I’ve taken a deep dive into vintage car carriers, and will be sharing more soon. But this is a really exceptional one: the La Crosse Carrier, with front wheel drive to enable a very low floor between the single rear wheels.
Back then, length restriction led to some very creative solutions in unusual car carriers, especially in the midwest where the maximum length held out the possibility of five cars carried, but only with a lot of creativity. Normally all car carriers in the Midwest and east could only haul four cars back then. This was the most radical solution, in terms of using FWD. I don’t have any info on the drive train, but presumably they did what has been done often over the decades: use a driven front axle from a 4×4 truck, but disregard the transfer case output to the rear.
This is the prototype, but apparently a few others were built. And by the way, that’s a load of Kaiser-Frazers on it. Now if only K-F had gone through with its plan to have the Kaiser car be FWD, then this would really have been a radical combination!
I doubt this rig had power steering, talk about building your arm muscles up!
Being that I live in Wisconsin, is the La Crosse in the carriers name referring to the city in Wisconsin? I know little about this manufacturer.
Also, I quite love the industrial font on the building. It reminds me of all the businesses built in the 1940-1960s where their signs were built with function over form, but were beautiful in their own way with lettering and fonts.
I assume it’s Wisconsin. FWIW Stevens had his design business in Milwaukee.
As did the FWD Corporation, leading manufacturer at the time of all-wheel drive trucks. Highly likely FWD supplied the driveline and front axle of this car carrier. FWD built some front wheel drive cargo trucks that had low floor cargo beds, some of which could lower to the ground for roll-on loading.
The building tower with the “La Crosse” name is surfaced with lannon stone. This is a common material in Milwaukee building construction and rather unique to southeastern Wisconsin. Lannon stone comes from Waukesha County – one county west of Milwaukee County. So I guess the building is near Brooks Stevens’ Milwaukee rather than in or near La Crosse (200 plus driving miles to the west northwest).
Thanks for pointing out the building. I was so mesmerized by the Kaisers and the carrier truck I didn’t notice. That mostly obscured building may be plain and purposeful, but that stonework, relationships of forms and lettering are classic American midcentury modern.
It’s so tiny! Compare the size of the cab door to the cars on top. And it’s only 1.5 K-Fs long… it’s probably the size of a modern HD pickup truck.
A great find!
Honestly, I would never have guessed it was designed by a notable industrial designer, graphic designer, and stylist. Unfortunately, elegant is not a word I would use to describe it. In fact, it’s rather unattractive IMO. And certainly doesn’t make the main attraction (the cars) look their best.
A big part of the allure and appeal of car carriers is to see the new cars themselves. As a kid (and a kid at heart), I was very disappointed when flat rail car carriers started to conceal the cars with sheathing on their walls. Even if it was for security.
The appeal isn’t in bland packaging. As the slab sides and squared styling of the carrier really clashes with the round and smooth styling of cars in that era. It doesn’t compliment the cars at all really.
Car carrier have always been a great way to show off a carmaker’s new cars. This is stifling the positive benefits of promoting your product.
If you’re going to bring a designer’s touch, you want to pose a product to maximize attractiveness. The ungainly position of the middle car looking like it is nose diving into the carrier looks so bad from a presentation standpoint. But I do understand if that’s a shortcoming of the carrier’s inner design.
It looks like a regular carrier with metal walls and some typography placed on the side. I would never have guessed a designer played a role creating this.
Sorry to sound negative, but I would expect a lot more elegance from the drawing board of Brooks Stevens. I guess the design brief didn’t include aesthetics. ๐
โnegativeโ? You think? ๐
I think youโre a bit overthinking or over-analyzing this. First off, almost all carrier trailers until the late โ50s had mostly solid sides with just cutouts, even more solid than the one attached below.
Secondly, Iโve never thought that car carriers were very effective at showing off the cars, since even the modern grid types are anyhting but flattering to the cars behind them. I don’t really see that as being a primary purpose in their existence.
Third, the โungainly position of the middle carโ as absolutely key to this design, as itโs necessary to make the five cars fir within the overall length.
Fourth, compared to the typical car carriers of the time, this truck was definitely much more styled and handsome. of course form follows function here, and extremely closely so. Stevens had very little leeway except to just add a bit of multi-colored trim and such. Which was of course his brief here. This is all purely cosmetic. I did say โstyledโ and not โdesignedโ on purpose.
Wait until I show you the other carriers of the same time that also were designed specifically to fit in 5 cars in this restrictive length. They will make this look like a Ferrari! ๐
In any case, for the times I think this looked exceptionally good, given its mission in life. Most trucks back then were pretty scruffy and very utilitarian.
Haha, I was actually pulling punches with this design. I find it genuinely quite unattractive. Especially given someone as skilled as Brooks Stevens designed this. Doesn’t look like a designer considering aesthetics created this IMO. The stark squareness (almost harsh) of the design looks so conflicting with the smooth shapes of the cars.
This thing looks like a construction site trailer. Only with larger wheels. ๐
Or a windowless bus with cars sitting on its roof. And yet, so many 50s buses had lovely curves. It’s a beast.
With traditional standard carriers, you can clearly see the cars beyond the carrier frame. Folks want to see the cars! Far better than what is visible here. Here the focus is on the slab sides.
Technically, as a five car carrier built to a specific length, it looks like it achieved that goal. But aesthetically, it looks like a moving van. The walls add little to the aesthetics. I think many people would rather see the cars inside. Even if partially blocked by columns. Here the focus is on the slab sides. The typography and cladding was added to mask the cold, bland moving van walls.
I find the unpretentious trailer example you supplied is better looking than this design. You can see all the cars, it compliments the cars with its shape, and doesn’t hide the cars. Perfect for that era!
Nothing wrong with convention and simplicity when people would rather see the cars.
I don’t like to waste time on debates about subjective issues of style, but here’s a couple more thoughts to add:
Car carriers are independent contractors, and their survival was predicated on submitting lower bids than their competitors. Pure economics. neither the manufacturers or the carriers gave a damn about showcasing the cars on the carriers. Both parties only wanted lower costs.Which is why this industry is driven by technical solutions to find ways to carry more cars per unit.
This was one of those efforts, and a fairly revolutionary one. But as I said before, function dictated its form, and its looks. Because this rig has FWD and a very low floor, it has not frame; it’s a unibody, in essence. So the flat and solid sides are key structural elements to support the upper cars and keep the whole thing rigid. It’s a box, and for very good engineering reasons, as a box is the lightest way to do this.
The only thing Stevens was asked to do is add a bit of ornamentation to this rolling box. Which he did.
Car carriers have contracts with numerous companies, so it’s not like they’re going to design rigs to complement the specific make of one of their clients.
As I said earlier, compared to all the otherwise utterly utilitarian car carriers that have been built over the decades, this is the only one that shows even a hint of some style. If you don’t like it, that’s ok. But the fact is that it was the only effort ever made in this regard, so it’s a historical event for that reason.
I think many people would rather see the cars inside. You’re making a very subjective assumption.
This IS a moving van, for cars. No commercial car carrier rig was ever designed to highlight the cars being carried. Whatever does the job the most cost effective way wins.
And as it turns out, there were cruder but cheaper ways to carry 5 cars within this length limit. But visually very much inferior.
Thanks for you time and thoughts Paul. I went looking for some additional images on the web to study the La Crosse Carrier from a few different view selections. And this design perhaps works better if seen as an *intentionally* very rectangular pedestal-like structure highlighting the cars on the top deck. Similar to vintage car show displays. For me, it perhaps works better when looked at that way.
I agree, car carrier operators don’t want expensive high maintenance bodies. This is why I would have an open frame for the cars. The La Crosse Carrier with solid walls would show so many dents and dings, and rust, after just six months of use. The cladding, paint and lettering would look terrible in a short time. That’s why I suggested no walls, but more creative framework. An open framework where you can see the cars. An elegant and aerodynamic cab similar to some of the great flowing designs Stevens has prepared elsewhere. Where Stevens could then show off his skills. And is more reflective of his talent. With a small elegant open trailer for the last two cars.
The example below is closer to what I see looking very attractive. While not being as high maintenance. I find the La Crosse Carrier looks too much like a bland shoebox. Not reflective of Stevens best work. Though, I can see it looking better if seen as an intentionally very rectangular pedestal.
For me, and many people, the appeal with car carriers is always seeing the cars. A simple open frame with a good looking cab would be great. And how I likely would have approached this.
Your assumptions about what would have happened to this rigs exterior are extremely speculative. Where would the dents, dings and rust of its exterior have come from? It’s no different than any other moving van.
And how I likely would have approached this.
But they didn’t ask you.
The problem with artistic personalities is that they fail to recognize or properly respect the overriding economic issues of businessmen. But Brooks Stevens knew that, which is why he was a successful business man in his field, supporting a considerably sized staff. He didn’t try to tell his clients how to do their job; he just did the job that was asked of him. No second guessing.
If they wanted a pretty moving van, they probably could have saved a lot of money by not hiring a big name. When most any industrial designer, could have added ‘a bit of ornamentation to this rolling box’.
Astute business people, who stay in business, know these things.
Edit: The appeal for many car spotters, including here at CC, is being able to see the new cars arriving. Nobody talks about moving van trailers.
It was the appeal of the car carrier post the other day.
It’s easy to see the Stevens angles and the Stevens broad panels of color. Too bad it wasn’t carrying ’49 Willys wagons and pickups and Jeepsters. Then the carried would echo the angles of the carrier.
My point above. The carrier should subtly compliment the cars it is carrying. Not a stark contrast that has you looking at the carrier, and not the cars. The cars are the product. Not the truck and trailer. ๐
That’s if they are trying to style the truck/trailer. Otherwise, no harm in a conventional looking truck/trailer.
Reminds me of the 1970s GMC Motorhome which also used FWD and tandem single rear wheels, and for the same reasons.
Would make a great prop for a post-apocalyptic movie. “Mad” Max Rockatansky’s motor home+toy trailer.
I get what they were trying to do, but that can’t be the final iteration of anything, there’s so much wrong here.
The first car of the first load and we have a damage claim. LoL
Looks like the head-rack car bottomed out and knocked its rocker-panel trim back.
For those who’ve never had the pleasure of hanging like an orangutan to tie-down a carrier that’s fairly easy to load, I’ll say that this looks miserable.
You’d expect to run the head-rack car into the pockets and then draw it forward. Of course you’d expect someplace to stand while cranking tie-downs too.
I’d like to see the limited-turn fwd knuckles, close trailer, and long wheelbase, turned tight enough to get into Small Town Kaiser; oh the place with the humped driveway. Hehe
The goal sought here was finally accomplished with conventional drive and short (tight turns) wheelbase. It had to wait for the advancements of compact hydraulic cylinders and “telescoped” tubular steel.
As a retired engineer who worked on heavy duty vehicles for a bit, and worked with industrial designers for decades, this looks EXACTLY like something a stylist (designer, whatever word you like) would design for a client or manufacturer who wanted a distinctive look, needed a certain function (aerodynamics, hauling 25% more cars than the other guy) but also had a limited tooling budget for complex stamping dies to manufacture curved panels. And maybe appreciated the simplicity of flat surfaces (Tesla Cybertruck anyone?). FWIW, I think it looks quite good. Hopefully thereโs a Hall-Scott motor tucked away inside somewhere.
And you’re not Brooks Stevens either. ๐
Car carriers in my neck of the woods show heavy signs of abuse. Bad rust and signs of wear. As I suggested above, the La Crosse Carrier with solid walls would show so many dents and dings, and rust, after just six months of use. The cladding, paint and lettering would look terrible in a short time. Thatโs why I suggested no walls, but more creative framework. An open framework where… bonus… you can see the cars. What new car buyers in the highways want to see.
And the car carrier operators have far less maintenance. They wouldn’t maintain that bodywork, unless we are California dreaming?
I have absolutely *zero* engineering experience, and make no pretenses to be one. Yet, I don’t see this bodywork seeming low maintenance in abusive daily use. But I would expect someone with Stevens portfolio to have a more elegant solution looking less like a roadworthy boxcar.
I’ll forward your comment to Brooks Stevens.
That’s okay, Heaven can wait!
Even an iconic designer like Stevens must have struggled at times to think ‘outside the box’. ๐
Looking forward to the authenticity of the upcoming more humble trailer designs you will be profiling. Maybe we’ll get to see more new cars visible on these trailers. ๐
Of course a driver has to exit a vehicle after driving it aboard a carrier. I guess in “the tunnel” he climbs through a window that gets left rolled down and crawls out on new paint?
Back in 2010, they drove my freshly-bought Barracuda into a shipping container, see below. Then it sailed (swam?) from Charleston SC to Rotterdam. There it was unloaded and loaded into a much narrower enclosed trailer, towed by a full-size van.
Not even the slightest mark or scratch on the whole car. By the way, I don’t know how big the guy sitting behind the wheel was…
Did he stay there for the whole trip?
Yes, with enough food & beverage to make it to the Port of Rotterdam. No one was hurt during the long trip.
Angular as it is, I think it’s quite glamorous. It resembles a swish train combination, and I fully expect a small cocktail bar in the cabin behind the uniformed driver there. Or perhaps I just need a drink?
I’ve always been partial to the cleanliness of line in the K-F, but they look a good deal less modern than the creation hauling them.
Fantastic find – always enjoy seeing these ’40-50’s one-off experimentals; cars or trucks.
Would be interesting to know if the articulation mechanism was the same as used on the similar vintage Kaiser articulated bus…and if the rear wheels steered.
The rear wheels are no doubt fixed. If made to steer it would take away the main objective of the “axle less” single wheels, namely, to keep the belly clear for wide and low cargo.
If I could ask, how did the Kaiser bus hinge?
That’s a trailer on the back, commonly called a “stinger”. No rear wheel steering. That would completely defeat the goal of economic efficiency of this rig. The Kaiser bus was a one-off technology showcase.
More specifically, in carrier lingo, “stinger” refers to the trailer hitch type. A stinger is a very low-mounted fifth wheel, inches above the roadway, vs a conventional fifth wheel located atop the frame.
I like its super clean design and exterior, quite timeless too. The less Schmuck on a big rig, the better (although I thought very differently in my much younger years). A good paint scheme and some nice lettering will do, no need to add more.
It also reminds me of a classic, crew cab moving truck. Naturally, also ofted used by furniture manufacturers. Usually, these were based on a rolling bus chassis.
Squint a little and see if there isn’t something here that conjurs up a heavy duty commercial version of the Dodge Deora from the 60s. The arrow-shape of the front and the lines coming from the slant of the rear door window brings the Deora’s shape to my mind, at least.
Lol! Somewhere I have a Hotwheels version!
Bob
Take the cars off and you have The Mammoth Car from Speed Racer( at least the first two sections anyway)
I make no comments on the styling but I dread to think what this would have been like up a mountain pass, particularly if it were raining or snowing. There is a limit to what fwd can do on a commercial vehicle. This type of car transporter was tried here in Europe and had not too many takers and precisely because of the traction issue. I cannot see it being different elsewhere.