AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Correspondence.

19th December 1907
Page 16
Page 16, 19th December 1907 — Correspondence.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Plough, Tractor, Dartford

A Guinea for a Name.

The Editor, " THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."

Sir :—We have pleasure in enclosing you a copy of a letter we have sent to-day, by which you will see that we have awarded the prize of one guinea to Mrs. S. West, of Ito, Sangley Road, Catford. The name of the vehicle in question will in future f:le " Convertible Commercar."— Yours faithfully, For COMMERCIAL CARS, LIMITED, JULIAN A. H ALFORD, Managing Director. Craven House, Kingsway, London, W.C., i4th December, 1907.

Mrs. S. West, 14th December, 1907. 110, Sangley Road, Catford, S.E.

Dear Madam,— We have much pleasure in informing you that we have decided on "Convertible" as the most suitable name for the new body, for which we offered a prize of one guinea, and, as your letter was the first to arrive suggesting this name, we enclose you herewith postal order for £1 Is. (one guinea), for which we shall feel obliged if you will send us a receipt.

The name of the vehicle in question will in future be "Convertible Commercar."---Yours faithfully, For COMMERCIAL CARS, LIMITED,

JULIAN A. HALFORD, Managing Director.

Awards in Dartford Ploughing Match.

The Editor, "THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."

Sir :—In your issue of the 12th, the Ivel Company say that my previous statements were inaccurate. I therefore trust that you will kindly publish my reply to their letter in full.

I maintain that my previous statements were true and that I can and will support the same by evidence. Rule 1, Point 1.—They make the statement that both motors had to plough against the same incline of about in 30. This is absolutely wrong, as I have had the two cants surveyed, and in one part of the ascent, we ploughed up an incline of x in io, and, generally speaking, the ascent referred to was i in it.o • Point 2.—Our angular headland referred to was 67 yards long at the finish whilst the lye! headlands were both 37 yards, which means that we had to travel an average of is yards each round for nothing, and as we ploughed 22 rounds taking i yard wide, this'ineant a handicap against us of 330 square yards. Further, our cant was 6 yards wider than the lye! cant, which gave us three additional rounds. This caused a loss of time on one headland an average of 40 yards by 3 yards and on the other headland an average of 64 yards by 3 yards which equals 312 square yards. In other words we were handicapped by 642 square yards or about one-eighth of the whole piece. In spite of the above two points, we ploughed our cant out 30 per cent, faster and ploughed it deeper. Had we been allotted the lye' cant, we should have ploughed it in 12 to 14 minutes less time than we did our cant. I have taken the trouble to go carefully into this matter, so that the public may know what the Ivel Company are protesting against. The judges certainly did not favour us, indeed it was quite the opposite, for, although we beat our opponents on fuel consumption, this would have been still lower had it not been for the waste time to which we were subjected. Their statement regarding our turning is ridiculous, but this point I will refer to later.

Point 3.—" Not finished our cant." This is also inaccurate, for, notwithstanding the fact that we commenced after them, we had even packed up and left the field before they were finished. I was told to stop by the judges when my cant was ploughed, and I did not even know that a piece was left until I read Mr. Hoffman's letter; therefore the piece was left by them and not by us. Point 4.—We were i hour 32 minutes actually ploughing. The 3 minutes difference between my time and the time of the judges was taken up in setting our plough for the ridge, thus again showing that the judges gave us nothing except what was ground out of the flywheel. Mr. Hoffman's state ment that we were f hour 45 minutes ploughing our cant is made in spite of the time taken by the judge and the spectators present, and clearly shows the value of this statements. I am greatly surprised that they gave their own time as 2 hours ploughing.

Point 5.—Cost of oil. I wish to know if the lye! Company are prepared to maintain their statement that their paraffin oil at Dartford cost sid. per gallon only. Mr. Hoffman says that we always use petrol. My argument on this point was given in my last letter, but if they wish. to make a point of running on paraffin, why do they not bear it out in practice. To my knowledge, they had at least six gallons of petrol at the Chelmsford trials, 12 gallons at Boston, and a large quantity at Dartford, I cannot say how much of these amounts was actually used, but, in future trials, I hope that all the agricultural societies will' distribute the petrol and paraffin from a common stock correctly measured in and out to each competitor. Our opponents ride the paraffin talking point, but continue to have large quantities of petrol on each occrHon. We have used paraffin fuel in our engines for over three years.

Rule 3, Point 6.—We gave the price of our tractor previously. Mr. Hoffman's statement that we recently quoted

'396 is again incorrect; we quoted for a lorry and other extras which did make a total of 396. I am wondering if the Ivel Company would care to include a lorry, plough, or threshing machine, in the price of their tractor.

Rule 4, Point 7.--Mr. Hoffman says that I am not very observant. I have observed the Ivel motor, on almost every occasion that it has been pulling hard in my presence, rise' off the ground at the front, throwing the entire weight of the tractor on the two driving wheels, viz., 17icwt. on each. Q.E.D. I have also observed that, when this happens, the steering wheel does not rest properly on the ground, and their motor in consequence does not answer the steering wheel properly, and their argument on control and steering is therefore entirely wrong. I observed, together with other friends, the Ivel motor in this predicament at the Dartford trials, when they attempted to draw the loaded wagon up the hill with grabs on the wheels. I observed the entire load had to be thrown off before they could get up. I also overheard the judges object to the employment of these grabs on the road on account of the manner in which they cut it up. A professional photographer took a photo for me of the three heaps of roots thrown off by the Ivel Company as their motor was attempting the hill at Dartford. Mr. Hoffman informed me at the dinnerafter the trials (before a witness) that I would not have these photos as he had smashed the plates Surely this is not argument. Regarding Mr. Hoffman's reference to .ploughing at Boston, this also, I consider, is simply abusive, and no argument at all. I therefore refrain from reply for the present, except to say that I am quite satisfied the gentlemen referred to were no party to the remark, for, if I visit. Boston again which I hope to do, I should be perfectly satisfied to be judged by the same-judges. I have already said they acted honourably enough. The influences against me may be seen through this correspondence. The seven points referred to in this letter are clearly inaccuracies of the lye! Company, or of Mr. FIoffman their manager, and, if they persist in making statements that they cannot substantiate, I shall take such course as I may be advised to protect the interest of my company. A stupid argument of this kind is no good to either of us, and we had better both be about our business instead of sitting on the fence to crow.—Yours faithfully,

H. P. SAUNDERSON.

Elstow, i6th December, 1907.

[This correspondence is now closed.—En.]


comments powered by Disqus