Opinions from Others.
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites c.orrespondenice on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only, and type.written by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility F,, views expressed is accepted. In the case of experiences, names of towns or localities may be withheld.
Ram or Turbine Pumps?
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1180] Sir,-1t is with gre_at regret 1 learn that your correspondents will not agree for their produce to be submitted to expert examination and test. It is a disappointment. I was most anxious to learn when a 350-gallon, or anotiter nominated pump was such ; further, 1 was just as eager to hear from independent sources when a 30 b.h,p. engine was as stated. Computation of the power of engines without stating the number of revolutions at which the power is developed leaves a margin that could be utilized either way.
The engine which I quoted as 50 b.h,p, has four cylinders, each 5 in. by 31 in., and gives its power at 1200 r.p.m, You will, perhaps, recollect that your correspondents refused to publish the details of their appliance. It will also be within your memory that I advised—not instructed—those wanting motor fireengines to plump for turbines.
since this correspondence was started, I have gained further information in the matter, and that makes me still more convinced that the turbine is the best all-round machine for fire fighting in connection with petrol motors. It likewise appears that have proved too expert for your correspondents, as they decline unbiassed engineers' opinions, power for power and pump for pump, on an all-round basis. In conclusion, I thank you most heartily for devoting space to this correspondence, which, if it has proved abortive, has at least been interesting.—Yours
faithfully, SURREY FIREMASTER."
Old Straker-Squires.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1181] Sir,—My attention has been called to a paragraph, appearing in your issue of 27th February, under the heading of "Old Straker-Squires. I have also had presented to me by various people copies of a letter addressed to all the papers in which I advertise by Messrs. Straker-Squire on the same subject.
At. the moment, I have no wish to traverse the various opinions expressed on the question of secondhand chassis, but I would take exception with regard to the remarks made in reference to spare parts. The suggestion that purchasers of second-hand StrakerSquire chassis from me desire Messrs. Straker and Squire to supply spare parts for them is really too ridiculous, and it is fairly well known to everybody that the L.G.O.C. have at their depot at Mill Lane, West Hampstead, a very large supply of spare parts for the vehicles which I am offering for disposal.
I would ask you to point out that, whilst I have not the slightest objection to people who desire to buy a new Straker-Squire for 2500 to address communications to Nelson Square, I would strongly recommend those who wish to purchase an earlier Straker-Squire at 250 to address me at 98, Victoria Street, S.31 . I should esteem it a favour if you would give my side of the question the same prominence its t.bnt given to Messrs. Straker and Squire's.—Yours STUART A. CURZON.
The B-type Breed.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1182] Sir.—With reference to the leader in a recent issue concerning the influence of the B-type bus chassis on motor-lorry design. I would like to point out that I consider we are indebted for the heavy petrol motor lorry to the motor omnibus, and to motorbus running experience right throughout
First of all, have we not had the experience of the use of heavy petrol chassis in London bus work for about nine years? Also, have we not another fact in evidence, viz., that the heavy petrol lorry was practically unknown until the motorbus had crone a good deal of very hard service in our capital ? I think I am right in saying that the end of 1906 and the early part of 1907 saw the beginning of the three-ton and tour-ton petrol lorry's popularity, and, further, the three-tonners in the 1907 It.A.C. trials were the most reliable of the whole of the petrol brigade. This, as has been generally admitted, was the result of motorbus experience.
If the above is correct, and I believe it to be so, there should be no surprise at the fact that the modern motorbus chassis is being copied by the modern motor-lorry builder. Personally, I hope it will, with the omission of one feature, to which I take exception.
.1 would like to point out as a last line that the advocates of a commonsense commercial chassis have, I consider, very properly won the day, as the horizontal engine, the vertical "down below" planetary gears, and even the final chain drive, either have become, or arc becoming, obsolete.—Yours faithfully, A. E. A. M. TURNER.
The Manly Hydraulic Transmission.
The Editor, TEE Coaimmor.AL MOTOR.
[H83] Sir,—We have just noticed in your report of the New York Show, in your issue of the 6th ult., that your correspondent refers to the La France wagon fitted with the Manly hydraulic transmission, and we would ask your permission to take up some of the points raised. In the first place, your correspondent thinks that the truck has a "fair complication of pipes, pumps, unions, etc." The term complication in some men's minds applies to anything unfamiliar. Some years ago. at an exhibition, there was on view what was admitted to be the simplest car of that day. A visitor remarked on its "complication," and when its simplicity had been pointed out to him, he lamely fell back on the remark, "Well, it's so very different." And so it is with the Manly drive. It is entirely different from anything else, but the series of connecting pipes between the pumps, we would point out, is not working parts, although there appear to be a lot of them.
The same writer further remarks on the fitting of a 48 h.p.—not 50 h.p.—engine in a truck with a load capacity of five tons and a maximum speed of 12 m.p.h. Your correspondent has overlooked the fact that one of the great features of the hydraulic system is that it is enabled to do three or four times the work which its direct carrying capacity indicates, and hence a fairly-powerful engine is required to deal with such work at satisfactory speeds, although your correspondent thinks that its immense torque at low :peeds is unnecessary. We venture to assert that no other system would enable a five-ton wagon, not only to carry its own load, but to draw a l2-ton trailer with a 23-ton load on board, and to do the work satisfactorily at 4 m.p.h, We are afraid your correspondent has not grasped all the features presented by the hydraulic drive in a necessarily-somewhat cursory examination.—Yours faithfully, BRANCO, LTD. Coventry.
[An article on fhb' trantroi.sion, from the pen of Mr. Henry Starmey, is in type, waiting pnblieation in our columns—En.]