Why we need better chassis
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Paul Brockington's article, Wanted — a better chassis for the body makers:" June 25, said a lot of things about chassis layout which have required to be said for many years, and left unsaid many more things which anybody responsible for mounting bodies and equipment of all types has muttered under his breath regarding the parentage of chassis layout draughtsmen.
Two specific instances come to mind: 1. Vauxhall advise that only the top power take-off position on the Bedford KM should be used, due to the risk of losing all the gearbox oil should a bottommounted pto oilseal fail. They make this impossible without the body builder resiting the light channel cross-member to which the torque reaction stay is attached, which sits across the run of any prop shaft connected to a top pto.
2. On the Ford D1614 the makers thoughtfully provide two pto facings. The offside one cannot be used, as the exhaust downpipe crosses it with about an inch clearance, while it is impossible to fit a reasonable sized pump or compressor to line up with a pto on the nearside facing because the exhaust pipe is routed across the chassis just where such a unit should be fitted.
These are only two glaring instances, but all tanker and bodybuilders will be able to quote many cases of complete lack of thought in positioning items of chassis equipment, some of which render it impossible to carry out the chassis builders' own maintenance instructions once a body has been fitted.
It is extremely difficult for bodybuilders to obtain payment from customers for chassis modifications necessitated by poor initial layout design, and obvious failure on the part of development departments to consider their chassis when fitted with various types of body and . ancillary equipment. It is completely impossible to obtain such payment from the chassis builder.
That careful chassis layout is not a lost art can be seen in the products of Albion Motors Ltd and a few other honourable exceptions. Let us hope that at Earls Court this year we shall see draughtsmen and designers from other companies on the stands of such paragons of virtue with notebooks and cameras being put to good use.
J. R. COOMBES,.
Project Engineer, Road Transport, MacLeod & Miller (Engineers) Ltd, Glasgow.