News that the European Commission has put forward a proposal to encourage improved aerodynamic design for commercial vehicles is to be welcomed. Reduced environmental impact from commercial vehicles is a good thing – it benefits us all – and any proposal that looks designed to improve both vehicle safety and fuel efficiency is one that deserves to be welcomed.
EC Vice President Siim Kallas is absolutely on the money with his assertion that: “A brick is the least aerodynamic shape you can imagine, that’s why we need to improve the shape of the lorries on our roads. These changes make road transport cleaner and safer. They will reduce hauliers’ fuel bills and give European manufacturers a head-start in designing the truck of the future, a greener truck for the global market.”
Make no mistake as to the argument here: it is not that this legislation is to be welcomed – indeed, it is to be applauded. Where the applause becomes rather more subdued is in its timing
Should the truck manufacturers and their customers be delighted by this news? We suspect their reactions might fall some way short of ecstatic.
Why so? 1 January 2014 heralds the imposition of Euro VI, which, as has been referenced in these pages often enough, will to place a significant burden upon the European trucking industry; this includes R&D cost penalties that can be measured in millions upon the supply side of the industry, and a cost burden in excess of €10,000 (US$13,000) per new truck on the operational base. Much of this cost has come not from developing engines, but from developing strategies to fit the necessary additional equipment into a rigidly defined set of vehicle dimensions. It has been a considerable challenge, it has been achieved, and now it must be paid for.
So the fact that the EC is now seemingly minded to offer truck designers the opportunity to extend vehicle length in order to aid safety and environmental efficacy is slightly bewildering. The increased dimensions would have been no doubt very welcome for those designers confronted with cramming 40% more cooling capacity into the existing dimensional envelope. And we don’t doubt for a moment that the EC would have been made well aware of this fact some time ago. Make no mistake as to the argument here: it is not that this legislation is to be welcomed – indeed, it is to be applauded. Where the applause becomes rather more subdued is in its timing.
This consultation would have been appropriate, and would have been warmly welcomed, some years ago. Today, that welcome is likely to be rather more muted
More than anything else, this highlights the apparent disconnect between the automotive industry and the legislators in terms of the creation of a common strategy that benefits all concerned.
The irony here is that this consultation will no doubt lead to future legislation that will lead to future cost burdens on both sides of the transportation industry. The costs will be borne, they will be complained about and they will have a knock-on effect throughout the industry. There has to come a point in this debate – in fact in the broader environmental debate – that allows some acceptance of the fact that just about any functional economic activity will have some environmental impact. Perhaps more than any other, the trucking industry has done much to mitigate that impact. This consultation would have been appropriate, and would have been warmly welcomed, some years ago. Today, that welcome is likely to be rather more muted.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Automotive World Ltd.
Oliver Dixon is Principal at West End Companies, www.westendco.com.
The AutomotiveWorld.com Comment column is open to automotive industry decision makers and influencers. If you would like to contribute a Comment article, please contact editorial@automotiveworld.com.
