AHa

Ok, I stand corrected, although I would probably call what you call a skirt, an edge treatment. I've always thought of a skirt as the part on the backside. It is amazing how many period photos show half flat tires. My understanding is this was partially because the tires have more traction in loose sand that way and may be more attributal to tube quality. The thing is, today, we are warned not to drive in this condition because the tube can travel on the rim and break the valve stem off. I have personal experience with this. I wonder if Locomobile ordered lights with Locomobile script or if light companies produced them in an effort to sale lamps to new owners. If a car came with non-script lamps, a set of scripted lamps would be a nice upgrade. I assume one reason front fenders might be skirted is because front fenders suffered more abuse. How many times have we seen a period photo with some guy laid out on the fender? No one could lay on the rear fender. From an engineering point of view, a skirt on the rear fender would be pointless and remember Andrew Riker was still chief engineer at Locomobile at this time. Just my two cents.

Al, are you calling the body filler panel a skirt? To my knowledge, the skirt is the part that bridges across the fender, front to back, that is usually perpendicular and at a right angle to the fender top. In the picture of the car above, what I would call the skirt is not visible. There is however a body filler part that goes from the fender over to the main body. Educate me if you can. I wonder if you are unaware of the typical bleed over of parts in these early years. It is not unusual to find 1912 fenders on a late 1911 car and sometimes car companies like Locomobile made running changes throughout production. Parts books sometimes note these changes by serial number of car. Of course, I can't speak of Locomobile specifically.

I believe the motor in the OP's picture is a Wisconsin. They had intake manifolds like that. The tire and wheel doesn't appear that large to me, maybe 34x4. That fender has some strange rivets running along the inside edge and it appears to be canvas. Notice the hemmed edge next to the motor. The fan, to me, should be a deciding factor. Both of the Olds motors have sheet metal fans but the OP's picture shows the cast aluminum fan.

I believe that is a Splitdorf magneto and a cast aluminum fan in the OP. Original mags are sometimes replaced with something more reliable but the fan should be the same. The bottom picture above has a Bosch dual magneto or double spark to fire two spark plugs but a sheet metal fan. Subtle differences.

Its called inflation. I can remember when land sold for $250. per acre but those days are long gone too. People used to make a lot less money and were happy. Now, everybody wants to be a millionaire overnight. Yea, you can't get mechanics to work on Saturday for little or nothing; I can't even get friends to work for nothing. Times have changed. This used to be about a hobby, now, it seems like everything is driven by money. It's not entirely true but seems like the lions share.

I guess because of the black and white photos of the period, I just assumed all early cars came with black upholstery. I was recently at a car show and two very nice restorations had leather interiors not in black. In looking through the Horseless Carriage Gazette, most early cars have black interiors. Can anybody speak to this issue?

It used to be that the old car hobby was about the cars. People bought cars they found interesting and restored them in their home garages for the love of the car. Restoration cost was not a concern and were not tallied or kept account of. Then, slowly, over time, antique cars went up in value, and became investments and it became important to weigh the cars value against the restoration cost. This is where the phrase too expensive to restore comes from. Ed lives in this world. The pebble beach world is primarily about investment cars and value is constantly weighed against restoration costs but not all the hobby is driven by these concerns. There are still people paying way more money to have cars restored than they will ever be worth for the love of the car. The present Pierce would be a huge undertaking to restore. It appears to have been a very solid car needing a complete restoration. The floor pans were solid, not rusted out. It would take a home shop 4-15 years to finish the car and once it was torn down, the likelihood of it getting put back together goes down with each passing year. Let's face it, stuff happens. The current Pierce may well be worth more money for parts than it is as a complete car that needs restoration. Its a sad state of affairs.

You gotta love the guy standing over the carburetor smoking a cigar!

In the case of this Peerless, it was driven into the gorge in mostly original condition, with all its parts and pieces. When the extraction occurred, great care was taken to gather up as many of the parts and pieces as could be found. I believe a Peerless of this vintage would have cast aluminum body panels, so, except for the wood, the car was probably 90-95% complete. The restoration took 18 years according to the article but this was before internet searches and digital copies. The car changed hands at least once during restoration. A six cylinder Peerless of this vintage would be a time consuming project. Titles were easier to get in 1966 than they are today.

Someone commented recently that in order to drive any Stanley Steamer, at least 1/3rd of the original parts would have to be replaced with new. Is it then a restoration or recreation? We were discussing the newly "discovered" sister car to Old 16 recently and the court case remarked about new rods being produced and extensive work done to the transmission. Recreation or restoration? The truth is, in any case where the car is meant to be driven, a lot of parts are replaced in a restoration. Very few brass era cars have original spark plugs, or wires, or tires, or pistons, paint, upholstery, etc, etc, just to name a few of the more obvious. However, new crankcases are poured and machined, as well as new piston jugs. In a two million dollar restoration, just how much of the original car exists? I'm not passing any judgment. I'm just glad to have something to see. I liked the little Duryea buggy. I didn't have to win one though, I bought mine from a guy at Hershey who was selling all his.

I would guess there are very few brass era cars that at one time were not bitza.

Ed Seville of the La Jolla Regional Group was the guy who found the car. He did ariel surveys with a helicopter and spotted the chassis on the side of a mountain. He told Merl Ledford about the sighting and it was Merl who undertook to get the car out. I doubt this was the only car rescued by helicopter. I expect the car came out as a roadster. The length of the frame generally designates roadster or other in these years.

Thanks guys. The article inside the magazine is titled, The old man of the mountain. This phrase was coined by one of the children of the man who embarked on this adventure. It is an amazing story. I love these stories of cars rescued. A few more are "The Two Streaks in the Mud" story of the Pierce Arrow rescued on Long Island, the Columbia Cavalier spread all over a farm out west, and who can forget the American Underslungs. Sounds like material for a great coffee table book. Whatever became of the mystery chassis presented on the letters page of the Nov./Dec. 1971 Antique Auto? It was found in Zululand, South Africa by Errol Harrison.

In the July August 1966 edition of the Horseless Carriage Gazette, is a story of an early Peerless six cylinder car chassis that was rescued from a canyon in southern California by helicopter. Does anybody know the rest of the story?

There are several interesting distinctions brought out in this article, that is if it can be trusted. First, the two 1906 cars were produced at a total cost of $15,000. The one car, called the 1905 Harold Thomas car's price tag was $18,000. Of course, Locomobile made the two 1906 cars for themselves while the 1905 car was made for a customer. Second, Old 16 is said to be a 90 horse car of 7.25x6 b&s while the 1905 car is said to be a 120 horse long stroke motor. The 1905 car had a bore and stroke of 7x7. I had always assumed the 120hp number applied to the 1905 car but could never find any proof in period literature. Maybe one of you guys could figure the displacement of the two cars and figure a HP number taking into account the 1905 car was a T head and the two 1906 cars had overhead intake valves. I have always understood the overhead valves makes for greater HP from the same displacement. Am I wrong?

It appears my history of the two cars was wrong in this regard. The court record states Coburn Benson bought a 1906 Locomobile race car in 2001. It does not state from whom. It further states Coburn contracted with Dragone Motor Cars to restore the car in that year. When Old 16 passed from Sessions to Peter Helck, there was more than just a motor. A letter from Joseph Tracy to Peter Helck, written in 1947, mentions extra parts. Now again, I am gleaning bits and pieces of information from all over and putting them together to come up with some semblance of a history. Anything I have said is subject to correction. I believe Andrew Riker built the two cars and that they were different from the one car built for Harold Thomas, of Chicago, Illinois. I believe the number 1 car was dismantled but kept for extra parts for Old 16, which was then used for promotions of the Locomobile name. Both cars were sold to Sessions. The two cars were in Sessions possession when he passed and Joseph Tracy was instrumental in Peter Helck purchasing Old 16 and the extra parts from Session's estate. From Peter, the two cars passed to His son, Jerry, who either sold the #16 car to the Dragones or used the Dragones to broker a deal with The Henry Ford Museum. Either way, Old 16 is now part of the Museum collection. The condition of the parts is unknown but by 2001, a car had been assembled. If anyone has any other information they can share that will help fill in the details of this history, please share. Now that the number 1 car has come to light, it is time for the history of these two iconic cars to also come to light. A logical conclusion would be that the parts passed to Dragone at the sale of Old 16 and was assembled. You understand of course, there is no proof.

Whether this car is authentic or an authentic recreation, I cannot say. In studying the pictures of the two cars in period, even though they were called sisters, there were subtle differences. In one period photo, the Thomas car was mocked up to resemble the 06 cars. Locomobile seemed to be spreading misinformation deliberately. Then, every newspaper or magazine article got facts wrong. It was like nobody cared what the truth was, they were just printing stories. I am happy to see this car out. Thanks for sharing George.

George, I'm not sure what you are talking about. What I have said is that in 1906 Locomobile made two racers that were ostensibly identical. The two cars were both placed in the 1908 Vanderbilt Cup Race and the one car, numbered 16, won the race with the second car, numbered 1, coming in second. Andrew Riker had the second car dismantled and used the number 16 car for promotions. The two cars passed to Sessions, and Helck. The number 16 car, now known as Old 16, passed on to The Henry Ford Museum. If you know something more, please share. I did extensive research into Locomobile's racing history in 2019 but there is so much disinformation and misdirection from multiple sources in the archival history and today, not much of anything can be empirically known. Some or all of the information I have shared may be incorrect.

The specs posted above by Frank are for the Harold Thomas car. It wore the number seven and was painted red for the 1906 Vanderbilt Cup. The car immediately above is indeed the Harold Thomas car. Locomobile was forced to add a manifold and tail pipe to the cars to cut down on noise while test driving them. They were test driven on city streets. This car has thinner wheel spokes than old 16. The number 12 car above is the second 1906 racer, sister to Old 16. You can see there are only two exhaust ports, one per pair of cylinders, and there is an oil tank in the cowling just behind the motor, indicated by the cap. Again, Old 16 is an F head with overhead intake valves while the Harold Thomas car is a T head. To my knowledge, Old 16 and the sister car are the only two Locomobiles ever built with F head motors. For comparison, here is a side view of Old 16's motor And this is the motor in the Harold Thomas car. You can see the four exhaust pipes, one per cylinder, while Old 16 has two.

In Googling Coburn and Locomobile race car, this is the only thing that came up. It obviously is not a Locomobile but is in fact a Stanley Steamer. It is noted that Coburn had many very desirable cars at one time, including several race cars, but sold most of them when he moved from Boston to Maine. This is also when he became interested in the Stanley steam cars according to one article but others stated it was a life long passion. I never knew the man.

I did considerable research into Locomobile's racing history in 2019 and published my findings in the post titled "What car is this?" According to Locomobile factory period articles found on the web, Old 16 has a 7.25 x 6" bore and stroke, F head motor, rated at 90 horses. Two cars were created in 1906 and raced together. Andrew Riker, chief engineer at Locomobile, didn't want anything to detract from the 1908 Vanderbilt Cup Race win of old 16 so he had the second car dismantled. This second car passed to Sessions disassembled as spare parts for old 16 and then to Helck and several people commented on seeing its motor in Peter Helck's collection. When Old 16 passed to The Henry Ford Museum through the Dragones, It seems the second car may have gone into the Dragone's collection. According to one of the brothers, and I can't remember which one I talked to, they have since restored the car and it sits in their warehouse. The Dragones were able to purchase Andrew Riker's memorabilia from Locomobile and out of respect for Andrew Riker and his wishes concerning Old 16, they have kept the second car, the #1 car in the 1908 Vanderbilt Cup Race, in obscurity. The brother I talked to said this is not a secret, just not published. The brother I talked to was very friendly and open, sharing this information freely. In 1905, a Harold Thomas, from Chicago, Illinois, commissioned Locomobile to build him a race car. This car had a 7"x7" T head motor and placed second (?) in the Gordon Bennett race that year. Though the car looks very similar to old 16, the 1905 car has four exhaust pipes exiting the hood, while old 16 has two, and the gas tank hangs between the frame rails on the 1905 car while Old 16 has a round tank behind the seat. The 1905 car is routinely confused with the two cars Locomobile built in 1906 and is where the confusion is concerning the bore and stroke, as well as horsepower of old 16. The general consensus is the 1905 car was somehow dispensed by Andrew Riker in his attempts to keep Old 16 unrivaled. As I understand it, racing was somewhat of a free for all in the early years, with each company attempting to build bigger and bigger motors to compete but a general racing commission was established around 1909 that limited engine sizes and made Old 16 obsolete as a race car. Locomobile pulled two 40hp model Is from inventory to race in 1909. To my knowledge, that was the end of Locomobile's racing venture. Locomobile's board of directors published a report in 1905 stating they had no interest in racing and would not be building a race car. They attempted to price Harold Thomas out of the market at $18,000 for the 1905 car but Harold Thomas wired the first installment of $6,000 to the factory the next day. By contract, Locomobile had to enter the racing field. Andrew Riker, unlike the board of directors, was excited about the venture. He designed and built the 1905 car and attempted to take it racing. He registered the car in the Gordan Bennett race. When Harold Thomas learned of this, he exerted his ownership over the car, and Mr. Riker decided to build two for himself. It is interesting to note Harold Thomas was using a Locomobile to race in sanctioned events in Chicago and was pleased with the performance of the car. This is what prompted him to commission the 1905 car. I hope this helps dispel some of the misinformation concerning old 16. All of this information came from period literature or the brothers Dragone.

Some period photos show men setting in touring cars with a boiler hat on and no windshield. My guess is these cars were generally not driven fast in period; that boiler hat would not last long. Speed limits in many towns was five miles per hour. The side seat would be very comfortable at that speed. Moreover, the object of owning these cars was to be seen driving them. If one was to drive fast, it would defeat the purpose. Now, I know we live in a much different time and it seems everybody wants to be a race car driver and cars are judged by how fast they will go. Ninety years ago, the streets in town allowed for faster driving but not with that speed limit and country roads were rough. Just some observations.

Isn't that the car that was in Don Boulton's collection? That was the story I got.

I'm sorry, I thought Locomobile supplied chassis like Duesenberg did and individual body companies custom built bodies to go on them. Does custom body mean they will all be the same or does that mean each body will be different? I know the meanings of words change over time and sometimes by context but I am surprised by George's reaction to the L sewed into the leather. Is it not reasonable some guy had his initial of his last name sewed into the upholstery? Is this not the very meaning of "custom?"

Velies were well built cars. Made in Moline, Illinois, for midwest roads.