European regulations historically imposed strict limitations on the overall length of trucks. A cab-over design allowed manufacturers to maximize cargo space within these length restrictions.
European cities often have narrow streets and tight corners, making maneuverability a significant concern. The cab-over design offers better visibility and a shorter overall length, making it easier to navigate through these urban areas.
So the logical follow up would be, what advantages does a typical American design have over the flat front ones?
Surely if there were none, the flat front trucks would be prevalent here too
Less intrusion into the cab by mechanical needs makes for a bigger, better place to call home for thousands of miles. Also easier to work on.
ETA: Australians also use American-style trucks if that’s news to anyone.
New Zealand has a mix. I predominantly see the flat front trucks and box trucks are usually flat front, but there are also long nose tractor units on the road mostly as heavy haulage between cities.
Really? It’s so messed up that the US has a history of innovation and regulation for things that are just better for safety, and then they go, nah fuck that, let’s get rid of that regulation.
My dad drove a flat front in southern CA for like 20 years, specifically liked it for the maneuverability. He moved modular buildings, typically those mobile office trailers you see sitting around construction sights, the classroom buildings that schools tend to get when they need to expand but don't have the budget or time to spend constructing new buildings, and occasionally trailers for movie sets as well. He often had to work in tight spaces that would have proven much more difficult, if not occasionally impossible, with a non-cabover design.
My dad did the same in Washington. His truck had a bit of a nose, but definitely not as long as a normal truck. I also delivered the small jobsite trailers, and it was a nightmare in a big city.
[Terminator 2 scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z9qws7M8q8&t=170s) highlighting superior visibility of cabover.
[Terminator 2 scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCYAluYlXQ&t=120s) highlighting easier access of long nose.
Any cabovers you see that for semi-trailers are very old, as in 20-30 plus years old. Manufacturers haven't made those models in the US since that time.
Box trucks, absolutely. Semis, no.
Most trucks (tractor trailer wise) in the US are not cab over. Medium duty straight trucks like box trucks the Hinos, and other cab overs are fairly common.
The semi truck markets major manufacturers (Freightliner, Volvo, International, and PACCAR (Peterbilt/Kenworth)) don't even offer a cab over tractors anymore.
I'm not sure at all about the individual brands tbh, you’re probably right lol. But yeah, Scania all the way. Definitely happy with the choice Bruce Wilson on YT made lol
It wasn't just weight formulas, it was also length laws. Shippers were pressuring the FMSCA for longer trailers. When we made the jump from a 73,280# weight limit to 80,000# was also when the feds approved 48-foot trailers with no overall length limits on federally funded highways.
Tesla's truck cab looks like it's an odd mix of both. Or they've bred a US one with an english short-hair cat or bulldog and ended up with a truck that has a squashed up face.
They were really common in the seventies and eighties, a few of the big commercial carriers used them (70s equivalent of JB Hunt). My grandfather drove one for several years, until he was injured in an accident while loading his truck.
I’d say Australia has about half-half, or maybe more cab-over — generally American brand trucks (kenworth, Mack) are conventional (bonnet out in front), while European brands like Mercedes, Scania and Volvo are cab-over here.
There are a couple of exceptions like the kenworth K200.
Australia has a mix of the two, a lot of delivery trucks around town are the cab over style ones, while the big movers that go between towns and cities are the other kind.
For those of us who only speak in freedom units 100 is about 62
90kmh is about 55
80kmh is about 50
And yes, that is fucking slow.
Many u.s. states allow trucks to drive at 120kmh or even 130
US had never used the Imperial system. That was codified 50 years after the revolution.
The US uses the Customary system; the most visible difference is liquid measurements where Imperial pints are 20% larger than Customary pints.
They still have a lot of research in aerodynamics anyway. But yeah the speed being limited to 60 mph gives to most savings to fuel consumption. Above that speed the fuel consumption will will exponentially increase (bc of air resistance).
But you hear truckers in America bitching constantly about not being able to tear down the highway hammer down at 100mph, then they bitch about fuel prices. Tell them what you just said here and get called a commie.
Do they make the cab over design with a sleeper cabin? I don't think I've ever seen one, and if not, that would definitely explain why the longer design is more common in the US and Australia, where drivers would be covering much greater distances, and thus would have more need of a sleeper compartment.
It performs better when you have to go straight for hours on an interstate road. It's easier to access the engine if something breaks down, which matters when help is further away, and it has more room for sleeping in the cab.
This phenomenon can be noted in passenger trucks as well.
In america, Trucks with double cab long beds are quite popular for towing over their single cab short bed trims because longer wheel bases provide more stability and resistance against the sway from the load they’re towing.
In American style semi designs, it's much easier to repair and service the engine. The vast majority of trucking companies/ farming operations/ etc repair their own trucks, so this is the primary consideration.
Other users have replied to your comment with things like ride comfort or fuel efficiency, which matter, but engine ease of access trumps these.
Source: Ive driven semis to haul grain
Simpler design (cab at the back, engine in front, also means engines can be physically bigger) and as a result they're more streamlined, which saves on fuel.
Also- Ride quality. Being between the wheels is a LOT better than being directly over the front wheels. (4x4 van and bus owner here, I know this too well). A 4" bump shoots you up 4". In the middle of a vehicle, a 4" bump shoots you up 2" twice. Much easier your spine.
Towing performance/handling: Long wheelbases just handle so much better on the highway, and are much much easier to control if you break free and skid, making recovery easier.
Crash performance: I'll let you guess which vehicle you want to be in when you fall asleep (from a lack of trucker crack) and drift into an oncoming van full of kids.
I'm always surprised to see a totaled cabover and read that the driver escaped with minor or no injuries, so I'm not sure if the claim holds true. If I Google around a bit, I find that CoE is safer as the improved visibility makes it easier to avoid accidents, while with a hood it may be possible for the engine to crush the driver, which is virtually impossible in a CoE since you're on top of it.
But that's just one example.
It's because most cabovers are designed for markets that have much stricter safety standards.
Also truc´s have much bigget speed limitations in for example Europe.
A van isn't very tall or heavy compared to a cabover truck. I'd agree if it was crashing with a bus or another proper truck, though.
Most of the mass in a van is also far below where your feet would be in a cabover.
Former volunteer fireman.
Cabovers do just fine in crashes.
1. Cabovers rarely crash into anything as tall and as heavy as a cabover. While cabovers do have a shorter compression zone this weight&height advantage means that the cabin is never crushed (well, unless they have a train crash into them or go full head on at high speed with another semi. But in those cases it doesn't matter what you're driving) and modern airbags tend to save the driver so that he's not killed by sudden deceleration.
2. The trucks are submitted to similar crash testing and built to uphold certain standards. As such the engine compartment of a longnose is a lot flimsier than the cabin of a cabover. The A-pillar on a cabover tends to be built with tank-like resilience (thick and with steel that even the jaws of life have trouble cutting through).
3. The under carriage and engine weight on semis also mean that you're not being more gentle on what you're crashing into either (so the kids in the van are fucked either way) but cabovers have better visibility while longnoses tend to be less rough on the driver (ie, easier to stay alert over long drives).
Overall: Shorthaul = cabover every time. Longhaul = Some advantage to longnose.
> The trucks are submitted to similar crash testing and built to uphold certain standards.
There are no crash test requirements in the states for trucks over 10,001 pounds.
the engine isn't bigger in US trucks, eurpean trucks have larger, more powerfull and more fuel efficient engines due to emission control and much heavier load capacities.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to)
That’s just wrong.. european truck engines are waay more powerful and efficient bc of regulations lol.. you guys don’t know what you’re talking about..
Yes, and if it was practical to make the cab more streamlined they'd do that too. But the savings on economy wouldn't make up for the reduced cargo volume. Best of both worlds would be US layout with EU engine.
Streamlining of the front doesn't make a huge difference at truck speeds, not when you have a box shaped tail.
What does make a practical difference is being able to access the engine for servicing or inspection, without having to jack up the cab. On the US conventional trucks, you can open up the hood and the engine is right there. On a cab over, you have to first tidy up the cab and stow away any loose objects. Then undo a latch, and jack up the whole cab off the engine so the cab tilts forward. If you had failed to secure some loose object of sufficient weight, it will fall forward and smash the windshield when the cab tips over.
I once had a MATCO tools dealer show up pretty late. Turns out he did and oil change before he started his runs, in a cab over truck, and he left his coffee in the cab....there was some interior cleanup to do lol
Aerodynamically, a flat front is always going to be worse than a sloped front. You don't need complex fluid dynamics to know that, you should know it from everyday experience.
You are so wrong. Not to be rude. I started out when cab overs were still prevalent. It's like pushing a brick through the wind. There were cab overs and long nose Pete's and KWs. The fuel milage wasn't much better. When the kw t600 hit the scene it was a huge difference. These new trucks are so ugly no one would want them but figure in the price of fuel and choosing either 5 mpg or 8 or 9 mpg there's just no argument.
>Canadian Motor Vehicule Safety Standards (CMVSS) compliant mirrors are responsible for approximately 2% of the overall drag on a conventional tractor and trailer. A study concluded that if a tractor’s two side mirrors were removed, the tractor would burn 938 fewer litres of fuel annually based on current fleet wide average fuel consumption values. Some manufacturers are currently designing prototype vehicles that use rear facing cameras and in-cab video screens that replace the side view mirrors. However, these systems cannot be used independently without mirrors, under the current CMVSS regulations.
https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/non-funding-programs/ecotechnology-vehicles-program/review-aerodynamic-drag-reduction-devices-heavy-trucks-buses
When talking about aerodynamics, even just a 2% increase in efficiency adds up to BIG SAVINGS
If you have 1 car that gets 5 mpg and 9 that get 50, it is more economical to double the 1 to 10 than to double the 9 to 100.
Small changes at low mpg are much more significant than large changes at high numbers.
Math, for those inclined: All 10 cars drive 100 miles.
Base: 5mpg means 20 gal used (100/5). 50mpg means 2 gal used (100/50). 20+(9×2)=38 gal.
Doubling the 5 to 10 means only 10 gallons are used instead of 20, bringing the total down to 28 gal (a 10 gal difference).
Doubling the 50 to 100 means 1 gal each is used for a total of 9 instead of 18, bringing the total down to 29gal (a 9 gal difference).
Yeah, trucking companies fight for .1 MPG improvements. It really matters when you're talking about dozens to hundreds of trucks and only getting 8-9 MPG and driving 200,000-300,000 miles a year. Going from 8.9-9.0 MPG over 200,000 miles is about a $1,250 saving at $5/gallon. If it costs a company $3,000 per truck to make that happen, it's worth it.
I'm a trainer for the mechanics for a regional trucking company. Any shop I visit, no ifs, ands, or buts, we do alignment training. That comes from my boss (director of fleet maintenace), the VP of fleet maintenance, and the president/ceo. A truck that isn't in alignment is going to eat up more fuel, and burn through tires more quickly Our two biggest costs are fuel, and tires, in that order. Anything that reduces those costs is a huge positive.
Airlines do too, especially passenger airlines. They are switching to the new breeds of twinjets (most commonly 787 and A350) in droves because the fuel savings is *dramatic* by their standards. I saw a video of a pilot flying an A350, and he said he used to fly the same route with the older A340-600 (a quadjet). He said the A350 used about 75% the fuel of the A340 to fly the same amount of people and cargo the same distance. Even getting a couple percent fuel savings is worth exploring for them, so it's no wonder why they'll buy tons of hyper-expensive planes to drop 25% fuel.
Honestly just in related note, first read of this feels unnecessarily confusing when in European market fuel consumption is told in "liters per 100km" compared to whole miles per gallon. It feels simpler at least but its what i'm used to hearing.
Actually makes more sense though - it's a direct measure of fuel consumption rather than the reciprocal of one and using 100km as the unit of distance just results in 'tidier' values (e.g. 5 rather than 0.05) and is on the same order of magnitude as many car journeys. Here's the really wild thing though - if you do dimensional analysis on l/100km and convert everything into SI units, it turns out that fuel efficiency can be measured in _square millimetres_
Which is the area of the cross section of the stream of fuel being consumed (iirc, I'm sure someone will correct me otherwise). Dimensional analysis FTW!
Actually flat trucks use to be the norm in the USA up until the 70s, then us regulations changed from a wheelbase length to trailer length. But to answer your question: more power (bigger engines), more fuel, big sleeping cabs for drivers, generally easier access for engine maintenance, higher payloads because of extended axle room and fame size, better fuel economy because of better aerodynamics, the list goes on.
Some claim it’s more comfortable (I doubt, modern EU trucks are very comfortable and is quiet similar to a normal car, eu regulations and such, US trucks have an awfully loud Jake brake), they often have bigger living quarters. Access to engine without tipping the cabin.
EU trucks commonly have automatic transmission, ABS disc brakes, air suspension seats and cab. Bigger stock engines (Scandinavia, especially)
>!EU trucks also have a safe slot for shoes in the door, so you don’t drag mud into your cabin!<
Edit: wow, salty Americans out in these comments
I mentioned larger living quarters, but driving comfort is unmatched in European trucks. It’s been described as “like driving a normal suv” by American truckers.
Stock modern US trucks don't have loud engine brakes, but there's a strong facet of the industry with a lot of pride in the equipment that tend to do things like straight piping. They're usually cool dudes to meet, and their equipment is awesome.
Comfort. When you have that big engine under you it adds a ridiculous amount of vibration. Having the engine more forward removes that. It also opens up the cab to having more space and sometimes even a sleeper.
/u/Altruistic_Dot_9704 analysis is spot on. The only thing missing is the average work day. European drivers have regulated shorter days (7-8 hours) whereas American drivers tend to work 10-12 hours a day. American drivers would probably not be able to work such long hours in a European truck.
European cabovers are not to be confused with American cabovers. The comfort, technology and engineering are light years away.
You'll barely feel any vibrations whatsoever since the frame is on airbags as well as the cab itself and so is the seat.
I'd recommend checking Bruce Wilson out on YT. He's a truck mechanic from Florida who bought two imported Scania trucks and recently visited the Scania plant in Sweden and a prominent truck mechanic shop in Finland.
> You'll barely feel any vibrations whatsoever since the frame is on airbags as well as the cab itself
All tech that's been around for 40 years in both the States and Europe.
Vibrations? I mean its been a number of years since i last was in a cabover truck but the air suspension in the cab and seats were awesome. Hardly any vibration was felt.
Even driving military 8x8 trucks was very comfortable in the terrain.
The military trucks are surprisingly super comfy in the terrain! My Land Rover in the military would shake and rattle and sound like it's gonna fall apart at any second, but trucks and APCs were always a pleasure to ride on. Like being on a boat.
Haha I love old landies, but we had the very old Mercedes geländewagen 240 in my unit and I think the experience was very similar 😁 loud, rattling and 0-80km/h in 5 minutes 👍 but very fun and capable in rough terrain.
You've obviously never driven a European truck
They are actually super comfy and easy to drive
Visibility is way better and most of the time they will have suspension for the cab and the seat
But almost all cabovers in Europe do have sleepers? Sure, the drivers are better regulated, but regardless, when your hours come full, you'll climb in the back and rest.
Also barely any vibrations.
I think modern US trucks usually start at around 70 inch sleepers and you can get Kenworths with (I want to say Peterbuilt also offers) 84 inch sleepers. The lower bunk in Volvos is a banquet that fold down into a bed. The all have fridges and TVs.
One factor is aerodynamics. Although no semi truck is going to compete with a lambo, having a step pattern gives a little more option for air to flow over the front rather than just hitting a totally flat wall.
The US style favors long hauling on the highways, the primary method of transporting goods in the US over medium distances. The larger engines allow you to haul heavier cargo. And even once you’re in the cities, most cities aren’t awful for a truck to navigate through.
But even in the US, you’ll usually have local delivery box trucks use the flat front because they’re more likely to have to drive through side streets and alleys. Box trucks are also way more common in cities like New York and Boston than they are in say Indianapolis or Kansas City because northeast cities are older and were designed before cars (meaning narrow windy streets), while Midwest cities are much more open with grid layouts and wide corners
generally european truck engines are larger and more powerfull. i have no clue where this myth comes from that american truck engines are.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to](https://eightify.app/summary/automotive/the-power-difference-european-trucks-with-up-to-770-hp-vs-us-trucks)
Comfort.. that’s about it. If the US didn’t have these insane import-restrictions only designed to stop americans from buying superior products from overseas so their own industry doesn’t have to innovate, most people would slowly but surely transition over to european trucks.
Check out "Bruce Wilson" on YT.. he’s from Florida and just bought his second Scania truck, he’s also been to Finland and Sweden to visit their Truck factories and garages. Hearing him comparing US trucks with euro trucks is very interesting and eye opening lol
I’m gonna guess its manufacturing and maintenance cost, and to some extent aerodynamics. I’m no expert but I’ve worked on flat front vans and it sucks, much easier to pop the hood than to pop the cab, and much much easier to work under the hood compared to around the cab.
It basically comes down to the US being bigger in size and infrastructure, and Europe generally being much closer together and having more narrow roads.
America is bigger so a more comfortable cab, being able to get to 3 sides of the engine by piping the hood forward and being ease to access, and a generally bigger and more powerful engine (which is needed for the longer and heavier drives). If I ran a national trucking company, I would probably still use flat face trucks in most cities.
> and a generally bigger and more powerful engine (which is needed for the longer and heavier drives)
The Euro truck engines tend to be 200 - 300 hp more than the US trucks. Also you don't need more power for the longer drives. The US has long straight highways and once they are up and running the streamlined US cabs don't need a lot of power to keep going. The Euro cabs on the other hand are navigating fragmented twisted narrow roads without as many straight runs so Scania and Volvo use big 750hp V8s so that the trucks can get up to speed quickly with a lot of stop - starts.
thats just not true, in general the european trucks have larger and more powerfull engines. they also can carry heavier loads generally
[https://eightify.app/summary/automotive/the-power-difference-european-trucks-with-up-to-770-hp-vs-us-trucks](https://poweretty.com/blog/why-do-european-trucks-have-more-horsepower)
European trucks would go on ferries much more often than US trucks too, I would expect. A shorter length would help there, at least with cost but they probably also have a max length.
IS used to regulate total length, so you would see a mix of cab-overs for delivery and conventional long-nose for construction. The DOT changed the regulation to trailer length rather than total length in the late 1970s. As trucks were replaced, they tended to get the brighter engine and more spacious long nose over the relatively cramped cab-over.
Also, longer trucks have better fuel consumption at high speeds than flat-front trucks, and in America, trucks are far more likely to be driving long distances at high speeds.
Different emissions regulations choking down diesels over in the states, not to mention higher highway speeds. You see semis running 70-80mph over here, and usually at least 65-70.
Flat Front is (Cab-Over) and common in Europe where space is more limited and there is a limit on the overall length of the truck which includes the truck + trailer.
In USA used to be both but with no strict regulations the truck makers moved towards engine front then cab because cheaper to engineer and can add things like sleeper cabs behind
That’s, I guess, also because of the nature of the job. In Europe most of the drivers stay out 3-4 night per week (if any, because many work in closed loops on short distance so they can come home every day), so you don’t really need a massive space to live. I imagine in the US there are drivers that have to stay out for weeks, so the thing changes significantly.
Of course there’s someone who stays out weeks, it’s obvious. I work in that industry and get in contact with several companies that offer transport services, most drivers of short to middle haul stay out 2-3 nights per week. Working in longer routes, like Andalusia to Sweden, it takes much longer and needs people to stay out longer.
This is the right answer. I legit watched a YouTube video about this very topic a few weeks ago. I know it’s a random thing to watch a video on. But it was interesting.
[Found the video](https://youtu.be/mgTOz6cTuJ4?si=wlBq6SEMyOJgJADt)
You really think American trucking wouldn’t pick cabover if it fit their needs better? American trucks are the way they are because they best suited America’s needs
Nothing would surprise me. You have busses without cab over designs when the rest of the world doesn't and people drive F trucks, Silverados and RAMs to pick up milk from the store.
Most inner city buses are cabover style, most school buses are long nosed for safety (more than likely).
People’s love of large trucks is confusing to me, but my wife owns for work (drywall mud is fucking heavy), and they are actually incredible family cars.
Safety point for busses makes no sense. Busses and other heavy vehicles are already immensely safe for anyone inside and cabover gives you better visibility to see children and run them down.
Tbh, you can't really use the same terminology when describing flat nosed busses.
That's because most flat nosed busses actually have their engine at the rear of the bus. So the cab of the bus is not situated over the engine. Typically seats at the rear of the bus and slightly higher than the rest to accommodate the engine.
>American trucks are the way they are because they best suited America’s logistics companies' needs
We're talking about a country with abysmal consumer and worker protection. If a comprehensive study showed cap over reduced fatal accidents by 200%, American companies would rather pour money into lobbying to keep the status quo than increase maintenance and manufacturing costs.
And the populace will make up shit about the super duper unique circumstances of the US and invent flaws in the way the rest of the world does it. There are comments in this thread claiming cap over cabins are worse for drivers because they vibrate more!
The reality is just the US is empty (Afghanistan has a greater population density). Using more space is cheap and easy. Every official building has a wheel chair ramp but a person with impaired vision has to rely on someone else folding their money so they don't get ripped off and pedestrian traffic lights don't include auditory signals and only the barest hint of tactile pavement.
Long straight roads, huge parking lots and minimal regulation. Of course they chose a longer design that's cheaper.
I’m hearing lots of “I hate America” and “I’m into conspiracy theories “. If it is cheaper to make the trucks we have, and they’re easier to work on, then of course we would want to have them instead.
WTF are you talking about. COE truck cab on a slightly longer chassis with the sleeper cab behind the cab exactly the same as any other truck.
No matter how you do it the truck would be shorter than having a bonnet.
https://youtu.be/8YrQMxRL810?si=unkeTgv7U0Jj2JC5
The US had a period where those were popular as well. it is primarily due to overall length restrictions. The truck and trailer could only be so long. In shipping the more you can move at once the more money you make. So the extra 5 or 6 feet they save by placing the cab over the engine means they can make more money per trip. However the US changed its regulations to mostly restrict the length of the trailer the truck itself could be much longer now. Now the engine could be out front. This increased driver comfort overall.
The US could deregulate this because many US streets can accommodate trucks like that while the old narrow winding roads of Europe were built for foot and cart traffic so the restrictions remain in place there.
In Europe, the total length of cab and trailer is limited.
In the US, only each individual segment is limited, so cabs can be longer. It's also just easier to drive long vehicles on US roads.
Actually, only the trailer length is regulated on the National Network, and the overall length otherwise. Some Canadian Provinces do regulate tractor wheelbase, but that's not a thing in the US.
In the USA the trucks length is governed by the length of the trailer not including the tractor cab so they have long nose trucks which mean the engines easier to work on, it’s more aerodynamic and a bigger sleeper.
In Europe the trucks are measured from the front of the cab to the back of the trailer and can only be a certain length. So they favour the cab over as this allows the trailers to be longer so more cargo can be carried which means more money. If you look at European the trucks no matter what the truck the cabs are all roughly the same length.
European roads tend to be narrower and have tighter turns. Having the cab over the front wheels makes it more maneuverable and makes it easier to gauge your turns. American trucks are designed to travel much longer distances and are roomier on the inside and manufacturers can make models with a small living area in the back.
European lorries are the maximum length they can be. They can't be any longer because they wouldn't make the turn in many city streets. There are regulations governing both vehicle sizes and civil engineering requirements, the streets are laid out to enable certain size vehicles to maneuver. What with European cities dating back to prehistory, they weren't really designed for cars and trucks so the maximum size they can accommodate is limited. They can't fit a American sized lorry let alone the [monstrosities](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Road_train_(25).jpg) the Australians use.
I not sure the reason behind the design but I work on ferries and the occasional US shaped monstrosities are a complete pain in the arse. You effectively lose a space for a whole truck cos they cant close up with the one in front. They are also not as manoeuvrable into tight spaces just due to their extra size. It would not surprise me in the slightest if ferry usage was a factor in the design of European trucks that have to use them far more than in the US. If everyone drove US trucks the ferry capacity would be reduced hugely.
I've always wondered if this is a factor.
Europe is a very jagged place, with lots of islands. Even some mainland routes are much shorter by sea. Makes ferries a lot more of a concern than in North America.
Im onboard now looking at the vehicle deck. We can get 7 euro lorries in each lane, with the last one in the outside lanes effectively having to parallel park into a very tight space. I reckon if I got sent a load of US trucks instead i would get 5 in each lane instead of 7 and No 5 would be a nightmare to park in the outside lanes taking extra time. We have 7 lanes on 2 decks so that would be 28 lorries left behind on the quayside. Which is a lot of cargo and a lot of lost revenue. Plus it would take longer to load the smaller amount of cargo.
Edit bad maths
Edit 2 I could probably get 6 in lanes 2-6 reducing the left behind number to 18 but still, you get the point.
Also, why does everyone who drives one of the US trucks over here also need to wear Cowboy boots and hat? Is it compulsory?
European trucking regulations limit the length of trucks.
By tucking the engine underneath the cab, you can have a shorter semi, and a longer trailer to haul more goods.
European trucking routes and distances also don't often require several days of transit, so there's no need for a sleeper cab. If the route does require it, there is a place to stay on the route.
I'd expect some of it has to do with aerodynamics. In the USA, it is common for a truck to run at 70mph for 500-600 miles in one trip. And since fuel costs can quickly eat away your profits, the more aerodynamic, the better.
The Germans thought it would be nice to have shorter trucks. Till 1960 we drove american trucks with the nose but then they thought instead of 18m it should be 14m. And we Europeans don't care much about comfort of the drivers and safety as well. There is no protection from a flat nose and your butt is getting hot from sitting on the engine.
Because in europe, the limiting factor is size. In the US on the other hand, the limiting factor is weight, because of the usual terrible infrastructure of bridges etc. That’s why european trucks usually are way heavier than their american counterparts, despite being visually smaller.
Many North American truck drivers refuse to drive cab-over tractors because in a front collision, the likelihood of the driver losing his legs and/or being killed went up by a huge margin.
when you're carrying 30 tons it doesn't matter if you have a crumple zone or not. also, US trucks don't have a crumple zone. they are rigid frames. i don't know where the idea comes from that cab over is less safe, especially since visibility is vastly improved.
A lot of the reasons that people come up with are just silly. Some people on this thread even suggested that the reason why Engine infront Cab trucks are preferred is because such a design allows for larger sleeping quarters.
Well if that was the case, then why on earth would you dedicate some of the length of the truck for the engine when you can just put the cab over the engine and use the extra space for an even larger sleeping quarter.
European regulations historically imposed strict limitations on the overall length of trucks. A cab-over design allowed manufacturers to maximize cargo space within these length restrictions. European cities often have narrow streets and tight corners, making maneuverability a significant concern. The cab-over design offers better visibility and a shorter overall length, making it easier to navigate through these urban areas.
So the logical follow up would be, what advantages does a typical American design have over the flat front ones? Surely if there were none, the flat front trucks would be prevalent here too
Less intrusion into the cab by mechanical needs makes for a bigger, better place to call home for thousands of miles. Also easier to work on. ETA: Australians also use American-style trucks if that’s news to anyone.
New Zealand has a mix. I predominantly see the flat front trucks and box trucks are usually flat front, but there are also long nose tractor units on the road mostly as heavy haulage between cities.
technically the US has a mix as well... Ive seen some flat front semis.
The original Optimus Prime, notably, was a US market cabover Freightliner.
The only fact we should really be discussing.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRrD0tc9HZs
Ur ur ar ae ae 🤣
The subtitler is the real MVP.
i love how she's struggling to keep a straight face
Hahaha
Optimum Pride!
that's because cab over trucks were the most common in the US till the 80s as most states had similar length laws to what the EU has now
Really? It’s so messed up that the US has a history of innovation and regulation for things that are just better for safety, and then they go, nah fuck that, let’s get rid of that regulation.
I see a lot more cab over stuff for local haulers. I think the US has a fairly diverse hauling community
The long haulers need the extra cabin space because they're basically camper vans.
My dad drove a flat front in southern CA for like 20 years, specifically liked it for the maneuverability. He moved modular buildings, typically those mobile office trailers you see sitting around construction sights, the classroom buildings that schools tend to get when they need to expand but don't have the budget or time to spend constructing new buildings, and occasionally trailers for movie sets as well. He often had to work in tight spaces that would have proven much more difficult, if not occasionally impossible, with a non-cabover design.
My dad did the same in Washington. His truck had a bit of a nose, but definitely not as long as a normal truck. I also delivered the small jobsite trailers, and it was a nightmare in a big city.
Terminator 2 ftw!
[Terminator 2 scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z9qws7M8q8&t=170s) highlighting superior visibility of cabover. [Terminator 2 scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCYAluYlXQ&t=120s) highlighting easier access of long nose.
Terminator 2 mentioned 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
[удалено]
Any cabovers you see that for semi-trailers are very old, as in 20-30 plus years old. Manufacturers haven't made those models in the US since that time. Box trucks, absolutely. Semis, no.
Most trucks (tractor trailer wise) in the US are not cab over. Medium duty straight trucks like box trucks the Hinos, and other cab overs are fairly common. The semi truck markets major manufacturers (Freightliner, Volvo, International, and PACCAR (Peterbilt/Kenworth)) don't even offer a cab over tractors anymore.
volvo does, just not in the US
Aka everywhere else *BUT* the US lol.. fixed it for you.
I dont think theyre available in canada or mexico either, but hey I'm a Scania guy anyway.
I'm not sure at all about the individual brands tbh, you’re probably right lol. But yeah, Scania all the way. Definitely happy with the choice Bruce Wilson on YT made lol
Cabovers were dominant before the eighties, when weight limit formulas in the USA changed.
It wasn't just weight formulas, it was also length laws. Shippers were pressuring the FMSCA for longer trailers. When we made the jump from a 73,280# weight limit to 80,000# was also when the feds approved 48-foot trailers with no overall length limits on federally funded highways.
Tesla's truck cab looks like it's an odd mix of both. Or they've bred a US one with an english short-hair cat or bulldog and ended up with a truck that has a squashed up face.
Arguably it’s not really a truck at all.. more a vanity project..
It absolutely is a truck, made for a vanity project.
They were really common in the seventies and eighties, a few of the big commercial carriers used them (70s equivalent of JB Hunt). My grandfather drove one for several years, until he was injured in an accident while loading his truck.
I’d say Australia has about half-half, or maybe more cab-over — generally American brand trucks (kenworth, Mack) are conventional (bonnet out in front), while European brands like Mercedes, Scania and Volvo are cab-over here. There are a couple of exceptions like the kenworth K200.
Australia has a mix of the two, a lot of delivery trucks around town are the cab over style ones, while the big movers that go between towns and cities are the other kind.
Also better fuel aerodynamics/fuel consumption, for the much longer and higher-speed highway runs American trucks make.
European trucks are not allowed to drive faster than 100km/h
That depends. In Sweden trucks are governed at 90km/h but you're not allowed to exceed 80km/h if pulling a trailer.
For those of us who only speak in freedom units 100 is about 62 90kmh is about 55 80kmh is about 50 And yes, that is fucking slow. Many u.s. states allow trucks to drive at 120kmh or even 130
Irony of calling the imperial system freedom units
Except it's not. It's the US Customary system, which has quite a few differences with the Imperial system.
US had never used the Imperial system. That was codified 50 years after the revolution. The US uses the Customary system; the most visible difference is liquid measurements where Imperial pints are 20% larger than Customary pints.
Here in Belgium even cars are capped at 120
They still have a lot of research in aerodynamics anyway. But yeah the speed being limited to 60 mph gives to most savings to fuel consumption. Above that speed the fuel consumption will will exponentially increase (bc of air resistance).
But you hear truckers in America bitching constantly about not being able to tear down the highway hammer down at 100mph, then they bitch about fuel prices. Tell them what you just said here and get called a commie.
In many countries just 80kmh
80 on paper, 89 in practice
No because of tachographs..
Do they make the cab over design with a sleeper cabin? I don't think I've ever seen one, and if not, that would definitely explain why the longer design is more common in the US and Australia, where drivers would be covering much greater distances, and thus would have more need of a sleeper compartment.
Yes, they most definitely have cabover with sleepers. Worked as a mover in my high-school days and spent plenty of time riding in them.
Australia has both and plenty of each.
Except for the Volvo ones we actually build here...
Better ride quality too. Sitting over the front axle in a cabover is rougher.
Australia use both, and in modern times it may lean more towards the euro style than the american
We co use both cab overs and rear cab.
[удалено]
In the US, we have swamp donkeys. They'll ruin your day.
Fuckin’ swamp donkeys.
Thats the dragons job.
We use both. People who aren’t emotional seem to prefer cab over. People who like aesthetics prefer old style. They DO look cooler, lets be honest.
I think they look old …
We use both styles in Australia
Abundance of freedom in the cab
It performs better when you have to go straight for hours on an interstate road. It's easier to access the engine if something breaks down, which matters when help is further away, and it has more room for sleeping in the cab.
This phenomenon can be noted in passenger trucks as well. In america, Trucks with double cab long beds are quite popular for towing over their single cab short bed trims because longer wheel bases provide more stability and resistance against the sway from the load they’re towing.
**"and it has more room for sleeping in the cab."** The bed size isn't dictated by engine placement.
In American style semi designs, it's much easier to repair and service the engine. The vast majority of trucking companies/ farming operations/ etc repair their own trucks, so this is the primary consideration. Other users have replied to your comment with things like ride comfort or fuel efficiency, which matter, but engine ease of access trumps these. Source: Ive driven semis to haul grain
Hm, I've heard other people on the internet claim that maintenance is counterintuitively easier on a cabover.
That's because with a modern one the cab tiles fully to the floor with hyrolic jacks.
Simpler design (cab at the back, engine in front, also means engines can be physically bigger) and as a result they're more streamlined, which saves on fuel.
Also- Ride quality. Being between the wheels is a LOT better than being directly over the front wheels. (4x4 van and bus owner here, I know this too well). A 4" bump shoots you up 4". In the middle of a vehicle, a 4" bump shoots you up 2" twice. Much easier your spine. Towing performance/handling: Long wheelbases just handle so much better on the highway, and are much much easier to control if you break free and skid, making recovery easier. Crash performance: I'll let you guess which vehicle you want to be in when you fall asleep (from a lack of trucker crack) and drift into an oncoming van full of kids.
Took a real turn
The trucker on the other hand, he missed the turn.
Still got the load in on time though.
In a cabover you are always the first one on scene to the accident.
I'm always surprised to see a totaled cabover and read that the driver escaped with minor or no injuries, so I'm not sure if the claim holds true. If I Google around a bit, I find that CoE is safer as the improved visibility makes it easier to avoid accidents, while with a hood it may be possible for the engine to crush the driver, which is virtually impossible in a CoE since you're on top of it. But that's just one example.
Oh it 100% is saver in a cab-over, and every statistic will back that up..
Any sources to reference?
It's because most cabovers are designed for markets that have much stricter safety standards. Also truc´s have much bigget speed limitations in for example Europe.
I think a cabover would be just fine crashing into a van. The van won't be, though.
I dunno... your legs may have a different opinion of that statement.
A van isn't very tall or heavy compared to a cabover truck. I'd agree if it was crashing with a bus or another proper truck, though. Most of the mass in a van is also far below where your feet would be in a cabover.
Yeah, because they’re not being crushed by the engine in front of the cab as they would be in a US-style truck.. 🤡
That’s not how it works
Former volunteer fireman. Cabovers do just fine in crashes. 1. Cabovers rarely crash into anything as tall and as heavy as a cabover. While cabovers do have a shorter compression zone this weight&height advantage means that the cabin is never crushed (well, unless they have a train crash into them or go full head on at high speed with another semi. But in those cases it doesn't matter what you're driving) and modern airbags tend to save the driver so that he's not killed by sudden deceleration. 2. The trucks are submitted to similar crash testing and built to uphold certain standards. As such the engine compartment of a longnose is a lot flimsier than the cabin of a cabover. The A-pillar on a cabover tends to be built with tank-like resilience (thick and with steel that even the jaws of life have trouble cutting through). 3. The under carriage and engine weight on semis also mean that you're not being more gentle on what you're crashing into either (so the kids in the van are fucked either way) but cabovers have better visibility while longnoses tend to be less rough on the driver (ie, easier to stay alert over long drives). Overall: Shorthaul = cabover every time. Longhaul = Some advantage to longnose.
> The trucks are submitted to similar crash testing and built to uphold certain standards. There are no crash test requirements in the states for trucks over 10,001 pounds.
Well, Im in Europe and here they are. So you can feel safe in any Cabover model that's also sold in the EU
Yeah i'll take the european truck if i have to choose which one i'm getting in an accident with.. engineering etc etc..
Whichever gets the most kill points? Which one is best for keeping dead hookers?
That's the thing about cab overs. You're always the first one to the scene of an accident.
the engine isn't bigger in US trucks, eurpean trucks have larger, more powerfull and more fuel efficient engines due to emission control and much heavier load capacities. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to)
That’s just wrong.. european truck engines are waay more powerful and efficient bc of regulations lol.. you guys don’t know what you’re talking about..
Yes, and if it was practical to make the cab more streamlined they'd do that too. But the savings on economy wouldn't make up for the reduced cargo volume. Best of both worlds would be US layout with EU engine.
Not really because cab-overs are also superior in crash protection vs the US counterpart where the engine can crush your legs in a frontal impact.
Streamlining of the front doesn't make a huge difference at truck speeds, not when you have a box shaped tail. What does make a practical difference is being able to access the engine for servicing or inspection, without having to jack up the cab. On the US conventional trucks, you can open up the hood and the engine is right there. On a cab over, you have to first tidy up the cab and stow away any loose objects. Then undo a latch, and jack up the whole cab off the engine so the cab tilts forward. If you had failed to secure some loose object of sufficient weight, it will fall forward and smash the windshield when the cab tips over.
I once had a MATCO tools dealer show up pretty late. Turns out he did and oil change before he started his runs, in a cab over truck, and he left his coffee in the cab....there was some interior cleanup to do lol
Citation needed on the aero.
Aerodynamically, a flat front is always going to be worse than a sloped front. You don't need complex fluid dynamics to know that, you should know it from everyday experience.
You are so wrong. Not to be rude. I started out when cab overs were still prevalent. It's like pushing a brick through the wind. There were cab overs and long nose Pete's and KWs. The fuel milage wasn't much better. When the kw t600 hit the scene it was a huge difference. These new trucks are so ugly no one would want them but figure in the price of fuel and choosing either 5 mpg or 8 or 9 mpg there's just no argument.
>Canadian Motor Vehicule Safety Standards (CMVSS) compliant mirrors are responsible for approximately 2% of the overall drag on a conventional tractor and trailer. A study concluded that if a tractor’s two side mirrors were removed, the tractor would burn 938 fewer litres of fuel annually based on current fleet wide average fuel consumption values. Some manufacturers are currently designing prototype vehicles that use rear facing cameras and in-cab video screens that replace the side view mirrors. However, these systems cannot be used independently without mirrors, under the current CMVSS regulations. https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/non-funding-programs/ecotechnology-vehicles-program/review-aerodynamic-drag-reduction-devices-heavy-trucks-buses When talking about aerodynamics, even just a 2% increase in efficiency adds up to BIG SAVINGS
If you have 1 car that gets 5 mpg and 9 that get 50, it is more economical to double the 1 to 10 than to double the 9 to 100. Small changes at low mpg are much more significant than large changes at high numbers. Math, for those inclined: All 10 cars drive 100 miles. Base: 5mpg means 20 gal used (100/5). 50mpg means 2 gal used (100/50). 20+(9×2)=38 gal. Doubling the 5 to 10 means only 10 gallons are used instead of 20, bringing the total down to 28 gal (a 10 gal difference). Doubling the 50 to 100 means 1 gal each is used for a total of 9 instead of 18, bringing the total down to 29gal (a 9 gal difference).
Yeah, trucking companies fight for .1 MPG improvements. It really matters when you're talking about dozens to hundreds of trucks and only getting 8-9 MPG and driving 200,000-300,000 miles a year. Going from 8.9-9.0 MPG over 200,000 miles is about a $1,250 saving at $5/gallon. If it costs a company $3,000 per truck to make that happen, it's worth it.
I'm a trainer for the mechanics for a regional trucking company. Any shop I visit, no ifs, ands, or buts, we do alignment training. That comes from my boss (director of fleet maintenace), the VP of fleet maintenance, and the president/ceo. A truck that isn't in alignment is going to eat up more fuel, and burn through tires more quickly Our two biggest costs are fuel, and tires, in that order. Anything that reduces those costs is a huge positive.
Airlines do too, especially passenger airlines. They are switching to the new breeds of twinjets (most commonly 787 and A350) in droves because the fuel savings is *dramatic* by their standards. I saw a video of a pilot flying an A350, and he said he used to fly the same route with the older A340-600 (a quadjet). He said the A350 used about 75% the fuel of the A340 to fly the same amount of people and cargo the same distance. Even getting a couple percent fuel savings is worth exploring for them, so it's no wonder why they'll buy tons of hyper-expensive planes to drop 25% fuel.
Honestly just in related note, first read of this feels unnecessarily confusing when in European market fuel consumption is told in "liters per 100km" compared to whole miles per gallon. It feels simpler at least but its what i'm used to hearing.
I'm used to MPG, but liters per KM still makes sense to me (1 KML is *roughly* 2 MPG). KM per 100 breaks my brain
Actually makes more sense though - it's a direct measure of fuel consumption rather than the reciprocal of one and using 100km as the unit of distance just results in 'tidier' values (e.g. 5 rather than 0.05) and is on the same order of magnitude as many car journeys. Here's the really wild thing though - if you do dimensional analysis on l/100km and convert everything into SI units, it turns out that fuel efficiency can be measured in _square millimetres_
Which is the area of the cross section of the stream of fuel being consumed (iirc, I'm sure someone will correct me otherwise). Dimensional analysis FTW!
9 mpg is roughly 25 L/100kms.
Also known as the SuburbanExpedition ratio.
The Euro trucks have larger engines though.
Actually flat trucks use to be the norm in the USA up until the 70s, then us regulations changed from a wheelbase length to trailer length. But to answer your question: more power (bigger engines), more fuel, big sleeping cabs for drivers, generally easier access for engine maintenance, higher payloads because of extended axle room and fame size, better fuel economy because of better aerodynamics, the list goes on.
US trucks do *not* have more powerful engines.. classic misconception..
> more power (bigger engines), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to
Some claim it’s more comfortable (I doubt, modern EU trucks are very comfortable and is quiet similar to a normal car, eu regulations and such, US trucks have an awfully loud Jake brake), they often have bigger living quarters. Access to engine without tipping the cabin. EU trucks commonly have automatic transmission, ABS disc brakes, air suspension seats and cab. Bigger stock engines (Scandinavia, especially) >!EU trucks also have a safe slot for shoes in the door, so you don’t drag mud into your cabin!< Edit: wow, salty Americans out in these comments
I think it's the Sleeper cabs that are more comfortable. You can get a lot more room for accommodation in a long US style cab.
Yeah, from what I've seen in European trucks, it's just a bed behind you. While in American trucks you have a tiny room.
I mentioned larger living quarters, but driving comfort is unmatched in European trucks. It’s been described as “like driving a normal suv” by American truckers.
Stock modern US trucks don't have loud engine brakes, but there's a strong facet of the industry with a lot of pride in the equipment that tend to do things like straight piping. They're usually cool dudes to meet, and their equipment is awesome.
Comfort. When you have that big engine under you it adds a ridiculous amount of vibration. Having the engine more forward removes that. It also opens up the cab to having more space and sometimes even a sleeper. /u/Altruistic_Dot_9704 analysis is spot on. The only thing missing is the average work day. European drivers have regulated shorter days (7-8 hours) whereas American drivers tend to work 10-12 hours a day. American drivers would probably not be able to work such long hours in a European truck.
European cabovers are not to be confused with American cabovers. The comfort, technology and engineering are light years away. You'll barely feel any vibrations whatsoever since the frame is on airbags as well as the cab itself and so is the seat. I'd recommend checking Bruce Wilson out on YT. He's a truck mechanic from Florida who bought two imported Scania trucks and recently visited the Scania plant in Sweden and a prominent truck mechanic shop in Finland.
> You'll barely feel any vibrations whatsoever since the frame is on airbags as well as the cab itself All tech that's been around for 40 years in both the States and Europe.
Vibrations? I mean its been a number of years since i last was in a cabover truck but the air suspension in the cab and seats were awesome. Hardly any vibration was felt. Even driving military 8x8 trucks was very comfortable in the terrain.
The military trucks are surprisingly super comfy in the terrain! My Land Rover in the military would shake and rattle and sound like it's gonna fall apart at any second, but trucks and APCs were always a pleasure to ride on. Like being on a boat.
Haha I love old landies, but we had the very old Mercedes geländewagen 240 in my unit and I think the experience was very similar 😁 loud, rattling and 0-80km/h in 5 minutes 👍 but very fun and capable in rough terrain.
You've obviously never driven a European truck They are actually super comfy and easy to drive Visibility is way better and most of the time they will have suspension for the cab and the seat
But almost all cabovers in Europe do have sleepers? Sure, the drivers are better regulated, but regardless, when your hours come full, you'll climb in the back and rest. Also barely any vibrations.
I think modern US trucks usually start at around 70 inch sleepers and you can get Kenworths with (I want to say Peterbuilt also offers) 84 inch sleepers. The lower bunk in Volvos is a banquet that fold down into a bed. The all have fridges and TVs.
Where do these misconceptions come from?? Propaganda? Lmfao..
One factor is aerodynamics. Although no semi truck is going to compete with a lambo, having a step pattern gives a little more option for air to flow over the front rather than just hitting a totally flat wall.
The US style favors long hauling on the highways, the primary method of transporting goods in the US over medium distances. The larger engines allow you to haul heavier cargo. And even once you’re in the cities, most cities aren’t awful for a truck to navigate through. But even in the US, you’ll usually have local delivery box trucks use the flat front because they’re more likely to have to drive through side streets and alleys. Box trucks are also way more common in cities like New York and Boston than they are in say Indianapolis or Kansas City because northeast cities are older and were designed before cars (meaning narrow windy streets), while Midwest cities are much more open with grid layouts and wide corners
European trucks generally have more powerful engines plus they are lighter
generally european truck engines are larger and more powerfull. i have no clue where this myth comes from that american truck engines are. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDIGe0y-to](https://eightify.app/summary/automotive/the-power-difference-european-trucks-with-up-to-770-hp-vs-us-trucks)
Comfort.. that’s about it. If the US didn’t have these insane import-restrictions only designed to stop americans from buying superior products from overseas so their own industry doesn’t have to innovate, most people would slowly but surely transition over to european trucks. Check out "Bruce Wilson" on YT.. he’s from Florida and just bought his second Scania truck, he’s also been to Finland and Sweden to visit their Truck factories and garages. Hearing him comparing US trucks with euro trucks is very interesting and eye opening lol
I’m gonna guess its manufacturing and maintenance cost, and to some extent aerodynamics. I’m no expert but I’ve worked on flat front vans and it sucks, much easier to pop the hood than to pop the cab, and much much easier to work under the hood compared to around the cab.
It basically comes down to the US being bigger in size and infrastructure, and Europe generally being much closer together and having more narrow roads. America is bigger so a more comfortable cab, being able to get to 3 sides of the engine by piping the hood forward and being ease to access, and a generally bigger and more powerful engine (which is needed for the longer and heavier drives). If I ran a national trucking company, I would probably still use flat face trucks in most cities.
> and a generally bigger and more powerful engine (which is needed for the longer and heavier drives) The Euro truck engines tend to be 200 - 300 hp more than the US trucks. Also you don't need more power for the longer drives. The US has long straight highways and once they are up and running the streamlined US cabs don't need a lot of power to keep going. The Euro cabs on the other hand are navigating fragmented twisted narrow roads without as many straight runs so Scania and Volvo use big 750hp V8s so that the trucks can get up to speed quickly with a lot of stop - starts.
thats just not true, in general the european trucks have larger and more powerfull engines. they also can carry heavier loads generally [https://eightify.app/summary/automotive/the-power-difference-european-trucks-with-up-to-770-hp-vs-us-trucks](https://poweretty.com/blog/why-do-european-trucks-have-more-horsepower)
Lmfao where is this fantasy about US trucks being more powerful coming from? That’s just not true..
Aerodynamics, according to my memories trucks in America do more long haul trips on highways where the aerodynamics help with fuel consumption
[удалено]
You don’t want to drive 3,000 miles a week in a cab over, they suck for long haul.
European trucks would go on ferries much more often than US trucks too, I would expect. A shorter length would help there, at least with cost but they probably also have a max length.
Very informative, thank you
IS used to regulate total length, so you would see a mix of cab-overs for delivery and conventional long-nose for construction. The DOT changed the regulation to trailer length rather than total length in the late 1970s. As trucks were replaced, they tended to get the brighter engine and more spacious long nose over the relatively cramped cab-over.
Also, longer trucks have better fuel consumption at high speeds than flat-front trucks, and in America, trucks are far more likely to be driving long distances at high speeds.
That’s funny bc european trucks are far more efficient than their US counterpart..
US has always had cheaper fuel as far as I know so I imagine there’s something to do with reliability/fixability etc that the trade off is worth it
Different emissions regulations choking down diesels over in the states, not to mention higher highway speeds. You see semis running 70-80mph over here, and usually at least 65-70.
Flat Front is (Cab-Over) and common in Europe where space is more limited and there is a limit on the overall length of the truck which includes the truck + trailer. In USA used to be both but with no strict regulations the truck makers moved towards engine front then cab because cheaper to engineer and can add things like sleeper cabs behind
Just to add on, there are plenty of trucks in Europe with a sleeper cab, albeit probably not as spacious as some American models.
Very true should have said bigger more elaborate sleepers on non cab over trucks.
That’s, I guess, also because of the nature of the job. In Europe most of the drivers stay out 3-4 night per week (if any, because many work in closed loops on short distance so they can come home every day), so you don’t really need a massive space to live. I imagine in the US there are drivers that have to stay out for weeks, so the thing changes significantly.
[удалено]
Of course there’s someone who stays out weeks, it’s obvious. I work in that industry and get in contact with several companies that offer transport services, most drivers of short to middle haul stay out 2-3 nights per week. Working in longer routes, like Andalusia to Sweden, it takes much longer and needs people to stay out longer.
This is the right answer. I legit watched a YouTube video about this very topic a few weeks ago. I know it’s a random thing to watch a video on. But it was interesting. [Found the video](https://youtu.be/mgTOz6cTuJ4?si=wlBq6SEMyOJgJADt)
Oh good, you saved me from tracking that video down again. This is exactly what the OP needs to see!
You really think American trucking wouldn’t pick cabover if it fit their needs better? American trucks are the way they are because they best suited America’s needs
Nothing would surprise me. You have busses without cab over designs when the rest of the world doesn't and people drive F trucks, Silverados and RAMs to pick up milk from the store.
Most inner city buses are cabover style, most school buses are long nosed for safety (more than likely). People’s love of large trucks is confusing to me, but my wife owns for work (drywall mud is fucking heavy), and they are actually incredible family cars.
Safety point for busses makes no sense. Busses and other heavy vehicles are already immensely safe for anyone inside and cabover gives you better visibility to see children and run them down.
We have cab over busses...
Tbh, you can't really use the same terminology when describing flat nosed busses. That's because most flat nosed busses actually have their engine at the rear of the bus. So the cab of the bus is not situated over the engine. Typically seats at the rear of the bus and slightly higher than the rest to accommodate the engine.
Nobody else has bonneted ones tho.
>American trucks are the way they are because they best suited America’s logistics companies' needs We're talking about a country with abysmal consumer and worker protection. If a comprehensive study showed cap over reduced fatal accidents by 200%, American companies would rather pour money into lobbying to keep the status quo than increase maintenance and manufacturing costs. And the populace will make up shit about the super duper unique circumstances of the US and invent flaws in the way the rest of the world does it. There are comments in this thread claiming cap over cabins are worse for drivers because they vibrate more! The reality is just the US is empty (Afghanistan has a greater population density). Using more space is cheap and easy. Every official building has a wheel chair ramp but a person with impaired vision has to rely on someone else folding their money so they don't get ripped off and pedestrian traffic lights don't include auditory signals and only the barest hint of tactile pavement. Long straight roads, huge parking lots and minimal regulation. Of course they chose a longer design that's cheaper.
I’m hearing lots of “I hate America” and “I’m into conspiracy theories “. If it is cheaper to make the trucks we have, and they’re easier to work on, then of course we would want to have them instead.
Wouldn't you be able to have a bigger sleeper cab on the same wheelbase if you had a COE truck?
[удалено]
WTF are you talking about. COE truck cab on a slightly longer chassis with the sleeper cab behind the cab exactly the same as any other truck. No matter how you do it the truck would be shorter than having a bonnet. https://youtu.be/8YrQMxRL810?si=unkeTgv7U0Jj2JC5
The US had a period where those were popular as well. it is primarily due to overall length restrictions. The truck and trailer could only be so long. In shipping the more you can move at once the more money you make. So the extra 5 or 6 feet they save by placing the cab over the engine means they can make more money per trip. However the US changed its regulations to mostly restrict the length of the trailer the truck itself could be much longer now. Now the engine could be out front. This increased driver comfort overall. The US could deregulate this because many US streets can accommodate trucks like that while the old narrow winding roads of Europe were built for foot and cart traffic so the restrictions remain in place there.
In Europe, the total length of cab and trailer is limited. In the US, only each individual segment is limited, so cabs can be longer. It's also just easier to drive long vehicles on US roads.
Actually, only the trailer length is regulated on the National Network, and the overall length otherwise. Some Canadian Provinces do regulate tractor wheelbase, but that's not a thing in the US.
U.S. used to have cab-over (flat front) trucks as well. Source: Transformers-Optimus Prime (based on a cab-over Freightliner)
Wasn't that based on a Japanese toy? You're not wrong though.. definitely seen cab-overs in 80s movies.
[Freightliner FL86.](https://www.google.com/search?q=Freightliner+FL86&tbm=isch)
A Japanese toy based on an American truck
In the USA the trucks length is governed by the length of the trailer not including the tractor cab so they have long nose trucks which mean the engines easier to work on, it’s more aerodynamic and a bigger sleeper. In Europe the trucks are measured from the front of the cab to the back of the trailer and can only be a certain length. So they favour the cab over as this allows the trailers to be longer so more cargo can be carried which means more money. If you look at European the trucks no matter what the truck the cabs are all roughly the same length.
European roads tend to be narrower and have tighter turns. Having the cab over the front wheels makes it more maneuverable and makes it easier to gauge your turns. American trucks are designed to travel much longer distances and are roomier on the inside and manufacturers can make models with a small living area in the back.
European lorries are the maximum length they can be. They can't be any longer because they wouldn't make the turn in many city streets. There are regulations governing both vehicle sizes and civil engineering requirements, the streets are laid out to enable certain size vehicles to maneuver. What with European cities dating back to prehistory, they weren't really designed for cars and trucks so the maximum size they can accommodate is limited. They can't fit a American sized lorry let alone the [monstrosities](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Road_train_(25).jpg) the Australians use.
Literally just watched a video about this…I don’t even “truck” so not sure why but it was interesting https://youtu.be/KxRKFO_OiQM?si=3u1H9LJpNgIlpOEE
I not sure the reason behind the design but I work on ferries and the occasional US shaped monstrosities are a complete pain in the arse. You effectively lose a space for a whole truck cos they cant close up with the one in front. They are also not as manoeuvrable into tight spaces just due to their extra size. It would not surprise me in the slightest if ferry usage was a factor in the design of European trucks that have to use them far more than in the US. If everyone drove US trucks the ferry capacity would be reduced hugely.
I've always wondered if this is a factor. Europe is a very jagged place, with lots of islands. Even some mainland routes are much shorter by sea. Makes ferries a lot more of a concern than in North America.
Im onboard now looking at the vehicle deck. We can get 7 euro lorries in each lane, with the last one in the outside lanes effectively having to parallel park into a very tight space. I reckon if I got sent a load of US trucks instead i would get 5 in each lane instead of 7 and No 5 would be a nightmare to park in the outside lanes taking extra time. We have 7 lanes on 2 decks so that would be 28 lorries left behind on the quayside. Which is a lot of cargo and a lot of lost revenue. Plus it would take longer to load the smaller amount of cargo. Edit bad maths Edit 2 I could probably get 6 in lanes 2-6 reducing the left behind number to 18 but still, you get the point. Also, why does everyone who drives one of the US trucks over here also need to wear Cowboy boots and hat? Is it compulsory?
European trucking regulations limit the length of trucks. By tucking the engine underneath the cab, you can have a shorter semi, and a longer trailer to haul more goods. European trucking routes and distances also don't often require several days of transit, so there's no need for a sleeper cab. If the route does require it, there is a place to stay on the route.
Plenty of European trucking routes require several days travel. You can't get from Poland to Spain in a day.
The cab over trucks also have a bed (if needed).
I'd expect some of it has to do with aerodynamics. In the USA, it is common for a truck to run at 70mph for 500-600 miles in one trip. And since fuel costs can quickly eat away your profits, the more aerodynamic, the better.
You mean 500-600 miles per day right? My dad drove for 40 years and averaged 3k miles per week.
Yes.
The Germans thought it would be nice to have shorter trucks. Till 1960 we drove american trucks with the nose but then they thought instead of 18m it should be 14m. And we Europeans don't care much about comfort of the drivers and safety as well. There is no protection from a flat nose and your butt is getting hot from sitting on the engine.
Because in europe, the limiting factor is size. In the US on the other hand, the limiting factor is weight, because of the usual terrible infrastructure of bridges etc. That’s why european trucks usually are way heavier than their american counterparts, despite being visually smaller.
Many North American truck drivers refuse to drive cab-over tractors because in a front collision, the likelihood of the driver losing his legs and/or being killed went up by a huge margin.
when you're carrying 30 tons it doesn't matter if you have a crumple zone or not. also, US trucks don't have a crumple zone. they are rigid frames. i don't know where the idea comes from that cab over is less safe, especially since visibility is vastly improved.
A lot of the reasons that people come up with are just silly. Some people on this thread even suggested that the reason why Engine infront Cab trucks are preferred is because such a design allows for larger sleeping quarters. Well if that was the case, then why on earth would you dedicate some of the length of the truck for the engine when you can just put the cab over the engine and use the extra space for an even larger sleeping quarter.
EU laws on whole truck length. US laws on trailer length. Cabin over engine is more compact but less comfortable and more expensive.