Gary_Ash

Members
  • Content count

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

2 Followers

About Gary_Ash

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.studegarage.com

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    SouthCoast, Massachusetts
  1. Here's one: 1929 President FH (LHC), s/n 7028315, had Ross box with casting 222982. I think this assembly is part number 158839. If you find out where casting 222994 was used, please let me know. I think this one had a roller bearing as the worm follower instead of a bare pin. Is there a specific one you are looking for? LHC or RHC?
  2. I got some more practice creating 3D models. We went to the Collings Foundation museum on Saturday, June 17 for their Father's Day events. This is the only weekend of the year that the museum is open to the public to see the cars, airplanes, and military vehicles. I picked out a 1946 Studebaker midget racer that used the 170 cu in Champion 6 engine with a dual-carb setup. There seems to be no way to post the 3D models themselves from Remake, but here is a link to a 15-second "video" of the model I exported as an .AVI file (115 MB) then downsized it to a 7 MB MP4 video at 640x480 pixels. A photo of the real car is attached below. There were about 48 photos at 5 MB each to create the model. Unfortunately, I couldn't get behind the museum's ropes to capture the back of the car and the other angles, but the model isn't too bad. Video: http://www.studegarage.com/images/video/midget_racer3.mp4
  3. That file of the Austin Healey was generated from a very small die cast model, not a life-size car. That changes the spatial resolution and the way it is presented. Also, there was more control over lighting than taking photos outdoors. The results are also affected by how many photos are used and the quality level selected. To see all of the thin tubes on the go kart, it would take many more photos and the higher quality resolution - which requires that I pay $5 per file. That would be OK once I learn how to do this well. I did another practice session this evening just before sunset. I parked my Jaguar XJ8 on the driveway and shot about 27 photos using a Canon PowerShot Elph 360 digital camera with ISO speed set to 200. I should have shot more than 50 photos and edited them down to the 50 photos allowed for the free version of Remake. I got a fair representation of the car, but there were holes, etc. that needed to be filled by manual work, though that was quick and easy in Remake. There were also many distorted surfaces. I think it would have been better if I had taken a sequence while standing on a ladder to capture the roof and hood surfaces better. Remake does state that smooth, shiny surfaces are difficult to capture and render, so maybe no surprise. I'm still on Day 1 of the learning curve, so I think I will get better eventually. Here is a .png file of the 3D model. My current PC is a pretty good one, though now 4 years old. It has an Intel I7 processor, 16 GB of RAM, and an Nvidia GTX 660 video card with 1 GB VRAM. Even so, it's not enough to generate Remake files offline, as the software requires a video card with >2GB VRAM. I could buy a new video card for about $230, but what is really needed is a new $3500 PC with 64 GB RAM and a recent video card with 2-4 GB VRAM or more. It's amazing how many problems are solved by the application of cubic dollars!
  4. I did download the free version of Remake and installed it on my PC - after Microsoft took an hour or three to do the latest update to Windows 10 Creator. I tried a couple of tests, see that I'll have to practice taking the photos in the right sequence and from the right angles. The best time to take photos would be just as the sun is setting or on an overcast day to get uniform lighting without harsh shadows. Remake then uploaded the pictures and processed them, but it takes a while, like 10-15 minutes. Once I get the hang of this, I'll try a full size car. Here is one quick example of my go kart using about 35 photos taken with my iPhone 6. The process needs more photos taken from the right positions to capture all the details, but it isn't too bad for a first try. I had Remake export an .AVI video to show the 3D model from all sides, but that created a 55 MB file, so I turned that into a 3.5MB .MP4 file using Windows MovieMaker. If this works right, you can click on the .MP4 file and see the model rotate. One of the iPhone photos is included. Here is the .MP4 video file: gokart3.mp4
  5. Perhaps no printing of good single malts (alas!), but I looked around on-line a little more for ways to scan a car. Though it's a bit complicated and requires taking 50-200 photos from all angles, it can be done accurately and in color with several software packages. One particularly strong and relatively easy contender is Remake from Autodesk, a maker of high-end CAD software. It's recommended that a digital SLR be used because you can set equivalent ISO film speed (ISO 100-200) and the lens opening (f/11 to f/16), though photos from a smartphone or iPad can be used. The Remake web site has a large number of examples, including the old GMC pickup at Mac's Sea Garden Restaurant at 208 Margret St in Key West. I've been there and seen the decrepit truck, so the 3D model looked realistic to me. You can see the truck on Google maps Streetview for comparison. See https://gallery.autodesk.com/remake/projects/46433/old-truck?searched Click on the small button on the right below the picture on the web site (the one with a cube showing), then click and drag to turn the truck around and over. I think I might download the free version of Remake to try it out on one of my cars. Here's the Remake web site: https://remake.autodesk.com/about
  6. For quite a few years, I've been interested in ways to scan a complete car into a 3D computer file at a reasonable cost. The technology seems to be there, or almost there. Some weeks ago, we were in Den Haag, Netherlands and visited Madurodam park with my adult daughter and her family. There was a Fantasitron booth there where my wife and I got scanned by about 100 cameras in a few seconds. A few weeks later, a 3D model of us in full color arrived at my house. The scanning is done by taking ~100 photos in a few seconds with digital cameras, not a laser. The 3D model, about 3.5" high, was printed out by Shapeways in a colored plaster-like material for $54. The detail is pretty good, might be better in a larger size print, but that could be $200-$400. I'm encouraged that the photogrammetry process can be used to scan large objects like cars and buildings and produce exact scale models. If you want a 3D miniature figurine of yourself or family members, try Googling "3D selfie". There are many places in Europe to get it done but only a few in the U.S. so far. It will be coming, though. I also looked at the scanner attachment for iPads and iPhones at www.structure.io . For $499, they deliver a sensor that attaches to an iPad and Skanect software for scanning almost anything you can imagine, including your car, your dog, inside your home, etc.. As interesting as it looks, you had better be good at computer stuff to use this and have a powerful computer at home. In principle, you walk around the object and take a normal 2D photo every 10-15 degrees. It may be necessary to take a series looking down and some looking up, as well as looking into holes and depressions to get all the details. Perhaps 30-100 photos at 5 megapixels each are needed. The software then matches the images and creates the 3D model. This would be a good way to capture and preserve old cars. This seems to be an opportunity for someone to start a business. Buy the sensor and software, go to car shows, take the needed photos of a car, and deliver a 3D miniature of the car - and its owner. How much would people pay for this service? It would probably cost $200-$500 or more, depending on the size of the printed model. Any interest? No, I'm not starting such a business, but you can! Here are some photos of the 3.5" high model of me and my wife shown next to some car keys for scale. My other daughter thought the models were creepy, LOL!
  7. The block sitting on the four bathroom scales in the photo above is a Studebaker 250 cu in straight 8. It weighed about 445 lbs with the crankshaft, cam, valves, and pistons installed, i.e. as shown in the photo. The iron head (50 lbs), flywheel (57 lbs), clutch, bell housing, generator, water pump, and exhaust manifold add another 250-300 lbs. I'll have to follow Dale's suggestion and go hold on to nylon sling and see what the crane scale reads. Should I believe it or that !&#$% scale in my bathroom that keep telling me I'm getting fatter?
  8. Yes, that's why I used the term "resolution". I don't have any calibrated weights in the 100-500 lb range to test the scale's accuracy. Such calibration weights cost 10x to 100x the cost of this cheap, small, convenient scale. To me, it's "good enough" for the $34 I paid. I once tried to borrow the industrial 10,000 lb crane scale from the shop in the place I used to work in order to weigh an engine and transmission assembly. I couldn't even pick it up it was so heavy, and it was a dial-type analog scale with markings every 50 lbs. More accurate, maybe. Useful to me, no!
  9. I recently stumbled across some small, cheap crane scales and bought one on Amazon. It's a made-in-China product, can't tell who the actual manufacturer is, but that doesn't matter. For $30-$35, you can buy one that will weigh 300 kg/660 lb to 0.1 lb resolution. Just Google "mini crane scale" and you can see many sellers of the same (and similar) product at an extremely wide range of prices, but the $30 range is about right. Some of the vendors identify these as "OCSL" for the brand/model I bought. As I was in the middle of picking up and moving a shear/brake/roll sheet metal tool with my Harbor Freight engine hoist, I just put the crane scale on the hoist hook, wrapped an HF nylon sling around the rolls, and lifted the tool into the air. It was almost 300 lb. With a 660 lb capacity, that will cover most engines. I also have four bathroom scales that I bought at Walmart for $8.88 each. They have over 300 lb capacity each. I weighed a couple of engines by laying 2x6's across two pairs of scales and resting the engine on the 2x6's, then adding up the weights. The crane scale is easier and more precise, if that makes a difference.
  10. I and my wife Jane will be driving our dark blue 1965 Studebaker Wagonaire.
  11. Spinneyhill asked, so here is a recipe for kingpins. I have two detailed drawings for Studebaker kingpins used on 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton pickups with solid front axles in the 1940s-1950s. Originally, the steel was SAE 4615 but later revised to SAE 8620 about 1949. You can still buy 8620 bar stock. Spicer and Clark Equip. Co. both made these kingpins for Studebaker. I suspect they made kingpins for other companies, too. The heat treat process for 8620 steel after rough machining is listed as: Carburize at 1650 °F for case depth .035"-.045" Cool in pot Reheat to 1550 °F Quench in oil Draw to Rockwell "C" hardness 59-64 The final grinding to size operation (.8025" min, .8030" max. O.D.) was probably done after hardening and tempering. I think many commercial heat treat companies can do this process in a controlled manner. I'm not sure what a batch of parts would cost for heat treating, but it's probably not a lot, just more than you would like to pay for a single pair. The raw steel and rough machining should not be expensive. I thought about reproducing these at one time but decided I didn't want the liability if one ever failed. King pins are simple parts, but they want to be exactly right - hard on the outside so they don't wear, but somewhat softer and tough on the inside so they don't break. Otherwise, try Northwestern Auto Supply in Michigan or Then and Now Automotive in Weymouth, MA. Another source might be Nelson B. Pease in Palmer, MA, phone number given above in the post by F&J. Nelson Pease is a remarkable guy with encyclopedic knowledge of old car parts and a remarkable inventory of old NOS stuff.
  12. Actually, I think Duesenberg did use the roller bearing type of follower, even though my Studebaker box had a single peg. I wish I had the roller version! The high-end Studebakers did have it, but I could never find one of the boxes to use for my Indy car project. I'm still looking for a Ross box with a 222994 casting number. Here's a post on the ACD Club forum about a 1933 Auburn steering gear that does show the rollers and peg. http://acdclub.org/forum/auburn-acd-forums/7807-1933-steering-box-question-amp-parts Classic and Exotic Services does sell repro pegs and rollers for the Duesenberg boxes: http://www.classicandexotic.com/store/c-187-steering-box.aspx
  13. Looks like a Ross unit. Here's a photo of one from a 1929 Studebaker President. It sure doesn't help you that someone ground off the casting number.
  14. We've been spending a couple of weeks near Den Haag (The Hague) in the Netherlands, had a chance to visit the Louwman Museum and its collection of 250 cars and carriages. Its an easy train ride from Amsterdam to Den Haag. Opened in 2010, the museum houses a great variety of vehicles, including a few American cars. We did spot the 1917 Pierce Arrow with body by Studebaker and the 1950 Studebaker Champion. Otherwise, there were early steam and electric cars, some pre-1890s vehicles, and lots of fabulous European cars from the 1920s and 1930s, and even an assortment of minicars from the 1960s. It's easy to spend 3-4 hours here, and the in-house restaurant has decent food in a setting like an old village. Well worth the trip! Photos: some Bugattis 1936 Mercedes 500K 1917 Pierce Arrow with body by Studebaker (note headlights NOT in fenders) a few Alfa Romeos 1933 Hudson-powered Indy car
  15. A friend sent me this link to a Craigslist ad for a BIG speedster: https://portland.craigslist.org/clk/cto/6087691020.html I know nothing about this car. At least it's all done and looks like it was done pretty well.