# The Horseless Age/Volume 15/Number 2

THE HORSELESS AGE
E.P. Ingersoll, Publisher
Publication Office: Franklin Building, 9-15 Murray St., NEW YORK
Telephone: 6203 Cortlandt Cable: “Horseless,” New York and London. Western Union Code.
Editorial Department: P. M. Heldt, Chief J. C. Chase. N. B. Pope.
Advertising Department: C. W. Blackman, Manager H. W. Doherty. Geo. H. Kaufman. J. W. Buckmaster
Subscriptions for the United States and Canada, $2.00 a year, in advance. For all foreign countries included in the Postal Union $4.00. Single copies, 10 cents.
Communications—The editor will be pleased to receive communications on trade topics from any authentic source. The correspondent's name should in all cases be given as an evidence of good faith, but will not be published if specially requested.
One week's notice required for change of advertisements.
Address all communications and make all checks, drafts and money orders payable to The Horseless Age, 9-15 Murray street, New York.
Entered at the New York post office as second-class matter.
Compulsory Lights for All Vehicles.
A movement is now on foot in various sections of the country, particularly in Massachusetts, to have more stringent legislation enacted with regard to the compulsory carrying of lights on all road vehicles at night. A number of collisions have recently occurred at night between automobiles and unlighted horse vehicles. and also a number of cases where automobilists were forced to steer into the ditch or assume other risks in order to avoid collision with an unlighted cart or truck suddenly looming up out of the dark. The same question is being agitated in England, owing chiefly to the recent rather serious accident to a member of the royal family while traveling in his car in the vicinity of Edinburgh. It appears that there is a law on the statute books of most States requiring road vehicles to carry lights after dark; but the enforcement of these laws is very lax, and they are often disregarded. In order to remedy the present evil it would be well to have these laws revised, ﬁxing, perhaps, more severe penalties for violations, and above all to urge a strict enforcement. A universal vehicle light law of this nature, strictly enforced, would be even more of a blessing to horse drivers than to automobilists, because the latter almost invariably carry powerful lights when driving at night and usually spy an unlighted horse vehicle soon enough to avoid it, so that collisions between horse vehicles and autos at night are comparatively rare. There must be many more such collisions between horse vehicles, but these, of course, do not receive the attention in the press that a collision of a horse vehicle and an automobile would, and one does not hear so much about them. This also disposes of the argument that if automobilists carry sufficiently strong lights and keep close watch of the road ahead they will always notice an approaching vehicle in time. In order to insure the greatest degree of safety to road traffic in general, all vehicles should be compelled to carry lights, as in marine practice. It is therefore to be hoped that the efforts now being made in Massachusetts to have a general vehicle lighting law passed may prove successful, and that automobilists in other States may follow suit and urge the passage of similar laws.
The Dangerous Electric Cabs.
The electric cabs operated in New York city have lately been forcibly brought to public notice through a series of accidents in which they have ﬁgured, accidents sometimes of a serious nature. Within the past few months at least two pedestrians have been knocked down and killed by them, and on one occasion two cabs came together in a head-on collision, which resulted in the serious injury of the occupant and operator of one. At the time these cabs were new they may have represented advanced ideas in methods of transportation, in spite of their great weight and bulk, and their general clumsiness, but that was some years ago, when motor vehicle design was still in a relatively undeveloped state. Today conditions are changed, and the cabs have become a relic of an earlier period of automobile development, and appear freakish in comparison with the many examples of modern construction to be seen on the streets. The great objection to them, however, resides in the fact that they are dangerous. These cabs have a seating capacity of only two passengers, in addition to the operator, and weigh, empty, 2½ tons; they have a 5 foot wheel base and a very high centre of gravity, and most of them are equipped with lever steering without the ​back-lock feature. Considering that they are capable of attaining a speed of about 15 miles per hour on the level, and often run faster than this, owing to favorable grades, it will readily be seen, as is proven by their records, that they are vehicles too dangerous to be operated in crowded city streets. The average modern two passenger vehicle weighs about 1,000 pounds, and has a larger radius of action than these cabs; it has a longer wheel base, a lower centre of gravity and improved means of control, all of which make it a much safer vehicle. For a three passenger car there is no reason why the weight should exceed 1,500 or at most 2,000 pounds. and even if the present cab construction were to be retained the greater part of this weight should be brought much nearer the ground than it is in the present cabs, by suitable modiﬁcations in design, particularly lengthening of the wheel base. In view of the above noted facts and of the record of the cabs, it would seem to be time that some measures were taken to force these antiquated vehicles off the streets.
Speeding to Be Repressed in Connecticut
In his inaugural address delivered in Hartford last week, Governor Roberts, of Connecticut, referred to the speed excesses of automobile tourists in that State, and recommended a revision of the present State automobile law, particularly with reference to an increased severity in the penalties for violations. He said that he had been informed that automobilists from other States (by which he undoubtedly referred to New Yorkers) regarded pursuit by officers of the law as part of the fun of a tour through the State, and that when caught and ﬁned they would boast of the matter. He recommended jail penalties for the more exasperating cases instead of the present small ﬁnes, which are no deterrent for wealthy automobilists. This, we believe, is the ﬁrst time the speeding evil has been referred to at an important political function. That there is some justification for the Governor's remarks cannot be denied. as all the law defying New York-Boston record runs, for instance. have led through the State of Connecticut, and many fast touring cars are driven from New York up through that State to the Berkshires and Eastern Massachusetts every summer, frequently, no doubt, at unreasonable speeds. If the Governor's remarks should lead to the adoption of some measure calculated to check reckless driving, it would be hailed with satisfaction by the great body of automobilists. A revision of the present Connecticut State law would be generally welcomed, for, aside from having failed to prevent speeding. it has been an irksome restriction on law abiding automobilists. While the limit of 12 miles per hour in built up sections is quite liberal, the 15 mile limit for the open country is altogether too low, and if a new law be adopted the speed limit should be placed at 20 or 25 miles per hour. Automobile laws are bound to prove failures if they do not permit the reasonable and proper use of the machine.
Obstructed Drivers' Seats
One serious objection to the present arrangement of the controlling devices on practically all touring cars is that the entrance to the driver's seat is entirely obstructed by the brake and change gear levers, and that both occupants of the front seat are therefore forced to enter and alight at the left hand side. Since under ordinary conditions. and in accordance with road rules, a vehicle is always drawn up with its right side to a curb, the occupants of the front seat must walk around the vehicle, perhaps through mud, every time they enter or leave. The disadvantage of this arrangement is obvious, and it seems certain that something more practical will be found in the future. In some cars this objection is overcome by mounting the change gear lever on the steering column. and placing the brake lever comparatively far back, at the side of the seat. Another possible solution of the problem would be to make the left hand seat the driver's seat, and arrange the levers in the middle of the car, though in this case the driver would still have to enter and leave at the off side. The left hand control, properly speaking, does not seem to “catch on,” in spite of the determined efforts of some manufacturers to popularize it, but the arrangement referred to would really be a right hand control. The present arrangement of the controlling devices, when the steering column has the proper tilt and height, and the levers are at a suitable distance from the seat, seems to be an ideal one so far as convenience of operation is concerned, but it should be quite possible to ﬁnd an equally convenient arrangement that is also free from the objection of obstructing the most convenient entrance to the front seat.
Catalogue of Vehicles Exhibited
In the present issue we print again a catalogue of vehicles to be exhibited at the Madison Square Garden Show, a feature that was inaugurated by us last year. The vehicles are arranged in the order of price, which, we believe, is the most practical for the purpose of visiting purchasers and agents. The Show will this year be larger than ever before, and what has been said with regard to former Shows applies therefore even more strongly to this, namely, that the number of exhibited vehicles is so large that the average visitor becomes confused, and when ﬁnishing his visits has no more deﬁnite idea as to what vehicle is best suited to his needs than when he ﬁrst arrived. It is therefore desirable for the visitor to know beforehand just what vehicles may suit his requirements, so that he may conﬁne his attention to them, and not waste his time in searching over the whole Show. With the majority of purchasers the leading factor determining whether a car comes within the range of their possible choice is the price, and we have therefore arranged the vehicles in that order; but some purchasers, especially experienced ones, have very determined notions regarding the practicability of certain mechanical features, and might not want to consider certain vehicles that do not suit their fancy with respect to mechanical design, even though right in price. We therefore give a brief specification of each vehicle, which will enable a visitor to select the vehicles that come nearest to meeting his requirements in many important particulars. We believe a visit to the Show can be made most proﬁtable in this manner; that is, by selecting beforehand a limited number of apparently suitable vehicles and thoroughly investigating these as to workmanship, design of details, mechanical ﬁnish, comfort, etc. The visitor will then carry away with him a pretty deﬁnite idea of the merits of the different cars, which will greatly aid him in his ﬁnal selection.
Structural Considerations in Motor Cars.
By Thomas J. Fay, E. E.
The first cost of a motor car should be high enough to insure a low cost of maintenance. The best “coefficient of economy” is that which represents primarily the lowest possible cost of maintenance, not per gross ton-mile, as it is oftentimes considered, but per unit of useful results; and in the second place the lowest possible ﬁrst cost. The least expensive to maintain of two “white elephants” would be a bad bargain at any price. Likewise we may say that a motor car, to be economical, must not only operate at a low cost of maintenance but operate well with a maximum burden. Another way of putting it is to say the first cost is a matter of no serious moment, provided the cost of the useful result is quite within bounds.
There are many details in a motor car, each one of which must be thought out with a degree of care wholly at variance with the demands of any other class of machinery. A car may be well built and prove to be very serviceable indeed, and still be a very bad choice, for the reason that the design may not be in accord with (a) the materials afforded by the market; (b) the methods in vogue in the up to date shop. Hence the ﬁrst cost may be inﬂated. To illustrate: A coin, for instance, might be gold, of full weight and ﬂawless; yet the methods of manufacture might be such as to make the cost of production more than the value of the coin.
Motor cars up to the present time have successfully eluded the grasp of the poor man, and it is believed that the poor man will never be rich, so that “Mahomet must go to the mountain." Sometimes it does seem as if motor cars would ever be costly, both ﬁrst and last, but history repeats itself, and it has ever been a trait of history to see the unexpected.
On the Continent the "poor" man receives no consideration, hence no attempt is made to make the cost of the car conform to the man's pocket. In America the poor man has greater wants, and demands every innovation—at a price. It is for this reason that "cheap," half baked cars are not the product of successful makers; and, also, on this very account American manufacturers are bound to lead in the long run, because the majority of buyers (a) cannot pay a high price; (b) will not buy an inferior product; (c) do offer a wholesome opportunity to makers of car who continually strive to lower the cost, but who positively will not lower the standard of quality.
It costs approximately $25,000 to design and construct one single runabout, provided the design is new and worked out in promoting and jobbing shops. On the other hand, cars of this class are furnished to buyers by responsible makers for not far from one-fiftieth of that cost, while in so far as quality is concerned the experiment car, not withstanding its enormous cost, is likely to prove a flat failure.
To a limited extent the commercial ﬁeld has been invaded, but the road ahead is long and rough. Critics are wont to complain about tires. As a matter of fact, tire troubles are brought about to a vast extent through the wholly bad practice of making cars much heavier than need be. A setting hen will bring out a brood of chickens and not fracture a single egg, while a small boy and a brick would shorten the chicken crop. Tires, too, will wear depending upon treatment; that is to say, tires are thoroughly commercial just as they are, but heavy, cumbersome cars are not. Improvements in cars have been marked, and many more im-
Fig. 1.
provements may be expected. The first big electric truck the writer had to work upon weighed something like 7,000 pounds, and felt very much abused under a burden of 1 ton. The ﬁrst big steam truck the writer was connected with weighed nearly 6,000 pounds and refused to run at all.
It cost a lot of money to learn that conventional machinery designs would not suit in motor car work; and it was hard to forget that a bridge building factor of safety was not a factor of safety at all in automobile construction. As illustrative of the changes wrought, consider the following: According to Seaton the thickness of cylinder walls should be:
${P\times D \over 5000}+0.6=inches$
in which P is the maximum pressure on the piston in pounds per square inch, and D the diameter of the cylinder in inches. For a 6 inch cylinder this would give (for cast iron}
$Thickness=340\times 6 \over 5000+0.6=1.008inches$
Now let us compare with this the actual present practice in automobile gasoline motor construction, which is to give the cylinder walls a thickness
$T={PD \over 7200}inches$
so that for the case in point
$T={360\times 6 \over 7200}=28inch$
Considering cast iron with an ultimate tensile strength of 18,000 pounds per square inch and 3,600 pounds per square inch non-shock working load, it would be impossible to build a commercial motor car and at the same time take Seaton's advice. On the other hand, there are a vast number of cars in which the motor cylinder walls are quite as thin as that given by the above formula. It is believed that, notwithstanding the apparent safety of the above formula, some allowance should be made for deformities in the casting. and with this in view the formula stands revised, as follows:
$T={PD \over 7200}+0.125=thicknessofwallsininches.$
Illustrative of the use of this formula reference may be had to Fig. 1 of a cylinder in which
$T={379\times 4.75 \over 7200}+0.125=0.375inch$
thickness of walls about the piston in its bottom position. The thickness of the wall below the piston head with the piston at the bottom of the stroke was left
$T={379\times 4.75 \over 7200}=0.25inches.$
This cylinder was tried out at some length in a runabout type of car during the year 1903, and, in so far as this phase of the problem was concerned, the results were very satisfactory. It is possible, of course, to consider a slight thinning of the cylinder walls, without assuming great risks, but for thoroughly good work it is believed the walls are thin enough.
The maximum pressure given, i.e., 379 pounds per square inch, is none too high when the shock effect is taken into account. Referring again to Fig. 1, it will be found that the port walls are three-six-teenths inch thick. This thickness is very much more than what a calculation would dictate, but here the "foundry question" is paramount and the port walls are made just as thin as possible consistent with the foundry chances. In the case of this particular cylinder the head is covered by “combustion chamber covers," and is so proportioned that. considering the strength of machine steel covers, a rupture of the head would not he imminent. If, however, the head of a cylinder is made integral the shape of the head must receive consideration, else deformation, due to pressure, may become a source of trouble, at least in cylinders of large proportions.
Fig. 2.
should be great enough at the point of intersection to resist shearing, but considering the shear at the intersecting point, the head wall will stand thinning down as the centre is approached, according to the following formula:
$T_{1}=.005D{\sqrt {P}}$,
in which T1 is the thickness in inches of the wall at the intersecting point; D the bore of cylinder in inches; P the maximum pressure in pounds per square inch. This is a contraction, or Thurston’s formula. The thickness of the head at the middle might be
$T_{2}={PD \over {7200\times .75}}$,
in which P is the maximum pressure in pounds per square inch, and D the bore of the cylinder in inches. The change from the thick to the thin portion is to take place gradually. (See Fig. 2.)
Cast iron seems to be the best metal for cylinder construction, although steel castings as well as drawn steel tubes have been used. Cast iron for this purpose should be of an extra good quality, sometimes called “gun iron.” The analysis is about as follows:
Silicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.125 Phosphorous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.175 Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.120 Manganese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- Carbon ﬁxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.67 Carbon graphitical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.90
Everything depends, however, upon the grade of "pig," the quality and quantity of “scrap,” the mold and the molder, the heat, the coke, time and location in the cupola. It is better by far to pay a responsible foundry man for good castings than to tell him how to “mix” for them and demand castings of the best quality at a price that will-barely suffice for "window sash weights.” There are various receipts for gun iron mixtures, each of which may be good, in view of the respective base metals.
Fig. 3.
The ﬁnished product in any event should test about as follows:
Tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,500 Elastic limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,850
The grain should be close, with no "chill," while cutting should indicate softness. It would not be advisable to ﬁgure upon the above strength in designing, but the foundry ought to be able to approximate the value given. Finished cylinders should be subjected to a hydrostatic test of 500 pounds per square inch. Do not use air pressure for this test—it is dangerous. All that is required is a small pump with a long lever, such as boiler inspectors employ in their work; a tested steam or water gauge, and some ammonia, pipe and fittings. These ﬁttings enable one to make tight joints quickly. In subjecting the finished cylinder to the test, the valves should be in place, else the high pressure will bear against the ﬂat, thin walls in the exhaust passageway outside the normal pressure zone—a risk that serves no good purpose.
Cylinders that will not stand the 500
Fig. 4.
pound hydrostatic test are not suitable for the purpose, but cylinders that will stand over 50 per cent. more than 500 pounds per square inch are too heavy for the purpose and should be made lighter; for, in all truth, there are times when a pound off the weight on the tires may be as good as $100 in the bank. There is just this difference between motor car and general machine practice: that in general machine practice, if a part is overstrong, it is pronounced “good”; but in motor car practice, if a part is overstrong, it is really "bad." What is wanted in cylinder construction is a deﬁnite but moderate factor of safety, and it is possible to realize just such a factor of safety.
In motor cars there are many opportunities to reduce weight, and by exercising skill and judgment it is oftentimes possible to effect large inroads. Among other things the "levers," bell cranks, etc., are generally too strong, excepting in some cases in which they are not harmonious in design, hence too strong in some parts and below the needed strength in others. There are three classes of levers known to mechanics, each of which has its special use, all of which are employed in motor cars in divers ways. Fig. 3 illustrates the principle of levers of the ﬁrst class.
In this lever the fulcrum lies between the point of applied force and the point of resistance or reaction. Hence:
$F={W\times l \over L}=$ applied force in pounds.
$W={F\times L \over l}=$ resultant reaction in pounds.
$l={F\times a \over {W+F}}=$ length in inches from fulcrum to resistance.
$L={W\times a \over {W+F}}=$ distance in inches from fulcrum to pull.
Fig. 4 illustrates the use of levers of the third class, in which the point of applied force is between the fulcrum and the point of resistance or reaction. Hence:
$F={W\times l \over L}=$ applied force in pounds.
$W={F\times L \over l}=$ resultant reaction in pounds.
$l={{F\times a} \over {W-F}}=$ length in inches from fulcrum to resistance.
$L={W\times a \over W-F}=$ length in inches from fulcrum to pull.
Fig. 5 illustrates the use of levers of the second class, in which the resisting point is between the fulcrum and the point of applied pull. Hence:
$F={W\times l \over L}=$ applied force in pounds.
$W={F\times L \over l}=$ resultant reaction in pounds.
$l={F\times a \over W-F}=$ length in inches from fulcrum to resistance.
$L={{W\times a} \over {W-F}}=$ length in inches from fulcrum to pull.
In the application of these formulae it is not necessary to conﬁne oneself to inch-pounds units. Any other system of units
Fig. 5.