Al Bear ([info]albear) wrote in [info]vintage_ads,
@ 2008-03-13 09:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Terrible invention from a June 1936 issue of Popular Science magazine.

"when you take your dog along for a ride, but prefer not having it inside"
Seriously, if you think that way, it's better you DON'T have a dog! just my thought.

I really hope that thing was never actually sold. cross posted from [info]randompics

lrg_dog_car_sack

(Post a new comment)


[info]amadoj0nes
2008-03-13 05:03 pm UTC (link)
Oh. My. God.

(Reply to this)

[info]rstevens
2008-03-13 05:03 pm UTC (link)
The Romney Box!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]amadoj0nes
2008-03-13 05:06 pm UTC (link)
Except you can guarantee your dog will be pelted with debris along the ride. :)

This looks more like a disciplinary thing than....God, it's just so bad..!


First the frog with shoes on, then this. My brain hurts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]encapsulate
2008-03-13 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Yes.

YES!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]pagerbear
2008-03-13 05:14 pm UTC (link)
I shudder to think how many people--and dogs!--found out just how safe this was!

(Reply to this)

[info]janecpb
2008-03-13 05:18 pm UTC (link)
The wording makes it seem like it's part of instructions on how to make it, rather than an ad to sell it. With the "grommets" and "sewed" and "hole for head".

My dog would just chew through it in two minutes, fall out and be crushed by a Hummer.

(Reply to this)

[info]imparfait
2008-03-13 05:24 pm UTC (link)
I can see PETA jumping all over this.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]7ofclubs
2008-03-13 09:49 pm UTC (link)
I can see any person wtih a grain of sense jumping all over this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]a_renunciation
2008-03-13 05:45 pm UTC (link)
ugh.

(Reply to this)

[info]versailles_rose
2008-03-13 05:46 pm UTC (link)
This is SO WRONG!

(Reply to this)

[info]kill_inhibition
2008-03-13 05:50 pm UTC (link)
My jaw literally dropped. Ugh.

(Reply to this)

[info]miggy
2008-03-13 05:52 pm UTC (link)
D:

(Reply to this)

[info]freakylynx
2008-03-13 05:53 pm UTC (link)
What they don't tell you is that the matching earmuffs and hat for inclement weather are sold separately. That's where they make their money.

(Reply to this)

[info]pangea_tongue
2008-03-13 06:04 pm UTC (link)
JUH!?!?!

(Reply to this)

[info]stellypippin
2008-03-13 06:32 pm UTC (link)
File under: CRAPPY, BAD IDEA INVENTIONS.

(Reply to this)

[info]lsdiamond
2008-03-13 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Wasn't this from the days when driving a car wasn't THAT much faster than riding a bicycle? I fail to see how this is a PETA-worthy offense.

Not saying it isn't a horrible idea, mind you, but it isn't as though Fido would go flying off at 70MPH into an oncoming semi.

Just sayin'...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]yndy
2008-03-13 08:05 pm UTC (link)
Um... no.
1936?
This is for the 1937 Hudson which was a damn heavy car...

A standard 1937 Hudson Eight went to Utah and broke the 1,000 mile record in its class (and also the unlimited record for closed cars) averaging 88.9 mph including stops for petrol. By comparison the Hudson Terraplane Six did the same distance averaging 86.5 mph. That gives you an idea of their top speed under good conditions and well tuned.

The Eight also broke the 24 hour record at 87.67 mph covering 2,104 miles at top speed. So the Hudsons were the top speed winners at this time over a sustained distance, for standard sedans. These figures are taken from an article on pages 20-23 of Automobile magazine of November 2002.

The 1938 Hudson Eight did 0-60 in 15.0 secs. The 1936 Hudson Eight did it in 18.6 secs, top speed 86.7 mph and SS 1/4 mile in 21.2 secs but this was probably a low compression motor. By comparison, the 1934 Ford V8 sedan (85 hp) had a measured top speed of 81.8 mph and a 0-60 mph on 16.8 secs. [Webmaster note: to be fair, the Hudson was a luxury sedan, considerably larger and probably heavier than the Ford. Supporting this comparison is a 1935 test, in which the Ford V8 was soundly beaten by a Plymouth Six. The Ford did the full mile in 68 seconds, the Plymouth in 60; the top speed for the Ford was 82 mph, the Plymouth 90 mph! No Hudsons were tested that time. Hudson did make two versions of their engine through at least some of the 1930s, a higher performance and a lower compression version.]


You're thinking about 20 years earlier.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lsdiamond
2008-03-13 09:05 pm UTC (link)
Wow! What a surprising bit of information on this model of car.

I was more referring to the general rate of travel of the day, though, not top speed of particular vehicles. Even today, many areas have a max speed limit of 45mph in-town. (Although that would still be pretty fast for a doggy on the outside of a car.)

In listening to old-time-radio programs of the time, it seems that in-town driving was pretty slow. Surely they were at least somewhat representative of real life, as is modern television: fantasy based in reality

My thinking was that it's really not so different from letting a dog ride in the back of a pickup. (Have yet to see anyone do that at interstate speeds, but perhaps it's been done.)

Still, interesting article; thanks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]kip_w
2008-03-13 07:17 pm UTC (link)
It needs to ride a little higher, so the dog can stick his head inside the car while they zoom down the road.

(Reply to this)

[info]dominoep
2008-03-13 07:26 pm UTC (link)
I bet someone used it for their children as well...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]albear
2008-03-13 11:03 pm UTC (link)
Ohhh Nooo think of the children! ;)

http://community.livejournal.com/randompics/2052599.html

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]johnnythunderz
2008-03-13 07:39 pm UTC (link)
i wonder if there are any fotos wih people who really used it?

(Reply to this)

[info]yndy
2008-03-13 08:00 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I had a dog that would've LOVED that!! Much better than just getting her head out the window!! :)
But I suspect it would be illegal anyways...

(Reply to this)

[info]sleveen
2008-03-13 08:03 pm UTC (link)
I would never use this on either of my dogs...however, I've met some children I'd be happy to use it on... o_O

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]albear
2008-03-13 11:03 pm UTC (link)
Something similar perhaphs?

http://community.livejournal.com/randompics/2052599.html ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]silversolitaire
2008-03-13 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]albear
2008-03-13 10:34 pm UTC (link)
OMG! that makes a hell of a difference then! if that's the case, I may consider a smaller size for my cat as well to put on the passenger side! ;)

That's hilarious! :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]sassylidge
2008-03-14 12:03 am UTC (link)
HAHAHA! That is too funny!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]amadoj0nes
2008-03-14 12:15 am UTC (link)
lol

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]silera
2008-03-14 01:36 am UTC (link)
I want my dog to ride in my sack.....or anyone's dog...

(Reply to this)

[info]ziggymeg
2008-03-14 04:35 am UTC (link)
Mustn't mar the precious car with the dog we secretly hate.

(Reply to this)

[info]3cthelion
2008-03-14 03:57 pm UTC (link)
but, but, but... this is not an ad!

...and once again, i couldn't care less. thanks for the post! my dog would love that, right up until we got up behind that semi or that guy next to me decided to hug the line a little too close.

(Reply to this)

[info]deathbykleenex
2008-03-14 04:13 pm UTC (link)
D:

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…