1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 
Autolube on the farm
Page 115
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I read with considerable interest Graham Montgomerie's article entitled "Auto lube saves servicing costs" in the Farm Transport Supplement of September 28, most of which is, of course, substantially correct but as probably one of the largest individual installers of automatic lubrication in the country (we fit about eight hundred chassis per annum), may I respectfully take issue over some points?
It is interesting to learn that about 90 per cent of the total installations of all lubrication systems are single-line type but I cannot believe that they are all of Interlube manufacture. If this is so it does leave very little for the many Airdromic systems which are fitted and by implication would seem to preclude any other manufacturer, of which there are several. Does, therefore, Interlube have a monopoly?
More to the point I would very much appreciate it if someone could be specific about how many registered vehicles are fitted with any form of autolube. Even the manufacturers of such equipment are unable to quantify this and consequently unable to appraise their market share. If you are able to help me here I shall be most grateful!
Is AGS really sold for 'operating in extreme conditions of mud, grit, salt or sand''?
If so, this completely negates the original prime concept of using automatic oil lubrication as an aid to 'washing' such harmful substances through the
bearings. The secondary conceptual reason for automatic lube of any type is, of course, to minimise the considerable cost of labour.
With regard to "which oil to use". This is probably not as you contend — dependent on which manufacturer is under discussion. May I suggest that it concurs largely with reasons stated in the preceding paragraph. Concerning your statement that "engine oil is not normally recommended etc" I know of at least two internationally known oil companies who use engine oil so who better to recommend this type of lubricant!
For what appeared to be environmental reasons "Greaselube" was introduced to the market in 1976 and enjoyed its initial public display at the Commercial Motor Show of that year. During its preannouncement field trials its Competitors became aware of its existence and in fourteen days modified an existing unit in order to be 'in at the beginning'. This was subsequently modified but uses the same distribution base.
Subsequent to this two other manufacturers introduced a grease system, one of which appears to no longer be in existence with the other becoming modestly active by corn parison.
In conclusion, you may have gathered that our pride in the' product we market causes us to grind the axe a little and I would venture to ask whether the Competition may be given an occasional hearing?!
D. P. H. ROGERS Director, Southern Transport (Service) Enterprises Ltd, Cranbrook, Kent.