OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 26
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, -7'he right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
Use of Home-produced Fuels Should be • Encouraged.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,736] have read with much interest •your editorial regarding the desirability of encouraging the use of a home-produced fuel, such a,s coke.
Mr. "Nicol's article on this subject will, I am sure, appeal to all engineers, as he is such an eminent authority, and there is no one better qualified to speak as to the possibilities of this fuel. There is no doubt that Mr. Nicolas correct in stating that, at the preeent time, coke is' by far, the cheapest motor fuel arid,
• having regard to the serious shortage of motor spirit, it is only ordinary business prudence that would suggest everything possible being done to develop' the use of a fuel that is not only relatively cheap, but which is produced in our own country. I will go further and include other fuels produced at home, such as benzole, tar oils, and creosote, as these, are all derived from the distillation of coal and, therefore, markets have to be found for all these products. Reliable commercial vehicles are made which can effectively use these: fuels. In other words, there is no difficulty now from an engineering standpoint, but, looking at the matter from a point of national finance, it appears to me that the Government would be well advised to give every possible encouragement to the use of these home-produced fuels, and that commercial vehicles using them should be given some advantage in the matter of taxation.— Youre faithfully, T. CLARKSON, M. I. ALE., M.I.C.E.
Should the Agent Pay ?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR
[1,737] Sir,:---With reference to the articles on page 485 of your issue of June 22nd, I shoula esteem it a favour if you will allow me to make a few remarks in reply to your contributor "Vim." First of all, I would like to point out that the examples whicrt yotur contributor supplies of work that was necessary to get three new vehicles working to the satisfaction of the user, the total is and the total turnover for the three lorries would in all probability be in the neighbourhood of 22,500.
, Surely a grumble of this description proves the contention contained in my letter published on page 439 of the issue of June 8th, that the perspective is distorted, as what is an expenditure of £20 spread over a turnover of £2,500. It is certainly no justification for trying to define question 'of principle in L.ad.
Should the contention that manufacturers ought to agree to allow, say, up to 22 or 23 for 'umpteen pounds for The agents' expenditure in tuning and adjusting be accepted,it would not be long before the agent would call on the manufacturer to allow this • amount on all deliveries; just as in fixing the maximum prices of food, they very soon become the minimum price.
The cgnsequenee would then be the manufacturer would aay, Mr. Agentis allowed 'umpteen pounds for tuning and adjusting this vehicle ; right, let him do it. The automatic consequence of which would be that the manufacturer would leave more and more work for the agent to do, and he would then grumble that 'umpteen pounds was not sufficient, and would want 'umpty, and then where should we end?
No, it is net possible to vary the principle that, with the payment of catalogue prices, less discount and rebate, according to the termsof business the transaction is at an end, and the responsibilit! de B32 valves on the agent, exactly the same as, when the agent passes the vehicle on to the purchaser at catalogue price, the responsibility then devolves on the
user. • '
A certain amount of give and. take in each case
always possible, but to lay out in black and white to what extent is not feasible, as it would be impossible to fix with certainty any obligations at all, other than the inaximum obligation to refund. Your contributor "Vim" refers to me as though I were a manufacturer, and can assure your contributor, as many of your readers know, -that I spent many A'ears in business as an agent, but I always made it a practice to look upon the manufacturer's guarantee as so much paper, and I should then reckon that I was always making a, little bit of extra profit, if I got something for nothing as replacements. • I heartily agree with your contributor's contention as regards the allowance which manufacturers make to large users, and especially the assertion that users should not have the benefit of a discount, never mind what the eize of their business, as they do not pur chase our vehicles for reselling at a profit and make a living out of this business, but for the, purpose a/ increasing their profit in their ordinary lines of busieess. From a point of view of business principle, I consider unsound any granting of trade discounts. to these buyers. If you would allow me, I would also like to make
one or two comments on the Daimler Co.'s letter on page 470 of your issue of June 15th. I am very pleased to see this letter, as it should be of incalculable value to the trade to have the testimony of the DaimlerCo., that the system-of manufacturers' depots is really impracticable, and that it only remains for the manufacturers to co-operate with the agent for their mutual benefit. I -know it is very hard for manufacturers to refuse
to undertake repair for vehicles of their make, but, if a manufacturer wants the users of his products, irrespective of their place of residence, to be well satisfied with the use of his products, the manufacturer must rely on the agent and encourage the user to patronize the agent. All other points will be smoothed out by the economic law of supply and demand.—Yours faith fully, THE AUSTIN MOTOR CO., LTD. GERALD BUNN, Service Manager.
The Taxation of the L.G.O.C. Bus.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
• [1,378] Sir,—I hope you will allow me to point out in reference to the statement made by the London General Omnibus Company that their buses payan average of 263 per bus per annum in taxation, that the commercial manager of this company in his evidence before the Select Committee on Transport last year stated that 275 per bus per annum was paid by way of petrol tax, and £4 for licensing duties, making 279 in all as compared with 284 under the proposed new system. This figure of 279 was, if I reineihber aright, largely advertised by the London General Omnibus Company with the avowed object of instructing an uneducated public as to the large amounts paid in respect of road improvement. Which statement is correct, I leave your readers to judge. Theannual -mileage' per bus of the L.G.O.C. has averaged, according to the information contained in the report of Sir Arthur Whinney, as much as 40,000. —Yours faithfully,
H. G. BURFORD, 31.I.Mech.E., 16, Regent Street, .London,