BEST 'ERGO' ?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
181

[zb]
anorak:
All this talk of “flawed design” is a bit woolly. What was the problem with the floorpan? If they managed to build the things for 17 years, it must have fitted the rest of the panels. Does anyone know what dimension or feature did not turn out as intended, and what was done to overcome the problem?

Regarding the 1968 AEC prototype mentioned earlier: this was, as I understand it, simply a development chassis to test various ideas; it was not intended to be developed to the manufacturing stage. Can those people who would have wanted to see it in production explain what they think it would have offered, that the actual production vehicle- the Marathon-did not. I suspect that they just like the styling, and assume that the things that look nice to them must be superior to other things.

I have a copy of the test drivers comments on the prototype Marathon somewhere and im sure he said it was a mock up cab without a dashboard but full of test equipment ill have to dig it out

182

ramone:
I have a copy of the test drivers comments on the prototype Marathon somewhere and im sure he said it was a mock up cab without a dashboard but full of test equipment ill have to dig it out

Any inside industry knowledge is gold dust to these discussions. There is only so far a group of operators, drivers, mechanics, engineers, salesmen and one nutcase can go.

183

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:
I have a copy of the test drivers comments on the prototype Marathon somewhere and im sure he said it was a mock up cab without a dashboard but full of test equipment ill have to dig it out

Any inside industry knowledge is gold dust to these discussions. There is only so far a group of operators, drivers, mechanics, engineers, salesmen and one nutcase can go.

Erm which 1 would be the nutcase ? :smiley: :wink:

184

ramone:

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:
I have a copy of the test drivers comments on the prototype Marathon somewhere and im sure he said it was a mock up cab without a dashboard but full of test equipment ill have to dig it out

Any inside industry knowledge is gold dust to these discussions. There is only so far a group of operators, drivers, mechanics, engineers, salesmen and one nutcase can go.

Erm which 1 would be the nutcase ? :smiley: :wink:

I’m saying nowt, for fear of being Moderated. However, on some internet forums, there is an “Attach a Poll” function. Maybe that feature, if added to this thread, would answer your question. Posts by the voted nutcase could then carry some sort of identifier- a dunce’s cap avatar, or a background image of a clown’s car falling to bits, that sort of thing.

PS I still reckon I have seen photos of Ergos, in operators’ liveries, on the “B” plate. I’ll keep looking…

185

[zb]
anorak:
Those who think 1970s US truck design was so far ahead of the European norm, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxI1rkVQDU
The cab is an assembly of multiple small extrusions, brackets and sheets. This is in contrast to normal automotive practice, in which large, deep-drawn, heavily-featured pressings have their own individual rigidity. Fewer joints save cost and reduce the build-up of fit tolerances. The KW restorer, who has done a superb job, spends much of the video pointing out design flaws in the original cab structure. One is tempted to ask, without the corrosion problems of steel, why it needed a three-year restoration in the first place. The answer is pretty clear from the narrative- apart from the thing lacking strength and rigidity overall, the proliferation of joints and attachment methods had begun to fail under cyclic loading, causing the cab to sag and collapse.

Apart from the length of the cab, plus the extended roof, the KW offers no functional advantage over that on a Marathon. In fact, the engine tunnel is considerably more intrusive to the interior. An American truck, built to suit European length regulations, would have less useable cab space than the Leyland. If we are to speculate that European legislation should have allowed larger cabs in the 1970s, then we must assume that the manufacturing and structural advantages of European monocoque design would have made them to a superior standard than those from across the water.

No one’s arguing about the rights or wrongs of actual ‘construction methods’ it’s all about ‘design’ IE the diference between something like an F88/F10/12 or for that matter even a Scammell Crusader v an Ergo or a Marathon cab just from the point of view of it’s user.Although having said that even that old 1950’s design KW Bullnose that I posted seemed to have been strong and rigidly enough built to run on rough unmade roads without shaking itself to pieces which seems to fit in with the way in which US designed ( and constructed ) cabs seem to have been able to perform in most cases through the years regardless. :bulb:

But yes exactly it’s your last sentence which is exactly what I’m saying ‘but’ used ‘together with’ US ‘based’ cab ‘design’ assuming the ‘structural advantages’ of the type of ‘construction methods’ which you describe in that sentence are everything which you seem to think they are.However with experience of being involved in the building and road testing of coachbuilt aluminium on steel frame bodies and cabs with some GRP thrown in for the cab roof which were built with the purpose of high speed off road use and having driven the next generation of Leyland cabs in the T45,let alone the Marathon or ERGO.It’s my bet that the coachbuilt product in that case would have proved at least as strong and rigid ( probably a lot more ) assuming that my guvnor had allowed me to drive the thing at around 60 mph across country that matched the tank testing ground at Chobham,on night trunking. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing: Which seems to fit in with the performance of that old 1950’s KW Bullnose cab assuming that it was built to those ( in some cases ) arguable ‘dodgy’ US construction standards.

However regardless of the arguments concerning cab ‘construction methods’ the question remains which was the better cab ‘design’ ERGO or Scammell Crusader and /or AEC 3VGT.If you’re saying ERGO then there’s not much point in then moaning about Stokes’,amongst others,management of the Leyland truck group because that’s exactly the answer which they reached ( more like were forced by circumstances in the UK domestic market to adopt ) which history proves was wrong. :unamused:

186

The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.
Have a look at that bl book Geoff I think you would enjoy it. It’s not the usual red Robbo bashing it shows how a lot of union unrest was due to ■■■■ poor management along the way

187

NZ JAMIE:
Carryfast mate,that video of the MM8 in NZ was taken by me and yep you are right for once she’s fairly loud. The reason for this is that it hasn’t got a muffler,nothing just a foot long pipe from the manifold.This is not intentional the pipe broke shortly before making the vid

So really you’ll need to find another Ergo to compare in cab noise. Don’t use the Leyland Octopus vid that I put up either as it too has a strait pipe off the turbo.

Nice try mate.

Suggest you check out the comments on the video by Billalbion,who seems to have plenty of experience of using it in the day without roase tinted spectacles,as to what he thought of the thing.I don’t think that there was any such thing as a really quiet 1960’s cab over design regardless of where it was made anyway.Although that old 1950’s Bullnose KW with a 350 small cam ■■■■■■■ in it seemed about as good as could be expected to me. :wink: :laughing:

188

kr79:
The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.
Have a look at that bl book Geoff I think you would enjoy it. It’s not the usual red Robbo bashing it shows how a lot of union unrest was due to ■■■■ poor management along the way

Just downloaded that, should make an interesting read :wink:

189

kr79:
The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.
Have a look at that bl book Geoff I think you would enjoy it. It’s not the usual red Robbo bashing it shows how a lot of union unrest was due to ■■■■ poor management along the way

As I’ve said it depends on what you’re using as a comparison but for me and knowing the type of thinking behind it the Crusader,and if only the 3 VGT,was probably the better option.The book sounds reasonable I’ve also got an article in an old motoring publication titled Stokes the case for the defence somewhere which is great.As for the car divisions seeming to sum up what happened throughout the firm the book Triumph 2000/2.5PI the complete story by Graham Robson is another great objective over view without letting politics get in the way.

190

I thought the Crusader was a raised version of the Motor Panels cab that didnt tilt which Foden,Seddon and Guy used in similar guises amongst others ,the AEC prototype was a mock up that was never meant for production but for test purposes, the thread actually asks “Best Ergo” ? .Most people on here agree that it was a large step in the right direction when launched in 64 and i think most on here agree that even though it lasted for 17 years it was never really developed with the Marathon being a seperate project.The money was never there to develop it or replace it earlier.A cheap option could have been a chopped down Marathon cab which ive mentioned before that would have made for a more pleasant working enviroment but to start comparing a Crusader or even the AEC test bed cab is ridiculous .For a start the ergo covered a full range from 16 ton rigids right up to top weight prime movers.Now you`d think those forward thinking Swedes might have picked up on that idea 1 basic cab design to cover , in 1 form or another, a full range … oh they have done but only after the ergo was developed

191

Carryfast:

kr79:
The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.
Have a look at that bl book Geoff I think you would enjoy it. It’s not the usual red Robbo bashing it shows how a lot of union unrest was due to ■■■■ poor management along the way

As I’ve said it depends on what you’re using as a comparison but for me and knowing the type of thinking behind it the Crusader,and if only the 3 VGT,was probably the better option.The book sounds reasonable I’ve also got an article in an old motoring publication titled Stokes the case for the defence somewhere which is great.As for the car divisions seeming to sum up what happened throughout the firm the book Triumph 2000/2.5PI the complete story by Graham Robson is another great objective over view without letting politics get in the way.

192

Carryfast:

kr79:
The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.
Have a look at that bl book Geoff I think you would enjoy it. It’s not the usual red Robbo bashing it shows how a lot of union unrest was due to ■■■■ poor management along the way

As I’ve said it depends on what you’re using as a comparison but for me and knowing the type of thinking behind it the Crusader,and if only the 3 VGT,was probably the better option.The book sounds reasonable I’ve also got an article in an old motoring publication titled Stokes the case for the defence somewhere which is great.As for the car divisions seeming to sum up what happened throughout the firm the book Triumph 2000/2.5PI the complete story by Graham Robson is another great objective over view without letting politics get in the way.

You have to compare it to what the leyland group was offering before plus what it’s competitors in its major market were offering which would be Atkinson foden and erf and what they offered in the UK market.

193

Carryfast:
Blah…
No one’s arguing about the rights or wrongs of actual ‘construction methods’ it’s all about ‘design’ …blah blah

If you separate “construction methods” out from “design”, what do you have left? Styling. You have confirmed what I said earlier- you like the look of US vehicles, and assume that that makes them superior.

Nobody has disagreed that the original Ergo was mounted a foot or so too low to compete strongly against the European competition, and should have had a fully-tilting structure. Even so, every poster who has experience of both has stated a preference for the Ergo, over your fantasy Americana. The Ergo’s original design issues were resolved in 1973, when it was fitted to the Marathon, and you will not convince anyone on here that a 1970s US cab of the same length (BBC) would be superior to that, in any way. If you have any sense at all, you will not even try.

194

When the Ergo cab was launched in the 1960’s it was about the best cabbed vehicle you could drive for comfort and visibility.You can’t compare it with what the Americans were using or offering.The infrastructure of that country is totally different to the UK.

195

Best looking ergo for me was the early 70s Mandator, wide wheel arches, and all the chrome grill and bumper etc, up to about K reg, before the cost cutting started.

196

So what was the best Ergo cabbed lorry then? So many to choose from…

For a restoration project and plaything I’d go for an AEC Marshall flatbed with a nicely sheeted load just above cab height, dark blue cab with Post Office red chassis, wheels and mudguards and because I just can’t help myself, it would have to have a chrome bumper :laughing: Second choice would be a Mercury, so the same but with an axle missing, third would be a Leyland Beaver, same colours, but maybe pulling a cylindrical stainless steel tanker, I prefer the narrower front mudguards on the Beaver over the wider ones on the Mandator, so that would be the only reason it would be preferable to teh Southall built model, well unless I could find a V8 Mandator and then all bets are off, that would be number one, two and three on my list :laughing:

197

Mammoth major no contest.
Still not a patch on an eight wheeler from Watford though

198

kr79:

Carryfast:

kr79:
The ergo was still a big leap from what was before it.

As I’ve said it depends on what you’re using as a comparison but for me and knowing the type of thinking behind it the Crusader,and if only the 3 VGT,was probably the better option.

You have to compare it to what the leyland group was offering before plus what it’s competitors in its major market were offering which would be Atkinson foden and erf and what they offered in the UK market.

Which is exactly the logic that Leyland’s management was going by when they ordered AEC’s cab design thinking,along the lines of the 3VGT idea,to be scrapped and the rest is history.While I think that argument just confirms everything which I’ve said concerning the fact that the British manufacturers were wrecked by the conditions which applied in their domestic market. :bulb: :unamused:

199

For a restoration project and plaything I’d go for an AEC Marshall flatbed with a nicely sheeted load just above cab height, dark blue cab with Post Office red chassis, wheels and mudguards and because I just can’t help myself, it would have to have a chrome bumper :laughing: Second choice would be a Mercury, so the same but with an axle missing, third would be a Leyland Beaver, same colours, but maybe pulling a cylindrical stainless steel tanker, I prefer the narrower front mudguards on the Beaver over the wider ones on the Mandator, so that would be the only reason it would be preferable to teh Southall built model, well unless I could find a V8 Mandator and then all bets are off, that would be number one, two and three on my list :laughing:
[/quote]
Evening all, Mark, you are showing very good taste, same colours as Williams Stevens of Cradley Heath!!!

For me, well it would have to be a Marshall, double drive, but if I wanted to be “exotic”, well it would have to be a Marshall Major, with the 760, (many a Sunday night/Monday morning, late on, I wished that the familys delightful single drive 505 Marshall had a little more go, go, as I struggled to get back to Shropshire from Scotland, …so I could start my day job on time)!!

Oh, I would go for a Maroon cab, cream roof, gold lining, (fleur de lys et al), Post office red chassis , wheels with the rims picked out in cream, and a nice traditional keuring platform with 16in spaced crossbearers…and lots and lots of rope hooks (cannot be too carefull)… and a pair of framed tackle boxes for the ropes and chains, and of course a chrome bumper, and front wheel nut covers, and just to balance things out, a nice AEC badge on the opposite side to the rear number plate, (so drivers of lesser vehicles could see the magnificent provenance of the vehicle that had just dropped them)!!!

But back to reality, did the re design of the Ergo interior by David Bache, of Rover Cars ever make it into production? Full width fascia, recessed instrumentation,shrouded steering column, that had a rake adjustment, revised seating and trim, plus copious sound deadening.I think that this style excercise took place around 74ish? Anyone know more…Graham??

Good day ploughing, so for reward I shall have several Bollingers, for we are now starting to make progress!!

Cheerio for now

200

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Blah…
No one’s arguing about the rights or wrongs of actual ‘construction methods’ it’s all about ‘design’ …blah blah

If you separate “construction methods” out from “design”, what do you have left? Styling. You have confirmed what I said earlier- you like the look of US vehicles, and assume that that makes them superior.

No if you seperate design from construction method you have design and construction method with styling being just one apect of design.Actually I think the look of the 1950’s KW Bullnose is one of the ugliest cabs ever ‘designed’.But functionally,from a driver’s point of view,it was a generation ahead of the ERGO regardless of it’s method of construction or it’s ‘styling’. :unamused: