Another Letter from Mr. John E. Thornycroft.
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Its Contents Show How Confused is the State of Affairs.
The. Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
112231 Sire—In commenting on my letter which you have published in your current issue, you say that you will content yourselves for the moment with asking if I disagree that it is wrong of the War Office to circularize owners of other makes of machine with a view to persuading them to adopt one of the three subsidized types. I certainly do contend that after their representations to the manufacturers when discussing their requirements with them, the War Office are bound, as they originally promised, to do all they can to persuade the buying public to co-operate in the Government's action by using the type of vehicle made by firms who have gone to great trouble and expense in meeting the War Office requirements. I consider that your contention that confidential lists of clients which may have been supplied by makers to the War Office have necessarily been used, is absurd, because it is well known that the War Office have not only their official lists of all the provisionally subsidized vehicles, 'but also other sources of information available, so that without any use of individual makers' lists, it is quite easy for them to communicate with any firms they please.
No Brief for the War Office.
In writing my letter that you refer to, I had no brief for the War Office, who I consider have not dealt with the matter nearly as well as they might, but my criticism appears to be entirely from a different point of view to your own. The War Office have, in my opinion, retarded the general adoption of the special types they desire by their provisional subsidy scheme, and they must now have a great deal of work to do in bringing home to the users the difference between the provisional and full subsidies.
Hindered by Non-subsidy Types.
I have pointed out to the War Office that this can only he done by themselves, as, in approaching many firms with a view to inquiring if they were interested in the subsidy scheme, we have been met with the reply that their vehicles are already subsidized and they know all about it, and they are very apt to look upon statements that with another type of vehicle they can get a better subsidy as simply a salesman's way of pushing his own manufactures. This difficulty in persuading buyers of the different schemes has gone to such lengths that our salesmen have frequently been told that we are only offering what they can obtain with any other make of vehicle, and, on pushing the matter further, they have found that in some eases a genuine confusion between the two subsidy schemes has occurred, and in others that the supplier of an unsubsidized type has actually offered to pay sums equivalent to the subsidy as an extra inducement to buy his vehicle.
Value for Money ?
You have referred to the subsidized type in a way that would lead a reader to believe that, you considered it no better than many standard types which are on the road and which do not comply with the War Office requirements. I think perhaps you have not considered the requirements in sufficient detail, and would like to refer to a few of the special features : The road wheels are rather bigger than would be normally employed; this, while entailing greater cost, must he agreed is an advantage. A live axle is insisted upon, which again is of course more expensive than a chain drive, but, provided it is a thoroughly reliable design, and there is every chance of it being so if it has gone through the trials successfully, it is generally considered a better engineering job. A limit in weight of the chassis has been insisted on, which precludes the employment of any material other than of the highest grade manufactured at the present day. It would no doubt be a very nice point to decide in some eases if the saving in fuel consumption and general wear and tear resulting from, the reduced tare weight, balanced the economy due to a reduced first cost of a heavier vehicle.
which had a greater fuel consumption and wear and tear, but there is no doubt that in the great majority of cases the
lighter vehicle would have the advantage. You remark that some half-dozen firms are at present en
gaged in preparing models to fulfil the War Office requirements; these, together with the, three who have already had their vehicles accepted, make a total of nine firms, and I think it will be agreed that there are net More than this number of firms in the country who have established reputations as
builders of the heavier type of internal-combustion motor vehicle It would seem, therbfore, that those most interested have decided that the subsidy requirements are worth working to, and the criticisms which you have heard brought against the scheme can only have come from some of the firms who have not taken it up sufficiently quickly, or from those who have not quite appreciated what it means.—Yours faithfully,
JOHN I. THORNTCHOFT AND CO., LTD.
J. E. THonNYcHoFT.
[The War Office has used names from lists that were supplied by makers, for purposes other than those on the strength of which the names were supplied. If all the information and names are otherwise available to the W.O., why should it take the trouble to duplicate them? The W.O. seems to have sueoecaed in pleasing nobody. What is Mr'. Thornyeroft's opinion, now, we wonder, about the approval of the worm drive ? The criticisms are chiefly beard amongst owners. They object to the higher prices for the 1912-subsidy4ype vehicles, which prices the manufacturers can no doubt justify, because they do not see where the advantage of the scheme lies for them as buyers. The cross-headings in the text are ours,—En.1 From the "United Service Gazette" of the 14th June.
"The attempts made by the War Office to get a standardized motor vehicle on the market, which will fall into line with their subsidization schemes, are drawing from members of the Commercial Motor Users Association some vehement protests, on ad-count of the methods adopted by the inspectors of subsidized transport, in circularizing motor owners and users with a view to not only bringing the subsidization schemes of the War Office under notice, but also quoting certain firms as the makers of the type of motor required. We have no desire to take up the cudgels for either party, but it is obvious that the authorities are acting correctly when they stipulate for a standard type of motor under the subsidization schemes. It is questionable, however, whether it is discreet, having in view para. 498 of the King's Regulations, to allow inspectors of this; ransport to circulate letters which are undoubtedly a gratuito -advertisement for the commer
cial firms concerned in the r cture of the vehicles, and which lay both the War Office officials and the A.S.C. officers concerned open to the cry of suspect' being raised against their integrity. It would have been sufficient, we should have thought, for the letters setting forth the War Office requirements, to have given the information that the names of the makers of the subvention type of vehicle could be supplied on application, instead of embodying them in the circular letters. Advertising commercial houses by War Office officials is open to serious objections all round."