How to Sell Snake Oil and Mouse Milk to Unsuspecting Trucking Companies

Bob Rutherford posted on 2012/07/26 | 6 Comments |

The first step in selling snake oil is to run this test procedure that that the trucking industry established and updates on a regular basis (the guideline can be purchased from both SAE and TMC):

Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure-Type II

Product Code: J1321
Date Published: 1986-10-01 - A newer version of this standard is available.
Date Reaffirmed: October 1986

Issuing Committee:

Truck and Bus Aerodynamics and Fuel Economy Committee

Scope:

This recommended practice provides a standardized test procedure for comparing the in-service fuel consumption of two conditions of a test vehicle or of one test vehicle to another when it is not possible to run the two or more test vehicles simultaneously. An unchanging control vehicle is in tandem with the test vehicle(s) to provide reference fuel consumption data. This procedure is especially suitable for testing components, which require substantial time for removal and replacement or modification, such as engines, transmissions, tag-axles, and cab sheet metal. This procedure may also be used for comparison of entire vehicles and for easy-to-change components (those referenced in the Type I test described in SAE Recommended Practice, SAE J1264). The test may utilize fleet vehicles operating over representative routes.

As Kevin Rutherford once told me, and I quote as close as I remember, “I have seen successful TMC/SAE tests run on products I KNOW DON’T WORK.”

Here are the steps I have seen personally by snake oil salesmen:

If your results are not as good as you like, modify the test to your advantage.
Only make an edited summary available for review.
Tell prospects independent company X ran the test, but tell company X never to release the actual report to those that want to see the details and actual results of the test.
Do a dyno test and a Type II test, then mix and match the results in your TMC Type II test.
Tell prospect that the SAE or TMC RAN YOUR TEST. This is not true as these organizations developed the guidelines; they are not testing organizations.

I have been involved with this test procedure in my career promoting turbochargers, fan clutches, and most recently, consulting with Counteract Balancing Beads and hydrogen injection systems. As the past chairman of the TMC new technology/products committee I had the honor of meeting members of Auburn University’s program for Advanced Vehicle Evaluation. As we became a mutual admiration society they asked me to consult with them in providing an independent unbiased testing service to the trucking industry. The one thing that makes Auburn very unique is they work with DOT’s doing pavement experiments. This gives PAVE tractors and trailers that are running thousands of miles a week wearing out pavement. Any experiments that can be run, fuel economy or otherwise, can piggyback on vehicles where somebody else is paying the fuel, drivers and wear-and-tear costs. Looks like a classic win-win situation.

Two pieces of advice I gave them was to offer as part of the service the posting of test results at the www.PaveTrack.com website and to work with consultants like me that can help “hold the hand” of the successful client. I always advise that a successful test just opens the door to saving fuel for the trucking industry. The first thing you must know about trucking and fuel savings is the trucking industry is not really in the fuel savings business; they are in the getting the right freight to the right location on time business. If your widget has just the smallest chance of interfering with this, forget about it. Plus, you have to remember the test procedure is “only an indication” that you might be saving fuel. They have to run their own fleet test, which they don’t have the time, money or personnel to do.

6 Comments Subscribe

Anonymous posted on 2012/12/10.

Actual truth is a good thing, when then is justice badly served, does is it become a crime, to presume to be ignorant of it for one’s own benefit, in hopes that others miss it completely? Or does it become criminal when you distort or discredit truth, for the benefit of a few, while many feel the detriment of the lie!
With a $70,000 dollar price tag on the test it kind of keeps the free market inventors out of the big picture, so I am looking for sponsors for that which is for summum bonum--the overall good for human beings. THE TRUTH

Anonymous posted on 2012/08/06.

Wow nice opinion peace...

Anonymous posted on 2012/08/02.

The best test bed is the OPERATOR principal Himself. All others Snake-oil Reps or SAE Tests)do not create a decision,especially after the duration and drudgery of conducting any test.And the above comments prove that,since none of it proves function under myriads of variable condition. And that is the Key.Grab his Hand,do it together,and prove it or not. How in the world did any technology get on board,when we were not so smart engineers,and Invention WAS the product of Necessity,and that Milk Salesman was the one who had the courage to approach an impossible effort,such as dealing with Transporters. By the way,have you ever met a "Ever Questioning Engineer" who could SELL anything?They designed these tests more to perpetuate their inclusion in the mix,than to provide quick results.Please remember that some of my best friends and mentors (45 years,in both directions) are still Engineers.
Give me,an old "what are you selling today"peddler with only the best interests of his client,and I'l get you there fast
All the Best; Big Al

Anonymous posted on 2012/07/31.

Bob, your comments are spot on. I've bought a number of 'savings' products, and found little of benefit. As I only want to work with products I can trust, I test them personally. AIR CTI is made in house by my staff, and that is one excellent product. Any truck that needs traction, or needs two or more sets of tires annually, is crazy to not fit AIR CTI. Other products I know work is correctly fitted aerodynamics. Large savings are possible, but the range of good products is slim, and installation is often poor, eliminating most savings. LPG (propane) supplement is a great product, if it is cheap enough. In Australia, it is, nearly. But the suppliers are all a bit slimy. I've had no luck with cyclone or spin type inserts that are supposed to spin the intake air. Same with magnets around fuel lines. Useless. I haven't had any luck with hydrogen injection either. Water injection is something I intend to trial in the future. The theory is good, especially as knock suppressants. Would love your opinions on these which would help others too.

Your comment re transports main job, is true, to a point. Every business must also make a profit. Truck costs are enormous. Transport charges are limited by competition, and difficult to increase. But costs can be controlled pretty easily. Your comment re 'interference' with getting to the destination is also true. Many items that offer savings do have the chance of 'interference' if the user does not change his attitudes. Same with AIR CTI. If the driver doesn't use it half properly, the benefits won't be there. If they use AIR CTI correctly, monetary savings AND Time savings are very beneficial. Personally, as a business person, controlling costs and using correct procedures to ensure optimal operation, are essential ingredients in my successful business. Transport is at a cross road. Keep doing what they are used to do, while making 2 or 3% profit, or adapt to modern technology, institute good driver training, implement encouragement schemes for the drivers and staff, and make a lot more money. It's their choice. It's you job and mine to help them learn and make money. At least that is how I believe.

Anonymous posted on 2012/07/31.

I have competitors that sell a diesel fuel additive that "burns water." Yet when I ask them if they top off their vehicles with a couple gallons of water, they look at me like I'm crazy.

Anonymous posted on 2012/07/29.

Richard Wood • Great Post Bob.

Actually the 1986 version of the SAE Type II procedure differs from the TMC version of the Type II procedure as each organization has independently updated their version over the years. To add additional confusion the EPA decided to modify the SAE 1986 version and publish their EPA SmartWay Interim test procedure. What ever the intent of the EPA updates they did not correct any of the deficiencies of the SAE 1986 version or the current TMC version of the Type II document.

I agree with the 5 manipulations listed by Bob and I would add the following limitations to the testing process and what is provided to the customer:
1. Manipulate the test to your advantage.
2. Only show your best test data.
3. Do not perform repeatability testing or calculate data uncertainty.
4. Do not demonstrate off-design performance, simply make unsubstantiated claims about off0design performance.
5. Claim that the EPA ran the test and verified the test! EPA does not test and they do not verify. The EPA reads and accepts or rejects a test report from a 3rd party. They do not set qualification standards for the testing organization.

All of the earlier versions of the Type II procedure are subject to manipulation in both the fundamental process and presentation of results. It is questionable if these earlier version can establish the quality, performance, or reliability of a product before it is taken into widespread use. Many of these same limitations are imbedded in the SAE and TMC fuel consumption testing procedures.

Listed below are 5 characteristics of an acceptable test method.
(1) evaluates only one variable
(2) results can be reproduced (short and long-term)
(3) prove or disprove the hypothesis (saves fuel)
(4) integrity, can not be manipulated
(5) results matter to the customer

As a result of the existing limitations in the SAE 1986 and TMC versions of the Type II procedure and the EPA SmartWay procedure the SAE Truck and Bus Aerodynamics and Fuel Economy Committee revised the SAE version of the Type II test procedure. The new 2012 version of SAE J1321 addresses all of the limitations listed above.(see Scope statement below)

Fuel Consumption Test Procedure - Type II (2012) Scope:
This document describes a rigorous-engineering fuel-consumption test procedure that utilizes industry accepted data collection and statistical analysis methods to determine the change in fuel consumption for trucks and buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The test procedure may be conducted on a test track or on a public road under controlled conditions and supported by extensive data collection and data analysis constraints. The on-road test procedure is offered as a lower cost alternative to on-track testing but the user is cautioned that on-road test may result in lower resolution (or precision) data due to a lack of control over the test environment. Test results that do not rigorously follow the method described herein are not intended for public use and dissemination and shall not be represented as a J1321-Type II test result.

The industry and the EPA should move to the more rigorous 2012 SAE version if they wish to eliminate the concerns listed above.