Comparison of Dynamic Performance and Fuel Consumption of Direct-drive and Overdrive Transmission Tractors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The main objective of this project was to compare the fuel consumption and dynamic performances of direct-drive and overdrive transmission tractors. Fuel consumption was evaluated at constant high speed and on various road profiles, while the dynamic performance was assessed on various road profiles only. The SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (J1526) was used for constant high speed fuel consumption track test evaluations. The direct-drive transmission tractor consumed less than the overdrive transmission tractor, even though it was heavier. The testing on various road profiles was conducted using a towing dynamometer, for comparing the dynamic capability of the tractors when simulating the same towing load on two hilly road profiles: the Townes Pass path (in the Rocky Mountains) and the Saguenay path (in the Saguenay region of Quebec). Each tractor was to haul the set load along the given path while trying to attain 90 km/h speed. Results from the test showed almost identical dynamic performance for the Saguenay road profile. For the Townes Pass road profile, which has a steeper grade, the overdrive transmission tractor showed, to some extent, better dynamic performance than the direct drive tractor. Direct-drive transmissions are more efficient than overdrive transmissions, if they are geared correctly. The advantage is obvious in top gear, which was the case for the high constant speed test. The overall ratio (transmission plus differential) is higher for the tractors with overdrive transmission, and they provide better startability and gradeability. The tests on the two different road profiles partially confirmed this assumption, especially for the Saguenay route.</div></div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".