Camel Back

[JohnR]

This interesting Camel Back photo was recently shown here.

What was stored in or was the use of the container looking things I have marked.

#1 #2 & #3

Thank You

[Sargehere]

I don't profess to know much about the early Indians, but here's photo of the ex-Otis Chandler collection "1901," documented to be 1-of-3-built first year Indians. The one in the photo you posted isn't much newer.



I think what you point out as #1 is the camel back fuel tank, #2 is a tank that contained the oil, and #3 is the ignition coil. Hope this helps!

[jurassic]

actually the bike in this picture is a 1908 possibly a 1907. the last of the diamond frame indians,or as they are more commonly known "the camel back" . if you look close you'll notice that the gas tank on the rear fender looks bigger than the 1901 model. it is. its quite a bit bigger. they also made a much larger oil tank on these late versions,and put it right behind the cylinder. indian believed in warming the oil ,and liked to put it right up next to the heat source. just under the headstock in the middle of the frame is the battery box. notice how it has been enlarged as well ,by adding another battery ,piggy back style. underneath the battery box ,hanging from the downtube is the coil. under the engine is the muffler ,which is also larger than the earlier version. this bike doesn't use skip tooth chains either. this was indians last attempt at perfecting the motocycle before they gave in and went to the loop frame like all the other factories.

[jurassic]

the later version camel backs also had longer frames,and a longer wheelbase. quite a few of them had twin engines too. check out the size of the coil on this twin.

[HarleyCreation]

I don't know much about Indian, but I suspect that "documented" Chandler "1901" Indian is about as valid as Harley's "1903" model with loop-frame and big motor; meaning it ain't.

The point brought up about the 1908 camel-back Indian being their final attempt to perfect the "motocycle" has long intrigued me. That Indian stuck with the bicycle frame long after it was abandoned by other makers is something of a mystery that I've never seen explained. Probably Hendee & Hedstrom considered it their brand type and hated to admit defeat and thus prolonged the inevitable as long as possible. Plus their version of the diamond frame layout must have been pretty good as it was a successful seller.

Still, retaining that 1901 style machine for so long could only have helped firms with more modern 2nd generation designs, namely the Merkel, Harley-Davidson and their imitators. By 1908 the Indian looked like an antique and it was.

[Sargehere]

I don't know much about Indian, but I suspect that "documented" Chandler "1901" Indian is about as valid as Harley's "1903" model with loop-frame and big motor; meaning it ain't.

Y'oughta look into it; before simply expressing a prejudice. Its really is known to be one of the first Indians, "provenance," I think it's called, a known chain of custody, allaway back.
To the rest, don't forget that H & H were in it for the money. They created an invention, something they even ecxpressed that they considered "beyond improvement," and ran with it as hard as they could; for a while.
They built a factory many times larger than they needed, also part of creating a highly saleable image, in 1912-13. At its height, future foreshortened by the outbreak of WWI in Europe, the factory was humming at only about 20 percent of its estimated capacity. It was never more than a giant mausoleum through the twenties, thirties and forties, running one or two assembly lines in what amounted to a giant, cavernous tomb.
The founders found their pigeons, a group of investors less interested in the product, motorcycles, than even they were, who proceeded to milk it dry, and they retired with their golden parachutes at, basically, the apogee of success, between about 1912 and '16.

[HarleyCreation]

Y'oughta look into it; before simply expressing a prejudice. Its really is known to be one of the first Indians, "provenance," I think it's called, a known chain of custody, allaway back.

Yes, that was my gut reaction. Thanks for calling me on it. But there are so many bogus claims out there that this just seems like another whopper.

I thought that either Hendee or Hedstrom (can't recall which one) said in a later interview that the 1901 prototype (only 1 built and not 3?) was later dismantled.

Were there actually 3 built in 1901?

Where and what is the evidence that the ex-Chandler is actually a 1901 Indian? I'll be glad to look at it. In fact now you've got me interested.

To the rest, don't forget that H & H were in it for the money. They created an invention, something they even ecxpressed that they considered "beyond improvement," and ran with it as hard as they could; for a while.

I think you've hit upon it. Indian had a very good product for 1901-02 and couldn't bear to admit that motorcycle evolution was rapidly passing them by. Other 1901 makes like Merkel (Milwaukee) and Mitchell (Racine) with bicycle frames used a high mounted engine position which gave handling problems while Indian's low mounted engine style did much better.

Thus Merkel and Mitchell soon evolved into modern frames by 1903 while Indian stuck to its knitting, so to speak until 1908. And when Harley drew up there first real motorcycle design in 1904 they seem to have patterned it on the Merkel but gave it a bigger motor, altho not as big as the monster "mile-a-minute" Mitchell built just south of Milwaukee in Racine.

This early motorcycle evolution is pretty cool stuff...

[Chris Haynes]

The Chandler Collection was managed by Glenn Bator. You should ask him about it.

[fillibuster]

I remember reading (maybe in a Hatfield book) that Indian's change to the pocket valve (side valve) design in 1916 relieved them of royalties paid to Hedstrom for his ioe design. I'm betting that Hendee also took a royalty for his frame design, and was loathe to change to loop frame without compensation. ..I'd also lay a cheap bet that Hendee and his favorite rider Jake de Rosier were, uhhh, both a little light-of-foot, ......

[Sargehere]

I remember reading (maybe in a Hatfield book) that Indian's change to the pocket valve (side valve) design in 1916 relieved them of royalties paid to Hedstrom for his ioe design...

That's right on the money. 1916 was the introduction of Charles Franklin's sidevalve design, and the very end of George and Oscar's influence over the company.

The sale of the Otis Chandler Collection of cars, motorcycles and memorablilia that was held on Oct 21, 2006.
Here: http://www.rickcarey.com/MarketJourn...06%20CCOMJ.pdf
Lots # 64 and 34, the documented 1901, shipped to England and returned to California, and a 1908 first-year twin, both original-design diamond-frame Indian "motocycles." Lots of other choice things to excite your salivary glands, there, too. Coupla Crockers, an Ace, uh. Gotta stop. I'm drippin' on my keyboard!

[talbot-2]

This interesting Camel Back photo was recently shown here.

What was stored in or was the use of the container looking things I have marked.

#1 #2 & #3

Thank You

JohnR

#1 is the fuel tank. #2 is the battery box that holds three #6, 1 1/2 volt dry cells. According to the 1908 Indian sales catalog, the three cell box was an option first offered in 1908. #3 is the coil. The oil reservoir is located in the tank found between the seat post w/motor and the rear fender or behind and below this little guys right shoe. The control rod is hanging down from the front post. The top mechanism of the control rod that is attached to the front post appears to have been replaced with a "modification" of some sort. The other end of the control rod should be connected to the contact box. The contact box is also missing it's cover. The coil appears to be a replacement as well. Original coils had a "dome" on the top of the coil making it appear somewhat like a rocket. Interesting to note that the "INDIAN" on the tank is in script. Could have been a later modification as well. Original signage was in block letters. The handgrips in this photo are the "roughrider" style and were an option in 1908 as well. Original handgrips were just 3 3/4 inches long. Looks like the family only needed 25 lbs. of ice on the day the photo was taken. Very nice photo of a 1908 Indian Camelback.

[jurassic]

was 1908 really the first twin ?

[HarleyCreation]

Otis's "1901" Indian?

For some reason that "1901" Otis Chandler Indian "rickcarey" pdf won't open for me. If somebody would like to copy the bike's history here I would gladly read it.

I did google "1901 Indian Otis Chandler" but no concrete history of the bike seemed to come up. At the risk of bucking the trend I must remain sceptical. That's not being prejudiced Sarge, only cautious. I've seen too many of these flamboyant claims evaporate like spilled gasoline upon closer examination. But since Indian is not my field I'll have to wait until some documentation on this bike turns up.

I'll just add this. A couple years ago another Otis Chandler bike was sold for big bucks as a "1907" Harley-Davidson. At that time after a long and sometimes very heated discussion here on the AMCA forum it was accepted by nearly everyone that the bike was actually a 1908 model due to the actual parts on the bike itself and not what the Chandler collection experts claimed it to be. So Chandler's experts have not always been accurate in their bike descriptions and their proper model years. The claim of a 1901 Indian is so important that original primary evidence along with features of the bike itself are essential.

Does such evidence exist or doesn't it? If it does please post it here for everyone to examine.

Unless, of course, the bike is a re-creation or replica of the 1901 Indian, but that is not what the claim seems to be.

[HarleyCreation]

Supposed "1901" Indian

I was able to open the pdf today and here's the story from the auction website:

"1901" Indian Otis Chandler collection: Est. $90,000-100,000 (final price was $165,000). Quote: "one of the first Indian motorcycle built, shipped to England in 1901 for the Stanley Bicycle Show, bought there by an engineer named McDermott who later moved to Calif and broght this Indian with him. Sold to Gordon Bennett in Oakland, etc...This is a surprisingly modest price for one of the most important motorcycles in America."

Okay, that's something to go by. The bike looks like an early Indian but the photo is too small to make out details and I'm no early Indian expert anyway. Somebody around here must be.

We also have the clue about the 1901 Stanley Bicycle Show. I'll have to dig out my 1901 file and see if I have anything about that.

The sale price does seem "cheap" for a super early Indian, even if not a 1901 model. Imagine what a 1905 Harley would go for!

What a fantastic collection Otis Chandler rounded up. Simply incredible and I didn't even go thru the whole thing. But I did see: "36E1034" in there in red & black. But who would want the low compression model anyway?

[c.o.]

Herb, it seems to me that I've read somewhere that there were no bikes sold in 1901. I can't recall from where but if I stumble upon the info again I'll make sure to post it. I find it increasingly harder to find data as the literature pile is getting rather large!! I'll have to break down and catalog it somehow one day. I'm not sure what to think of the Chandler bike. It's a plausable enough story I guess but if we've learned anything about the past it's the story were told isn't always true.

Here's a 1902 as it appeared in the factory catalog....