X-Frame
-
Posts
799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by X-Frame
-
-
BTW, his business partner Elliot Cabot Lee (1854-1920) was once the president of the Automobile Association of America. When Phelps left abruptly, Lee didn't have a car to sell and changed the company name to Courier Motor Co. in 1905 but never made any cars under that name (there was another company named Courier in Ohio around the same time). Then he started the Shawmut Motor Co. which made cars from 1906-1908.
-
I didn't see a forum for brass era cars so posting here. Many books and references cite the British 1904 Rover (designed by Edmund Woodward Lewis 1870-1941) as the first vehicle utilizing a backbone frame (think Tatra style) but I have run across another vehicle released a year earlier made in Stoneham, Massachusetts (USA) as the Phelps Motor Vehicle. The body tilted up to access the mechanics and was a car built to order. The founder Lucius Joshua Phelps (1850-1925) was an enigma. Phelps was an inventor and his business partner a lawyer. The cars were not advertised, expensive, and sold in Boston. One car ran an endurance race and won two gold medals. But all of a sudden, Phelps upped and abandoned the company in 1905 to get out of the automobile industry. He was a world traveler and in 1925, left from his son's house in NJ to NY to board a train and vanished never to be heard from again. Does anyone know how many Phelps cars were built between 1903-1905? And since Rover did not introduce their cars until December 1904 and Phelps in January 1904, I would say Phelps was the first backbone frame vehicle unless you know of an earlier vehicle (other than horse drawn wagons)?
Eric
-
2
-
-
Thanks, Roger. Possibly the repair shop used an aftermarket fender or hood and not one from the factory or from an original parts car? Aftermarket panels are notorious for not fitting properly unless there is some alignment issues with the cowl from the accident? I am noticing the rear being up higher than normal... air suspension?
-
1
-
-
Roger, congratulations. This is one of my favorite year and model as well as color combinations. Low mileage, still have the correct original whitewalls. But you have a sharp eye obviously with your 1/12 scale cars like me having managed auto detailing for major dealerships many years ago. My concern is where I circled on your photo... where the hood meets the door. There is a fit and finish issue and since the paint shade does seem to be off on the fender and hood, possible a fender bender in the past occurred and the new fender is not a good fit (alignment)? There should not be a big gap there but tight. Examples attached as well.
.thumb.jpg.83e37832da738251c7bb854682cf7627.jpg)
-
1940 Cabriolet Chassis Question...
I am new here but have been gathering information for an academic book on the design and development of vehicle chassis for the past 9 years. The '40 Convertible fame has been a puzzle for me and hope historians or those who own them can help solve this one?
We know that there was no 1939 Convertible offered in the states but there was one exported to Australia. The frame had a conventional X brace added to it by Holden prior to assembling the kits. The '40 models were also delayed.
The chassis design is a one year, one model only design not shared by any other GM line and is a bit awkward and overbuilt. Even though GM had been using some form of X bracing since 1933 and even Chevrolet used it on their 1935 Standard models (another one year only frame).
It is known that Marvin Coyle "Mr. Facts and Figures" was a penny pincher and as soon as he took over the Chevrolet helm, ordered the new KY design frame to be redesigned since it was costly in many ways to produce. So, why was this massive one year only tooling allowed?
The frame is not mentioned in any sales materials. Not even shown in shop manuals. I have only run across one body shims chart from a service bulletin and the layout is not 100% of what the production version ended up. I did find a mention in the 1941 Chevrolet Engineering book about how this design was a failure and the new 1941 frame, which is basically a traditional X braced style, was much stronger. Something they could have utilized in 1940 but didn't... why?
Who designed this frame? Who authorized it? And why was this particular oddly laid out design chosen over tried and true X bracing other GM cars were already using?
Thanks for any information!
EricPhoto from Bob Johnson's online collection
.thumb.jpg.f7aa68704ed4cbb83ee7d31ecbd88a1e.jpg)
-
Want to bring this topic back up and hope new members may have something to contribute. I can add that the new London Taxi TX5 is a unibody car and so, the TX4 was their last to use an X frame configuration. Now, are there "any" cars (or trucks) being made, worldwide, that still uses a cruciform or X braced chassis frame?
Thanks!
-
1907 Imperial double-drop still being used on vehicles today
-
A tech question hoping someone here may be able to add to this? The double-drop chassis frame design has been a standard part of vehicle technology since the 1930s but dates back much earlier. Supposedly, the world's first car to use it was the 1907 Imperial (not Chrysler) from Williamsport, PA. But prior to that, there was the single-drop design which the 1905 Peerless is credited again in the USA. I found an earlier version with the UK 1904 Wilson-Pilcher. Does anyone know of even an earlier version of the single (or even double) drop frame?
-
CY is the manufacturer
UD is the tire size
F317 is the tire type / model
19 is the week of the year
5 is the year
Since tires have shelf life, no one would be expecting to figure 20+ years later what year it was made
-
3 minutes ago, cutlasguy said:
I would guess June 31st 1971
Where did you come up with 1971? The last digit in these DOT codes is the year and it is a '5'.
I wasn't sure about when the lettering code changes before 2005? Thanks.
-
It's a McCreary tire P315/45 16 possibly made the 19th week in any year with a 5 in it such as 2005, 1995, 1985, 1975
Hard to tell.
-
Does anyone have a high resolution scan of this Zephyr X-ray illustration that you can share? Thanks.
-
-
On 5/15/2016 at 2:05 PM, sandtrooper said:
Interesting picture snipped from magazine showing Yankee know-how and production in the form of frames for Chevys around 1936-1938 era. Trying to keep up with Henry.
Actually, Chevrolet used this chassis layout from 1934-1936 (only on the Master in 1936) and Pontiac also used it the same years. Not an "X" but is called a K-Y frame yet functions the same way. Chevrolet went to the boxed girder ladder frame in 1937 (1936 on the Standard model) and Pontiac went with a more traditional X braced frame in 1937. Chevy played with a X brace ladder frame on the 1935 Standard model, one year only. And the 1935 Pontiac Deluxe had a different frame which was a cross between the K-Y and X.
Would like to find the original photos of this to get a scan.
-
Thanks!... where is the original available at?
-
Found it... actually the same year your car is... 1947 Champion...
-
Not a 1950 Ford nor Chevy. The 1949 Ford looks like this but the lens is a different shape. The 1950 Hudson also looks similar but the lens again is different. My be custom built (machined)?
-
You are very luck to catch the '38 Plymouth in time. No, not a Buick nor Cadillac but the Plymouth coupes are also desirable cars and looking forward to your posts of the restoration process.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, BillhymerMD said:
To people who view full classics as works of art, it's painful to see them destroyed. And rightly so it upsets a few of us. One could argue that "its not your car so why do you care." But that is a lot like asking a baseball card collector not to care if someone buys a rare Babe Ruth card and then promptly cuts it into 20 pieces and then tapes it all back together. It makes you sick that there is one fewer example of that car out there for posterity. And this was a rare car.
I agree. When you swap the matching numbers chassis and engine then chop, channel, and torch the rest while gutting the interior, what is left? Nothing you can work with to restore the car back to original. Like you said, some people only see it as a car and could care less about collectability. One further with your baseball analogy is that some will only see it as a piece of cardboard so what is all of the hoopla with the value?
It sickens me to see rare or low number cars being altered beyond any future restoration. Might as well send it to the crusher.
Eric
-
2
-
-
The point of all of this is why have rules and not use them? That is only one step away from anarchy. Also, rules are in place to keep everyone safe, if they are followed.
Maybe there is a longing for the "good ol' days" but what is so "great" about today's dysfunctional antisocial society? And no, social media does not count as being "social".
Education.
-
5 minutes ago, 46 woodie said:
X Frame, take a trip to where I live, Long Island, NY, "the Land of Entitlement". I had a cousin visit from New Mexico and said that she never saw so many Mercedes, Range Rovers and BMW's. They speed, park where they want and have no concern for you or your safety. If you try to drive the speed limit they pull up to your rear bumper and flash their brights. Double park and park in handicapped spots is normal. A $50 parking ticket to them is nothing.
"the Land of Entitlement" goes hand-in-hand with one of my earlier statements about Generation X and Millennials who have no social skills. When I grew up we were disciplined. Today you end up in jail if you do which leads to kids that feel "entitled" and flows over to the "all about me" society. I am not here to talk about parenting but just saying....
On a side note, there was two local news stories about companies who have 80% Millennial employees because they can get their skills cheap out the starting gate. One concern was would they stay focus to work? In their defense they said they would but also have things like ping pong tables, bean bag chairs, etc... no "formal" skills to be in the "real" world but gives them an environment they are familiar with which is detached from it. It is these cheap upstarts hurting senior workers, like me.
-
4 minutes ago, BillhymerMD said:
Speed is the not main problem. The problem is most people today are distracted. The smart phone is the main culprit but eating a double quarter pounder and fries while flying down the road at 80 mph doesn't help either. I don't think making people take tests more frequently will make roads safer ...the distraction factor is going to be there. The good news is that cars are so much safer today then they were even 10 years ago, and they'll be driving themselves soon enough anyway. But for those of us driving our classics we will always have to be vigilant as hell.
Bill, just made a comment that "speed" is not the only factor and yes, with people who are totally obsessed with their phones only grows, so does that aspect of the equation. There are so many other things daily drivers around town do that causes accidents and deaths because of their being dumbasses. Will taking tests help? It can't hurt because either you remember the rules and pass the test or loose your license because you don't. People who get ticketed will often have to take classes. The only difference is that one person got caught breaking the rules, the other didn't... yet. But why put other people's lives at risk because of your ignorance? That is the point I am trying to make.
-
31 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:31 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:
You're obeying the law, that's an unassailable position.
I'll agree there but "speed" is only one aspect of poor driving habits. Take my examples above and more. More than speed causes accidents, even deaths.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, BillhymerMD said:
Interstate 10 going through Phoenix is very dangerous....I know because I fix all the people who crash. The posted speed limit is 65 but the flow of traffic, when not rush hour, is 80 mph and even 90 mph as you get out of down town. If you were to follow the posted speed limit of 65 mph it would actually be quite dangerous as cars flew past you.
To me that is lawlessness (the speeding)
.jpg.e7d2b7de232e7434157ef096c083ad78.jpg)
.jpg.afbcc6c99ab27bc5456d92d9b90ad65a.jpg)
Phelps (1903-1905) - First Backbone Chassis?
in HCCA General Discussion
Posted
The more I research the more I believe that I am correct and here is why. Many references to the Rover car company history state that they first decided to enter the motor car business on December 16, 1903 and revealed their first prototype on July 11, 1904. By this time Phelps was already building and selling cars. Even though Rover clubs and books state they invented the backbone chassis this can't be true since the Phelps, even if it was limited production and short-lived, was actually the world's first unless someone finds different? There is also a patent for Phelps' backbone design registered in 1903 and ads for sales in late 1903 while Rover didn't start selling until December 1904.