[zb]
anorak:ramone:
I recognise the Marathon in the first link ,was it the 1 that was in the Destination Doha cd or have i seen it somewhere else.Its definitely on this site somewhere
The second link was a good read giving the Marathon a good write up
I thought id seen that Marathon somewhere ,so im not as mad as i thought
ramone:
Just a point on the Marathon ,when the Marathon 2 was introduced the Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■ engines were offered as options but neither produced more power than the TL12 ,even the misleadingly named E290 put out the same power as the Aec variant.This is where i find it difficult to understand CFs post stating that the TL12 even at 32 tons was inadequately powered compared with its rivals.At the time i think the norm was nearer 240/250 hp ,the F10 ,111, 2800 were all similarily powered.
Firstly it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that ( at some point ) a figure of around as close to 10 hp max per tonne,or even a bit more, became recognised as being a reasonable spec for the best combination of productivety and fuel efficiency just so long as the 10 hp max in question wasn’t produced by going for more engine speed but was produced by going for more torque.IE peak power output around more or less 2,000 rpm and in general fuel efficiency increases in line with torque outputs relative to weight carried. 
‘But’.The problem is that there is a limit to the amount of specific torque that an engine can be made to produce without exceeding the amount of stress it can reliably withstand with some engines being better than others at withstanding that stress to a certain degree.However no engine of less than around 11-12 litres could/can reliably survive the amount of specific torque levels required to provide the overall levels of torque required for that ideal of 10 hp max per tonne at 32-38 t gross let alone the 40-44 t of today.
The argument then becomes one of where we think ‘that point in time’ ‘started’ to take place and the question of it being foreseen.
As I’ve said it’s my contention is that time would have been around,or very soon after,the introduction of the T45.
From a manufacturer’s point of view that would have been foreseeable long before that time.As I’ve said at least the Scammell division had foreseen such a change on the horizon hence it’s use of outside engine suppliers knowing that Leyland Group’s in house engine development programme didn’t stand a chance because of the lack of money.At which point it was obvious that the TL12 probably wasn’t going to have what it takes and Leyland’s budget wouldn’t have allowed for the required amount of development required even if it had.Hence the ties to Rolls engines which ‘eventually’ ‘led’ to the use of the Rolls in the T45 at the type of power outputs which I’m describing IE around 350 hp and the better acceptance of that spec in the market than the TL12.Unless you know better I’m not aware of any TL 12 which could provide that level of output and do so reliably.
While the fact is,which you don’t seem to be giving Scammell’s engineers credit for,is that all of that was foreseen by them on the basis that to survive you have to do what your competitors are going to do and then do it before they do it.Unfortunately for the Brits they were hindered by having a domestic market base that thought like you thereby stalling what development might have been possible.
Scammell and guy had always used different engines like erf and foden wheras leyland and aec had used there own engines. Leyland may have been on the option list at scammel but they wasnt exclusive
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
Once the “Leartherhead Leper” starts [zb] spouting theres no stopping the torrent of Bollox is there !
I
ve only read about the old system Dennis ,but i heard it was very difficult to acquire a licence ,but with fewer carriers obviously the rate for the job could be maintained at higher levels but wouldnt that have a knock on effect to the end customer .Obviously the current system needs replacing ,as anyone with a few grand in the bank and a container haulier offering diesel on tap isn`t the road to go down.What do you think would be a fair system now ?There was always a good deal of competition with the old system “ramone” and no-way did the haulier have what could be termed “the whip hand” by any means but at least it was possible to earn a reasonable return albeit via a great deal of hard work at lot of which was “outside” normally accepted working hours.So you still had similar circumstances as to-day whereby you had sometimes knocked your plug out to get to a delivery only to be told “sorry drive” we don’t unload anything after 4 pm,so come back to-morrow at 9 am !!
There’s also a resonable case that over capacity is caused by too much growth in the big fleets which obviously started small in those days having had their original start up nodded through based on proof of market demand at that original level and then obviously wanting to keep the industry a closed shop just to suit themselves with the obvious implications of that type of system for new start owner drivers wishing to keep things small and demand for their services exceeding supply. 
While in the case of starting up what was to stop the rate for the job being carved up at the so called ‘proof of work’ stage.IE one new start operator offers to undercut another to get that ‘proof’ of work in which case the other competing new start operator then gets wiped out from getting the chance to start up and gets kept out on what is a bs closed shop system concerning who is and who isn’t allowed to enter the industry.Who’s saying that who is spouting bollox now.
Carryfast:
Who’s saying that who is spouting bollox now.
Even this basic sentence does not make sense.
kr79:
Scammell and guy had always used different engines like erf and foden wheras leyland and aec had used there own engines. Leyland may have been on the option list at scammel but they wasnt exclusive
I know that but the fact is it was that idea of AEC and Leyland keeping to in house engine supply which ended up bringing the whole lot crashing down because Leyland eventually ended up first with the foreseeable debacle of the 500 and was then left effectively,( to start with ), with the TL12 for it’s long haul top weight trucks in the case of the T45.When it was the use of outside engine suppliers which was the obvious answer for the whole Group long before that stage.Instead of which it wasted money on developing and then fixing the bonkers too small 500 idea,based on a bs idea that every customer cared about the small margins concerning gross/front axle weights in using a bigger engine ( or didn’t have enough money to produce anything better anyway ),and to add insult to injury also running AEC into the ground because the Group didn’t have enough money to allow AEC to develop it’s engines either.
As for the ERGO cab being a help to Leyland or a liability,as I’ve said,in my view,it’s with the 500 engine in being a case of stupidity in making a dust cart to do the job of a long haul top weight premium wagon.I think Dr Fogg would agree. 
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Who’s saying that who is spouting bollox now.Even this basic sentence does not make sense.
Or to put it another way who’s calling who a spouter of bollox now in wanting to return the road transport industry to the dark ages. 
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Who’s saying that who is spouting bollox now.Even this basic sentence does not make sense.
Or to put it another way who’s a spouter of bollox now .
You.
We ran Ergos. AEC and Leylands. Hybrids as well. The early ergos were great, but needed the high datum cab. Great cab ■■■■ steering. We put a ram steering on ours. Sorted.There was nothing wrong with this cab. Unfortunatly, Red Robbo,and his mates screwed it up and ruined a company. #thankyoutwats
Bewick:
Aye “ramone” your probably right about the virtual “mission immpossible” to start with a single motor to-day and go on to create a substantial fleet,and run leagally as well.You see,back in the 50’s/60’s apart from BRS,the industry was basically smaller local outfits,yes there was bigger regional firms like Smith of Maddiston,Suttons etc. and ,of course,the TDG Group but they ran as seperate un-connected operations with each one having to “sink or swim” by their own individual efforts.W & J Riding of Longridge and the great Tom Riding were a shining example of the TDG method of operation,without a doubt
Just think Dennis, if an “evolved” old A, B, C, licence system was still in place today there would be no Eddie Stobart fleet on the road. What a wonderful thought eh?? 
All this talk of proprietary engines is ■■■■■■■■ for starters, AEC and Leyland were manufacturers, the ones that fitted loose engines were assemblers, there’s a huge difference. Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Guy, Seddon and Scammell were really the same as kit cars when it comes down to it. To emphasise this Ford famously quoted that they only made two things on the Transcon, the badge and the profit!
There also seems, again, to be a bit of a power output increase going on, CF keeps quoting over 300HP figures as comparisons when the over 300HP lorry was a rare beast until the late 80s both here and abroad. For every F89/12 or 140/1/2/3 etc there were a dozen F88/10 or 110/1/2/3 etc, except in Italy.
It’s all pointless comparisons with our Leatherhead loon, as usual…
Even today we haven’t deviated too far from the 10 bhp per tonne ratio as being ideal, with the vast majority of operators specifying power outputs of 440 to 480 bhp at 44 tonnes. Anything over 500 bhp is very much in the minority for ‘normal’ haulage operations.
gingerfold:
Even today we haven’t deviated too far from the 10 bhp per tonne ratio as being ideal, with the vast majority of operators specifying power outputs of 440 to 480 bhp at 44 tonnes. Anything over 500 bhp is very much in the minority for ‘normal’ haulage operations.
The power output of lorry engines increases by about 40% every 20 years, or doubles every 40. There are increases in gross weights along the way. Sometimes, these legislative changes are the catalyst for a change but, ordinarily, it is the operator’s expectation of his new lorry being a bit better than the old one which drives progress. In the background, the engineers toil away with small improvements, and so the market chugs along, supply and demand keeping a lazy pace with each other. Occasionally, a firm grabs the available technology by the scruff of the neck and designs the best thing it possibly can, whether the customers think they need it or not. The Ergo cab falls into this category, for its ground-breaking ergonomics improvements and elaborate presswork. Compare it with the other British effort of its time, the Motor Panels cab:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=98986
newmercman:
All this talk of proprietary engines is ■■■■■■■■ for starters, AEC and Leyland were manufacturers, the ones that fitted loose engines were assemblers, there’s a huge difference. Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Guy, Seddon and Scammell were really the same as kit cars when it comes down to it. To emphasise this Ford famously quoted that they only made two things on the Transcon, the badge and the profit!There also seems, again, to be a bit of a power output increase going on, CF keeps quoting over 300HP figures as comparisons when the over 300HP lorry was a rare beast until the late 80s both here and abroad. For every F89/12 or 140/1/2/3 etc there were a dozen F88/10 or 110/1/2/3 etc, except in Italy.
It’s all pointless comparisons with our Leatherhead loon, as usual…
So lets just imagine that we’re both running the show when the T45 was introduced.There’s going to be a big argument between us concerning wether we’re going to use outsourced engines for it to move the thing forward to at least make it competitive with something like an F12 which is already established in the market.
I say we’re going to need around 10 hp per tonne gross at the very least ( having known that since at least the early 1970’s ),( remembering that 38 t is a very real possibility in the very near future ) and you say bs we’re only going to offer the thing with the TL12 in it because that,in your opinion,is the type of output that every one else is using and that’s good enough and there’s no way that we’re going to use outside engine suppliers because that would make us look like a kit car builder.
Then we re write history to show that you win the argument and therefore there are no 300 hp + Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered T45’s ever produced with the results to prove it on the balance sheet before Leyland closed it’s doors for good. 
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
Even today we haven’t deviated too far from the 10 bhp per tonne ratio as being ideal, with the vast majority of operators specifying power outputs of 440 to 480 bhp at 44 tonnes. Anything over 500 bhp is very much in the minority for ‘normal’ haulage operations.The power output of lorry engines increases by about 40% every 20 years, or doubles every 40. There are increases in gross weights along the way. Sometimes, these legislative changes are the catalyst for a change but, ordinarily, it is the operator’s expectation
No.The ideal power to weight ratio for the best combination of fuel economy and productivety was,and still is,around 10 hp per tonne. It seems that both myself and gingerfold can agree on something.Although having said that around 12 hp per tonne + won’t do any harm to those figures such as using 350 hp + in a 6 wheeler or 480-500 + in a 40-44 tonner for examle,or for that matter an F12 to run at 32 t.
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here
Underpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower hereUnderpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver three months whit each,cheers benkku,still driving 5 day a week
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower hereUnderpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower hereUnderpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
the R420 CAN NEVER DO IT IN SAME SPEED,BUT THAT IS THE POINT COUSE IN REAL WORLD HIGH SPEED IS FOR FAST EDDIES,and other came when the time is in as promised,but bouth can do the same work ,but not at same speed,but only fools promise to do the job so fast that it cost you money,higher speed more fuel ,simple my friend ,and afew km/h more is only minits ,but expencive ,infuel andINVESTMENTS a 730 whit al eq is40% more money to the 420,cheers benkku