ABSTRACT This report documents the confidence that North American Class 8 trucking should have in lightweighting tractor trailers for increased payload and improved fuel efficiency. The study team engaged with the entire industry in generating the findings that are presented here. Thanks to all of those who contributed to this important work.
Trucking Efficiency
CONFIDENCE REPORT: LIGHTWEIGHTING
Trucking Efficiency is a joint effort between NACFE and Carbon War Room to double the freight efficiency of North American goods movement through the elimination of market barriers to information, demand and supply.
© 2015 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. All rights reserved. The contents of this document are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement of any product, service, industry practice, service provider, manufacturer, or manufacturing process. Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute legal, tax, or accounting advice, and NACFE assumes no liability for use of the report contents. No portion of this report or accompanying materials may be copied, reproduced or distributed in any manner without express attribution to the North American Council for Freight Efficiency.
August 25, 2015
Acknowledgements: Study Team: Andrew Halonen, Mayflower Consulting Rob Swim, Consultant (Retired Navistar) Mike Roeth, NACFE Executive Director Study Editor: Tessa Lee, Carbon War Room Denise Rondini, Rondini Communications Study Sponsors: Silver Level The Aluminum Association Bronze Level Great Dane Hendrickson International Jost International Webb Wheel Products In-‐Kind Contributions: NACFE Technical Advisory Committee: Tim Dzojko, Air Products Randy Cornell, Con-‐way TL Yves Provencher, FPInnovations Steve Hanson, Frito Lay Bruce Stockton, Kenan Advantage Group Dan Deppeler, Paper Transport Steve Duley, Schneider National Dale Spencer, UPS Steve Phillips, Consultant Mike Roeth, NACFE Executive Director
2
Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1
Trucking Efficiency’s Confidence Reports .................................................................................. 14
1.2
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 15
1.2.1 2
Why Lightweighting Matters ............................................................................................................ 17 2.1
3
5
Dollar-‐per-‐Pound Categorization ............................................................................................... 20
Weight Reduction Methods ............................................................................................................. 22 4.1
Material Conversion ................................................................................................................... 23
4.2
Design Integration ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3
Right-‐Sizing ................................................................................................................................ 24
Major Lightweighting Options for Tractors ...................................................................................... 25 5.1
Powertrain ................................................................................................................................. 25
5.2
Drive Shafts ................................................................................................................................ 27
5.3
Front Axles & Suspensions ......................................................................................................... 27
5.4
Rear Axles & Suspensions .......................................................................................................... 28
5.5
Wheel-‐Ends (Hubs and Brakes) .................................................................................................. 29
5.6
Wheels and Tires ........................................................................................................................ 31
5.7
Frame and Chassis ..................................................................................................................... 32
5.8
Cab ............................................................................................................................................. 34
5.9
Fifth Wheels ............................................................................................................................... 35
5.10 6
Fuel Efficiency vs. Freight Efficiency .......................................................................................... 19
Market Segments Considered in this Report .................................................................................... 20 3.1
4
Questions used in study team interviews ........................................................................... 16
Summary of Options for Tractors ........................................................................................... 35
Major Lightweighting Options for Trailers ........................................................................................ 37 6.1
Flooring and Structure ............................................................................................................... 37
6.2
Trailer Suspension ...................................................................................................................... 38
6.3
Tires, Wheels, Brakes, and Axles ................................................................................................ 39
6.4
Refrigeration Units ..................................................................................................................... 39
6.5
Summary of Options for Trailers ................................................................................................ 40
7
Costs and Potential of Lightweighting .............................................................................................. 41
8
Benefits and Enablers of Lightweighting .......................................................................................... 43 8.1
Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 43
8.2
Increased freight efficiency ........................................................................................................ 45
August 25, 2015
3
9
8.3
Improved fuel efficiency ............................................................................................................ 45
8.4
Sustainability Goals .................................................................................................................... 45
8.5
Driver Retention ........................................................................................................................ 46
8.6
Additional Fuel Efficiency Technologies ..................................................................................... 46
Challenges and Consequences of Lightweighting ............................................................................. 47 9.1
Upfront cost ............................................................................................................................... 47
9.2
Residual value ............................................................................................................................ 48
9.3
Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................................... 48
9.4
Redundant Product Testing ....................................................................................................... 49
9.5
Ability to take advantage ........................................................................................................... 49
10 Future Innovations ........................................................................................................................... 50 11 Study Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 52 11.1 Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 52 11.2
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 54
12 References ........................................................................................................................................ 55
August 25, 2015
4
Executive Summary
August 25, 2015
5
LIGHTWEIGHTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings of This Report •!Emissions
regulations, fuel economy features, and driver amenities have added about 1,000 pounds to a tractor over the past decade. •!Denser freight is driving requests for higher payloads and, in turn, for lighter vehicles. •!Despite the heavier trucks and denser freight, fleets in the general dry van freight sector are still hesitant to invest in lightweighting because different segments of the trucking industry value lightweighting differently depending on the value they can get from adding additional freight into each truckload. •!A good metric for the value of lightweighting technologies is “dollar of upfront cost per pound of weight saved.” On average, bulk carriers will pay $6.00–$11.00, reefer or certain dry van dedicated routes $2.00–$5.00, and general dry van freight $0–$2.00. •!The majority of bulk carriers have already invested in the lightweighting technologies that meet their upfront cost tolerances. •!Current trends in the industry may make it worthwhile for greater numbers of reefer and dry van routes to investigate lightweighting. •!Not only will it improve freight efficiency by allowing them to carry more freight and meet shipper needs of denser, heavier loads, but it will also improve fuel efficiency, due to both the lightweighting itself and the ability to adopt additional fuel efficiency technologies. •!Today, trucks can achieve about 2,000 pounds of weight reduction by investing in a limited degree of lightweighting, while more aggressive investment can yield around 4,000 pounds of savings—at which point 1 in every 11 trucks that gross out can be taken off the road for a given amount of cargo.
Market Segments Value Lightweighting Differently Lightweighting technologies do increase fuel efficiency, saving about 0.5%–0.6% of fuel per 1,000 pounds of weight reduction. However, the upfront costs to remove the nearly 4,000
“When lightweighting is looked at not only in terms of better fuel economy but also improved freight efficiency, it makes sense in a wide variety of applications.” - Mike Roeth, Operation Lead, Trucking Efficiency
pounds off a tractor and trailer required to reach the 1–2% efficiency gain considered acceptable for many other technologies is so high that it does not offer an attractive payback from fuel savings alone. But with an 80,000-pound legal maximum weight for a truck plus cargo to travel down our roads, theoretically every pound shaved off the vehicle’s weight could be recouped as freight. Thus, it would seem that lightweighting should be a priority for the industry, and that more fleets should be adopting these technologies. In reality, a majority of the industry does not currently gross out on most or any of its routes, and the value of lightweighting will vary substantially among market segments. The Confidence Report segments the freight market into three distinct categories: Category 1: Trucks that currently travel at the 80,000-pound limit at some point along nearly 100% of their routes. This represents a small percentage of the industry (about 2%)—the bulk carriers. Category 2: Trucks that are loaded to the maximum weight (gross out) on a minority, perhaps 10%, of their trips. This represents about 10% of the trucks on the road, mostly refrigerator units but also some dry van routes
August 25, 2015
6
LIGHTWEIGHTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Category 3: Dry van units that rarely (maybe 2% of the time) or never travel at maximum weight, either because they are filled to maximum volume (cube out) before they gross out, or simply because their routes and cargo patterns are not conducive to traveling full. About 88% of the trucking industry falls into this category. That 2% of the industry in category 1 is very weight sensitive—every pound they can save from their vehicle is another pound of freight they can carry. Therefore category 1 fleets are willing to pay between $6.00 and $11.00 for every pound of weight a technology will save them (e.g., a technology which saves 500 pounds might be worth up to $5,500 in upfront costs to those fleets). And since category 1 fleets do see this high of a value in lightweighting, they in fact have already adopted the majority of the available technologies that offer them acceptable returns. Meanwhile the rest of the industry, both category 2 and category 3, has yet to invest widely in lightweighting technologies at all. In the course of its work, Trucking
Efficiency has noted some trends that suggest that lightweighting should in fact be given more attention, and is likely worthy of more investment, by this 98% of the industry.
shippers will request that category 2 and category 3 trucks double the percent of time they gross out, to 20% of the time for category 2 and 4% of the time for category 3. In order to meet these trends head-on and accommodate the heavier, denser freight, category 2 and 3 fleets will have two options—add more trucks to the road, or explore lightweighting so that at least some of their trucks will be able to carry more freight. Lightweighting is by far the better option. While it does carry a cost, it is much cheaper than running additional vehicles for even 10% of routes. A new truck costs around $120,000 up front, and an additional $1.68 per mile to operate. With trucks driving ~100,000 miles or more annually, investing in lightweighting such that a single vehicle can be kept off the road while still moving the required amount of freight would save a fleet nearly a million dollars over five years. And at current industry averages of just under 6 mpg, one fewer truck means reduced CO2 emissions of nearly 380,000 pounds per year. This Confidence Report therefore finds that it makes sense for category 2 and even category 3 fleets to follow in the lead of those in category 1, and investigate lightweighting opportunities.
Current Industry Trends Through surveys conducted for this Confidence Report, industry confirmed observing the following trends: •#Tractor and to some degree trailer weights have increased, •#Freight is becoming denser, and •#Shippers are loading more pallets per trailer. In light of these trends, Trucking Efficiency finds that over the next 5–10 years
Theoretically every pound shaved off the vehicle’s weight could be recouped as freight. Thus, it would seem that lightweighting should be a priority for the industry.
August 25, 2015
7
LIGHTWEIGHTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Difficulty calculating the true value offered by lightweighting: Loads and routes may vary from week to week. Knowing that a certain percentage of loads hit the weight maximum over a given time span is one thing, predicting which loads and routes those will be in the future is more difficult. So while it is possible to generalize about how many dollars each pound of weight savings will be worth to a wide category of fleets, individual fleets will struggle determining that precise figure for their own operations. Redundant product testing and long development periods: Both of these drive up costs substantially. Component manufacturers, OEMs, and fleets all have a role to play in addressing these issues.
Technologies Covered in This Report Additional Motivations for Lightweighting Along with improving the overall freight efficiency of a fleet, lightweighting is a good investment because it opens the door for the adoption of additional beneficial technologies that might otherwise make a truck unacceptably heavier than at present. Trucking today faces a major problem finding and retaining drivers. Thus, fleets recognize that investment in driver comfort and amenities is critical. The need to attract and retain drivers has resulted in longer and taller sleeper compartments, well-appointed (and heavy) seats, upscale interiors, and advanced suspensions. Other driver amenities include refrigerators and entertainment systems, enhanced storage, and creature comforts including additional personal items. All of these add weight to a truck, making lightweighting important if fleets hope to continue shipping even their current quantities of freight. Fuel efficiency is likewise critical to operating a profitable and successful trucking fleet today. But many of those technologies, even those with the most attractive paybacks or greatest fuel savings, will add weight to the truck. Lightweighting should therefore be seen as part of an overall vision for increasing
fuel efficiency. It should be noted, however, that some fuel efficiency options, such as wide-base tires, are actually also lightweighting technologies, while others, such as certain idle reduction devices, do add weight but are in turn granted federal weight exemptions. Finally, a variety of government regulations impact the weights of vehicles, and in recent years the regulatory environment has greatly incentivized lightweighting. Therefore, investing in lightweighting technologies offers fleets the benefit of meeting regulations.
Challenges of Lightweighting Challenges to lightweighting include: Upfront cost: While some weight savings can be achieved with technologies that are cost neutral or even cost negative compared to the standard, the greatest savings are offered by things like aluminum or even carbon fiber parts, which come with an additional, often high, upfront cost. Impact on resale value and maintenance costs: Some lightweighting options have a negative impact on the residual cost or resale value of a truck at present. Some lightweighting options also entail higher maintenance costs. The report details some methods for working around both of these barriers, but they do still persist.
Lightweighting is available for both tractors and trailers, with some technologies specific to one and others applicable to both. The report details a range of these technologies—25 sets of options for tractors and another 16 for trailers. It does not go into specifics at the level of comparing the offerings from various manufacturers, but it will offer fleets a great starting point for discussing with their OEMs and suppliers which elements of their equipment they may be interested in lightweighting, and exploring their options for those elements. As with any trucking technology, the actual cost that a fleet will pay will depend on many variables, including supplier/OEM choice, supplier relationships, and more. However, lightweighting technologies available today can be roughly split into three price categories: No Cost, Some Cost, and More Cost.
August 25, 2015
8
August 25, 2015
9
August 25, 2015
10
1 Introduction This Confidence Report forms part of the continued work of Trucking Efficiency, a joint initiative from the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) and Carbon War Room (CWR) highlighting the potential of fuel efficiency technologies and practices in over-‐the-‐road (OTR) goods movement. Prior Confidence Reports and initial findings on nearly 70 available technologies can be found at www.truckingefficiency.org. The fuel costs faced by the tractor-‐trailer industry have been swiftly and steadily rising over the past decade (Figure 1). By 2013, as Figure 2 shows, fuel costs had reached $0.65 per mile, surpassing even the costs for the driver (wages plus benefits). And although very recently a reduction in fuel costs has occurred, all indications are that fuel prices will continue to be volatile, thus the industry is in need of solutions which reduce its fuel dependency if it is to stay profitable.
Figure 1: US Diesel Fuel Prices
August 25, 2015
11
Figure 2: Trucking Operational Cost Investment into proven technologies and practices that allow a truck or fleet to increase their fuel efficiency – meaning that they can do the same amount of business while spending less on fuel – is a hugely promising option for the industry in light of this trend. To understand, and thereby better facilitate, the uptake of such technologies, NACFE conducts an annual review, the “Fleet Fuel Study,” of the industry-‐wide adoption rates of nearly 70 fuel efficiency technologies currently available for Class 8 tractors and trailers. This work, available on the www.nacfe.org website, has been called “the most comprehensive study of Class 8 fuel efficiency adoption ever conducted.” (Truck News, 2012)
August 25, 2015
12
Figure 3: Fleet Fuel Study Participants The overriding take-‐away from the most recent Fleet Fuel Study, completed in 2015, is that fleets are enjoying dramatic improvements in their fuel efficiency by adopting combinations of the various technologies surveyed — savings of about $9,000 per tractor per year compared to a fleet that has not invested in any efficiency technologies. It found that these fleets have fleet-‐wide fuel economy of just under 7.0 mpg, while the USA average, for the approximately 1.5 million tractors in over-‐the-‐road goods movement, is 5.9 mpg. This finding was drawn from research into the use of fuel efficiency products and practices by 14 of the largest, most data-‐driven fleets (Figure 3). Those fleets represent both regional and long-‐haul tractors and trailers, in both dry goods and refrigerated cargo movement, and boast a combined inventory of 53,000 tractors and 160,000 trailers. The 2015 study reviewed twelve years of adoption decisions by these ten fleets, and describes their specific experience with the nearly 70 technologies. Each fleet shared the percentage of their new purchases of tractors and trailers that included any of the technologies. They also shared twelve years’ worth of annual fuel economy data for the trucks in their fleet. With these two pieces of information, which will be updated every year, NACFE is able to generate insights into the following aspects of the industry: •
Adoption curves for each of the technologies, indicating which technologies have the steepest adoption rates, which are being adopted steadily but slowly, and which are not being purchased at all. These curves also show how uniformly (or not) fleets are acting in their adoption patterns.
•
Identification among the various fleets of the innovators, early-‐majority, late-‐majority, and even laggards, in new technology adoption.
•
Comparison of technology adoption rates to overall fuel efficiency.
•
Identification of three key insights: that the adoption of automated manual transmission has reached high levels, that aerodynamics are now available for natural gas tractors, and that the optimization of engine parameters is being pursued more widely as a fuel-‐saving strategy by large, medium, and small fleets.
August 25, 2015
13
Figure 4: Savings in Fuel per Truck
1.1 Trucking Efficiency’s Confidence Reports NACFE’s Fleet Fuel Studies provide useful insights into adoption trends in the industry, as well as into the specific practices of different major fleets. NACFE hopes that this information could alone spur additional investment, particularly by fleets that may be lagging behind the overall industry when it comes to certain widely-‐adopted technologies. However, in the course of conducting the studies, it became clear that some technologies are still only being adopted by the most progressive or innovative of fleets in spite of their showing strong potential for achieving cost-‐effective gains in fuel efficiency. In order to facilitate the wider industry’s trust in and adoption of such technologies, NACFE and CWR formed Trucking Efficiency and began this series of reports, called “Confidence Reports,” which will take an in-‐depth look at those most-‐promising but least-‐adopted technologies one-‐by-‐one. Confidence Reports provide a concise introduction to a promising category of fuel efficiency technologies, covering key details of their applications, benefits, and variables. The reports are produced via a data mining process that both combs public information and collects otherwise-‐private information (which is shared with Trucking Efficiency for the purpose of the reports), in order to centralize an unparalleled range of testing data and case studies on a given technology set. Vehicle lightweighting options represent one such technology set. Lightweighting helps to increase fuel efficiency, and more importantly freight efficiency, in three ways: •
it lowers rolling resistance (which means it takes less energy to start moving and to overcome friction on the road);
•
it allows carriers to add more cargo to each truck (which reduces the total number of trucks on the road or trips which must be made);
August 25, 2015
14
•
it permits the adoption of other fuel efficiency technologies (by negating concerns about the added weight of those technologies).
The per-‐truck fuel economy benefit of lightweighting is quite low – just 0.5% -‐ 0.6% improvement per 1,000 pounds of weight reduction – the real benefit of these technologies is in improving the freight efficiency of the overall fleet. The founders of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency were insistent that the mission of the organization be focused on freight efficiency rather than simply fuel economy. Freight efficiency is the measure of the quantity of goods moved per unit of energy needed (measured in ton-‐miles per gallon of diesel if the load is heavy and cube-‐miles per gallon for lighter-‐weight loads), while fuel efficiency is simply the miles-‐per-‐gallon achieved by the truck at its maximum weight, but does not in fact take into account the amount of work being performed (work being the movement of cargo). Lightweighting is one of the best technology sets (along with logistics management systems) available for increasing freight efficiency. However, while potentially very beneficial to a fleet’s overall bottom line, lightweighting is a relatively large technology set, and can be a complicated effort to undertake. The core objective of this Confidence Report, therefore, is to provide the leadership of fleets with a comprehensive overview of lightweighting options for both Class 8 tractors and trailers, by giving the industry a foundational understanding of the need to consider not only fuel efficiency, but also overall freight efficiency and providing an unbiased review of available lightweighting technologies on the market today. Visit www.truckingefficiency.org to view this and other completed reports on tire pressure systems, 6x2 axles, idle reduction, electronically controlled transmissions, engine parameters and low rolling resistance tires.
1.2 Methodology Trucking Efficiency’s Confidence Reports are researched by an unbiased team of trucking industry experts. For this report the core study team included: Andrew Halonen, Consultant, Mayflower Consulting LLC; Rob Swim, Industry Marketing Consultant and retired from Navistar; and Mike Roeth, NACFE Executive Director and CWR Trucking Efficiency Lead. In April 2015, this study team began assessing the current state of weight reduction technologies for Class 8 tractors and bulk, dry van and refrigerated trailers. The team used a “360o” technique to gather existing performance data on available lightweighting technologies, insights into developing, integrating, and offering these features, and challenges or barriers to adoption. The study team started this research by meeting with heavy-‐duty system and component suppliers, tractor and trailer builders, and fleets over the course of a few months. The team met with or used phone interviews to speak with most of the truck and trailer OEMs, system and component manufacturers, fleets, material development companies, and industry groups such as the EPA, EPA SmartWay, and the Aluminum Association. They also used the spring 2015 truck shows, namely, the Technology and Maintenance Council meetings in Nashville, MidAmerican Trucking Show in Louisville, the National Private Truck Council event in Cincinnati, and the Alternative Clean Transportation Conference in Dallas, to meet and learn from with many of the key industry stakeholders for lightweighting. August 25, 2015
15
Finally, the study team presented its initial findings, drawn from these interviews and surveys, to a group of fleets, component manufacturers, OEMs, and truck dealer personnel who were participants in Trucking Efficiency Workshops held in Dallas, TX in early May 2015 and in Salt Lake City, UT in June. These Workshops are quarterly, regional meetings where small groups discuss and even debate the findings of Trucking Efficiency’s reports. A schedule of upcoming workshops can be found at www.truckingefficiency.org. 1.2.1 Questions used in study team interviews 1.2.1.1 Sample Questions to the Fleets: • • • • • • • • • •
• • 1.2.1.2
• • • • • • •
Do you agree with the three trends driving interest in lightweighting identified by the study team? Why is weight reduction important (or unimportant) to you? How much are you willing to pay for lightweighting ($/pound)? What do you consider to be the weights of a lightweight tractor and trailer? How do you win business by offering a lightweight tractor trailer? When you purchase tractors, what are the most common lightweight features that you select? Which lightweighting features are generally standard or popular options for weight sensitive trailers? If you hear of a lightweight product that is not available in your truck OEM purchase system would you still pursue it? Will you work with the manufacturer to introduce the product into the OEM system? One hurdle from the product developer’s perspective is the time to market, or “time to ROI,” of these products, in that they must develop and test the product to gain OEM interest, then let the OEM test it again, then let the fleet test it again. Is there a faster way? Do you work closely with the supply chain to accelerate the time to market? Does lightweighting influence vehicle resale? Are there other issues with lightweighting, i.e. does it affect preventive maintenance intervals? Sample Questions to Component / System Manufacturers: Do you agree with the three trends driving interest in lightweighting identified by the study team? Do you have the opportunity to gain market share if you can reduce the weight of your products? Are your customers requesting lightweight products? What is the difference between products for tractors and trailers in terms of cost, weight, and innovation? Do you offer a good / better / best relative to cost, weight, warranty? Do your customers specify a metric that pays for lightweight options, i.e. $/lb? How does it play out for the truck type (bulk, reefer, dry van)? How high is lightweighting on your priority list across product lines?
August 25, 2015
16
Do you see any technologies coming that will enable more lightweight designs? What are the barriers to growth in your business, specifically as it relates to lightweighting? What factors will determine your company’s future investment for or against lighter-‐weight products? • One of the most prominent lightweight components on a Class 8 truck is the aluminum wheel. When did the forged aluminum wheel first reach the market? Was the bulk hauler the first adopter? Are other types of trucks buying into it too? Did you think the Ford F-‐150 body will convince truckers that aluminum is durable and a good option for Class 8? 1.2.1.3 Sample Questions to Tractor and Trailer OEMs: • • •
• • • • • • • •
Do you agree with the three trends driving interest in lightweighting identified by the study team? What are the specific opportunities for lightweighting in systems such as cab, chassis, brakes, wheels, etc.? What do you see as the barriers to acceptance of these technologies among end users? Which areas of the equipment design are core competencies; which are often purchased from outside suppliers? Aerodynamics have a large effect on fuel economy, yet they do add weight. Does the weight factor into the decision whether or not to spec them? Were the bulk haulers the first adopters of lightweighting? Are other truck segments asking for lightweight features too? How are you preparing for the new GHG regulations? How do you assess and verify durability & reliability of lightweight features? Did you think the Ford F-‐150 body will convince truckers that aluminum is durable and a good option for Class 8?
2
Why Lightweighting Matters
The importance of measuring Class 8 trucks in terms of freight efficiency was well described in the report of the first National Academy of Sciences Committee on “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-‐ and Heavy-‐Duty Vehicles,” published in 2010. For instance, the report states, “For light duty vehicles, the fuel economy program uses miles per gallon. This measure is not the appropriate measure for MHDVs (Medium Heavy Duty Vehicles), since these vehicles are designed to carry loads in an efficient and timely manner. MDHVs are designed as load-‐ carrying vehicles and consequently their most meaningful metric of fuel efficiency will be in relation to the work performed.” All of Trucking Efficiency’s Confidence Reports are motivated by fuel-‐related trends the study team notice in the industry. The trends that provided the impetus for this study were: 1. Tractor and to some degree trailer weights have increased, 2. Freight is becoming denser, and 3. Shippers are loading more pallets per trailer August 25, 2015
17
In conducting their research the study team set out to validate or refute the existence of these trends, for if they are in fact at play then the need for lightweighting is pertinent now and will continue to be so in the future. These trends were generally reported to be true in the interviews. The truck OEMs fully recognized the need to lightweight their tractors due to the added weight of systems such as exhaust gas recirculation, particulate filters, and diesel exhaust fluid which have all been required to meet the emissions regulations of the past decade. Vehicle tare weight has also increased due to the addition of driver amenities, safety systems, and aerodynamics. Some lightweighting efforts have already become widespread in attempts to mitigate these increases, but the average vehicle has still increased in tractor weight by about 1,000 pounds. On the other hand, the interviews reported that trailers have in fact been getting lighter, with the exception of EPA-‐mandated emission controls for refrigeration units. The second and third trends, relating to freight and pallet density, were likewise supported by the industry. The carriers interviewed stated that their customers (shippers) are requesting the capability to carry heavier loads within the standard 53-‐foot trailer, thus the need for lighter tractors and trailers to meet the 80,000lb GCW (gross combination weight) legal limits. A tractor OEM sales representative stated: “shippers used to ask us to carry 42-‐43,000 pounds of freight, now they’re asking for 45-‐47,000 pounds.” Many mentioned that manufacturers are also packaging their products more densely. Not only do shippers want to save money by moving their freight more efficiently, many shippers, particularly consumer-‐facing companies, want to decrease their carbon footprints. Both of these goals can be met by shipping denser and heavier loads per trailer – but that can only go so far before hitting maximum weight restrictions. Kenny Vieth of ACT Research stated in his interview that he definitely sees these two trends occurring. Figure 5 shows data provided by the ATA and summarized by ACT for total freight tonnage hauled vs. number of loads required to haul that freight over the last 12 years. For the first half of this period, freight and loads tracked one another, but more recently it appears that more freight is being hauled per load. Kenny pointed out that “greater freight density followed on the heels of substantive transportation inflation which occurred from 2003 to 2008/10, as Class 8 truck prices, driver wages, and oil prices all moved sharply higher. To combat that inflation, shippers have worked overtime to improve their freight efficiency.”
August 25, 2015
18
Figure 5: Tonnage per Load (ATA and ACT Research)
2.1 Fuel Efficiency vs. Freight Efficiency As touched on in the introduction, lightweighting differs from the other technologies considered by the Confidence Report series to date, as the goal of lightweighting is not to increase the miles-‐per-‐gallon of a truck, but to increase the amount of freight moved per gallon, and overall reduce the number of individual truck journeys required for a fleet’s operations. An example with some hypothetical figures (not representative of any real world duty cycles) will be illustrative to show the potential impacts of increased freight efficiency. While putting more freight on one truck might marginally increase the revenue for each haul of that one truck, the real savings from freight efficiency will be found at the fleet level – by reducing the total number of truck loads needed to haul the same amount of freight. As Tom Berg wrote about Dart Transit’s successes with lightweighting, “Nine of the newly configured tractor-‐trailers can handle shipments that would otherwise require 10 typical rigs... this reduces operating costs, pollution, and highway congestion.” Take an average dry van Class 8 truck, with a combined tractor & trailer weight of 40,000 pounds, which leaves 40,000 pounds of freight to be shipped before the truck meets its limit. A new truck costs August 25, 2015
19
around $120,000 up front, and an additional $1.68 per mile to operate. With trucks driving ~100,000 miles or more annually, investing in lightweighting such that a single vehicle can be kept off the road while still moving the required amount of freight would save a fleet nearly a million dollars over five years. And at current industry averages of just under 6 mpg, one fewer truck means reduced CO2 emissions of nearly 380,000 pounds per year.
3
Market Segments Considered in this Report
The findings of this Confidence Report on lightweighting will be most relevant to over-‐the-‐road private carriers and for-‐hire fleets operating Class 8 highway tractors pulling bulk trailers, 53’ dry van trailers, and refrigerated trailers. The for-‐hire carriers are primarily truckload fleets and owner-‐operators contracted to haul truckload freight. The private carriers haul their own products and vocations like wholesale/retail, food and beverage, manufactured goods, along with oil and gas distribution. Both the for-‐hire and the private carrier market segments operate both regionally and nationwide. The most common trailer on the road today is the 53’ dry van trailer. This configuration allows the fleet the maximum amount of cubic space, and best meets shippers’ needs for a full truckload of freight. For-‐hire fleets charge shippers by the truckload, factoring in length of haul, time of haul, and specific shipping lanes in determining the overall price. Most of their loads “cube out,” that is fill the maximum volume of the truck, before they “gross out,” i.e. meet the maximum gross combination weight rating ( GCWR) of 80,000 pounds for the combined tractor and trailer plus its load. However, shippers are looking for ways to become more efficient, causing them to ship more (and often heavier) freight within each 53’ trailer. Certain commodities, like paper products and beverages, are relatively heavy, so and trailer loads from these shippers are already reaching maximum legal weight limits before they cube out. Reducing the tare (empty) weight of the tractor and/or trailer would allow such shipments to put more product within each 53’ trailer, utilizing the space which is currently empty. Refrigerated trailers often carry heavier loads than dry van trailers, as food products and electronics needing temperature control are among the more common examples of denser freight. Refrigerated trailers are also heavier vehicles to begin with, as the trailers must carry additional insulation, a refrigeration unit, and the diesel fuel tank for that unit. This segment of the market is likewise looking for ways to legally haul more product in each truckload. Finally, bulk trailers are designed to carry maximum payloads, as freight revenue is directly related to the total weight of the commodity hauled. These trailers haul liquids like petroleum products, chemicals, milk, and dry products like aggregates. Fleets operating bulk trailers are the most sensitive to weight, and the most incentivized to invest in lightweighting for their tractors and trailers. They are most often loaded to the maximum legal GCWR and GAWR (gross axle weight ratings). Having the lightest-‐weight tractor and/or trailer possible allows bulk haulers to carry maximum payloads, which translates directly to maximum revenues (or lowest costs, in the case of private carriers).
3.1 Dollar-‐per-‐Pound Categorization For passenger cars, the overall weight of a fully loaded vehicle is oftentimes only 25% heavier than an unloaded one. But Class 8 tractors can be up to three times heavier when loaded than when unloaded. August 25, 2015
20
When combined with highway weight restrictions, trucks carrying heavy freight will likely gross out before they cube out, meaning that they are traveling down the road with empty space in back. Being able to use that space in each truck equates to increased freight efficiency for a fleet overall. As one lightweight-‐focused fleet stated: “it all comes down to cost and revenue achieved, [in determining] what we are willing to pay to get the weight out?” Another such fleet stated: “we consider any product that delivers greater than a $5 per pound fuel savings” and “we are carrying about 1,000 pounds less product given the weight gains of our tractors over the past decade.” For purposes of this report, over-‐the-‐road, 80,000lb GCWR-‐capable tractor/trailer units traveling on the interstate were segmented into one of three categories: 1. Category 1 covers the bulk haulers – the most weight sensitive of market segments. These trucks are loaded to 80,000lbs at some point along every route they make, but are only about 2% of the total trucks on the road. a. This study finds that actors in this category are willing to pay between $6.00 and $11.00 per pound saved for lightweighting technologies, based on their own assessments of how much fuel they would save and greater revenue they would generate (e.g., a technology which saves 500 pounds might be worth up to $5,500 in upfront costs to those fleets). 2. Category 2 covers the refrigerated haulers, as well as some other special freight haulers, i.e. those that operate routes known generally as heavy haul or requiring lightweight dedicated routes – this market segment is sometimes sensitive to weight. These trucks are loaded to 80,000lbs on a minority, perhaps 10%, of their trips. This category represents about 10% of the trucks on the road. a. This study finds that actors in this category are willing to pay between $2.00 and $5.00 per pound saved for lightweighting technologies, based on their own assessments of how much fuel they would save and greater revenue they would generate. 3. Category 3 covers the dry van general freight operation – this market segment is only slightly or even rarely weight sensitive, as these trucks rarely (maybe 2% of the time) or never travel at maximum weight, either because they cube out before they gross out, or simply because their routes and cargo patterns are not conducive to traveling full. About 88% of the trucking industry falls into this category a. This study finds that actors in this category are willing to pay between $0.00 and $2.00 per pound saved for lightweighting technologies, based on their own assessments of how much fuel they would save and greater revenue they would generate.
August 25, 2015
21
Figure 6: Lightweight Fleet Categories for this Study Since category 1 fleets do see this high of a value in lightweighting, they in fact have already adopted the majority of the available technologies that offer them acceptable returns. Meanwhile the rest of the industry, both category 2 and category 3, has yet to invest widely in lightweighting technologies at all. In the course of its work, the study team hypothesizes that categories 2 and 3 will grow over time with and need to adopt more of the features currently used by category 1 (and to some extent category 2) in order to meet shippers’ demands and remain profitable themselves; and a smaller and smaller percentage of the industry will be classified as only slightly or rarely weight sensitive. This hypothesis was supported by the research for this report, with most respondents agreeing that with the three trends outlined in section 2 of this report – that equipment is getting heavier, freight is getting denser, and more pallets are being requested per trailer. Specifically, in light of the three trends, the study team finds that over the next 5–10 years shippers will request that category 2 and category 3 trucks double the percent of time they gross out, to 20% of the time for category 2 and 4% of the time for category 3.
4 Weight Reduction Methods There are three primary methods by which to reduce the weight of a mechanical system, such as a truck. One is to convert from a high-‐density (heavier) material like steel or iron to a low-‐density (lighter) material like aluminum, plastic, or a composite. A second is to utilize innovative designs that integrate multiple components into one, thereby eliminating fasteners and redundant material interfaces. And a third is achieved via knowledge of the overall operation, which allows operators to “right size” or otherwise precisely specify equipment to meet the job profile, rather than a following one-‐size-‐fits-‐all approach. These three approaches are described in this section with respect to heavy-‐ duty trucks.
August 25, 2015
22
4.1 Material Conversion Product design normally begins with the selection of the lowest cost material that will be robust, durable, and reliable throughout the life of the product. In trucking, ferrous materials have dominated product design from the very beginning. But product evolution and/or market demands have created a need for the tractor to do more or carry more than it did when it was first designed. Components are therefore being re-‐engineered with higher strength materials, or lower density materials. In many cases, the solution of the re-‐designed component is technology-‐based, usually targeting a specific market segment, and is offered as an option to that segment. Today in heavy duty trucks, cab sheet metal has been converted from steel to aluminum or lightweight steel; aerodynamic roof hoods from aluminum to plastic; grilles from steel to chrome-‐plated plastic; wheels and hubs from steel to aluminum; and trailer flooring from wood to laminates, aluminum and eventually polymer composites. There are many more such examples. When asked if there are new technologies coming that will enable additional material conversion for lightweighting, most respondents pointed to advancements in materials, like aluminum. There is also hope that resin-‐based composites like carbon fiber will become available at reduced prices, as it can be hard to justify the high costs of such conversions today. Overall, the truck market tends to follow the automotive market, whose higher volumes provide scale to develop new products with new materials, and whose vast resources reduce the processing costs to make such materials available to other markets, like heavy-‐duty trucking. In light-‐duty vehicles, reducing the weight of a component can have a mass compounding effect, as nearby components can also be made lighter. That is not as easy on a Class 8 truck as the intention is still to operate at the maximum allowable weight. But, one example, of mass compounding in HD trucks was found by the study team of a wheel bearing that has been reduced in size to meet the road loads (the original was over-‐designed), and the change led to a hub change, which ultimately reduced the system weight by 50 lbs.
4.2 Design Integration When multiple components of a system can be joined or manufactured as one, efficiency is achieved and weight is reduced, thanks to eliminated flange materials, fasteners, and/or in process tooling. In one example, a suspension manufacturer collaborated with another company, each making components which were assembled and installed on a tandem axle. They brought the design in-‐house; re-‐engineered the entire assembly, eliminating redundancies, optimizing the design and materials, and now have a better performing tandem suspension that is 250 pounds lighter than the original design. A great example of innovative design is the wide-‐base tire / wheel combination, which combined two wheels into one and 8 tires on the tandem axle into 4 and offers a weight savings on a tractor and trailer of 1,300 lbs. in comparison to standard steel dual wheels and tires. The manufacturing process selection also contributes to the weight of a component. An iron casting is almost always heavier than a steel fabrication, yet that is heavier than an aluminum casting. A common known benefit of metal casting is this ability to combine a number of parts into one August 25, 2015
23
component with savings in tooling, managing part numbers, and fastener reduction. At MATS 2015, there was an example of both integration and a conversion to a high strength yet low-‐density material.
Figure 7: Integrated Spring Hanger Bracket (Courtesy of Metalsa) This spring hanger bracket developed by Metalsa is a result of combining functionality from connections to the fifth wheel support and to a cross-‐member, and supporting the suspension. The weight reduction is about 8 lbs. per bracket, for a total of 32 lbs. on the tractor. This was part of an ‘ultra-‐light commercial vehicle’ chassis that was 800-‐1000 lbs lighter than the standard chassis.
4.3 Right-‐Sizing Right-‐sizing is a term that describes the process of selecting products to fit a particular application, as opposed to selecting one “median” product for all applications. In the powertrain, the standard engine might be a 15L, yet if a 13L will provide sufficient performance for a given application, weight savings of 250 – 500 pounds can be achieved with a lower upfront purchase price as well. A big weight reduction opportunity resides in right-‐sizing the fuel tank(s), or else carrying just the fuel needed for a given trip. As diesel fuel itself weighs about 7 pounds per gallon, weight sensitive fleets are already enjoying success by carrying just the fuel they need. By combining hours of service (HOS) guidelines with a well-‐established mile-‐per-‐gallon average, the fuel consumption for a day is easy to estimate. Even being conservative, and accounting for possible congestion, a day of driving will consume just over one hundred gallons of diesel. 11 hours * 55 mph / 6 mpg = 101 gallons As Class 8 vehicles become more fuel efficient, even less fuel will be needed for a day’s travel. One OEM reported to the study team that it had offered twin 150’s (150 gallon tanks) as the standard for decades, but now is offering a standard of twin 100’s or even 80’s. One fleet likewise reported that it has a regional truck equipped with a single 50-‐gallon tank. Another fleet commented that though twin 80’s would be adequate for their trips, they spec twin 100’s for better resale value, then carefully August 25, 2015
24
manage the amount of fuel carried. Finally, one driver mentioned that he is provided specific instructions on where and how much fuel to add for each trip. Removing a fuel tank eliminates 100-‐125 lbs. of weight in hardware. With a smaller fuel tank capacity a truck may need a smaller DEF tank, thus saving more weight. Removing extra fuel is even more significant; 30 gallons weighs 210 pounds, and 50 gallons weighs 350 pounds. Simply by carrying 30 fewer gallons of diesel, a fleet could install trailer skirts and still be weight neutral. A final example of right-‐sizing is recognizing when an overall system can be reduced in size and weight. Multiple fleets shared savings of around 150 lbs. that they had achieved by going to horizontal exhaust from vertical exhaust stacks on their tractors. As emissions regulations have significantly cleaned up a truck’s exhaust, it can now be dispelled under the tractor, eliminating the weight and expense of long exhaust pipes and their associated bracketry.
5 Major Lightweighting Options for Tractors When considering reducing weight from a vehicle, the common method is to evaluate each major system at a time. Each system has its function and unique performance parameters, and the benefit of weight reduction varies across the different systems– reducing wheel weight reduces both tare weight and rolling resistance, whereas a reduction in the frame is just tare weight. This chapter gives are examples of lightweighting components and options available to some fleets from various tractor manufacturers. These are the options that stood out to the study team, and the descriptions given are meant to show many of the features of each technology set, but this chapter likely does not exhaustively uncover all of the opportunities available in the marketplace.
5.1 Powertrain The powertrain largely consists of the engine and its ancillary systems that include cooling, exhaust & emissions, transmission, driveline, and drive axle(s). A nice image of the powertrain is shown here from Detroit Diesel:
Figure 8: Heavy Truck Powertrain (Photo Courtesy of Detroit Diesel) August 25, 2015
25
Certainly there is an opportunity to reduce weight via right-‐sizing, i.e. specifying the best powertrain for the vehicle’s duty cycle, yet unfortunately it’s not that simple. Resale value is another critical consideration, and one which often affects the engine selection. The optimum choice for the first user may be a 13L, which has a lower initial purchase price and is up to 500 pounds lighter, with as much as 200 of those pounds coming from a material conversion to a lightweight compact graphite iron (CGI) block. Engine weight reduction is especially important as that weight comes off the often overloaded front axle. Yet despite the generally lower cost of the 13L, the industry reports that both the drivers and the resale market prefer the larger, heavier 15L option. And powertrains may be lightweighted even further – one OEM has introduced an 11L engine that is around 400lb lighter than their 13L engine while still providing 405HP and up to 1550 lb. ft. of torque. Until the residual buyers and the drivers are convinced that the smaller engines are sufficient for their application, the transition to these lighter and lower cost engines will be slow. ACT Research predicts the split of 15L, 13L and 11L engines in Figure 9, below, but this is considered by many as overoptimistic. This forecasts that over 50% of the engines in 2017 will be in the 11.5 < 14.5L range, most at 13L. North American Class 8 Truck Engines By Displacement 400
Thousands
300
