This ad’s headline caught my attention. Automatic Automobiles, in 1933? There weren’t even automatic transmissions then. But Studebaker was trumpeting cars “from which 61% of the physical effort and practically 100% of the mental strain of driving have been eliminated.” That’s quite a claim.
There are “12 uncanny ‘mechanical brains’ that not only ‘think’ automatically but act automatically. You have almost nothing to do but steer”. Really? Automatic shifting, braking and throttle? Impressive?
Truth in advertising?
A little digging turns up that Studebaker did offer a number of fairly advanced devices to make driving a bit less complicated, like Bendix vacuum-boosted power brakes, automatic choke, automatic starter, and automatic manifold heat control. I don’t want to give the impression that these weren’t all useful improvements. It’s just that the claims in the ad are a bit over the top.
Just look at the length of that bonnet (hood to you I guess … ): who is compensating for what, I wonder.
Straight 8 engines aren’t exactly short.
For hundreds upon hundreds of years prior to the advent of the automobile, mere decades before this particular one, a carriage was preceded by horses and sometimes many horses. The long length of hoods in this period even with a massive straight 8 still occupies a significantly smaller footprint than what preceded it.
Obviously the drawing is exaggerated. But like many cars of the era, railway themes influenced styling. The long hood, low windshield and cowcatcher grille are steam locomotive fantasies.
Made to look longer and lower, an old trick
I’m sold! One for me, one for the wife. Regarding automatic transmission, there is the failed effort on the circa 1905 to 1907 Sturtevant automobiles. In 1926, Oscar Banker, who called himself “The Father of the Automatic Transmission” had installed his one in a 1926 Nash. The story goes on. However, in 1935, his successful automatics began to be installed in GMC/Yellow Truck buses for Chicago Transit for which a total of five-hundred were made. Of note, GM stole the product from Mr. Banker and installed it in the 1938 Oldsmobile without paying royalties.
What? Stole it? In this great country? Why, we are so exceptional! j/k
Good post!
Your story line and accusation of theft are not supported by the facts. Banker did patent at least four different approaches to an automatic transmission, but there were a number of key differences from the Automatic Safety Transission (AST, predecessor to the Hydramatic) that GM engineers were working on simultaneously. One of the main differences was that Banker’s system of involved overrunning clutches and not the bands that GM used. And his control system for changing gears was purely mechanical, unlike the pressurized hydraulic system that GM used, and all subsequent automatics used.
The most likely scenario is that GM was aware of Bankers early efforts and patents, and was influenced by them to one degree or another, but continued their own course of development which had considerable differences.
The best article on this issue is here,
https://ateupwithmotor.com/editorials-commentary/sources-and-reasoning/
although the author admits that the lack of available evidence makes it a bit difficult to make an absolute determination as to the extent of which GM was influenced by Banker. But since Banker patented his inventions, GM clearly did not violate them, otherwise Banker would have undoubtedly sued them successfully.
These kind of scenarios are quite common when several different entities are working towards the same goal, and find themselves coming to obviously similar solutions.
Is the camber off on the front passenger wheel on the second page?
Vacuum boosted power brakes? Sounds basically like what we still have today. Never knew Stude was the first. Although the “automatic” ads were a bit over the top, key start and an automatic choke were impressive innovations in 1933. Starting at $840 this was not a cheap car. A contemporary Ford V-8 started at $490.
And, that hood sure looks long. Wonder if this car was as huge as its looks. Quite a difference from its trim, post-war proportions.
Power brakes were quite common in the early ’30s, then disappeared and reappeared in ’52. Some of the power brakes had a dash control to regulate the amount of assist. Upper-class cars often had a dash control for suspension stiffness as well, which didn’t return until the ’90s.
Packard had vacuum assisted brakes with an adjustment on the dash, and they also had “ride control”, variable shocks, again with a dash control. When this was originally introduced, the knob was marked “Hard – In” and “Soft – Out”.* This was quickly changed on the production line to “Hard – Out” and “Soft – In”. As the few cars with the original type were brought in for service, the knob and adjusting systems were exchanged without the owner knowing. I was lucky to find a rough parts car in a junkyard in the 1970s, with the original offensive* knob, and I still have it somewhere in my vast collections.
*Think about it.
Well, in the 1930’s, that’s about as racey as you could get in public. Obviously the engineers and designers were too close to the article to notice the “problem”. I wonder at what level, and how long it took, before it was realized?
And I can only imagine the reaction of the dealership mechanics who had to do the work.
As an engineer who very early in my career worked with a team of other young guys, we often tried to get away with, uh, inappropriate part names or even little details on the drawings (this was pre-CAD) to see what we could get away with. So I think the Packard engineers knew exactly what they were doing.
The was an article by a Packard stylist in the Cormorant a few years ago relating at how he and another drone tried to come up with a fancy name for leather upholstery (like the later “Corinthian” leather, I guess) and settled on “Phartedon Leather.” It didn’t make it too far up the management chain.
Until photography became widespread in brochures (mid-’60s-ish), drawings in brochures usually exaggerated a car’s proportions, lengthening the hood and trunk or just making the entire car larger than life. If my sources are right, a ’33 Studebaker wasn’t even 72″ wide, and while the wheelbase could be pretty long on the higher-end models, it was all ahead of the passenger cabin.
If only manufacturers had stuck with that tech the current chip shortage wouldn’t be an issue. Studebaker, planning for the future! I wonder if people of the day worried about all this newfangled stuff breaking as they do today. “Power brakes! What’s wrong with manual ones, it’s just going to break….”
Studie’s claims were over the top, but Elon’s claim of total autonomous driving is also over the top. It’s impossible. Can’t happen except on rails or electronic “rails”.
What Tesla appears to be doing is beta-testing on its’ paying customers, something the tech industry does often enough but the auto industry normally only does when it stumbles into it via overzealous initial cost-cutting of a technically ambitious design (GM was infamous for this).
Tesla seems to be indulging in the luxury of doing it as part of the plan, something that can only be done by a company whose boss has a cult of personality centered around him. Enough people put trust and faith in Elon to make it possible without being sued to oblivion (yet).
+1
That’s why, as much as I admire the Tesla products, I don’t want to own one. I tend to buy cars for long term ownership (200K+ miles). Don’t want to try to repair old Teslas with their limited parts availability and perhaps no aftermarket support.
Well said, there’s some Youtube channels specializing in Tesla salvage and rebuilds. They make a case to show how Tesla’s policies that discourage anyone (individuals or aftermarket firms) working on older Teslas is a major obstacle. New replacement parts are rare and generally unauthorized , as are service procedures and resources. Furthermore, Tesla seems to use their software control to thwart these rebuilt cars, cutting them off from certain software – based features, like Supercharger access.
I suspect Tesla may discontinue support for any Tesla car once it reaches a certain age, rendering your older Tesla virtually useless – which raises the question of who actually owns your car.
Yes, Tesla is protecting their turf, but other manufacturers do not do this, even though they could. Hobbyists point to General Motors which readily releases all information so hobbyists and aftermarket firms can offer all kinds of parts, service and support.
The “beta-testing” is done with everyone involved’s consent and knowledge and the FSD (beta) is not standard or unavoidable to the purchase of the car which is the difference between it and what I think (how I read it) you are ascribing to GM for example. Nobody is forced to either use it, pay for it, or be part of the program. Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy doing this. Whether or not there should be a governmental entity in charge of deciding whether this is a good idea or not and if it should be allowed or not is beyond my own paygrade.
Most websites that are trying to get someone to click on their sensationalist coverage of the technology seem to either completely gloss over this fact or simply don’t understand the differences or, more likely, just ignore it since it doesn’t fit their narrative. Some websites seem to have a particular hard-on to bring Mr. Musk down a notch and I would frankly not be at all surprised if some people (or sites) out there are literally being paid to do so. I personally found him and his schtick to be the single most difficult aspect of the decision of whether or not to plunk down the money for our (not FSD equipped) Tesla when we did so.
By signing on to be a part of the beta testing a driver IS involved and will be taking on personal responsibility, the car’s decisions are overridable at any time. If a driver decides to not pay attention or let their car crash, good luck coming back on Tesla. This is hardly different than what some stupid people already do when “driving” their regular cars.
I’m not part of that and didn’t sign up for FSD (and won’t). The car does enough other things extremely well and is enjoyable enough to drive without it (sort of) doing it for me. As far as the standard “Autopilot” features are concerned when we purchased it, it was made extremely clear as to what AP was and what it wasn’t, I myself as a reasonably intelligent individual have no false impression about it. If someone chooses to ignore what they were told, that’s on them and they need to take responsibility for it, no matter how somewhat misleading the (frankly brilliant) name for it is to people who shouldn’t apparently be allowed near pointy scissors or hairdryers in the bathroom among other things. After the first extremely unfortunate and even more extremely publicized crash of the guy that went under a tractor trailer while watching Harry Potter, anybody that lets the car do its own thing without paying attention has themselves to blame.
Given that a bystander could also be injured or killed, we are all part of the Tesla experiment, whether we signed on or not.
This is not hypothetical (as I’m sure you’re aware).
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6019770-6bb2-4680-b7ad-24d964637640
Musk’s cult of personality is valuable in that he’s the only human on earth who seems capable of colonizing another planet, making us a multiplanetary species. Pretty important for the long-term survival of humans.
Not necessarily. We (humanity worldwide) need to change our whole mindset, our approach to life, or we’ll just wind up making any other planet we get to another Earth with all its problems. I had hopes that the Covid panic would shock society at large into being more aware of the need for being responsible, for serious sustainability, and seriously getting on with each other, but it looks like humanity’s up to all its old tricks again. Sigh.
Just getting an Early Thirties car going must have been overwhelming to a lot of people. The simplicity of an automatic choke, automatic spark advance, and automatic starting alone must have been a boon to them.
I have a copy of the owner’s manual of the 1932 Chevy. The starting procedure covered most of two pages!
1st–See that the gear shift lever is in neutral position.
2nd–Spark and throttle buttons on instrument panel…are in their proper positions for starting–namely, open throttle slightly by pulling out “Throttle” button approximately one -quarter inch from instrument panel. Do not retard (pull out) the “Spark” button when starting the motor. When driving, both the throttle and the spark buttons should be pushed in against the instrument panel as far as they will go. This position closes the throttle and advances the spark.
3rd–Turn on ignition by inserting the key in the ignition lock on the instrument panel and turning it to the right, which unlocks the lock and the lock barrel, thus closing the ignition circuit. To lock the ignition it is only necessary to push in on the lock plunger.
4th–Pull out heat control button on the instrument panel as far as it will go. In cold weather low speed city driving leave button out. For high speed long drives push button in.
5th–Depress starter pedal, which extends through toe board, with right foot. REMOVE THE FOOT FROM THE STARTER PEDAL THE INSTANT THE MOTOR STARTS. DO NOT DEPRESS THE STARTER PEDAL THE SECOND TIME UNTIL THE MOTOR HAS COME TO A COMPLETE REST. SERIOUS DAMAGE MAY BE DONE TO THE STARTING MOTOR AND FLYWHEEL IF THIS CAUTION IS NOT OBSERVED.
6th–If necessary (depending on climatic conditions) pull out the choke button on the instrument panel as far as it will go for starting and as soon as the motor starts, push the button in towards the panel a short distance. If the motor runs at an excessive rate of speed, after starting, the throttle button should be pushed in until the right speed is obtained. If the motor continues to run irregularly, the choke button should be pushed in slowly, until the motor runs smoothly. When the motor is warm, push the choke button in against the instrument panel as far as it will go.
7th–Release emergency brake.
8th–Make sure the free wheeling button on instrument panel is out. This “locks out” the free wheeling feature and allows the car to be operated in “conventional drive” which the following instructions cover.
The rest of the instructions basically cover the differences between driving with and without free wheeling turned on.
On free wheeling, most people kept it locked out once they had a scary, harrowing experience with it engaged…
If I recall correctly, didn’t some states ban freewheeling? Or did auto makers simply stop offering it on their own, due to negative customer feedback?
Freewheeling is inherently a part of the planetary overdrive as used on all American cars using an overdrive three-speed. But it’s only in effect if overdrive has been enabled, and is not actually engaged, meaning it’s still in a direct gear. When in an overdrive gear (either second or third) freewheeling does not take place.
So yes, one has to be aware of the potential of freewheeling to take place on a long down grade, if OD is enabled but not engaged. My experience is that 2/OD actually makes a great gear for steeper downgrades.
European cars with two-stroke engines all had freewheeling, and it could not be locked out, as engine braking tends to starve a two-stroke of oil and damage it. So these cars, which were quite common (Saabs, DKWs, etc.) generally had larger brakes to compensate, but it did mean that two-strokes were generally not very popular in the Alpine areas because of this.
Back in my 2-stroke dirt bike days I was taught to control speed with the kill button and not the throttle, to avoid oil starvation . For long downhill sections, occasionally open the throttle part way and push the button to cut engine power. The fuel/oil mix would continue to be drawn into the crankcase and cylinder to lube parts, but without the power. It was a bit wasteful but it beats a seized engine in the middle of nowhere.
Thanks for sharing that, rolfast. Never having driven a vintage car but having read about them a lot, I’m amazed at how complex things were. Automatic spark advance and retard is surely one of the biggest advances of the thirties. As for the use of the hand throttle control – so often the more shallow modern writers seem to regard that as a primitive cruise control. And trying to figure out when it was safe to use freewheeling…..
And to think some people used to have trouble with a manual choke!
The engine auto restart functionality seems intriguing – does anyone know how it actually worked?
I doubt it was automatic stop/start as we know it today: The term “Automatic” was used differently back then – it was often used just to mean machine-assisted (as in the case of the power brakes) and not fully automated, as we use it today.
Tom, The automatic starting system was called “Startix”, The Startix automatic engine starting mechanism was a relay in a small box added to the vehicle’s electrical system, usually on the firewall and clearly marked “Startix”. It automatically started an engine from cold or if stalled. It was supplied to vehicle manufacturers in the early 1930s and later as an aftermarket accessory; in the USA by Bendix Aviation Corporation, Eclipse Machine Division and in the UK by Joseph Lucas & Son.
Basic operation involved 2 solenoids. The first one was energized when the ignition switch was turned on. It caused the starter to begin. The second solenoid was triggered when the generator began producing electrical output, shutting off the first solenoid. It was a simple device, and if the choke & ignition advance was set correctly, it usually resulted in the engine running.
The biggest problem was there was no way for the Startix to know if the gearbox was in gear or not, or the clutch was engaged. If the driver didn’t push the clutch in or shift to neutral, or worse, had the vehicle in reverse, when the ignition switch was turned on, the car would start, especially if the engine was warmed up. This was the main reason it was discontinued by the mid 1930s.
Many US luxury cars were equipped with Startix from the late 1920s into the early 1930s. The latest car I ever owned that had one as standard equipment, was my 1935 Rover 12 with a Tickford drophead coupe body.
Here’s what one looks like;
Thanks for the description and picture.
Startix always sounded like a gadget I’d want to disconnect!
Buick was a big autostart proponent.
“Startix always sounded like a gadget I’d want to disconnect!”
You’re not kidding!
To boot, there was a bit of vacuum involved in the control mix.
Another version was Autolite’s Synchro Start. I’m not sure about Startix but Synchro Start lived on in industrial applications for automatic start/stop operation, such as with truck refrigeration.
There was one application where the solid-state digital age was welcome with open arms. LoL
rollfast,
On my Rover 12, I added a period Lucas foot powered starter switch, so when the clutch was depressed to the floor the switch was pressed, that would complete the circuit for the Startix to work.
The final ad shows that in 1932, “telephoning” and “calling” still had two different meanings. “Calling” meant visiting — i.e. showing up in person.
And they used the whole word, ‘telephoning’, rather than just ‘phoning’ as I’ve always heard said. Or is that the Australian predilection for shortening words? 🙂
Although a bit optimistic, the automatic features listed were an advancement toward mechanizing many of the functions that had been manually handled. Note in the list automatic restart when the car stalled, it was called Startix:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startix
They also had that Free-Wheeling device which while promoted to save gas and ease the chore of shift, left no engine holdback, was dangerous in operation especially on hills.
Imagine going from a ’23 Model T to a modern Studebaker. It’s just that in March 1933, people were likely to stick with the car that was paid for. And go to a company that hadn’t gone bankrupt.
Was the car in the ad the Commander or Dictator?
I can imagine that they were using everything they could use to get customers into new cars in 1933. Studebaker in particular – and it didn’t work well enough since they went into receivership in March of that year.
They were certainly screaming “Modern” and “Advanced” as loudly as they could. Those robot heads are kind of menacing. 🙂
According to Thomas Bonsall’s book, Studebaker’s market share actually held up well during the early 1930s. The problem was that Erskine and the board continued to pay out high dividends, even as sales and profits dropped.
What I find fascinating about the ads is the use of the robot heads, with the obvious assumption that the reader of said ad will understand exactly what it’s saying. As a society, we certainly understand the concept of “robot” (as in mechanical person or automaton), having been C-3PO’d to death over the past 45 years.
What most of us don’t realize is that the concept of a “robot” in both name and form did not exist before 1919, and only then due to the German movie “RUR” (which stood for Rossum’s Universal Robots) where the name, form and concept of the robot were introduced simultaneously. Which did not get much US platy.
Even more impressive is that the robot didn’t really take off until 1927’s “Metropolis” (another German film, and usually considered the beginning of science fiction cinema in the US), so in the space of 6 years you’ve got a significant section of the American public, who most likely considered science fiction merely the realm of cheap pulps like Amazing Stories (which no ‘polite’ person would be caught reading), fully knows what a robot is.
So the inference was that this new Studebaker was straight out of the realm of science fiction? That works for me!
Interesting point though, whether the general populace, who didn’t read ‘Amazing Stories’ or watch German cinema would have understood the artwork.
Beautiful cars, hard times. Anybody know all 12 brains? Owned a 1962 Studebaker V-8 with the “Hill-holder” – think that came out about 1936. Erskine committed suicide a few months after the company went into receivership. Very sad.
From another Studebaker ad, the 12 mechanical brains are:
– Automatic Starting
– Automatic Stopping
– Automatic Protection
– Automatic Choke Control
– Automatic Heat Control
– Automatic Spark Control
– Automatic Ride Control
– Automatic Gear Control
– Automatic Temperature Control
– Automatic Fuel Control
– Automatic Vibration Control
– Automatic Road Shock Control
I want to know what “Automatic Protection” is.
Thanks! I was wondering too. Some of those seem a bit forced though – but not being as automatic in those respects as we are used to nowadays just goes to show you what the average non-Studebaker was like in the early thirties.
Scoutdude and Peter, I did finally find descriptions of these mechanical brain functions… they’re listed in the attachment below:
Sorry, but the engineer in me is still struggling with the “61% of physical effort” claim. How is that determined, let alone so precisely?
You have to ask? It’s advertising! 😉
Remember, 81.6% of all statistics are made up.
Yeah that gave me pause as to how they determined that too. I can see easily quantifying the lowered force required with power brakes. However I’m betting they are also counting the effort of things like pulling out the choke.