Let's Talk Cyclecars

some serious aero ......................

 

There's something about the simplicity of this that's very appealing.

 

I do like the looks of that Delahaye.
Built for speed and nothing else.

Thanks for the pics, keep them coming!

I agree, Gofannon, the Soriano is so simple and clean. Like most of these cyclecar photos, it makes me want to build one.

 

Loving these streamliners



I can't be the only one who saw some similarity:

 

This Salmson displaying a different kind of aero:

 

X2. And if the top was flatter, the car would resemble an inverted airfoil to some degree - a car with built in down force! Then again, it would probably have too much drag for the size powerplant it must have had. Gary

 

These slab-sided early pontoon experiments really had a jolie-laide quality to them: extremely ugly but all the more appealing for it. I've had ideas for hot rods using the same approach.

 

Here's a model of a semi-tank Aries:

 

Though we're emphatically moving away from cyclecars again ...

1928 3-litre Aries

 

Here are two 1100cc Arieses, again from Le Mans 1927/8:

 

1927 Le Mans Aries 3-litre. For some reason this thing is intriguing me.

 

1925 1100cc Chenard & Walcker tank:





Surprisingly little had changed by 1937:




All these are from the Portuguese-language website http://www.lemans-history.com

 

While we're at Le Mans, and as the Ford Model T was mentioned recently, here are a few photos of the 1923 Le Mans Montier-Ford:





I'm particularly interested in the later A-based Montiers. I have photographic evidence that sports-racing versions were made on a (rather crudely) surbaissé frame. A road-going Tudor on the same frame was advertised. I have seen no photos, contemporary or recent, of that.

 

From the same website, just to show how thoroughly the distinction between cyclecars and "normal" cars had become blurred by 1934, the 1080cc Lagonda Rapier-based de Clifford Special:



It probably had a lot to do with rising specific outputs. At the time of the classifications posted previously (1912) one might have expected about 15bhp from a 1.1-litre engine. By the end of the Vintage era 35bhp would not have been unreasonable for that capacity. If the cyclecar concept were to have remained relevant the engine capacity requirements should have been revised from time to time.

By 1934 "heavy" cyclecars should have had a maximum of around 400cc, and "light" ones no more than 250cc. It is clear that the 1080cc Lagonda engine in the above car would be sufficient for a car with none of the extremeness of the early cyclecars.

I would suggest that the figures corrected for 1934 roughly represent realistic conceptual limits for taking up the cyclecar challenge with modern engines, given the performance demands of modern traffic on the one hand, and the potential for superior handling and braking - even in a thoroughly "period" idiom - on the other.

 

All the discussion of 'cyclecar v. big car' got me looking through the photos both here and in the History Of Auto Racing 1894-1944 thread and I have spotted a pattern that, for me, clarifies the situation.

In the early days of the automobile, I have noticed that most cars had a hood (bonnet) that stood between navel and chest high on the average man. Cyclecars, in contrast, had that bodyline fall more between the knee and waist in height.

This factor lies totally outside any of the official designations and probably has some notable exceptions, but not being an expert I wonder if I have missed something in this observation. Or is it that not being an expert I have noticed an identifying factor that has gone heretofore unreported in these pages?

 

Seems reasonable, cycle cars are "supposed to be" smaller.