American "Trucks."
Page 4
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Henry Sturmey.
There is one thing I like about the American way of doing things : they strike out on their own original lines, and they do call things by names of their own, which are generally apt and appropriate, instead of doing as we do over here so much—copy the French and talk of "chauffeurs," "garages," and so on. It does not, of course, always follow that originality in design is necessarily an improvement upon the methods followed in other countries, but, when one looks at American original design, not only in motors but in almost anything in the shape of mechanical construction, one cannot help being struck with the fact that, although the fulfilment may, to our ideas, fall short in many important particulars the ideals aimed at are sound in theory. Yet, in all too much of American work, the universal and consuming mania for cheapness of production steps in and spoils things, and this applies as much to motorcars as it does to bicycles and other constructions. In this the manufacturers are not, perhaps, altogether to be blamed, because the goods thus produced are, to a large extent, what the American public demands, or at any rate what it is prepared to accept, in contrast to the demand of the public in this country, which, whilst not desiring to pay a higher price than is necessary, must first be satisfied on the score of quality in motor vehicles, particularly as to durability and reliability.
So long as the price is right, your average American is prepared to take much on trust, and is more generally ready to "take chances" than is the slower and more-cautious European ; hence, whilst a comparatively-few manufacturers in the States lay themselves out for the high-class trade, when most American manufacturers and capitalists go into a new industry their aim is to get at the " man in the street," and to produce in large quantity. In the bicycle trade, the result of this was simply to kill the bicycle, for they stripped everything off it which made it enjoyably rideable, in order to secure lightness, simplicity and—cheapness. They practically killed it, although they were mighty proud of their achievements at the time. So with the motorcar. Although a year or two behind us in Europe in taking up the " automobile " as an article of manufacture, they at once, when they did go into it, designed and produced in quantity at prices which no European builders could produce cars at : the Locomobiles, Oldsmobiles and scores of others of similar original and cheap types literally swept the field in their home and our colonial markets, until the many shortcomings of their immature constructions knocked the bottom from under their own success, and the American automobile went out of popularity as speedily as it had come into it. History is again repeating itself, to-day, not only in connection with the pleasure car, but also with the commercial vehicle, which your good American speaks of as a "truck," a term which, whilst rather uncouth, is short and expressive and less cumbersome than " commercial-motor vehicle." Having overdone production for the moment in the pleasure-car line, manufacturers are turning their attention to the commercial vehicle as a means for the employment of their plants and are, for the most part, going into it with all the haste and slap-dash hurry which has been characteristic el their pleasure-car efforts. As with us, until now, but-few manufacturers have given any attention to the " truck,' although some few have, for a year or two, specialized upon this side of the industry and have, I believe, produced fairly-practical vehicles. Now, however, all seem rushing in, and the same broad aim at practicability is displayed, whilst the same wild effort at ultra-simplicity and extreme cheanness, to which I have above referred is making itself apparent.
Quite three-fourths of the American business vehicles have the engines beneath the floorboards, which illustrates the recognition of the theory—undoubtedly correct from many points of view—that
the commercial vehicle is intended to carry loads and that, this being its purpose, as much 01 the avail • able space as possible should be utilized for it.. In one notable instance, where electricity is the motive power, so fully is this idea carried out, that the whole of the platform above the wheel is devcted to the load, whilst the driver is, as it were, hung out on a bracket in front of and. entirely outside it. In Europe, and especially in England, the practicability of the system has long been recognized, and there are a number of well-known and successful vehicles built on these lines, but conventionality has become and is becoming too strong, and popular prejudice has resulted in a more-general adoption of the broad design of the touring vehicle. This tendency is now making itself apparent in the States, for, whilst most of the original pioneers of the American " truck" trade are producing cars of the bonnetless type, many of the large pleasure-car firms, which are now talking up the commercial vehicle, are introducing the bonnet design. In this, perhaps, they ----or some of them—are wise, because those who are doing this are to a large extent copying European proved designs. Since there have hitherto been very few manufacturers engaged in the industry, there are, with these few exceptions, practically no firms in the States with any experience of commercialvehicle work, yet the American mind evidently rebels at the idea of the slow and sure development, which has been characteristic of the work of all British firms which have attained any eminence in the industry, and the makers there are gaily putting through quantities of untried models which vary in number from one hundred to a thousand ! Some of them—but, more particularly, their customers--are in for trouble. In a few instances, as already mentioned, European design is being followed pretty closely, and this particularly in regard to the heavy (Jess of from 3 to 10 tons capacity : there are one or two firms which are not afraid to put forward 10ton vehicles as practical propositions.
Sortie of the heavy " trucks " which are being offered to the public are weird constructions indeed ; thus, one manufacturer offers a three-tonner with a two-cylinder opposed engine of about 16 h.p., and another calmly puts forward a high-powered vehicle for the same load with a claim for 60 miles an hour from it.. But it is in regard to the smaller wagons that the greatest crudity is to be found. The makers of the large-load wagons have for the most part recognized the need for special design and construction, but, when it comes to the '1,000-pound truck " and the ton vehicle, we have the crudest propositions
m the list. Air-cooled engines with friction drive and small-section solid-rubber tires, or cheap pneumatins, are quite common, and, as with many manufacturers here, who are now attempting to enter the small-van trade, the chassis of some of the cheapest and crudest and flimsiest of the "runabout" cars anisear to be employed, with little if any alteration. 'With these, lowness of first cost has been the first consideration, and the skimping of parts and the employment of low-grade materials have been necessary to attain the end. With us, we have long ago learnt the lesson that what can be made to " do " for a touring car will not do at all for a. commercial vehicle, and that, in the latter, high quality of material and full strength of parts are absolutely vital first considerations. This lesson our Yankee cousins have yet to learn, and the inevitable learning of it will, I anticipate, heavily set back the development of the commercial vehicle in the States, in about a couple of years time, for, although the American business man is more ready to invest in new and untried productions than his prototype here, he is no more enamoured of "breakdowns," or of having his goods hung up " five miles from anywhere," then are our commercial houses on this side of the herring pond. About a year ago, a friend of mine, struck by the simplicity of design and cheapness of one of these light " trucks " for " 1,000-pound loads," conceived the idea that there might be a market for it in this country, but, being a cautious man and a practical motor engineer withal, instead of ordering a quaa tity and starting out to " boom " the States, as an American would have done had the position been re versed, he got over a couple for a year's trial, with the result that, although, as an engineer, he could only marvel at their low cost and admire their sim plicity, and although they would "run" in a marvel bus way for what-they were, he soon found the poor nees of the material used responsible for much re current trouble, and he decided, as he told me himself, that he " couldn't have his name associated with them."
With this fresh and almost-frenzied attention to the "truck " by manufacturers, there has come a sudden spasm of interest in it on the part of the Press, and new and special journals, devoted solely to its interests, are being projected, whilst established motor publications, which for years have ignored the commercial side of the industry—save for an occasional paragraph—are devoting " sections" to its interests, and column after column of matter to its exploitation. A perusal of much that is written shows how intensely " new" both manufacturers and writers are to their subject, and what entirely fallacious lines of argument and policy are being followed, in many cases, by both. All the mistakes of our own earlier years are being repeated, as, for instance, the very-early error—which some of our agents have not even yet quite recanted—of attempting to employ secondhand and obsolete touring-car chassis for commercial work, and I was much astonished, a few weeks since, to read in the columns of the " Horseless Age "—which I have always looked upon as a practical and solid paper—a long article, seriously and in detail recommending "made-over touring ear chassis," i.e., "overhauled" ones, as being eminently suitable for commercial work ! Other indications of a total lack of appreciation of the subject, by both trade and Press, are to be found in the many references to speed in connection with commercial work, and to spectacular demonstrations of the capabilities of new types in the carrying of heavy loads at high• speeds without breaking down, a sort of " stunt"—or piece of gallery play—calculated to create an entirely-wrong impression of the motor vehicle for serious work, and also calculated to lead to a vast amount of abuse of their vehicles by users. Another type of show performance, which seems to be common, will also induce trouble in another direction, and that is in overloading the vehicles, for constant and full publicity is given to such performances as carrying over a given route loads of about double the rated capacity of the vehicle—a short-sighted policy which will ultimately lead to a lot of trouble. We, over here, have long ago learned that to put even 45 cwt. on a two-ton vehicle is misusing the car, and that, in the interests of the user himself, as well as of the manufacturers, it must be discouraged ; yet it is no uncommon thing to read of a certain, say, 400 lb. truck, doing a journey with a 7,000 lb. load on it, and so on in proportion, which is purely and simply encouraging abuse.
Verily, they have a lot to learn on this " truck " question in the States, and I fancy it will be a good many years before the American commercial vehicle will get any sort of a hold—either in our markets or in those of our Colonies.