Connect with us

Published

on

please no — It seemed like a good idea at the time: 9 car designs that went nowhere Flying cars, amphicars, two-engined cars, steam carsnot every idea is a good one.

Larry Printz – Oct 4, 2023 11:35 am UTC EnlargeMichael Reinhard | Getty Images reader comments 139 with

Ford Motor Company had a better idea, as it once advertised, producing such iconic cars as the Mustang, Bronco, Thunderbird, and Model T. But it also built the ill-fated Edsel. Ford wasn’t alone, either; many inventors and engineers have produced cars that seemed like a good idea until they actually acted on it. Here are a few examples. 1899 Horsey Horseless

Kellogg’s cereal wasn’t the only product to emanate from Battle Creek, Michigan. The Horsey Horseless also came from there, although it’s unknown whether this vehicle was ever actually built. Still, it was a solution to a common problem in the early days of motoring, when automobiles were still uncommon and scared horses. Uriah Smith thought that sticking a horse head on the front of a horseless carriage would prevent horses from getting upset upon seeing one.

“It would have all the appearance of a horse and carriage and hence raise no fears in any skittish animal,” he wrote. “Before he could discover his error and see that he had been fooled, the strange carriage would be passed, and then it would be too late to grow frantic and fractious.”

He also recommended making the horse head hollow so it could also serve as a fuel tank. A patent drawing of the Horsey Horseless.Public Domain

It also made one hell of a hood ornament. 1902 Stanley Steamer

When the car was first invented, it was powered by gasoline. But gasoline-powered cars were noisy and smelly, and they had to be hand-cranked to be started, which frequently caused injuries or even death. Then there were electric cars, which had limited range due to their lead acid batteries. Steam was familiar, having powered American industry for the better part of the 19th century.

Cars built with steam power proved popular, but they were complex, as they had three tanks. One contained water for the boiler, another held kerosene or home heating oil to heat the water, and a third usually held gasoline to keep the pilot light burning. Finally, an acetylene torch was needed to light the pilot light. Advertisement

And you had to wait for the water to boil and create steam before you could drive anywhere. Also, these were not intuitive machines, as they had copper tubes and pipes, boilers, condensers, valves, and gauges. And if they backfired, they could seriously scald the driver. Finally, the Stanley Steamer’s water tank had to be refilled every 3050 miles (4880 km), but the company felt drivers could refill their water tanks at any brook, pond, or horse trough. Enlarge / Photograph of a Stanley Steamer, ca. 1902.Bettmann/Getty Images

Ultimately, it was the electric starter that doomed steam cars. First seen on the 1912 Cadillac Model 30, it allowed drivers to take off without waiting anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes to get started. It was also far cheaper to run.

But the company survived until 1927. The last steam car was built in 1931. 1907 Carter Two-Engine

When the engine in the car that Howard O. Carter was driving developed mechanical problems many miles from home, Carter did what anybody in his situation would do in the early days of the automobile: He built his own car, albeit with a spare four-cylinder engine.

Dubbed the Carter Two Engine, it also had two radiators, two ignitions, and two exhaust systems. The engines were mounted side-by-side and were connected, according to a contemporary account in the Smithsonian Magazine, “through cone clutches in the flywheels and by Morse silent chains, to a single three-speed transmission placed in the center of the car.”

Once started, one four-cylinder engine was used until the driver needed more power. The driver then engaged the second engine’s clutch, which started the second powerplant, thereby doubling the vehicle’s horsepower to 40 ponies, allowing the car to power onward without having to downshift.

But the second engine wasn’t merely there to add power; it was also an insurance policy in case the first engine broke down.

The car was priced at $2,250, or $70,185 adjusted for inflation, and Carter trumpeted the vehicle’s introduction as “the birth of an epoch of transportation unparalleled in the history of the world.” Few customers agreed. Within a year, the company’s factory in Hyattsville, Maryland, was building a car called the Washington, which proved somewhat more successful. It lasted until 1912, albeit with one engine rather than two. Page: 1 2 3 Next → reader comments 139 with Advertisement Promoted Comments jlredford I’ve been in an Amphicar! There’s a classic car show every summer in Naples, Maine that has several of them. You can hop in and go cruising around Long Lake. The freeboard is pretty low, so you really want to do this on a calm day, and you don’t go faster than walking pace, but it’s a lot of fun. It’s more proof that fans will keep cool things working forever. October 4, 2023 at 12:36 pm IncreaseMather And you had to wait for the water to boil and create steam before you could drive anywhere. Also, these were not intuitive machines, as they had copper tubes and pipes, boilers, condensers, valves, and gauges. And if they backfired, they could seriously scald the driver. Finally, the Stanley Steamer’s water tank had to be refilled every 3050 miles (4880 km), but the company felt drivers could refill their water tanks at any brook, pond, or horse trough.So as the proud owner of 1904 and a 1912 Stanleys, I will tell you the progress in steam technology is almost as obvious as that of internal combustion engines of the same era. And in the era, you didn’t start steam cars from cold everyday, you left the pilot light burning overnight or while stopped. And you rarely blew off the boiler. Great advances were being made very year, and comparisons to a 1902 Stanley should be done with a car from 1902. If you ever want to see proof of how far ahead steam cars were then, just watch London to Brighton. Or read about how steam cars had to be banned from the Vanderbilt Cup Race.

***Edit to add: Steamers in 1902 typically did not have condensers, I am unaware of any steam car from that vintage with one.

This is somewhere between excessively harsh and just plain wrong on the Stanley Steamer.

Later steamers used oil-fired flash boilers that could produce enough steam to get moving within seconds of firing upif you ever drove a diesel car with glow plugs (back in the 80s) the experience would be not unfamiliar. (Turn key, wait for "glow plugs warming" light to go out, then hit the starter motor …)

And the steamers had a couple of huge advantages over early gas/diesel vehicles. They had no gearboxjust a simple reversermaking them mechanically simpler, and produced immense low-end torque. They eren’t slow, either, and for a number of years held the automobile land speed record. Steam persisted in heavy trucks for some time after it became unpopular for cars for precisely that reason. (As for why it went out of favour with cars: you needed to load water as well as fuel oil, and there was a secondary problem of oil leaking into the steam side of the circuit, necessitating a tear-down and deep clean of the flash boiler.)Thank you for this.
Jay Leno has a couple of videos featuring his collection of steam-powered cars like the 1922 Stanley, but also the 1925 Doble E Series. That one used superheated steam and could be warmed up enough to go in 2 minutes after starting.

While everyone likes to quote Jay Leno’s Doble’s, these were practically one off, highly engineered super cars. Very few made, even fewer used to any significant degree (do not get me wrong, marvels of engineering and very cool cars). What people should be pointing out are White steam cars with flash boilers, under ten minutes to get running and an order of magnitude more efficient than Stanley’s (they used condensers, looked like radiators, to recycle steam exhaust). October 4, 2023 at 1:25 pm Channel Ars Technica ← Previous story Next story → Related Stories Today on Ars

Continue Reading

Sports

Sources: Big Ten closes in on $2 billion capital deal

Published

on

By

Sources: Big Ten closes in on  billion capital deal

The Big Ten is closing in on voting on a capital agreement that will infuse league schools with more than $2 billion, industry sources told ESPN.

There’s been momentum within recent days for the deal to push forward, and the structure of the complicated agreement is coming together. A vote is expected in the near future, per sources.

The framework calls for the formation of a new entity, Big Ten Enterprises, which would hold all leaguewide media rights and sponsorship contracts.

Shares of ownership in Big Ten Enterprises would fall to the league’s 18 schools, the conference office and the capital group — an investment fund that’s tied to the University of California pension system. Yahoo Sports first reported the involvement of the UC investment fund.

The pension fund is not a private equity firm, and the UC fund valuation proved to be higher than other competing bids. This has been attractive to the Big Ten and its schools, according to sources.

A source familiar with the deal said there’s been momentum in recent days, but the league is still working with leadership to make a final decision.

The exact equity amounts per school in Big Ten Enterprises is still being negotiated. There is expected to be a small gap in equity percentage between the biggest brands and others, however it is likely to be less than a percentage point.

ESPN reported last week that a tiered structure is expected in the initial allocation of the $2 billion-plus in capital, with larger brands receiving more money. Each school, however, would receive a payout in at least the nine-figure range, sources said.

The deal would call for an extension of the league’s Grant of Rights through 2046, providing long-term stability and making further expansion and any chance league schools leave for the formation of a so-called “Super League” unlikely.

Traditional conference functions are expected to remain with the conference. Any decision-making within Big Ten Enterprises would be controlled by the conference. The UC pension fund would receive a 10% stake in Big Ten Enterprises and hold typical minority investor rights but no direct control.

The money infusion is acutely needed at a number of Big Ten schools that are struggling with debt service on new construction, rising operational expenses and providing additional scholarships and direct revenue ($20.5 million this year and expected to rise annually) to athletes.

The Big Ten has argued that the deal would alleviate financial strain and help middle- and lower-tier Big Ten schools compete in football against the SEC.

ESPN first reported last week that the league was in detailed conversations about the deal.

Big Ten Enterprises would be tasked with not just handling the league’s valuable media rights (the current seven-year, $7 billion package runs through 2030) but trying to maximize sponsorship and advertising deals leaguewide such as jersey patches or on-field logos.

“Think of it this way — the conference is not selling a piece of the conference,” a league source told ESPN last week. “Traditional conference functions would remain 100 percent with the conference office — scheduling, officiating and championships. The new entity being created would focus on business development, and it would include an outside investor with a small financial stake.”

The deal has not been without detractors, with both Michigan and Ohio State — the league’s two wealthiest athletic programs — expressing skepticism initially, per sources. Each school has been hit with significant lobbying not just from the league office but also other conference members to come to an agreement.

Politicians in a number of states have also voiced opposition, including United States Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who stated Thursday, “You’re going to let someone take and monetize what is really a public resource? …That’s a real problem.”

Cantwell followed up Friday by sending a letter to each Big Ten president warning that any deal involving private equity could invite review, including impacting the schools’ tax-exempt status.

Continue Reading

World

Donald Trump threatens to impose additional 100% tariff on ‘extraordinarily aggressive’ China

Published

on

By

Donald Trump threatens to impose additional 100% tariff on 'extraordinarily aggressive' China

Donald Trump has announced the US will impose an additional 100% tariff on China imports, accusing it of taking an “extraordinarily aggressive position” on trade.

In a post to his Truth Social platform on Friday, the US president said Beijing had sent an “extremely hostile letter to the world” and imposed “large-scale export controls on virtually every product they make”.

Mr Trump, who warned the additional tariffs would start on 1 November, said the US would also impose export controls on all critical software to China.

The president added that he was imposing the tariffs because of export controls placed on rare earths by China.

He wrote: “Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position, and speaking only for the USA, and not other nations who were similarly threatened, starting November 1st, 2025 (or sooner, depending on any further actions or changes taken by China), the United States of America will impose a tariff of 100% on China, over and above any tariff that they are currently paying.

“It is impossible to believe that China would have taken such an action, but they have, and the rest is history. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

President Trump says he sees no reason to see President Xi as part of a trip to South Korea. Pic: Reuters
Image:
President Trump says he sees no reason to see President Xi as part of a trip to South Korea. Pic: Reuters

Mr Trump said earlier on Friday that there “seems to be no reason” to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a scheduled meeting as part of an upcoming trip to South Korea at the end of this month.

More on China

He had posted: “I was to meet President Xi in two weeks, at APEC, in South Korea, but now there seems no reason to do so.”

Read more:
China tightens control of global rare earth supply
Three things you may have missed from China this week

The trip was scheduled to include a stop in Malaysia, which is hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, a stop in Japan and then the stop to South Korea, where Mr Trump would meet Mr Xi ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Mr Trump added: “There are many other countermeasures that are, likewise, under serious consideration.”

The move signalled the biggest rupture in relations in six months between Beijing and Washington – the world’s biggest
factory and its biggest consumer.

It also threatens to escalate tensions between the two countries, prompting fears over the stability of the global economy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sky’s Siobhan Robbins explains why Donald Trump didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize

Friday was Wall Street’s worst day since April, with the S&P 500 falling 2.7%, owing to fears about US-China relations.

China had restricted the access to rare earths ahead of the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi.

Under the restrictions, Beijing would require foreign companies to get special approval for shipping the metallic elements abroad.

Continue Reading

US

Donald Trump threatens to impose additional 100% tariff on ‘extraordinarily aggressive’ China

Published

on

By

Donald Trump threatens to impose additional 100% tariff on 'extraordinarily aggressive' China

Donald Trump has announced the US will impose an additional 100% tariff on China imports, accusing it of taking an “extraordinarily aggressive position” on trade.

In a post to his Truth Social platform on Friday, the US president said Beijing had sent an “extremely hostile letter to the world” and imposed “large-scale export controls on virtually every product they make”.

Mr Trump, who warned the additional tariffs would start on 1 November, said the US would also impose export controls on all critical software to China.

The president added that he was imposing the tariffs because of export controls placed on rare earths by China.

He wrote: “Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position, and speaking only for the USA, and not other nations who were similarly threatened, starting November 1st, 2025 (or sooner, depending on any further actions or changes taken by China), the United States of America will impose a tariff of 100% on China, over and above any tariff that they are currently paying.

“It is impossible to believe that China would have taken such an action, but they have, and the rest is history. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

President Trump says he sees no reason to see President Xi as part of a trip to South Korea. Pic: Reuters
Image:
President Trump says he sees no reason to see President Xi as part of a trip to South Korea. Pic: Reuters

Mr Trump said earlier on Friday that there “seems to be no reason” to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a scheduled meeting as part of an upcoming trip to South Korea at the end of this month.

More on China

He had posted: “I was to meet President Xi in two weeks, at APEC, in South Korea, but now there seems no reason to do so.”

Read more:
China tightens control of global rare earth supply
Three things you may have missed from China this week

The trip was scheduled to include a stop in Malaysia, which is hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, a stop in Japan and then the stop to South Korea, where Mr Trump would meet Mr Xi ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Mr Trump added: “There are many other countermeasures that are, likewise, under serious consideration.”

The move signalled the biggest rupture in relations in six months between Beijing and Washington – the world’s biggest
factory and its biggest consumer.

It also threatens to escalate tensions between the two countries, prompting fears over the stability of the global economy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sky’s Siobhan Robbins explains why Donald Trump didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize

Friday was Wall Street’s worst day since April, with the S&P 500 falling 2.7%, owing to fears about US-China relations.

China had restricted the access to rare earths ahead of the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi.

Under the restrictions, Beijing would require foreign companies to get special approval for shipping the metallic elements abroad.

Continue Reading

Trending