OPINIONS . FROM OTHERS.
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views
expressed is accepted.
Pros and Cons of Proprietary Units.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL ,MOTOR.
125331 Sir,—I have read with interest the leading article on the above subject which appeared in the issue of The Commercial Motor for November 16th last. An experience dating back to the earliest days of the commercial vehicle in this country is perhaps sufficient excuse for airing my views on this very important subject.
Taking the article in the order in which, it is written, I notice that surprise is expressed at the few firms making a speciality of units such as are mentioned. I think that the smallness of the number. of such firms who have been financially successful is an answer to the point raised.
With regard to the second paragraph, in which surprise is again expressed that the makers of proprietary units suitable for heavy vehicles and high-speed coacheg are not swamped out with orders, I for one am not surprised at all. The makers of heavy vehicles and of high-speed coaches feel that a great responsibility rests upon them; they have, in most cases, examined such units as are procurable and many have, to my knowledge, procured samples, in some cases even putting them into experimental vehicles, and after carefully weighing up all considerations have come to the conclusion that they could go one better by designing such a unit which will harmonize better with the rest of their design. Even if it cost a few pounds more to produce they feel that their own design will give better results than the bought one, not that the bought unit is inferior, Ira somehow it never seems to fit in properly with the rest of the design; it is always too heavy or too light, too long or too short, or too something or another. It is to the designer's way of thinking an eyesore—a square peg in a round hole.
. The saving in. cost is usually well considered and often found not to be sufficient to warrant the introduction of a proprietary component into the design when all considerations are taken into account.
With regard to the third paragraph, I heartily agree that individuality in design, properly applied, makes for the design of a better and more lasting vehicle, but I do not think that the word "conservatism" is a happy one when applied to those makers who are striving to produce the best that can be made, even if it costs a few pounds more per unit.
I notice that in the fourth paragraph American methods are mentioned. Now I should like to obtain a plebiscite of the users of mixed fleets of American " trucks " and British commercial motors, and unless I am mistaken I think they would say that the reduction in price does not compensate for the generally admitted superiority of the British vehicle.
That the proprietary unit system reduces the cost of production, we all know, but is it worth while? Do we find in other kinds of machinery that the cheapest kind is the best to sell? The cry for cheapness usually comes from the inefficient salesman. Do we find the makers of the cheapest machine-tools doing the best business? No, we do not! Do we find the makers of cheap printing plants doing the best business? Once again, no! Have the numerous attempts to popularize the cheaper forms of typewriter or sewing machine, against the properly made and thoroughly efficient machine, succeeded? Again, no! I could fill a whole page with similar instances where the dearer and more efficient article has ousted the one which is cheaper
and less efficient. That being so, why should we think that the commercial motor, which is essentially a machine where the best possible designing is required E42
for the various classes of work to be done by such machines, is an exception to the rule?
My experience teaches me that we should never get such good results from a machine made up out of " selected " parts as we get from one that is properly designed right through for its particular purpose.
It is not always easy to express one's ideas in writing in such a matter, but the attempts I have seen, and have made myself, to construct a satisfactory machine from ready-made parts, coupled with something closely allied to intuition, convinces me that, with certain exceptions which I will mention later, the really efficient commercial vehicle, excepting in the lighter forms, cannot be produced on these lines, and that the comparatively small saving in cost will not be worth while.
Certain parts such as magnetos, radiators and carburetters lend themselves to proprietary production; steering boxes and universal joints might do the same, but I should stop there.
If the proprietary unit system became general it . would bring into existence a number of more or less irresponsible small assemblers whose main idea would be to cut prices, and I feel sure that the quality of the vehicle as a whole would suffer arid, although the user might temporarily gain by getting a cheaper vehicle, he would soon be saying "give me back the good old days when my vehicles were made as a whole by a responsible firm who thought more of their reputation than of tempting me with the bait of a low first cost." If proprietary units dominated the British factories as they do the American factories, designers who take pride in their production would die of broken hearts, progress would be prevented and the general standard (in my opinion) would be lowered. The idea is antagonistic to the lines on which British industries have been built, and I should be sorry to see it become
general.—Yours faithfully, C. M. LINLEY. London.
The. Coach Passenger and the Low Load-line.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2534] Sir,—I notice in The Commercial Motor for November 9th that Mr. Sidney E. Garcke criticizes the popularity of the low load-level type of chassis. It seems to me his suggestion that some passengers prefer the older type of machine because of their being able to see "over the hedges" is not tenable. At the last Commercial Show in London practically all the bigger manufacturers favoured a low-load chassis, and, further, a perusal of the advertisement columns of the "1927 Outlook" 'Amber will prove that these models are still being retained. Surely, then, purchasers are well satisfied with this class of machine and there is no intention on their part to return to the older type; also, I take it, prominent manufacturers and up-to-date operators are sufficiently alive to modern requirements and trend of design; otherwise the demand for low loading-line would not be so insistent
My own opinion is that there would be very few of these old high machines in use if they were up against serious competition from the more modern low-loading type.---Yours faithfully, EXPERIENCE. Hamilton.