Driving golden era cars in the modern era

[vitanola]

Then states must have HUGE files of what different cars had standard from the dawn of the automobile! Also, I don't think cars before and during the 20s had tail lights! Did they?

Tail and side lights have been standard since 1901 or 1902. Headlights were optional. IN the early days, the tail and side lights burned kerosine and most headlights burned acetylene gas which was either generated from Carbide and water or provided by a Prest-O-Light tank. The light from an acetylene headlamp is bright, steady, and blue-white, and is really quite good, even by modern standards.

With the coming of electric lighting, some cheaper cars omitted the side lamps and used a dual-filament bulb to provide a low level parking light.

 

[habberdasher]

Tail and side lights have been standard since 1901 or 1902. Headlights were optional. IN the early days, the tail and side lights burned kerosine and most headlights burned acetylene gas which was either generated from Carbide and water or provided by a Prest-O-Light tank.

Don't you mean HEAD and side lights have been standard? Because it would make more sense; a tail light being an afterthought as it isn't as necessary as lighting the road ahead of you. I just seem to see cars from 1900-around the mid thirties having head lights but no tail lights.

 

[scotrace]

Headlights - kind of assumed. Of COURSE they had headlights.
And as was posted above, tail lights came along early in the game.

 

[Big Man]

Did people really use HAND SIGNALS before blinkers were added?! How inconvenient and neanderthal!

Gee, kid, you really have a way of making me feel OLD ...

 

[habberdasher]

Gee, kid, you really have a way of making me feel OLD ...

It just seems strange! How did the driver signal to turn right if there was no passenger in the right seat?

 

[Big Man]

It just seems strange! How did the driver signal to turn right if there was no passenger in the right seat?

All hand signals are given with the driver's left arm/hand. To turn left, arm fully extended pointing to the left. To turn right, arm extended and bent at the elbow, pointing up. To stop/slow down, arm extended and bent at the elbow, pointing down.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It just seems strange! How did the driver signal to turn right if there was no passenger in the right seat?

Right turn signal is the left arm extended and bent up at the elbow. Don't wiggle your hand or people will think you're waving.

When I owned an old Volkswagen, the turn signals died and I had to give hand signals for about six months before I got around to getting it fixed. It's no fun in the rain.

 

[vitanola]

Don't you mean HEAD and side lights have been standard? Because it would make more sense; a tail light being an afterthought as it isn't as necessary as lighting the road ahead of you. I just seem to see cars from 1900-around the mid thirties having head lights but no tail lights.

NO!

Believe me. I've driven cars from every decade of the Twentieth century, and have even been at the tiller of a couple machines of 'nineties vintage. That's the McKinley 'nineties, not the Clinton 'nineties!

 

[vitanola]

Headlights - kind of assumed. Of COURSE they had headlights.
And as was posted above, tail lights came along early in the game.

No. the tail light preceeded the head light. The use of a red tail light was adapted from railroad practice.

Coal oil side lights are (just) adequate when driving at eight to ten miles per hour, the pace of most traffic in the 'oughts. A scorcher who intended to regularly wind his machine out at the blistering speeds of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour would have ordered the optional headlights. Many early closed cars of the 1908-11 period were not fitted with headlamps because it was assumed that if they were going to be run after dark, they would be operated on lighted city boulevards.

Here is a photo of a Model F Ford in standard truck:

http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails.cfm?SaleCode=AZ09&CarID=r228

 

[habberdasher]

NO!

Believe me. I've driven cars from every decade of the Twentieth century, and have even been at the tiller of a couple machines of 'nineties vintage. That's the McKinley 'nineties, not the Clinton 'nineties!

DANG! Those 1890s cars must've been tricycles with sewing machine engines stuck on them! lol

 

[habberdasher]

No. the tail light preceeded the head light. The use of a red tail light was adapted from railroad practice.

Coal oil side lights are (just) adequate when driving at eight to ten miles per hour, the pace of most traffic in the 'oughts. A scorcher who intended to regularly wind his machine out at the blistering speeds of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour would have ordered the optional headlights. Many early closed cars of the 1908-11 period were not fitted with headlamps because it was assumed that if they were going to be run after dark, they would be operated on lighted city boulevards.

Here is a photo of a Model F Ford in standard truck:

http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails.cfm?SaleCode=AZ09&CarID=r228

Then I don't really see the tail light's meaning-other than a warning or turn signal. And as for the meaning of no headlights, because you'd drive the car on lighted boulevards, then why would you need tail lights except for the meanings above, which didn't apply?[huh]

 

[Sapphire]

For me a large part of the enjoyment of driving my '39 is the fact that it is not like driving a modern car. Sure, I could put radial tires on it and an electric fuel pump, and all kinds of modern upgrades, but then it would lose the very appeal that attracts me. I want to experience what they experienced in motoring back then, so for me, it's bias plys and a Stromberg carburetor and all the mechanical issues that may go along with it. I agree, I would not drive the '39 as my daily driver, it's rather an escape, (...)

In general I do agree with you. Upgrading a vintage car to today's standards removes the "vintage" part in it. Nevertheless one should not forget that today's traffic is different than in the 1930s or 50s. There are more cars on the road and they travel at higher speed. So I try to find a compromise between active safety and originality, e.g. by installing radial tyres, however with a classic appearance such as the Michelin X which were already produced in the 1940s.

Passive safety is a different story. Even if I would install safety belts in the Riley, they would be relatively useless as the B-pillar that they are attached to is a piece of wood, with no stability in case of a crash. And even if the seat belts would restrain the driver, he might be spiked by the steering column. So the best safety feature in a classic vehicle is a careful and proactive driver, who is already thinking 100m ahead of his car. Traffic statistics, at least here in Europe, show that accidents of classic cars do not claim more lifes than those with modern cars (measured in relation to driven kilometres). So complacency, boredom and complete reliance on technical features seem to be more dangerous than sensible use of vntage technology.

 

[habberdasher]

Traffic statistics, at least here in Europe, show that accidents of classic cars do not claim more lifes than those with modern cars (measured in relation to driven kilometres). So complacency, boredom and complete reliance on technical features seem to be more dangerous than sensible use of vntage technology.

That's very interesting, never knew that. Is your account photo a Riley?

 

[StraightEight]

In general I do agree with you. Upgrading a vintage car to today's standards removes the "vintage" part in it. Nevertheless one should not forget that today's traffic is different than in the 1930s or 50s. There are more cars on the road and they travel at higher speed. So I try to find a compromise between active safety and originality, e.g. by installing radial tyres, however with a classic appearance such as the Michelin X which were already produced in the 1940s.

True, traffic is different, but so are the roads. Signage and lighting are much better, far more of the roads are paved and striped, and they have things like embedded reflectors and rumble strips. It probably all balances out. Ultimately, the best measure of your safety in a vintage car is probably the insurance rate, based on actuarial tables which factor in loss. I pay $140/year for complete coverage on the Buick, which implies that, to my underwriter, the Buick and I are a low risk.

 

[vitanola]

Then I don't really see the tail light's meaning-other than a warning or turn signal. And as for the meaning of no headlights, because you'd drive the car on lighted boulevards, then why would you need tail lights except for the meanings above, which didn't apply?[huh]

Red tail lamps had been standard on trains since the days of the Rebellion, and this custom was carried over to most other self-propelled vehicles used after dark.

Before 1906 or 1907, some autoists fitted their machines with but a single powerful acetylene head-lamp, in addition to the side and tail lamps. Unfortunately, these cyclops lights had rather poor light distribution. If the beam was broad enough to cover the road it would shine in the face of any oncoming drivers.

As far as 'ninties machines are concerned, I've taken the tiller of a '99 Baker electric, a DeDion-Bouton Motorette (rather like a tricycle with a washing machine motor affixed) and have ridden as mechanic on a '96 Panhard et Levassoir coupe (believed to be the oldest closed car in existence).

 

[Sapphire]

Ultimately, the best measure of your safety in a vintage car is probably the insurance rate, based on actuarial tables which factor in loss. I pay $140/year for complete coverage on the Buick, which implies that, to my underwriter, the Buick and I are a low risk.

Agree, our full-coverage insurance for 3 classic cars (1947, 1956 and 1970) is also significantly cheaper than for my wife's 2005 Mini Cooper, although she already enjoys the highest rebate level.

That's very interesting, never knew that. Is your account photo a Riley?

I believe that - apart from careful driving - it also plays a role that modern cars are usually driven faster (mind you: no speed limit in Germany...) and are used in any kind of weather (snow, storm, ...) while classic vehicles usually only leave the garage if the weather is at least bearable.

Yes, my avatar picture is our Riley, you can see a full picture of it on the previous page in this thread.

 

[DodgeDeluxe]

True, traffic is different, but so are the roads. Signage and lighting are much better, far more of the roads are paved and striped, and they have things like embedded reflectors and rumble strips. It probably all balances out. Ultimately, the best measure of your safety in a vintage car is probably the insurance rate, based on actuarial tables which factor in loss. I pay $140/year for complete coverage on the Buick, which implies that, to my underwriter, the Buick and I are a low risk.

I agree, my '39 Dodge costs me $75.00 a year for full insurance coverage, but It is mainly because under the policy rules the car is not allowed to be used as a daily driver. Only to and from car shows, or used in weddings, parades, or other special events. No racing, or driving it to work or school or daily grocery store runs. They allow 2500 miles a year of what they call limited personal use, which is like a Sunday drive or the like. You can go over the 2500 miles if you notify them and get permission for a special trip or the like. They are pretty liberal, the main thing is that you cannot use it as your daily transportation.

Dan

 

[El Guapo]

There`s just something special about driving an old car.

First thing you notice is the effort it takes to open the door. Then you notice how the door closes with authority. The dash is all metal with real steel chrome knobs for all accessories.
You crank the engine and it fires after 2 or 3 revolutions. No fuel injection, no real choke. You rev it up a few times to warm the engine and clear out the carburetor.
You then push the button marked "R", yea this is a pushbutton tranny. While you back out of the drive, you feel the strain required to turn the manual steering, no power steering here, woose.
As you hit the brakes ( non-power, 4 wheel drum, of course ) you have to hold onto the steering wheel as the car darts whichever way the brakes pull it.

Yep, driving an old car is fun.

 

[habberdasher]

and have ridden as mechanic on a '96 Panhard et Levassoir coupe (believed to be the oldest closed car in existence).

Looked up a picture of it. Looks funny but very advanced for the time! Although (not trying to aggravate you!) on one of the pictures of a late 1800s coupe there are headlights!

 

[vitanola]

Looked up a picture of it. Looks funny but very advanced for the time! Although (not trying to aggravate you!) on one of the pictures of a late 1800s coupe there are headlights!

That is the very machine on which I acted as footman. It is in the collection of the Crawford museum in Cleveland. It ismost definitely not fitted with headlights! The carriage lamps mounted to the machine are but marker lights, as they are designed for the use of candles. In this sort of lamp the candle fits down into the tube below the lamp body. The tube contains a spring which keeps the top of the candle centered in the reflector as the candle burns down. These are rather like the Coal Oil sidelamps, in that they are really only useful as marker lights.

Headlights have generally used "searchlight" construction, with brighter burners and more effective, focusing reflectors. IN the 'ninties most headlamps were "self-generating" carbide. Later on machines wrre fitted with the generator on a running board.