Weird transport.

[Marty_d]

Bet it doesn't have the original motor.

 

[red750]

1949 Delahaye 175 S Saoutchik Roadster

 

[onetrack]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

And nobody  picked up that the two pictures  were of totally  different  projects.

Top pic was about  1970-ish twin cab tug, relatively standard.

Bottom pic was split screen 1950-ish, radically reinvented.

Bottom photo was what the customer ordered - top photo was what he ended up with - after spending upwards of $50K, and waiting for 3 years.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Here's a few for you: https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/742921/weirdest-cars-concept-modification-design-special-edition-ever-made

 

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, red750 said:

1949 Delahaye 175 S Saoutchik Roadster

 

Is that an Austin A30 grille on the front?

 

Maybe this is what he thought he ordered, and an A30 is what he ended up with?

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, red750 said:

1949 Delahaye 175 S Saoutchik Roadster

 

Now that's  pretty car.

 

[pmccarthy]

I can make room for that in my shed.

[red750]

The Harley Earle designed Buick Y-Job. 

 

[red750]

[red750]

One of a kind a 1959 Mercury Cruiser

 

[red750]

Electric car from 1910, Detroit Model D, could travel 340 km at a maximum speed of 32 km/h, the usual speed for the time.
It had a rechargeable lead-acid battery. The Anderson company built 13,000 electric cars between 1907 and 1939.

 

[Marty_d]

26 minutes ago, red750 said:

Electric car from 1910, Detroit Model D, could travel 340 km at a maximum speed of 32 km/h, the usual speed for the time.
It had a rechargeable lead-acid battery. The Anderson company built 13,000 electric cars between 1907 and 1939.

 

Imagine what we'd have today if they concentrated on refining that system over the years rather than IC.

[spenaroo]

15 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Imagine what we'd have today if they concentrated on refining that system over the years rather than IC.

 

at some point there is always competing technology where one takes over.
it happened with steam too

Edited September 27, 2023 by spenaroo

[onetrack]

Henry Ford, John Rockefeller and plenty of other major American industrialists of the era conspired to ensure electric cars would die out and fossil-fuel vehicles would reign supreme - despite the writers story (below) that they didn't.

You kill off a product by failing to invest in and finance it. You kill off a product by investing in and financing expansion of a product you favour. Nothing can be done without money and financing - and John D Rockefeller and Henry Ford had hundreds of millions at their disposal to invest as they wished.

They chose to invest in IC engines and fossil fuels, because that is where their major financial interests lay, and not in electricity generation and battery manufacture and development.

 

GM did the same thing with rail investment in the U.S. - if not for GM pressure after WW2, America would have had major passenger rail infrastructure today - and it's only now that Amtrak are planning on tripling their investment in U.S. rail network infrastructure.

 

http://www.dejohnsonauthor.com/blog/who-killed-the-early-electric-car

 

The greatest travesty ever imposed upon the world, was the sharing of directorships between auto manufacturers and oil companies. When you have board seats on companies from both industries, you aren't going to do anything to damage the sales of either.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by onetrack

[facthunter]

Another ERA. We didn't know about climate change then and fuel economy wasn't even a consideration. . The first IC things were powered by whale oil derived fuel.  Nev

[old man emu]

Practising pit stop techniques for Bathurst 2030

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

It was the ' English government '  that killed off the steam automobile .

They put a " weight tax " on automobiles .

So we had to pay more for that weighty product " water " .

Stanley , Doble , Austin 1836 steamcar & lots of others .

100 mph when Ford couldn't make 80 mph . 

Steam ece :  Quieter , faster , & went further than ice   for many years .

spacesailor

Edited September 27, 2023 by spacesailor

[spenaroo]

plus there were several rail disasters, where people were getting cooked from the steam.
diesel was seen as the safe alternative.

took a while for the diesel trains to have the same power.

interesting that GM was halting the rail....
considering they were building the engines and carriages

[onetrack]

GM supported rail freight to a certain degree, but they effectively opposed passenger-carrying trains and electric street cars/trams. They had a vast monopoly on the transport system and didn't want anything to affect their bread-and-butter line - passenger-carrying cars.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Court_cases,_conviction,_and_fines

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

t was the ' English government '  that killed off the steam automobile .

They put a " weight tax " on automobiles .

Just abut every country that used automobiles had some sort of tax on vehicles. Some used the empty weight of the vehicle, without add-ons. Some used the engine's brake horsepower. In the USA, they used the N.A.C.C. rating. 

The standard horsepower rating was formerly known as the A. L. A. M. Rating. It was originally adopted by the A.L.A.M. (Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers), which later became the N.A.C.C. (National Automobile Chamber of Commerce) which officially adopted it.

The formula adopted is http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tmp261_thumb_thumb.jpg 

D is the cylinder bore in inches, N the number of cylinders, and 2.5 a constant, based on the average view of eminent engineers as to a fair, conservative rating for a four-cycle motor at one thousand feet per minute piston speed. It is not an engineering formula and does not accurately represent the power of an engine. For instance, the N.A.C.C. horsepower rating for my WLA is 6.05, but at 4600 RPM the engine produces 25 HP. (I'd love to see the torque figures for this engine.)

 

This formula originated around 1908. It is found in manufacturers’ literature of the period, sometimes accompanied by a more accurate rating made with a dynamometer. The same formula was used by the Automobile Club of Great Britain and Ireland (later the Royal Automobile Club). The constant 2.5 was a judgment call by the Association’s Mechanical Branch, based on a piston speed of 1000 feet per minute, about 1500 revolutions per minute. The absurdity of this technique as a measurement of power must have been apparent at the time.  It did, however, put all manufacturers on an equal footing, eliminating wild advertising claims.

 

We used to have a weight tax on vehicles in NSW, but now I see that that it is simply called a "vehicle tax". 

[spacesailor]

Surely , it should have the piston " stroke " , in that formula ! .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

The effect of using the Bore size only made some very long stroke engines like the Vauxhall 16?  that wore .rings pretty fast.  It must have changed by the early 50s when the Ford 105 E came out.  Nev

[old man emu]

Some of those old cars' engines only fired every second telegraph pole.

 

That's a joke, Joyce.

[spacesailor]

My ' new ' 1750 overhead cam Austin , did 1000 revs for 30 kph .

Or 100 kph @ 3250 rpm , ( fully loaded ) .

And ' 30 Mph ' .

spacesailer

[red750]

The White Streamliner.