• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

Panel and delegates speak their minds

Although only art hour was allotted for the FMC manufacturers' panel, a lot of ground was covered. Guaranteed parts delivery, new transmissions, on-board load sensors, truck racing, wheel security and standard parts numbers — all came up for discussion, some of it heated.

THE LAST sessioii of the day gave speakers from the floor of the conference the chance to put questions to representatives from vehicle and component manufacturers. In the chair was Richard Ide, managing director of MAN-VW. With him on the panel were William Gilliham, sales and service director with Renault Truck Industries; Gibb Grace, co-ordinator truck information, Ford Motor Company; Ron Hancock, manager field sales and service, Eaton Truck Components; David Rees, chief engineer components, Bedford Commercial Vehicles; and Robin Woolcock, UK operations director, Leyland Trucks.

The panel members, according to chairman Richard Ide, had been given the challenge to take off their respective manufacturers' hats and talk as individuals with a broad experience in road transport.

The first delegate to ask 'what the team thought' was Western BRS director and area general manager, Gerry Brown, who wondered about the recent cash compensation schemes offered for non-delivery of parts by a number of commercial vehicle manufacturers.

While Karrier Motors' Bill Gilliham stressed that every manufacturer needed to build up the strongest after sales service possible for more than just fast turnover and major repair items, he wondered as a consumer whether "they were an excuse for something that had happened in the past. I would trust the network to have the right parts available."

Robin Woolcock thought that with half a million trucks on the road, his company's chances of holding every part demanded by operators were "very remote." Hauliers still got a good backup from manufacturers according to Mr Woolcock. "The fact is our industry is extra ordinarily well served by its dealer network. Any other industry would not expect the kind of service we demand".

Leyland was operating its non delivery/spare parts scheme "to bring to the operators' attention that systems really do work".

Robin Woolcock said no changes had been made to Leyland's parts operating system: "We're not doing it to give you parts free!"

Moving on, Roger Denniss, Bass UK's director of fleet engineering, wanted to know if there were any future transmission designs likely to improve fuel economy. "Mr Eaton" (Ron Hancock) reckoned that those gearboxes which "encouraged" easier gearshifts for drivers would save fuel, but that the "major objective" for truck and component manufacturers was to take gearshifting literally "out of the drivers' hands", with computer aided systems.

Bedford's Dr David Rees thought that while it would take a long time to develop totally new gear changing systems, "many advances will be made by adding microprocessors to existing components". Dr Rees cited this as an example of "overlaying" computer technology on to existing gearboxes.

Eddie Farley, Bristol Transport Services general manager, wondered if it was about time that vehicle manufacturers helped operators to judge the payloads they carried by fitting on-board weighing devices.

Gibb Grace thought many operators, particularly in the own-account sector, knew what payloads they had and that the problem was only really serious on such operations as tippers loading from hoppers: "I don't think it's something manufacturers should be concerned with". He believed, however, that on-board weighers would be offered by after market manufacturers.

Dr Rees thought the prospect of achieving a 100kg accuracy on a 10-tonne axle could be "extraordinarily difficult" to achieve in a working environment. But he added: "It is an area where we will see some advances — it does present a challenge."

"That", said transport lawyer Jonathan Lawton, was "the most incredible statement" he had heard. The operator, said Mr Lawton, spends £38,000 on a vehicle and the manufacturers "sit there and say you've got it lads, you sort out the problems of putting a load on the back. And then when you turn to them and say 'would you kindly tell the courts or Parliament that it's not possible to do it accurately', they say 'we don't want to get involved with that — it's too complicated' that's incredible".

By now Mr Lawton was warming to his task: "If operators buy a vehicle the manufacturers should tell them how to load them. If you can't, you tell the Parliament who makes these stupid laws that they're imposing a duty that is impossible to obtain".

Winston Wright, general manager of Volvo Trucks GB's assembly division supported Dr Rees, saying that the industry was very well aware of the need for on-board weighing devices. His own company had been looking at it closely since 1970.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had recently set up a committee to look into the possibility of introducing axle weighing devices as a legal part of a vehicle's specification. But although ex perts had been working on them, the devices still only gave "indications of weights on axles."

He expained that the SMMT had fought very hard with the Government to emphasise the difficulties of maintaining correct axle weights and tolerances at the same time as achieving increased payloads.

"If there was an easy solution", Mr Wright concluded, "you would have had it a long time ago. I assure you that operators will have it as soon as it becomes available."

Colin Knauer of Heavy Transport (ECC) had a double-barrelled question on separate issues. He wanted to know why operators could not obtain parts direct from Eaton instead of having to go to the dealers.

Ron Hancock, Eaton's field and service manager, did not think his company could im prove on its existing parts distribution dealer network (through vehicle manufacturers' dealers) though he admitted that "we've discussed it a lot over the past year."

He suggested that operators, instead of wasting time asking five different OEM dealers about a part's availability, should chase the matter up with one, and if necessary go direct to Eaton. "This is necessary for us too because we need a feedback from operators", he stressed.

Colin Kneller's other question concerned truck racing and its benefit, or otherwise, to the transport industry.

Gibb Grace stated Ford's unusual position. Despite its background of motor racing sponsorship it had made a corporate decision not to take part in truck racing at Donington Park. Having seen the events of last week and analysed them, Ford was now halfway towards participating in the next event.

The main event was not at all dangerous. It was "more of a procession and all rather fun. When the flag dropped they didn't all rush from the grid because with 7-tonne tractive units you can't do that", he said. The important thing was that 110,000 people, all enthusiasts, turned up. The event had followed Truckfest, which had pulled in 75,000. Ford was the only manufacturer which was not there and they may review that also.

William Gilliham of Renault Truck Industries had also watched the racing. He admitted that before it, he, like many others had not been convinced that it was responsible. Yet, along with the large crowd which attended, he thought it a marvellous carnival-like event and pledged to participate again. He did make one plea though to other manufacturers. "Don't make racing too expensive or intensive, keep it fun and make it a carnival, then more mums, dads and kids will go along in Dad's artic cab, to the event".

Robin Woolcock, operations director of Leyland Trucks, summed up this discussion by bringing in a point which had arisen repeatedly at the FMC; how to improve the image of the truck and transport industry.

"You must interest the public, give them something to enjoy". The racing had evoked no adverse publicity or comments from the public. It had shown that trucks must be a lot safer than anyone ever thought they were.

Bedford's chief engineer, Dr Rees, concurred with these views, but warned of the harm that might be done by any suggestion of a "macho" image. Where possible, the lorry should be shown to integrate with the environment.

Returning briefly to axle loading, Roger Davenport of Michelin reminded delegates of the importance of correct tyre pressure.

"I don't wish to be controversial, but I believe that load sensing, built into vehicles would be a major step forward". He stated the case of a vehicle correctly laden with the load sensor giving a reading just below the legal limit on each axle. Should a driver neglect to check his tyres and an inner twin on the rear was below par he would be technically and legally overladen.

Roger Denniss, Bass UK's director fleet engineering had no qualms about being contro

versial. He wanted to know: "Why has it been necessary for a user group to examine the problem of security of road wheels on commercial vehicles?"

He could not have been fully satisfied with the replies he received.

David Rees outlined some possible underlying causes of the problem as he saw them, namely higher speeds and higher torque input for the wheel studs of modern vehicles. "Wheel clamping has tended to be taken for granted," he said, but he assured the delegates that nowadays "a lot of development work goes into it." He accepted that "manufacturers have not standardised enough on wheel fixings." His advice to operators was "to follow precisely manufacturers' advice," Ron Hancock also sympathised with operators faced with a wide range of wheel stud torque settings. He referred to the recent meeting between the SMMT and the Motor Industry Research Association and thought the release of full technical data by all manufacturers would be a significant step forward.

"The major problem is that we have to get manufacturers and users closer together," he said, and that part of the panel's response a least must have satisfied Roger Denniss, who is European chairman of the, European Transport Maintenance Council, an organisation whose major objective is to do just that.

Mervyn Lewis, Shell UK Oil's engineering operations manager, was not prepared to let the panel get away so lightly. He laid the blame for wheel separation "squarely on the doorstep of the manufacturers". He explained how his company had identified a lack of quality control of wheel stud material.

"With inadequate materials in the first place, no amount of maintenance will solve the problem," he said, and went on to caution operators that they should check for stud elongation and not simply tighten nuts to the correct torque.

"Fifty per cent of wheel separations will cease when quality control improves," he predicted.

On the specific subject of the ovality of conical face stud holes, Mr Lewis was able to offer operators more immediate aid in the shape of Shell's patented gauge, which is now commercially available.

He also had something interesting to say on the subject of "the physical reliability" of wheels. "We use alloy and steel wheels, and we have found problems with both." There was insufficient time at the conference for Mr Lewis to des

cribe these problems but he said that the information had been passed to the FTA.

He was being led to the conclusion that "there is a finite life for wheels in this country".

Tony Fletcher, secretary of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers, returned to what lay behind Roger Denniss's original question when he described the fund which is being established for research into commercial vehicle wheel security.

"The IRTE has given £2,000 to MIRA, and Roger Denniss has raised a further £5,000", he said, "When the fund reaches £13,000 MIRA will begin its research. Of course, all contributions are welcome," he added, with more than a momentary glance at the panel.

Another call for better alignment of vehicle manufacturers' practice with the needs of operating engineers came from Keith Hicks group fleet engineer of Debenhams, following a discussion on the relative merits of imported and UK manufacturers' 16-tonners.

"In my experience, the response from manufacturers to the IRTE's VMRS (Vehicle Maintenance Recording System) coding system has been negative", he said, adding that he was speaking as an IRTE member. He wanted to know why no manufacturer had yet adopted at least the standard numerical coding for parts, which should lead eventually to the release of useful information on component failures.

He did not receive a direct answer to that question, though David Rees tried hard to assure him that manufacturers do take heed of operator requirements.

Richard Ide summed up the session with his view of what the manufacturers' role should be: "To provide products to im• prove your (the operators') efficiency."