Opinions and Queries Are Modern Tyres So Much Better?
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LEADING article headed "Tyres a Delicate Problem" " in your issue dated February 20, was inclined to make me think that the tyre industry has advanced little during the past 30 years and in my view tyres have not kept up with the latest improvements in, vehicle construction. 1 believe that an equal-size tyre of today. should have a carrying capacity at least 25 per cent. greater than the tyre of 1930, when rayon, nylon and other synthetic materials were not available.
A 1930 vehicle of 7-ton carrying capacity had an unladen weight of 4-5 tons. Such a vehicle now has a weight of only 3 tons, but the 8-in. section tyre still has the same maximum load of 40 cwt., as it had in 1930. Courtaulds, Ltd., have been running a fairly large advertising campaign stating that their rayon cord, when used in tyre construction, will carry " bigger loads longer," but the actual tyre manufacturers do not appear to be so certain of this, as none of them gives an increased maximum carrying capacity for tyres made of rayon cord.
If we are to have continuous cruising speeds of about 50-60 m.p.h., we shall be forced either to over-tyre, judged by present-day standards, or hope that the tyre industry can make some fairly substantial improvements in the future.
Newcastle upon Tyne. J. L. G. BREWSTER,
J. Brewster and Co. (Transport Engineers), Ltd.
h. the Good
Fitter Appreciated ?
A S a regular reader of The Commercial Motor for many A–I years, I have always been especially interested in those articles concerning the histories of various operators and their methods. In recent years I have noted a marked rise in the status of the driver and a lowering of that of the fitter and maintenance staffs in general. In some instances it appears that the driver can even overrule the maintenance engineer as regards the serviceability of his vehicle. In many concerns privileges and " extras " are given to the operating staffs which are not provided for the poor maintenance " underdog," despite the fact that the latter has probably spent five or more years learning his trade, and in most instances has to maintain an expensive tool kit. This applies not only to operators in goods transport, but also to many in the passenger field, and I would be interested in the views of others amongst your readers on this matter.
There are occasional complaints that good transport fitters are becoming scarce. Is this to be wondered at ? There is no incentive to join the elaborate business of "learning a trade" when one can earn much more money as a driver.
Devon. UNDERDOG.
New Coach Design Partly Approved
THE letter from S. G. Le May published under the title,
"New Outlook on Coach Design," in your issue dated February 27, was most interesting, and somewhat revolutionary, and I would like to make a few comments on his theories.
It seems difficult to understand why it is necessary for the suspension cylinders to be carried up almost to roof level. The vertical movement required, even in the softest suspension, is onlY a few inches each way. It seems, there
fore, that an oil-pneumatic cylinder, which would be adequate for the work, could easily be housed vertically under a passenger seat.
Another point which strikes me is that the towing of the "power pack" would be illegal in this country. Furthermore, it would introduce another pair of wheels and tyres, which the designer has gone to some length to avoid on his suggested vehicle, whilst no doubt the trailer would require a braking system of its own. 1 think it is a little optimistic on the part of Mr. Le May to hope to seat 30 people in any degree of comfort in a body only 22 ft. long, as a body with a length of 27 ft. 6 in. can normally accommodate only some 33 in coach seats.
There is no doubt, however, that the basic ideas behind this design are sound. I believe that there is no vehicle built in Britain today which is constructed purely as a coach from first principles.
London, W.13. E. G. COAKE.
A Scheme to Replace Nationalization?
I AGREE with the statement by Mr. Rees-Davies, M.P., I on the complete de-nationalization of British Road Services, published in your issue dated March 27. It is my belief, however, that total de-nationalization by itself is not an answer to what we understand to be the meaning of nationalization, as proposed by the Socialist Party.
In my view, road transport should be taken out of power politics and, as I have said before, B.R.S. and its subsidiaries liquidated, split into economic units, and formed into public limited companies. Free the companies from debt, value their liquid assets and issue shares. Of these shares 49 per cent. could be issued in the form of Government Bonds bearing interest and held by the Government, and 51 per cent. put up for public subscription. In this kind of set-up the Government of the day would thus have a share in the control of road transport, but not dictatorial powers. There would no doubt be plenty of capital available if transport were to be taken out of politics, as confidence and• stability would thereby be regained.
If matters could be arranged in this manner, the Socialist Party would be in a position to reconsider their policy, as the scheme might be an answer to their difficulties. The Government would have nearly half of the control they might want, but it would be a remunerative control and not a demand on public funds as at present. Private enterprise does not fear healthy competition on equal terms, and would, I believe, welcome the suggested plan.
It is wishful thinking on the part of Sir Brian Robertson, that the railways by themselves would break even in the near future. On the other hand it is well known, and agreed generally, that they are a national necessity. But they will still have to be subsidized, even with all their improvements and economies. Their profits cannot cover the greatly increased labour and other costs', taking into account the interest on the huge amount of capital involved and the considerable reduction in freight charges.
Surely, any individual or Government investing capital in a trading concern—and B.R.S., the railways and the G.P.O. come into this category—expects some return for the outlay, or a -reduction of income tax, but Sir Brian seems to treat these charges very lightly.
Torquay. J. F, ARCHBOLD, Chairman, Archbolds (Freightage), Ltd.