In the process of restoring my 26 roadster and just removed the water pipe from the lower radiator hose and fitting.
In restoring my 42 GPW army jeep, the research indicates that early in the war, the upper radiator hose was a long rubber hose, but later in the war, when rubber became scarce, it was changed to two short rubber hoses and a long water pipe in between. Exactly like the Model T.
But since rubber was not an issue during Model T production, what was the "technical" reason in using a steel pipe instead of one long rubber hose. It always struck me that 4 places to leak instead of 2 was a concern. Not to mention twice the installation labor.
Also, I have read mention of a Ford script pipe. Where on my pipe would I look for the script. Ford or just F?
I'll hang up and listen.
I would think the long hose would colapse.
As I read your post I was thinking of the pipe vs. using a non-collapsible hose and the comparative cost. Then I realized that since the T has an open (non-pressurized) cooling system, it probably wouldn't need such a hose. Pretty much anything that doesn't leak would undoubtedly do.
So, it's a good question, particularly in light of the labor and materials cost. Sure woulda been cheaper to just use a single hose.
I'm curious to read what the experts here have to say.
The hose would not collapse because it is not a sealed system like (more) modern cars so no vacuum is created on cool down.
Maybe it would dissipate some heat?
on our 16 the pipe rusted out and I put a hose on I had. it works fine but the spark advance rod rubs on hose.I plan to put a pipe on when I find one
The long hose will collapse. Now days you can get a long hose with a spiral wire inside to prevent collapse. This should work just fine.
Likely the pipe was used as criteria of other early cars, as rubber hoses in proper fabric ply were costly, just like tires on the low cost Ford.
Henry put 3" tires on the front for that reason.
Save a penny, lower price to sell more T's.
As with those rubber hoses, the specs for the upper outlet hose was 3 1/4" long, 4 ply, 2" I.D. hose.
For the lower inlet hoses, those were only 3 ply, 2 1/4" long, 1 3/4" I.D. hose. Probably selected as the 12" metal pipe was used, and maybe because the coolant was a bit lower temp after falling thru the radiator, and softer tube was OK when used in short length.
Cost of a 4 ply hose for 16" needed for the lower hose would be some $$. Metal pipe to span that distance was a savings. Plus metal pipe was more rigid, less chance of any collapse that would hinder the flow of fluid with a soft rubber hose.
Important for the thermo-syphon system to have un-hindered path for the liquid, when heated, the fluid flow is 'siphoned' from a higher level to a lower level, and you want that flow passage fully opened.
One thing about a long 'flexible' hose, is the inside of that hose is corrugated too, places to collect contaminants from iron and stuff in the coolant, and to slow down the flow over the ridges in that long rubber hose.
Staying with the Ford design seems best IMO
The Ford Way
I don't know what Henry's original reason was, maybe the pipe was cheaper than the rubber? I do know that the old rubber before Neoprene was not as good as our modern rubber.
I have seen cars with one long rubber hose and they seemed to work fine, but if you want it to look similar to the original, use the pipe and two short hoses. The Model A also used two short hoses and a pipe.
"The long hose will collapse."
Hoses only collapse due to the suction of a water pump. That is why they are reinforced today. If anything, a T lower hose would be under some small amount of head pressure. I don't believe it would collapse.
The 42 GPW replaced the inlet hose with a pipe and two short hoses and double the clamps, but it was on the inlet side and the GPW did use a water pump. The urban legend is that it was installed to save rubber as the early versions had a long rubber hose. Not a collapse preventer issue.
I can see Henry trying to save a penny on the difference between rubber and steel, but double the labor to install 4 clamps, pluse the cost of the two additional clmaps? I'm thinking it's more of a technical issue. The timing rod dragging across rubber is an idea.
Does you picture really show the "cheap" Ford way of leaving out one of the upper clamps?
Ha Ha just joking!
My guess would be the steel or brass pipe would aid in cooling and rubber would not??Bud in Wheeler,Mi.
The best reason to keep the lower pipe is for diagnosis of the cooling system.
You place your hand on that lower steel pipe and feel the cool flow, as your engine is running, so you know your radiator is working, that pipe stays cool to touch when all is right
A rubber hose will insulate and mask what is happening!
Labor for Ford during the Model T days was cheap also, and we know that Ford was cheap!
Over the years I have run several T's with a single lower hose. They had no problems and the hose did not collapse. With that said I agree with Dan. On a T that is timed right, with the fuel mixture set right and it has a good cooling system you can put your hand on the steel tube while the engine is running and it will be cool even on very hot days.
The radiator is tubes spaced by fins to let air flow through around the surface area of the tubes.The water pipe has a lot of surface area and the pan pulls alot of air by the pipe.A modern flat tube exposes more tube area to air flow cooling better. I have doubts about Ford using the pipe so you will know if the radiator is working!!!!! Bud still in Wheeler,Mi.
I have absolutely no doubt that the 2 hose with steel tube and 4 clamps was cheaper than a single hose at the time of production. Henry simply would not have done it if a single hose was less expensive.
I'm taking my Model T Ford script pliers to the next military vehicle meeting to show them that, yes, old Henry was "frugal".
He replace the screwdriver in the tool kit by grinding down to a flat head one of the handles of the pliers.
And, yet, this is the same guy that had an F mark molded in or stamped on every part of the 280,000 GPW's Ford assembled during the war under license by Willys so that they would know which failed parts were Ford and which were not. Can't imagine the tooling costs associated with having his "F" on evey part.
I have an original Ford script water pipe on one if my cars. The script is about the same size and style as the Ford Script on post March 19, 1919 Model T front cross members.
Robert my understanding is ford made all the parts with a f on them under willys license. ford also made gp jeeps with a 9n tractor eng. before switching over to gpw's in 42
Mine has had a single long hose since at least 1954. Never had any problems.
A rubber hose has worked for me for many years. How could it collapse in an open system?
I think Mr. Kling is on the right track with the quality of the rubber. I've taken off some fairly old rubber radiator hoses. They were a fabric (of course most are) with a little bit of rubber left. In that era, I can see where it would be possible for the rubber to "give up" and very easy for the fabric to collapse. With a steel tube, there would be less of an area for that to happen. That's my theory anyway. This has been a neat thread!
I Had to use rubber to get around things:
Most of the rubber products I have seen from this era were much like canvas imbedded with rubber. I would wonder if any car from that era used long hoses made from rubber since I think it might have been something that was not commonly thought to be a good design idea. Remember this design happened in 1908. It doesn't take much of a hose to connect two water connections that are only about 1/2" apart which is pretty much what the Ford has in every place. The hoses are more like "unions" of 2 pipes in all 3 places they are used. Rubber was not cheap and interference with the timer rod was pretty much a given if you were to use an all rubber hose. Labor was way cheaper than materials in those days which is the total reverse of today so it clouds our judgement when trying to ask why something was done a certain way. I just don't think labor cost entered into the discussion on such an easy item to learn how to put on. Watching some of the videos, Fords workers learned how to do everything very fast and I suspect not a single one of the 3 hoses took anywhere near as long to put on as we take nowadays. Your mileage may vary of course.
A better Picture:
I would have thought less rubber was by design, not so much the T but water pumps used soluble oil in the water for lube and rubber hates that stuff!
What? No power steering?
Reading the post from Mr Regan i wonder if it was a design about quality and longevity?? If we think that the early pipes were brass and why were the early Ford water water pumps and their connections were also brass?? Bud in Wheeler,Mi. ps. I had help with spelling-Bud.
I have a NOS water pipe in my hand and it has the Ford script stamped in three places. It is not a double script like Phils. I have another that has the script in one place, and a big P after it.
On my aluminum radiator I use a long rubber hose from about timer location to the inlet yep really long no issues on the test stand earlier this year
Anyone who has installed a radiator on a T knows that one man holding the rad can easily jam the lower fitting into the rather rigid pipe assembly and if I recall correctly, you see this done at high speed on the assembly line. A flimsy hose only would require a spare hand and possibly a second man. That would be reason enough for Ford.
I agree with Paul Mikeska.
When I read the title of this thread I immediately started thinking that it's more fun to beat them with a rubber hose. It's gonna be one of those days folks.
Power Steering? Come on Hal, at least he is not running an E-Timer!