Camel Back

[c.o.]

Lonnie, what was the year mentioned for this bike? I believe the 1906 brochure features a torpedo tanked twin racer.

[Tommo]

The attached letter appeared in the 14th March 1916 issue of Motor Cycling.
Is this the Chandler bike ?
Cory if this attachment doesn't come up very good can I e-mail my original to you so that you can do the honours.
The letter to the editor of Motor Cycling certainly seems to say that the writer rode and owned an Indian in 1901

[c.o.]

Great article Tommo!!! I see that you can enlarge your photo attachments after you click on them. If your not satisfied feel free to send me a copy and I'll post if for you....

[jurassic]

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....

here's a close up of the chandler bike. the gas tank looks alot bigger than the 1902 catalog,battery tube is larger too. exhaust pipe comes straight out of the head on the 1902 ,totally different angle on the chandler bike. carbs different, pedal cranks too. its got a later model fork on it too. need more early pics.

[jurassic]

this photo appears to support the chandler bike as a 1901. so why doesn't it look anything like the 1902 catalog?

[jurassic]

everyone should own steve wrights books. this page from his latest book tells it all. look at that smooth left case,and 4 cylinder studs. also mentioning the angle of the exhaust port. it looks like 1901 and 1902 engines are pretty easy to spot.

[jurassic]

one question i've always had , did the first production indian motors{made by aurora} say hedstrom on them or aurora. i've heard that the first indians had no lettering on the case ,only a number pad.

[c.o.]

Good question!! It looks like there's more digging to do!

Holy Smokes! I'm a little slow.... I was responding to three posts ago!!!

[HarleyCreation]

The plot thickens....

Great posts and questions. I've gotta study the various photos.

What I found supports that an Indian was sent to England in late 1901. That much appears to be true.

A Dec. 1901 article from the American magazine "Motor Review" talks about two late 1901 auto/cycle shows in England. Mag states that it was "gratifying...that American machines...were among the most favorably received." But the only makes named were Mitchell (Racine) and Thomas (Buffalo) that were "imported during the last season" meaning 1901.

No Indian mentioned but this was a follow up article to an earlier one that I don't have. This second article focused on the English bikes (calling them "freaks" and "junk shops") and didn't detail the American bikes. Was an Indian there too?

It looks that way. Digging deeper I found something good. An article titled: "Early Indian History" by George Yarocki in The Antique Motorcycle (Summer 2000, pp.38-41). In it he quotes a British article from "The Autocar" (Nov. 30, 1901) that Steven Wright found. The entire article is not quoted, but from what is quoted it makes it sound like an Indian motorcycle was indeed at an English auto show ("Stand 31a") in late 1901.

The 1901 Motor Review article states that there were two "big shows in town" (London) starting on Nov. 22, 1901: the Stanley show at the Agricultural Hall and the manufacturers' show held at the Crystal Palace. The Chandler auction blurb says Indian was at Stanley show and it looks like that may be correct.

That much is fairly certain. An Indian motocycle did go to England in late 1901. But was it the Chandler bike?

Yarocki also quotes John O'connor who said that 3 Indians were built in 1901 (again like the blurb claims), and also that Hedstrom said that only the very first one was broken up, leaving two others out there.

But then Yarocki poses the question of what happened to the other two 1901 protos and responds: "Boy, how I wish someone knew."

That's an odd answer considering that the "1901" Chandler Indian must have been known to him when he wrote that article. The bike already had appeared in Rafferty's "Illus. Encylopedia of American Motorcycles" (pp.124-5) copyright 1999 and is listed there as a "1901" Indian. What gives with that?

If the Chandler Indian is a "1901" model then why would Yarocki ignore it when talking about the fate of the other two 1901 protos? That's very odd.

He does say that there are "two photos that may possibly contain parts from them" and that these photos are found in his book: "Early Indian History and Supporting Documents." A book that I don't have.

Does Yarocki discuss the Chandler bike in his book?

I was just coming around but now my smell-meter is ramping up again. What is the truth about this bike? What do dedicated early Indian experts like Yarocki think about it? And why did it sell (relatively speaking) so cheap?

I gotta study those photos and compare them to what Yarocki says about early model Indian details. He also discusses how Indian used the proto to illustrate the 1902 model. Check it out.

[exeric]

Quote from 'The Iron Redskin' by Harry V. Sucher, first published June 1977

From page 25:

One of these 1901 models was shipped to England for exhibit at the annual Stanley Bicycle Show, where motorcycles had also been featured for several seasons, Its quality construction and then advanced engineering features were said to have attracted much favorable comment. This historic machine still exists and is presently owned by Mrs. Viola Bennett of Oakland, California. It seems that after the exhibition, it was purchased by an engineer named McDermott, who later came to California bringing with him the Indian motorcycle. Ater his death, the machine ultimately was acquired by the late Gordon Bennett of Oakland, who later restored it to new condition. J. Worth Alexander, a pioneer motorcyclist and a life-long Indian enthusiast, who is familiar with the earlier models and who has examined the machine, stated that the machine is in authentic original condidtion and shows evidence of very little use. The authenticity of the machine is further proved by the fact that no engine numbers appear on the crankcase, none being affixed to those of the first production run.

[HarleyCreation]

Quote from 'The Iron Redskin' by Harry V. Sucher, first published June 1977

From page 25: etc.

Thanks for posting that, Eric. That seems to pinpoint the source for the Chandler's bike "documentation" as related on the auction webpage and that source is apparently Mr. Sucher's book.

The part of a very early Indian (1901 one-of-three proto?) going to England seems correct, but the rest of it may best be viewed with caution. It's pretty well established by now that Mr. Sucher's work cannot always be relied upon. The latest case is his now discredited story that Sir Harry Ricardo helped design the first Harley-Davidson Eight-Valve engine.

In my opinion it's best to rely on Mr. Sucher's material only when it can be cross-checked against other sources, if that is possible. If not possible, then the best evidence are the bikes themselves.

If the "documentation" that the Chandler Indian is the c1901 England bike comes from a story in Mr. Sucher's book, it gives me even more reason to be cautious about the original auction claim. Others may not agree. That's okay too.

[HarleyCreation]

Chandler Indian

Using an image of an Indian motorcycle from the December 1, 1901, issue of Cycle and Automobile Trade Journal (same image as the 1902 catalog picture) and then comparing it to photos of the Chandler Indian bike, my conclusion is that the latter machine is NOT a 1901 vintage model. Not even close. Different fork, different fuel tank, different carb, different pedal crank, different exhaust port angle plus probably a million other things better than my (non-Indian) eyes can discern.

The biggest difference on the motor that I can see is the way the 1901 exhaust port points nearly straight out, while the 1902 model (Wright's book) and later years come out nearly straight down. I don't know enough to detect the 3 vs. 4 stud motor difference, but does the Chandler bike have a 3 or 4 stud motor?

From what I can tell from the 1901 image in CATJ, other photos posted, and the Yarocki article, is this:

The 1902 catalog Cory posted is the EXACT IMAGE that appeared in CATJ in Dec. 1901. That makes it a true early Indian and Yarocki considers it to portray one of the 1901 prototypes and NOT a 1902 model. Look at the (non 3-plate) bicycle fork and the way the exhaust port almost points straight out:



Now look at this one from Wright's book which he identifies as a 1902 model. It still has the early c1901 (non 3-plate) bicycle fork but the fuel tank is larger and the cylinder exhaust port comes out almost straight down like 1903 and later motors. Wright also marks these features as identifying 1902 and later models.



Then there is the Chandler bike. It has the later 3-plate fork, the later downward exhaust port, and later larger fuel tank. In fact, comparing it to a 1903 Indian pictured on the same page of Rafferty's book cited earlier (pp. 124-5) the Chandler bike looks nearly identical to the 1903 model, but not similar at all to the Dec. 1, 1901 image in Cycle and Auto Trade Journal which is also the 1902 catalog image posted above.



This next photo appears to be merely mis-captioned. Altho described as a 1901 Indian, it looks more like a 1902 with bicycle fork, downward exhaust, and bigger tank. But it also has an even later pedal crank like a 1903 Indian or the Chandler bike. I wonder if this could have been a "put-together" bike at a later date?



That's my rough take and maybe I made some mistakes, but I am satisfied that the Chandler is NOT a 1901 Indian. It might have gone to England and come back at a later date as many were sold there in 1902 and later, but it doesn't seem to have the features of the earliest known images of an Indian motorcycle that appeared in print on 1 December 1901; around the very time an Indian did go to England. Now it makes sense why a knowledgeable guy like George Yarocki wouldn't even bother mentioning it.

In this case I think it's better to rely on the features of the bikes themselves, and not on another pretty story. My 2 cents.

[jurassic]

3 bolt and 4 bolt cylinders

heres a photo of a 1904 engine. notice how the cylinder stud goes right up the center line of the left case. add two cylinder studs on the right case ,that makes this a 3 stud motor. also notice how much webbing they had to add to the left case to accept the cylinder stud. it looks like the 3 stud motors appeared in late 1902 or 1903.

[jurassic]

this picture shows a completly different setup. two cylinder studs on the left side and no webbing at all on the left case. this is a 4 stud engine. 1901 and early 1902 ?

[rwm]

i had these up before i don't know the year. yes it is green and the photos are bad