OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WOULD A TRANSPORT POLITICAL COUNCIL BE VALUABLE?
REGARDING a letter from Mr. A. R. Wilson, in your
N. issue dated June 23, I submit that a political council would serve no purpose whatsoever. It is not unusual for a candidate for Parliament to promise his electorate the earth, so long as he can do so without running contrary to the published propaganda of his party. When he arrives in the House, whether he anticipates it or not, he soon finds himself controlled by the policy of this party.
If he shows any untoward independence, he will be brought to order and, perhaps, deprived of the Whip, or, in plain words, if he becomes a nuisance, the party will withhold any particular benefit that he may enjoy from its protection and so he becomes an " outsider."
What we should do is to refuse our support to a Parliamentary candidate until he can prove, before an election, that the promises he is disposed to give us have the official hall-mark of his party and that he is not simply endeavouring to placate an inquisitive electorate.
London, S.W.1. E. H. B. PAr.leEn, KARRIER FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE MODELS.
APARAGRAPH dealing with the above vehicle and referring to gross-load capacities when operating as tractor and load-carrier respectively appeared on page 552 of your issue dated June 2.
As it was not made clear that these figures related to the vehicle when operating over rough and broken country and may have caused many of your readers to have a mistaken idea of the capacity of the new Karrier four-wheel-drive vehicle, I shall appreciate your further valued co-operation in the manner of giving prominence to the following facts.
When operating as a tractor (9-ft. 2-in, wheelbase) the ‘-ehicle will haul payloads of 10 tons over made roads or 5 tons across country; whilst as a load carrier (12-ft. 9-in, wheelbase) it will deal with payloads of 6 tons over roads or 3 tons across rough and broken terrain.
Luton. N. AaROYD.
For Karrier Motors, Ltd.
IS OIL-COOLING OF ENGINES PRACTICABLE?
ALTHOUGH 1 have had no personal experience in the use of oil as a cooling medium for internal-combustion engines, the following information may be of interest to the writer of a letter on this subject which was published in your issue for June 23.
Allowing for its increased viscosity, oil holds out the advantage of a higher boiling point, giving a greater available temperature difference. The most suitable oil for this purpose appears to be ethylene glycol, a dihydric alcohol which is colourless and boils at 195 degrees C.
Although its viscosity is about 17 times that of water, its rate of delivery at 80 degrees C. is comparable to that of water, using the ordinary type of centrifugal pump. As is well known, the rate of delivery of water at high temperatures falls off rapidly owing to steam formation on the suction side of the pump; ethylene glycol, on the other hand, increases its rate of delivery at 120 degrees C. to four times that at 80 degrees C. Experiments show that glycol cooling gives an improved fuel consumption, but a poorer b.m.e.p.
The mechanical disadvantages of oil cooling are mainly the disadvantages of high temperatures. Piston clearances must be increased and leakage may occur at the cylinder gasket joints. Some of the thinner oils also display an astonishing ability to creep over surfaces and through the most minute cracks, just as does paraffin.
Morden. CHARLES &SEALE.
SHOULD FINES FOR SIMILAR OFFENCES BE LEVELLED?
1 WAS interested in reading your leader "Presumption of Guilt by Court Appearance," in your issue dated June 16. My own case proves very clearly that something should be done to regularize, and have some recognized form of penalty, if one be proved guilty of a.particular offence.
I accompanied a director of the Hull City football team. to Glasgow on April 16. When going through Kilmarnock we were pulled up for exceeding 30 m.p.h. in a built-up area. The chauffeur of the director was driving. the first car, and I was driving mine. We had stopped twice in Kilmarnock to inquire the way, and within a mile we were both pulled up, and stoutly denied the speeding case, as we knew that we were in a builtup area, and had previously overtaken the police car. f‘owever, the chauffeur was summoned to appear at Kilmarnock Court and was fined £1 or 14 days, and his licence endorsed.
I did not hear anything until summoned to appear later, and was fined £2, or 20 days, and my licence endorsed. Being much annoyed, having had a clean licence for over 30 years, and being fined double the amount for the same offence and at the same time and place. I wrote to the Clerk of the Court, and asked him if a mistake had been made. He replied to the effect that a different magistrate had presided and naturally his view of speeding varied from that of the first magistrate.
Surely the fine should be the same in both cases?
S. H. EVERINGHAM,
For Everingham Bros., Ltd.
Pocklington. (E.B. Motor Services).
[Such inconsistency in the amount of fines for similar offences is frequent, even where the same magistrate is concerned. We have observed that some magistrates are more lenient to employees, such as chauffeurs, apparently basing the fines on what they consider to be the "capacity to pay."—En.]