Trucks at Work Blog

“I love this job. It’s hard work and very demanding on your time. But you also take a lot of pride in being one of only a handful of people that can handle this kind of equipment and do these kinds of jobs.” –James Robert Cady, vice president, Ten-West Towing

Riding shotgun with James Robert Cady (who goes by “J.R.”) on I-15 outside of Las Vegas, NV, earlier this year, I couldn’t get the song “Bad to the Bone” by George Thorogood & the Delaware Destroyers to stop playing in my head – and for some good reasons.

First, there’s J.R. himself – a larger-than-life character in his own right, standing six foot nine and weighing 320 pounds. Not surprisingly, he went to college on a basketball scholarship, then spent time playing semi-professional ball overseas. A blown shoulder, however, forced him to choose another career, so he entered the family’s tow truck business and never looked back.

“Frankly, I got tired really fast of the semi-pro circuit – all the travel, endless hotels, and all that,” he told me as we roared down the highway. “Funny thing is, I’m making as much doing wrecker work as I did playing basketball.”

Yet a wrecker’s schedule in some ways takes a far heavier toll on his personal life, J.R. explained. “When you are in this line of work, you’re getting calls at 2 a.m. from the California Highway Patrol to clear a roadway, or from a carrier that needs one of their vehicles towed from a ditch. For rescue work, we serve a 150 to 170 square mile area. For our commercial accounts, we cover 10 western states. We’re on the road a lot.”

It’s also tough for someone J.R.’s size to get comfortable in a truck cab, much less a regular automobile. Once he ordered a brand-new Corvette, but had to send it back because he simply couldn’t fit behind the wheel.

At the helm of his 100-ton Super Wrecker, however, J.R. makes it look easy. It’s one of two such “Super Wreckers” owned by his family’s business, Ten-West Towing, which was founded in 1963 and now operates a fleet of 12 trucks. J.R.’s ride sports a 100-ton capable remote controlled crane, built on a Western Star 4900 EX chassis, sporting an 18-speed Eaton Fuller transmission, and powered by a 550-hp 14 liter Series 60 Detroit Diesel engine cranking out 1,650 foot-pounds of torque.

[Here’s a walk around of the Super Wrecker in action.]

Painted “Omaha Orange” – the family color, J.R. said – this super wrecker cost around $600,000 and is destined to be a workhorse for 10 to 15 years. “We needed to add another big wrecker to keep up with demand,” he told me. The company’s staff of nine drivers – who together comprise 120 years worth of heavy wrecker experience – are busier than all get out these days.

“There are only certain people that can do the work we do,” J.R. noted. “Sure, we charge a little extra, but no one else offers the equipment or the experience we do. And in this line of work, you need veteran hands at the ready, for no two jobs are ever the same and each always presents its own unique challenges.”

* * * * * * *

And on that note, my friends, we’re going to close the book on 2009, as far as this blog is concerned. Thanks so much for reading; I truly hope you’ve enjoyed the stories in this space over the past year. We’ll get things fired back up in January 2010. So to all of you out there, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

“The fact that the 2010 Taurus and 2009 F-150 are up to 12% and 17% respectively better on fuel economy than their 2004 predecessors isn’t due to one ‘silver bullet’ solution but a host of vehicle enhancements, including aerodynamic refinements, weight efficiency and mechanical improvements.” –Derrick Kuzak, group vp-global product development for Ford Motor Co.

The connections between cars and light trucks to the big rig world are legion. Not only do they share space on the same ribbons of asphalt and concrete snaking hither and yon across the U.S., they also share the same source of fuel (predominantly petroleum) and rely on the same engineering principles to ensure reliability, durability, consistency of operation, and fuel efficiency – among many other characteristics, to be sure.

So it’s been interesting to watch automakers engage in what I term a “bit by bit” retooling of their product lines in an effort to squeeze every little joule of energy they can from their vehicles. And this effort is not focused on just one area, mind you; not a quest to find a single “silver bullet” Derrick Kuzak, Ford’s group vp-global product development, referred to in his quote above.

Every component, every nut and bolt, is being closely examined on cars and light trucks these days in order to make them as efficient as possible. And it’s an engineering philosophy that is also being shared on the heavy-duty side of the ledger as commercial truck builders are engaged in the very same sorts of retooling as well.

Let’s focus on Ford in this post, starting with its powertrain improvements, which it says are a big difference maker. The company is going to a new six-speed automatic transmission, which offers a wider gear span than four-speed transmissions, to give its engineers the flexibility to tune the powertrain for greater responsiveness in low gears and better fuel economy in taller gears. The new double-overdrive gearbox is designed to contribute up to 4% fuel economy improvement and Ford is committed to making almost 100% of its transmissions to be these six-speed gearboxes by 2013.

Then there’s Ford’s new “EcoBoost” four-cylinder gasoline engine platform that uses turbocharged direct-injection technology for up to 20% better fuel economy, 15% fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and performance equal or better than larger-displacement engines. By 2013, Ford will offer EcoBoost engines in 90% of its product lineup with annual volumes targeted at 1.3 million units globally.

Aerodynamics is another big factor, as the ease with which a vehicle moves through air greatly influences its fuel efficiency, says Ford. The company notes that it engineers use computer modeling and wind tunnel testing to painstakingly tweak vehicle designs millimeter by millimeter to get the best possible aerodynamics – and the energy savings can be significant, for a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases fuel economy by approximately 1% for cars and approximately 2% for light trucks with conventional internal combustion engines.

For example, the 2010 Fusion S achieved a 34 mpg highway rating in part because it is 8%more aerodynamically efficient than the outgoing model.

Reducing vehicle weight also is another critical part of the fuel economy puzzle, for every 10% reduction in weight improves fuel efficiency by an estimated 3%. According to a recent study, replacing heavier materials with lightweight materials is nearly as important as hybrid technology for automakers to meet the expected increase in the One National Program regulations by 2016, Ford says.

As a result, the automaker is increasingly using light-gauge, high-strength steel and lightweight materials such as aluminum and magnesium to meet weight reduction goals, shaving anywhere from 250 pounds to as much as 750 pounds off its vehicle platforms.

In turn, weight savings in body and structural materials allow for the use of smaller-displacement engines and lighter-weight suspensions and chassis components, Ford says.

Then there’s energy management. Ford aims to eliminate what it calls “energy waste” in every vehicle system, even in such mundane components as power steering.

Ford’s new Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS), for example, can improve fuel economy up to 3%, saving fuel primarily because the steering system is powered by an electric motor connected to the vehicle’s battery, as opposed to engine-mounted hydraulic pump steering systems. By 2012 Ford plans to fit nearly 90% of its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury product lineup with EPAS.

“The progress we’ve made during the past few years reflects an engineering philosophy that every joule of energy gained through incremental improvement is precious,” says Kuzak (seen here at left).

This focus is part of what he calls a “systems approach” to manage vehicle energy, implementing a variety of design and engineering solutions to improve fuel economy by 1% or more.

“Whether we’re reducing wind drag, eliminating engine-driven power steering pumps or switching to low-friction engine oil, this attention to every detail and these small improvements collectively deliver significant fuel economy gains for our customers,” he says.

Just goes to show that make a host of tiny improvements here and there on a vehicle – no mater the size – can reap some big rewards when collectively applied.

“This year’s report shows the difficulties that many states are having when it comes to making across-the-board progress in road conditions. In many cases, we see two steps forward, one step back. And real progress in reducing urban congestion has slowed to a crawl.” –David Hartgen, lead author of the Reason Foundation’s 18th Annual Highway Report

As the digging out continues here on the east coast from this weekend’s record-breaking snowfall (leaving many to wonder just when the heck ‘global warming’ will actually show up), some interesting news materialized on the highway front, courtesy of Reason Foundation’s 18th Annual Highway Report.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, the Reason Foundation is a “free market” public policy think tank, with what many consider to be a very conservative bent. That being said, though, the numbers they use to compile their annual reports on state highway management and spending comes from the states themselves.

It’s also important to note that this is a “time capsule” report of sorts; meaning that we’re looking back in time to how state roadways fared in 2007, long before we reached the economic meltdown we’re living through today

Eleven indicators make up each state’s overall rating in the Reason Foundation’s annual report, covering highway expenditures, pavement and bridge condition, urban congestion, fatality rates and narrow lanes. The group noted that the overall condition of the state-owned highway system continued to generally improve from 2006 to 2007, yet key problems emerged. First, the percentage of deficient bridges worsened for the first time in 25 years and, and, after several years of improvement, the proportion of urban interstates in poor condition also worsened between 2006 and 2007.

The study finds over half of all state-owned highways across the country are congested and 25% of bridges are deficient or functionally obsolete. This downward slurge is occurring, however, even as per-mile total disbursements on state highways have increased 262% since 1984. Indeed, in 2007, the states spent over $109 billion on state-owned highways, a 10% increase over 2006.

Expenditures for bridge and capital actions increased even faster, 14.5%, from $54.66 billion to $62.57 billion, with capital and bridge expenditures now account for about 56.7% of the state highway budgets. Maintenance expenditures increased faster still, 17.2%, from $17.07 billion to $20 billion, accounting for about 18.2% of their budgets.

Yet in 2007, 151,101 bridges – 25.29% of the country’s total – were deemed deficient and or functionally obsolete; a 1% worsening over 2006. In the two worst states, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, over half of all bridges need improvement.

One big worrisome trend is the rise in administrative costs; a whopping 12.8%, from $7.02 billion in 2006 to $ 7.91 billion in 2007, and those costs now account for 7.2% of state highway spending. Think about that for a minute – nearly EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS a YEAR spent on shuffling paper.

The study continues to find wide variations among the states in road performance, and an increasing concentration of problems:

• About 53% of the poor-condition urban interstate mileage is in just four states; California, New York, New Jersey and Texas.

• About 64% of all the poor-condition rural interstate mileage in the U.S. is in just four states; California, New York, Alaska and Louisiana.

• About 49% of all the poor-condition mileage rural primary roads is in just five states; Alaska, Oklahoma, Iowa, California and South Dakota.

• Poor-condition mileage is increasingly a local problem rather than a national problem, with four states (California, Minnesota, Maryland and New Jersey) having more than 70% of their urban interstates congested.

All that being said, there’s a lot of good stuff in the Reason Foundation’s report as well. North Dakota, for example, still holds the top slot as the best performing road system – a ranking it’s held each year since 2001, scored well by having the least interstate and rural mileage in poor condition and ranking first in maintenance spending.

New Mexico continues its impressive improvement, rising from a dismal ranking of 27th in 2000 to the number two position in terms of overall performance and cost-effectiveness. Kansas is 3rd overall, with South Carolina (managing one of the largest state-owned highway systems in the country) in fourth place and Montana rounding out the top five.

Several states improved their rankings sharply from 2006:

• Delaware moved up 17 positions from 28th to 11th by cutting disbursements without sacrificing condition.

• Michigan moved up 12 positions from 42nd to 30th reporting a very large improvement in rural pavement condition.

• Mississippi moved up 11 positions, from 38th to 27th by sharp improvements in both urban and rural interstate condition.

• Utah improved 10 positions from 25th to 16th by substantially reducing the mileage of poor urban interstate.

• New Hampshire moved up 7 positions from 46th to 39th by sharply improving rural and urban interstate conditions.

Twenty states, led by Nebraska, Montana and North Carolina, improved their systems while spending less than the national average. Ten other states, led by Ohio and Utah, improved their systems but spent more than the national average.

Then there are the systems of 10 states that worsened as they spent less than the national average, alongside another 10 states worsened even though they spent more than the national average. The Reason Foundation noted that New York, Hawaii (which only must manage less than 1,000 miles of roads no less!), New Jersey, California, Rhode Island and Alaska received the dubious honor of having the worst-performing highway systems in the nation.

Here are several other states that lost ground between 2006 and 2007:

• Indiana fell 16 positions, from 15th to 31st due to a sharp increase in disbursements per mile and a sharp decline in urban interstate condition.

• Vermont slipped 12 positions, from 30th to 42nd with a very large increase in poor rural and urban interstate mileage.

• Oregon slipped 11 slots, from 11th to 22nd due to a recalculation of state-controlled mileage.

• Missouri lost 10 positions, from 13th to 23rd resulting from a large increase in the budget and a quadrupling of maintenance funds. However, congestion decreased. The additional maintenance expenditure should show up in better system condition in future years.

• Maine fell 6 slots from 22th to 28nd due to an increase in deficient bridges and worsened condition of rural arterials.

It’s interesting to note that the smallest state-owned road systems in the U.S. – Hawaii (999 miles) and Rhode Island (1,108 miles) – continue to score so poorly, while some of the largest – such as Texas (80,134 miles) and North Carolina (80,036) – continue to do well.

Despite the massive size of its roadway system, Texas ranks 17th in overall cost-effectiveness, while in contrast Hawaii, with the smallest system, ranks 46th in cost-effectiveness, the Reason Foundation noted; holding out hope perhaps that large roadway networks can indeed be managed efficiently.

“Trucks must be maintained on a regular basis. It’s not seasonal. It’s not optional. It’s a service that’s needed and cannot be provided from overseas.” –Chris Holman, COO of Advanced Maintenance, Wilimington, NC

Over the last couple of weeks, I got the chance to look at some seriously good hands-on training resources for trucking industry technicians.

My first stop on this somewhat unexpected training tour took place in Greensboro, NC, courtesy of Brian Layman, director of the North American Institute (NAI), which provides a wide variety of training resources to both Mack Trucks and sister company Volvo Trucks North America.

There are 22 instructors scattered among seven facilities within NAI’s network of training centers, including: Salt Lake City, UT; Dallas, TX; Chicago, IL; and Toronto, Canada. The average size of these facilities is about 8,500 square feet, though Layman stressed his team of instructors do on the road to Mack and Volvo dealers as well as customer locations to conduct training sessions.

[Below you can take a walk with Layman as he shows off the “hands on” area of NAI’s Greensboro facility.]

A typical “hands on” class usually includes no more than eight to 10 technicians at a time. For sessions dealing solely with electronics, however, class sizes can jump to encompass 10 or 20 students. “We once sent an instructor team to Nigeria, and he taught a class of 67,” Layman told me. “But they were engrossed by what we had to show them.”

The point of all this, of course, is to help technicians – whether they be wet-behind-the-ears rookies or savvy, weathered veterans – keep updating their knowledge, as trucks continue to change rapidly from one model year to the next.

“The average class lasts two to three days, but for something like an engine overhaul can go four to five days,” Layman explained. “Even as the electronics get more and more complex, there are still physical, mechanical aspects of the truck you can’t ignore. You also need to understand older systems as some customer run their trucks eight, 12, even 15 years.”

That’s why Layman believes the hands-on portion of the training NAI offers is so important, as it conveys a level of knowledge a technician just can’t get from a textbook.

That same philosophy drives other OEMs as well; companies like Cummins Inc., which goes so far as to build entirely self-contained trucks engines – complete with fuel tank, diesel particulate filter (DPF), selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, and diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank – than can be taken on the road to any dealer or customer location for hands-on training purposes.

[I lucked into Lee Anderson, a service trainer with Cummins Southern Plains, and his 5,550 pound 2010-compliant ISX training engine module below at Rush Enterprises’ 2009 Technician Skills Rodeo. Ah, there’s nothing like the roar of a diesel engine to wake you up in the morning!]

Fred Murphy, service training manager with Cummins, told me that being able to “put hands on the iron” is critical to getting technicians familiar with any changes to engines and the components that surround them.

He added that Cummins will take these training modules (of which they usually build one or two per engine family) on the road to dealer and fleet customer locations (noting that the module is built onto a forklift-ready steel skid pad for easy transport) to help technicians learn to decipher and fix all sorts of potential electronic and mechanical issues.

With so much additional electronics and hardware being added to trucks these days – especially to reduce exhaust pollution – you’d be forgiven for assuming that more and more of maintenance required to keep commercial vehicles in tip-top shape should be handled by wiser hands than your own.

However, that’s not necessarily so – especially if you provide your technicians with the right kind of training so they understand the equipment they’re working on from soup to nuts as the old saying goes.

“You can still do a lot of maintenance yourself. In terms of the normal repairs you’ve seen over the years, nothing has changed much,” Darry Stuart, president of DWS Fleet Management, told me recently. “It’s still mainly about oil changes, tires, lubrication, hoses, etc.”

In fact, maintenance is in some ways a lot easier these days, he said, as components such as transmissions and rear-ends last much longer and don’t break down nearly as much as they once did. “You do see a lot more electronic issues, but often times it’s because you’ve got a problem with the battery – with the power supply, not the electronics themselves,” Stuart added.

He stressed that truck maintenance is, at the end of the day, all about making the right choices. It still boils down to knowing what’s practical to do yourself and when it makes sense to send it to an outside provider – especially if it’s a big repair you don’t have either the time or shop space to accommodate. By extension, being able to make those decisions correctly boils down to the training the technicians working on that equipment has received.

Stuart knows of what he speaks, I might add. A former fleet manager with over 35 years experience taking care of everything from over-the-road tractors to refuse trucks, Stuart’s business now revolves around helping all sorts fleets get their maintenance practices and vehicle specs in order. He’s also the former chairman of the Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC) – and they don’t hand out THAT appointment to anyone who walks through the door with a pulse.

The upshot of all of this maintenance doesn’t have to be impenetrable rocket science, despite all the advances in truck technology in recent years — as long as you make sure your technicians get the right kind of training, that is.

“Delay is unacceptable. Delay casts uncertainty on the program. If we delay the new authorization, states will hold back on new projects and that will cost jobs. We are not in the business of delay. It is time to move ahead.” –Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN) in comments earlier this year on why Congress and the White House must act sooner rather than later to pass the estimated $500 billion Surface Transportation Bill

Well, actually, delay seems to be acceptable after all. Congress yet again bought itself some more time to figure out how it’s going to pass the 2009 Surface Transportation Bill by passing another extension this week – tucked into the H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

This extends the current six-year highway bill – dubbed “SAFETEA-LU” which stands for “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users” – that expired September 30 this year through February 28, 2010. Congress originally passed an extension in September that was due to run out on Dec. 18; now they’ve got a few more months to get the next extension lined up.

Oh, yes; this is only an “interim extension” according to a press release from U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, headed by Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN). It’s designed to give the U.S. Senate time to act on the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 (H.R. 2487), which (surprise, surprise) contains an extension that will take the current highway bill through September 30, 2010.

Interestingly enough, the Main Street Jobs bill (as it’s being called) carries a lot of direct funding for transportation projects – acting almost as a “mini highway bill” of its own, in a way – to the tune of $75 billion. The funding breaks down this way: some $37.3 billion aimed at transportation programs, including $27.5 billion for highways and $8.4 billion for transit and another $1.715 billion provided for water infrastructure.

The committee’s press release also pointed out that, as with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed (the so-called “stimulus bill”) passed back in February, the “Main Street Jobs” bill allows highway projects to be funded at 100%, instead of the traditional 80-20 federal-local split.

More importantly, H.R. 2847 also incorporates the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009, which extends core highway, highway safety, and transit programs through September 30 next year at $53.3 billion – the level assumed in the FY 2010 budget resolution, the committee said.

There’s a bunch of other things this highway bill extension will do, if passed, according to Oberstar’s committee:

• Since long-term authorization of SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, core highway, highway safety, and transit programs have been extended on a short-term basis at a funding level that is significantly below the FY 2009 authorized level. H.R. 2847 will increase funding by $10.7 billion, nearly to the FY 2009 authorized level.

• The bill also includes provisions to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund. It restores $19.5 billion in interest payments foregone on the Trust Fund’s previous cash balances, and lifts the ban on the Trust Fund receiving interest payments in the future. This will increase the Trust Fund’s balance by an estimated $500 million to $1 billion annually, in the near-term.

• Finally, the bill calls for the General Fund, rather than the Highway Trust Fund, to support long-standing fuel tax exemptions, such as those provided to state and local governments. This provision will increase Trust Fund balances by about $1.7 billion annually, for a total of $9.8 billion over six years.

It’s important to note that this highway bill extension – and the Main Street Jobs bill for that matter – is still very much in its infancy. In fact, the Senate is not going to start working on this until Congress reconvenes after the holidays in early 2010. A lot of this funding may stay, or it could get tossed, depending on what final legislation is negotiated between the House and the Senate.

One thing is clear, however; debate and ultimate passage of a six-year replacement for SAFETEA-LU is still a long way off.

“We’ve always believed that trucks don’t sell service; it’s service that sells trucks. That’s why it’s great to recognize the people responsible for providing that service that historically never got such recognition for the work they do. Because technicians ‘touch’ the customer more than anyone else within the dealership operation; they are literally the heartbeat of the dealership.” –W.M. “Rusty” Rush, president and CEO, Rush Enterprises

So Rush Enterprises’ 2009 Technician Skills Rodeo has come to a close here in San Antonio, TX; sending 15 technicians out of the 60 that competed home with cash prizes and big boosts to their hourly pay scales. Third place finishers in their respective categories walked away with $3,000 and a $1 per hour raise in flat rate pay; second place finishers went home with $4,000 and a $1.25 per hour boost to their flat rate pay; while first place finishers snagged $5,000 in cash along with a $1.50 per hour raise.

But that isn’t where the winning ended, for out of the 15 finalists, two were selected as the “Best All-Around” champions in the specific niches – one for medium-duty trucks and one for heavy-duty. These two grand champions (and the runners up, I might add) took home thousands more in cash and prizes, along with yet another boost in hourly pay.

Billy Stanley (above at right) out of Rush Truck Center’s Houston, TX, location won top honors in the medium-duty category, while longtime competitor Randy Hughes (at left) from Rush’s Texarkana shop bagged the “grand champion” award in the heavy-duty class.

By no means did these two technicians find winning easy, as the final round posed vague problems with little detail to go on for finding the solution.

[Below is a glimpse of the battle to become the top medium duty technician. The problem they had to solve consisted of little more than “the engine won’t start” and left it to the techs to take it from there.]

All in all, the 2009 Rodeo provide to be a competitive event for all involved, and even the ones that didn’t make it to the final round at least returned home with bragging rights; that they’d at least gotten to the main event in San Antonio and had a chance to get into the finals.

[Here’s a brief wrap up of some of the competitors in action at this year’s event, held in the Henry B. Gonzalez convention center in downtown San Antonio.]

At the end of the day, however, it’s all about staying true to what W. Marvin Rush, the company’s chairman, calls his “fundamental principles of business,” handed down to him by his father:

“He told me, ‘Surround yourself with good people and recognize what they do every day,’” he said at the close of the Rodeo event. “People are the key in this business; they make the difference for us.”

[For a few more words on the subject from both Marvin and W. M. “Rusty” Rush, the company’s president and CEO, view the clip below.]

It’s interesting to note that the 2009 rodeo threw some unexpected curveballs at the technicians, in some cases posing problems based on mechanical issues, not electronic ones. That twist knocked out the previous Rodeo champions – Jason Swann (a two-time grand champion) and Dustin Ebert – from the finals. So it will be interesting to see what twist is in store for next year’s competition.

“We’re throwing some curveballs at them this year. For instance, those techs competing in Eaton category found themselves facing an air leak problem from a manual transmission; not the electronic model they expected. For the heavy-duty finalists, we gave them a vague vibration and fuel economy issue to solve. It’s much trickier this time around.” –Ken Carter, service manager at Rush Truck Center’s Oklahoma City facility.

So the finalists for Rush Enterprises’ 2009 Technician Skills Rodeo are now vying, as we speak, for the championship of the respective categories they are competing within – to be named “Best All-Around” technician in either the heavy- or medium-duty classification.

The company decided to break up its competing technicians into heavy- and medium-duty groups because not only because the trucks and components within those classes very different, but also because those technicians needs to be recognized for the special skill sets they bring to the table.

[Mike Besson, VP-service operations for Rush Truck Centers and one of the main organizers of this yearly event, explains that reasoning a little further in the clip below.]

The first phase of this competition began back in November, when 350 of Rush’s technicians took 650 written examinations to compete within one of three heavy-duty divisions (Cummins engines, Caterpillar engines, and Eaton transmissions) and one medium-duty division. The top 15 technicians with the highest exam score from each division then got to come to San Antonio, TX (home base for Rush Enterprises, which got its start here in 1965) and compete in the two-day Rodeo event.

Another difference is that while the heavy-duty technicians faced just one 45 minute problem-solving test, the medium-duty techs faced TWO of them, each 45 minutes long; one on a GMC TopKick 5500 series truck, the other on a Hino 258 ALP model. And none of these tests – heavy- or medium –duty – proved a cinch to pass.

[Several of the “judges” gave me a little insight into how these tests work, as you can see below.]

At the end of the first day, 15 out of 60 technicians moved on to the final round – nine from all the heavy-duty categories and six from the medium-duty division. The problems were perplexing enough that neither of the Rodeo’s previous champions – Jason Swann and Dustin Ebert – made it to the finals this year.

Yet even the veterans of this competitions – such as Randy Hughes from Rush’s Texarkana location, with 38 years of experience under his belt and a “money finisher” the last three years – found the problem posed in the final round to be daunting, to say the least; largely because it was so vague in nature.

[You can see below what the heavy-duty techs were facing during this morning’s initial round; a complaint about an uncomfortable vibration that disappears when the truck reaches higher speeds, along with a loss of fuel economy. Not a lot to go on, to say the least.]

Regardless of the difficulties, we know someone’s going to end up a winner, one each for the heavy- and medium-duty groups. We’ll have to wait for tomorrow, though, to discover how it all turns out.

“The diagnostic work technicians need to perform in order to figure out what needs to be fixed is almost always the hardest part; fixing the truck itself is the easiest part. And what makes this competition so tough is that we put these guys out on an island, by themselves – they can’t go to anyone for help. That’s the complete opposite of how they work in the shop.” –Mike Besson, vice president-service operations, Rush Truck Centers

So I am down here in San Antonio, TX, to cover Rush Enterprises’ 2009 technician skills rodeo and the pace is just as fast and furious as the last two I covered (which were both in Nashville, TN, by the way).

The mettle of rookie competitors as well as steely veterans is being tested in all sorts of ways – and we’re not talking solely about speed here, either. For to notch a top score, the technician must not only fully complete the repair, he’s got to do it the right way, using the right procedures – because as these trucks get more and more complicated, using the proper diagnostic techniques is almost as important as performing the physical fix to a truck as well.

[Here’s a glimpse of the first day’s events at the rodeo.]

“Just because you finish first on a problem really doesn’t mean much,” explained veteran competitor Michael Willoughby, out of Rush Truck Center’s Oklahoma City, OK, location. “The first time I competed I just blazed through my problem to finish first, but I didn’t document my processes or put a lot of detail in my service write up. By not following procedures, I missed 20 points. So I am making doubly sure this year to do everything correctly.”

Experience is of course a major advantage in this two-day competition involving 60 technicians from across Rush’s network of 50 locations across the southern U.S. and California. In all, 18 trucks are lined up for the technicians to work on, cutting across a variety of makes and models. Three Orange Peterbilt 386 sleeper tractors offer problems for the Cummins specialists to solve. Six Peterbilt 388 daycabs are split to into two groups – three gray units sporting 13-speed Eaton manual transmission issues and three white units with Caterpillar engine problems.

On the medium-duty side, there are three GMC blue Kodiak 5500 series trucks and three Hino 285 ALP models with their own set of issues for the technicians to solve.

The challenges are all different, too. While each technician gets 45 minutes to solve the problems at that particular station, no two are alike. For example, on the heavy-duty side, the Eaton transmission stations have just one problem to solve, while the Cummins stations have three and the Caterpillar trucks have 10 issues. It’s no different on the medium-duty side, with three problems for the Hino models but just one for the GMC trucks.

So as the keys on the laptops are punched, the wrenches are turned, with pages being turned hastily in parts and troubleshooting manuals alike, the tension only continues to mount through the day as each technician jumps into the problems at their station with both feet. It will be interesting to see who wins the first round in order to move into the finals tomorrow.

“While these trucks may not have showroom shines and picked up a little mud on the tires, we think they still look great.” –Tom Schoening, marketing and communications manager for the Sioux City Truck Sales dealer group

This is the time of year when all sort of truck-themed calendars start crossing my desk; some from OEMs, others from dealerships, even fleets on occasion.

Joining the calendar craze this year is the Sioux City Truck Sales (SCTS) dealer group, which created its very own 2010 calendar featuring all sorts of colorful photos of local working trucks in the area served by its Peterbilt stores in: Sioux City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, as well as its location in Norfolk, Nebraska.

Free while supplies last, SCTS’ calendar really celebrates both the past and present of the truck business in big, bold colors. It’s also a “do-it-yourself” project of sorts created by Tom Schoening, SCTS’ marketing and communications manager, a former journalist that served as the calendar’s photographer, designer, and chief critic.

“Many photos were taken on the job – work trucks in action on location,” he said. “In addition to newer models, several vintage classics are included.”

Everything from the latest Peterbilt medium-duty trucks and heavy-duty tractors – sporting both traditional and aerodynamic styling — built into crane trucks, tankers, wreckers, delivery vans and other specialty configurations, share space with vintage models such as a 1975 cabover and a 1978 wrecker.

[Click here to take a look at Tom’s work; I guarantee you, it is top notch.]

Another good one starting to hit mailboxes across the county is Volvo Trucks North America’s latest installment of the “Ironmark Tour” calendar. I like this compilation because it doesn’t just show scenic views of trucks; no, a lot of detail goes into each month’s featured series of photographs.

For the 2010 Ironmark tour calendar, each month highlights a particular place in the U.S., featuring a Volvo truck in five distinct shots. Along the left hand side of each page in the calendar is a detailed description of the area where each set of photos was taken.

For example, February highlights the town of Kenora, Ontario, founded in 1882 and home to just over 15,000 souls. You learn that the lake near the town offers some of the finest fishing in the world for walleye, small mouth bass, muskie, and lake trout. And if you are a hockey fanatic, you’ll discover Kenora is the hometown of NHL hall of famer Silas Griffis.

The photos of Volvo VN 780 featured in February are striking; in one of them, the photographer got a great shot of the reflection of hundreds of stacked tree trunks in the high-gloss shine of the tractor’s cab — an awesome artistic shot, if you ask me.

[The internet link for the 2010 calendar isn’t active yet, but you can thumb through the 2009 version by clicking here.]

It just goes to show that the ubiquitous commercial truck is more than just a tool of commerce; they are also beautifully crafted pieces of machinery that can rightfully claim title to the word “art,” even if they don’t sport a ton of far-out paint and chrome.

“It’s fair to say we’re making a good deal of progress on this issue. Clearly, the dynamics of the heavier truck weight debate are shifting, and shifting in our favor.” –John Runyan, executive director of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, about the approval by a U.S. Senate-House of Representatives conference committee of legislative language enabling both Maine and Vermont to conduct one-year pilot projects allowing heavier, six-axle trucks full access to the interstate highways within their borders

A big step (no pun intended) occurred this week on the subject of potentially boosting the federal weight limit on tractor-trailers operating on U.S. highways. A U.S. Senate-House of Representatives conference committee gave the thumbs up to legislative language enabling both Maine and now Vermont to conduct one-year pilot projects allowing six-axle trucks hauling 100,000 pounds or more full access to the interstate highways within their borders.

This move follows a similar pilot program provision authored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) back in September that temporarily exempted Maine’s interstate highways from the current 80,000 pound, five-axle federal truck weight limit ostensibly to prevent heavier trucks from being forced off the highway onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and rural neighborhoods.

What’s interesting about the legislative language on the subject of higher truck weights is that Sen.Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has joined the fray, creating some bipartisan momentum on this issue, though he’s viewing this as a freight productivity issue and more as a safety concern. It’s also interesting that the weight ceiling is higher for Vermont, allowing 108,000 to 120,000 pound rigs to operate on the highways.

“Vermont state policy and neighboring states’ policies on truck weights have produced the reality that overweight trucks are here, and they will continue to operate in Vermont,” Leahy explained in a press release.

“No one thinks that overweight trucks should rumble through our historic villages and downtowns on two-lane roads, putting people and our state’s failing transportation infrastructure at risk,” the Senator said. “This step will get these trucks out of our downtowns in the short term. In the longer term it will help us determine, with real-world experience, whether it is safer and better for both our infrastructure and the environment to have these trucks use the Interstate system.”

John Runyan, executive director of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), completely agrees with Leahy’s reasoning, especially on the safety question.

“Both pilot projects would harmonize federal and state weight limits, giving trucks full access to interstate systems engineered for commercial vehicles rather than forcing them onto rural roads that wind through small towns,” Runyan explained.

“In Vermont, heavier trucks traveling from Canada would no longer need to leave the interstate. And in Maine, heavier trucks traveling on a portion of I-95 known as the Maine Turnpike would no longer be forced back onto secondary roads when they reach Augusta,” he added. “In fact, consulting firm Wilbur Smith Associates found that opening Maine’s interstates to heavier vehicles would eliminate three fatal crashes per year.”

CTP is supporting a broader effort to raise truck weights nationwide through the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1799), sponsored by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH). That bill would give each state the option to increase its interstate vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle for safety.

The additional axle maintains current braking capacity and weight-per-tire-distribution and minimizes pavement wear, said Runyan, while allowing shippers to more fully fill tractor-trailer to boost shipping efficiency without changing truck size – while a user fee imposed by the bill would fund bridge repairs if the heavier weights end up leading to greater wear and tear on such structures.

“There’s also a growing sense that all the authoritative studies done concerning the impact of higher truck weights – both by state and federal authorities, as well as international studies – show that greater productivity does not have to come at the expense of safety, that heavier trucks can actually be safer trucks as well.”

Not everyone sees it that way, of course.

“Motorists in Maine and Vermont deserve more than being human guinea pigs in this dangerous experiment,” said John Lannen, executive director of the Truck Safety Coalition. “A report back to Congress on the effectiveness of this one-year program isn’t even due for two years, which leads us to believe that this experiment will likely continue until the report is issued and analyzed by Congress.”

Lannen said, given what he calls “the already deplorable condition of Vermont roads,” this legislative action is a highly regressive public policy that will hasten the deterioration of Vermont interstate highways and bridges while threatening the safety of everyone on Vermont’s roads by allowing big tractor-trailer rigs to pile on additional tens of thousands of pounds of extra weight.

“That extra weight has already been proven to dramatically accelerate infrastructure deterioration in a New England state that already has a woefully under-funded highway program and both roads and bridges that are rated as extremely poor by both the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and The Road Information Program,” Lannen added.

“The ASCE found that almost 40% of Vermont’s bridges were deficient or obsolete, one of the worst records of bridge condition and safety in the nation. Trucks weighing 120,000 pounds on Vermont’s interstate bridges will demolish old, unrepaired Vermont bridges at a frightening rate, according to the findings of studies released by the National Academy of Sciences,” he noted. “This kind of dramatic leap in truck gross weight can trigger a catastrophic bridge collapse.”

Those comments illustrate pretty clearly that the moves by Senators Collins and Leahy to allow heavier trucks to operate on the federal highways cross-crossing their respective states is not going to go forward without a fight. The ultimate question to be answered in all of this, though, is pretty simple: can heavier trucks be as safe or safer than current trucks, as well as more efficient and productive? It will be interesting to see, in the end, which side of the debate our politicians come down upon.