- Home
- About Us
- Join/Renew
- Member Benefits
- Member Pages
- Log In
- Help
- Museum Store
Shucks, I can’t match the time owned except with my 1931 Chevrolet, next year will be 50 years.
My ’31 Pierce phaeton, well, I first met it 47 years ago, but only bought it 29 years ago….
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana…..
Yes, Studebaker used the same ball bearing system, and it was promoted in their advertising. If you Google the topic you can find an article that discusses the testing that the Studebaker engineers did on the system.
I don’t know what other cars other than Pierce and Studebaker used these shackles, but Fafnir advertised at the time that kits were available to convert any make to the system.
One point made in this discussion was that there is very little travel for the balls themselves, thus a dimple in the race may just be the travel range, not a “failure” of the system. I would bet that, over the 80 years since they’ve been in place, more bearings have “failed” due to corrosion and non-lubrication than due to wear or breakage.
I agree that most regular garages would not service ball bearing spring shackles, but I bet the Pierce dealerships did…..from a business standpoint a service manager was probably telling his mechanics “look at the odometer, 20K 40K 60K let’s work on those shackles and generate income!!……and I agree with Bob, who has taken a sound engineering approach to the discussion, as did the original engineers……..
Jak, perfect reply by you, and I agree that driving them is the goal…although will admit I have too few miles behind me in an old car during the past few years…but retired now, and doing trim work as a hobby, so hopefully will view over the bonnet much more often in the coming years!!
Pardon me, I mis-typed, and meant ball bearings. I also stand by my statements, what we see as “failure” is on cars that have many more than 20,000 miles on them, and the parts have never been replaced, thus the damage. Period literature states the design is for 20,000 mile life on a car.
I agree that modern pin/bushing arrangements are more durable, but the original design is not at fault if used within stated limits.
Well, I’m not sure it’s fair to criticize the engineers with such force.
We are quick to assume faulty engineering, when something doesn’t make obvious sense, or newer things have been developed that seem to be better than the original.
Fafnir designed roller bearings specifically for spring shackles, and they were used on both Pierce and Studebaker cars, and available to convert other makes to the system. Literature of the time states that the bearings were good for at least 20,000 miles, which was a lot of driving in the 30’s. Viewed from out “100,000 miles on a spark plug” mentality, it would seem that’s a flaw in engineering, but I’d disagree. It was an engineering decision based on design and calculation of the time in which it was produced, and used as a selling point for many a car….
Repeating what others have said, but it bears repeating. You and Diana have given much to the PAS, and it is greatly appreciated. David C.
I would bet he’s looking for the complete mat, which was standard issue on open car. Rubber ribbed mat, Pierce logo in the center, with a backing, and covering the entire front floor.
Mine is original but brittle and cracking, I’d like to have a new one and save the old.
At this point no that that I’m aware of is reproducing. If someone has a procedure for molding a mat of this size I’d like to know it….
Hyman has been advertising for one, but a couple of good deals have come and gone since he started advertising, so it’s a mystery…..
Thanks Ed, appreciate the lead…..
Front of pedal car….
Congratulations Fay. I still remember how nice you were to my young son at the Mass. meet, even bought one of his Pierce car sketches from him! You deserve this….
In the case of my 1931 Pierce Model 43 phaeton, I have a picture of me standing next to the car at a show, drooling, in 1965…I was 14 years old and the car belonged to a gentleman from New Orleans.
I became good friends with him over the years, through shows and tours in Louisiana. In 1985, I was trying to by a 1929 Cadillac roadster from his best friend, Buddy Walton. We were on a tour at Avery Island (home of Tabasco sauce), and I was discussing the roadster with Buddy. “David”, he said, “you don’t want the Cadillac, you want Drew’s Pierce”. Well, sure but it’s not for sale. “Walk over to him now, and ask him, he’ll sell you the car”.
Five minutes later I’d made a deal for the car I’d admired for twenty years. Drew wanted me to own it, as he knew how much I liked Pierce Arrows (I had four at the time he sold me the phaeton).
That’s why I won’t sell it. And, I can tell you that I’ve turned down a very generous offer for the car, and when I told the prospective buyer “no”, the comment was “Wow, you REALLY don’t want to sell it, do you?”
Low pressure 6 volt pumps are available from Mac’s Model T parts. I bought one to try on my Pierce, haven’t installed yet.
Hate to miss it, y’all have fun!!
I have a 1931 which is similar, but not identical, to the 29 engine. You’re welcome to look at it if you’re in the Winchester area sometime. David Coco Winchester Va.
The wasp made a mistake, and saw the arrow of its ways…..
Fun picture for us, kinda rough on the wasp….thanks for posting….
Myron, I’m for the merger. I don’t think anyone will ever confuse a Pierce Arrow with a Studebaker. While the latter are very nice cars, the exceptional quality of a Pierce will always be foremost in a customer’s mind, and there’ll be no question of either company copying the others product.
This merger should assure the survival of both companies through the 20th Century.
Well played!!
OK no problem on the name, at least I know it’s sold….and it went to a good home….that car sure had me going for a while, I made a run at it, but it really needed someone with deeper pockets….my dream of a custom bodied Pierce is probably on permanent hold! thanks dc
