Here's the Uhlik 46 with the doors closed: Here it is with its owner, Prince Lobkowicz: This leads me to a question: The car has tremendous rear access with the doors forward, but little front seat access. In this pic, the interior handles are on the front, where it would be harder to reach to close the doors. Does that mean that the doors also slide to the rear for front seat ingress/egress? I couldn't find a pic with the doors to the rear, so I can't prove it, but I suspect so.
If they did it would be extremely clever, providing optimal front and rear access through the same doors. I spotted it too: I'd have a lot of trouble getting into the front seats if the doors only slid forwards.
With the rail and wheels contraption at the bottom I can only see it slide forward. To stabilize the door there is probably a similar contraption around the belt line sliding in the cowl or door. I can't see this system sliding forward and backward unless the upper rail was in the roof which doesn't appear to be. Access is probably not the best but probably not that bad either, when you open non suicide doors you never get close to the front jamb. If it was never replicated there's probably a good reason for that. I think walking to the front of the car to slide it open is less convenient than sliding it to the rear, it's a much more natural movement to enter the car, you end up standing in the doorway not in front of the front fender or door.
Even at that I would find there is little leg room from the back of the front seat to the pedals. Unless the seat is slid all the way forward.
...and speaking of sliding doors, did you notice the door to the shop slides open like a barn door? Even has a man door.
No harder getting in the car with the door open than getting in the building threw the door with the brick structure right against the door. But maybe it`s me, the door on the drivers side looks a bit shorter. Look at where the wing window would be and the distance on both sides. Look at the grille, not much of a side view angle. Then look at the rear cabin area. Has a bit more space(angle) on the drivers side compared to the passengers side. Look at the difference in size of the window openings with the doors shut.
Unless the door could pivot at any point along its track, it wouldn’t help much. With the door fully slid forward, it would pivot right at the front of the seat, leaving no room to entry. I don’t think that there’s room in the cowl for a support similar to the one in the sill. If a second rail is in the middle of the door, it’d have to be something like the sill track, only mounted in the A pillar and pointed rearwards. Since the windows roll down, fitting that would be a remarkable piece of engineering. Good eye on the upper rail. An upper rail in the roof would be technically possible if it were attached at the rear of the door and had a ’U’ shaped hinge/roller, but that would preclude it sliding to the rear. Taking another look at the pic, I noticed that there is no latch in the B pillar. Wouldn’t one be necessary for the door to go both directions? I’d imagine that access is worse than you think. When you open a standard door, you have a couple of feet between the door and the seat. The Uhlik design leaves you maybe eight inches. There could be any number of reasons it was a one-off. Patents, rebodied shortly after completion, not seen outside of Czechoslovakia, it’s owner died just a few months after taking delivery, engineering issues, etc. One of the questions that might clarify things is: How did the original owner intend to use it? As a daily driver, the engineering would be paramount, but a concours queen only needed to be novel and stylish. It would only need to be driven a few miles. Concours cars were often rebodied after a single showing. I think that’s an optical illusion caused by the angle that the picture was taken.
It looks like there are 2, maybe 3 receptacles for locating pins in the B post, so that would require just the front latch. If the windows are operated with a pull strap, you have plenty of room for your sliding mechanism.
You guys are overthinking it. I have to say the Bugatti probably overthought it too. In any event it is less of a pantograph than a sliding track not unlike most commercial vans. The Hispano by Saoutchik is what I emulated and it works great. Access is good too.
Neither. I was talking about the rest of your post. Sorry, I meant to snip the quote to make it clear: "…the door on the drivers side looks a bit shorter. Look at where the wing window would be and the distance on both sides. Look at the grille, not much of a side view angle. Then look at the rear cabin area. Has a bit more space(angle) on the drivers side compared to the passengers side. Look at the difference in size of the window openings with the doors shut." I think that is caused by the camera angle.
This is what hot rodding , especially custom hot rodding is all about! I love it. Here is my take on unique entrance options for my hot rod.keep up The odd work!
I was familiar with the Mohs SafariKar, but I had never seen a pic with the doors open. I didn't know the doors were pantograph. Mohs made three, so if you missed this one, you may still have an opportunity. The wild thing is that this is his most normal car. The Mohs Ostentatienne Opera Sedan and the UFO are, sadly, wayyy OT, so I can't post pics. Look them up at your own risk.
Thanks for that link. I’d seen this 39 Delage in pics but not this video. Good one. Exactly the formulas I used to create the Packard. That collection is something else. I’ll know I’ve made it when I have a curator and white floors. Now got to decide if I want the side pipes on the RH side. Will have to wait till I get an engine in it to see where the manifold sits. I’ve got some flex pipe in the rack just in case. I found these pics of Auburn pipes for reference.
Bob, you're a Bugatti guy. This is about the Shakspeare cars and their current disposition. sorry guys this isn't about pantograph doors.
Thank You Bob. I saw one of the Type 57's at the Gooding auction at Pebble Beach this past August. Nothing had changed, maybe more parts were missing from the unrestored car. It sold for over $200,000, a bargain in the Bugatti world of today. Happy New Year everyone! Bob