Prototype Royale Engine

Lazarus · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:20 am

LANOS wrote:

Johan Buchner wrote:

My opinions offend, I shall offer no conjecture as to what he will do with his Royale.

Now wait Jean, Schlumpf ordered two chassis? And both were ordered by the factory from the contractor responsible for the original batch of T41 chassis? How did the Bugatti factory deliver them to Schlumpf ; as chassis frames only or fully built up T41s sans coachwork? The chassis on which the Esders Replica was built is one of them right? I've read somewhere that when Paul Braque (sorry for the spelling) was brought in to oversee the completion of this car they decided to start over - I always assumed they were talking only about the coachwork, can you confirm?

To get back to the prototype chassis, I hope the Weymann body is recreated, I think it's a very elegant motor car.

Johan

I really love this thread on the “new” Royales.

With regard to the Esders recreation:

It seems that Alsthom built two Royale frames for the Schlumpfs, being these frames slightly different from the original chassis; more information here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1979&p=16017&hilit=alsthom#p16017

The mechanical parts for that recreation were original spare parts provided by the factory; although the engine itself was an autorail engine owned by the Schlumpfs.

I had read that the factory refused to fit these parts and the engine to the frame to finish a new complete car; but the new information provided by Lazarus (who usually is right) denies that previous affirmation.

I had also read that when Paul Bracq took the project to finish the car not only the body was poorly made, but there were also problems with the gearbox (it was necessary to build a new one) and other parts like the pedals of the car, which were not original parts.

My personal opinion is that this car can be considered as a genuine Bugatti Royale; many other restored cars keep less original parts than this one.

With regard to the prototype chassis:

Of course, it is a sensational piece of news to know that the prototype chassis has survived and it is the first of seven Royales finished by the factory. But I think that it will be a titanic task to try to finish this car. The owner has the chassis and an engine, but many other parts are necessary to finish the car, being highly unavailable those parts. About the body, I of course agree with Johan. The Weymann body would be the propper choice for this car; but it would also be really difficult to build it without the original plans, although other Weymann bodies could be used as a model. Do we really know that the owner aims to finish a complete car? Maybe he only wishes to finish a chassis with its engine as much as possible.

About the vanished engine of the prototype: Could this engine be somewhere at the Mulhouse museum?

With regard to the Mullin chassis, the second new chassis built by Alsthom in the sixties, coming from the Malmerspach collection:

There will be exactly the same problems to finish this car than with the prototype chassis; perhaps only with the assistance of the people involved in the building of Wheatcroft´s Royale (Ashton Keynes Vintage Restorations), new sets of parts could be available to finish these projects.

By the way, did Peter Mullin buy also the T57 chassis lying on the Royale chassis? Will he rebuild a new T57? If he already owns the Williamson´s Atlantic, he will not need to fit a new Atlantic replica on that chassis.

With regard to the Wheatcroft´s Royale:

If this car was built following exactly the original specifications having a genuine Royale as a model, except for some very minor changes to make it more useable, I think that it could be considered as a real Bugatti; or at least as a faithful recreation. Replicas are not as close to the original as this car.

And finally, with regard to the Hucke´s sports Royale:

I do not consider this car as a Royale, although it is a very interesting and not usual car. It only has an autorail engine, it does not have either a chassis or a general design based on any of the genuine Royales. I cannot guess what Robin Townsend can be doing to improve this car, as it is a designed as a very basic sports car. A new open body closer to the lines of the T43, perhaps?

I was forgetting the chassis at Lithuania… Original or not, it would be simply useful if it is the basis to build faithfully a new Royale using one of the first 25 engines which were initially built to be fitted in cars but finally ended powering an autorail. Almost 200 autorail engines were built; many of them must have survived. Very few projects to build a new Royale have been successful because of the unavailability of parts; if someone manages to finish a complete car, even if it is using a “Lithuanian” chassis, that would be great news.

I said correctly that the chassis bought by Robin Townsend which was lying on top of the Royale chassis is a Type 46 not T57.I am not aware of Robin having anything to do with Jens Huckes Royale roadster.The owner of the Prototype Royale chassis and parts HAS I think everything to finish the car.

LANOS · **Joined:** Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:56 pm **Posts:** 102

Lazarus wrote:

I said correctly that the chassis bought by Robin Townsend which was lying on top of the Royale chassis is a Type 46 not T57.I am not aware of Robin having anything to do with Jens Huckes Royale roadster.The owner of the Prototype Royale chassis and parts HAS I think everything to finish the car.

Sorry, Lazarus, and thanks for amending my mistakes. Obviously I misunderstood your post about the T46 chassis laying on the T41 chassis and about Hucke´s Royale.

Great news to know that the owner has a complete set of parts to rebuild the T41 prototype; it will be a superb and very exclusive car.

copperkettle · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:23 pm **Posts:** 127

Dear Royale family (pun intended):

I am very, very skeptical that the prototype Royale frame ever came to the US...I have read the story and considered the names and players and, frankly, just do not believe it. The rest may be true (although I have my doubts here, too) and it makes a great story, but until some photographic evidence shows up supporting some of this fanciful tale, my left eyebrow is raised...

Cheers,

Sandy

Herman · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:10 pm

Or, as I said:

Pics, or it didn't happen.

Udolahr · **Posted:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:28 am

maybe the frame is not from the US ? Maybe from England . There was a frame , or better one year ago there was a frame .

Greg Morgan · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:10 am **Posts:** 334

I assure you that frame was from the US.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:53 am

I'm thinking of a word or a phrase to describe this whole prototype chassis saga and I think "delicious" will work - think about it, prototype chassis thought either scrapped or used on the Coupe Napoleon is discovered in the USA, much excitement ensues and the ABC's Registrar has doubts, big ones. Yes, delicious works for me.

Perhaps the owner will let slip a few photos, both new - to show us the work that's been put in - and the ones taken when the chassis arrived in the US - just to prove that things can be proved perhaps? Either way I anticipate a frank, vigorous and highly enjoyable debate. Delicious indeed.

Thanks to all for this thread, my Royale "thingy" has been reignited.

Kind Regards
Johan

copperkettle · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:23 pm **Posts:** 127

Greg's assurances are nice...proof would be better.

DeDobbeleer's well-distributed list of Bugattis sold to the US and elsewhere has the entry, Type 41, chassis complete. Origin is listed as "no" and particulars, "not for sale actually." Sometime later, in Bugantics, if memory serves me correctly, it was revealed that he sold the Royale to an American who didn't want his identity revealed as he wanted to restore (recreate?) the car and show up at a Bugatti gathering and, (my words), blow everybody's minds. I believe Judge John North was the source of this information.

The late Edsel Pfabe's name has been mentioned in this connection.

I am not saying it didn't happen...it may have, but the whispy vapors of this story build little or no confidence. As this all supposedly happened about half a century ago, the silly secrecy seems unnecessary...unless it is an important part of the myth.

Proof, sir...please!

Sandy

Greg Morgan · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:10 am **Posts:** 334

Just watched the new video about J L Burton. It has a great piece of old movie footage of the Park Ward Royale when the car was brand new. It is amazing how much more handsome the car looked before the wings were cut away.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:41 am

Do you believe the prototype Royale's chassis survived and ended up in America?

Before you reply allow me to elucidate, last night I updated some of my files, in particular 57473 (the Chatard Atlantic) and I added a note describing the front shock absorbers as original. I believe there are simply not enough original components left to define this car as original - but here's the thing, the owner, the guy who spent a lot of money buying the remains (and even more money buying the soul of a "prominent" Bugatti historian), believes his car to embody the provenance and the history of 57473. Now I am a Bugatti enthusiast and I do not necessarily agree and my opinion, like yours, is irrelevant but we are amateur historians and we will discuss this car, research it, and form the opinions to which we are entitled to, nothing can stop that. The owner can and will do what he likes and me and you and a dog named Boo will make up our own minds, it's called being human.

So I ask again, do you believe the prototype Royale's chassis survived and ended up in America? Or rather, what evidence is needed to convince you this car was the first Royale? My own reply : God alone knows. But I have yet to make any changes to my file on 41100............

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

PS. Greg wrote : "It is amazing how much more handsome the car (Park Ward Royale) looked before the wings were cut away" - how very true.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:36 am

I posted the above on the 30th, today is the 2nd of July and still nothing. I'm worried. Perhaps if I apologise you will start debating again? Delete the post? Ban myself? If need be I will don sack-cloth and ashes and I will give my books to the poor ......................... I'm not giving my books away. Just start posting please.

Cheers
Johan.

PS. To all Dutch and Brazilian members please see my off-topic announcement.

LANOS · **Joined:** Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:56 pm **Posts:** 102

Johan Buchner wrote:

I posted the above on the 30th, today is the 2nd of July and still nothing. I'm worried. Perhaps if I apologise you will start debating again? Delete the post? Ban myself? If need be I will don sack-cloth and ashes and I will give my books to the poor ......................... I'm not giving my books away. Just start posting please.

Cheers
Johan.

PS. To all Dutch and Brazilian members please see my off-topic announcement.

Please, Johan, never delete any of your posts; the forum would not be the same.

I think that the prototype chassis could have survived and the story of the French farmer using it as a cart is a nice tale that could be true... or just nonsense. So many legends about Bugatti have been made up during the last years... The truth is that the factory usually kept most of the prototypes, parts, patterns and so on; not many things finished in a junk yard. It would not be so strange that even the prototype of the Royale engine could also come up some day.

On the other hand, if the chassis survived it would have been extremely difficult to recreate a new complete Royale upon it; that would be the reason why the project was never finished and the chassis never seen until now.

We could be speculating endless about this matter without arriving at any clear conclusion; everything could be possible. As it has been said before, the only solution would be to see pictures or to have other evidences which prove that the chassis really survived.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:14 pm

As I get older I find it easier to acknowledge my failings, my lack of manners for one, but I am determined not to pre-judge the Royale saga. Instead I find a wait-and-see attitude the best way of allowing myself to calmly weigh the evidence.

I cannot help but wonder why the owner is being so secretive, surely the best way to remove any remaining doubts would be to make public all the available evidence? I am always surprised how productive these public discussions can be - memories get jogged, old photo-albums gets dug out of attics and very old farmers will tell the story of the time they used a Bugatti Royale chassis to transport livestock to the market. Which will be nice, it will give me an excuse to tell the story of my grandfather and the step-down Hudson.

This is one journey I am determined to enjoy and I think an open mind would serve this purpose best but whatever transpires I still worship at the shrine of Conway.

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

Lazarus · **Posted:** Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:50 pm

Johan Buchner wrote:

As I get older I find it easier to acknowledge my failings, my lack of manners for one, but I am determined not to pre-judge the Royale saga. Instead I find a wait-and-see attitude the best way of allowing myself to calmly weigh the evidence.

I cannot help but wonder why the owner is being so secretive, surely the best way to remove any remaining doubts would be to make public all the available evidence? I am always surprised how productive these public discussions can be - memories get jogged, old photo-albums gets dug out of attics and very old farmers will tell the story of the time they used a Bugatti Royale chassis to transport livestock to the market. Which will be nice, it will give me an excuse to tell the story of my grandfather and the step-down Hudson.

This is one journey I am determined to enjoy and I think an open mind would serve this purpose best but whatever transpires I still worship at the shrine of Conway.

Kind Regards
Johan Buchner

Dear Johan,unfortunately the owner is not a reader of your excellent letters here ! and he is not bothered at all about "remaining doubts" of us "armchair experts" :lol:

I received a call from Mr HGC junior last night and he is also interested to know about this frame ! His father knew the owner in america so I am surprised that this info never got into his books....we shall all have to wait and see.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:14 pm

You know the fact that he does not care about our opinion may be the strongest argument yet in favour of this chassis being genuine, after all chit-chat cannot invalidate evidence anymore than a skilled craftsman is able to restore a replica to original.

When this car is finished and shown enough should be known for all of us to form opinions - I wonder if the collective verdict will be the same as the owner's? Time will tell.

Kind Regards
Johan

Prototype Royale Engine

Who is online