Forwarded
From: Bob Murphy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 11:12 a.m.
To: John de Pont
Subject: Re: January 2011 Newsletter
It's pretty hard to have a group conversation now with the list members hidden behind the Road-Transport-Technology address. We can't hit reply all.
I'm wondering about more flexible use of power tied to engine electronics and automated transmission shift points. In Australia where a prime-mover might be used in a single trailer application (say 42.5t or 45t) one day and a B-double (62.5t or 68t) the next we need to retain the capability and flexibility of big power.
But there is no practical reason why, say, 500hp and 1850 lb ft of torque should be available for single trailer operation.
The electronic control systems will do anything sensors provide input for. I don't think we are scratching the surface of the possibilities there yet. Why shouldn't, for instance, automated transmission shift points be dropped 100 or 200 rpm when the transmission detects that there is a light load or one trailer perhaps by measuring how fast rpms increase in each gear?
Could the elimination of driveline spike loads through automated shifting allow for lighter drivelines? I know that in a few instances that has happened, but there are way too few instances.
Could the use of road speed sensitive retarders rather than engine rpm sensitive retarders combined with automated transmissions maximise average fuel economy as well as reducing driveline wear and tear?
Have we done enough research into low rolling resistance tyres and pavements?
The members of this august group are well aware of rapidly evolving technology that creates possibilities but the enabling legislation/regulation lag is scandalous, like ten years or so in Australia for the Australian Design Rule shambolic system to respond. Even where there are not regulatory restrictions, the import of new technologies is lost on way too many transport operators.
There is a failure of communication that costs our societies and the environment dearly.
Quite frankly most trucking publications seem to be part of the problem with pedestrian, at best, analysis of new technology, reticence to grapple with regulatory reform, and an almost blanket ignorance of strategic policy settings that will have profound impacts on transport's operating environment.
How do we close the gaps between technology's leading edge and the diffusion of that technology into transport's operating environment?
When I get reminded that Australia has one of the more progressive regulatory regimes for transport in the world (one that frustrates me greatly by its failings) I just shake my head.
To an extent the road transport industry is victim to its own success in that it has lost the battle for hearts and minds because so many people now are ignorant of the vital role played by trucks (and, to a lesser extent, trains of course) in providing them with the necessities of life. Their Wheeties apparently appear by magic on supermarket shelves and petrol flows from the bowser to their yuppiemobiles from an inexhaustible pool underfoot while drivers resent the presence of the tanker trucks and delivery vehicles that make it all possible. Given my name you might understand why I call it "Immaculate Conception Syndrome".
Underlying it all is the anti-industrial deep green movement which has an often rampant antipathy towards the technology and economic system that allows them the luxury of self indulgence and denial about what enables the whole thing.
I just don't know what the solution is except for greater engagement with the public and community organizations by the transport industry, greater communication with an often hostile press, challenges in the media in the form of letters to the editor when gratuitous hostility towards or ignorance about transport shows up in print.
These are the kinds of things I think we need to consider. I loves going to some of the high level conferences but we need to take that information out and mainstream it to get the benefits out on the street sooner.
One minor way to start might be to allow Reply All responses so we can have intelligent conversation about matters like this.
I like and support John de Pont's suggestion that we use the wonderful brainpower and competence on this list more creatively than we have in recent years. We know and respect each other and this list is a wonderful opportunity for some creative cross pollination between disciplines, countries, and transport related industries.
I have never found anything objectionable from anyone on this list and am happy to take in information that is only of peripheral interest to me from list members because it comes at a high level and almost always has logic, reason, knowledge, technical skill both theoretical and practical and sheer intelligence behind it.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about internet things could think of an even better format than this list for intelligent conversation about things in our fields of interest/expertise, though when it is possible to "reply all" this works reasonably well.
One alternative example might be The Belmont Club on Pyjamas Media run by a guy named Richard Fernandez who has one of the most brilliant far ranging mindsets I have ever encountered. And it is matched by many of his correspondents who are often so highly qualified in answering certain items that it is breathtaking. The standard is so high that the Belmont Club site is self policing with the occasional troll being so elegantly dispatched that they go away or just lurk and read. The same sort of dynamic could well happen here with this group and their knowledge and many great possibilities could be better desseminated by greater availability to a wider readership that would be limited by an entry level requirement of knowledge to comprehend the conversation.
John's Po(i)nt about this list having gravitated towards announcement of functions and such basically internal matters in recent years is valid but perhaps wider discussions should in the form of a blog as suggested above. If it proved to be necessary membership could always be restricted.
Just some thoughts gentlemen (and ladies).
Thanks for raising the matter of broadening communications among us, John.
And yeah, if it wasn't for Oz, NZ and Canada and their levels of innovation I would be despondent. I envy you your lack of states over there, John. Keep up your good work.
Transport & Technical Communications
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: January 2011 Newsletter
Hi Pete,
I think the truck does need adequate power to undertake its task but being over-powered uses additional fuel. The paper by Dahlberg referred to in the original post reduced the engine power from 440hp to 400hp to achieve the 3.4% fuel consumption reduction. I have no doubt that using an under-powered engine where it is not possible to use fuel-efficient driving techniques and still maintain adequate speed is also not fuel-efficient.
John
From: Technical, operational and economic aspects of road freight transportation [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of peter lynch
Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2011 11:30 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: January 2011 Newsletter
Well, do more powerful trucks use more fuel? I spent years driving totally underpowered vehicles that had to be pushed hard to make any progress.
Regards Pete
--- On Tue, 1/2/11, Craig Silby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Craig Silby <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: January 2011 Newsletter
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Tuesday, 1 February, 2011, 6:09 PM
Hi John, thanks for your discussion interest, I am also from NZ and deal with heavy commercial vehicle purchasing and specification daily. It is my experience the majority look at the front end cost only of most items, which does not give a true picture of the actual cost in most areas of their businesses. It is very difficult to explain to the bean counters how; greater resources put into training and vehicle selection now will potentially save resources over time vs buying and hiring the cheapest on any given day. David Potter (Axis Intermodal) explained very well at the last IRTENZ conference that putting greater resource into training, health/safety and vehicle selection/design paid many ongoing dividends to the DHL business in the UK. The greatest area I see benefits are; the reduced downtime for both staff and vehicles when training, health/safety and good vehicle selection/design are implemented. Downtime would have to be one of the most costly items a transport business faces. Is there a web based forum application more suited to open discussions such as this? it could be very useful www.easytrucks.co.nz On 1 February 2011 13:54, John de Pont <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear IFRTT Forum subscriber Greetings and best wishes for the New Year from the antipodes. In the past this forum has been used to discuss technical issues of interest to, at least, some of the subscribers. In recent times, apart from the monthly newsletters, it has become primarily a bulletin board for advertising conferences, courses and jobs. While this function is important and useful I think it is a shame that the forum’s role in promoting discussions and exchanges of ideas has declined. So to try to promote some revival of the discussion function I thought I would present a few ideas on an issue that subscribers may agree or disagree with in the hope that you will express your views in responses via the forum. Current concerns about climate change are driving substantial efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the most obvious step is to improve fuel efficiency. Recent weather events in various part of the world have heightened these concerns. Even if you don’t accept the climate change argument it is indisputable that fossil fuels are a finite resource and we owe it to future generations not to waste this resource. Although the vehicle manufacturers are putting substantial resources into technological solutions to address the issue, there are a number of measures that can be implemented right now using existing technology that can have a significant impact on fuel consumption. For light vehicles the most obvious measure is downsizing the vehicles. In New Zealand (and in many the other countries) the average size of vehicles has steadily increased over the years and as a result the benefits of the fuel efficiency gains achieved by the manufacturers have been partially eroded. In New Zealand the average vehicle occupancy is 1.6 people and the maximum speed limit is 100km/h. Both of these requirements are easily accommodated by the smallest cars on the market so why are there so many larger cars? Safety is a factor. Although many small cars have excellent safety performance, the barrier crash tests effectively simulate a collision with an identical vehicle. If a small car collides with a substantially larger car Newtonian mechanics dictate that the occupants of the small car will experience greater decelerations and are more likely to suffer injuries even if the safety performance of the small car is inherently better than that of the large car. If everybody else drives a small car you are much safer in a large car. However, safety is not the only factor. The most popular large car in New Zealand is available with either a V6 or a V8 engine. The two vehicles are the same size and virtually identical in appearance but the V8 option is 24% more powerful and uses nearly 26% more fuel. The V6 option has more than enough power for the vehicle to perform its functions yet a significant proportion of sales are for the V8 option. Why? With heavy commercial vehicles, paradoxically, both upsizing and downsizing can improve fuel efficiency. Upsizing through increasing vehicle size and weight limits reduces the amount of fuel required per tonne-km of payload. Various initiatives are in progress in different jurisdictions and we will not discuss these further here. However, for a given transport task there are fuel efficiency opportunities in better matching the engine power and transmission configuration to the transport task. Erik Dahlberg presented a paper on this topic at our last symposium in Melbourne with an example that showed a fuel efficiency gain of 3.4% compared to the standard vehicle used for the task. Generally this means downsizing the engine power. In New Zealand the maximum allowable gross combination weight for general access is 44 tonnes and this has not changed for more than 20 years. The speed limit for heavy vehicles is 90km/h. 20 years ago the typical maximum weight combination had a 350-450hp engine. Today the typical engine power for new 44 tonnes vehicles is 500-600hp. The New Zealand roading environment is relatively hilly and so there are potential travel time benefits from increased engine power. However, I believe these are overstated as we will see in the next paragraph. The other way in which substantial gains in fuel efficiency can be achieved is through driver training. Last year the New Zealand Ministry of Transport sponsored the development and introduction of a driver training programme for fuel efficiency called SAFED-NZ (Safe and Fuel Efficient Driving). This programme is based on a similar programme of the same name developed in the UK and the introduction to New Zealand involved getting one of the developers of the UK programme to come to New Zealand to train a group of senior driving instructors. These senior driving instructors will both deliver the programme and train other driving instructors on how to deliver the programme. The basic principles of the SAFED driving are very simple and one would think obvious to any experienced driver. Yet even this very experienced group of driver trainers achieved an average improvement in fuel efficiency of 5% from undertaking the course. This is based on before and after measurements on a 40km test circuit. Significantly the average travel time for the “after” circuit was 6% less than that on the “before” circuit. That is, not only did the drivers use less fuel (and by implication less average engine power) they also achieved a higher average speed. This result is based on a very small sample and cannot be generalised but it does suggest that the negative impacts on travel time of a fuel efficient driving style and lower engine power will be small. Although these savings in fuel consumption may appear quite modest they have a substantial impact on profitability. In New Zealand there is no road tax on diesel (road user charges are collected separately) and so fuel is relatively cheap. Nevertheless, depending on the type of transport operation, fuel represents 15-20% of total costs. In countries that collect road user charges through fuel tax it will be significantly higher proportion (perhaps double). A 5% reduction in fuel consumption can increase profits by about 1% of turnover. Trucking in New Zealand is a very competitive business and many operators’ profits are less than 5% of turnover, hence this represents a 20% increase in profit, which is very significant. With an economic incentive of this magnitude we might expect an immediate large scale uptake of these measures by the industry but this has not happened. A number of operators here have seen the opportunities and are implementing driver training for fuel efficiency programmes and looking at vehicle selection policies but many others are not. This raises the obvious question; why not? My personal view is that they don’t believe the results apply to them. Specifically they don’t believe that their drivers can reduce their fuel consumption significantly; they don’t believe that fuel-efficient driving practices will not substantially increase trip times; they don’t believe that fitting lower-powered engines will save fuel; and they don’t believe that using lower-powered engines will not substantially increase trip times. As I said at the outset one of my aims in writing this is to try to stimulate a discussion. Some people may think I have got it all wrong. Please say so and why. Others may think the situation in their country is completely different. Again I am very interested to hear how it is different and particularly why it is different. Regards to you all, John de Pont
***************************************************************
The ROAD-TRANSPORT-TECHNOLOGY mailing list is published by
International Forum for Road Transport Technology
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
The ROAD-TRANSPORT-TECHNOLOGY mailing list is published by
International Forum for Road Transport Technology
***************************************************************
|
***************************************************************
The ROAD-TRANSPORT-TECHNOLOGY mailing list is published by
International Forum for Road Transport Technology
***************************************************************
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3415 - Release Date: 01/31/11
***************************************************************
The ROAD-TRANSPORT-TECHNOLOGY mailing list is published by
International Forum for Road Transport Technology
***************************************************************
