost of some used parts (80 bucks) and a half day of his time. Trucks are no different.

I don't think your argument and analogy makes sense. Simplicity is not only valuable when an owner himself needs to repair the truck.

It's valuable when your truck breaks down in a middle of nowhere, and the closest official repair shop is hundreds of miles away, whereas there might be an "okay" level independent mechanic every 20 miles or less (the actual distance is not the point, the point is that an "okay" mechanic will be probably 10-50x more common).

Simplicity is also valuable with missing parts. Sure, the sophisticated solution is better in terms of performance, electronics, and whatnot, but it might take weeks to receive a part (even before COVID), because the shop doesn't have it and have to be ordered from China. Compare this with simple parts that you can again find in many old trucks and even smaller towns, making it much easier to replace.

Just to put it in coding analogy: if my business needs a website, or a landing page, I'm not going to hire a team of former Googlers and ask them to write a performant backend framework in Rust and invent a new frontend framework. I'm going to ask my uncle who is a hobby designer and can set me up a static site/WordPress in a day. I'm not trying to "justify poor engineering", I just prefer simplicity and the "poor engineering" approach gets my problem solved in one tenth of the time. Who is doing poor engineering now?

Also, coming back to the trucks. There don't need to be poor engineering from either side. Maybe the different requirements just caused trucks evolve in different directions?

> You really think that owner operators repair their own trucks? That doesn't make any economic sense. This is not a hobby, they need to drive to make money not to play truck repairman.

Oh yes! I have seen this unfold once in front of my own eyes, a real spectacle. Driver working for a driver company servicing a distribution company, tries to start the truck, something wrong with brakes, truck is driveable though, gets off, calls boss (company policy). One hour late boss finally arrives, gets in, unhooks trailer, parks the truck three meters to the side, gives the driver a different truck to take. 1 hour more paperwork to process, the trailer finally leaves the distribution warehouse 2.5 hours late. The driver company is apparently paying both late fees and parking fees to logistics company while this ordeal unfolds..

~4AM (5 hours later) a truck fixing mini-buss from a 3rd party truck fixing company arrives with two technicians. They plug into the truck, their diagnostics software shows nothing wrong, they leave.

Next day a different truck fixing company shows up and finally tows the truck after dancing around it for almost two hours with diagnostics software.

Quite a few thousands of pounds burned in just two days of people following rules and policies...

This is apparently "normal", this makes much "economic sense".

Yep, owner operators repair their own trucks. Sometimes even fairly major engine work.

However, you can have well-engineered simplicity, too, and that seems to be rare. (As opposed to poorly engineered simplicity or highly engineered complexity.)

You don’t know what you’re talking about. 99% of the ride is on interstates. Much of that remote for that type of rig.

It’s the same reason Jeep’s use very simple mechanics. You can repair them yourself and carry appropriate spare parts.

It's really easy to spin a naive fanboy (of a particular brand, technology or otherwise) narrative like this and when you aim your tropes ("ze backwards yankees") right at audience's bias you're sure to get a bunch of virtue points in response.

The fact of the matter is that there's very, very, few secrets in the automotive and heavy equipment industries. If someone is or isn't doing something it's because they've run the numbers and they don't think it pencils out for what they build and who they sell to.

It's really easy to spin a naive fanboy narrative like this and when you aim your tropes right at audience's bias you're sure to get a bunch of virtue points in response.

That's one of the big problems with internet blogs. They do a bunch of Googling and speculation and that's it. Laughably, they sometimes they even call themselves "journalists."

How hard would it have been to go to a truck stop and sit at the counter and ask some truckers? They know all about trucks. And after being along all day, truckers love to talk.

If you're afraid of people, get a $10 CB radio from Goodwill and talk to them on the radio.

Yeah, but those people are perhaps the worst to get insight on the industry from. For instance, most truck drivers in the US haven't driven a Scania truck (and flipped for the EU). They can't give you comparative information, so everyone's natural tendency to defend their choice will give you a bunch of rationalizations that you can falsely assume to be reasons.

It's the same as how you could ask people why SF doesn't have gigabit fiber Internet for $60 when Bucharest does for $30, and people on the Internet will make up all sorts of reasons. However, SF does have gigabit fiber Internet. Explaining is easy. Truth-seeking is hard.

Historically, Freightliner’s reputation was for driving fast…and you would be prudent to get out of the way when one was coming into the mirrors.

Speed perhaps explains the lack of power steering. In multiple ways.

Extra crap = extra weight.Extra crap = extra complexity = extra maintenance costs."Sophistication" does not always equal better!

More macho - what a laugh! Keep it stupid simple.

But also extra effort from the driver = more tired driver, higher chance of accident, more mistakes and issues with every delivery.

I have not driven a truck like that personally, but I know what sort of difference all the modern assistance systems have done on my cross-continental drives. Previously a 12 hour drive would leave me absolutely exhausted, like I'd need a full day to recover after that - in a modern car with lane assist and adaptive cruise and comfortable seats and what not - I arrive relaxed every time. Long dull stretches of road don't take such a mental toll anymore.

I imagine the exact same principle applies to trucks.

In my 30s and 40's I could drive 14-16hrs a day without a problem, in a stick-shift car, in the USA. In my 50s, 10hrs is still reasonably OK.

However, a 4 or 5 hour drive on roads in the UK in an automatic modern car and I am completely exhausted.

At least for some of us, the road conditions are a far larger impact than the features of the vehicle.

Geeze. You have to go all the way to the bottom to find the answer.

"Maximum length of a truck with a semi-trailer in Europe is 18.75 meters. Some countries have some exceptions, but generally that is the rule. In order to use the maximum of this length for the cargo the tractor unit has to be as short as possible. The best way to achieve that is to mount the cabin over the engine."

Cab-overs have no other advantages, and everything else the article talks about is a side-effect of the length limit.

> Cab-overs have no other advantages

That's not true. Lower overall length is an advantage for maneuvering in city streets and parking lots, which is why you see medium duty COE vehicles (mostly trucks but semi-tractors as well) in some parts of the US making local deliveries. It also provides a visibility advantage that reduces the accident rate.

However the US still has relatively huge trucks delivering and navigating our urban environments that have many pedestrians and bicyclists.

It's really frustrating how the US has too many urban streets designed for accommodating oversized trucks. It's really dangerous because the side affect of accommodating huge trucks is high speeds of passenger vehicles.

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/desi...

> Cab-overs have no other advantages, and everything else the article talks about is a side-effect of the length limit.

There are definitely other advantages, such as that cabovers can generally navigate into tighter spots because of it's tighter turning radius. Yard space is usually very limited and roads more narrow and windy than America, so this is definitely a benefit.

I've seen some crazy tight turns on some unreasonably tiny country roads here in the UK that I can't imagine could be done with a vehicle 2 meters longer.

What I find surprising is how the majority of semis in Netherlands appear to be very new and presumably in good condition. In Texas, by contrast, few appear to be new and well maintained, while many look quite heavily used. The trailers are even worse.

Considering how expensive those things are, who is affording the new trucks in NL? Is it because they are company owned instead of individual (owner-operator)?

Where do the worn out NL semis go?

> Where do the worn out NL semis go?

Eastern Europe, if I had to guess. I can't say specifically about semis, but in my home country of Romania I've seen quite a lot of Dutch clunker vans/small trucks roaming the streets (you can tell they're Dutch because they still have some of the original branding decals of the companies that used to own them).

When I was travelling through Ghana I saw tons of cargo vans with Dutch and German decals, advertising plumbers, bakeries, delivery services, etc. It was a bit odd to see them in the middle of West-Africa.

I'm actually kind of curious if anyone ever made a documentary or something about the trip those vans and trucks make, feels like a hidden economy.

The US has a similar dynamic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...

If there was no emissions testing to begin with, these trucks would be designed to pollute for their entire service life, instead of just the last 20-40% of it.

Also, I don't want pollution in my town. The tradeoff of 'tiny reduction in cost of transportation for way more air pollution' is not worth it for me.

If some other town on the other side of the planet thinks that trade-off is worth it, that's their decision to make. The effect of this kind of pollution, unlike GHG emissions, is largely localized.

Something similar happens to "recycling" as well, take for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFjsL61qi3g

It sells new cars, and helps countries look like they care about the environment. The problems get dumped onto other countries.

Perhaps someone can provide a more charitable view, but that's my understanding.

>Where do the worn out NL semis go?

Eastern Europe. You need to have a Euro 5 or Euro 6 diesel engine to be allowed in many Western European cities as a commercial truck. So old trucks aren't viable.

> In Texas, by contrast, few appear to be new and well maintained, while many look quite heavily used.

That is pretty interesting. A few weeks ago, there was a thread here on HN talking about the Port of Long Beach backlog and a comment mentioning the scarcity of trucks with the clean idle certification.

At about the same time, I took a road trip along the Interstate - Illinois, Indiana, Ohio - and paid attention to the trucks. Somewhere around 90% of them had the "California Clean Idle" sticker on them - and none of them had California plates. Even on trucks with Ontario plates (you see a lot of Canadian trucks in the upper midwest).

My best explanation is that the long-haul routes crisscrossing North America have all the newest, cleanest, most modern vehicles and once they reach a certain age they are sold into the places where they don't drive long distances anymore.

> Where do the worn out NL semis go?

African countries

It depends on the carrier in the US.

Lots of carries take good care of their equipment.

You can also be a carrier and just be one guy and a truck … so there is a lot of variety.

As well as the other responses, it is very common to lease your fleet in Europe, particularly for 3PL's who will lease the fleet over the duration of their contracts.

Most transport is done by 3PL's who will lease the trucks and hire the drivers.