Why Does Companies Like TMC Have A Mph Of 62 When....

Ok so this has boggled my mind for months since even looking at companies, how companies like TMC, Prime, C.R. England have this INCREDIBLY LOW speed limit of 62 mph😤. Like why do they think we are safer at 62 mph then at the speed limit that EVERYONE is going? I swear, I have had cars and trucks come fingernail close to hitting my truck. It is so irritating.

Yes I know I am working with Swift and although Swift is a great company to work for their CSA score isn't that great I would think that they would be able to raise their speed limiter to 65 at the very least.

Their csa score os better than the national avg.

Having the speed limited is more about fuel savings than it is about safety.

I may be wrong on the number, but I think its something like 1/10 mpg loss for every mph over 55. Take that and multiply that by 17000 trucks and you are talking huge fuel costs.

Most speed related crashes are going to fast for conditions. Something that limiters or governors cant prevent.

Ok so this has boggled my mind for months since even looking at companies, how companies like TMC, Prime, C.R. England have this INCREDIBLY LOW speed limit of 62 mph😤. Like why do they think we are safer at 62 mph then at the speed limit that EVERYONE is going? I swear, I have had cars and trucks come fingernail close to hitting my truck. It is so irritating.

Yes I know I am working with Swift and although Swift is a great company to work for their CSA score isn't that great I would think that they would be able to raise their speed limiter to 65 at the very least.

Ok now I see. I think though it would still be kind and thoughtful of them to let us at the very least go 65mph. Just my honest opinion. Thanks for your help Big T!

Ok now I see. I think though it would still be kind and thoughtful of them to let us at the very least go 65mph. Just my honest opinion. Thanks for your help Big T!

Yeah, but corporations don't exist for thoughtfulness, except Hallmark maybe. But Big T is right, the difference between 62 and 65 when it comes to fuel mileage in a huge fleet is many millions of dollars in fuel every year.

Everyone wishes their truck could go faster. In the end a few miles per hour won't hurt your paycheck nor make any negative difference at all, really.

What's nice about it is that you'll almost always have plenty of following distance in front of you, and in my book having plenty of following distance is more important to safety out there than any other single factor. When you have plenty of time to react, you have plenty of opportunity to avoid any mishaps in front of you. Plus, you'll get to squeeze in a few more Bob Seger tunes each day, and that's always a good thing.

Victor I've lived with 62-63mph for many years. Since I drive in PA and North Jersey most of the time it has little effect on my productivity. I go up the hills and down the hills at basically the same speed as everyone else. If I need an extra pop of speed to complete a passing maneuver, I bypass the governor for a few seconds then level off at 63 again.

Like everyone said it primarily about fuel economy. You'll get used to it.

63? I've been wondering who I'd have to kill just to get my truck to do 62. I get the turbo boost thingy and it will get me 65 but I only get 58 at the pedal and 60 in cruise. LOL!

JJ

I have to wonder how much fuel savings are really there. I know there is some, but how much, and at the risk of what safety.

They say for every mph you shave off, you gain .1mpg fuel economy. Here's the deal though, during the course of my day, I'm speeding up and slowing down constantly, almost entirely due to the fact that other vehicles (4 wheelers and 18 wheelers both) will pass and cut in front of me, sometime with no more than a car length gap.

In the case of trucks, they may be going only 2mph faster. This means I am having to either ride their bumper for the next 5 miles while they pull away, which isn't an option, or, tap the brake and slow down to open the gap. Even 4 wheelers, a lot of the time, are not going fast enough to open the gap in a safe amount of time. On a 65 mph stretch of freeway, it only accounts for a 3mph difference, and 8mph on a 70mph freeway. This means it is still taking 15 to 20 seconds or more to achieve the proper safe gap between vehicles. Again, more time than I am comfortable with to be following that close to a vehicle.

Then, in congested traffic, you end up being stuck in the right lane, because riding the second lane means you are impeding the faster traffic and that draws a lot of frustration from other drivers.

This constant slowing down and speeding up has to be a fuel economy killer, and presents a safety risk.

I know that these interactions will still happen at 70mph, but they would happen far less frequently, because, for the most part, you'd be able to keep up with the flow of traffic.

Then, on top of that, let's say you take a 62mph truck and turn it up to 70mph. Now this truck is doing approximately 80 to 90 more miles in a day, which would equate to possibly 500 to 600 more miles per week, up to 2400 miles per month. This could mean a potential 1 to 2 more loads per month, which would probably be enough to offset the cost of lost fuel economy, and, the driver makes more money as well. That's a win win.

I know its a company vehicle, and they set the rules, but I am curious if the fuel savings are really there. I have to think that they know what they are doing, and have studied the numbers, but, from my perspective, it doesn't make sense when you take into account the above factors.

Are the fuel savings really enough to offset the constant changing of speed and lost revenue of 2 more loads each month?

Well to begin with, there are no lost revenues at a difference of a few miles per hour. For that to be the case you would have to be pinned against the very limits of your clock every single day, turning every last mile possible at all times. If you were to leave even 10 or 15 minutes on your clock one or two days per week you would have squandered the extra speed and the fuel you had used.

And everything you said about trying to leave space in front of you would apply no matter what speed you were going. If you're going slower than average, people are going to cut into your lane too close and you'll have to back off.

If you're riding along at an average speed there will be others cutting into your lane going either faster or slower than you and you'll have to back off regardless. You're also going to be catching more people at this speed so you'll have to back off more often.

If you're going faster than most you'll constantly be catching people so you'll have to slow down or shift lanes all the time to keep space in front of you, which adds even more risk.

You also have to figure in the stress levels and how tired you'll get driving at different speeds. I've been in trucks ranging from 60 to 75 mph and I can tell you that driving 75 is far more exhausting and risky in traffic than driving 60. You're constantly catching people, especially other trucks, so you're either backing off or changing lanes all the time trying to maintain both your speed and following distance.

We all feel the same way on open highways. We'd all love to do 90 mph when there's no one else around. But the reality of the situation when you do the math is that it's safer, less stressful, and more fuel efficient to drive slower.

It's also more boring, which is why race tracks were invented.

Despite the potential hazards of not moving at traffic speeds (in 70 mph locales), or not having that extra "ooomph" available when you're maxed out and need it to pass - it's still about fuel economy and safety.

Buddy of mine was complaining about this on the phone last week. He and another truck were apparently governed at close to the same speed (63), and he would pass the guy slowly, get in front - then the guy would pass him slowly - but neither was pulling away from each other.

My comment was - are you late on your run? Do you have somewhere else you need to be? Is passing this guy gonna get you there any faster? Instead of obsessing on the passing game - your speed limiter is WHAT YOUR SPEED LIMITER IS. Instead of getting all bent about the "other guy" - find something nice to listen to on XM, and enjoy your ride. You ain't gonna go any faster anyways. If the guy "billboarding you", is stressing you - back down to 60 for a few minutes and let him get ahead of you some.

It's like the stories they used to tell us in defensive driving years ago. The guy that jackrabbits from the stoplight, is still the guy you are sitting with at the next one.

You're gonna get there - when you get there, ANYWAYS.

I do a lot of long road trips in the car. And I usually set my adaptive CC at 5mph over (or if I find a rabbit, I set it to match and max following distance). I stop every 2-3 hours to stretch, use the restroom, grab a coffee, fuel, whatever.

What's strange (or not strange) is that on EVERY TRIP - I always PASS THE SAME TRUCKS 5 OR 6 TIMES. They just chug along at governed speed, and eating up the same miles as I do, in pretty much the same time as I do, with much better fuel economy than I do.

Develop a more "easy going attitude" about the drive - and the speed limiter won't be nearly as annoying. If you're maxed at 63 - set your CC to 60 - that way you have a little left in the pedal to get around something if you need to.

Rick

Rick shares some wisdom:

Develop a more "easy going attitude" about the drive - and the speed limiter won't be nearly as annoying. If you're maxed at 63 - set your CC to 60 - that way you have a little left in the pedal to get around something if you need to.

Totally agree with this for many reasons. First and foremost the more times you engage with traffic; slowing down speeding up, the greater the risk of a critical event. Second, perhaps a thought; if in a situation requiring frequent slowing down and seeding up, is it possible you might be driving a bit too fast for current conditions (traffic flow)? We're professionals, drop the speed so maintaining progress is smooth and steady.

My two cents on fuel economy; the science and logic supports the governed speed of 62. As speed increases so does the resistance from wind/turbulence and friction from contact with the road surface. Increased speed vs. increased fuel consumption is not a flat line (linear), but a downward curve that increases as the speed increase. The extra 3 miles per hour although only an average 4.6% increase, reduces fuel mileage at a much greater percentage of 8-10%.

Not too long ago, there was an L/O driver who offered his firsthand experience with fuel consumption. In short, running his truck flat out, at or above the Interstate speed limits put him in a barely break-even scenario. Once he adopted a more conservative approach of 60mph, he was putting more money in his pocket. The science and statistics support the rationale for governed speeds at 60-62mph.

Sambo, simply put; a half gallon increase in fuel mileage, in many cases can save our employers millions of dollars per year. I'd rather that go back to their bottom line then the coffers of the oil companies. In addition, as a rookie driver don't you have enough stress without the added burden of worrying about governed speed? Relax, learn how to enjoy the ride.