Start with what actually changes
Suppose you are comparing your current fuel stops with an alternative that charges more per litre but removes part of the stop. The useful question is not just which price is lower. It is whether the extra fuel charge is justified by time and vehicle costs you can genuinely avoid.
Measure the difference between the two arrangements. If the current stop takes 35 minutes and the alternative still takes 15 minutes, the avoidable time is 20 minutes. Entering all 35 minutes would overstate the benefit. Apply the same logic to detour fuel: include only the distance and fuel use that disappear.
Keep the quantities comparable. Use the same operating period, the same number of trucks and a consistent tax basis. A weekly fee for the whole fleet is different from a fee per truck or per delivery.
Work through one fleet example
Hypothetical inputs, not a supplier quote
Three trucks each make two stops a week for 50 weeks. Each stop involves 300 L, and the alternative removes 20 minutes. Driver time is valued at C$45/hour. The alternative costs an extra 3 cents/L. Additional fees and avoidable vehicle costs are both assumed zero.
Annual stops: 3 × 2 × 50 = 300. Avoidable time: 300 × 20 ÷ 60 = 100 hours. Modeled driver-time value: 100 × C$45 = C$4,500.
Annual volume: 300 × 300 L = 90,000 L. The extra fuel charge is 90,000 × C$0.03 = C$2,700. Net time-and-cost value is C$4,500 − C$2,700 = C$1,800.
That C$1,800 is a combined time-and-cost value. It is not automatically an increase in bank balance or profit. If all driver pay remains unchanged, the model counts none of the time value as cash saved. The cash effect is then negative C$2,700: the additional fuel bill with no payroll reduction.
Use two different break-even points
On the example's time-value basis, C$4,500 spread over 90,000 L can support a 5-cent/L premium before the combined value reaches zero. On a cash-only basis with no payroll or vehicle-cost savings, the supportable premium is 0 cents/L.
These two answers are useful because they answer different questions. The first values an operational benefit. The second asks whether the entered changes reduce cash expense. A decision-maker may still value freed time, but should describe that choice accurately.
Check the inputs before comparing suppliers
- Confirm litres per stop and the number of stops from the same planning period.
- Subtract time that remains under the alternative arrangement.
- Enter extra fleet fees once, with the correct weekly basis.
- Include only genuinely avoidable vehicle costs. Do not enter driver labour a second time.
- Leave cash realization at 0% unless you can identify paid wages or overtime that will actually disappear.
If you expect part of the time value to become cash savings, test that share explicitly. At 50% in this example, realized time value is C$2,250 and net cash effect is negative C$450. The positive time-and-cost result has not changed, but the cash result has.
What this comparison leaves out
The calculator does not model capital investment, storage, financing, delivery reliability, extra-capacity revenue or operational constraints. Those can matter to a real decision and need separate investigation. It also does not validate a supplier's service promises or tell you whether an arrangement is feasible. Use it to organize a comparison, then verify the missing pieces.
Source & calculation notes
Original hypothetical example using the supplied fuel-stop model. Arithmetic is covered by automated tests. No current fuel price, supplier performance or regulatory claim is made.
Calculation/source checkpoint: . Original explanation by Truck University; see our editorial method.
How our editorial method works