---

Past Issues

July 2003

---

TRUCK TESTS

With the dust now firmly settled back onto the sugar cane fields, Patrick O'Leary takes a look at lessons from the Melmoth Truck Tests held earlier this year.
 

The Melmoth Truck Tests held in February this year certainly attracted a fair share of controversy. Much has been said and written on the tests with some supporting and others opposing the exercise. Well, here's our penny's worth - and we put it forward as plans are already afoot to hold another test exercise.

Let me state up-front that FleetWatch supported the exercise and will continue to support similar exercises in the future but - and this is a big but - only if the objectives as originally outlined by the organisers are adhered to. The bottom line of those objectives was that this would not be a comparative test where winners and losers would be announced. It was meant to be an exercise where truck manufacturers could run their rigs in a harsh operating environment alongside those of their competitors in a non-competitive exercise so as 'test' those rigs for local suitability.
 

Here's the quote from the original document: "A series of tests will be held in Melmoth, KwaZulu Natal, to assess how trucks perform in South African operating conditions." Another document states: "The objective was not to identify winners and losers but rather to gain knowledge that can be utilised in product development and training for the vehicle manufacturers, IT companies and end users of both."

That was the intention and nowhere did the word 'comparative' enter the picture. Perhaps the banner on display by Tyco International and Daf said it all. It read: "Manufacturers and equipment suppliers talking to each other instead of about each other. Win-win for all concerned." That was the spirit.

Was it needed?
But was such an exercise needed? For the answer to that, don't go solely to the manufacturers for their opinions. Sure their input on this is most relevant but let your first call be to the operators. After all, they are the customers. On this front, criticism has been voiced about vehicles not being specced to suit local conditions. The Institute of Road Transport Engineers, for example, is on record for questioning the suitability of vehicle specs when considering local operating conditions compared to those of the source country. So the need is there...

And was the objective as originally stated achieved? For the answer to this, let's talk to some of the participants, the first being Marius de Lange, product and support manager for Cummins Diesel South Africa. One of the two Freightliner Argosy's entered as well as the International 9800 were fitted with Cummins engines. He had this to say: "This wasn't a test. This was a classroom where we all leant a lot from our participation."

According to De Lange, one noteworthy lesson that did emerge was that while Cummins specifies standard service intervals for all its engines - irrespective of the type of operation - this exercise highlighted the need to be more operation specific.

"Instead of, for example, specifying a blanket service interval for all engines of say 15 000 kms, we should look at tailoring the interval to match the operation. This Melmoth operation should perhaps be pegged at 10 000kms whereas a milder run on tar roads can be extended to say 20 000kms. We will look at that," he told FleetWatch. 

Most worthwhile
And hear what Phil De Wet of Daf has to say: "It was most worthwhile. In fact, next time I'd like to bring our chief engineer over from overseas." And talking about lessons leant for local adaptation - well here's one. The Daf model entered - the XF95 480 - had no intarder fitted and it soon became obvious that for operations of this nature, it should be in place. "The engine brake works well but we've seen that it is not sufficient for this type of operation," De Wet told FleetWatch.

There were many other lessons learnt, both individually and collectively. On the collective side, the exercise brought home to all participants the full realisation that driver training is absolutely critical to profitable operations. Piet Du Preez, national manager, technical for Nissan Diesel said: "We noticed that the confidence level of drivers in the use of retarders is lacking. They are not familiar with the advantages of the intarder." By using the intarder properly, foundation brakes need only be applied in emergency situations. This, in turn, translates into savings via extending brake lining life and other operational impacts.

With all these good lessons emerging - and there were many more - why did the event attract so much controversy? In my opinion, the answer lies in the simple fact that instead of leaving the results of the different models in the measured tests on the display board at the event, awards were given out to those truck models which performed best. This action - albeit unintentionally - served to bring the element of competitiveness into the equation. You suddenly had winners and losers and that, in my opinion, is where it went wrong. There's no win-win in competitions - only winner and losers.

These results were then issued to the press - including to FleetWatch - and were then analysed and compared by others in the industry. It suddenly became a comparative test exercise which was not the original stated intention. FleetWatch did not - and will not - publish those results simply because it is contrary to the spirit of the original objective of the tests.

FleetWatch does not support comparative tests. What we do support is local testing to ascertain suitability for local conditions - either conducted individually by manufactures or in a collective spirit of camaraderie as was done at Melmoth. Given the concern of operators regarding local adaptation of specs, this to us is a most constructive exercise and should be encouraged. The comparative element was, as I see it, introduced as well meaning gesture of recognition. However, it was a bad mistake and backfired.

That said, if this develops into a comparative 'Truck of the Year' type exercise in the future, we're out of here. If it retains its original objectives - which serve to act far more in the interests of manufacturers and operators than a grand announcement of a 'Truck of the Year' winner - then FleetWatch will remain supportive.