MTFCA Forum

Photo #10 - 1913 runabout is the same car as the one in photo #2 in the “Room for One More” thread !
Interesting !!

#1 Winnisquam, New Hampshire: this building is still beside the tracks.
# last photo: three musicians, one in the center with a trombone.

Is the speedster with the Livingstone radiator built on a wide track car running gear?

Allan from down under.

Wonder if the smashed up T in the first photo was trying to beat the train and just barely was clipped, parked to close to the track, or something else. Maybe there wasn’t anybody in the car (hope not!). Maybe they jumped out?

Photo 13 appears to be 3 generations of the same family. Two sisters, each with a baby daughter, and the sisters' mother. Perhaps the sisters are twins?

In any case, a shiny new T in the background.

Great pics always enjoy them

Rich P. Bingham wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 09, 2025 9:15 pm

Photo #10 - 1913 runabout is the same car as the one in photo #2 in the “Room for One More” thread !
Interesting !!

Good eye! Same car, same tree, same house, same driver, the three visible valve stems in the same position. Also the Prestolite tank improperly rotated onto its side.

The car appears to be an early 1913. Although tough to be sure, there appears to be no bead along the bottom of the turtle deck (in the other thread). Another I cannot be certain of, is the headlamps appear to be all brass, like the 1912s had. It has been shared before that some early 1913s were so equipped.

Allan wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 09, 2025 10:39 pm

Is the speedster with the Livingstone radiator built on a wide track car running gear?

Allan from down under.

Which speedster with a Livingston radiator?
How often do we get to ask that question?
Me just being snarky. It can't be photo number two with the early Paco on a likely 1913 chassis. Note the teacup pan, also has the twelve rivet rear end and forged end rear radius rods. It is updated to electric headlamps and is a really interesting car. However, the side view shows little of the front axle, so discussion of wide track or not is somewhat pointless.

So photo number six it is! The neat open speedster with a nice from the front view.
The problem is, that the photo is somewhat distorted. The outer ends of the axle do appear to be longer, as the wide track axles were. However, the distance between the spring perches also appears to be longer than usual. A casual glance over the whole picture to me appears distorted, wider than it is high. Given the angle from the front of the car, the round headlamps should appear taller than they are wide. However, to my eye, they appear to be wider than they are tall. The radiator to my eye also appears to be similarly distorted.
My "guess" is that the car is not a wide track chassis.
Maybe someone with better computer programs and skills can adjust the photo to a more appropriate relationship of width and height.

A really wonderful looking early era speedster regardless.

Someone with computer skills is also pedantic. So, "a more appropriate relationship" is not exact enough. If there are some correct measurements to compare to the photo and then resize appropriately I would say the following photo correction is it. That's how we rebuilt our T, from photos and known numbers. However, it's all fun and here's 90% width.

Thank you Vern! That looks a lot better. I am still not certain about whether it might be a wide track chassis or not?
Anyone else want to speculate?

I sure like that speedster!

If someone has a pair of dividers, the set distance between the spring perches and the distance from the perch to the axle yoke could be compared. Te ratio between the two should reveal if the axle is wider outside of the spring perch. Distortion due to the angle of the shot should not alter that ratio.

Allan from down under

Photo was sent to me by my younger brother doing work at MIT. Photo is hanging up in one of the admin buildings.