kscarbel2

Fleet Owner / November 11, 2015 An unprecedented capacity crisis, driven by the impacts of trucking regulations, will be followed by a revolution in transportation productivity, and the winners and losers in the supply chain will be sorted out based their preparations for the coming market upheaval, industry analysts explained at the Connected 2015 conference this week. “We are on the cusp of the biggest event in transportation since the invention of the superhighway in the ’50s. The size of the threats we have—or the opportunities—are bigger than they’ve been in a long time,” said economist Noël Perry, senior consultant for FTR. “The problem is that the precise timing of these events is not clear, even though the events themselves are. What it says is we have to get ready before. If we haven’t prepared, we’ll be left behind.” The supply and demand imbalance will initially tilt toward carriers, with the extent of the capacity shortage to be determined by how quickly the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration imposes its regulatory agenda, and tempered by the freight demands of the economy, Perry told the gathering of brokers and carriers. That conclusion is based on Perry’s analysis of the regulations now in the works or under consideration—led by the coming ELD mandate, speed limiters, hair testing as a drug screen, for instance—and how those rules will negatively impact productivity and, in turn, substantially increase the demand for drivers. “If FMCSA does what they say they're going to do, [the capacity imbalance] will peak at levels we’ve never experienced before,” he said. “So if you’re a broker, in 2017-18-19 your survival will depend on your ability to find trucks.” However, by the next decade new transportation technologies—specifically, automation—will reverse the trend. “The business of the 2020s will be finding loads,” Perry said. “The productivity of the industry will be increasing as rapidly as it did in the 1960s. So there’s this wrenching change from one crisis in one direction to a crisis and in the other.” Indeed, as transportation analyst and Stifel Managing Director John Larkin explained, efficiency improvement through automation in No. 1 in his list of the top 10 factors influencing transportation and logistics over the next 10 to 15 years. Automation will have a significant impact of manufacturing and distribution, including the growing use of autonomous trucks. “You may still need the pilot in the cockpit to monitor the systems, but the technology is not too far away,” Larkin said. “Whether the regulators will allow autonomous trucks is debatable.” And while the technology changes to transportation management systems rank second on Larkin’s list of the most significant future factors, the “Uberization” of freight will happen more quickly in some sectors than in others. “Given all the nuances in the truckload sector in particular, it will be interesting to see how this works,” he said. “Most of the people developing this technology are not freight guys or gals—they’re technology people who see it as a very simple problem. But they’re missing the complexity of most freight moves, and I think they’re going to lose a lot in the translation.” His list of influences also pointed to government policy, domestic energy production, industry consolidation, the shift to a service economy, changing demographics, shifting production trends and de-globalization, and changes in the way goods get to consumers. “These are the themes that are going to determine the winners and the losers in the supply chain Olympics,” Larkin said. “This is more important than even economic growth, which has been a little tepid of late. It’s important for all companies to do strategic and scenario planning. Think about how you plan would be affected if one of these big trends cam to reality.” But the problem for carriers and brokers, as NASSTRAC Executive Director Gail Rutkowski added, is that shippers aren’t committing the forethought or the resources to their transportation needs. “When I reach out to my membership, the shippers, what I find is that the things that are bothering them are much more tactical and much less strategic. But they’re down in the foxhole every day, fighting fires, getting trucks and moving freight,” she said. “It’s so difficult for a transportation person at a shipper to pull back and look at these issues that are so important, and are so going to affect how they’re doing business down the road. It’s a little scary.” Shippers’ main concern is “increased customer expectations,” Rutkowski noted, referring to the stresses caused by ever tighter schedules and more complex delivery requirements. “Customers really don’t care what the shippers face or what they’re dealing with—they just want it done,” Rutkowski said. “So the shipper then puts the pressure on the broker who puts the pressure on the carrier, and it just keeps rolling along.” And internally, despite the customer-caused headaches, transportation is often an afterthought in the boardroom—but expectations to cut costs year after year remain. “Its low tech and no tech,” she said. “When it comes to the IT department, transportation does not tend to come in high on the priority list.” On the other hand, shippers’ lack of market awareness and logistics expertise presents opportunities for brokers and carriers to solve some of these supply chain problems. “The need somebody to handle them and walk them through the process,” she said. “No one really wants to tell shippers how bad they’re doing, how bad their freight is—but shippers need to hear those things. They spend so much time looking over their shoulder, they don’t see what's in front of them. They don’t take that broader view of the marketplace.” Of course, carriers and brokers likewise can get caught up in the here-and-now—but a business-as-usual mindset is increasingly a formula for failure, Stifel’s Larkin concluded. “At the end of the day, the status quo doesn’t cut it,” Larkin concluded. “The pace of change is accelerating. It makes for a very exciting environment.”

Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare The Washington Free Beacon / September 10, 2015 In 2012, 62 percent got benefits, while 49 percent of legal households also on public assistance More than half of households headed by illegal immigrants, or 62 percent, received welfare benefits in 2012, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies. In the same time period, 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants received welfare benefits, while 30 percent of households headed by natives received the same. The report evaluates data from the Census Bureau and found that illegal immigrant households benefit mostly from food programs like food stamps and Medicaid through their native-born children. “Welfare use by illegal immigrant households is certainly a concern, but the bigger issue is welfare use by legal immigrants,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s director of research and author of the report. “Three-fourths of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.” “Legal immigration is supposed to benefit the country, yet so many legal immigrants are not able to support themselves or their children,” he continued. When households have children, the percentage of those receiving benefits increases. “Of legal immigrant households with children, 72 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households,” states the report. And illegal immigrant households have higher use rates of government benefits than native-born households. “Households headed by immigrants illegally in the country have higher use rates than native households overall and for food programs (57 percent vs. 22 percent) and Medicaid (51 percent vs. 23 percent),” states the report. “Use of cash programs by illegal immigrants is lower than use by natives (5 percent vs. 10 percent), as is use of housing programs (4 percent vs. 6 percent).” The report also finds that some restrictions on government benefits are not enforced, and there are many exemptions or ways for these individuals to skirt them. “Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time,” states the report. “Some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally problematic, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.”

We can only have legal immigration, AND, the State Department and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) need to be even more careful in how they screen immigration applicants. Waves of freeloaders, legal and illegal, are trying to arrive on our shores and milk our system. Millions are already here......and you're paying for it. Look at the chaos in Europe, and the EU countries that have gone broke, as the creators of their welfare systems never planned for waves of foreigners to come and milk the system. We need quality immigrants that will contribute to America's development, rather than collect welfare. It's fair to say that immigrants should be prohibited from collecting financial assistance until they have lived in the U.S. over 10 years. Remember, before foreigners are allowed to immigrate to the U.S., they must prove that they have adequate means of financial support (so they don't become a financial burden on the country). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Majority of Immigrant Households Are on Welfare The National Review / September 2, 2015 Most immigrant households use welfare. That immigrants receive taxpayer-funded benefits at higher rates than the native-born isn’t a new finding. But previous research (including by CIS) has never found such a high rate. The data source is Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which provides the most comprehensive view of welfare use (a.k.a program participation). 51% of immigrant-headed households use at least one welfare program, as opposed to 30% for households headed by the native-born. But it’s only illegals! Actually, three-fourths of the immigrant households using welfare are headed by a legal immigrant. Illegal aliens are indeed included in the SIPP, and they do often receive welfare benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, but this is not a problem that can be solved simply with a fence, a wall, or any other form of enforcement. But immigrants are hard workers! No doubt, but welfare and work are not mutually exclusive. Half of immigrant households with one or more workers still accessed the welfare system. Among those working-households headed by an immigrant who did not have a high school education, an astonishing 77% accessed welfare, as did 64% of working households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education. .

Friend, no one will disagree with you that the United States is a country built on immigration. However, at our country's mature state in the year 2015, we need legal immigration (whether they plan to pick fruit, do roofing or other). Every country has immigration laws/policies...........we're not alone here. We have immigration laws that were established for a reason. I know people that have been waiting four years to "legally" immigrate to the US. Why should people who criminally enter our borders illegally be allowed to stay??? Hey, if you hide out in a church long enough, we'll forget our laws and allow you to stay. Gee, what a country (http://news.yahoo.com/illegal-mexican-migrant-leave-arizona-church-sanctuary-461-173643545.html). Do you think that's sending the right message to foreigners who are of the demeanor to intentionally ignore our immigration laws and sneak in at night?

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/30224-your-mack-off-highway-truck-line/

According to the U.S. State Government 2013-2015 Foreign Assistance report, an estimated $5.9 billion was spent on foreign military funding alone in fiscal year 2014. (Translation: “Estimated” means either that they have poor accounting practices and don’t know, or this number is below the actual fact.......the masses needn’t know the actual amount) This is equivalent to 17% of the estimated $35 billion spent on total global aid. U.S. foreign military aid to countries ranged from $200,000 to $3.1 billion. Of the top 10 recipients, two countries received 75% of the $5.9 billion. Below is a ranking of the the top 10 recipients and their respective world regions. Israel: $3.1B (Middle East) Egypt: $1.3B (Africa) Iraq: $300M (Middle East) Jordan: $300M (Middle East) Pakistan: $280M (Asia) Lebanon: $75M (Middle East) Philippines: $50M (Asia) Colombia: $29M (Latin America) Tunisia: $20M (Africa) Question: Why does the U.S. provide Israel annually with funding through multiple channels, when it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Research conducted by the World Bank shows that the on average, countries spend approximately 2.2% of GDP on the military. Israel, Iraq, Jordan and Pakistan allocated above average spending towards their military in 2014. World Bank data shows that each country spent approximately 5.2%, 4.3%, 3.5%, and 3.4% of GDP, respectively, on military expenditures. These countries are also part of the top 5 recipients of U.S. foreign military financing, totaling $4.0 billion. Funding by World Region Approached from a different perspective, approximately 87% of the $5.9 billion was distributed among two of five world regions. The Middle East tops this list, followed by Africa. Middle East: 64% Africa: 23% Asia: 7% General Programs: 4% Europe: 1% Latin America: 1% Note that while the Latin American region received only 1% of foreign military financing, Colombia made the top 10 list with $28 million. The second highest recipient in Latin America was Mexico, with $7 million of U.S. funding. On the other hand, Africa received roughly 23% of military aid; however, five African countries made the bottom of the list, receiving $200,000 each (Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Botswana, Tanzania, and Uganda). Of the 74 countries that received U.S. foreign military funding, not all received aid in proportion to its geographic region. Past, Present, and Future Allocation of foreign military financing may differ over time as the social, economic, and political climate changes across the globe. In the past three years; however, foreign military financing has been relatively consistent, with $5.7 and $5.9 billion distributed in 2013 and 2014, respectively, and $5.6 billion requested in 2015. Additionally, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan made the top 5 in all three years, receiving roughly the same amount of aid year over year. It is difficult to predict future foreign military financing allocations; however, if remaining consistent, five countries will receive approximately 89% of these distributions, leaving 69 other countries to receive the remaining 11% of funds. .

The U.S. provided $35 billion of economic aid in 2014 The United States provided an estimated $35 billion in economic aid to over 140 countries* in fiscal year 2014. (Translation: “Estimated” means either that they have poor accounting practices and don’t know, or this number is below the actual fact.......the masses needn’t know the actual amount) So when you ponder why our interstate system’s concrete roads are crumbling and bridges collapsing, and the government claims to lack the money to provide funding to address the decay of America's key economic artery, well, this is one reason why. In the map below the relative size of each country is proportionate to the aid received from the United States and the color of each country indicates GDP per capita. How was this aid distributed? Clearly, not all aid is distributed equally. The question is: Who received the largest slice of the pie from the U.S.? From the map above, the answer is clear: Israel. Of the $35 billion of total economic aid distributed, almost a quarter of funds went to five countries. Below are the top 5 recipients of economic aid in 2014. Israel: $3.1 billion Egypt: $1.5 billion Afghanistan: $1.1 billion Jordan: $1.0 billion Pakistan: $933 million Question: Why does the U.S. provide Israel annually with funding through multiple channels, when it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world? At first glance, one may wonder why Israel would receive roughly 9% of U.S. economic aid. It is important to note that foreign aid has a variety of uses depending on the current political, economic, and social climate. According to the U.S. State Government 2013-2015 Foreign Assistance report, all $3.1 billion of Israel’s funding was used for military financing. In Egypt, $1.3 billion of $1.5 billion received was used for military-related activities as well. On the other hand, the majority of funds received by Afghanistan, Jordan, and Pakistan were used for economic development purposes. Of the $35 billion referenced in the report, $8.4 billion (24%) was used towards global health programs, $5.9 billion (17%) was used for foreign military financing, $4.6 billion (13%) was used for economic support, and $2.5 billion (7%) was used for development assistance. Below is a breakout of aid received by geographic region in fiscal year 2014. Africa: 20% East Asia and Pacific: 2% Europe and Eurasia: 2% Near East: 20% South and Central Asia: 7% Western Hemisphere: 4% General Aid: 45% With 142 countries receiving aid out of the 188 countries listed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2014, approximately 76% of the world received some form of economic assistance from the U.S., the majority located within Africa and the Near East. Depending on future geopolitical events, this allocation is subject to change; however, according to the federal government’s 2015 estimates, the approximate $33 billion requests in aid follow a similar geographic allocation. Nonetheless, in the past three years, the economic support from the U.S. will have impacted a large majority of the world’s population, totaling $103 billion in economic support across various programs. .

The next president must make flag burning a federal crime. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Black Lives Matter sets fire to American flag outside GOP debate Associated Press / November 11, 2015 Black Lives Matter protesters burned an American flag outside the GOP debate last night as hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets of Milwaukee. A man set fire to the American flag outside the Milwaukee Theater, where the Republican presidential candidates were speaking, and said he was protesting against the death of an unarmed black man who was shot dead by police. He and two other men trampled over the U.S. flag while holding their fists in the air as they raised a Black Liberation flag. Milwaukee Police retrieved the flag, ceremoniously folded it up and took it away for evidence. The flag burner said he was demonstrating against the U.S. Justice Department's decision not to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against former Milwaukee police officer Christopher Manney, who fatally shot disabled black man Dontre Hamilton 14 times during a scuffle last year. 'America is a police state,' the protester said. Milwaukee Police said the protesters have been identified but not been arrested. The police chief said that the man has previous for arson. He said: 'On the eve of Veteran’s Day and the 240th anniversary of the Marine Corps, at a time when Milwaukee and Wisconsin should be celebrating our country for being at the epicenter of our democratic process, protesters chose to disrespect the very symbol of that democracy. 'While the protesters may have been within their rights to trample on and burn the flag, that does not excuse their actions. They showed their disdain for our country, our rule of law, and the brave men and women who have fought and died for their rights. 'I want to thank the Milwaukee police officers who intervened, and treated the flag with the respect and reverence it deserves.'

Pressed on how he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country, Donald Trump said Wednesday he would build a "deportation force." "You're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely," Trump said. "Don't forget, that you have millions of people that are waiting in line to come into this country and they're waiting to come in legally." "And I always say the wall, we're going to build the wall. It's going to be a real deal. It's going to be a real wall." Trump pointed to the actions of former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who authorized the largest deportation operations in US history, Operation Wetback. Sparked by post-war concerns about the invasion of illegal labor from Mexico, immigration agents combed the southwest in 1954 and 1955, arresting illegal immigrants (wetbacks) and transporting millions of people back across the Mexican border. Included in the immigration proposal Trump released this past August is a call for to triple the number of immigrations and customs enforcement agents. Trump also proposes ending birthright citizenship, which is included in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution and grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. (addressing the birth of children by illegal immigrants, and birth tourism)

Agreement Undermines Key Clinton Defense of Personal Email Use The Washington Free Beacon / November 9, 2015 A copy of Hillary Clinton’s signed, 15-paragraph "Sensitive Compartmented Information Non-Disclosure Agreement," executed on January 22, 2009, removes any doubt that Clinton was briefed and agreed to protocols concerning the highest classification materials, including the absolute duty to protect their integrity and to leave them all in the government's custody upon retirement. A nondisclosure agreement signed by Hillary Clinton upon taking office as the nation’s chief diplomat undermines a key defense mounted by her and her allies against allegations that she mishandled classified information. Clinton has repeatedly defended her use of a private email address instead of an official State Department account by saying that the hundreds of emails containing classified information that were routed through her “homebrew” email server were not marked as classified when they were sent or received. However, a nondisclosure agreement signed by Clinton upon taking office stipulates that its prohibitions on the mishandling of such material applies to information that contains classified information but is not marked as such. “As used in this agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information,” says the agreement. That agreement is one of two signed by Clinton and obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the documents. One of the agreements applies to Sensitive Compartmented Information, an extremely high level of classification. The other concerns all other classified material and contains the provision indicating that such material includes both marked and unmarked information. Both agreements contain language that placed the onus on Clinton to ascertain whether information in her possession was classified. “I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws,” the classified agreement states. Since questions began surfacing regarding Clinton’s use of a personal email address throughout her tenure as secretary of state, the Democratic presidential frontrunner has routinely defended her actions by noting the lack of classification markings on emails sent and received at her personal email address. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info The Washington Free Beacon / November 6, 2015 Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA. “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states. Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general. The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI. The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received. The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified. “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA. According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such. “TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.” Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008. “If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August. Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws. In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties. It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes. Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA. Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows. Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.

Unlike the 2013 refresh team, a mixture of U.S. and Otosan people, all the designers on the MY2018 H62X program seems to be Otosans. That tells me it's probably global market only. But who knows, Ford's Transcontinental had a modified U.S. market Louisville chassis. Of course in those days, Ford had a huge team of professional heavy truck people under their roof. Now they only have car and pickup truck designers.

I was going to suggest Lancaster County Upholstery, but I just noted your October post stating they no longer provide them. That said, you'll need to have some workable originals copied.

Again Ford Brasil (meeting a market requirement different from Ford-Otosan's)

Ford Brasil C-2842 6x2 with Iveco Cursor 10 and ZF-sourced AS Tronic AMT.

Ford-Otosan 2nd gen cab (2003-present). Note the planetary hub reduction drive axles (the European preference), Meritor MT32-610. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ford-Otosan 2013 2nd gen refresh for the 1846T 4x2 tractor (and all Brasil)

Associated Press / November 10, 2015 The Senate went on record Tuesday against a federal mandate that would force all states to allow trucks with extra-long double trailers on interstates, saying it first must be shown that the vehicles don't undermine safety. By a vote of 56-31, the Senate instructed negotiators assigned to work out the final language of a sweeping transportation bill to allow individual trailer lengths to increase from 28 feet to 33 feet only after the Transportation Department completes a safety study and determines the trucks would cause no statistically significant decrease in safety. Earlier this year, a Senate committee approved an amendment to a separate spending bill requiring all states to allow the longer double trailers. A similar provision was added to a spending bill that passed the House. Safety advocates said they were concerned negotiators will add the same truck provision to the transportation bill even though the provision wasn't included in versions of the transportation bill passed by the House last week and the Senate in July. That's why they supported the motion by the Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and [82-year-old] Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to instruct negotiators to make longer trucks on federal interstates contingent on the government first showing they are safe. Negotiators are trying to work out differences between the two transportation bills and send a final bill to the White House before Nov. 20, when the government's authority to process highway and transit aid payments to states expires. Twelve states already allow longer trailers that, together with the cab, bring the total length of a truck to 91 feet. Some large trucking and delivery companies, include FedEx and United Parcel Service, have been strongly lobbying Congress for permission to use the longer trucks on interstates in the other 38 states even though some of those states have looked at the issue and decided not to permit longer trucks. "Today's vote against this federal government mandate sends a strong signal that we stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not want to contend with these longer double trucks on their roads," Wicker said. The Coalition for Efficient & Responsible Trucking, an umbrella group for supporters of extra-long double trailers, says they would improve efficiency, substantially reduce truck congestion and significantly cut down on truck-related accidents by reducing the number of trucks on the road. Safety advocate Joan Claybrook, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief, said making a mandate to allow the longer trucks contingent on a government finding of no statistically meaningful decrease in safety sets a very high bar that will be difficult for the industry to meet. Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/42296-3-senators-set-news-conference-to-state-opposition-to-33-foot-trailers/?hl=feinstein

The C-2629 6x4 vocational chassis (http://www.fordcaminhoes.com.br/cargo/c-2629) has the same cab as the Ford Brazil C-2842 6x2 tractor (http://www.fordcaminhoes.com.br/cargo/c-2842) and the Ford-Otosan 1846T 4x2 tractor ( http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/34938-the-global-market-ford-cargo-heavy-tractor/?hl=1846t). Problems with that narrow cab begin with you having to swing yourself over those big fenders, not to mention getting your pants dirty as they wipe across the fenders, to the reduced interior space due to the narrow cab width. The first generation Cargo cab still used on the Brazilian C-816 (http://www.fordcaminhoes.com.br/cargo/c-816) and C-1119, which is also the cab Americans had experience with, was designed by Ford UK in 1981 (http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/2nd-february-1985/22/cargo-cabs-for-brazil). The Ford-Otosan designed second generation Cargo cab in production today was launched in 2003 at Ford-Otosan. But the 2nd gen Cargo cab wasn't introduced at Ford Brasil until 2011 for the 2012 model year. Those 2nd gen cabs for Brazil production are imported from Ford Otosan. Brasil still produces the 1st gen cab (low volumes now) In 2013, the 2nd gen Cargo cab was refreshed (the odd grilles and plastic cladding). Under the Ford Global Cargo Truck Program, the effort was headed by Ford car designers including chief engineer John Sidelko (2005 Ford Focus) and exterior designer Fabio Sandrin (Ford no longer has any heavy truck engineers, as in the Louisville days). The 2013 facelift was the first time that Ford Brazil and Ford-Otosan got in sync (Mulally's "One Ford" global streamlining strategy). Essentially, Ford-Otosan helped Ford Brazil rejuvenate its outdated Cargo product range. All the Brazilian models adopted the new heavy use of plastic trim, but that's not the case in the Ford-Otosan product range (http://www.ford.com.tr/agir-ticari-araclar/ford-cargo). Ford-Otosan is not merely a production base, rather they actually develop Ford's global market heavy trucks there. But Dearborn seems unwilling to commit to the level of resources necessary for Ford-Otosan to become a serious global player. The Ford-Otosan 1846T has the drivetrain and platform to be a serious European 4x2 tractor. But it lacks a full-size cab to make the truck a home run. Whether or not Otosan can evolve further all depends on Dearborn's interest in the global heavy truck market. With Ford wanting to enter China's rapidly maturing heavy truck market, a new cab and robust European level 6x4 tractor platform are absolutely required. With that in mind, under the ongoing H62X Global Cargo Truck Program, Ford is developing a 3rd generation product for the 2018 model year led by Ford-Otosan manager Atilla Argat.

Heavy Duty Trucking / November 10, 2015 Mack Trucks is recalling 2,571 2010-2016 model-year Granite (GU), LR, and TerraPro (LEU, MRU) trucks for potential oil leaks that pose a fire risk, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said. The trucks were manufactured from Nov. 17, 2009, to Oct.17 of this year. They all have engines with a turbocharger oil supply line that might contact or interfere with the turbocharger inlet elbow, clean air intake clamp, or air fuel control tube. As a result, the turbocharger oil supply line might leak oil near the engine exhaust manifold. This increases the risk of a fire, NHTSA said. Cummins will notify truck owners on behalf of Mack, and dealers will inspect for oil supply line interference or damage. If necessary, dealers will eliminate the interference and replace the oil supply line. The recall is expected to begin Nov. 30. Truck owners can reach Cummins at (800) 343-7357 or Mack customer service at (800) 866-1177. Cummins’ number for this recall is SC0396.

Can Cummins and its partners "redefine" trucking? Fleet Owner / November 10, 2015 Driving with Cummins-Eaton powertrains in some aero-slick Class 8s It's one thing to say it, and quite another to deliver. Cummins rolled out some trucks that'd come from its Redefining Tour last week, and industry reporters got a chance to see what they really think. It was at Eaton's proving grounds facility in Michigan, and the companies announced new options for their integrated SmartAdvantage Powertrains. The breaking news included that there's now a direct drive ratio — said to help optimize fuel economy for regional and less-than-truckload carriers — available along with the small-step overdrive options, and Eaton and Cummins engineers said that theirs is the only integrated powertrain to offer those configurations. But the engineers also discussed other technologies enhancing the SmartAdvantage Powertrains, including a SmartCoast feature that they said boosts fuel economy by another 2%. Fleet Owner got a chance to see some of these new features in action out on roadways. Showcasing the Cummins-Eaton powertrains were some slick Class 8 machines, including a Kenworth T680 with a current-spec Cummins ISX15 with 450 HP and 10-speed small-step overdrive; an International ProStar+ 6X2 with one of the new 2017 Cummins ISX15s in development, also with 450 HP and 10-speed small-step overdrive; and an International ProStar+ 6X4 with another of the 2017 Cummins ISX15s, this one with 400 HP and paired with a 10-speed direct drive transmission. All those trucks had Eaton Fuller Advantage automated manuals. For good measure, Eaton also threw in a 2013 International ProStar with 450-HP Cummins ISX15 and Eaton Fuller Advantage 10-speed overdrive automated manual. Ease of use/power delivery A claim that these trucks offer comfort and ease of use is no hollow praise. Similar to what Eaton also demonstrated with some vocational trucks, for this first-timer behind the wheel of a Class 8 tractor, it was a fairly simple matter to back up to a 53-ft. trailer and connect it thanks to the Eaton automated transmission's new Blended Pedal feature, which allows the driver to manipulate clutch slip using just the accelerator pedal for very incremental, controlled movements. And then driving off to the proving grounds' oval track, the Cummins ISX15s and Eaton transmissions delivered smooth, ample power. Again thanks to an Eaton transmission feature — this time Urge to Move, which can creep the truck forward or in reverse, if enabled, just by the driver taking his or her foot off the brake pedal — it was easy enough to back a tractor-trailer up a curved incline. Fuel economy But there was also the fuel economy factor. A major drive of Cummins' Redefining Tour across the United States and Canada was to show off the capabilities of Cummins' ISX15 engine — including the new 2017 model being tested — and the fuel economy it can achieve, thanks in part to integration with Eaton transmissions. Ryan Trzybinski, Eaton's global product strategy manager for line haul commercial powertrains, touched on that point before reporters took the trucks out for drives. He said Cummins and Eaton have continued to refine the integrated SmartAdvantage Powertrains to share more data between engine and transmission, and "that's part of what enables us to increase fuel economy and give the performance we can — we're optimizing our shifting for each environment." Though the Cummins folks hinted at significant gains but wouldn't talk specifics yet about potential fuel economy of the new 2017 ISX15s, the Kenworth's current-spec SmartAdvantage Powertrain helped the truck average 9.3 mpg on the trip to the proving grounds facility, according to Patrick Fosdick, a program manager and technical specialist at Cummins. And that was pulling its trailer and loaded to 65,460 lbs. "A lot of fleets would love to be getting that kind of fuel economy," he quipped. Advanced tech Eaton's Trzybinski had discussed the SmartAdvantage Powertrains' SmartCoast feature, which selectively shifts to neutral on certain down-grades to drop the engine to an idle, and the driver just steps on the accelerator to re-engage the appropriate gear. Together with other technologies, Trzybinski added a claim that the Cummins-Eaton SmartAdvangtage line beats competitor integrated powertrains by some 7% in fuel economy. SmartCoast is a noticeable difference. On a trip outside the proving grounds facility in the Kenworth, SmartCoast grabbed neutral and dropped the engine down to about 600 RPM in an instant — growing very quiet as it did so — and it felt smooth and seamless when the transmission re-engaged 9th gear. "If you're on a hilly route, you're talking big fuel economy savings," Fosdick said. "It's not a big herky-jerky motion or anything like that; it just happens very naturally." Fosdick also told Fleet Owner about other new refinements for the SmartAdvantage Powertrains, including a feature that uses GPS data to improve cruise and transmission functionality by examining the roadway ahead, selecting optimal gears or helping trigger SmartCruise. "For 2017, we're bringing out GPS technology. A lot of people call it 'look ahead,' or another industry name is 'predictive cruise control,'" Fosdick said. "Once we add GPS technology, it really enhances these features because it knows a hill is coming up, for example. So it knows how big the hill is, how long it is," he continued. He gave the example of a loaded truck going down a long, steeper hill, and to prevent over-speeding, SmartCruise may shift back into gear rather than coasting in neutral. "I would love to even have some of this technology on my own car," Fosdick said. "It'd be fantastic to see some of these fuel economy and other improvements that we see in heavy duty trucking applied to passenger cars." Videos - http://fleetowner.com/fleet-management/video-can-cummins-and-its-partners-redefine-trucking

Perhaps of interest to some. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Half of post-WWII interior ministry were ex-Nazis The Local – Germany / November 6, 2015 For two decades after the Second World War, over half of all employees of the West German interior ministry were ex-Nazis, a new study shows. The research, carried out by the Centre for Contemporary Historical Studies with the blessing of the Interior Ministry, shows that the number of ex-Nazi party members in both the West and East German post-war administrations was much higher than previously thought. In exact figures, an average of 54 percent of civil servants in the West German interior ministry were former Nazis, although at its high point between 1966 and 1961, two-thirds of all employees at the ministry had been Nazi party members during the war. To have been a member of the Nazi party "was not seen as a bad thing in 1949," Dr. Frank Bösch, the lead researcher on the project told The Local. "There was a belief that they were people who had done their duty in a difficult time." Bösch said the policy was more one of toleration than active encouragement. West Germany decided it needed expertise in managing its bureaucracy and only hired people with a legal education, meaning they often had little choice but to offer ex-Nazis positions. The number of ex-members of Hitler's personal militia, the SA, was also surprisingly high, the report found, reaching a peak of 45 percent in 1961. The number of ex-SS members meanwhile was between five and eight percent of interior ministry employees. The fact that 14 percent of employees in the East German interior ministry were ex-Nazis also came as a surprise to the researchers as the communist state had at the time made a big deal of its stringent denazification process. Reactionaries remained A consequence of the West German policy was that many of the people responsible for running the country still held onto very reactionary views. In one instance, a judge tried to have Jews who returned to the country from Israel deported by categorizing them as illegal immigrants. The attempt eventually failed - although four people were deported - due to government fear of how such a policy would be seen in the outside world, said Bösch. It was only in the 1960s that people started losing their jobs because of their Nazi past, although they did manage to moderate their more extreme ideas in the face of public and especially media pressure, argued the historian. Bösch explained that 1945 did create a genuine break with the Nazi past. Many of the elite were put into Allied prison camps where they learned about democratic values. They later adopted these values either because they believed in them or because it benefited their careers. "But it takes much longer for the world to change," he said. The researchers will now look further into the past of the Nazi members who worked at the interior ministries to understand what exactly they did during the Nazi period. “Membership of the Nazi party in itself doesn't say that much,” said Dr. Andreas Wirsching, one of two researchers working on the study. “We want to know what the employees of the two German interior ministries did during the Nazi period.” Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://books.google.com/books?id=aO5zAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=eisenhower+denazification&source=bl&ots=DYuRX0nFk-&sig=j4QoMYFV2xSLCNG2jFOa5AVOHV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCWoVChMI-LeDroiHyQIVSzkaCh1m5wSF#v=onepage&q=eisenhower%20denazification&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=OmRg2V71BCAC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=total+denazification&source=bl&ots=DyDyEFwMiU&sig=rxFDXnVNf2m-SE8sOI_fvZVd-G4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBmoVChMIrti5uImHyQIVAigaCh1W6gCW#v=onepage&q=total%20denazification&f=false ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Berlin still pays Spanish Nazi volunteers pensions The Local – Germany / November 6, 2015 Berlin is still honouring an agreement struck with Spanish dictator Francisco Franco to pay pensions to fascist volunteers who signed up to fight for Hitler, it has emerged. Around €100,000 of German tax-payers’ money is paid to former combatants, their widows and orphans each year, according to left-wing political party Die Linke, who recently tabled a question on the matter in the Bundestag, Germany's national parliament. "Even if the sum sounds small at €100,000, it's a scandal that the government to this day voluntarily compensates people who were involved in the Nazi war against the Soviet Union," Die Linke MP Andrej Hunko told The Local. More than 47,000 Spaniards signed up to the Division Azul (Blue Division) to join Nazi troops fighting communism on Germany’s eastern front between 1941 and 1944. A pension agreement was struck by German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer with Franco in 1961 that saw the Blue Division combatants, their widows and orphans receive a pension from the state. Last year the figure amounted to €107,352 split between 41 veterans, eight widows and an orphan. "The agreement signed by Adenauer is valid to this day and clearly no government to this day has questioned it. The political signal that sticking to this contract sends out is crucial. For this reason, this agreement must be cancelled,” Hunko said. In return, Spain agreed to pay a stipend to the widows of fallen airmen of Hitler’s Condor Legion, who bombed Spain during the Civil War of 1936 and 1939 and most famously carried out the bombardment of the Basque town Guernica. "It’s an absolute disgrace to think the German government is still paying out to Nazi volunteers," MP Jon Iñarritu of the left-wing Basque party Amaiur, told The Local. "It doesn’t make sense, contravenes EU law and serves to humiliate victims of fascism," he said. "It was my understanding that Germany had a completely different attitude when it came to historical memory and the rejection of fascism." The Basque pro-independence coalition party EH Bildu said they would bring up the issue at European Parliament on Friday.

Brazil builds the new Cargo cab with the plastic cladding (near identical to Otosan), and the last generation cab (now relegated to the low-cost light truck models). I don't know what third cab you're speaking of. As for the Ohio investment, if I'm following you, that really wasn't a big investment, and the F-650/750 as a conventional cab medium truck has no market outside of North America (Canada, U.S. and lawless Mexico).

The Financial Times / November 10, 2015 The oil market will remain oversupplied until the end of the decade as an unstoppable push for cleaner fuels and greater efficiency offsets the effect of lower prices, the world’s leading energy forecaster said. In its closely watched annual outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said oil demand would rise by less than 1 per cent a year between now and 2020, a slower pace than necessary to quickly mop up an oil glut that has driven prices to multiyear lows. The slowdown in oil demand growth follows a near 15-year surge in consumption, driven by the rapid industrialisation of China and other emerging market economies. But Beijing is now moving away from dirtier fuels and to less energy-intensive growth as it moves towards a more consumer-led economy. “We are approaching the end of the single largest demand growth story in energy history,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, told the Financial Times ahead of the launch of its long-term forecasts. Mr Birol was appointed IEA head in September after 20 years with the west’s energy watchdog. “Demand is not as strong as we have seen in the past as a result of efficiency [and climate] policies [globally],” he added, saying the growth in renewables will further restrict demand for oil. The IEA does not expect crude oil to reach $80 a barrel until 2020, under its “central scenario”, as excess supplies are slowly soaked up. After 2020, oil demand growth is expected to grind almost to a halt, increasing just 5 percent over the next 20 years, the IEA said. The IEA forecasts oil demand will not hit 103.5m b/d until 2040 — it is currently 94.5m b/d. Growth will be “moderated” by a return to higher prices, efforts to phase out subsidies and the switch to alternative fuels — especially in developed markets. “Collectively, the United States, EU and Japan see their oil demand drop by around 10m b/d by 2040,” the report says. Pledges made in advance of the Paris climate talks in December, Mr Birol said, would be a further catalyst in the move towards a low carbon and energy efficient future. “Big energy companies are underestimating the effects of all of these things on the demand side,” Mr Birol said. The IEA chief said a prolonged period of lower oil prices could not be ruled out. In this “low oil price” scenario, the agency said prices would stay close to $50 a barrel until the end of the decade and would not rise to $85 until 2040. The collapse in Brent crude — from $115 a barrel in June 2014 to below $50 — has battered the budgets of producer countries and forced the world’s biggest oil companies to slash investment. After years of oil above $100 a barrel, the “lower for longer” mantra has become part of the industry lexicon, promoted by traders, bankers and even the IEA itself as global inventories swell and storage fills up. The global oil market remains oversupplied by at least 1m barrels a day. Since November, production outside of the Opec cartel from countries such as the US has taken a hit. But it has been far more resilient than expected. Meanwhile, production from the cartel — led by Saudi Arabia and Iraq — has increased, helping to keep prices low. The IEA said “a clear pathway” had opened for additional Iranian barrels. Saudi officials warned this week that investment cuts and oil prices at about $50 for a prolonged time would have a “substantial and long-lasting” impact on future oil supplies and could lead to a price spike.

I couldn't recommend a Mack brand (Volvo) engine until they finally fit them with common rail fuel injection, because of the ongoing injector cup issues. And I wouldn't operate a current engine with the (Delphi) unit injectors, unless the truck was under warranty. Tax cheating Delphi is all about cheap. When it comes to fuel injection, the heart of the engine, you don't fool around.......you go with Bosch (or the captive Scania-Cummins HPI or XPI). On a side note, it appears Volvo is no longer putting downloadable PDF engine spec sheets on the Mack brand website. (2013 example: http://www.quincymacksales.com/assets/Uploads/Documents/6-MP7-395C.pdf) I suppose Volvo simply wants you to take their word. http://www.macktrucks.com/powertrain-and-suspensions/engines/mp7/