AN ATTEMPT AT MONOPOLY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 26 November 1927, Page 13

AN ATTEMPT AT MONOPOLY

BY VARYING STANDARD TYRE SIZES. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence that a great reduction in the cost of making a motor-car can be effected by standardising a considerable number of its component parts, so that they are interchangeable with those of other makes, and can, therefore, Ire turned out in far larger quantities than would otherwise be the case. In America, a very high degree of standardisation on these lines has been attained, and to a very satisfactory extent the same thing has been done in Great Britain. It is unnecessary, of course, to say that such standardisation need in no way interfere with the individual characteristics of the car; in fact, it gives the designer a perfectly free hand. The most manifest example of the utility of standardisation is to be found in tyres. As a matter of fact, there are far too many sizes on the market already, which means that the garage proprietor has got to carry a very large stock of covers if he is to be in a position to supply any motorist who is in need of one. The present tyre situation is, however, very much better than it was, and the desired degree of inter-change-ability now exists. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is, it seems, to be disturbed, for a very important foreign tyre manufacturer has produced a non-standard rim, which can only be used in conjunction with his own particular non-standard tyre. It is very doubtful if any British carmanufacturer would adopt either oi these things, but. unquestionably, a number of French cars will be imported with these wheels and tyres. The owners, whether they realise the point or not, will thus find themselves in the position of being compelled to use one brand of tyre and no other, and it may well happen that this will be the cause of serious inconvenience. The man who owns a car with non-standard rims may, in the event of bad luck (which still does occur with tyres) have to go from on garage to another before he can buy a replacement cover eleven a tube. There is another aspect of this breaking awav from standard practice that is also objectionable. The car owner with standard rims has a dozen different tyres at his disposal, all of which will fit the rims equally well. Competition as between manufacturer and manufacturer ensures that these standard tyres are good value for money, and that they are kept up to the highest possible standard of quality. Now, the tyre manufactrer who departs from standard design is endeavouring to establish a monopoly, and to a certain extent he will very effectively do so. If he chooses to put up the price, or to lower the quality of his tyres, those who are committed to non-standard rims have no alternative but to keep on patronising them, for it is highly improbable that any owner of a low-priced car would go to the heavy expense of equipping it with a completely new set of wheels and tyres. Of course, it is well recognised that standardisation committees can only issue recommendations, and that every tyre constructor is perfectly free to choose his own dimensions on rims and everything else, as he sees fit. It is, however, a pity that when standardisation has brought such good results, a bold attempt should now he made to depart from it, ami it is as well that motorists should ho w.irmd of the risks of serious iiir-mit ■ oi. n that they run if they suiq . it ibis |.uli<-y.