Jump to content

JV Puleo

Members
  • Posts

    5,175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by JV Puleo

  1. Regarding youtube...I've looked for videos on a few occasions. In about 80% of the cases it's clear that the person making the video isn't equipped for the job and doesn't really know how it should be done. It's a "tractor mechanic's" (to use Ed's term) playground. I don't bother with TV at all...I don't own one. I did try watching a couple of these car shows in a hotel room once. In less than 5 minutes I switched off they were so stupid.
  2. As mentioned above, this was the most common, conventional method of mounting a radiator. When I did it on a 1910 REO I used shock absorber bushings. I made concave washers to go above and below them and used a long brass stud threaded and soldered into the lower tank with a spring (I may have used short valve springs), also with fitted washers, under the front cross member. You don't tighten them too much, just enough to slightly compress the spring. They need a split pin in the stud and preferably a castelated nut. The idea is to allow chassis to flex (which all early cars chassis do) without putting added stress on the radiator. Many had a thick reinforcement inside the bottom tank that the stud screwed into. A better way to mount them was a spring loaded flange firmly attached to the side of the radiator shell. This was a lot more expensive to make and is most commonly seen on trucks.
  3. The problem with discussing this topic is that everyone approaches it from their own unique perspective. As an example...I think I qualify as a "boomer" (born in 1951) and have absolutely no interest in any post war cars much less the later ones. People are free to pursue their interests whatever they are but I get tired being told I should embrace eras I lived through and would rather forget. I feel no nostalgia for the 50s, 60s or 70s. I don't expect 99% of car enthusiasts to share my interests either. I should add that I'm willing to engage, and help, anyone who shares my interests, regardless of age or background. Age has no significance to me...interest does. As to the original subject of this thread...this article is another example of pure "fluff". It's riddled with holes and specious reasoning. As said earlier, there are so many more later post war cars than their are earlier ones that it's no wonder they change hands more frequently. I'll add that I doubt Haggerty has access to data on the MANY private transactions that take place. I've never bought a car at auction...nor am I likely to and I imagine that is true for many of the members here. Placing any credence in these ill informed opinion pieces is a waste of time.
  4. The obsolete threads shouldn't be a problem, at least for anyone with a screw cutting lathe. Taps are usually available as well...try Victor Machine in New York. I do have reservations about switching the brake rods though. It's something I've done myself but I wonder if it made a difference and I'd be skeptical of second guessing the original designers, especially with a well made and thought out expensive car.
  5. I apologize for how brutal this is going to sound but in today's market I think you would have a hard time giving it away. I say that because I've just finished trying to clear the estate of my late uncle where we had piles of parts (mostly for model A's). We couldn't sell them even at a give-away price and, in fact, we were forced to abandon nearly all of them. I don't know what he new owner of the property did but most likely they all went for scrap. At the moment the period isn't popular, it was a medium to low priced car to begin with and it needs just about everything. The best bet would be someone with a similar car who wanted the parts you've collected but even then it's not likely you will find someone locally and transport from Montana to just about anywhere is likely to equal the value of what you have. I have a car in similar condition...all apart and I have much more in it than you do but I realize that unless I get it back together it's virtually worthless as it.
  6. While Ford ultimately won his Selden Patent dispute it had no real effect on the advancement of the automobile for the simple reason that he only won the case about a year before the patent ran out. All he achieved was not having to pay patent royalties himself. It was, as usual, a self-serving move on his part...not the big contribution to the development of the automobile that it is usually described as. Practically everything published about HF during his lifetime was laudatory because he was a serial abuser of the legal system. If you criticized him, or even raised doubts about some of his actions, he'd sue. He had the money to buy the best lawyers and most, if not all of those he threatened, did not. He might well lose a case but he'd bankrupt his opponent in the process. It didn't work in the suit that was engendered by his antisemetic campaign in the Dearborn Independent. In that case he tried to buy the jury. When that was discovered a miss-trial was declared. He got away with it. I've never seen any reference to his being charged with jury tampering, something that would have gotten nearly anyone else a prison sentence. The technical section of the Licensed Automobile Manufactures (the Seldon Patent agency) became the SAE so I think it is reasonable to say that they made at least as great a contribution to the development of the automobile as Ford did.
  7. I have a pile of grinding wheels...came with one of the two grinders I have...the one I've never assembled. I'll send you some. I'll never use then all.
  8. Very good! They are one of those tools you rarely need but when you do there is nothing that will do the job anywhere near as well. Just being able to get a ground surface on tricky parts will be a revelation.
  9. My mother told me that when I was very little I recognized cars by who I knew that owned one. I must have been 5 or 6 at the time (this would have been in the 50s) but I'd blurt out "there goes Uncle Bob's car" or "Uncle George's car". My parents, who probably couldn't do the same since they hardly ever noticed cars, were surprised by that but probably goes to an interest that developed entirely on it's own. The little great-nephew I gave some books to has, several times, said he likes my "old" truck (a 1989 Blazer) which is what spurred me to do what I can to encourage his interest. He certainly didn't get it from his parents, neither of whom are the slightest bit interested.
  10. I think the most interesting part of this thread is that it appears that the majority of the participants had fathers that regarded their cars as appliances. What does this say about the endless din of "getting younger people interested"? Practically no one here comes from an old car collecting background. My own feeling is that, like everything else, collecting interests change with time and that we have absolutely no way of predicting exactly what they will be down the road. I just gave my great-nephew (he's about 10 now) four books I found I had duplicates of. All are on pre-war, mostly brass era cars. I've no idea if they will strike a cord with him now or in the future but I would not be surprised if it did.
  11. No influence at all. My father had absolutely no interest in cars beyond getting to work and back. He tended to buy big, used luxury cars because, as he reasoned, you got a lot more for your money and, since he didn't drive any more than he had to, the cost of gas was irrelevant. His parents never had a car so he did not grow up around them. He did have some memories though and, since he was born in 1916 these often were of late 20s cars. I'd never seen the "headlight in the fender" but he knew it was Pierce Arrow... I have to give him credit though. He never made any effort to stop me in my pursuit of old cars, old books and old guns & swords even though he thought it was a stupid waste of time and money.
  12. I have no problem with adding directional lights even where they are not required. The day is long passed when anyone recognized hand signals. Do they still teach hand signals in Driver's ed? I doubt it. As it is, there is always a danger in driving with lots of idiots trying to talk or text. I've had far more close calls from drivers who were fixated on their phone than with drunks...who I hardly ever see on the road in the daytime.
  13. Presuming that most PA's were sold here, the states that had a HP tax usually did it in increments like "less than 20", "20 to 30", "30 to 50" and "more than 50". This is why so many American cars were described as "30 HP". My 1910 REO was a 30 HP...but at the same time the Packard 4-cylinder was also described as a "30" when it clearly developed far more HP than the REO did.
  14. I think that is probably correct. The calculation would have been based on how much work could be done at a sustained rate. The idea was to not tire the horses out since they were probably walking in a circle 12 hours a day...if not longer. The steam engine would have been in the same situation...how much could it pump day in and day out.
  15. The term dates from the end of the 18th century and relateds to James Watt's steam engines. Originally, steam engines were pumping engines used to clear mines and occasionally to lift water for canal locks. The pumps were usually powered by horses walking in a circle so the reference is actually to how many horses the new steam engine could replace. When applied to the ICE there was no agreement as to how it should be calculated and, early on, was poorly understood. Britain (and many US States) had a "Horse Power Tax" so that you paid more to register a car of large HP than you did a small one. In the British case, ICE HP was so poorly understood by the Members of Parliament that the formula was based on the bore of an engine and ignored the stroke. This was about 1904 and despite the advances in calculating HP the law remained on the books as passed. Hence British cars developed long stroke engines because these gave a better HP rating for tax purposes. A good example is the famous 30/98 Vauxhall...which developed 98 HP in an engine that, for tax purposes by the old formula was only rated at 30. It is also the reason why the Model T, though sold in Britain, never attained the popularity it did here, because it's fairly large bore and short stroke made it susceptible to a higher HP tax.
  16. Though I'm sure it wasn't intended, RN did me and my friends a big favor. After the Corvair was no longer being built, and with all the bad publicity, they were extremely cheap. I think I paid $300 for '68 convertible around 1972. Prior to that I had an early one that was free...which was important because I had to get to work and I'd just spent every dime I had on a 1910 REO. My friend Paul still has his 64 that is an ongoing project with him. He also has a 32 Chrysler roadster but his wife prefers the Corvair.
  17. Steel chassis were pretty much the rule after about 1905. Franklin was one of the only exceptions and they continued to use them because they were both lighter and stronger (given the extreme care they put into making them) than the available steel frames. They stopped because the buying public expected steel and because they were having an increasingly difficult problem getting the wood they needed...as well as the workmen skilled in handling it. There were many so called "advances" in design that were driven by buyer's conceptions, almost invariably formed without any knowledge of the engineering involved. As far as all metal bodies are concerned...those go back much further than their adoption by Ford. Well before WWI there was the Springfield Metal Body Company...Pierce Arrow used cast aluminum body panels for a time. These changes were often driven far more by cost. It was the 1920s before metal working machines were up to producing an all metal body and the 1930s before a sheet of steel could be rolled large enough to make the top of a car.
  18. The SAE standard fine thread for all diameters over 1" was 16TPI so virtually all hubcaps with have that thread. The actual diameter of the hub is the critical element. In order to measure a hub puller you need the double depth of thread for 16TPI...that should be the inside diameter of the puller. The number for 16TPI is .0625 (1 divided by 16)...so diameter of the hub less .0625 should get you very close. This isn't foolproof because there were different threading tolerances and wear to contend with and it's impossible (for me at least) to know what each car manufacturer used. If, for instance, the hub is 1.75" in diameter you want 1.75 - .0625 = 1.6875. This should be very close...but you'll need a vernier caliper ... a ruler is nowhere near accurate enough.
  19. Like all these terms it's just a convenient dividing line. All of these terms are arbitrary and should not be taken as definitive regarding any specific car. I fall into the "pre-war" category although, for my purposes, I'm not much interested in anything after the mid to late 20s. I can admire the later 30s cars but have no desire to own one. As an example of how arbitrary these terms can be, when I had my first old car, a 1927 Cadillac, it was an official CCA "Classic". The CCA defined "classics" as beginning in 1925 so my friend, who owned a fantastic 1922 Silver Ghost RR Permanent Salamanca wasn't eligible. This was idiotic beyond words but clubs are private organizations and can set their own rules, even silly ones. Even now that 1903 Mercedes 60HP discussed on this site isn't a "classic" by their definition even though it is one of the most significant cars ever built.
  20. I'd speculate that the very best of the very early cars never see an auction and change hands quietly, behind the scene. This is probably true for most of the best cars which makes citing auction figures specious even if they can be trusted (which I doubt is always the case). Many years ago I had a tour of the famous Waterman collection of early race cars. That was a treat because most (or all) of them are now in museums, mostly in Europe.
  21. It's a fabulous car. It was fairly common to fit retired race cars with a touring body before 1910...I wonder if this one was actually raced. The implications is that it's the car in the original photo but it doesn't say that.
  22. The thread on casting small parts which, as so often happens, has wandered but got me to thinking of what small parts 3d printing would really excel at. Like all the other experienced members here I've found that, while it is certainly useful, very often there are other ways to make a part that are easier and far more cost effective. With that in mind I found myself thinking of early motometers. All of these had pot metal frames which more often than not are crumbling. They are not reproduced and if you want one that is appropriate to the a brass car (it was first patented in 1912) you need to find one made by The Taylor Instrument Company or Boyce before they moved to Long Island City. That isn't easy. I have one incomplete example missing the thermometer. The shape of the frame is not conducive to machining. A sand casting taken from an original would require a tremendous amount of finishing and it's problematical if it could even be done well. But, either a 3D printed frame, or a plastic frame that could be used as a lost PLA core would be far superior. That's my suggestion...I wonder if anyone else can chink of a similar part that was once common but is no longer available and would be very difficult to make on anything less than an industrial scale.
  23. 10.11.6. That's El Capitan. The problem is further complicated by the fact that I use a graphic design software for my real work that will not run on a later machine than that. I own that but it's now only available as a subscription service that would cost at least half of what I make in a year (It's part-time and only for a few select customers. I'm way past the point of working for anyone I find trying.) Actually, I do my design work in the graphic program but that's only drawings to work out dimensional problems. I doubt anyone else would even understand my drawings.
  24. I've found it very useful in a couple of instances but I've had Gary's help in all of them. I have looked into getting a CAD program. I'm certain I could learn to operate it but thus far none that I've looked at are compatible with my old Mac computers so it wouldn't be just a program, I'd have to get a PC – which operates quite differently – and learn that as well. As noted here, I can nearly always find a simpler and less expensive way of doing something...or at least less expensive. I'm not sure my solutions are ever simple😄. I especially like the "lost PLA" process where a 3D printed piece is used in the same way lost wax is. This produces a really superior part that requires a minimum of machining. Another process I've heard of is 3D printed sand molds. The foundry next door gets some from one of their customers and tell me it works extremely well. I can see this being a godsend for making things like cylinder jugs for early cars where finding a good one is impossible and the cost of traditional patterns would be excessive for the very small number of castings. They would still need complicated machining but that is doable, if not easy, on old machines. I will probably learn this eventually but likely not until it's absolutely needed...
×
×
  • Create New...