Hubbry Logo
MudflapMudflapMain
Open search
Mudflap
Community hub
Mudflap
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mudflap
Mudflap
Mudflap
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Truck with bright blue mud flaps on the rear wheel wells and bumper.

A mudflap or mud guard is used in combination with the vehicle fender to protect the vehicle, passengers, other vehicles, and pedestrians from mud and other flying debris thrown into the air by a rotating tire on a wheeled vehicle. A mudflap is typically made from a flexible material such as rubber that is not easily damaged by contact with flying debris, the tire, or the road surface.

On bicycles, a mudflap is called a "spoiler".

Mudflaps can be large rectangular sheets suspended behind the tires, or may be small molded lips below the rear of the vehicle's wheel wells. Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers, or vents to improve airflow and to lower drag.[1]

While some flaps are plain, in the colour of rubber, many contain company logos, other art, or advertisements. One common feature is the mudflap girl, a woman's silhouette.[2]

In the United States, mudflap regulations vary from state to state.[3]

Aerodynamics

[edit]
Aerodynamic louvered mudflap

Aerodynamic mudflaps are engineered with louvers or ventilated slats to improve airflow, reduce sidespray, and decrease aerodynamic drag, to improve fuel efficiency.

Supercomputing technology applied to the problem of semi-trailer truck drag has helped to validate such aerodynamic improvements.[4] Traditional solid truck mudflaps can increase drag, but a study by the UT-Chattanooga SimCenter indicated slatted mudflaps can reduce drag more than 8 percent, making the truck's drag coefficient comparable to one without any mudflaps.[5][6][failed verification][7][8]

A further advantage of the design is the heat-venting capacity of aerodynamically optimized mudflaps. The improved airflow promotes the quick release of otherwise recirculated water and air from the fenderwell while improving performance by cooling the tires and brakes.

See also

[edit]
Look up mudflap in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mudflap

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A mudflap, also known as a mud guard or splash guard, is a flexible panel typically made of rubber or durable attached behind a vehicle's wheels to intercept and deflect , , , rocks, and other propelled by the tires, thereby protecting the vehicle body, trailing vehicles, pedestrians, and from spray and damage. Mudflaps originated during World War II, when U.S. Army Sergeant Oscar Glenn March devised them to mitigate debris hazards encountered by military convoys; March, stationed in Jones, Oklahoma, adapted tarps and flaps to capture projectiles from truck tires, a design that evolved into the modern mudflap for commercial heavy vehicles. In the United States, mudflaps are mandated for most commercial trucks and trailers under varying state regulations to curb visibility-obscuring spray and reduce accident risks, with requirements typically stipulating coverage of at least two-fifths of the rear width, mounting no more than 6 to 8 inches above the ground surface, and an angle exceeding 22 degrees to optimize deflection. These devices not only enhance road safety by minimizing hydroplaning hazards for following drivers but also preserve vehicle undercarriages and paint from corrosive salt, grit, and impacts, particularly in inclement or unpaved conditions.

History

Invention and Early Development

The flexible rear-mounted mudflap, designed to intercept debris propelled by vehicle tires, originated during . In 1944, Oscar Glenn March Sr., a stationed at in , devised the device to shield sensitive cargo—such as equipment—from rocks, water splashes, and gravel kicked up by rear wheels during transport operations on base. March's innovation addressed a practical in , where unprotected trucks caused frequent damage to loads and posed risks to trailing vehicles. March's prototype featured canvas flaps suspended via simple brackets behind the tires, differing from prior side-mounted "anti-splashers" patented in 1922 by William Rothman, which aimed to reduce spray along flanks but did not target rearward projection. He forwent patenting the , consistent with his approach to numerous unpatented inventions, facilitating rapid dissemination without proprietary restrictions. The term "mud-flap" itself predates this by decades, appearing in English usage by 1903 to describe basic splash-blocking attachments, though early automobiles relied more on rigid fenders arching over wheels since the to contain mud rather than dangling extensions. Postwar refinement emphasized material durability and mounting stability, shifting from to rubber composites by the mid-20th century to withstand abrasion and weather, while bracket systems evolved for easier attachment to commercial rigs. This progression aligned with growing trucking demands, as mudflaps proved effective in mitigating debris-related accidents and cargo losses, paving the way for regulatory mandates in the United States.

Adoption in Commercial and Passenger Vehicles

Mudflaps were first adopted on commercial vehicles during and immediately after , primarily to shield sensitive cargo and trailing vehicles from debris thrown by rear tires. Oscar Glenn March, a at in , invented the modern mudflap and mounting bracket around 1943–1945 to protect parts transported on flatbed trucks from rocks and mud, marking the initial practical application in that spurred broader commercial use. By the 1950s, adoption accelerated among trucking fleets as states began enacting requirements; for instance, mandated straight mudflaps on trucks by the mid-1950s, a rule upheld in part during the 1957 U.S. case Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, which addressed interstate variations but affirmed their necessity for safety. In the United States, mudflaps became standard on semi-trucks and heavy-duty commercial vehicles by the 1960s–1970s, driven by state-level mandates in places like (requiring flaps on vehicles with dual rear wheels under Texas Transportation Code §547.606) and widespread industry practice to minimize liability from debris-related accidents. Today, nearly all commercial trucks and trailers in feature mudflaps, often customized for compliance with guidelines on splash and spray suppression, though no uniform federal mudflap specification exists. Adoption in passenger vehicles has been far more limited and voluntary, serving mainly as aftermarket accessories rather than standard equipment. In the mid-20th century, mudflaps gained popularity on sedans and station wagons in rural or inclement regions to protect rear paint and following cars from road spray, with some U.S. manufacturers briefly including them on new models in the 1970s amid temporary regulatory pushes in states like for broader vehicle mudguard rules. However, their use declined sharply by the 1980s–1990s due to improved road paving reducing debris hazards, aerodynamic penalties conflicting with standards, and integrated fender designs rendering add-ons unnecessary for most urban driving. Passenger car mudflaps persist today primarily on SUVs, crossovers, and off-road models in muddy or snowy climates, or as dealer options, but are absent from standard sedans and hatchbacks.

Function and Design

Primary Mechanisms and Purposes

Mudflaps operate by intercepting and redirecting particulate matter propelled rearward by rotating tires, primarily through their positioning immediately behind the wheels at a low height relative to the ground. Typically mounted to the frame or fenders, these flexible panels extend downward to within 8 to 12 inches of surface, depending on jurisdictional standards, creating a barrier that captures , , , and other before it can arc onto trailing vehicles or the host vehicle's bodywork. The material's pliability—often rubber or reinforced —allows it to absorb impacts from larger projectiles like rocks without fracturing, while channeling smaller particles downward or sideways via surface contours or ribs that promote shedding. The core purpose of mudflaps is to mitigate road spray, which impairs for drivers behind the and increases in wet conditions by reducing the debris travels rearward. By deflecting water and sprays, they prevent the formation of hazardous clouds that can obscure brake lights and markings. This mechanism also safeguards the installing vehicle's undercarriage, fenders, and from abrasion and caused by salt-laden or , extending component lifespan in adverse environments. In commercial applications, mudflaps fulfill a protective role against larger impacts, such as those from sites or unpaved roads, where tires can launch objects capable of denting panels or shattering on following . Their ensures coverage approximating the tire's full tread width to maximize , though diminishes against high-velocity exceeding the flap's tensile limits. While secondary uses include branding via custom imprints, the primary intent remains suppression for and durability.

Types and Configurations

Mudflaps, also known as guards, are categorized by composition, which influences , flexibility, and suitability for different operating environments. Rubber mudflaps, typically made from natural or compounds, provide high flexibility and resilience against impacts, making them ideal for off-road or rugged applications where debris projection is frequent. (poly) mudflaps, by contrast, offer greater stiffness and resistance to cracking under urban or conditions, often used on semi-trucks for their in high-traffic scenarios. variants, including rigid polyethylene blends, emphasize lightweight construction with exceptional impact absorption, outperforming softer rubber in preventing deformation from road hazards. Metal mudflaps, constructed from or aluminum, prioritize sturdiness for heavy-duty protection but are less common due to weight and risks in wet environments. Design types extend beyond materials to include specialized forms like aerodynamic mudflaps, which incorporate mesh or contoured profiles to minimize air resistance while deflecting spray, particularly on long-haul trucks. Custom mudflaps allow for tailored shapes, such as those with branded engravings or vehicle-specific contours, ensuring compliance with wheel well geometries and regulatory width requirements. Standard rectangular flaps remain prevalent for their simplicity and universal applicability, whereas contoured or angled designs enhance coverage by aligning closely with tire treads. Configurations refer to mounting positions, coverage extents, and adaptations to vehicle setups. Rear-wheel configurations dominate commercial applications, positioned immediately behind dual or single tires to intercept upward-thrown debris, often extending the full tire width as mandated by standards like those in 49 CFR 393.86. Behind-the-wheel setups provide targeted protection for the vehicle's undercarriage, while full-width configurations span entire axle assemblies on trailers or tow vehicles for comprehensive spray suppression. Hitch-mounted flaps attach to towing receivers, safeguarding both the towing vehicle and trailed equipment during operations like agriculture or construction. Height variations—such as 12 inches for stock suspensions, 13 inches for leveled kits, or 14 inches for lifted trucks—ensure ground clearance compliance, typically maintaining flaps no more than 8-10 inches from the road surface per state-specific rules. Front-wheel or side configurations appear less frequently, often as optional accessories on passenger vehicles or off-highway equipment to mitigate lateral spray.

Regulatory Framework

United States Requirements

In the , federal regulations under the (FMCSA) and the (49 CFR Part 393) do not mandate mudflaps or splash guards on commercial motor vehicles, trailers, or passenger cars. This absence of a national standard stems from the delegation of such vehicle equipment rules to individual states, allowing variations in enforcement and specifications. Compliance for interstate carriers thus requires adherence to the host state's laws during operation. State-level requirements apply predominantly to commercial trucks, truck-tractors, and trailers with gross vehicle weights exceeding thresholds like 10,000 pounds, aimed at minimizing rear spray, mud, rocks, or that could impair or damage following . As of 2025, 42 states and the District of Columbia enforce such provisions, typically mandating mudflaps or equivalent devices behind all non-steering axles. These must generally span the full width, extend rearward to within 6-12 inches of the end, and limit ground clearance to prevent excessive splash—commonly capped at 8 inches in states including , , , and , or up to 14 inches in others like . Materials are required to be durable and absorbent to deflect rather than scatter projectiles, with some jurisdictions prohibiting rigid or metallic flaps that could become hazards. Non-compliance can result in citations during inspections or traffic stops, with penalties varying by state; for example, Georgia mandates flaps as wide as the wheels and with clearance no greater than half the distance to the next axle. Eight states, including and , impose no such requirements, though operators may still face for debris-related incidents under general laws. For passenger vehicles, mudflaps remain optional nationwide absent state-specific mandates for certain configurations. The National Truck Equipment Association maintains an updated guide linking to primary state statutes for precise compliance.

European and International Standards

In the , regulations on mudflaps, referred to as wheel guards or splash guards, primarily target heavy goods to mitigate spray and projection, with mandatory requirements for exceeding 7.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight. Council Directive 91/226/EEC, adopted on 27 March 1991, harmonizes laws by requiring spray-suppression systems on categories N2, N3 (trucks) and O3, O4 (trailers) motor and trailers, stipulating that mudguards must fully cover the upper tyre zone from the front edge to a rear rain flap, with inner surfaces incorporating spray-arresting materials tested to reduce projected spray by specified percentages. These provisions are implemented through Commission Regulation (EU) No 109/2011 of 27 January 2011, which outlines type-approval criteria for such systems, including that mudguards extend at least to the vehicle's centerline horizontally and maintain a ground clearance not exceeding 400 mm for certain axles, while prohibiting coverage that obstructs rear tyre visibility or axle access. For single or tandem axles, mudguards must include longitudinal slits or equivalent features to minimize spray, with laboratory tests verifying suppression efficiency under wet-road conditions simulating speeds up to 80 km/h. Compliance is enforced via EC type-approval under Framework Directive 2007/46/EC, with exemptions for specialized vehicles like those with low-bed trailers or agricultural tractors when uncoupled. For passenger cars (category M1), wheel guards are mandated to prevent the projection of stones, , ice, snow, and water onto following vehicles, as specified in type-approval requirements under Regulation (EU) 2019/2144, which superseded earlier general safety rules and emphasizes coverage of rear wheels without impeding or . These guards must withstand environmental stresses, with design limits on protrusion beyond the wheel rim to avoid hazards. Internationally, no singular binding standard governs mudflaps across all nations, but the Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) facilitates harmonization through its 1958 Agreement on vehicle regulations, influencing adoption in over 50 countries via optional regulations like those on braking and dimensions that indirectly reference guard placements. EU directives, such as 91/226/EEC, draw from UNECE testing protocols for spray suppression, promoting global consistency for export-oriented manufacturers, though enforcement remains national; for instance, countries like and reference similar coverage and material durability principles without direct UNECE mandates. The (ISO) lacks a dedicated mudguard standard, focusing instead on broader vehicle safety components like ISO 17253:2014 for road-driven machinery fenders.

Aerodynamic and Performance Impacts

Effects on Drag and Efficiency

Conventional solid mudflaps on heavy s protrude into the rearward from tires, creating additional aerodynamic drag that marginally reduces . This drag arises from the interruption of smooth , though its contribution to total vehicle drag remains small relative to other factors like underbody or gaps in tractor-trailer combinations. Engineered aerodynamic mudflaps, such as slotted or vented designs, mitigate this penalty by permitting partial airflow passage while still deflecting debris. analyses indicate that slotted mudflaps can reduce drag by up to 9% compared to solid variants. Independent track tests of vented flaps like EcoFlaps demonstrated fuel economy improvements of 0.73% to 0.77% at 65 mph, equating to approximately 0.86 to 0.99 gallons saved per 1,000 miles. Fleet-level data further supports modest efficiency gains from optimized mudflaps. For standard dry van trailers, aerodynamic flaps yielded about 1 per 1,000 miles in savings, while specialized configurations like 28-foot double trailers achieved 4 to 5 s per 1,000 miles. These benefits, often 0.7% to 1% in consumption reduction, compound in systems integrating multiple aerodynamic devices but are less pronounced in isolation. Overall, while mudflaps impose a regulatory against , purpose-built versions minimize losses and contribute incrementally to savings in commercial trucking operations.

Engineered Solutions for Optimization

Standard mudflaps, while effective at reducing spray, often increase aerodynamic drag by creating and blocking behind wheels, contributing up to 2-3% to overall consumption in heavy . Engineered solutions address this by incorporating designs that minimize drag coefficients while preserving protective functions, such as perforated or vented structures that permit partial passage. Vented mudflaps, featuring strategically placed holes or slots, allow approximately 75% of air to pass through, reducing wind resistance and yielding fuel savings of about 3% annually in tractor-trailers. Similarly, products like EDGE FLAPS employ wing-shaped channels to channel air smoothly, achieving 1% fuel efficiency gains alongside 68% less water spray for improved visibility. Computational simulations of Eco Flaps on tankers demonstrate a 2.8% drag reduction when applied to tractors, trailers, and fenders, translating to measurable fuel cost reductions. Advanced configurations, such as contoured or airfoil-inspired profiles, further optimize by aligning with trajectories, with industry tests indicating drag reductions exceeding 8% in optimized heavy setups. These solutions prioritize durable materials like reinforced rubber or composites to withstand stress concentrations from perforations, ensuring longevity without compromising structural integrity. Overall, such engineered mudflaps balance regulatory splash control with aerodynamic efficiency, supported by fleet validations showing rapid returns on investment through lower operational costs.

Materials and Manufacturing

Common Materials and Durability Factors

Rubber remains one of the most prevalent materials for mudflaps, valued for its flexibility and ability to absorb impacts from without shattering. This material, often sourced from natural or synthetic compounds, provides resilience in wet conditions and returns to shape after deformation, making it suitable for heavy-duty applications like trucks. However, rubber's longevity is compromised by exposure to (UV) radiation and , leading to cracking and brittleness over time, typically within 2-5 years in harsh environments depending on thickness (commonly 1/4 to 1/2 inch). Polyethylene and other high-density plastics, such as or resins, are increasingly common alternatives, prized for their lightweight construction (often 20-30% lighter than rubber equivalents) and superior resistance to UV degradation and chemicals like road salt or oils. These materials maintain structural integrity under prolonged sunlight exposure, with studies on recycled blends showing minimal photo-oxidative degradation after accelerated aging tests equivalent to years of outdoor use. is enhanced by their abrasion resistance, though they may fracture under high-impact strikes compared to rubber's energy absorption. Poly mudflaps often feature thicknesses of 1/8 to 3/8 inch and can withstand temperatures from -35°C to over 100°C without significant warping. Polyurethane variants offer a hybrid durability profile for demanding off-road or commercial use, combining rubber-like flexibility with greater tear resistance and exceeding standard rubber by 2-3 times under conditions. Metal-reinforced or mudflaps, less common due to added weight (up to 50% heavier than options), provide exceptional impact strength for extreme but are prone to without coatings and reduce through drag. Key durability factors across materials include mounting hardware integrity (e.g., brackets to prevent ), flap thickness for load-bearing, and environmental stressors like repeated flexing in cold weather, where plastics excel in flexibility retention down to subzero temperatures. Empirical data from fleet testing indicates that UV-stabilized polymers extend by 30-50% over untreated rubber in sunny climates, underscoring the need for based on regional exposure rather than universal assumptions of equivalence.

Innovations in Design and Production

Innovations in mudflap have increasingly incorporated aerodynamic features to minimize drag and enhance , with studies indicating potential improvements of up to 2% in fuel economy through optimized shapes. Products like the ZF OptiFlow Flap utilize , impact-resistant materials with and pre-shaped curved to reduce air resistance and prevent sail-flap issues without additional brackets. Similarly, AeroFlap systems feature venting mechanisms that expel heat and moisture while cutting spray by significant margins, contributing to both and gains. Material advancements have shifted toward sustainable thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) and composites, offering lower density for weight reduction and better environmental profiles compared to traditional rubber. KRAIBURG TPE compounds, for instance, enable lightweight construction that boosts vehicle efficiency while maintaining flexibility across extreme temperatures, processed via multi-component injection molding for adhesion to substrates like . Energy Guard mudflaps employ copolymers with at least 60% recycled content, providing resistance to impacts, chemicals, and temperature variations for extended durability. In production, precision manufacturing techniques such as injection molding have facilitated the creation of complex, grooved designs in polymer-recycled rubber composites that resist freezing and wear without sail-prone flat surfaces. BettsHD's ChannelFlap integrates compression-fit hangers with mudflaps for secure, low-maintenance assembly, enhancing reliability in heavy-duty applications. These methods allow for customizable dimensions, such as 19x24-inch flaps for dually trucks using advanced rubber formulations that endure -40°F to high-heat conditions. Overall, these developments prioritize empirical performance metrics like drag reduction—up to 33% in some SprayBreaker models—and verifiable longevity over aesthetic or non-functional attributes.

Safety Effectiveness and Empirical Evidence

Verifiable Benefits from Studies and Data

Mudflaps demonstrably reduce road spray from vehicle tires, thereby mitigating impairments for trailing drivers in wet conditions. Full-scale road tests conducted by AG in 1995 revealed that grooved fender designs equipped with standard mudflaps achieved a 36% reduction in spray, while extensions to the mudflaps increased this to 60% at 50 mph under still-wind scenarios. Similarly, tests by the Manufacturers Association in 1985 reported approximately 50% spray suppression when combining mudflaps with aero-aids and side valances on heavy trucks. Laboratory and field evaluations using the SAE J2245 protocol have corroborated these findings for enhanced systems. Research from Laval University in 1998 indicated an average 50% reduction in spray clouds from truck-trailer combinations fitted with air fender technologies incorporating mudflaps during watered roadway simulations. Company-specific validations, such as those for Spraydown Aero Guards in , claimed up to 95% suppression in controlled lab settings, though independent replication of such extremes is limited. Conventional flaps show moderate efficacy at lower speeds for containing splashing of water, , and , but effectiveness diminishes at velocities due to aerodynamic factors. These spray reductions contribute to safer following distances by preserving , as poor sightlines from tire-generated correlate with a subset of wet-weather incidents, though direct causation in statistics remains underquantified. On unpaved surfaces, mudflaps have been shown to lower particulate matter (PM10) emissions linearly tied to vehicle momentum, reducing clouds that impair rearward vision and potentially avert collisions. Empirical data on mudflaps specifically curtailing debris-induced s, such as rock projectiles damaging windshields, is anecdotal rather than systematically tracked, with fleet reports emphasizing damage prevention over crash metrics. Overall, while lab-derived spray suppression data supports mudflaps' role in hazard mitigation, broader real-world safety gains await comprehensive longitudinal studies linking device use to crash rate declines.

Limitations and Trade-offs

Mudflaps provide targeted suppression of rearward spray from tires but exhibit inherent limitations in comprehensive control. Conventional designs, typically flat and positioned close to the ground, intercept only low-angle projections and are ineffective against higher-velocity particles that arc over or under the flap, allowing residual splash to impair for following drivers. This partial efficacy is exacerbated by regulatory allowances for minimal coverage, such as no more than 6 inches ground clearance in many U.S. states, which prioritizes practicality over maximal protection. Installation and maintenance trade-offs further constrain safety benefits. Poorly fitted or low-mounted flaps risk interference during reversing maneuvers, potentially cracking or snagging obstacles, while accumulation of necessitates frequent cleaning to avoid detachment—a failure mode that could introduce loose objects into roadways. Material degradation poses another drawback; rubber variants, common for their flexibility, wear rapidly under abrasion and temperature extremes, requiring periodic replacement to sustain functionality, whereas rigid composites may propagate cracks or generate excessive noise, indirectly fatiguing drivers. Quantifying mudflaps' net impact involves trade-offs with operational costs and unverified . While observational fleet reports note reduced damage and cleaner trailing , rigorous empirical studies isolating reductions are scarce, with benefits often conflated with broader design factors like or speed. Added weight and drag from flaps, though minor, marginally elevate use and may subtly affect braking in wet conditions, underscoring a balance between localized hazard reduction and holistic .

Cultural and Market Aspects

Non-Functional Uses and Customization

Mudflaps have been employed for decorative purposes in culture, particularly among truck drivers, where artistic graphics serve as non-protective embellishments. A prominent example is the "," a stylized of a in high heels and a short , which emerged in the late . Bill Zinda of Wiz Enterprises in , adapted an original drawing by Ed Allen's father in 1967 to promote truck accessories, leading to its widespread application on mudflaps by the . This imagery, often interpreted as a symbol of or within trucking , prioritizes visual expression over splash reduction, with individual drivers affixing it for personal or thematic reasons unrelated to . Customization extends these aesthetic applications, allowing owners to imprint mudflaps with text, logos, or graphics for branding and personalization. Manufacturers such as Viking Mud Flaps, established in 1972, enable users to select materials, sizes, foil colors, and custom designs including driver names or company insignia via in-house art services, focusing on visual distinctiveness for commercial fleets or individual rigs. Similarly, USA Flap offers options for hot-stamp or reflective imprints, stock block letters, and graphics, accommodating custom sizes and colors to align with owner preferences rather than standardized functional specs. These modifications, common on semi-trucks and work vehicles, enhance marketability or owner identity, with minimum orders often required for bespoke production to ensure viability. In broader market contexts, such customizations reflect a trend toward personalization in heavy-duty sectors, where mudflaps double as canvases for reflective or colored accents that improve nighttime without altering core deflection properties. Peer-reviewed analyses of mudflap designs occasionally note these add-ons as secondary to , underscoring their ornamental role. While functional benefits like debris control remain primary, non-functional variants persist in niche communities, such as custom shows, where elaborate prints prioritize style over empirical performance metrics. The global mud flaps and splash guards market was valued at approximately USD 4.85 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 7.93 billion by 2033, expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.04%, driven by rising vehicle ownership and regulatory emphasis on road safety. Alternative estimates place the 2024 market size at USD 1.2 billion, growing to USD 1.8 billion by 2033 at a CAGR of 5.2%, reflecting increased demand in commercial fleets and aftermarket segments. Growth factors include urbanization boosting automotive demand and a shift toward durable, weather-resistant accessories for heavy-duty vehicles. In 2025, manufacturers have prioritized and performance enhancements, with elastomers (TPEs) emerging as eco-friendly alternatives to traditional rubber, offering recyclability and reduced environmental impact in mud flap production. Aerodynamic designs gained traction to minimize drag and improve , particularly for trucks, where flaps reduce resistance without compromising debris protection. Composite materials like carbon fiber are increasingly adopted for their lightweight properties and superior strength, addressing demands for efficiency in both passenger and commercial vehicles. Product innovations include Go Industries' launch of durable dually truck mud flaps in September 2025, utilizing advanced rubber compounds flexible from -40°F to high temperatures for GMC, Chevrolet, and , enhancing longevity in extreme conditions. In October 2025, the company expanded its line with 19-inch by 24-inch flaps tailored for dual-wheel trucks, targeting commercial fleet protection against debris spray. These developments underscore a trend toward vehicle-specific, reinforced designs with features like thicker edges for extended durability in off-highway applications.

References

  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mudflap
  2. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/mudflap
  3. https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2018/02/invented-mudflaps-car-parts/
  4. http://www.singingwheels.com/who-invented-the-mudflap.html
  5. https://www.ftsrgroup.com/post/mudflaps-history-types-and-regulations
  6. https://www.ntea.com/articles/association-news/ntea-offers-state-mud-flap-requirements-guide
  7. https://www.uscargocontrol.com/blogs/blog/semi-truck-mud-flap-laws-state-state
  8. https://cdllife.com/2012/truck-mud-flap-laws/
  9. https://cleanfleetreport.com/the-importance-of-mudflaps-for-trucks-heavy-vehicles/
  10. https://midwestaftermarket.com/blogs/blog/what-are-mud-flaps-for
  11. https://www.gainesville.com/press-release/story/55323/go-industries-announces-new-durable-dually-truck-mud-flaps-for-gmc-chevrolet-and-ford-models/
  12. https://www.thetrucker.com/trucking-news/equipment-tech/simple-but-ingenious-theres-a-history-behind-those-mud-flaps-on-your-rig
  13. https://2newthings.com/making-sense-the-inconsistencies-of-cars-mud-flaps/
  14. https://www.etymonline.com/word/mud-flap
  15. https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1421127-mud-flaps-in-texas.html
  16. https://www.ntea.com/articles/tech-connections/mud-flap-requirements-commercial-vehicles
  17. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0344.htm
  18. https://www.slashgear.com/1821969/cars-no-mud-flaps-anymore-reason/
  19. https://thetapai.com/blogs/news/why-don-t-cars-have-mud-flaps-anymore
  20. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/exactly-point-mud-flaps/
  21. https://a-premium.com/blogs/what-are-mud-flaps-for
  22. https://www.enthuze.ca/blog/post/guide-to-mud-flaps
  23. https://briargatesupply.com/why-mud-flaps-are-essential-for-fleet-safety-and-compliance/
  24. https://www.mickeybody.com/understanding-the-benefits-of-truck-and-trailer-mud-flaps/
  25. https://tricktrucks.com/types-of-mud-flaps-trucks/
  26. https://briargatesupply.com/the-best-types-of-mudflaps/
  27. https://realtruck.com/c/exterior-accessories/mud-flaps/
  28. https://usaflap.com/
  29. https://zips.com/products/truck-chassis-accessories/mud-flaps
  30. https://briargatesupply.com/legal-requirements-for-mud-flaps-in-the-usa/
  31. https://www.agricover.com/mud-flaps/
  32. https://www.triggerindustries.com/product/Standard-Height-Mud-Flaps
  33. https://www.all-stateind.com/blog/design-versatility-for-on-off-highway-vehicles-with-specialized-truck-mud-flap-manufacturers/
  34. https://www.ntea.com/data/guide/state-mud-flap-requirements-guide
  35. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393
  36. https://www.frontrangecompliance.com/post/mudflap-and-splash-guard-requirements
  37. https://dps.georgia.gov/document/publication/162475439factsheet047pdf/download
  38. https://www.minimania.com/pdfile/Mud_Flap_Laws_NETA.pdf
  39. https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/ntea-updates-state-mud-flap-requirements-guide/
  40. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/226/oj/eng
  41. https://imbema.com/en_US/blog/item/are-anti-spray-mudflaps-required-on-trucks-895/
  42. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0109
  43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/109/annex/IV/division/3
  44. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/motor-vehicle-wheel-guards.html
  45. https://www.albertjagger.co.uk/news-and-media/ultimate-guide-to-mudguards-for-commercial-vehicles
  46. https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/non-funding-programs/ecotechnology-vehicles-program/review-aerodynamic-drag-reduction-devices-heavy-trucks-buses
  47. https://www.m-v-t-s.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Eco-Flaps-MVTS-Certified-Test-V5.pdf
  48. https://www.ccjdigital.com/business/article/15353058/aerodynamic-mud-flaps-offer-surprising-savings-if-you-spec-the-right-ones
  49. https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FullAeroTrailorConfidenceReport2020.pdf
  50. https://www.ttnews.com/articles/aerodynamic-mudflaps-save-money
  51. https://nacfe.org/research/technology/trailer-aerodynamics/vented-mud-flaps-trailer/
  52. https://www.enr.com/articles/29376-inventor-s-fuel-saving-mud-flaps-make-splash-with-truckers
  53. https://transtex-llc.com/edge-flaps/
  54. https://www.truckinginfo.com/318784/simulation-shows-eco-flaps-reduce-drag-on-tanker-rigs
  55. https://www.wussgroup.com/news/do-wide-mud-flaps-improve-vehicle-performance-/
  56. https://briargatesupply.com/choosing-the-right-mud-flap-material-rubber-vs-poly/
  57. https://custompolyurethane.co.uk/blog/polyurethane-heavy-duty-mud-flaps-built-to-last/
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361982816_Investigating_the_effect_of_photo-oxidative_degradation_on_the_ageing_resistance_of_the_car_mudflaps_manufactured_with_post-production_high-density_polyethylene_HDPE_wastes
  59. https://cbsparts.ca/admin/vendor/ROCHLING%2520CAT.pdf
  60. https://www.psaindustri.com/quality/
  61. https://blog.autooneinc.com/not-all-mud-flaps-are-created-equal/
  62. https://www.niir.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Manufacturing-of-Truck-Mud-Flaps-1.pdf
  63. https://www.zf.com/public/org/OptiFlowFlapOne-Pager-040623_FinalSP2307_WEB_91157.pdf
  64. https://hd.tramec.com/products/spray-control/mudflaps/aeroflap/aeroflap-af-24-aerodynamic-mud-flap-shortie-30-black
  65. https://www.plasticstoday.com/automotive-mobility/advanced-tpes-make-mud-flaps-sustainable
  66. https://www.kraiburg-tpe.com/en/top-5-advantages-kraiburg-tpe-sustainable-advanced-tpe-mud-flaps
  67. https://www.utilitytrailer.com/discover-utility/news/utility-makes-michelin-energy-guard-aerodynamic-mudflaps-standard-on-the-3000r-refrigerated-trailers/
  68. https://www.buyersproducts.com/product/composite-mudflaps-608
  69. https://www.bettshd.com/product-category/mud-flap-hangers/directflex-system/channelflap/
  70. https://www.chieftain.com/press-release/story/65758/go-industries-inc-expands-dually-truck-mud-flap-line-for-commercial-fleet-protection/
  71. https://www.realwheels.com/product/spraybreaker-mud-flaps/
  72. https://www.wewontech.com/180814003.pdf
  73. https://www.ccjdigital.com/business/article/14922126/spraydown-says-mudflap-design-showing-positive-results-in-lab-tests
  74. https://2024.sci-hub.se/7084/59df02820c827ee4e01fcd76b96f2dac/10.4271%40800529.pdf
  75. https://saferroadsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tuesday-am-SandC-6-Alan-Dunford-Predicting-splash-and-spray-and-its-impact-on-drivers.pdf
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362802405_Effects_of_soil_surface_degradation_and_vehicle_momentum_on_dust_emissions_and_visibility_reduction_from_unpaved_roads
  77. https://nationalplastics.net.au/large-truck-mudflaps/
  78. https://contest.techbriefs.com/2022/entries/automotive-transportation/11852
  79. https://imbema.com/en_US/blog/item/the-most-frequently-asked-questions-about-mudguards-887/
  80. https://www.junkyardmob.com/misc/pros-cons-mud-flaps/
  81. https://ofm4x4.co.uk/4x4-blog/4x4-mud-flaps-guide
  82. https://nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/spray-and-wind-buffeting-from-heavy-vehicles-a-literature-review/docs/spray-and-wind-buffeting-from-heavy-vehicles-a-literature-review.pdf
  83. https://www.wired.com/2011/04/mudflap-girl-was-this-guys-mom/
  84. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/be-respectful-mudflap-girl-is-based-on-someones-actual-mother/
  85. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-do-some-semi-trucks-have-woman-on-mudflaps/
  86. https://www.vikingmudflaps.com/
  87. https://usdotnumberstickers.com/products/make-your-own-custom-mud-flaps-design-your-own-semi-truck-box-truck-work-trucks-mud-flaps
  88. https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/custom-mud-flaps.html
  89. https://www.sphericalinsights.com/our-insights/mud-flaps-and-splash-guards-market
  90. https://www.verifiedmarketreports.com/product/mud-flaps-and-splash-guards-market/
  91. https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/automotive-mud-flap-market.asp
  92. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/mud-flaps-splash-guards-121787
  93. https://chieftain.com/press-release/story/62862/go-industries-announces-new-durable-dually-truck-mud-flaps-for-gmc-chevrolet-and-ford-models/
  94. https://www.usatoday.com/press-release/story/16353/go-industries-inc-expands-dually-truck-mud-flap-line-for-commercial-fleet-protection/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.