Evolution not revolution key to vehicle design
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What is the present state of the art? Wht_Vs in store for the future? Are manufacturers giving operators enough choice? These are among the important issues discussed her€ by CM editor lain Sherriff, Transport consultant Tony Wilding, PTA director of engineering services Terry Goldrick, and our technical duo Graham Montgomerie and Tim Blakemore
n Sherriff: How do you see hide design at the moment d in the future?
ny Wilding: Evolution rather 3n revolution is the key. I don't a any drastic change in the xt ten to 15 years. The models rrently being replaced are 15 ars old and the ones coming )ng, Ford Cargo, and so on, going to be on the market for years, at the very last.
.: Why 15 years?
Al.: It would take that long at 1st to develop a new design ough it all depends on anges in legislation or erator requirements, but are y drastic changes going to e place? I doubt it.
'ham Montgomerie: Can a inufacturer afford to produce rehicle on his own to meet N requirements? The classic ;e is the Ford Cargo.
Ve now have Ford specifying ZF gearbox, for the simple ison it wants a five-speed irbox at the lower end of the ige and Ford doesn't have a ?.-speed at that end.
f Ford, with its resources, i't afford to develop its own, it 35 out and buys it. We've seen
this happen before with the Club of Four and MAN/VW, and IVECO.
What is going to happen is not so much design changes to meet the market, but manufacturing changes to meet the market through economic necessity. High volumes get rid of tooling costs.
Tim Blakemore: In America operators have more say in the design of the vehicle and can specify exactly what type of gearbox, engine, rear axle they want.
We don't have that type of situation yet, but do you think it could come?
IS.: How would that work out economically?
T.W.; Now we're talking about two different sectors of the market — the American system relates to the heavy vehicle end only. How can this availability of option come in a volume-produced eightor ten-tonner? But we have it now in the ERF and Foden specialist production.
We can't go as far as they can in America, certainly.
G.M.: A British manufacturer will not be able to produce a complete vehicle on his own. The Volvos, Scanias, Mercedes of this world make the complete vehicle, but how long is it going to continue? How long will they be able to afford the tooling costs?
I think we're going to go more along the American lines with the possible exception of Daimler-Benz and IVECO.
T.B.: Do you think that operators react against this limitation of supply and that they would prefer a greater choice? In gearboxes for example, ZF and Fuller dominate the heavy end of the market.
T.W.: I don't think the operator wants to have the job of specifying, in detail. He would much prefer to have the job done for him by the manufacturer. ZF gearboxes in Ford was a particular requirement for the European market, they want a five-speed gearbox and the only five-speed gearbox that was valid was the ZF. There wasn't enough volume for Ford to produce their own five-speed gearbox.
Mercedes use ZF throughout the range they have now and they use some Fuller as well.
Ford uses Cummins and Perkins V8 engines in the higher range.
Leyland uses its own engine with its own transmission. But it also uses Cummins and RollsRoyce engines, with the Spicer gearbox.
Ford uses Fuller for the Transcontinental because of market requirements.
T.B.: There's a distinct difference between the European, British and American manufacturers' policies. Mercedes, for example, tend to have a policy of "We know best and we will give you no choice." They usually offer one diff ratio, one engine, one gearbox.
British manufacturers say you can have a choice of two or three engines and gearboxes, while American manufacturers say you can have whatever you like. G.M.: This again is partly because the American system and to a certain extent that part of the UK system is dependent on outside suppliers. Manufacturers have got to be able to juggle about with the various components if they don't make their own engine or gearbox.
Seddon Atkinson and ERF are the classic examples of this. They offer a range of gearboxes, axles and engines for the simple reason that they don't make any of their own. I wonder if in future people like Volvo and Scania and possibly Mercedes will have to go for more co-operation?
Might we see a joint Volvo/Scania/Mercedes-Benz exercise? They would share the tooling costs for a new engine designed and produced by a joint company. Each would then be free to go off and do what they want with the basic design.
We've seen this happen with the Club of Four. It started off as a joint design exercise, they've now gone their own way but it saved them a lot of design money in the first place.
T.W.: We've seen with Cargo how much work was put in by Ford to find out exactly what the operator wanted. The question is, does the product satisfy operators in a general sense or are there large areas which can't be accommodated?
Terry Goldrick: The manufacturers try to give what the operator wants but I'm not sure they always go about it in the right way. Manufacturers tend to equate to the largest area of demand which might not do for every particular operator.
ETA feeds some input to the manufacturers. We have developed manufacturer-operator liaison committees but we realise that these are nowhere near adequate for the amount of input required.
I'm sure that the way Ford went about the development of Cargo was good — they had an engineering panel looking at every aspect. Having said that, I'm sure there's never enough operator involvement. It is almost impossible for dealers to develop the right specification.
Their job is to sell vehicles and on selling vehicles they must compromise on the sort of vehicle they sell most of.
G.M.: Ford's went out and talked to operators, they had driver and operator clinics. One of the results was that there was a requirement for the five-speed gearbox at the lower end of the Cargo range.
It could be argued that this is limiting the choice of the Ford operator in that particular category to one gearbox but what's the alternative?
However enthusiastic a manufacturer is about providing the right vehicle, at the end of the day he, as well as the operator, has got to make a profit.
It's no good making 57,000 variants for a chassis and then going broke at the end of six months, We need more cooperation between manufacturers, otherwise they are not going to be able to produce an economic vehicle.
T.W.: We have already amalgamation — MAN and Mercedes are co-operating in engine design development.
T.B.: The trouble is with rationalisation that eventually you don't need any fleet engineers because the manufacturers' engineers have produced the optimum specification. T.G.: One doesn't expect the fleet engineer to be a design engineer, but we need maintenance engineers with enough knowledge a bout design to translate maintenance requirements into design requirements.
His responsibility is to be a bridge between the vehicle user and the manufacturer.
T.B.: As far as maintenance is concerned, the manufacturer could almost do that himself by laying down a certain maintenance schedule for the two gearboxes or the two engines.
T.G.: Don't get the design and operation of vehicles confused. T.W.: I wonder to what extent the American system is allied to personal preference rather than to practical requirement? Do American operators need a wide choice of transmissions and engines on grounds of operating requirement or is it because they've got a much more varied. personal choice?
G.M.: F wonder how much of the American scene is due to tradition? It's the opposite way in Europe, with more manufacturers having a completely inhouse product — again by tradition, rather than engineering.
T.W.: I don't think we will go to the American system. I don't see the need for these wide variations or these wide ranges of options. I think the fleet engineer accepts that the vehicle designer has got a validity, an expertise, a competence, that can be trusted. T.G.: How do we see the argument for downplating?
G.M.: If nothing else it will get round the totally artificial situation we have at the moment.
T.B.: The manufacturers are helping. Ford uses the same six cylinder engine from 71/2 tons to 12½ tons and just minor changes to the chassis determine the gross plated weight, so the operator isn't penalised because the taxation is determined by the unladen weight.
T.W.: But in the future isn't the adoption of the Armitage Report going to introduce taxation based on the gross weight of the vehicle?
T.G.: Vehicle excise duty is going that way.
T.W.: We currently get enforcement of 32 tons and 16 tons, and other different configurations of vehicles. But. is there enforcement now at gross weight plating?
T.B.: Let me put another question. Is it not true that nowadays the shrewd operator tends to over-specify anyway? Very few operators in fact operate at the design weight of a vehicle.
T.G.: That would mean he's over-paying for a vehicle. The shrewd operator is the man who specifies the right vehicle for the job.
G.M.: Yes, but surely he automatically over-specifies.. If he buys a 32 tanner, nine times out of ten he's buying a 40 tanner. You've got to specify a higherpowered vehicle even if the traffic is low weight but high volume. I would argue that is not over-specifying.
T.G.: I cannot agree, it must be a case of the fleet engineer taking into account total life costs, which cannot be achieved by over specifying. He must know the operating conditions and then obtain the best vehicle for these conditions. There is something wrong if he buys a vehicle capable of carrying 26 tons for loads of only 20 tons.
T.B.: How much weight does a fleet engineer carry when he gets into the boardroom? Does
the financial controller allow fleet engineer a voice at the t of the day?
T.G.: I believe he does hay, voice, however in some cc panies it may only be a whisj In own-account companies th are three principal managem areas — production, market and distribution.
There is a limited amouni money available and each oni those departments is vying capital and revenue expendit and each will claim they ne have enough. The fleet engin must have a voice, the exten his influence will depend on organisation and his ability. T.W.: Tim, with your fleet er neering experience, how mi voice do you think your chief gineer had in a haulage cc pany?
T.B.: This comes back to point we were making earlier — the limitation of choice a fi engineer is faced with. It co reach the situation where an countant may well say, "why we need somebody to make decision between only two three vehicles?"
The more rationalisation have, the less scope there is an engineer, but the engin should be involved at the sp fication stage in order to m his subsequent job less diffict T.G.: You're talking ab costing again.
T.B.: That's right, In fact the tial cost of the vehicle is suc small percentage of its total value that it's negligible. T.W.: But we're not only talk about over-specifying, we also talking about the justic( taxing a vehicle on its pla gross weight when it is used lighter loads.
s it right that the man who ys a 32-ton gross tractor for Tying his 18-ton gross as a car nsporter should be charged ation on 32 tons because of Ile factor of road damage?
s it not justice that he should Amplate and pay tax related to road damage?
1.: Does the FTA have any dres to show how mainten costs have gone down, or 3sibly gone up, in recent )rs?
;.: Yes we have. Our cost and as service indicates that mainance costs are going up. In )eral they are related to norI inflation rates, although 'is have increased more than 3.
I.: Perhaps I should have said laintenance times'' rather In "maintenance costs". nufacturers are saying they producing components to rece maintenance times. Is re evidence that operators I this is true?
I.: I think operators find this is e, but there has to be some v thinking on maintenance. It tiII a very heavily labour insive operation and I believe t costs could be reduced by a v approach to maintenance. also believe there are a trendous lot of vehicles that are ng over-maintained.
You mean we are getting a tter engineering standard n we really think we are — so t manufacturers are engi neering to reduce maintenance. costs?
T.G.: There are recommendations for extending servicing periods but unless one retains regular and fairly frequent inspections it could prove dangerous.
G.M.: Which means, for example, that you can make more use of self-adjusting brakes, and self-adjusting clutches, but you must inspect to ensure they are self-adjusting. T.W.: From what you were saying, there are two distinct aspects of this problem of cost and maintenance. One is how the vehicle is designed and the second is how efficient is the transport engineer in keeping costs down?
Many years ago a large company carried out an exercise on extending maintenance periods and found that the major factor was the amount of off-road time through major breakdowns and the disruption to the operation.
A trend in vehicle design evident to me is that it is getting better with more sophisticated facilities for proving and deyelopmerit.
The latest models have been subjected to much more rigorous pre-production testing and proving, and designs certainly are aimed at reduced maintenance times and extending service periods.
At the end of the day, though, it is the fleet engineer who can decide the optimum servicing cycle.
T.B.: His performance is monitored by the man at the heavy
goods testing station. CM has had thoughts about the stations and we know that the FTA is not alone in thinking that there is a danger in handing this type of monitoring over to commercial enterprise.
I don't think the FTA has made the point strongly enough.
T.G.: FTA is the last to say that free enterprise shouldn't be allowed to develop in any organisation.
We believe that in the HGV test stations, there could possibly be an improvement in efficiency and a greater throughput, but to say competition could be introduced between one station and another must be nonsense.
Vehicle safety needs a national standard. We would like to see things remaining as at present. We have said this loud and strong. We have made our point with the Government, but politics can defy logical argument.
It would also be wrong to sell off individual testing stations. If a group buys a chain of test stations, what happens if one test station doesn't make any money? Will it be sold or closed? T.B.: Is the Government aware of the strength of the opposition? What is needed is something like the CBI's "bare knuckle" speech.
At the moment hgv testing stations pay their way, but that is no justification for saying they should be passed into free enterprise.
Organisations such as FTA, RHA and IRTE should tell the Government the way they feel. G.M.: The more noise the better. A classic case recently is the cost of ownership tax. There was so much noise made against that, it was quietly dropped.
T.W. The Government's attitude seems to be dogma rather than sound reason. But I believe FTA and RHA to be doing a good job behind the scenes, even if they are not standing up and shouting their heads off.
I.S.: We know what they said about Armitage, that was quite clear.
T.G.: Armitage puts so many things in perspective, both from the environmentalist and the transport points of view, and it gives a good balanced view.
However, two thirds of the report proposes a lot of restrictions on transport such as further controls on noise levels and road damage vibrations which impose further costs on transport.
Unfortunately, in one way or another the public has to pay for any environmental improvements. In principle, FTA does not disagree with these improvements but there must be an awareness of the costs involved.
The other third of the report is to do with the heavier lorry and here there is a lot of commonsense. Armitage hasn't gone as far as the EEC proposals on the heavier lorry but he has, we believe, taken a balanced view between that and the environmentalists.
I'm convinced that what is required now is to get the acceptance in principle of the report by Parliament. Basically the report as a total package is good for the country as a whole.
There are parts of it which need questioning, though — such as the tri-axle configuration. Is he right in limiting this to 22.5 tonnes? Is he right in limiting the length of a trailer to 12.2m? Why does he need to impose that restriction within the total length of an articulated vehicle of 15.5m?
G.M.: I don't think Armitage as it stands is going to affect the overall design of the vehicles to any great extent, except in details. We've got the vehicles now that can operate all those different ways anyway, so there's no problem in adapting existing vehicles to meet those regulations.
What worries me is the 12.2m trailer. There are all sorts of loopholes like car transporters, and 12.4m single-axle box vans for light loads. Is the fridge on a fridge van included in the 12,2m?
T.W.: If we suddenly got 44 tons on six axles, how many operators would go for it?
T.G.: He's taken a compromise on drive axle, Instead of taking it up to the 11 tonnes recommended by EEC, he's taken it to 10.5 tonnes. But he has stuck pretty well to the requirements of the EEC — there aren't a lot of differences.
G.M.: If we have to accept the Armitage package, doesn't that imply that we have to accept the detail as well?
T.B.: On the height limit, the 4.2m proposal is different.
T.G.: It's better from our point of view. But I'm worried that if we argue too much about the detail, Armitage might be thrown out.
The detail has to be resolved by general consultation and alterations to C & U regulations, probably over a period of time. There must be an increase in vehicle costs as a result and these costs have got to be paid for by somebody.
T.W.: In the final analysis, it's the customer who will have to bear the burden.