TOURING WITH RAYMOND SPEARS 
Choosing the Car with Reference to 
Adaptability to Varied Road Conditions 
P EOPLE ask what is the best 
kind or make of ear for touring? 
The answer might generally be, 
The one the driver knows most about. 
That is, any kind of a car is good for 
touring. Each car has its own par¬ 
ticular excellencies and its drawbacks. 
A high-geared machine, built for fine 
concrete highways, and weighing three 
tons or so, would serve over thousands 
of miles of fine eastern roads with 
hard, smooth surfaces, but projecting 
grease cups, exceedingly low shock- 
absorbers, and other things are apt to 
be torn clear off in deeply rutted road¬ 
ways of the back country. On the 
other hand, the little flivver hardly 
serves as well on the especially good 
going of the greater and more advanced 
states. 
A good deal of nonsense has been 
written about the flivvers running all 
around the big cars. The small crank- 
"em cars are less expensive to run. 
They make the transcontinental tour 
with relative ease, and two or three 
people in one have driven across in a 
month, from coast to coast, at a total 
cost for expenses of $100 to $150, not 
counting depreciation of car — which 
isn’t much, except tire wear is consid¬ 
erable, and putting the car back into 
shape costs a good deal. A larger car 
costs move, m money. 
The fact of the matter is. I think a 
By RAYMOND S. SPEARS 
tourist will find cars of light-medium 
and medium weight giving more satis¬ 
faction on all kinds of highways than 
either the very light or very heavy 
passenger cars. The reason is found 
in the better riding qualities of cars 
from 2,500 to 3,500 pounds’ weight, 
compared to the light-weight machines. 
Many people have sold their medium- 
weight machines to buy for touring,' 
light-weight ones, supposing that the 
light-weights are more serviceable. The 
medium-weight cars go faster, they go 
farther, they climb better, and they per¬ 
form so much more satisfactorily un¬ 
der the difficulties of hill climbing, 
rough road going, and in mud-larking, 
sand-wallowing and all the other diffi¬ 
culties that there is no comparison of 
their performances. 
The light cars have no advantage in 
control, or in any of the fields of per¬ 
formance. They are cheap. But diiv- 
ing more than a hundred miles a day 
even on relatively good highways, day 
after day, become unbearable for many 
people in the jumpy, rocking and jerk¬ 
ing light cars. Inquiry among tourists 
elicits information indicating that a 
long, 3,000-pound car enables one to 
travel a third faster than in the short, 
light-weight cars, without strain. I 
know of instances in which women 
have been obliged to leave light cars 
to go home on the railroad. 
The reason is easily recognized. The 
heavier cars are more stable. They 
vibrate less. They hold the road far 
better. They make turns smoothly and 
ride the rough with longer rocking. 
Their seats are larger and more com¬ 
fortable. They have engines of greater 
power, and the cars carry more weight 
and more bulk. 
There is only one thing that ever 
makes a driver of a large car envious 
of the small car. The flivver turns 
around in sharp curves in less space, 
and the large car must be manoeuvred 
with greater care. That is, I think, the 
only advantage of operation possessed 
by the flivvers or small cars. 
I have discussed the subject with a 
good many different drivers. The j 
agreement is all in favor of medium- 
weight cars. Four people can ride 
most comfortably in a seven-passenger j 
car, and five people in a five-passenger j 
car, with an outfit, are apt to be un- ! 
comfortably crowded. I have seen, 
however, nine people come into a camp ; 
ground in a five-seated Ford car. They 
had, too, a good many pounds of lug- [ 
gage. This was in Omaha. They went 
down-town and bought a roadster, how¬ 
ever, to relieve the burden. This gave 
them nine people for eight seats, large 
children and adults. I wondered why 
they didn’t buy another five-passenger 
flivver, while they were about it. 
Page 3l\ 
