Old Pleasure Chassis, Depreciation, and Skilled Drivers.
Page 2
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Henry Sturrney.
I have before now in these columns remarked on the damage to the commercial-vehicle industry which the use of old, worn-out and unsuitable vehicles has done, and I recently had another instance of it. I had been staying at Bournemouth for a few days and in conversation with a local tradesman, brought up the question of rnotorvans for his business.
" No," he said, " I am satisfied with horses. I've had a motorvan, but I've given it up, and gone back to horses. It was not a success."
"I think," I replied, " I can put my finger on the weak spot."
Well, what was it? "
" Repairs."
" Right; you've hit it in once." " Further, I will venture I can tell you the cause of your trouble."
" Indeed, I'd like to hear it."
"You had a pleasure-car chassis, with a van body on it, and of course it was not up to its work." " Oh, not at all. It was not a pleasure car. It was a proper commercial vehicle. I have a car of my own, and know something about it." " May I enquire what it was? " "Certainly. It was a Daimler—an M.M.C. That's a good make isn't it? "
Is it necessary to say I smiled? That little knowledge which, we are told, is " a dangerous thing," came in here. Our friend ran a pleasure car, and knew that the Daimler is a good car, but he evidently did not know that the Daimler and the M.M.C. are not the same car, and that, whilst the former do not yet sell commercial vehicles, the latter, as a manufacturing organisation, has been defunct some years, so I promptly asked him another question. " Your car was not new when you bought it, was it? " " No," he answered, and he seemed much astonished to learn that the car he had had was not a commercial vehicle as we understand the term to-day. It had apparently never occurred to him that, as, on the top of that, it was half worn out before he got it, it was hardly likely to be a success. Although I pointed the difference out to him, he said he had quite made up his mind that motors were no good for business, and his horses were quite good enough for him ! Now, I have no doubt when that enterprising agent who sold him that car struck a paying vein in the sale of fakedup nine-year-old Daimlers and M.C.C.'s for commercial vehicles—there are several of these old rattletraps running about Bournemouth, and concerning all or I was told "the upkeep expenses were too great " : he thought he was doing a mighty smart thing. But see what a lasting damage he has done to the trade, for I found the report of the heavy cost of repairs, on these ancient and worn-out crocks," had penetrated pretty deeply, and cropped up everywhere as a proof that motors could not be used without ruinous expense.
Then there is another point upon which some who ought to have motor vehicles to do justice to their business hold " settled convictions," and that is the matter of deprecia tion. A few days later, I was talking to an hotel proprietor on the subject of motorbuses. He saw several rival hotels running motorbuses, but they wouldn't do for him—not at all. They were too expensive. When, in refutation of this theory, I quoted the experience of another hotel, related to nte only that very week, to the effect that the bus was meeting all the trains during the day, as well as one or two boats, and was carrying occasional theatre parties, on a fuel expenditure of 2s. a day, with another 4d. for oil, that it had been working till to o'clock every night all the season and had not yet seen the inside of a repair shop, he waived this aside with the remark : "Oh I That's only a small part of it." When I enquired what more he wanted, he said : "If I bought a bus to-day, what would you give me for it to-morrow?" I gathered he had heard tall tales, from car owners visiting his hotel with touring cars, as to the ruinous figure which depreciation cut in the balance-sheet of a year's motor work. Yet, really, provided a good car is purchased in the first instance, this item need not, to-day, be excessive. Moreover, in the sense in which the question was put to me, does it not equally apply to most other of our possessions? Depreciation, by reason of its being "second hand," applies to nearly everything. and is not at all peculiar to the motorcar. How much of the price you gave would you get for a piano, a sideboard, a carpet, or any other of the furniture of an hotel, if you sold it within a week or two of purchase? No one would hesitate to furnish an hotel, a house, or an office on that account. If he only wanted the things for a week or two, he would hire, and not buy, and he would not buy unless with the reasonable expectancy of some years of use. Hence, why should it be different with a motorbus, or a commercial car of any kind? Remember, it is not a pleasure car, and is not affected very largely by "fashion," and as long as one is in business, and it does one's work, there is no reason why one should sell it. Of course, if one is going out of business, and it has to be sold, one will lose by it; but, if there is any likelihood of one's going out of business, one doesn't buy a motor.
When a man buys a pleasure car, he sells it in a year or two, because he wants the latest fashion, and the reason for which he sells prevents others from buying, so his loss on resale may be considerable, although the car may really he in as good running order as when new. When, however, I look at the fearsome beasts alluded to in the last paragraph, which some really first-class houses are content to run, it is manifest that " style " and "fashion " don't cut much ice in the commercial-vehicle world, and, so long as a car will run and do its work, there is no need to sell it, and therefore no need to incur more than a theoretical loss by depreciation, the real annual expenditure being the cost of keeping the mechanism in working trim, and the body-work spick and span. Of course, if the car turns out a " rotter," and one ban to sell it on that account, one will lose by the transaction, but one must see to it and not buy a " softer." and there is really no need to do so to-day, especially if one studies " THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR," and is not so
• • " smart ' as to " pick up a bargain " in the crock market, or to buy an adapted pleasure car, because it's "cheap," or because the maker of it has a name for racers !
There is no doubt that another point which deters many business men from adopting motor transport for business purposes is the idea that they will necessarily have to engage a highly-skilled man to work the car if it is bought. This idea is probably the outcome of the experience of many with pleasure cars. The average touring car of high class is an intricate piece of mechanism, because it contains " all the latest improvements" in the way of refinements and Luxury fittings. As the owners often don't know very much about it themselves—and don't want to be bothered to know —they find it necessary to pay high wages to highly-skilled
men to look after their expensive purchases. But those firms catering for the needs of the commercial user, and who are not merely adapting their pleasure-car chassis to the work, have all along recognised this difficulty, and have aimed in designing their vehicles to render them as simpk in constructional detail as possible, so that the need for highly-skilled operators may be obviated, and it must be admitted they have met with some considerable success. But there is a limit to all things, and that limit is the capacity of the man himself. That " the driver of your own horse van can drive it " is a fact in relation to several makes, but the amount of success with which he will drive it will depend directly on the man himself, and on his own individual idiosyncrasies. Some men will never make good motor drivers, even if they have been brought up engineers, and others, trained as farm labourers, will do better. The manufacturer can make the car all right, but he cannot make the man attend to it properly, and, when " your own horse driver," or any other more-or-less " green " hand, is put on to take charge of a motor vehicle, his success or failure with it will depend almost entirely upon the way he carries out his instructions, and adapts himself to his new surroundings. In illustration, I may quote two experiences which occurred with sister cars, which will make clear what I mean. In the first place, the driver selected was a young fellow, eager to learn, and keenly interested in the idea. The local agent took him in hand for a fortnight, and gave him some insight into the working of an engine, and he got two or three lessons in driving on a similar car to the one he was going to take charge of. Next, when his car was delivered, he had one of the maker's men with him a day or two; he was also furnished with a full printed list of instructions as to his daily work on the car, and this was gone through with him item by item. He was most attentive. That was ten months ago, and he has not been " hung up " on the road once. He keep his car in spick and span order, although his daily work rarely ends till to p.m., and his vehicle has not yet seen the inside of a repair shop. In the other case, an older man was taken, who had " been through a school," which was his only experience, but he was given a month with the makers of the car, going out with test cars, and being with his own chassis from the moment it first went on the road. Instead, however, of being attentive to instructions, full of his " school " learning, the maker's experts could teach him nothing. He knew a great deal too much to learn anything, and, when he took charge of his car, he was soon in trouble. Particularly, he neglected his lubrication, with the result that bearings heated and wore, and, being run in this condition without detection, gear wheels got out of true relation with each other. As a natural consequence, the gears quickly wore away. He drove on his clutch, too, and quickly that required refacing, whilst, instead of driving carefully round corners as the other man did, he banged his car round at altogether too high a speed, and persistently ran his car hard, drove " on the brakes," and shot it round on its full lock at altogether too great speed, with the inevitable result that, in the same period of time, whilst the other man's car is running as sweetly and quietly as the day she left the works, this one's vehicle has developed into a veritable rattle-trap, and has required several renewals of worn parts.
This illustration will show what entirely different results two men can get out of their cars, and will show that it would pay an owner to give higher wages to a careful or really skilled man, rather than to put his car in charge of such a man as the second one instanced, however simple the car may be, whilst it also shows that, where a man is reasonably intelligent, attentive and adaptable, with a suitable car, he will do well, and there will be no need whatever to pay higher wages for a trained mechanic. As a matter of fact, in the two instances above noted, the wages paid the first man are 203. a week, and those of the second one 25s. The moral of this is that, when one buys a van and " things happen," don't blame the van right away. It may be the van's fault, but it may not, and, if the make is a good one, which can show good results with cars in the hands of other customers, it is more than probable the fault will be found in the driver.