question Caption competition

[Roy Larkin]

For a CB, are you sure? A CC should give 5 Mpg, compared to the FWD (the worst of the lot) at 3.5 Mpg. cant see a figure in the Automobile engineer for it.

 

Yup! I'm sure. I've never seen any ASC figures for more than 5mpg average, whatever they were running and CBs were quite common. I'd have also guessed that the Holt was probably worse than the Holt, but I've not seen, or at least can't remember any Holt mpg figures. Bet it wasn't many though, but then they didn't do many miles to the day either, so maybe didn't use too much fuel.

 

Dammit, I'll have to check now. That's another few hours looking for Holts.

[mike65]

Of course the roads were all shot to hell and he may have spent a lot of time sitting in traffic

 

Not much different from today's roads then

 

Mike

[Tony B]

One question Gents! At that time it was about one horsepower for litre of engine capacity wasn't it? So what did the quality of POL's have on the milage etc.

[Great War truck]

Daimler CBs doing 13mpg seems a bit unusual! All the figures I've seen record average mpg as between 4.5 and 5.

 

 

Yes, you are quite right. Checking it again those figures relate to a Daimler TR20 not a CB. My bad.

 

I would be suprised if the Holt did much more than 1Mpg.

[Richard Peskett]

Now we are onto fuel consumption herewith copy of official figures from the ASC for lorries purchased in 1913. Obviously these would return a better figure than those at the front. The mileage of the Thornycroft no. 95 works out at about 235 per week. Don't forget the Daimler 'CB' is only a 2 tonner and has the smaller 30 hp engine rather than the 40hp in the 'Y' type.( manufactures rating not RAC). I am always very suspect of claimed mileage and fuel consumptions as it was extremely difficult to keep proper records without mileage recorders fitted and you did not get an accurate receipt from your local friendly supermarket fuel retailer.

Richard Peskett.

 

 

 

[Tony B]

Being soldiers, you can bet the wagons were loaded till there was no more room , regardless of weight. Why go into the firing zone more times than nessacary?

[Roy Larkin]

I am always very suspect of claimed mileage and fuel consumptions as it was extremely difficult to keep proper records without mileage recorders fitted and you did not get an accurate receipt from your local friendly supermarket fuel retailer.

Richard Peskett.

 

 

 

 

I agree entirely Richard. I've often wondered how ASC companies came to the accurate mileage and mpg figures they do. But, they are all quite consistent, so they must have got reasonably reliable information from somewhere. I'd guess that mileage was calculated from maps and on the face of it, fuel consumption would be fairly easy just using the fuel issue figure. But then, by the time some has leaked from cans, variable quantities put in the cans, fuel slopped while filling lorry tanks etc, even the fuel issued figure can't be 100% accurate. ASC figures also applied to the entire company, so would be the entire mileage and average mpg of what could be anything between 50 and 150 lorries, not individual lorries.

[Roy Larkin]

Being soldiers, you can bet the wagons were loaded till there was no more room , regardless of weight. Why go into the firing zone more times than nessacary?

 

Gross weights were very strictly observed as were speed limits. The extra wear and tear of overloaded or speeding lorries was well known and as far as possible everything was done to prevent additional wear and tear. It is likely though that during the heat of battle the needs of the war took precedence over the needs of the lorry, but that was only a small percentage of time.

[Roy Larkin]

1124 MT Coy LAMT, based at Canterbury record the following fuel useage:

3-Ton lorries - average monthly mileage 1050 using 180 gallons (5.8mpg)

Light vans - average monthly mileage 1000 using 120 gallons (8.3mpg)

 

960 MT Coy working on the Western Front with 101 3 ton lorries had average daily mileages per lorry between 31 in May 1918 and 49 in September 1918 at an average 4.3mpg

For October 1918, 15 lorries were in workshops each day, 242 minor repairs were completed, 2 total overhauls were completed and 16 front and 40 rear tyres were replaced. On average 77 lorries were used daily covering 56,856 emty miles and 41,653 miles for the month. They used Thornycroft, Commer and Locomobiles, employed mainly on munitions and road material work.

[Gustaf]

Gross weights were very strictly observed as were speed limits. The extra wear and tear of overloaded or speeding lorries was well known and as far as possible everything was done to prevent additional wear and tear. It is likely though that during the heat of battle the needs of the war took precedence over the needs of the lorry, but that was only a small percentage of time.

It is interesting the Military weight limits (at least WWII and later) were set very low, for example a 2½ ton truck would only be allowed to haul 2½ tons, but on the farm, such a truck would be loaded with 12 to 15 tons, the maximum payload for a 2 ton truck is around 10 tons, the jeep is the only vehicle that seems to be excepted, as it has a ¼ ton rating, and one often sees photos of 4 or more soldiers with gear in them (it does not take long to top the 500 lb rating of the jeep with 3 healthy soldiers). I do not believe that road conditions could be considered a factor, as fields and farm roads are not very smooth.

Best

Gus

[Roy Larkin]

I do not believe that road conditions could be considered a factor, as fields and farm roads are not very smooth.

Best

Gus

 

Preservation of the roads was of paramount concern to the military with strictly enforced spped limits and weights. The roads were little more than cart tracks and badly pot holed and carrying hundreds of times more traffic than they were built for. Keeping the roads in as good a condition as possible was of the utmost importance to keep traffic running.

[abn deuce]

Even in WWII you still had a two weight rating system , as in the GMC CCKW was rated 2 1/2 tons cross country and 5 tons on improved roads . Not sure what the limits were in WWI but it would not suprise me if they had two different limits as well . I d think at least some of the roads miles back from the front lines would be paved be it cobble stone or something else that would let them load the trucks differently from those use where the road had been shelled and generally torn apart nearer the front.

[Roy Larkin]

Even in WWII you still had a two weight rating system , as in the GMC CCKW was rated 2 1/2 tons cross country and 5 tons on improved roads . Not sure what the limits were in WWI but it would not suprise me if they had two different limits as well . I d think at least some of the roads miles back from the front lines would be paved be it cobble stone or something else that would let them load the trucks differently from those use where the road had been shelled and generally torn apart nearer the front.

 

Absolutely no evidence yet found that loads varied to conditions. The only time road conditions affected loads was during 'thaw conditions' when motor transport was banned to protect the road from further damage and from becoming clogged with bogged down lorries.

[Roy Larkin]

 

I would be suprised if the Holt did much more than 1Mpg.

 

998 Coy in Egypt recorded 2.5 mph and 2 gallons per mile for their Holts.