Figure 27. — Details of the counterweight carriage in the Otis system. (From 

 Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, igoo, pi. 22''.) 



a device that permitted the car to be lowered by 

 hand, even after failure of all the hoisting cables. 

 The serious shortcomings of the rack and pinion 

 were its great noisiness and the limitation it imposed 

 on hoisting speed. Both disadvantages were due to 

 the constant engagement of a pinion on the car with 

 a continuous rack set between the rails. The meeting 

 ended in an impasse, with Brown unwilling to approve 

 the objectionable apparatus and able only to return 

 to New York and lay the matter before his company. 



While Eiffel's attitude in the matter may appear 

 highly unreasonable, it must be said that during 

 a subsequent meeting between Brown and Koechlin, 

 the French engineer implied that a mutual antagonism 

 had arisen between the Tower's creator and the Com- 

 mission. Thus, since his own judgment must have 

 had little influence with the commissioners at that 

 time, Eiffel was compelled to specify what he well 

 knew were excessive safety provisions. 



This decision placed Otis Brothers in a decidedly 

 uncomfortable position, at the mercy of the Com- 

 mission. W. E. Hale, promoter of the water balance 

 elevator — who by then had a strong voice in Otis' 

 affairs — expressed the seriousness of the matter in 

 a letter to the company's president, Charles R. Otis, 

 following receipt of Brown's report on the Paris 

 conference. Referring to the controversial cog- 

 wheel, Hale wrote 



... if this must be arranged so that the car is effected [sic] 

 in its operation by constant contact with the rack and pin- 



ion ... so as to communicate the noise and jar, and un- 

 pleasant motion which such an arrangement always pro- 

 duces, I should favor giving up the whole matter rather 

 than allying ourselves with any such abortion. . . . we 

 would be the laughing stock of the world, for putting up 

 such a contrivance. 



This difficult situation apparently was the product 

 of a somewhat general contract phrased in terms of 

 service to be provided rather than of specific equip- 

 ment to be used. This is not unusual, but it did leave 

 open to later dispute such ambiguous clauses as 

 "adequate safety devices are to be provided." 



Although faced with the loss not only of all previ- 

 ously expended design work but also of an advertise- 

 ment of international consequence, the company 

 apparently concurred with Hale and so advised Paris. 

 Unfortunately, there are no Otis records to reveal 

 the subsequent transactions, but we may assume that 

 Otis' threat of withdrawal prevailed, coupled as it 

 was with Eiffel's confidence in the AiTierican equip- 

 ment. The system went into operation as originally 

 designed, free of the odious rack and pinion. 



That, unfortunately, was not the final disagreement. 

 Before the fair's opening in May 1889, the relationship 

 was strained so drastically that a inutaally satisfactory 

 conclusion to the project must indeed have seemed 

 hopeless. The numerous minor structural modifica- 

 tions of the Tower legs found necessary as construction 

 progressed had necessitated certain equivalent altera- 

 tion to the Otis design insofar as its dependency upon 



PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEI, TOWER 



27 



