OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor isruites 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.
Ulster's Excessive Taxation Proposals.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL 1410TOR.
r 2436] Sir,—The csommercial motor owners of Belfast and Ulster will Tie glad to see that The Commercial Motor has ventilated the grievance from which they are suffering as a result of the Government's insane policy.
The Ulster Cabinet is to reconsider the late imposts, as the result of representations made by a strong deputation and as the result oi the resolve of the motor users' organizations not to pay the new taxes if any means of counteracting them can be discovered. The 'Cabinet's own adoption of a similar attitude on the Boundary and other issues renders it more open to con viction along these lines.—Yours faithfully, A.D.
Belfast.
Competition with the Railways.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2437] Sir,—Your issue of December 29th contains two striking illustrations of a tendency of the times which prompt me to make an appeal appropriate, as I hope, to the coming year. In countries so far removed as Northern Ireland and Tasmania considerable increases in taxation of coramerefal road transport are indicated. In different parts of Africa there is the same tendency.
In England and Scotland the plea of the railway companies on the effect of road competition is emphasized before the Railway Wages Board and the Committee on Industry and Trade, and is reinforced in some measure by the complaints of highway authorities as to the effect of heavy traffic.
I hold no brief for the railway companies, but the prospect of economic conditions leaving no alternative but nationalization is one which cannot be ignored and must remain a possibility if no improvement in the coal and steel industries of the country is to be expected. The drastic writing down of railway capital to the extent justified by present profits is not a matter which those associated with commercial road transport can view with equanimity.
It may be that the influence of road competition upon the railways has been misrepresented or exaggerated, but, whatever the other side of the picture, there must seem something illogical in denying to a statutory transport undertaking a right to the roads conferred upon the individual or even such a semi-statutory company as the Underground Railway Company and its associated concerns.
It is with these thoughts in my mind that, within the circles of what I may term the automobile movement,
would plead for common thought and common policy. The suggestion by one side of road transport that the other is a luxury, or by the other that commercial transport is the cause of unduly heavy road expenditure and should be restricted or penalized, leaves the door open for burdens on the one or the other for different reasons, but with the same unfortunate results on both, with, if I may venture to say so, the weights balanced far more heavily against that form of transport which is not only in theory a railway competitor, but in some quarters is considered an uneconomic form of transportation in the broadest sense of the words.
There are various organizations throughout the country, some representing private motor users, others commercial goods vehicles and others public-service vehicles, some representing all types, while that with which I am personally associate must inevitably steer a course believed in its wisdom to be sound in the Interests of the manufacturing and retail side as a whole.
An attempt was made some years ago to frame in the Motor Legislation Committee the machinery for presenting as occasion might arise a single voice on political matters, and although full representation on the counsels of that body has not been achieved, the trade, particularly on private Bill legislation, have been fully justified by results in the co-operation of the Autdmobile Association and other bodies.
I make bold to say that there never was a time when unanimity among all interests in the automobile movement was so essential as at the present, and I say this in your journal not so much because I have any fear of prejudice against the private car as because any lack of cohesion will, to my mind, assist efforts which are growing tally stronger to postpone the development of commercial road transport in this country.
If the year now opening can see the commencement of the realization of the dream I have attempted to visualize, it may hold a prominent position in the future annals of the road transport movement of the country.— Yours faithfully, ALFRED HACKING. 83, Pall Mall, London, S.W.
Front-wheel Brakes on London Buses and Cabs.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2438] Sir,—We have read with considerable interest your article on the above subject, and the attitude taken up by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police greatly surprises us. Front-wheel brakes have proved their worth in touring cars, and, in view of their almost universal adoption in this branch of automobile engineering, it is difficult to understand why it is considered advisable to discourage their use on publicservice vehicles. The universal opinion of users of cars fitted with well-designed front-wheel brakes is overwhelmingly in favour of them, particularly in regard to the way in which skidding dangers are minimized.
We would also like to comment on some of the points raised in your article. In the first place you state that "the advantage offered by well-adjusted front-wheel brakes is the ability to pull up quickly." But a still greater advantage obtained is the way in which the vehicle is maintained under perfect control on the greasiest of roads in any emergency.
We scarcely think that "a competent staff need be engaged upon the adjustment of the brakes." With a well-designed operating gear all the adjustment that may be required can be taken up at one point just behind the pedal, and it is very seldom that the adjustment of the individual brakes has to be touched. In any case, with approximate centre-point steering, badly adjusted front-wheel brakes will have a less harmful effect than badly adjusted rear-wheel brakes.
We would also challenge the statement that "the London bus is not called upon to pull up any more quickly than it does," as in view of the fact that probably 75 per cent. of the new cars now coming on to the roads are fitted with front-wheel brakes, traffic as a whole will have to face, at times, more sudden retardations, and, this being the case, we do not see why it is better for a bus to ram the car in front than for it to be rammed by the vehicle behind. In any ease, this is taking a pessimistic view of the matter, and we venture to suggest that far more accidents are causgd by a vehicle that is out of control, due to locked rear-wheel brakes, than by inefficient brakes.
We are only discussing the subject of front-wheel brakes in general, and would like to make a few remarks regarding your comments on accidents due to the overturning of the vehicle. You infer that this is due solely to the fact that the momentum of the bus, when it is decelerated, does not follow the same line as that in which the bus is being steered. We feel sure, how ever, that the majority of these accidents are due to he fact that the application of the brakes has caused a "side-step," with the result that the vehicle is brought up with a jerk against the curb and then overturns. With the Rubury-Alford andAlder brakes a skid of this description is not experienced, as immediately the vehicle is deflected from the straight the outer front wheel is braked less severely than the inner wheel, and cannot thus be locked. Thus the skid-controlling effect of the front-wheel brakes is obtained with the impossibility of a four-wheel skid.
With the ever-increasing amount of traffic in London surely the fitting of any device that makes for a better control of such cumbersome vehicles as buses should be encouraged, and although we would be the last firm to advocate the wholesale adoption of front-wheel brakes without individual and exhaustive experiments on the part of the commercial motor first, we• venture to say that, in our opinion, the refusal to pass vehicles so fitted would be a retrograde step.—Yours faithfully, CHAS. T. BLAcKLocit, General Manager and Director, Lincoln. CLAYTON WAGONS, LTD.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2439] Sir,—The editorial article in the issue of The Commercial Motor for December 29th, under the above heading, will, I fear, cause a good deal of misapprehension with those who, like myself, value the opinion of your journal, especially when given such prominence.
In the first place, I do not think you are quite correct in saying that London has always set the pace in bus chassis design.
This is to a certain extent true, but there are many tl_ousands of buses, lorries and chars-h-bases all over the country working under totally different conditions, and, consequently, calling for different designs. There are, for instance, the lorries and chars-h-bancs working in the hilly districts of, say, Devon, South Wales, or Scotland, where surely braking needs are of far greater importance than in London.
Even so, and apart from those considerations, your article suggests that it would be dangerous to give the London buses or taxis a more powerful brake, because it would enable the driver to pull-up more quickly. You might as well say that it would be dangerous to give them a more powerful engine because they would drive too fast.
Surely, if, as you admit, front-wheel brakes are becoming standard on private vehicles, thereby enabling them to pull up more quickly, it must follow that the efficiency of the bus and taxi brake should be correspondingly improved if we are to avoid the very dangers that your article suggests.
You infer that the danger would be that if buses or taxis had these efficient front-wheel brakes, accidents might occur owing to other vehicles running into the backs of them. Yet you overlook the fact that the same thing would happen if a bus or a cab were following a private vehicle so equipped and the bus or taxi not.
From what I know of the London bus and taxi driver, they are the most capable and efficient on the road, and to suggest that it would be dangerous to give them a brake which would enable them to pull up more quickly seems to me not only a reflection on their abilities and judgment, but ludicrots.—Yours faithfully,
London. SYDNEY A. CURR1N.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. "
[24401 Sir,—The decision of the authorities at Scotland Yard for the present to bar front-wheel brakes upon buses and taxicabs must not be allowed to Influence the opinions of licensing authorities in other parts of the country, where conditions are dissimilar from those prevailing in the Metropolis. For my own part, I should be strongly, inclined to favour the sanction of four-wheel braking, not on the ground of necessity but in order to assist in securing that uniformity of equipment, speed and braking capacity which strike me as being essential 044 for the smooth working of traffic. It Is, I know, very difficult even to attempt to arrive at uniformity of performance, because one cannot exclude the horsed vehicle from the streets ; commerce calls for the use of all kinds of conveyances, and common sense, let me add, calls for the provision of roads of such direction and carrying capacity that the very minimum of inconvenience is created by the passage of even a slow-going cumbersome load. We must always endeavour to advance, however, and therefore we should take advantage of every step that appears to trend in that direction ; better braking Is certainly one of these.
Whatever may, in the opinion of the Public Carriage Department at Scotland Yard, be the needs of London, in the provinces where the single-deck bus holds sway, four-wheel braking should be introduced without hesitation. And, above all, the impression must not be allowed to gain currency that a restriction affecting London double-deck buses and London taxis affects any other type of vehicle or any vehicle operating outside the limits ,of the Metropolitan Police area.—Yours faithfully,
Bradford, Yorks. JOHN A. THORPE.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[24411 Sir,—I have read with considerable interest your leading article entitled "Front-wheel Brakes Barred on London Buses and Cabs," and cannot help thinking it regrettable for the cause of progress when vital improvements, such as front-wheel brakes, have to be prohibited by the licensing authorities because of the danger they might cause to other traffic through the too sudden pulling up of bus or cab.
This, whilst being a very real and serious objection, rather assumes certain properties of front-wheel brakes as being their main and only advantage, viz., rapid deceleration.
I would, however, like to point out that there are other and no less important advantages in the employment of front-wheel brakes, such as freedom of the vehicle from side skidding when the brakes are applied on wet or greasy surfaces, and this should surely be a very important consideration when dealing with London traffic.
Certain buses, in particular, are notoriously dangerous on " greasy " days and slither against the kerb whenever the brakes are applied at all suddenly, and, if there are not more numerous accidents, it is only because of extraordinary skill on the part of their drivers.
This danger could be largely avoided by the use of front-wheel brakes, and if, as suggested, greater brake power is undesirable, then why not limit the total braking efficiency to its present level?
Because brakes are additionally fitted to the front wheels, this need not, ipso facto, result in more sudden pulling up of the vehicle. The power, available at present may just as easily be distributed to four wheels as to two, without increasing the total effe-ct, and would give greater security in wet weather. Incidentally, this, whilst not increasing the stopping power of the vehicle on dry roads, would tend to maintain the braking efficiency at a more constant level by raising the standard of deceleration on " greasy " roads. I was very much interested also in the information, you supplied regarding the root cause of buses overturning being always " a combination of full steering lock and of powerful braking action." Whilst, as you say, a more powerful brake equipment would aggravate rather than alleviate this risk, this suiely only remains true for rear-wheel brakes, as when these are applied in conjunction with full lock (or even partial lock, for that matter) particularly on a wet road,' the chances of the rear of the vehicle slewing round against the kerb are very considerable indeed. Directly this happens, obviously, if the vehicle is pro-, ceeding at any speed, the momentum will act "across " the vehicle instead of along its length, and, the wheels being brought to a sudden halt against the kerb, the resultant of the forces, "kinetic energy" versus "gravity," falling outside the wheels, .will result in the vehicle inevitably toppling over.
In the case of front-wheel brakes the above conditions are hardly likely to occur, owing to their relative freedom from side-slipping, and, in the case of RuburyAlford and Alder brakes, as the outer front-wheel brake is automatically released directly the steering is locked over, the only danger likely to cause skidding is avoided. Whilst every aspect of the case should, of course, be taken into consideration, some regard should also be given to the ease of mind and comfort of those drivers of buses and cabs to whom we daily entrust our lives, and any improvements and developments in motor engineering tending to relieve the terrific mental strain imposed on them when driving all day about London should be placed at their disposal, more especially when, as in this particular case, the object would be to decrease the percentage of accidents.
Regarding the point of view that public vehicles with
• front-wheel brakes would automatically be driven faster and up to the limit of their stopping power, with, consequently, an increase in the number of accidents, this hardly does justice to the drivers concerned, but, if true, then we might as well bar all vehicular traffic altogether and take to walking 1—Yours faithfully,
London, W.3. S. M. RUBURY.
Ford Operating Costs.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[24421 Sir,—The explanations given by your Statistical Correspondent Mc Commercial Motor December 29th) call for further comment, which kindly allow.
His costing tables, as published and broadcast by your journal, state that they are "based upon costs prevailing in April, 1925," and in reply to my last letter be further says that "the average price of 1-tonners was three times that of the Ford" when the said tables were compiled, and this extraordinary statement I challenge by asking him to produce a list of tonners "averaging" at that date £450 each, including the Morris, Chevrolet and Overland, because it is on that mistaken average that he has calculated figures relating to costs as between the Ford and other tonners. As I previously indicated, it is not right he should load the costs of Other tonners to the prejudice of their makers if only for the reason that he has thereby given the key-note to Ford advertising of which those astute people take full advantage (and small blame to 'em).
But why put the Ford on a pedestal in such splendid isolation? If these invidious distinctions are to be made (and there may after all be some good in them) he should be consistent ; he should name the lowest-costed 30-cwt., 40-cwt., 50-cwt., etc., machines. He would at least be acting on the principle of giving praise where it is due.
I am quietly wondering what he means by saying "nothing whatever is ' asserted ' anywhere in the tables concerning relative wear of tyres" seeing that those same tables include .64d. per Mile wear for pneumatic tyres on a Ford and 1.1d. per mile wear for pneumatic tyres on other trainers. Surely those figures constitute an"assertion," and a very definite and precise assertion, too. He may explain this doubling of tyre wear because "tonners other than Fords are much heavier," but this does not fit in with his preceding statement that many Fords involve their owners in the same £21 tax on the score of weight. He cannot have it both ways.—
Yours faithfully, G. T. HUNT. London, S.E.
Our Statistical Correspondent, to whom Mr. Hunt's letter has been submitted, writes us as follows :—
Mr. Hunt does not, in this further letter, put forward any new matter for discussion. All the points he now raises were dealt with by me in the Issue of The Commercial Motor for December 29th.
I do not propose to take up his challenge, as no useful purpose would be served thereby. Anyone contemplating the purchase of a one-tonner, or, indeed, any other vehicle, should vary those figures in the tables of costs which are governed by first cost, according to the price of the vehicle under consideration.
YOUR STATISTICAL CORRESPONDENT.
The A.E.C. and Its Fuel.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2443] Sir,—It has come to our notice that certain statements have been made to the effect that A.E.C. vehicles can only be efficiently operated on certain kinds of spirit.
We would, however, inform all users that, from results obtained by our experimental department, it has been proved that maximum mileage and efficient results can be obtained with our vehicles on first-quality grades of all spirits.—Yours faithfully.