Problems with sugar beet
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JACK SEMPLE (CM, Octobert 6) is quite correct. It is difficult to judge the weight of a load of sugar beet.
From my own observations the main variations are due to: 1, The average size of the individual beets which can even vary within a field according to growing conditions.
2, The amount of mud sticking to the beet and its wetness.
3, The adjustment of the beet harvester can affect the bulk density of beet.
He is not correct in stating that there is no method of checking load weights at the beet clamp.
Our own Weylode is fitted to many tippers used in the campaign. Some farmers use Weylodes on their hydraulic loaders.
We have several more recent competitors who offer more expensive weighing systems and I feel sure they would also claim they are ideal for best hauliers.
The problem for hauliers is to find a simple, cheap, and reliable system. With 14 years of agricultural experience, we do know that the Weylode stands up to agricultural abuse!
If any beet haulier wants to try a Weylode, we always offer new users a fortnight's free trial before payment so that they can check its usefulness for themselves.
JIM WILKIE Partner, Weyload Grickstone Farm, Chipping Sudbury, Bristol
When booking times are ignored
I READ with interest your report (CM, October 6) of the recent IGD convention at Stratford on Avon. I applaud the improvement made to their distribution systems by some
major retailers.
However, there are still far too many supermarket and cash and carry premises where communication between buyer and warehouse is non-existent. Vehicle booking in times are ignored and complaints often receive a "take it or leave it" response.
Delays of two or more hours when delivering 25 cases are not unknown. The cost of these delays to vehicle operators (manufacturers and third-party carriers alike) must amount to many thousands of pounds each year.
Before the "chain tightens further" I urge members of the IGD to ensure that the back doors of their own premises are not a weak link in this chain.
JOHN S. K. CLARKE Hampton Park Hereford
Why Donington was a success
I WOULD like to congratulate your reporter on an exceptionally fine and fair piece of reporting on the recent truck race at Donington (CM, October 13). As far as the future of truck racing is concerned may I make a couple of points. The reason Donington was a success was due partly to the strict rules — drawn up by transport engineers with racing experience and the strict scrutineering by two exceptionally capable people — Walter Batsone and Graham Montgomerie.
The British Truck Racing Association was determined for Donington to be a properly run race which is why it became associated to the Royal Automobile Club Motorsport Association and through the RAC to FISA, the body governing motorsport worldwide.
The fact that the overall winner and the runner-up were both people who earn their living driving on the road shows that whilst "big names" are certainly good for the gate at the end of the day it will take a very special racing driver to beat someone who does it for a living.
Your reporter (Jack Semple) is absolutely right; there will be a European series of races next year. The British Truck Racing Association intends to get involved, provided the spirit as well as the rules and regulations of Donington are adhered to.
ANDREW FRANKL Chairman British Truck Racing Association Beckenham, Kent
Spray suppression and Standards
THE CRITICISM by Tim Blakemore of the British Standards Institution Committee on Spray Suppression (CM September 29) is scarcely a fair one. The BSI takes care to see that the relevant sectors of effected industries are represented on its committees along with its own and independent experts. To suggest that the committee was dominated by the commercial interests of the spray equipment manufacturers is to belie the facts.
On average there were only three to four representatives of spray suppression manufacturers who attended the committee regularly. The total attendance at committee meetings varied from 15 at the first meeting to 23 at the last.
Nor does Mr Blakemore seem quite to have understood the nature of this particular British Standard. It is in two parts: one relating to the suppression materials which are tested at source and marked with the British Standard number, and the other to their fitting which can easily be checked at an hgv testing station or by the police.
He is also wrong to suggest that absorbent materials will require replacing in between one to three years. We cannot speak for other systems, none of which has been fully available even for the shorter period that he suggests, but Monsanto Clear Pass, which has been fitted to 18,000 vehicles since 1979, has very rarely had to be replaced on any of them, even for damage. JOHN GRIFFITHS Contact PR (London) London SW1 Tim Blakemore replies: The feature on the British Standard for the performance of spray suppression material and the legislation based on it did no more than reflect and summarise the widespread criticism of it that has come from many responsible individuals and organisations, including a number who were represented on the BSI technical committee which devised it.
It is hardly surprising that much of this criticism should have been directed at a perceived "commercial interest" when this performance standard was built around existing products, and the manufacturers of those products stand to gain so much, at the expense of operators.
There is no misunderstanding over the two parts of the Standard as it applies to new equipment, but what exactly is meant by the phrase in the regulations which demands that it be "maintained free from obvious defect which would be likely to affect adversely the effectiveness of the device", bearing in mind that this "effectiveness" has been called into doubt on new equipment, remains far from clear.