kscarbel2

Truckstop TV / August 18, 2016 .

Transport Engineer / August 19, 2016 Temperature-controlled transport business Bedworth Haulage has taken delivery of four Mercedes-Benz Actros tractors and, after just three months of operation, is reporting weekly fuel savings of up to £190 per vehicle. Supplied by Midlands Truck & Van and on an operating lease through Mercedes-Benz Financial Services, the Coventry-based operator’s new additions are Actros 2551 units, powered by second-generation 510bhp engines and fitted with Predictive Powertrain Control (PPC) systems. Bedworth’s Ian Thacker says the new trucks are already returning 10.5 mpg or more – 2 mpg ahead of other vehicles on his fleet – “and I’d like to think that as they loosen up the fuel figures will get even better,” he adds. The Actros have GigaSpace cabs, with roof-mounted light bars and chrome highlights, and the interior spec includes leather upholstery and fridges. Bedworth Haulage’s 34-strong tractor fleet includes three other marques, as well as five more Actros GigaSpace models with Euro 5 engines. The first of these, also a 2551, entered service early in 2013, and was followed later that year by a quartet of 450bhp Actros 2545 variants. Thacker says: “The big disparity in fuel efficiency is partly explained by the fact that while our Mercedes-Benz trucks are powered by 12.8-litre straight-six engines, the majority of our Swedish trucks have big V8s. “Even allowing for this, though, there’s no doubt in my mind that the Actros is the most economical truck on the market right now… and by a wide margin. “Our Euro 5 Actros have always been comfortably ahead of the rest, but with these second-generation Euro 6 models, Mercedes-Benz has raised its game by another big notch.” The new Actros, he adds, are delivering an extra half a mile per gallon over their predecessors: “Our trucks typically cover 3,000 km a week and the total bill for last week alone was £33,000, so savings of this magnitude are very welcome.” The operator is also a fan of Mercedes-Benz FleetBoard telematics, which it fits not only to its Actros but also to other makes of truck, describing it as “simple to use” and providing “a wealth of invaluable data”. .

Transport Engineer / August 19, 2016 Norton’s Hiab Services, of Manchester, has taken delivery of its first Volvo vehicle, a Volvo FH-540 6x4 tractor. Key to the deal was Volvo’s ability to include a 10-tonne front axle rating on the 44-tonne gcw tractor, supplied by dealer Thomas Hardie Commercials. Norton’s Hiab Services moves a variety of self-escorted wide loads, from wind turbines to machinery as well as site accommodation and welfare cabins for construction companies. The FH’s fully stabilised and ballasted specification includes an additional pair of hydraulically operated stabiliser legs, mounted on a ‘NATO beam’ extension to the front of the chassis. This means it can be used both as a versatile crane truck (able to work with its 17.7m Dennison extending trailer), or solo, as a replacement for the lightweight crane carriers that are often used to service city centre construction sites. To do this, the truck is equipped with a 62-tonne/metre Hiab XS 622 EP-6 HiPro crane. According to Norton’s Hiab Services Paul Eddisford, the fitment of the front of chassis extension and the additional stabiliser legs, means that the FH can slew 360 degrees and has the ability to lift and crane 5 tonne at 10 metres, over the cab and over the rear of the chassis. “Although we operate at 44 tonnes GCW, rather than under STGO regulations, we had a specific need for a truck with a 10-tonne front axle rating,” he explains. “Only Volvo were able to supply a tractor unit, that wasn’t a specialist heavy haulage vehicle, with a 10-tonne front axle to assist in the ability to achieve the lifting capabilities via the front stabilising legs, working over the front of the cab.” The Hiab crane on the Volvo FH is mounted on a full length chassis frame mounted cradle. The chassis itself also contains a full length insert to aid rigidity. As the truck is fitted with a sliding fifth wheel which is mounted on a cradle on top of the Hiab crane cradle, coupling height is 1450mm. The chassis is ballasted with steel plate, which is welded to the Hiab frame for its full length behind the crane. In addition, a huge steel ballast box is fitted to the rear of the chassis. Chassis packaging of air, fuel and AdBlue tanks has been carefully engineered by Volvo Trucks to accommodate the crane and the ballast box. Careful positioning of the ‘NATO beam’ has ensured that the AEBS radar is unimpeded and works as normal. The FH is ADR registered for when it delivers bunded fuel tanks to sites. Remote operation of the crane is made possible via Hiab’s ruggedised Space 5000 remote control hand held terminal which, among other things, displays percentage loadings of the crane at all outreach stages. .

.

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / August 19, 2016 .

A 19-pound 5-year-old died of an overdose The Washington Post / August 13, 2016 At the time of his death in May, the 5-year-old weighed just 19 pounds — less than half the weight of an average boy his age. The cause of death was a drug overdose. Specifically, officials said this week, the sickly boy died after his parents medicated him with OxyContin. Charles Burks, 45, and Jennifer Burks, 40, of Endicott, N.Y., are facing second-degree manslaughter charges for their son’s death. Investigators say the couple gave the boy crushed OxyContin, a highly addictive prescription opioid painkiller that ultimately killed him. Broome County District Attorney Steve Cornwell said the boy was in need of specialized care and had developmental and medical problems. His parents, Cornwell said, “took it upon themselves to self-medicate the child.” “The parents failed to get the proper treatment for the child in a timely manner,” Cornwell said. The prosecutor declined to elaborate on what kind of medical problems the child had, other than saying he was severely underweight. Police responded to the couple’s house on May 7 after receiving a medical call. The boy was then taken to the hospital. The couple abruptly left New York within a month of their son’s death, traveling to North Carolina, where they lived at a campsite. Investigators received a tip from a police officer at the New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, North Carolina, that Charles and Jennifer Burks visited someone at the hospital. The Burks later drove back to New York for an unrelated matter, and were arrested and arraigned Thursday. Officials did not say whether the boy was still alive when he was taken to the hospital in May. It also remains unclear whether his parents were at home when police were called, or whether one or both of them had prescriptions for OxyContin. As is customary in Broome County, the case will be heard by a grand jury, which will then decide on the appropriate charges. The charges may be different or the same as the original manslaughter charges, the prosecutor said. A second-degree manslaughter charge is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Cornwell said the couple has other children, though all of them are adults. He refused to say whether they have a history with Child Protective Services. Records, however, show that Charles Burks is registered as a sex offender in New York and North Carolina. He was convicted of third-degree rape of a 15-year-old girl in 1998 in Broome County. .

Toddler who died a ‘painful, horrible death’ was placed in a freezer The Washington Post / August 7, 2016 A New York mother is facing a first-degree manslaughter charge in the death of her baby girl whose body was “extremely cold.” Officials suspect the 15-month-old was placed in a freezer. Police received a 911 call at about 5:30 a.m. Friday from an apartment in Mount Vernon, New York. Officials said 15-month-old Samia Yusef may have been dead for several hours when police found her. She was pronounced dead a half-hour later. “It was a gruesome discovery that shocked even our most senior officers on the job,” Mount Vernon Police Commissioner Ronald Fatigate said. A felony complaint states that Samia’s mother, Dasia Bartee, 26, struck the child in the back “six to seven times” with a closed fist to stop her from crying. She suffered significant injuries to her face, a lumbar fracture and internal bleeding. The crime happened just after 10 p.m. Thursday. “This child clearly died a painful, horrible death,” said Westchester Assistant District Attorney Karen Herbert. Prosecutors recommended that Bartee be held on $1 million bail, but a Mount Vernon city court judge set her bail at $50,000. Her defense attorney told the judge she had no criminal record. Westchester Assistant District Attorney Karen Herbert said Bartee had an “extensive” history with Child Protective Services. Two other children who were in the apartment when the incident happened were not harmed. Authorities said they have been placed in the custody of Child Protective Services. “No child, no infant, no toddler should be subjected to that type of violence,” said Mayor Richard Thomas. .

4-year-old found beaten and abused thought her name was ‘Idiot’ The Washington Post / August 17, 2016 The 4-year-old girl had deep purple bruises, a black eye, a swollen cheek and a mark on her forehead. She also had healing scars across her back, dried blood in the corner of her mouth and ligature marks on her wrist, authorities said. When a police officer asked her what her name was, she had a startling response: “Idiot.” Her mother’s live-in boyfriend, police said, regularly called the child “Idiot” instead of using her actual name. He also zip-tied the girl to her bed as a form of punishment, according to a police report. Clarence Reed, 47, and the child’s mother, Jennifer Denen, 30, both of Hot Springs, Arkansas, are now charged with domestic battery, permitting abuse of a minor and endangering welfare of a minor. Police received a call Friday from the Cooper-Anthony Mercy Child Advocacy Center, where a staff member told an officer that a malnourished 4-year-old had been abused in her home. Reed and Denen, who were at the center when police arrived, were later arrested. Denen told police that she had seen her boyfriend strike her daughter with a plastic bat and said she’d heard Reed frequently call the child “Idiot.” She admitted not seeking medical care for her daughter, the police report said. Reed told authorities that he hit the child. But instead of a plastic bat, he told police, he had used a half-inch-thick wooden paddle. He also admitted zip-tying the child to punish her for climbing the kitchen cabinets. And although he said he had called the child “Idiot,” Reed told police he meant it as a joke. Hot Springs Police Department spokesman Cpl. Kirk Zaner said a total of six children lived in the house, all of whom are Denen’s. One, an 11-month-old, is her only child with Reed. Zaner said the 4-year-old girl and the 11-month-old are now in the custody of the Department of Human Services. The four older siblings are with their biological father. In 2012, state and local child protective services received about 3.4 million reports of children being abused or neglected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The majority of them, 78 percent, were victims of neglect; 18 percent suffered physical abuse, according to the CDC About 80 percent of perpetrators were parents, the CDC said, while six percent were relatives other than parents. Four percent of perpetrators were the parents’ unmarried partners. .

Dagens Industri / August 21, 2016 A new wave of large mergers and acquisitions may well be imminent in the western truck markets. A big question is how Volkswagen, VW Trucks & Bus, will break into North America. Another question is for Volvo Group to sell any of its truck brands. Things are going well for Sweden's two major truck brands Scania and Volvo Trucks. The two brands has never been so strong as now in the European truck market, a third of all heavy trucks sold in Europe comes from the Swedish brands. Looking at its current record high market share in Europe, the highly capable Scania is excellent off-exchange as a company wholly owned by Volkswagen. But still, the operating margin decreased significantly since Scania left the stock market in 2014, the main reason for this is, however, extremely weak Brazilian truck market, which is normally extremely profitable for the truck companies. A clear negative effect the delisting from the stock market has brought with it is that Scania has lost a number of key employees, including CEO Martin Lundstedt to Volvo. Scania has managed to fill the gaps with internal recruitment. For the Swedish truck industry, it would be brilliant if Scania is able to both support its own development with excellence and in addition can spare experienced top executives to support Volvo Group's truck operations. On Tuesday in Paris, Scania's CEO Henrik Henriksson displayed the company’s new truck platform, the first all-new Scania developed since 1995. Development of the new truck has been going on for nearly ten years, and is the largest investment in Scania’s history, estimated that more than 10 billion kronor. For the continued success of Scania, it is of the utmost importance that the new truck platform will be well received by customers. Something that is also important for Scania's future is for CEO Henrik Henriksson to convince parent Volkswagen that having Scania engineers in research and development is a critical benefit for the Sodertalje-based truckmaker. The knowledge brought out of Scania to sister companies in the VW Group [MAN] in the future can be amply compensated by the fact that Scania can share the costs of research and development with the rest of VW Group. Scania, which has been on its toes for decades with the clear position as Sweden's best truckmaker, is increasingly threatened by Volvo Group. Former Volvo CEO Olof Persson’s efficiency program has provided a clear impact on the underlying profitability. This, combined with Martin Lundstedt product and customer focus, Volvo's truck business is heading for an operating margin of over 10 percent. Something that will be interesting to follow in the coming years is whether Mr Lundstedt chooses to dispose of any of the Volvo Group's smaller truck brands to focus even more clearly on premium brand Volvo Trucks, and thus increasingly mimic Scania's successful development strategy. Even more interesting, however, is when and how Volkswagen's truck chief Andreas Renschler will decide to take the step into the North American truck market. It has been two and a half years since Andreas Renschler left Daimler to become head of VW Trucks & Bus. The stated objective since then is that the VW to become the world's largest truck company, which requires that Volkswagen is establishing itself in North America. It has been speculated that it will be done with VW Trucks & Bus buying Navistar or Paccar. But the emissions scandal surrounding VW's passenger cars has possibly put a spoke in the wheel. The delay is a positive for Volvo. A long shot that should not be ruled out is that a Chinese truckmaker through an acquisition establishes itself on the European or North American truck market in the coming years.

Liebherr Press Release / August 16, 2016 Related reading - http://www.liebherr.com/en/deu/products/construction-machines/concrete-technology/concrete-technology.html .

Scania’s new truck generation: World’s first rollover side curtain airbag for trucks Scania Group Press Release / August 16, 2016 Unique rollover side curtain airbags deploy and protect those travelling in the cab if the truck rolls over Scania’s solution targets one of the most serious consequences of rollover accidents, where drivers or passengers are injured in a collision or fatally crushed by their own vehicle Potential for a significant reduction in deaths from rollover accidents Scania’s new truck generation can be equipped with rollover side curtain airbags integrated into the headliner moulding above the doors – a unique solution which has never previously been offered in trucks. Scania’s rollover side curtain airbags provide significantly-enhanced protection for those travelling in the vehicle in the event of a rollover, one of the most serious types of truck accidents. “The use of a seat belt is essential to allow the safety systems to do their job and to ensure that the driver is not thrown out of the cab,” says Christofer Karlsson, who is responsible for the development of Scania’s crash safety system. “Our rollover side curtain airbag – particularly when combined with the steering wheel airbag and our seat belt pretensioners – ensures that the driver and any passengers on board will have a much better chance of surviving a rollover accident in one of the new generation of Scania trucks, with far less severe consequences than would be the case in any other truck.” Scania has developed both the active and passive safety features in the new truck generation, with a series of measures that protect those travelling in the cab. By offering rollover side curtain airbags, Scania believes there could be a significant reduction in the proportion of drivers who are killed in rollover accidents. A common reason for trucks rolling over is that the driver is forced to carry out evasive action to avoid an oncoming vehicle or an obstruction. If the truck then ends up off the road, there is rarely sufficient load-bearing capacity, so the vehicle may topple onto its side or even roll right over at higher speeds. Advanced systems with sensors determine when and if the rollover side curtain airbags and any other airbags should be deployed; when deployed, the airbags inflate instantaneously. Scania’s new and already widely-discussed truck generation will be unveiled online on the evening of 23 August. The launch can be followed online at nextgenscania.com. .

Kenworth To Say Farewell To Venerable T660 Kenworth Truck Company Press Release / August 16, 2016 Kenworth announced that it will sunset its successful, fuel-efficient Kenworth T660 by year-end after 10 years of production, and offer customers a “last call” opportunity to order from the final production allotment of 500 T660s. “The Kenworth T660 has been a fantastic truck for our customers with more than 60,000 T660s sold since its introduction in 2007,” said Jason Skoog, Kenworth assistant general manager for sales and marketing. “Due to its popularity, we continued to offer the T660 after introducing the award-winning T680 four years ago. Since that time, more and more T660 customers have converted to the T680. We want to give our excellent customers one last chance to own this industry favorite.” When it entered the Class 8 market, the T660 became the latest evolution of Kenworth’s legendary aerodynamic product line and reinforced Kenworth’s leadership in both quality and fuel economy performance, taking the reins from the Kenworth T600 – the industry’s first truly aerodynamic truck that debuted in 1985. The Kenworth T660 also featured modern styling, superior forward-lighting technology, advanced technology, and increased driver comfort. Fleets and truck operators interested in ordering the Kenworth T660 may contact their Kenworth dealer for more information. The T660 is standard with the PACCAR MX-13 engine rated at 455-hp and 1,650 lb-ft of torque. The T660 is available in 38-inch, 62-inch, 72-inch and 86-inch AeroCab® sleeper configurations. .

Associated Press / August 21, 2016 Derrick Ryan Dearman, 27, is charged with murdering five adults and an unborn baby in Citronelle, Alabama. Arrested in his home state of Mississippi, he will be charged with six counts of murder in Mobile County district court. Lester had been in hiding out at her sister’s home since August 19 “in an attempt to leave an abusive relationship” with Dearman. Someone at the home called police about 1am Saturday to report Dearman on the property, but Dearman vanished before police arrived. He returned sometime between 1.15am and daybreak and slaughtered the five people as they slept using both a gun and an ax. Dearman entered the home where his girlfriend was staying with relatives and attacked the people sleeping inside using "firearms and several other weapons," according to the Mobile County Sheriff's Office. A 3-month-old baby of one of the victims survived the attack. "In... a 20-year career as a prosecutor, I have never seen a scene where there were five people brutally and viciously murdered. That's what we have here," said Mobile County District Attorney Ashley Rich. "There was some type of instrument other than a firearm used on them," said Mobile County sheriff's Capt. Paul Burch. After the killings, police say Dearman kidnapped his girlfriend, Laneta Lester, and the surviving baby. He drove them across the Mississippi state line to his father's home, where Lester and the child were freed. Dearman and his father then went to the Greene County Sheriff's Office in Mississippi where Dearman surrendered Saturday afternoon. Police named the victims as Robert Lee Brown, Chelsea Marie Reed, Justin Kaleb Reed, Joseph Adam Turner and Shannon Melissa Randall and Chelsea Marie Reed, who was five months pregnant. .

Chicago Tribune / August 21, 2016 At least 25 people were shot over 14 hours in attacks across Chicago beginning Saturday afternoon into early Sunday, police said, equivalent to someone being shot every 33 minutes. Four of the shootings were fatal, including an attack in Marquette Park at about 2:50 a.m. Sunday. Darius Brownlee, 25, was on a porch in the 7000 block of South Artesian Avenue when someone walked up and asked if he had any marijuana, according to family. When he said he didn't, the person shot him in the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene. "He had a heart. He was respectful," said his sister, Iesha Brownlee, at the scene. "A very respectful young man. He would help anybody." Five minutes after midnight, a 24-year-old man was shot dead in the Homan Square neighborhood. Police responded to a call of a person shot in the 3700 block of West Grenshaw Street and found him on his porch with a gunshot wound to the chest. He said he had been shot in another location and walked back to his home to tell his family he had been wounded, police said. From there, he was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital and pronounced dead. At 8:10 p.m. Saturday, a 20-year-old man was on the sidewalk in the 2700 block of North Harding Avenue in Logan Square when someone shot him in the head. He was pronounced dead on the scene. Nonfatal shootings: About 6:45 a.m. Sunday, a male whose age was not available was shot in the Homan Square neighborhood. He was in the 3600 block of West Lexington Street when he was shot in the head. He was being treated at Mount Sinai Hospital; information about his condition was not immediately available. Just after 4 a.m., a 14-year-old boy was fatally shot the Austin neighborhood during a gang-related attack. He was in the 5500 block of West North Avenue on a sidewalk when an occupant inside a vehicle that pulled up opened fire hitting him in the head, according to Officer Bari Lemmon, a spokeswoman for the Chicago police. The boy was taken to Loyola University Medical Center in critical condition but he was pronounced dead there, according to police. Just after 4 a.m., two people were shot in University Village. A 21-year-old woman and a 23-year-old man were in the 1200 block of West Washburne Avenue when someone fired shots from the rear seat of a passing vehicle. Both went to Stroger Hospital. The woman was shot in the stomach and listed in serious condition. The man was shot in the leg and his condition was stabilized. Just before 3:15 a.m., a 37-year-old man was shot in Rogers Park. He was in the 1700 block of West Greenleaf Avenue when he was shot in the left hand. He went to Evanston's Saint Francis Hospital in good condition. About 2:30 a.m., two 26-year-old men were shot in West Pullman. They were standing outside in the 11600 block of South Morgan Street when someone driving a black Taurus pulled up and fired shots. Both men were shot in the leg and went to Roseland Hospital. Their conditions were stabilized. Just before 2:20 a.m., a 25-year-old man was shot multiple times in Lawndale. He was stopped at a stop sign in the 4100 block of West 21st Street when someone walked up and opened fire in his direction. The 25-year-old man went to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition. Just before 1:30 a.m., two men were shot in Englewood. The men, 19 and 23, got themselves to Holy Cross Hospital after being shot in the 6800 block of South Bishop Street. The younger man was shot multiple times and later transferred to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition. The older man was shot in the right leg and his condition was stabilized. Just after 12:30 a.m., a 21-year-old man was shot in Ravenswood. He was in the 4800 block of North Damen Avenue when he was shot in the back of the head. He went to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center and his condition was stabilized. At 11:45 p.m. Saturday, a 27-year-old woman was shot after a dispute with her boyfriend in Rogers Park. They were in the 1500 block of West Jonquil Terrace when he pulled out a gun and shot her in the left arm. She went to Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston and her condition was stabilized. Just after 11:30 p.m., a 47-year-old man was shot in the South Loop. He was in the passenger seat of a car in the 500 block of West Taylor Street when someone approached firing shots. He was shot in the leg. Information about where he was being treated was not immediately available. At 10:30 p.m., an 18-year-old man was wounded in a shootout in Lawndale. He and another person were shooting at each other in the 2100 block of South Kildare Avenue, police said; the 18-year-old man was shot in the back and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition. Police have recovered his weapon. As of midnight, police did not know whether anyone else was wounded in the shootout. At about the same time, a 16-year-old boy was shot and critically wounded in Edgewater. He was in the 6200 block of North Hermitage Avenue when two people approached him on the sidewalk and opened fire, shooting him multiple times. He was taken to Saint Francis Hospital in critical condition. About 10:10 p.m., a 18-year-old man was shot in the Stony Island Park neighborhood. He was on the sidewalk in the 8500 block of South Cregier Avenue when someone got out of a nearby Dodge Caravan and fired shots. He was shot in the foot and went to Advocate Trinity Hospital in good condition. At 9:35 p.m., a 21-year-old man was shot in Longwood Manor. He was in a vehicle leaving a gas station in the 9900 block of South Vincennes Avenue when someone fired shots, hitting him in the back. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in serious condition. At about 7:45 p.m., a 17-year-old boy in the 1000 block of West 79th Street in the Gresham neighborhood was wounded when two vehicles approached and someone inside fired shots. He was grazed in the upper back and went to Stroger Hospital. His condition was stabilized. Three teen boys were shot in North Austin just before 7 p.m., police said. They were in the 1200 block of North Parkside Avenue when they were shot. A 17-year-old boy suffered a wound to the upper chest and was taken in serious condition to Stroger Hospital. Another boy, 15, was shot in the buttocks and abdomen. He was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital. The third boy, also 15, was shot in the leg. He was taken to Loyola University Hospital in Maywood where his condition was stabilized, said Officer Michelle Tannehill, a police spokeswoman. Earlier Saturday, a 37-year-old man was critically wounded in the same neighborhood. About 4:45 p.m., he was inside a vacant building in the 5300 block of West Division Street when two men damaged the door and came inside. The two men pulled out a handgun and shot the man in his stomach area when he tried to flee. He was taken in critical condition to Stroger Hospital.

Colin Powell sets record straight on involvement in email scandal Page 6 / August 21, 2016 Colin Powell has broken his silence about his alleged involvement in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, saying her team is falsely trying to blame him. When asked by the FBI about her email use at the State Department, Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Powell had advised her to use a personal email account at a private dinner. But Powell, who had said last week in a statement that he had no recollection of the conversation. On Saturday, Powell said: “The truth is she was using it (her personal email) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did [during my term as Secretary of State]. “Her people have been trying to pin it on me.” When asked why Clinton’s team was attempting to blame him, he responded, “Why do you think?” Despite appearing angered by the situation, he added, “It doesn’t bother me. It’s okay, I’m free.” The story about Powell advising Clinton to use personal email was included in FBI notes of their interview with the Democratic nominee handed to Congress on Tuesday. James B. Comey, the bureau’s director, decided not to pursue criminal charges against her. Journalist Joe Conason reported a conversation between Clinton and Powell took place at a dinner party hosted by Madeleine Albright at her home in Washington in his upcoming book, “Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton,” according to the Times. Conason writes that those present – including Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice were all asked to offer “one salient bit of counsel” to Clinton early in her term as Secretary of State. “Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer,” Conason wrote, “Saying that his use of personal email had been transformative for the department,” Powell “thus confirmed a decision she had made months earlier — to keep her personal account and use it for most messages.” But Powell did not have a server at his house nor use outside contractors, as Clinton did, the Times reported. Plus the rules governing electronic communication got more strict between Powell’s time in office and Clinton’s. Powell’s office said in a statement released Thursday night that he had no recollection of the dinner conversation. He did write Clinton an email memo describing his use of personal email for unclassified messages “and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department,” the statement said.

The LDS427, LD465 and LDT465 were intended to run ordinarily on diesel. In an "emergency", they could run on AVGAS, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel (JP7, JP8) and kerosene. Those American Bosch rotary fuel pumps never got along with me.

Canada looking to align with new Phase 2 GHG standards Today’s Trucking / August 19, 2016 Canadian regulators are looking to align with the second round of vehicle emissions standards that the U.S. will roll out between 2018 and 2027. The Phase 2 standards will ultimately slash Greenhouse Gas emissions by up to 25% – improving fuel economy as a result – and were officially released earlier this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “The Phase 2 standards, like the Phase 1 standards which apply to Model Year 2014 and later heavy-duty vehicles and engines, will be aligned with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards,” confirmed a spokesman with Environment and Climate Change Canada, responding to questions from Today’s Trucking. “This alignment helps keep the costs down for industry, consumers and governments since most vehicles and engines sold in Canada are the same as those sold in the U.S.” The first draft of the Canadian version of the regulations should be released in Canada Gazette Part 1 by the end of this year, he said. That is ultimately followed by a 75-day comment period before final regulations are published in Canada Gazette Part 2. Still, there are unique challenges to address when comparing the jurisdictions, not the least of which is heavier Gross Vehicle Weights. “The Government of Canada will be considering specific implications for the Canadian heavy-duty vehicle, engine and trailer sectors during its regulatory development process,” the spokesman says. Once the rules are released, they will guide how most engines, trucks and even trailers are designed. Tractors Proposed standards for tractors roll out in 2021 Model Years, tighten in 2024, and are fully established by 2027. The specific benchmarks vary by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type. Compared to Phase 1, carbon dioxide emissions drop 24%. That is to be met through enhanced engines, transmissions, drivelines, aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, idle-reducing technologies, and other accessories. Trailers Voluntary standards begin with certain types of trailers in the 2018 Model Year, while mandatory standards begin in 2021. By that point, the standards will apply refrigerated and dry vans. The standards become tougher in 2024, and the final round of changes come in 2027. The goal is to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 8%, relying on such things as aerodynamic devices, low rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems and reduced weights. Vocational vehicles The rules for vocational vehicles -– which represent a fifth of the emissions from medium- and heavy-duty equipment -- roll out in 2021, toughen in 2024, and reach final levels in 2027. They include three vehicle weights and three driving cycles. Compared to Phase 1, their carbon dioxide emissions will drop 16% thanks to changes in engines, transmissions, drivelines, lower rolling resistance tires, workday idle reduction technologies, and lower weights. Diesel engines Carbon dioxide emissions from diesel engines will drop 4% when compared to Phase 1, requiring optimized combustion, improved air handling, lower friction, enhanced aftertreatment for emissions, and waste heat recovery. There are ways for manufacturers to offer equipment that doesn’t meet the specific targets, though. The U.S. rules include Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) provisions that allow manufacturers to certify engines and vehicles that fall short of the standards, as long as they are offset with engines or vehicles that do better. It’s similar to an approach established in the Phase 1 rules, but with minor revisions, according to the regulators. “We are not proposing to include a full ABT program for the trailer standards because the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for manufacturers to benefit from this type of program. Instead, we are proposing limited averaging provisions for certain trailer manufacturers,” the U.S. regulators added. Still, there will be a limited number of credits available, despite the fact that on/off-road equipment, heavy haulers and Long Combination Vehicles also account for a larger share of Canada’s equipment. “I definitely hope that there will be some allowances because we know that some [referenced] technologies don’t work here,” adds Yves Provencher of PIT Group, a third-party testing organization based in Quebec. Low Rolling Resistance tires, for example, are not always practical when trucks face snow-covered roads. Some of the referenced technologies, such as engine heat recovery systems, are not even available yet, he says. “On one hand it’s good for our business, but we just hope the OEMs will have the chance to do the testing and do the necessary improvements – if need be – and hit the market with technology that is proven.”

Special Report: Fuel Economy Phase 2 Fleet Owner / June 8, 2016 The joint announcement by EPA and NHTSA last year of proposed new greenhouse gas emissions regulations (GHG Phase 2) for heavy-duty trucks has brought about plenty of conjecture within the industry about what the rule will say when it’s finalized this summer and how truck makers and fleets will comply. These goals are expected to include an approximately 24% fuel efficiency gain for tractors, 8% to 12% for trailers, and 4% for engines. 1. GHG Rule: Explaining Phase 2 Touted by the Obama Adminis­tration as a win-win-win for the enviro­nment, trucking industry and consumers, the proposed second round of fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are meant to reduce climate change impact while bolstering energy security and spurring manufacturing innovation. But nearly a year after being jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Dept. of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the honeymoon between the government and the industry—if there ever was one—is certainly over. The greenhouse gas (GHG) final rule is still up in the air, and no one is quite sure what to expect from it when it is published. Broadly, the proposed rule pits the trucking industry, which wants a cautious, doable program, against clean air groups that insist on the most aggressive of the proposal’s goals and timelines. Even within trucking, factions have developed: Engine maker Cummins supports a separate engine-only standard, and trailer makers argue that EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate them at all. There’s also more than a little concern that any “technology-forcing” goals could result in performance and reliability issues similar to the implementation of EPA’s NOx regulations a decade ago—and that new, more strict NOx restrictions will be included in the GHG final rule, or follow shortly thereafter, with contradictory goals. As for the timing, the rule is slated to be finalized this summer, but there is no statutory deadline. Here’s a general outline of where the proposal stands and the cases for or against the various elements in the complex and far-reaching plan. THE BASICS The proposed standards—dubbed Phase 2 as a follow-up to the original truck fuel economy standards that set targets for 2014 and 2017 model-year trucks—are expected to lower CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles account for about 20% of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector but only comprise about 5% of vehicles on the road, according to the federal government. The proposed vehicle and engine performance standards would cover model years 2021-2027 and apply to semi-trucks, large pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. They would achieve up to 24% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption than an equivalent tractor in 2018, based on the fully phased-in standards for the tractor alone in a tractor-trailer combination. Unlike the automobile fuel economy standards, Phase 2 does not use an mpg measure. EPA considers such a measurement meaningless for the many trucks and applications covered under the proposal. For highway tractors, the key is freight efficiency, or the amount of freight that can be hauled per mile, per gallon of fuel. In 2027, EPA estimates the average line-haul truck would achieve a 50% improvement with that potentially rising to 90% with the development and adoption of more efficient technologies. Experts at the Environmental Defense Fund did the hypothetical math and put the 2027 goal at about 9.5 mpg for highway tractor-trailers compared to about 6 mpg in 2010. In this next phase, EPA and NHTSA are also proposing efficiency and GHG standards for trailers for the first time. The EPA trailer standards would begin to take effect in model-year 2018 for certain trailers, while NHTSA’s standards would be in effect as of 2021. Credits would be available for voluntary participation before then. DOABLE, OEMS SAY, BUT… The goals for the federal truck fuel efficiency requirements will be achievable, says the head of the country’s largest truck maker—he’s just not sure yet what the solutions are going to be. And all bets are off if EPA’s Phase 2 GHG reduction program strays from the preliminary standards proposed, Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) President and CEO Martin Daum told trucking media representatives last fall. That proposed tar­­get of a 24% im­provement in heavy-duty fuel efficiency by 2027 is “a lot,” he concedes. While DTNA is generally supportive of the program’s goals, Daum objects to the possible engine-only standard on top of the whole-vehicle requirements. “I’ve never seen an engine alone running down the road,” he quips. “We need all the pieces to fit together to optimize [fuel efficiency]. But the higher the engine standard, the less room we have for optimization.” DTNA would like to see a single national standard, but the real concern is for the possible development of a new NOx limit. Daum worries that the GHG rule will be finalized and manufacturers will begin to work toward meeting the requirements, and then EPA will set another NOx standard causing an industry disruption similar to 2006. More formally, DTNA joined with Caterpillar, Navistar, Paccar, and Volvo Group in filing comments on the proposed rule. To assure that the rule benefits customers—and achieves environmental goals—the Phase 2 regulation must be finalized with seven basic principles in mind, the truck makers note: Regulation must appropriately reflect real-world reductions. There must be a single, national GHG regulation adopted by EPA, NHTSA and CARB. Expected technologies must be appropriately demonstrated. Expected technology penetration rates must align with market needs and legal restrictions. Regulation must take into account total cost of ownership. Protocols must be clearly defined and accommodate production and test variability. Regulation must recognize the trade-off of NOx and CO2 reduction targets. FLEETS WANT ROI Indeed, while the final rule is aimed at truck makers, truck buyers clearly have a stake. After all, if customers won’t buy the trucks, the environmental goals won’t be achieved, the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) notes in its formal comment. “The consistent message from fleets to ATA regarding the Phase 2 rule is abundantly clear: Achieve the greatest efficiency improvements at the least overall cost while minimizing downtime, maximizing durability, and recognizing a positive return on investment over the course of equipment ownership,” ATA says. Among ATA’s key points: ATA opposes the accelerated timeline option that pulls ahead the 2027 targets to 2024. “If Phase 2 results in customers being led down a path to purchase technologies that are not proven, cost-effective, or reasonable for a fleet’s applications, fleets will keep their vehicles and trailers longer and will pre-buy in advance of the changes, followed by a subsequent no-buy after the new standards take effect.” Technology costs remain suspect. “ATA believes the agencies under­estimated the costs of various technologies, making the payback period on these technologies much longer than is stated in the proposed rule.” Need for harmonization between state and federal GHG/fuel economy programs. “ATA supports these efforts as harmonization with California (or other states for that matter) is an extremely high priority. It is both unwise and unhealthy for the nation’s economy and the movement of the nation’s freight to allow a patchwork of state and federal tailpipe and fuel consumption standards for trucks to emerge.” Further evaluation and demonstration is needed before committing to a low-NOx engine standard. “Given EPA expects fleets to pay an additional $14,000 for a new tractor-trailer combination meeting the Phase 2 standards, the agencies must be sensitive to the cost impact additional regulatory pursuits will have on the trucking industry.” TRAILER AUTHORITY The trailer industry has questioned EPA’s right to even set trailer targets. “Unfortunately, by extending its proposed rule to semi-trailers, the EPA has adopted an unprecedented interpretation of its authority that exceeds its Congressional authorization,” Utility Trailer Manufacturing, the nation’s largest trailer builder, wrote in its filing. “Additionally, the agencies have based their analysis on assumptions that are completely untethered from the real world, resulting in proposed regulations that will yield minimal, if any, net greenhouse-gas reductions while imposing crippling administrative burdens on the semi-trailer industry.” Specifically, the agencies’ assumptions about speed—from which the aerodynamic savings are projected—“bear no relationship to how tractors and trailers operate on America’s highways.” Utility provides its own fleet test data to refute the proposal’s assumption that a trailer travels at 65 mph 86% of the time. Even the fastest tractor-trailer in a three-fleet test traveled at 65 mph just 33% of the time, according to Utility. The Truck Trailer Manu­­facturers Assn. (TTMA) urges the agencies to consider an alternative rule that would require trailer manufacturers to label and/or provide some test data to show that the trailer is capable of being assembled into a compliant tractor-trailer, and then impose the responsibility of combining compliant trailers with compliant tractors on the motor carriers. “While we stand by our contention that EPA’s SmartWay program provides the optimal solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty freight sector, we hope that if the agencies feel that additional regulation is needed, they will pursue the ‘alternative provisions’ approach and work with the trucking industry to create a set of reasonable and effective regulations,” TTMA writes. ENGINE REQUIREMENTS While the truck makers push for a “whole-vehicle” standard, engine maker Cummins makes the case for separate powerplant targets. In a public hearing on Phase 2, Brian Mormino, executive director of worldwide environmental strategy and compliance, pointed to the proposal’s own characterization of a separate engine standard as “fundamental to the success of the program.” An engine standard offers “a robust, clearly defined compliance program,” requires manufacturers to optimize CO2 and criteria pollutants together, and provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under transient conditions, Cummins contends. Cummins is concerned that the Phase 2 proposal’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model compliance simulation application drives more interaction between the engine and vehicle programs. The result is that it would require Cummins to release “proprietary and confidential business information.” In Cummins’ formal comments, the company points to the advantages of a “well-established, representative, and robust set of engine test procedures” for emissions compliance enforcement. “Using the same protocols for criteria and GHG emissions ensures linkage between all pollutants, forcing consideration of all constituents when optimizing engine performance and emissions,” Cummins says. “With differing certification cycles, one could trade off GHG improvement at the expense of nitrogen oxide increases. Such a situation would undermine regulatory integrity and environmental benefits from criteria emissions reductions achieved over the years.” 2. OEM Perspective: Getting there With the tail end of the greenhouse gas (GHG) Phase 1 requirements now surfacing in engine makers’ more fuel-efficient 2017 lineups, a GHG Phase 2 rule is knock, knock, knocking on trucking’s door. How will the industry actually get there? How will manufacturers reach these fuel efficiency gains? Will they be measured as an average of all of an OEM’s products or carved out in segments? The first and most basic answer to “getting there,” in many ways, is to reduce friction while maintaining performance. Reduce drag on the truck and trailer bodies and improve aerodynamics; use various methods to reduce friction in the engine itself; literally reduce resistance where the rubber hits the road; and any other opportunities you find as you claw your way to moving a hauling machine of up to 80,000 lbs. down the road at higher mpg. By 2027, in what the involved federal agencies call “an ambitious, yet achievable program” in their proposal, combo tractors designed to pull trailers are likely to have a 24% fuel efficiency gain to meet and trailers another 8-12%, while separate standards for engines will likely call for 4% higher fuel efficiency compared with 2017 models. “For heavy trucks in 2027, let’s call it 9 mpg,” says Michael Roeth, executive director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), simplifying and summing up the target goal from that angle. There’s an app for that To a point, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have spelled out the technologies that come under GHG Phase 2 through their Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) compliance simulation application for manufacturers. Companies input specs, usage parameters and particular fuel economy technologies for their tractors, engines or trailers and are essentially given a unit’s fuel efficiency figures used to monitor if the OEMs’ products are compliant with GHG targets. “Each truck, for example, will get a number. As greenhouse gas stringency comes down from the federal government, manufacturers will run a number on every truck they build,” Roeth tells Fleet Owner. “You take all the trucks Kenworth builds, all the trucks that International builds and so on, and they’ll need a certain average to be compliant. “There are many technologies to choose from,” he continues. “There’s aerodynamics on the tractor and trailer, lower rolling resistance tires, engine changes, gear ratios for downspeeding, automated manual transmissions, idle-reduction solutions—there’s a whole bunch of things the EPA has defined as technologies in the GEM program.” According to EPA and NHTSA, the GEM program “is capable of recognizing most technologies that could be evaluated in both engine and chassis dynamometers and is [now] better able to reflect changes in technologies for compliance purposes.” In GEM, some technology options for tractors are vehicle speed limiters, weight reduction, low-friction axle lubricants, predictive cruise control, high-efficiency A/C compressors, electric engine coolant and power steering pumps, automated tire inflation systems, and extended idle reduction. Vocational vehicles can add power take-off options, while trailers can have things like aerodynamic drag, weight reductions, and tire pressure inflation systems. OEMs are innovating on their own, of course, as the GEM program envisions and is designed to accommodate. One driver of fuel economy innovation has been the SuperTruck public-private partnership, a project that’s now generated a sequel where the U.S. Dept. of Energy puts up grant funds to share costs for projects to reach large mpg improvement goals. Volvo Trucks, for one, says its team developed some of the company’s latest engine improvements working in the SuperTruck program. Some enhancements that came from it are going into 2017 D11 and D13 engines particularly. Those include Volvo’s “wave piston” technology and turbo compounding, and there’s also a new fuel rail, higher engine compression helping boost horsepower and torque, and other enhancements in terms of powertrain like improvements for I-Shift transmissions at both low and high speed. But the wave piston, as Volvo calls it, is one of the more standout technologies you’ll find claiming to unlock more fuel efficiency and making for a cleaner-burning engine. In that patented design, explains John Moore, powertrain product manager, Volvo reshaped the top of the piston and therefore the combustion chamber. Imagine carving out six U’s end-to-end around the top of a piston and connecting them in a circle. You’ll have the high points where each U begins, the low points at the bottom of the curve, and the high points coming back up out of the U. So think of those points as peaks and troughs of waves, and voila: “wave pistons.” Add to that a six-directional fuel injector nozzle that squirts fuel right at each wave trough or divot in the top of the piston. “You’ve got six holes on the injectors—one hole for each of those tabs on the piston—that spray fuel right at those tabs. The fuel actually will hit them, turn around and come back to the center of the cylinder,” Moore explains. “We call that ‘flame propagation toward the center,’ and it fosters a more complete, cleaner burn. “With the conventional pistons we were using before, you would spray fuel from the injector into the cylinder; it would come straight down, hit the crown of the piston dome on top, then scatter and go to the piston walls,” he elaborates. “And once it ignited, you might have fuel on the cylinder walls that turned to soot. “The wave pistons eliminate those ‘wet spots,’” Moore explains, “and that’s where we’re picking up a cleaner burn and increased fuel efficiency as well as 90% less soot output on the cylinder unit.” Far from the majority yet That’s just one closer look at how OEMs are finding myriad ways to boost mpg in trucks, engines and trailers, and you can expect to hear more—possibly from what’s been learned with concept vehicles—as 2017 engines start rolling off production lines. “But have you ever seen one of those ‘SuperTrucks’?” asks Charlie Fetz, vice president of design and development at Great Dane Trailers. “How many of those things do you see running around on the road?” It’s true, Fetz points out, that there are fleets reaching efficiency levels with their trailers today at the 2027 levels envisioned in GHG Phase 2. “There are fleets running lots of aero, running wide-base single tires, probably with weight savings and so forth,” he notes. “But they’re long-haul guys. Have you ever seen a tractor-trailer pulled up at a restaurant? “The guy is there in the lot with his ramps coming out. He’s wheeling boxes of stuff into the restaurant with a hand truck,” Fetz continues. “He’s got ramps stored under his trailer, beverage canister racks and pallet racks, and he’s got a roll-up door at the rear. “That trailer doesn’t have a lot of aero opportunities. He’s running short-haul. When he gets into the city, he’s going around doing multiple stops, creeping around restaurant to restaurant, probably averaging 18, 20 mph,” he explains. Thus, Fetz makes the point that trailers come in different shapes and sizes on trucks doing very different jobs, so getting to GHG Phase 2 fuel efficiency targets is far from cut-and-dried. “Although there are a number of devices on the market today, trailer side skirts and low rolling resistance tires have proven to be most effective; as a result, they are the most adopted by U.S. fleets,” says Brian Bauman, vice president and general manager of Wabash Composites. “Generally, the aerodynamic devices that are being adopted most are those that are proving to be the most durable and least intrusive to the daily operations of the fleet.” Stand-alone devices available for trailers can yield between about 1% to 9% fuel economy improvement in highway use, Bauman contends, and Wabash has device combinations available that can produce upwards of 10% fuel savings. And the nature of trailers themselves is complicated, Fetz contends. “You don’t go to a Ford dealership and say, ‘I really like that Taurus, but can you make it two feet longer and add another axle?’” he points out. “But that kind of thing is commonplace with trailers.” Before the final rule comes out, Fetz notes, trailer, truck and engine OEMs have stayed in touch with EPA and NHTSA to provide input and feedback. He notes that Great Dane has done that both on a one-on-one basis as well as with industry groups. “The EPA will be quick to tell you they want to have an effective rule that’s enforceable,” he says. “We also try to help fleets understand what’s in this rule and what they may have to do,” he says, such as add low rolling resistance tires or a tire inflation system to their trailers. “The burden of compliance falls on manufacturers, but there are implications about the buyer having to maintain technologies on the equipment,” he notes. Squishy balloon If you think OEMs getting to fuel efficiency targets in GHG Phase 2 is a given, you may have missed a few things, cautions Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and staff liaison for the organization’s Fuel Efficiency Working Group. It’s one of the channels by which federal agencies are interfacing with the trucking industry, as Fetz describes. ATA has raised a few concerns: the diversity of trucking, volatility in the cost of fuel, and the difficulty of being accurate with estimates EPA and NHTSA make in the GHG Phase 2 rule for things like a fleet’s return on investment after purchasing fuel-saving technologies. But there’s another big variable out there, Kedzie says, and that is a potential reduction in NOx emissions that could hit “smack dab in the middle of implementation of the Phase 2 rule.” He contends California is considering bringing a lower NOx emissions standard to the market soon. “Typically, when you’re trying to address NOx emissions, it’s going to have an inverse impact on fuel economy,” Kedzie tells Fleet Owner. “It’s kind of an unintended consequence we’ve seen. “It’s like an ecosystem: All these things are interrelated. I call it the ‘squishy balloon concept’: If you squeeze one of those long balloons on one end, the air goes to the other end,” he continues. “You’re still going to have the same amount of air in that balloon; it just depends on where the squeeze is happening and what the reaction is in other parts of it—unless it pops.” In the final rule, OEMs will likely be able to carry over fuel efficiency deficits, should they have them, for up to three years. But on the other hand, if OEMs overachieve the rule’s targets, any overage can likely be put in their ‘credit piggy bank’ to balance the books if need be,” Kedzie says, and credits can be carried forward up to five years. So he does have some advice for OEMs: Get started strong and quickly with fuel efficiency technology, and build up extra credits to carry forward in case later targets are difficult to hit. “Sell things that are super-efficient, and anything that’s over what the target is, bank those credits. It’s kind of a rainy day fund. It’s hard for OEMs to predict the future, but if they fall short, at least they can tap into their credit piggy bank.” In a final point, NACFE’s Roeth thinks the medium- and heavy-duty trucking industries should take a deep breath. “There are clearly challenges in getting to these levels of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions, but it’s possible,” he says. “We’ve got some time. We need the technologies to improve; we need their costs to come down; and we need their consequences to be reduced. But I believe it can be done.” 3. Fleet Perspective: Finding the right mix When it comes to figuring out how to benefit from the fuel economy improvements purportedly being offered by greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, fleets are finding that a lot of hard-to-calculate factors are involved, especially in terms of driver behavior. “The biggest piece of fuel economy performance we’ve yet to really tap is the driver,” Glen McDonald, director of maintenance at Ozark Motor Lines, explains. “We give drivers all the tools—automated manual transmissions (AMTs), cruise control, etc. But radar [based cruise control] makes the truck stay back farther than they like. So how do we get the driver to sit back and let the truck do more of the work?” It’s also about compensating for other external factors, he says, such as seasonal differences, road type, road conditions, and even the direction of the wind. “I have a guy—one of my best drivers—who makes a run from Memphis to St. Louis and back. You can take his trip data and calculate his fuel mileage to a tenth of a mile every day,” McDonald says. “He can also tell you about real-world impact, such as tailwind, giving him 1 mpg better heading down to St. Louis.” That doesn’t stop Ozark from spec’ing its equipment as fuel-efficiently as possible with improved aerodynamics, McDonald stresses. Right now, the company operates a little over 700 Freightliner Cascadia tractors spec’d with the full Evolution aerodynamic package, a Detroit DT12 AMT mated to DD15 engines, and fuel-efficient tires. All of its 53-ft. dry van trailers are equipped with side skirts. The fleet has even switched to full synthetic yet thinner viscosity motor oils. Longer change intervals allow the company “to get more fuel mileage from them with less maintenance,” McDonald notes. Yet figuring out the role of specific pieces of the fuel-saving equation, i.e, AMT, trailer skirts, etc., is the tricky part. “We’re doing so many things at once. How does each piece contribute?” McDonald points out. “We really rely on our partners to help us pick the best specifications and solutions. We have to trust them. But I still have to use simple math to make it work. It has to pay out in the end. “And the real world is very different than the test track,” he continues. “It’s also hard to figure [those specific savings] with different drivers in different weather conditions on very different roads.” Driver training Paul Higgins, director of maintenance at Prime Inc., also struggles with similar questions and finds that the company requires a two-step solution that involves a focus on equipment specifications and on driver training. “We have classes to teach drivers how to be the most fuel efficient. [It’s] a fairly straightforward process and not necessarily a magic pill,” he points out. In terms of equipment, Higgins says Prime specs its trucks and trailers to be as “slick” as possible. “Aerodynamics offer a huge opportunity for all of us to improve fuel mileage. We also realize we’re not doing all that we can to be more aerodynamic,” he explains. “Based on our model, it’s crazy to spec a ‘square hood’ truck now.” Higgins points out that trailer skirts offer 6% fuel savings and can get up to 9% in some cases. “Since we make our own skirts, we can make modifications based on how we see them work,” he adds. Researchers are also starting to put some numbers to aerodynamic improvements. The latest Confidence Report compiled by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), for example, determined that aerodynamic enhancements to Class 8 tractors can return a sizable saving in fuel efficiency—even for day cab models that many felt were incapable of benefiting from aerodynamics. “During the past 20 years, truck manufacturers have done a good job of improving the aerodynamics of sleeper tractors, saving up to 10% in fuel costs,” the group notes in its Tractor Aerodynamics Report. “Tractor aerodynamic devices improve fuel efficiency by reducing drag so that it takes less fuel to move down the road, especially at higher speeds.” Misperceptions Even though day cab tractors operate at lower miles per hour, NACFE researchers found they benefit from the installation of aerodynamic devices. “There is a long-standing misperception in the trucking industry that im­proved aerodynamics will only save fuel at speeds above 55 mph. Because of this, day cabs and other [tractor] duty cycles have lagged long-haul sleepers in their aerodynamic performance improvements,” the group notes. “But in reality, aerodynamic drag is acting against the vehicle at all speeds above zero mph. Given the many low- or no-cost design elements that can reduce drag, even fleets operating at lower speeds should consider adoption,” NACFE adds. Mike Roeth, the group’s executive director, believes truck manufacturers should make full aerodynamic packages like those offered on sleeper cabs standard on their day cab tractors. “Not only do those packages provide substantial fuel economy benefits even at lower speeds, but fleets tend to have much longer trade cycles for their day cab trucks,” he says. “The fuel savings over a decade can also help fleets limit the risks of future diesel price increases.” Other findings from the NACFE Tractor Aerodynamics Report include the following: If aerodynamic features are removed from an OEM’s aerodynamic base model, the fleet can expect to lose about 10% in fuel economy. Another 10% can be lost simply by pairing a mid-roof tractor with a dry van or refrigerated trailer. NACFE stresses that tractor and trailer heights should be matched for as many miles as possible. Even at today’s fuel prices of around $2/gal., a 10% savings in fuel represents $3,500 per year per truck. The greatest opportunity to benefit from aerodynamic tractor enhancements remains the on-highway van trailer segment for both day cabs and long-nose high-roof sleeper models. While the devices currently available on the market do add some weight to the vehicle, the impact of the weight on fuel economy is just 0.5 to 0.6% per 1,000 lbs. There is less than a 2,000-lb. weight difference between the most aggressively optimized aerodynamic tractors and the least, so the maximum mpg reduction due to aerodynamics is less than 1.2%—far smaller than the potential fuel savings offered by aerodynamic enhancements. Many day cabs operate at highway speeds during nearly all of their duty cycle, so aerodynamic styling can increase fuel efficiency for day cab models by as much as 13%. Even day cabs operating in start-stop city driving will see savings from certain aerodynamic technologies, NACFE found. Consider all costs Consulting firm Fleet Advantage takes all of that a step further with a new data index resource it has compiled. John Rickette, vice president of transaction management, notes the resource compares “all-in” costs of older model-year Class 8 trucks and calculates the savings of new model replacements to help fleets identify the sweet spot for replacement and which specs may add the most cost savings. That all-in approach means taking into account operating costs related to fuel, finance, maintenance and repair, and tires, he explains. “When you do that, you are looking for the point in time when a truck becomes economically obsolete,” Rickette says. “There’s always an inflection point, but that also depends on miles driven, type of duty cycle, etc. Roughly between 400,000 and 500,000 mi. is the sweet spot. That is when maintenance and repair costs spike; there’s degradation in fuel economy; resale value spikes; and warranty coverage begins to expire.” Using its index, Fleet Advantage calculates that companies using Class 8 trucks would save approximately $18,000 per truck in the first year by upgrading from a 2011 to a 2017 model-year day cab or sleeper unit while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 14%. Rickette does note that such calculations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to account for variables such as usage patterns and weather. “The first six months represent the break-in period, so fleets may not be getting [the fuel economy gains] they expect to be getting. That also applies to the seasons, as winter can affect performance,” he emphasizes. On top of that, Fleet Advantage also plans to incorporate engine idle time, excessive speed, hours of operation, and other factors that affect vehicle wear and tear over the truck’s life­ cycle. “We’ll bake that in for the future,” Rickette notes. Ozark’s McDonald stresses that when fleets try to project any sort of fuel savings, they must include items such as potential accident and repair costs. “You’ve got to consider those,” he says. “For example, trailer tails save money on fuel for certain; however, one fleet I work with found that they got torn up so much that the cost of repairing them could make the fuel savings a wash. That’s got to be factored in.” Human behavior What’s the ultimate ingredient for maximizing fuel economy no matter the fuel-efficient specification? According to Prime, this ingredient affects about 80% of the fuel economy equation—and that’s the driver. So, anything that can be done to ease back on the vagaries of human behavior behind the wheel will help further boost fuel economy gains down the road. “We finally agree that AMTs can equal the best driver using a manual. AMTs are nice, fast, and smooth in terms of gear shifting now and are not nearly as herky-jerky as they once were,” Prime’s Higgins says. “Using GPS technology to adjust the truck to the topography is the next step; going around a corner, shifting in neutral because [the transmission] knows from GPS what the road is like there.” At the end of the day, Prime says, it all comes down to engine speed; driving the engine “slower” in terms of rpm makes a big difference not just in fuel consumption but also in safety and driver comfort. “The driver arrives more relaxed than before, not to mention accident-free. That’s a huge win,” Higgins says.

Trucking seems cautiously optimistic about Phase 2 rules Fleet Owner / August 17, 2016 Trucking OEMs, suppliers, trade groups, and fleets in the main seem “cautiously optimistic” regarding eventual compliance with the final Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules issued this week by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), though in some cases the final rules benchmarks are tougher than what the agencies proposed in the draft phase of the rulemaking process. [NOTE: to read the entire 1,690 page final Phase 2 rule, go here. To read through the detailed 1,116 page “regulatory impact analysis” of the final rule, go here. For the simplified 5-page fact sheet concerning the Phase 2 rules, go here. To review the specific modeling programs used by EPA and NHTSA for gauging compliance with the new rule, go here and here, respectively.] Sean Waters, director of compliance and regulatory affairs at Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), pointed out in a statement that improving overall efficiency for Class 7 and 8 tractors and vocational vehicles by as much as 25% over the course of more than a decade as called for by the new rules “is a tremendous challenge for an industry that has been treating fuel efficiency as a first order priority for our customers for many decades.” He added that the up to 5% engine efficiency improvements included in the overall efficiency Phase 2 target will require “continued development of engine technology” as well, though he stressed DTNA is “confident that we are up to the challenge.” The Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), for one, is concerned that the final rule “appears to have more stringent benchmarks” than the original proposed rule, yet is pleased that 2027 remains “the final target date” for full compliance as both EPA and NHTSA had considered “speeding up that process” by making the final date 2024. “We are pleased that the EPA and NHTSA granted our request to have the final implementation year of Phase 2 remain in 2027,” noted Jake Jacoby, TRALA’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We’re also pleased that there appears to be harmonization of standards and some additional flexibility for the OEMs to reach these targets." Glen Kedzie, vice president and energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Associations (ATA) trade group, added that industry representatives worked with EPA and NHTSA for three-and-a-half years to ensure Phase 2 standards took into account “the wide diversity of equipment and operations across the trucking sector,” which he believes remains the case. “We are pleased that our concerns such as adequate lead-time for technology development, national harmonization of standards, and flexibility for manufacturers have been heard and included in the final rule,” he said in a statement. “While efficiency milestones for vehicles, engines and trailers have all been slightly increased over the agencies’ initial proposal, we are encouraged that they addressed several important issues in the final rule including undertaking annual rule assessments, not accelerating compliance timelines from those originally proposed and refining emissions modeling based on industry data,” Kedzie stressed. “However, while the potential for real cost savings and environmental benefits under this rule are there – fleets will ultimately determine the success or failure of this rule based on their comfort level purchasing these new technologies,” he said. Yet the American consumer is also expected to benefit from the Phase 2 rules as well, according to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), largely due to lower fuel usage by freight-hauling trucks. For example, CFA calculates that the average American family spends more than $1,100 per year on indirect freight truck fuel costs passed on to consumers. “That’s almost as much as the average family spends on household electricity,” stressed Jack Gillis, CFA’s director of public affairs and vehicle expert, in a statement. “For a long time, an efficiency gap has forced consumers to pay the freight for inefficient shipping,” he said. “These standards will save consumers money, just as other energy efficiency goals have saved families and businesses money on the total cost of owning and operating cars, light-duty trucks, and home appliances such as refrigerators and water heaters.”

Truck speed limiter proposal clears White House review Fleet Owner / August 15, 2016 After 15 months in review, the Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters Proposed Rule has cleared the White House Office of Management and Budget, meaning it is available to be published in a matter of days and a public comment period will be begin. The rulemaking, which originated nearly 10 years ago with petitions from Road Safe America and the American Trucking Assns., was officially initiated in May 2013 and was originally scheduled to be published in March 2014. This past March, responding to a Senate budget panel who wanted to know why a proposal that is supported by both a trucking industry association and highway safety groups was so slow in coming, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx testified that he expected the proposal to be published “within the next month, or so,” calling it “a top priority.” OMB approved the proposed rule as “consistent with change,” indicating the mandate meets federal regulatory guidelines, although it has been altered during the review period. OMB may also approve a rule without change or return it for revision by the submitting agency. Still unknown by the public is the speed at which the limiters would be set under the proposal. ATA has asked for a 65 mph limit. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), however, opposes such a rule, calling it “politically motivated” and contending there is “a lack of solid science” to back up such a mandate and that speed-limited trucks “would make highways less safe.” More to come.

Q&A with Eaton on Phase 2 powertrain efficiency Fleet Owner / August 18, 2016 Hand-in-hand with the GHG Phase 2 final rule is the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model — GEM for short — which defines and assigns values to fuel efficiency-increasing technologies for testing compliance with goals the rule sets. Global power management company Eaton Corp. says it helped get a word in edgewise for trucking that improved compliance testing by allowing for more flexible powertrain consideration. Eaton contends the adjusted testing is "significantly improved" in that considers powertrain enhancements that can save fuel and help reach efficiency goals without simply having to add more technologies and cost to trucks. That's a key point, since the rule addresses fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks from a vehicle perspective as well as for heavy-duty engines themselves, and fleets and trucking companies may choose to spec non-OEM powertrain options like the SmartAdvantage joint product offered by Cummins Inc. and Eaton. Fleet Owner heard from Mihai Dorobantu, engineering manager for Eaton's Truck Group technology team, about the adjusted compliance testing. Q: Were there any changes from the GHG Phase 2 proposed rule to the final rule that you believe will help the trucking industry achieve the fuel economy goals set forth? A: "Since the proposed rule, the EPA has improved two key testing alternatives that offer flexibility in achieving the standards. Transmission efficiency tests allow OEMs to take advantage of advanced technologies such as precision lubrication and gears designed for fuel efficiency. "The powertrain test method also was significantly improved to allow the industry to quantify and take advantage of the efficiency driven by intelligent controls. Such technologies are not 'seen' by the default certification methodology, but do provide real fuel savings without adding cost, weight or complexity. "The EPA has worked with the major industry stakeholders to ensure the testing methodologies are sound. Our advanced transmissions and controls help cover anywhere from one-tenth to two-thirds of the compliance gap, above and beyond the original estimates in the proposed rule." Q: With the final rule, do you expect that all-new technologies will need to emerge and be added to improve efficiency? A: "The proposed rule showed one path to compliance that was a mix of incremental improvements — for example, better lubrication or engine downspeeding — and totally new technologies such as waste heat recovery and electrification, which makes compliance very hard, adding cost, weight and complexity. "As the industry started to think through the challenges of achieving compliance, other, better paths emerged. For example, our advanced automation and deep engine-transmission integration technologies also offer compliance value to our OEM customers between one-quarter and two-thirds of the compliance gap. "These are examples of advanced technologies that do not add weight, complexity or cost, yet have dramatic results in terms of reducing fuel burn, and thus help achieve compliance. In many cases, by advancing the controls and intelligence of our transmissions, we enable OEMs to simplify and actually take weight out of the system. "For example, improving transmission efficiency leads to cooler elimination, or using new dual-clutch technology allows the elimination of the notoriously inefficient torque converter while maintaining performance and drivability. "So although the rule will likely force some new technologies in engines and aerodynamics, the ingenuity of the industry is already finding cost-effective means to use intelligence and controls to help compliance without adding new systems or hardware."

Fleet Owner / August 17, 2016 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officially rolled out “Phase 2” greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules this week aimed at four distinct commercial equipment types: Class 7 and 8 tractors, trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, plus vocational vehicles. The “phase-in” period for the new rules stretches from model year 2021 thru model year 2027, by which time units within the four groups mentioned must be in full compliance. The EPA and NHTSA said the Phase 2 standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle owners fuel costs of about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Both agencies claim that the “typical buyer” of a new long-haul truck in 2027 could recoup the extra cost of the technology in just less than two years through fuel savings. In total, the program is expected to result in up to $230 billion in “net benefits” to society over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program: benefits that include fuel savings, carbon reductions, improved health, better energy security, along with lower travel and refueling costs. Class 7 and 8 tractors and their engines account for roughly 60% of total GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the heavy-duty sector, according to EPA and NHTSA, and the Phase 2 standards for them start in model year 2021, increase incrementally in model year 2024, and are expected to be fully phased-in by model year 2027. The standards differ by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type (sleeper or day cab). The fully phased-in standards are expected to achieve up to 25% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption levels compared to the Phase 1 standards, EPA and NHSTA said. OEMs can meet the tractor standards via several avenues: improvements to engines, transmissions, drivelines, and aerodynamic design, along with the use of lower rolling resistance tires, extended idle reduction technologies, and other accessories. For diesel engines, Phase 2 standards begin to be applied in model year 2021, with interim standards to be met by 2024 before full phase-in occurs in model year 2027. A revised test cycle is being adopted as well for “weighting” tractor engines to better reflect actual in-use operation. The final diesel engine standards will reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by up to 5% for tractor engines and up to 4% for vocational engines compared to Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA said. Technologies that could be used to meet the Phase 2 diesel engine standards include: combustion optimization; improved air handling; reduced friction within the engine; improved emissions after-treatment technologies; and waste heat recovery. The Phase 2 program includes first-ever fuel efficiency standards for trailers. Compliance with the EPA’s Phase 2 GHG standards are voluntary starting in 2018, and are also voluntary for NHTSA from 2018 to 2020, with mandatory standards beginning in 2021. In general, the trailer standards apply only for box vans, flatbeds, tankers, and container chassis. Full compliance with the Phase 2 standards for trailers is expected by model year 2027; standards that should achieve up to 9% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption compared to an average model year 2017 trailer. EPA and NHTSA said that some of the technologies trailer makers may use to meet the Phase 2 standards include: aerodynamic devices, lower rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems, and weight reducing designs. Heavy- and medium- duty pickup trucks and vans represent about 23% of the fuel consumption and GHG emissions within the heavy- and medium-duty vehicle sector, EPA and NHTSA noted. The Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, however, will apply largely in the same manner as the Phase 1 standards. Under this approach, all manufacturers face the same standards, but the average emission and fuel consumption rates applicable to each manufacturer depend on the manufacturer’s sales mix, with higher capacity vehicles (in terms of payload and towing) having less stringent targets. Thus the Phase 2 standards for pickups and vans take the form of a set of target standard curves, based on a “work factor” that, as in Phase 1, combines a vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and whether or not it has 4-wheel drive. The standards become 2.5% more stringent every year from model years 2021 to 2027, with fully phased-in reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of about 16% beyond Phase 1. EPA and NHTSA believe most pickup and van manufacturers will choose to meet the Phase 2 rules some of the same technologies already being used to meet the Phase 1 2014-2018 standards, including improvements in engines, transmissions, and lower rolling resistance tire technologies. Under Phase 2, though, both agencies expect newer, more advanced technologies such as engine stop/start and powertrain hybridization will introduced more broadly into this segment. Vocational vehicles encompass a broad variety of units, including delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, cement and dump trucks, refuse haulers, public utility trucks, plus transit, shuttle, and school buses. Vocational vehicles represent about 17% of the total medium- and heavy-duty fuel consumption, EPA and NHTSA said, noting that Phase 2 rules for this segments start in model year 2021, with increased stringency in model year 2024 and full compliance by 2027. Vocational vehicle standards will be differentiated using vehicle weights, driving cycle, and chassis type for emergency vehicles, cement mixers, coach buses, school buses, transit buses, refuse trucks, and motor homes may optionally use application-specific standards. The fully phased-in Phase 2 standards should achieve up to 24% in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption relative to Phase 1, the agencies predict, with improvements to engines, transmissions, and drivelines, plus the addition of lower rolling resistance tires, idle reduction systems, weight reducing designs, and some application of hybrid technology, to be used to gain compliance with the new rules. The Phase 2 rules also include averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) compliance provisions for both the engine and vehicle standards in this program. EPA and NHTSA said such provisions allow manufacturers to trade credits, bank credits for future years, and average credits, which in turn allows manufacturers to certify engines or vehicles that do not perform up to the standard and offset them with engines or vehicles that perform better than the standard. However, EPA and NHTSA said they are not adopting a full ABT program for the Phase 2 trailer standards because, in their words, “the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for trailer manufacturers to benefit from this type of program.” Instead, the agencies will finalize an averaging program available in model year 2027 for manufacturers of dry and refrigerated box vans as well as exemptions for non-box specialty trailer types that remove or reduce the burden for many small businesses. The Phase 2 standards are fully aligned between EPA and NHTSA noted that the Phase 2 standards are “fully aligned” between them both as well as with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) so as to allow manufacturers to continue to build a “single fleet” of vehicles, equipment and engines for the U.S. market.

Watch the video to determine if you got your money's worth. Your taxes paid for it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE Commits $137M to Advance Fuel-Efficient Tech Heavy Duty Trucking / August 17, 2016 The United States Department of Energy (DoE) is announcing up to $137 million in investments for two programs designed to develop next-generation fuel-efficiency technologies in commercial and passenger vehicles, including more funding for SuperTruck II. The program is designed to advance environmental and innovative technologies for heavy- and medium-duty vehicles while accelerating technology advancement for passenger cars and lighter trucks. One of the initiatives, SuperTruck II, will fund four projects to develop and demonstrate cost-effective technologies aimed at doubling the freight efficiency of Class 8 trucks. Through another initiative, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement selections, 35 new projects will receive $57 million to develop and deploy an array of cutting-edge vehicle technologies. These technologies include advanced batteries and electrical drive systems to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum consumption in passenger cars and light trucks. “These investments will accelerate the development of innovative vehicle technologies that will save businesses and consumers money at the pump, cut carbon emissions, and strengthen our economy,” said David Friedman, acting assistant secretary. “SuperTruck II builds on the successful SuperTruck I program, which has already led to more than 20 fuel-saving technologies that have reached the commercial market.” Announced in March, the SuperTruck II initiative is a continuation of the SuperTruck program that was launched in 2010 to improve heavy-duty truck freight efficiency by 50%. For SuperTruck II, the Energy Department has selected four SuperTruck II teams for projects of $20 million in federal funding with each recipient matching that amount dollar-for-dollar. The four companies tapped participating in SuperTruck II are Cummins, [Germany’s] Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar, and [Sweden’s] Volvo Technology of America. Cummins will design and develop a new more-efficient engine and advanced drivetrain and vehicle technologies. Daimler Trucks North America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination using a suite of technologies including active aerodynamics, cylinder deactivation, hybridization, and the electrification of accessories. Navistar will design and develop a vehicle and powertrain with electrified engine components that can enable higher engine efficiency and a significantly more aerodynamically reengineered cab. Volvo Technology of America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination with a lightweight cab that achieves the freight efficiency goal using alternative engine designs and a variety of system technologies. For more information on both programs, click here. Related reading - http://www.slideshare.net/PaulMenig/tmc-2013-far-horizon-tech-session .