1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2003 06:43PM
<HTML>Having gotten sick of non steam people asking me why, if a steam car is so good, then why doesn't Ford or GM make one. To end this never ending question I have decided to investigate and produce a paper that is easier to hand someone than try to discuss the reasons. I have wondered about a couple things that I could not obtain enough information on yet.
1) How many Serpollet steam cars were produced and under what names since he was associated with more than one firm ?
2) What company, european or American, produced the most steam cars ?
3) I have read that steam cars were banned from racing in the US in 1907 by the sanctioning body of the time, AAA I believe, is this true ?
Thanx in advance
Peter Heid</HTML>
1) How many Serpollet steam cars were produced and under what names since he was associated with more than one firm ?
2) What company, european or American, produced the most steam cars ?
3) I have read that steam cars were banned from racing in the US in 1907 by the sanctioning body of the time, AAA I believe, is this true ?
Thanx in advance
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2003 09:21PM
<HTML>I don't have the data at hand, but I think you'll probably find that Stanley produced more steam cars than all the others combined.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2003 01:43AM
<HTML>The simple answer is to tell folks that fuel cell cars will be more efficient than a steamer, so the car companies are busy researching those, and not bothering with steam.
I read an article on the internet (don't have a link for it, sorry) that made the claim that the biggest death knell for steamers was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in New York City. The claim was, that the Stanley's would refill their water tanks at the horse troughs in the city. With the outbreak, the horse troughs were all closed, and horses were banned from the city, so folks needed cars, but with no available horse troughs, Stanley's and other non-condensers were SOL, thus the advantage was given to internal combustion cars.</HTML>
I read an article on the internet (don't have a link for it, sorry) that made the claim that the biggest death knell for steamers was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in New York City. The claim was, that the Stanley's would refill their water tanks at the horse troughs in the city. With the outbreak, the horse troughs were all closed, and horses were banned from the city, so folks needed cars, but with no available horse troughs, Stanley's and other non-condensers were SOL, thus the advantage was given to internal combustion cars.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2003 07:10AM
<HTML>I think that it is no coincidence that steam cars outnumbered gas cars, in the US at least, until about 1910, 2 years after the introduction of the Ford Model T. Ford did mass-production and mass-marketing of cars before anyone else. None of the steam car producers even tried it, hence they disappeared along with all the other carmakers (including most gas car makers) who didn't. The majority of cars on the road were Ford Model T's from shortly after its introduction, through the 1920s.
Rollin White seemed to think that technical factors were the reason for gas car ascendancy; but he was out of the car business too (and into trucks), not long after switching to (expensive, shop-built) gas cars.
It is also no coincidence, IMO, that steam cars were more numerous until the Model T's mass production/marketing gave gas cars a price/availability advantage. When the T first came out, before its mass production, it cost about the same as a 10 hp Stanley -- ~$850. After a few years, it cost a fraction as much.
Anybody who thinks that powerplant technical factors have anything to do with it, should try maintaining/dailydriving a typical gas car (meaning a Model T) from the 1910s or even 1920s. Most people, having zero contact with early gas cars, seem to assume that they were as cheap, convenient, reliable, and easy to operate as something from the late 20th Century. Uh uh. Hand-crank start (electric start available but rare 1912-1920s), crash gears (or slippery/bothersome multiclutches in the T), manual throttle & spark advance, de-carboning engines, re-grinding valves, constant adjustments/repairs of all kinds, freezing radiators, overheating, etc etc ad infinitum. Much worse than antique steamers. Not to mention lousy performance in every category relative to steamers of the time.
Only gas car advantage over steamers: _far_ lower price, due _solely_ to mass production.
Steam car makers didn't even try mass production or mass marketing. They didn't even _try_.
Then the 1930s Depression & WW2 killed off all chances for new producers (incl new gas car makers) to get into the game. By the 1950s, few knew anything about steam cars, gas car makers were entrenched, and the rare few in positions to put steam cars into production were bemused by the Catch-22: "They must be inferior, because they've been out of production for decades," which led to nobody producing them, and the non-production led to the idea that they were inferior, etc.. This situation persists to this day.
But the biggest obstacle now is the almost total lack of knowledge about practical steam car technology. Even when a few companies designed new steamers in the 1960s-70s as a possible solution to the air pollution problem, most of their designs ended up flawed, impractical, and completely unsuited to mass production and consumer use.
In my opinion, if Henry Ford had taken a liking to steam cars, we'd all be driving them today. And we'd probably have a few hundred people in the Gas Automobile Club Of America debating over how outdated 19th-century ideas like cam/poppet valves, single-acting cylinders, the Otto Cycle, and spark ignition led to the demise of the gas car.
Peter</HTML>
Rollin White seemed to think that technical factors were the reason for gas car ascendancy; but he was out of the car business too (and into trucks), not long after switching to (expensive, shop-built) gas cars.
It is also no coincidence, IMO, that steam cars were more numerous until the Model T's mass production/marketing gave gas cars a price/availability advantage. When the T first came out, before its mass production, it cost about the same as a 10 hp Stanley -- ~$850. After a few years, it cost a fraction as much.
Anybody who thinks that powerplant technical factors have anything to do with it, should try maintaining/dailydriving a typical gas car (meaning a Model T) from the 1910s or even 1920s. Most people, having zero contact with early gas cars, seem to assume that they were as cheap, convenient, reliable, and easy to operate as something from the late 20th Century. Uh uh. Hand-crank start (electric start available but rare 1912-1920s), crash gears (or slippery/bothersome multiclutches in the T), manual throttle & spark advance, de-carboning engines, re-grinding valves, constant adjustments/repairs of all kinds, freezing radiators, overheating, etc etc ad infinitum. Much worse than antique steamers. Not to mention lousy performance in every category relative to steamers of the time.
Only gas car advantage over steamers: _far_ lower price, due _solely_ to mass production.
Steam car makers didn't even try mass production or mass marketing. They didn't even _try_.
Then the 1930s Depression & WW2 killed off all chances for new producers (incl new gas car makers) to get into the game. By the 1950s, few knew anything about steam cars, gas car makers were entrenched, and the rare few in positions to put steam cars into production were bemused by the Catch-22: "They must be inferior, because they've been out of production for decades," which led to nobody producing them, and the non-production led to the idea that they were inferior, etc.. This situation persists to this day.
But the biggest obstacle now is the almost total lack of knowledge about practical steam car technology. Even when a few companies designed new steamers in the 1960s-70s as a possible solution to the air pollution problem, most of their designs ended up flawed, impractical, and completely unsuited to mass production and consumer use.
In my opinion, if Henry Ford had taken a liking to steam cars, we'd all be driving them today. And we'd probably have a few hundred people in the Gas Automobile Club Of America debating over how outdated 19th-century ideas like cam/poppet valves, single-acting cylinders, the Otto Cycle, and spark ignition led to the demise of the gas car.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2003 01:55PM
<HTML>Terry, The Stanley steamer was produced for 30 years, longer than any other steam car manufacturer. During their years of production, it is estimated that they made just under 16,000 steam cars. White steam cars were built for only 10 years and due to White's experience in marketing, they out produced Stanleys by a few hundred cars, and they did it in a third the time. The reason why the Stanley is so well remembered is because just about any blacksmith could fix one, while it took a knowledgeable White mechanic to get a White up an running again. With their complex systems, anytime that a White ended up on a used car lot, it was a pretty good chance that the metal recycler would be their next purchaser. But the Stanleys just kept on going and going. Today, due to their high survival rate, more people remember the Stanley. We hope to see you in Blaine, WA at the NWSS steam meet Aug. 8-10. We will be there, driving our 1922 Stanley. Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2003 04:18PM
<HTML>Peter,
Henry ford could not build a boiler that provided the level of control that he realized would be required for an auto. He built some 20 or 30 boilers before he switched to IC engines. It is interesting to note how much pressure he was under from his employer, Edison, to develop the electric vehicle.
Actually, Olds was the first to use mass production techniques and the curved dash model introduced in 1901 sold around 12,000 units if I remember correctly.
Henry Ford had actually built more than 10,000 cars before the introduction of the "T"
"Rollin White seemed to think that technical factors were the reason for gas car ascendancy; but he was out of the car business too (and into trucks), not long after switching to (expensive, shop-built) gas cars." The 1910 White MM cost $5000.00, what was an expensive gas car ?
According to US registration records, the steamer was over shadowed by the IC car in 1904 -05.
A good year for Stanley production was 650 cars, less than 6 weeks production for the model T when the assembly line was first started.
My records show a total of around 11,000 Stanleys were sold.
Another reason Stanleys were remembered was the speed runs.
How many people even know how to drive a model T ? It doesn't look like any other car controls.
Brian,
I have heard that the outbreak was great trouble in the city. Most everything was transported by horse and the city was just about totally shut down for a while. The timing was right for future steam drivers / builders to wonder where the water would come from. It would not seem to have been too much trouble to over come as there were many charging stations set up in every major city for the electrics and water is easier to distribute. Gasoline retailers were few and far between at first but there was an explosion to meet the need including hand cart vendors.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Henry ford could not build a boiler that provided the level of control that he realized would be required for an auto. He built some 20 or 30 boilers before he switched to IC engines. It is interesting to note how much pressure he was under from his employer, Edison, to develop the electric vehicle.
Actually, Olds was the first to use mass production techniques and the curved dash model introduced in 1901 sold around 12,000 units if I remember correctly.
Henry Ford had actually built more than 10,000 cars before the introduction of the "T"
"Rollin White seemed to think that technical factors were the reason for gas car ascendancy; but he was out of the car business too (and into trucks), not long after switching to (expensive, shop-built) gas cars." The 1910 White MM cost $5000.00, what was an expensive gas car ?
According to US registration records, the steamer was over shadowed by the IC car in 1904 -05.
A good year for Stanley production was 650 cars, less than 6 weeks production for the model T when the assembly line was first started.
My records show a total of around 11,000 Stanleys were sold.
Another reason Stanleys were remembered was the speed runs.
How many people even know how to drive a model T ? It doesn't look like any other car controls.
Brian,
I have heard that the outbreak was great trouble in the city. Most everything was transported by horse and the city was just about totally shut down for a while. The timing was right for future steam drivers / builders to wonder where the water would come from. It would not seem to have been too much trouble to over come as there were many charging stations set up in every major city for the electrics and water is easier to distribute. Gasoline retailers were few and far between at first but there was an explosion to meet the need including hand cart vendors.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2003 03:40AM
<HTML>Dear Peter, According to the "Standard Catalog of American Cars, it states: Oldsmobile: "Production cars first reached the public market in late summer of 1901 and it is generally accepted that about 425 cars were built that year." "The Serial number book for U.S. Cars" lists no serial numbers for 1901 Oldsmobile but 1902 Oldsmobile, they list the serial numbers starting at "6,000 through 8,990". Henry Ford was famous for being the first car maker to use the moving assembly line. This method of assembly cut his Model "T"assembly costs almost in half. Kit Foster is researching the production numbers of Stanley steamers for the soon to be printed "Stanley steamer Book" and going by serial numbers used, the nearest that he has calculate so far, that there were 10,744 pre SV cars built. That also would not include any Locomobile steamers. Through the last 18 years, I have read quotes of there being about 16,000 Stanleys being built, but that figure is beginning to look like the tall story of "they would give you a free Stanley if you could hold the throttle Stanley open for one minute". According to my "Steam Cars 1910" republished by Floyd Clymer, "the 1910 Model MM forty horse power only cost $4,000." A comparable 7 passenger Cadillac of the same year and quality listed for $3,000. The smaller "1910 White model OO twenty horse power 5 passenger touring car was only $2,000." A comparable 5 passenger Cadillac touring at that time listed for $1700. Just like you said, White steamers did cost more. (Cadillac prices were from the Standard Catalog of American Cars.) Keep the information flowing. This is a great website. Thank you John Woodson.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2003 09:54AM
<HTML>Hi Peter,
To my knowledge, Henry Ford never built or even attempted a steam car. His first running car was a gas model. If he made early attempts at steam cars, I have never read of this, or even heard mention of it. At any rate, if Ford did try steamers and dumped them, he could always have changed his mind again later, perhaps after noting the success of other steam car makers. He did change his mind on a lot of other technical issues over his career. But I have read that he was dead-set on the gas car from the get-go. I didn't say that the T was his first model. He went from models A through S first, skipping a few letters as I recall.
Olds used mass-production techniques first, but not the combination of mass production plus mass marketing. Ford started that, including manufacturer car loans with easy payments.
Both steam and gas Whites were expensive because they were shop-built luxury cars rather than mass-produced, mass-marketed cars. Like every other company which did not combine mass production with mass marketing (and like many which did try, unlike any of the steam car makers), it wasn't too many years before White disappeared from the car market. Later White adopted mass production for trucks, and became very successful in that field.
I'll look up my sources on the 1910 date for gas cars outnumbering steamers. Keep in mind this figure is for cars on the road, not car sales. Either can be used as evidence for consumer preference. I might be a few years off on that, but it doesn't affect my main point, that mass production and mass marketing were the decisive factors. Available and affordable were what most people wanted & needed in a car at the time.
You are right about T and Stanley production figures, and about the Stanley racing record contributing to their fame. And steamers were indeed effectively banned from racing around the time of gas car ascendancy, which may be a factor in the steamer's demise. The T eventually went on to a production figure of about 27,000,000, far outstripping everything else, gas and steam. This production record was only beaten by the VW Beetle, I think in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
Into the 1920s (don't remember the years now), well over 50% of the cars on US roads were Model Ts, so plenty of people must have known how to drive them. Definitely a driver's nightmare, at least by today's standards. Other brands became much easier to drive long before the T ended production.
However the T, which turned the tide with mass production and mass marketing, was always inferior to the steamers of its day in almost every way. The T could easily have been a cheap, mass-produced, mass-marketed steam car, perhaps roughly similar to the 10 hp Stanleys which the Twins made most of their profits on. If so, it would have been a much better machine, probably cheaper, and would have sold at least as well if not better. I think other makers would have eventually followed suit and we'd all be driving steamers now.
Peter</HTML>
To my knowledge, Henry Ford never built or even attempted a steam car. His first running car was a gas model. If he made early attempts at steam cars, I have never read of this, or even heard mention of it. At any rate, if Ford did try steamers and dumped them, he could always have changed his mind again later, perhaps after noting the success of other steam car makers. He did change his mind on a lot of other technical issues over his career. But I have read that he was dead-set on the gas car from the get-go. I didn't say that the T was his first model. He went from models A through S first, skipping a few letters as I recall.
Olds used mass-production techniques first, but not the combination of mass production plus mass marketing. Ford started that, including manufacturer car loans with easy payments.
Both steam and gas Whites were expensive because they were shop-built luxury cars rather than mass-produced, mass-marketed cars. Like every other company which did not combine mass production with mass marketing (and like many which did try, unlike any of the steam car makers), it wasn't too many years before White disappeared from the car market. Later White adopted mass production for trucks, and became very successful in that field.
I'll look up my sources on the 1910 date for gas cars outnumbering steamers. Keep in mind this figure is for cars on the road, not car sales. Either can be used as evidence for consumer preference. I might be a few years off on that, but it doesn't affect my main point, that mass production and mass marketing were the decisive factors. Available and affordable were what most people wanted & needed in a car at the time.
You are right about T and Stanley production figures, and about the Stanley racing record contributing to their fame. And steamers were indeed effectively banned from racing around the time of gas car ascendancy, which may be a factor in the steamer's demise. The T eventually went on to a production figure of about 27,000,000, far outstripping everything else, gas and steam. This production record was only beaten by the VW Beetle, I think in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
Into the 1920s (don't remember the years now), well over 50% of the cars on US roads were Model Ts, so plenty of people must have known how to drive them. Definitely a driver's nightmare, at least by today's standards. Other brands became much easier to drive long before the T ended production.
However the T, which turned the tide with mass production and mass marketing, was always inferior to the steamers of its day in almost every way. The T could easily have been a cheap, mass-produced, mass-marketed steam car, perhaps roughly similar to the 10 hp Stanleys which the Twins made most of their profits on. If so, it would have been a much better machine, probably cheaper, and would have sold at least as well if not better. I think other makers would have eventually followed suit and we'd all be driving steamers now.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2003 12:46PM
<HTML>I believe between 600 and 1000 Serpollets were made from 1890 to 1906, when Leon Serpollet died from tuberculosis. The company did not survive his death.
It is a moot point whether Stanley or White made more cars, they each made about 11,000. The "Stanley spin offs", Locomobile and Mobile, together made about another 10,000 steamers.</HTML>
It is a moot point whether Stanley or White made more cars, they each made about 11,000. The "Stanley spin offs", Locomobile and Mobile, together made about another 10,000 steamers.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2003 04:30PM
<HTML>See you at Blaine, Pat. We'll probably be staying at Hibbies, or we might park the camper at the meet site. Don't know yet. My outboard motor tower shaft is stuck in the straight ahead position, right now. Must have left some salt water in it from last year. Better got out there and get it free. I'll be running here on the Pend Oreille river all weekend probably. I'm looking forward to seeing your 1922 model.</HTML>
Re: cars/early production
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2003 08:53PM
<HTML>Hey guys,,,Look at early Locomobile production,,,They even beat DeDion I think,, who are thot to be the worlds early volume producer,,while Panhard was there first , at a price ,,,,Loco started shortly after 1 April,'99 in quantity,,,Dave ,,help me with the numbers,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2003 01:52PM
<HTML>David,
I think your estimate of the Stanley and White car production is right.
From my information and the latest White serial number we know of, they made about 11,300 steamers. Stanley is almost 11,000 too, from what I know. It could be a bit more. Essentially both were equal.
Let me ask you and Ben a question. If one was to commission a new replica Stanley H-K roadster, who would you go to for a really good job?
Jim</HTML>
I think your estimate of the Stanley and White car production is right.
From my information and the latest White serial number we know of, they made about 11,300 steamers. Stanley is almost 11,000 too, from what I know. It could be a bit more. Essentially both were equal.
Let me ask you and Ben a question. If one was to commission a new replica Stanley H-K roadster, who would you go to for a really good job?
Jim</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2003 02:44PM
<HTML>Peter,
Henry Ford was given a parcel of land by his father to get him to settle down and start farming and give up on his tinkering. While he was there he tried to build a steam traction engine which was to evolve into, or supply the information he needed to build a steam car. The project was a failure and scrapped before he moved to Detroit to work at Detroit Edison. Ford's lack of formal education may have played a part in his technical failure with steam. Olds had the same start in the auto business. Although his company was producing gasoline engines, his first transportation attempts were with steam and the boiler seemed too difficult a design task.
SSssteamer,
Yes, the 1901 olds factory fire limited production that first year but in 1902 they produced 2500 cars, more than all those registered in New York State at the time. Each year production was increased considerably, and the production records I have don't seem to be based on serial numbers but who knows for sure on that old stuff.
David,
Thanks for the numbers, do you have any individual figures for the spin offs ?
Cobern,
The 1901 locomobile was reputed to be the number 1 selling auto in America but the records of production I have are unclear.
Thanks all
Peter Heid</HTML>
Henry Ford was given a parcel of land by his father to get him to settle down and start farming and give up on his tinkering. While he was there he tried to build a steam traction engine which was to evolve into, or supply the information he needed to build a steam car. The project was a failure and scrapped before he moved to Detroit to work at Detroit Edison. Ford's lack of formal education may have played a part in his technical failure with steam. Olds had the same start in the auto business. Although his company was producing gasoline engines, his first transportation attempts were with steam and the boiler seemed too difficult a design task.
SSssteamer,
Yes, the 1901 olds factory fire limited production that first year but in 1902 they produced 2500 cars, more than all those registered in New York State at the time. Each year production was increased considerably, and the production records I have don't seem to be based on serial numbers but who knows for sure on that old stuff.
David,
Thanks for the numbers, do you have any individual figures for the spin offs ?
Cobern,
The 1901 locomobile was reputed to be the number 1 selling auto in America but the records of production I have are unclear.
Thanks all
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2003 10:26PM
<HTML>Jim,
Sorry to chime in but one of the best Stanley restorers around is Charlie Johnson in Pennsylvania (717-432-4738). I believe all he is working on now is Stanley's. He has done some beautiful restoration work plus I know he has put together a 30 hp Model 85.
Alan</HTML>
Sorry to chime in but one of the best Stanley restorers around is Charlie Johnson in Pennsylvania (717-432-4738). I believe all he is working on now is Stanley's. He has done some beautiful restoration work plus I know he has put together a 30 hp Model 85.
Alan</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 01:39AM
<HTML>Locomobiles: According to "The Genealogy of the Locomobile Steam Carriage" by Donald L. Ball, copyrighted 1994, based on serial numbers, Locomobile made 350 cars in 1899, 2049 cars in 1900, 2259 cars in 1901 and for 1903 it was undetermined how many were built.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 01:54AM
<HTML>Dear Alan, Charlie Johnson does the best work of anyone that I know of. But so far, he has not built a Stanley body from scratch that I know of. Maybe Mark Herman can build a HK body and running gear for Charlie to finish? Charlie has worked on two model 85's. He worked on mine first which Norm Shanklin had first started, then Charlie did a second one (a Mark Herman body) which he started and finished for Norm Shanklin. My model 85 body started out in Carl Amsley's shop. Norm's second 85 body started out in Mark Herman's shop I believe. Mark Herman's bodies are superior are are of the best around. Steamcerely, Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 02:30AM
<HTML>Hi Peter,
Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I learn something new every day. Maybe we can change automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam engineering/construction books, with info on the best boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars, practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I learn something new every day. Maybe we can change automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam engineering/construction books, with info on the best boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars, practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 12:39PM
<HTML>Alan & Pat,
I know Charlie's work, absolutely superb. If this idea gets off the ground, I will
contact Charlie and Mark. Thanks for the guidence.
Jim</HTML>
I know Charlie's work, absolutely superb. If this idea gets off the ground, I will
contact Charlie and Mark. Thanks for the guidence.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Martin Werbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 02:19PM
<HTML>Dear Peter,
Although I believe no information about the exact number of Serpollets exist, I would agree with David Neergard , the number was probably about 1000.
They were sold as Gardner- Serpollets from about 1900 .
There were also the Italian Serpollets build from 1906 to 1908. At least one of them still exists and was or maybe still is in the italian Quattroroute collection.
The Darraq-Serpollet commercial steamers were build until about 1912 or so, a great number of steam buses were used in London and Paris.
Serpollet build at least 9 special racing models, one of them can be seen in the French National Automobil Museum (the former Schlumpf bros. collection) in Mulhouse. This is probably the only original steam racing car which is still around.
It is not generally known that a Serpollet type "Nice" was timed at 132 km/h in late 1902 and was faster than the well-known "easter-egg".
The Serpollet racers were the only steam cars competing with i.c. cars in long distance runs of 500 - 600 km and more (Paris- Madrid, Paris-Vienna and others)
Regards, Martin</HTML>
Although I believe no information about the exact number of Serpollets exist, I would agree with David Neergard , the number was probably about 1000.
They were sold as Gardner- Serpollets from about 1900 .
There were also the Italian Serpollets build from 1906 to 1908. At least one of them still exists and was or maybe still is in the italian Quattroroute collection.
The Darraq-Serpollet commercial steamers were build until about 1912 or so, a great number of steam buses were used in London and Paris.
Serpollet build at least 9 special racing models, one of them can be seen in the French National Automobil Museum (the former Schlumpf bros. collection) in Mulhouse. This is probably the only original steam racing car which is still around.
It is not generally known that a Serpollet type "Nice" was timed at 132 km/h in late 1902 and was faster than the well-known "easter-egg".
The Serpollet racers were the only steam cars competing with i.c. cars in long distance runs of 500 - 600 km and more (Paris- Madrid, Paris-Vienna and others)
Regards, Martin</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2003 06:17PM
<HTML>I did a bit more reading last night and Locomobile outsold all petrol cars in 1899 & 1900 but more Columbia electrics were sold in 1900. In 1901, I have their sales at 1500 and in 1902, 2750, both years selling more cars than any other make in the US through 10 factory branches and 58 reps, coast to coast.
Some other interesting facts:
Whites best year was 1906 with the sales of 1534 cars and the following year the new 30 acre Cleveland Oh plant was built to keep up with demand.
In 1916 there were 779 Stanleys registered in their home state of Massachusetts, while there were 30,871 Fords and 25 other makes that had more registered vehicles.
By 1922 there were 2,250,000 cars in the US and a Stanley cost as much as $3950.00 while the Model T was around $600 at the time.</HTML>
Some other interesting facts:
Whites best year was 1906 with the sales of 1534 cars and the following year the new 30 acre Cleveland Oh plant was built to keep up with demand.
In 1916 there were 779 Stanleys registered in their home state of Massachusetts, while there were 30,871 Fords and 25 other makes that had more registered vehicles.
By 1922 there were 2,250,000 cars in the US and a Stanley cost as much as $3950.00 while the Model T was around $600 at the time.</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Howard Rnadall (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2003 10:23AM
<HTML>The early literature, c.1896-99, refers to the "newfangled gas engine" as an "explosion" engine! Could "internal combustion" be our first example of political correctness in support of a mass marketing effort? No wonder the horses went scurrying!</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2003 10:32AM
<HTML>The best clues I have to the numbers of steam cars actually made are the serial numbers of existing cars listed in the various Steam Car Registers. The highest Locomobile serial number is 5665, Mobile; 3558. Sadly, Serpollet numbers were not listed.</HTML>
Explosion/engine/ cars
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2003 01:35PM
<HTML>The reason gas engines took so long to develop was that the early engines were controlled by timing and mixture/fuel,,,,can you imagine the backfireand noise,,,,,The THROTTLE was the LAST part of the invention to make it a success,,,try finding that one,,,I spent much of a winter to get to understand that one,,,,,Now dont forget Morley tried to sell his internal combustion engine to the Baltimore & Ohio RR around 1835,,,It was a LIQUID fuel engine !!!! before Drakes well,,,I 'LL let U guys find that one,, Yes he did build a wagon,,,,,,clue,,,its mentioned in Duryea's papers,,,as he gives credit to Morley for inventing the CARBURETOR,,,,,NOT the Germans,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Explosion/engine/ cars
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2003 07:40PM
<HTML>In 1826 Samual Brown drove a internal combustion vehicle of his own design and patent, around in London. It was a 40 litre, 4 cylinder, engine said to burn spirits and after the burn was complete, a water spray cooled the cylinders and created a vacuum to power the engine. The spirits were, I believe, ignited by hand and a slow burning, far from an explosion was the power of the day. Though it was an atmospheric engine, that doesn't take any thing away from the accomplishment.</HTML>
Re: Explosion/engine/ cars
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2003 10:54PM
<HTML>Morey used both flame ign and electric as I recall Ben</HTML>
Re: Explosion/engine/ cars
Posted by: Erik and Nancy Jenson (IP Logged)
Date: September 14, 2004 12:28AM
<HTML> We have a Locomoble engine : twin cylinder doubleacting Made in
1900. We are cleaning it up at this minute. Erik purchased it in 1954 or
1956. He and his Father did run it . It has been in storage for years.
Erik would like to find out what it is worth. And would like to sell it in the near future.
Would you know what it would be worth. ???
He will look for the serial number on it. It has been years since he has seen the information that he once had on it.
Thank you for any information you can give us.
Erik and Nancy Jenson</HTML>
1900. We are cleaning it up at this minute. Erik purchased it in 1954 or
1956. He and his Father did run it . It has been in storage for years.
Erik would like to find out what it is worth. And would like to sell it in the near future.
Would you know what it would be worth. ???
He will look for the serial number on it. It has been years since he has seen the information that he once had on it.
Thank you for any information you can give us.
Erik and Nancy Jenson</HTML>
Re: Explosion/engine/ cars
Posted by: Philip Creider (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2004 04:58PM
<HTML>Are there modern (Stanley) Steam car reproductions available in the United States today? I am interested in one. I have found one in England.
Phil</HTML>
Phil</HTML>
Re: Stanley Steamer
Posted by: karen O'Neill (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2005 01:55PM
<HTML>I was talking with a friend this weekend and he said that his grandfather used to own a Stanley Steamer with the serial #2. I wonder where I could find information on this particular vehicle.
Thanking you in advance
Karen O'Neill</HTML>
Thanking you in advance
Karen O'Neill</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Carl Helsing (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2006 09:46AM
<HTML>Somehow I managed to get lost on the phorum site.I put an item in on a three valve system for internal combustion poppet valves on one page.On another,making the heat supply for the steam a fully jacketed internal combustion engine,steam and internal combustion becoming an actual unit system.Separation of the modes would apply mostly then where wood and coal is more conveniently available for steam only usage.After a few years of pondering the energy efficiency subject,I decided that Star Trek represented a derelict space craft still orbiting the planet after it piled up centuries ago,altering the whole process of engineering thought,thru errant data transmitted to the planet.It's presence somehow shifted evolution into a series process,making steam the first to arrive on the Earthly scene,followed by internal combustion.In paralle,these would have arrived together and worked together.That's a simple conclusion.Proving any truth in that is another.It's not politics or similar philosphical problems,but something lost and relegated to antiquity, now only a sometimes strained study,mere entertainment,with seemingly endless questions.I sometimes think it's the ship's cyber-system computer still trying to find out what went wrong and the system self-check has become numerous research programs and even institutions.Along with amusing antique pass-times.(which sometimes I enjoy too much)It's as if a whole system fell apart and was then pieced back together incorrectly.So now it's puzzle toy on one side with the main industrial wave charging ahead on the other.Maybe this will help support some of your ideas.Machine physics cannot compete.Maybe the need to play obscures that.I know it does for me.I have a text by Robert Reed,entitled Train Wrecks-1963 text- and in the boiler explosion section there are several photos of 600 ton Mallet type locomotives having the boiler hurled 150 feet by the force.Some others with superheater tubes hanging out like spaghetti.After finding and aquiring the text,I was no longer highly enthused about steam as such.I decided there was something very important missing in that specific motive power field.So,be careful with your steam.
<a href="mailto:ashenfern@webtv.net?subject=Re: Serpollet cars">Peter Brow</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I
> learn something new every day. Maybe we can change
> automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm
> (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam
> engineering/construction books, with info on the best
> boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
>
> I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars,
> practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while
> less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers
> favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so
> far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
>
> Peter</HTML>
<a href="mailto:ashenfern@webtv.net?subject=Re: Serpollet cars">Peter Brow</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I
> learn something new every day. Maybe we can change
> automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm
> (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam
> engineering/construction books, with info on the best
> boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
>
> I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars,
> practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while
> less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers
> favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so
> far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
>
> Peter</HTML>
Re: Serpollet cars
Posted by: Carl Helsing (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2006 09:46AM
<HTML>Somehow I managed to get lost on the phorum site.I put an item in on a three valve system for internal combustion poppet valves on one page.On another,making the heat supply for the steam a fully jacketed internal combustion engine,steam and internal combustion becoming an actual unit system.Separation of the modes would apply mostly then where wood and coal is more conveniently available for steam only usage.After a few years of pondering the energy efficiency subject,I decided that Star Trek represented a derelict space craft still orbiting the planet after it piled up centuries ago,altering the whole process of engineering thought,thru errant data transmitted to the planet.It's presence somehow shifted evolution into a series process,making steam the first to arrive on the Earthly scene,followed by internal combustion.In paralle,these would have arrived together and worked together.That's a simple conclusion.Proving any truth in that is another.It's not politics or similar philosphical problems,but something lost and relegated to antiquity, now only a sometimes strained study,mere entertainment,with seemingly endless questions.I sometimes think it's the ship's cyber-system computer still trying to find out what went wrong and the system self-check has become numerous research programs and even institutions.Along with amusing antique pass-times.(which sometimes I enjoy too much)It's as if a whole system fell apart and was then pieced back together incorrectly.So now it's puzzle toy on one side with the main industrial wave charging ahead on the other.Maybe this will help support some of your ideas.Machine physics cannot compete.Maybe the need to play obscures that.I know it does for me.I have a text by Robert Reed,entitled Train Wrecks-1963 text- and in the boiler explosion section there are several photos of 600 ton Mallet type locomotives having the boiler hurled 150 feet by the force.Some others with superheater tubes hanging out like spaghetti.After finding and aquiring the text,I was no longer highly enthused about steam as such.I decided there was something very important missing in that specific motive power field.So,be careful with your steam.
<a href="mailto:ashenfern@webtv.net?subject=Re: Serpollet cars">Peter Brow</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I
> learn something new every day. Maybe we can change
> automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm
> (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam
> engineering/construction books, with info on the best
> boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
>
> I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars,
> practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while
> less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers
> favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so
> far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
>
> Peter</HTML>
<a href="mailto:ashenfern@webtv.net?subject=Re: Serpollet cars">Peter Brow</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the Ford info. I didn't know that. Seems like I
> learn something new every day. Maybe we can change
> automotive history by going back in time to Henry's farm
> (what years?) and giving him some detailed steam
> engineering/construction books, with info on the best
> boilers, burners, & steam equipment of the time? :)
>
> I have read elsewhere that in the early days of cars,
> practical engineers tended to favor steam cars, while
> less-educated racers, tinkerers, and ambitious dreamers
> favored the newfangled gas engine. Automotive history (so
> far) seems to have been the triumph of the impractical.
>
> Peter</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.