Walmart's New Supercube Freight Truck

Status
Not open for further replies.
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

I assume that the box behind the cab is also for cargo - Id imagine that may effect comfort for the driver... But who cares, right?

I went to college near an automotive plant, so there was a lot of truck traffic. I routinely saw trailers that looked like this. What struck me was that they had undersized tires compared to typical truck trailers, and the tires would get so hot that in the rain, they would be smoking.

I believe frito-lay uses trailers like this too...
 
Quote:
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

So you want them to maximize inefficiency?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

So you want them to maximize inefficiency?


Where did I say that? Im calling a spade a spade.

I boycott their "efficiency" every chance I get because it does nothing but rob jobs and send them to the third world.

It might be palatable if they far and away sold American goods and were just a conduit bringing those goods to market in as efficient and profitable way as possible.

I vote with my wallet.
 
While I'm sure they've made some improvements, cabovers are usually worse to drive than conventionals and are usually disliked by drivers. I can't imagine their driver pool is very happy about the change from conventional tractors to cabovers.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

So you want them to maximize inefficiency?


Where did I say that? Im calling a spade a spade.

I boycott their "efficiency" every chance I get because it does nothing but rob jobs and send them to the third world.

It might be palatable if they far and away sold American goods and were just a conduit bringing those goods to market in as efficient and profitable way as possible.

I vote with my wallet.

So they should use trucks half the size and employ twice as many drivers?
 
I dont care, I dont shop at Walmart. Id prefer them to not exist, frankly. Im not talking on here to have a discourse on here with you, Tempest. Im calling a spade a spade. If you care to discuss if this decision was made on the basis of fuel or labor fine, Im not talking business philosophy. Im stating why I believe they made the decision they did, and also to comment on how it strikes me as not particularly innovative or different from what Ive seen on the roads. Re-read my OP.

But back OT, arent cabovers actually the most fuel efficient truck variant?
 
36.gif
 
So we all agree this would be good if it weren't walmart doing it?

Imagine if the article was Mississauga designs a new truck with xxx more capacity and didn't name the retailer.

I think it's cool. I assume most loads from warehouse/distribution center to retail aren't long haul anyway. You don't see many cab-over trucks anymore.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bepperb
So we all agree this would be good if it weren't walmart doing it?

Imagine if the article was Mississauga designs a new truck with xxx more capacity and didn't name the retailer.

I think it's cool. I assume most loads from warehouse/distribution center to retail aren't long haul anyway. You don't see many cab-over trucks anymore.


See I look at it another way. There are a ton of efforts within engine development, aerodynamics, etc., etc to enhance operational efficiency. So long as weight limits arent violated, are better means of obtaining packing factors a smart move? sure.

But again, trailers like these have been on the roads for years now, at least ones that are set up and look VERY similar. So what is this? Just interior decorating?

I specifically asked if COE trucks are more fuel efficient, I believe they are.

Is putting cargo behind the driver on the tractor frame like that new? I cant say Ive seen many that do that.

But at the end of the day, IMO all these efficiency things are being done anyway, and much of it is common sense. Not much innovative there. So my question remains the same... Is walmart's interest in this to move more stuff per load and in a new truck design because they want to save fuel, or because they want to lay off truck drivers? Its a valid question, and Id say that is the case. If it is, it is, so be it. We dont need to havea business philosophy discussion here, is it or is it not the case? Per load is labor or fuel more expensive? Its a question that simply aligns to the basis of what the truck and platform is really being optimized for.

Beyond that, I still question the innovativeness of this but that is for folks more well versed in trailering than I to answer.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

So you want them to maximize inefficiency?


From a macro standpoint, you can probably find an argument that a certain level of inefficiency is desirable to keep the labor market going.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...So my question remains the same... Is walmart's interest in this to move more stuff per load and in a new truck design because they want to save fuel, or because they want to lay off truck drivers? Its a valid question, and Id say that is the case. If it is, it is, so be it. We dont need to havea business philosophy discussion here, is it or is it not the case?

I think you're asking the wrong question. The question is "is Walmart's interest in reducing transportation costs?" To which the answer of course is yes. Among those costs are fuel, capital costs, repair & maintenance, and yes, the labor costs associated with operating their transportation fleet.

I'm no fan of Walmart, but as another poster said this is a very run of the mill business article about a company reducing expenses. Make it about UPS' latest route planning system and the gist of the story is the same (more efficient transportation = less fuel, less trucks, less drivers), just with a different company's name attached.

jeff
 
Of course all of those are involved. But which is more? Per 10k lb load and per 50k lb load, what costs more labor or fuel (with a gross assumption that maintenance and all stays the same).

Im still assuming labor, but diesel isnt cheap and at 3 or 7 MPG, the potential for fuel to be higher than fully burdened labor cost may be there...
 
Originally Posted By: VicVinegar
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
3000 loads per year. While fuel is a big cost, I imagine labor is a bigger one, so yet another way to pull jobs from the population while sending money to China for cut rate garbage.

So you want them to maximize inefficiency?


From a macro standpoint, you can probably find an argument that a certain level of inefficiency is desirable to keep the labor market going.

People are paid for productivity. Trucks that haul more will reduce the number of trucks on the road and the number of drivers. However, the drivers that are moving more freight are more productive and so will be able to demand a high wage. Just as bulldozer drivers earn more than the guy with a shovel.

No this will not happen overnight, but productivity will lead to higher wages.

And there are a lot of misconceptions about imports:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/25/3-misconceptions-that-need-to-die.aspx
 
That fool article, besides OT, when talking about how money was spent, was very one-sided and the case studies were optimized for their angle. Cars and furniture? Give me a break. And, BTW, lets keep all of the third world in the mix, not just China...

But despite a passing dig at China in earlier posts, because it is the COO for a huge amount of stuff that Walmart and many other places sell, this is about the truck, not imports.
 
Hey, don't blame "efficiency" for loss of jobs. Blame the oil companies lining their pockets with fuel price spikes. People are doing things more "efficiently" now, especially companies with fleets, so if it eliminates jobs, that's just a by-product of the money-hungry petroleum companies making people down-size (whether it be fleet cargo or jobs).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
My gen 1 3.5 Ecoboost; An inauspicious Start
2 3
Replies
50
Views
10K
UNC200
wwillson
  • Locked
Shell Rotella Gas Truck synthetic engine oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
18
Views
58K
SlavaB
D
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
T
  • Locked
ExxonMobil Extends OCI to 15,000 Miles
Replies
6
Views
5K
ToyotaNSaturn
Back
Top Bottom