Last year the EPA overturned a regulation that would have required glider kit vehicles to meet the same emissions standards as new trucks. Now, the president of Tennessee Technical University has sent a letter to the EPA claiming that there are concerns about the accuracy of a report cited when EPA overturned the regulation. The report was conducted at TTU and funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the largest glider manufacturer in the country.
EPA currently puts emissions regulations in place for truck engines manufactured after a certain year. This provides an opening for companies like Fitzgerald to sell “glider kits,” which work with older engines. This allows new “trucks” to run older engines and still technically be in compliance with emissions regulations.
Other studies conducted recently have shown that glider kits with old engines produce between 20 and 40 times more nitrogen oxides and soot than new engines. The TTU study however found that these older engines perform as well or better than newer engines.
TTU’s study was funded by Fitzgerald and conducted at a Fitzgerald facility. But that was known before and isn’t particularly unusual. In fact, the new Fitzgerald-funded TTU research facility will be called the Fitzgerald Technology Complex and housed at the Fitzgerald Industrial Park.
The president of TTU, Philip B. Oldham, sent a letter on Monday to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Rep. Diane Black, who had pushed for the EPA to overturn the glider kit regulations. In it, Oldham stated that an investigation into “research misconduct” was currently underway and that “knowledgeable experts within the University have questioned the methodology and accuracy of the report.”
Apparently, the original TTU study had been conducted mostly by a graduate student, it had never been reviewed by an engineering faculty member, and it contained – in the words of the dean of TTU’s College of Engineering – “far-fetched, scientifically implausible claim[s].”
In a written statement published on Wednesday, the EPA said that Secretary Pruitt decided to exempt glider trucks from the emissions regulations because the EPA does not have the authority to regulate them.
Source: overdrive, tennessean ,washingtonexaminer, washingtonpost, nytimes, tntech, tntechletter
Funny how claims of “clinate change ” rely on far fetched junk science but big government folks dont mind that. Its only when it gets rid of their iron fisted grip that they are concerned eith accuracy
OK you got the floor…Do tell of your credentials and your refutation of this alleged Junk Science…I’m on the edge of my chair to see you crush the arguments of accredited actual published and pier reviewed results…Lets stop pretending now OK…You couldn’t even read and comprehend a scientific paper …much less dispute it….
Okay… so I don’t agree with Shawn’s conclusion, but Steve’s argument would have us all still believing that the world was flat. Columbus was little more than an opinionated quack, whose job it was to move freight, in his time.
I hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo and double-talk from “accredited actual published” scientists, on the subject of climate change, and on many other subjects, if it gets then funding, or promotes some agenda that they care about or get paid for.
You don’t need to be published or accredited to see that the glaciers in Alaska have been shrinking for centuries – a lot longer than human society has been industrialized. You just have to go there and look around. Maybe that isn’t sufficient to disprove man-made climate change, but it’s pretty compelling, pretty easy to see, and pretty stark, in the face of a lot of chatter from the published and accredited, about how it doesn’t mean anything.
Stand back a few feet from any argument, and most of the time, the person doing the most talking will turn out to be full of crap. You can’t seriously blame people for doubting the chatter, in the face of some very simple, if perhaps not conclusive, evidence.
am I the only one that can see a study funded by the very company it effects falls under the “conflict of interest” category?
besides, regardless of what’s at fault, the global temperature is rising at an alarming rate. that’s a fact. I fail to see how reducing our impact on the environment is a bad thing.
Farts from eating too much cabbage…mandatory butt egr w/ ELD to record it.
How about the fact that the older engines can and do get 20% to 40% better fuel economy? Oh wait did I let that slip, yes that would mean less fuel tax collected oh and less costs and more profits for the small fleet owner which large corporations don’t want oh and fewer buerocrats.
I don’t think that’s true.
I used to get 5-6mpg with my ’96 W-900. Ran 6 western states most of the time.
After I sold out, and was out of the business a couple years, I came back as a company driver for a company with about 1900 tractors. I got 7-7.5mpg with my ’08 KW T-2000.
I’m inside now and see the fuel reports. Average fleet gets over 9mpg. This is an all refrigerated fleet, so loads are heavy. My trucks were dry van.
The big difference between my ’96 and the current ’16-’19 fleets are most of this company’s gear boxes are 13 speed auto shift. Mine was a 13 manual.
And modern engines can only run about 500K miles before major costs, as well as constant breakdowns almost always due to sensor failure.
Other than maintenance, I put more than 1.2 million miles on my ’96 cat before I needed to do a rail job.
Newer engines run much cleaner, get significantly better fuel mileage, but they just can’t seem to pass a shop.
Areodynamics. The W900 has so many square corners and things that cause drag it’s about as areodynamic as a brick wall.
Fitzgerald’s is the wrong glider company to be doing this. Not much quality comes out of that shop.
These glider companies better start padding some pockets like the rest of the truck manufacturers do or their going to be out of business. Nothing like big government trying to put the little man out.