1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: November 18, 2004 06:37PM
<HTML>Hey--Stanley Fiends!!
I've got a question for you Stanley guys (or dolls!)--how
much steam can a Stanley Boiler put out on a sustained, steady-
state basis?? Has anyone ever tested one to find out?? I'm
particularly interested in the 30 inch Stanley boilers' steaming
capacity.....and a related question--what is the maximum
firing rate for the 30 inch size boiler?? Did the Rocket have
an oversize burner-or was Marriott just running off reserve??
Something I've always wondered about also--how come
nobody ever "hotrodded" a Stanley?? By that I mean-cut
down and lightened the chassis like the T Model Ford enthusiasts did-
the original Vanderbilt cars were built for racing, but those were built
by the Stanley Factory--didn't anyone ever build a "Hotrod
Stanley"?
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
I've got a question for you Stanley guys (or dolls!)--how
much steam can a Stanley Boiler put out on a sustained, steady-
state basis?? Has anyone ever tested one to find out?? I'm
particularly interested in the 30 inch Stanley boilers' steaming
capacity.....and a related question--what is the maximum
firing rate for the 30 inch size boiler?? Did the Rocket have
an oversize burner-or was Marriott just running off reserve??
Something I've always wondered about also--how come
nobody ever "hotrodded" a Stanley?? By that I mean-cut
down and lightened the chassis like the T Model Ford enthusiasts did-
the original Vanderbilt cars were built for racing, but those were built
by the Stanley Factory--didn't anyone ever build a "Hotrod
Stanley"?
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: November 18, 2004 06:44PM
<HTML>Come on over an' tell me where I can take weight out of my racer,,,,I've looked pretty carefully,,,to weigh under 2204 is quite a trick,,,even look at a regular model ,, they are quite light,,,,Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: November 19, 2004 04:27AM
<HTML>Dear Chuck, Has any one hot rodded a Stanley? Our ten horse 1914 Stanley's boiler has been tweeked to the point that the 10 hp engine doesn't need any more steam for climbing hills. On the 6% and steeper grades, the boiler cycles off at 450 pounds and back on at 400 pounds while climbing at about 30 to 35 mph. The little 10 hp engine doesn't have enough displacement at the slower speeds to use all the steam that I can give it. On a recent long run down the Colorado Highway 82 out of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, at a steady 65 mph, I lifted the water in about the center of the boiler and I scortched about 6 tubes, and it only leaked when the boiler cycled off at 450 pounds. It would quite leaking while sitting idle at 300 psi. On the level, at 63+ mph speed, the boiler doesn't cycle on and off, it stays ON and it stays HOT. Afterwards, with 6 leakers, I had to swagged all of the tubes tight again. To get this high rate of evaporization, I have a 23" Stanley boiler by 14" tall (high count tube pattern) with a 23" Baker slotted burner. Burning straight kerosene at 160 psi through number 53 jets and using mixing tubes now with flares with a 1" radius, the burner is well fired. I do have a small 1/8" diameter jet restrictor at the rear of my main fuel vaporizer line to prevent flooding when the steam automatic instantly comes on. Fuel rate, I guess, is more than 6 gpm at 63+ mph. I don't usually push the little car this hard, but we had taken a wrong turn in the Colorado steam car tour and I was about 20 minutes late. Even with 2 lanes of south bound travel, no one passed us on the Colorado State hwy 82. As it turned out, we caught up with the rest of the tour in a short time. At the level that our boiler is performing, the next best way to use all of it's available steam is either by going to piston valves or by using a larger 20 hp Stanley engine. The 10 hp engine has the Howard Johnson engine kit in it which makes a big difference for reliability. With 40 to 56 gearing, the Stanley is most happy cruising along at 50 mph. The 10 hp car is hot enough for me. No more hot rod improvements are now needed. The mechanical brakes work good too. Plan ahead for stopping though. Steam reverse assist braking is often employed. Our 1914 Stanley weights in about 500 pounds more than our 1500 pound 1909 Stanley Model R. That much heavier because of all of the accessories that we have added. Steaming is fun!</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: November 19, 2004 07:42PM
<HTML>SSsssteamer,
Interesting you only use 450psi. What's the bore of your mixing tubes?
At 6gpm(!!!) - must tow an oil well.
Went down Highway 82 with my !925 Salmson in 1998 - great motoring country out there. Did 9200 miles coast to coast and back in six weeks - wish I could get that reliability in a Stanley!
Mike</HTML>
Interesting you only use 450psi. What's the bore of your mixing tubes?
At 6gpm(!!!) - must tow an oil well.
Went down Highway 82 with my !925 Salmson in 1998 - great motoring country out there. Did 9200 miles coast to coast and back in six weeks - wish I could get that reliability in a Stanley!
Mike</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: November 19, 2004 09:31PM
<HTML>Dear Mike, I am glad that you caught my typo. The rate of fuel should have read 6+ gallons per hour, not minutes per hour. That still is a little rough mileage on my tank of keorsene. Refilling on the road while hot will give me a little longer range. If a person can tour with his Stanley at speeds below 35 mph, water and fuel mileage both greatly increase. The inside ID of the mixing tubes of my Baker burner are 2 3/8" . Big Daddys... Colorado has to be one of the prettier states to tour in.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: November 20, 2004 06:51PM
<HTML>Well-
Thanks-y'all--for the info....I guess the bottom line
is that-the Stanleys were fast enough and had enough
flexibility to be "hotrods" in modified stock condition...
Coburn--
From what I hear from G. Nutz about your VCR-
if it was any lighter than it is--you'd need to register
it with the FAA!
Pat-
I've always heard that the 10HP Stanleys were
the "hottest" ones on the road--sounds like you have
that one of yours dialed in pretty well....
Cheers----Chuk</HTML>
Thanks-y'all--for the info....I guess the bottom line
is that-the Stanleys were fast enough and had enough
flexibility to be "hotrods" in modified stock condition...
Coburn--
From what I hear from G. Nutz about your VCR-
if it was any lighter than it is--you'd need to register
it with the FAA!
Pat-
I've always heard that the 10HP Stanleys were
the "hottest" ones on the road--sounds like you have
that one of yours dialed in pretty well....
Cheers----Chuk</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: November 21, 2004 05:25AM
<HTML>Dear Chuck, The 10 hp Stanleys were some of the most agile Stanleys made. The 30 hp Model K was the fastest, the model H-K the most agile and it is fast too. The 20 hp model H was downright fun and agile. What is surprising with our 10 hp Stanley is that finally after all these years, on a steep hill we can now make more steam that it can use. We followed Dick Well’s 20 hp model R up a grade one day to St. Elmo, Colorado and he still walked away from us, and that is the horsepower advantage of a 20 hp engine/boiler in a light weight car. Most of your 1910 to 1914 Stanleys properly tuned are hard to beat though. Usually what you run out of first in the old cars that limits your speed is good brakes and good steering.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: David Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: November 21, 2004 01:09PM
<HTML>One reason the Stanley "tens" were so quick was that they were over boilered. A twenty inch boiler is more nearly fifteen horse power with a Stanley engine. Almost all the early Stanleys were quite swift between water stops, but not so fast if the stop times were figured in.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Peter Turvey (IP Logged)
Date: November 21, 2004 08:02PM
<HTML>The English Stanley Steam car Company catalogue for 1914 lists the Model 606 and 607 cars as 12/15 hp, reflecting the steaming capacity of the 20 inch boiler
It will be interesting to see how our Model 607 performs, fresh from a total mechanical rebuild plus new 20 inch boiler & burner, all by John Goold, but with the original 30:56 gearing.</HTML>
It will be interesting to see how our Model 607 performs, fresh from a total mechanical rebuild plus new 20 inch boiler & burner, all by John Goold, but with the original 30:56 gearing.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Martin (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2004 04:23PM
<HTML>dear Chuck,
It seems the Stanley boiler output can vary a lot depending on the burner type and condition and wether a feedwater heater is fitted. To keep the boiler clean internally is most important. When the feedwater supply is cut off, the steaming rate is a lot higher for a few minutes.
I remember the 1906 racer with a 30 " boiler and four (?) burner jets was rated at 50 hp continously, that is probably equal to roughly 1000 lb/hr output.
The output can be estimated by calculating the heat output of burner (e.g. 4-6 gal/hr kerosene for a 23 "unit) divided by the heat content of the steam (at 500 psi/700°F or so) minus the heat content of the feedwater and allowing for, say, 80 % boiler efficiency.
The Stanleys build some special 30 HP roadsters in 1912/13, some very interesting photos of them are in the Stanley Museum`s book and a nice colour picture of a surviving example is in the "Automobile Quaterly".
I find these cars looked really good with the lowered and stretched body, and where said to be capable of "close to 90 mph" !
I think it would be really worth making a replica of the disc-wheeled one -of course with a stronger steering gear !!
regards, Martin</HTML>
It seems the Stanley boiler output can vary a lot depending on the burner type and condition and wether a feedwater heater is fitted. To keep the boiler clean internally is most important. When the feedwater supply is cut off, the steaming rate is a lot higher for a few minutes.
I remember the 1906 racer with a 30 " boiler and four (?) burner jets was rated at 50 hp continously, that is probably equal to roughly 1000 lb/hr output.
The output can be estimated by calculating the heat output of burner (e.g. 4-6 gal/hr kerosene for a 23 "unit) divided by the heat content of the steam (at 500 psi/700°F or so) minus the heat content of the feedwater and allowing for, say, 80 % boiler efficiency.
The Stanleys build some special 30 HP roadsters in 1912/13, some very interesting photos of them are in the Stanley Museum`s book and a nice colour picture of a surviving example is in the "Automobile Quaterly".
I find these cars looked really good with the lowered and stretched body, and where said to be capable of "close to 90 mph" !
I think it would be really worth making a replica of the disc-wheeled one -of course with a stronger steering gear !!
regards, Martin</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2004 03:59AM
<HTML>Dear Martin, 90 mph wouldn't be much of a challenge for a 30 hp roadster. I have seen the Vanderbilt cup racer of Buck Boudman's maintain 90 mph on it's maiden voyage. How fast could it really maintain? Only Buck really knows. Coburn Benson now owns this same car. I rode in a bone stock 1909 20 hp Stanley roadster at a maintained speed of 83 mph a number of years ago. In the 1909 Season catalog, they pitched the model R as "it is intended for those that wish to hit up a speed of 60 to 70 miles an hour on a good safe road, and still be able to run through city streets without danger of overheating or "stalling". And this was on dirt roads in 1909! What could this same car do with a larger boiler and a larger engine today? A couple of the things that should be mentioned here are: the hotter the day, the better the Stanley runs (wind chill factor). You get better performance after the Stanley has had about 8 miles of hard running to get everything really hot. A good running Stanley doesn't normally happen by accident. It takes a bit of experimenting to find the right operating pressures, jet sizes and branch fork spacing, etc. After a Stanley has been sorted out, it is a pleasure to drive.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: David Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2004 11:05AM
<HTML>From the Stanley factory correspndence published by Clarence Coons; excerpt from a letter to Alfred Rogers, 21 Feb., 1918:
"Our 23 inch boiler will evaporate 325 pounds of water per hour under 500 pounds pressure under the consumption of 23 2/10 pounds of kerosene."</HTML>
"Our 23 inch boiler will evaporate 325 pounds of water per hour under 500 pounds pressure under the consumption of 23 2/10 pounds of kerosene."</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2004 11:59AM
<HTML>I have driven one of the three original Model K's that exist. This particular car still has the original burner with the single fuel system and was run on pump gas. The day I drove it we were cruising quite effortlessly at 55 mph with the steam gauge sitting on 500 psi. The car is geared at .8 to 1. It had a lot more capability. I have also ridden in the same car with the owner driving and accelerating rapidly up a significant grade over a short distance. The car was still able to maintain boiler pressure. These early cars with the lightweight bodies were real quick.
Alan</HTML>
Alan</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Martin (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2004 03:20PM
<HTML>Dear SSsssteamer,
It seems the heat loss caused by radiation was frequently underestimated by the old designers. I think of all that naked copper tubing connected to the boiler !
325 lb/hr seems dissapointingly low, although the fuel/water ratio of 1 : 14 is exceptionally good.
Although a Stanley really invites the driver to open the throttle wide and fly along (probably to impress the girl-friend and the passengers), care must be taken to keep things under control.
On a recent trip with a 735 Stanley we were going up a slight hill at a good pace with a wide open throttle.
On the following slight downgrade with the traffic light at the bottom turning to red, the brakes were applied.
The hind wheels slipped immediatly on the slightly wet road, and we only came to a stop in the middle of the road crossing.
Fortunately there was no other traffic at that time, but I learned that
it is very easy to drive a Stanley too fast for its brakes.
I found a misjudgement of the speed can be caused by the high seating position. The different angle at which one looks on the street gives the impression the car is running slower than it really is.
For the same reason, when a car race is filmed for a movie, the camera position is usually low near the ground, giving the viewer the impression
the cars are going faster than the really are.
Martin</HTML>
It seems the heat loss caused by radiation was frequently underestimated by the old designers. I think of all that naked copper tubing connected to the boiler !
325 lb/hr seems dissapointingly low, although the fuel/water ratio of 1 : 14 is exceptionally good.
Although a Stanley really invites the driver to open the throttle wide and fly along (probably to impress the girl-friend and the passengers), care must be taken to keep things under control.
On a recent trip with a 735 Stanley we were going up a slight hill at a good pace with a wide open throttle.
On the following slight downgrade with the traffic light at the bottom turning to red, the brakes were applied.
The hind wheels slipped immediatly on the slightly wet road, and we only came to a stop in the middle of the road crossing.
Fortunately there was no other traffic at that time, but I learned that
it is very easy to drive a Stanley too fast for its brakes.
I found a misjudgement of the speed can be caused by the high seating position. The different angle at which one looks on the street gives the impression the car is running slower than it really is.
For the same reason, when a car race is filmed for a movie, the camera position is usually low near the ground, giving the viewer the impression
the cars are going faster than the really are.
Martin</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: November 24, 2004 04:23PM
<HTML>Martin,
Your numbers very good!
With almost all Stanleys they evaporated 80#/hr per gallon burned and thus the 23" 4GPH evaaporated about 320#/hr, with the Baker burner pushing 6GPH about 480#. This is with constant replacement feedwater and resulted in about 16HP for the 23" and 24HP for the 6 gallon burn rate---this is also equal to the stock 6GPH Stanley 26" burner. With feedwater off it would increase to 24HP and 36HP when using 600psi saturated water temperature. The 06 racer with 4 venturi tubes burned 11.5+GPH and would produce about 47HP. At Ormond in 06 all runs ncluding the 10 mile run were run with feedpumps off and 800PSI oressure---- this would increase horsepower to 77HP and it had enough water in the boiler to do the 10 mile run carefully without any boiler overdraw, I believe in this state it averaged 107MPH for that race. A new racer with 2- 26" boilers and two 8GPH Baker burners would be quite a short term fierce racer for a high speed run, possibly achieving 170MPH for the one mile. When all the different runs are studied and analyzed all the pieces start fitting together to yield some results. It was marvelous how each run invlolved a separate lplan of attack---how much water to carry, how much the throttle could be opened at the start etc.
A wonderful piece of history. By the way I have put thermocouples on the most original "K" that came form the Harrahs collection and it was exciting to put the car thru its paces and take all the test data.
George</HTML>
Your numbers very good!
With almost all Stanleys they evaporated 80#/hr per gallon burned and thus the 23" 4GPH evaaporated about 320#/hr, with the Baker burner pushing 6GPH about 480#. This is with constant replacement feedwater and resulted in about 16HP for the 23" and 24HP for the 6 gallon burn rate---this is also equal to the stock 6GPH Stanley 26" burner. With feedwater off it would increase to 24HP and 36HP when using 600psi saturated water temperature. The 06 racer with 4 venturi tubes burned 11.5+GPH and would produce about 47HP. At Ormond in 06 all runs ncluding the 10 mile run were run with feedpumps off and 800PSI oressure---- this would increase horsepower to 77HP and it had enough water in the boiler to do the 10 mile run carefully without any boiler overdraw, I believe in this state it averaged 107MPH for that race. A new racer with 2- 26" boilers and two 8GPH Baker burners would be quite a short term fierce racer for a high speed run, possibly achieving 170MPH for the one mile. When all the different runs are studied and analyzed all the pieces start fitting together to yield some results. It was marvelous how each run invlolved a separate lplan of attack---how much water to carry, how much the throttle could be opened at the start etc.
A wonderful piece of history. By the way I have put thermocouples on the most original "K" that came form the Harrahs collection and it was exciting to put the car thru its paces and take all the test data.
George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Martin (IP Logged)
Date: November 25, 2004 05:35PM
<HTML>dear George,
Thanks for the most interesting info. The model "K"-data is certainly interesting !
To improve fire-tube boilers, it may be possible to fit some thermo-syphon water tubes underneath to increase radiative heat absorbing surface and improve water circulation. This would allow higher burner heat rates without overheating the bottom tube plate.
I feel a modernised Stanley "Rocket" would be a better idea for a new record attempt instead of evaporating the available money in flash boilers and turbines, as the British SLSR people do.
Unfortunately their car may never move one inch under its own steam. Just like the IAVs hyper-modern zero-emission car, which already cost about 14,000,000 Dollars until 2001 and still more until now. One could build a lot of nice running Stanley replicas with that money !
Martin</HTML>
Thanks for the most interesting info. The model "K"-data is certainly interesting !
To improve fire-tube boilers, it may be possible to fit some thermo-syphon water tubes underneath to increase radiative heat absorbing surface and improve water circulation. This would allow higher burner heat rates without overheating the bottom tube plate.
I feel a modernised Stanley "Rocket" would be a better idea for a new record attempt instead of evaporating the available money in flash boilers and turbines, as the British SLSR people do.
Unfortunately their car may never move one inch under its own steam. Just like the IAVs hyper-modern zero-emission car, which already cost about 14,000,000 Dollars until 2001 and still more until now. One could build a lot of nice running Stanley replicas with that money !
Martin</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: November 25, 2004 09:57PM
<HTML>Martin,
The steam technology options you mention only include one that has potential future use in the 21st century. Most of the money being spent on steamers is going into obsolete designs that have a private fun element only.
I would like to see a reciprocating steam system beat the 1906 record just to prove that something better can be built. The only significant steam record in motoring history seems to be this record relating to the first car to travel at a speed of more than 2 miles a minute.
We also have to do better than a steamer that can only perform for a minute or two. A good performance car would be capable of highway and city driving, be able to drive to the race track and performa well against any competition without wearing out or breaking, and then be able to drive home again. If you can't do that with a steamer I'm not interested in it (or any other speciality car). Real world race cars travel at around 200mph for a few hours at a time so this is an unrealistic goal for steamers due to the condensing problem for sustained high power running. Steamers need to find a respectable place somewhere in the auto pecking order. We need to do better than 19th century replica designs that are heavy, occupy a lot of space and have relative poor fuel economy. These do not impress the motoring community or attract investment dollars.
IAV has built one of the few steam engines that is more economical than a petrol fuelled ICE and suitable for modern road transport. While the technology could be scaled to any size, hot rodding it at this stage would not be relevant to international motor transport problems.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
The steam technology options you mention only include one that has potential future use in the 21st century. Most of the money being spent on steamers is going into obsolete designs that have a private fun element only.
I would like to see a reciprocating steam system beat the 1906 record just to prove that something better can be built. The only significant steam record in motoring history seems to be this record relating to the first car to travel at a speed of more than 2 miles a minute.
We also have to do better than a steamer that can only perform for a minute or two. A good performance car would be capable of highway and city driving, be able to drive to the race track and performa well against any competition without wearing out or breaking, and then be able to drive home again. If you can't do that with a steamer I'm not interested in it (or any other speciality car). Real world race cars travel at around 200mph for a few hours at a time so this is an unrealistic goal for steamers due to the condensing problem for sustained high power running. Steamers need to find a respectable place somewhere in the auto pecking order. We need to do better than 19th century replica designs that are heavy, occupy a lot of space and have relative poor fuel economy. These do not impress the motoring community or attract investment dollars.
IAV has built one of the few steam engines that is more economical than a petrol fuelled ICE and suitable for modern road transport. While the technology could be scaled to any size, hot rodding it at this stage would not be relevant to international motor transport problems.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: December 03, 2004 09:21AM
<HTML>Chuk,
The various bits of info I have seen on the Stanley record breaker indicates:
The 1906 Record was run with a 2 burner 30hp boiler operating but feed pumps off as they could not pump against the raised boiler pressure of about 1,000 psi. I believe the continuous power rating of the engine/boiler combination was 50hp, and double that for 3 minutes.
Four burners are understood to be used for the incomplete 1907 run, with pressure raised to 1300 psi, again with feed pumps off.
So it looks like the runs were done on stored water capacity (with the water level topped up at low pressure) and with the burners on. George has given burner capacities.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
The various bits of info I have seen on the Stanley record breaker indicates:
The 1906 Record was run with a 2 burner 30hp boiler operating but feed pumps off as they could not pump against the raised boiler pressure of about 1,000 psi. I believe the continuous power rating of the engine/boiler combination was 50hp, and double that for 3 minutes.
Four burners are understood to be used for the incomplete 1907 run, with pressure raised to 1300 psi, again with feed pumps off.
So it looks like the runs were done on stored water capacity (with the water level topped up at low pressure) and with the burners on. George has given burner capacities.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: December 03, 2004 03:56PM
<HTML>Graeme,
From all the collected data that Coburn has amassed I do believe both the '06 and'07 had 4 venturi burners, the '06 copper tubes and run at 800psi(God help us!) and the '07 steel tubes and run up to 1300psi, yes all runs studied were with water pumps off. Frank Stanley stated it was a 50HP car but after a lot of study and analysis think 47 closer--that is with pumps on. According to Marriot the car was only run on the dyno to make sure everything was working properly, it doesn't appear the dyno was capable of running at higher horsepowers. It would really be a cheap way to go to recreate the car and run it at its full potential and also show that the 1907 engineering was capable of more than the records show. Careful analysis of the one mile 1906 Dewars Cup all out drag race in competition gives some rather awesome performance from a rolling start and borders on the unbelievable---that is 31 seconds to cover the mile on the beach from a rolling start, possibly doing 30-40 mph at the starting line. It proves the car was capable of brutal acceleration about equal to a 2001 Corvette and left the european competitors about 1/4 mile behind at the finish line. I believe three times were recorded. I call this the forgotten run as so much attention was paid to the flying mile run.
It is a shame that the necessary funding to create a most modern car appears non-exiistent and prevents a modern effort that we would all enjoy occure - this must be so frustrating to those of you that could achieve this in actuality and know the time and cost of creating actual working prototype systems. Enough of my blathering for now.
Best, George</HTML>
From all the collected data that Coburn has amassed I do believe both the '06 and'07 had 4 venturi burners, the '06 copper tubes and run at 800psi(God help us!) and the '07 steel tubes and run up to 1300psi, yes all runs studied were with water pumps off. Frank Stanley stated it was a 50HP car but after a lot of study and analysis think 47 closer--that is with pumps on. According to Marriot the car was only run on the dyno to make sure everything was working properly, it doesn't appear the dyno was capable of running at higher horsepowers. It would really be a cheap way to go to recreate the car and run it at its full potential and also show that the 1907 engineering was capable of more than the records show. Careful analysis of the one mile 1906 Dewars Cup all out drag race in competition gives some rather awesome performance from a rolling start and borders on the unbelievable---that is 31 seconds to cover the mile on the beach from a rolling start, possibly doing 30-40 mph at the starting line. It proves the car was capable of brutal acceleration about equal to a 2001 Corvette and left the european competitors about 1/4 mile behind at the finish line. I believe three times were recorded. I call this the forgotten run as so much attention was paid to the flying mile run.
It is a shame that the necessary funding to create a most modern car appears non-exiistent and prevents a modern effort that we would all enjoy occure - this must be so frustrating to those of you that could achieve this in actuality and know the time and cost of creating actual working prototype systems. Enough of my blathering for now.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: December 03, 2004 06:58PM
<HTML>Hi,,,In talking with Fred many years ago he said the front end was noticably lighter on hard acceleration,,as the steering became very light. I can only immagine as a young man ,,, he had open'd er up a bit on a corner and found this to be true ,, haha I believe I recalled Fred actually SMILED that day,,another day worth the trip . With the tall gearing the racer had , I was suprised to hear this,and so put it as a point of importance to remember. Has annyone found annything on weather the 30'' [ not 30 HP ] burner actually had a PILOT. There is some dispute on this. Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: December 03, 2004 07:42PM
<HTML>Ben,
I understand there was no pilot used on the 4 venturi Stanley boiler as the suction was too great. It needed two people to light off the boiler, one with a match at the top of the boiler flue with the second opening the fuel valve.
Graeme</HTML>
I understand there was no pilot used on the 4 venturi Stanley boiler as the suction was too great. It needed two people to light off the boiler, one with a match at the top of the boiler flue with the second opening the fuel valve.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: December 03, 2004 08:07PM
<HTML>The way I heard it,,,Heat the beegebers out of the forks,,open the valve an' tos a HANDFULL of wood matches down er pipe'''',,,,'''' WOOOUMPH its LIT ? ?? ??? ???? GOTTTIT ,,, no MUSS, NO FUSS, ,,,RACE time is in minutes I kinda wonder if this is the way it was,,,but Fred had a way of gettn' spectators that alllways get between where YOU want to be an the car,,,A REALLY GOOD WHOOMPH sounds Like a good answer to me,,, Scatter grinade,,,CROWD control .... I can in my minds eye see em' bent over in laughter now,,,and Victor Hemery,w/ a poker face smile,,,Fred an Victor had a great week,,Now whose goin to put a 200HP Darracq on the start line???anny takers,,??? I'll bring the Loco,,[ I hope} A real V-C competitor [[3rd place]]</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: December 04, 2004 08:07PM
<HTML>Great this this- keep it going. Ben your posts are terrific.
Hemery's 200hp V8 Darracq - or at least part of it, still exists - the engine and some of the frame. It is supposed to be being put back together but progress is slow.
Mike</HTML>
Hemery's 200hp V8 Darracq - or at least part of it, still exists - the engine and some of the frame. It is supposed to be being put back together but progress is slow.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: December 04, 2004 10:42PM
<HTML>Where where,,,oh great,,,now can we find if he had a grandson,,,If only the spirit survives,,,oops,sorry I was dreaming again,,,His spirit had no limits and got him in trouble,,,for those that havent read of his er ah as I recalll , spit in the starters face,,won the race,,,got disqulified,,,,they put him on the smallest of 3 cars,,an Guess who won,,,He ran a restaurant at LeMans as I recall,,,It was sort of like Mrs Crooks-Morris hotel at IOM,,,Her son ran the 500c class {SENIOR] for manny manny years,,That was THE place to stay in Douglas,,,Do you know what the B - S of the Durracq was,,,The Loco was called 120HP b-s //7.25 X 6'' = 986 I think,,,While off thread,,it may give some of the boys a idea of what the early 1000K class was all about,,,How many of these cars can we get to a single meet,,What good is a Vanderbilt Stanley without competition?? 1908 was the last year of the big class . Fred so embaressed the Europeans that the factory sponsored cars did not come back in 1907,,Now you will recall,of course that one of the factory Mercedes was driven by a professional chauffeur,,,part of the household staff of Kizar Willheim ,,, They all had a good party at Long Island,,Mr Stanley had planned on attending as he had seats in the 3rd row,1906 VCR,, Now a IMPORTANT question,,Does annyone know if Messrs Stanley were friends of Andrew Riker,,of Locomobile,,,Certainly they did business on patents etc,,,,Riker was issued a patent on the electric dynamometer in 1893 as I recall [from memory] wonder if it was similar to the one at Bridgeport in 1905-06 that they tested ALL Locomobiles on,,WOW ALL,,,so they advertised ,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: Christopher W. roberts (IP Logged)
Date: December 14, 2004 10:06PM
<HTML> Many owners have "hot rod'ed" their Stanley's I am one of them. Several years ago I took out the 20 h.p. boiler, (23" by 18")installed a 30 h.p. Stanley boiler, (26 1/2" by 18") and a 30 h.p. Baker burner into my 1922 Stanley Model 740-E 5 passenger brougham sedan. (Note, the factory specs and all other brougham's are 740-F, only my Stanley is the exception.)
With a standard 20 h.p. boiler and burner all it would do was about 15 miles per hour with a standard Stanley burner. When it came to hills, a bicycle would easily pass me and come down the hill only to pass me again.
With the 30 h.p. boiler I can easily do 50+ m.p.h. on open road and climb any hill at 30 m.p.h. +. I have even passed a standard 1910 10 h.p. roadster on a hill.
I do however stress that it is better to take it easy with the Stanley as they are almost 100 years old. Bigger boilers mean only more reserve to draw from. The engine will still use the same amount of steam it was desighned for.
CWR</HTML>
With a standard 20 h.p. boiler and burner all it would do was about 15 miles per hour with a standard Stanley burner. When it came to hills, a bicycle would easily pass me and come down the hill only to pass me again.
With the 30 h.p. boiler I can easily do 50+ m.p.h. on open road and climb any hill at 30 m.p.h. +. I have even passed a standard 1910 10 h.p. roadster on a hill.
I do however stress that it is better to take it easy with the Stanley as they are almost 100 years old. Bigger boilers mean only more reserve to draw from. The engine will still use the same amount of steam it was desighned for.
CWR</HTML>
Re: Stanley Boiler Question
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2005 12:29PM
<HTML>Chris, I've got to ask: what was wrong with the old boiler/burner? It should have been MUCH better than you claim.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.