kscarbel2

Heavy Duty Trucking (HDT) / November 13, 2017 XStream Trucking has introduced TruckWings, which it calls an “active-aero device” that automatically deploys at highway speeds to deliver streamlined aerodynamics, fuel savings, and lower carbon emissions. According to Daniel Burrows, the company’s founder and CEO, TruckWings features a patented design, that has been developed through years of wind tunnel, track, and road testing and is designed to work at highway speeds. The system automatically deploys large panels to cover the sides and top of the tractor-trailer gap. The panels, which are made of high-impact, glass-reinforced composites, create a continuous connection between the truck and trailer that allows the air to flow smoothly over the entire length of the truck. When the truck slows down, the panels retract without driver intervention, providing the necessary clearance for turns at any angle. “There have been significant investments made in improving truck aerodynamics in other areas,” Burrows said. “TruckWings is the first device which completely solves the turbulence problem created by the open area between the tractor and trailer that contributes significantly to a truck’s overall aerodynamic drag. Since two-thirds of a truck’s fuel bill is spent overcoming that drag, there is a huge savings to be had by reducing it.” "The exciting thing about TruckWings is that it is the first solution to automatically and completely enclose the sides and top of the tractor-trailer gap,” said Mike Roeth, Executive Director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency, NACFE. “This gap area presents as much as a 5% opportunity with little to no other solutions available for truckers today. We performed their first independent on-road fuel economy test in 2016 and XStream has always taken a very customer led, data-driven product development approach." “We see TruckWings performing particularly well on routes with high winds. Crosswinds push a wedge of air flow into the gap area, hitting the front of the trailer direct on. TruckWings cleanly prevent this buffeting and this is where we see our highest fuel savings.” said Burrows, “Drivers feel the improvement in windy conditions and report much smoother rides with less lane drift.” Burrows said the company is offering several options for truck and fleet owners interested in adding TruckWings to their tractors, including a shared-savings model and outright purchasing. .

DHS says 757’s hacked remotely without pilot’s knowledge Aviation News / November 8, 2017 A team of government, industry and academic officials successfully demonstrated that a commercial aircraft could be remotely hacked in a non-laboratory setting last year, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said Wednesday at the 2017 CyberSat Summit in Tysons Corner, Virginia. “We got the airplane on Sept. 19, 2016. Two days later, I was successful in accomplishing a remote, non-cooperative, penetration,” said Robert Hickey, aviation program manager within the Cyber Security Division of the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate. “[Which] means I didn’t have anybody touching the airplane, I didn’t have an insider threat. I stood off using typical stuff that could get through security and we were able to establish a presence on the systems of the aircraft.” Hickey said the details of the hack and the work his team are doing are classified, but said they accessed the aircraft’s systems through radio frequency communications, adding that, based on the RF configuration of most aircraft, “you can come to grips pretty quickly where we went” on the aircraft. The aircraft that DHS is using for its tests is a legacy Boeing 757 commercial plane purchased by the S&T branch. After his speech at the CyberSat Summit, Hickey told Avionics sister publication Defense Daily that the testing is with the aircraft on the ground at the airport in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The initial response from experts was, “’We’ve known that for years,’” and, “It’s not a big deal,” Hickey said. But in March 2017, at a technical exchange meeting, he said seven airline pilot captains from American Airlines and Delta Air Lines in the room had no clue. “All seven of them broke their jaw hitting the table when they said, ‘You guys have known about this for years and haven’t bothered to let us know because we depend on this stuff to be absolutely the bible,'” Hickey said. Hickey, who is a staff officer in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on assignment to DHS S&T, said that while aviation is a subsector of the transportation component of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the focus is squarely on traditional terrestrial-based systems. The reservation and scheduling systems of airline aren’t part of Hickey’s research, he said. “I want to suggest to you that there’s a different type of critical infrastructure, and that’s critical infrastructure that’s in motion, of which aviation is one of the third of that,” Hickey said. The others are surface and maritime transportation, he said. “And I look at all of those and say, ‘If we’re not looking at those from a different perspective, we’re going to miss the boat,’ no pun intended,” Hickey said. He said he doesn’t know the answers yet for aircraft cyber infrastructure, adding that it’s not a policy issue yet because more research needs to be done on these systems to understand what the issues are. Patching avionics subsystem on every aircraft when a vulnerability is discovered is cost prohibitive, Hickey said. The cost to change one line of code on a piece of avionics equipment is $1 million, and it takes a year to implement. For Southwest Airlines, whose fleet is based on Boeing’s 737, it would “bankrupt” them if a cyber vulnerability was specific to systems on board 737s, he said, adding that other airlines that fly 737s would also see their earnings hurt. Hickey said newer models of 737s and other aircraft, like Boeing’s 787 and the Airbus Group A350, have been designed with security in mind, but that legacy aircraft, which make up more than 90% of the commercial planes in the sky, don’t have these protections. Aircraft also represent different challenges for cybersecurity and traditional land-based networks, Hickey said. He said that whether it’s the U.S. Air Force or the commercial sector, there are no maintenance crews that can deal with ferreting out cyber threats aboard an aircraft. “They don’t exist in the maintenance world,” Hickey said, noting that when he was in the Air Force, he commanded a logistics group. Hickey was also an airline pilot for more than 20 years. The chief information officers of airlines “don’t know how to chase a cyber spark through an airplane either,” Hickey said. “Why? Because they have been dealing with, and they’re programmed to, and they do a great job of, protecting the terrestrial-based networks. Airplanes are absolutely different — crazy different.” Trying to deal with airplane cybersecurity the same way it is approached for land-based networks “is going to leave us short of the mark,” Hickey said. Hickey's team for his work includes Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of California San Diego, Sierra Nevada, SRI International and QED Secure Solutions. QED is led by Johnathan Butts, a former Air Force officer who has done cyber vulnerability assessments of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and B-52 bombers, Hickey said. Two years ago, a security researcher claimed to have hacked into a passenger aircraft through its in-flight entertainment system while he was traveling aboard the plane. However, there is no evidence he accessed flight control systems.

Today’s Trucking / November 13, 2017 HA'NOI, Vietnam – Navistar is gaining ground in Vietnam. The company and its distributor in the country announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) paving the way for the export of up to $1.8 billion in International truck products into the Vietnamese market over the next ten years. The signing of the memo took place at the Presidential Palace and was witnessed by Vietnam President Trần Đại Quang and President of the United States Donald Trump, who is currently on an Asian Tour. The MOU represents the next phase of a two-year relationship between Navistar and Hoang Huy to penetrate the market in Vietnam. Persio Lisboa, Navistar's executive vice president and chief operating officer said he thinks the Vietnamese market is strong, and hopes the new agreement adds depth to the company’s exports to the country. Navistar was introduced to Hoang Huy in 2015 via a Gold Key partner search conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Gold Key service provides U.S. firms seeking foreign business partners with introductions to pre-screened candidates. Hoang Huy has since sold more than 7,000 International ProStar trucks to trucking and logistics companies, capturing fifty percent share of the heavy truck market in Vietnam. Navistar also exported 21 new International DuraStar trucks to Vietnam earlier this fall. The medium-duty trucks, which were manufactured at the company's Springfield, Ohio plant, were purchased by the Vietnam government. This sale marked the company's first sale of new trucks into this market.

DOT website suffers ‘bot’ attack over ELDs Larry Kahaner, Fleet Owner / November 13, 2017 Internet robots or ‘bots’ inundate transportation department’s website in support of electronic logging device (ELD) mandate When the Department of Transportation (DOT) in early October asked for the public's help with identifying regulations that should be repealed, replaced or suspended, it didn't expect to be inundated by “bots.” Federal agencies are used to receiving large numbers of comments from people who are part of well-organized, grassroots write-in campaigns, but this time it was different. Instead of responses from real people concerned about a particular issue, internet robots or “bots,” inundated DOT's website with the exact same wording showing support for keeping the pending mandate imposing electronic logging devices (ELDs) on trucking companies and truck drivers on track. In fact, 477 comments, or about one-third of the 1,483 responses that DOT received by November 1, contained the following message: The ELD rule should proceed as planned this December. The rule is not a change to hours of service, it's simply a change in how professional drivers record hours of service. Delaying the ELD rule will endorse drivers to operate outside of their current hours of service, and that is simply not safe to the motoring public. The industry needs to embrace legal and safe operations with ELD use. This issue has been legislated, promulgated, and litigated. The time to move forward is now. Another dozen or so comments were so closely worded as to be almost identical. “Bots” are actually software – sometimes called spiders or crawlers – that can be used to perform repetitive tasks such as indexing a search or filling out on-line forms like those found in the DOT comment web page. A DOT official involved in the proposal would not discuss particular responses until they studied the comments. (The comment period has been extended from November 1 to December 1.) "We will explain later how we will evaluate the comments - their volume and relevance," the official added. The official did note, however, that some agency staffers were taken aback that of all the regulations imposed upon the transportation industry – not just trucking – that almost all of the responses from bots and real commenters focused on ELDs. "Clearly, it's on people's minds," the official noted, with only a smattering of comments discussed air travel issues. With few exceptions, federal agencies and members of Congress dismiss write-in campaigns as nothing more than public relations ploys. Lawmakers and regulators are more swayed by legitimate and personal comments from constituents, according to many Washington lobbyists. "People do it [write-in campaigns] because a lobbying group or whoever is leading their grassroots campaign gives them [stakeholders] a boilerplate message. All they simply do is cut and paste. They may change a few words around here or there, but the key points are exactly the same," explained Laurence L. Socci, who has represented clients before Congress and federal agencies for more than 20 years. "When it goes to members of congress or policy makers in federal agencies they can recognize it,” he said. “When you see 300 comments that are exactly alike you know where they came from. They are less accepted and agencies give them less credit than those from somebody who they can tell took the time to understand the issue and work through it." Added Socci: "If you've been around a while and understand how the system really operates then you know that boilerplate doesn't work. Policy makers and the agency folks don't give high regard to them." If the strategy doesn't work, why would lobbyists or others employ bots? "I don't think that a person who is actually working for an agency or an in-house person would do something like that [bot responses] but an outside consultant may,” he said. “You take the money, show that you tried to do something and then when it doesn't work say, 'Oh, well I tried my best.'" Aside from blatantly ripping off clients, Socci and others suggested that the bot perpetrators in this instance may have simply been “rookies” to Washington politics and dazzled by the high tech nature of this effort. Kevin O'Neill, partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, an international law firm based in Washington, D.C., that’s involved in government affairs offered another explanation for write-in campaigns. He suggested that a small, special interest group can use their “cut-and-paste” messages as a way to show an agency that they have power to mobilize their members. "It allows them to say 'look how big we are. Look at all the influence we have. We can generate this kind of response. You should meet with us the next time we want to meet with you.' It's all part of a circular effort to build the organization's credibility inside the agency that they care to influence," O'Neill explained. Internally, the group also can use the 'pull' they seem to have to raise funds from existing members and to entice potential members to join, he said. Those involved in helping legitimate constituents construct comments for public agencies say that those using bots make up names to go with boilerplate comments. On the DOT website, commenters were not required to identify themselves, their cities, or companies. They could even list their name as “anonymous.” A random check of names offering the above boilerplate did not reveal any real people who commented on this docket. DOT is not the only agency to have experienced a bot attack after soliciting comments. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a request for public comments about net neutrality, found itself deluged this past summer by 22 million responses, about 80% of which were determined to have been sent by bots including those sent after the deadline. Who launched this bot attack on DOT? Nobody has come forward in public to claim it. However, an internet search of the bot message found the same wording in both the last lines of the boilerplate and parts of a speech given by Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) trade group during its Management Conference & Exhibition in Orlando this past October. Addressing the audience, Spear said of ELDs: "This issue has been legislated, promulgated, and litigated. The time to move forward is now." When asked about the same wording appearing in the last part of the bot message and Spear's speech, Sean McNally, ATA’s vice president of public affairs and press secretary responded by email: "ATA, as part of our efforts to keep our members informed about issues that affect their businesses, alerted them to the Department of Transportation’s request for comment and information on their ongoing regulatory review efforts. We did not provide scripted or prepared comments for their use.”

Iran Time Frame: 2014-2016 .

Thousands of U.S. dealerships that overpaid for vehicles because of price fixing by suppliers are poised to receive a payoff. The dealerships will share in the settlements of an international investigation that snared 47 suppliers for rigging bids on parts over nearly two decades. But not all stores harmed by the scheme — which led to the largest antitrust investigation in U.S. history — will reap the benefits. About 8,000 dealerships in 29 states and the District of Columbia, representing every franchise, are eligible for compensation. More than 4,350 have filed claims to share in more than $335 million from about 50 supplier settlements, according to lawyers representing the dealerships. And with 20 settlements pending, dealerships in those states may still stake a claim. But stores in 21 other states will get nothing, because laws in those states prohibit recovery of damages for indirect victims of price fixing. Dealerships can get "injunctive relief" — through which a court would order suppliers to stop fixing prices — but no money, even though they suffered the same financial injury as stores being compensated. For eligible dealerships, the first tranche of settlement checks is likely to be issued in spring and a second batch in summer, said Jonathan Cuneo, co-lead counsel on the legal team representing dealerships. In a statement, the lawyers said dealers "with an active business throughout the class-[action] periods will receive thousands of dollars, with the largest dealer groups receiving more than six-figure payouts when all the cases are concluded." They added that the payouts will "depend on the sales volume, brands, and models sold by each dealership." The U.S. Department of Justice's investigation surfaced in 2010 when the FBI raided the offices of Yazaki North America Inc., Denso International America Inc. and Tokai Rika Group North America. Investigators in the U.S. initially focused on Japanese suppliers and their U.S. subsidiaries, but parallel investigations launched in Asia and Europe. The first plea agreement, in September 2011, involved Furukawa Electric Co. of Japan. Three U.S.-based executives agreed to plead guilty and the company agreed to pay a $200 million fine. Altogether, 65 individuals and 47 companies have been charged, with the vast majority agreeing to plea bargains involving large fines and prison time for executives. Most also agreed to cooperate with investigators, according to the Justice Department's antitrust division. Individuals and companies have agreed to pay more than $2.9 billion in fines, but the money did not go to vehicle manufacturers, dealers, parts retailers and consumers, which followed up with scores of civil suits in federal court against the companies. In February 2012, the suits were consolidated and transferred to Judge Marianne Battani in U.S. District Court in Detroit, who retains jurisdiction over the civil litigation. Thus far, more than $1 billion has been set aside for affected parties, including the $335 million for dealerships, according to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Complex cases Figuring out what individual dealerships are owed is complex, in part because most suppliers shipped components to multiple automakers, which used the parts on some but not all of their vehicles. One vehicle might have an alternator, a wire harness, an ignition coil and an inverter all sold to the automaker at inflated prices and thus subject to a settlement. A vehicle from a different manufacturer might have one or two of those components, plus other affected parts. Also, some price fixing took place almost two decades ago, and some is alleged to have occurred as late as 2016. To save money on administering dealership claims, lawyers representing retailers in the class actions have bundled the settlements and come up with a formula that bases the claims on the types and number of vehicles sold with the affected parts. Dealerships filing claims, however, need only submit year-end statements filed with their manufacturers as proof of claim for a given year. "It's a weighted calculation based on the number of vehicles you've sold over those time frames, weighted by the model and the make," said co-lead counsel Shawn Raiter of St. Paul, Minn. The plaintiffs used a consultant to draw up the process, which was later approved by the court. Raiter said the average payout per rooftop cannot be easily calculated. He said the price fixing "affected the whole industry," so the weighted claims process takes into account the impact on sales of competitive vehicles as well as those directly affected. 'Claims rate over 50%' Claims for the first two rounds of payouts have been completed, while two more expected rounds remain open as settlement negotiations proceed, the plaintiffs' lawyers said. Dealers who file a successful claim in an early round won't have to refile for subsequent rounds. "There are about 8,000 NADA members in these covered states, and we've had a claims rate over 50 percent, which is astonishingly high," said co-lead counsel Don Barrett of Lexington, Miss. As direct buyers of the price-fixed parts, automakers — and a second, smaller class of heavy truck manufacturers — can recover their damages regardless of their location. But the situation is more difficult for dealerships and consumers because of a 40-year-old U.S. Supreme Court case involving masonry. To have a chance at a share of the settlement, dealership claimants must live in the District of Columbia or one of these 29 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Those in other states are ineligible. San Francisco antitrust attorney Jeff VanHooreweghe said the different treatments by state result from a 1977 Supreme Court case, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. "The issue is that, on the federal level, there is generally no recovery for damages for indirect purchasers, with some exceptions," VanHooreweghe said. "A lot of states decided that they did not like that ruling, so they passed what are known as Illinois Brick repealer statutes to allow recovery of damages." VanHooreweghe said such splits are common in cases such as the auto parts price-fixing investigation. "In practice, we defend against claims under the repealer statutes all of the time, as indirect purchasers often file private civil suits following an antitrust criminal investigation." Filing claims Dealerships and consumers in 29 states and the District of Columbia are eligible to share in settlements with suppliers found guilty of price fixing. • Dealerships can register at autodealersettlement.com. • Year-end automaker statements can be submitted as proof of a claim for a given year. • 1st- and 2nd-round settlement checks are to be mailed in spring and summer. 4 payout rounds are expected. • Consumers can register at autopartsclass.com, which lists affected vehicles. • Consumers will need VINs and proofs of purchase/lease. Source: autodealersettlement.com and autopartsclass.com

From my observations over the years, arrogance is a prerequisite for working at Caterpillar and Allison.

I myself have never met an arrogant person at IVECO, and I know a great many of their engineers and global sales people. They're generally very laid back versus the Germans, French and Swedes. They're passionately serious about the truck business, but friendly as can be. The Cursor 10 didn't cool well but the Cursor 11 is great. I agree they have a superb engine line-up today. Everything is Oz is expensive. The US market $1000 Sony flatscreen cost twice that in Oz. The out-of-control cost of living in Oz really disturbs me, and the government never wants to talk about it. Volvo is one of the worst on parts pricing. They love their "margins". But that said, US car dealers many years ago started charging walk-in customers "List plus a percentage", and I thought that was disgustingly greedy. Finally, the truck dealers started doing that as well. And then you have Volvo, who charges $15 for an AC belt that the former Mack Trucks only charged $4.80 for to the non-fleet individual walk-in customer. Gates didn't raise their price two-fold.....it's Volvo's application of their global market stick-it-to-you parts pricing policy. I myself don't believe it suits the US market. I disturbed Volvo one time when I asked why a plain steel bumper for an FM cost US$2000 while a standard Mack R-model bumper (24QL4284P5) was under $300 (B-price level, the non-fleet individual walk-in customer).

The Organization behind the Product When the internal combustion engine was rapidly developing from an experiment into a practical power plant, the Mack Brothers applied it for the first time in America to commercial highway transportation. The manufacturers of the present-day Mack are the oldest builders of motor trucks in America. For some time prior to the production of the first Mack, Adolph Saurer, of Arbon, Switzerland, had been making motor trucks in Europe. The Saurer has long been recognized as the finest of European motor trucks and is still being manufactured in Switzerland, France, Germany and Austria through its original founder. The first Saurer was built in 1894. Shortly after the Mack truck had established itself in the American market, the Hewitt Motor Company was founded by Edward R. Hewitt, an engineer of international fame. The first Hewitt light delivery truck was delivered in 1901, and the first 5-ton truck was delivered in 1905. The largest motor trucks ever marketed in America were the 10-ton Hewitts. A consolidation of Mack Brothers, Saurer and Hewitt was brought about for the purpose of combining the best features of their respective products in the manufacture of a finer motor truck than existed at that time. All of these vehicles were pioneers in their field and had long records of service behind them, both in America and abroad. By combining the outstanding features of these three trucks, and applying the same engineering genius and skill, the modern Mack truck has been evolved. The company now building the Mack truck was incorporated as the International Motor Company in October, 1911. More than one-third of the employees at the time of the consolidation are still with the present company. https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/39989-mack-rail-–-the-rail-cars/?tab=comments#comment-289625

My friend, the bonneted Powerstar "conventional" is a superb truck. I'd like to see FCA sell it in North America under the Dodge brand. They're wasting the truck's global sales potential. https://www.iveco.com.au/product/powerstar

IVECO Trucks Australia / November 9, 2017 Leading Tasmanian freight company Monson Logistics, has invested in three new Australian-made Stralis and Powerstar models, bringing the total number of IVECOs in the company to 32. The latest acquisitions, a Powerstar 6400 and two Series II Stralis AS-L prime movers operate in B-Double applications hauling containerised freight and plantation-sourced, pre-packaged timber all over Tasmania and to port in preparation for shipment to the mainland. The new vehicles all feature IVECO 13 litre Cursor engines producing 560 hp and 2300 Nm of torque and are teamed to 16-speed Eurotronic II automated manual transmissions. Monson Logistics Maintenance Manager, Heath Calvert, said the first of the company’s Stralis models were purchased around 12 years ago and have delivered excellent service, now showing up to 1.3 million kilometres. “We’ve got around five of the earlier Stralis models that have done well over a million kilometres, for the most part they’ve worked hard, usually operating at 68 tonnes all over the state – the conditions are demanding with a lot of undulating roads,” Heath said. “It might be a small state but our drivers are still covering around 900 kilometres per day. “The Cursor engine and AMT combination is very serviceable, it’s a combination that has worked well for us – the IVECOs make up 32 of our 34 trucks on fleet and most have this specification.” For town work, Monson Logistics opt for Stralis ATi variants at 460 hp along with 500hp Stralis AD models. “We try and closely tailor the specification of the trucks to the application, and for localised town work the ATi is a good choice. It still has plenty of power for single trailer work but is also smaller and more manoeuvrable on the city streets,” Heath said. According to Heath, fleet downtime is kept to a minimum thanks to IVECO’s long service intervals, but as a back-up the company keeps a spare prime mover at each depot just in case it’s required. “The IVECO’s have 80,000 kilometre service intervals and we can even go longer if we need to,” he said. “Having said this, we also participate in Trucksafe Accreditation which sees the trucks being checked over every 20,000 kilometres for safety defects. “We also have additional trucks available that are not used on a regular basis – for the little money you get when selling a 10-year-old truck, you may as well hang on to them.” Aside from their low cost of ownership and reliability, Heath said the trucks are well regarded by the drivers, especially for their roominess and comfort. “We have a couple of other brand trucks on fleet that were inherited from business acquisitions, from time to time drivers of the IVECOs might have to use them but they’re always very happy to get back into their Stralis or Powerstar,” he said. “Overall the IVECOs have been great, we’ve had a fantastic run out of them and we’ve been very well supported by the selling Dealer Adtrans Truck Centre in Melbourne as well as WB Truck ‘n’ Trailer, Denny Mechanical and C&I Transport in Tasmania where we get our servicing done. “We’re running a business and the IVECOs look smart on the road, are very serviceable and provide good value – we’ve positively referred the brand to other local transport companies.” Having enjoyed organic growth for the last several years, Heath said business for Monson Logistics has been good, with the company’s staff now numbering 65. “As Monson Logistics continues to expand, we will have no hesitation in looking to IVECO to supply us with additional vehicles,” he said. .

Scania Group Press Release / November 10, 2017 The Dutch tanker haulage company Meijndert International is a pioneer in operating Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) tractor unit trucks. Owner Rien Meijndert is now looking forward to the increased power with the newly launched Scania 13-litre gas engine. “The 9-litre engine truck that we now use is slightly underpowered for our operations,” he says. “At that time we had no other option. The new engine will be more in line with our 410 hp diesel engines. We think that this will make a big difference in the usability and switching to LNG will be simpler.” Started out with one truck After resigning as a director of a truck haulage company, Rien Meijndert started out with one truck, that he drove himself. He has gradually expanded the business and now operates a large all-tanker fleet. “We’ve experienced quite a large growth and the company keeps on growing We’ve gone from a single truck ten years ago and will have 45 trucks at the beginning of next year. That’s big!” He started the business as the financial crisis was crippling the world and chemical producers were looking to cut costs and willing to bet on the newcomer. To further spread the message, his drivers appealingly customised the trucks, winning several trophies at trucking festivals. These days, the business is well-established. Rien Meijndert and the several members of his family that work for the company are now more concerned about how the retain the small-business atmosphere. Perhaps, he says, future growth will be slower. “One of the major advantages of being a small company is that everyone knows what needs to be done. This results in higher service and a better quality level than the bigger companies usually can offer.” Saving time and money The tanker trucks are operated in 500–600 kilometre radius covering Benelux, western Germany, northern France and the UK. Meijndert has its own tanker trailers and with recurrent customers and consistent deliveries of the same chemical products, saving time and money by not having to clean tanks. “Transporting dangerous goods involves many other aspects compared with normal transport. Training drivers is very important and maintaining the trucks also plays a big role. We need to uphold safety awareness among all those involved, including our suppliers. Mistakes can have a big impact.” Only operates Scania trucks Meijndert International only operates Scania trucks – including current and new generation R 410 as well as R 620 V8 trucks – with the slight exception of the owner’s pet 1981 U.S. Peterbilt that is his Sunday workshop hobby. Each of Meijndert International’s 40 drivers operate a given truck during the eight years before it is traded in. Bart Mouritz is the dedicated driver of the LNG truck. “I now have some experience with this truck and I like it very much,” he says. “It’s very smooth with good torque. My only remark is that it occasionally lacks in power but the coming 410 hp version will be great for our operations.” .

Scania Group Press Release / November 9, 2017 Scania's solid record of outstanding fuel economy, proven reliability and high uptime vouches for unequalled operating economy for displacement vessels. Furthermore, the prompt engine response and uncompromising low-rev performance enhances acceleration and simplifies manoeuvring. So, if you really want to push the limits of endurance and productivity, go for nothing less than diesel engines from Scania. The masters of operating economy. .

Volvo Trucks Press Release / November 7, 2017 The aim is to reduce accidents in which a truck drives into the back of a vehicle in front of the truck, an accident scenario that accounts for about one-fifth of all road accidents involving trucks. As of November 2015 there is an EU-wide legal requirement for new two- and three-axle heavy trucks to be equipped with the function automatic emergency brake. At present, legislation requires that the emergency braking system must reduce the trucks speed by 10 km/h. Next year, this will be tightened to 20 km/h. Volvo Trucks has developed a system that goes well beyond both current and future legal requirements. The emergency brake is only used if it is absolutely necessary, and it is deployed extremely quickly. The braking speed – or retardation to use the correct technical term – is about 7 m/sec2, which is on par with what many passenger cars can manage. In practice this means that the truck’s speed can be cut from 80 to 0 km/h in about 40 metres. .

US Proposes Freezing Mexican Trucks Out of New NAFTA Transport Topics / November 9, 2017 The U.S. has proposed another difficult change to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that could eventually prevent long-haul Mexican truckers from operating in the country. American negotiators have asked to remove Mexico’s long-haul industry from a NAFTA chapter on cross-border services. That could open the door to restrictions on truckers, as losing NAFTA trade protections and advantages would make it harder for Mexico to challenge any future U.S. requirements on trucks such as new safety checks. A government official described it as a broad industry exclusion that came during the last round of talks in October. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office refused to comment, and hasn’t made its proposals public. Reuters also reported last month that the U.S. was seeking fresh restrictions on long-haul trucks from Mexico. The U.S. for years after NAFTA came into effect resisted giving Mexican truckers the right to operate throughout the country. They were limited to bringing loads a short distance into the U.S., where they would be transferred to American outfits for final delivery. A dispute resolution panel backed Mexico on the matter in 2001, though the U.S. didn’t comply for years. Mexico at one point imposed tariffs in retaliation. It wasn’t until 2015 that the U.S. gave licensed Mexican truckers the right to haul cargo throughout the nation. Contentious Demands The U.S. proposal to exclude Mexican trucking adds to a list of contentious demands that President Donald Trump’s team has signaled must be met to keep the 1994 pact alive. The U.S. has also asked to scrap a dispute mechanism that is essential to Canada, the third party to NAFTA, and to tighten local content rules for cars. Negotiators have already said they will extend talks through March 2018, which is longer than originally anticipated and could bring the issue into Mexico’s presidential campaign season and U.S. congressional elections. The next round of discussions is in Mexico City this month. Mexico’s government opposes the new proposal on trucking, seeing it as a rollback of the rights won in the previous cross-border trucking dispute settlement, according to a person familiar with the position. Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo has said the government opposes anything that would weaken current market access under NAFTA. ‘Not Surprising’ “It’s not surprising that this is being discussed, especially in view of the history of Washington’s policy approach toward Mexican trucks crossing the border,” said Stephen Laskowski, president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, or CTA. Laskowski said he hasn’t seen a specific proposal on the matter, and the trucking industries in all three nations are working together to see NAFTA improved. The American Trucking Associations, in a joint statement last month with the CTA and Mexico’s main trucking lobby group, said that NAFTA benefits the three countries. On the other side of the debate, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a labor union, argues cross-border trucking takes away American jobs and creates safety risks. Teamsters President Jim Hoffa suggested the U.S. was backing his view during the last round of talks. “The Teamsters and our allies among independent truckers and highway safety advocates will be pleased with the U.S. position on cross-border services,” he said in a statement in mid-October.

You and I both know your remark is dead on Mark. Now tell them how much you paid, the year, and what it's depreciated to already.

The mosque is Belgium’s biggest. Officials say it’s a hotbed for extremism The Washington Post / November 10, 2017 BRUSSELS — The Grand Mosque of Brussels is Belgium’s biggest and oldest site of Muslim worship. Officials in Belgium say it is also a hotbed for Saudi-backed Islamist extremism. Now the Parliament wants the country’s leaders to take over the sprawling complex that is just steps from the gleaming core of the European Union. It is the latest attempt to tighten security after radicalized Belgians emerged at the heart of terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels in the last three years. The sudden move against the mosque underscores the challenge for Western European leaders seeking to embrace what they call a “European Islam” that endorses pluralistic values. For too long, many officials say, they have stood by as imams preaching the ultraconservative interpretation of Islam favored by clerics in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have worked among their populations, encouraging the frustrated descendants of North African immigrants to wall themselves off from mainstream society. But the very same crackdown on the mosque puts Belgian policymakers in the unusual position of picking and choosing among strains of Islam in the name of protecting freedom of religion and democracy. The dilemma has grown more pressing after Europe was struck repeatedly by Islamic State-inspired terror, often perpetrated by disgruntled citizens born inside the countries they have targeted. The mosque’s leaders “are trying to live in their splendid isolation with a radical point of view, and their aim is not to integrate into our society. And that is a big problem,” said Servais Verherstraeten, one of the leaders of a Belgian parliamentary commission that recommended last month that the government break the Saudi government’s 99-year rent-free lease on the mosque. The lease was handed to Saudi King Faisal in 1969 as a goodwill gesture [???] by Belgian King Baudouin. “We want in Belgium an Islam practiced by people who respect our constitution, who want to integrate into our country,” Verherstraeten said. “There is the perception that there is something to hide in the most important mosque in the country.” Leaders of the mosque and community center, which is run by the Mecca-based World Muslim League, deny that they espouse a conservative vision of Islam and say that they are working to improve openness. “I don’t see any contradiction between what we’re trying to do and European Islam,” said Tamer Abou El Saod, the executive director of the Islamic and Cultural Center of Belgium, which oversees the mosque. Abou El Saod, a polyglot Swedish businessman, swooped in to run the center at the end of May after his predecessor upset the parliamentary commission with halting testimony at a hearing. Several lawmakers publicly questioned what he was covering up. That former director was a replacement in 2012 for a director who was quietly asked to leave Belgium after authorities said he advocated radical ideology. “We can admit that we had some internal management issues,” said Abou El Saod, who described himself as someone who was sent in to fix problems. “This place has maybe not been communicating enough in Belgium.” “An imam who talks to people here has to be different from one in Oman,” he said in an interview in his office at the mosque, where photographs of Mecca adorn the walls along with blurry likenesses of the old Belgian and Saudi kings. The Saudi lease is unusual but not unique. The Saudi government operates an Islamic school near Washington Dulles International Airport [???], for example, and it helps fund mosques and imams around the world. Belgian counterterrorism officials acknowledge that a move against the crowded mosque will do little to stem radicalization that more often comes over the Internet or on the street, and they say they have no evidence that its imams have advocated violence or lawbreaking. But they also say they were mistaken to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to the squat, plain concrete mosque tucked in the corner of the central Brussels’s CinquantenairePark, across the street from apartment buildings and the boxy office block that holds the E.U. diplomatic headquarters. On Fridays, worshipers spill from prayers and mix with joggers and suited bureaucrats taking strolls along the park’s manicured paths. In the half-century since the Saudi government took over the site, Belgian authorities say the mosque has espoused the hard-line interpretation of Islam favored in the conservative Gulf monarchy. That has undermined an effort originally intended to help serve Belgium’s then-growing Moroccan and Turkish guest-worker communities. The center is Belgium’s main hub for conversions to Islam, and its religious and Arabic-language schools teach 850 pupils. The Belgian move came at the same time the newly-named Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, announced in Riyadh that he wanted to fight extremist interpretations of Islam. Belgium’s migration agency is also trying [trying???] to expel the mosque’s top imam, an Egyptian cleric who is accused of preaching an ultraconservative vision of Islam to his flock during his 13 years in Belgium. The reassessment came after the March 2016 attacks on the Brussels airport and subway that killed 32. Those attacks were led by Belgians with Moroccan roots. They are not believed to have ties to the mosque, but the violence disturbed Belgian security services and led to a broad rethinking of their strategy. Although the Saudi government is the leading funder of the World Muslim Leader, which operates the mosque, the group is independent and more than 50 other Muslim nations also contribute to its operations. The league’s top leader, Secretary General Muhammad Al-Issa, was Saudi justice minister until last year. The mosque’s longtime imam, Abdelhadi Sewif, said that he is mystified that the Belgian state is attempting to expel him and his family by refusing to renew their residence permits. He is appealing the decision, and joked that his trim beard was too short and his floor-scraping robe too long to satisfy radicals. In an interview, Sewif said that he had always advocated a moderate form of Islam, and that he never called Muslims to cut themselves off from mainstream society, as Belgian authorities have accused him of doing. He said he was searching his past words for what had made him a target. Authorities have not let him see the evidence against him. “When I tell Muslims that Muslims love their Muslim brothers and have to help each other, does this then mean you should hate the rest?” he said. “I have always fought violence and spoken up against it. . . . I have always preached about forgiveness in Islam and in behavior.” But despite the mosque’s protests, the Belgian government appears ready to break the lease and boot out its imams. Sewif “is a dangerous man to the national security of our country,” Theo Francken, the Belgian state secretary for asylum and migration and an anti-immigration hard-liner, told the RTBF broadcaster. Lawmakers said that they were taken aback by the testimony of the then-director and one of Sewif’s imam colleagues earlier this year. “The hearing was astonishing,” said Gilles Vanden Burre, a member of the parliamentary commission. “It was not an open and progressive and tolerant Islam.” Inside Parliament, the two mosque officials outlined a vision of starkly regressive gender roles and a prickly attitude toward mainstream Belgian society, Vanden Burre said. “It’s not objectively proved that they have a link with jihad or radicalization. But all those processes to show their goodwill to integrate, they never did,” he said. Segregation leads to alienation, Belgian security officials said. And that can make people more receptive to jihadist messages. Officials said there was no recent shift at the mosque that set off alarm bells to cause the new approach. Instead, several said, it was Belgium that had changed. Policymakers have hardened their attitudes in a challenging era of terrorism. “Many of the guys say they are not violent, but then they actually do preach hatred,” said a security official who is familiar with the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal intelligence matters. “The issue that we have in Belgium is that people are teaching an Islam that is incompatible with Belgium or Europe.”

Here’s an idea, Republicans: Repeal and replace the tax code George Will, The Washington Post / November 10, 2017 The Republicans’ tax bill would somewhat improve the existing revenue system that once caused Mitch Daniels (former head of the Office of Management and Budget, former Indiana governor) to say: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a tax code that looked as though it had been designed on purpose? Today’s bill, which is 429 pages and is apt to grow, is an implausible instrument of simplification. And it would worsen the tax code’s already substantial contribution to “moral hazard.” Economists use that phrase to denote circumstances in which incentives are for perverse behavior. Today’s tax code is such a circumstance, and the Republican bill would exacerbate this by expanding the $1,000 child credit to $1,600 with an additional $300 “family credit” for each parent and non-child dependent, and by doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples. These measures would increase the number of persons not paying income taxes and would further decrease the percentage of income tax revenues paid by low-income earners. Already 62 percent of American households pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of earners supply less than 3 percent of income-tax revenues. Forty-five percent of American households pay no income tax, either because they earn too little or because they qualify for enough exemptions and credits to erase their liability. Sixty percent pay nothing or less than 5 percent of their income. Forty percent of earners are net recipients from the income tax because they qualify for refundable tax credits. All this means that an already large — and, if the Republican bill passes, soon to be larger — American majority has a vanishingly small incentive to restrain the growth of a government that they are not paying for through its largest revenue source. These facts might be the results of defensible tax and social policies. They should, however, be discomfiting to those remaining conservatives — they are on the endangered species list — who dispute Dick Cheney’s notion that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Deficits matter for their political as well as — actually, even more than — their economic effects: Deficits make big government cheap, enabling the political class to charge taxpayers rather less than $1 for every $1 of government benefits dispensed. When the Bush-Cheney administration managed the last large tax cut, the publicly held national debt was 33 percent of gross domestic product. Today it is 75 percent. Today’s Republican bill, drafted in the aftermath of the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, is supposed to demonstrate to the party’s Trumpian base that congressional majorities matter and must be extended. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, has said (to USA Today): “If we had a whole bunch of wins on major items up to this point, would we perhaps be a little bit more deliberate in our negotiations? I think the answer is yes.” But the facts about participation in the income tax mean that the bill is unlikely to assuage the injured feelings of core Trump supporters, understood as downscale white working-class voters who supposedly are seething because they are not benefiting enough from burdensome government. They might have valid grievances, but not ones that can be addressed by income-tax rate reductions for individuals. Payroll tax reductions would be another matter. And all individual earners will benefit to some extent from cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. The incidence of corporate taxation — who actually pays it — is fiercely debated by economists, a remarkably cocksure cohort with strikingly divergent views about the degree to which corporate taxation depresses the wages of the corporations’ workers, curtails shareholders’ dividends and is passed on to consumers in the costs of corporations’ products. Suffice it to say that corporations do not pay taxes; they collect taxes. Uncertainty about the incidence of corporate taxation is one reason the Republican bill’s corporate tax rate is 20 points too high. This year’s best tax bill, which Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has introduced six times since 2006, is four pages long and contains fewer words (411) than the new Republican bill has pages. It could be titled “The ‘What You Wished For, Mitch Daniels’ Act.” It is titled, with almost unprecedented accuracy, the “Tax Code Termination Act.” It would nullify the existing 4 million-word code as of Dec. 31, 2021, and require that by July 4 of that year it must be replaced by a new one, which would necessarily be one designed on purpose.

The VM Motori diesel is superb. But, as was VW, always financially strapped FCA was using the lowest cost means possible to (allegedly) have it meet emissions standards.

Is that not the truck that Cashtown, Pennsylvania-based John Chalmers often drove to the shows to sell his antique truck parts?

Senate Plan Could Increase Taxes on Some Middle-Class Workers The New York Times / November 10, 2017 WASHINGTON — Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, acknowledged on Friday that the Republican tax plan might result in a tax hike for some working Americans, saying he “misspoke” days earlier when he said that “nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase” under the Senate bill. “I misspoke on that,” Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in an interview on Friday with The New York Times. “You can’t guarantee that absolutely no one sees a tax increase, but what we are doing is targeting levels of income and looking at the average in those levels and the average will be tax relief for the average taxpayer in each of those segments.” The Senate bill unveiled on Thursday would raise taxes on millions of middle-class families, according to a preliminary New York Times analysis. The plan would also disproportionately benefit high earners and corporations. Still, middle-class earners would fare better under the Senate proposal than its counterpart in the House, the analysis found. The Senate Finance Committee bill would, on average, cut taxes for people at every income level. But, as Mr. McConnell alluded to in his revised remarks, those benefits would vary widely within income brackets, depending on the specific circumstances of individuals and households, and many would pay more than under existing rules. Republican lawmakers have been in a dash to devise — and pass — a tax overhaul that would mark their most significant achievement since taking control of Congress. President Trump and Republican leaders have outlined two main objectives for the rewrite: cutting taxes for American businesses and for the middle class. The legislation reduces tax rates on individuals and businesses, while eliminating some tax breaks to make up for lost revenues. It is meant to accelerate economic growth and increase wages for workers. Both the House and Senate bills would cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent and provide business tax benefits, such as the ability to immediately expense purchases of equipment. The Times analysis, using the open-source software TaxBrain, found that roughly one-quarter of families in the middle class would see their taxes increase in 2018, by about $1,000 on average. By 2026, the share seeing an increase would rise slightly, to about one-third, and the average increase would rise to about $1,600. For the majority of middle-class families that receive a tax cut, the average savings would be about $1,300 in 2018 and $1,700 in 2026. Who Will See Tax Cuts From Senate Plan? Under the Senate bill, four out of five high earners would receive tax cuts in 2018. Note: Includes all households, not adjusted for household size. The Times analysis defines the middle class broadly as those earning between two-thirds and twice the median household income, or about $50,000 to $160,000 per year for a family of three. To focus on families, the analysis excluded individual filers and households headed by people 65 or older and is adjusted for the size of each household. Under the House bill, The Times has found, about half of middle-class families would pay more in taxes in 2026. The analysis did not seek to calculate how workers might benefit from a steep cut in the corporate tax rate, which both the Senate and House bills would reduce to 20 percent from a top rate of 35 percent today, or project how the bills might increase economic growth and, with it, Americans’ wages. On Friday, the independent Tax Foundation released an analysis of the plan’s growth effects. It projected that the Senate bill would increase gross domestic product by 3.7 percent over the next decade and raise wages by 2.9 percent across the economy. For taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year, the Senate bill offers a more limited upside and downside than the House bill. The Senate bill is less likely than the House bill to yield tax increases for high-income Americans, in part because it cuts the top marginal personal tax rate, while the House bill creates a so-called “bubble rate” that would actually raise taxes on many high-salaried workers. The Senate measure would also produce a smaller average tax windfall for high earners than the House version, in part by offering less generous benefits for owners of businesses known as pass-throughs, which are not organized as corporations. Under the Senate plan, “Americans are especially likely to face a tax increase if they have a smaller family, have mostly wage income instead of investment income, or claim some of the many deductions that the bill repeals, like those for state and local taxes and employee business expenses,” said Lily Batchelder, a professor and tax specialist at New York University Law School, who worked on economic policy in the Obama administration. “They are increasing taxes on many in the middle class, while concentrating their tax cuts on the wealthy.” The Senate bill appears much better for the very wealthy than it is for the somewhat wealthy. About half of families earning between two and three times the median income — or about $160,000 to $240,000 for a family of three — would pay more in 2018 than under existing law. But among the richest families, those earning more than about $500,000 for a family of three, nearly 90 percent would get a tax cut. The findings come with an important caveat: The Senate bill, as written, appears unable to muster the 60 votes needed to avoid a Democratic filibuster, meaning Republicans will need to amend it to comply with the budget reconciliation rules and allow permit passage by a simple majority. Those changes could likely include putting expiration dates on some of the bill’s major provisions, which could make the final version of the bill look less favorable to the middle class, particularly in later years. The Times’s figures are based on an analysis of Census Bureau data using a tax model from the OpenSourcePolicyCenter, a Washington research organization affiliated with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Because the analysis is based on publicly available data, not actual tax records, it may not capture all the intricacies of Americans’ household finances. The Senate bill differs sharply from the House version in its approach to cutting taxes on businesses. But when it comes to taxes on individuals and families, the bills are more similar than different. Both would double the standard deduction while eliminating a raft of deductions and credits. Both would make the child tax credit more generous. Both would restructure federal income tax brackets to impose lower marginal tax rates at most income levels, although the Senate approach, unlike the House version, doesn’t eliminate two brackets entirely. The Senate bill includes features that would make its plan more favorable to the middle class. It preserves some popular tax deductions and credits that the House bill initially would have eliminated, and it makes the child tax credit somewhat more generous and widely available. On the other hand, the Senate bill, unlike the House version, would eliminate the deduction for property taxes, which could lead to higher federal taxes for homeowners in areas with high property tax rates or expensive housing markets. Aparna Mathur, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, said senators could improve the bill with further changes, such as expanding the earned-income tax credit and extending the benefits of the child tax credit to more low-income taxpayers. “We clearly need to do more to help the lowest-income families,” she said. “At the same time, we can engage in more base broadening for the highest-income households, perhaps by eliminating and not just capping the mortgage-interest deduction.” The Times analysis found that roughly one-fifth of the Senate bill’s cuts in 2018 would go to families and individuals earning $1 million or more, and close to half would go to people earning at least $200,000. Between 10 million and 15 million taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year would pay more than under existing law. Families earning more than $1 million a year would see their after-tax income rise by about 1.7 percent in 2018 compared with what they would make under current law, nearly triple the gains enjoyed by those earning less than $200,000. Over all, the Senate bill would cut individual income taxes by about $30 billion in 2018, and by $900 billion over the next decade, according to Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. And most people in all income groups would see a tax cut, although the cuts would be modest for most lower earners.