AHa

sounds interesting

Let's see, 4 cylinder, individually cast cylinders, right hand drive, chain drive, I'm going to guess no on the above two questions. It may be a Seagraves. There are very few Seagraves of this vintage to compare it to but the radiator and motor appears close.

Don't remember this one being posted. Captured from Pinterest, a Photo Bucket print.

George, You seem to be a very intelligent and learned man but you seem to expect me to bow down and worship at your feet. How am I to know Andrew Riker Junior is a trustworthy source? Just because you say so? Just because you say it does not make it so. Is he a man of character; a man above reproach, I have no idea. I have no idea of the source of the information published. Just because something is written down on a piece of paper does not make it true. I know His Father has today an almost cult like following in the Connecticut area. The problem is there are conflicting reports from people who should be equally as trustworthy as Andrew Riker junior. You say let Andrew Riker be true and every other man a liar. That's fine for you and I guess you know more than you are willing to say but I'm not willing to make that leap with the information presented. Even with all the insults you are hurling at me, I can see you have a certain passion about these cars and I can respect that.

Thankyou for the compliment George. Anybody who studies these period articles quickly learns there is no way to come to a single conclusion. The only interpretation you can come away with is a poor one. Moreover, anyone who has messed around with early cars knows the quality of early aluminum castings is quite poor and brittle. I can name quite a few early cars with aluminum crankcases that have had new crankcases cast and machined either because the original failed or was anticipated to. A new crankcase does not prove or disprove an existing motor. I have no knowledge as to whether there ever was any parts of the #1 car existing before 1995, I have only posted anecdotal evidence, which is a poor excuse for evidence but at this point, its all we have that I know of. For all you guys out there, I want to explicitly state I am not an expert on old 16 or the #1 car. And just for emphasis, I'll say it again, I am no expert and it is clear to me the experts have made numerous mistakes along the way on basic facts. The motor in old 16, is it 7.25 x 6, as Joseph Sessions said, or 7.25 x 6.25 as the gas engine magazine states? What is the truth? Which article do you believe? That has been my goal from the start; to try and understand the truth. I now understand it probably is unknowable.

Funny, in your Joseph Sessions article dated 1939, posted back on page 4, Joseph Sessions states old 16 had a bore of 7.25 and a 6" stroke. He obtained the car in 1915 , was a supplier of foundry products for Locomobile in 1908, and was a Locomobile dealer, not to mention being friends with Robertson and at the track in 1908. I never said I was an expert in anything. In fact, I am the first to point out I am not an expert. I study these period articles.

Here is the problem. Just in the data George has posted recently, you have one article that says the number 1 car was a 90 horse, 990ci, and then another period article that says it was 7.25x6.25 making 120 horse and 1038ci. Both articles were published in 1908; which article is correct? I can produce at least one more period article claiming only one of the cars were "remodeled," whatever that means. The 7" piston given to Helck, which is now in the possession of Howard Kroplick, is undoubtedly from the 1905 car. This piston was said to have been removed from a car stored at the Locomobile factory in a storage shed on the pier sometime after 1908. If this is true, there were actually three Locomobile race cars extant at the same time, which all looked very similar. The gas tank of the 1905 car was removed and a round tank was put behind the seat in its last configuration. The 1905 car had one exhaust pipe per cylinder and is easily identified if the picture is taken from the right side but most are taken from the left side. Which car is being identified by any one writer becomes difficult to ascertain. And another thing, in the article George posted above about the restoration of the number 1 car, a new, freshly machined, crankcase is depicted. In the posted court case regarding the car, mention is made of new pushrods being fabricated. If Peter Helck had a spare motor, why was another motor being fabricated? There seems to be more holes in this story than a chunk of Swiss cheese.

Do you have a picture? The 1911 cars had a multiple disc clutch in oil but the 12s have a cone clutch.

Prewar, I am by no means an expert; there are many people more knowledgeable. Still, I've done a fair amount of research. Most of your questions can be answered by looking at earlier posts in this thread as well as the "What car is this" thread. Locomobile's history as it pertains to racing is easily condensed to a few salient points, IMO. Andrew Riker built an electric race car early in the century and later was hired on as chief engineer at Locomobile. A one Harold Thomas of Chicago, Illinois took a Locomobile racing and being very pleased with the results and having just received a huge inheritance, contacted his Locomobile dealer about building him a race car. The board of directors was not interested and attempted to price Harold out by quoting him a price of $18,000. Harold wired the first installment overnight. Now, Riker, being the chief engineer was tasked with building the car and once it was finished, test driving. He was very pleased with the result and entered it in the Gordon Bennet Race in France. When Thomas got wind of this, He exercised his rights over the car. I believe Riker was incensed and set about to build two more race cars, which became known as #1 and old 16. In 1909, the race commission that governed the Vanderbilt Cup changed the rules and only stock cars were allowed to race. That year, Locomobile used stock cars fitted for racing. I believe they were rated at 40horse. The board of directors had previously said they had no interest in racing and did not like the publicity so I believe 1909 was the last year for Locomobile company events. As to the two cars, as George has shown, the provenance of old 16 is well documented, #1 not so much. There is a man who said he saw a spare motor in Peter Helck's collection and it is said #1 was tore down but kept for spare parts for old 16. George is very skeptical. In one of George's recent articles, it is stated the participants in the sale of old 16 signed a non-disclosure document and cannot speak of the sale with any specificity. Most of this history can be found in period literature and much of that is published in my rambling thread titled, what car is this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if #1 is 990ci in 1908, then the stroke in this car was not lengthened. Old 16 is said to be 1038ci, its stroke being lengthened from 6 to 6.25. It's supposed to be the difference between 90hp to 120hp correct? As I understand it, horsepower was rated based on rpm, 1000 rpm being the benchmark. If a manufacturer wanted to show a higher horsepower, it was easily done by figuring it at a different rpm. I struggled to explain the difference between 90hp and 120hp. It never dawned on me that they had lengthened the rod. It should have. Over the three years they raced the car, like any race car, it would be constantly tweaked.

It seems very difficult to nail down anything but the extra piston, said to be from the number 1 car, is also said to be a 7" piston. If the motor in old 16 is indeed a 7.25 bore, the 7" piston came from the 1905 car, which is reported to be 7x7 b&s. This would explain what happened to the 1905 car. With the prices these wrecks are bringing in auctions today, I'm very surprised expeditions have not been launched to try and recover its remains.

But, see, that's the point. A couple of years ago, at a family reunion, I learned one of my distant cousin's husband worked at the Toyota race car lab in California. I asked him if there was anything discovered recently that increased horse power. He said, yes, just recently they discovered a new trick that increased horse power 5% but he wouldn't say anything more. Of course, I was amazed. Here we are 120 years after the development of the internal combustion engine with almost that much race history, and people are still figuring out how to make smaller engines put out more horse power. There was a fair amount of secrecy around Locomobile's racing development. Accurate numbers were printed but so were numbers meant to deceive. Then, you had reporters and newspaper men writing and publishing stories who had no idea what the truth was, and seemingly didn't care, trying to make a buck. Old 16s motor has never been opened up, and likely never will, so there is no way to know empirically. Now, the Dragone family has put together the sister car to Old 16 and I know of one man who said he saw the motor to that car while it was in Peter Helck's collection so the specs on that motor should be knowable. They rebuilt the motor, but whether the two cars were truly sisters is again unknowable. The two cars had subtle differences.

Prewar, From my research, the Locomobile cars are rated at either 90HP or 120HP in period literature. Cars in that period were rated below actual horse power in many cases, one reason being cars were taxed based on horse power. The number was also tweaked in period sales literature to give the impression of more power. Power in early cars was important to keep the car from bogging down in heavy sand or mud. The 05 Thomas car was 7x7 with no overhead valves and both 06 cars were 7.25x6 with overhead intake. Overhead valves are supposed to be a better configuration because the motor breathes better. Still, I suspect the horse power of both motors would be very similar. If the same formula were used for each motor, a side by side comparison could be made. I have a simple formula somewhere.

There is a collapsible cabriolet that has been posted in this thread I believe. In fact, I believe a friend of George K had it and it sold at auction recently for around $125. Am I wrong?

Of course, you are correct George, F head is the overhead intake, underhead exhaust. Thankyou for catching that.

Prewarnut, You have stated the problem perfectly. In trying to research Locomobile race history, you find so much misinformation and misdirection, you have to conclude Andrew Riker was deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The bore and stroke of Old 16 seems to be consistently 7.25 x 6 in most of the period articles. This bore and stroke is often confused with the bore and stroke of the first car, the car Harold Thomas commissioned Locomobile to build for himself, which is 7x7. The Harold Thomas car had a T head motor while old 16 had an (L) correction, F head. The cars are different enough in pictures to identify them but you have to look closely. Moreover, Harold Thomas commissioned His car in 1905 and old 16 and her sister were built in 1906. It is easy to see how the cars were confused by newspapermen, who only wanted to sell papers.

I used POR 15 gas tank cleaner and sealer. You don't have to get the tank perfectly rust free. I tried Red Kote and it didn't work for me and when I called the tech line, they were less than helpful. If you decide to use a sealer, follow the manufacturers recommendations carefully. The Tech guys at POR 15 products were very helpful. My project turned into such a disaster I called them multiple times to get things right, each time they carefully walked me through the process. No problems since.

Thankyou very much, Prewarnut. This article confirms Sessions bought the car in 1915 and not from Andrew Riker, as previously believed, but from the Locomobile factory. It was merely stored in Riker's barn. It even tells us the sale price of the car, $1,500. The bore and stroke is confirmed at 7.25 x 6. Very important piece of history from Session's own hand. It would be curious to know how much history of the car is included with the display at The Henry Ford.

Vintage I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would jump in here. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. The modern bearings would be installed in the same location as the originals both in the hub and on the spindle. Some shimming may be necessary to get the hub positioned correctly and the cone on the adjustable nut may have to be cut off the nut so it turns up against the bearing housing or outer washer. You'll have to play with your options once you find the right bearings. Just mic the OD of the spindle in the flats and the id of the hub inner and outer and send those dimensions to your bearing supplier. The bearings get a radial load so the bearing have to be wheel bearings but I'm almost positive you can find a modern replacement.

These hubs have the original cup bearing style bearings in them. Most people, if not all, are carrying the sizes to a modern bearing house and replacing them. I don't have the modern replacement numbers but someone will. Or, alternately, these old style cups are easily machined out of semi hard material, if you have the machine to do so, and the ball bearings are very cheap. The cups will drive out like any modern bearing would.

From the words on the hubcap, the two axles are obviously from a Pierce Arrow car. The Pierce Arrow is perhaps one of the best built American cars. Is the rest of the car there or just the axles?

Those were some very expensive and highly desirable headlights.

George, Can you please provide some more information for us ignorants. Who manufactured the motor? Is this a cobbled together set of parts or is the chassis by one manufacturer? Did you have a price in mind? A starting point? What condition are the parts? Have you had the motor running? Is it in driveable condition? It looks to be a very early style 6 cylinder chassis with chain drive to the rear end and what I can see is in very nice condition. It would make a very nice period piece, or, already is.