Correspondence.
Page 14
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Smithfield Show and Tractors.
The Editor, "THE COMMERC/ AL MOTOR."
Sir :—Not being able to visit Smithfield Show this season, I am glad to see that you are giving full illustrated descriptions of the steam tractors to be exhibited, as, after all, the tractor is the only form of motor which meets the requirements of millers, hauling contractors, or builders.who have to move, say, one day, a -furniture van and, another day, a boiler ; another day aload of long scaffold poles and boards may have to be dealt with. Italso permits the use of winding rope, and towing chain, on bad ground; this is absolutely necessary for much work off the hard roads. As compounding with two cranks, large road wheels, and efficient springing on good plate springs, has been found necessary for the economical running of the larger road engines, surely it is much more necessary on the small tractors, which travel faster. Possibly the tangent wheel (if it will stand) will help to attain smooth running.
Looking forward with pleasure to reading your Smithfield numbers.—Yours faithfully, Cycle Stores, Romsey, FRED PAGE. 23rd November, 1907.
Comparative Working Costs.
The Editor, "TILE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—I have been reading Mr. Henry Sturmey's excellent article on the running cost of a horse van, and see that he puts the price 'per horse-van mile " at 5.28d. This surely must be a mistake, as he has overlooked the fact that, after delivering a load of goods, the van returns empty, so that, instead of 5.28d, " per horse-van mile," it would work out at to.56d., and this would only be for a load going to miles and returning empty. If the journeys were shorter, the horse would not be able to do so many deliveries, on account of the time occupied in loading and unloading. For instance, it would be impossible for a van to do ten journeys of one mile each, and if he did six, it would be quite as much as he could manage. If you took the average of deliveries say at 4 miles out, this would give two journeys a day for each horse and van, and, taking the total cost per day of zo miles at 5.28d., this works out at 1o5.6od., and this, divided by 16 miles (the total of the. two journeys), gives an average of 13.2od. "per horse-van mile" From my own experience, this is much nearer the mark than Mr. Sturmey's figures, and I think, if you were to take, say, is. per horse-van mile, this would be as cheap as one could possibly do it.
I shall be glad to see Mr. Sturmey's remarks on the cost of running a motor van, as I have been seriously considering the advisability of adopting one myself.—Yours faithfully, E. H. JOHNSON.
London, 19th November, 1907.
[This correspondent will now have seen Mr. Stnrrney's motor costs. As regards the. "5•28d. per horse-van mile," this figure does not require doubling. When the van retnrns empty it is still, if accurate, the cost per " horse-van mile." Of course, if loaded one way only, the cost per "loud per mile" will be approximately double the cost per "horse-van mile." We prefer the statement of cost per vehicle mile to any other method, as each prospective ea?,. can turn that into cost per ton or cwt, according to his own nerds.—En..1 British versus Foreign Vehicles.
The Editor, " THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—When I had finished reading Mr. Henry Sturmey's article in your issue of the 31st of October, 1 must confess that I felt rather surprised that you should have given publicity to such a bigoted view as that taken by your contributor. The letter from " Impartial " in your issue of a couple of weeks later is only slightly less biassed. Both, 1 am afraid, have written without giving that consideration which common fairness demands for the competitors. Mr. Sturmey gloats over what he terms the "Foreign Manufacturers' Waterloo,'' whilst Mr, " Impartial " replies with " Afraid of the excellent material which comes from the Marienfelde works." It is but a poor form of criticism to throw mud at the opposition.
" Impartial " belies his name when he makes such an insinuation. He must, surely, admit that the materials used by many well-known British makers are above reproach. Writing from the Continental manufacturer's point of view, one is prepared to admit that the British manufacturers have produced a much larger percentage of good vehicles than has been the case with our Continental manufacturers. Now, I would ask Mr. Sturmey if that is a just reason why our machines should be subjected to such a blind and unreasonable attack? There is no need for me to offer anything in defence of the Marienfelde vehicles; the reputation of this works, and the records • put up by the vehicles from it, need no other champion than a levelheaded engineer's judgment. Is Mr. Sturmey aware that the " Hallford " wagon, which won one of the gold medals in your recent trials and the R.A.C. special diploma, is of Continental design? That vehicle is practically a copy of the Saurer wagon (Switzerland), and the parent vehicle is no less successful in its operations than its offspring has proved to be. I have always understood that " Fair play "was the motto of the Britisher ; if so, please let us have it. We do not mind criticism, because it helps us to perfect the designs of our machines, but such criticism should be based on firm and reasonable grounds, should be given in a friendly spirit, and should not expose the writer's own disappointment.— Pari s , " CONTINENTAL."
[This letter, from Paris, was accompanied by a private one in which our c..irrespondent asserts that Mr. Sturmey 's article has given offence to many Continental makers. If this is so, we are sure that it is regretted by Mr. Sturmey as in uch as by ourselves : our columns are open to all for the publication of their views now.—En.
The Editor, " THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—My objection to Mr. Henry Sturrney's article is that his bases of argument are altogether too flimsy. I main tain that he had insufficient data to work upon, and that his deductions are very much in the nature of guess-work. The facts in his possession were nothing more than the number of minutes during which delays were experienced, without reference to the cause or nature of each delay, or its sequel.
You, Sir, thought it advisable, in each of your trial reports, to sound the word of warning in regard to these records, and it appears to me that Mr. Sturmey has failed to take notice of those warnings, which were obviously needed and cannot have been given without occasion.
I am glad to know that Mr. Sturmey does not go out of his way to attack the Continental maker. His article cer tainly gave that impression to me, and I am an Englishman too, and like to see a fair show for both sides. I do not agree with Mr. Sturmey that any company possesses as
good records as do the Milnes-Daimler Company, and I say that with an internal knowledge of the manner in which these vehicles, both omnibuses and lorries, wear in hard use.
Let him, as I have had to do, run and manage a number of mixed vehicles, and he will then appreciate why I come
forward to stick up for the Mitnes-Daimler Company. In this connection, in view of the uncharitable remark of your correspondent Mr. Stanley Raker, who writes that " it is only natural for Impartial ' to look after his interests," I may say that my identity in this correspondence is unrevealed to Mr. Burford, and that I have no connection whatsoever with the Milnes-Dalmler Company.
I do not dispute the accuracy of the figures which Mr. Sturmey gave, but I fail to admit either the correctness or the wisdom of the deductions which he endeavoured to draw from some theories or other which are unintelligible to me.Yours faithfully, Birmingham. " IMPARTIAL. "
The7Manchester Show.
The Editor, " THE COMMF.RCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—We notice that you have lately been devoting some spade in your leading articles and in your correspondence columns to the question of provincial shows. We are members of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd., and last year were bond signers. This year, however, we have not seen our way to sign the bond, because the show to which the Society have given their patronage in Manchester is to be held in a hall which is absolutely useless for an exhibition of commercial steam vehicles, and because the motor show held at Belle Vue last year was a very satisfactory one to us from a business point of view ; nor can we undertake to withdraw from the large agricultural shows, which are quite as valuable to us for business purposes as the Society's exhibition, at Olympia.
We consider that the interests of commercial motor vehicle builders, and steam wagon makers in particular, are not sufficiently represented on the Council, and that, probably, the requirements of this branch of the trade are not properly appreciated, otherwise a better scheme would have been adopted—Yours fai thf ully, P.p. THE LANCASHIRE STEAM MOTOR CO., LTD.
C. R. Nixon, Secretary. Leyland, Lancs., 22nd November, 1907.
Awards in Dartford Ploughing Match.
The Editor, "THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—We notice, on page 274 of this week's issue of your paper, a paragraph with regard to the awards at the North Kent Association Ploughing Match. As we have protested against the way the judging was done at these trials, we herewith enclose copy of the letter written to the secretary and trust, in fairness to this company, that you will insert this.—Yours truly,
For THE 1VEI, AGRICULTURAL MOTORS, LIMITED,
A. HOFFMANN, Manager.
45, Great Marlborough Street, London, W.
21st November, 1907.
fExtracts horn copy of letter to Chas. Hinds, Esq., North Kent Association, Dartford, Kent.] Dear Sir, 9th November, 1907. We have to express our dissatisfaction with regard to the manner in which the judging of the trials for agricultural motors was conducted on the 7th instant. In order to make the matter perfectly clear, we should like to deal with each of our complaints separately.
RULE 1.—THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE liVORK DONE WITH THE MOTOR PLOUGH.
2-yd.—The ploughing was quite equal to some of the best show work done on the ground. No fault whatsoever could be found with it. Mr. Jesse Ellis, one of -the judges, himself, admitted that it was the best, but he said that they did not consider this very much, as the Saunderson would do equally well if it had our plough. The headlands left were the ordinary headlands as used for horse-a. The Ivel motor, which is a standard machine, fitted with an 18-20h.p. engine, hauled a three-furrow plough. The weight of the tractor is 35cwt,, and it, therefore, imbeds the land very little. The time taken for ploughing the allotted piece of land was two hours.
RULE 1I.—THE COST OF DOING THIS WORK.
s. d.
Ivel.—Five gallons of paraffin at 50. equals 2 3i One gallon of petrol at 114d. equals 0
33
The petrol was used for heating the vaporiser, and also for running to and fro to where the consumpiion was taken. The method adopted for measuring the fuel was by filling up the tanks and seeing what quantity was put in, before the judges.
here the Ivel had a tremendous advantage over the Saunderson machine, owing to the fact that it was able to use cheap paraffin and not expensive petrol for running purposes, but apparently no credit was given by the judges on this point at all.
What we fail to understand is that the judges should not have taken into consideration the actual price of the petrol used on the machine. Both machines used Pratt's Spirit at a cost in bulk of Md. per gallon, but the Ivel had the advantage, as before-mentioned, of using paraffin as the bulk of this fuel, it therefore scoring very heavily. We would like to point out that the system of measurement adopted by the judges was exceedingly unfair, because in one case, namely, that of the Iva, the measurements were taken car. rectly by filling up the tanks at the conclusion of the trial, and thus the amount of fuel consumed was easily known. In the case of the Saunderson machine, however, the judges informed us that they had merely calculated by measurement of the various dimensions of the tanks, and we venture to suggest that this is not only an improper method of arriving at a satisfactory result, inasmuch as it differed from the method used fur measuring the fuel on the Ivel, but it was also absolutely inaccurate. It is obvious that our machine, being of smaller horse-power, would consume much less fuel than the Saunclerson, which is of more than double the horse-power, and yet the judges compute the fuel used about the same.
RULE III.—THE COST OF THE MACHINE AND PLOUGH.
Joel—This was an absolutely standard machine, which is sold for £312 10s. complete, fitted with paraffin vaporiser, and is catalogued by us and sold all over the world.
RULE IV.---EASE OF MANIPULATION AND ADAPTABILITY FOR .OTHER AGRICULTURAL WORK.
Ivel.—The weight of the tractor complete is 35 cwt. Cultivaling.—lioth machines did exactly the same kind of work by hauling a similar cultivator.
A wagon of 2-1 tons was hauled up a hill leading out of the field.
There was absolutely no question as to which machine was more adapted for doing the majority of farm work. This machine proved itself to be ahle to turn in a very much smaller space. There is another important point which has to be 'borne in mind, and that is, the simplicity of the mechanism, as-, of course, these machines are intended for use on the farms where they are not driven by experts, it therefore being mostessential that the machine should be as simple as possible.
trust that you will give serious consideration .to the points raised, because in all competitions in which the Tvel has taken part, we have never had occasion before to raise a complaint. We are exceedingly jealous of our reputation, and are perfectly clear that had the judging been carried out on similar lines for both machines, that the result would have been in our favour.
In raising this matter, I do so in the hope that you will have the facts looked into, and I am sure that your commit. tee will render -to my company every courtesy in the consideration of the matter. This is the third occasion on which we have competed at the North Kent trials, and, therefore, I feel I can offer you no apology in setting the facts out so fully.
Yours very faithfully,
(Signed) CHAS. jARRoTt, Managing Director.