petting the new baby
(l. to r.) Hans Nibel, Ferdinand Porsche, Paul Jaray, Hans Ledwinka, Edmund Rumpler, Adolf Hitler, Josef Ganz
Success has many fathers. No wonder so many are eager to share in the paternity rights of the Volkswagen, the world’s most successful and long-lived car. Some have had books written and documentary movies made to stake their claim; others have sued in courts of law and the court of public opinion, in articles, books and the internet. The essence of their claims is that one person conceived the initial novel idea of a Volkswagen, or its unique technical aspects, or the iconic shape of the Beetle. Drawings, models, prototypes, production cars, and other evidence to litigate their claims are used, from the 1930s right into the present, and likely into the future.
Many of these claims have found considerable traction, including court settlements and favor as well in the court of public opinion. They reflect the innate human tendency to want to give credit for a success to a single person. We love heroes and winners, and it’s much easier to judge things in black and white, and to rely on isolated pieces of evidence or commonly held assumptions for determining the true winner or hero.
The following is an exercise to look more closely at some of the key claimants and their roles in the birth of the Beetle, as well as to look at some lesser known automotive pioneers whose work influenced the primary claimants as well as the final product. The reality is that technological and design advances are almost never made in isolation which makes this task more difficult. It’s inevitably not truly comprehensive, but it is an effort to shed light on the Volkswagen’s long gestation.
One thing we know for certain going into this lengthy exercise: The baby Volkswagen is Austrian. Every one of its paternal candidates pictured above was Austrian or ethnic Austrian. No wonder I’m a bit obsessed with the Beetle.
Part 1: Henry Ford – The Godfather
Henry Ford undoubtedly was the godfather of the Volkswagen. Although Ford’s dream was to make the automobile more available to the masses, he didn’t exactly set out to build a true “People’s Car”, given that his new Model T cost $850 in 1909. This was at a time when a worker made $200-400 per year, and an accountant or dentist made some $2000 per year. That was more than most “real” cars on the market, which were largely accessible only for the truly wealthy.
Ford’s T was a conventional and pragmatic car, in the formula laid down by the seminal Mercedes of 1901: a strong steel frame to support the body, a water-cooled inline engine in front driving the rear axle via the transmission and drive shaft. Henry had his ideas about some of the details and execution, which was to a very high standard, but there was nothing really new or revolutionary about its design.
The Fordian revolution was all about production. As Ford plowed his profits back into ever more efficient production facilities and methods—inventing the rationalized automotive assembly line in the process—the cost to build and buy a Model T plummeted. This created a virtuous loop: the lower the price went, the more sales increased. By 1914, a relatively well-paid Ford worker could buy a $490 T with four month’s pay. By 1925, the price dropped further, all the way to $260 for the two passenger roadster (the enclosed sedan cost $660); now the T was truly affordable to the working class. Production topped 2 million in 1923 alone. Henry had created the second American Revolution, and the rest of the world wanted to share in it.
That applied especially to Europe at the time, and Henry wasted no time exporting the T, with local production of bodies and many other key components, such as the Trafford Park plant in the UK above. Although Model Ts accounted for fully half of all the world’s cars ever built by the early twenties, the Model T was way too big, thirsty and expensive to become a true People’s Car in Europe. It was strictly for the well to-do, if not the truly rich. Something different was needed, for the very different circumstances in effect there.
There had been all manner of crude small cars and cycle cars in Europe ever since the car’s invention, but these were inevitably marginal undertakings. The motorcycle was the closest thing there was to an entry-level car. So Europe’s biggest manufacturers took to creating cars in the Model T’s vein but substantially scaled down. A flurry of mini-Ts appeared in each of the major countries.
Citröen’s 5CV of 1921 was perhaps the prototype of the genre, or at least the first one built on a relatively large scale. Citröen was the pioneering adopter of Ford-style production methods in Europe, and some 80,000 5CVs were built in its four year production life. Its 11 hp 856 cc four was representative of this class of cars.
The British Austin Seven went into production in 1922, and was both very successful and influential. It was even built in the US as the Bantam and in Germany as the Dixie, a forerunner of the BMW.
In Germany, the Opel 4 PS, known as the “Laubfrosch” (tree frog) arrived in 1924 looking heavily influenced by the Citroen 5CV. The Laubfrosch was a relatively big hit, and catapulted Opel into Europe’s biggest volume auto manufacturer, undoubtedly why GM bought Opel in 1929.
And although it came along some ten years later, the Fiat Topolino was in the same mold. All these cars (and others in their class) were of course substantially smaller than the Model T, typically two-seaters. This was due to high taxation and fuel costs, as well as to keep production costs as low as possible. Europe’s market was highly fragmented, and no manufacturer had the scale to even remotely approach Ford’s efficiencies. The Opel came perhaps the closest, with some 120k built between 1924 and 1931, and its price dropped from 4500 RM to 1990 RM in 1930. But that’s still only some 17k per year, in a country of 65 million, which was more than half the population of the US at the time. Although cars per population in the UK and France were far below that of the US, Germany was substantially behind them even. The country that birthed the car was a laggard in its adoption.
These “Mini-T” cars were all highly conventional in their conception and construction. But they were still only affordable by the solidly upper middle class at best; professionals, small businessmen and such. The working class person was still stuck dreaming of an affordable car while pedaling their bike.
Although the major manufacturers generally had little interest in attempting to build even cheaper cars, it became something of a Holy Grail for forward-thinking engineers, designers, dreamers, and even certain political figures. And it was increasingly clear that the solution was likely to include some radical new ideas and technology.
For that matter, the automobile in Europe was ripe for reinvention, small or not so small. The 1901 Mercedes formula mostly worked well enough for large cars, where its deficiencies could easily be masked by its size, weight and power. But new ideas of how the automobile could be conceived and designed were brewing, and although that would come to affect all the classes of cars in Europe eventually, it was with smaller cars where the greatest benefits were seen.
Before we delve in to the contributions of the various gene donors, it’s essential to debunk the common idea that the VW, like so many other “inventions” was the result of a Eureka moment experienced by its isolated creator hunched over a drafting table. Truly novel inventions are exceedingly rare; invariably a number of individuals or organizations are chasing after the same goal, their efforts based on previous inventions and research, and constantly feeding off the fruits of others engaged in the same quest.
Charles Darwin wasn’t the first to propose evolution, and Edison didn’t invent the light bulb. They, and so many acclaimed scientists and inventors were competing with others, and constantly exchanging information. And in the case of Edison as well as Ferdinand Porsche and others, they were really the managers of the process and the efforts of many employees in their charge. But the person at the top inevitably gets (or seeks) the lion’s share of the credit.
Part 2: Edmund Rumpler – Head In The Sky
Born into a poor Jewish family in Vienna in 1870, Edmund Rumpler was infatuated with heavier-than-air flight early on. Since this was not yet a reality, after he graduated with an engineering degree in 1895 he hitched his star (temporarily) to the nascent automobile industry. At the tender age of 25, he was made the Technical Director of the Nesselsdorfer Wagon Works (in what is today the Czech Republic), a manufacturer of railroad carriages eager to expand into automobiles. His assistant in that undertaking was another of our paternity claimants, an even younger 18 year-old Hans Ledwinka. Nesselsdorfer would eventually become Tatra, and Ledwinka would have a brilliant career there. But Ledwinka owes Rumpler more gratitude than just giving him his first job.
Rumpler and Ledwinka’s first car at Nesselsdorfer there was a flop, due to a faulty engine, a recurring issue that would bedevil Rumpler. He moved on to Adler in Berlin, where he was unhappy with the simple and crude chain drives then commonly in use, as well as the excessive weight of the alternative shaft drive rear axles. So in 1903 he invented and patented something truly new and original: the swing axle, the first driven independent rear suspension.
A prototype was built, but there were problems with the very small, hard tires of the time coping with the camber changes. So Adler passed for now, although the ball-joint torque tube, another of Rumpler’s inventions was used and eventually went into widespread use internationally. The swing axle would have to bide its time until both Rumpler and Ledwinka (and others) would separately put it to good use.
view from above
Here’s the brilliance of the swing axle’s design as used by many that adopted it, particularly so Tatra. It dispensed with any expensive and easily-worn universal joints; as can be seen here, each half shaft’s large ring gear can swing freely in an arc around the (small) driveshaft pinions. The two half shafts are located by the two round guide shoes inside the round case.
Here’s the same basic design as used still in today’s Tatra trucks, which are legendary for their off-road prowess and durability.
VW had a different type of joint, using a ‘tang” inside a differential gear, with fulcrum plates. Also very tough, simple and rugged, although in principle not as much so as the Tatra style. But the VW was optimized for lower cost mass production.
In any case, until better IRS systems came along, swing axles were the way to go.
As powered flight became a reality, Rumpler’s first interest took flight too. He acquired the German license for the Austrian Taube (“Dove”) designed by Igo Etrich in 1909. An elegant and advanced design, Rumpler was soon building them in significant numbers for various uses, including for the military during WW1. Rumpler designed an advanced V8 engine for it, but (once again) it was not successful, and most were powered by a Daimler four cylinder. The Taube made Rumpler successful and famous.
He went on to found Rumpler Air Service, a pioneering transport service in Germany, flying one or two passengers in the small planes of the time.
But Rumpler thought big, and he was the first to conceive in considerable detail the very far-reaching idea of international heavier-than-air transport. In 1921 he created The Trans-Oceanic Company, and in 1927 unveiled this concept of a giant ten-engine flying-wing amphibious plan seating 175 passengers. It was simply too far ahead of its time, so he turned his attention back to cars.
Given how critical aerodynamics is in aviation, it’s no surprise that Rumpler made aerodynamic efficiency a key element in his thinking. Undoubtedly he was aware of the 1913 Alfa Romeo that had been rebodied by Carrozzeria Castagna at the request of Count Marco Ricotti. It was a one-off, and due to excessive heat from the engine inside the body in its unusual place, it soon was turned into an open car, negating some of its slipperiness.
Rumpler’s Tropfenwagen (“Tear Drop Car”) of 1921 approached the problem quite differently, as it was anything but a mere streamlined body on a conventional chassis.
The Tropfenwagen sat on a revolutionary chassis, one that is essentially akin to the “skateboard” chassis that underpins Teslas and an increasingly number of current EVs. This is looking at it from the rear, and we can see the swing axles with quarter elliptic leaf springs and control arms. Just ahead of that is the four-speed gearbox, and then the very unusual 2.3 L W6 engine, with its three banks of two cylinders to make a very short and rigid engine, in the rear-mid location of the quite light built-up steel “frame”. Ahead of the engine there were openings in the frame to allow the storage of two spare tires.
This shows the location of the engine and the radiator directly behind it, whose hot air was exhausted through vents in the car’s tail.
The Tropfenwagen was less of a production vehicle and more of an on-going design/engineering exercise to entice existing car manufacturers to license it. Hence a number of different body styles and sizes were built, from 6-7 seater limousines to a rather compact open car and coupe. In part this was to show the flexibility of the concept, as well as to see which ones attracted the most interest. Some 20 of these various first series Tropfenwagens were built, including two sent to the US to attract American car makers, powered by a Continental six cylinder engine. Rumpler’s W6 engine again had some deficiencies, thus the later versions used a Daimler four.
It’s hard to say what was the most revolutionary or influential aspect of the Tropfenwagen; its aerodynamics or its extremely advanced and unique chassis, IRS and drive train. But at least we can put a hard number to its aerodynamic drag, which Volkswagen did in 1979 in their new advanced wind tunnel. They tested a Tropfenwagen, a 1940 Tatra 87 and a 1939 Kamm prototype sedan. Here are the hard numbers:
Although the Rumpler had a significantly greater frontal area (“A”) due to its much greater height, its coefficient of drag (Cd), or the relative aerodynamic efficiency of its shape, was so much lower at 0.28 to make up the difference and still have the lowest overall aerodynamic drag (“CdA”). As such, the Tropfenwagen’s 0.28 Cd was not equaled by the most aerodynamic production cars until the mid-late 1980s, a truly stellar achievement. And it explains how it readily exceeded 60mph (100kmh) with only 36 hp.
Although the Tropfenwagen were not really successful per se, but Benz did buy a license as it clearly saw its potential. That’s in Part 5. And of course Hans Ledwinka at Tatra adopted its swing axle rear suspension, which is still on Tatra trucks today. The swing axle was taken up by numerous makes, primarily German and Austrian firms, who placed a high value on the better ride they afforded.
And within a few years, Ledwinka would take up the aerodynamic theme with a vengeance.
The Tropfenwagen was too far ahead of its time, but its influence was vast. It was the prophet of the aerodynamic age and the Volkswagen was very much a product of that. It ignited a wave of aerodynamic rear engine concepts and actual cars. One of these early ones was this one designed by Sir Dennistoun Burney; his Burney Streamline of 1930 was one of two more obvious intermediate steps between the Tropfenwagen and the Tatra 77 of 1933. Unfortunately, its long and heavy water cooled six cylinder engine protruding from the rear was not ideal. The consequences of too much weight on the rear wheels of a rear engine car would soon make itself known, and significantly affect the design of the Beetle.
Rumpler moved on to FWD, although not successfully. His career came effectively to an end in 1933, given his Jewish birth. His wife and children moved to Vienna, but he stayed behind, sold his company to Ambi-Budd, the German branch of the Budd Company, pioneers in steel car body building and employer of engineer Joseph Ledwinka, brother of Hans. Rumpler consulted to Chrysler on suspension issues and such, and died of natural causes in 1940.
So the Autobahn and the Beetle were two parts of the same system, just as the record and the phonograph or the Web and the computer.
Streamlining isn’t needed for city cars or farm cars. It starts to make a difference at 40MPH and makes all the difference at 60. The Autobahn was meant to run at 60, which meant streamlining was necessary for the automotive part of the system.
Actually air resistance is a factor at all speeds, just disproportionally greater as speeds increase. Go walk into a steady 20 or 30 mph wind, and you’ll see what I mean.
True, but it’s not until 40/50 mph where air resistance becomes the main source of wasted energy.
Prior to that drivetrain losses make up more
However an EV produces fewer drivetrain losses so aero is more important. Hence aero wheels on a Tesla that you’re unlikely to see on an ICE vehicle.
But it does require energy, more energy than just overcoming frictional losses, from very low speeds already. A more aerodynamic car will be more efficient at 30 mph than a less aerodynamic car, all other things being equal. But yes, the effect becomes greater at higher speeds.
With the very low power engines of the times, aerodynamics was a more significant factor, especially in attaining higher speeds.
Another well-researched and logical article by Paul.
Hervorragend! Comprehensive, yet very to the point and enlightening. Lots of information I didn’t know about. Thanks!
Absolutely fascinating article, being read while I watch today’s Formula 1 race in the background. Glad that someone finally covered the entire chronology in reasonable detail.
Looking forward to follow up articles regarding the early post WWII Volkswagen.
I’m a bigger fan of the article than I am the race! It looks like another Hamilton runaway; I wish one other manufacturer could give Mercedes a real run.
Nice work, Paul – I’ve always been merely superficially knowledgeable about the gestation of the Bug, so I learned a lot.
Achh, no spoilers! I’m on the West Coast and just finishing my coffee before watching…
The best race of the weekend turned out to be the Baggers race at the MotoAmerica Superbike Weekend at Laguna Seca. The entire race is on YouTube, you haven’t seen racing until you watch Hayden Gilliam’s sliding a Harley Street Glide into the curves like it’s a 1000cc sport bike.
Absolutely fantastic read!
I would suggest a nuance to the proposition that Hitler was the Father of the Volkswagen, in that, while there is a definite parallel to Ford’s vision of mass-produced vehicles that ‘everyman’ could own, Ford was also the force behind the design and manufacture of the Model T. His vision was realized by one person, in other words.
Hitler had not the capability to design the product and manufacturing system and had to rely on a second party (Porsche, although he certainly could have chosen another person/firm) for that aspect of bringing the Volkswagen concept to reality. So your caption above, “The proud parents and their baby,” is actually spot on to the nuance I’m suggesting.
A separate question is related to your comment about VW air-cooled engines still being produced today. I was under the impression that production of engines (spares?) stopped in 2006, not long after the Type 1 Beetle ended production in 2003.
Again, excellent article and a real showpiece for CC.
Well, yes, that’s why I made them both parents.
One can still buy brand new air cooled VW engines, just not from VW. 🙂
https://darrylsaircooled.com/
The cheapest one is $4300.
Yikes!
Ed, I’m not sure if this qualifies as “still being produced”, but I’m fairly confident that I could go to any of a number of aircooled VW vendors’ websites and purchase every single component of a VW Type I engine in brand-new condition and assemble one from scratch.
And Paul, I found this a well-written and insightful treatise. As you pointed out early in the article, there are really very few truly new ideas. Most everything that is touted as “new” is just a new combination of existing ideas, and the “Beetle” is no exception to that.
What Hitler did as a dictator was to compel various people to make it happen. My main takeaway from this post, and the truly new piece of information that I gained from it, was that most of the startup and overhead costs were separated from the production costs. Perhaps that’s just a trick of accounting, but it seems easy to build a car cheaply and profitably if one does not have to factor startup and overhead costs into the profitability figures. If Henry ford had been “given” his production facilities for free by the government, the final pricing of the Model T might have been $150!
If Henry ford had been “given” his production facilities for free by the government, the final pricing of the Model T might have been $150!
Given the massive profits Ford was banking from the T, he probably could have sold it starting at $150. 🙂
Your point is valid of course. But there are certain fundamental differences between the US in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s that make direct comparisons difficult. And the VW was a more complex and sophisticated car, with a modern all steel body.
Although a T two-passenger roadster was priced at $260 in 1926, the enclosed sedan cost $660 dollars, almost three times as much. And a Ford two door sedan still cost that much in 1939. So one really needs to compare the sedan to the $250 Volkswagen.
I’m not so sure that “free” factories would have impacted the T’s price so much. Volume was so high, staggering, that per-unit cost amortization of even the most significant investments might be surpringly little.
For example, using rough figures, if some investment of say15 million dollars was amortized over the T’s entire run, it’d only be about one dollar per unit.
It’s my guess, but wasn’t the entire Highland Park plant probably launched for well south of 5 million?
I don’t have the figures readily available. But yes, my conjecture is that the investment in Highland Park was quite modest in relation to the gusher of cash it produced. Profit margins typically were much higher then. GM assumed a 30% profit margin as a minimum on any program.
It’s like it was once upon a time in the PC business. And how it still is in the iphone business.
Car companies are very happy to hit a 10% profit nowadays.
You’re correct, Evan, in that there’s still widespread parts support for the VW air cooled engines. My point was that VW is no longer producing finished engines nor spares. Darryl’s (and likely others) are building up “zero time” engines from what has to be a combination of NOS and aftermarket components, and in fact, the Darryl’s web site has a buried “small print” statement that some parts are NLA as ‘new’ and refurbished used parts will be substituted in those cases.
Fantastic read tying all the various parties together. As you said there are numerous outlets offering one aspect or another but I haven’t come across (or looked for, to be truthful) one that takes it in all these different directions.
Most interesting that the shape is representative of (and demonstrated by) numerous different parties working using the same general knowledge set and that it’s really less of a “designed” shape than a natural shape.
An excellent way to start my Sunday, a strong cup of coffee and this comprehensive treatise. Thanks Paul! I knew about bits and pieces of this, but all together, it makes a cohesive story. New, and surprising to me, was that the terms “volkswagen” and “kafer” were in common use long before being applied to the VW Beetle. A couple of other observations: as the owner for ten years of a Ford truck with Twin Traction Beam front suspension, I can see the benefits of swing axles, though they have some flaws in a steering application. And after seeing all the backbone chassis, I think Colin Chapman too was influenced by this school of European design. Finally, I suspect that to Americans, even car enthusiasts whose knowledge of history may have been limited by difficult access to books in the pre-Internet days, the Beetle’s shape and technology really seemed unique. So without knowing the context and environment of the time in Europe, we assumed it sprang fully formed from one person’s mind.
Paul, thank you! You got my Sunday good start by keeping me away from the news as I had my coffee. I’ll sleep better tonight because of that!
The intertwining of tech with the people that create it and the conditions of the time is so interesting.
Quite an interesting Sunday morning read – two cups of coffee!. I knew about some of the original concepts behind the VW and the people involved (Porsche, Ledwinka, Kommenda) but your article went much more in depth and ties them all together very well.
What a fabulous read! Your research into this topic shows clearly. You prove what everyone tends to forget – history is complicated. Every idea is born in a stew of other ideas. Our natural tendency to look for a linear story often obscures much of what was happening all around the central narrative.
I would argue that the Model T was quite innovative in that it was among the first to marry cutting-edge engineering and technology (as of 1908) with a small, lightweight package. The Model T was a far better car than many costing many multiples of its price. But as you say, it’s original package was more of a middle-class peoples’ car rather than a real “peoples’ car” in the way the VW was intended.
It is interesting to contemplate how the program might have progressed (or not) under someone other than Porsche. His age, personality and capabilities seem to have been uniquely shaped to make a fit with the mercurial (yes, let’s go with that) Hitler.
Agreed about the T. My point was that Ford didn’t try to reinvent the automobile, he refined and improved upon the basic concept as it was at the time. Of course that was still quite new in 1908. I’m hardly faulting him for that. But as we saw from Lanchester in England, some were already building cars in 1908 that were radically different from the conventional format.
The stream of thinking that led to VW was based on the premise that the conventional (front engine, frame, RWD) approach was obsolete, and that a new basic format would offer both lower cost as well as improvements in comfort, efficiency and ride.
That led to the rear engine, backbone frame and independent suspension all-round. As well as FWD with makers like DKW and Citroen.
What about Béla Barényi?
Didn’t he play a role in the history of the KDF-Wagen?
Did you miss it? It’s on page two, in the Josef Ganz section.
A beautifully written and illustrated article. The Fiat pictured bears an amazing resemblance to the contemporary Fiat 500.
WOW! Paul, you have outdone yourself. Have you been considered for a professorship? Despite that I have much work to complete today, I could not stop reading this article.
Great read!
To get ainto a a bit technical detail, the axle seen in image #12 was probably not so ingeniously simple and reliable as a casual glance might indicate.
Think about it… if the twin ring-gears were a matched set and in mesh with the driveshaft pinion, then the motion resulting from shaft rotation would either be counter-rotation of the axles, or lock-up. For the “twin gear” to work only one ring-gear could be driven by the drive shaft (now we have major thrust to retain) the other would have to be driven via at minimum one idler, to reverse rotation.
Then, for the ring-gears to be able to independently arc around the drive-pinion, they could not share a common case, housed in the usual rigid carrier. Without the rigidity of a carrier-held case, maintaining proper tooth contact would be a nightmare. The slightest wear at the shoes and proper gear mesh is out the window.
For a century now, from garden tractor to earthmover, has anybody successfully challenged the proven case/carrier combination for final drive design? Does anybody know of a production example?
To me, the “sliding shoe” design seems like some of DaVinci’s work… great concept if you can wait 500 years for others to iron out the details. Suddenly a conventional differential with axle joints isn’t so complicated.
As far as I’m familiar with VWs, which would be US version ’50s on, VW swing-axle cars used a conventional differential with a “screwdriver tang drive” joint at the axle. Did some in the old country use the “twin gear” concept?
Tatra trucks still use that style of swing axle design even today, on their very heavy duty off-road capable trucks (image below). But yes, there are other versions, and the VW uses what you describe. But it’s still simpler and more rugged than CV joints used to be, although today CV joints have become very long lasting too.
Great job, Paul! How many hours did you spend on this? 🙂
Disclaimer: I’ve never studied German. Your comments about the difficulty of conveying the nuances of volk reminded me of a passage in William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Shirer said that Mein Kampf refers to the “folkish state” a number of times. (I assume that German for “folkish” would be volkisch.) Shirer went on to say that he had read Mein Kampf multiple times, and he never quite understood what Hitler meant by the “folkish state.” Of course it makes sense that if volk is hard to get one’s head around, “folkish state” would be likewise.
It’s a loaded and complex word. The variations of its meaning are best perceived in their context. One only needs to hear Hitler give a speech to get the gist of what he was implying with that word.
Ultimately, it’s the very essence of what Hitler was all about. That word encapsulates him.
This is yet another amazing piece of work, Paul, and thank you for it.
The Beetle is always a car that evokes strong emotions. I was never into them as I like heat in the winter, but the following is huge.
The Beetle is the only car I can recall repeatedly hearing “I wish VW would make them again.” I recently spoke with an acquaintance who thought the end of the air-cooled Beetle was a giant conspiracy and that Beetle production would commence pronto once the conspiracy was exposed.
I replied that I didn’t think there was much of a market for a 90 year old car.
I like heat in the winter, passive safety, performance, good handling, room, and refinement!
As conspiracy theories go, that one is pretty benign. I wish a lot of people would trade in their current conspiracy theories for that one.
Thank you Paul for a very well researched and presented article.
If you want to create a Volkswagen, better be born in Austria-Hungary. Either Vienna (Rumpler, Jaray, Ledwinka), Moravia (Porsche, Nibel) or Budapest (Ganz). Wouldn’ t hurt if you came from Braunau. By the way, I believe Josef Ledwinka and Hans were cousins.
Seems to help for Model-T designers too; Galamb, Farkas.
What a great article! Good to see Rumpler receive praise and Ledwinka reassessed. All designers pinch good ideas, just like all creative people so this clearly shows the contributions each made.
I wonder if you could do a similar article on Issigonis and the Mini? It seems to come
have out of the air but of course it didn’t, but its antecedents are rarely considered. Like the Lloyd 650 from Grimsby with its transverse front wheel drive.
I wouldn’t want to live in a town populated by Standard Superiors after watching that car in the video.
What a fascinating article to read this weekend. I knew only a bit of this history before — so it was quite a treat to sit down and read this fantastically in-depth and well-illustrated history.
I’m amazed at the 10 engine flying wing with seating for 175 that Rumpler designed. That guy certainly was ahead of his time. Thanks for your hard work in presenting this.
My goodness, you’ve excelled yourself here sir, almost meeting the standards of Proffs Adreina and Tatra.
Jokes aside, serious congratulations Paul, it’s really quite something. I will have to go back and read more thoroughly (and links, etc) over the next few days, but wanted to convey my appreciation for your effort.
Two quick comments for now. One, that V1(!) chassis drawing by Porsche has restraining mods for those verdammte swing axles: I wonder if cost eliminated them later, but surely it indicates an awareness of the safety issue early on (of no consideration for the “expert” driver – real or not – and monied buyesr of racers or luxo cars).
Two, could it be said that Jaray is the biggest influence of all? He is quite the linking character, and his aero ideas seem a big driver of rear engines, which other wise don’t (to me) have any obvious advantage from a cost/design point of view back then.
Again, my congrats, Dr Dr Proff N. Prost!
Good catch on the restraining straps. I don’t know why they went away. it might be a question to pose at thesamba.com. Perhaps I will.
Perhaps, re: Jaray. He certainly popularized aerodynamics. But the Rumpler was also employing it very successfully, except he used it more in the plan form than elevation form, which rather works better for most cars.
As I understand it, the Lincoln Zephyr did use some form of unit body, sometimes described as bridge-and-truss, rather than a conventional frame, except on the convertibles.
True. I forgot about that.
Great read Paul but I have to go to work I’ll reread it later, Ive seen most of this before of course but never the tie ins to the VW, But that W engine layout has been refined and is in production currently awesome stuff for the braincell at 2.30 am Thanx.
Fascinating, thank you! As a former driver of your favorite version (1966 1300 cc) purchased new by my dad. I knew a fair bit of this history, but not all the people involved or their connections. Will re-read and forward to other “car nuts” who may not regularly read this blog.
Paul, a truly absorbing read. Fine work on all counts. By chance my brother, an owner of several air cooled VWs in the 80’s sent me a copy of Walter Henry Nelson’s “ “Small Wonder – The Amazing Story of the Volkswagen” that I just received today. Your work surpasses his first three chapters by a long shot in it’s depth and detail.
Thanks.
I had that book quite a few decades ago, but it got lost a long time ago. It was the first book to write the story, but more historical details are still being uncovered.
Paul:
I loved learning from this piece, thank you. Took me a day or so to have the time to read; the wait was worth it. The writing provided much clarity to a era I understand a little bit better now.
It’s a bit of an overstatement to say, as to the KdF-Wagen “savers”, that “their payments were honored some years later by VW after the war.” Initially, Volkswagen AG denied any liability, and a group of “savers” sued, demanding delivery of brand new Beetles. There were lots of legal issues. Who did the “savers” have a contract with? The Nazi Party? The Labor Front? The Reich Government? And was postwar VWAG a legal successor having an obligation to perform on the agreement?
Ultimately, after lengthy litigation, the suit was settled in 1961 with an agreement that gave savers who had completed their payments a 600 DM discount off the price of a new VW. I wasn’t able quickly to find the price of a Beetle in marks in 1961, so I can’t say what the 600 marks represented in percentage terms.
The funds were held by the KDF. And the Russians stole the money (a huge amount) from the KDF accounts after they took Berlin. The Volkswagen company after the war was a completely new entity, created several years after the war ended, when none of the Allies wanted the factory or its contents.
Legally, one can certainly argue the the new VW company had no liability for that. But as you said, eventually VW did offer a settlement.
This was a complicated issue, given the history and the war. The settlement seems reasonably fair to me. A whole lot of folks lost everything in the war. That wasn’t exactly the fault or responsibility of the post war Volkswagen Werk.
Fantastic article, Paul!
As an ex Porsche Mitarbeiter and daily driver of an air cooled VW, I found this article absolutely fascinating. This is a fine piece of automotive scholarship.
I have read the Ganz book, am a great fan of Ledwinka’s work at Tatra and familiar with Rumpler and the rear engined Mercedes, but the way you have woven these themes together to form a logical conclusion is…ausgezeichnet!
Excellent article, most enjoyable read. Ford and Hitler had a lot in common in their world view. People who yearn nostalgically for the Beetle have obviously never driven one in modern traffic or in the rain. They are slow, lethal contraptions clearly built down to a price. That said I did have a yearning for a super beetle recently (I too suffer from the ‘car whore’ syndrome), but fortunately it passed.
Hi Rob,
Hi Rob,I drive a descendant of the Kdf (Karmann Ghia) in modern traffic as my DD and it copes surprisingly well. It will hold 75 on the freeway and it’s quick enough in town if you drive it correctly. It is a charming and fun ride, although the sidewind stability and heating and ventilation leave a lot to be desired!
Passive safety is non-existent compared to moderns, but mechanical parts availability is excellent and they are easy enough to work on.
They were definitely not built down to a price – the finish and basic quality of the VW was excellent in its day.
Having driven other European cars from the immediate post WW2 period, VWs must have seemed incredibly modern in comparison, especially to things like the English Ford Popular or Morris 8s with their beam axles and wheezing, maintenance hungry side valve motors…..
Paul, you’ve raised the CC bar higher again, much higher. Probably the most authoritative piece on a specific car we’ve ever had, maybe that I’ve read online, and the amount and quantity of the research and analysis is truly significant.
The general theme that the Beetle had many influencers shaping it over an extended period is as plausible as it is unsurprising when you pause to consider it, but identifying them all and linking them together in a coherent sequence and argument is not easy. Terrific work, Paul, and thanks for doing it, and adding the social context around it too.
The final nominees maybe the one some would have expected, but the important part is to put it all in context – Car nut nationalist (and worse) dictator wants a modern, nationally identifiable car for his people, and will design and impose an economic and manufacturing system that will enable it, empowering a leading engineer, himself a bit of an outsider through not being attached to a key manufacturer, to execute it, whilst not worrying too much about adopting best practice and blurring the edges of patents.
Do you have a recommendation for a book covering the post war history of VW, the Wirtschaftswunder and post war rise of the Germany industry? It’s a fascinating subject
What a well-researched essay, Paul, thank you. A great assemblage of relevant photos along with a deep dive. One of your best.