JV Puleo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

The car was pretty well worn when that picture was taken (see the damage on the spare tire) and had probably depreciated to something like $25. In fact, my late father bought a 31 Ford around 1939 for that price...he loaned it to some friends who broke down about 10 miles away. Rather than go for the car he sold it to a customer in his father's barber shop for the same price...in other words, by that time it was about the least expensive car anyone could buy.

But would the authorities have allowed their use for this purpose in 1905? There must have been some reason they shipped the car to the US. Was it the authenticating authority? Again, I wouldn't think the authority of the AAA would be any more significant than their English counterpart. Parsing words aside the article is poorly written if it implies to the general reader that the car was American. It certainly did to me and I knew it wasn't.

Pierce Arrow had a drip feed system with a pump that returned the oil to the reservoir.

I didn't think of that. Chances are that in 1905 there was no flat, straight place in the UK where you could go that fast. Thanks!

Going back to the original question...a true "total loss" system would be very early. Virtually all the brass cars you are likely to encounter will have some form of circulating oil system or a mechanical oiler that fed at least the main bearings and probably the piston walls and cam bearings. I think of it as a "modified" total loss system in that you filled the oiler and the oil collected in the crankcase. You then drained it every so many miles and started over. That said, they all weep oil. The salient factor is the seals which were usually felt or leather. Those seals worked well but often aren't available today in the sizes you might need so in order to replace them you have to make them. It isn't hard to make felt seals but it does take some thought and I suspect that 90% of the "restored" cars, especially those that leak a lot, are running old, dried out and worn seals. Leather seals were much like their modern counterparts, in fact some are still leather. (CR stands for Chicago Rawhide). You are more likely to find a modern replacement for a leather seal but even there some adaptation may be required. In a collecting world that values perfect paint far more than the mechanical aspects of antique cars the chance that the seals are defective is something that should be taken into consideration. They didn't spew oil when they were new...although the underside of the engine was likely a bit wet. Crankshafts usually had slingers or rope seals but they simply couldn't have leaked prodigiously or the clutch would have stopped working. The same is true for the rear axle...if the seals failed the brakes would stop working.

I feel this topic is mixing two distinct topics...what clubs call an "antique" and what the law defines as one. I could not care less what clubs accept but I have a real problem with the law when the official definition leaves a barn door open for abuse. I have pretty much the same issue with hot rods registered as a "1923 Model T" or such when there isn't a single part on them that dates from 1923. In fact, I don't really see how they get registered as an antique. All we need is one major accident involving an "antique" hot rod, restomod or street rod and we could all suffer. It would be folly to presume the powers that be have an inkling of the difference between a car with an early 1920s engine and one with some monster V8... Unfortunately, writing effective and fair rules would be beyond the cognitive capabilities of the average politician who want the easiest solution that will allow them to appear to be "doing something".

Someone should inform the geniuses at MSN that Napier is an English car...certainly not American and the 100 MPH run was in England. I like the "wrap around" radiator.

Good catch...I was wrong about the date. It was 1909. You sent me looking for the book I saw the reference in. They traveled from London to Hastings. It was organized by the AA. All the heavy gear was carried in taxi cabs operated by the brothers of Arthur DuCros, the early motorist and MP for Hastings.

That's the British Auto Club (it may have been before it became the RAC) moving a brigade of Guards, think from London to Brighton, around 1904. It was done as something of a publicity stunt to show that the motor car had potential war-time application. Of course, by the time WWI erupted that was a forgone conclusion but in 1903/04 is was revolutionary.

The 100 year definition of "antique" is a reference to import law. There is no duty on antiques but they must be 100 years old. Beyond that, it's entirely subjective. I once horrified one of the authors I work with by saying that I wasn't too interested in the Civil War because it was too recent. I hardly think of machine made furniture from 1923 as "antique". As to cars...personally, I think the 25 year rule is long obsolete. When it was instituted cars had a much shorter life expectancy than they do today. Heck, I'm driving a 32 year old truck and I hardly consider it an "antique". At least in my state its an open invitation to anyone with a rusted out clunker to register it and avoid inspection...and I'm no fan of the inspection system since I feel it's contrived to force people to buy newer cars (from the dealers who advised the politicians) but I do think general safety inspections are a good idea. How many 25-year old cars were on the road in 1950? Compare that to today where almost any 25-year old car is perfectly usable. Frankly, I agree with mecanician...the application of the 25 year rule today has the potential to hurt of all of us with older cars because of the abuse it attracts.

I'm not surprised it went well. Does anyone know as much about Kissel's as you do!

Absolutely. You can even stitch fabricated repair pieces in so you don't always have to have all the pieces.