Trucks at Work Blog

“The integration of electric vehicles onto the [electric power] grid is one of the greatest challenges that utilities, automotive manufacturers and consumers will face as we improve the current electric distribution system.” –David J. Leeds, senior manager of smart grid research, Greentech Media (GTM)

Obviously, there’s a lot of potential for all-electric vehicles (EVs) as well as hybrid-electric models to significantly help reduce the cost of truck operations in this country – largely for light- and medium-duty applications, at least initially.

[For an easy way to see why, watch the clip below, which describes how the U.S. military’s desire to boost fuel economy savings for its trucks helped bring the Hybrid Truck Users Forum (HTUF) to life.]

Of course, we’re still a long way off from making EVs and hybrids price-competitive on the front end, especially due to the cost and weight of the battery packs required for powering both types of vehicles.

And, along with battery issues, we’ve got the electric power grid to consider: can our nation’s current electricity generating capacity handle the power needs of a growing population of battery-fired vehicles? For hybrids themselves are getting “plug in” capability, so such vehicles can sidle up to a recharging station to keep their batteries primed at full, instead relying solely on their diesel or gasoline engine to do all the work.

For example, according to recent research by consulting firm IDC Energy, EVs will be commercially available in significant numbers by next year, and by 2015 there will be more than 2.7 million plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) plugged into the global grid, with 885,000 PEVs in North America and more than 780,000 PEVs in Europe.

Unfortunately, Sam Jaffe, IDC’s research manager, told me by email that these vehicles will cause havoc on the distribution grid if they start appearing without any preparation by grid managers.

“PEVs represent a significant revenue opportunity for electric utilities, but they also bring challenges such as the potential of transformer overload due to PEV clustering and excessive energy ‘borrowing’ when vehicles roam outside of their utility region,” he said. “It is best for utilities to prepare for these potential pitfalls today, instead of waiting for when the trickle of PEVs becomes a flood.”

For example, he told me If three PEVs on the same cul-de-sac start charging at the same time, it could blow the step-down transformer. “That’s a $20,000 repair job,” Jaffe explained.

Still, that concern aside, the demand for EVs seems to be growing in the commercial space. Just witness the recent rollout by Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (FCCC) of its new MT-EV all-electric walk-in van (WIV) at the 2010 HTUF meeting this week. Like a lot of other OEMs producing all-electric trucks – such as Smith Electric Vehicles U.S., among others – FCC believes fleets will be attracted to the fuel savings and microscopic carbon footprint such all-electric vehicles offer.

Yet light-duty EVs right now seem to offer the best opportunity for near-term growth within the U.S. commercial fleet sector, according to analysis conducted by research firm Frost & Sullivan, because out of all the EV models they offer the best fit in terms of life cycle cost and operational capability. They also, one should note, would place less recharging demand on electric utility infrastructure.

Yet Frost & Sullivan also noted that the opportunity for medium-duty EVs may increase over time if life cycle costs decline, range expands, and a national recharging infrastructure begins to take shape.

“In North America, trucks drive longer distances and there are far more rural areas, so this is why the light-duty EVs serving inner-urban delivery needs will really experience the most demand,” Sandeep Kar (at left), global program manager-commercial vehicle research for Frost & Sullivan, told me a few months back.

According to the firm’s EV study, entitled Strategic Analysis of the North American and European Electric Truck, Van and Bus Markets, by 2016, some 64,817 Class 2-3 light-duty EVs should be sold, in North America predominantly (3.5 tons or less GVW) configured as parcel delivery vans, small shuttle buses, etc. By contrast, only 26,635 medium-duty EVs (between 3.5 and 16 tons GVW) and 565 heavy-duty EVs (16 ton GVW or greater) are expected to be built and sold that same year.

Kar explained that 2016 may be the “inflection point” for commercial EV sales if purchase price, range, and life cycle cost demands are met. Right now, Frost & Sullivan’s research indicates the battery packs alone for EVs cost an extra $10,000 more than comparable gasoline- or diesel-powered trucks on the lighter side primarily due to the batteries.

“The incremental cost is the biggest barrier for large scale EV adoption,” Kar noted. “Also, every 4 to 5 years you need to change the batteries, adding to the life cycle cost of the equipment.”

He added that the range of light-duty EVs averages around 90 kilometers (roughly 55 miles), with EVs requiring 6 to 8 hours of battery recharge time. To be truly practical, they must yield an average range of 300 km (roughly 186 miles) and take 15 to 20 minutes to fully recharge.

“That cost of ownership is the crucial factor,” said Kar. “Our polling of fleet managers indicates 63% are focused on the total ownership cost, not the initial purchase price. So if the ROI can be fully realized, fleets would adopt these vehicles.”

For example, the average ownership cost for a gasoline or diesel-powered walk-in van varies between 25 and 48 cents a mile. If EVs can deliver an eight to 10 cent per mile life cycle cost, that hits the ROI target, Kar said.

“The biggest perceived barrier is still up-front capital costs [and] there are also some lingering concerns around infrastructure and service,” Bryan Hansel, CEO of Smith Electric Vehicles, told me via email. “That’s why we’re working every day … to dramatically shorten the time period it takes customers to receive a return on their initial investments.”

So if truck makers can do that – and the electric utilities can manage the power supply adequately – EVs and hybrids might witness increased demand from fleets. We’ll just have to wait and see.

“The point of texting bans is to reduce crashes, and by this essential measure the laws are ineffective. This doesn’t mean it’s safe to text and drive, though. There’s a crash risk associated with doing this. It’s just that bans aren’t reducing this crash risk.” –Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute

So here’s an interesting question being posed in the ongoing debate over distracted driving: do laws prohibiting texting and cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle – two leading causes of “distracted driving” – actually help reduce crashes caused by such behavior?

Perhaps not surprisingly, a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) – the research arm of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) – says such laws don’t do squat in terms of reduced distracted driving related crashes.

On top of that, another study – funded by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and conducted by DriveCam Inc. and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) – found that the crash risks for commercial truck and bus operators jumps significantly if they text or use a hand-held cell phone while driving, use of a hands-free device may actually REDUCE their crash risk.

And, again – in something that’s really not all that shocking – FMCSA’s study discerned that state laws banning texting and cell phone use while driving a commercial truck or bus didn’t do diddly in terms of influencing an operator’s decision to text or use a cell phone.

[However, the agency’s study DID discern that a fleet policy banning the use of such devices did impact behavior – with a driver’s odds of using a cell phone while driving 17% less likely if a fleet maintained a cell phone policy compared to a fleet without one.]

I say that none of this is really eye-opening because – as I’ve noted in this space before – while many drivers SAY they believe texting or talking on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle is dangerous behavior, most are unwilling to follow their own advice.

Indeed, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety discovered as part of its 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index that a majority of drivers (62%) feel that talking on a cell phone is a very serious threat to safety, yet nearly 70% of those surveyed admitted to talking on their phones, with a further 24% admitting to reading or sending text messages or emails while driving.

That’s a finding reinforced by HLDI’s recent research. The group calculated rates of collision claims for vehicles up to nine years old during the months immediately before and after driver texting was banned in California (January 2009), Louisiana (July 2008), Minnesota (August 2008), and Washington (January 2008).

Comparable data was then collected in nearby states where texting laws weren’t substantially changed during the time span of the study. This controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc., HLDI said.

The end result? “Texting bans haven’t reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in three of the four states we studied after bans were enacted,” noted Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and its parent, the IIHS. “It’s an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws.”

Month-to-month fluctuations in the rates of collision claims in HLDI’s four study states with texting bans for all drivers didn’t change much from before to after the bans were enacted. Nor did the patterns differ much from those in nearby states that didn’t ban texting for all drivers during the study period.

To the extent that the crash patterns did change in the study states, they went up, not down, after the bans took effect, with increases varied from 1% more crashes in Washington to about 9% more in Minnesota. (HLDI did note that the result in Washington isn’t statistically significant).

Young motorists are more likely than older people to text while driving, the group added. In all four of the study states, crashes increased among drivers younger than 25 after the all-driver bans took effect. In California, Louisiana, and Washington, the increases for young drivers were greater than for drivers 25 and older. The largest crash increase of all (12%) following enactment of a texting ban was among young drivers in California.

“[This] calls into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes,” Lund stressed. “They’re focusing on a single manifestation of distracted driving and banning it. This ignores the endless sources of distraction and relies on banning one source or another to solve the whole problem.”

Interestingly, this is where the FMCSA-funded study offers some insight.

The study collected data from over 13,000 trucks and buses and included a total of 1,085 crashes, 8,375 near crashes, 30,661 crash-relevant conflicts and 211,711 baselines (which is determined as “normative” driving used in comparison with the safety events). The major findings were:

• Any cell phone activity that involves using one’s hands (texting/emailing/dialing/accessing the Internet) while driving significantly increased the odds of involvement in a crash/near crash.

• Talking/listening on a hands-free or hand-held cell phone while driving did not significantly affect the odds of involvement in a crash/near crash. In fact, the data shows that talking/listening on a hands-free cell phone while driving had a “protective effect.”

• The existence of a state cell phone law did not significantly impact drivers’ likelihood of using their cell phone while driving, compared to usage in a state that did not have a law prohibiting cell phone use. Consistent law enforcement is an important element in ensuring the laws are obeyed.

• A driver’s odds of using a cell phone while driving were 17% less likely under a fleet cell phone policy compared to a no fleet cell phone policy.

The decline in texting/cell phone use due to COMPANY POLICY as opposed to state law is the important piece here, because “non-compliance” proved – in the HLDI study – to be the likeliest reason why texting bans aren’t reducing crashes. For some reason, people seem to adhere to policy (albeit at a low rate) than follow actual laws in the case of texting while driving.

HLDI found in its survey that many drivers, especially younger ones, tend to shrug off these legal bans. Among 18-24 year-olds, the group most likely to text, 45% reported doing so anyway in states that bar all drivers from texting. This is just shy of the 48% of drivers who reported texting in states without bans. Many respondents who knew it was illegal to text said they didn’t think police were strongly enforcing the bans.

“But this doesn’t explain why crashes increased after texting bans,” Lund pointed out. “If drivers were disregarding the bans, then the crash patterns should have remained steady. So clearly drivers did respond to the bans somehow, and what they might have been doing was moving their phones down and out of sight when they texted, in recognition that what they were doing was illegal. This could exacerbate the risk of texting by taking drivers’ eyes further from the road and for a longer time.”

One theory comes from the University of Glasgow in Scotland where, via tests conducted in a driving simulator, researchers found a sharp decrease in crash likelihood when participants switched from head-down to head-up displays. This suggests that it might be more hazardous for a driver to text from a device that’s hidden from view on the lap or vehicle seat, HLDI thinks.

This stuff is important, especially in terms of highway safety, for texting in general is on the increase. According to HLDI’s research, wireless phone subscriptions numbered 286 million as of December 2009, up 47%from 194 million in June 2005. Text messaging is increasing, too, rising about 60% in one year alone, from 1 trillion messages in 2008 to 1.6 trillion in 2009.

This is a concern because “distracted driving” causes crashes – a lot of them. In 2009, nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), with distraction-related fatalities representing 16% of overall traffic fatalities in 2009.

The question, though, is this: if state laws can’t change driver behavior when it comes to texting/call phone use while operating a motor vehicle, what will?

“The last few years have caused global third-party logistics providers to reconsider the structure of their businesses within a shifting industry. Many of the CEOs [participating in the survey] reported adopting new strategies that are more conservative in nature with respect to both market expansion and new service offerings.” –Joe Gallick, senior vice president of sales, Penske Logistics, commenting on the 17th Annual Survey of Third-Party Logistics Providers

Make no mistake: while things are slowly getting better, especially in the freight world, things are still mighty tough out there.

“The recession, by any measure, is worse than anything we’ve experienced in the last three or four decades,” noted Noel Perry, senior consultant with FTR Associates and principal of research firm Transport Fundamentals, at McLeod Software’s recent user conference (an event covered by my editorial comrade Brian Straight with his usual aplomb.)

“What we can say with some certainty is that we are in an era where the economy recovers slowly,” Perry added – and that applies to the freight market as well.

William Strauss, senior economist and economic advisor to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, noted at FTR’s 2010 Transportation Conference a few weeks back that the current economic downturn resulted in a 4% drop in the gross domestic product (GDP) U.S. economy. That’s a far deeper drop than what occurred in the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s (3%) but not as bad as the Great Depression (a 26% drop), he explained.

Strauss added that we’ve not seen a “normal” bounce-back yet from the so-called “Great Recession” of 2008/2009. In the 1980s, for instance, the “bounce back” resulted in 6% economic growth. Instead, we’re seeing smaller growth numbers, he noted – starting in the first quarter at around 3% and now down to 1.6%; trending out to 2.4% GDP in 2010 and 2.9% GDP in 2011.

It’s numbers like those that are making all the firms servicing the freight world – truckers, railroads, and third party logistics firms (3PLs) alike – very cautious in their future planning. Yet there are good signs out there, too – and that’s something the freight industry needs to take note of as well.

The real good news for the trucking industry, FTR’s Perry said, is that growth in trucking is outpacing GDP by some 4% to 2.5%, respectively, for the year.

Another positive sign is the trade deficit, which has started falling again – something Perry calls “the best news I’ve heard in the last four or five months.” Historically, when the trade deficit falls, that corresponds to a growth in domestic freight, he noted. So when the deficit grows – as it has for much of the past decade – it translates to a drop in domestic freight of about 1% per year, Perry pointed out.

A possible reason for this “renewal” within the U.S. domestic freight market can be gleaned from the 17th Annual Survey of Third-Party Logistics Providers, a project sponsored by Penske Logistics and presented at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals annual global conference this past week by its author Dr. Robert Lieb, Professor of Supply Chain Management at Northeastern University.

The survey’s findings are winkled out from responses by 31 CEOs heading up 3PLs across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific (APAC) – companies responsible for generating approximately $37 billion in revenue last year.

One of the report’s key findings is that 87% of those 3PL CEOs noted that some of their manufacturing customers have begun to move toward “near-shoring” options in the past year – a trend that is expected to trickle down to 3PLs in the years to come.

The 3PL CEOs in all three regions are also considerably more bullish about future revenue growth prospects of not only their companies but also for the 3PL industry as a whole than they were last year, Lieb found:

• One-year company revenue growth projections were 10.4% for North America (6.9% in 2009), 7.2% for Europe (-3.3% in 2009), and 22.5% of APAC (12.9% in 2009). The average three-year company growth projections were 10.6% for North America (11.8% in 2009), 8.3% for Europe (8.7% in 2009), and 19.5% for APAC (16.7% in 2009).

• One-year regional 3PL industry revenue growth projections averaged 7.3% for North America (3.5% in 2009), 4.8% for Europe (-1.4% in 2009), and 15.4% for APAC (10.7% in 2009). The average three-year regional 3PL industry growth projections were 7.8% for North America (7.9% in 2009), 5.4% for Europe (4.9% in 2009), and 12.9% for APAC (11.7% in 2009).

It’s also worthy to note that despite a more positive outlook on the market, 3PL executives – much like their counterparts in trucking – are taking a far more conservative approach in terms of expansion plans.

“The CEOs involved in this year’s surveys are more optimistic about growth prospects than they were last year, but appear to be more cautious about how growth will be achieved,” said Lieb.

“They are likely to spend more time ‘qualifying’ new accounts, while devoting less attention to accounts in industries that are more cyclical in nature,” he added.

Here’s how that “conservatism” is playing out, Lieb (at left) noted:

• The global economy continued to pose a challenge in 2009, with 48% of companies surveyed failing to meet revenue growth projections, while 80% of them still managed to be profitable.

• Some 25 of the 31 CEOs surveyed reported their companies were profitable during 2010, with three reporting they broke even, and three reporting their companies were unprofitable

• Pressure on 3PLs to share risk with their clients increased in 2009, with 28 of the 31 CEOs reporting that their companies now have performance-based contracts with many of their clients. Only five of the companies were involved in significant merger or acquisition activity in the year.

• Eighteen of the CEOs reported that their companies had put new risk management programs in place during the past year, with increased pressure to share risks with customers now a major factor in the industry.

• Among the other important problems mentioned were price compression and procurement’s growing role in the North American survey, the slow economic recovery and decreasing margins in Europe, and managing increased costs and dealing with “unrealistic competition” were highlighted by the APAC CEOs.

The survey also determined that while labor numbers imply an upturn for 3PLs, with 87% of the companies beginning to rebuild their workforces in 2009, many of the CEOs said they will focus more on developing part-time rather than full-time positions, to keep their operations more flexible in the face of future swings in the freight market.

So while the freight picture sure isn’t rosy by any stretch of the imagination, there are some bright spots out there – especially longer-term trends that may see more manufacturing, and thus jobs and freight, moving back to our shores. Let’s hope that trend, at least, continues to gain strength.

“Now for 2011 … [we’re] allowing our customers to be more productive by maximizing their workload and their fuel economy.” –Mark Fields, president of The Americas, Ford Motor Co., from press materials accompanying the roll out of the new F-150 pickup

So I’m cruising along the rural back roads just north of Ft. Worth, TX, at the helm of a new 2011 model F-150 XLT 4 x 2 crew cab pickup, powered by one of Ford Motor Co.’s new 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost engines – a power plant I’ve discussed before in this space.

I’m sharing the 127 mile or so ride with John Shanahan, an engine calibration engineer with Ford, to get a sense as to how the 2011 model F-150 equipped this new fuel-sipping engine performs on the road.

Now, of course, we’re running unloaded in this particular pickup, which boasts a 7,100-lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), 3.15 ratio rear axle, and some 1,700-lbs of payload capacity. But the object of this exercise – to my mind – is to see what kind of fuel economy we get in just “regular driving” conditions.

Ford also set up a 17.8 mile “fuel economy course” within this extended route to see if we truck reporters could notch better numbers than Ford’s test engineers, who’d achieved 26.9 mpg with these pickups powered by EcoBoost engines.

Yours truly managed to log a flat 28 mpg during the fuel economy test – a demanding course comprised of rolling hills, plenty of curves, and a few intersections to navigate as well. Yet I only managed to tie for sixth place, with the winner – Byron Pope, one of our “brothers in arms” at automotive magazine par excellence Ward’s – achieving an astounding 32.5 mpg.

[Ah, Brother Byron, well done! The Force is strong with you!]

But that’s not really the big deal here, for all of us were doing all sorts of non-typical things to achieve the ideal fuel economy footprint: windows rolled up with no air conditioning (a tall order for a 90-plus degree Texas day!); feather light touch on the throttle; even shifting in and out of neutral at regular intervals.

No, the big deal occurred on the ride back, where – with the A/C going and me driving to keep up with the flow of traffic – I achieved 22 mpg over a 60-plus mile stretch. That is a noteworthy number, particularly for commercial fleets. For we all know pickups ride empty at many points in their day, and if you can achieve 22 mpg or better without thinking about it, that’s a lot of money saved in fuel costs over time.

[Here’s a brief overview of some of the features you’ll see on some of the “commercial grade” 2011 model F-150 pickups headed for the showroom floor.]

Other aspects of the new F-150 and EcoBoost engine provided interesting impressions, too. First, since the engine is equipped with two turbochargers, it’s some serious “get-up-and-go” when you need it. I found that out while pulling 6.700-lbs on some local highways and needed to get around a few big rigs laboring to get some of the steeper grades.

The EcoBoost also doesn’t have a “shrill” tone when accelerating either; something that can wear on one’s ears over the course of the day. It’s also very smooth in terms of acceleration and deceleration, largely due to the in-depth work that’s gone into the F-150’s six speed 6R-80 automatic transmission.

Kurt Nickerson, a Ford transmission engineer, told me the software “brain” within the 6R-80 is packed with 400,000 lines of code in order to better control its seven solenoids and five clutches – allowing the transmission to more finely tune fuel economy and performance on an as-needed basis.

There were a few small things, though, I didn’t like. First, the steering wheel column mounted gear shifter proved EXTREMELY sensitive; for example, I downshifted from “manual mode” right past “drive” into “neutral” more than once.

Also, the turn indicator is electronic now, meaning it returns to center rather than holding in place and then “clicking off” once you’ve made a turn. Ostensibly, the wheel is supposed to automatically “sense” you are straightening out and then shut off the signal – be it a lane merge or a turn – but that didn’t happen with regularity. So I had to futz about with the turn indicator quite a bit.

But those are minor quibbles. On the plus side, take EPAS: Ford’s new “electric power-assisted steering” steering gear, which about 18 months to develop, that allows for more precisely tuned feel for both on-road and parking maneuvers.

The tuning is software-based, so the steering can be programmed and essentially customized to each model based on wheelbase, powertrain and other factors, Garry Smith, engineering supervisor on the F-150’s EPAS, told me – while helping improve fuel economy up to 4%

[Here are some of my observations about EPAS, as well as other acceleration and handling impressions of the F-150.]

“The key with EPAS is that it offers ‘on demand’ power,” Smith (seen below at left) explained to me. “Before, with our hydraulic steering system, the hydraulic pump was ‘on’ all the time whether you needed steering assistance or not. That equated to a power drain of about three to four horsepower on the engine.”

EPAS, by contrast, only consumes about half an amp of power when not in use and up to 100 amps at maximum — typically during parking applications. Also, Smith pointed out, there’s no maintenance required for EPAS as to what’s needed for hydraulic-powered steering – so operators save twice, from less maintenance expense and better fuel economy.

The key to all of this, however, is the EcoBoost 365 hp engine – can it really deliver the fuel economy of a V6 with the power of a V8 over the long haul? I mean, let’s face it – commercial fleets work pickups HARD, and expect long life from them with minimal maintenance costs where possible. That means downsizing from a gasoline or diesel V8 requires a lot of convincing.

Ford’s done a lot of its own “torture testing” of the EcoBoost to see if it can go the distance expected by commercial operators and consumers alike, as you can see by clicking here.

But at the end of the day, it’s performance in the “real world” with real customers that’s going to count – and a little one-day 127-mile driving loop like mine doesn’t even come close to counting as “real world” experience.

Once these engines become available early next year, that’s when the real test of the new F-150 will begin.

“In many ways, the trucks I’m photographing are rapidly becoming relics of the past, due to business and regulatory pressures. That’s giving me a sense of urgency in what I’m doing; to capture a piece of the golden age of trucking before it disappears.” –Roger Snider, truck photographer extraordinaire

Roger Snider has graced this blog before and for good reason – his globe-trotting photographic sprees produce some of the most amazing shots of custom trucks you’ll ever see, in some truly eye-popping locales as well.

Roger (seen at right) recently wrapped up a three-nation whirlwind tour this year for his Ultra Rigs of the World endeavor, revisiting Japan in May, then travelling to Switzerland for a truck tour that took him to France and German as well. He then finished up this particular worldwide journey with a visit to Australia in August – largely focused on what’s dubbed “classic truck” enthusiasts in and around Alice Springs, home to the U.S. Army’s staging area in the Pacific Theatre back in World War II.

Believe it or not, Roger discerned a common theme running through these incredibly different trucking cultures on three continents: a hard-as-nails work ethic; a passion for truck customization that borders on craziness; and a deep, abiding love of the trucking lifestyle.

“Many of the people I talk with are living out their dreams,” Roger told me by phone from his home in Los Angeles. “They are also always trying to find ways to make their rigs look special, to make them unique. They really have no ‘off switch’ when it comes to their work and their trucks.”

[You can view a collection Roger’s work below in a “silent movie” style review of his many custom truck photographs.]

Yet the “artistic visions,” if you will, of custom truckers in these disparate parts of the world are very different – a byproduct, in many cases, of the economic, climatic, and regulatory realities imposed upon them in the countries where they live and work.

The truckers Roger met in Switzerland (and subsequently in France and Germany) all use the same aerodynamic cabover style of truck – vehicles configured to meet demanding European emission, weight, and dimension rules. He noted that American-style conventional simply could not survive in such an environment form an economic standpoint (much as the Europeans admire them).

Yet, though the truck brands the Europeans use – Scania, DAF, MAN, etc. – all tend to look the same, the custom truckers differentiate them through the use of murals. Such large scale, whole-truck paintings turn their tractor-trailers literally into giant rolling canvasses, said Snider, and definitely make each of them unique.

In Australia, however, different factors were at work. “Down under, the conditions these trucks operate in drive their design – and, consequently, their customization,” Roger told me. “The ‘road trains’ must be high off the ground, to give the trucks clearance over uneven terrain, numerous animals, and the thick ever-present clouds dust rolling along the outback.

“Trucks built low to the ground in ‘gangster’ style – which is becoming popular in the U.S. now – would not survive in these conditions,” Roger told me. “Consequently, most of the ‘classical’ customer truckers I met try to keep their rigs in line with ‘normal’ specs – jacked-up sleeper, air cleaners set high to avoid dust, etc. They also try to conform to original specs. That’s why there are a lot of older Macks out there that look like they just rolled off the production line.”

However, that being said, in the major cities like Melbourne the “gangster” style is catching on with local and regional truckers that stick to paved surfaces. “That’s a whole new segment of Australian truck culture I did not get to meet, so I’ll have to go back,” Roger noted with a laugh.

Yet the ever-increasing pressures on trucking’s bottom line – both in terms of business and regulatory costs – are forcing many custom truckers off the road in nations across the globe, Roger found, or at least back into non-descript vehicles that operate within the ever-tighter margins of the freight business.

“A lot of these stylistic vehicles are getting pulled from the road everywhere. They are rapidly becoming relics as often times it doesn’t make business sense to move loads with them,” he told me. “That’s why I have this sense of urgency in what I do. People really love these vehicles, but soon they’ll say ‘these were trucks that used to pull freight on the highway.’”

Still, Roger said he remains enthralled by these vehicles and their owners alike. “It’s one thing to look at these trucks in photographs – quite something else to see them in person,” he explained. “When I talk to the owners, they wonder why I am there to take photos of them and their equipment. I tell them it’s because they’ve created a piece of art; something unique that doesn’t anywhere else. That’s what I try to bring out in my photos.”

Roger also has several more trips planned in the months ahead – to Brazil, South Africa and hopefully New Zealand – so he can further expands his one-of-a-kind photographic record of custom trucks from around the world.

I for one can’t wait to see what he finds next.

“Driving while texting, emailing or talking on the phone aren’t perceived as egregious behaviors despite overwhelming scientific evidence of the serious crash risk these behaviors pose. The ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude is prevalent throughout much of the driving public.” – Peter Kissinger, president and CEO, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Here’s a discouraging point in the debate surrounding distracted driving: no one seems willing to practice what they preach. That at least is what the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety discovered as part of its 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index.

The group’s study found that a majority of drivers (62%) feel that talking on a cell phone is a very serious threat to safety, but they do not always behave accordingly or believe that others share these views. In fact, nearly 70% of those surveyed admitted to talking on their phones and 24% said they read or sent text messages or emails while driving in the previous month.

Well now! Those kinds of details don’t bode well for U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s efforts to combat distracted driving behaviors, now do they?

Sure, Secretary LaHood announced at this week’s national “Distracted Driving Summit” that he is initiating a new rulemaking to prohibit commercial truck drivers from texting while transporting hazardous materials. In addition, he noted two rules proposed at last year’s summit are now the “law of the land,” such as banning commercial bus and truck drivers from texting on the job while restricting train operators from using cell phones and other electronic devices while in the driver’s seat.

“We are taking action on a number of fronts to address the epidemic of distracted driving in America,” LaHood noted. “With the help of the experts, policymakers, and safety advocates we’ve assembled here, we are going to do everything we can to put an end to distracted driving and save lives.”

Well, it’s good to put rules in place prohibiting cell phone use and texting by commercial drivers, but then they are professionals – what they are doing behind the wheel is a job, and most folks follow the rules closely while working.

When you leave the office environment, though, things change – especially for everyday motorist. And it is the everyday motorist that often is the initial cause of truck-car crashes.

The AAA Foundation’s own research noted this in a report it crafted back in 2005 with the help of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). That study found that in 73% of the truck-car crashes studied, no unsafe act on the part of the truck driver caused the accident.

Other crash data showed that car drivers are four times more likely to rear end a truck than truckers are to rear end cars; are 10 times more likely to crash into a truck head on than vice versa; are three times more likely to speed in poor road conditions (such as rain) than truck drivers; and are eight times more likely to be involved in crashes involving drowsiness than truckers.

Now, add in the salient fact that most motorists – even though fully aware of the dangers posed by distracted driving – by and large aren’t changing their behavior behind the wheel when it comes to texting or cell phone usage. That doesn’t bode well when big hopes are being pinned to the this effort to stamp out “distracted driving.”

And let’s not kid ourselves, either – so-called ‘distracted driving” causes crashes; a lot of them. In 2009, nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), with distraction-related fatalities representing 16% of overall traffic fatalities in 2009.

It’s easy to see how distraction can lead to vehicle crashes, too. Just take research conducted by Ralph Craft, then a senior transportation specialist for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Office of Analysis back in 2008.

According to his findings, the most common critical events that cause crashes are running out of the travel lane, crossing through intersections or hitting a vehicle stopped in the lane. Craft said that the four most common critical reasons for these events—non-performance due to factors such as sickness or sleepiness; inattention or recognition; poor decision-making and overcompensation—all relate to the driver and not the vehicle.

“Sixteen of the 24 [most common crash] factors relate to the drivers and not the vehicle,” Craft said in a conference call with reporters two years ago. “There’s plenty of blame for large trucks, buses and passenger vehicles in crashes, but the ‘causative’ factors lie mainly with drivers … the vehicle issues are secondary.”

He added – and this is important – that it’s hard to do much about some of these causes.

“It’s very difficult to legislate many of these factors,” Craft said. “Can we make it a crime to be distracted? We need to do more research in human behavior and do things above and beyond what we can legislate … we want to find the factors that FMCSA can do something about, through research and education.”

Now, let’s return to the AAA Foundation’s 2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index study. Here, in plain sight, are some of the hurdles the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) distracted driving campaign must overcome:

• Motorists rated distracted driving behaviors as some of the most serious threats to their safety, yet many admitted to distracted behaviors like talking on the cell phone or texting or e-mailing while driving;

• Nearly 90% identify texting or e-mailing while driving as a very serious threat and 80% would support a law banning it;

• Nine out of ten people personally consider texting or emailing while driving unacceptable and two-thirds indicated that they would lose some respect for a friend who they saw engaging in those activities while driving;

• However, nearly a quarter of all those surveyed said they had read or sent a text or e-mail while driving in the last month;

• However, nearly 70% of all those surveyed admitted talking on phone while driving in the past month.

Now, the DOT thinks strong laws coup0led with strong enforcement can help in reduce distracted driving. Indeed, NHTSA released interim data from its pilot enforcement programs currently underway in Hartford, CT, and Syracuse, NY, this week showing success with this approach.

Dubbed “Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other,” the year-long pilot campaigns were launched in April to test whether increased law enforcement efforts combined with public service announcements can succeed in getting distracted drivers to put down their cell phones and focus on the road.

During two week-long periods of stepped up enforcement to date, police in Hartford have written approximately 4,956 tickets and Syracuse police have issued 4,446 tickets for violations involving drivers talking or texting on cell phones, NHTSA said.

Also, before and after each enforcement wave, NHTSA said it conducted observations of driver cell phone use and collected public awareness surveys at driver licensing offices in each test and comparison site. Based on these observations and surveys, hand-held cell phone use has dropped 56% in Hartford and 38% in Syracuse to date, with texting while driving declining 68% in Hartford and 42% in Syracuse.

“Good laws are important, but we know from past efforts to curb drunk driving and promote seatbelts that enforcement is the key,” said LaHood. “Our pilot programs in Syracuse and Hartford are critical pieces of our overall effort to get people to realize distracted driving is dangerous and wrong. I want to commend the police in Hartford and Syracuse for their excellent work keeping our roads safe and serving as a model for other communities.”

“Motor vehicle crashes suddenly, prematurely and violently end the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year – killing more of our children, teens and young adults than any other single cause,” added AAA foundation’s Kissinger. “Using a phone while driving increases your risk of being in a crash fourfold due to the physical, visual and mental distractions.”

But until people start changing their behavior, that risk shall remain. And if the AAA Foundation’s data tells us anything, motorists aren’t changing their behavior in terms of texting and cell phone use when behind the wheel in significant numbers yet.

“Truck customers should think of the EcoBoost truck engine as a gas-powered engine with diesel-type capability and characteristics.” –Jim Mazuchowski, V6 engines program manager, Ford Motor Co.

It’s hard to miss the potential impact of the next generation of gasoline-powered V6 engines like Ford’s new EcoBoost on the light-duty truck market – especially for commercial users.

Now, I can’t talk about my personal perceptions of Ford Motor Co.’s new twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) EcoBoost quite yet (us truck writers are under and embargo until Sept. 27)

But I can tell you this engine is most certainly the leading indicator of a technological sea change in the light-duty truck world, for the fuel economy numbers I racked up alone in 127.2 miles of road testing are going to find broad appeal to any number of commercial fleets.

Now, I touched on the potential capabilities of the EcoBoost yesterday, but that post only scratches the surface this new engine. For starters, this 3.5-liter cranks out 365 hp and 420 ft-lbs of torque while delivering 20% better fuel economy than the previous 4.2-liter V6 it replaces – all on regular 87 octane fuel.

[Below, Jim Mazuchowski, Ford’s V6 engines program manager, gives an overview of the key technologies within the EcoBoost engine.]

By contrast, Ford’s new big 6.2-liter V8 generates 411 hp and 434 ft-lbs of torque only on “premium” 93-octane fuel, yet it’s towing rating is the same as the smaller EcoBoost – 11,300 lbs.

Think about this, too: as a “naturally aspirated” engine, the big 6.2-liter V8 is susceptible to a power falloff at high altitudes – anywhere from 25% to 30% at 10,000 ft elevations. That doesn’t happen to the EcoBoost, though, because of its turbocharging.

Jim Mazuchowski (at left), Ford’s V6 engines program manager, told me during the company’s recent 2011 model F-150 event held at the Texas Motor Speedway outside Ft. Worth that it’s the combination of turbocharging and direct fuel injection that’s key.

For it’s that combination that delivers a lot of low-end torque and maintains it across a broad rpm range – with up to 90% of the peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm – all on regular fuel.

[For fun, here’s a 40 to 70 mile per hour engine test run on a mobile dynamometer Ford brought to its 2011 model F-150 rollout.]

“This is good news for customers because the combination of reaching peak torque at a lower engine speed, and maintaining that torque for a longer period, brings new levels of fuel efficiency with maximum towing capability,” he said. “The twin turbochargers and direct injection also give it the broad, flat torque curve that makes towing with a diesel so effortless.

And there, perhaps, is the biggest key point in this discussion.

Here’s small V6 that offers almost – and I stress the word “almost” here – diesel-like horsepower and torque, without the pricey emission control technology. Now, true, Ford is marketing its EcoBoost truck engine as a “premium” option, so it’s looking to make some money here on it.

But if a commercial fleet can get by on the payload and towing ratings the engine provides, it could very well make that up-front money back in fuel savings – something that’s a lot harder to do with today’s more costly diesels.

The Ti-VCT technology on the EcoBoost also helps in the emission-control arena as well as to save fuel, Mazuchowski noted. By providing extremely precise variable – yet independent – control of timing for intake and exhaust valves, the Ti-VCT package reduces emissions, especially in situations when the throttle is partially open.

Independent adjustment of intake and exhaust valve timing also allows maximum fuel economy at part-throttle, while delivering optimized power in full-throttle situations. An added benefit is improved driveability and responsiveness across the torque curve, Mazuchowski noted.

Now, the EcoBoost won’t be available until next year on Ford’s new F-150, but it’s already reshaping the automaker’s product offerings.

For starters, Ford plans to discontinue selling its line of Ranger compact pickups in the U.S. precisely because it now has a fuel sipping V6 that puts its full size F-150 on almost on even fuel economy footing with the Ranger. The USA Today newspaper reports that while the 2011 model Ranger is being redesigned and upgraded for other markets, such as Australia, it’ll be shelved in the U.S. due in no small part to what the EcoBoost can bring to the F-150.

Besides, getting a full-size pickup with diesel-like payload and towing capability, with the potential fuel economy footprint of the compact Ranger, seems like a no-brainer here.

The hardest part of course is convincing the commercial and consumer truck buyer alike that the EcoBoost really does what Ford says it does – Mazuchowski admitted as much to me.

While Ford’s done an awful lot of validation work on the EcoBoost, the salient of “customer acceptance” remains to be breeched.

Here, by the way, it’s what Ford’s done to test the truck version of its EcoBoost:

• More than 1.5 million hours of analytical time;

• More than 13,000 hours of dynamometer testing, including more than 5,000 hours at full boost and more than 2,500 hours at or above 5,000 rpm (dyno testing helps ensure durability in excess of 150,000 miles, the company said);

• More than 100,000 hours of vehicle test time encompassing the full range of potential customer operating conditions;

• Thermal cycling tests that replicate conditions from the Arctic Circle to Death Valley, simulating 10 years of use in the harshest environments.

Altogether, these tests replicate more than 1.6 million miles of harshest type of customer usage. But will that data – alongside the horsepower, torque, payload, towing, and fuel economy numbers – be enough? That all depends on what customers experience when they start driving trucks equipped with the EcoBoost – and that won’t happen until next year.

“All of you know we’ve been on a journey for the last five years to be the leader in fuel economy with every vehicle we bring to market, and we’re putting our money where our mouth is.” –Frank Davis, executive director of North American product, Ford Motor Co.

Those are some big words, to say the very least, when it comes to discussing fuel economy – especially in the pickup truck arena.

But Ford believes it’s got a winning package second to none for its long-established F-150 pickup model – an engine capable of offering power to spare for any commercial operator, yet with a sleek fuel economy profile comparable to a sedan, if you can believe it.

Today I’m going to put those claims to the test out on the road as well as the impromptu test track Ford’s crafted from one of the parking lots surrounding the Texas Motor Speedway, located some 45 minutes outside of Dallas, TX.

The big gamble for Ford in the F-150 pickup segment revolves around the “EcoBoost” engine model; a base engine platform the company expects will be available in 90% of its North American product by 2013 and account for projected sales of 1.5 million units globally.

Jim Mazuchowski, Ford’s V6 engines program manager, told me the EcoBoost is designed to put a V6 engine in place of a V8, with a V8’s performance yet a V6’s fuel economy profile. “We’re trying to deliver the best of both world’s here; more power yet better fuel economy as well,” he explained.

For example, he noted it boasts vastly improved performance versus the 4.2 liter V6 it helps replace, generating 163 more hp and 168 added ft-lbs of torque. That improves the towing and payload carrying capability of the 2011 model F-150, Mazuchowski said, to 11,300 lbs and 3,060 lbs, respectively.

It also – get this – can attain 24 miles per gallon in highway driving, unloaded of course. That’s from engineering tests, though. What’s it like in the real world? We’ll see.

Fuel economy is the big drivers in the vehicle world of late – and for pickups especially. So it’s not just the engines that are getting a makeover on the 2011 model F-150; other components are changing, too, to help win some more fuel economy percentage points.

Again, though, we’ll need to see how this new EcoBoost engine performs in the rough-and-tumble pickup world.

“The tough part is convincing customers of these capabilities,” Mazuchowski said. “But we’ve done four years of engineering work on these engines, testing them in minus forty to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, while accumulating 1.6 million miles of equivalent customer use.”

Ford apparently did its homework on this new engine for its revamped F-150 lineup. Now we just have to see if it passes the real-world test.

I got a rare opportunity this past July, to serve as judge and “test driver for Ward’s, Fleet Owner’s sister publication, when its editors decided to expand their well-established “Ten Best Engines” competition by holding the magazine’s first-ever “Best Engines Diesel Shootout.”

The competition pitted a Cummins 6.7 liter diesel I-6 powering a Ram Laramie 2500 HD pickup, Duramax 6.6 liter diesel V-8 in a GMC Sierra Denali HD pickup, and the new Power Stroke 6.7 liter diesel V-8 in a Ford F-250 Super Duty Lariat pickup in a three-way battle to see which diesel model stood apart from the rest.

Needless to say, this wasn’t easy, for they all produced horsepower, torque, and fuel economy metrics that would appeal to any commercial fleet, much less the everyday consumer.

The testing, conducted at Robert Bosch LLC‘s test track in Flat Rock, MI, as well as on public roadways in and around Detroit on July 28 this year, also focused on the finer points of the “diesel driving experience,” as to which model produced a more pleasing sound, handled better in both rapid acceleration situations as well as “ho-hum” driving conditions on the open road.

Now, I THOUGHT the highway part of the testing – a long hour’s drive from Flat Rock north to General Motor’s providing grounds outside of Milford, MI – would produce the “ho-hum” part of the overall testing experience. Boy was I WRONG! As you can see below, the weather turned wretched, giving me some white knuckle moments here and there.

[It’s also very apparent that my subconscious STILL has NOT gotten around to recognizing that Chrysler dropped the “Dodge” name from its Ram Truck line almost a year ago. So you’ll hear “Dodge Ram” more than once in this clip. What can I say? Old nomenclature dies hard in my memory banks.]

Now, the really “fun stuff” took place on Bosch’s test track – a facility built back in 1990 to predominantly test light-duty vehicles. Jim Glutting is the guy in charge of the place, and let me tell you, he knows his stuff. He’s got four “high performance” drivers on his staff that can run rings around just about anyone (me included), but they graciously acted as co-pilots on this adventure, telling us how to hit the corners, when to accelerate and when to brake, etc.

“Our performance drivers notice the fine nuances in vehicle behavior,” Glutting told me (seen here wearing a white shirt in the photo at right, giving some tips to Ward’s editor Eric Mayne). “They work closely with engineers to help make all sorts of light duty systems function at their best.”

Now, of course, you can’t recreate the “real world” on a test track, which is why Bosch also maintains a “winter test site” up in Minnesota, complete with a 450-foot wide by 1,800-foot long “snow/ice circle” to put vehicles through the most rigorous winter testing possible.

At Flat Rock, most of the testing focuses on traction control, electronic stability programs (ESP), and trailer sway control to make sure all the electronics managing these critical safety systems function properly.

In fact, Bosch’s proving grounds in Flat Rock, went through an $8 million upgrade and expansion two years ago, which included the addition of a roughly 10,000-square foot main building that houses three maintenance bays for vehicle work, a wash bay, and of course plenty of conference rooms and office space for the engineering work that goes on the track.

Bosch also expanded its facility from eight to 21 acres as well, adding a vehicle dynamic area (VDA) to expand upon its light-duty testing capability. All told, about 30 people a day are working at the Flat Rock facility, testing everything from sports coups and sedans to a wide variety of light trucks.

Using the test track in combination with drives on public roads also helped balance out a lot of “perceptions” when it came to rating vehicle performance during our test day, too – for it’s one thing to log acceleration numbers on a closed course; quite another to sweat out a zero-to-highway-speed merge from a gravel lot while towing 10,000-pounds. That puts grey hairs in one’s beard right quick (and my beard is now full of them!)

All in all, it proved quite an interesting experience, testing three diesel-powered pickups head-to-head in this fashion. Hopefully, it’ll give you some more information to ponder if and when you consider what diesel pickup to buy down the road.

“I spent three years driving coast to coast and sleeping in truck stops across the country. I gained a lot of respect for truck drivers and now through this green awareness campaign I have the opportunity to recognize those men and women on the roads.” –Caitlin Shaw, NASCAR Camping World Truck Series driver

It’s not every day that you encounter a NASCAR driver getting behind a “green” campaign aimed at the trucking community – much less a rookie female NASCAR driver at that.

And, in a way, it’s more than a little ironic to be promoting “environmentally-friendly” behavior among truckers from behind the wheel of a fuel-guzzling, emission-producing racing vehicle.

Yet that’s what Caitlin Shaw (at right), a NASCAR Camping World Truck Series driver at all of 21 years of age, is doing in conjunction with her sponsor – a company called The Oil Medics, which seeks to get truckers to select long-life engine oil to not only preserve the health and longevity of their engines but reduce oil consumption as well through longer drain intervals, thus reducing the flow of “waste oil” produced by big rig engines every year.

Shaw doesn’t see this as “ironic,” though, and for good reason. A motorsports competitor since she was just 9 years old, Shaw’s experienced the trucking lifestyle first hand after criss-crossing the U.S. towing her race vehicles.

[You can see Shaw talk about some of the reasons why she’s involved in racing from an interview two years ago.]

“When I was 16, I decided I wanted to make a career out of racing,” she told me by phone from Charlotte, NC, where she’s going to college and working as an intern at Michael Waltrip’s racing shop.

“So my dad and I would drive go out on the road for three or four months at a time in our RV towing my race car,” Shaw said. “We slept in our truck and stayed many a time at truck stops like Flying J and even Wal-Mart parking lots. Also, lot of truck drivers came over to us to talk about racing and get autographs at many of the places we stayed.”

[She also credits very understanding high school teachers, who emailed her homework and study assignments while out on her long racing sojourns.]

Shaw’s father also explained to her “road etiquette,” in terms of passing only on the left and flashing one’s lights to help a trucker know when it’s safe to merge. “I gained a lot of respect for truck drivers from that time on the road,” she told me. “A few times, we traveled from California to Utah between races. Once, we had to drive from California to Indiana. It gave me a taste of what a trucker’s life is like out on the highway.”

Racing for a living, though, is not a cheap endeavor. Even competition in NASCAR’s Truck Series – considered the “minor leagues” of NASCAR racing – is expensive, with a team costing $3 million to fund for one season of racing. That’s one reason she’s glad to have The Oil Medics as a sponsor.

But she also believes in their message: that every lit bit a trucker does to run “greener” helps the environment in the long run. “Originally, we figured we’d just pick a ‘fan of the week’ and promote them on my web page,” Shaw told me. “But we decided we really needed to do something more; to really recognize truckers that take that extra ‘green’ step.”

As a result, her campaign will highlight one trucker each week that has made an environmentally friendly initiative via their truck – be it from using biodiesel fuel, bypass oil filtration, anything that helps save fuel and reduce pollution – and display them on her fan page as well as The Oil Medics web site.

[All submissions, by the way, need to include the driver or owner name, a photo, and a short description of their green initiatives and be sent to TheOilMedics@yahoo.com]

“Our ‘core mission’ is to increase fuel economy and prolong engine life, while reducing oil purchases by up to 90%,” stressed Bill Jewell, owner of The Oil Medics. “Caitlin’s NASCAR platform reaches a high audience to gain awareness for this campaign and we are proud to be working with her to gain awareness for truckers and for our environment.”

The campaign will run from Sept. 15 through Nov. 9 leading up to Shaw’s race at Phoenix International Raceway, with winners announced each Monday during that time period.

Right now, Shaw is only racing once a year as she’s still in the process of building up enough sponsors to fund a team. She goes to school Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm, spends time on developing sponsorships and other marketing efforts from 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm, then hits the gym for a grueling upper body workout.

“I work my upper body and ‘core’ muscles every day,” Shaw explained to me. “Racing is really tough on those muscles.”

I know a little something about that after going four laps at 165 mph as a race car passenger a few years back down at the Texas International Speedway – a terrifying and physically brutal experience, with the G-forces of each turn putting a ton of pressure on my upper body muscles.

None of that fazes Shaw, however. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday she works 9-to-5 for Michael Waltrip’s racing company as an intern, handling a variety marketing and public relation duties but also hopping into “pit cars” when she gets a chance to keep her driving skills and reaction times razor sharp. “I’m getting a lot of good business experience as well as a chance to train as well,” she told me.

She also sees herself as a role model for women, as well: hoping to convince girls of all ages that don’t have to limit themselves to being spectators at racing events – that they can get in and drive with the best of them out on the track if that’s something they want to do.

“It’s a lot of hard work,” Shaw told me. “But I really enjoy what I do.”