Answers to Queries.
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Price of Benzol, [2103] " Tim; MAKERS" write :--" We note, according to the issue of THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR dated 26tii December, 1912, that the price of 90 per cent. benzol in bulk is 91d. per gallon. We shall be much obliged if you can supply us with the names of some firms from whom we can obtain this spirit."
ANsweee—The price which you quote from our issue of the 26th December last was mentioned before the Petrol Committee by Mr. Norman N. Holden, of Hardman and Holden, Ltd., Miles Platting, Manchester. It referred to benzol " naked" at the works. We learn from Mr. Holden that the price has hardened about 1id, a gallon since then.
Can They Cross the Bridge?
[2104] " KILLERS " write :—" We have just purchased a petrol motor lorry through the medium of your paper, and as we are having it from London by road the sellers advise us getting same insured before it comes. Can you recommend a good company'? " After buying the lorry, we are told by the owners of a toll bridge that we cannot take a motor lorry across, though we understand the bridge is safe for five tons; yet the load and lorry would not exceed three tons. The bridge is. massive and in good condition; we understand timber wagons of 50 cwt. or more go over it, but the argument is the weight is divided. Would you please inform us the best NS ay to proceed. We think that the owners should allow us across ; the charge for a two-horse vehicle is one shilling. The bridge in question crosses the Wye. at Erwood, from Breconshire to Radnorshire. The information our men give is that above toll charges are incorporated under Act of Parliament 39 and 40 Viet., 1876. There is no weight notice on the bridge, but we understand the toll-keeper is instructed to stop traction engines, etc. Motorcars go over, also furniture vans of a gross load of five tons."
ANSWER.—You can probably take no prompt action more effectively than to give an undertaking that the vehicle will be unloaded, that it will have a maximum weight of three tons, and that it will cross at low speed when no other vehicle • is on the bridge. On that undertaking, we have no doubt that the tollgate owners would let you through. Might it not he worth your while to run over to see them 1 Is the Act of Parliament. you mention the one under which the bridge was constructed . If you cannot get a special permit from the owners of the toll bridge, on your guaranteeing the maximum weight to them at whatever it is, we are afraid you will have to arrange that your driver makes a deviation, so Eta to avoid the bridge. The fact that there is a toll bar will prevent your vehicle from going over the bridge at your risk, because the driver would undoubtedly be hindered from doing so.
As tx0 insurance, communicate with the Utir and General or NV. R. Punting, Ltd.
Correction as to Maximum Width ia Relation to Unladen Weight.
[2105] " N.B." write Referring to your esteemed reply (No. 2097) regarding the permissible widths of motorcars, we have obtained the copies of the Orders in question, and have noted the restrictions.
"The Motor Car (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, Article II (2), says : The motorcar shall not exceed seven feet two inches in width, such width to be measured between its extreme projecting points.' A motorcar in this connection is a vehicle weighing two tons or less unladen.
"The Heavy Motor Car Order of 1904, Article IX, says: 'Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Car (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, a heavy motorcar, if its weight unladen is three tons or exceeds three tons . . . may, when measured between its extreme projecting points, be of a width not exceeding seven feet six inches.' 'It therefore appears to us from the Orders that vehicles up to three tons unladen weight are restricted to an overall width of 7 ft. 2 in., whilst above three tons unladen weight the limit of width is 7 ft. 6 in."
ANSWER.—We much regret the error to which you draw our attention. You were correct in your earlier letter when you quoted from ' Answer to Query' No. 2086. We are naturally very sorry that a mistake has been made in the second instance. As you state, the increase of width to 71 ft. is not permissible except in the case of vehicles which weigh three, tons or more unladen. In London, of course, the motorbus regulation of the Commissioner of Police, under which 7 ft. 2 in. is specified as the maximum width, overrides the Order to that extent.
Jobbing for Commercial Travellers.
[2106] " COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS" write :-" We are oonsidering the advisability of starting motors with a view to gradually disposing of our horses, and propose starting with small buses for commercial travellers. These gentlemen. only carry a stock of samples, which in most cases are not heavy ; one horse is usually sufficient for their purpose, but, in some cases, two are used for the longer journeys. We think 10,000 miles would represent an average year's travelling.
Would it be possible to run motors for this distance at £250 per annum, and, if not, what would be the figure, and what rate should be cheged (per mile) over that distance I We are reckoning chauffeur's wages at 30s. per week. " We understand that you are always ready to give the benefit of your practical knowledge to horseowners, on their first venturing upon motors, and therefore take the liberty of writing you."
ANSWER.—It will not pay you to quote for this class of work at 6d. per mile, unless you are guaranteed a minimum mileage weekly, and paid in respect of that minimum, whether the distance be covered or not. If you use a chassis of the type which is satisfactory for London cab work, and if the load at no time exceeds two passengers and 4 cwt. of samples, or the equivalent, there ought to be a. small margin of profit, with normal management and reasonable maintenance, on the rate which you mention-6d. per mile. in the absence of a guaranteed minimum mileage, and payment in respect, of it, the standing charges would eat up any profit. Above 200 miles a week, you should get Oki. a. mile.
If you have to exceed the weights that are mentioned above, we should recommend you to have pneumatic tires on the front wheels only, and solid tires on the back wheels.
You have probably not reckoned the fact that accident risks are greater with a motor vehicle than with a horse vehicle, and insurance charges therefore higher. If you can see your way to obtain another ld. per mile, you would be on a. safer basis, for the pneumatic-tired cab-type chassis. With any net load in excess of 7 cwt., we favour solid-rubber tires on the back wheels, where economy has to be studied, and where high speeds—by which we mean speeds in. excess of 20 m.p.h. maximum (say, above 15 m.p.h. average)—are not to be embraced.
The basis is mileage, with a minimum payment, arid an added charge per mile beyond an agreed maximum mileage for a fixed sum. It would take you all your time to pay on £250 a year for 10,000 miles, and 6d. a mile beyond.
If you care to put other specific questions to us, we shall he happy to answer them free of charge to the best of our ability.