Overall positivity rates in urine drug tests in the transportation/warehousing industry increased 4.4% in 2020 versus 5.5% in 2021 – a relative 25% increase year over year – according to data compiled by medical lab Quest Diagnostics. Almost 130,000 truck drivers have found themselves in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse as of June 1. Nearly 97,000 are still in prohibited status, and 72,000 of those haven’t even started the return to duty process. Dr. Barry Sample, senior science consultant for Quest Diagnostics, noted that after five years of steady declines in several drug categories, positivity rates based on urine drug tests for the federally mandated, safety-sensitive workforce increased in 2021. Truck drivers make up most of the federally mandated, safety-sensitive group. On this week's 10-44, Dr. Sample joins Jason and Matt to discuss the findings of the report, including a positivity rate among the general transportation/warehousing workforce that was the highest among all employment modes, and surging post-accident positives when compared to pre-employment positives. CCJ's 10-44 is a weekly video feature covering the latest in trucking news and trends, equipment and technology. Subscribe to our YouTube channel here. https://ift.tt/VMrKi5S
0 Comments
If you turn the clock back 20 years ago, carriers only knew a driver was speeding if they got a ticket, and then they were disciplined upon returning to the terminal days, if not weeks, after the incident, greatly reducing the chances of correcting that driver's behavior. Now, fleets have ELDs, dash cams, telematics devices and more providing instant data to carriers and allowing immediate feedback for drivers. But all this insight has bogged down carriers with data overload. Register today for "Finding and Keeping Drivers in a Demand-Driven Job Market" webinar Executives from three fleets share the driver recruiting and retention strategies that have propelled their companies to become some of the industry’s best, and how they plan to stay there. This CCJ webinar is sponsored by Bestpass. With so many disparate sources of data, it can be impossible to prioritize which data matters. But all metrics that drive an overall better operation come back to safety and risk management, Hayden Cardiff, Idelic founder and chief innovation officer, said during a recent Truckload Carriers Association webinar. He said carriers can make better use of their data and improve operations by consolidating driver behavioral data sets and taking action based on those to reduce risk and therefore improve operational efficiency, revenue and more. Deploying a driver performance management program and consolidating data across all processes can help carriers narrow the focus to drive better insurance rates, more revenue, better customers, driver retention and more. “Now, as opposed to before, we have way too much data, and I think that's coming from we, as an industry, have realized that we need technology in our cabs; we need systems that help us track this data; we need to be able to have that visibility. I think that's breeding one of the main problems and challenges that there are too many systems, too much data, too much noise,” Cardiff said. “Step one is taking all those systems and being able to tie it together. “Integrate your ELD data, camera data, telematics, dispatch data, HR data, accident risk claims data, the FMCSA portal,” Cardiff continued. “Being able to pull all of that together and having it in one dome enables you to start doing some really important and impactful things. You need to have the KPIs and metrics and the visibility to understand what decisions to then make.” Brian Fielkow, a board of directors member at Jetco, a GTI Company, said data for data’s sake isn’t helpful; it has to be packaged with artificial intelligence and analytics so safety and operations departments and the executive suite can align to determine a plan for how to use it to benefit the company. To ignore the data, he said, is to expose your company to risk. And that’s because others can use that data against your company. Fielkow said customers and prospective customers seek this data when searching out a carrier to haul its goods, and if a carrier’s data scores slip, it could knock them out of the bid list for the best opportunities; insurance companies watch this data to determine risk and rates, and plaintiffs bars use the data retroactively in the event of an accident; and current and potential employees look at this data, affecting recruitment and retention. But where do you start? Behavior drives data, Fielkow said, so analyzing driver data and the behavior behind that is a good focus area for carriers looking to take control of the overwhelming amount of information they receive daily because safety is at the root of overall enterprise risk management. “A lot of people (buy into) this myth of do you want to be safe or productive – either or – that safety is somehow a drain on productivity,” he said. “The safest companies are the most productive because they’re not cleaning up the mess; they’re spending more time proactively and less time retroactively. Safety is the bellwether of an operationally excellent company.” Cardiff said safety intersects with driver productivity and operational efficiency because lack of safety at worst can cause accidents that, at best, delays shipments, reducing productivity, but at worst results in damages that can cost a carrier millions of dollars and their reputations. Idelic, he said, has identified driver performance management as the most effective framework to use data to identify root problems that can lead to disasters. But Cardiff said AI and machine learning are important to add to the equation so carriers can leverage it, using predictive analytics to prevent crashes and other safety failures. Fielkow said driver data allows carriers to focus more acutely on the behavior it wants to reward, recognize and propagate on the proactive side while addressing and correcting poor behavior on the reactive side. “The more you can use data to figure out why you're having the problem, the better you can fix it. For example, speeding. Is it one rogue driver? Terminal specific? One particular load planner putting too much pressure on drivers?” he said. “Once we start to get all that data together, what we can do as fleets is start to proactively engage and understand who to engage within our fleets.” The data, predictive analytics and coaching mean nothing without accountability. While data can pinpoint a specific driver, Fielkow said it’s important to engage everybody within the fleet – beyond the safety department. He said carriers should consider combining safety and operations meetings rather than hosting them separately because everyone companywide needs to live and breathe safety. Integrating those types of meetings will build camaraderie, rapport and trust in an operation. It also helps mitigate or eradicate any disconnects between departments, he said. For example, the safety department may preach safety while operations incentivizes drivers based on their productivity. He said carriers need to close the loop to support the overall mission. “You have to get rid of the safety as a department mentality. The metrics you deploy have to be owned by operations because, after all, who has their hands on the lever? Your safety professionals have a vital role to train, coach, mentor, ensure accountability, ensure compliance, but they're not the ones dispatching; they're not the ones telling a driver to get something done in eight hours that you really need 10 hours for,” Fielkow said. “Every company has silos, and they're there because we built them. If we can build them inadvertently, we can tear them down deliberately.” https://ift.tt/VMrKi5S Not all fuel economy testing is reliable. That probably sounds strange coming from a person who is a fuel economy testing evangelist. To be clear, I believe in testing devices to ascertain what type of fuel economy gains they can achieve. However, not all testing methods are equal, nor are all test results directly translatable to real-world fuel savings. And real-world fuel savings are what fleet managers are interested in. What happens in a wind tunnel, via computer simulation and even on a test track is not necessarily valid if the fleet is not going to see the alleged fuel economy gains when their actual trucks are in operation and spec’d with the tested device. When you start with an unreliable testing method you are bound to get invalid test results. Consider this: if a test method requires repeatability within a 2% range, how could it possibly be accurate to within only 1%? It can't, however, the trucking industry has been led to believe that is possible and failed attempts under that misleading information have resulted in contradictory results. It can be difficult to know if a certain testing method is reliable and it can be confusing to sift through the data from multiple sources that have tested a technology. For most fleets, in-service testing is their go-to test method. Although it sounds ideal, it has major limitations: six to 12 months to complete, 100-plus vehicles to obtain accurate results, or a large margin of error no matter how repeatable a route may be. If it were that simple every fleet would be a fuel expert and would be achieving 9 mpg. Smaller fleets often lack resources to perform these types of tests and the time and effort it takes to conduct these tests makes them an unattractive alternative to many fleets regardless of size. There are also independent testing companies, like MVT Solutions, that conduct fuel economy tests for device manufacturers, OEMs and fleets. Fleets are busy delivering freight and running fuel economy tests can take valuable time and resources away from their actual work. These options relieve the fleet of the burden of testing, but no matter what test provider or method is used, the fleet must understand the limitations of the method and how that translates to its real-world operations. There are many progressive fleets that regularly use fuel economy testing data to make decisions on how to spec trucks. "We do not make decisions about fuel economy products without testing them," said Dan James, director of logistics at McLane Food Service. "We know the ROI before making the decision to move forward [with a device].” Talking to fleets like McLane Food Service about their experiences can help other fleets gain clarity into whether a particular fuel saving solution will make sense for them operationally and can evaluate a few in the fleet. However, as mentioned above, don't expect to obtain reliable fuel economy information from an in-service evaluation like this. Armed with this data, the fleet can then invest in that technology on a few of its vehicles to determine if they will see similar results. Not all fuel economy tests are created equal. Ask fuel economy innovators and early adopters of fuel-saving technologies about the testing or information sources they trust. I emphasize the they should be innovators and early adopters because they are the ones leading the decision-making. https://ift.tt/VMrKi5S Trucking news and briefs for Thursday, July 21, 2022: Rising fuel prices led to falling Trucking Conditions Index in MayFTR’s Trucking Conditions Index (TCI) for May fell back into negative territory with a -0.3 reading from 3.21 in April. Sharp increases in diesel prices during May offset slightly improved freight market conditions for carriers, FTR said. Freight demand, capacity utilization and freight rates were slightly stronger in May, but together were unable to diminish the negative impact of then-record diesel prices during the month. The outlook is for conditions to continue close to neutral territory with index readings in either low positive or low negative figures from month to month. “Upward pressures on trucking conditions are largely history at this point,” said Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking. “The question now is how high and strong of a floor remains. Employment data from recent months suggest that drivers are readily available for larger carriers, although much of that growth surely is coming at the expense of very small carriers that are failing due to record diesel prices – at least until recent weeks – and normalizing spot rates.” Vise noted that, despite rising inflation and other factors, “consumer spending and industrial production have remained surprisingly healthy. Driver capacity has faded as a wild card as the resilience of freight demand has taken its place.” FMCSA hosting Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot information sessionFleets interested in participating in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s under-21 Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program (SDAP) are invited to attend a webinar on Monday, July 25, from 1-3 p.m. Eastern. The SDAP will help individuals between 18-20 years old explore interstate trucking careers and assist trucking companies in hiring and training new drivers through rigorous training standards – pairing each young driver with an experienced mentor. The webinar will address training qualifications, participation requirements and instructions about the application process. Fleets are asked to register for Monday’s webinar by Friday, July 22. FMCSA encourages companies to submit their questions in advance to [email protected], no later than Thursday, July 21. Former Daimler CEO joins AI Fleet board of directorsAI Fleet, a scaling tech-first trucking company, announced that the former president and CEO of Daimler Truck North America (DTNA), Roger Nielsen, has been appointed to the company’s Board of Directors as its first independent member. “We are thrilled to welcome Roger Nielsen to the Board,” said Marc El Khoury, CEO of AI Fleet. “His experience in successfully scaling tech-powered automotive companies to solve real-world transportation challenges is a perfect fit for our growth ambitions.” During his recent tenure at DTNA, Nielsen drove sales to $20B annually, with a market share exceeding 40%. As CEO, Nielsen was responsible for all aspects of DTNA and its affiliated companies in North America, Australia and New Zealand. Before being appointed CEO in 2017, Nielsen served as DTNA’s COO, leading the company’s entire manufacturing network in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, across all levels of operations, including quality, supplier management, logistics and more. “By focusing on asset utilization, the day-to-day experience of drivers and building exciting technology that dramatically improves logistics, aifleet is poised to revamp an industry in need of innovation,” said Nielsen. “I look forward to working with this extraordinary team to expand its impact on people, processes and markets across North America and beyond.” In addition to AI Fleet, Nielsen serves on the boards of several mobility startups and on the board of Proterra, a North American producer of battery-electric city transit buses and battery packs for electrified commercial vehicles. [Related: Texas fleet develops algorithm to drive revenue up, turnover down] Bridgestone and Pilot partner for tire monitoring, service at truck stopsBridgestone Americas and Pilot Company announced Wednesday a collaboration on an advanced tire monitoring and service network for commercial fleets at select travel center locations. The collaboration leverages Bridgestone Fleet Care mobility solutions and Pilot’s network of travel centers to provide more convenient, frequent and actionable fleet tire intelligence. The initial trial phase will begin this summer with a rollout of the tire monitoring technology at 200 Pilot and Flying J locations. Each router currently being installed in the fuel canopies of select Pilot and Flying J travel centers is linked to the Bridgestone tire pressure monitoring service, IntelliTire, and transmits real-time tire data in two minutes or less from trucks to fleet managers. IntelliTire allows fleet operators to proactively address specific tire issues and mitigate unplanned maintenance, reducing downtime and improving driver safety. Fleets using this technology will have access to critical data such as tire inflation pressure and temperature, enabling them to continually monitor the health of each tire throughout its lifecycle. With this intelligence in hand, fleets can also utilize the Bridgestone service event management application, REACH, to make preventative maintenance, roadside assistance and other vehicle service requests simpler and more efficient by connecting drivers, fleet dispatch, service centers, and technicians under one digital platform. The use of the Bridgestone advanced tire monitoring system at Pilot and Flying J travel centers allows both companies to expand their service offerings and support the growing need for evolving technology offerings that make it easier and faster to maintain vehicles. https://ift.tt/VMrKi5S A climate action group’s negative outlook on truck biofuels has industry leaders sounding the alarm over what they see as a narrow approach to emission reduction, which could mean bad news for one of the group’s major backers: Amazon founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos. Mission Possible Partnership’s new report “Making Zero Emissions Trucking possible: An industry-backed, 1.5°C aligned Transition Strategy” supports a fast-track to all-electric and hydrogen fuel cell trucks, and downplays biofuels because of “cost and feedstock availability.” The group goes on to say that biofuels are “expected to play a very limited role in truck decarbonization.” Not all carbon-cutting players in transportation agree. Cummins, Natural Gas Vehicles for America, renewable diesel manufacturer Neste, biodiesel technology group Optimus Technologies and the Renewable Natural Gas Coalition told CCJ that they see biofuels playing a much greater role in decarbonization than what Mission Possible projects in the years ahead. [Related: Cummins announces fuel agnostic engines] Also, in an interesting twist, one of Mission Possible’s major funding partners, Jeff Bezos, remains a prominent biofuels supporter through Amazon, the massive online retailer that leans heavily on petroleum-fueled planes, trucks and delivery vans to deliver millions of packages daily around the world. A week after Mission Possible posted its 60-page report, Amazon’s Sustainable Operations outlook posted online remained unchanged regarding its goal to invest “in a variety of solutions to decarbonize our freight transportation network.” In addition to acquiring all-electric trucks and vans, the Seattle-based retailer is testing fuel-cell trucks and has launched “compressed natural gas (CNG) tractors, which are fueled by renewable natural gas (RNG) sourced from landfills and dairy farms.” Amazon made headlines last year with the purchase of 700 CNG trucks. Running those trucks on renewable natural gas provides a negative carbon intensity score, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), because RNG is produced from methane that’s considered 25 times more destructive to the ozone layer than carbon dioxide. However, Mission Possible’s report makes no mention of RNG’s negative carbon intensity value, the lowest of all transportation fuels according to CARB. The biggest endorsement given to renewable fuels in the report states: Renewable diesel, renewable natural gas (RNG), and other transitionary fuels can play a role in the near term with legacy vehicles but have drawbacks, and other new fuels are likely to be prioritized for use in other sectors such as aviation and marine. Thirteen pages later in the report, RNG, biodiesel and other synthetic fuels are criticized over cost and feedstock availability and ultimately relegated to having “a very limited role in truck decarbonization.” As far as how Bezos or his Bezos Earth Fund, which directly supports Mission Possible, views the biofuels snub is unclear. Amazon did not respond to CCJ’s inquiry by time of publication. Cutting carbon nowBiofuels like renewable natural gas, renewable diesel and biodiesel continue to attract fleets that are looking to more quickly and affordably improve their emissions profile through familiar and proven technologies.Though fleets, as CCJ learned at the Advanced Clean Transportation Expo in May, are interested in all-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell trucks, acquisition remains a very costly and very challenging option outside of incentive-rich California, where fleets receive Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits. And it’s not just the upfront costs, which are roughly double that of conventional trucks. It’s the lack of infrastructure. Most heavy-duty chargers powerful enough to support fast-charging all-electric Class 8 trucks are in California. Hydrogen is even more limited with the only stations in the U.S. being currently found in, you guessed it, California. [Related: Deals with Cummins, others makes Chevron major player in renewable fuels] In the meantime, major industry leaders are pointing to a decades-long transition to zero emissions during which they expect biofuels to play a significant role. “There is not a single solution or path to zero that will work for all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments/locations. We need many tools in our tool box,” said Katie Zarich, director of on-highway communications at Cummins. In addition to developing hydrogen fuel-cell and all-electric powertrains, the Indiana-based engine manufacturer is taking a fuel-agnostic approach with its proven internal combustion workhorses, which can take advantage of a growing lineup of biofuels including renewable diesel, renewable natural gas, renewable propane and biodiesel. “Drop-in low carbon fuels available today are a cost-effective means to reduce GHG emissions, including products in the field with immediate benefits and without requiring infrastructure changes to the transportation system or without substantially increasing demand on the electrical grid,” Zarich said. The founder and CEO of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, Johannes Escudero, pointed out the fuel’s surging growth as fleets more eagerly pursue ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) goals that are being closely watched by large investment groups like BlackRock. “RNG’s use as a transportation fuel increased 234% over the past five years and offset 3.8 million tons of CO2e in 2021 alone,” Escudero said. “RNG has played an increasing and significant role in decarbonizing transportation over the last eight years and will continue to do so in the transportation sector and beyond as part of the energy transition.” Natural Gas Vehicles of America president Daniel Gage sees RNG as a major player in slashing emissions for years to come. “We see RNG fueled freight trucks as the most affordable, available and scalable option today for multiple years,” Gage said. “RNG fueled Class 6-8 trucks are zero emission equivalent (will meet EPA’s upcoming Clean Truck rule regardless of which option is chosen) and can even be carbon negative now.” Gage explained that he and other natural gas proponents describe the fuel as a zero-emission equivalent given that its NOx emission is rated at an impressive .02 grams per brake hour with no diesel particulates. “It burns at a 130 octane equivalent, so it’s ultra clean,” he said. “Some call us near zero, but we prefer zero emissions equivalent because the tailpipe output is so negligible.” Biodiesel and renewable diesel advocates take a standBiodiesel, one of the most popular renewable fuels in the U.S. alongside ethanol, has long been used to reduce emissions, increase cetane and increase lubricity versus petroleum-based diesel.Though trucks roll out of the factory capable of running on a B20 blend, Optimus Technologies enables trucks to run on B100, which, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, reduces “carbon dioxide emissions by 74% compared with petroleum diesel.” [Related: Renewable diesel beating conventional on price and performance] That kind of carbon-cutting performance caught the attention of CARB, which recently approved Optimus Technologies' B100 Vector System for use on trucks in California. Given the thumb's up from the DOE and CARB, Optimus Technologies CEO Colin Huwyler finds himself at odds with Mission Possible’s unfavorable outlook on biofuels in truck decarbonization. “Battery electric vehicles and hydrogen are nowhere near as cost effective as B100,” Huwyler said. “CO2 emissions are cumulative, so reducing 1 ton of CO2 today is more impactful than reducing 1 ton of CO2 three years from now. “If the technology to mass produce BEVs and [fuel cell] won't be efficient for years, and if people can't afford to transition their entire fleets right away, you're delaying CO2 mitigation, thus harboring even more carbon in the atmosphere,” Huwyler continued. Though zero-emission vehicles have no tailpipes, that doesn’t exclude them from contributing to air pollution. “The grid for charging these vehicles is also still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, so while there may be no emissions from the tailpipe, when taking the entire life cycle into account, more carbon emissions are still being released,” Huwyler said. “According to a study published by the American Transportation Research Institute, B100 vehicles will produce lifetime carbon emissions that are about half of those produced by BEVs.” A close cousin to biodiesel, renewable diesel shares many of the same attributes and feedstocks as biodiesel except it undergoes hydrotreating — a refinement process used with conventional fuels — which offers various benefits such as a higher cetane value, greater energy density and the elimination of gelling in colder temperatures. Like Huwyler, Neste, the world’s largest renewable diesel manufacturer, sees biofuels playing a big role in emissions reduction. “Biofuels have also been recognized by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] as the mitigating action with the biggest potential to lower GHG in the transport sector, above electric heavy-duty vehicles,” Neste spokesperson Theodore Rolfvondenbaumen told CCJ. [Related: Test drive in nat gas Peterbilt 536] Though Neste applauds Mission Possible’s efforts to raise climate change awareness, they believe that the group is missing the mark on biofuels, including feedstock availability. “Neste believes that there is more than enough feedstock to meet growing demand for biofuels,” Rolfvondenbaumen said. “Our view is that there is a lot more used cooking oil, waste animal fat and other waste and residues Neste and the industry can process into renewable products. Looking ahead, renewable liquid fuels will be made from a new generation of even lower carbon intensity feedstock, including algae, municipal solid waste, forestry waste and even converting power to liquids.” As momentum builds for zero-emission all-electric and fuel-cell powertrains, Neste is calling for additional support for biofuels. “Neste applauds Mission Possible Partnership’s ambition to drive faster climate action through meaningful cooperation,” Rolfvondenbaumen said. “For this to work, however, the MPP must understand the important climate benefits of biofuels and their essential role in the energy mix. “Biofuels are a today solution to rapidly reduce emissions from hard to abate industries – aviation, marine, heavy duty road transportation and plastic manufacturing,” Rolfvondenbaumen continued. “In order to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), businesses and governments must accelerate the use of biofuels across all these sectors and faster.” https://ift.tt/mylig5A Have you ever been asked to sell a placebo to the trucking industry? Often called "mouse milk” or “panther piss," it could be a liquid poured into the fuel tank, a metal catalyst that went in the fuel tank, or magnets clamped to a fuel line. Believe it or not, many of these products showed results. Every product came with a list of driving tips that, if followed – and with the use of the placebo – would result in fuel savings. Great salesmen would refuse to sell the placebo unless the customer signed in blood they would follow the driving tips. These tips included slow down, check tire inflation, and (my favorite) directives to pretend there is an egg between your foot and the accelerator to control acceleration. I have sold real fuel savings devices in my lifetime. It’s hard to believe today but components such as turbochargers and fan clutches had to be sold before government mandates made them mandatory. The EPA made turbochargers standard equipment and OSHA noise limits did the same for fan clutches. A real fuel savings device has a basis in science and can be proven with a scientific test. A prime example of what I am talking about came into my life a little over a decade ago. The basic science behind the product is that it takes energy to create a vibration. My son, who is into singing and playing music, summed it up for me: “A guitar won’t play itself.” A guitar picker must energize the strings to create the vibration we hear as music. A small digression to a truckstop confessionAnyone who has driven a truck with steer tires out of balance has felt vibration. Some truck drivers even point out their tires sing and talk to them. The truckers would tell me, “If you put a certain number of a certain brand of golf balls in your steer tires, you make them sing a whole different tune by balancing the tires with the golf balls." I wasn’t the only one listening. Roger LeBlanc was also listening, but instead of laughing at what many people thought were foolhardy truckers, he thought they might be onto something and he experimented. Golf balls worked for a while but they melted. He finally settled on tiny glass beads (lots of them) coated in silicone that are specially packaged for ease of use by the tire industry. The man invented, patented and marketed Counteract Balancing Beads (CBB). Roger wanted to expand his market. There are 18 tires on a truck yet CBB was usually installed in only two. Some really smart people calculated that if all 18 wheel ends were balanced, the vehicle should save at least 2% in fuel. Roger discovered Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC) had a way to verify fuel efficiency claims and started making inquiries. There’s a word for what happened next: serendipity. That is when CBB became part of my life. Serendipity was hard at work when Roger found me. He joined TMC, attended a meeting, and saw me make a presentation at the meeting. If I hadn’t been a volunteer presenter, I never would have met Roger. (There’s a lesson here.) In another twist of fate, Auburn University – also a first-time attendee at that same TMC meeting – was there to explore the possibility of offering unbiased fuel economy testing to the trucking industry. I introduced Roger to Auburn’s Transportation Institute and the workings of the SAE/TMC Type II fuel consumption test. A test was scheduled to prove that Mother Nature and science work. It does take energy to create a vibration. Scientists and engineers theorized there should be a 2% fuel savings. The Auburn test resulted in an actual 2.3% fuel savings. The test vehicle driver even commented the vehicle was driving much smoother. There are many smart people in the trucking industry and most understand the basic science of energy and vibration. They understand vibration is hard on drivers, vehicles and cargo. In fact, Whole-Body Vibration (WBV) is a field of study unto itself. Many fleets said they would roll the dice with me and try the magic beads. Many sales stuck because fleets saw an increase in tire life, something they measure because tire life is a big selling point when buying tires. A small digression to a truck show confessionRoger and I met a truck driver who had asked his fleet’s tire manager to start using CBB in his assigned truck’s steer tires. “We can’t,” he said. “Our tire supplier told us to put nothing but clean, dry air in our tires and they are the boss of us.” Being mechanically inclined like many drivers are, he confessed that he put the CBB in his steer tires himself. In business there is competition. There are engineers who love advancements in the industry, as long as they and their company get the credit for it. When an “outsider” like Roger LeBlanc extends tire life and saves fuel, there can be pushback. A major tire manufacturer started a campaign telling many of their customers they could not duplicate the CBB Auburn test. Roger and I got our hands on the test and to our astonishment the tire manufacturer didn’t even test the Counteract product. They tested using lead weights that only balanced the tires, not the wheel end. The caveat that a fleet should do its own testing on its own equipment and duty cycle has bothered me for years, and it often stymies action. Here’s an actual confession: “Bob, we can’t make any changes without testing a new product. We don’t have the budget or manpower to do testing. Sorry.” In another example, I tried to sell a fleet and the sale didn’t stick for two reasons: they never wore out a tire (they damaged them because they delivered off road) and the customer paid the fuel bill. “Saving fuel doesn’t put money in our pocket,” was their excuse. Being semi-retired I try to keep up with developments in the modern world. I am trying to keep up with the ABC and D’s of intelligence: A = Artificial intelligence; B = Business intelligence; C = Competitive intelligence; and D = Decision intelligence. I have tried to apply all these intelligences to my pro bono consulting for Auburn University's Transportation Institute. Working with Auburn, we have come up with what might be the future of fleet fuel economy testing. The trucking industry has already used the numbers I, II, III, and IV for fuel consumption testing. The Auburn experiment might be called V, but there is a lot of competition for this number five from other organizations working on other techniques for fuel consumption testing. The next Type V might be about electric vehicles for all I know. At Auburn we have deployed the Tangerine.ai data collection system to two brand new Western Star trucks. The system records fuel consumption from the time the vehicle key is turned on until it is turned off. Idle time is also recorded and can be deleted from the fuel consumption data comparisons. The Type V test, as we have been experimenting with the data, consists of the following steps:
The reasons CBB was selected for this test is because Auburn ran a SAE/TMC Type II test and got 2.3% increase in fuel economy in the past, and the science related to CBB reducing fuel consumption is solid. It takes energy to create a vibration. Eliminate the vibration, eliminate energy consumption and reduce fuel consumption. Having big data on fuel consumption on two or more vehicles’ data analysis and related data science should continue to detect a 2% reduction in fuel consumption. In preparing this column I reached out to TMC, itself an authority on fuel economy testing. Here’s a brief overview of Type I through IV fuel consumption testing Recommended Practices (RP) from Robert Braswell, TMC's executive director. In general, the following basic rules must be applied to these procedures to ensure valid test results: a. A single test is inconclusive. A single test result may be an indicator but test results must be repeatable to have validity. b. The more variables controlled, the more conclusive the results. c. All test procedures are accurate within prescribed limits. An additional number of tests should be conducted to prove validity if the component, system or the vehicle being tested by a given procedure shows a degree of improvement which is equal to or less than the accuracy limit of the procedure. There is no Type I in use today. Type I was a joint SAE/TMC standard back in 1978. TMC dropped it because it didn’t work. SAE kept it on the books, but no one has used it for years. RP 1102A, TMC FUEL CONSUMPTION TEST PROCEDURE—TYPE II This RP provides a standardized test procedure for comparing the fuel consumption of two conditions of a single test vehicle or of one test vehicle to another when it is not possible to run the two or more test vehicles simultaneously. An unchanging control vehicle is run in tandem with the test vehicle(s) to provide reference fuel consumption data. It is possible to control more than one test (i.e., having two or more test vehicles) with a single control vehicle; however, if this is done additional care must be taken in conducting tests largely because of separation of the vehicles on the roadway. Running two test vehicles with the control vehicle in between the two test vehicles is the simplest form of the multiple tests, single control vehicle approach. RP 1103A, TMC FUEL CONSUMPTION TEST PROCEDURE—TYPE III This RP provides a standard test procedure for comparing the fuel economy of components or systems of the type which cannot be switched from one vehicle to another in a short period of time. This test procedure is also ideally suited for comparing the fuel consumption of one vehicle to another and one component of a combination vehicle to the other vehicle without the component in another. The test utilizes two in-service vehicles operated over interstate type highways or a test track facility. The relative fuel economy of the component, system or vehicle under test is expressed as a percentage improvement or as a percentage of fuel saved. This factor is calculated using relative fuel consumption between the vehicles while operating with and without the test component, system, or vehicle under evaluation. This procedure is not intended to replace TMC RP 1102 (Type II test), but will enhance a fleet’s or manufacturer’s ability to do a wide variety of fuel consumption tests on highways. RP 1109B, TYPE IV FUEL ECONOMY TEST PROCEDURE This RP provides a test procedure for comparing the fuel consumption of two vehicles of similar capabilities, or one unit of a combination vehicle to the same unit of another combination vehicle. This procedure also provides for evaluation of the effects of certain components or systems on fuel economy. This version permits valid comparison of vehicles using both particulate trap after treatment and diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). The test uses two vehicles operating in revenue service over interstate highways. The relative fuel economy of the component, system, or vehicle tested is expressed as a percentage improvement or as a percentage of fuel saved. This factor is calculated using relative fuel consumption. https://ift.tt/mylig5A The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Wednesday advanced an amended version of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, a bill that could unlock hundreds of millions of dollars to address a lack of truck parking nationwide. It now heads to the full House for consideration. Introduced by Reps. Mike Bost (R-Illinois) and Angie Craig (D-Minnesota) last year, the legislation would authorize the creation of a competitive grant program for states to spend $755 million over a four-year period on new truck parking projects, including capacity expansion and enhancements like lighting, restrooms and other security features. [Related: Chain truck stops fill up earlier, more often than independents] Trucking stakeholders, including the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), applauded the bill's advancement, with TCA President Jim Ward noting that "developing more safe and secure truck parking is certain to entice additional drivers to this great industry, alleviate the headaches that currently exist amongst our driver population, and in the long run, improve upon our industry’s ability to safely and effectively deliver to the nation.” Similarly, calling the lack of safe and accessible truck parking a "serious concern for our industry," ATA President and CEO Chris Spear, noted that drivers waste hours looking for secure places to park "hurting their ability to rest and adding undo stress to their days." Indeed, truck parking is routinely highlighted in the American Transportation Research Institute’s (ATRI) annual list of top issues facing trucking. Truck parking, which last year was listed as a tie for No. 1 among commercial driver respondents, didn’t crack the Top 10 for carrier respondents, but settled in at No. 5 overall. ATRI research has found that on average drivers spend almost an hour (56 minutes) per day looking for parking. “The availability of safe and secure truck parking is not just a challenge current drivers, it is a barrier our industry must overcome in attracting new drivers – particularly women," Spear said. "Solving it won’t just help today’s industry, it will go a long way toward helping trucking recruit and attract a more diverse workforce,” Spear said. https://ift.tt/mylig5A When Peterbilt debuted its refreshed Model 579 last year it marked a fairly significant revamp – at least for Paccar, which has historically favored small refinements over full-blown reinvention. The 579, indeed, is an enigma unto itself, a slick aerodynamic departure from its boxy, long-nose, flush-with-chrome family lineage. When the Model 579 burst onto the scene a decade ago, it was a signal that Peterbilt – one of the on-highway OGs – understood that fleets' appetites for trucks were changing. "Chrome don't get you home," driver amenities and fuel efficiency were the new names of the game, and the 579 took Pete's seat at the aero table. [Related: Test drive: Kenworth's sleek updated T680] Since its debut in 2012, the Model 579 – now Peterbilt's on-highway flagship – has received a few of the aforementioned refinements, like the addition of the hyper-aerodynamic EPIQ package in 2014 and long-awaited integrated sleeper, UltraLoft, four years later. Beyond those, design or technology upgrades were incremental and subtle. In a lot of ways, the new Model 579 is an all-new truck. The lone exception being that it's been around since the Obama administration. I took Pete's retooled Model 579 on a nearly 200 mile jaunt around North-Central Texas. The black and chrome EPIQ was as much old school throwback as it was a demonstration of modern technology and freight efficiency. On the power side, the new MX-13 engine gets a 2% fuel economy bump, while the MX-11 will see a 2.5% bump as of the 2021 model year. As for the rest of Pete's updated Model 579s, technology and aerodynamics do the heavy lifting. All-new (but not really)As aerodynamic as its predecessor was, the new 579 doubles down. Peterbilt Marketing Director Jorge Medina noted the radiator dropped to improve airflow and comes with the side benefit of better visibility. Boasting a 7% fuel economy improvement over prior generation models, the new Model 579 is the most aerodynamic and fuel-efficient Peterbilt model built to date. The truck appears noticeably more narrow, the hood is lower, and the aerodynamic mirrors are a bit shorter. Standard halogen headlamps have been improved, and heated LED headlights are available. Visibility from the driver's seat is excellent, but the shorter side mirrors take some getting used to. On the outside, the 579 appears to have the long snout you'd expect of a legacy tractor, but when you hop inside it basically disappears. One of the more subtle design changes – if not the only subtle one – is the integration of Pete's iconic "bird" hood ornament/pull handle, which has been accented in the hood's side vents and on the rear wall. A new three-piece front bumper integrates the forward radar cover for collision mitigation with a larger aerodynamic air dam. Improvements to the aero mirrors, fairings, side skirts and closeouts help improve the overall aerodynamic shape and an A-pillar vane slings airflow around the windshield to reduce friction, delivering a 10% noise reduction in the cabin. You can maintain a conversational voice level in the cab at highway speed. In fact, I found that when road noise inside the cab spiked, it was usually coming from the vehicle beside me. The pillar-mounted vanes are so effective at moving air down the side of the truck and trailer that when you lower the window, the noise level barely increases, and the air inside the cab is calm – even at 60-plus mph. It was over 100-degrees for the duration of the drive, so the window didn't spend a lot of time down. Peterbilt also designed its upper dash and door panels to be glare resistant, keeping the sun, which was mercilessly beating us down, from washing out the glass. Technology touchesA brightly lit 15-inch digital display replaces a traditional analog gauge cluster. It's fully customizable, allowing drivers to pick and choose how much (or how little) information they want to see. This is probably my favorite feature. I like having a lot of driving data in front of me: air system pressure, engine temp, etc., and I like not having to peek to the wing panel to see it. I can see everything I want to see with a quick glance down between the yokes. I also like that the display is infinitely customizable, so if I drop my trailer I can hide trailer air pressure, or I can cycle something else into that spot on the screen. I appreciate the old-school look and reliability of analog gauges as much as the next guy, but the digital display is simply a better way to package all this information. The screen prioritizes alerts. If the coolant level is low, for example, it's brought front and center on the screen, even if the alert category isn't something the driver has selected for on-screen monitoring. And, yes, there are redundancies in place, and, no, one blown fuse won't black out the entire screen and send you hurdling down the highway at unknown speeds with unknown air pressure levels. The digital display can also perform a systems check – a pre-trip inspection of sorts – on 13 systems, displaying a green checkmark with each passed test. Post trip, a detailed trip information screen provides a breakdown of noteworthy metrics from the most recent journey. The new Model 579 features an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) with integrated camera and radar technology, including collision mitigation, overspeed alerts and lane-keep assist. Lane-keep assist is a handy feature considering that one in five truck fatalities are linked to unintended lane departures, according to Bendix. Lane keeping, road crown and crosswind correction inputs are made through the steering column’s electric motor, so you barely notice it until it activates and gently nudges you back into your lane. Overall, steering has a very light and responsive feel. On-highway manners, back office performanceIt's not exactly breaking news that the new generation of truck driver is seeking a far different experience than the asphalt cowboys that came before them. Piloting a spring seat 700 miles per day and throwing through 18 speeds manually isn't the badge of honor at the truckstop lunch counter that it used to be. As such, most modern tractors have a very automotive fit, finish and feel. It's almost a cliche to point it out. But ... the new Model 579 has a very automotive fit, finish and feel. The interior is plush, the 2.1 meter cab is spacious and comfortable and the accents and design touches are in line with something you'd find in a premium trim-level automobile. Equipped with an MX-13 (455 hp and 1,650 ft-lb torque) and 12-speed Paccar automated manual transmission, my 579 EPIQ and I routinely were getting more than 10 mpg through the Texas countryside while grossing out around 66,000 pounds. At one point I was holding 10.5 mpg (helped by a 2.64 rear axle ratio), and I never once used adaptive cruise. Alas, I managed to drag that down below 10 mpg with the final mile trek back to the terminal. Such is the life of the American trucker: the fuel gods giveth and the fuel gods taketh away. I'm not a hyper-miler. I wasn't putting any effort into fuel economy. I was piloting a reasonably loaded truck – one with a 235-inch wheel base and an 80-inch UltraLoft sleeper – and I was still getting double digit miles per gallon. If there was ever a testimony that, "If I can do it, so can you," this is it. The EPIQ package was born from Peterbilt’s involvement with the SuperTruck program, a government program that funded OEM and component research in technologies to boost commercial truck fuel economy, and that experience has translated perfectly to production models. The wheel well closeouts, ground skirts and tandem fairings that make the truck slippery do so without exposing it unnecessarily to curb and ground strikes. I know drivers often feel that there's a power-for-performance tradeoff when it comes to fuel efficiency, but that wasn't the case at all with the 579. The MX-13 had no trouble dragging the load, regardless of how the terrain changed. The new Model 579 doesn't make a lot of sacrifices in offering the kind of performance and amenities that drivers like and the efficiency and technology that the back office likes. It is, quite frankly, the perfect blend of old and new school. https://ift.tt/mylig5A The trucking industry introduced the concept of fuel surcharges to deal with fuel price volatility, unexpected fuel price changes over short periods. Fuel surcharges essentially pass on the extreme cost of freight fueling from the carriers to the shippers. It seems inevitable that the concept of fuel surcharges could be applied in creative ways to issues with fuel prices for alternative fuels like hydrogen, renewable natural gas, renewable diesel and electricity. First, a little background on fuel costs in perspective of operational costs is needed. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) indicates that fuel costs for fleets varied from a high of 38% of costs in 2011 to a low of 18% in 2020. As of July 4, 2022, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported the national average diesel price was $5.675/gal, up $2.344 from the prior year. I expect that fuel costs are returning to the 2011 percentage of motor carrier costs. A rule of thumb used to be that one-third of the costs of operating a truck were the fuel, one-third the vehicle and one-third the driver. It appears that fuel price inflation is finally catching back up to driver and vehicle cost inflation. In the past, fleets negotiated shipping contracts based on fuel pricing projections. If the fuel prices did not perform to those predictions, either the carrier or the shipper made extra money. The weekly changes in fuel prices in the 1980s and 1990s, with some exceptions, were generally more gradual and limited. From 1999 onward, large weekly changes became increasingly more common. Enter the concept of fuel surcharges. The basic concept behind fuel surcharges is described by Mark Solomon in a DC Velocity article as comprised of three parts, “1) an index which is the basis of the surcharge, 2) a “peg” — a contractually negotiated range within which the fuel price can vary and surcharges are not applied, and 3) an “escalator,” which determines the actual surcharge based on the average mpg of the fleet. Digging into it further is a bit like trying to understand a cricket game. A recent report by Frank Holland on CNBC highlighted that fuel surcharges are not just a means for dealing with volatility, they tend to also be potential revenue generators for fleets. He reported that two large fleets got more than 10% of their revenue from surcharges. The concept of fuel surcharges offers potential new business models for emerging alternative fuel vehicles, battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. A major challenge with all the new technologies proposed for transitioning to a future zero-emission freight system is that they seem to generally cost more than the baseline current diesel trucks. Some of this cost differential is in upfront capital expense to buy the vehicles where, for example, a battery electric truck may be 2x to 3x more expensive than a diesel-powered truck. Some of the cost differential is the price of the new fuels. For example, hydrogen is significantly more expensive today, and efforts are being focused on how to bring the cost more in line with diesel. Total cost of ownership combines the capital expenses with the operating expenses to get a picture of whether or not a new vehicle technology will be more cost effective than the one it’s to replace. For example, electric trucks are more efficient than diesels and electricity tends to be much less expensive than diesel, so operating costs can be significantly less. The concept of fuel surcharges recently showed up on a ride-share trip receipt of mine. Tacked onto the trip was a fuel surcharge. I took a few trips by electric ride-share as well. I don’t believe I incurred a fuel surcharge on those. But it made me wonder; if electricity costs a different amount depending on the time of day that it is purchased, wouldn’t electricity surcharging be an inevitable outcome? As demand grows for more utility power (due to more use by industry and transportation), potential price spikes in electricity may be more common. We’ve seen some extreme examples of electricity price fluctuation as a result of major regional weather events. Hydrogen made from electrolysis also depends greatly on electricity and, again, should the time of day that the hydrogen is made (and the related electricity price) not somehow show up in the cost of the fuel? Should the difference in production cost versus diesel be addressed to some degree through surcharges? Near instantaneous pricing change is becoming more common. The digitalization of market data is making dynamic pricing a reality for things like tollways, parking spaces, airline tickets, ride-share applications, load boards, etc. Investment markets have used this model forever. Surcharges help deal with price variation beyond some reasonably small expectation. If you think about it, credits, incentives and grants are a form of a vehicle surcharge; helping to adjust the price of the truck for the fleet buyer for differences in the capital cost of a new vehicle technology versus established technologies like diesel. The last year saw significant price and availability issues with new and used trucks due to supply chain shortages of critical parts. Could surcharges have passed those costs on in some way from the fleets to the shippers? In all likelihood, the costs eventually get passed on. there is no free ride. Someone always pays. Innovations in freight business practices are as complicated as talking about innovations in vehicle technology. Surcharges seem to have become accepted for diesel. Will surcharges find new roles in the zero-emission future as well?
https://ift.tt/mylig5A Marathon is introducing a complete line of heavy duty shock absorbers for a wide range of over-the-road and severe duty applications. Marathon shock absorbers are designed and built to provide a comfortable, smooth ride and reduce vibrations from suspension systems. These hydraulic shocks feature rugged construction with reinforced welds, tough end mounts and durable piston seals to provide consistent performance over the life of the shock. Chrome finished tempered steel piston rods protect from corrosion and high viscosity hydraulic oil is used for consistent performance over the life of shock. During the extension movement, the shock’s hydraulic stop design has the top hole covered by the inner cylinder head, creating a layer of oil that protects the shock from topping out and damaging components. https://ift.tt/mylig5A |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2023
Categories |