Surveyor Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 7 hours ago, mammoth said: 850mm dia rims. So is English and not American (who used imperial sizes). The axle is obviously home made so not a reference point.. England has only used metric since about 1970 so not sure what made you say this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bill Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 British solid tyres were specified in metric dimensions from the very early years and the Government Subvention scheme required that those on the front would be 720x120mm and on the rear 880x120mm twins. Both our Dennis and Thornycroft have these. The AEC Y-type was not approved for the scheme but, very sensibly, had the same sized tyres all round but 850x120mm. The American trucks coming over had imperial sizes so our FWD has 36x5" tyres all round. The Peerless also has imperial tyres but I can't remember the sizes offhand. This seems to be another little quirk of history. Do you think it might have been the French influence which led to metric tyre sizes being adopted? Although these are 850mm tyres, I don't think they are AEC as the hub cap is too square. I shall have to look at some more photos and see what other suggestions I can make. An interesting find, nonetheless. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mammoth Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Leyland "modernised" their range of RAF types around 1925 by having equal diameter back and front, with 850mm for the 4, 5, & 6 tonners and 770mm for the 2 & 3 tonners. The advert from 1928 demonstrates that you could drive in and get new tyre bands pressed on while you waited. tye advert.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redherring Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Regarding Leylands... the earliest Leyland parts and drawings registers show that vehicles were built specifically to customer request, said vehicles were all different: chassis length, width... some joggled some not; diffs and axles; motor; and wheels! Every new and redesigned part was logged. Gradually, beginning with the war office subsidy scheme, vehicles began to look similar, but even then modifications occurred along the way. In recent times the leyland Society has attempted to sort the pre-subsidy scheme Leylands into groups. No easy task! One reason I find ID'ing vehicles/parts so interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypugh Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) On 27/04/2018 at 10:36 PM, mammoth said: tye advert.pdf 10,000 mile guarantee? That would be nice. Perhaps we should pop round to the Hammersmith address with the Fire Engine :-) [edit] Queen Street has disappeared, but 7 Caledonian Road looks like just the sort of place that might have new-old-stock solid tyres: https://goo.gl/maps/kzJAGLBT39C2 Edited April 30, 2018 by andypugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypugh Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) On 27/04/2018 at 10:36 PM, mammoth said: tye advert.pdf Also interesting to see Scammell and Nephew selling a Vulcan. (Advert on the left) I wonder if this was the Scammell factory? https://goo.gl/maps/MSNcod92mas Edited April 30, 2018 by andypugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Peskett Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Further to previous correspondence , the following 1915 BS hopefully will explain some of the sizes and reasons. The main difference of principal with the American sizes is that irrespective of width the o.d. when new is the same, e.g. the 30" rim all widths are 36" o.d. ( 1/2" steel plus 2 1/2" rubber) , with British tyres the o.d. varies according to width within the rim diameter . Another curious listing by Dunlop was the 881mm X 14" , Thornycroft 'J' rears. Most listings have 3 dimensions - 36" x 6" for 30" for example. Richard Peskett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuffen Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Interesting they spell tyres with an "i". When did it change to Tyres from the Tires in the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Peskett Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 My Oxford dictionary tells me that 'tire' is the US spelling, Commercial Motor magazine seem to consistently spell the word with an 'i' despite their advertisers using a 'y' at that time . Motor Traction seem to always have spelt it with a 'y', Another earlier anomaly was that the 'Automotor Journal' up to at least 1907 spelt lorry 'lurry' as did some manufactures. Richard Peskett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypugh Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, Richard Peskett said: Another earlier anomaly was that the 'Automotor Journal' up to at least 1907 spelt lorry 'lurry' as did some manufactures. The "Lurry" spelling is mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the horse-drawn lorry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorry_(horse-drawn) (Though I half expect that it was you who put that there :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surveyor Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 On 27/04/2018 at 8:24 PM, Old Bill said: British solid tyres were specified in metric dimensions from the very early years and the Government Subvention scheme required that those on the front would be 720x120mm and on the rear 880x120mm twins. Both our Dennis and Thornycroft have these. The AEC Y-type was not approved for the scheme but, very sensibly, had the same sized tyres all round but 850x120mm. The American trucks coming over had imperial sizes so our FWD has 36x5" tyres all round. The Peerless also has imperial tyres but I can't remember the sizes offhand. This seems to be another little quirk of history. Do you think it might have been the French influence which led to metric tyre sizes being adopted? Although these are 850mm tyres, I don't think they are AEC as the hub cap is too square. I shall have to look at some more photos and see what other suggestions I can make. An interesting find, nonetheless. Steve Steve Just seen this, every day a school day, many thanks for this Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bill Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Surveyor said: Steve Just seen this, every day a school day, many thanks for this Richard It is just that I have a head full of useless information. I still don't know why British tyres were metric! Steve :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Peskett Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Steve - I to have wondered for many years why this BS is metric and the origins, probably the first metric BS , only took another 50 odd years to catch up !. A possible origin is that pioneer Michelin were making vehicle tyres from 1891 and these would have been metric, document herewith . Probably the first large user of solid tyres 1905/8 would have been the London bus operators, with almost 900 vehicles on the road at the end of 1907, 90% plus of these would have been of continental origin ( Milnes Daimler, De Dion, Bussing/Straker ), maybe this is a pointer. Another interesting reference is that this map published 1947 is using the spelling 'tire'. Richard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nz2 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Like Redherring comments on early Leyland vehicles, early Thornycrofts were also under continual change. The early model J had 670 mm wheels on the front and some of these would have been obtained by the War Department at the out break of war. My J has 670 mm on the front, being exported well before the war. Doug W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cel Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 A good friends of mine has found this hay press which has been mounted on a WW1 Daimler Gaggenau chassis. It is a very neat piece of machinery, if all goes well we will be baling this weekend. Regards Marcel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War truck Posted May 11, 2018 Author Share Posted May 11, 2018 What a find! Nice looking tyres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citroman Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Are you sure? Gaggenau was Benz if i am correct the fusion with Daimler was later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Peskett Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Daimler and Benz amalgamated in 1926 to trade as Daimler-Benz., the word 'Mercedes' is a registered trade mark. Richard Peskett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cel Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 My mistake - Benz of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citroman Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 Chassis looks in good condtion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4860S Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 From Hemmings today: https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2018/05/13/the-largest-aggregation-of-motor-vehicles-ever-started-on-a-trip-of-such-length-coast-to-coast-with-the-u-s-army-in-1919/?refer=news Cheers John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War truck Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 Anyone want to have a go at identifying this chassis in the USA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talavera Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 Is it a Fageol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War truck Posted May 27, 2018 Author Share Posted May 27, 2018 Similar, but not quite the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypugh Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Great War truck said: Similar, but not quite the same. The vehicle photo shows shackles front and back of the rear springs, whereas the chassis photo only seems to have them at the back. But I don't think that necessarily precludes them being the same, as Dennis made vehicles with both arrangements, some with 2 shackles and a torque arm, and some with 4 shackles and sliding blocks. (I think that Ben has one of each) Edited May 27, 2018 by andypugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.