Surviving the desert by building a motorcycle from a broken car? (2017)(historygarage.com)
historygarage.com
Surviving the desert by building a motorcycle from a broken car? (2017)
https://historygarage.com/emile-leray-survived-the-desert-by-building-a-motorcycle-from-his-broken-car/
138 comments
Specs of Gary Trucks, which may be of interest to other automotive nerds [0].
I particularly like how the base trim provides splash based oil lubrication only.
[0] https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mycompanies/images/f/ff/Ga...
I particularly like how the base trim provides splash based oil lubrication only.
[0] https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mycompanies/images/f/ff/Ga...
Honestly that's super impressive. Sand casting can be difficult to get right. The metal was likely aluminum? Did he use motor oil to wet the sand?
For 1930s, I'd assume that lead is much common than aluminum, and it's also much easier to melt.
Most likely it was Babbit. Which is... possibly feasible for someone to be carrying back then. As it could have been used(in a pinch) to repour bearings in the field. Or maybe he was simply just carrying lead for weights used for getting lines up into trees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy)
I don't think it was aluminum because he mentioned it was during the '30s. I believe it wasn't as widespread as it is nowadays
Aluminum is easy to cut, but not melt — twice the melting point of lead, and hard to achieve without knowing what you’re doing.
No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead, and I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum.
> No, aluminum melts at 1.55 times the melting point of lead
I guess it depends on your definition of "double" -- Al @ 1221°F / 660°C vs. Pb @ 621.5°F / 327°C, but sure, in Kelvin it's 1.55 thanks to the higher baseline. Still ~twice the delta-T from room temp, though.
> I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum.
Really? With a wood-based fire?
I guess it depends on your definition of "double" -- Al @ 1221°F / 660°C vs. Pb @ 621.5°F / 327°C, but sure, in Kelvin it's 1.55 thanks to the higher baseline. Still ~twice the delta-T from room temp, though.
> I've melted aluminum many times by accident, even 1000-series aluminum.
Really? With a wood-based fire?
It only depends on using a coherent definition of "double". It doesn't make sense to multiply and divide temperatures measured in °F or °C; those are interval scales, not ratio scales. In the US men's shoe size 3 is 9.25 inches long, and shoe size 12 is 12.25 inches long. Would you say that size-12 feet are four times as long as size-3 feet? Multiplying and dividing temperatures measured in °F or °C is the same error. (Multiplying and dividing ΔT measured in °F is fine, though.)
It's easy enough to melt 1000-series aluminum foil with a wood fire, and people commonly melt parts of beer cans in wood fires as well (ten times thicker but with a lower melting point). Aluminum ingots usually require at least a charcoal fire, and usually forced-air convection as well. But, as someone commented in another thread, babbitt is a much more likely candidate for the metal in question, because why would a logger be carrying around aluminum ingots in their truck? Especially in the 01930s. Ingots are for remelting, and that's a sensible thing to do in the field with babbitt in a non-emergency situation, much less so with aluminum.
It's easy enough to melt 1000-series aluminum foil with a wood fire, and people commonly melt parts of beer cans in wood fires as well (ten times thicker but with a lower melting point). Aluminum ingots usually require at least a charcoal fire, and usually forced-air convection as well. But, as someone commented in another thread, babbitt is a much more likely candidate for the metal in question, because why would a logger be carrying around aluminum ingots in their truck? Especially in the 01930s. Ingots are for remelting, and that's a sensible thing to do in the field with babbitt in a non-emergency situation, much less so with aluminum.
I don't believe this. Colour me extremely skeptical; if he had 10 days worth of water he could have walked to the coast, and he'd hit a road sooner or later. Morocco is not that wide.
What are the chances you have enough tools to tear down and rebuild a car in a different format like this, and you choose to do so instead of hiking? You'd have to have done it, or something like it, before.
What are the chances you have enough tools to tear down and rebuild a car in a different format like this, and you choose to do so instead of hiking? You'd have to have done it, or something like it, before.
Eh, in his situation I would have probably attempted the macguyver approach knowing full well if it fails I'm just back in the hoofing it situation.
10 days of water in the desert probably becomes a lot less when you're hauling it without a combustion engine assisting. I've done a lot of manual labor in the mojave. When rebuilding a roof in July I was going through 5-10 gallons a day - and that's not dragging heavy shit across the wilderness.
I doubt the motorcycle rode particularly well, it probably more resembled a self-powered wheeled sled for precariously carrying him and his supplies with less effort than without fire. My assumption is it tipped over often and was quite graceless...
10 days of water in the desert probably becomes a lot less when you're hauling it without a combustion engine assisting. I've done a lot of manual labor in the mojave. When rebuilding a roof in July I was going through 5-10 gallons a day - and that's not dragging heavy shit across the wilderness.
I doubt the motorcycle rode particularly well, it probably more resembled a self-powered wheeled sled for precariously carrying him and his supplies with less effort than without fire. My assumption is it tipped over often and was quite graceless...
Why carry all the water supply? Looking at the map he seems to have been a 1-2 day walk to Tan Tan probably less going back to the military outpost were he was turned back.
Edit: This article says: "The nearest village was 20 miles away and Leray didn't want to risk making the trek on foot." http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/photos-man-escapes-african-...
Edit: This article says: "The nearest village was 20 miles away and Leray didn't want to risk making the trek on foot." http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/photos-man-escapes-african-...
So you think he misjudged the difficulty of the hike? Maybe the terrain is difficult with lots of elevation change.
I don't have an opinion on what really happened. But there are things that sound off about the story. Also it doesn't help that seemingly only a handful of media outlets and blogs copying from each other have picked up on the story 10 years after the fact without asking critical questions.
I could even imagine that he did get stranded out there and knew worst case he could just walk back, so why not try to build a motorcycle for the fun of it and then dramatize the story years later.
I could even imagine that he did get stranded out there and knew worst case he could just walk back, so why not try to build a motorcycle for the fun of it and then dramatize the story years later.
This explanation sounds most plausible if he did in fact ride a machine back to Tan Tan.
The car managed the terrain, so it couldn't have been that difficult. It strikes me as bizarre that someone stuck in the desert with supplies would engage in experimental engineering rather than a two day hike.
I've known some people who don't have a calibrated idea of what the human body is capable of.
Is a marathon a huge athletic feat, that the fittest people you know spend months in preparation for, and even then may only do once in their lifetime? Or is it the distance a person of average fitness can walk in a day?
Is a marathon a huge athletic feat, that the fittest people you know spend months in preparation for, and even then may only do once in their lifetime? Or is it the distance a person of average fitness can walk in a day?
But if you spend a few days on the "MacGyver approach", and it doesn't work out, will you have enough water left for reaching civilization on foot? While walking, you should probably find some shadow (if available) and rest during the hottest hours of the day, that would also help save drinking water...
> While walking, you should probably find some shadow (if available) and rest during the hottest hours of the day, that would also help save drinking water...
It sounds like he used the cab as shelter once removed intact. Presumably he hid idly in its shadow during the hottest hours of the project as well...
But yeah at some point if the hack isn't bearing fruit you have to cut your losses and walk.
It sounds like he used the cab as shelter once removed intact. Presumably he hid idly in its shadow during the hottest hours of the project as well...
But yeah at some point if the hack isn't bearing fruit you have to cut your losses and walk.
5 - 10 gallons per day?? Are you including washing and other non-drinking usage? Because drinking more than 2 gallons of water a day, even in high, dry heat with physical exertion, is extremely difficult. I've done a good amount of desert labor and a gallon/day is about right for drinking, even at 100+ degrees.
No, strictly drinking. It's practically all lost to perspiration and respiration - I struggled to drink enough water to manage a single wee throughout the day.
This was 120F ambient air temps, much hotter surface/roof-in-progress temps operating in close proximity to.
Basically every drink break put down 2 Brita pitchers worth, refilled from a 5-gallon water cooler bottle. Typically I'd have to go down and refill the 5-gallon bottle once per day... hence 5-10gals.
This was 120F ambient air temps, much hotter surface/roof-in-progress temps operating in close proximity to.
Basically every drink break put down 2 Brita pitchers worth, refilled from a 5-gallon water cooler bottle. Typically I'd have to go down and refill the 5-gallon bottle once per day... hence 5-10gals.
How did you avoid hyponatremia?
Didn't do anything in particular, dunno. Maybe all the canned sardines in water I was eating/drinking the broth from delivered enough sodium? I didn't feel ill or anything like that.
But if you tip that contraption..fuel is going to spill. And pretty fast you're out of fuel, or injured
[deleted]
It's different world now but my dad with grandpa (his dad) were taking our car apart including engine, unscrewing every single piece of engine, cleaning it and putting the whole thing back together. They were laughing there were always some "redundant screws" left at the end. Everything was like that, TV broke, we took it to dad's friend garage where he had tons of shit and was fixing stuff, taking things out, resoldering etc; you had a hole in your clothes? granny would fix it, your shoes were broken? you'd try to fix them first, not get new ones etc.
For TVs even people who didn't normally fix things around the house could usually fix them. That's because 99% of the time your TV broke it was because a vacuum tube failed.
You took off the back cover with the TV on, looked at all the tubes, and found the one whose filament was not glowing. You then turned the TV off, pulled that tube out of its socket, went and bought a replacement, put that in, and that almost always fixed the TV.
You get could the replacement tube at many supermarkets. They would have a self-service kiosk that had a tube tester built in. It had a bunch of sockets covering all the tubes you were likely to find in a home TV or radio. You'd plug yours into the right socket and hit the test button, and the tester would verify that the tube was indeed dead (or tell you were wrong in which case maybe it was something other than a tube that failed so time to call the TV repairman).
There would be a book attached to the kiosk that listed all the tubes likely to be in home TVs or radios. You'd look your tube up in that and it would tell you what equivalent tube available at the kiosk could replace your tube. You'd grab that tube and go pay the cashier.
You took off the back cover with the TV on, looked at all the tubes, and found the one whose filament was not glowing. You then turned the TV off, pulled that tube out of its socket, went and bought a replacement, put that in, and that almost always fixed the TV.
You get could the replacement tube at many supermarkets. They would have a self-service kiosk that had a tube tester built in. It had a bunch of sockets covering all the tubes you were likely to find in a home TV or radio. You'd plug yours into the right socket and hit the test button, and the tester would verify that the tube was indeed dead (or tell you were wrong in which case maybe it was something other than a tube that failed so time to call the TV repairman).
There would be a book attached to the kiosk that listed all the tubes likely to be in home TVs or radios. You'd look your tube up in that and it would tell you what equivalent tube available at the kiosk could replace your tube. You'd grab that tube and go pay the cashier.
I've torn down a few myself always had leftover parts. I usually find out what it was months later, if at all. Most of the time it's just some extraneous retaining bolt. One time it was a vacuum hose(those are the worst). Plugged it with a bolt and it ran fine til I sold it.
Last time though, I used tape and labeled every single hose, wire, screw, etc. Unsurprisingly, there were no extra parts afterall :).
Last time though, I used tape and labeled every single hose, wire, screw, etc. Unsurprisingly, there were no extra parts afterall :).
Were they doing it for regular maintenance or to fix some problem?
It wasn't regular, I think more for fun than anything else, rationalized as maintenance. Smaller fixes/replacements were happening all the time though.
You're assuming he knew where he was. There's a good book called Sahara Unveiled that has several stories in it about people getting lost in the Sahara and dying of thirst. In many cases they were only a mile or two from a place where they could have been saved. The problem is the roads aren't good and are often covered by sand, so people get disoriented and don't know where they are or where they are trying to go. Plus if you leave the shade during the day you will lose water even faster. Maybe this story is fake or staged, but many people have died of thirst in the Sahara even though they could've walked out.
If that map is even remotely accurate, he was only about 10-20 miles away from Tan-Tan: https://goo.gl/maps/fzJmUz3b2PddDSp17
Seems like a fairly easy walk to me. Uncomfortable and a bit long (roughly one day), certainly, but less-so than a dozen days in the desert.
Seems like a fairly easy walk to me. Uncomfortable and a bit long (roughly one day), certainly, but less-so than a dozen days in the desert.
this part of Morocco is not particularly harsh, either. it's the hardpack, pebble strewn surface called "reg" not the sandy, treeless desert that doesn't really exist in Morocco except in a rather narrow band along the Algerian border.
I agree this was likely a preconceived stunt because locals walk that distance, in much more rugged conditions,, all the time without making a big deal about it.
I agree this was likely a preconceived stunt because locals walk that distance, in much more rugged conditions,, all the time without making a big deal about it.
Hoofing it with 10 days of water? You realize how much that weighs?
And I note no mention of food. 10 days of hoofing it without food isn't going to happen. A day of hoofing it with a pack burns 4000-5000 calories/day. Your body quickly depletes it's ready stores and you're down to fat reserves--and the rate that you can use those is limited.
And I note no mention of food. 10 days of hoofing it without food isn't going to happen. A day of hoofing it with a pack burns 4000-5000 calories/day. Your body quickly depletes it's ready stores and you're down to fat reserves--and the rate that you can use those is limited.
He couldn't have been more than 40 hours walk from the coast. If the map was accurate, a lot less to a road.
Depends on the terrain. Last year there was a case in the local news of a guy who died out in Death Valley when he tried to hoof it after a breakdown. His objective was less than 10 miles from his car.
I know something of the terrain and even without looking at a map my first reaction to what he attempted was that it would be impossible even by survival standards. I do not believe the terrain could be traversed even with mountaineering gear. (Too much of it is loose material near the maximum stable angle--it won't bear weight.)
I know something of the terrain and even without looking at a map my first reaction to what he attempted was that it would be impossible even by survival standards. I do not believe the terrain could be traversed even with mountaineering gear. (Too much of it is loose material near the maximum stable angle--it won't bear weight.)
I am in the same boat as you - you can't even cut an exhaust pipe off without specialized tools - getting a wheel on something even without any suspension components seem next to impossible.
Maybe I am just mad because swapping out shocks and springs would take me several weekends with full tools and a jack.
Maybe I am just mad because swapping out shocks and springs would take me several weekends with full tools and a jack.
Skepticism is definitely warranted, but the car in question is a Citroen 2CV which is basically the French equivalent of a Volkswagen Beetle. It's pretty much the minimum viable product of automobiles and quite amenable to DIY. Honestly, all the supply chain shocks of recent times have turned me into one of those old greybeards who waxes nostalgic for cars like this (except for their safety records).
If you haven't seen the Mythbusters episode, you may want to track it down. IIRC they also limited themselves to a reasonable selection of tools on hand, they didn't assume they had their full shop.
There are various unusual things about this particular car that make it at least hover on the edge of plausibility, rather than being a completely absurd idea as it would be for most models. As the article said, they did fail, but it's not too hard to believe they could have figured something out that would have at least been faster than walking if they had a bit more time (and by that I mean a few more hours, not a few more weeks). The Mythbusters did a lot of interesting things but where a normal scientist is driven mercilessly by grants, the Mythbusters were always driven mercilessly by TV production schedules.
There are various unusual things about this particular car that make it at least hover on the edge of plausibility, rather than being a completely absurd idea as it would be for most models. As the article said, they did fail, but it's not too hard to believe they could have figured something out that would have at least been faster than walking if they had a bit more time (and by that I mean a few more hours, not a few more weeks). The Mythbusters did a lot of interesting things but where a normal scientist is driven mercilessly by grants, the Mythbusters were always driven mercilessly by TV production schedules.
Working on a (relatively modern) Japanese car after only having dealt with ‘60s and 70’s British vehicles was a revelation. Standardised sizes and parts that actually fitted together. So great.
That's my experience of going from a German car to a Honda. I can take the Honda apart with a screw driver and a 6-19 wrench set and very little else. I required one hex wrench when taking off the whole front of the car.
German cars tend to have a bunch of hex and star wrench requirements, in addition to specialized tools for certain parts.
On the other hand, older cars did mostly have way more space in the engine bay.
German cars tend to have a bunch of hex and star wrench requirements, in addition to specialized tools for certain parts.
On the other hand, older cars did mostly have way more space in the engine bay.
My father used to tell a story of changing a water pump in his car when he was wearing a tuxedo--and not messing it up. Good luck doing that these days!
That's one reason why I drive a pickup truck, they're easier to work on than cars since there's more space everywhere, even on the smaller old trucks.
Miatas are pretty underrated in that regard - on the 1st gen (~1990) you can reach about everything without taking anything else of. Jobs that would take days (or hours in shop setting) to do on other cars take under 30 mins on the Miata. Notable examples are starter and brake booster - they are "right there", with a ton of space. You can't even get to the spark plugs easily on a lot of cars these days. (heh, "these days", now I sound old)
Definitely in older trucks.
Is this true in new trucks? Half the time it seems maintenance begins with removing the cab and removing the truck from the engine.
Is this true in new trucks? Half the time it seems maintenance begins with removing the cab and removing the truck from the engine.
They're still a lot better than cars. In trucks you usually need to pull the cab for convenience. In cars you often need to drop the engine in order to do the repair at all. Some things (like a rear valve cover on a transverse v6) often don't have clearance to come off.
Realistically it doesn't really matter because it's easier to optimize for not breaking shit or fixing it before is strands you.
Realistically it doesn't really matter because it's easier to optimize for not breaking shit or fixing it before is strands you.
Space and Hondas: I took some skin off my right hand and fingers the last time I replaced a headlight on one--I had to get in behind the gravel shield.
Old cars were serviceable and had decent tool sets inside compared to single screwdriver nowadays. So having the tools does not look like a problem. Old cars were also much simpler to work with. Especially no problems with electrical components. Why he choose not to hike is another question.
I doubt 70s/80s cars came with a tool set included (bicycles did) - but if you were heading out into the desert, it's definitely sensible to take some tools with you.
>Especially no problems with electrical components
As long as you carried some spare wiring harness smoke.
http://www.whereisbobl.com/tiger/smoke.html
"Q: Can I use this device to replace the smoke in my Alfa Spider? Is Brit smoke the same as Italian smoke?
A: Only if it's pre-Bosch."
As long as you carried some spare wiring harness smoke.
http://www.whereisbobl.com/tiger/smoke.html
"Q: Can I use this device to replace the smoke in my Alfa Spider? Is Brit smoke the same as Italian smoke?
A: Only if it's pre-Bosch."
We also didn't have the internet back then for people to immediately call bullshit on stories like this, so there was a higher chance for it to enter the urban mythology without much question. Once it would have hit Reader's Digest, man, it would have practically been a fundamental law of nature.
FYI: 1993 was just at the cusp of the "Internet Age". WWW dates back to 1989.
I bust my knuckles up wrenching on my car even when I have all the right tools. The pic of him at camp with the bike in the background and he's completely clean (not even some grease?) makes me skeptical.
There are other photos of him still clothed at the camp, and the clothes are not clean.
In the nearly nude photo his hands are visibly dirty.
In the nearly nude photo his hands are visibly dirty.
Who made the photo?
Self-timer?
I think he was holding some kind of remote-operation switch. You can see a string going from his right hand in the picture.
Carrying 10 days worth or water sounds pretty rough, there must be a sweet spot where carrying a little less water actually gets you further.
Quick calculations, I’ll leave conclusions to the reader. All numbers from quick googling.
The standard guidance is 1 gallon (~4 liters) of water per day, via all sources (includes food). A gallon weighs a little more than 8 pounds, so that’s 80+ pounds of water for ten days (not counting container, backpack, and whatever else you’re schlepping). Weight will decrease each day, but that’s a lot of weight up front. Backpackers usually try to carry half that, but 80 isn’t out of the question if you’re conditioned for it (eg US ground military carry 60-100 lbs).
A gallon a day is probably overkill for a short term survival situation, though. Having less, especially while you’re exerting yourself, may cause damage, but the survival goal is just to come out the other side.
Some quick googling on actual minimums to survive turned up this thread, where someone calculated it to be 1 liter per day while resting in a cool environment. So that’s 20lbs that needs to be adjusted upward for carrying significant weight offtrail in potentially hot conditions. https://www.backcountrysurvival.co.uk/2016/05/20/minimum-amo...
If you split the difference and assume strict rationing, you’re looking at 50lb start weight and suffering significant but not incapacitating dehydration. Brutal, but conceivable.
The standard guidance is 1 gallon (~4 liters) of water per day, via all sources (includes food). A gallon weighs a little more than 8 pounds, so that’s 80+ pounds of water for ten days (not counting container, backpack, and whatever else you’re schlepping). Weight will decrease each day, but that’s a lot of weight up front. Backpackers usually try to carry half that, but 80 isn’t out of the question if you’re conditioned for it (eg US ground military carry 60-100 lbs).
A gallon a day is probably overkill for a short term survival situation, though. Having less, especially while you’re exerting yourself, may cause damage, but the survival goal is just to come out the other side.
Some quick googling on actual minimums to survive turned up this thread, where someone calculated it to be 1 liter per day while resting in a cool environment. So that’s 20lbs that needs to be adjusted upward for carrying significant weight offtrail in potentially hot conditions. https://www.backcountrysurvival.co.uk/2016/05/20/minimum-amo...
If you split the difference and assume strict rationing, you’re looking at 50lb start weight and suffering significant but not incapacitating dehydration. Brutal, but conceivable.
>The standard guidance is 1 gallon (~4 liters) of water per day
Unless you are in the Italian army, they need more.
Unless you are in the Italian army, they need more.
I wonder how many people here know why. Being this HN I'll link a rule of a board game :-)
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4467813
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4467813
Since it gets lighter as you drink it, I don't think so. Even if you could only walk 1 meter while carrying N liters, you could drink it until you have M, and then walk as far as you could with M. But now you're 1 meter further.
If I tried to walk 100 meters with 2000 litres, I might fatigue myself so much that I would no longer be able to walk any further, no matter how much water I had left.
As water weighs about one kilogram per litre, you would be carrying close to two tonnes (+ container weight!) - if you can carry this for 100 meters, I would be quite impressed.
That's his point
That’s true, but if I had a thousand day supply of water (multiple tons), my first step would have to be dumping out most of it or I can’t walk anywhere.
So basically the rocket equation applied to water.
No, the Jeep problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_problem)
Difference is that you can make trips to set up fuel dumps wherever you want.
Difference is that you can make trips to set up fuel dumps wherever you want.
With his skills he could have build a sled or a wheelbarrow to carry all the water - still easier than a whole motorcycle :)
From the article though it didn’t sound he drove very far, so carry less than 10 days would have been possible too.
From the article though it didn’t sound he drove very far, so carry less than 10 days would have been possible too.
A wheel barrow type machine built in a day might have been a better option for him.
> I don't believe this.
Myth Busters proved this was possible. Not that this story actually happened, just that it could have.
Myth Busters proved this was possible. Not that this story actually happened, just that it could have.
They proved making a motorcycle-like thing is possible, but it's basically useless as a vehicle.
They didn't prove that all motorcycle-like things buildable from that car with those tools are useless. These were the possible outcomes from the Mythbusters test:
1. They build it and it works. That would prove that building a useful MLTFTC (motorcycle-like thing from that car) was possible, but would not prove that Leray had done so.
2. They are unable to find a way to build an MLTFTC. This does not prove it cannot be done, but they are smart and inventive builders and had accounts and photos of Leray's alleged MLTFTC to go on, so if they could not figure it out it would cast very strong doubts on Leray's story.
3. The result they actually got. They are able to build an MLTFTC, but it doesn't work well enough to ride.
That is the least satisfying possible result. It tells us that MLTFTCs are possible, but doesn't tell us if useful ones are possible. That theirs was not useful fails to rule out that others might be useful because two-wheeled vehicles are quite sensitive to geometry. It has not hard to have two such vehicles that look very similar, but one is rideable and one is not due to a few degrees difference in part of the geometry.
1. They build it and it works. That would prove that building a useful MLTFTC (motorcycle-like thing from that car) was possible, but would not prove that Leray had done so.
2. They are unable to find a way to build an MLTFTC. This does not prove it cannot be done, but they are smart and inventive builders and had accounts and photos of Leray's alleged MLTFTC to go on, so if they could not figure it out it would cast very strong doubts on Leray's story.
3. The result they actually got. They are able to build an MLTFTC, but it doesn't work well enough to ride.
That is the least satisfying possible result. It tells us that MLTFTCs are possible, but doesn't tell us if useful ones are possible. That theirs was not useful fails to rule out that others might be useful because two-wheeled vehicles are quite sensitive to geometry. It has not hard to have two such vehicles that look very similar, but one is rideable and one is not due to a few degrees difference in part of the geometry.
Why not build a tricycle instead? Much more stable, not much more complicated, and the parts shouldn't be an issue since you'll have four wheels and two axles lying around already.
AFAIK the premise of the myth is that the first two tires broke. If only one tire broke I think you can plausibly drive the car without any modifications by shifting weight away from the flat tire.
I believe it's possible to make a motorcycle-like thing out of the car, and I think that he did it before he went there and went there to create a narrative out of what he already knew how to do.
What I find difficult to believe is that he set out on the journey with a 2CV. Of course he broke it. It's a good car, but it's not a jeep.
I imagine for someone stranded in the desert it would be difficult carry ten days of water while aimlessly walking in the hopes of finding a road.
Walk at night? That’s better in the desert and you can use the stars to hold course.
Let's be clear: he'd be about 40 hours walk from the coast, at most, on surface that looks like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.03012,-11.1617356,3a,75y,89....
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.03012,-11.1617356,3a,75y,89....
How do you walk with 10 days of water in a desert? Towing that behind you on some kind of sled, or what?
A fifty pound backpack is hard to carry, 83 pounds of water sloshing around would be a nightmare.
Ten days water is twenty liters. 20kg. About a jerrycan full…perhaps exactly what he had.
Probably a bit more, considering he was prepared for desert conditions (and probably) some physical work as well
20 litres for a sedate software developer in an air conditioned office, yes. If that dev goes to the gym after work they'd need more! Let alone crossing a desert in the heat.
I'm probably doing 3 litres a day of pure water (plus water from coffees / food etc.) in 30 degree temps, but spending most of that time inside with air-con. It's probably not enough as I am pissing orange still.
Edit: someone like me wouldn't hike in deserts though, so by survivorship bias people that do it often probably need less water to stay cool. But 2l/day even if walking only dusk/dawn seems tight still.
I'm probably doing 3 litres a day of pure water (plus water from coffees / food etc.) in 30 degree temps, but spending most of that time inside with air-con. It's probably not enough as I am pissing orange still.
Edit: someone like me wouldn't hike in deserts though, so by survivorship bias people that do it often probably need less water to stay cool. But 2l/day even if walking only dusk/dawn seems tight still.
This reminds me of the fictional story The Flight of the Phoenix, a 1964 novel turned into a 1965 film. The plot is that a group of men crash their Fairchild C-82 aircraft in the Libyan desert and build a make-shift aircraft out of its pieces to fly to rescue. [1] I did not find it to be a very remarkable film in-and-of itself (personal opinion only), but what I do find remarkable (and tragic) was that for purposes of the movie, a flying, FAA certified, "one off" aircraft was built - the Tallmantz Phoenix P-1 [2]. Tragic because one of the stuntmen was killed then the aircraft came apart during a practice touch-and-go [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(196...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallmantz_Phoenix_P-1
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(196...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallmantz_Phoenix_P-1
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58
I instantly thought of the same film. I do rather enjoy the movie although it's a bit long. It's pure drama and there are some well known actors and very good acting. Highly recommended for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon when weather forces you to stay indoors.
No way that thing was "FAA certified". Just checked the TCDS list; nothing there under "Tallmantz". Sounds like Experimental category, with the pilot killed before it finished the initial 40 hours of flight-testing.
Thank you for the correction. I was just looking at the Wikipedia page when I claimed "FAA Certified", and that appears to most likely be incorrect. I was not previously familiar with the TCDS List - thank you; I'm going to use this as a future reference.
The twist in that film is the guy who designs the escape plane turns out to be a model plane designer. Ok, but all the people on the wing are going to have a hard time (quite apart from messing up the aerodynamics).
Movie stuntmen getting hurt - even dead - has been happening long after that movie. Even non-stuntmen can have close shaves on-set (I've had three, just as an SFX tech, safety is probably much better these days since the '80s); always seemed to be the cameramen who ran the highest risks.
Movie stuntmen getting hurt - even dead - has been happening long after that movie. Even non-stuntmen can have close shaves on-set (I've had three, just as an SFX tech, safety is probably much better these days since the '80s); always seemed to be the cameramen who ran the highest risks.
I once went into the woods with a logging crew. The amount of unsafe stuff I saw was mind boggling. Then, my turn came. A skidder had gotten a tree stuck. Instead of backup they just floored it, and predictably a tree trunk came shooting out of the bush. If not for some pretty good reflexes (better than I thought I had) I'd surely be dead, I dropped to the floor and the tree flew over me still attached to the steel cable that had tensioned. Very, very scary. After that I did all the work myself. Slowly, deliberately and without taking chances, not a single issue in more than a years' worth of cleanup.
They say that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs. I am not surprised but I think a good factor in that equation is the loggers themselves. (And some of the trees, which can be downright treacherous.)
In comparison what I've seen on film sets has always been pretty mild.
They say that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs. I am not surprised but I think a good factor in that equation is the loggers themselves. (And some of the trees, which can be downright treacherous.)
In comparison what I've seen on film sets has always been pretty mild.
I think logging in the US is probably much more dangerous than in other developed countries. At least that's the impression I have from watching a few television programmes and YouTube videos.
US loggers seem to take more risks and have less sophisticated equipment.
Is my impression correct?
US loggers seem to take more risks and have less sophisticated equipment.
Is my impression correct?
Television isn't real life. It's an entire career's worth of shenanigans compressed into one season because nobody is going to watch them drive heavy equipment back and forth all day with nothing interesting happening.
If it were even close to that eventful people would live-stream it. Note the release schedule of all the <insert workplace more dangerous than an office> youtubers and how little of their content is sketchy stuff.
If it were even close to that eventful people would live-stream it. Note the release schedule of all the <insert workplace more dangerous than an office> youtubers and how little of their content is sketchy stuff.
This goes for most jobs. Pilots: endless boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror.
> Television isn't real life.
I'm aware of that. The question was about risky behaviour being more visible in videos from the US than other rich countries.
I'm aware of that. The question was about risky behaviour being more visible in videos from the US than other rich countries.
By volume it's mostly done with mechanized harvesters where the operator is sitting in a cab (and then the rest of the equipment is operators sitting in cabs also).
Indeed, that's the way the big companies do it. But smaller operations operating on private land are often chainsaws+skidders, there is apparently enough money in it to be profitable, and it probably isn't worth it to truck over a large harvester for a small job.
Was it necessary to include the plot spoiler in your comment?
Considering that the film is more than 55 years old, and the discussion was advanced by discussing the plot point, I don't see a problem with it myself.
The fact that the film is 55 years old means most visitors here have not seen it (this isn't a classic films forum and the majority of HN readers were born long after the film came out), and the quality of the discussion here increases the odds people might be interested in seeing it. Why spoiler the film for them by needlessly including a detail that's a plot surprise but irrelevant to the subject matter of the discussion here?
The commenter must have believed -- and I tend to agree with them -- that it improved the quality of their comment. I'm sympathetic to the notion that one shouldn't needlessly spoil twists of movies, books etc when they're relatively fresh but at a certain point if we can't discuss what is interesting and fresh about a piece of culture we'll fail to make new touchstones for the culture.
It was remade in 2004 (under the title "Flight of the Phoenix").
Great story and amazing engineering. I got curious and found this article which has more details and a bit more sceptical take.
https://sahara-overland.com/tag/emile-leray/
https://sahara-overland.com/tag/emile-leray/
From the photos and videos, the guy is indeed a 2CV hacker.
I think the contraption is real.
Source: my father owned several cars of the 2CV family and we rode in them for years.
Did he actually build it in the desert? Without tools it seems rather difficult.
Here's the central point of https://sahara-overland.com/tag/emile-leray/
> I believe the 2CV bike was indeed built in the desert, much as Leray claims, but he set out from France with the explicit intention of performing this task. Otherwise he’d have walked out like any normal person in a similar situation.
> His claimed unease about leaving his stricken car doesn’t ring true, let alone the spontaneous idea of making it into a two-wheeler. Tellingly, in 2006 Leray went on to build a ‘2CV boat’ in Mali. He clearly likes mucking about with 2CVs. Fair play to him!
Source: my father owned several cars of the 2CV family and we rode in them for years.
Did he actually build it in the desert? Without tools it seems rather difficult.
Here's the central point of https://sahara-overland.com/tag/emile-leray/
> I believe the 2CV bike was indeed built in the desert, much as Leray claims, but he set out from France with the explicit intention of performing this task. Otherwise he’d have walked out like any normal person in a similar situation.
> His claimed unease about leaving his stricken car doesn’t ring true, let alone the spontaneous idea of making it into a two-wheeler. Tellingly, in 2006 Leray went on to build a ‘2CV boat’ in Mali. He clearly likes mucking about with 2CVs. Fair play to him!
In the 90's, my father had a Ford Pampa. We lived in Rondônia, close the extreme west of the Amazon rainforest. One day, while raining and riding through difficult terrain, the car stopped just by the top of a slope. My father quickly diagnosed the fuel hose had ruptured. By luck and opportunity, he was a physicist, the trunk was full of material from experiments and research he was running at the time. He got a hose from one of his experiments on the trunk, connected it directly to the engine fuel inlet, the other point of the hose came directly to the cabin inside a bottle we filled with alcohol from the fuel tank.
That was it, the bottle was now our fuel tank. Dangerous, but worked perfectly. We had to stop at every gas station we found and refill without stopping the engine to prevent air entering the hose.
It was a fun day.
That was it, the bottle was now our fuel tank. Dangerous, but worked perfectly. We had to stop at every gas station we found and refill without stopping the engine to prevent air entering the hose.
It was a fun day.
I once ran my car's electrical system from my electric skateboard's batteries when my alternator failed, but your story wins.
Done this with my dad's Lada. Fuel hose ruptured (rusted through?) in the middle of nowhere and I installed a hose directly from engine inlet (the car had fuel pump mounted on the side of engine powered by crankshaft) running through the firewall right to the small fuel container sitting just on the floor under my legs. It worked and got me home.
Please never ever try to repeat it.
Fellow Brazilian here, my father once used no-break batteries to start our car and i think that was amazing, but your father wins the prize!
alcohol in the fuel tank?
Yes. Cars powered by alcohol were common in Brazil. There was a government program with tax incentives, this helped us to become less dependent on external prices for petrol helping control inflation. Also, on less developed regions, utility cars - Pampa was a pickup - also had tax incentives as a way to promote development of the region. Of course, there was a law that prevented you from selling your utility car to other regions of the country.
This made an alcohol powered utility vehicle very attractive for the region at the time. It was probably the cheapest pickup one could buy.
This made an alcohol powered utility vehicle very attractive for the region at the time. It was probably the cheapest pickup one could buy.
What a memory, my grandfather’s Santana! If it was a little cold it would never start on the first try…
Thanks for bringing this back :)
Thanks for bringing this back :)
Those are not exactly good memories. Starting an engine should not require sensibility, skills and know a few incantations to convince the engine.
I was a child so it always seemed funny to me. My uncle trying to make it start, failing, “No it is not like that, step out let me do it”, then my grandfather tried, nothing, a little push, a little mumbojumbo, try again… it was a magic ritual!
Sugar (and hence alcohol fuel) is cheap and plentiful in Brazil. It competes with gasoline. So dual fuel vehicles are common.
My armchair take is that if I really wanted to drive out (as opposed to walking - I don't know if I'd be confident enough in my walking pace & distances to make the call to abandon the vehicle) I'd try to rig the 2CV in car form. Fewer unknowns, I think. A broken drive axle (there are 2) could be wedged up to restore drive to the other wheel, and a wheel with a broken swingarm could be replaced by a makeshift skid made from a bumper.
A diagram of the 2CV drive system can be found here: http://www.lightauto.com/fwd8.html
I wasn't there of course.
A diagram of the 2CV drive system can be found here: http://www.lightauto.com/fwd8.html
I wasn't there of course.
Agreed. This story is bullshit. It would have been way easier to figure out a way to make the 2CV drivable.
It would have been far easier to just walk the 20 miles (maybe half a day... being generous) back to the nearest civilized area. Especially since the area around there runs an average high of 82F during its hottest months. And we aren't even talking about the fact that you can just walk at night.
If anything of this story is actually true it might make sense to put yourself in his shoes. You broke down trying to sneak around a military outpost. What are you going to tell people when they find your car or you go get help to recover it? You are only 20 miles out so just throwing a match on it draws a little too much attention to yourself and you have 12 days of water and supplies. The way I figure it, you have at least 11 days to destroy the evidence and any fun you can have in the process is a bonus.
If anything of this story is actually true it might make sense to put yourself in his shoes. You broke down trying to sneak around a military outpost. What are you going to tell people when they find your car or you go get help to recover it? You are only 20 miles out so just throwing a match on it draws a little too much attention to yourself and you have 12 days of water and supplies. The way I figure it, you have at least 11 days to destroy the evidence and any fun you can have in the process is a bonus.
My dad one time got stranded in the desert with 2 friends a long way from civilization. He had a blown tire but had a spare. When he went to put the spare on it was an incorrect rim for the car and he didn’t know that since he bought it used and never had to use it. He tried to ride the bare rim but was spinning out and getting stuck. His solution he took the spare tire and his 30-06 gun and shot a hole in the rim which allowed it to barely fit on the car. It did not ride smooth and was a lumpy ride but he drove slow and got to a service station. The guy working was very impressed how it got it to work. Another time he got stuck in the desert he overheated and had no water to fill the radiator. There was a tiny leak somewhere causing it to run out and overheat. His solution this time was to get himself and his friends to Lee into the radiation filling it up enough to keep the engine cool. He again pulled into a service station but this time the guy working there was not impressed because it was now still leaking but this time the pee was burning off the hot engine and the guy could smell and wanted it nowhere near his shop.
The overheating stories always start with "in the desert" because people who live where you run coolant that doesn't freeze don't tend to run cooling systems that leak out something that costs $5-$10/gal.
On mentioning Mythbusters failed to recreate this, he concludes Emile is amazing, still without doubting any of the story.
"The insanity of this creation couldn’t be better expressed than in the episode of Mythbusters, where they tried to recreate his process."
"Without following a manual, the hosts disassembled a 2CV, which they found easy, then set about making their bike. That part was not so easy. They failed twice."
"The first, was when they tried to make a better version, requiring two to operate it. Fail."
"Then, they tried to recreate Leray’s machine from the images they’d seen. They couldn’t balance it long enough to save their lives. Fail again."
"Considering the boys had two good brains, intelligent, experienced, and endless time to make something, they failed two-times-twice."
"The insanity of this creation couldn’t be better expressed than in the episode of Mythbusters, where they tried to recreate his process."
"Without following a manual, the hosts disassembled a 2CV, which they found easy, then set about making their bike. That part was not so easy. They failed twice."
"The first, was when they tried to make a better version, requiring two to operate it. Fail."
"Then, they tried to recreate Leray’s machine from the images they’d seen. They couldn’t balance it long enough to save their lives. Fail again."
"Considering the boys had two good brains, intelligent, experienced, and endless time to make something, they failed two-times-twice."
The original report states that Emile had a lot of trouble staying balanced on his bike as well. It is possible the Mythbusters version didn't work very well because the design was fundamentally flawed. From what I understand he didn't even get out of civilization with it, being picked up by the army not far from where he built the thing.
Steering geometry on a motorcycle is very important, and getting it slightly wrong will make it hard / impossible to balance and steer. Actually, this is true for a bicycle as well.
I found some videos featuring this man and his bike:
(3 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMWgSgB4sg
(20 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_m_a4iRZIk
(3 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMWgSgB4sg
(20 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_m_a4iRZIk
and neither of those two videos shows this motorcycle driving.
When I read the headline I said to myself "I won't believe this unless the car was a 2CV!" Surprise! Another 2CV story. But seeing the contraption I still don't believe it. Nonetheless this remains a good yarn and can only add to the 2CV's charisma.
Should have walked nights, could have done this easily in two, possibly even one.
Where do we have an indication of how far he had to go?
I notice the article suggests he was 20 miles from a village. That sounds walkable in a couple of nights to me, as a fat middle aged man. I am pretty sure someone used to the terrain and climate could do it in a single leg.
I reckon if you know exactly the direction you have to go and have some good hard ground to run on, the distance can be covered in a night at a decent pace. 20 miles is really not that far.
But did he know? My read is that he thought it was beyond hoofing it. 20 miles of decent terrain with my normal hiking gear I would have no problem with. Survival situation, I'd do it with a GPS and water.
Didn't Mythbusters do this one already?
Batman turned his car into a motorcycle in literally seconds.
He was a logger in the Pacific Northwest. At one point he was hauling logs up the Oregon Coast, and his truck broke down in the middle of nowhere, stranding him. (Probably an old Gary truck, which was practically made from cast iron.) I don't remember the exact part, but it was something to do with a wheel... the rim, or part of the axle or mounting.
He happened to have some ingots in his truck (a soft metal, I forget the term). So he built up a large fire, melted the ingots, and sand-cast a replacement part using the broken piece as a template. Once it cooled and was cleaned up, it worked well enough to get him to civilization, or whatever passed for civilization in Oregon in the 30s.
Seeing all the logging hacks I've seen when growing up, I completely believe this story.