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

[Pat Holscher]

Chauffeurs were definately supposed to maintain the car as well as drive it although that often entailed knowing who to take it to when something actually broke. Lots of chauffeurs knwe almost as little as the car owners, at least to begin with. One of my great-uncles worked as a chauffeur for a wealthy family in New London, Connecticut around 1910-12. I have a picture of him at the wheel of the huge Locomobile he drove and another in the little Hudson runabout that the family bought so that he could use it to run errands for them without using the "big" car. At the time he was hired he didn't know how to drive, which his employers fully understood. He did have a reputation for being a very clever mechanic (he ended up teaching at MIT near the end of his life) and that was what was really needed. Learning to actually drive was the lesser part of the job.
Prior to WWI almost no owners of expensive cars actually drove them. The French Baron Rothchild who volunteered himself and his Rolls-Royce for service with the French Army in 1914 went along as the assistant to his own chauffer. When the driver was wounded the Baron tried driving it himself. He turned it over in a ditch so as soon as the driver was attended to he took the train to Paris, bought another Rolls, hired another driver and went back to the front!
A whole industry grew up around selling "chauffeur's specials" i.e. overpriced tires and parts that included a kickback for the chauffeur who had the responsibility of maintaining the cars.
Another story...the famous British eccentric, Lord Lonsdale, known as the "Yellow Earle" because all his cars and even his private train were painted yellow, was once stuck because his driver broke his arm cranking the car. After that he never went anywhere unless there were two drivers on the car.

Joe P

On this, it's interesting to note that you can find WWI vintage U.S. Army recruiting posters advertising for men who knew how to drive a vehicle. By WWII you no longer find those types of ads, and it was likely assumed that darned near any man knew how to drive.

[selewis]

Interesting discussion. Joe has owned some pretty neat autos. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who remembers the old 60 minutes piece that featured a little old lady that still owned her 20's something Rolls Royce. It was still in good condition with no major repairs when Morley Safer interviewed her, in the early 80's IIRC. The one concession made to modernity was when her physician made her install an electric starter.

So far the discussion has been more or less confined to the auto as a people mover, liberator. And it has had a great impact on the nation that way, how and where we live and it has sort of paved its own way through the land just for the fun of it before the time when it was really necessary to have one to get from one place to another. Now, of course, because of the way that things have developed, it is a necessity throughout much of the country outside of cities, especially in the west.

I'm supposing though that the other aspect of the internal combustion engine the work it can do, the tremendous amount of energy in a gallon of fuel, was recognized early on. Speed and convenience for drayage and the ability to go anywhere, digging, lifting etc.- you get a lot for your money compared to the horse. Judging by the early use of combined motor/horse operations by the army, like the Punitive ExpedItion, it seems to me that they were quick to catch on to the practical possibilities of the new invention even if wasn't really needed yet for transportation of people in the civilian world.

In this way the truck is indispensable to a lot of people. Even when I lived in Cambridge, where the MTA can drop you off within a few blocks of anywhere in the city and outlying towns, there was no way that I could have carried on my trade without a truck and, at times, heavy equipment. I'm not saying that this is universally so: there are some jobs where you just show up with your bags and go to work but even on those jobs tools and materials are trucked in and that has been the case for quite a while. Time is money and horses are slow. So I would suspect that that change occurred fairly quickly, if not for the tradesman himself at least at some level in the distribution of the things he works with.

Sandy

I used to start my CJ3A with a crank when the starter shorted out, which was for a while once when I was waiting for parts to rebuild it. Even after the parts came I never got around to fixing it for a couple of months. An old timer who was watching one day came up to me and I figured he was going to say something like 'That's how we used to start 'em when I was a boy'. Instead, he shook his head and said, 'Son, it may seem a little awkward till you get used to it but never wrap your thumbs around that thing.' After briefly explaining to me the perils of my method, I humbly thanked him, took his word for it, and still have both thumbs.

[Pat Holscher]

I'm supposing though that the other aspect of the internal combustion engine the work it can do, the tremendous amount of energy in a gallon of fuel, was recognized early on. Speed and convenience for drayage and the ability to go anywhere, digging, lifting etc.- you get a lot for your money compared to the horse. Judging by the early use of combined motor/horse operations by the army, like the Punitive ExpedItion, it seems to me that they were quick to catch on to the practical possibilities of the new invention even if wasn't really needed yet for transportation of people in the civilian world.

I think that might be an area where the internal combustion engine actually came in slower and sloppier than we suppose.

Your points, I think, are quite valid. At the same time, however, the early trucks were slower, and much more problematic, than we might imagine. They were being used for heavy hauling before WWI, and were used as artillery tractors as early as WWI (there's a great photo up here somewhere of a massive Renault being used by the Wyoming National Guard to haul a big artillery piece in France during WWI), but at the same time their many problems kept their introduction from being too fast and complete.

Derry discusses this in some depth in her book. One really surprising thing that's explored there is the big market for heavy draft horses up until after WWI. The railroads had huge numbers of heavy draft horses, and were still using them after WWI. Lots of short hauling remained horse dominated up until at least some point in the 20s, and some hung on until the 40s. In terms of cost, speed, and weight hauled, horses still retained the advantage for many uses that late.

The Army does provide a really good example. I don't know when the first army started using trucks for tractors, it would be interesting to know. But I don't think any Army relied on trucks entirely for hauling up until the 30s, when I think the British may have been the first Army to achieve that (although I don't know that for sure). The U.S. Army did experiment with trucks for tractors in the P.E., however. They were found to be very useful, but still problematic. Still, the handwriting was probably on the wall in terms of logistical support at that point, and as we've discussed before, the introduction of trucks at that point probably freed the cavalry to really be able to exploit its mobility for the first time, given that they were freed of slower transport. Still, I don't think it would be until the 30s when the U.S. Army really went over to trucks for transport. By that time, trucks had taken over in many of the civilian short haul applications as well.

In this way the truck is indispensable to a lot of people. Even when I lived in Cambridge, where the MTA can drop you off within a few blocks of anywhere in the city and outlying towns, there was no way that I could have carried on my trade without a truck and, at times, heavy equipment. I'm not saying that this is universally so: there are some jobs where you just show up with your bags and go to work but even on those jobs tools and materials are trucked in and that has been the case for quite a while. Time is money and horses are slow. So I would suspect that that change occurred fairly quickly, if not for the tradesman himself at least at some level in the distribution of the things he works with.

Interesting point. I'm not sure if the change was as quickly as we might suppose, but you do have a really valid point.

Somewhat on topic for that, I recall a WWII veteran I knew, who had been stationed in the UK for quite some time, comment on watching an American Army crew alter a road in the UK. The British crew who was called out to do it came with all hand tools, and it appeared to be a very long process. The U.S. Army engineer crew was then called in, and took out part of a structure with heavy equipment. He reported the British crew as being amazed. Certainly heavy equipment was common in the UK by then, but was in the category of second nature to the U.S. Army, which would suggest the change came fairly fast in some areas.

As an aside on this, and more in the nature of the civilian use of vehicles, both my father and mother had similar stories about their fathers being terrible drivers. That seemed odd to me, but my mother later commented that her father hadn't learned to drive until he was an adult. Of course, that would be true. As a child they used to love to have him drive fast, which in retrospect appeared riskier than they should have been encouraging. Anyway, the adoption of vehicles certainly was widespread and quick in many categories.

I used to start my CJ3A with a crank when the starter shorted out, which was for a while once when I was waiting for parts to rebuild it. Even after the parts came I never got around to fixing it for a couple of months. An old timer who was watching one day came up to me and I figured he was going to say something like 'That's how we used to start 'em when I was a boy'. Instead, he shook his head and said, 'Son, it may seem a little awkward till you get used to it but never wrap your thumbs around that thing.' After briefly explaining to me the perils of my method, I humbly thanked him, took his word for it, and still have both thumbs.

A Toyota Landcruiser I used to have retained a socket for that purpose. The jack handle could double as the crank. The vehicle was made in the early 70s, and the designers of the vehicle must have considered it a possibility that you'd get stranded out in the boonies with a bad battery.

[selewis]

A Toyota Landcruiser I used to have retained a socket for that purpose. The jack handle could double as the crank. The vehicle was made in the early 70s, and the designers of the vehicle must have considered it a possibility that you'd get stranded out in the boonies with a bad battery.

Resourceful, I like that. Of course without a magneto you'd never get it going without some bit of battery. The crank feature on the 3A was a hold over from the military model, same engine running gear etc. There was a folding crank that fit in the jock box under the passenger seat.

BTW Pat what model Jeep did you have? The 3A with its flat hood was often mistaken for a military vehicle but it came out in 1950 and was the first civilian model. It was only produced for a year or so before they went over to the higher compression F head and then the M38 when they started building Jeeps again for the military during the Korean War. The 3A was basically the 2A with a single piece windshield and a slightly beefier frame than the old WWII model. It was marketed for farm and ranch work and you could even get a ditcher with hydraulic set up for it, but I think that was asking a bit much. The L head engine was always easy to get parts for because even after Willys gave it up it continued to be a popular engine for welders and the like.

Sandy

[Pat Holscher]

BTW Pat what model Jeep did you have? The 3A with its flat hood was often mistaken for a military vehicle but it came out in 1950 and was the first civilian model. It was only produced for a year or so before they went over to the higher compression F head and then the M38 when they started building Jeeps again for the military during the Korean War. The 3A was basically the 2A with a single piece windshield and a slightly beefier frame than the old WWII model. It was marketed for farm and ranch work and you could even get a ditcher with hydraulic set up for it, but I think that was asking a bit much. The L head engine was always easy to get parts for because even after Willys gave it up it continued to be a popular engine for welders and the like.

Sandy

I've had two Jeeps. The 46 was a CJ2A. It was painted black, but in the areas where the paint was flecking off, it seemed to be a Forest Service green, which always sort of made me wonder if had actually been used by the Forest Service, or if the primer was oddly that color. This particular CJ2A was so early in the production line that I found, while rebuilding the steering, that the worm gear was a variant that was apparently actually from the WWII Willy's Jeep, rather than the one standard for CJ2A. A well versed parts guy at a Jeep store in Tennessee informed me of that over the phone.

The other Jeep I had was a M38A1, which looks much like the CJ5.

[selewis]

Mine was the same color very close to British racing green. I'd forgotten that the 2A was a CJ, making it the first.

[Couvi]

Reference cranks, my Dad had a Farmall tractor that came with a crank. I noticed that our truck, a 1947 Chevrolet 1-ton, had a hole for a crank, so I tried it. The compression was so high I thought it was in gear. I found that not to be the case, but never succeeded in turning the engine. I suspect that this arrangement was for some sort of auxiliary starting system.

The U.S. Army did experiment with trucks for tractors in the P.E., however. They were found to be very useful, but still problematic. Still, the handwriting was probably on the wall in terms of logistical support at that point, and as we've discussed before, the introduction of trucks at that point probably freed the cavalry to really be able to exploit its mobility for the first time, given that they were freed of slower transport.

Returning to horses, the development and improvement on tires had an impact on the use of trucks as tractors. 4-wheel drive FWD trucks with solid tires were probably pretty good performers on flat, solid roads, but in off-road conditions the solid tires proved to be a liability. Also, the addition of airbrakes, where the load could be braked at the same time as the tractor, added to the ability to move large loads safely. Allowing cavalry and artillery to move at their own pace and not worry about outrunning their supply lines surely had some implications.

I am currently reading The Cannoneers Have Hairy Ears, an account of a WWI American Field Artillery Executive Officer in a French 75 battery. He mentions that a lot of ammunition came up to the battery position by truck. Due to the truck’s inability to traverse many bridges, grades and difficult terrain off-road, his troops usually had to schlep the ammunition a long way up to the gun pits, two rounds at a time. While the teeth of the Army stuck to horse traction, the tail very rapidly saw the benefits of mechanized traction and adopted it.

[Pat Holscher]

Chauffeurs were definately supposed to maintain the car as well as drive it although that often entailed knowing who to take it to when something actually broke. Lots of chauffeurs knwe almost as little as the car owners, at least to begin with. One of my great-uncles worked as a chauffeur for a wealthy family in New London, Connecticut around . I have a picture of him at the wheel of the huge Locomobile he drove and another in the little Hudson runabout that the family bought so that he could use it to run errands for them without using the "big" car. At the time he was hired he didn't know how to drive, which his employers fully understood. He did have a reputation for being a very clever mechanic (he ended up teaching at MIT near the end of his life) and that was what was really needed. Learning to actually drive was the lesser part of the job.
Prior to WWI almost no owners of expensive cars actually drove them. The French Baron Rothchild who volunteered himself and his Rolls-Royce for service with the French Army in 1914 went along as the assistant to his own chauffer. When the driver was wounded the Baron tried driving it himself. He turned it over in a ditch so as soon as the driver was attended to he took the train to Paris, bought another Rolls, hired another driver and went back to the front!
A whole industry grew up around selling "chauffeur's specials" i.e. overpriced tires and parts that included a kickback for the chauffeur who had the responsibility of maintaining the cars.
Another story...the famous British eccentric, Lord Lonsdale, known as the "Yellow Earle" because all his cars and even his private train were painted yellow, was once stuck because his driver broke his arm cranking the car. After that he never went anywhere unless there were two drivers on the car.

Joe P

On this, it's interesting to note that you can find WWI vintage U.S. Army recruiting posters advertising for men who knew how to drive a vehicle. By WWII you no longer find those types of ads, and it was likely assumed that darned near any man knew how to drive.

Some examples.







Some of these are from war related private organizations, but there are similar military ones with the same theme.

[Pat Holscher]

Returning to horses, the development and improvement on tires had an impact on the use of trucks as tractors. 4-wheel drive FWD trucks with solid tires were probably pretty good performers on flat, solid roads, but in off-road conditions the solid tires proved to be a liability. Also, the addition of airbrakes, where the load could be braked at the same time as the tractor, added to the ability to move large loads safely. Allowing cavalry and artillery to move at their own pace and not worry about outrunning their supply lines surely had some implications.

I am currently reading The Cannoneers Have Hairy Ears, an account of a WWI American Field Artillery Executive Officer in a French 75 battery. He mentions that a lot of ammunition came up to the battery position by truck. Due to the truck’s inability to traverse many bridges, grades and difficult terrain off-road, his troops usually had to schlep the ammunition a long way up to the gun pits, two rounds at a time. While the teeth of the Army stuck to horse traction, the tail very rapidly saw the benefits of mechanized traction and adopted it.

Very interesting observations.

The item about the performance of early trucks is telling. Until the truck had really dependable off road capabilities, it couldn't fully replace the horse in anything. Given that, the logistical tail would have benefited before combat units did.

In a way, that's still the story of the horse, as horses continue on, where they're worked, in part because nothing else is suitable. That isn't many things today, but it's some. The remaining part of that, I suppose, is that in some applications they're just cheaper to use than anything else, which is also part of the story.

On early vehicles, early trucks are very wagon like in some ways. Solid tires must have made them very rough riding. When pneumatic tires became common their advantages were so plain that those wagons kept in use for one thing or another were often retrofitted with pneumatics tires. I was a teenager before I realized that sheepwagons came with wagon wheels originally, and that they could still be ordered that way in the 30s. All of them I'd ever seen had pneumatic tires, so I just assumed they always had. If I'd thought to stop and think about it, it would have been obvious that this wasn't the case, but they weren't exotic when I was young, so I never gave it any thought.

Suspensions on early trucks were really stiff too. That's one big change in how trucks are built. Chances are that many drivers of pickups today (which are likely to become fewer in number with fuel prices what they are) have any idea that even 30 years ago most pickup trucks were quite uncomfortable to ride in, and that 40 years ago, they were a chore to drive. Soft suspensions and power steering have made quite a difference in them.

[JV Puleo]

I've always thought that Army training such as that Motor Transport Corps poster advertise made a dramatic impact on the really widesperead use of automobiles after the war.
There is a 5 volume set of mechanic's manuals called "Automobile Engineering" that came out every few years from around '14 through the late 20's. (Keeping in mind that the make-specific "shop manual" and "owner's manual" weren't even invented until much later...probably in the 30s) I was always looking for a set to use in my garage because the earlier ones have all sorts of information that isn't available elsewhere. I finally got a 1917 set but one thing that I noticed was that probably 9 out of 10 sets I found were the 1919 edition, often found in unused condition. In fact I was offered an unused set by the counter man at a local auto parts store and he specifically told me his father had bought them planning to open a garage when he got out of the Army.

I did see the 60 minutes thing. The old lady and the car were quite well known although the story is a bit mis-represented. The car was a 20HP Rolls, the small version introduced in 1922. (Under the best of conditions it would take a "mans-man" to start a 40-50 HP Ghost or Phantom I with a crank.) All of the 20 HP cars had electric starters as did all Rolls cars after 1914. It had a magneto and could run without a battery so her doctor probably made her replace the battery and get the starter working. I suppose putting one in makes a better story but if that was necessary it was because one had been taken out.

Pat, holding your thumb the right way is very important. I've also had most of the major Edwardian accidents. I had a very damaged arm once from a crank-related accident and I might not have the thumb on my right hand if I'd been holding the crank the wrong way. It was also one of the very first things I heard when anyone saw the crank and I think it was my mother who told me.

Joe P

[Mike Miller]

This has been an interesting dicussion. Here is some added information to some of the points.

The U.S. Army owned only 20 trucks in 1912. By 1914 this had increased to 80 trucks and 35 motor cars. Differing numbers may be attributable to the leasing of vehicles for special needs. The Boston Army Maneuvers in 1911 used leased vehicles to move units and found it to be a successful experiment. Trucks could make several round trips per day and moved personnel and equipment more efficiently. This was over a good road network for the time however. In 1916, Pershing greatly increased the Army inventory of vehicles during his expedition into Mexico. During WWI the Allies and the U.S. bought thousands of many different manufacturers vehicles and under wartime conditions found what worked well and what didn't. The postwar inventory of surplus vehicles caused a slow down in procurement but allowed the Army to experiment with standardizing its vehicles and creating better specifications which ended by giving us the 2 1/2 ton truck as one example which was the best truck going.

A good reference on this is : U.S. Military Vehicles by Fred W.Crismon.

I have seen reference to MacArthur, during his tenure as Army Chief of Staff, issuing a directive to all branches for converting to motor vehicles from horse power. It was during the depression and it was considered a cost savings not to have to feed and maintain draft horses. Vehicles could sit idle and not need gas but the horses needed fodder. Interesting to compare the cost of gasoline to fodder during the 1930's. Also what would be the difference of the actual cost of acquiring, training and maintaining a horsed unit versus a similar sized motorized one. I am sure there were studies done but have not found any specific numbers yet.

There was another thread about the size and weight of artillery being the cause of replacing horses with tractors during WWI which made sense. The Germans used horses to pull 105mm artillery in WWII but I have not seen any reference as to larger guns using horses for movement.

[Pat Holscher]

I've always thought that Army training such as that Motor Transport Corps poster advertise made a dramatic impact on the really widesperead use of automobiles after the war.

Very interesting point.

World War Two undoubtedly had a major impact of transportation. Some subtle, and others not. It gave a big boost to aircraft development, with all types of aircraft undergoing major leaps in design in a very short time. By extension, a huge expansion of the civil aviation was inevitable. That this would occur was no doubt obvious by wars' end. But that this would lead to the huge decline in the use of the railroads for human transportation probably wasn't foreseen.

The war saw a tremendous expansion in 4x4 truck design. Late war articles, and immediate postwar articles, often note this, promising that the Jeep, a huge wartime success, was going to replace the tractor on farms. That never happened, but it sure created a whole new class of civilian driving that didn't exist before the war. Another WWII product, the Dodge 4x4 truck, really did have a major impact on some sorts of agriculture, replacing the horse in the tender role, and even the horse and rider in other roles, on many western ranches.

I hadn't thought of WWI having a similar impact, but I'll bet it did. The Army must have exposed thousands of men to vehicles and mechanics, and the Army began to experiment with cross country travel immediately after the war. So WWI, like WWII, seems likely to have had a major impact on civil transportation giving us yet another example of how wars change everything.

[Pat Holscher]

Another example:



Note the pitch to men ages 18 to 45.

[JV Puleo]

A classic example of how, in wartime when special skills are needed, all the usual requirements, especially "age-related" go out the window.
Joe P

[Pat Holscher]

A classic example of how, in wartime when special skills are needed, all the usual requirements, especially "age-related" go out the window.
Joe P

I think that age range reflects the final draft registration age, in the US, for World War One. It started off requiring registration of men 21 to 30 years of age, but by wars end was changed to 18 to 45 years of age.

I've never been at all clear about the actual draft practices in World War One or World War Two. I know the registration age included this range, but did the draft actually draft from this range?

[Pat Holscher]

A classic example of how, in wartime when special skills are needed, all the usual requirements, especially "age-related" go out the window.
Joe P

I think that age range reflects the final draft registration age, in the US, for World War One. It started off requiring registration of men 21 to 30 years of age, but by wars end was changed to 18 to 45 years of age.

I've never been at all clear about the actual draft practices in World War One or World War Two. I know the registration age included this range, but did the draft actually draft from this range?

Also, another thing that has surprised me is that it was apparently the case that manpower needs stayed at least a little high after WWI for some time. We have a poster up on another thread noting that the "Watch on the Rhine may be over, but the Watch on the Rio Grande continues", or something close to that, seeking volunteers to serve on the Texas border. That surprises me.

Here's another one giving evidence to a surprising manpower deficit, this one in the Navy:



Apparently the Navy's demands were high enough that the went after recently discharged soldiers.

[Pat Holscher]

Great WWI era (likely post war, 1920s?) vintage recruiting poster for a cavalry unit of the New York National Guard. Look at all the nifty skills you would learn, according to the poster, including driving "an armored motor car".

http://digital.lib.umn.edu/IMAGES/refer ... p01633.jpg

[Pat Holscher]

Interesting photo from this era:

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/pan/6 ... 27717r.jpg

[Pat Holscher]

Of interest here, Cadillac's 1905 advertising slogan:

"You can kill a horse but not a Cadillac".

[JV Puleo]

Believe it or not, I once restored a single cylinder, 1905 Cadillac. It was small and light, built to carry as many as four or five people though I can't imagine how well it would have gone with even four skinny people on it. With just the driver it could carry you along at about 10-15 miles per hour all day without any excessive strain. In a pinch it could do 25 or maybe 30. The top speed was limited by the very low gearing, aimed at pulling it out of ruts and muddy roads. Since there aren't many rutted muddy roads left in New England I fiddled with the gearing and the compression and got a car that could probably do 50. That was a real mistake. The chassis and steering weren't up to the speed and the loss of the very low range made it difficult to climb a steep hill with two people on. But, in its original configuration it must have been a revelation to a horse-centered traveling public with a far different notion of "speed" than we share. It was an inexpensive car too, though extremely well made. One cylinder Cadillacs were so successful that they remained in production until around 1908, long after most other one-lung automobiles were considered wildly obsolete.
Interestingly, one-cylinder cars retained their popularity in Europe far longer and sporty versions were being made and raced right up to WWI. Walter Owen Bentley developed the first aluminum piston for a French one-lunger that he and his brother held an English franchise for and had several racing records to their credit.

Joe Puleo