OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Vt.! Editor invites correspondence on a7l subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be an one side Of the paper only and typewritten by prefereapc. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views
expressed is accepted,
A Suggested Test of Spring Wheels.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
{2336] Sir,—For many years attempts have been made to obtain a great: reduction of unsprung weight by the use of spring wheels..
In most. cases designers have endeavoured to supplant the pneumatic tyre, and in this manner have failed to find a solution to their problem. As is well known, a number of spring wheels have been used on various types of omnibus, and have only failed owing to their complex and unreliable construction. They have in most cases, during the period of their life, shown •a great saving in vehicle wear and of road surface.
As is well known, the amount of relief necessary to prevent dpstruction of road surface is very slight, and the motion of the spring _portions need only, therefore, be very small. I should imagine that • designers of some of the more simple and more practical types of spring wheel would welcome an opportunity for a demonstration or test conducted by your good selves.
It might be possible considerably to benefit the commercial motoring movement in this manner ; however little such a practical test appealed to the originators of impracticable schemes which have been put forward for wheel springing for the past century. —Yours faithfully, A. M. Low, M.I.A.E.
Is the Front Lifeguard at Last in Sight ?
The Editor' THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. [2337] Sir,—In the issue of The Commercial Motor for March 31st the question is asked : " Is the front lifeguard at last in sight " You point out that on tramcars there is a satisfactory device for catching a fallen pedestrian, but that, in order to copy this device on a motorbus, it would be necessary that the foremost part of the bus should be an appreciable distance in advance of the tray which is intended to catch a fallen person, as some time, however short, must elapse alter the releasing of the catch which holds the tray up and the moment when the tray reaches the ground.
Now, provided the tray is made as light as possible and that the springs which pull it down are strong enough, I do not think that it is necessary to allow a very, long interval between the object striking the gate and the time the tray reaches the ground.
quite appreciate your suggestion that the new Swiss chassis, with its projecting engine, is particularly suitable for the fitting, of a device similar to that used,,on tramcars, ,and beg to suggest that, if, with a due regard to safety in traffic, it is possible to drive' a vehicle with an engine projecting far in front of the wheels, why not have a fender projecting in the same manner and fitted with a the and
tray? This would, think, accomplish the same object, as the projecting engine. It may be said that such an addition would look unsightly, but the eye soon becomes accustomed to anything that has a really useful purpose and performs its duty. Wmight spoil the look of a bus or lorry, but I can assure you that, when a heavy vehicle passes over a man, it usually spoils the look of him for ever.
The tram guard is very efficient, as I can testify, having seen it come into operation on two occasions-once in the case of a cyclist who was knocked across the tram lines by another cyclist, and once when it caught a large dog.
In. the case of the cyclist, he did not seem to be Dt4 hurt much, as he was able to swear at the man who knocked him over, and to keep it up for five minutes right off without once repeating himself, and in the case of the dog the speed at which he ran away showed that no bones were broken.
While on the subject of lifeguards, is there any reason why guards to rear, wheels should be confined entirely to buses?
In many of the fatal accidents of which I have intimate knowledge, the rear wheel and not the front wheel was what actually killed the person. In many cases the driver can either miss the person entirely with the front wheels, or perhaps damage only a leg or arm, but could not save the rear wheel from fatally injuring them. It is true that many attempts were made, sometime back, to provide better means of protecting persons who may get in the way, but, for some considerable time, little seems to have been done in this direction.
Perhaps, if efforts were renewed, with more perfect knowledge of the requirements of the case, some means of reducing the number of fatal accidents might be found, even if they could not be entirely
prevented.—Yours faithfully, NIMROD, JUNIOR. London.
The One-man Type of Hood.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[23381 Sir,—I was rather surprised to read in your issue of March 24th, in your article under the heading of " The Trend of Coach Bodywork Design " the expressed opinion that you have no improved types of coach hood on record.
As the inventor of the Austin patent char-h-bancs hood, which has now been on the market for three years (although in limited. numbers), I feel that it is my duty to contradict your statement. My side folding hood, which until recently was exclusively manufactured by Harrier Motors, Ltd., Huddersfield, has given absolute satisfaction. In fact, I have not had a single complaint from any user or even a suggestion for its improvement ever since the first one was turned out a matter of 3 years ago, In my opinion, the old-fashioned Cape hood is still the most popular, owing, first, to lack of enterprise on the part of the coach owner, and, secondly, my patent hood came on to the market just at that period when the slump in the motor business commenced. Many coach owners have agreed with me that the main principle of my hood, i.e., folding from side to side (7 ft.) against the present method of end to end (20 ft. or more), is the correct way of tackling the problem, but they unfortunately have had to curtail the inclusion of any fitting to a coach that would have the effect of increasing its cost. At the moment the position is altering slightly, and I have received several very good inquiries for quotations for the necessary fittings from body makers.
In England, unfortunately, there is very little encouragement for inventors, but I am pleased to say I can now see that manufacturers and users have arrived at a time when they must have a oneman quickly operated concealed hood. in conclusion, I would state that my side folding hood can he fitted to any size motor coach, including those designed with the driver • in the forward position and gangway down the centre. I trust, in fairness to me, you will publish this letter, as your article is certainly somewhat misleading in this respect.—Yours faithfully,
Bournemouth. N. E. AUSTIN.