The Vehicle That
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
a Little Better
A Final Point about the Oiler versus Petrol-vehicle Problem. Some Vehicle Prices and some Cogent Reasons why One Chassis Should Cost More than Another
BE VORE starting on the problem which is the subject ofthis article, 1 wish to refer one more, briefly, to the three articles on the oil versus petrol controversy (see issues dated October 22 and 29, and November 5). There is still another way of looking at that matter, besides those of direct savings on fuel, etc., with which I have already dealt,
At the present time money is cheap. This is, therefore, the opportunity to buy oilers and prepare for after the war when, for a time at leaSt, vehicles will stand-in at a higher figure in other words, the " investment " value to-day of an oiler is high: it will appreciate so soon as the war is over,
Taking the 1914-1918-war as a precedent, and I think that is reasonable—notwithstanding all the political chatter about the different-arrangements which are to be made— prices will rise so soon as peace comes, and stay high for a considerable period. The man who buys a good machine now will find it worth more then.
Now, I wish to deal with another matter, closely related to that of the choice between oil and petrol, in that it is alsco a problem of selection, namely, as VS whether if is worth while, when buying a new veRicle, to pay a little more, provided that there be seine assurance that the higher-priced Vehicle_ is, in reality, the better article.
Big Gap in Prices for the
Same Class of Vehicle There is, aS everyone knows, a wide difference in the prices Of commercial-vehicle chassis. That difference, moreover, is not necessarily due to the fact that some are oil-engine-equipped, whereas others are designed to use petrol as fuel. For an oil-engined lorry with double dropsided body, capable of carrying a pay-load of 6 tons and weighing less than 3 tons unladen, the haulier may be asked to pay anything from £800 to £1,200. The haulier, faced with the problem of deciding what he will buy, quite naturally wishes to know what justification there is for this difference, which is so great that he can buy three of the low-priced vehicles for the price of two of the others. Some explanation, he thinks, is needed.
But is it? No one buying a car seems surprised that he is asked £2,000 or so for a Rolls-Royce, yet can purchase a What-name for £350. The car buyer seems willing to accept as axiomatic that there is justification, in the quality of the product, for this big difference in cost. If his pocket be sufficiently well lined, he buys the Rolls-Royce, otherwise he buys a car the price of which is within his jneans. Actually, when we get down to bedrock, we agree that he is actually buying on price, but does so, in a sense, subconsciously. He is making a mistake, really, but as I am n6t. concerned with the problems of the car owner, I will leave
it at that. •
What does cOncern me is that there are so manyhauliers who, when buying a new vehicle, reason along the same lines. Faced with the choice between two 6-tonners, one Of which is priced at £1,200 and the other at £800, the majorit-ysays: " I cannot afford to pay £1,200 for a new 'vehicle, I will buy that one costing £800,"
It is true that he may also venture the opinion that he can see no justification for the extra £400 and may have knowledge of fellow hauliers who, so far as he is aware, are
doing very nicely with the lower-yticed. vehicle. Ultimately, however, he does in fact make his choice on the question of -price. He will decide that'he cahnot afford the £1,200 Vehicle. •Whereas, in actual fact, lie cannot afford to buy the one at £800!
This is not the first time that I have tackled the .problem of, the expensive versus the low-priced vehicls: it is not likely to be my final article on the same subject. For one thing, it is so extremely difficult to put forward a case which cannot be completely shatteredapparently—b4 the production of evidence relating to some particular examples of use.
I am, as I assume -is fairly obvious, in favour of paying a good price for a good -article, in the belief that it pays to do so. Whenever I start to argue on those lines I am .sure to be told of an example of a high-priced chassis which gave nothing but trouble from the start, whereas, on the otber hand, a low-priced one has given excellent troublefree service from the word " go." It is useless to tell the unfortunate owner of the high-priced vehicle that he -was unlucky; his pocket is still sore and he is riot' inclined to be reasonable. As for the man who is a satisfied customer —it would be folly to try to disabuse him.,
Nevertheless, it is unfair; it is, indeed, unwise to take such isolated instances into consideration when making a choice. The law of probabilities favours the better-class machine and, with certain exceptionsto which I shall refer—the haulier is always better advised to buy the best vehicle op the market. In the long run it will earn him much higg,er profits and, after all, that is what he is„out toget.
Point-by-point Comparison to Justify Price Differences
• Another thing which makes it difficult to prove my point is that, in order to discover where the extra value lies, or, if you like it this way, to discover if there be any extra value equivalent to the extra costs, a meticulous point-bypoint comparison of specification and actual chassis details is necessary, and cannot always be carried out. It so happens, -however, that, quite recently, I was doing a.job of work which involved, partly as a side issue, the Comparison of the merits of two lorries, one of which was to cost £73 more than the other. What I had to do was to enumerate those points wherein the former was an improvement on the latter, so justifying the difference in first cost.
These are the differences I found. (I will call .the
expensive chassis Y and the less-expensive one Z.) . In the first place, viewing the two chassis generally, I was more favourably impressed with Y. It looked a better engineering job, was better finished, and gave the impression of being " designed." The other, Z, seemed crude by comparison; it gave the impression of being a built-up job, rather than a product of a properly preconceived plan. Of course there may have been no grounds, in the differences thus enumerated, for giving one more credit than the other, from the utility point of view. If the units of Z he sound, if they be well selected, having in view the work they were to do, there is no reason'why the chassis should not give service as satisfactory to the haulier as that rendered by the other.
However, from the general to the particular. There were actually 10 points of difference between the two .vehicles and in all cases the comparison was in favour of Y. So marked, indeed, was the ,superiority of Y over Z, in respect of these points, that I had o hesitation in saying that it was well worth the difference in price.
The 10 points were as follow:—
(1) The back-axle casing was more substantial and better made. This is very important; a rear axle that flexes excessively under load gives rise to all sorts of problems, in particular, differential trouble and liability to drivingaxle fracture, resulting from the combined bending and twisting stresses.
(2) The braking system, of a proprietary type, common to both chassis, was one grade better on Y than fwas on Z. The maker of the brake gear marketed several models, Apparently. the producer of chassis Z had considered that Model 3 was good enough. The manufacturer of Y decided that Model 4 brake gear, although most costly, was his choice, Remember that both vehicles are of the same load. capacity, 6 tons. In other words, the brake gear on Z
was, by comparison with Y, " skimped." How many times is it said, " The chassis is a good one but for the brakes. I have had a lot of trouble with them." The maker of Y chassis is determined that such a remark shall not he passed about his product. He fits a better brake gear hut it costs more and, quite,naturally, he passes the 'extra on to his customer.
Searing Surface of Shackle Pins an Impditant Point (3) The shackle pins on Y are one-third larger in diameter than those on 1; the bearing surface of the shackle pins is actually three times as large. Comment on that point is almost superfluous. If the shackle pins on the Z chassis last any time at all, then it is reasonable to expect that those on the Y should outlast, the vehicle. Shackle pins in every make of vehicle are a source of worry; their renewal is a regularly recurring item of expense. To he given pins three times as large is worth something extra on the price of the vehicle, not merely because of the cost of renewing the pins but because of the time lost in so doing.
• . (4) The spring brackets are more substantial on Y than on Z. This follows, naturally, as the result of the increase in the size of the shackle pins. It is good to realize, nevertheless, that prospects of breakage are reduced.
(5) The springs on Y are wider, longer, and have more
leaves. Better riding qualities may possibly result: it depends-on whether this increase in dimensions has been made merely with a view to giving bigger and stronger springs, or if the mechanics of suspension have been studied. My preliminary remarks. about the Y chaSsis having the appearance of being well designed have application in this connection. At any rate, even if the stispension be no better than that on Z, the risk of spring breakage is less. "
(6) The king-pins on the front axle of the Y chassis are larger and have a bigger bearing surface than those on the Z chassis. This is another item which calls, for little discussion. King-pins on front axles are liable to wear; to: increase the size and the area of the bearing surfaces is to reduce the prospects of trouble, diminish the cost of maintenance and, again, to save time.
• (7) The frame of the Y chassis is better braced. A more substantial and better-built frame reduces the risk of a breakage of that important unit. Moreover, the components are legs liable to develop trouble as the result of lack of alignment if the frame be well designed in respect of its bracing.
Why It Pays to Have a First-class Engine Mounting
(8) The engine mounting is superior. This feature is complementary to the previous one. Better bracing of the chassis diminishes the risk of damage to components. To mount the engine effectively in a well-braced chassiS is to take two steps towards perfection of design and construction. As the engine is an oiler, the need for attention to its mounting in the chassis frame is more urgent, as compared with a petrol engine. I am acquainted with vehicles which are continuously having -trouble because the engine supports break. Even if the Z chassis does nof stiffer much from that trouble it is comforting to have the assurance, in the design of the engine mounting in Y, that the risk is still further diminished..
(9) The gearbox and the gear-changing mechanism on the Y chassis are made by A, those on the Z chassis by B. In this matter the frame of mind of the maker of the. Y chassis is that he decided to fit the more expensive gear. Of these two gearboxes that made by A is more robust than' that made by B. Its shafts are stiffer and shorter; the bearings are larger and closer together; the box is better designed, but it costs more. The maker of the Y chassis— in this as in the case of the brake gear—has decided to pay
little more in the first place so as to ensure a better product which will last longer, give better service and cost less in maintenance.
(10) The wheel studs are bigger. There is a bull point
here, as. everyone must -agree. A on to the diameter of the wheel studs triples the time that may elapse between occasions .svhen the nuts on the studs need tightening. Studs that are on the small side stretch and give under
stress, allowing the nuts to come.loose. S. T. R.