Skyrocketing gas prices....again...

[Slobrain]

Please read this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/...ss_gasoline_dc

I guess I'm not the only one to think the oil industry is ripping people off.


SLO Mr. rant.....

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Originally Posted by bob p

+1.
Just in case nobody's noticed, although there's a good supply of crude inventory, there's presently a GLOBAL problem with refining capacity. Our local refining problems are bad enough, but when you take an entire European country's refining capacity offline, Europe has to shop on the world market, and everyone's prices go up.

Close but no cigar. While there seems to be lots of crude oil available, our refining capacity is impeded due to the fact that we don't have enough refineries and the one's we have are in disrepair.

WHY? Is it that the oil companies can't afford it? Hardly.

Environmental policies and regulation? Please - that's the rhetoric of political opportunist.

The bottom line is economic... Big oil knows that there is not enough fossil fuel left in the ground to last long enough for new refineries to break even on the cost of building the necessary refineries to meet out demand, let alone turn a profit.

Face the facts - the well is going dry. The only alternative is new and innovative alternative methods of energy production. (And I don't mean ethanol - that's just a way to give bucks to agriculture.)

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by jeffscreamedcorn

Close but no cigar. While there seems to be lots of crude oil available, our refining capacity is impeded due to the fact that we don't have enough refineries and the one's we have are in disrepair.

WHY? Is it that the oil companies can't afford it? Hardly.

Environmental policies and regulation? Please - that's the rhetoric of political opportunist.

The bottom line is economic... Big oil knows that there is not enough fossil fuel left in the ground to last long enough for new refineries to break even on the cost of building the necessary refineries to meet out demand, let alone turn a profit.

Face the facts - the well is going dry. The only alternative is new and innovative alternative methods of energy production. (And I don't mean ethanol - that's just a way to give bucks to agriculture.)

No offense intended, but this is lame. You've been listening to alarmists who either have no idea of what they are talking about, or they just want to stir the pot for whatever personal or political agenda that this suits. Talk about political opportunism, it doesn't get much more obvious than this. We are in no danger of running out of oil, we will have oil to burn for centuries. It may cost a lot more, but it's not going away.

When we develop an oil field we only take about 10% of the oil from that field. That is the oil that is easy and cheap to remove. When that oil is gone it is more economic to move to the next field and take the 10% of the oil from that field that is easily and cheaply obtained. So we leave the remaining 90% and move on. We used to not be able to get the 10% we are getting now, but technology advances and makes available what was previously unavailable, and makes what was previously uneconomically viable to be viable. Technology continues to advance exponentially, and as the price of oil goes up it becomes economically sound with those advances in technology, to access more of that 90% of unused oil. This also includes untapped fields such as those in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale in Canada, sources of oil we've known about for a long time (as well as some new discoveries) but haven't had the technology to access it, or that price of crude was to low to justify it.

Besides, there really isn't much of an alternative to oil, there is nothing even on the horizon that can come close to providing the energy we need around the world, oil is it. The only alternative that comes close is nuclear power. The one thing leftists may hate more than "Big Oil".

[jeffscreamedcorn]

No offense taken or meant. Here's a Charlie Rose interview with Boone Pickens, who knows more about this subject than we'll ever know. He talks about oil supplies, and also addresses the need to push alternative energy sources into the mainstream.

As to Nuclear as a source of energy, putting aside the problem of the nuclear waste that they produce, the amount of energy used to build the facility cannot be recovered during the typical useful life of the reactor.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...-boone-pickens

[hasserl]

Boone PIckens? Is he related to Slim?

Cool interview, but there's nothing there that contradicts what I posted above. I maintain, we will be using oil to supply our energy needs for our grandchildren's grandchildren. It may cost us more than it is now, but it will continue to be the most economical energy source.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

No doubt that oil his here to stay, and it no doubt will cost big $$$. My point, and even the Big Oil Man Pickens agrees, we have to start, and I mean NOW for 20 or 30 years forward, to mix our energy sources.

Ironically, there's big bucks awaiting those who have the vision and foresight to jump into the developing alternative energy markets. It reminds me that a mere 20 years ago I used to get calls weekly from this guy who was building venture capital for wireless communication infrastructure. Not only didn't I know what he was talking about (sounded like science fiction then), but I didn't have a pot to piss in if I did! I think anyone who can invest in alternative energy enterprises NOW will be greatly rewarded later.

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by hasserl

When we develop an oil field we only take about 10% of the oil from that field. That is the oil that is easy and cheap to remove. When that oil is gone it is more economic to move to the next field and take the 10% of the oil from that field that is easily and cheaply obtained. So we leave the remaining 90% and move on. We used to not be able to get the 10% we are getting now, but technology advances and makes available what was previously unavailable, and makes what was previously uneconomically viable to be viable. Technology continues to advance exponentially, and as the price of oil goes up it becomes economically sound with those advances in technology, to access more of that 90% of unused oil. This also includes untapped fields such as those in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil shale in Canada, sources of oil we've known about for a long time (as well as some new discoveries) but haven't had the technology to access it, or that price of crude was to low to justify it.

Adding to what you have stated:

The oil what we (the US) are getting out of the ground currently (light, sweet crude or west Texas intermediate grade crude) has a relatively low viscosity (light or intermediate) and is high in the components that go well in our gas tanks (that's the "sweet" part). The 90% has a much higher viscosity and less of the stuff that distills into gasoline. American refineries cannot handle the heavier crude. That's why we buy so much refined petroleum from our enemy to the south, Venesuela. Venesuela has primarily heavier crude and has set up their refineries to handle it. But that process is more expensive and those expenses are passed on to us at the pump. I've heard that, if the price of oil were to go below $50 per barrel that the oil business would become a losing proposition for Venesuela. Interestingly, I have heard of a process to convert US coal into natural gas and then convert that gas into motor fuel. It seems the roadblock to this proposal is that the cost would necessitate a price point equivalent to $50-55 per barrel.

[RickyD]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the U.S. made a serious push into diesel cars. My Jetta diesel averages 47 MPG and performs like the other cars in its size/price bracket.

The makers of the big Class 8 diesels you see on the highways (big tractor trailers) are the class of the world. Detroit Diesel, Cummins, Caterpillar. If you don't work with these things, you just couldn't know. How about an 80,000 pound truck that gets 7 MPG? Compare that to a 3500 pound F150 pickup getting 15 MPG. Maintenance, one asks? Detroit Diesel: torque the heads at 100K miles, in-frame overhaul at 1,000,000 miles. Lube service. One of mine made 1,300,000 before overhaul. I'll tell you why you don't see this in cars: No one wants a car that lasts that long...1,000,000 miles is 20,000 per year for FIFTY years.

[petemoore]

Everyone who recognizes their own inner light, recognizes that everyone has an inner light. My dog has it.
Those who shrowd their own inner light, may try to make others believe there is no such thing in themselves or in others.
'A false utopia may result, but you must keep your eyes shut/closed, really really tight, for that to work'.
Evil is something that can only be allowed to exist in your own mind...you know when you're not caring, and when you should have been sharing.
You know the light is there, it is recognized or efforts must be repeatedly made to shrowd it.
Publish the truth.

[RickyD]

Word.

[TD_Madden]

wha......?

[bob p]

its hard to take Boone Pickens comments about the oil industryas being 100% candid -- even though he's a famous oil investor, he's put huge sums of money into a private ethanol venture. it doesn't surprise me to hear him say that oil is in trouble and we need to buy the product of his latest investment vehicle.

on a related note, i just got back from a 1000 mile road trip this weekend. it was actually pretty painless from an economic standpoint. by decreasing my speed on the interstate from 75-80 mph (with the AC on) to 60 mph by cruise control (with the AC off, windows cracked open, and a cool drink), I got a 25% increase in fuel economy. that had a pretty significant impact on the total amount that i had to pay at the pump. it was like paying $2.25 instead of $3.00 per gallon.

what escapes me about american drivers is that by going 60, i was the slow poke in the right lane, and i was constantly being passed by impatient people going 80+ miles per hour -- likely the same people that we constantly hear whining about the price of gas. if the price of gas is too high to tolerate, my advice is simple: SLOW DOWN. you'll still get where you have to go, and it will cost quite a bit less.

if everyone dropped their fuel consumption by 20% by driving more slowly, the effect of demand destruction on a commodity that has inelastic supply would cause gas prices to plummet.

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by bob p

if everyone dropped their fuel consumption by 20% by driving more slowly, the effect of demand destruction on a commodity that has inelastic supply would cause gas prices to plummet.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but...

I wonder if anyone has done a study to determine the effects of being on the road longer due to driving more slowly. Things like wear on engines, consumption of lubricants, tire tread, etc. The impact on human performance, incidence of road rage, the impace of time away from family...

I'm have no doubt that fuel consumption would decrease with decreased speeds, but I am certain that fuel economy is not the only factor to change when people drive slower.

And what about the efficiency of engines at various RPMs (RsPM?)? There is certainly a more efficient operating range for each engine/transmission combination.

[bob p]

yes, the petroleum industry has studied all of the angles on the topic of lubrication. its a complex issue, but they have lots of answers. check out the american petroleum institute.

looking at the problem from an input/output perspective, i measured the oil level in my car before, during and after the trip. in dollar terms, the reduction in gas consumption was significant, and the amount of oil consumed was insignificant. the savings in fuel economy far outweighed any effects on oil consumption. not at all surprising, considering that the main energy cost of operating a vehicle at highway speed is a function of the load provided by wind resistance.

regarding efficiency of engine transmission combinations, one can measure the efficiency of engines in a laboratory environment, or on the road. while minor modulations in variables may be meaningful in the lab, they're overwhelmed by the load that wind resistance imparts on the vehicle.

i think that the cars being sold here in the US already have drivetrains that are optimized over a very wide power band -- after all, that's what multi-gear transmissions are all about. i'm sure that there's an optimal gear ratio, and several optimal speeds for the car, depending upon what gear you're in. today's on-board computers make it pretty easy to collect data while you're driving down the road.

my personal experience so far as been that reducing the wind load on the vehicle by reducing your speed far outweighs all of the other considerations, and that minute fluctuations in speed to optimize gear ratios haven't produced meaningful returns. in terms of measuring overall cost, the total amount of energy consumed in propelling the vehicle is the ultimate metric for propulsive efficiency. for cars, MPG seems to be the most meaningful number to hang your hat on.

i don't know much about the road rage issue, but i think that most drivers tend to get angry at the people that fail to yield the right of way, don't signal, and drive slow in the left hand lane. at least those are the things that bother me.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Not to change the subject, but my pet peeve is the timing of street lights in urban driving conditions. Here in Boston I can drive on a relatively straight road at the posted speed limit and still hit red lights at every intersection. The level of stop and go that happens in city environments must certainly be a major contributor to fuel inefficiency, not to mention pollution.

[Brad1]

All of the above.

Back to my railing against "Made in China".

For the past couple of weeks, I have been gathering parts to give my Ranger a 60,000 mile maintenance service. New brakes, all new filters, new shocks, new tires...along with the regular oil change, etc. I have kept the truck in top condition for the 5 years it has taken to pay it off, for the best fuel efficiency and preventative-maintenance condition.

I found parts not made in China by trying different places on slightly different routes home. Not so much luck with the floor jack I thought I would buy to make things easier. They are ALL made in China! I figured "OK...none of the parts stores have one NOT made there, so I'll go check out Sears"....figuring I would be willing to pay a bit more for something NOT made there. Big surprise! ALL of the Craftsman are made there. AAAUURRRGHHHH! So, I started looking at other tools, just to see. A good portion of the venerable Sears Craftsman brand is made in China or Taiwan! There goes another American institution. I let the sales guy know about it...as if he cared.

I arranged to borrow a floor jack.

I will keep doing my small part to attempt to avoid buying anything made in China as much as possible. If I can't find anything, I may have to do without.
I just don't want to keep propping up a repressive regime that uses slave- and child-labor to make suspect, unregulated products to dump on us. The people are probably not seeing much of the profits. The government is probably raking in massive amounts of money to prepare to take over as #1 in the world. And, as we get our mainly unnecessary cheap junk cheaply, they are using more energy, which helps cause our energy prices to spike.

I realize it's getting more difficult to avoid, but if this computer conks out, I'll search for a late-model used one that I can fix up rather than pay them for new.

I don't need a new iPhone, iPod or any of that garbage. I get along fine without those toys. I do my best to avoid new musical equipment and peripherals made in China.

We are allowing them to destroy ourselves. What was it that someone said? "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"...or something like that.

So, let's just keep buying more and more junk. And, let's keep bringing in more and more energy-users who work for cheap. And, let's keep building unhealthy fast-food joints that gobble up massive amounts of energy.

After all, we DESERVE low prices, right? At what cost?

We're getting bit in the behind by a pack of wild dogs while we happily consume all our cheap junk. Just don't complain when we wake up and find we have no legs to stand on.

Brad1

[Slobrain]

Originally Posted by Brad1

All of the above.

Back to my railing against "Made in China".

For the past couple of weeks, I have been gathering parts to give my Ranger a 60,000 mile maintenance service. New brakes, all new filters, new shocks, new tires...along with the regular oil change, etc. I have kept the truck in top condition for the 5 years it has taken to pay it off, for the best fuel efficiency and preventative-maintenance condition.

I found parts not made in China by trying different places on slightly different routes home. Not so much luck with the floor jack I thought I would buy to make things easier. They are ALL made in China! I figured "OK...none of the parts stores have one NOT made there, so I'll go check out Sears"....figuring I would be willing to pay a bit more for something NOT made there. Big surprise! ALL of the Craftsman are made there. AAAUURRRGHHHH! So, I started looking at other tools, just to see. A good portion of the venerable Sears Craftsman brand is made in China or Taiwan! There goes another American institution. I let the sales guy know about it...as if he cared.

I arranged to borrow a floor jack.

I will keep doing my small part to attempt to avoid buying anything made in China as much as possible. If I can't find anything, I may have to do without.
I just don't want to keep propping up a repressive regime that uses slave- and child-labor to make suspect, unregulated products to dump on us. The people are probably not seeing much of the profits. The government is probably raking in massive amounts of money to prepare to take over as #1 in the world. And, as we get our mainly unnecessary cheap junk cheaply, they are using more energy, which helps cause our energy prices to spike.

I realize it's getting more difficult to avoid, but if this computer conks out, I'll search for a late-model used one that I can fix up rather than pay them for new.

I don't need a new iPhone, iPod or any of that garbage. I get along fine without those toys. I do my best to avoid new musical equipment and peripherals made in China.

We are allowing them to destroy ourselves. What was it that someone said? "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"...or something like that.

So, let's just keep buying more and more junk. And, let's keep bringing in more and more energy-users who work for cheap. And, let's keep building unhealthy fast-food joints that gobble up massive amounts of energy.

After all, we DESERVE low prices, right? At what cost?

We're getting bit in the behind by a pack of wild dogs while we happily consume all our cheap junk. Just don't complain when we wake up and find we have no legs to stand on.

Brad1

Brad,
I agree with you totally on this subject. Yes, when good men do nothing evil will triumph. That seems to be the sentiment these days in the good ol US.

The PIP only fuels this problem. You know, the rich getting richer while the middle class getting f*#@ed!

I'm sure some BOZO here at Ampage will chime in here telling me I'm only seeing the glass half full on this subject but that’s not the case here, we are allowing our country to be torn down by letting good American jobs go overseas and putting hard working Americans out of work just for cheap made crap!

It all just disgusts me!

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by bob p

regarding efficiency of engine transmission combinations

I was remembering that fateful day in history when the national speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. I remember a specific article in which a truck driver lamented that driving 55mph required 10th gear@1750rpm or 9th gear@2600rmp but optimal fuel efficiency came at 10th gear@2350rpm. The numbers may not be accurate but they convey the principle.

It just started me wondering whose agenda is being promoted and what information is being suppressed to support that agenda.

Damn! The cynic in me is starting to surface again.

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by Slobrain

I'm sure some BOZO here at Ampage will chime in here telling me I'm only seeing the glass half full on this subject but that’s not the case here, we are allowing our country to be torn down by letting good American jobs go overseas and putting hard working Americans out of work just for cheap made crap!

The reason jobs are going overseas is that people overseas are willing to do the work for less money. All the arguments about cost of living, etc, are meaningless because the game is about making a profit. If capitalist A can get a product to market for $X and capitalist B gets it there for $X+2, which do you think Joe SixPack is going to buy when he goes to his local Wal Mart? And if Wal Mart is so bad why do *so many* people buy their crap there?

[bob p]

Originally Posted by Mark Ingram

I was remembering that fateful day in history when the national speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. I remember a specific article in which a truck driver lamented that driving 55mph required 10th gear@1750rpm or 9th gear@2600rmp but optimal fuel efficiency came at 10th gear@2350rpm. The numbers may not be accurate but they convey the principle.

interesting point, Mark. Freight haulers, with their high count of short gears are a pretty extreme example, but a valid example nonetheless. the numbers strike me as a bit odd though -- i have an acquaintance who drives big rigs for ABF, and he tells me that their rigs are speed-governed to run at 55 mph. Based on your numbers, if that's not an optimal point for fuel economy it would seem that some bean counter at ABF has things all wrong!

For obvious reasons, the truckers have great interest in fuel economy. I think that professional drivers are more in-tune with driving to optimize fuel economy than the average "Joe Sixpack" driving his F150, or the average Mom driving a minivan. Well, at least that's the impression that I get when I'm going down the road and they go flying past me!

Thanks for the insights.

[bob p]

Originally Posted by Mark Ingram

The reason jobs are going overseas is that people overseas are willing to do the work for less money. All the arguments about cost of living, etc, are meaningless because the game is about making a profit. If capitalist A can get a product to market for $X and capitalist B gets it there for $X+2, which do you think Joe SixPack is going to buy when he goes to his local Wal Mart? And if Wal Mart is so bad why do *so many* people buy their crap there?

Its not only about jobs that go overseas. Anyone who enjoys a high paying job that can't be shipped overseas still suffers from the same problem. Highly skilled people, whether they be airline pilots or surgeons, used to enjoy much higher paychecks than they get today. Employers have purposefully hired young people and foreign-trained immigrants who agreed to work for half of the paycheck, because half of the paycheck seemed like a lot of money to them. Half of the paycheck is seems like a LOT of money when you're a single young buck who is fresh out of school, but it doesn't go as far when you have a family to support. The problem is that young workers who are fresh out of training often don't fully understand the value of their training, and they tend to agree to work for wages that are less than they would otherwise enjoy if they were more saavy negotiators. The problem is that once someone comes along who undervalues his skills and agrees to work for half the pay, the bubble is burst and everyone has to work for half of the previous wage. The bad news is that even people with highly irreplacable skills can lose half of their income and their jobs weren't even exported to China.

[Mark Ingram]

Originally Posted by bob p

the numbers strike me as a bit odd though -- i have an acquaintance who drives big rigs for ABF, and he tells me that their rigs are speed-governed to run at 55 mph. Based on your numbers, if that's not an optimal point for fuel economy it would seem that some bean counter at ABF has things all wrong!

Apparently I was not making myself clear: I am not sure of the exact numbers the interviewed trucker used, but I *am* sure of his point, which I feel I was able to convey to you.

This interview was published at the time that the speed limit was changed, so I am sure that no one had governed vehicles to 55mph at that point. It is entirely plausible that trucks have been optimized/speed-governed/folded-spindled-mutilated for 55mph since then. But my daily commute home tells me that, at least where I live, the only thing governing truckers' speeds is police speed-traps and hybrid SUVs.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Slobrain

Brad,
I agree with you totally on this subject. Yes, when good men do nothing evil will triumph. That seems to be the sentiment these days in the good ol US.

The PIP only fuels this problem. You know, the rich getting richer while the middle class getting f*#@ed!

I'm sure some BOZO here at Ampage will chime in here telling me I'm only seeing the glass half full on this subject but that’s not the case here, we are allowing our country to be torn down by letting good American jobs go overseas and putting hard working Americans out of work just for cheap made crap!

It all just disgusts me!

When discussions in the Off Topic forum get to name calling I quit participating. I rely on Ampage for good info on amps and electronics, and I like to maintain relationships with the people here on a high level. I think we can disagree about these things without calling each other Bozo's or other demeaning names. These opinions we have are all formed from the perceptions we have, and while we may not agree we can disagree without making personal attacks.

If you really believe what you wrote above then you and Brad can do what you can to avoid purchasing anything from China. Good luck on that. But let me give you an alternative view point. As economic conditions in China improve the standard of living for the people there also improves; and as the standard of living improves the people become more and more focused on continuing to improve their economics and their standard of living. War goes against this. It is in their, the people and the government, best interest to continue to improve trade relations with the west, which reduces the threat of war for all of us. Besides getting better made products at reduced prices, improving our standard of living, the threat of war is reduced. It's a win-win situation.

Besides, American industry can outperform China, or any country, in most any segment, but we need to take advantage of advances in manufacturing processes in order to do it. Lean manufacturing is a developing field that anyone would do well to get involved in, as the demand for experts is only going to increase dramatically over the next few decades. American business has to revolutionize, we have advantages in higher numbers of well educated people, and experienced industry. American workers are often the most productive workers in the world. But people who cling to the past and refuse to change with a changing world hold us all back. Outdated Union protectionism only serves to hurt the very people it portends to protect. Look at the US Auto industry for example. Tax laws that restrict the turnover of equipment hurt; it is Democrat politics that fight any attempt to modernize and improve tax laws, yet they portend to be "for the worker" that their policies end up hurting. They even have threatened to eliminate the tax cuts that the Bush Admin and the Republican congress enacted that have been so vital to providing for the business climate that has created the best economy ever. Considering that this great economy has come on the heels of the Clinton recession, the tech bust, the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and the near death of the airline industry, to even consider dicking with the tax cuts is suicidal.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Mark Ingram

Apparently I was not making myself clear: I am not sure of the exact numbers the interviewed trucker used, but I *am* sure of his point, which I feel I was able to convey to you.

This interview was published at the time that the speed limit was changed, so I am sure that no one had governed vehicles to 55mph at that point. It is entirely plausible that trucks have been optimized/speed-governed/folded-spindled-mutilated for 55mph since then. But my daily commute home tells me that, at least where I live, the only thing governing truckers' speeds is police speed-traps and hybrid SUVs.

This is correct, the most economical speed may not be the slowest. Besides, a large part of my business has to do with On-Highway Heavy Trucking, I can't imagine ANY company putting controls on their trucks restricting them to 55 mph. I've never seen it and don't believe it's true. And the main reason why would not necessarily be fuel economy, but driver retention, which is extremely difficult in the trucking industry. Driver turnover is the highest it has ever been, and getting worse. Companies just can't keep up with demand for drivers, and drivers can pick and choose who they want to work for, who can make the best offer for them. Putting a governor on the truck to keep it at 55 mph max would not go over well with drivers, not at all. They'd be down the road to the next guy that will provide the better truck with all the electronic gadgets to make the truck a nice home away from home, without the 55 mph governor.

[bob p]

I can't say whether or not my old neighbor who drove for ABF was right or wrong about the 55 mph governor that he said they had on their trucks. I can only say that this is what a professional driver told me about his rig, and I took it at face value.

I would expect that truckers wouldn't like speed governors, but like anything else, if some bean-counter in the corporate office convinces management that its a good idea, the idea moves forward without regard for what the little people think.

I don't doubt that truckers wouldn't like a speed governor. I wouldn't think that truckers would like to have GPS units over their heads either -- after all, who would want Big Brother micro-managing your every move? I could just imagine someone hauling strawberries being told that he took too long at a rest stop. Since you've got experience in this industry, can you tell me how the GPS units actually get used, and how the drivers have reacted to having GPS units placed on top of their rigs?

FWIW, I have heard that driver retention is an issue in the trucking industry. Never having been a trucker, I can only rely on what I've been told by drivers, and I have to admit that some of them were real BS artists. With that in mind, I think that an issue so complex as driver retention would involve factors that are far more important than how fast drivers are allowed to drive. My neighbor told me that he liked the pay and the benefits, and didn't mind driving at a fixed speed. YMMV, naturally.

[bob p]

Originally Posted by Mark Ingram

Apparently I was not making myself clear: I am not sure of the exact numbers the interviewed trucker used, but I *am* sure of his point, which I feel I was able to convey to you.

This interview was published at the time that the speed limit was changed, so I am sure that no one had governed vehicles to 55mph at that point. It is entirely plausible that trucks have been optimized/speed-governed/folded-spindled-mutilated for 55mph since then. But my daily commute home tells me that, at least where I live, the only thing governing truckers' speeds is police speed-traps and hybrid SUVs.

Mark, when you said your numbers weren't accurate, my post was based upon the premise that you gear numbers and the RPM numbers were guesstimated. For obvious reasons, I assumed that the 55 MPH number was accurate and everything else was estimated. That would make sense, if the driver was complaining after the 55 MPH limit was enacted. If my assumptions were correct, then you were clear enough in getting your point across.

Needless to say, nobody would have had reason to govern their vehicles to 55 mph before the 55 mph speed limit was enacted, and the 55 mph limit was in effect long enough to allow the industry time to accommodate to it if it needed to do so. FWIW the comment that was made by my old neighbor about speed governing by ABF was made 3 years ago. The information could be outdated by now.

[hasserl]

I believe the GPS units are mainly used for dispatch to keep track of where the trucks are. While they may also use them for some monitoring of drivers work habits, I don't know how much. There have been tattle tell devices around for a long time.

My involvement with the industry is in the maintenance end; lubricants, used oil analysis and maintenance programs and practices. Lubricants can have a dramatic effect on fuel mileage, moreso on urban delivery vehicles than long haul trucks. With lower viscosity synthetic oils we can get the same or increased protection with less parasitic losses to pumping drag and windage. On long haul trucks that spend most of their time at one rpm the savings is not as great, but on trucks with a lot of accelration and deceleration we can se savings of 3 to 5 percent, whch is a pretty significant chunk of change when you consider how much a large company spends on fuel. Extended drain intervals is another benefit of the synthetic lubes.

But, driver retention problems are real. And there doesn't appear to be much of a reprieve in sight. Same thing with mechanics, there is a huge shortage of mechanics, not only in the trucking industry but in automotive and very much in off-road construction ad mining equipment. An intelligent young man with a mechanical inclination could do very well as a mechanic. He might work alot of hours, but a six figure income is not out of the realm.

[bob p]

One of my friends is a college educated mechanic with an engineering technology degree who owns his own shop. Its hard work, and he gets dirty, but he does earn a good living. He's had the same problems you mentioned finding mechanics to work in his shop. Even though the job pays well, there's a stigma about "greasemonkeys" in American society, and fewer and fewer college grads want a career in the industry.

You've brought up the topic of used oil analysis, which I've always found interesting as my college degree was in chemistry. What is your opinion on the EPA mandate that the auto manufacturers have to recommend lower viscosity oils in modern engines? My mechanic friend has told me that the EPA pushed for lower viscosity oils because forcing a nation of automobiles to use lower viscosity oils was supposed to provide better fuel economy on a national scale, and less overall emissions. That consideration completely leaves out the value of the added protection that the heavier oil grades can offer under extreme service conditions -- I wouldn't want to be towing a horse trailer with non-synthetic 5W30 in my Suburban. (To simplify the question and to control as many variables as possible, I guess I should ask about replacing non-synthetic 10W40 that was used in the old cars with non-synthetic 5W30 that's used in the new cars. Admittedly, replacing conventional 10W40 with synthetic 5W30 is an apples to oranges comparison.) My personal bias has been to use Mobil 1 (synthetic) 15W50 in my tow vehicle instead of the 5W30 that GM has been mandated by the EPA to recommend across the board. Am I way off base?

[hasserl]

Have no doubts, the move toward lower viscosity oils is all about fuel economy, not increased protection. The benefit of a 5w30 motor oil might not even be noticeable to the average driver, it does help the auto makers achieve their Coporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Some like Ford and Honda now recommend 5w20 viscosity grades.

But while the industry has moved toward lower viscosity oils it has also improved the quality of the base oil used, allowing them to get the performance from the lower viscosity. With improved additive performance today's motor oils are far better than previous lubes. But, in the scenario you described above I'd be putting the 10W40 in my Suburban too. Well, I don't have a Suburban any longer, used to years ago. But if I did I'd use the heavier viscosity oil. And if I had one with a diesel engine I would be using one of the commercial grade diesel engine oils with a CJ-4 or even CI-4 license, in 15W40 vis grade. Most auto parts stores now carry them.

It may go against improving fuel economy, but to the average driver you wouldn't save enough to make up the difference for accelerated wear of your engine. In a large fleet, yeah, it makes sense. Especially in combination with extended drains; and we're using synthetic, so performance doesn't suffer.

[bob p]

Thanks. I had been thinking that the higher viscosity synthetics would be more valuable from an engine wear perspective than the minor improvement in fuel economy that the lighter oils might provide.

One thing that I have noticed though, is that the oil pressure does run a bit higher with the synthetic 15W50 than it ran with the 5W30. I honestly don't know if this is significant or not. Someday I guess I might end up needing a new oil pump...