James B.

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About James B.

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/08/1957

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I see that you offered to take some photos of 1936 Pierce Arrow frames nearly 7 years ago but do not see them posted here? I would be interested in seeing them myself. thanks.
  2. Day late and a dollar short but yes, your 1950 Rambler is Champagne Ivory. I have seen other cars with the same color. I have attached the Dupont color chart which gives a formula for mixing the color to the left of the chip with that name. The chip color looks off but is just from fade and photo variance.
  3. Can someone supply some background and pictures or illustrations of the 1922 Nash rubber engine mounts used on the 4-cyl model 41 series - said to be the first used on an automobile? Where and how they were used on the engine? Thank You.
  4. To me, a true unibody is where all support beams are totally integrated with one another as opposed being built in sections or using or needing any added support beams to beef it up. In other words, the first modern type unibody. Not a unitized body welded to a platform. Not a unitized body with an exterior frame welded on (aka Lincoln Zephyr). Not a unitized body with added support (beefing) beams (aka Nash 600). That said, where does the Citroen TA fall in? Or Rambler (which to me still has exterior beefing framework like Nash but has unibody integrated front clip), or even 1960 Corvair, Falcon, or Chrysler products? Maybe a British make with a true unibody? I will allow what some may call semi-unibody where there are subframes for motor and front suspension attached to the unibody even though a true unibody would be like that of the 1958-1960 Lincoln and Thunderbirds. Seeking the first true form... maybe of each type? Thanks again for your comments and those other can add to this. Jim
  5. Bumping this back up with no responses... but, from what I have found since this post is that the Augusta is yet another unitized "unit-built body on frame" car where there are exterior frame elements (side rails, x bracing, etc...) welded under the body so is not a truly integrated unibody. Can anyone validate this?
  6. I was running across excerpts stating that the 1933-1936 Lancia Augusta was the first true unibody built car. But upon further investigation and looking at photographs, this is just another "unitized" or "unit-body and frame" construction with welded on frame members under the car like the Airflow and Zephyr. It still leaves the Citroen as an or the earliest contender for modern semi-unibody (semi meaning it has a subframe for the engine)? And wonder if Rambler would be the first true fully unitized body car with full cage with roof? Any more input on this question? Thanks! Jim
  7. Re: Lancia Augusta 1933-1936 Can someone please explain how the Augusta is considered a full unibody (monocoque) built automobile from what I have read so far? I have only seen examples where the body is off a platform frame and also see a lightened cruciform brace under the car. No bracing should be seen if it is a true unibody but integrated within the body structure - unless it was for special use? If this is actually a true unibody car, it would predate the Citroen TA by a year. Thanks! Jim
  8. I saw this car in vintage journals but since there is no body, only a motorized wooden board so doubt it can be considered unitized.
  9. Here is a half page ad for the 1905 Autocar showing "Finger-Reach Control" including gear-shift, and all other functions on the column. I am sure it was a juggling act for these early cars and so not very popular then.
  10. mrpushbutton... I like your analogy but it doesn't quite fit with this situation. Yes, if it was "one for all or all for one". But in the world of scientific invention breakthroughs, there can only be "one" first. It is like 'who" invented the first petrol powered vehicle? (The word Automobile did not show up until later). Some say it is Siegfried Marcus, who was working with gas powered engines in the 1860s. That he created a crude powered cart in 1864 and a more refined vehicle in 1875 (one source has an actual date of March 9, 1879). Some now say 1888 due to a engine delivery date and is still dubious. But, since he was Jewish, Nazi Germany destroyed records and we only have scraps of information to go on...other than an order dated 1940 by the German Ministry of Propaganda to have Marcus' name stricken as the inventor of the Automobile and put Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz 1889 version in his place... which is what many use to this day. But even the 1889 motor car was a one-off so, is it the "first" since it was not mass produced? Even that could be debated since the 1889 Panhard - Levassor company was created solely for automobile manufacturing, the Benz Motorwagon. Or the 1890 Peugeot who made 4 cars that year and 65 more in 1891. Or when Oldsmobile, in 1901, sold 425 cars and 2,100 cars in 1902 citing the first mass produced and sold car? Any ideas on that aspect a well? Jim
  11. Packard did file a patent in 1901 and on 1902 cars but was a H shift on the floor. 1905 Autocar used it as did Pierce Arrow about the same time until two-fork selective transmissions came into use. 1918 Apperson had a shift on top of the column instead of the floor as the "Pre-Selecting Mechanical Gear-Shift." I also know that in 1938, it was being used the first time as a $10.00 option named 'Safety Gear Shift Control' on GM cars. Were you thinking different?
  12. Just wanted to add. After some more research, it looks like there is a difference between the early use of the term unit-body and unibody. Unit-Body apparently meant just the "body" being unitized and placed on a frame or platform. If I am reading it correctly, H. Jay Hays, who also built the 1917 Ruler Frameless, was basically calling the design Unit-Body meaning that the body was built as a whole from steel rather than in pieces using a wooden frame. The Ruler had a "platform" chassis in which was attached to the body by a ball-and-socket on a front body brace and by the rear spring attachments in the rear. This sounds similar to the British Lanchester design. The Vauxhall is still a contender though. As for an American entry, this brings in the Cord 810 as a early possibility then the Nash 600. Suggestions? Thanks! Jim
  13. Ivan, you are always well versed in automotive history and it looks like in your signature that you own one of these wonderful cars, a real piece of history (Lambda). With the other examples I mentioned, how do you believe they fall in place compared to the Lambda? You should know better having an insight with a real car as reference. Do you have a link for the 1918 patent? I find the US version patent # 1694546 applied 1922 in Italy and issued in 1928. Thanks! Jim
  14. The problem with Wikipedia.. since this an open source where anyone can write and edit, the information on it is only as accurate as John Q. Public who wrote it. Not that I am discounting the Lambda but I would like to know how these other earlier models fall into place within the scheme of things? What makes them either unitary or not so they can be dismissed? 1901-1905 Lanchester (I believe this is more semi-unitary since part of the body can be removed from the frame) 1903 Vauxhall (many authors consider this as the first attempt using solid plates and like the Lambda, had shipbuilding cues being designed by a marine engineer) 1913 Lagonda (it is said this was more of an attempt to lighten the car for taxes rather than design - more monocoque) 1917 Ruler (has a engine subframe attached to the body)
  15. The 1903 Vauxhall looks like it had a tub-like construction not unlike the Lancia. I read that the Lambda design was inspired by ship hulls or a flat bottom boat so in a sense is a tub (bathtub may have been a bit general). Some newer cars used carbon fiber or fiberglass tubs, like the newer Aston Martin Lagonda's of the 1970s.