What is your opinion on running light?

[poster]

Offered identical loads, except one is 40 and one is 15, how much less cpm would you take the 15 for, if any. If you ALWAYS hauled below 20, exactly how much benefit do you believe your equipment would realize all around, as opposed to usually running around 38 to 40 thousand pounds with a few light loads sprinkled in? Also, what is your opinion regarding fuel savings if you were to always haul below 20 as opposed to running the regular mix?

[GMAN]

I assume that the numbers you are using are thousands of pounds? In most cases, it seems that lighter loads pay more than heavy ones. I think it has more to the value of the cargo rather than the weight, unless you are talking about something that pays by the hundred weight (i.e.-steel) or bag (i.e.-onions). You should have some fuel savings with lighter loads, but the amount depends on a number of factors such as equipment, gearing, terrain traveled, speed and driving habits. The type of trailer you pull can also make a difference. For instance, a flat bed may have less wind resistance than a van or reefer, depending on the type of load.

[Rev.Vassago]

Offered identical loads, except one is 40 and one is 15, how much less cpm would you take the 15 for, if any. If you ALWAYS hauled below 20, exactly how much benefit do you believe your equipment would realize all around, as opposed to usually running around 38 to 40 thousand pounds with a few light loads sprinkled in? Also, what is your opinion regarding fuel savings if you were to always haul below 20 as opposed to running the regular mix?

You're probably looking at a difference of 1/2 mpg at best, which equates to about $0.05 per mile at current prices.

[poster]

You're probably looking at a difference of 1/2 mpg at best, which equates to about $0.05 per mile at current prices.
Would you personally subtract any cpm for equipment wear and tear also, 15,000 being easier on equipment (tire heat, engine, everything) than 40,000?

[GMAN]

Unless you are pulling household goods your load weight will vary from one load to another. I would use the highest calculations when figuring costs. In fact, I recommend calculating expenses high and income low. If you can live with the numbers doing it that way then you have a better change of success. If you pull general freight your loads will usually not be light. It will be a mixture. Wear and tear should be calculated high, at least for the first year. Once you have a full year running you will have actual figures from which to work. If you wish, you could track different loads by weight and check fuel mileage often. It will begin to give you a more accurate picture of your business. I don't think you will see a significant difference in operating costs over a year.

[poster]

Let me re phrase this for those who don't understand. I'm interested in knowing opinions of what people think is the actual cost, (which would be reflected in rates accepted normally), for always hauling loads which are light. I got the answer regarding $.05 for the mpg reduction at present fuel costs, which is the type of thing I'm after.

But there is also the fact that cost are reduced by less wear and tear. I was thinking that perhaps someone had an opinion on the actual cost that would be saved hauling light, like perhaps on a dedicated light run verses an identical heavier run. 15,000 vs 40,000.

[Maniac]

To answer the question, NO DISCOUNTS for lighter weight, fuel taxes the same, most tolls the same, time and mileage are the same, weight is insignificant, because it just isn't that much in savings.

Yeah, better mileage out of a set of tires, maybe a little better fuel mileage, BUT why should the shipper get anything out of it? Screw them, they would screw YOU in a second.

[GMAN]

I agree with Maniac. I don't think your savings on wear and tear will be significant. Your biggest savings will likely come from fuel savings due to a little lighter weight. You may see little or no real fuel savings unless you are hauling light weight loads in mountains. You need to understand how rates are determined. For the most part light weight loads pay more than heavy loads. Light loads tend to be higher value and can justify a higher rate than heavy loads.

[b00m]

I always love light loads,especially when pulling through the mountains and hills.There is less wear on the engine,transmission,tires,etc.Also, if im in a hurry i can really push my speed up, being more light on the back.Something that obviously you can't do that with a 45k load.

[GMAN]

I prefer light loads.

[LOAD IT]

Poster,
You should not quote lighter loads less than heavier loads. As Gman said the lighter loads will probably be more valuable cargo. Why would you haul valuable cargo at a discounted freight rate? You shouldnt!! If the shipper wants a full truckload, then they pay a full truckload rate. I once hauled a map in a paper tube from the Navy yard in Bayonne NJ to Oceana VA in a 53 foot van. It paid about $5 per mile and they taped the paper tube to the floor of the trailer and sealed the door. I once hauled 51000 pounds of steel beams from Huger SC to Chicago IL for about $ .90 per mile. My point is heavier loads usually pay less, so lighter, more valuable loads should pay more. Higher Revenue minus Lower Expenses equals More Profit.

[poster]

I was thinking that perhaps someone had an opinion on the actual cost that would be saved hauling light, like perhaps on a dedicated light run verses an identical heavier run. 15,000 vs 40,000.

My main interest here was obtaining opinions on costs saved per mile hauling light vs heavy. Not too interested in discussion about rates. (although the points made were mostly good.)

[GMAN]

The bottom line is that you will mostly notice a little fuel savings. Hauling heavy all the time may put more wear and tear on your equipment, but fuel is where you will notice most of your savings. There are also other factors in addition to weight. Wind is a major factor in fuel consumption. Even with a light load, traveling in heavy winds will trash your fuel mileage. That is one reason why you can't just make a blanket statement about fuel savings when you talk about heavy and light weight loads. For instance, a friend of mine just took a load across country to Nevada. He was in very heavy winds of around 50 mph. He had a light load but his fuel mileage dropped to less than 5 mpg. He usually gets around 7 mpg pulling his flat bed. He pulled a van on this run. I believe he only had about 15,000 pounds on the truck.

[Flying W]

GMAN.....I'm not sure why you bother, as it seems you are chasing your tail on this one. He doesn't seem to want input, but rather an answer that can't be provided as it "depends."

[GMAN]

You may be right, Flying W. There are a number of new people who come to this board and expect to get finite answers to questions in which there are just too many variables to give an answer that will be correct in all situations. I can understand their frustration, but you simply cannot give concrete answers with so limited information and so many variations to each situation. We might be able to come up with a mathematical formula that would account for weight, wind, speed, driver, etc., but I can get a headache thinking about it.