What an enormous difference there is between the truck-technology of today and that of 50-80 years ago. Full-steel cabs were not yet usual. Neither were COE's (Cab Over Engine) and air conditioning was unknown. They either had long and wide bonnets, onto which solid guide-rods were mounted, sometimes even directly on the bumpers, they were necessary for the driver to make a judgement. Either that, or the engine was mounted partially inside the cab, of course, with the accompanying noise and heat development. The driver's seat was static and by no means air-sprung. Everything was sluggish and difficult to operate, for women, it was hardly possible.

It's possible, to drive relatively fast with the 40-tonners of today. Without tail-backs and only few road-works, the average speed is 75 km/h. Motor car drivers notice this, when after having taken a short break, one meets up with the same trucks that one had previously overtaken. The engine performance has increased. Since 1968, it must be 235 kW (320 hp) at 8 hp/Ton, indeed, it is mostly over 74 kW (100 hp) more. Should, e.g., in the case of heavy-transporters, the performance be more important than the economic efficiency, almost 50 percent more is possible.

As long as the ecological- and the economic development of the trucks runs hand-in-hand, their introduction, even if the installation costs are higher, is certain. However, starting with the hybrid-drive, this could be a problem. In delivery services this technology makes sense, but what about long-distance haulage? After all, the distribution between tara- and the pay-load inside the limits of the permissable gross-weight rating also changes. This will cause even more problems in the case of solid-fuel-cells, hydrogen- or pure electric drives.

In this case, the buses will probably be the testing grounds for new solutions. The same way as they have become the technological locomotive, instead of just a by-product of the utility vehicle. Have a look at the chassis technology of a modern luxury coach. Here, the monocoque-body is taken for granted and, also as far as performance is concerned, the differences appear to be shrinking. However, the costs of manufacturing the buses is nowhere nearly as low as those of the utility vehicle, this is because they are produced in much smaller series, more or less made to order, and with infinite variation possibilities.

Indeed, recently the buses have been getting a great deal of negative press because of spectacular interior fires. Actually, the passengers should be sufficiently protected against such disasters by the Vehicle Parts Ordinance. After all, one may get through the MOT with a car where, e.g., the door-panelling is missing, however in fact, a vehicle in which the passengers are even at a slight risk, would never be approved. Protection from outside is also mandatory. Even the roads are to be treated as carefully as possible.

When components, which are particularly necessary, suffer normal wear and tear, then this must be relatively simple to recognise and may not simply be hidden by, e.g., a coat of paint. Operations, which e.g., manufacture high-pressure hoses, are certified. Not just anyone can take part in their production. In e.g., the rolling exhaust gas testing, the regulations concerning the manufacturing of utility vehicles, take up meters of shelving space. It's not without reason that engineers are such a highly specialised group.