THE DEFINITIVE TRUCKING SITE

July 2008

Transport and fuel efficiency

Considering the many different factors that work against efficient transport, it is reasonable to assume that there are numerous opportunities to improve fuelefficiency significantly. How many fleet managers can say they have implemented a well-considered fuel efficiency programme that takes into account all, or at least most of the “on road” factors? These include: 

• Riding routes to gain first-hand knowledge of the gradients, road conditions, traffic flows, etc. Are there advantages in travelling at specific times? Is there a better alternative? 

• The number of stops along the route and how much time the wheels are turning. 

• Are the chosen vehicle configurations best for the tasks at hand? Are they correctly spec’d in terms of engine power, gear and rear-axle ratios?

By reviewing the information and feedback from riding routes, one can calculate a realistic performance standard expressed in ton/kilometres or whatever measurement is meaningful for the business, (kilo litres/kilometre, pallets/kilometre, cases/kilometre are examples). Determine a practical and acceptable average speed limit and payload as key performance indicators. From this a realistic ton/kilometre performance can be established. 

Based on actual tests or vehicle computer simulations, acceptable average fuel consumptions can be factored into the performance standards to provide a reliable estimate of the fuel that will be used to complete the tasks. This enables management to predict fuel costs, engage with principals when negotiating or agreeing rates, monitor driver performance and the all important function of loading, scheduling and routing of vehicles. This approach provides management with measurements that are lot more meaningful than litres per 100 kilometres or kilometres per litre. 

Neither of these measurements indicates whether vehicles are fully loaded, or loaded at all. Nor does it indicate how long it took to do the work. Intelligent monitoring of vehicle performance and transport efficiency holds the potential to make significant improvements to the bottom line that flow from relatively small improvements. The following simple example illustrates the ton/km-litre concept. 

Ton/Km per litre - Assume a truck completes a 250 km trip in 4 hours 30 minutes (4,5 hrs). The vehicle can take a legal payload of 10 tons; however, its load for this trip is 9 tons. Fuel consumed for the journey is 105 litres. 

Average Speed: 250 km/ 4.5 hours = 55.5 km/h or 69% of the 80km/h highway speed limit

Productivity: 9 ton payload x 55.5km/h = 499.5 Ton/Km-hr

Average Fuel Usage per Hr: 105 litres/ 4.5hr = 23, 3 litres/hr 

Fuel Used expressed in Ton/Km-litre: 499.5/ 23.3 litres/hr = 21.43 Ton/Km-litre/hr

Assume that after review of the operation a few improvements can be achieved. The 250 kilometre trip is now completed in 4 hours and the full payload of 10 tons is carried. The fuel consumed remains the same at 105 litres: 

Average Speed: 250 km/ 4 hours = 62, 5 Km/hr or 78% of the speed limit

Productivity: 10 ton payload x 62.5 km/h = 625 Ton/Km-hr

Average Fuel Used per Hr: 105 litres/ 4hr = 26.5 litres/hr 

Fuel Used in Ton/Km-litre: 625/ 26.5 litre/hr = 23.58 Ton/Km-litre 

Productivity Improvements

The example shows how modest improvements in payload and average speed result in significant improvements in productivity and fuelefficiency.