Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

1940 - 1941 BRC, MA, GP, Preproduction Prototypes. Knowledge Base NO EBAY or COMMERCIAL SALES.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Bantam factory 1940 bid document uses “40” model number

Post by Fred Coldwell » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:31 am

There has been a long ongoing discussion about the possible origin of the BRC-60 and BRC-40 model designations that have been used over the decades by some authors to describe the first and second type of Bantam ¼-ton 4x4 trucks built in 1940 and 1941, respectively. Earlier in this thread, a few contributors have suggested the number 60 may have carried over from Bantam’s prewar model lineup. Here is some NOS information on the other number, 40.

Over the past two days I have been looking at trial exhibits in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Proceedings against Willys-Overland for deceptive and misleading advertising concerning its advertised role in creating and perfecting the jeep. During my review, I have come across a bid document submitted by Bantam that uses the model designation “Bantam 40” to describe the first 70 ¼-ton 4x4 trucks it proposed to build for the U.S. Army. But before reviewing that document, I want to recognize Robinb for his cautionary post from just over 4 years ago:

Posted by Robinb on Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:16 pm:

"Just going back to Michael's original question I have an extract of Bantams tune up diagram (1937-1941) showing Series 60, 65 etc. So clearly Bantam themselves designated their vehicles using numerical codes. So is it not possible that the BRC 60 and 40 came from Bantam themselves and not from editorial influences? Just wanted to be sure before we deleted these model names from history."

Here is page 12 of form ES - No. 475, section F, Questionnaire, completed by Bantam as part of its bid submitted in response to the QMC’s Invitation to Bid No. 398-41-9 dated July 2, 1940 for the first 70 ¼-ton 4x4 trucks:

Image

Noteworthy is that Bantam identifies its truck as a model “40”. Unfortunately for us, Bantam applied this model number “40” to its first 70 trucks, as shown by select data on this page – loaded weight 1300 lbs. for the two-wheel steer model, wheelbase 79”, and body height conforms to Q.M. Drawing 08370-Z, which accompanied the very first bid. These first 70 trucks have been referred to in the past as the model BRC-60, not BRC-40. Nevertheless, the above document evidences a very early use of model number 40 by Bantam itself, as suggested by Robinb.

On the same day Robinb made his cautionary post, I remarked:

Posted by Fred Coldwell on Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:59 pm:

". . . I also have a note in my PCJ [Preproduction Civilian Jeeps] book [page 5] that Model 40 was derived from the 40 h.p. of its engine. Does anyone have the h.p. rating for the engine used in the BRC 40 that might support or refute that theory?"

Page 13 of Bantam’s completed form ES – No. 475 answers my above question:

Image

In addition, Bantam identifies the engine itself both as a “Bantam 40” make and as a model “40” that produces “40 H.P. at 3300” rpm. So here is some evidence that the old descriptor “BRC-40” might be based on the truck’s engine horsepower, or perhaps on its fictitious make and model number.

How model number 40 migrated to the second design trucks Bantam built in 1941 is a question I’ll leave for another day. Today, I’m simply sharing some factory facts as a starting point for further discussion. Please join in and let's all raise some feathers. :D
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:43 am

Could it not be as simple as a "Model 40" indicating a 1940 model? Auto manufactures did refer to vehicles that way. Also the Model 40 is listed in the engine section so following oft-used practice, a manufacturer using a sourced engine gave it their own designation. Finally, what context is there in the rest of the document? Those that have not seen all the pages may turn up a nugget.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:58 am

Seems like I ran across another confusing item in this regard because maybe the spicer axles were also Model 60’s? And didn’t one of us on another thread find an early Army document that referred to either a model sixty or forty?...Maybe some of the spicer experts can help here..it’s just a fragment of memory for me...FWIW, I believe the Continental engine they used in the pilot car with the updraft carb was rated at 40 hp...(but, even though maybe 45 or so, no way the 1941 cars had 60!) Also keep in mind that the plans Bantam submitted for the BID showed a Hercules engine, not he Continental. Until we find those drawings we will likely never know which Hercules, but they did have one which was exactly the same size as the Willy’s unit which could have been worked up through engineering or puffery to “60”. Crist felt that the refusal of the Army to budge on weight required that they would have to go with the Conti...all the engine references I ran into in these documents and letters all described engines by horsepower, not cubic inches the way we tend to do today.

I still like, and still follow George Hollin’s very sensible procedure of referring to the 70 early cars as 1940 Bantams and the others as 1941. To reestablish the 60/40 thing for me is going to require proof of those references for both cars, not just one or the other. Keep digging! Are you in DC?
S

User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:59 am

ArmySailor wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:43 am
Could it not be as simple as a "Model 40" indicating a 1940 model? Auto manufactures did refer to vehicles that way. Also the Model 40 is listed in the engine section so following oft-used practice, a manufacturer using a sourced engine gave it their own designation. Finally, what context is there in the rest of the document? Those that have not seen all the pages may turn up a nugget.
Jim:

Yes, 40 could refer to a model year. But if so, then for consistency's sake the next series of Bantams built in 1941 should be model BRC-41, but I've never seen that model name mentioned anywhere. I think 40 was a reference to engine horsepower, not to a year.
Polar Roller wrote: Seems like I ran across another confusing item in this regard because maybe the spicer axles were also Model 60’s? And didn’t one of us on another thread find an early Army document that referred to either a model sixty or forty?...Maybe some of the spicer experts can help here..it’s just a fragment of memory for me...
Bill:

You have a pretty good fragmented memory, but were off by 20. The front and rear axles were identified as Spicer model 40 axles on page 15 from form ES - No. 475., which is the Tentative Specifications for the Army's Light Reconnaissance and Command Car being bid on. Here it is:

Image

Again, I think the 40 in the Spicer axle model number refers to the engine horsepower that the axles were designed to handle. Note that the Gabriel shocks were also a model 40, a very popular equestrian number with Bantam. :wink:

The other document posted earlier that mentioned model "40-(BRC)" was a later page from a Tentative Advance Copy of Maintenance Allocations posted by Joe Friday on Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:42 am. It is reposted by Michael Browne a few posts before mine.

I am in Denver reviewing some FTC trial exhibits of which I have photogtraphs. I'm not in The Swamp.
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:30 am

What would clarify considerably are documents from Spicer. Calling these axles "Model 40" is a significant departure from their typical model designation sequences of the period. Note that in production, these axles (albeit with a different offset) were designated Models 25 and 23. About this time, we see Spicer using ranges of numbers for axles with a ring gear in a certain range of diameters. Note the models 23, 25 of this era and the later 27, 30, 35, 36 all being in that same close range of ring gear sizes. Note also the larger Model 41, 43, 44, 45 being in the same range of ring gear diameters. The model 53 and the later 60, and 61, etc. Note also the model 11, which was way smaller than the 20 series. I don't have a Spicer axle book before 1950 (if you've got one, please make a copy for me... ditto, '60-66). Without that earlier information, I cannot tell if this nomenclature policy was in place during the late '30s. Seems to hold generally true in looking up the specs for cars of that era that used Spicer axles, but this could have been a transition era.
So, my question would be about whether it was Bantam that called the axles "Model 40" or did that come from Bantam? Way to many "40s" to ponder here. 40 horsepower, 1940, Model 40 axles, etc.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive


Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:24 pm

By the way...FWIW...this July 2 document I believe is the one,or one of those that Payne had The Butler crew rewrite in the middle of the night in Baltimore hotel room requiring the services of a stenographer at 3 AM because Crist and Probst had come up with 1850# which is pretty much exactly what the car DID weigh when delivered. Talk about precision engineering! How did they do that with out iPhones and digital scales?). This document has the very artful 1273# put in...just under the insane 1275 QMC would not let go of. It is easy here on the Gee to get all wrapped up in the details and statistics and forget what interesting stories lie behind the documents. You can read all about this episode from page 94 in your copies of WARBABY. :lol:

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:17 pm

Oops..scratch that...the bid docs were out on the 11th, so, the date here is too early for the submitted bid.
S

User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:39 pm

Bill: A clarification on my first recent post below. The July 2, 1940 date I mentioned in my first recent post is the date of the QMC Tentative Specification ES No. 475, which was incorporated into the Invitation to Bid and had to be completed and returned by each bidder. The completed form ES No. 475 pages I posted were part of Bantam's bid which was dated July 20, 1940, to be opened at 10:00 a.m. on July 22, 1940, as stated on the first page of Bantam's completed bid which I did not post.

Jim: Note the two wheel steer rear axle was also a model 40, whereas the steerable rear axle for the four wheel steer trucks was listed as a model 41 rear axle. Because these Spicer axles had yet to be designed, fabricated and delivered, I don't think they yet had a formal Spicer model numbers. I imagine Bantam just named them model 40 and 41 axles in its bid so it could fill in those blanks in the QMC form ES No. 475.
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:04 pm

Oh. Great! No Ooops then :lol:

It is not well known, or universally acknowledged that Bantam, QMC and infantry were all working on these specifications prior to the bid being put out, mainly on the assumption that it was to be a negotiated contract. In other words, that no bid would be put out! The specs were just to guide the build in Bantam’s understanding. On July 1 for instance, Crist travelled to Holabird, at QMCs request and reviewed the entire proposed specification, including the drawing to which he suggested several small changes that were apparently made. This was the “government drawing” that The QMCGeneral kept indignantly insisting was the basis of the jeep, so, it follows, what creativity did Bantam contribute? They were “paid handsomely” (for the best weapon of the war without any sort of compensation). It was QMC who dropped the bomb of making it a “competitive bid” at the last minute and without any notice to Bantam, in fact trying to hide it over the Fourth of July week end. The actual DESIGN of the WWII jeep was proffered by Bantam at the bid opening a result of Christ’s layout drawn up formally by Probst. The specs described something entirely different, not to mention impossible. Of course, Bantam lies about the weight. What else could they do? The customer really is always right, even when they are wrong!

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:51 am

Fred Coldwell wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:39 pm

Jim: Note the two wheel steer rear axle was also a model 40, whereas the steerable rear axle for the four wheel steer trucks was listed as a model 41 rear axle. Because these Spicer axles had yet to be designed, fabricated and delivered, I don't think they yet had a formal Spicer model numbers. I imagine Bantam just named them model 40 and 41 axles in its bid so it could fill in those blanks in the QMC form ES No. 475.
A reasonable hypothesis. And a likely one IMO.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Bichou02
G-Civilian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:03 pm

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Bichou02 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:55 am

Michael Browne wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:22 pm
Hi to All,

It has bugged me for a long while now and possibly this post will flush out some real information.

Where oh where did the terms BRC60 and BRC40 come from :?:
Simulation de rachat de crédit
All the original literature and manuals I have seen refer to the Bantam jeep as

Model BRC 4x4 1/4 ton truck... 1941 series...... or just BRC.... or Bantam Reconnaissance Car

The earliest mention of the 40BRC is in a 1980 Army motors and was a caption under a photo, but it is even reversed.

My point to all this is with the 75th anniversary coming up in 2015 and a lot of people have been attempting to correct miss-information that has been printed for years about the origins of the jeep. To have any credibility the information released has to be correct and be able to be proven to be correct. :roll:

I am guilty of using the terms BRC40/60 myself and this is by no means an attack at anyone, just putting it out there for healthy discussion.

Regards
yeah, that's a good idea :o

User avatar
Bill Norris
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:20 am
Location: Troy, MI

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Bill Norris » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:36 am

I was going through some of my old documents and found this. It doesn't solve the question about 60 vs 40, but it does show that the government and Bantam referred to the 40 as '1941.' This document was published 1/21/1942.

Bill

Image
Attachments
Parts Conv Amer Bantam 3P 194X-1.jpg
Parts Conv Amer Bantam 3P 194X-1.jpg (216.83 KiB) Viewed 132 times
47 CJ2A
47 Bantam T3-C

The Dispatcher Antique Jeep Magazine http://dispatchermagazine.com/

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:16 am

Okay...I guess I am missing something...where is the “40”? Is there more than one page here?

User avatar
Bill Norris
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:20 am
Location: Troy, MI

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Bill Norris » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:23 am

Bill,

What I meant is, I think this is referring to the so called '40s' as '1941s.' I just thought that was interesting that they distinguished the two BRCs by that.

The other two pages are simply more part numbers.

Bill
47 CJ2A
47 Bantam T3-C

The Dispatcher Antique Jeep Magazine http://dispatchermagazine.com/

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:30 am

So you are saying that these part numbers refer to the first 70 cars?...I just am not finding “40” in here anywhere...I see 80 inch wheel base and 1941..but the “Model” is just BRC? Have patience..I am very dense!

Post Reply

Return to “BRC MA GP Prototypes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests