Design in Relation to Battery-electric Vehicles
Page 34
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Denis F. Pilkington
TransPort Officer, Lancashire Associated Collieries
WITH reference to the letter by Carlton F. Roberts headed " Points to Consider in Post-war Design," and published in your issue of December 12, I have waited in vain to see appreciations of the points he raises. Is no other operator going to back him up? If not, manufacturers will think that he is a lone voice crying in the wilderness, and that all other operators mast be satisfied, and so they will be able safely to disregard his complaints. Well—are operators satisfied?
Perhaps many who read that letter had never heard of the writer, but from the tone of the letter and the special reference to the standardization of spare parts I take him to be Capt. C. F. Rbberts, transport manager of Hovis, Ltd., who has a big experience• to back up every one of his points. I would be prepared to gamble that if he read again the same, or an additional paper, to that which he read to the I.T.A. Conference at the Commercial Motor Show of 1935, a lot more people would get up to support him with complaints of their own.
What war troubles have brought to light and thrust forcibly into so many extra operators' sight is that when a part breaks down and the chassis manufacturer ruiis out of stock, no other maker's parts are of any use, therefore one has to get a part mended or built up by welding, or a new piece of metal machined down. No doubt manufacturers have wanted to keep away from other makers' standardized parts, so that other people's —presumably less good—material could not be used in place of their own.
The S.M.M. and T. and I.A.R. went to great trouble over their Standardization Lists, but I believe that the only way to get progress would be for all designers to be locked up with those lists for a week, fed on bread and water, and then, after six months, for every chassis turned out with a non-standard part, the maker to be fined £100.
Looking Towards Post-war 'Models Motor manufacturers must now be designing, looking, or starting to look, towards post-war models, and as suggestions do not seem to get home, apart possibly from exceedingly large concerns with a market of hundreds of new vehicles per annum, I think complaints in the Technical Press will be the only way to drive home this subject, and operators may be listened to instead of always having to accept what the manufacturer thinks is good for them.
Not only was a lot of valuable information inserted in the paper by Mr. Sheannan before the I.A.E., but in the 53 pages of the discussion—and do not forget, this refers to short-distance vehicles to a total of between 280,000 and 320,000, if not more.
A terrible waste of effort is caused by manufacturers in connection with the wear and tear of the human body. At five rounds per day, eight stops per delivery per round, and 51 days per week, you get 220 stops per week, on a 50-week basis, 11.000 stops or. descents from and ascents into the cab. I know some concerns and vehicles do more, and some less than the above, but I do not think it is an over-statement; therefore on 300,000 vehicles, if the manufacturers cause the driver A32 to mount a foot higher than he need, we have a wasted effort of 508,200,000,000 ft-lb, (with an average driver of 11 stone) per annum. Why cannot we have easier entrance and lower floor levels?
To branch off to another aspect—electric vehicles. These are worse in some cases, as the customer has to accept what the chassis manufacturer turns out (and he in turn has to accept what the battery manufacturer produces). Now many operators who change to electries may know, roughly, what range they want to start with, but they have very little idea of exactly what their mileage per day will be a year hence, and much less three years later. With petrol this does not matter, but with an electric you have to forecast your battery capacity three years beforehand (getting on for four now) -with a lead acid, and up to 10 years for an alkaline battery. This is an impossibility. Therefore, although I know a new or replacement battery will be ample for six to nine months with a capacity of 240 amp. hrs., I myself have to safeguard the position by ordering a 288 amp.-hr. size, although at the end of 12 months I might find a 190 amp.-hr. size would do. Thus in this case long life may be a curse rather than a blessing.
Battery Life v. Weight 4nd Cost I see from Mr. Morrison's paper in your issue of January 2 that batteries with a one-year life can be made for one-third the cost, and with 40 per cent, less weigkt. I have checked the one-third cost, but not the weight. Let us say one-third for that also. Why cannot we have them? Presumably because the battery manufacturers (pre-war) did not want any further trade.
What does this cOst the operator?
Weight. Cost. Life.
2-Tonner. ' (lb.) (years) Compelled to buy 288 amp.-hr.
(40 cell) £227 3
Could buy 240-amp-hr. (40 cell) ' 780 £65 I (*x 2,340) (i x 196) Saving ... 2,030 £162 Weight.
1-Tonner, (lb.) Compelled to buy 240 amp.-hr. Cost. Life.
(years) (36 cell) ... .„.. 2,106 £176 3
Could buy 192 amp.-hr. (36 cell) 570 £49 I (x1,710) (1 x 147) Saving ... 1,536 4127 The loss of carrying capacity is, therefore:—
On a 2-tonner at 22 journeys per week—say, 20 tons per week or 1,000 tons per 50 weeks.
On a 1-tonner at 30 journeys per week-201 tons per week, or over 1,000 tons per 50 weeks. , With regard to cost, the depreciation is only £10 extra, although the interest at 3 per cent. is £4 17s. Od. on the 2-tonner, or a total of 6s. per week. This is not so serious as the extra capital outlay when buying the vehicle, The
chassis price cannot be reduced until mass production be brought in but I feel sure that this extra £100-£150 is what so often breaks the camel's back—in other words, stops a possible sale, and so obviates the possibility of lowering the chassis price through greater sales.
Let battery manufacturers ask their traction battery customers if they would prefer one-year batteries at onethird the price and one-third the weight. I, personally, should be prepared to change all our electric vehicles on to one-year-life batteries.
Why are manufacturers allowed to sell to the public vehicles with 24, 30, 36, 40, 44 and 48 cells? This I consider a scandal. I considtr that the 30-cell and 40cells units should be quite sufficient.
This affects considerably the price of chargers. The Westinghouse Brake and Signal Co. has done its best to get simplification, and yet it has to make 60 different
standard chargers for lead-acid cells. How can the operator get a mass-produced,. and so cheaper, article that way? So that we could charge any of bur vehicles anywhere, I asked for a quotation for a rectifier to cover 30-48 cells, and the price was £137—against £50-Z73 for use with one size of battery.
Lastly, why do some electric-vehicle makers think that their vehicles will never have to run in snow, as there is not sufficient clearance to fit chains? Also a beautiful smooth exterior does not always mean all is baautiful within, and does in many cases considerably,
if not completely, hamper accessibility. The petrolvehicle maker also.will have to watch accessibility.