Jump to content

Stutz question


James B.

Recommended Posts

I am a little confused and hope someone can set me straight.

Who was the chief engineer - or the chassis engineer, when the Blackhawk made by Stutz came out in January 1929?

I see that the engineer (but may have been for engines only) up to January 1928 was Charles Sharp Crawford. Then Russell S. Begg took over his position but must not have been for long before going to Budd. Then there is a Greg Kuiper thrown in there somewhere too unless that is a mistake. Trying to figure out who designed the Blackhawk chassis? I figure that Crawford may have designed the Safety Chassis with that unique underslung worm gear rear end. But would "chief" engineers that design engines also design frames?

Thanks ahead of time!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More information that may help? Does it come up in the Stutz book who was chief engineer during the 1928-1930 era?

The thing is that we know Crawford left in January 1928 but there must have been someone between him and Begg? I see that Begg was at Budd "before" he was at Stutz. Looks like he may have started around November 1929 at Stutz and know he was there at least by March 1930. I don't have access to the S.A.E. Journals other than those Google snippets and that is what I am coming up with so far.

Charles Sharp Crawford who was chief engineer at Stutz since 1922 and died after an operation in 1935....

January 14, 1928 Crawford Leaves Stutz to Join G.M. Export Go. Charles S. Crawford, chief engineer of Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc., has resigned to accept a position with the engineering division of General Motors Export Co. (Opel Germany)

He was on his way to Europe by late January but did not move there.

Begg seems to have been at Budd in 1928 around the same time Crawford left Stutz so was not appointed to Stutz immediately since I also see at least one patent he filed for Budd in January 1929.

So... need to find who filled in at Stutz between 1928-1930. Could it have been Moskovics filling in as well as running the company?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for looking. Guess the company was in turmoil then anyway with Schwab buying it and old management did not like him... hence Crawford resigning. I do know that the SAE shows Russell S. Begg as chief engineer at Stutz from around November 1929 but guess he didn't much count or was there for short term since even his obituary did not mention working there but the Holden books and SAE does. Bad blood? But you would think the Stutz book would have some mention of him?

Jim

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit, looking further one journal states that a Paul Bastien was chief engineer for Stutz before going to Oldsmobile. That was in 1929. And another name associated with Moskovics team was Charles Greuter. Any dates or titles for these people in the book? Think Greuter designed the Safety Chassis Car? Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Charles "Pop" Greuter was an engine man, responsible for the OHC Safety Stutz straight eight. I have a vague impression he designed the engine on his own initiative and it was later adopted by Stutz.

The Safety Stutz was developed in a hurry after Moscovics came on board and vetoed the "Da Vinci" prototype. This resembled the Safety Stutz in some features but was a smaller car with a smaller engine.

The designer of the Da Vinci later sued Stutz, claiming their car was based on his design. The case went to court, Moscovics claimed the Stutz design was his, and that any resemblance was coincidental. For example the running boards acted as reinforcements for the chassis frame, a Da Vinci feature, but Moscovics proved Marmon had the same thing and that he picked up the idea when he worked for Marmon. The underslung worm drive came from a transmission manufacturer, and the OHC engine came from Greuter. In other words the features they had in common, Moscovics arrived at independently. He claimed he designed the Safety Stutz and had never seen the Da Vinci plans, that he ordered them returned to the designer without looking at them.

Stutz won the case although the court seemed suspicious of the idea that the president of a car company was competent to design a car!

This is my recollection from some books and magazine articles on Stutz that I read 30 or 40 years ago so I can't swear to any of it.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, that is what I kept seeing published that he was linked with engines as well as Bastien until I ran across a SAE entry that said he was the chief engineer for Stutz. I am also wondering since Moskovics was friends with Delage if, like his stealing the chassis - underslung worm gear rear end design from James Scripps Booth (who won a patent infringement suit against Stutz in the 1930s for them stealing his design)... had also stole Delage designs for the Blackhawk chassis? I say that because the late 1920s Delage frame looks almost identical to the Stutz outside of the engine area. Maybe old habits are hard to break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the names you quote I have not seen in the literature. You should probably get your own copy of the Stutz book. Their are multipe authors of different chapters, who had special interest in various aspects. It is fairly well accepted that Moscovics developed his own concept while previously involved with Marmon and (if I remember correctly) Franklin, and both of those were product of divergent engineering thought.

The lowered frame between the axles was nothing new. I had a very early Voisin with an elegant Voisin light sporting body (and engine from another car fitted).

I also had an early 1920s Type 175 Peugeot with the 3 litre pushrod OHV engine smahed beyond redemption. And Isotta Fraschini used the feature much earlier.

Now the X bracing of the L6 & L8 Blackhawk frame may well have been superimposed as a consequence of road racing experience and the near win by the BB at LeMans in 1928. It must have given very improved frame rigidity, and was used in the shorter wheelbase cars with the M series 8 cylinder engine in the LeMans cars of 1929 and probably later. (L series chassis frame.) You always have to remember that almost all chassis frames were made for the American auto industry by specialist press works, such as A.O.Smith, and Parish & Bingham. These people would have had their own engineers, and the product was likely result of collaboration with the customers engineers. Frames could either be provided complete and assembled; ( there is well-known film footage in caricature of the automated cold press rivetting by machine gangs portrayed as mechanical life forms.) Some manufacturers may have preferred to assemble and rivet their own frames, perhaps for small unit numbers. Now Moscovics travelled, and mixed professionally and socially at a high level, and without doubt had familiarity with what most people were doing on both sides of the Atlantic. His concept of design and market prospects for it must have impressed Schwab. You would need to study biographicl details of Schwab to reasonably conclude that previous management did not like him. Crawford's six cylinder cars were nothing really special, and without inspirational improvement production may have coasted to eventual closure. Who knows what contract Schwab had with Crawford that he honoured? And there would have been plenty to do in production management, and detail revision/improvement of the new straight eights. Some parts were outsourced we know. Timken's underslung worm drive rear axle had the necessary efficiency and suited the concept. Stutz obviously had enough engine designers, and they also had Frank Lockhart working in house, and timing indicates that he almost certainly made contribution to the concept of the DV32. And Charles Greuter's first car in the 1890s not only was predictive in efficient engine design, but also had electric lights and starter. If you might marvel why they did not use the DV32 from 1929 at LeMans when they had a small number of prototypes running mileage for most of late 1928, they needed a far greater number manufactured and sold for the engine to be eligible. My engine DV30004 was cast in may 1928 with "SPECIAL"cast (upside down) on the BB style block. It indicates that they were aware that weakness of the centre main bearing cap was a fault that showed up in racing. They put an extra rib on this about April 1928 ( I have engines both sides of the change); but all the main bearing caps of DV30004 are massively strong. This engine originally had steel conrods also.

As to one person being capable of the entire design of an automobile, you might find yourself a copy "Automobile Design: Great Designers and their Work". Editors are Barker and Harding. Of particular note are the chapters on Hans Ledwinka, and the Bolle family, father and sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Mr. Saxton, very informative. Yes, I am aware of toque issues connected with frames and engine power to say the least. But if you were to compare the chassis design of Delage and Blackhawk you will see that they look almost identical. This in an era of diversity seems odd if for nothing else that Moskovics reputation of having stolen the idea for Booth's undersling worm gear designs saved for Booth's own Da Vinci automobile. Dire times often call for drastic measures when a car company by Moscovic's own admission in trial testimony stated that Stutz was "dead as a door nail". Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc., et al. 56 F.2d 962 (1932).

I can not tell you the source of this comment I have seen on various Stutz car auctions but here is the quote:

" Schwab wanted Stutz to become known for luxury cars rather than sports ones and to this end he hired the ex-Daimler, Marmon, Franklin and Remy Electric engineer Frederick Moskovics. A Hungarian immigrant, Moskovics counted Louis Delage, Gabriel Voisin, Charles Weymann and Ettore Bugatti among his friends. Appointed President on February 17th 1925 he soon recruited the Swiss-born Charles Greuter and ex-Metallurgique prodigy Paul Bastien to help instil a Eurocentric design philosophy. "

I do know that as far back as 1924, the Delage GL used a X braced frame and their 1928 version looks identical to the Blackhawk in almost all aspects except Stutz didn't use a engine platform.

I wish I could afford a copy of the Stutz book but for someone who works paycheck-to-paycheck, what I see them going for would be 1-weeks pay and considering I am casually looking at books for simply reference and need possibly hundreds of them, purchasing would be impractical and so I rely on the charity and comradery of others who have similar interests to help especially if they already own the materials. i don't seek copies of the book nor chapters but simple quotes and some references.

Many Thanks to all who have helped thus far!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, you mentioned that Stutz won the patent case but I am reading that they lost per a Wikipedia entry that has sources...

" In 1923, Booth began to design his ultimate driving machine, the "Da Vinci". This compact car featured an underslung worm drive axle which allowed for a flat nineteen inch floor (much lower than any other car on the market), cable-controlled hood latches, hanging brake and clutch pedals, and a parking brake in the transmission. Having no interest in manufacturing the car on his own, Booth attempted to sell his novel design to established automakers. He was understandably horrified, then, when Stutz produced a car with a similar underslung drive a year after he had shown the firm the "Da Vinci" plans. A costly patent infringement suit ensued, which Booth eventually won in 1935. By then, however, Stutz was ailing financially and the judgement that Booth received barely covered his own legal expenses. After this disconcerting ordeal, Booth produced just one other vehicle—the "Da Vinci Pup", a small, sleek cyclecar—and that solely for his own pleasure. "

Coir, Mark; James Scripps Booth: Artist and Engineer. Cranbrook Archives. 1988.

Personal papers belonging to James Scripps Booth and John McLaughlin Booth. Cranbrook Archives, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

James Scripps Booth: Artist, Engineer, Polymath. Foreword by Jason Weems; University of Michigan Press, 2008.

I am going to look over newspaper articles that seem to come up and also validate this if someone else can't other than the court documents I posted a cite for?

Jim

I did go back and looked and saw this case is pretty famous in law journals and books. One entitled "Dickinson Law Review" Vol. 69 1964-1965 cites in a case that:

"... Booth, in his action for damages against Stutz, alleged two causes of action, patent infringement and wrongful appropriation of his plans. The district court dismissed both counts. The court of appeals held that Booth's reissue patent was invalid. This court, however, reversed the dismissal of the count alleging wrongful appropriation. Despite the lack of patentability in the Booth design, the court remanded the case deciding that Booth had established his right to damages for wrongful appropriation of his property. Thus the court has used its power to award general equitable relief even though his idea was not patentable. "

So apparently the 1932 case went to appeals court, was dismissed then they reversed their decision on one count so Stutz did have to pay him some money and in essence, Booth won.

Still haven't found anything in newspapers yet other than profit losses, Schwab selling off stock, attempts to get loans to restructure, and a love triangle with child that Booth was involved with c.1928.

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW... if anyone is interested in seeing the patents, you can through Google but they won't come up under Booth's name as the OCR messed that up. The original (filed 1922) issued 1925 one is 1546708 and the "reissue" one they threw out issued in 1927 is RE16579

It has drawings of the chassis if wanting to compare to the Stutz "Safety Frame".

Booth also filed one for a torque tube which shows the underslung worm gear filed in 1926 and issued 1928 - patent number 1670096

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Moscovics won the case then lost on appeal. My apologies for the error. I did say my memory was not perfectly reliable.

As Stutz bought their worm drive axles from Timken it would seem Booth should have sued Timken. What I read was that the new low friction worm drive was a Timken invention which Stutz bought ready made. Stutz did not invent or manufacture them it was Timken who violated the Booth patents if anybody did.

Some people like to throw around the word "stealing". Yet the courts established that no patents were infringed. If the second guy who made a dropped frame, X member frame, etc was "stealing" then all cars are the same. I suppose next you will be blaming Chev for "stealing" the idea of a V8 from Ford, or Ford for "stealing" the idea of round wheels from Ben Hur's chariot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding was that the overall design of the Safety Stutz was inspired by the new Timken worm drive axle. Worm drive had been used on heavy trucks, and was to be used on them for years to come. The drawback for car use was that they had too much friction for high speed use.

Timken developed a new form of worm drive gear that overcame this problem. It could be used in a high powered, high speed car without excessive friction.

The new rear axle allowed the driveshaft to be several inches lower. This in turn allowed the frame and body to sit lower. A double drop frame with kickups for the front and rear axle was the obvious result.

All this was a fairly obvious development that flowed from the new worm drive axle.

Other innovations like the hydraulic brakes and safety glass also came from outside the company. Stutz was the first to use them because they were open to new ideas and could afford to use them where cheaper cars could not. Also, Stutz being a small firm was less likely to reject outside ideas on a "not invented here" basis. They must have known that a small firm must be open to new ideas from outside if they are to have a competitive advantage vis a vis the majors. They simply don't have the resources in house to compete with General Motors and other giant companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, I am not trying to associate who "steals" an idea or invention here but this is a bit of a different situation. Cord L-29 has boasted for years to be the "first" American car to utilize the X-beam chassis design but Cord was introduced in August 1929 as a 1930 model while the Blackhawk, introduced as a 1929 was out a few months earlier and also had a X brace. Since it looks like now that Stutz was first, it makes the story about the safety chassis and its variants even more mysterious and the fact that Moskovics was friends with Delage and the Delage frame developed long before Stutz and both look alike, makes one wonder if other shenanigans was happening? It would be interesting to know if the American first was yet another "borrowed" design when chassis designs, especially those with X braces, was in its infancy. And chassis designs do get patented...sometimes.

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search for Timken worm drive axles but didn't turn up much information. I did find some ads in 1918 and 1919 newspapers in which truck manufacturers mentioned their Timken worm drive axles. One said they had been making the same model truck for 8 years. A Wikipedia article on David Brown the English firm, mentioned a joint venture with Timken for making worm drive axles, starting in 1913.

So, worm drive trucks had been using Timken axles for some time. The high speed auto worm drive was a new development taken up by Stutz. They also took up the Timken Hydrostatic brakes, which proved troublesome. They dropped the brakes in favor of Lockheed brakes after a year or so.

They also were the first to use safety glass, of a type with fine wires embedded in the glass. This was replaced by the modern type of laminated glass as soon as it became available.

All this indicates Stutz was open to innovations from outside the firm and was an early adopter of promising technology. As to whether they stole the worm drive idea from Booth, well, where did he get it? Did he claim to have invented the high speed worm drive or did he get the idea from Timken or some other drive gear specialist or manufacturer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am able and have compared the late 20s Delage double drop chassis frame with Stutz. One of my closest friends over 50 years is restoring a Delage DMN with a frame like that; and when ever I visit, (which is several times a year), the cover comes off and we discuss anything questionable and I often may help him with minor needs. I also have long and short chassis BB Stutz. There is no copying between them, and the style detail is very different. Earlier DI and DE four cylinder Delages only have the kick-up at the back by my recollection, but I'll verify that when I speak to David tomorrow evening. The 1929 D8 once owned by a family friend was not double-drop, Nor were 4 1/2 litre OHV GS and the similar deriative CO2. I had to buy a Delage CO2 chassis with firewall, hood, radiator, axles and wheels, because it had been hotrodded in the 1950's with a Mercer 6 cylinder engine and gearbox et cetera as a hillclimb special. I never had reason to look underneath Gregor Rusden's GS Delage sedan, which is the only one I ever saw.

Isotta Fraschini had an on dip in the chassis on some smaller cars to provide a lower entry for back seat passengers. The largest OHC four cylinder KM, which were well known in USA had a dinkum double drop; as also did the handful of smaller similar IM cars made specially for Indianapolis and other racing. Ray Gilhooley did a spectacular "Gilhooley" in the 1914 Indy 500 with one.

With respect to inclined drive line and worm drive, Frederick Lanchester had these in revision of his first car in 1897, and consistently thereafter. It had torque tube.

(Stutz had open tailshaft. ) His worm drive form was very different and more efficient than ant other early design, and the shape the worm wrapped slightly around the wormwheel, whereas all others were straight. Timken's patented "FJ" tooth form was more efficient and good for high road speeds, in contrast to those used in trucks. The tooh form was the critical thing, and that was not in Scripps Booth's design. There was nothing novel about Scrips Booth's Straight 8, or was there? There were automobile straight 8s befoe, but before most Duesenbergs' prewar patrol boat engine. Surely Moscovics and Scripps Booth had similar concepts for quite different size and character cars. Schwab and his colleages had to select the one most suitable for prospects of Stutz. There can be little doubt that Scripps Booth's proposal would have been more difficult to get to dealers and out their doors quickly enough. Lanchester may have been the very best artist/engineer. And artist/engineers can blunder. For instance, Bugatti's engine design was vey satisfying aesthetically, but the beautiful chassis could not compensate for engine shortcomings before George Stewart sold them those two twin cam Millers to copy. I just re-read the section in the Stuz book on Scripps Booth by Robert A Titlow. Bill Greer of the Stutz Club could tell you if he is still about to talk to. You have to be sure that you do not waste effort trawling for fossil fish. grants of patents in contempt of Prior Art elsewhere are suspect. So are court decisions made other than by juries in contests not argued by technically literate counsel. You would need to read the Biography of Sir Owen Dixon to grasp the problems and inequity caused by judges with bad effort, attitude, and competence. The text of his address when he was honoured by either Harvard or Yale, is definitive and quick to read and grasp. (Concerning Judicial Method). He said that for "an ïnnovative judge, precedent was the mistake he made yesterday". A case like this with contrary reversals over some years must be suspect.

I had a friend here for many decades until several years ago, who had 8 or 10 Metallurgiques. I also had a paid job to correct blunders someone else had made in rebuilding the engine of one of the 2 litre four cylinder Met.s of the early 1920s. These were a nicely detailed car, and I know they went well for their day though I have never ridden in one. There is no common thread of style design between them except the combustion chamber design with no particular merit except the twin ignition of Stutz. I would be interested to learn prcisely what Bastien was able to contribute beyond what Moscovics and Charles Greuter could work out, and beyond what Frak Lockhart could improve through his experience with racing Millers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for your excellent response. I am on the run for work but feel that if I post some photos for comparison may help visualize what I am seeing. Does your friend have photos of his Delage chassis?

post-88455-143141762109_thumb.jpg

Brown frame is Delage, black is Blackhawk.

Keep in mind they don't have to be exact in every detail but close enough to say the idea was "taken" from someone else. Much like when Russia "took" ideas from American cars to make their own - like the GAZ and ZIL cars.

post-88455-143141762099_thumb.jpg

post-88455-143141762102_thumb.jpg

post-88455-143141762106_thumb.jpg

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll see David on Saturday at Ballarat Swap, and I'll see if I can organise photos of his DMN without making an extra trip myself. Don't hold your breath because he is about as good at email and less enthusiastic than my red kelpie computer dog whose keyboard nose is inaccurate and bothersome right now. (Her littermate brother is David's favourite working sheep dog now.) The DR70 in your photo is similar frame and concept to the DMN, and both are contemporary with the Blackhawk L6 & L8, and if your Blackhawk with the sidevalve Continental with Rickardo patent combustion chambers, the similarity would be emphasised. Adaptation of chassis frame to need and purpose developed from the early days, and it was not surprising that designers/mathematicianscreated similar solutions to satisfy the same needs in different places at the same time. And, everyone kept an eye on what others were doing; and new ideas were presented at SAE and other professional events. When Fred Lanchester presented a paper on worm gearing, he was asked his opinion of the Wrigley Company's product. He said that the Wrigley worm would certainly be very good for fishing, but he could not see it as in any way useful for automobile transmissions.

I am fairly sure that the DR70 was made for quite a while after the Blackhawk ceased production.

If you want to provide yourself with a broad overview of inventiveness and clever design, you can buy copy of Automobile Design: Great Designers and Their Work by Barker and Harding, from as little as about ten percent of the cost of the only copy of the Stutz book I can find in the aggregative listings. ( The Stutz book does have minor inaccuracies that most would not pick; and photo print quality is very poor). We just have to be very careful that in matters like this we do not try to alter history and so represent people unfairly. We have little native lizards here that will shed their tail to distract and escape from a predator. Derived from this is the bush metaphor, that you lose the lizard and make a small meal of the tail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think it was a matter of the underslung worm gear here as it was cited in the appeal of not being unique and gave various examples dating back to 1907. But more of breech of confidentiality and using a design “concept” utilizing the gears in conjunction with a lower frame to create an overall package. It is this concept which was not patentable and Booth’s worm gear patents not recognized by the court. So he lost half the battle but won basically on the use of his overall idea which was suspiciously alike in the mass produced car the following year.

Here is part of a passage in the court appeals document:

“ True, the Booth blueprints and designs were not literally copied in their every detail. There were many departures, more or less substantial. But salient features mentioned in Crawford's report were undoubtedly incorporated in the Stutz car.

The under-slung worm drive with up-kicked frames was open to all, but, when incorporated in a car, required such rearrangement of parts as the judgment of each designer might suggest. Booth had designed such arrangement peculiar to his car as resulted in an artistic symmetry which gave to the car what Crawford termed an "irresistible eye appeal, placing it in a field of design exclusively by itself." “

BTW.. I also see that the 1933 Nash Ambassador used the same kind of underslung worm gear rear axle.

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underslung worm drive would naturally lend itself to a lower chassis and body. This would suggest itself to any auto designer at once. In fact i can`t think why he would use the worm drive, if not for this purpose.

The salient point is the HIGH SPEED worm drive, for use in cars. This was a new innovation. The question is, whose? Was it invented by Booth, by Timken, or did both invent it at the same time? Or were they influenced by Lanchester, David Brown or some other source?

Seriously, I would like to know where they got the worm drive. To me it is the key to the whole controversy.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already knew Timken supplied axles and brakes for Stutz. Timken was one of the biggest manufacturers of axles and bearings for cars and trucks at that time.

What I want to know is, did they steal Booth's high speed worm drive? Did they get it from some other source, like David Brown? Or invent it themselves?

If both Booth and Moscovics got the idea of the low slung, worm drive chassis from Timken then Booth's claims have little or nothing to go on. But if Booth patented a unique worm drive design before Timken, then it looks like Timken and Moscovics stole the idea from Booth.

This is where the court cases are unclear. They held that Booth's patent rights were not violated. Yet they said the overall concept was Booth's. Even though the concept was not patentable, and would have been obvious to anyone skilled in the art of auto design and manufacture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, Booth did not patent a worm gear drive but a chassis configuration which utilized a underslung worm gear to take advantage of his frame design concept. It didn't matter who made the axle, just that it had to be of that style for his concept to work. It was the chassis design which was being attempted to be use in court but thrown out. He may had Timken in mind to use when he built DaVinci and Stutz used the same company? But think who designed or made the worm gear was irrelevant as long as it was underslung to work with his total chassis concept design. It was the chassis layout design he was suing Stutz over. Or am I still missing the whole thing here?

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I think you are right. My point is the low chassis design would be obvious, given the low drive shaft of the worm drive axle. The axle is the key to the whole chassis design. So who designed the axle? The concept of a worm drive axle was not new, it had been used on trucks for years. What was new, was the low friction worm gear that made the high speed worm drive practical. So where did that come from?

There is always the possibility Moscovics saw the Da Vinci blueprints although he says he did not. The Da Vinci was a much smaller car and would not have stood a chance in the marketplace as a Stutz. Booth admits Stutz did not copy a single patented feature but says they did copy his concept. But if the concept was obvious given the worm drive what is left of his claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even though each part were not new ideas it was this combined configuration that was in his own version. That is why he basically lost but the court gave him the benefit of the doubt with the reversal in light that possibly Stutz used his concept for their own use especially going into production after showing them his blueprints. That said I still wonder about the similarities between the Delage and Blackhawk chassis since Moskovics was friends with Delage.

Rusty, is there anything mentioned along the line of the 1929 Blackhawk chassis, design, or timeframe of development in the Stutz book?

Edited by James B. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book I was thinking of was a cheap Ballantine paperback from the early seventies. Have you ever seen the Ballantine WW2 series of books? Before they did the war books they did a series on cars and motorcycles including Stutz, Lincoln, Cadillac, Brooklands race track, etc.

They had very good authors like Maurice Hendry and others. But is was nearly 40 years ago I read the book. They did speak of the Blackhawk, and Black Hawk models, and went into some detail on the difference, but after all these years I don't remember what exactly they said.

Then there were articles in Automobile Quarterly and other publications. Thinking back, the Stutz never got the attention it deserved. It was a great car with a fascinating history. As the Ballantine book pointed out, in their day they did more racing and built more high performance cars than anybody, yet today they are nearly forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Recently I came across some information which may have something to do with Russell Begg's move from Budd to Stutz. Here is how I used this in a recent presentation about Begg.

"Significantly when Begg moved to the BuddCompany they were in the final design stages of afront wheel drive car named the car Ruxton after apotential financier who dropped out. The initialdesign preceded the FWD Cord. This car was shown to Andre Citroen who had a longstanding steel body technical association with Budd.At the time Ruxton promoter and Budd companydirector, Archie Andrews was trying to put aconsortium together to merge Jordan, Pierce Arrow,Peerless and Moon. Perhaps Begg’s move to Buddwas part of those ambitions.

The car was shopped around to many of the era’smid-sized manufacturers but none were willing totake a chance on the vehicle. A few Ruxtons wereeventually produced in the Moon Motors plant in St.Louis Missouri, but its ill-timed introduction by a firmwith no manufacturing facilities was just too much ofa hurdle to overcome.

Budd ended up building a couple hundred sedanbodies for the car, although they were produced inEngland by their Pressed Steel subsidiary.

The hub cap design was a Begg patent.

Budd built another front-wheel-drive prototype in1929 for Andre Citroën. The Citroën was different, itwas built using an integral frame and chassis whereits bodywork also served as a stressed portion of thechassis - a concept pioneered by Marmon in theteens and Lancia in the twenties that is popularlyknown today as unibody or monocoque construction.All this occurred during Begg and Kuiper’s period atBudd.

Later in 1934 Budd designed and developed the bodyfor the Chrysler Airflow and a year later the LincolnZephyr.

In Germany Ambi Budd assisted in the developmentand manufacture of the new Opel Olympia andKadett integral steel bodies and later helped buildthe first Volkswagen.

Begg’s CV reports he was Chief Engineer of the Stutzcar company in early 1930 not long before thatcompany’s demise and Kuiper was again his assistantchief.

One wonders whether they presided over thedevelopment of this 32 valve doc 6 when their rivalswere into V12 and V16s.

What is interesting is that this time Archie Andrewswas involved in another attempt to merge Jordanwith other struggling luxury car makers includingStutz, once again it may be that Begg’s briefinvolvement Stutz relates to this, bearing in mind hewas an orginal Jordan shareholder. "

Does any of this resonate? Appreciate any Input. Thanks in anticipation, Marcus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Stutz is held in quite high regard these days. Prices for most Stutz models seem to be steadily rising. I had at one time considered vertical 8's affordable but they have gone up quite a bit in the last 5 years. Definitely out of my reach in todays market. The only ones that haven't seen a big jump are the mid 20's cars {post KLDH-pre vertical 8 } ,especially if they wear closed bodywork. But so few survive ; perhaps only 2 or 3 of these for sale a year, so it is hard to get a fix on price.

Greg in Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I'll see David on Saturday at Ballarat Swap, and I'll see if I can organise photos of his DMN without making an extra trip myself.

Ivan, it has been 2-years since we spoke here about the similarities between the Delage and Blackhawk chassis. I was sidetracked but none the less still active on this project in finding a link between the two x-brace designs and wonder if you have ever contacted your friend to get photos or to ask questions?

There were many variations on a theme here when it came to x-brace (cruciform) chassis designs. I have run across some dating to 1902 including on Mercedes, 1906 Armstrong Whitworth, and on some trucks and buses of the early 1910s and 1920s. We also know that Maurice Sainturat designed the 1921 Hotchkiss AK that had a X frame and also worked at Delage and Delage had used an X design on their 1924-1927 GL models (and the later model we are speaking of). There is also the 1925-1927 Crossley All of these predating the Cord L-29 and still trying to establish that Stutz was first, if not by sale introduction date, over Cord. I would like to know when prototype designs and test started on the 1929 Stutz Black Hawk?

Thanks

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, I now have five jpg images of the bare DMN chassis frame. If you send me an email address by Private Message I can send them by email. I apologise that the logic of the method of posting images on the forum may as well be chinese to me; and so it will remain.

The 4 cyl T-head Stutz of the early 1920s had a different method to prevent parallelogram displacement of the chassis frame which was not as elegant, but should have served the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I hope people don't mind my bringing this back up since I see a few new Stutz participants here?

Can anyone answer the question as to who designed the 1929-1931 production Stutz Black-Hawk chassis? And when did the car go into planning and testing stage? Thanks!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...