With more motive power options available than ever before, choosing the best one for your forklift fleet isn't easy. Here's what to consider before you make your pick.
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Forklift dealers' showrooms have been pretty busy lately. According to the Industrial Truck Association (ITA), sales reached a new high in 2018, the fourth consecutive year of record growth. Of the new riders and motorized hand trucks sold that year, 64 percent were battery-powered electrics, while the remaining 36 percent had internal-combustion (IC) engines.
But the choice of motive power is not as simple as that "electric versus IC" breakdown might suggest. Today, there are more forklift power options available than ever before. On the electric side, there are lead-acid batteries of various types, lithium-ion batteries, and hydrogen fuel cells. On the internal-combustion side, fuel options range from propane (a type of liquid petroleum gas, or LP) and compressed natural gas (CNG) to diesel and gasoline.
Whether buying or leasing new equipment, fleet managers must decide which type of motive power would be best for their particular operation. We asked experts who help fleet managers make these kinds of decisions to suggest steps to follow and factors to consider while investigating the options.
STEP 1. ORGANIZE YOUR TEAM
Because a new power source could have a big impact on daily operations and productivity in addition to costs, a team approach is most effective for evaluating options, the experts agree. But who should be included on that team?
One obvious choice is the forklift dealer, says Jim Hammond, president of Valley Industrial Trucks, a Clark dealer based in Youngstown, Ohio. "[Dealers] know the benefits and disadvantages and have no vested interest in one power source or another," he says. "[Their] goal is always to [recommend] what's best for the customer's application." Input from operators is also vital, Hammond adds. "A plan can look good on paper, but if operators can't be productive and a new procedure or equipment doesn't work or make sense for them, then it won't be useful."
Maintenance technicians have a role to play too. "They're a good source of intelligence on things that may not be obvious even to seasoned forklift people, and they're not trying to push a specific narrative," says Gary Hansen, chief operating officer of Capital Equipment and Handling, a UniCarriers Americas-owned dealer headquartered in Hartland, Wis.
Kevin Paramore, technology commercialization manager for Yale Materials Handling Corp., adds that his customers' teams typically include supervisors or floor-operations managers, along with professionals representing procurement, safety, facility maintenance, and sometimes sustainability.
Although he doesn't see many companies adopting the team approach, it's a "wise path to follow," says Scott Barrett, general manager, motive power for Crown Equipment Corp. "From my experience, the more inclusive you are, the better decisions you make."
STEP 2. GET A BASELINE PICTURE
The experts we consulted recommend documenting your current operations next. This information can help you narrow the options before taking a deep dive into the various technologies. Most important is to understand the duty-cycle requirements—how much equipment is actually put to use during the day. The hour meter is the basic tool for measuring usage, but "that's a small part of the picture," Hansen says. He suggests using a telematics system to document when and how trucks are being used and when they are idle, including the timing and length of operators' breaks. That will reveal whether a fleet will have time available for proper charging and maintenance for the power sources to be considered.
Paramore suggests doing a complete inventory of what lift-truck makes, models, and power methods are currently in use. For electrics, it's helpful to list their battery compartment sizes and the facility's charging capabilities, he says. It's also useful to know how and where the trucks are being used: indoors or out; in heat and/or in cold; with or without attachments; and how high, how often, and how much weight they have to lift.
Jennifer de Souza, general manager, energy storage solutions for The Raymond Corp., advocates conducting a formal "power study." In this weeks-long exercise, her company installs an electronic meter that logs current, voltage, cumulative charge and discharge amp-hours and watt-hours, temperature, and cellular-service quality on a representative cross-section of the customer's electric trucks. From that information, she says, "we're able to understand the true power consumption in a customer's application ... and design the optimal energy solution, truck model by truck model."
The "where are we now?" assessment should also include feedback from operators, supervisors, and maintenance personnel on what their current pain points are and what they like and don't like about the existing power method(s).
STEP 3. CONSIDER POTENTIAL IMPACTS
With a picture of the operation's current state in hand, the team can then investigate what changes a new power source would bring. There are so many factors to consider that it's impossible to include them all in this article. Here are some of the main ones:
Fueling/charging. It takes time to refuel, recharge, or swap out equipment (such as batteries and LP tanks), so it's important to consider how the choice of power method will affect productivity. For example, batteries tend to lose power toward the end of their power cycle, causing trucks to operate more slowly, while liquids and gases generally maintain steady power levels until they run out. It may be necessary in some cases to allow extra time for refueling or recharging.
Barrett cites the example of switching to sit-down electrics that will be opportunity-charged during meals and breaks. The multiple steps required to access the charging port and to put the truck back together before returning to the floor can eat up one-third of an operator's 15-minute break period, he says; a long walk from the charging or fueling area to the break room will further cut into break or meal time.
Work environment. The various motive power methods have different advantages and drawbacks in regard to things like consistency of power output, time between refueling/recharging, how they perform with high or heavy lifts, and how they react to temperature. They also influence the size and design of the trucks. As a result, the application design—lifting, floor stacking, aisle width, pallet types, turning space, loading dock configuration, dirt/cleanliness, and more—could restrict the power choice.
Hansen recommends a careful walk-through to see what environmental concerns there may be. Some things might be obvious, while others will be more nuanced, he says. An example of the latter would be applications that call for handling products like food or chemicals that may be subject to regulations affecting the use of material handling equipment.
Safety. Every type of power source has its own procedures and rules for safe handling, operation, charging/filling, and disposal or recycling that end-users must follow. A change in motive power, therefore, requires safety-awareness education for every employee and ongoing training for those who come in direct contact with the power source.
De Souza cites the example of lithium-ion batteries. "It's important that customers understand the different regulations that govern the certification of lithium-ion so they can ensure that they are getting not only a robust solution that's purpose-built for the lift-truck industry, but also one that complies with well-accepted regulations to protect end-users," she explains.
Infrastructure. Changing power sources may require costly modifications to a building's infrastructure. If you move from LP to electrics with lead-acid batteries, for example, you'll need to build a battery room with appropriate ventilation, electrical service, and battery monitoring and handling equipment. Adopting hydrogen or CNG requires installing gas-storage infrastructure and dispensing stations that meet safety codes and regulations.
One common consideration is electricity. Paramore notes that some power types require charging or filling stations to be available at multiple locations in a facility. In such cases, it may be necessary to run electrical service to additional positions in the building to create enough power drops for the new stations, he says. Furthermore, conventional, opportunity, and fast-charging applications place different burdens on the electrical service—and as several of the experts pointed out, older facilities may not have sufficient capacity for opportunity or fast charging and will require utility upgrades.
Total cost of ownership and ROI. No matter what the final choice is, there will be costs involved. Many buyers focus on the purchase price, and for new technologies, the upfront cost can seem daunting, although prices are coming down.
But experts caution against basing decisions on such a limited view. Raymond's de Souza points to lithium-ion batteries as an example. Though the initial cost can give potential buyers a bit of "sticker shock," she says, that's because they're not taking into account all the background costs of lead-acid batteries, like maintenance, the need for redundant batteries, watering and cleaning, and maintaining battery rooms. To make a true cost comparison among motive power options, she says, "it's very important to adopt a holistic view and shift from the traditional, pure-purchase-price approach to total-cost-of-ownership thinking."
Hammond agrees. "Look at what adds the most value to the operation and brings, for example, an increase in productivity or reduces downtime. In most cases, that's not going to be the lowest-cost solution." The challenge, he says, is to determine the actual return on investment (ROI) by weighing all relevant costs—including those that may not be obvious or are not easy to quantify—against the benefits.
STEP 4. TEST IT OUT
Once a team has narrowed its options to one motive power type, it's time to test it in actual operating conditions. This typically involves a combination of data gathering using telemetry devices, in-person observation and monitoring, and collecting feedback from operators and supervisors.
As for how much time is needed for testing, opinions vary. Yale, for one, favors a two-week timeline: "Operators will get the real experience plugging in or refilling, and you can run through the entire shift cycle. ... This is real data," Paramore says. "You can't sugarcoat anything." UniCarriers' Hansen prefers at least a month. "We bring the equipment in and tell them to make sure they use it in every department, on every shift, and if possible, during their peak period to see ... how it handles that." The aim is to ensure that "when the electrics have been delivered and the IC trucks have been taken away, everything's working right," he adds.
No one likes change, so testing should focus on whether the new equipment will do the job efficiently and reliably, rather than on users' initial reactions, Hammond of Valley Industrial Trucks says. "If someone has operated the same type of power or machine for the last 30 years and you bring in something new, they're going to find issues." How much negative feedback you're likely to get depends on how big a change there is. "If you go from lead-acid to lithium-ion, that's usually no big deal; it's just a different process in charging," he says. "But to go from, say, diesel to electric—that requires very different behavior on the part of the operators."
That's why proper operator training during both the demo and implementation is so important, Crown Equipment's Barrett says. "I don't think end-users always recognize the importance and the depth of training they have to go through" when making a significant change in their equipment. "Even for something that seems as simple as connecting a truck to a charger," he says, "you really need to manage change and reinforce good habits."
DECISION TIME
When it comes time to make the final decision, Hammond urges anyone considering motive-power options to leave preconceived notions behind. "Don't discount any particular power source because you looked at it and rejected it before, because technology has changed drastically," he says. For example, the performance of the new generation of electric trucks "meets or exceeds that of other power sources, so they're viable today for applications where they weren't before."
For her part, de Souza urges end-users to take the long view. Particularly when a newer technology is involved, she says, it's important to look at it not as a commodity purchase but as a technological differentiator that will strengthen their business's competitiveness in the future.
The final buying decision is almost always made at a level above the project team, Barrett says. How well the team communicates its findings up to that level, then, has a big impact on whether or not management makes an informed decision.
Sometimes, though, despite a strong business case showing potential savings or an increase in productivity, pricing may lead higher-ups to say "maybe next year," Hansen notes. Providing the decision-makers with occasional updates and getting advice from your finance department on how to fit the project into the company's budget can be helpful, as can identifying alternative financing options like leasing. His advice: "Make sure you offer not just solutions for the equipment, but also for making the new power source or trucks palatable to everyone—including the person who's writing the checks."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."