The Re-birth of Discarded Designs.
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE can be no greater fallacy than to con del= some device merely because it has been. tried, years ago, and found wanting. Readers of long experience of the use of commercial motors will recall many examples of the truth of this statement.
Quite often recently have we come across examples of this. We can quote three off hand. One is outstanding—the forward-type chassis. As a design, this is almost as old as the motor vehicle itself, and certainly as old as' the commercial motor vehicle as we are now acquainted with it.
It was unsuccessful in the old days for a double reason. Designers failed to make the engine sufficiently accessible, and engines were such that frequent access was desirable. Neither of those objections prevails to-day.
Another example, not yet so frequently encountered, yet increasingly evident, is in the location of the front axle. Placing it farther back, in its relation to the forward end of the chassis, is another way of increasing load space without decreasing manceuvrability by increasing the wheelbase. This device, too, was tried a long time ago but abandoned because, in the light of the knowledge and experience then available, the steering was too heavy. Modern steering gears and scientific designs of steering pivot and stub axle have overcome that trouble, and yet another prejudice, formed by experience of early designs, is going by the board.; The trolley-bus was placed under a cloud for many years on account of early experience with vehicles which were constructed and operated under an ordinance which limited their unladeii weight to three tons. The public with experience of those vehicles, which rapidly depreciated, was long in surm-ounting the prejudice thus provoked, so that the progress of the trolley-bus, in at least one important area, was delayed accordingly.