Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

[Pat Holscher]

As part of this then and now type of discussion, it occurs to me that we really travel around now in contempt of the weather. I've been driving around in subzero weather all week.

That would have been a terrible idea in an earlier era. Truth be known, it's really not a good idea now. It's just that now, it's expected.

[CRB]

Truth be known, it's really not a good idea now. It's just that now, it's expected.

While living up in Puget Sound, I was getting ready to get on the hiway one morning during a winter storm, as I approched the on ramp I looked up and saw a state patrol car going down the road sideways, at which point I decided to go home and sit by the fire.

[Pat Holscher]

Great example of local transportation in 1904:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews ... 1261405147

[Pat Holscher]

A scene from the era in question:

[Pat Holscher]

Related to a much earlier era, an article I read today stated that the bicycle was invented in 1817 coincident with, and attributable to, a global 1817 shortage of oats, which resulted in a global shortage of horses. The oat shortage was caused by the 1816 "Year With No Summer", the year that featured crop failures due to temperature depressions attributable to volcanic activity.

Interesting, if correct.

[Pat Holscher]

Somewhat related and sign of the times, the military pulls out ahead on looking to reduce fossil fuel dependency:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/scien ... 1&emc=eta1

Odd thing is, some of the solar applications noted here I've seen in the mountain cow camps now for a couple of years already.

[Pat Holscher]

In contrast with the above:

http://data2.archives.ca/ap/a/a132144.jpg

Horse and cart in front of church., Ca, 1910. Canada.

[Pat Holscher]

Sort of an interesting look at getting in touch with the early auto age:

http://www.365daysofa.com/

[JV Puleo]

I think the opening comments actually include a number of errors, or perhaps better put, popular misconceptions. Hydraulic brakes aren't generally "stronger" than mechanical ones... at least not good mechanical brakes. The coefficient of friction for a steel brake drums and for an iron ones are virtually identical. Cast iron wears much better than steel does and thus lasts much longer. Mechanical linkage exerts the same pressure as hydraulics - at least in that there is a finite limit to what is required to stop a car using the essentially soft woven brake linings. What is different is that there are dozens more places for wear in a mechanical system and mechanical brakes are thus much more demanding to keep in top condition. Worn pins, loose brake rods etc all detract from performance. A hydraulic system, which has almost no moving mechanical linkages, does not have this problem. Its essentially self correcting for wear.
I've never found it necessary to fit hydraulics to an old car. In fact, among the best stopping old cars in my experience were the Silver Ghost RRs which had 2 wheel mechanicals acting on a very heavy car. A much lighter car, like my current 1910 Mitchell, is fairly safe if driven prudently. The ultimate "no brakes can help this" factor is the area of tire in contact with the road. Old fashioned high pressure tires with a very small surface actually in contact with the pavement are the final limiting factor which no braking system can alter or effect.

[Pat Holscher]

I think the opening comments actually include a number of errors, or perhaps better put, popular misconceptions. Hydraulic brakes aren't generally "stronger" than mechanical ones... at least not good mechanical brakes. The coefficient of friction for a steel brake drums and for an iron ones are virtually identical. Cast iron wears much better than steel does and thus lasts much longer. Mechanical linkage exerts the same pressure as hydraulics - at least in that there is a finite limit to what is required to stop a car using the essentially soft woven brake linings. What is different is that there are dozens more places for wear in a mechanical system and mechanical brakes are thus much more demanding to keep in top condition. Worn pins, loose brake rods etc all detract from performance. A hydraulic system, which has almost no moving mechanical linkages, does not have this problem. Its essentially self correcting for wear.
I've never found it necessary to fit hydraulics to an old car. In fact, among the best stopping old cars in my experience were the Silver Ghost RRs which had 2 wheel mechanicals acting on a very heavy car. A much lighter car, like my current 1910 Mitchell, is fairly safe if driven prudently. The ultimate "no brakes can help this" factor is the area of tire in contact with the road. Old fashioned high pressure tires with a very small surface actually in contact with the pavement are the final limiting factor which no braking system can alter or effect.

I have to admit that I thought hydraulic brakes were much more powerful, if you will, than mechanical brakes. I'd never really given it much thought.

One difference, I would suppose, is that mechanical brakes may depend on the strength of the driver. Is that correct?

[JV Puleo]

Probably not in any significant way. Brakes should develop enough power through mechanical advantage to minimize the strength factor of the driver. That said, the best mechanicals were probably those that were "servo" driven. These were used on only a few very expensive cars. They were introduced by Hispano Suiza and copied by Rolls Royce. In this system the foot pressure engages a clutch which transmits transmission torque to the brakes. They worked brilliantly when the car was moving but fell off in performance as it slowed down making it hardest to stop a car that was rolling very slowly.
As well as being self adjusting and self equalizing, hydraulics took most of the adjustment and maintenance out of the brake equation so, in that sense, they were far superior. They also added the possible factor of instant and total failure - something almost impossible with mechanicals.

When I was in my early 20s, driving a 26 Cadillac, my friend John Zangari had a 26 Chrysler Imperial. The Imperial had about the first hydraulic brakes on an American production car (Duesenberg was earlier but I'm not counting them). My Cadillac, which must have weighed twice as much as the Chrysler, had pure mechanical brakes and stopped about twice as well as the Chrysler.

[Pat Holscher]

Probably not in any significant way. Brakes should develop enough power through mechanical advantage to minimize the strength factor of the driver. That said, the best mechanicals were probably those that were "servo" driven. These were used on only a few very expensive cars. They were introduced by Hispano Suiza and copied by Rolls Royce. In this system the foot pressure engages a clutch which transmits transmission torque to the brakes. They worked brilliantly when the car was moving but fell off in performance as it slowed down making it hardest to stop a car that was rolling very slowly.
As well as being self adjusting and self equalizing, hydraulics took most of the adjustment and maintenance out of the brake equation so, in that sense, they were far superior. They also added the possible factor of instant and total failure - something almost impossible with mechanicals.

When I was in my early 20s, driving a 26 Cadillac, my friend John Zangari had a 26 Chrysler Imperial. The Imperial had about the first hydraulic brakes on an American production car (Duesenberg was earlier but I'm not counting them). My Cadillac, which must have weighed twice as much as the Chrysler, had pure mechanical brakes and stopped about twice as well as the Chrysler.

It occurs to me that once we start talking about "power" brakes, the equations are probably different. A lot of drivers today have probably never driven a vehicle that didn't have power brakes.

Old hydraulic brakes on heavier vehicles certainly stopped differently. I have, and still occasionally drive, a 1962 Dodge W300, a very heavy truck. It doesn't have power anything. It's a great truck, but its brakes were never really adequate even when it was new (not that I would have experienced it new. . . it's one year older than me). I'm always reminded of this when I drive it where people can cut in front of me, as those with more modern cars assume that it stops quickly, which it does not. I have to plan my stops some distance in advance of where I intend to stop.

Power brakes, on the other hand, give you a lot of brake quickly. Somewhat less quick, it seems to me, since antilock brakes came in, but still quick.

[Pat Holscher]

The Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, introduced in 1908, also had a full pressure system but most American cars didn't get oil pressure direct to the main bearings until the 1950s. Inscribed on the oil filler cap of my first old car, a '26/27 Cadillac 314 V8, was the message "use clean oil only"!

I'm pretty sure I saw two of these on the highway yesterday. It was so surprising, that I didn't really get a chance to do what I would have liked to, which is to take a picture of them while we were passing them.

I saw them, one behind the other, climbing a relatively steep grade north of Sheridan. I was doing about 80 mph, and they were doing about 40. I saw one of them again as I was coming back down the road, but it was then alone, so I sort of wonder if one of them pulled up lame.

Man, they're big.

[Pat Holscher]

From today's "looking back" item in the Casper Star Tribune:

NATRONA COUNTY TRIBUNE, 1911

"It is 196.4 miles from Cheyenne to Casper, if you travel over the road in an automobile, but it is a pleasant trip to take once. ... [T]he roads are smooth--in places--and the weather is fine--when the wind don't blow. You can leave Cheyenne early in the morning and come through in a day, if you don't have any bad luck and drive fast enough. ...

"The first station out from Cheyenne is Chugwater, where the wind never blows, except in chunks. Chug is about fifty miles out from the Capitol city. It is not a very large place, but the few people there treat passersby like a king. Then you travel over a beautiful scenic road to Wheatland, 76 miles out. Leaving Wheatland you are informed that it is 58 miles to Douglas. You go through a rich farming country for several miles and then you run into a station called Uva, where there is a store and blacksmith shop. If you can get any information out of the people in that village regarding the roads youva got to use a corkscrew or toss them a piece of silver. You move out of there just as quickly as you can, and if you are lucky at guessing the right road you will reach Douglas some time during the day--or night, with a fairly good appetite. You don't go far until you drop into numerous dry creeks which curve and turn like a $, and it would break a snake's back to follow the road, and the sand is no less than four feet deep. ... [M]ost of the time, if you are not driving the car, you walk and push on the machine. Just about the time you are ready to leave the machine and start on a hike for Douglas you will come to a little new hut, where you will find a young man with a broad smile. This is 25 miles out from Wheatland. He will tell you that Douglas is 50 miles to the front of you--but he adds that the roads are good. You will think he is a liar, for the people at Wheatland told you Douglas was 58 miles from there, and you've already gone 25. ...

"After traveling over a strange country for miles and miles and miles without seeing any signs of habitation, and about when you are ready to camp beside some gurgling brook for the balance of the night, you see in the distance some faint, flickering lights--It is Douglas. ... If it is 11 o'clock at night you go to bed hungry--if you are lucky enough to get a bed. All the restaurants are closed in that town when the sun goes down. After a few hours' sleep on the hay scales or in the bottom of your auto, you awake, ready for breakfast, and you will get it if you drive to Glenrock, a distance of 26 miles, or wait in Douglas till 7 o'clock. ...

"The roads from Douglas to Casper are easy--the morning's ride of 56 miles is invigorating and the experience will never be regretted or forgotten. Get a new auto for yourself and try it."

Read more: http://trib.com/news/local/article_da46 ... z1QTv7KWk1

I do this drive now (which is less than 196 miles now, probably something like 165 on the Interstate, in about 2.5 hours.

[Pat Holscher]

I know that this doesn't have diddly to do with horses, but doggone it, it's a really neat look at the history of commercial aviation, and maybe says something about the march of time from the late horse era to the present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 4JdQi60an0

[Pat Holscher]

Early aircraft were discussed earlier in this thread:

http://bcove.me/cfdlsey8

[Pat Holscher]

Shoveling snow in days gone by:

http://old-photos.blogspot.com/2011/12/ ... -snow.html

I think we have a copy of this photo up somewhere, but snowy traffic jam:

http://old-photos.blogspot.com/2011/12/ ... scene.html

[JV Puleo]

For pictures of early cars, this is the best spot on the internet:

http://theoldmotor.com

[Pat Holscher]

For pictures of early cars, this is the best spot on the internet:

http://theoldmotor.com

Some really remarkable cars!

Halliburton in the way early days:

http://theoldmotor.com/wp-content/uploa ... -PM_24.png

[Pat Holscher]

Gordon, here's one that looks to be in your line of country:

http://theoldmotor.com/?p=16942