KC Warford / Ruckstell added weight and effect

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2015: KC Warford / Ruckstell added weight and effect
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Constantine in Australia on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 08:32 pm:

Does someone know how much weight a Ruckstell adds to a car?

And what it is when adding a KC Warford with a support bracket...a bit more complex here I guess because you have to shorten the drive shaft and radius rods which cuts weight.

Would the weight added by a Ruckstell or KC Warford have a noticeable effect on cruising speed or hill climbing ability (when in standard Ford gearing)?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 08:42 pm:

Constantine - Not to detract from your post, but it might be worth considering that the weight of the Ruckstell would be "unsprung weight", whereas the weight of the Warford, which is NOT unsprung weight, and which is near the center of the car, would not. Accordingly, one might seriously change the handling characteristics of the car where the other might not,....FWIW,....harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 09:11 pm:

According to a website, the shipping weight of a new KC Warford is 75 lbs, but that also includes the weight of shipping carton.

The Ruckstell would maybe add 40lbs or less to the normal T rear axle. The adds are the Ruckstell housing and the innards.

Wouldn't worry of this little added weight, the performance of having that intermediate gear in a T is well worth it, including the $ needed for a Ruckstell. Love mine!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 09:35 pm:

The weight of either one would be insignificant quite, compared with the advantage of additional gear choices for the hills. If you are in an area where an overdrive would be nice, go for the Warford. If not, Ruckstell is the way to go.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 10:04 pm:

Wanna' hear something really weird? And just so I don't take any "flak" for this, this car I recently bought ALREADY had an iron Warford and a Ruckstell! I'm not sure this was a good idea the guy had, but I will say that with everything in LOW, it will just absolutely crawl. Probably be good for parades, and I've already found out that it's sure great for loading on a trailer! To me, the big difference is that the Ruckstell is absolutely silent (or at least if there is any gear noise, you don't hear it) whereby the Warford is pretty noisy!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Friday, July 31, 2015 - 10:05 pm:

Ooops,....forgot to say (in case anybody's interested) it's a '26 touring.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Woods, Richmond, Texas on Saturday, August 01, 2015 - 12:22 am:

Harold, I previously had a 16 touring equipped the way yours is. I use to tell people than if I put the front axle up against a tree trunk or some object with any slant to it at all, that it could climb that object. It was geared that low.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Saturday, August 01, 2015 - 12:52 am:

Warford and Ruckstell is a great combination. If you think it is low geared in your T you should try it in a TT truck. With the low speed gears you could pull the Queen Mary out of dry dock. Well not really, but I have won some bets at work hooking my dump truck with a chain to a fully loaded semi, 80000 lbs on a slight grade. I can pull it, and old dumpy will pull the front wheels off the ground if I give it too much throttle. Gear reduction is awesome. Years ago I calculated the final drive ratio was something like 165:1 in lowest gear.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Wayne Sheldon, Grass Valley, CA on Saturday, August 01, 2015 - 03:47 pm:

I love the multiple auxiliary gear combinations. One of the best speedsters I had used a Muncie with reverse and a Ruckstell. That gave it 14 gear combinations for forward. Everybody forgets to add reverse-reverse plus two Ruckstell choices as forward gears. Reverse-reverse-Ruckstell had a top speed of about 2 1/2 mph. I once used the speedster to pull a stuck truck out of a backyard where it had sunk into the mud and allowed to dry.
My coupe has a Ruckstell and a Rocky Mountain Six Speed for a total of 12 speeds forward. Lots of choices for hills and highways.
One of the advantages of multiple gears is that if you are flying along a highway going in and out of hills? you can be in over-drive for a bit and run into a hill (either up or down) and want to downshift for just a minute. The Ruckstell is sometimes a better choice to shift, either because it is somewhat lower than dropping the other tranny into direct or simply because it is an easier more positive and quicker shift. If you are expecting to go back into over-drive in just a minute, it is often easier to just shift the Ruckstell twice. If you expect to slow on down, it is usually a better choice to drop down from the over-drive. Sometimes in many things in life? Choices are good. Multiple transmissions can be fun, and sometimes can maximize the driving pleasures.
I have had Ts both "as Henry made them" and with lots of vintage accessories. I like them both ways.
Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Constantine in Australia on Saturday, August 01, 2015 - 06:00 pm:

Harold, good point about "unsprung weight" but being the KC is double the weight of the Ruckstell the difference in the effect on handling between the two I guess would not be huge.

Dan, Did the Wanderwell cars have Ruckstell or aux trans? What ring and pinion did they use? How's that project going?

Erik, be great if you had that on video...and to put it on Youtube / Facebook...people WANT to see such things. Does the MTFCA / MTFCI have a Youtube channel and Facebook page with those type of videos? Youtube and Facebook are the platform to attract younger people into the hobby...and videos of T doing such amazing things is what needs to be there...not ONLY photos and videos of people sitting and chatting on "tours", or ONLY shiny cars in a parking lot. No wonder most young people (and more than a few T owners) think a Model T is basically a big wind-up toy. Case in point young Ryan's comments in this recent thread:

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/506218/559022.html?1438463615

Back to topic...

The Warford and Ruckstell combination is an interesting proposition. I like the idea of never again using Ford-low and a choice of intermediate gears; but don't like the extra weight or having more things that can fail...less is sometimes more.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Saturday, August 01, 2015 - 09:20 pm:

Constantine

The Wanderwell project is going slow, too much fun touring this summer, off in 10 days or so to the Michigan T Jamboree.

Here is the chassis as of now, just laying out the body build plans for Unit #2 at this time.



As for the axles, think at some later time that car #2 got a Ruckstell for the South Africa run, '24-'25.
But at the early going, the std. Ford axle, here is a pic from Asia. Most of the Units had std. axle or sometimes Ruckstell.




Unit #2

Unit #3 driven by Aloha Wanderwell's sister was in this turn turtle accident, and it did have a Ruckstell.



Unit #2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Constantine in Australia on Sunday, August 02, 2015 - 09:26 am:

Dan,

Thanks for the update. Looking forward to seeing this car come together. Make sure you keep a good photo record.

Any idea on who/how these expeditions were paid for? Was Wanderwell a wealthy man? Did Ford donate/sponsor? Looks like Mobil did.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Sunday, August 02, 2015 - 11:18 am:

Self promotion and good ole showmanship.

Wanderwell used some funds from contributions, and some of the members of the expedition footed their way too. Most from picture post card sales, and theater exhibitions held in cities, viewers paid admission to see/hear in person the trip adventures, and see motion pictures the Capt. made during the years of the adventure.

Walter asked for Ford help in buying the films, but Ford declined. These films still exist, and the family still has the rights to them, and some are in the Smithsonian too.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dustin Layne on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 12:57 pm:

I just put one on the scale to double check. The KC Warford - H1 weighs in at 40lbs dry.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:05 pm:

"Would the weight added by a Ruckstell or KC Warford have a noticeable effect on cruising speed or hill climbing ability (when in standard Ford gearing)?"


Not worth considering. Adding or subtracting a passenger would have far more effect.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration