Trucks at Work Blog

“The modern global economy depends on smooth movement of people and goods. But the transportation sector is not without challenges as traffic accidents remain one of the real global killers we face.” –Jonas Hafstrom, Swedish ambassador to the U.S.

No matter how you look at it, the numbers are simply horrific: 1.3 million people killed worldwide every year in traffic accidents, with another 20 million seriously injured. In economic terms, the cost of those fatalities and injuries, combined with property damage and lost worker productivity, is in the neighborhood of about $1 trillion annually, according to research by the World Bank.

Now, about 90% of those 1.3 million traffic fatalities occur in the developing world, even though developing countries are home to only 48% of the globe’s registered vehicles.

And by 2030, according to the World Bank’s projections, some 2.4 million people are going to be dying every year on the globe’s many roadways – making traffic accidents the fifth leading cause of death planet wide.

To address this frightening trend, both within its country’s borders and abroad, Sweden embarked a radical overhaul of its traffic safety philosophy some 13 years ago. Dubbed Vision Zero, it aims to design transport systems that minimize the effects of human driver error.

[Watch as Patrick Magnusson from the Swedish Transport Administration explains some of the key concepts behind the ‘Vision Zero’ philosophy.]

And so far, at least, it seems to be working. Though Sweden is a small country with just 9.3 million people (compared to 307 million in the U.S.), some 5 million motor vehicles ply its roads. Yet Sweden’s traffic deaths have plummeted from the thousands per year to just 358 in 2009 – a number projected to fall even further in 2010, to 280 – and its traffic safety experts credit the nation’s “Vision Zero” philosophy for this achievement.

That gives Sweden a traffic fatality rate of just below 3 per 100,000 people, compared to a rate of 12 traffic fatalities per 100,000 in the U.S.

Look at this another way: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that traffic fatalities declined to “a record low” for the U.S. of 33,808 in 2009. That’s the lowest number since 1950, when 33,186 people perished in highway collisions. Yet it also means roughly 92 Americans are killed every day in traffic accidents, meaning we exceed Sweden’s total YEARLY traffic fatalities within just five days.

Yet Patrick Magnusson (seen at left) from the Swedish Transport Administration (who you met in the video clip above) stressed at a traffic safety conference hosted by the Swedish embassy this week in Washington D.C. that many of physical changes wrought by the “Vision Zero” to Sweden’s transportation system my seem strange to American eyes.

For example, take “roundabouts.” These are those infamous traffic circles that replace traditional four-way intersections controlled by stop signs or traffic lights. “These are one of the most important ‘silver bullets’ in Sweden’s traffic system,” Magnusson said.

The weird thing is that MORE accidents occur in roundabouts compared to four-way intersections controlled by traffic lights, he explained; yet they result in FEWER fatalities. That’s because the roundabout slows down traffic speed and, while causing more “fender bender” level accidents, they eliminate those deadly high-speed “T-bone” crashes common when drivers gun the engine to race the traffic light.

Then there are what Sweden calls “shared space” intersections with no traffic lights and no right of way guidance whatsoever. This forces traffic from all sides to slow down so people can figure out how to get through the area – and those slow speeds significantly reduce crash risk.

Finally there is the “2+1” roadway design – boiling a typical four lane road down into one lane travelling in either direction with short “passing areas” built in at regular intervals. The key to this design is a wire “fence” that runs down the center of the roadway, specifically to prevent head-on collisions, said Magnusson.

The “2+1” roads also helps to slow down traffic as speed, he stressed, is the main culprit behind traffic fatalities; the fallout of what he calls “exceeding biomechanical tolerance limits.”

“The problem is that we feel safe driving a car because we don’t ‘feel’ like we’re moving,” he explained. “We become ‘blind’ to the kinetic energy of a moving car in a way.” If drivers just obeyed posted speed limits, Magnusson added, more than 100 extra lives could be saved per year on Sweden’s roadways.

Now, a lot of this may sound controversial to American ears, no doubt – and Magnusson freely admitted that not only are the driving cultures between the U.S. and Sweden very different, but the size and scope of the roadway networks are hugely different, too.

Yet that doesn’t mean many of these concepts can’t be translated successfully to our shores – especially if they help reduce traffic-related deaths and injuries. For that reason, I’ll dig into this topic a little further next week as well.

“The two main issues with fuel economy are idle time and how you drive the truck. Those are management issues, not engine design issues.” –Tom Diefenbacker, director of diagnostics, electronic features, support for Navistar and former director of electronic products for Detroit Diesel Corp.

It’s funny, in a way: so much of the truck fuel economy discussion emanating from any number of corners in government these days is focused almost solely on the hardware involved, yet ignores what’s likely the single most important factor in reducing fuel consumption: the skill of the driver behind the wheel.

I touched on the subject of drivers in this space earlier this week, but it still just amazes me how much driver behavior gets overlooked by folks outside the trucking business.

The quotation from Tom Diefenbacker above sums it all up pretty neatly, I think – and those words are over seven years old now, uttered right as the industry began its long government-mandated emissions journey to remove particulates, oxides of nitrogen, and other pollutants from truck exhaust.

Countless truck engineers from all the major OEMs – engine and truck makers alike – have told me (and continue to tell me) that all the design improvements they make to improve heavy truck fuel economy can be nullified simply by poor driving and operating habits: excessive engine idling, improper shifting, excessive road speed, hard braking and accelerating … the list goes on.

Yet it’s also not easy to drive a truck to maximize fuel efficiency, either. Just watch as Detroit Diesel’s one-and-only Chuck Blake provides some fuel efficiency tips to drivers below. Note that drivers really need to pay attention to what they’re doing to operate their vehicle in its fuel sipping “sweet spot” over the course of different road conditions.

[And also note that this video was produced for the now long-departed Sterling Trucks.]

Now, sure, many of the government’s fuel economy experts rightly note that using automatic or automated transmission to make all the proper shifts for the driver can keep a vehicle in its best fuel-economy mode while driving.

But that ignores the fact that most heavy trucks today are still spec’d with manuals, with fleets largely favoring 10- and 13-speed models, while others (largely owner-operators but some fleets as well) stick with 18-speed monsters.

Do you think it’s easy to stay in the proper gear to maximize fuel economy with a manual? I sure don’t. It’s a skill acquired after years of experience – I know because I’ve talked to the men and women who spent careers gaining said experience.

[Just watch as an Eaton engineer explains how to properly shift both a 13- and 18-speed transmission. You sure don’t learn how to do that in just a couple of hours with a trainer!]

Finally, it’s also important to note some design differences that affect the “driving style” for the diesel engine brands and models in the market today.

The old saying that “no two drivers are alike” can also be applied to diesel engines as well, for each make and model comes with their own specific fuel map, horsepower ratings, peak torque and rpm [revolutions per minute] points, and operating characteristics, just to name a few.

Knowing how to drive one type of engine to obtain ideal fuel economy doesn’t automatically mean a driver can perform the same feat with a different model.

[For instance, watch this video from Navistar concerning driving tips for its MaxxForce diesel engine line. Note that a 5 minute warm up is needed for these engines. But if you recall the old Sterling video at the top of this post, Detroit Diesel models did NOT require a 5 minute warm up: a small difference, yes, yet it’s one that adds up in terms of fuel economy and engine health over time.]

A final note: research by Schneider National indicates that fuel economy and safety are interrelated when it comes to drivers

Two years ago in a Fleet Owner webinar, Don Osterberg, Schneider’s vice president of safety, driver training, and security, stressed that there’s a strong the correlation between fuel-efficient driving and safe driving.

“If you are wondering why the safety person is talking about MPG (miles per gallon), based upon our analysis, our best drivers for MPG are also our safest drivers,” he noted.

In a study, Schneider’s top 100 drivers in terms of MPG had a 37% lower accident rate than the 100 drivers with the lowest MPG, he pointed out, while the top 500 MPG drivers had a 23% lower accident rate and the top 1,000 MPG drivers had a 21% lower accident rate than the lowest 1,000 MPG drivers.

Those are some pretty striking numbers – illustrating that, wherever we go in terms of heavy truck fuel economy mandates, the driver must remain a key part of the calculation.

One of the larger questions being asked as the debate over government-proposed heavy truck fuel economy mandates gets rolling deals with overall vehicle efficiency. That’s because meeting these government fuel economy targets is going to require work on many parts of the tractor-trailer besides the engine, where much of the focus has been for the last decade in terms of both controlling exhaust emissions and fuel consumption.

Of course, truck manufacturers are the ones in the cross hairs of the proposed fuel efficiency mandates: they are the ones that will be charged with getting their equipment “certified” by these new rules. Yet fleets need to be integrally part of this process, too, largely because they are the ones tasked with putting such “certified” equipment out on the highway in freight hauling service.

Plus, the fleet focus can’t be just on tractor-trailer fuel economy alone, for these combination vehicles also need to produce returns large enough over time to pay for any upfront incremental cost (and there’s sure to be a lot of THAT, I can tell you) required to meet these proposed fuel efficiency targets.

Conway Truckload is an example of one fleet that’s been following the “total vehicle efficiency” path in recent years – trying out any number of new technologies and components not only to reduce tractor-trailer fuel consumption but improve freight hauling efficiency and safety as well.

[Here’s one example of how it’s trying to boost overall vehicle efficiency; by using a unqiue in-house designed “double stack” system for its trailers.]

Safety can actually be a key metric in this new fuel economy debate, because (let’s face it), if a tractor-trailer gets involved in a crash, it pretty much wipes out any bottom line savings gained from reduced fuel consumption.

But first, here’s a look at some of Conway Truckload’s fuel saving efforts to date:

• Switching to fuel-efficient single wide-base tires on all tractors for a savings of 0.2 miles per gallon, with all trailers to follow by the end of 2012.

• Using special engine and drive train lubricants to increase operating efficiency.

• Lowering each truck’s weight by more than 670 pounds through specification changes, resulting in savings of 11,400 gallons of diesel fuel per year.

• Equipping the fleet with highly engineered aerodynamic panels to reduce drag.

• Reducing idling time through measures such as utilizing diesel-fired bunk heaters and commercial transponders for bypassing weigh stations, as well as increasing the use of team drivers and designating convenient “no idling” parking areas at selected terminals.

• Recycling used trailers and refurbishing them for return to the fleet through its sister company, Road Systems, Inc., instead of buying new trailers.

One new product Conway Truckload is testing for improved fuel economy is the UT-6 Trailer UnderTray System designed by the SmartTruck company – a trailer aerodynamic system purported to offer a fuel efficiency gain of at least 8.5% for the base model, with the full UT-6 trailer system delivering more than 11% gains in fuel efficiency, according to SmartTruck’s testing results so far.

Now, the jury is still out on the fuel saving capability of this product (and rightfully so) but Conway Truckload is one of several fleets in the mix testing the UT-6 out to see if really can help improve the fuel footprint of tractor-trailers in real world operations.

“Previous attempts to gain a return on our investment of typical trailer aerodynamic technologies haven’t existed until now,” noted Bruce Stockton, vice president of maintenance & asset management for Con-way Truckload. “We believe SmartTruck has found a way to utilize the airflow and minimize turbulence around a tractor-trailer, while improving safety as well as fuel efficiency.”

I’ve talked to Stockton on more than one occasion and I can tell you he’s no starry-eyed dreamer when it comes to fuel economy. Conway Truckload adopts enhancements for its fleet only if they prove themselves out on the highway after rigorous in-house testing.

That’s the reason why Conway Truckload adopted wide-base tires for its tractors and trailers, for example, as Stockton points out in the video below.

Yet at the same time, as almost anyone in trucking knows, there’s recognition that safer trucks save fleets a lot of money over time as well. And those savings, by the way, influence the overall “vehicle efficiency” pretty significantly, too.

Conway Truckload’s sister company, LTL carrier Conway Freight, recently wrapped up a nearly year-long test of integrated system of crash warning and vehicle safety technologies in partnership with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI); a project that convinced the company to spend an extra $5.4 million to put these systems on 1,300 new Freightliner Cascadia 2010-model tractors it recently ordered – an order valued at $100 million, which is not chump change in any business.

The “suite” of safety systems on these trucks includes: rollover stability, front collision warning with adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warning, as well factory-installed in-dash AM/FM/Satellite radio units which replace portable radios and are designed to minimize driver distraction.

“The insight we gained from the IVBSS [Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems] heavy-truck field operational test study confirmed the feedback we got from our drivers — these technologies are ready for prime time and are effective at helping drivers avoid the most common instances of crashes involving commercial trucks,” explained Bob Petrancosta, Conway Freight’s vice president of safety.

Over the course of the 10-month study, which began in February 2009, 18 Conway drivers operated the trucks out of the company’s Detroit service center as part of its normal business operations, logging 601,844 miles; 22,724 trips; and generating 13,678 hours of data.

While the test vehicles were driven, data acquisition systems recorded driver actions and responses to the integrated warning system. Some of the study’s key findings were:

• The majority of drivers perceived that the integrated crash warning system would increase driver safety, and it made them more aware of the traffic environment around their vehicle and their position in the lane

• Seven drivers reported the integrated system prevented them from potentially having a crash

• Fifteen out of 18 drivers said they prefer a truck equipped with the integrated safety system and would recommend that their employers purchase such a system

• In terms of satisfaction, drivers rated warnings for lane departures the highest, and second highest in terms of perceived usefulness

• The integrated crash warning system had a statistically significant effect helping drivers maintain lane positions closer to the center

• Overall, drivers responded more quickly to potential rear-end crash scenarios with the system

“With the anticipated release of FMSCA’s [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 initiative and the potential for stricter safety regulations for truck drivers and trucking companies, we’re proactively pursuing a high-tech approach to safety,” Petrancosta added.

“[This test] validated these technologies over the past year, confirming what we initially believed — these are effective technologies in our operation that can provide real-world, lifesaving results,” he noted.

They’ll also save the carrier money, too – further boosting the overall efficiency of the vehicles they operate. And that will be a critical metric as the trucking industry waits to see if these proposed fuel economy standards become reality in the next few years.

“Drivers can visually preview their trip on-screen, get a mental image of where they’re going, and then use the audio directions to navigate them in. The result is a driver who is more focused on the road and the conditions around them. The audio directions provided by the system also help eliminate distractions in the cab.” –Don Osterberg, senior vice president of safety, driver training, and security for Schneider National, discussing the reasons why the carrier adopted Qualcomm’s new Mobile Computing Platform 200 Series

No doubt in the days ahead we’ll be hearing about the many vehicle-based solutions that’ll be deployed to help the trucking industry meet ambitious new fuel economy proposals laid out by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) yesterday.

But of course, as we all know, it’s not just about truck when it comes to getting better fuel economy. In fact, no matter how good you make a truck, if it isn’t driven properly, you’ll never get a dime’s worth of fuel economy improvements.

Thus the driver remains as a key factor in these future fuel economy equations. Yet what technologies are being deployed to improve their ability to gain better fuel economy – if not attain greater vehicle efficiency and work productivity to boot?

Beyond better transmissions, gearing ratios, and the like, there’s a host of tools coming to the market (if they aren’t already available now) such as “trucker GPS” and better routing systems that, ultimately, can translate into better fuel economy via more efficient planning on the part of drivers.

Take Schneider National for example. Back in March, the truckload carrier said it had equipped 25% of its fleet – some 3,000 trucks, mind you, with Qualcomm’s Mobile Computing Platform 200 Series (MCP 200). Eventually, the carrier wants the MCP 200 in all of its trucks – company-owned and owner-operator tractors alike.

Qualcomm’s revamp in-cab device offers: text-to-voice functionality (allowing drivers to hear messages and directions while driving, eliminating the need to stop and read messages and new work assignments); navigation (turn-by-turn directions that can be previewed pre-trip and via audio en-route, comparable to an automobile GPS system); Internet and personal e-mail account access; electronic logging and on-demand in-cab training, noted Rich Hardt, Schneider’s vp of technical services at the time.

“This technology is comparable to a smart device,” he added. “It truly changes the way our entire organization works and interfaces with drivers, how we share information on work assignments, customer delivery details, company news and even updates on pay and benefits. It’s designed to make all of us safer and more productive, which is good for drivers, customers and the motoring public.”

But you don’t have to necessarily go the in-cab computing route to put technology in the hands of drivers to make their lives easier – and thus their day more efficient, saving them time, money and even fuel.

For example, two truckers dubbed Big Rig Brothers recently put together a video tour of Rand McNally’s new IntelliRoute TND 500 device to demonstrate just how helpful such tools can be. [Full warning: one word of profanity gets uttered in here, by mistake most likely.]

Now, there are many different kinds of “trucker GPS” out there in the market, each with its own advantages and disadvantages from companies such as Garmin, TomTom, and others. Drivers might prefer one versus another simply due to prior familiarity with the technology or preference for a certain way information is laid out.

Yet the bottom line remains that such tools, if used correctly, can help improve fuel economy in the long run by giving drivers an edge planning-wise for their work day.

[The PC*MILER Navigator is another of those “all-in-one’ GPS navigation system designed specifically for truck drivers and improving overall driver efficiency.]

Of course, it’s not all just about what kinds of information these systems produce but HOW they display it. That’s the next level being contemplated for in-cab tools – how to present information such as turn-by-turn directions, weather conditions, etc., in the most least distracting way possible.

One such solution is an industrial design concept using Pranav Mistry’s SixthSense technology put together by, of all people, a college student. Here’s a technological vision crafted by Mike Oldani – a student with the Western Washington University industrial design program – for changing information display within the truck cab.

Finally, of course, there’s the recognition that the technology truck drivers need to use throughout their day can’t be necessarily tied down into the truck cab on a permanent basis. Mike Oldani’s system, shown above, is portable but it only displays information.

However, PeopleNet’s new optionally portable onboard computing platform – dubbed the Tablet – takes things in a different direction. By giving drivers a lightweight PC that literally can get up and go with them wherever they need to be, whether inside or outside the cab, opens up new efficiency possibilities, such as speeding up workflow, while saving fleets money by eliminating the need for additional handheld devices and peripherals.

So, again, there are indeed a lot of new technological options coming to the fore now to help trucks become more fuel efficient. But it’s best to recognize similar advances are taking place on the driver front, too, to give drivers better tools so they can make better, more productive – and perhaps more fuel efficient – decisions as well.

“We believe we can avoid any major cost increases to meet the standards until 2017. But then we’re going to need new systems like waste heat recovery, which will add cost and complexity.” –Steve Charlton, chief technical officer for Cummins Engine Co., about the new heavy truck fuel economy rules being promulgated by the U.S. government

As everyone knows by now, new fuel economy rules are about to be plopped on top of the trucking industry – ostensibly in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; a major “greenhouse gas” that causes global warming and “climate change,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

You can read about the EPA’s position on the dangers posed by greenhouse gases here, but the short version is basically this: CO2 is created when gasoline and diesel is consumed, so using less fuel reduces greenhouse gases. Thus, cars, light and heavy trucks are now going to face higher fuel economy standards than ever before.

What does that mean for big rigs? The overall goal of the coming rule is a 3% improvement in fuel economy by 2014 compared to 2010 performance, according to OEMs speaking at the recent American Trucking Associations management conference held last week, with a 5% gain by 2017, and as yet unspecified improvements phased in by 2020 and beyond.

How those improvements will be measured will vary by truck size and application, but both truck manufacturers and engine makers will be required to certify fuel economy performance gains.

But here’s the larger question: HOW are truck OEMs and trailer makers going to reach such fuel economy targets? Because these new standards are going to require “total vehicle solutions” in order to reach such ambitious fuel economy goals, not just improvements to the engine or tractor alone.

Even small changes are being looked at to help in this area – stuff like making the physical components of the truck, such as the cab structure, from thinner pieces of metal and other materials. Carl Fredrik Hartung, product area manager at Volvo Technology in Sweden, talk about some of these “lightweight technologies” below:

Figuring out how to move trucks in a more fuel efficient manner is another key piece of this puzzle, and “smarter” transmissions offer one possible solution. European truck maker Scania, for example, rolled out a new version of its “Opticruise” system last year with a variety of tweaks to enhance this technology’s ability to deliver fuel savings.

That includes giving it the ability to know when a truck is running fully loaded or not and totally disengaging the clutch when stopping to reduce fuel consumption.

[Note, however, that the driver in Scania’s video below must still MANUALLY raise and lower the trailer landing gear with a hand-crank. It’s funny to still see this rudimentary process in existence alongside all this super-modern technology.]

Then there are efforts to totally “re-think” how trucks fulfill their freight and work roles within society; especially in terms of urban operations.

That’s the goal of Europe’s three-year “FIDEUS” project, short for Freight Innovative Delivery in European Urban Spaces, conducted from 2005 to 2008.

That effort looked for ways to improve not just the fuel and emissions footprint of trucks, but dampen down operating noise to allow for more “off peak” vehicle operation at night to avoid traffic congestion as well as the potential to contribute to it.

No doubt this project is being mined even as we speak by European truck OEMs and fleets alike to find ways to improve vehicle operation not only to reduce pollution but to improve “logistical efficiency”: as well.

These are just some of the many strategies now being deployed worldwide to reach some very ambitious fuel economy standards. Yet how successful OEMs and fleets will be remains to be seen.

Truck makers relying on selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to get their vehicles into compliance with 2010 emission rules are finding out that diesel exhaust fluid or “DEF” is probably one of the most critical pieces of the SCR system that needs explaining.

That’s because it’s not all about helping customers and dealers actually locate supplies of DEF in the marketplace; it’s also about how DEF affects base vehicle spec’ing choices as well.

Judy McTigue, director of marketing and planning research for Kenworth Truck Co., recently discussed this during a speech at Integer Research’s recent Diesel Emissions Conference I attended in San Diego.

She revealed that Kenworth actually started working on its 2010 solution way back in August 2006 – almost a full year before the 2007 emission regulations were put in place – and began educating its dealer network about SCR in early 2008, followed by a variety of customer outreach efforts in 2009.

“We knew we couldn’t wait until six months before the implementation of the 2010 emission standards to start communicating with our dealers and customers,” she explained. “With customers, not only did we begin the ‘education’ process about SCR a full year before the2010 regulations went into effect, we used a variety of methods as well – town hall meetings, webinars, and one-on-one customer visits. Those one-on-one visits really proved to be of the most benefit.”

Much of the discussion, though, didn’t revolve around SCR so much as DEF; the ammonia-based liquid that is 67.5% water sprayed into the exhaust stream of a diesel-powered truck to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions down to the required level of 0.2 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/hp-hr) as mandated by the 2010 emission rules.

Locating DEF on a regular basis initially posed a challenge, said McTigue, but that’s been worked out fairly quickly and isn’t much of an issue anymore, as she notes in the video clip below:

Another issue, however, posed a trickier set of challenges: just how much DEF would a fleet need to keep on board their vehicle?

McTigue said Kenworth worked this out by offering a range of storage tank options based on customer duty cycles: four to be exact. For long-haul fleets, they can spec a 27 gallon DEF tank that should last for 5,400 miles of operation. Then there’s an 18 gallon DEF option, which provides 3,600 miles of range, followed by a 9 gallon size for 1,800 miles or range and, lastly, a 5.6 gallon DEF tank for about 1,100 miles of range

Each of those options gives customers more refilling flexibility depending on the duty cycle of their vehicles, matches the available “real estate” on the chassis, and of course helps reduce weight if that’s a major issue. Overall, McTigue said Kenworth has found its SCR system can add between 250 to 300 extra pounds to a truck, so having tank size flexibility is a critical option.

Then of course there’s the “alerts and consequences” part of SCR, where running out of DEF triggers a slowdown in vehicle option, per rules outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). McTigue went into that during her speech as well, as you can see below:

The most important thing, though, about SCR in Kenworth’s eyes is that it finally is allowing the OEM to recapture engine efficiencies lost during the first two rounds of emission regulations (2004 and 2007) due to the need to reduce particulate matter (PM) or “soot” emitted from diesel engines.

McTigue said 2007-compliant engines equipped with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems to reduce soot suffered a fuel economy penalty of 5% to 9%. Now, with SCR, engines are showing a 5% gain in fuel economy over the ’07 models – recapturing some of what was lost in EGR-only engines.

She added that heat rejection in 2010-model SCR engines has also dropped, compared to the 20% to 30% increase seen in ’07 engines, with new 2010 engines also gaining back some of the 50 to 100 horsepower lost in the ’07 engines due to the impact of EGR.

Yet all of the SCR technology required to meet the 2010 rules comes with stiff price tag; an average of $7,000 to $10,000, depending on the size of the engine and type of truck it powers, according to Kenworth’s numbers – following, of course, the $6,000 to $8,000 price increase attached to the ’07 model engines.

Still, due to the fuel economy gains McTigue said SCR is producing, some of that can be earned back over time.

Right now, Kenworth’s medium-duty trucks equipped with SCR are garnering a net gain in fuel economy of 3% – an overall 5% improvement in fuel efficiency less 2% to cover the amount of DEF consumed. That translates into a fuel savings of some $450 per year versus an EGR-only truck. For heavy-duty models, that fuel savings climbs to $1,750 per year

Of course, it would be even better if there were no cost premiums to account for when it comes to paying for SCR engines, but that’s life in the world of trucking in the “post-emission-regulation” age.

Now it’s just to wait and see what other mandates – particularly in the realm of fuel economy standards – might now get added to trucking’s plate.

I just recently listened to an interesting presentation by Tom Marangon, managing director of Baumot UK, which makes diesel particulate filters (DPF) for a variety of diesel-powered applications worldwide.

From Marangon’s point of view, one of the major “cost points” in the grand global emission control debate that does NOT get discussed enough is how reducing vehicle emissions – particularly particulate matter (PM) or soot from diesel engines – reduces health care expenses while eliminating a far more potent accelerant of “climate change.”

Now, I not completely sold on either of these points and remain suspicious about the government cost figures Marangon cites, but they do provide food for thought.

[You can watch some of his speech here, as he lays out the impact of diesel emissions on human health from a purely dollars-and-cents perspective.]

The big dollar number is $435 – that’s the cost to human health of one kilogram of diesel soot, according to global health data. So, from that perspective, Marangon draws some interesting “return on investment” conclusions for fleets.

First, the average price tag for retrofitting a DPF on a commercial vehicle is $12,000 according to his numbers – not exactly chump change.

But over an expected life cycle of 1,000 hours of operation and/or 15 years of ownership, that diesel-powered vehicle will produce 150 kilograms of soot. Preventing that soot from entering the atmosphere, and thereby being breathed by humans, saves some $53,250 in “societal health costs,” he explained.

“The issue is that PM is made up of very small particles that don’t occur in nature; thus the human body is not prepared to deal with them,” Marangon said.

Then there’s the impact soot has on climate change. “Soot particulates have 300,000 to 840,000 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilogram of substance,” he pointed out. “So there’s a major benefit to using DPFs in terms to mitigating he effects of climate change.”

Now, me personally here, I am pretty skeptical here – both in terms of the “health savings” and “climate change” benefits from removing soot.

My first critique on the health side is pretty straightforward: will we see a reduction in health insurance, hospital bills, doctor bills, and the like from that $435 per kilogram of soot savings? I doubt it. Just look at efforts to reduce smoking tobacco – have health insurance costs gone down as smoking rates among the general population dropped? Hardly.

The impact of soot on “climate change,” however, poses a more interesting question. Whether you believe in the phenomenon or not (for the record, I am in the “not” category), the trucking industry is taking it on the chin when it comes to this subject.

Just witness the new focus on reducing CO2, which is now translating into efforts to create fuel economy standards for commercial vehicles. This effort will entail another huge round of costs to be borne by an industry that just went through nearly a decade of stringent emission reductions already.

Here’s the point, though: if soot has so much greater impact on climate change than carbon, shouldn’t we be focused now on reducing it from other diesel sources – such as trains, boats, and the like? Yes, those modes of transportation are on the list for diesel emission rules similar to trucking, but their timetable is far longer and more relaxed. Should not THOSE timetables be speeded up, due to the far more “dangerous” role diesel plays in “climate change”?

For years, truckers have dealt with layers of costs being added to their operations solely to control emissions while a major competitor – the railroads – faced no similar burden in the same timeframe. And now the focus on carbon reduction threatens to add another cost layer, again without touching the railroads in the near term.

On top of that, the Obama administration is promoting “high speed rail” for passenger service for the U.S., yet no mention is made of the emission controls for such a mode.

So if soot really is the climate change accelerant Baumot’s Marangon said it is, why aren’t we addressing its elimination more strongly in the near term for modes that as-yet have not felt the sting of such rules? It just makes me wonder.

“We’ve chosen a route whereby we combine the diesel engine’s superior efficiency rating with the benefits of liquefied methane gas, resulting in a truck that is significantly more energy-efficient than traditional [natural] gas trucks.” –Mats Franzén, manager of engine strategy and planning, Volvo Trucks

For a while now, Sweden’s Volvo Trucks has tinkered with highway tractors powered by a blend of 75% liquefied methane gas and 25% diesel. Now the truck maker is taking its experiment a step further – putting three of its FM-model highway tractors powered by this unique alternative fuel in the hands of European fleets to see how it works in the real world.

These FM-model tractors are equipped with Euro 5 complaint 460 hp 13-liter engines modified to run on this liquefied methane/diesel cocktail. The trucks also feature Volvo’s I-Shift automatic transmission as well, the OEM said.

Lars Mårtensson, environmental director at Volvo Trucks, noted that this liquefied methane/diesel propulsion method is “a revolutionary step” in the development of so-called “biogas” use in heavy vehicles, since trucks running on liquid methane combined with diesel technology offers up to four times longer driving range compared to most traditional natural gas trucks.

He added that if methane gas is cooled down to minus 160 celsius instead of being compressed, it becomes liquid and its volume is reduced by half. In this case, it is called LNG (liquefied natural gas), or LBG (liquefied biogas) if it is a biogas; though both of these gases are also called LMG (liquefied methane gas).

[Volvo showed off is LMG/diesel truck at the recent Hannover trade show in Germany.]

The key, though, explained Mats Franzén, manager of engine strategy and planning at Volvo Trucks, is range. When liquid methane and diesel are used in a ratio of 75% and 25%, respectively, a truck performing long haul or intercity duties has an operating range 500 to 1,000 kilometers, depending on driving conditions.

“And, until the infrastructure for liquid methane gas has been fully expanded, it is also a great advantage for trucks powered by methane diesel engines to be able to run on diesel alone,” Franzén pointed out.

Volvo said its field test vehicles are being operated by three transport companies: DHL, Götene Kyltransporter and Renova.

The start of these field tests coincides (not surprisingly) with the inauguration of Sweden’s first public filling station for LMG, at Stigs Center in Göteborg. The station is a collaborative project between Volvo Trucks, Fordonsgas Sverige and Göteborg Energi, the OEM noted.

Three filling stations for liquefied methane gas have been planned in Sweden to date. Besides the completed one in Göteborg, Aga will open a filling station in Stockholm, and Eon will open one in Malmö, with Volvo Trucks as a partner in all the projects. Obviously, the truck maker said, there are plans to build additional stations if demand increases.

Now, is this a “silver bullet” to transportation’s heavy reliance on petroleum for fuel? Nope, not by a long shot. But it does offer a chance at significant reductions in pure diesel consumption while also giving fleets a “safety net” of sorts. For, like Volvo’s Franzén said, if one of these trucks runs out of LMG, it can always operate purely on diesel.

There’s also the “environmental benefit” to consider, especially when it comes to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which is becoming the big bug-a-boo in government regulatory circles these days.

“Increased use of gas is a bridge towards climate-neutral transports,” said Volvo’s Mårtensson. “We believe we’re currently in a transition period, moving from decades of dependence on oil to a society built on renewable fuels. When trucks can operate on 80% pure biogas and 20% pure biodiesel, carbon emissions will be 80% lower than with conventional diesel technology.”

Volvo’s field tests will help determine if the transportation sector can reach such an end game.

“This competition puts the spotlight on drivers, celebrates their professional skills and highlights their contributions to society. In this way, we want to raise the status of drivers and attract more young people into the profession.” –Mikael Person, head of Scania’s seven year old Young European Truck Driver (YETD) competition

Now here is a brilliant idea aimed at not only burnishing the truck driving profession in Europe but also formulated to help bring “new blood” into the industry: a continent-wide skills competition for big rig pilots aged 35 and under.

Created by Swedish truck maker Scania back in 2003, the Young European Truck Driver (YETD) contest culminates in a two-day event in Södertälje, Sweden, that pitted some of the best young drivers from across Europe against one another in a wide battery of challenges: defensive and fuel-economy driving; cargo securing; pre-driving checklists; and finally safety maneuvering.

A field of 10,000 young truck drivers under age 35 from 18 European countries gradually got whittled down through a long succession of local and regional contests to just 18 (one from each nation), finally going head-to-head back on Oct. 8 and 9 to see who would be crowned “the best of the best.”

[Here’s a snapshot of the finals. I suggest hitting “pause” to let the video load a little before playing.]

“The driver is absolutely the most important factor in heavy vehicle transport. Vehicles and infrastructure are obviously of major significance, but fuel-efficient safe driving is primarily a matter of human behavior,” noted Erik Ljungberg, Scania’s senior vice president and head of corporate relations.

“Through YETD, Scania wants to help raise the status of professional drivers and emphasize their great importance to the profitability of transport companies and to road safety, as well as to the reduced environmental impact,” he added. “We also want to help attract more young [and] capable drivers into the transport business.”

The winner of the YETD 2010 competition turned out to be a 26-year-old Swede named Andreas Söderström, who works for his father’s hauling company Göran Söderströms Åkeri (and don’t even ASK me how you pronounce it!).

As noted previously, the road to the YETD winner’s circle wasn’t easy for Andreas, who first had to make it through a regional qualifying round and then beat seven other skilled truck drivers in the Swedish national final before getting a shot in the final championship round.

Rounding out the winners were Patrick Schildmann from Germany (second place) and Zarko Tokic from Austria (third place).

[Here’s a clip of the award ceremony for all three finalists. Note the size of the audience: Scania welcomed some 5,000 to 10,000 members of the public to the event, using it as a way to change public perception of the trucking business in Europe as well.]

Scania’s YETD contest, by the way, is endorsed of the European Commission and the International Road Transport Union (IRU), with big-time sponsors such as Michelin and Volkswagen Group Sweden helping to sponsor the finals.

Scania added that it’s now also running similar competitions in Latin America, Africa and Asia – again, using such skill competitions as a way to bolster the image of driving a truck for a living while making the profession more appealing to new recruits.

[Here’s a wrap up of the entire 2010 YETD competition, including the fitting of the finalists for their contest “uniforms.”]

Now, a lot of folks might consider such events nothing but “fluff and flash” when it comes to the real hardships involved when you pilot a big rig for a living. In the U.S., for example, company driver pay on average is about $39,000 annually according to recent figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – certainly nowhere near a king’s ransom and not something many feel is worth two or more weeks per month away from family out on the road hauling freight.

And look, too, at the challenges being posed by a generational shift in the overall U.S. workforce, with 77 million “baby boomers” retiring over the next two decades that are replaced by only 46 million new workers, according to numbers tracked by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD).

ASTD’s research indicates that “Generation X” workers (born between 1965 and 1979) typically value a strong balance between life and work, priding themselves on self-reliance and resourcefulness. Then there are “Generation Y” or “Millennial” workers, born between 1980 and 2000, that are more technologically savvy and desire even more workplace flexibility.

Still, the trucking industry – here and abroad – is going to need drivers, and recruiting efforts will need to start moving beyond mere “want ads” in the papers and online to be successful. Something new and exciting will be needed to make people look at a truck and say, “I want to drive that for a living.”

And perhaps a national contest in this country, focused on just younger drivers, might help do just that.

“By integrating data from our company’s SmartTrac and OnGuard active safety systems into Iteris’ SafetyDirect and lane-departure warning systems, it’s easier for fleet managers to collect the information they need to meet and improve safety and business goals.” –Jon Morrison, president and general manager, Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems, discussing the company’s new safety monitoring system joint venture

I know, I know – before we get into discussing this new package of safety technologies, I can already hear the cries of “I won’t let ‘Big Brother’ in my cab” and “Collecting data like this will make it easier for lawyers to sue us!”

And do you want my answers to those questions? They are “yes” and “yes.” For this technology will indeed monitor your behavior behind the wheel, as it will keep a running tally on how your truck operates, and attorneys will most assuredly subpoena this information in cases revolving around truck crashes, if they know if exists.

So, knowing that … why do it? Why, in a highly suggestive metaphor, put your head in the proverbial noose like this? Why wire your trucks with a system that will monitor and synchronize driver performance reports on braking, stability control, following distances, collision safety system braking and lane-departure warnings for your entire fleet.

[Just for fun … remember how much trickier it used to be to operate trucks safely, especially in winter, which is rapidly approaching? Take a look at this old video that demonstrates anti-skid braking techniques and the like. You’ll also get a kick, I think, out of seeing a lot of “classic” truck models, like Ford’s old C-Series, in action …]

This new system – which ties together Iteris’ Lane Departure Warning (LDW) systems and Meritor WABCO’s SmartTrac and OnGuard active safety systems via Qualcomm’s Mobile Computing Platform 100 and 200 Series – then goes on to churn out comprehensive reports on all the metrics listed above by event location, date, time, speed, and odometer reading, then goes a step further to create a “safety trending” score to see how you as a fleet are faring.

Sound scary? Sure it does. Fleets would be able to “see” how your drivers are operating equipment on a minute-by-minute basis (maybe even in the literal sense, if fleets choose to add in-cab video systems as well) and then all of that data could potentially be laid out in a court of law for a judge and jury to view as well.

You know what I think sounds scarier, though? NOT having this type of technology in a truck.

Here’s my line of thinking on this: in the bulk of truck-car collisions on the highway, the truck driver is NOT at fault. That’s not opinion, either – it’s fact. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found in a study released back in 2002 that in 73% of the truck-car crashes it reviewed, NO unsafe act on the part of the truck driver caused the accident.

[Jon Morrison, president and general manager of Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems, discussed some of these very issues a couple of years ago with me. Here’s some of his thoughts on the subject.]

Now, wouldn’t it be nice to PROVE – in no uncertain terms – that this is the case, especially if a truck in your fleet is involved in a crash? To be able to point to a stream of data and say, “See, our driver was in his lane and at the speed limit … then this car cut him off and he jackknifed while trying to stop.”

Now, in SafetyDirect’s case, several different systems recording different data streams are linked together:

• SmartTrac – a suite of active safety systems that can assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle in response to an impending loss of directional or roll stability.

• OnGuard – a forward-looking radar-based collision safety system that can detect objects in a vehicle’s path and automatically engage the throttle, engine retarder, and service brakes when it senses an impending collision thereby assisting the driver in avoiding rear end collisions.

• Iteris LDW – a lane-departure warning system that uses a camera and onboard computer to track visible lane markings and detect when a vehicle drifts toward an unintended lane change.

All of this then gets plugged into Qualcomm’s communication device and analytics manager service, which takes all of this data and converts it into easy-to-use visual tools such as dashboards, graphs, and tables.

The result, these suppliers say, is a “holistic view” into a fleet’s operational and safety performance. It also allows fleet managers to more easily identify risky driving behavior and provide drivers with the training (when necessary) to reinforce safe driving practices.

More importantly, I think, though, is that all of this data could be used as “positive” evidence – proof positive of good driving records, proper vehicle operation, etc. And, in a crash situation, it could be invaluable data, allowing BOTH the driver and the fleet to prove they weren’t responsible for a crash – which, more than seven times out of 10, is likely going to be the case.