Testing Tires for Fuel Economy
Testing tires for fuel efficiency, or rolling resistance, in fact, is just as challenging as testing for tread wear and durability, but in different ways. Since two tires for a similar purpose, such as a ribbed drive tire versus a lug drive tire, will not produce dramatically different results, the errors in data collection or test procedures can skew or ruin the test, cautions Chuck Blake, senior technical sales support manager at Detroit Diesel. “A plus-or-minus 2% error in data collection or analysis will skew your results in such a way that a 3%-product could look like a 5%-product or a 1%-product,” he says.
In-service evaluations of tire rolling resistance (fuel efficiency) are difficult to extract precise data from because of the large number of variables, such as weather, driver performance, loads, and operating conditions, unless you plan long-term tests where the variables start to disappear statistically with time. But then you have the same problem as tire performance evaluations: threats to the data from damaged tires, disinterest or forgetfulness, and unforeseen changes to the test protocols.
Shorter-term tests, such as track testing or on-road single-run tests, can give accurate results fairly quickly, but such tests require a high level of sophistication, a highly structured test environment, and very accurate measurements. They also can be discouragingly expensive.
The ATA’s Technology & Maintenance Council offers three Recommended Practices for in-service fuel economy testing, RP 1102, RP 1103 and RP 1109, that can be successfully implemented if the required level of precision is used in the collection of data. Done properly, they can reduce testing costs while providing a high level of reliability and repeatability.
The caveat here is “done properly.” It would be easy for an inexperienced tester or a fleet that cuts a few corners to ruin the data without even realizing it.
A fatal mistake in fuel economy testing is to rely totally on data collected from the truck itself without the appropriate checks and balances. Blake says electronic fuel consumption data from some ECMs can be off by as much as 5%, while speed and odometer measurements can be notoriously imprecise.
“Taking measurements from those sources alone will not get you reliable results,” he stresses. “Sure, it’s quick and easy to do a before-and-after comparison, but the results would be meaningless.”