OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of con-Linen-jai motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
The Burden of the Motor Tax. •
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2213] Sir,—The figures given recently in the Press reveal the enormous burden under which the motor industry, both manufacturers and traders, is being crushed to-day—a burden which is so far-reaching in its distribution that it affects the most common article of everyday use. We are not thinking so much of the private car owner, whose average tax—E16 Bs. &d. per annum—is heavy enough in all conscience, but of the commercial 'man, large or small, whose " weight-cloths 's amount to the tremendous figure of £21 7s. per vehicle per annum.
That the effect of such a tax is most detrimental to industry is obvious, but we do not think a nunttier of people appreciate the proportion which the tax bears to the capital outlay involved. Take the very ordinary case of a man carrying on, or attempting to carry on, in the face of great difficulties, a small cartage or haulage business. Such a mart might be running fiv,e vehicles (three heavy lorries, a 2-ton lorry and a van for light work). If purchased during the last three •or four years, the value of his vehicles would be about £500 and his tax 2106 15s. a year—over 20 per cent. ; and it should be borne in mind that this amount has to be paid before he can commence to make his capital money-earning. The value of a motor vehicle, once it becomes second-hand, has fallen very heavily during the last eighteen months, although it may be quite capable —and generally is—of doing good work. That the disproportionate taxation has had much to do with this depreciation is revealed by the following instance. A vehicle recently sold by us in our auction sales realized £36 15s., and the tax thereon for one year amounted to £23, i.e. practically two-thirds of the value, We can duplicate this instance from our own experience a number of times. Is it surprising that we are one of the most backward nations in the use of the benefits conferred bv the internal-combustion engine, or that certain firms have found it cheaper to give up motors and revert to horse traffic, thus adding one of the most pertinent factors to the traffic problem ?—Yours faithfully,
London, W. CrODDARD AND SMITH.
Paraffin Vaporizers : Are They Successful?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2244] Sir,—We should greatly appreciate an opportunity of replying to letter No. 2240, appearing in the issue of The Commercial Motor for February 12th, under the heading "Paraffin Vaporizers: Are They Successful? " as reference is made to the apparatus which, for the time being, is manufactured by this company.
We can assure your correspondent that this apparatus is in every way satisfactory, and that there is an appreciable saving in bulk, quite apart from the saving due to the lower cost of the fuel used. As an instance of the successful operation of this vaporizer, we would mention our 3i-ton works lorry, Which has been run continuously on paraffin for the past seven months and, in addition to other shorter distances, makes on an average two journeys per week from Luton to Coventry and back—a distance of approximately 130 miles per journey, which is • covered in one day.
From careful consumption tests, using petrol and paraffin, which have been made on these runs, we find that, when running on No. 3 petrol, the fuel used is between 17 and 1B gallons, whereas on paraffin it it between 15 and 16—a saving in quantity of approxi. mately two gallons. 'Taking to-day's cost of No. 3 petrol and of paraffin, bought in bulk at is. 4d. and 10d. per gallon respectively, the saving in the fuel bill amounts to no less than 10s. IOW. per journey.
As regards loss of power, this is entirely a question of engine design, b-ut in the course of the• numerous tests carried out by us, in no instance has the loss exceeded 5 per cent. over the full range of useful engine speeds, and it is a significant fact that on one particular engine an actual slight increase was registered. We do not propose in this letter to go into all the advantagesobtained from the use of this apparatus, as they were very carefully stated in the excellent article which appeared in the issue of The Commercial Motor dated August 7th, 1923.
We do, however, take this opportunity of extending to " Country Haulier " an invitation to accompany our driver on one of his runs to Coventry and back, or any part of the journey he would like to make, so that he can judge for himself the merits of this apparatus. Further, we should be glad to grant similar facilities to any other person owning or controlling mechanical road transport.
As regards delivery, since the demonstration given to the representative of your journal, and which formed the subject of the article referred to by your correspondent and quoted above, we would mention that we have been busily occupied in slight detail improvements, and also in preparing for a quantity production, and that the first batch of apparatus is now nearing completion in our works.—Yours faith fully,For COMMERCIAL CARS 2 LTD.., L E. THOMAS, Chia Engineer. The Editor, THE COMISIERCIAL MOTOR.
[2245] Sir,—I have always followed with great interest any experiments in. connection with the use of paraffin vaporizers and any other devices by which fuels heavier than petrol can be consumed in the cylinders of what is, nominally, called a petrol engine. So far back as 1913 I had several runs, some of considerable length, on vehicles fitted with various devices for vaporizing paraffin. Paraffin vaporizers were used on certain of the vehicles owned by Messrs. Warings, and water injec ion was utilized to 'prevent the " pinking " which so often occurs when paraffin is used as fuel. The progress made up to that time had been such that it was confidently expected in many quarters that paraffin vaporizers would soon come into general use, but, unfortunately, certain faults became apparent, particularly where the devices were not properly looked after and most carefully adjusted. Mixtures consisting of air carrying a fine mist composed of small globules of paraffin were allowed to enter the cylinders, and these, after condensation, not only washed the lubricating oil from the cylinder walls, but penetrated into the sump and there so diluted the lubricating oil that big-end failures were of frequent occurrence. I am of the opinion, however, that the Cornmerear device has struck the right note. Water injection is replaced-by a slight dilution of the mixture by the products of combustion from the internal lamp, and the amount of heat is proportional to the consumption, a well-nigh perfect mixture resulting. I have actually seen an engine start from cold using the Commerear vaporizer, and without any reserve of petrol supply.—Yours faithfully, ENGINEER.