1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Simon Cast (IP Logged)
Date: January 25, 2005 09:41AM
<HTML>Hello all
I have not posted on here for a while now because Modelworks have been very busy with the Likamobile replica. That is selling extraordinarily well so much so that we have only 21 left of our initial run of 100. We are already looking around for a replacement to follow that when the Likamobile kits finish in June/July 2006.
I have broadly floated the idea of a "Coffin-nosed" replica on different steam discussion bulletin boards before but not with as much serious intent as now. I favour the H5 20hp or Gentlemans runabout vehicle I think from about 1910-1912. The dates may be wrong please feel free to correct me if you know better, by the way.
We have already had 4 letters from existing Likamobile clients who have pre-ordered (pre-reserved is probably a better expression) the coffin-nosed replica if we ever do it. I would probably only want to do no more than 25 or 30 coffin-nosed replicas because they would be a lot more expensive than the Likamobile has proven to be.
As we are only a relatively small engineering firm and the risk would be huge given the investment required in the project, at least two thirds or ideally three quarters of the initial run would need to be pre-sold before we could even go into production of the first kit of components of the anticipated subsequent 24 monthly kits.
Sadly the Coffin-nosed replica would be in the $55-60,000 range or basically nearly triple the Likamobile. Like the likamobile it would have a modern boiler and burner system but it would be a steam vehicle and it would be road legal from day one. We would achieve all the relevant kit car accreditations and regulations we would need to be able to sell it as a road legal kit car.
If you feel the project is a worthwhile one please feel free to express your thoughts both positive and negative. I believe it is, but you may have different views, also do you consider the choice of vehicle the correct one to use as a replica?
I await your thoughts with great interest and enthusiasm.
Kind Regards
Simon Cast Modelworks</HTML>
I have not posted on here for a while now because Modelworks have been very busy with the Likamobile replica. That is selling extraordinarily well so much so that we have only 21 left of our initial run of 100. We are already looking around for a replacement to follow that when the Likamobile kits finish in June/July 2006.
I have broadly floated the idea of a "Coffin-nosed" replica on different steam discussion bulletin boards before but not with as much serious intent as now. I favour the H5 20hp or Gentlemans runabout vehicle I think from about 1910-1912. The dates may be wrong please feel free to correct me if you know better, by the way.
We have already had 4 letters from existing Likamobile clients who have pre-ordered (pre-reserved is probably a better expression) the coffin-nosed replica if we ever do it. I would probably only want to do no more than 25 or 30 coffin-nosed replicas because they would be a lot more expensive than the Likamobile has proven to be.
As we are only a relatively small engineering firm and the risk would be huge given the investment required in the project, at least two thirds or ideally three quarters of the initial run would need to be pre-sold before we could even go into production of the first kit of components of the anticipated subsequent 24 monthly kits.
Sadly the Coffin-nosed replica would be in the $55-60,000 range or basically nearly triple the Likamobile. Like the likamobile it would have a modern boiler and burner system but it would be a steam vehicle and it would be road legal from day one. We would achieve all the relevant kit car accreditations and regulations we would need to be able to sell it as a road legal kit car.
If you feel the project is a worthwhile one please feel free to express your thoughts both positive and negative. I believe it is, but you may have different views, also do you consider the choice of vehicle the correct one to use as a replica?
I await your thoughts with great interest and enthusiasm.
Kind Regards
Simon Cast Modelworks</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Kobus van Jaarsveld (IP Logged)
Date: January 25, 2005 06:39PM
<HTML>According to my Oxford Dictionary, "replica" means "Duplicate made by original artist of his picture etc.; facsimily, exact copy"
I find it difficult to understand why cars such as these are claimed to be "replicas" I would have thought that "lookalike" is closer to the mark.
Regards, Kobus</HTML>
I find it difficult to understand why cars such as these are claimed to be "replicas" I would have thought that "lookalike" is closer to the mark.
Regards, Kobus</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: peter turvey (IP Logged)
Date: January 25, 2005 06:50PM
<HTML>Simon
I would prefer to call these reproductions - no way can they be a perfect replica - but the H5 is certainly the on to go for if Mike Clark's car here in the UK is anything to judge by. The price you mention does not sound unreasonable given the value of any original coffin-nosed car, let alone a H5.
I'm afraid I could not make the London ME show at Alexandra Palace & visit your stand.</HTML>
I would prefer to call these reproductions - no way can they be a perfect replica - but the H5 is certainly the on to go for if Mike Clark's car here in the UK is anything to judge by. The price you mention does not sound unreasonable given the value of any original coffin-nosed car, let alone a H5.
I'm afraid I could not make the London ME show at Alexandra Palace & visit your stand.</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 25, 2005 06:50PM
<HTML>Simon,
If you are going to have a boiler stamped/approved it will probably not be of the Stanley type---if you go to another water tube type it may not have the reserve overdraw capacity to have the "replica" perform like the original. Do you have a Stanley type boiler in the "likamobile", if so it would be considerably heavier than the piano wound version. It is hard to beat the low efficiency(#/sq-ft/hr) Stanley type for overdraw capacity. Certainly the choice of the H5 is a very good one to consider, light fun and fast.
Best, George</HTML>
If you are going to have a boiler stamped/approved it will probably not be of the Stanley type---if you go to another water tube type it may not have the reserve overdraw capacity to have the "replica" perform like the original. Do you have a Stanley type boiler in the "likamobile", if so it would be considerably heavier than the piano wound version. It is hard to beat the low efficiency(#/sq-ft/hr) Stanley type for overdraw capacity. Certainly the choice of the H5 is a very good one to consider, light fun and fast.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Simon Cast (IP Logged)
Date: January 26, 2005 11:30AM
<HTML>Hi George
Thanks for your input I really appreciate it. The Likamobile we are doing has a Derr/Winslow boiler not a Stanley, that was the one we had the best chance of getting certification for, and we now have that by the way. Our Derr boiler will be steel and weigh about the same as the Piano wound original Locomobile boiler. Our Likamobile prototype has already got up to 40mph, and from start up to full steam pressure takes about 2 minutes. Needless to say our Likamobile also has 4 wheel disc braking!
THe H5 Reproduction (I don't mind that description at all guys, probably far more accurate anyway) would also have the same Derr boiler and 4 wheel disc braking system as the Likamobile only obviously uprated. By my reckoning the H5 with our Derr boiler and burner system should comfortably exceed 70mph-ish. The figure of $55-60,000 is I believe do-able now that we have acquired a considerable amount of experience from the Likamobile project in such a relatively short period of time. I would also anticipate the H5 being a 24 month build programme with kit 1 being despatched in early 2007. The numbers would inevitably be strictly limited and I would guess 30 as an absolute maximum, with first refusal being given to all our Likamobile clients to thank them for their support for the Likamobile project.
Kind regards
Simo Cast Modelworks</HTML>
Thanks for your input I really appreciate it. The Likamobile we are doing has a Derr/Winslow boiler not a Stanley, that was the one we had the best chance of getting certification for, and we now have that by the way. Our Derr boiler will be steel and weigh about the same as the Piano wound original Locomobile boiler. Our Likamobile prototype has already got up to 40mph, and from start up to full steam pressure takes about 2 minutes. Needless to say our Likamobile also has 4 wheel disc braking!
THe H5 Reproduction (I don't mind that description at all guys, probably far more accurate anyway) would also have the same Derr boiler and 4 wheel disc braking system as the Likamobile only obviously uprated. By my reckoning the H5 with our Derr boiler and burner system should comfortably exceed 70mph-ish. The figure of $55-60,000 is I believe do-able now that we have acquired a considerable amount of experience from the Likamobile project in such a relatively short period of time. I would also anticipate the H5 being a 24 month build programme with kit 1 being despatched in early 2007. The numbers would inevitably be strictly limited and I would guess 30 as an absolute maximum, with first refusal being given to all our Likamobile clients to thank them for their support for the Likamobile project.
Kind regards
Simo Cast Modelworks</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 26, 2005 06:02PM
<HTML>Simon, When will you take up duplicating a 20 hp. White? That is a car where using the original boiler design would not be a licensing issue.</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 26, 2005 07:46PM
<HTML>Simon,
The results of your Derr/Winslow boiler sound very promising, possibly not equivalent to the 4X temporary overload capacity of the poor Stanley firetube but abtain near equivalent speeds. The 2 minute start up time is such a great improvement! A H5, under ideal conditions, could hit upon a speed of 80+MPH if anyone dare such a thing. As having designed several boilers cannot envision a Derr/ Winslow combination---however if it has been coded bless you for going thru all the expense and effort.
A few years ago a good steam friend went to great expense to have a three drum water tube boat boiler coded/stamped IAW with ASME codes. I was asked to look at all the engineering analysis and indeed all the tube stresses, ligament stresses/drums and stuff were all according to code. My reply, however, was that all this money was paid to an engineer to get thru the process and never had calculations been done on the theoretical circulation ratio for a water tube boiler or lack of circulation been considered--yet it was a code boiler. So much for meeting ASME code, Imagine going thru all this effort and under hard firing have a few tubes overheat and fail. Old engineers of the B&W school would make sure of tube protection with adequate circulation ratio before advancing a boiler design to production state. Guess meeting the bureaucratic codes take precedence over such serious considerations--alas we do need to meet government requirements even if they may be lacking in other serious matters.
Great luck with the project, Mr. Harmon Lewis may be smiling upon you. George</HTML>
The results of your Derr/Winslow boiler sound very promising, possibly not equivalent to the 4X temporary overload capacity of the poor Stanley firetube but abtain near equivalent speeds. The 2 minute start up time is such a great improvement! A H5, under ideal conditions, could hit upon a speed of 80+MPH if anyone dare such a thing. As having designed several boilers cannot envision a Derr/ Winslow combination---however if it has been coded bless you for going thru all the expense and effort.
A few years ago a good steam friend went to great expense to have a three drum water tube boat boiler coded/stamped IAW with ASME codes. I was asked to look at all the engineering analysis and indeed all the tube stresses, ligament stresses/drums and stuff were all according to code. My reply, however, was that all this money was paid to an engineer to get thru the process and never had calculations been done on the theoretical circulation ratio for a water tube boiler or lack of circulation been considered--yet it was a code boiler. So much for meeting ASME code, Imagine going thru all this effort and under hard firing have a few tubes overheat and fail. Old engineers of the B&W school would make sure of tube protection with adequate circulation ratio before advancing a boiler design to production state. Guess meeting the bureaucratic codes take precedence over such serious considerations--alas we do need to meet government requirements even if they may be lacking in other serious matters.
Great luck with the project, Mr. Harmon Lewis may be smiling upon you. George</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Simon Cast (IP Logged)
Date: January 27, 2005 12:31PM
<HTML>Hello David
Long time no speak David, I do hope I find you happy and well. Your archive info on the Locomobile you were kind enough to send to the UK was invaluable to us by the way. If you have any info on the 20 hp. White please feel free to send it to me at my home address as before. It may prove to be a better candidate for a Modelworks reproduction kit than the H5. At this early stage I am open to ideas and suggestions. As the politicians say, "I am ruling nothing in, and nothing out"
Kind Regards
Simon</HTML>
Long time no speak David, I do hope I find you happy and well. Your archive info on the Locomobile you were kind enough to send to the UK was invaluable to us by the way. If you have any info on the 20 hp. White please feel free to send it to me at my home address as before. It may prove to be a better candidate for a Modelworks reproduction kit than the H5. At this early stage I am open to ideas and suggestions. As the politicians say, "I am ruling nothing in, and nothing out"
Kind Regards
Simon</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: peter turvey (IP Logged)
Date: January 27, 2005 07:08PM
<HTML>I feel that replicating a White may be a project too far - a much more complex machine than a Stanley, and the reproduction cost may exceed the marked value of orginal cars. At the the 2004 GB Goodwood auction results for Milligen's 1909 White went for about 62,500 pound sterling.
I nearly bought a 1910 Model 00 in going order - but took one look at the 'works' and bought a Stanley instead.
Replicating a White would I feel greatly assist White enthusiasts - I understand spares are difficult to come by</HTML>
I nearly bought a 1910 Model 00 in going order - but took one look at the 'works' and bought a Stanley instead.
Replicating a White would I feel greatly assist White enthusiasts - I understand spares are difficult to come by</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: January 28, 2005 05:34PM
<HTML>For certain, the body work of the later Whites is much more imposing. However, are the mechanics of the late Whites that much more complex than the Stanley? Or is it perhaps, that the White is such a diffrent design, that makes it look complex?
As far as desirablitly goes, the H5 would apeal more to the 'how fast can it go' crowd. Where as, the White would apeal to the 'how well does it go' contingent.
Garry</HTML>
As far as desirablitly goes, the H5 would apeal more to the 'how fast can it go' crowd. Where as, the White would apeal to the 'how well does it go' contingent.
Garry</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: ANdy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: January 28, 2005 06:10PM
<HTML>How about a White racer then. The underslung Wistling Billy comes to mind.
Andy</HTML>
Andy</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: January 29, 2005 06:03PM
<HTML>Ahh Whistling Billy! Andy great thought, that would be exceptionally cool. I get all tingly just thinking about, a packed field of H5, Vanderbilt Stanleys and White Racers at a track somewhere! Definitely gets my vote.
Cheers
Mark Stacey
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
Cheers
Mark Stacey
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 31, 2005 11:09AM
<HTML>Hi Simon,
Dare I suggest a Lamont boiler for the "Stanleyoid"? It is the very best type of boiler now under consideration in the steam car world, and I think a very attractive feature to potential customers. This might solve some certification problems, would give good stored energy for authentic acceleration, with reasonable weight & cost, gives high safety and durability, and a round boiler would be a better fit & nicer looking under the classic "coffin nose" hood. A pair of small forward-facing round air intakes below the hood would add authenticity to the looks, too.
Peter</HTML>
Dare I suggest a Lamont boiler for the "Stanleyoid"? It is the very best type of boiler now under consideration in the steam car world, and I think a very attractive feature to potential customers. This might solve some certification problems, would give good stored energy for authentic acceleration, with reasonable weight & cost, gives high safety and durability, and a round boiler would be a better fit & nicer looking under the classic "coffin nose" hood. A pair of small forward-facing round air intakes below the hood would add authenticity to the looks, too.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: February 06, 2005 01:37PM
<HTML>There was quite a series of articles about the White in the Automotor Journal, from 1903 on. Perhaps one can get copies from a London library.
4 July 1903, pp. 688-692
18 July 1903, pp. 756-758
25 July 1903, pp. 776-779
7 Jan. 1905 pp. 12-13
30 Sept. 1905, pp. 1204-1206
17 Nov. 1905, pp. 1516-1522
23 nov. 1907, pp. 1697-1682
18 July 1908, pp. 960-963*
25 July 1908, pp. 997-999*
7 Nov. 1908, pp. 1442-1445
The ones marked with * are particularly interesting; they compare the performance of the White with a car they considered of equal quality: the Silver Ghost!</HTML>
4 July 1903, pp. 688-692
18 July 1903, pp. 756-758
25 July 1903, pp. 776-779
7 Jan. 1905 pp. 12-13
30 Sept. 1905, pp. 1204-1206
17 Nov. 1905, pp. 1516-1522
23 nov. 1907, pp. 1697-1682
18 July 1908, pp. 960-963*
25 July 1908, pp. 997-999*
7 Nov. 1908, pp. 1442-1445
The ones marked with * are particularly interesting; they compare the performance of the White with a car they considered of equal quality: the Silver Ghost!</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Simon Cast (IP Logged)
Date: February 24, 2005 12:31PM
<HTML>David
It seems you (or indeed any ultra-enthusiastic steamers out there) might be able to help me regarding the technical side of the H5. My designer Steve Baldock is very apprehensive about the capabilities of the 20h.p. engine to achieve a 70m.p.h. top speed, and a 50 mile range on a full tank of water and fuel.
Did the H5 have a gearbox (perhaps 2 or 3 speed) of some description? Because if the components under the body are similar to the Locomobile then I entirely agree with Steve that it will be virtually a physical impossibility to achieve more then 35-40m.p.h even with a 20h.p. engine, and even then with a super-duper modern boiler/burner arrangement, and a brand new Modelworks engine.
Any information will be greatly appreciated guys.
Cheers
Simon Cast Modelworks</HTML>
It seems you (or indeed any ultra-enthusiastic steamers out there) might be able to help me regarding the technical side of the H5. My designer Steve Baldock is very apprehensive about the capabilities of the 20h.p. engine to achieve a 70m.p.h. top speed, and a 50 mile range on a full tank of water and fuel.
Did the H5 have a gearbox (perhaps 2 or 3 speed) of some description? Because if the components under the body are similar to the Locomobile then I entirely agree with Steve that it will be virtually a physical impossibility to achieve more then 35-40m.p.h even with a 20h.p. engine, and even then with a super-duper modern boiler/burner arrangement, and a brand new Modelworks engine.
Any information will be greatly appreciated guys.
Cheers
Simon Cast Modelworks</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2005 10:06AM
<HTML>Simon
You might want to check out a few of the links on the front pages. JW has a considerable amount of tech info on this sight. As far as I know, all of the later Stanley engines were mounted, and geared, directly with the rear axel. Though I am unfaimlure with the H5, I would not be surprised to find in used the same twenty horse engine as the mountian wagon. Which I am thinking is roughly four times the displacement of the Loco engine. And of course, it had a considerably larger boiler as well.
Garry</HTML>
You might want to check out a few of the links on the front pages. JW has a considerable amount of tech info on this sight. As far as I know, all of the later Stanley engines were mounted, and geared, directly with the rear axel. Though I am unfaimlure with the H5, I would not be surprised to find in used the same twenty horse engine as the mountian wagon. Which I am thinking is roughly four times the displacement of the Loco engine. And of course, it had a considerably larger boiler as well.
Garry</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2005 01:06PM
<HTML>Stanley cars were ALL direct drive,,no clutch was ever used in any model. ,,,Ben</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2005 06:07PM
<HTML>The H5 used the "dry" (bottom end hand lubricated) 20 hp type 3 engine. The type 3 engine was last used in 1909. It had a 3.62"X5" bore and stroke. 1910 and later, Stanley used the type 7 20 hp engine to replaced the type 3 engine. The type 7 was a "wet" engine and it was a bit longer (4"?) because of the front baffel that was added. The newer type 7 engine measured 4"X 5" bore and stroke. The mountain wagon never used the type 3 engine. The mountain wagon's first year was 1908 and it used a different engine (type 8) that measured 4.5"X 6.5" bore and stroke. The mountain wagon's boiler measured 26'/16" which was considerably larger than the H5's 23"/14" boiler. All though, the Stanley model K used the 26"/16" boiler for both 1097 and 1908 production. In 1907 the model K semi-racer used the type 3 engine and in 1908 the model K used the type 8 engine. This information is from the new book "The Stanley Steamer, America's Legendary Steam Car". I wasn't aware that the 1907 model K used only a 20 hp type 3 engine. Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2005 06:10PM
<HTML>Simon,
I believe the H5 originally came with a smaller 20HP engine, possibly 3-5/8 bore X 5" but the all purpose 4" X5" 20HP engine would work and believe is in some of the reworked cars. This engine, on 4X boiler overdraw, could achieve 60-80HP for a short burst and achieve well over 70MPH. Stanley engines are limited to about 850RPM and many H5's made for early competition had different gear ratios possibly ranging from .8:1 to 1.2:1 or even 1.5. A 1:1 gear would give the car with 35" tires the capability of over a 80 MPH burst and this has been achieved in modern times. Believe, if memory serves me correctly, that the model H was was advertised at doing a mile at 87MPH!! As the bigger engine is capable of almost 1800 foot-pounds of stall torque it would give an initial thrust force of about 1200#, very considerable for such a lightweight car. They are very fast and of enormous pleasure! The steady state cruising speed can be 50-60MPH with 15-16 horsepower when geared correctly with a 4 GPH firing rate. Hope this helps.
A car of great thrill and pleasure, it would be wonderful if your company could reproduce it.
Good luck, George
Best, George</HTML>
I believe the H5 originally came with a smaller 20HP engine, possibly 3-5/8 bore X 5" but the all purpose 4" X5" 20HP engine would work and believe is in some of the reworked cars. This engine, on 4X boiler overdraw, could achieve 60-80HP for a short burst and achieve well over 70MPH. Stanley engines are limited to about 850RPM and many H5's made for early competition had different gear ratios possibly ranging from .8:1 to 1.2:1 or even 1.5. A 1:1 gear would give the car with 35" tires the capability of over a 80 MPH burst and this has been achieved in modern times. Believe, if memory serves me correctly, that the model H was was advertised at doing a mile at 87MPH!! As the bigger engine is capable of almost 1800 foot-pounds of stall torque it would give an initial thrust force of about 1200#, very considerable for such a lightweight car. They are very fast and of enormous pleasure! The steady state cruising speed can be 50-60MPH with 15-16 horsepower when geared correctly with a 4 GPH firing rate. Hope this helps.
A car of great thrill and pleasure, it would be wonderful if your company could reproduce it.
Good luck, George
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: February 25, 2005 09:38PM
<HTML>Correction,,The 1908 Mountain wagon used a type 4 engine,,same bore and stroke,, the# 4 engine was used in racing , the K,,M and Z,, The #8 was first used in 1910 , the first wet 30HP. Hope this helps,,Ben</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2005 06:58PM
<HTML>Having not much more than a passing interest in the antiques myself, I’m wondering if the ‘experts’ on the list might point out what they feel are the better technical drawings, and historical materials, for the H5. It would seem to me, considering the level of interest and energy in current restorations, that there might be a considerable secondary market for quality replica parts.
If Simon is serious about the originality of appearance, it might be worth while to check with the noted restorers to discover what spares they wish were more readily available. Batch production, while not inexpensive, is certainly cheaper than tooling for a single item. New front axles, spindles, and steering gear, could considerably reduce the worry about one hundred year old metal fatigue. Myself, I would think having a set of spindles set up to accept disk brakes would considerably lower the pucker factor while driving a Stanley in modern traffic.
Garry</HTML>
If Simon is serious about the originality of appearance, it might be worth while to check with the noted restorers to discover what spares they wish were more readily available. Batch production, while not inexpensive, is certainly cheaper than tooling for a single item. New front axles, spindles, and steering gear, could considerably reduce the worry about one hundred year old metal fatigue. Myself, I would think having a set of spindles set up to accept disk brakes would considerably lower the pucker factor while driving a Stanley in modern traffic.
Garry</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Simon Cast (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2005 07:53PM
<HTML>Hi Garry
You suggest a path that we have discussed at numerous board meetings at Modelworks regarding our Locomobile replica (or Likamobile as we are calling our model) We decided from the very beginning that we would certainly carry some spares that Modelworks fabricate and manufacture ourselves i.e. only certain major metal components.
For all our live steam models we do indeed carry cylinders, pistons, crankshafts, con-rods, injectors etc etc. The Likamobile we do still view as a model however, all be it a full size one. For the Likamobile we will certainly be carrying spare disc's, hub's, stub axles, a few major engine components, that sort of thing. But please do not think that Modelworks will become spare parts central for Locomobile and H5 bits because we will not be, sorry guys.
We are a model engineering company that supplies fully machined, ready to assemble, large scale live steam kits. Traction engines, Locomotives, rolling stock etc etc and now we have entered the spectacularly quirky and wonderful world of full scale replica steam vehicles. It may well be the case that individuals might want to contact us to see if we do indeed have a particular component that there vehicle requires. We have absolutely no problem with that at all, and we are always welcoming of enquiries as you would expect, I just do not want people to think that we will fabricate an individual component for a fee because we won't (it costs us far too much time and money to stop the CNC machines, re-programme them and then start up all over again) I also do not want to get people's expectations up to such a level so that you might all feel a phone call or e-mail to Modelworks will resolve a problem somebody might have with their particular steam vehicle because in all probability we won't have the part.
Sorry about a negative post guys but at the moment this is our position.
Cheers
Simon</HTML>
You suggest a path that we have discussed at numerous board meetings at Modelworks regarding our Locomobile replica (or Likamobile as we are calling our model) We decided from the very beginning that we would certainly carry some spares that Modelworks fabricate and manufacture ourselves i.e. only certain major metal components.
For all our live steam models we do indeed carry cylinders, pistons, crankshafts, con-rods, injectors etc etc. The Likamobile we do still view as a model however, all be it a full size one. For the Likamobile we will certainly be carrying spare disc's, hub's, stub axles, a few major engine components, that sort of thing. But please do not think that Modelworks will become spare parts central for Locomobile and H5 bits because we will not be, sorry guys.
We are a model engineering company that supplies fully machined, ready to assemble, large scale live steam kits. Traction engines, Locomotives, rolling stock etc etc and now we have entered the spectacularly quirky and wonderful world of full scale replica steam vehicles. It may well be the case that individuals might want to contact us to see if we do indeed have a particular component that there vehicle requires. We have absolutely no problem with that at all, and we are always welcoming of enquiries as you would expect, I just do not want people to think that we will fabricate an individual component for a fee because we won't (it costs us far too much time and money to stop the CNC machines, re-programme them and then start up all over again) I also do not want to get people's expectations up to such a level so that you might all feel a phone call or e-mail to Modelworks will resolve a problem somebody might have with their particular steam vehicle because in all probability we won't have the part.
Sorry about a negative post guys but at the moment this is our position.
Cheers
Simon</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2005 08:53PM
<HTML>Thank you Ben. :-) I didn't come up with the type 4 engine quick enough (and correctly) for the 1908 Mt. Wagon. In the new Stanley Steamer book, it still lists the 1907 Model K as using a type 3 engine instead of the type 4. Could the new book be in error? The new book was proof read many, many times.</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: February 26, 2005 09:28PM
<HTML>Dont forget the H--K haha Ben</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2005 03:23PM
<HTML>My car has a very heavy 735 condensing chassis. The 20 hp. type seven engine can push it more than 60 mph. on the flat, but only for a few miles. At that speed, it consumes much more steam than my tired burner can replace! The H series cars weighed about a third of what mine does and had much less air drag. Specifically, no top or windshield! Frankly, I think the speed of an H will be limited only by the nerve of the driver, assuming he is well aware of the character of Stanley "brakes"! The H is light enough that it should go well over a mile per gallon of feed water, at least at moderate speeds.</HTML>
Model U engine
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2005 05:59PM
<HTML>It was brought to my attention by a well know Stanley collector that in 1909 a model U engine was used only that one year. It was used in the new models R and the U. It was a new size at 4" X 5" and it was a wet engine. It did not have a crankcase front oil baffel like the 1910 type 7 engine had. In the U engine, the rear of the engine cylinders was its front crankcase wall. The model F was last produced in 1908 with it's type 3 engine. Although the 1909 model F was listed in the Principal Specifications in the new Stanley Steamer book, none were built. The 1909 model J limosine was the last one to use the type 3 engine with the 3 5/8" bore. I strongly suspect that since the model J was being discontinued in 1909 that it's type 3 engine was still a "dry" engine. I didn' see any listing for a 1907 H-K in the new " The Stanley Steamer, America's Legendary Steam Car". Coburn Benson is right about the 1907 K model listed using a type 3 engine as being what we now know as a H-K.</HTML>
Type 3 engine
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: February 27, 2005 10:19PM
<HTML>David,
You're right - it's the driver not the car which limits the speed of the H5 - sitting up high in the wind feels much faster than it really is and for the passsenger there is not much to hold on to. First time passengers think we are going 70 when it's really 50 and by 60 they are paralysed. My car is geared 1.2 to 1 (it has a type 3 engine not the later 4x5inch) and it would run out of breath at about 70, to do 80 would need a higher gear but that makes it less useful on hills.
Mine does go more than 1 mile per US gallon of water without economiser or feedwater heater but as the water tank under the seat holds only 26 US gallons its realistic range is still under 30 miles. I have done a fair number of runs in company with vintage i/c cars and although I always set off first, and go faster than everyone else, I always get back last! There is really no room for a bigger tank.
The H5 is fantastic fun but like a motorcycle, it needs a real enthusiast (headcase?) to drive it. The lack of luggage space is a pain when touring as there is no-where to put your wet weather clothes when the sun comes out. The lack of rear seats makes it less sociable for tours than a four seater and it would be a very keen lady who would be prepared to ride on it. I still wouldn't swap it though!
While welcoming Simon's interest in the steamcar community I think a replica H5 in the hands of someone without previous experience of a powerful antique car would be risky. The H, like the R and the K is a serious piece of kit which needs careful handling. The temptation to open the throttle and blow everone else away is very real and the Locomobile by comparison is just a toy. Simon and his designer need to understand this.
I would think that the Stanleys of 1911-1914 make a better and safer basis for a modern replica. They have aluminium panelled bodywork which would be more difficult to make but the crew sit well within the car not just on it. A top and windshield can also be fitted without spoiling the look of it. The dropped axle, and particularly the attachment of the steering arms is far better engineered and better suited to fitting front wheel brakes than the early straight axle and the whole car is much lower. Stanleys of this period are much better for touring than the H, even if a bit less exciting. If Modelworks are intending to produce a useable road registered car the 1911-14 models are probably the best base to start from - what about a 712?
Mike</HTML>
You're right - it's the driver not the car which limits the speed of the H5 - sitting up high in the wind feels much faster than it really is and for the passsenger there is not much to hold on to. First time passengers think we are going 70 when it's really 50 and by 60 they are paralysed. My car is geared 1.2 to 1 (it has a type 3 engine not the later 4x5inch) and it would run out of breath at about 70, to do 80 would need a higher gear but that makes it less useful on hills.
Mine does go more than 1 mile per US gallon of water without economiser or feedwater heater but as the water tank under the seat holds only 26 US gallons its realistic range is still under 30 miles. I have done a fair number of runs in company with vintage i/c cars and although I always set off first, and go faster than everyone else, I always get back last! There is really no room for a bigger tank.
The H5 is fantastic fun but like a motorcycle, it needs a real enthusiast (headcase?) to drive it. The lack of luggage space is a pain when touring as there is no-where to put your wet weather clothes when the sun comes out. The lack of rear seats makes it less sociable for tours than a four seater and it would be a very keen lady who would be prepared to ride on it. I still wouldn't swap it though!
While welcoming Simon's interest in the steamcar community I think a replica H5 in the hands of someone without previous experience of a powerful antique car would be risky. The H, like the R and the K is a serious piece of kit which needs careful handling. The temptation to open the throttle and blow everone else away is very real and the Locomobile by comparison is just a toy. Simon and his designer need to understand this.
I would think that the Stanleys of 1911-1914 make a better and safer basis for a modern replica. They have aluminium panelled bodywork which would be more difficult to make but the crew sit well within the car not just on it. A top and windshield can also be fitted without spoiling the look of it. The dropped axle, and particularly the attachment of the steering arms is far better engineered and better suited to fitting front wheel brakes than the early straight axle and the whole car is much lower. Stanleys of this period are much better for touring than the H, even if a bit less exciting. If Modelworks are intending to produce a useable road registered car the 1911-14 models are probably the best base to start from - what about a 712?
Mike</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: john fehn (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2005 08:24AM
<HTML>OK, here i go, sticking my foot in my mouth again, but i have a little different take on this ‘replica thing: the good old Oxford English Dictionary, eh? (‘OED'). just like those stuffy old Oxfords, trying to tell us all how to use their language. :-)
no, but seriously folks, the ‘American Heritage Dictionary' defines ‘replica’ slightly differently:
-------------
“replica n. (1) a copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist. (2) any copy or close reproduction.
USAGE: 'Replica' in its strictest sense is reserved for a copy by the original artist. But it is widely accepted for any close reproduction...”
-------------
so in the strictest sense, you can't really have a replica of any car unless the car's primary purpose is in fact, ART, per se. however the second definition definitely works since ART is not mentioned.
well, so what? it's just that dictionaries are sometimes very slow to catch up. my 'OED' was last edited in 1927 and i bought it brand new in '75.
another glaring example: dictionaries say that people don’t have genders. people only have sexes. only WORDS have genders. but that’s not really the way the word is used these days.
so, so much for dictionaries. in this case i say ‘toss ‘em, folks. the fact is that in common daily parlance, people do in fact refer to close reproductions as replicas, using the second (american) dictionary definition of “any copy or close reproduction“.
so, what does it all mean? well, IMHO, what it all means is that dare ain’t nuttin’ wrong wid callin’ da Likamobile a replica. personally, i kind of like ‘replicant’! but that’s just one dude’s opinion. cheers.
John Féhn
Budapest</HTML>
no, but seriously folks, the ‘American Heritage Dictionary' defines ‘replica’ slightly differently:
-------------
“replica n. (1) a copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist. (2) any copy or close reproduction.
USAGE: 'Replica' in its strictest sense is reserved for a copy by the original artist. But it is widely accepted for any close reproduction...”
-------------
so in the strictest sense, you can't really have a replica of any car unless the car's primary purpose is in fact, ART, per se. however the second definition definitely works since ART is not mentioned.
well, so what? it's just that dictionaries are sometimes very slow to catch up. my 'OED' was last edited in 1927 and i bought it brand new in '75.
another glaring example: dictionaries say that people don’t have genders. people only have sexes. only WORDS have genders. but that’s not really the way the word is used these days.
so, so much for dictionaries. in this case i say ‘toss ‘em, folks. the fact is that in common daily parlance, people do in fact refer to close reproductions as replicas, using the second (american) dictionary definition of “any copy or close reproduction“.
so, what does it all mean? well, IMHO, what it all means is that dare ain’t nuttin’ wrong wid callin’ da Likamobile a replica. personally, i kind of like ‘replicant’! but that’s just one dude’s opinion. cheers.
John Féhn
Budapest</HTML>
Re: Modelworks H5 "coffin-nosed" replica
Posted by: Stanleyguy101 (IP Logged)
Date: December 10, 2009 07:03PM
Hello everyone,
I know this is a couple years old now.
I agree that making a touring car would be more useful than something like an H5 because of lack of storage space. Might I suggest the model 71 because it's still sporty and capable of 60mph from what I've heard, and it gives a touring body that can be used for additional passengers or storage. I've also seen recreated 4 seat model Rs before and they seem very nice.
Robert Hopkins
I know this is a couple years old now.
I agree that making a touring car would be more useful than something like an H5 because of lack of storage space. Might I suggest the model 71 because it's still sporty and capable of 60mph from what I've heard, and it gives a touring body that can be used for additional passengers or storage. I've also seen recreated 4 seat model Rs before and they seem very nice.
Robert Hopkins
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.