Page 1 of 1
Roadster top irons..
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:44 pm
by ModelT1909
Looking to set my top irons for my 14 Roadster. Does anyone have the measurements for placement of the body irons that support the top irons? Thank you.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 12:48 pm
by John kuehn
This Roadster top schematic may give you an idea. You can take a measurement from the back to front of your Roadster body and compare with the measurement on this one to see if it’s the correct body that’s shown. Some MTFCA posts have this pictured from 14-17 and some later. The low cowl T bodies for Roadsters are close to the same as far as body wood structure goes. There are some differences but not a lot.
Several years ago I bought a set of wood body plans for my 1919 Roadster from Mel Miller. His plans were for a 14-22 T Roadster. I later sold the plans. The late Leon Parker improved on Mel’s plans and sold them until his death.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:02 pm
by Rich Eagle
Is this the dimension you are looking for?
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/25 ... 1335141932
It says it's for a '15 Touring but I think it would be the same.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 7:36 pm
by Wayne Sheldon
The body's top mounting iron's position is different on a roadster/runabout than it is for the front on a touring car. The touring car's is near the back of the front seat, whereas the runabout's is near the front of the front seat arm rest. This is necessary for the rear socket/bow to have a "rest" for it to sit into, and for the socket/bow to angle back like it does.
A later 1910s runabout, but the top placement is the same.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 7:39 pm
by Wayne Sheldon
And for comparison, a 1917 touring car front seat.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:21 pm
by John kuehn
And I think?? the top iron support bracket attaches to the arm rest wood that gets covered with the interior material. As Wayne S says about the roadster top iron location it would be closer to to the front than a touring would be. My 1919 is that way. I think that dimension is shown on the schematic that’s posted. Hopefully others will give better information. You can just see it on the 1917 photo.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 10:14 pm
by Rich Eagle
Maybe this is some help. It is how I did my '14 Touring.
Not the right irons. I made do.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 11:19 pm
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
John kuehn wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 12:48 pm
This Roadster top schematic may give you an idea. You can take a measurement from the back to front of your Roadster body and compare with the measurement on this one to see if it’s the correct body that’s shown. Some MTFCA posts have this pictured from 14-17 and some later. The low cowl T bodies for Roadsters are close to the same as far as body wood structure goes. There are some differences but not a lot.
Several years ago I bought a set of wood body plans for my 1919 Roadster from Mel Miller. His plans were for a 14-22 T Roadster. I later sold the plans. The late Leon Parker improved on Mel’s plans and sold them until his death.
Are you saying the picture in your post of a 1915 and newer top is going to have the same dimensions for the 1913/14?? I have this picture also but it appears the listed dimensions are different than on my '14 Runabout.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 3:18 am
by Wayne Sheldon
The "fit" of the tops between 1913/'14 and 1915/'22 is something I have been looking for on this and other forums for quite a number of years now! I cannot recall ever seeing what I would call a "definitive" answer.
I have heard many people say, or read comments to the effect, that there is a significant difference between the 1913/'14s and the later cars. But I myself cannot really see that. Yes, the rear curtain is different! The 1913/'14 has common sense fasteners that allow rolling the rear curtain up for summer ventilation. But does that mean the fit and dimensions need to be different for the rest of the top? Many people have argued that the flat firewall of the 1913/'14s necessitates a longer top! But the 1913/'14 windshield may begin from that forward point directly behind the hood? However, the lower windshield section angles back quite a bit behind the firewall. The distance it sets back from the firewall is awfully close to where the later cowl places the bottom of the windshield.
I suspect that there might be a slight difference in the forward length of the front top socket/bow? But I do not know that! Every time this subject comes up? I hope someone smarter than I can give a definitive answer.
It really doesn't matter to my 1915 runabout. The commonly shown diagram is for a 1915 through 1922 runabout top. That sets my car up fine if I ever get far enough along to put a top on it. But I would really like to read a definitive answer, just so I can KNOW! And then maybe I can answer that question for other people?
IF (big IF again!) there is a difference in the length of the front socket or bow? I doubt it is much more than an inch. As many tops as I see that are not set up properly? I doubt that one inch would make much difference? Most of the time, I doubt that one inch would be noticed.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:42 am
by George Mills
I'd agree with Wayne.
There is not enough documented proof as to 'what was what' when it came to the earlier top irons/sockets. For every lead that seems to suggest something unique to a '15 or earlier...there seems to always be a conflicting lead that points to something else.
I also believe that if someone sat at the film-reader at Benson Ford for a week or even more, they would probably come away still shaking their head.
Heaven forbid that we call it plausible that there were several different suppliers perhaps and the iron work/bow work were not unique to Ford?
I'm not sniping...just fact after decades of Don Quixote searching for better answers and always coming up with a 'duh-uh'!
The subject is fresh in my mind as someone recently contacted me just before Christmas...their '15 Runabout needs a new top...plus, folks have always suggested to him that his top irons are weird - meaning WRONG, yet all else on the car has always suggested that it might give any 'Rip Van Winkle' equivalent a run for its money! They wanted me to find them the correct iron set (they were willing to pay premium to secure one) and then have me supervise how to jig-lock the back bow and front bow for proper fitting, if not put the covering on myself (no secret, I learned from the RED book and apparently have been doing a decent job without any needing a re-stretch 2 years later!) I told this person...keep your existing iron set and use it...just point out the matching creases in your running board splash shields for the peanut gallery boo-birds to hover over and say 'oh, so sad...such a perfect car otherwise' (a '15 owners joke...the factory creases for the bulge are that apparent) and then just buy the stock top kit if you must and I will fit it for you!
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm
by Scott_Conger
it is a very safe bet that if the top bow is set dead vertical, then moved fore/aft until the forward bow clears/overlaps the windshield by 2-3", you will have found exactly where the top irons are supposed to be located.
Just as fore/aft location determines the overhang of the windshield (get that windshield set up correctly first!), when folded down, the relative height location of the iron should be such that the top lays back with the irons pretty much parallel to the ground and the irons are buried within the upholstery. There are vert minor differences between the two, but the '13 and '14 arrangement relative to your question, can be seen on this '13...general set-back and height of the top irons can easily be seen here for reference (photo credit, Kevin Weeds, 2015):
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 3:49 pm
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
Scott_Conger wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm
it is a very safe bet that if the top bow is set dead vertical, then moved fore/aft until the forward bow clears/overlaps the windshield by 2-3", you will have found exactly where the top irons are supposed to be located.
Just as fore/aft location determines the overhang of the windshield (get that windshield set up correctly first!), when folded down, the relative height location of the iron should be such that the top lays back with the irons pretty much parallel to the ground and the irons are buried within the upholstery. There are vert minor differences between the two, but the '13 and '14 arrangement relative to your question, can be seen on this '13...general set-back and height of the top irons can easily be seen here for reference (photo credit, Kevin Weeds, 2015): 539045.jpg539044.jpg
Thanks Wayne & George!!
Scott, therein lies my problem. On this '14 that we are working on, if the center bow is set at vertical we can barely get the front bow to extend past the windshield without it rubbing. Now I am almost wondering if this front bow is incorrect??
Notice in the factory image and the 'gas company car' images just how much clearance is between the top of the windshield frame and the backside of the front bow. This set of bows does not have that amount of latitude which makes me believe these bows were either homemade incorrectly, -or possibly something like the ends where they entered the sockets was deteriorated so the previous 'restorer' just cut-off a little from the very end and jammed the shortened bow back into the socket.
Bottom line, if I had dimensions I would fabricate a new front bow before we make a new top.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:07 pm
by Scott_Conger
Brent
Dave was looking at where his body-mounted top irons belong and my advice was solely toward positioning them.
you have a different conundrum and I agree with you and wonder if someone hasn't jimmied up the front bow. Since your upper glass is vertical, I believe that your lack of generous front bow clearance is due to prior incorrect work.
Tourings are completely different, but for interest sake I will look at my '13 and see if I don't have a far more generously proportioned wood bow on it more like what you'd want for yours.
If you ever find out what the actual dimensions should be, that'd be a boon to the hobby...and congratulations on finding such good photos to work from or compare to.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 6:53 pm
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
Scott_Conger wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:07 pm
If you ever find out what the actual dimensions should be, that'd be a boon to the hobby...and congratulations on finding such good photos to work from or compare to.
Scott, I feel like I might have a better chance of having a baby than the Benson Research Center ever re-opening!!
Until then I guess I will just 'wing-it'.
Another FWIW, since we are making the top decking and curtains in-house, I may 'fudge' a tad and raise the center bow by 1.000" to gain a bit more headroom, and then bend a new front bow the same width but longer on each side where I can start shortening each end gradually until I get it fitting where I think it looks correct around the windshield.
Dave C., I'm not sure if you figured out the measurements you need, but feel free to shoot me a PM specifically where you want the measurements taken from and I'll take them off of this car we're working on.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:59 pm
by Wayne Sheldon
Brent, Yeah, to my eye it looks like that front "bow" (the bent wood part!!!) has been cut back way too much, and needs to be replaced.
Everybody seems to have a problem with the terminology of these pieces. Including me. I know for me, when I was young and getting started in this hobby that I was exposed to improper use of terms for top assembly parts. Over the years, I have tried to sort them out a bit, and I try to use more proper terms these days.
Unfortunately, there is no real consensus on "proper" terms. However, essentially, the top "bows" ARE the bent wooden pieces that spread between the "sockets" on either sides. In addition to the bent wood on earlier tops, slightly bowed wood going between metal arches on later cars are often referred to as "top bows". A case of newer technology adopting terms from earlier technology.
For many years, the term top "bows" was generally accepted as the entire upper assembly, that which could as an entire assembly be removed from the car. However, that use was not quite accurate.
The upper assembly's major metal part, the hollow tubing and mounting ends, should more correctly be called the top "sockets". They are partially hollow and roundish, into which another part is inserted. Much like a light bulb "socket". Hence the terminology.
Era literature can offer some insights into proper use of terminology. However, even it cannot be heavily relied upon. I have read enough of it to know that even then people weren't sure what words to use where. Many books were written in fact by writers! Not by engineers. But then, who would want to read much written by an engineer? (Asks the "used to was" an engineer?) Reading era literature written by writers while following my engineering instincts helps to sort it out.
"Irons" is another word. A simple word, with so many meanings in so many different places. From taking the wrinkles out of your shirt, to the gate across your driveway? It is a common "element" in every sense of the word.
In short, "irons" are substantially-made mounting points in almost any kind of structure! They are aptly named from the common element so very many of them have been made from for a couple thousand years now. "Irons" may hold the beams of a roof together? Or hang a door onto (hinges can sometimes be referred to as "irons").
Automobiles, especially our antiques, use "fender" irons as well as "top irons" (and sometimes others).
As a matter of clarity, we should all try to use the three words, "bows", "sockets", and "irons", for their specific part of the top assembly. You may have noticed I began connecting the two words "sockets" and "bows" to "sockets/bows" when I refer to the entire upper assembly. I don't know if that is the best way or not? But it seems to work for me. And I am open to changing my ways if a reasonable consensus can be reached.
Just some thoughts from me.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:24 pm
by Wayne Sheldon
A separate comment from me. The 1913 runabout pictures posted by Scott C show the top folded down. However, the front socket/bow has been left in the "up" mounting position. It makes the folded top stick back about a foot more than it should when properly folded.
I only mention this so that people not familiar with these style "two-man" tops won't so easily get the idea that this is the way it should look when folded.
I have seen a number of new people in the hobby getting two-man top cars and leaving the top down in this manner. In part, it just looks wrong to anyone that knows how they should be. But also, it puts a bit more weight and wind drag farther back behind the saddles! That can lead to damaging the sockets, saddles, bows, and other things.
In all fairness, it is an easy mistake to make. I mean, WHO in their right mind would make a top so that one must move the socket/bow to a different position? That is crazy!? Again, it is history needing to be considered in the context of its time. It wasn't such a crazy idea when what came before was even more difficult.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 8:29 pm
by John kuehn
Check out this earlier post about 1914 top irons.
The late Leon Parker posted some pictures of 1914 top irons. Compare them to what you have. Lots of information about that paticular year.
https://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/3 ... 1361893637
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:01 pm
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
Wayne Sheldon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:59 pm
Brent, Yeah, to my eye it looks like that front "bow" (the bent wood part!!!) has been cut back way too much, and needs to be replaced.
Everybody seems to have a problem with the terminology of these pieces. Including me. I know for me, when I was young and getting started in this hobby that I was exposed to improper use of terms for top assembly parts. Over the years, I have tried to sort them out a bit, and I try to use more proper terms these days.
Unfortunately, there is no real consensus on "proper" terms. However, essentially, the top "bows" ARE the bent wooden pieces that spread between the "sockets" on either sides. In addition to the bent wood on earlier tops, slightly bowed wood going between metal arches on later cars are often referred to as "top bows". A case of newer technology adopting terms from earlier technology.
For many years, the term top "bows" was generally accepted as the entire upper assembly, that which could as an entire assembly be removed from the car. However, that use was not quite accurate.
The upper assembly's major metal part, the hollow tubing and mounting ends, should more correctly be called the top "sockets". They are partially hollow and roundish, into which another part is inserted. Much like a light bulb "socket". Hence the terminology.
Era literature can offer some insights into proper use of terminology. However, even it cannot be heavily relied upon. I have read enough of it to know that even then people weren't sure what words to use where. Many books were written in fact by writers! Not by engineers. But then, who would want to read much written by an engineer? (Asks the "used to was" an engineer?) Reading era literature written by writers while following my engineering instincts helps to sort it out.
"Irons" is another word. A simple word, with so many meanings in so many different places. From taking the wrinkles out of your shirt, to the gate across your driveway? It is a common "element" in every sense of the word.
In short, "irons" are substantially-made mounting points in almost any kind of structure! They are aptly named from the common element so very many of them have been made from for a couple thousand years now. "Irons" may hold the beams of a roof together? Or hang a door onto (hinges can sometimes be referred to as "irons").
Automobiles, especially our antiques, use "fender" irons as well as "top irons" (and sometimes others).
As a matter of clarity, we should all try to use the three words, "bows", "sockets", and "irons", for their specific part of the top assembly. You may have noticed I began connecting the two words "sockets" and "bows" to "sockets/bows" when I refer to the entire upper assembly. I don't know if that is the best way or not? But it seems to work for me. And I am open to changing my ways if a reasonable consensus can be reached.
Just some thoughts from me.
Hey Wayne, not sure where this is coming from because I thought I used the correct nomenclature in my post above with all the pictures. Maybe I didn't?? Please accept my apologies.
Like you, I do struggle with confusing terminology used in our hobby, but if this is any consolation to you in this regard, I can tell you that in my Shop I am a stickler for my employees using the correct Ford nomenclature. We also use that same Ford nomenclature on customer's invoices. It is simple enough to find the nomenclature by looking at original Parts Price List booklets that Ford supplied to his Agencies. You mentioned that printed material often contradicted itself, however quite honestly if you are speaking of Ford supplied materials (-i.e.: PPLs, Engineer Info, Foreman's Logs, Prints, Svc Bulletins, etc.) that has not been my experience in the last decade or so of me researching at Benson. I have found Ford's engineers were very consistent from the teens thru the late 30s (-which is about all I have researched there) both on drawings and in the PPLs and BPPLs with their nomenclature.
Thanks John for posting that link. Ironically, I knew Leon very well as he had been to several restoration workshops that were hosted at my shop. Short of having precise measurements, the sockets on this vehicle appear to be very close to what Leon had posted. I think where the confusion in the vehicle we are working on is in the bows themselves. We have a full wood shop in-house, so we will likely steam a few bows and make them oversized in length, and just trim them down to a size that makes the top look aesthetically correct. At this point without being able to go find any drawings at Benson, this is the best I can do.
Thanks again everyone!!
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:18 pm
by Wayne Sheldon
No Brent, no worries. You were fine! I should apologize to you. I saw an opportunity to clarify some language that is all too often misused by many people! Sometimes I go to make a quick comment about something and the next thing I know it is a page long!
Did anything ever come about from that early friction drive chassis you were researching a few years ago? It was interesting. I find myself often wonder what became of it.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:43 pm
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
Wayne Sheldon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:18 pm
No Brent, no worries. You were fine! I should apologize to you. I saw an opportunity to clarify some language that is all too often misused by many people! Sometimes I go to make a quick comment about something and the next thing I know it is a page long!
Did anything ever come about from that early friction drive chassis you were researching a few years ago? It was interesting. I find myself often wonder what became of it.
Ohh jeez, I hope we don't get in trouble for hi-jacking Dave's thread.
As to that car, I own it by default, ...but I don't have a clue what it is -nor does anyone else it seems. I would restore and tour with it but again, it had some cobbled up wagon body on it and so there is not much to go on to identify it. The irony was several people suggested the vehicle was likely just something that was a made-up vehicle for a movie or as a prop car in the 50s or 60. I was about to agree with them as I had no clue either, Then after the owner had passed and the estate was trying to be settled, some pix were found that are either the prototype of this vehicle, -or they ARE of this vehicle I have but with the wheels changed. That kinda blew the theory of a prop car to the naysayers. My wild guess is that likely it was an assembled car from the 1908, 09, 10-ish era that the 'assembler' used to try to raise investor funding for an automobile manufacturer start-up. Likely didn't make it too far into production though. Kinda hard to register it with the DMV or HCCA when you don't have a Make or even a year of manufacture to list.
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 8:33 am
by George Mills
Brent, One more thought to add...
What would it be like on the Roadster top if you set the center bow true vertical...then taped a 2x2 extended and parallel on the top windshield frame...then let the front bow settle on the 2x and adjust the top straps/pads length accordingly to the rear bow placed and jigged at the drawing dimensions shown?
That's how I do it and then set the D rings at the back secondarily. Then remove the 2x
Then when you put the cover on with a tug to just cause the front to start to want to lift, stop...tight enough and stop. Then the leather straps in front will add just enough tension to keep everyone happy?
(I am guessing that you already know that the tacks on the back bow only get nailed in 1/2-way until you get the Goldilocks solution both on the rear curtain and top and only then seat the tacks?)
Re: Roadster top irons..
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:25 am
by BRENT in 10-uh-C
George Mills wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 8:33 am
Brent, One more thought to add...
What would it be like on the Roadster top if you set the center bow true vertical...then taped a 2x2 extended and parallel on the top windshield frame...then let the front bow settle on the 2x and adjust the top straps/pads length accordingly to the rear bow placed and jigged at the drawing dimensions shown?
That's how I do it and then set the D rings at the back secondarily. Then remove the 2x
Then when you put the cover on with a tug to just cause the front to start to want to lift, stop...tight enough and stop. Then the leather straps in front will add just enough tension to keep everyone happy?
(I am guessing that you already know that the tacks on the back bow only get nailed in 1/2-way until you get the Goldilocks solution both on the rear curtain and top and only then seat the tacks?)
You're pretty much on it George. Thanks!! Something that has worked for us in the past is using motorcycle straps around the center bow and fastened overhead to the ceiling. Actually, I think we have used the garage door roller rails to anchor to. With slight tension on the straps, this holds the center bow & socket vertical so you can place the other bows. Then a long wood ruler is clamped along each side from the rear socket up to the front using clamps. Instead of using tape, we typically use those cheap Harbor Freight plastic pistol-grip clamps only because they are re-adjustable many times over as you are trying to position everything. Just quick release and re-squeeze. What we have done in the past is use those same clamps on the windshield glass and let the excess tail of the clamp support the front bow.