I love this picture, very atmospheric! Can anyone ID the year & date from the front lic plate?
Looks like a New York plate - I see a fuzzy "N.Y." along the bottom.
White numerals in that style of font over dark background with the "N.Y." and year at the bottom of the plate indicate 1921, 1922 or 1924.
I'm leaning toward 1924 which had a grayish green background which probably would show up light gray in the photo. Also, even though it's fuzzy I believe I can at least see the "24" of the "1924" along the bottom of the plate.
1921 had a dark blue background while 1922 had medium to dark but vivid green background. Either plate would probably show up darker in the photo.
Here are three recently found photos. My wife's dad, aunt and "Sport" who appeared in the Our Gang Comedies. My avatar is of my '31 40-B Dlx with my co-driver behind the wheel. I'm toying with the idea of recreating his gow job, but as yet I have no T parts.
I Would agree with Erik. '22 and '24 had lighter backgrounds. Many states didn't have the lower slots for mounting. Those large letters are characteristic of the 6 digit NY plates. Larger numbers used a narrower numeral. The "NY 1923" was above the numerals rather the below. The 5 and the 7 surely look the same.
This guy looks like he could have been from New York.
This is a photo of my father in a friends speedster in the 1920's. Looks to be made of a 1915 or 1916 chassis. I'll bet it was fun.
Looks like a Dunlop tire (chevron tread).
Dunlop clincher tires are incredibly expensive today. A 30 x 3.5 Dunlop is $660 if purchased from Universal.
I recall an HCCA debate on which direction the chevrons were supposed to go. Saddly, most of the participants are no longer with us and I don't remember if the questions was ever resolved.
Tractor tires are typically mounted so the "arrow points" face forward. Similarly, that is probably how Dunlop chevrons should be mounted.
Here is how the chevrons have been orientated the Dunlops on my dad's 1910 IHC roadster for over 50 years - the arrow points face forward. My father has been in the antique car hobby since 1948. He can probably provide the justification if asked.
This photo was taken in 1966. The building in the background is Twin Cities Ford assembly plant in St. Paul, MN which was completed in 1925. The entire complex was recently torn down.
Erik, I remember that very unusual IHC of your Dad's. Isn't it an air-cooled four with little fans blowing on the cylinders, and a two-speed sliding gear transmission?
Gil Fitzhugh the Elder (who first got into the hobby in 1966 in Minneapolis)
Only two fans mounted on the passenger side of the motor. Four cylinder, air cooled, overhead cam, hemispherical combustion chambers.
Two speed forward sliding gear transmission and a HUGE leather faced cone clutch. (The 1911 models were equipped with a three speed transmission - the first gear was made lower to compensate for the ridiculous clutch.)
I had deep chevron treaded tires on an ATV that had directional arrows on each sidewall pointing in opposite directions! Seemed to work fine either way, Don.
The point of the chevron should strike the ground first on a drive tire for best traction in propelling the vehicle. In other words, the chevron should "point" in the direction of rotation. The opposite is true for a non-drive tire to have the best braking (if the wheel has brakes) or cornering traction. And for the same reason. On the drive tire, the tire is pushing the ground. On a braking non-drive tire, the ground is pushing the tire. Same relative motion.
I agree with Hal. On the fronts, the chevrons should point to the rear looking at the top of the tire. This channels water to the rear when the car is moving forward. I see a lot of motorcycle tires mounted incorrectly which can lead to dangerous hydro planing. I doubt that would be a problem on a T or an IHC!
I would think in the current picture, as the point of the chevron hits the wet pavement, the water would thence be channeled outward to the side of the tire. In the opposite case, I would think the water would be trapped towards the center of the tire, thus causing hydroplaning. Just an uneducated, unauthorized opinion.
I have similar hydroplaning problems at speeds over 200mph with the TT.
Think about it like this. Say a drive tire was trying to spin on wet pavement ('loss of traction' due to accelerating too hard), the tread direction would help it to throw the water outward, just like you said. But on the front (Let's assume we have front wheel brakes), the equivalent 'loss of traction' scenario is when we are braking to the point of skidding. The road, and therefore the water on it, are pushing on that tire in the same manner that the drive tire is pushing on the road. The road and water are rushing at the tire from the front toward the rear, so you would want the chevrons angled outward toward the rear (on the bottom of the tire where it meets the road) so the water can better channel out to the sides, rather than being 'scooped' toward the center, as would happen with a skidding front tire mounted as they are on the IHC above.
It's a little harder to comprehend when you have no front wheel brakes, but the same applies. While you won't have skidding due to braking, you could still have hydroplaning just due to the water coming at the tire and the tire climbing up onto it. Your more likely to have it if the water rushing at the tire is channeled toward the center than out to the sides. It's all about which way the forces are acting on the tires.
Newton says for every force, there's and equal and opposite one. So a drive tire pushes rearward on the road and the road pushes forward on the car. But for a non-drive tire, the road is pushing rearward on the tire and the tire is pushing forward on the road. That is why non-drive tires with directional tread should be mounted in the opposite direction from a drive tire.
This is interesting. For some unexplained reason I have always thought (apparently in error) that directional tires were directional due to the cord and belt construction. It never occurred to me that it's a tread design issue.
Having said that, are the cords and belts in a directional tire identical to a non-directional tire or are they woven or assembled differently in a way that makes them directional?
My dad could never get the correct 34 inch tires for the IHC roadster.
Originally, he compromised by installing 36 inch Firestone Non-Skids. These were real fatties and didn't look right. He also had to move the rear fenders slightly forward to get enough clearance.
In the mid-60s, he installed the Dunlops which are actually metric tires. They were slightly undersized. They have no wire in the bead so my dad stretched them out by putting them over another tire and tube and inflating the tire underneath and let the tire sit overnight (an old backyard mechanics trick).
Non-Skids 1963 below on the way to an AACA National Meet in downtown Minneapolis:
But Hal, is there enough force present at 1500lbs. and 20hp to alight a moth from quiet repose ?
Maybe not. My explanation doesn't apply to just Model T's.