LOW COST FROM NORBA WASTE • I read with considerable
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
interest your article in Commercial Motor 17-23 March, concerning the Britannia Collectomatic chassis, under the heading "Biting the dust".
While it was an intriguing article, there were several glaring mistakes, one of which I note has already been taken up by another of our competitors. Two specific aspects concerning Norba were drastically wrong, giving an impression that could seriously affect our own sales efforts.
On page 40, halfway down the first column, you refer to the 6x4 Collectomatic as giving a healthy 12.29-tonne payload on a par with Norba's smaller, but cheaper, 20m3 capacity R220 unit.
To put the records straight, yes we can achieve the payload of 12.29 tonnes but the capacity of our body is 22m3 and I dislike intensely the way the word "cheaper" has been in cluded. While we are quite possibly less expensive, in no way is Norba cheap.
On your comparison charts on page 41, the effective capacity has been transferred into a bar chart.
As I am sure you can see the effect of utilising information which may not have been correct, it is shown up drastically when Norba is compared to the other competitor vehicles in the 6 x 4 range.
Barrie Woods, Norba Waste Handling Systems, Ellesmere, Shropshire.
The information which we used in our comparisons was, in each case, supplied by the relevant vehicle's manufacturer. We apologise if any confusion arose between the 20 and 22m3 Norba vehicles, and we can assure Mr Woods that our use of the word "cheaper", in relation to his product, was in no way intended as prejudiced, merely in relative cost —