Rick Mihelic and I have given many presentations representing NACFE over the years. One of the most memorable for both of us was giving the SAE L. Ray Buckendale Lecture.
Established in 1953, it is directed primarily to the needs of young engineers and students and focuses on ground vehicles for on- or off-road operation. Rick, NACFE's director of industry engagement, gave his Buckendale lecture in 2016, and I gave mine in 2020. Both of us wrote manuscripts and delivered the lecture. Rick’s paper was one of the most downloaded, and I was the last Buckendale lecturer required to write a paper. More on that later.
I thought it would be interesting to look back at both manuscripts to see how they stood the test of time. Rick’s paper, Fuel and Freight Efficiency—Past, Present and Future Perspectives, was a challenge to the industry to “continue to innovate improved fuel economy assessment methods.”
Back then, Rick discussed how “averages can be misleading in the trucking industry.” In the paper, he made specific recommendations for improving fuel efficiency assessments, including recommendations to the 21st Century Truck Program, SmartWay, GHG Phase 2 program, SuperTruck II program, SAE, TMC, and ISO, among others.
Rick started by arguing that people think determining fuel economy is as simple as dividing the number of miles driven by the fuel used. He contended that fuel economy means different things to different people. Some people base their fuel economy numbers on a test, while others base it on their real-world operations. He believed that some key factors were left out of mpg calculations. Rick also advocated for a system’s approach to determining mpg.
I talked to Rick about how he thought the industry did on the challenge he presented them with. Here’s what he said:
“Over the last eight years since my SAE Buckendale report, the truck OEMs and fleets together significantly improved fuel economy of new models by embracing aerodynamic products, lower rolling resistance tires, and driver performance feedback systems such as in-dash fuel economy information and improved routing systems that can prioritize fuel economy. However, mpg measurement itself has not changed significantly. Industry leaders still misquote and selectively misapply mpg data, ignoring duty cycle specifics and truck types, lumping everything into inaccurate national averages. There are no average trucks, drivers, loads, or routes. All trucks do not drive 600-plus miles per day at the maximum allowed weights. The freight market has a vast spectrum of duty cycles that need to be discussed separately, not falsely bundled into a convenient, single, inaccurate, all-inclusive group.”
See also: Energy soft costs vs. hidden benefits
My paper, Transformational Technologies Reshaping Transportation—An Industry Perspective, aimed to “provide unbiased insight into the freight industry’s thoughts on transformational technologies” like connectivity, automation, and electrification. My comments that technologies were moving out of the laboratory into “proving their potential to provide real value for users” has certainly proven itself to be true, as more fleets have moved beyond having one or two BEVs in their fleets to deploying more significant numbers, and we continue to see advancements in the AV space.
I also think the industry is doing a good job of focusing on TCO and monetizing the benefits and consequences of a host of technologies, though I think we can do a better job of making sure we include information on some of the difficult-to-monetize benefits in the TCO equation.
I also want to commend the industry for the cooperation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing that has resulted from the early deployment of some of these technologies.
Part of the sharing of information includes capturing it in reports and written analysis. From its inception up until my 2020 Buckendale, lecturers had to write a manuscript to accompany the lecture. I was the last Buckendale recipient to have to do that. While writing the paper took time and effort, it also provided a lot of additional information beyond what could be shared during a lecture. I was sorry to see it go because it was a valuable addition to the lecture and allowed the lecturer to provide richer, more complete information. Or maybe I miss it because I am a reader, and I believe the written word is still so important.
Maybe that makes me a dinosaur? I think yes and no. I get that writing can be hard, and people are less likely to read when they can watch a short video or look at an infographic. But my Buckendale lecture was much better because I went through the writing process. So, next time you are asked to present or share your ideas, consider writing about it as well as putting together that slide deck or graphic.
