Tucker Torpedo is being built finally

[Tatra Man]

Tuckeroo,

As you can see from my previous post (where I credit the Lippincott team, Tremulis, and Lawson conjointly as the designers of the "production" Tucker), I also agree that all three design groups deserve credit for the final design, as it could not have happened without all three groups participating (not to mention Preston Tucker himself). And I agree with your assessment of what design elements should be credited to whom. Unfortunately, few others think as we do, and Alex Tremulis is still often quoted as the sole designer of the Tucker '48. I hope that people in the future will find more room for the Lippincott team and George Lawson.

I didn't mean to indicate that Tucker was displeased with the final "production" car. On the contrary, I'm sure he was quite happy with it. However, based on Preston Tucker's personality and his belief that he was going to revolutionize the auto industry, the Lawson design was more radical than the final product and therefore was the best fit with what Preston was promoting. So, in a philosophical sense, the Lawson design was the car that Tucker really wanted to build. Again, that's not to say that Preston Tucker was displeased with the final "production" car. I'm sure he was quite pleased with it. But it wasn't quite as radical a departure as he promoted at the start.

[Tuckeroo]

I don't think I could dispute that logic...Tucker himself seemed to feel (in "My Car Was Too Good" from 1953) that "By [his] standards the Tucker car today is obsolete, little more than a museum piece." His ideals for an automobile were surely years ahead of what was practicable.

[Tuckerfan1053]

It would be interesting to know what all Tucker planned to do with the Carioca. We know a little bit about it, of course, but everything I've heard that he wanted to do with the design, I wouldn't consider to be revolutionary, "merely" common sense (then again, given the state of the auto industry these days, maybe "common sense" should be considered revolutionary). Nothing like his fluid drive (which today would be considered a hydraulic hybrid and is being revived by a number of companies, since it offers several advantages over electric hybrids) or center position driver seat (when Car & Driver did a review of the McClaren supercar which has that, their comment was, "Why doesn't every car have this?").

I don't know if Brooks Stevens was aware of the Carioca, but many of the engineering concepts behind it were central in his design for a Studebaker in 1963. http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2008 ... ay-wonder/

[Tuckeroo]

Actually I'm interested in knowing if they are still trying to build the Carioca as well. It seems they started work in that direction but are now focused on the Torpedo design...no complaints about that, though.

[tuckernut]

IDA is still trying to build the Carioca as well. But funding as you all can imange is a big part of these projects! Currently they have funding for the Torpedo so that car will be completed first. The Carioca will be next.

I'm sure any info. that anyone can supply on either car would be a big help to IDA. So if you have it, send it over to them.

[Ace Barker]

How many Ida Tuckers are there? Would the Tucker club consider have a link to photos of the Ida Tuckers? I realize they aren't real but sort of "Honorary Tuckers". I guess the fiberglass ones from the movie could be under this link as well. Its just a thought.

Ace...

[Phantomrig]

How many Ida Tuckers are there? Would the Tucker club consider have a link to photos of the Ida Tuckers? I realize they aren't real but sort of "Honorary Tuckers". I guess the fiberglass ones from the movie could be under this link as well. Its just a thought.

Ace...

I believe that there are 3 they built but i cant be sure. but as far as the links to pics of them I agree they would be nice to have.

[TuckerCar]

The TACA site links to Ida's site. I'm not going to add the Ida cars to the See a Tucker page.

I too believe he built 3 - the blue one was first, then he built a maroon car for someone in Japan, then the 'Lower 48' (green rod) which I happen to think is one of the top 5 sweetest cars ever built, but don't let that get out because I like to consider myself a purist.

[tuckernut]

YES, there are 3 IDA Tucker 48 built to date. Blue, Red, and the Lower 48 Green. The Red one is currently in the Tokyo Japan Car museum on display.

I live in NJ, close to the IDA Shop and I have seen them many times. I watched the green Lower 48 from day 1 to finish. About 18 months to built I think it was. WOW WHAT A CAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree not a real Tucker but the Lower 48 is more of a Tucker with a street rod touch. But GREAT car to drive. I have driven in the car and really nice ride with lots of power. North Star engine with twin turbos!

[MrOldie]

I too have ridden in the Lower 48 and it is an extremely nice car. While it is privately owned, the owner allows the Idas to regularly take it to shows throughout NJ. It is not unusual to see it around at Englishtown, a cruise nite, or other venues. As you can imagine it always draws a crowd and brings back memories.

[TuckerLoverInTucker]

I just wish someone would mass produce them like Preston dreamed.

[MrOldie]

I just wish someone would mass produce them like Preston dreamed.

Juat place your oder with Ida Automotive.

[streamliner]

It’s great that the pre-1947 Tucker Torpedo is going to see the light of day. I’m sure it would have made George Lawson very proud to see his vision finally come to fruition by the outstanding team at Rob Ida Concepts. If anyone can do it, the Idas can, and there's no doubt they will get it right.

As Tuckeroo uncovered in the "George Lawson Article" post, the design patents played an instrumental role in the chain of events that led to the Tucker '48 as we all know it. So let’s take another closer look at the evolution from Lawson to Tucker ’48 in terms of the intellectual property related to the automobile. I apologize that some of this repeats from an earlier "Mystery Tucker" post, but it's entirely appropriate for this reply.

In December, 1946, Alex Tremulis read the latest article about the new Tucker in Popular Science. He was moved, as was the rest of the country, by what he saw:



About a month later, on January 16, 1947, George Lawson filed for a design patent after he parted ways with Preston Tucker. The application included photos of the model used for the Popular Science article. It eventually issued as Design Patent D149,824 on June 1, 1948.







When Lawson filed his design patent application he also provided a related reference to a Pierce Arrow "Silver Arrow" design filed by James Hughes (Phil Wright's Silver Arrow design, taken over by Studebaker, modified by Hughes) in 1932.



The patent office considered the Hughes patent and determined Lawson's design was novel, unobvious and substantially different than the Hughes patent, and therefore granted Lawson his patent. Lawson's attorney thought the patent was relevant to the filing and therefore referenced it to the patent examiner.

There is no doubt that the Torpedo article and prior Tucker press had an influence on Tremulis’ creations. He was impressed with the story and made his own improvements in late December 1946 for a more practical design which initially kept the moveable cycle fenders, rear fin, easy entry door cutouts, and egg-crate grill. In these renderings, he held true to some of the original design elements.





By February 1947, Tremulis’ designs were rapidly progressing further from his initial concepts and more towards the final product. According to the outstanding research provided by Larry Clark’s “Tucker Chronology Project”, on February 28, 1947 Tremulis was asked to prepare a rendering to be used in advertising the new design for the Tucker automobile. The paper vellum for that rendering is shown below. By this time the design had incorporated the flowing fenders of the production models, but also kept remnants of the rear fins as well as other notes as to what the rendering should look like. Note that the process for creating a rendering starts with a “vellum” (like tracing paper) on which the basic lines of the car are created. The vellum is then pinned in place on top of the drawing board or paper. Then, after the lines of the design are painstakingly perfected, the image is transferred to the final drawing board by tracing over the desired lines. The final rendering is then airbrushed and detailed by the stylist. So for most renderings, there is a corresponding vellum from which it was made. You can see Tremulis’ work, and rework, especially in the fenders and hood areas. It's possible this vellum was also used for subsequent renderings with modifications to the detail work.



On March 2, 1947 the following ad was printed in the Chicago Herald-American, as well as other publications. This rendering is the final product that was created from the above vellum. You can still see the two rear fins in the ad as pointed out on the vellum.



This rendering was prior to the J. Gordon Lippincott team of designers involvement on March 4, 1947, (again, thanks to Larry Clark’s research) so therefore there was no influence from outside consultants in its creation. Pure evolution of the form by Tremulis.

On March 15, 1947, Tucker filed for patent protection for this design which eventually issued on June 14, 1949 as Design Patent D154,192. The fins are gone, the side trim is gone, and the rear fender grill now has horizontal louvers, much like the final product. Also note that the Lawson design patent D149,824 was included in the references for the Tucker patent.







Tucker’s patent was issued one year later than the Lawson design and therefore the Lawson patent was considered at the USPTO before issuing the patent to Tucker. What this means is that the US Patent Office recognized the Tucker design as being a design that was novel, unobvious and significantly different than the Lawson design and could not be confused with the Lawson design. So, to put it all together, at least in the eyes of the patent office representing the public interest: The Tucker ’48 cannot be considered a Lawson design any more than the Lawson design could be considered a Hughes design. Note: If any arguments were made to the examiner during the prosecution of this patent, these would be included in the file wrapper at the USPTO. There may be arguments filed as it took the Tucker patent 10 months longer to issue than the Lawson patent, and if anyone in Alexandria, VA desired to see the files for both patents, they could probably do so with just a little digging since the entire prosecution history of a patent application is public information once a patent issues.

Every element of a design does not have to be exact, though, in order to infringe a design patent. There is what’s called a “Doctrine of Equivalents” or “Doctrine of Equivalence” that states that if the design is similar enough to the patent illustration, it may still infringe, even though it isn’t exactly the same. Here’s a great photo of how the final Tucker ’48 looks in profile:



You can judge and compare side-by-side (or top-to-bottom) how the actual car differs from each of the previous design patents. A patent attorney could make legal arguments either way as to why the final car might be covered by either one or both or neither of the design patents.

It is important to note, that you cannot infringe a patent application. It is only when the patent issues that you are granted the right to keep others from practicing your invention. Many patent applications never issue as patents. Remember, Lawson’s patent application was filed January 16, 1947 and didn’t issue until June 1, 1948, well after the first of the 50+ run of Tucker '48's. Tucker’s patent application was filed March 15, 1947 and didn’t issue until June 14, 1949. In order for Lawson to file a patent infringement suit against Tucker, it would have had to have been filed after June 1, 1948, but before June 14, 1949, the date when Tucker’s patent issued over the Lawson patent (the same date the Patent Office officially determined the Tucker design, and ultimately the Tucker ’48, distinctly different than the Lawson design). Lawson had other issues with Tucker and vice-versa, and it’s possible that in order to resolve all outstanding issues between the parties the application was but one part of an out-of-court settlement. In any case, if there was an infringement complaint brought by Lawson against Tucker, it would be a matter of public record, and the dates, the argument filings and possibly the settlement agreement should be available.

The fact that any individual designer at all gets named is in itself incredible. We should all be so lucky. As we all know, there would be no Tucker at all if it weren’t for all the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed by not only the design teams (including Preston Tucker), but also the mechanics, engineers and hammer men (sheet metal fabricators) dedicated to producing the automobile. Just think of the Herculean efforts that went into producing the tens of thousands of blueprints and mechanical parts for the Tucker that get hidden away behind the stylists’ sheet metal or encased somewhere in a greasy transmission housing. These individuals are no less artists than the stylists and probably spent more time on the car than any other Tucker employee, yet they are almost never mentioned by name for credit…

I, like most Tucker enthusiasts, look forward to seeing the final Lawson concept for the Tucker Torpedo completed, but as far as the styling goes, the reason why Alex Tremulis, in particular, will always be associated with the Tucker ’48 styling is this: The Tucker car we all envision with our eyes closed is precisely the car that flowed from Tremulis’ airbrush, evolved from the Lawson design in combination with the best design elements from each member of the Lippincott design team.

The escalating prices paid at auction are testament to all the Tucker employees that they “got it right” with the Tucker ’48…

[streamliner]

Apparently Tremulis attempted to correct the original Tucker design patent by hiring an attorney to correct its inventorship.



I don't know if a letter of correction was ever issued to change the name of the inventor on the patent, however Jay Darlington eventually did acquire the design patent and subsequently sued Studebaker over the design of their 1950 spinner nose. Studebaker was found to not have infringed the Tucker patent since the studebaker nose was a grill, not a third headlight, and it was determined that it could not be confused with the Tucker's cyclops headlight (although it certainly was confused with the #1027 Indy rollover Tucker in the making of Tucker: The Man and His Dream ) shown below. Had Darlington won the case, I'm sure he would have considered going after the 1949 Ford next.



Incidently, Ben Parsons was also the same gentleman who signed off on Tremulis' Plant 1 Engineering Pass:

[Tuckerfan1053]

Had Darlington won the case, I'm sure he would have considered going after the 1949 Ford next.

Given that its a dirty little secret that the '49 Ford was designed by the engineers at Studebaker, it would have been interesting to see how such a trial would have played out.