OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
.Tyres and Springing of Commercial Vehicles.
The Editor, THE CcimmERciALToR.
[1775] Sir,-1 have read with intereit the letter-. entitled "A Challenge to the Giant' contained in your issue for•November 23r-d.
As I have owned 'chars-a-banes for 14 years, I have had some considerable experience in running .these• under varying conditions. In 1914 I fitted a 14-seater char-it-banes with pneumatic tyres. The rear tyres, however, always gave trouble, and, as an alternative, I fitted-the rear wheels with A.A.P...cushiontyres, the
• result beirtg that the mileages were at least doubled'
• —in some cases .trebled—as compared with those obtained with the pne.uirnatic tyres. The initialcost -was. less and the. tyres were guaranteed for 10,000 miles. The resiliency proved quite as good.as when , the vehicle was running on ordinary pneumatics. Ialso fitted the front wheels of an old Dennis yell dc with tyres. The result was extremely gratifying, • all vibration at the front cad vanishing, and the vehicle runs to-day more quietly than a new vehicle provided with solid tyres. -I intended fitting thesetyres to the front wheels of a 20-seater char-abanes, but found that they could not he fitted to existing steel wheels. So soon as the makers overcome this difficulty, however., I will certainly fit them. , have not yet had the pleasure of having a trip on a.Palladiurn vehicle, but a. short time ago I had a run on one of the latest Straker-Squire omnibuses, and I must say that .it is the. best sprang vehicle I have yet ridden in; hi fact, it Was Mare comfortable when riding almost empty than the majority of vehicles -are when loaded, and, in -my opinion; it is the ideal passenger chassis.—Yours faithfully, • Barnsley. C. -1/VOLDING.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL McgeR.
[1776] Sir,—The Giant may well exclaim, "Sa`ve me from my friends." The. letter of Mr. F. A. Sessions in your publication of November :30th is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and to throw dust in the eyes of the user by what is logically termed the -fallacy of "begging the question." It was .a trick practised-in the dialectics of the ancients, and was always resorted to by the Side with -a weak case, for the purpose of diverting attention from the-real point at issue' to.' some side issue.
The side. issue which A. Sessions seeks to discuss and argue about is :—
" Giant pneumatics -versus solid tyres."
The challenge_ we issued (the real issue) was . " Giant pneumatics versus Palladium double-cantilever suspenSion and 'solid tyres."
In other word:—
"Giant pneumatics versus sensible springs and solid We sense this gentleman, sir, as a sort of feeler, with the Giant peePing round the corner hoping that theories and shadows will do instead of a contest on the good broad road (with plenty of Pot-holes).
If the giants really have any faith in their very flamboyant claims, and if 'Mr. F, A.. Sessions would really-like, to. help them,. it would be Much better for him to "get their goats" and make them _fight
The plain man wards plain facts!
He wants to know whether a vehicle sensibly sprung and fitted with soIid.tyres will, for all practical purposes. ride as comfortably and give as good results.as 'one fitted with the costly and risky giant pneumatics. He will thereby 'save himself a lot of money (very scarce nowadays, Sir!) and a lot of worry. We. say that the Palladium double-cantilever sus. pension vehicle will do so, and we issued a challenge to the Giant to prove our contention. We actually challenged. him, too, on his very own claims. The only reply, so far, is froth his protagonist,' Mr. F. A. Sessions, who brings out a road impact table," hoping it may be "of interest to those seeking sonic indication of road impact in pounds." and. telling us of the shocks at the road wheels. The user is not interested in the " shocks at the road wheels." What does concern him is the shocks to the load, and for that purpose and for the purpose of the challenge, special eonsideration must be paid to the part played by sensible springing. Although this is the crux and substance of the whole argument, it is. a trine which Mr. F. A. Sessions entirely ignores.
Whilst Mr. Sessions is busy trying to find some better arguments, there are one or two questions we should like to ask the Giant which will also be of interest to the plain man:— (1) What happens if the user overloads—seriously overlciads—as users will' and sometimes. must?
In denouncing Brother Twin, Giant lets the cat out of the bag) and it will be sufficient answer if he confirms what he then said about an overloaded pneumatic tyre:—
"It may still appear to be in good condition,, and may run for a few clays (sic.),. but its early destruction has been assured. No tyre manufacturer is disposed to make any allowance on overloaded tyros,. etc., etc." . There's a fine:inducement to fit giants, Sir, as if the cost and the risk were not enough !
(2) Why has the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., not adopted giant pneumatics? That company made prolonged an&searehiag tests, and the fact has been published some time ago (see giant propaganda) that they are "not yet' convinced."
Here is the most progressive.publie motor transport body in the world, whose well-kwiwn, capable, and. enlightened management has given all the boons and blessings the giant so cleverly and insidiously tell us about—a miss! and prefers to stick to stilids—nricon. vinced I What? .
(3) What is the truth .about,Scotland Yard not passing-giant pneumatics within the area of its jurisdielion 1
"Opinionative salesmanship" and insidious propaganda "cut no ice" with Scotland Yard. They ferret things out for themselves and "put you through it." If it is net O.K., down you go—and to Giant lost!— Yours 'faithfully, . For PALLADIUM AUTOOARS, LTD. J. Ross MACMAHON, Managing Director.
Electric Vehicle Costs.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. [17771 Sir,—The data of Comparative operating costs for various types of commercial vehicles, published in. your issues of ,November 16th and 23rd, make up a, fund ot most valuable up-to,clate information about petrol' and steam vehicles, and, as such, • should be carefully preserved, as recommended by the compiler. . Though estimates of this description be based on weekly distance performances it is, 'clearly, impossible to make distinctions between the different classes of transportservice. The extent to which standard costs are altered and the ultimate life of motor van or lorry is reduced if, fof example, instead of citing a petrol vehicle on through traffic, more or less, and covering about 35' miles per day, it is put to house to house deliveries, entailing stops every
few hundred yards—yet aggregating the same daily mileage—and how it compares then with the results from an electric vehicle cannot be shown without making the tables elaborate and crunbersome. That discrepancies, sure to be brought about in such cases, will give rise to disappointment is almost inevitable. My regret is that the tabulations as presented, while being accepted as guides by intending users, will tend decidedly to foster prejudice
against the -electric, even for short range, multi stop, duties which it is able to perform quicker and more economically than any other power-propelled vehicle. A disservice has been done to the electric—inadvertently, no doubt—by exaggerating both the running costs and the standing charges for the same; current is over-estimated as a debit more than 100 per cent., battery renewals 45 per cent. Not to encroach unduly on your space I restrict my comments to a two-tonner as an average vehicle, running 200 miles per week of six days. The mean current absorbed by a. two-ton_ner electric, in fair working order and over give-and-take roads, is 7 amp. hours per mile by 80 volts, equals 560 watt hours output front battery ; battery efficiency 75 per cent, equals 7441 watt hours input or unit. To allow plenty of margin for adverse road conditions, call it 1 unit, the charge for which is very rarely more than twopence throughout this country. The debit in respect of this item i3 4.20 pence in the tables, or an excess of 2.20 pence per mile.
For battery renewals the vehicle is mulcted into 920 pence per week, whereas' the actual figure, after allowance for the value of old materials, will certainly not exceed 632 pence. The Chloride Electrical Storage Co.' with whom it is my good fortune to be connected, supply their " ExidesTronclad " batteries for traction purposes under a guarantee of two years.— Barring accidents or gross negligence, the cost of battery renewals is, therefore definitely ascertainable within that period.; "the lower the battery remains in service subsequently the rowerbecomes the charge debitable per mile travelled for renewals eventually. You will concede that, since such guarantees apply to vehicle batteries operating under conditions good, bad, and indifferent, in all parts of the country, it would not be a commercially. sound proceeding to over-rate the normal life a the cells. There must be a margin of safety ; in other words, the average service obtainable from " Ironclad " batteries must be for a longer time than the declared limit, which is all to the advantage of the user. Hence the figure 632 pence per week, calculated strictly on the two years' guarantee basis, is again almost certain to be improved upon anyway, the total working costs, '200 miles per week, according to your computation, will not exceed 16.51 pence per mile as against 20.20 pence stated in print. Service reliability is even more important tlaail costs, per se. Out of 312 possible working days annually, the electrie can be counted upon to be ready for duty on 296 days, year in year out, due to the relatively small number of parts liable to wear, all revolving, its easy control, and smooth running.
Trusting that you will endeavour to correct the unfavourable impression about electrica which many readers of your journal must have received when comparing the working costs thereof, with those of the other motor vehicles given.—Yours _faithfully, L. BROOEMAN.
Reducing Wear and Tear.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[17783 Sir,—In an Editorial entitled "Avoidable Wear and Tear" contained iii your issue dated November 23rd, you refer to the comparison between oiling a motor vehicle and oiling a locomotive, and you state that it is more satisfactory if one man can be held entirely responsible for .a vehicle, and that locomotive engieeers realized this fact many years ago; in consequence, the "greaser" is an established institution on the railway.
I would point out that the greaser, as understood on a railway, has nothing whatsoever to do with the oiling of the actual locomotive. His work is confined to the greasing of wagons and coaches. The driver of a locomotive oils his own engine every day or night he is due out, and my experience has taught me that only on rare occasions, when this is absolutely unavoidable, do the drivers or the authorities allow anyone else to do this jab, and, even then, only an experienced driver is deemed capable, and on such occasions the actual driver only takes over the locomotive with an easy mind when he has seen for himself that the work has been properly done. In my opinion, the work of oiling and greasing a motor Vehicle should, whenever possible, be left to the driver, for he alone knows where it needs it most. In addition, he should be allowed time to examine the engine and the rest of the chassis before leaving at night, and where a fleet of vehicles is kept and a proper staff maintained to keep the machines in rePair,, a book should be provided in which the driver may report any adjustments necessary, repairs which may be required, and knocks which may develop. In this way wear and tear will be reduced to a minimum, as will breakages and losses of parts. There is zaa doubt that time spent in this way would save pounds in the end.—Yours faithfully, H. HaLESWORTH.
Examinations for Drivers' Licences.
Tine Editor, DIE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. [1779] Sir,—With reference to the letters on examinations for driving
licences which have recently appeared in your journal, speaking from the point of view of an employer of a large num ber of drivers, I consider that such examinations are quite unnecessary. Every employer who is fit to be takes particular care in the selection of. his drivers, and he is not likely to take on inefficient men when there is a comparatively large number of qualified drivers available.
In any case, police examinations are rarely of any considerable worth, as it is to a large extent a matter of chance as to whether a good driver gets turned down or a bad driver passed.—Yours
faithfully, EMPLOYER.