[Ian Williams]

Originally Posted by RunNGun

This is definitely a touchy subject. One possibility to look at is with diesel being what it is, the companies could be using this reduction as an excuse to clear record breaking earnings. Or perhaps they have too many accident drivers and the insurance is raising their rates unless a "safety measure" is taken. All in all, to find the absolute true reason(s) behind it is nearly an impossible task.

No one in the freight biz is having record earnings right now. Well, perhaps the railroads but that is another story.

Between the economy slowing and all the extra equipment that was bought to avoid the 07 emissions standards rates are in the basement right now.

[Flying W]

I'm not surprised to hear GTI, and others governing their trucks as a means to cut costs, and improve safety. I would be surprised to hear that it actually achieved this because it doesn't. To me it is more an indication that their routes, loads, customers, and utilization allow for the slower speeds because it is not needed to accomplish the task.

The Trucker news has repeatedly reported the ATA's (companies, etc) efforts to mandate speed governors supposedly for safety, and fuel consumption. The reports further use the 0.1 mpg loss over 55 mph as one of the reasons. This same newspaper in an article stated the study is not accurate. My own experience tells me it isn't accurate.

I have driven trucks governed at 65 mph (turned down) and at 70 mph (not turned down) in 55-75 mph states, and have been both safer and had better fuel mileage in the 70 mph truck.

Try passing another truck at 65 mph when they're going maybe 62 mph on a four lane highway, have another vehicle pull out in front of them, and tell me this is safe because I'm governed at 65 or any other speed. If I had the extra acceleration I could clear the lane, and give them an out. Or try passing a vehicle that change speeds while passing on a two lane road, and enjoy the safety of governing. The driver is the one in charge of operating the vehicle safely, and is the one able to operate it in a manner that improves fuel mileage. Having a company reduce the truck isn't the solution. Hiring "professional" drivers is.

I am so tired of hearing trucking companies, their owner operators, independents, and drivers complain about the cost of fuel when it is an utterly meaningless number other than for calculations. Price volatility is the problem as it doesn't matter if fuel is $0.99 or $15 a gallon. The cost can be offset by fuel surcharges or in the freight rate. It merely causes the rate to increase/decrease, and increase/decrease the amount of debt carried till payment. Volatility is the problem, but that's only because of rising fuel prices. Have you ever heard anyone complaining when the price decreases during a trip or of a company reimbursing a customer for the overcharge?

I'm not sure why this is not understood but......Companies don't pay for anything (taxes, etc), the customer does.

RottsATruckin is merely making the point that it will be a loss of revenue to the drivers. Anyone think the companies will up the driver pay by an offsetting amount? Btw, fuel bonuses as compensation are not a valid way of doing so either unless all of the drivers were using the same equipment, route, loads, weather, etc. A wide enough spread would have to be used to make it fair which would then make it meaningless.

[Ian Williams]

Originally Posted by Flying W

RottsATruckin is merely making the point that it will be a loss of revenue to the drivers. Anyone think the companies will up the driver pay by an offsetting amount? Btw, fuel bonuses as compensation are not a valid way of doing so either unless all of the drivers were using the same equipment, route, loads, weather, etc. A wide enough spread would have to be used to make it fair which would then make it meaningless.

With todays technology if you made it load, equipment and route specific it could work. Ever company OTR truck already has GPS tracking and the ability to monitor fuel consumption via the ECU. Most carriers have one or a handful of standard spec's on the equipment.

I just pulled equipment and #s out of thin air as a hypothetical.

You could have a database that says" With a VN670 and 25k in the box you should get between 5.8 and 6.4 going between Reno and Salt Lake City on I80"
Now pulling the same load with the same truck from Sacramento to Reno over Donner you would be lucky to get 4.5mpg.

[Flying W]

Companies do seem to order similar equipment spec'd roughly the same, and with large enough databases I can see a range created as suggested.

I'm trying to suppress the traumatic flashbacks that statistics class has caused, but someone immune to the evils of statistical analysis could make an interesting fuel bonus program. Assuming that the different systems (GPS, route/load history, weather, equipment) could be integrated to make this automated so that a valid result could be obtained without much effort, I would be all for it.

I just don't think it'll happen because in the end I think it'll be viewed as an additional cost (despite it providing a savings and a way to reward desired driving habits). Let's be honest, it has taken $3-4 a gallon diesel prices for aerodynamic tractor models, apu's, etc to become widely purchased despite their always providing a savings (albeit less or a longer payback period). I'm just not sure what it would take for this to be worth it to the industry.

I like the idea, and can see other uses (hiring, retention, etc) for the info it would provide. Thanks for the good input Ian Williams.

[RottsATruckin]

[quote="Ian WilliamsYou could have a database that says" With a VN670 and 25k in the box you should get between 5.8 and 6.4 going between Reno and Salt Lake City on I80"
Now pulling the same load with the same truck from Sacramento to Reno over Donner you would be lucky to get 4.5mpg.[/quote]

And you can forget about any data on flatbeds being consistent, my mileage varied from 3.9-7 mpg depending on the profile of the load not it's weight or speed it traveled down the road.
I could pull 20K worth of farm implements and be stopping early for fuel the whole trip, put on 45K of lumber nicely tarped and I could skip some stops.
When I went to flats my fuel bonus was based on where I got fuel not how much I put on.

[Flying W]

The company I am working for is in the process of considering turning their trucks down to 60 mph (from 65 now). It may only be to 62-63, but we'll see. It's their truck so whatever speed they want it driven at it will be. But a company does not need to turn them down. As a "professional" driver I am capable of understanding and adhering to the rules of the job (Federal, State, Company). They could provide a 100+ mph truck and it'd still be driven at 60 if instructed to do so.

I guess this goes to show how many "professional" drivers they employ or what they think of their drivers. Either way it reflects poorly on the industry to me.

[bigtimba]

Originally Posted by RunNGun

This is definitely a touchy subject. One possibility to look at is with diesel being what it is, the companies could be using this reduction as an excuse to clear record breaking earnings. Or perhaps they have too many accident drivers and the insurance is raising their rates unless a "safety measure" is taken. All in all, to find the absolute true reason(s) behind it is nearly an impossible task.

. . this is without question the most insightful post I have ever seen on this site. It's brilliant!

I was beginning to think I was the only one who was more interested in my pay than what the company gets paid.

Company Drivers . . do you really care about the price of fuel? Rubber? Cement? Steel? Insurance? Tolls?

Do you understand the meaning of minimum wage and how it relates to you? Minimum wage means "If I could pay you less, I would." If you drive for cents per mile you are driving for minimum wage. Do you get it?

[homer]

The trucks have automatic shutoff, but it can take up to 5 minutes to shut off. That is five minutes to long! It is hard to fathom that this driver was so lazy that he cannot even turn a key off. Pleazzzzzze! :roll:

leave that key on as turbo needs to cool 3-5 minutes so it wont cook in its own juices pleez

[homer]

The Trucker news has repeatedly reported the ATA's (companies, etc) efforts to mandate speed governors supposedly for safety, and fuel consumption.

ata is not for drivers. they want all new trucks governed at their speed cuz their experienced drivers quit because because real safety in heavy traffic is getting away from the on ramp and going the speed of the traffic.
they are bargaining the speed away for more hours of service and larger trucks so you can work cheaper till they can get mexican trucks

[movinit]

leave that key on as turbo needs to cool 3-5 minutes so it wont cook in its own juices pleez

Our company says shut them down whenever exiting the truck. Not once have they ever said "leave it on to cool down the turbo and waste our fuel".

Just another driver trying to justify another dumbazz driver's actions who has his own interest in mine, not the price or fuel or the company that is for sure. Birds of a feather flock together, that is for sure.