kscarbel2

Associated Press / November 8, 2016 German authorities on Tuesday arrested five men who aided ISIS in Germany by recruiting members and providing financial and logistical help. The federal prosecutor's office said the men were arrested for supporting a terrorist organization. T he arrests were made in a series of raids in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the northern state of Lower Saxony. One of the raids was in the Lower Saxony city of Hildesheim, which is a known center for ultraconservative Muslims known as Salafists and where a mosque was raided during the summer. The five men arrested Tuesday were recruiting young Muslims in Germany, and raising funds to send them to Syria to join IS. They also provided logistical support for the trips. One of the suspects, a 32-year-old Iraqi citizen identified as Ahmad Abdulaziz Abdullah A., who also goes by the alias of Abu Walaa, is the ringleader of the group. He openly supported the IS group, attended several extremist events as a speaker and approved the departure of those willing to go to Syria. Two other suspects, identified as 50-year-old Turkish citizen Hasan C. and 36-year-old German-Serbian citizen Boban S., were in charge of teaching Arabic and "radical Islamic content" to recruits. The state interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, Ralf Jaeger, said the profile of the suspects' targets for recruitment was almost always the same. "He's young, male, he's experienced failure, and has the problem of not feeling accepted by society and feeling excluded," Jaeger said. A 27-year-old German citizen, Mahmoud O., and a 26-year-old from Cameroon, identified as Ahmed F.Y., helped to organize the recruits' departure to Syria. Also on Tuesday, a higher regional court in Frankfurt sentenced a 30-year-old German citizen to 8½ years in prison for membership in ISIS and war crimes. The man, identified only as Abdelkarim E., fought with ISIS in Syria in 2013 and 2014 and participated in disfiguring the body of a Syrian soldier. He recorded footage of the combat operations and also of how the dead man's ears and nose were cut off.

Navistar Defense Press Release / October 4, 2016 Navistar Reset Program is restoring MRAP vehicles to combat-ready condition including vehicle upgrades to improve performance and extend lifecycle. .

IHS Jane’s 360 / October 31, 2016 IHS Jane’s Shaun Connors talks to James Mitroka Senior Program Manager, Navistar Defense on their Heavy Dump Truck (HDT) requirement proposal, a MILCOTS (Militarized Commercial Off-The-Shelf) replacement for the M917 fleet that is being retired. .

Kevin Jones, Fleet Owner / November 8, 2016 Trailer innovation will continue—but EPA Phase 2 GHG rules have now put a clock on manufacturers Freightliner dubs it “the trailer that leads the way,” with tractor-trailer integration accounting for two-thirds of the freight efficiency gains of the Innovation Truck program. And the other truck makers that took part in the Dept. of Energy’s SuperTruck program came to similar conclusions: The next generation of fuel-efficient commercial vehicle designs indeed will be led from behind. “If we were going to develop the truck of the future, we had to start with the trailer of the future,” says Pascal Amar, senior project manager for Volvo Group North America, discussing various Volvo SuperTruck technologies during the recent unveiling at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC. And just last month, Navistar invited Fleet Owner for a spin in the newly revealed CatalIST, its SuperTruck that achieved 13 mpg. “We’ve literally designed this vehicle from the back forward because there is a fundamental principle in aerodynamic design that says until you clean up the back of the truck and the trailer, you’re going to be limited with what you can do in the front,” says Dean Opperman, chief engineer, advanced vehicle technologies. While the SuperTruck program is unrelated to the coming second round of truck fuel efficiency/greenhouse gas regulations (Phase 2 GHG) by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, many of the innovations born from the program will be incorporated into trailer designs to meet the new requirements. And though Phase 2 will essentially standardize trailer tails, side skirts, and low-rolling resistance tires on van trailers, there is leeway on the actual designs and combinations of those devices. Among the special touches on the CatalIST trailer by Wabash National, for instance, are the skirt design, the “ball and socket” passive gap treatment, a bogie treatment on the tandem axles, and an extended boat tail design, Opperman points out. “Fundamentally, the design of the trailer and tractor impact each other. We worked directly with Wabash [National] and were able to optimize our design around their specific technologies, and we will continue to do that with all different types of trailer aerodynamic technologies,” he says. “In a perfect world, we would like to be in control of both systems, but that’s never going to happen. But once we knew where we were going, it solidified a lot of things we wanted to do up front.” Most significantly, the overall shape of the trailer is the key to developing more optimum, wing-like airflow by lowering the front and rear of the vehicle. As the CatalIST reaches highway speed and “changes shape,” the load bias also shifts forward toward the tag axle and the low-rolling resistance single tires. Because of the improved aerodynamics and reduced rolling resistance, the CatalIST needs only about 80 hp. to cruise at 65 mph, Opperman notes. Collaboration Indeed, the goal-smashing collaboration has been a successful one, adds Gus Sumcad, director of engineering, Wabash Composites. “We’ve done something right, clearly,” he says. “The teaming and cooperation that we’ve done has been very effective.” For SuperTruck, Wabash leveraged existing advanced designs and materials to improve fuel efficiency. The CatalIST trailer’s skirt is based on the new Wabash Ventix DRS (drag reduction system), in which segmented side panels manage airflow across the entire underbody. “The basic architecture is available today, but we enhanced the design so that it integrated very well with the entire SuperTruck,” Sumcad says. Of course, all of the hi-tech add-ons mean additional weight, so using the lightest composite materials in components was also important, he adds. As for design, the SuperTruck project reinforced the concept that the tractor and trailer need to be treated as a single system to more effectively improve aerodynamics. “In this particular case, narrowing the gap was very important,” Sumcad says, and he notes the value of testing various trailer fairing shapes using computational fluid dynamics to come up with an optimal shape. Similarly, in order to give the tractor-trailer the airfoil shape without exceeding height limits, the project trailer utilized smaller wheels and tires as well as a hydraulic control mechanism—technology that is “fairly straightforward” and is likely to be implemented to meet Phase 2 goals in the future, Sumcad suggests. Still, while the evolving aerodynamic shapes of tractors are converging, each brand has its own set of innovations and stylistic touches. So will trailer makers have to design the piece of the fuel efficiency puzzle for each model? “Our intent across the board is to design a trailer so that we don’t have to customize it for every tractor,” Sumcad says. “You may have some trade-offs, but if you have opportunities that hit 85% of the requirements, you might push for that.” Innovation roadmap For trailer makers, the new Phase 2 requirements haven’t really changed the push for innovation, but the government has put a clock on them. “We’re always looking at the quickest possible way to commercialize our innovations—and we’ll never stop doing that,” Sumcad says. “[The Phase 2 rule] just gives us more avenues to make sure we continue to be aggressive in bringing new technologies and reining in costs at the same time. “It’s a challenge, but it’s all about planning and coordinating with our technology partners to make sure we have those technologies available in that timeframe. We feel very confident that, since we were able to demonstrate the weight savings as well as the aerodynamic improvements with SuperTruck, we’ll have a good set of solutions for our customers moving forward.” And that’s the plan from EPA and NHTSA. “The agencies are not requiring trailer manufacturers to install any particular device to their trailers,” they said in responding to trailer manufacturer concerns about the rule. “The standards for box vans are performance standards, and manufacturers can choose to install any combination of aerodynamic, tire, and weight-reduction technologies, or make changes to the trailer design to achieve the desired performance. Trailer manufacturers can evaluate and choose which devices to offer to their customers and install on their trailers.” The agencies also recognized “the unique characteristics of the trailer industry” and developed Phase 2 with those characteristics in mind. More to come “The SuperTruck [program] is a great example of several things working together—optimizing components and systems, enhancing aerodynamic efficiencies, and maximizing operator performance,” Ken Damon, Peterbilt’s SuperTruck project manager, told Fleet Owner at a demonstration of the Peterbilt/Cummins project vehicle. Near term, Damon emphasized that the focus will be on convincing fleets to alter their truck and trailer specs to gain a more fuel-efficient footprint. And like most truck OEMs, Peterbilt is continuing to develop “optimized spec packages” to deliver vehicles finely tuned for fuel efficiency to the best their application will allow. A little farther down the road, he too believes the “design envelope” of the tractor-trailer will need to expand so it can adapt on the fly to changing conditions seen over the road. “This means developing active aerodynamic devices that deploy at certain speeds and/or that react to changing wind conditions in order to keep the vehicle in the optimal aerodynamic configuration at all times,” Damon says. While the truck and engine makers that took part in SuperTruck projects all pointed to some cost-prohibitive materials and technologies that could improve freight efficiency even more, DOE was impressed enough that it will fund a second round with another $80 million in research money, to be matched by grant recipients Daimler, Volvo, Navistar and Cummins. And as Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz got a tour of the Volvo Super­Truck, having made his way around the truck and hearing about various technology highlights, he quipped half-jokingly, “So why do you need Super­Truck II?” Amar’s enthusiastic response: “Because we finished this with so many more ideas!” Birth of an innovation The pitch to potential customers is so irresistible that a truck equipment buyer’s first reaction is likely one of skepticism: An add-on component from a brand new company that can be installed in an hour and will provide a 30% reduction in tractor-trailer fuel consumption with a 1-month ROI? Too good to be true? The second reaction, based on the activity around the Hyliion display at the 2016 American Trucking Assns. Management Conference and Exhibition, is to look a little more closely at the innovative hybrid system, an intelligent electric drive axle for trailers that the company said will revolutionize trucking. The Hyliion hybrid uses regenerative braking to capture power when the trailer slows, and returns the stored energy on inclines. And, as company founder and CEO Thomas Healy explained to Fleet Owner, the technology shouldn’t worry truckers who might be wary of something new. The components are already widely accepted in the marketplace; the trick is that no one has put them together in this way for trucking. The sensor-driven intelligent system comes in at about 500 lbs., but that weight is offset somewhat because the battery pack also serves as an APU, capable of providing 20 hours of hotel power. The 30% fuel saving figure comes from a combination of the hybrid boost, APU-enabled idle reduction, and from the aerodynamic improvement the Hyliion unit’s enclosure provides to the trailer undercarriage. The unit is fully autonomous and requires no driver input, but the data it collects and its built-in connectivity will offer customers trailer tracking capability and real-time performance analytics—and will allow the company’s software engineers to refine the controlling algorithms. Healy fleshed out the idea in response to a professor’s challenge to come up with a product to save energy. The concept for the hybrid trailer system was good enough to earn an invitation to the prestigious Rice Business Plan Competition last year—except, at that point, it was only a concept. “So, I got a team together and said, ‘okay, we’ve got two weeks to the competition—let’s try to build one of these,’” Healy says. “We went to a junkyard, grabbed an old Hendrickson suspension and an Eaton axle, then we flew out to California and picked up batteries, an electric motor, and control systems. It was hobbyist components, like you’d get to do a retrofit of a car.” The design and rudimentary prototype took home a number of top prizes, including $50,000 from the Dept. of Energy’s Clean Tech Prize, $15,000 for the Clean Energy Innovation Prize from Wells Fargo, and $10,000 for Shell’s Technology Ventures Energy Prize. The concept also has received awards from venture fund SURGE for Most Innovative Energy Tech Startup. The company is currently in the process of raising funds and plans to launch production with a short run in the coming first quarter. .

Lubricants: A New Dawn Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner / November 8, 2016 CK-4 and FA-4 make their debut in December. How will they alter your diesel engine oil decisions? In a little less than a month, two new engine oil blends in development for over five years will be officially released on the trucking market: CK-4 and FA-4. The oils are the offspring of the Proposed Category 11, or PC-11, engine oil classification, which gained final approval from the American Petroleum Institute (API) in January. So, how will the introduction of those two oils affect your fleet? For starters, there are several important points to keep in mind, explains Dan Arcy, global OEM technical manager for the Americas at Shell.First, based on Shell’s testing of its new oils, there should be a 1.5% improvement in fuel economy by switching from current 15W-40 engine oil blends to the new CK-4 10W-30 formulations and higher gains with FA-4 products, the main reason driving the development of both of these PC-11 oils. Second, longer drain intervals should result from switching because both are designed to be more robust and survive in the higher-heat environment of 2017 model-year engines. Arcy says operating engine temperatures are expected to climb some 50 deg. F. Despite that higher heat, longer drain intervals are being established by engine OEMs in conjunction with the new oils. Landon Sproull, vice president of powertrain at Paccar and formerly chief engineer at Peterbilt, says oil and fuel filter change intervals for the company’s 2017 Model MX-13 and MX-11 engines will be extended from 60,000 mi. to 75,000 mi. Paccar believes this will save up to $1,000 per truck over 600,000 mi. of operation. Sproull adds that Paccar conducted 2 million mi. of testing and oil analysis of the MX engines. “We’ve seen less soot in the oil and less degradation; that’s why we’re confident in the extended interval,” he explains. Paccar is currently testing the FA-4 engine oil blend in its MX products and may decide to factory-fill with it once tests are completed by year’s end. “I believe we’ll recommend both oils [CK-4 and FA-4] for 2013 model- year engines and beyond, but we need to finish our tests first,” Sproull says. Len Badal, global Delo brand manager at Chevron, adds that Detroit, the engine manufacturing division of Daimler Trucks North America, will start factory-filling all of its 2017 model-year engines with FA-4 oils starting Dec. 15; however, the OEM will also allow those engines to use CK-4 10W-30 and 15W-40 blends as well as the current CJ-4 15W-40 blend. Badal also points out that Detroit is planning to make FA-4 backward compatible for use in 2010-compliant DD13 and DD15 engines, though he stresses they are the only engine maker to date to go that far back with FA-4. All of the other engine makers are aiming to factory-fill with CK-4 10W-30 oil, he says, though Cummins may choose to go with FA-4 in select engine models. “We’re not sure yet,” Badal notes. He also emphasizes that fleets need to remember that the fuel economy mandates within the greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations are the main genesis driving the development of both of these new oils, especially FA-4. “They have to meet those [Phase 2 GHG] standards, not the fleets,” Badal points out. “In particular, factory-filling with FA-4 allows [engine OEMs] to gain more credits under the [GHG] program.” If a fleet decides not to use the factory-fill oil, especially if it’s an FA-4 blend, the engine warranty won’t necessarily be invalidated. “You can’t take a CK-4 10W-40 too far back, but a CK-4 15W-40 will cover all the lanes,” he explains. “Even if you mix FA-4 and CK-4 accidently, it’s not a big deal, though if you keep using it [FA-4] long-term [in an older engine], you will see some impact.” Still, Jeff Torkelson, technical director engineering-tech services at Valvo­line, says fleets switching to CK-4 10W-30 blends should see a gain in fuel economy. “Even with the CK-4 backward-compatible oils, the 10W-30 grade should provide improved fuel efficiency compared to the 15W-40 grade,” he says. Brian Humphrey, OEM technical liaison at Petro-Canada Lubricants, adds that new package labeling, bottle color, and user-friendly symbols should help trucking customers select the right PC-11 oil for their needs as well as help them to understand specific enhanced benefits such as extended drain intervals, higher fuel economy, or extreme temperature protection each blend will provide. He points out that API recently released two new service symbols, or ‘donuts,’ to help distinguish between the CK-4 and FA-4 blends, although oil marketers are allow­ed to use any color they choose for the donut itself. FA-4 vs. CK-4 “Beyond the OEM recommendations, it’s worth keeping in mind that the primary difference between FA-4 and CK-4 is the level of high-temperature high-shear, or HTHS, viscosity,” Humphrey notes. FA-4, which is specifically designed for newer vehicles, provides a slightly lower HTHS, which enables an improvement in fuel economy due to lower “viscous drag” from the oil, he explains. “The oils in this category have been formulated with the lowest HTHS viscosity levels we have ever seen … allowing [diesel engines] to run more efficiently and use less fuel while still offering improved levels of wear protection,” he continues. “Future heavy-duty fleet vehicles will be designed to comply with this specification to offer even higher levels of [fuel] efficiency.” CK-4, on the other hand, will offer backward compatibility, allowing for use in the vast majority of older heavy-duty diesel engines while still offering increased performance and protection gains. “This is because older engines are not designed to operate with such low HTHS oils,” Humphrey explains. “If your particular operating conditions push the limits of higher temperatures due to high loading, elevated ambient temperatures, or restricted cooling, then you may actually wish to forego the extra fuel economy benefits associated with FA-4 in favor of the added film thickness of CK-4.” Likewise, if a fleet’s working conditions are “extremely dirty” with excessive particles in the oil, CK-4 may be a safer choice for that equipment, he points out. Steve Haffner, North American market manager for Infineum USA, expects the “fastest growing product” among the PC-11 oil family to be CK-4 10W-30, which provides improved fuel economy over 15W-40 blends. “As fleets bring in more new engines, they will eventually adopt the newer FA-4 10W-30 product, when recommended by OEMs, which will provide even larger fuel economy benefits,” he believes. “While some OEMs may allow limited backward serviceability to encourage [FA-4] use, most industry observers expect CK-4 to be the product of choice for many years to come.” To that end, in North America CK-4 engine oils are expected to be fully backward compatible in the same Society of Automotive Engineer (SAE) viscosity grades recommended for current and older diesel engines, Haffner explains. Thus, CK-4 oils will provide enhanced engine protection and be used in applications which called for CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, or CH-4, he points out. Following are a couple of key technical points Haffner thinks need to be emphasized regarding the universality of those new oils: ◗ Rules concerning API S category claims with the new PC-11 performance categories mean that CK-4 or FA-4 oils with SAE 5W-30 and SAE 10W-30 viscosity grades, which correspond to ILSAC viscosity grades, will only be able to claim passenger car oil API quality levels such as API SN, SM or SL if the oils satisfy the 800 ppm [parts per million] phosphorus maximum required for ILSAC viscosity grades. ◗ SAE 15W-40 engine oils can still claim CJ-4/SN, but starting Dec. 1 when CK-4 is added to the label, oils claiming CJ-4/SN will need to drop the ‘SN’ claim unless they are formulated at 800 ppm phosphorus or below. “Heavy-duty OEMs have not expressed any interest in gasoline API performance claims on heavy-duty diesel oils. and some strongly prefer oils with higher phosphorus content,” Haffner adds. “It remains to be seen if the logistics benefits provided by universal oils will be enough to overcome any perceived or real debits in diesel engine protection.” One or two? Indeed, Chris Guerrero, global HDEO brand manager for Shell Rotella and Shell Rimula, notes that Shell’s newly updated engine oil portfolio will also include a multi-vehicle synthetic blend, Rotella T6 5W-30, for both diesel and gasoline engines that will allow CK-4 blends as well as API SN performance standards. “This oil cut its teeth in the diesel setting; we did that first before seeing if it could work in the gasoline setting,” he says. Another challenge Haffner expects with the new oils revolves around what he dubs “supply chain challenges,” which may lead to some difficult and even confusing scenarios if the needs of all consumers are to be met upon initial introduction of PC-11’s oil progeny. “The need for two SAE 10W-30 engine oils—with one meeting CK-4 and replacing legacy CJ-4 applications and the other meeting the new lower viscosity FA-4 category—is probably the biggest cause for concern,” he says. Yet the key to understanding why the new PC-11 oils will ultimately benefit the industry lies in the field test results, explains Michael Smith, commercial vehicle lubricants global brand manager at ExxonMobil Fuels and Lubricants. He says ExxonMobil put its new Mobil Delvac CK-4 and FA-4 oil options through some 30 million mi. of testing and found they offer an 80% improvement in high-temperature viscosity control, 50% improvement in oxidation resistance, and 20% improvement in wear protection over previous oils. “As these results indicate, fleets that have been testing our CK-4 and FA-4 formulations have consistently reported exceptional results,” Smith emphasizes. Shawn Whitacre, senior staff engineer primarily responsible for product formulation of the Delo brand of heavy-duty engine oils at Chevron, adds that when CK-4 and FA-4 officially hit the market in December, they will have undergone some of the most rigorous, varied and exhaustive testing in the industry. He is also chairman of the American Society for Testing and Materials heavy-duty engine oil classification panel that developed the PC-11 oil requirements. “It is important to be able to tell customers with complete confidence exactly how products will perform for them in whatever environment they may be,” he points out. “That’s why a wide diversity of testing in different engine types and under different operating conditions is absolutely critical to bring new CK-4 and FA-4 oils to market.” Whitacre notes that the early stages of PC-11 oil development focused on passing specification tests—tests prescribed under controlled conditions designed to evaluate oils quantitatively in an accelerated fashion. Yet, while that lab testing provides valuable information, it may not necessarily reflect what the oils will actually encounter in the field. “Industry-standard testing also tends to emphasize on-highway performance, but you don’t want to overlook off-highway needs,” Whitacre explains. “That’s why it’s important to run tests in collaboration with customers that expose oils to a broader variety of operating conditions, duty cycles, temperatures, and other environmental factors that are important to understand.” Talking testing That means taking multiple products across various viscosity grades and testing them in different engines spanning a range of manufacturers, including engine types that aren’t used in the standard specification tests. “Within the on-highway category, we look at different types of operations—tractor-trailers, garbage trucks, pickups, and others. We also test in farm equipment and different types of off-highway operations,” he stresses. Field testing takes time, including several years through different seasonal and temperature changes, Whitacre notes. “In a heavy-duty engine, it’s not really instructive to do that kind of inspection before 500,000 mi.,” he says. “If you figure a truck averages 100,000 to 200,000 mi. a year, it could be three to five years before a tear-down test will yield meaningful analysis.” The key is to understand how oils will perform regardless of the engine type or operation, precisely in the way they’ll be used when they are commercialized. “After a certain time, engine tear-downs are conducted to look at components and confirm wear protection and deposit control,” Whitacre explains. Shell’s Dan Arcy notes that his company conducted 40 million mi. of on-road prototype formulation testing for its PC-11 oils and 50,000 hours of off-road testing for its CK-4 product line. That included not just tractor-trailers but testing in diesel pickup trucks and even in gasoline engines. All of that testing is another reason why Howard McIntyre, vice president for lubricants at Suncor, Petro-Canada’s parent company, stresses that PC-11 is the “biggest step change” that the North American heavy-duty truck market will experience. “This is not only an opportunity to improve the efficiency and carbon footprint of heavy-duty vehicles, but it is also a chance to recognize the potential to cut costs and increase the profitability of operations,” he adds. “As with all business decisions, a clear understanding and early adoption could result in a genuine competitive edge.” How ‘thin’ should you go? The introduction of the ck-4 and fa-4 blends is also opening the door to new lower viscosity or thinner oil blends. These are not just lighter 10W-30 and 10W-40 blends compared to heavier 15W-30 and 15W-40 formulations but rather super-light 5W-30 and 5W-40 products. They are blends commonly used in the European truck market. Chevron, like all the other lubricant makers, is introducing such lightweight products here in the U.S. as the transition to the new CK-4 and FA-4 oils officially begins on Dec. 1. The company’s Delo 400 XSP SAE 5W-30 and Delo 400 XSP SAE 5W-40, both fully synthetic oils, are examples that meet the new CK-4 standards. Using a thinner oil means the engine doesn’t work as hard to pump it, with less work meaning less energy and thus translating into less fuel consumed, explains Len Badal, Global Delo brand manager at Chevron. The hitch, however, is that such 5W oils cost more than comparable 10W and 15W grades —a lot more, largely because they are full synthetics, he says. “The price difference between a 10W-30 and a 15W-40 isn’t much; they are within the ballpark of one another,” Badal points out. “But when you get to 5W blends, you are talking two to three times the cost of a 15W product.” That doesn’t mean moving to 5W grades isn’t worth the extra money, he stresses. Those blends can deliver greater improvements in fuel economy as well as longer oil drain intervals. The issue is that a fleet must really justify those improvements by attaining them consistently, and that can be problematic based on a fleet’s duty cycle. “It’s not a durability or performance issue; it’s a cost justification issue,” Badal emphasizes. “For example, we had one fleet double its oil drain interval, while another only achieved a 15% extension. It comes down to the type of engine and the duty cycle it’s working in. You have to drive a lot of value to make the transition to a 5W blend pay off.”

Transport Topics / November 8, 2016 Advocates of heavy-duty engines powered by diesel or natural gas are separately vying for a share of the windfall directed at nitrogen oxide mitigation in all 50 states after recent judicial approval of the federal government’s multibillion dollar settlement with Volkswagen AG. At issue was years of excessive emissions from some of VW’s vehicles. “Competition for settlement dollars in each state has already started in earnest,” said Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel at American Trucking Associations. A federal judge Oct. 25 approved the terms of the $14.7 billion settlement that came after it was shown VW at times intentionally used software to defeat emissions controls in about 500,000 vehicles from 2009 to 2015, which increased NOx emissions beyond the regulated limits. As part of the overall settlement, $2.7 billion will fund NOx mitigation strategies in all 50 states, based on the number of polluting VWs operated there. A court-appointed trustee will manage the fund, and states will decide how to spend their share. “The VW settlement affords a tremendous opportunity for states to provide financial assistance to replace older diesel trucks with newer, lower-NOx emitting diesel or natural-gas vehicles,” Kedzie said. Six states will receive about 40% of the funds. California is set to receive $381 million, Texas $191 million, Florida $152 million, New York $117 million, Pennsylvania $110 million and Washington $103 million, according to the settlement. Vying for the funds could get messy, one diesel advocate suggested, noting that marine and rail projects will be eligible, too. “I don’t want to call it a food fight but there is going to be a lot of posturing amongst different technologies and their folks about which is the best thing,” said Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, which termed it one of the largest settlements of its kind. VW will put the money in over three years, and the first check for $900 million will come in November, and then annually until the full amount is paid, said Matthew Godlewski, president of Natural Gas Vehicles for America. The first projects should be taking shape in about a year, he said. “Any way you cut this, this is going to be a substantial opportunity for the natural gas vehicle industry to be part of this and sell more engines, build more stations, more dispensers, more compressors,” Godlewski said. “This is going to be a good boost to the industry over the next 10 years as these monies are spent.”

PIT Group testing fuel economy of 2016 and 2017 vehicles for U.S. Xpress Truck News / November 8, 2016 PIT Group announced recently that it’s in-service fuel testing is underway with U.S. Xpress. Utilizing U.S. Xpress trucks configured in a variety of tractor and powertrain combinations, the testing includes 2016 and brand new 2017 vehicles as well as an exclusive 2017 model that is set to start production this November. The evaluations are taking place at the carrier’s facility in Tunnel Hill, Georgia. The In-Service Fuel Testing includes: 1) Freightliner (MY2017) Cascadia Engine: Detroit DD15 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Detroit DT12 DA 1550 12 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Detroit DA RT 40 Ratio: 2.41 2) Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 “6X2” Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana Econo TREK w/ Bendix eTrac System Ratio: 2.69 3) Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Allison TC-10 Automatic Transmission Rear Axle: Dana DSP40 Ratio: 2.69 4) Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana DSP40 Ratio: 2.69 5) Kenworth T680 (MY2017) Engine: PACCAR MX13 405HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana D40-155H ADVANTEK40 Ratio: 2.64 6) Navistar Prostar ES (MY2017) Engine: Cummins ISX15 450HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana D40-155H ADVANTEK40 Ratio: 2.64 7) Navistar LT (MY2017) Engine: Cummins X15 400HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana D40-155H ADVANTEK40 Ratio: 2.64 “Like most carriers we take fuel economy seriously and we believe this test will help validate the decisions we make about our equipment,” said Gerry Mead, senior vice-president of maintenance at U.S. Xpress. “Using a proven process and a certified and highly experienced team from PIT Group will provide solid test results on fuel economy. We look forward to the results.” For the U.S. Xpress evaluations, PIT Group has identified a 60-mile test course on highways and local roads. To represent typical fleet operations, U.S. Xpress fleet will pull trailers with loads of equal weight. An in-cab observer provided by PIT Group will accompany U.S. Xpress drivers operating the test vehicles. U.S. Xpress will also provide fuel, technicians and maintenance facilities for the event, including a mobile service truck if required. “We are very pleased that U.S. Xpress counts on our expertise to select the best vehicle specs for its fleet. Having so many vehicle and component manufacturers that decided to take part in our first U.S. In-Service Fuel Testing, shows the value of independent testing for both fleet and suppliers” said Yves Provencher, director of the PIT Group. “The real world data about the fuel consumption of a variety of powertrain combinations that we are collecting will be very valuable to PIT Group Members as they make specification decisions and to suppliers as they design and develop new technologies.”

The Wall Street Journal / November 8, 2016 The decision to build up comes as other trucking companies are slashing fleets amid tepid shipping demand As weak demand sends new heavy-duty truck orders plummeting, at least one major carrier is planning to put more vehicles on the road. Lowell, Ark.-based J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc., the third-largest U.S. trucking company by revenue, expects to add 500 to 700 trucks next year to its dedicated contract services business managing fleets for retailers and manufacturers. It will add 100 to 120 trucks to its truckload segment, the operation that includes freight transport for customers in the spot market for trucking service. The growth strategy comes as the rest of industry is cutting back shipping capacity after coping with tepid demand and weak pricing for much of 2016. Orders for heavy-duty commercial trucks in North America dropped 46% in October, a bellwether month for the sector, according to ACT Research. Companies including Swift Transportation Co., Werner Enterprises Inc. and Covenant Transportation Group Inc. said they had pulled hundreds of trucks from service in the third quarter to address overcapacity and falling shipping prices. But J.B. Hunt added 83 trucks last quarter to its truckload segment, where companies sell the full capacity on a tractor-trailer to a single shipper. “It appears as if the strategy management has undertaken in 2016, whereby it continues to add assets despite a depressed market to gain share, will continue into 2017,” said an analyst note from Stifel on the report. J.B. Hunt, which had $6.2 billion in revenue in 2015, “remains one of the few, if not the only, player who can sustainably finance such a strategy thanks to the expansiveness of its operation and margin agreements with railroads,” the note said. Even with the additional trucks, overall capital expenditures are projected to drop to $477 million in 2017 from an estimated $515 million for 2016, J.B. Hunt’s presentation said. The company lists “irrational” competitive pricing and customer rate behavior among potential risks in the coming year. SJ Consulting Group, an industry research firm, ranked J.B. Hunt behind only United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. in revenue from all trucking services last year.

CNN Money / November 8, 2016 George W. Bush and Laura Bush did not vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the former president said Tuesday. Instead, the Bushes left that section blank and only voted for Republican candidates in down ballot races.

If you believe the elections show is real, if you believe that it's more than a stage play allowing Americans to think that they actually choose their leaders and thus their future (for the next 4 years), then how can such a system put forth two choices that most "voters" generally dislike? Alleged polls indicate that most Americans are not enamored with Clinton or Trump. Okay........then why are Americans forced to choose between.......them? In effect, the American people have NOT been professionally presented with any reasonable choice for president. How can that possibly be, if we have what at one time was argued to be the best governmental system in the world ? Realistically speaking. American voters can't make a prudent and rational choice in these "elections". That one candidate should be in prison rather than the White House, based on what we're told, and certainly with the Wikileaks revelations in mind, speaks volumes.

The T9, as a heavy truck, does not even come close to representing China's current level in heavy truck development. The major players are doing their own work. BYD, which doesn't build trucks, is buying this cab and chassis from a small truckmaker.

And that speaks volumes.

When you emailed Watt's Mack (provider of the BMT website), what did they say? parts@wattstruck.com

Army begins testing new Oshkosh JLTV at Aberdeen Proving Ground The Baltimore Sun / November 7, 2016 The cab of the military truck still had that new-car smell. The Army, working on the successor to the long-serving Humvee to carry troops to fight around the world, is testing the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Col. Morris Bodrick, commander of the Aberdeen Test Center, said Monday the JLTV will be tested for performance and reliability over the next year on the 50-odd miles of test track that wind around the Army installation in Harford County. The Humvee became an icon of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but it proved vulnerable in Afghanistan and Iraq to roadside bombs. Efforts to imrpove the vehicle's armor — adding metal plates to protect the troops inside — left it over-burdened. So in the midst of the conflicts, the Army rushed to field a heavier bomb-resistant truck while also planning for the Humvee's ultimate replacement. Several companies competed to build the trucks; the different versions were also tested at Aberdeen. Wisconsin-based Oshkosh beat Lockheed Martin and AM General, which makes the Humvee, for the $6.7 billion contract to build the first group. A formal protest by Lockheed set the program back, but Oshkosh turned over seven JLTVs to the Army and Marine Corps in late September and delivered another 10 in October. The team at Aberdeen Proving Ground has five of the vehicles; others are going to be put through their paces at facilities in Arizona and Alaska. The Army and Marines plan to buy some 55,000 JLTVs over the next two decades. The testing data gathered at Aberdeen and the other facilities will help the military make decisions about the future of the program. The name Humvee is a kind of abbreviation of the cumbersome High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. No similarly catchy moniker has emerged for the JLTV. Several versions of the new truck are planned. The one on show at Aberdeen Proving Ground on Monday was a two-door model that will likely serve as a transport vehicle. Others will carry weapons systems, including missiles that could be used to take on tanks or destroy bunkers. The JLTV's top speed of about 70 mph will let troops quickly close on enemies, and its advanced suspension system means it can travel across very rough terrain. Maj. Jason McPhee, an official with the office that is developing the JLTV, said the ride across one particularly bumpy test track was so smooth he could have drunk a cup of coffee. The JLTV is large by the standards of a civilian car, with tires that reached up to Bodrick's waist as he stood next to it. It's bigger even than a Humvee. But it is much smaller than the Army's most heavily armored trucks while still affording its passengers as much protection, officials say. McPhee said the designers of the new truck aimed to take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. Oshkosh had already tested out some of the concepts on the armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected All Terrain Vehicle. Those large trucks provided troops with good protection from bomb blasts, McPhee said, but couldn't be easily transported by helicopter or on amphibious landing ships. Humvees, meanwhile, struggled under the weight of the extra armor loaded onto them. The Army parked the three vehicles next to one another Monday to make the point. "We started to up-armor that Humvee, but once we started to up-armor that vehicle we started to trade away its payload and its mobility," McPhee said. The MATV and other mine-resistant vehicles were quickly developed as an answer — some of the work took place at Aberdeen Proving Ground — but they brought their own problems. "That program rapidly responded and provided protection immediately to the soldiers and Marines on the battlefield, saved a lot of lives along the way," McPhee said. "But when we made that investment we traded away transportability and mobility. We're talking about very heavy vehicles." The JLTV is designed to find the sweet spot. "It's going to try to find the perfect balance of performance, protection and payload," McPhee said. VIDEO - http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-new-army-vehicle-testing-20161107-story.html

Court Clears Oshkosh to Continue JLTV work Defense Update / February 14, 2016 A federal judge on Thursday denied Lockheed Martin’s motion that could have forced Oshkosh Corp. to stop working on a $6.7 billion military contract while a lawsuit over that contract award continues. Lockheed had challenged the military’s late-August decision to award Oshkosh Corp. Lockheed Martin’s lawsuite compelled Oshkosh Corp. to stop building JLTVs, while its lawsuit challenging the military’s decision to award Oshkosh that contract moves forward. Lettow’s order rejecting the injunction is sealed. This means that Oshkosh Corp. can keep working on its JLTV contract, which could net the company more than $30 billion over the next 25 years. Meanwhile, Lockheed’s legal challenge to the government’s contract award continues. Lockheed in its motion to halt work argued that the military applied different standards to the two companies when evaluating the contract and held ‘misleading’ meetings with the company about the bid. Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/43150-us-army-orders-oshkosh-to-resumes-jltv-work/?hl=jltv

Workhorse Group Press Release / November 7, 2016 Workhorse Group Inc. (www.workhorse.com), an original equipment manufacturer of battery-electric vehicles, has commenced development of an electric pickup work truck with range extender for fleet usage. Expected to be in production 2018, the new Workhorse W-15 light duty platform design is an extension of the E-Gen electric technology used in Workhorse medium-duty delivery trucks. With an expected 80 mile battery range using Panasonic 18650 Li-ion batteries, the Workhorse W-15 light duty design expects to provide economical, clean and powerful performance. The expected 80-mile range from the battery pack of the Workhorse pickup truck is expected to cover the vast majority of miles driven in a day by fleet owners of locally driven trucks. If needed, the gasoline generator will then operate after battery power has been depleted, allowing the driver unlimited range to complete the days' tasks. As many fleet operators are committed to the "greening" of their fleet, the Workhorse W-15 electric truck will be designed to dramatically lower emissions. Lower fueling and maintenance costs are expected to deliver lower total cost of ownership (TCO) for fleet managers. Workhorse has already received non-binding letters of interest from Duke Energy as well as the City of Orlando municipal fleet. For a number of years, Duke Energy, along with other electric utilities in the country, has been asking manufacturers to build plug-in electric vehicles that could replace the highest volume vehicle types within our fleet. The Workhorse truck does exactly that, in a manner that is expected to reduce fuel consumption as well as significantly lowering fleet emissions. Including proven components such as the range-extending generator package in the design, is expected to ease many of the concerns companies have when introducing new and innovative products into their fleets. Millions of Pickup trucks are sold in the United States each year and pickup trucks are a leading vehicle platform of choice for fleets. The electric powered W-15 represents an opportunity to bring tremendous fuel savings and emissions reduction to the streets of America without sacrificing functionality. Additionally, the W-15 's goal is to be the safest Pickup truck on the market with its large frontal crumble zone and low center of gravity. "We believe this will be the first plug-in range-extended electric pickup truck built from the ground up by an OEM in America. It's not a conversion vehicle," said Steve Burns, Workhorse CEO. "We feel the extended range capability from the combination of Panasonic batteries and an on-board generator, will deliver the performance that fleet managers expect from a work truck." Fleet managers who would like additional information are directed to contact Jeff Esfeld at jeff.esfeld@workhorse.com or 206-228-5400. .

SPEED LIMITERS: Opponents of mandate cite safety concerns of differential speeds Land Line (OOIDA) / November 7, 2016 More than 5,000 comments have been filed already. The majority of those opposed to a proposed mandate to speed limit vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds say the risks posed by increasing vehicle interactions via speed differentials outweigh any purported safety benefit of slowing large trucks and buses down. A Sept. 7 joint notice of proposed rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, seeks public comment on a variety of issues connected with speed limiters, including whether to set the speed at 60, 65 or 68 mph. The agencies claim that reducing the travel speed of large vehicles will lead to a reduction in the severity of crashes, thereby reducing the number of fatal and serious injuries and reducing property damage. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association opposes a government mandate speed limiting trucks, pointing to research that contradicts the fed’s claimed “safety benefits” of speed limiters, as it would force a speed differential between heavy trucks and other vehicles using the highways. That would lead to more vehicle interactions, unsafe maneuvering and crashes, a study of speed differentials shows. Many of the comments submitted by professional drivers and owner-operators echo the sentiments shared by Marek Kosarewicz, who says a proposed mandate would cause more problems than it would solve. Among the problems Kosarewicz cites in his comment is that speed limiters would not address the issue of trucks traveling faster than the posted speed in work zones or other areas where the speed limit is less than highway speed. “One of the main issues I see with a mandate is that it will not prevent speeding in towns with lower speed limits and especially work zones; actually it will become more common, putting workers at risk,” Kosarewicz stated in his comments. “I lost count of how many trucks from the megafleets I have seen flying by me running against their governed speed and tailgating me when I’m driving the posted work zone speed limit.” Bill De Witt, who identified himself as a commercial driver with more than 42 years of experience, commented that there is no way to ensure equal speed on all trucks, because of differences in tire wear and gearing. He also said his experience running in states with split speeds such as California and Oregon allowed him to see the risks of speed differentials firsthand. “I have had cars pass me on the right and left shoulders as two trucks pass each other on a two lane interstate. It already blocks traffic when two fleet trucks with 65 mile-per-hour limiters pass each other,” De Witt stated in his comments. “Having run in split-speed-limit states (i.e., California, Oregon, Washington) for years, I have seen firsthand the rear end accidents and near misses as cars pass on the right to get around a slower vehicle.” The issue of tire wear and gearing ratios contributing to potentially inaccurate speedometer readings was also raised in comments filed by the Truck Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA). In its comments filed Oct. 21, the group requested an additional 30-day extension of the comment period to research the impact of the issue further, noting that inaccuracies in the number of revolutions per mile for a particular tire would affect the accuracy of the vehicle speedometer. “Those inaccuracies are particularly concerning as we consider the performance requirements in the proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 140 in the NPRM,” wrote Timothy Blubaugh on behalf of EMA. “Since the manufacturer would need to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 140 before introducing a vehicle into commerce, we are carefully analyzing the proposed requirements to assess whether they include tolerances that are appropriate for production vehicles.” The agencies announced a 30-day extension of the comment period last week. Other national groups who filed comments opposing the proposed mandate or expressing concerns with the current proposal include the National Motorists Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Groundwater Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business. Many of the comments in favor of the proposal also voiced support for any mandate being extended to include retrofitting all heavy vehicles with speed limiters. Groups who filed comments in support of the mandate include the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National Safety Council, and the National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB also filed comments in support of the measure, but referred to the current proposal as an “interim step” toward an eventual requirement that all newly manufactured heavy vehicles be equipped with “advanced speed limiting technology” such as variable speed limiters and intelligent speed adaption devices, which would address concerns that electronic engine control unit-based speed limiters do not prevent speeding in locations where the speed limit is lower than the governed speed or stop vehicles from exceeding the governed speed when traveling downhill. OOIDA’s website, FightingForTruckers.com, has more information about the Association’s opposition to the proposal, as well as ways for truckers to contact their lawmakers via letter and oppose a mandate. The FightingForTruckers website also includes a link to a list of talking points members can reference when filing comments for NHTSA and FMCSA to consider during the rulemaking process. Drivers who currently drive or have driven speed-limited trucks are encouraged to share their personal experiences and real-world, on-the-road problems they’ve faced when using such devices. OOIDA encourages its members to submit comments via Regulations.gov at Docket FMCSA-2014-0083 or Docket NHTSA-2016-0087 (All comments received will be duly considered by the joint NHTSA and FMCSA team; comments only need to be posted to one docket). The public comment period will close Wednesday, Dec. 7.

Mammoet Rallysport Press Release / November 7, 2016 Mammoet Rallysport, the race team of legendary Dutch heavy haulage company Mammoet (http://www.mammoet.com/), is testing the new Renault Trucks Sherpa rally truck for the Dakar 2017. The Renault Sherpa is a tactical military vehicle that, coincidentally still uses the “club of four*” [Mack Mid-Liner] cab, which had been jointly developed by Saviem (merged into Renault), DAF, Magirus and Volvo. The Renault Rallytrucks proof to be very succesfull. Van den Brink already won stages in Silkway and Dakar rally with the Renault Trucks K- rallytruck. With the Sherpa the Olybia Rally and the Libya Rally were won. Later this month the trucks will be shipped from France to Argentina for the rally. The start of the Dakar 2017 rally is on january 1. * Officially known as the Euro Truck Development Group. . . .

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / November 7, 2016 .

Volvo Launches Renault Trucks Defense Sale Defense News / November 4, 2016 Volvo kicked off the sale of its Renault Trucks Defense (RTD) subsidary on Friday by holding consultative talks with labor unions at its government sales division. The deal reflects a move toward European consolidation, said Volvo Group spokesman Joakim Kenndal. “Volvo Group has conducted a strategic review of the Governmental Sales business area and intends to initiate a process to divest this business,” Volvo said in a Nov. 4 statement. “There are great opportunities to grow the business even further, however, we believe that a new owner may be better placed to take the business to the next level,” said Jan Gurander, Volvo deputy chief executive and chief financial officer. “Consequently, we intend to start preparations to divest the business." The start of the sale is “subject to the finalization of mandatory consultations with staff representative bodies,” Volvo said. Acmat, Mack Defense in the US, Panhard, RTD and Volvo Defense make up the government sales business, which employs more than 1,300 staff. Renault Trucks Defense, the lead unit, posted 2015 sales of some €500 million (US $556 million) and had a target to double its annual sales by 2018 or 2019. Growth by acquisition had been ruled out. Renault Trucks Defense was among the most profitable Volvo units, with annual profit close to double digits, according to an industry executive. There was, however, sensitivity over arms sales, which required Renault Trucks Defense to seek approval from Volvo. Volvo’s search for a buyer has raised questions over whether Nexter, Thales or German manufacturer Rheinmetall might make a bid. Any offer by Nexter would need an agreement with its partner KMW, a second defense executive said. A purchase of Renault Trucks Defense by Rheinmetall would lead to a European landscape where two French-German companies compete for a foothold in the land-based arms sector. Nexter and Thales declined comment. Nexter is the leading French land-based arms manufacturer, while Thales supplies onboard systems and builds the Bushmaster and Hawkei Australian light transports. The planned divestment will raise questions over Renault Trucks Defense’s role in the French Army’s €6 billion Scorpion modernization program, which includes developing and building a Griffon multirole troop carrier, Jaguar combat vehicle and a light scout vehicle. A production contract for some 2,000 Griffon troop carriers could be worth about €1 billion, based on a basic unit cost of €500,000 excluding onboard systems, the first executive said. Renault Trucks Defense is one of the core industrial partners with Nexter and Thales on the Scorpion program, with the Volvo unit receiving more than 30 percent of the 2014 development contracts worth almost €752 million, the second executive said. RTD will supply engines and drivelines for Jaguar and Griffon, which will have a high commonality of equipment. Renault Trucks Defense and Nexter are partnered on maintenance of an infantry fighting vehicle, dubbed Véhicule Blindé de Combat et Infanterie, and a troop carrier, Véhicule Avant Blindé, which this year marked its 40 years of service. Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Nov. 2 in the lower house of the National Assembly that the government was ready to consider speeding up deliveries of the Scorpion vehicles, Agence France-Presse reported. “We can think about the issue concerning the years ahead. I am open to this discussion.” That readiness follows remarks in September by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Jean-Pierre Bosser, who referred to studies for speeding up the Scorpion vehicle deliveries. The Army would like to see a faster introduction by five years of the Jaguar and Griffon so there would be four or five battalions equipped by 2025 rather the present plan of 2030, the second executive said. That would reduce the maintenance cost of a variety of fleets including the new Scorpion vehicles, VAB, and aging combat vehicles AMX 10RC, Sagaie ERC 90 and VAB HOT to be replaced by the Jaguar. Renault Trucks Defense chairman Emmanuel Levarcher told the French parliamentary defense committee on Jan. 27 that Volvo had not blocked export deals. “Volvo group has never prevented us from exporting material,” he said. Volvo chairman Martin Lundstedt lived in France when he was head of the Scania truck company, in Angers, western France, and sold Scania trucks to the Direction Générale de l’Armement procurement office. As the Ukraine crisis deepened in 2014, Renault Trucks Defense froze talks with its prospective Russian partner UralVagonZavod to develop a 30-ton infantry fighting vehicle named the “Atom”, as the company waited for instructions from Sweden and France.