Absolutely fantastic, There are several in our club here in Australia. but I didn't appreciate the intricacies before, my hat goes off to these brave enthusiasts, it makes my DDB seem so easy to drive in comparison, I only need four arms, but driving the Stanley seems to need a doctorate in both steam engineering and philosophy.
Great and fulsome explanation of how to start from cold. When these were run every day as daily drivers, they would often leave the pilot on overnight and be ready to drive within a few minutes in the morning. They would only be started from completely cold after a few days running. These days, out of deference to fire safety and the age of these cars, they are usually completely shut down after a day's drive and started again from cold as Mr Granger has done here.
I think that not only were these cars very complicated to get running, but they seem to last forever. It was probably both things that did the Stanley Brothers in.
@@milesromanus7041 unfortunately, in a growth-dependent economy, well-engineered consumer products that last an indefinite amount of time pretty much guarantee a big market boom followed by a total crash once the market is glutted (i.e. once every household has bought one). Planned obsolescence, though a complete affront to craftsmanship and engineering pride, not to mention an absolute crime against the environment and basically make-work that is a disgusting waste of human labour that might otherwise be put to other use actually progressing our species, is a way of staving off such crashes without having to abandon our precious, precious capitalism.
I think I've seen ONE of these Stanley's in the last 45 years and now I know why. you gotta get out of bed half an hour before everyone else just to get it operational.
Everybody in Missouri knows them Everybody there has seen their car Everybody seen their Stanley Steamer Everybody knows It's Johnny's car Wave as you see Johnny drive to market Watch a bit of past go steaming by :)
No wonder they went to the flash boiler, but even that couldn't save them. Wanting to jump in and go ruined the idea. I do wonder, however, why someone has not retooled the idea and with modern improvements, put it forward again as an ecological solution?
Because reciprocating steam engines aren't efficient. The best steam locomotives were about 10% efficient, compared to the 25 to 40% efficiency of a normal mordern-ish car.
@@mfbfreak Steam locomotives are not the pinnacle of external combustion engine design. Their fire-tube boilers are very old technology compared to water-tube types, which can achieve much higher pressures and also have faster responsiveness and flashing-up time. Some steam locomotives used uniflow cylinders, and I think rather more used limited compounding (multiple-expansion), but the most sophisticated reciprocating steam engines - those that combined both the uniflow principle *and* compounding in one design - can actually achieve rather higher thermal efficiencies, but *very* few of those were ever built (mostly for marine use) before being eclipsed by the sheer convenience of diesels, in an era when oil was relatively cheap, and atmospheric pollution was practically a non-concept.
Sorry but I cannot believe that to start the car was so complicated. Since at that time most of the car owners had a “slave” to drive their car,: how could a uneducated slave be able to start this “space machine”?! I honestly think that this gentleman makes the starting operation more complicated than really must have been.
There are several reasons: - They didn't have a slave, they had a chauffeur which is a normal paid position. Chauffeur is the french word for 'person who heats things'. It's the person who prepares steam vehicles for use. - All these complicated things have a sound logic behind them. Compare it to how you nowadays can use any computer software with maybe a few days of practice. Back in the day, a basic understanding of steam technology was something you'd grow up with. The details of operating this car, were taught by the manual or by the representative of the company.
The maid would have had good training as the car was expensive but she probably would have followed a well detailed checklist or at least referred to it if uncertain or anything was not as expected.
Starting and driving a car with an internal combustion engine was also a skilled and complex task in 1910. Take a look at how to operate a Ford Model T: ruclips.net/video/QxfHMtgg2d8/видео.html You had to manually adjust the fuel-air mixture with a choke control to be fuel-rich for starting, and retard the spark timing with what was known as an "advance lever," then remember to adjust it back again when driving, but not too much or the engine could stall or backfire. You then had to turn the engine over by hand with a starting handle, holding it in just the right way so that it didn't break your wrist if the engine backfired. You had to manually block open the cylinder exhaust valves before doing this, to reduce the compression enough that you could turn the thing fast enough, then remember to close the exhaust valves again as soon as possible after starting or the combustion would fairly rapidly burn the valve seats away. You then had to keep on manually adjusting the spark ignition timing *and* the fuel-air mixture as the speed or loading of the vehicle changed, or, once again, the thing could belch black smoke, waste fuel, burn away its valve seats, or - once again - stall or backfire, and then you'd have to get out and go through the whole starting procedure all over again. There wasn't always a simple gearstick in early cars either, let alone automatic transmission; you often had to change gears using a counter-intuitive combination of levers and pedals. All these fiddly little controls and adjustments have been increasingly automated and simplified over the last century, first by clever mechanical systems, then electro-mechanical, then analogue electronics, then finally fully computerised engine management systems. If steam cars had continued to be developed alongside internal-combustion cars, I'd imagine they'd similarly be heavily automated and simplified by now.
Absolutely fantastic, There are several in our club here in Australia. but I didn't appreciate the intricacies before, my hat goes off to these brave enthusiasts, it makes my DDB seem so easy to drive in comparison, I only need four arms, but driving the Stanley seems to need a doctorate in both steam engineering and philosophy.
Great and fulsome explanation of how to start from cold. When these were run every day as daily drivers, they would often leave the pilot on overnight and be ready to drive within a few minutes in the morning. They would only be started from completely cold after a few days running. These days, out of deference to fire safety and the age of these cars, they are usually completely shut down after a day's drive and started again from cold as Mr Granger has done here.
We need more of these vehicles nowadays!
I saw one on the road today, I see them in Norfolk every year. Fantastic! Thanks.
I think I'm in love! What an amazing machine!
Fantastic demonstration - thank you!
I think that not only were these cars very complicated to get running, but they seem to last forever. It was probably both things that did the Stanley Brothers in.
With electronic components now it wont be as complicated.
Everything was built to last in that period..
@@milesromanus7041 unfortunately, in a growth-dependent economy, well-engineered consumer products that last an indefinite amount of time pretty much guarantee a big market boom followed by a total crash once the market is glutted (i.e. once every household has bought one).
Planned obsolescence, though a complete affront to craftsmanship and engineering pride, not to mention an absolute crime against the environment and basically make-work that is a disgusting waste of human labour that might otherwise be put to other use actually progressing our species, is a way of staving off such crashes without having to abandon our precious, precious capitalism.
@@jeffreyrodriguez1913 - Until you needed the electronic components or computer replaced!
We filmed this a few years ago - great to see it all assembled!!
We love it, thank you so much for letting us share it with the world.
I think I've seen ONE of these Stanley's in the last 45 years and now I know why. you gotta get out of bed half an hour before everyone else just to get it operational.
By the time you get this going you could walk to the rail station .😁
AWESOME!!!
My god it’s complicated but amazing
Wow, very cool 👍
Everybody in Missouri knows them
Everybody there has seen their car
Everybody seen their Stanley Steamer
Everybody knows It's Johnny's car
Wave as you see Johnny drive to market
Watch a bit of past go steaming by
:)
Nice, nice, nice.
Where I can buy it? Somebody have the blueprint?
Thanks. Great Pic but give me my Model T 1913. I would have grown old just starting the Stanley. On my T, only two cranks and I am off. Best Wishes.
No wonder they went to the flash boiler, but even that couldn't save them. Wanting to jump in and go ruined the idea. I do wonder, however, why someone has not retooled the idea and with modern improvements, put it forward again as an ecological solution?
Because reciprocating steam engines aren't efficient. The best steam locomotives were about 10% efficient, compared to the 25 to 40% efficiency of a normal mordern-ish car.
@@mfbfreak Steam locomotives are not the pinnacle of external combustion engine design. Their fire-tube boilers are very old technology compared to water-tube types, which can achieve much higher pressures and also have faster responsiveness and flashing-up time. Some steam locomotives used uniflow cylinders, and I think rather more used limited compounding (multiple-expansion), but the most sophisticated reciprocating steam engines - those that combined both the uniflow principle *and* compounding in one design - can actually achieve rather higher thermal efficiencies, but *very* few of those were ever built (mostly for marine use) before being eclipsed by the sheer convenience of diesels, in an era when oil was relatively cheap, and atmospheric pollution was practically a non-concept.
Sorry but I cannot believe that to start the car was so complicated. Since at that time most of the car owners had a “slave” to drive their car,: how could a uneducated slave be able to start this “space machine”?! I honestly think that this gentleman makes the starting operation more complicated than really must have been.
There are several reasons:
- They didn't have a slave, they had a chauffeur which is a normal paid position. Chauffeur is the french word for 'person who heats things'. It's the person who prepares steam vehicles for use.
- All these complicated things have a sound logic behind them. Compare it to how you nowadays can use any computer software with maybe a few days of practice. Back in the day, a basic understanding of steam technology was something you'd grow up with. The details of operating this car, were taught by the manual or by the representative of the company.
Slavery was freaking illegal by back then. Anyways this IS the startup
The maid would have had good training as the car was expensive but she probably would have followed a well detailed checklist or at least referred to it if uncertain or anything was not as expected.
This car has been modified, and is definitely a bit more complicated to start up, double the number of gauges to watch for a start
Starting and driving a car with an internal combustion engine was also a skilled and complex task in 1910. Take a look at how to operate a Ford Model T: ruclips.net/video/QxfHMtgg2d8/видео.html
You had to manually adjust the fuel-air mixture with a choke control to be fuel-rich for starting, and retard the spark timing with what was known as an "advance lever," then remember to adjust it back again when driving, but not too much or the engine could stall or backfire. You then had to turn the engine over by hand with a starting handle, holding it in just the right way so that it didn't break your wrist if the engine backfired. You had to manually block open the cylinder exhaust valves before doing this, to reduce the compression enough that you could turn the thing fast enough, then remember to close the exhaust valves again as soon as possible after starting or the combustion would fairly rapidly burn the valve seats away. You then had to keep on manually adjusting the spark ignition timing *and* the fuel-air mixture as the speed or loading of the vehicle changed, or, once again, the thing could belch black smoke, waste fuel, burn away its valve seats, or - once again - stall or backfire, and then you'd have to get out and go through the whole starting procedure all over again. There wasn't always a simple gearstick in early cars either, let alone automatic transmission; you often had to change gears using a counter-intuitive combination of levers and pedals.
All these fiddly little controls and adjustments have been increasingly automated and simplified over the last century, first by clever mechanical systems, then electro-mechanical, then analogue electronics, then finally fully computerised engine management systems. If steam cars had continued to be developed alongside internal-combustion cars, I'd imagine they'd similarly be heavily automated and simplified by now.