Opinions from Others.
Page 14
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Why Not Double-engine Ploughing with Oil instead of Steam Tractors ? A Further Letter on the "Design or Assmbly ? " Question.
PETROL SUPPLIES A MUNITION WORKERS TRIP. The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1601] Sir,—We have noticed comments in several papers lately that char-a-banes trips should be stopped and that petrol should not be supplied for this purpose. Foreseeing difficulty in this direction, we wrote to all our clients pointing out that in the event of petrol supplies being stopped we should have to cancel the order, and this is one of the replies :— 27th February, 1916.
Dear Sir,—Re your letter with regard to motors for our trip OH 27th May, isn't it possible to save 14etro1 for that date as our men are working day and night on Government workand they are looking forward to it as a day to do us good Please drop me word if it is possible to do that. Trust ing you can.—Yours faithfully, S. MARRIOTT. Norfolk Park, Sheffield.
We replied that our supplies were hardly enough or our present requirements.—Yours faithfully, THE BARNSLEY 'MOTOR CO., LTD..
THE DESIGN OF THE OMNITRACTOR.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1602] Sir,-Re the Omnitractor described in your 2nd March issue, all-spur gearing has always been found the right thing in traction-engine design—but bolting spokes into the road wheels has been tried and discarded in favour of riveted wheels. Bolting gear rims to rims of road wheels has always failed on account of the. road wheels becoming out of truth with hard wear. The gearwheelsshould be solidly connected with the axle, in order to maintain the gears correctly in pitch. For field work rprings are best avoided, but the sprung steam tractor is available for road work, and work for two tngines is always present on farms of any size. A successful oil ploughing engine would effect a great saving over steam tackle in the haulage of coal and water. Why not make oil ploughing tackle to work like Fowler's successful double-engine system. Being lighter, they could often he taken into the field when the heavier steam engine could not be used. The differential gear described on page 37 of your 0th March issue is very old. I saw a similar one in
use 30 years ago.—Yours faithfully, FRED PAGE. 28, The Hundred, Romsey, Hants.
" DESIGN OR ASSEMBLY?"
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1603] Sir,—I hoped that some of the car builders ykuld take this matter up, but as they have not done so, may I again take up a little space in your paper on behalf of the " assembled chassis " and make a. few remarks connaited with the letter from " The :Writer of the Article."
have been taken to task because I ventured the opinion that the tendency of the trade is to assemble cars more and more, whereas " The Writer of the Article" considers that I am "very wide of the mark indeed" in holding this view, and in support of his case quotes the advertisement of a certain American firm which advertises that . its car is " not an assembled proposition"
As against, this I should like to refer to the leading article from the ",Automobile Trade Journal" of America for December last, which is as follows :— "There was a time not so far back when it was a stigma upon the car maker if it were known that n44 the car was an assembled product. Every manufacturer tried to ' put over' on a. public the thought that he manufactured in his own plant every part of the finished car. As time went on, the manufacturers and then the public realized that many of the best part makers were turning out a product which could not be equalled,' to say nothing of being surpassed, by the car manufacturer, who must necessarily manufacture this particular part on a much smaller scale.
"Quantity production, the feature which has made possible reduction in price, combined with high quality, is nowhere more prominently shown than in the production of automobile parts. "Very early the ear manufacturers recognized this, but as the public had not yet reached the stage of enlightenment, the attempt was made to cover up the fact that they were using standard parts. Special covers, hand hole plates, and other parts were east with the name of the car maker to help along the deception.
" To-day, however, not only the manufacturers, but the general public recognize the worth and allround serviceableness of a large line of standard car and truck parts. The car manufacturer, instead of covering up his use of such parts, advertises the fact and uses the name of the part maker as a guarantee to the public of the quality which he is incorporating in his product. "The 'assembled' car, therefore, when put out by the right manufacturer, and be is a manufacturer although he does not build in his factory each and every individual unit, is now taking its place with the best. Standardization throughout the machine has assisted in making this possible, and the former stigma connected with the word 'assembled' no longer exists."
This article requires no comment from me except that I might add that we, in Europe, are still very much in the condition spoken of in the first part of the article. This is due to causes of which we all know too much, but who is to say what the state of the trade would have been if war had not broken out nearly two years ago ?
If any further proof is required of the trend of the trade in America I would refer to the very interesting table published by THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR on. the 6th of January last. You, Sir, had fully described up to that date 36 American vehicles, which may, I think, be taken as fairly representing American practice. Referring to the table, one finds that only 19 per cent. of the makers construct the whole car, and 28 per cent, only make their own engines, gearboxes and back axles respectively, whereas no less than 61 per -cent-. appear to buy all their parts from makers of " stock" units.
From these figures it does not appear that I am "very wide of the mark indeed' as far as the American trade is concerned.
Now let us turn to the British makers of commercial vehicles. We are admittedly in aworse position at the present moment as regards choice of units, but of 39 British lorries, of which I have particulars, no less than 19, or 49 per -cent., purchase " stock " engines, while one or two makers of the complete car have purchased large quantities to supplement those of their own manufacture.
Quite a number of these lorries are by new makers, but I hold that these figures show that the tendency of British trade is to follow the American lead as far as they are able, and I believe that, as stated in my last letter, this tendency will grow with the facilities for exercising it. The citation of the Ford certainly has not "got well home " as" The Writer of the Article" thought, but 1 particularly wished to avoid this car as I have no first hand and personal knowledge of its manufacture; but if ray information is correct, even this company purchased their engines for many years from Messrs. Dodge Bros., until the latter firm went into direct competition with them, and even now I understand that the Ford Co. purchase quite a, lot of the minor units which are made by specialists. Apparently the only objection that "The Writer of the Article" has to the "assembled chassis " is its inherent inaccessibility. But why inherent? It was this word inherent that made me write in the first case. I really fail to see why a man of experience must of necessity make a mess of connecting up A's engine with B's gearbox and C's back axle, or if he wants to substitute D's gearbox instead of B's in his original design why he is foredoomed to failure. The connections are all extremely simple, and only a small amount of knowledge and forethought is necessary.
The principal units of a car are all remarkably alike in disposition and size, as has been shown so clearly by the recent reports in THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR of the papers by Messrs. Watson and Williamson on rear axles and engines respectively.
Surely it cannot be impossible to make a good job of such a simple matter. Mr. Woollard (letter 1592) shows how it can be done, and this absolutery agrees with what I said about the " assemblers " with whom I have had the pleasure of business dealings. Of course, there are some failures, as mentioned by " Micklegate," if the units are badly selected and indifferently mounted ; but my point is that this is not an inherent weakness, and does not occur if the people responsible for the " assembled " chassis are men of experience.—Yours faithfully, R. PENTONV.