Opinions from Others.
Page 14
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Future Three-tonner.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,278] Sir,—1 have now heard from the manufacturers of the " steam gas " lorry, and they wish me to indicate the points which follow.
In their opinion, Mr. Aveling's estimate of 1 ton 18 cwt. Lot a 3-ton petrol vehicle was very much on the side of lightness. In support of this contention, they instance the very-fine example of a 3-tonner which was described in your issue of the 1st September [The new 3-ton Albion.— ED.]. The chassis of this machine alone turned the scale at 42 cwt., without the body and fuel, etc. The contention of the " steam gas " people is that a really-sound and well-put-together vehicle will weigh from 2 tons to 45 cwt, with fuel and water tanks filled, and the body on, and in other words " ready for the read," These manufacturers also state that the 3-tonner constructed according to their principles, would come out at about this figure, 40-45 cwt., " all on."
With regard to showing Mr. Aveling their productions, it appears that I was too hasty in saying that the manufacturers of the " steam gas " lorry would be pleased to show it to him. I now learn that until they can get their works really going at " full speed ahead," they do not intend to show their productions to rival engineers. As they would put it, they think there is a vast future for " steam gas," and they wish to be first in the field. So they are not, at present, " giving anything away."—
Yours faithfully, " E.W.S."
"Foot-proof."
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,279] Sir,—Your " Occasional Contributor," in the issue of the 15th December, so plainly refers to our use of this term in our advertisements, that we would like to explain to him that the term was first of all used by journal which spoke of the Lotis as " the car with the fool-proof gear," and we thought. the designation was so tritely applicable that we adopted it; we see that other firms, with other gears, are now copying our use of the term, without, however, providing the substance to back it up.
Your correspondent asks why. the term " emergencyproof " should not be adopted instead. We cannot compliment him on the suggestion; besides which, the term would be certainly not " understanded of the people " at a glance, as " fool-proof " is. We certainly do not wish the term to imply that all motor drivers are fools, but, in engaging men to look after a car, or in putting a man on to learn to drive one, it quite often happens that a. man to whom the term can be—so far as motor driving is concerned—correctly applied is stumbled upon. For instance, upon one occasion, we delivered a car to a firm whose Man refused to use a spanner on any part of the machine, because he had been told that the car " had a six months guarantee ": he said that " that was our job!" Even in his hands, however, nothing happened to the gear.
Further, in regard to your correspondent's last paragraph, in which he says " the fewer levers and pedals there are, the better. He has only two hands and two feet." This is so evidently a hit at our pedal eontrol, that we would like to point out to him that we quite agree with the sentiment expressed, but that, in a Lot is car, the driver has no more pedals to occupy his attention than on a sliding-gear car, whilst the usual hand-gear lever is eliminated.
To sum the matter up, if an owner of a Lotis does, by an unlucky mischance, get hold of a duffer for a driver, he can sleep comfortably at nights in the assurance that, however big a fool the man may he, nothing can be done to the gear which will damage it -Yours faithfully,
Coventry. STURMEY MOTORS, LTD. " Hall-inch Mechanics."
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR [1,280] notice in your " Situations Vacant "
columns, issue of the 15th December, an advertisement for an engineer, in which the applicants are invited to give particulars of their apprenticeship. This, I think, is a capital idea, and is the only way an employer can protect himself against the army of " half-inch mechanics " and " mushroom engineers " that the motor trade has been responsible for. Of course, it is only a matter of time before these men are exposed, but not before they may have done an incalculable amount of damage.—Yours faithfully, J. F. BUCKLEY. Bethnal Green, E.
Heavy Motorcar Axle-weights.
The Editor, THE COmmERCTAL MOTOR.
[1,281] Sir,-1 think your contributor does Lot read Section 12 of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, correctly, when he assumes that the actual load to be ascertained by the local authority refers to the net load carried : it should be the actual load on the axle when weighed.
The disposal of the load on the platform, position of tanks, and relation of wheelbase to platform may be causes of axle-weights in excess of those allowed, but these considerations are not adequate replies to, but points for, the prosecution, as they are not causes beyond the control of the maker or user.—Yours faithfully, "LANCASHIRE LAD,"
Manchester.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,282] Sir,—In the true interests of Heavy Motor Car Users, it is very necessary that the question of compliance with the law should receive their serious consideration. Some years ago, the writer read the official report of the evidence given before the Parliamentary Committee. From that report it was plain that only by a great effort were the present axle-weights permitted, in the face of the strenuous opposition of those responsible for the upkeep of our country roads. Under the Heavy Motor Car Order, a total moving weight of 20 tons is permitted for two vehicles, spread over four axles, three to have four tons of load and the fourth to have eight tons. The tares of the two vehicles being five and 1 tons, respectively, there remains 14 tons to cover load, fuel, water and sundry stores. Deducting 5 cwt. for coal, both in bunker and firebox, '20 cwt, for water in tank and boiler, and 2 cwt, for sundry stores, there remains a net available capacity of over 12 tons of paying load. Taking each vehicle separately, the gross weight. of the motor wagon would be made up of :
This total moving weight of 20 tons cannot at present be realized, as the driving wheels with their eight-ton load will not have sufficient adhesion for hills, or bad road surface, if shod with steel. The trailer load must be reduced, and the extent of this reduction is for the user to decide.
The alternatives are: heavy loads with increasing repair
hills; light loads with diminishing cost of upkeep. From this, one can safely state that ne question of exceeding the trailer axle-weights need ever occur, as there is no temptation to overloading here. The ease of the motor wagon itself is very different.
Taking the tare as being under fivo tons—for which the fact of registration vouches, overloading of either axle can only result from two causes: wrong distribution of load, whereby the total weight is not divided between the two axles in the proportion of eight to four, although the weight is 12 tons or less; overloading, so That the total weight exceeds 12 tons. The First cause (wrong distribution) is responsible for far more cases of overloaded axles than the second (overloading), and is the reason for the prosecution of many users who are justly indignant in so far as they had no deliberate intention of breaking the law. The second cause (overloading) is usually a " frigid and calculated " act ; it should strongly be condemned.
Wrong distribution of load is often largely the fault of the maker, who may design a wagon to get better adhesion when empty, rather than maximum net load. This may result in the load being so badly divided between the wheels that 31 tons evenly distributed on the platform may bring the rear axle weight up to the limit of eight tons, though the wagon may be sold to carry five tons! A detachable body (a " flat," or a tipping-body and gear), though exempt from inclusion in the tare, must be reckoned as part of the net load : a. substantial tippingbody and gear can easily weigh a ton more than a plain platform, and, if not allowed for, serious road damage mny result.
The successful defence of an "extraordinary traffic claim " would lie seriously endangered, if habitual overloading could be proved or inferred from one weighing. The regulations, as laid down, will certainly not be altered to increase the maximum axle-weight. Ti wagons are habitually run with overloaded axles, and do serious damage to the roads, even in one district, the prnbability is that the road authorities will declare that the present regulations are not stringent enough. and that a reduction of the maximum axle-weight will be oi:r reward, with disastrous results to all users.—Yours faithfully, " AN OWNER NEAR BOLTON."
Vie Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,283] Sir.-The contributor of the artiriee which appeared under this heading on page 301 of your issue of 15th December, is evidently one of the many unfortunate owners of heavy motors who have come under the lash of the police, who in some districts exercise the authority given them under the Heavy Motor Car Regulations of 1905-1907 in a manner which disgusts all fair-minded men. It is unfortunate that the various organizations that profess to protect the interests of the heavy !miter industry. in all its bearings, have not been able to call the attention of the Local Government Board to what is taking place, so that the Heavy Motor Car Regulations might he applied with the same latitude that is accorded to all other forms of transport.
[That rests with the police and the magistracy.—En..
The position, which has arisen in consequenem is that the owners of some heavy motor vehicles, finding that they cannot use the same without frequent police-court prosecutions, are forced to resort to any frisk, however feeble, to combat the unreasonable treatment they receive. In view of this, one cannot. be surprised at the article to which I refer, the writer of which raises the quibble, that the axle-weights obtained by weighing a machine on a single-platform weighbridge are not mathematically correct, and therefore are not of sufficient value, as evidence, to carry conviction.
Article 12 of the Regulations clearly indicates that a public weighing machine is to be used. Provided the total weight of the machine corresponds, nearly, with the NUM of the separate axle-weights, there is pretty clear evidence that the operation is correct--as a whole. There is, however, a point of some interest, which arises from this some Article, but which your contributor does not mention. It reads: " The officer may require the person driving, or in charge of the heavy motorcar, to drive the
heavy motorcar . . or to cause Me heavy motor car to be driven to the weighing machine. . ." This. appears to mean, that a. duly-qualified officer has power to take temporary possession of a vehicle, place his own driver on it, and " march it " off to the weighing. machine. There is no mention made as to who is to be responsible for the machine during the operation, which, of course, only applies to vehicles above two tons in weight, unladen. The Act, however, throughout bristles, with absurdities, which, whilst conveying no benefit to anyone, create very-serious difficulties to the users of heavy motors. Thus, the unladen weight of a heavy motor may not exceed five tons, whilst its laden weight may rise to 12 tons. Why limit the unladen weight of a. machine, which is destined always to he run on the roads. at over double the weight? The present reading of the Act precludes owners from placing suitable bodies and Fittings on their machines, for the purpose of carrying out various kinds of work, such as the carrying of meat, furniture, brewery goods, flying machines, long girders, oil,. etc., or for scavenging and watering streets, etc. The unladen weight of such machines would come out very much above the registered unladen weight, and they are—strictly speaking—illegal. Yet one can hardly imagine that, the regulations were formed with that intention. The difficulty, of course, could be easily overcome by defining the unladen weight as the chassis weight_ Registration Authorities are unwilling to do this.
A further point of interest to owners and makers, at the moment, respecting heavy motorcar axle-weights, is the subtle influence which is being brought to bear in certain quarters, by interested persons, to have either the axle-weights altered, or the size of the wheels increased.. In other words, the road problem is once again to be assisted by reducing the weight of the heavy motor. It is to be hoped that, before any changes in this direction are decided upon, the opinion of users of heavy motors will be taken. through their association and otherwise.
In conclusion, I would respectfully inquire, Mr. Editor,
if it is not possible for the Local Government Board to amend the regulations governing the use and construction of heavy motorcars 's If so. it must therefore be possible for the same body clearly to indicate the spirit in which it desires the existing regulations to he enforced, and it would undoubtedly lend a willing war to anyrepresentations it might receive from such a well informed source as THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.—TOUPS faithfully,
" PERSPECTIVE."
[At its meeting next month, the C.M.U.A, will deal with the subject of a deputation to Mr. Burns. The regulations are susceptible of alteration, and the L.G.R.. in its covering letter to the local authorities when the Heavy Motor Car Order was issued at the end of 1904, did indicate its view that extra body-work should not he treated as part of the unladen weight.-ED.].