not overthinking the thing to death (style)

[alteredpilot]

i was over at ThingyM's shop on saturday for a little bench racing and we got to talking about build styles for HA/GRs....

now we took into account that this is a NON competitive class...strictly hobby/fun/passion racing

we also took into account that the rules were very loosely written for that reason.

just build the thing...right??

built in the 'spirit' of the bug, but not necessarily the style right?

so at what point do you step outside the 'spirit' of the class with build styles?

glass t-bucket bodied cars?
complete speedway front suspensions and S-10 rear ends?
double hoop roll bars?

looking at pics of RandMan's car, it just SCREAMS of the spirit AND style and i LOVE it.

any group of a couple of guys could build a simple car like that and go out and have TONS of fun with it

so you've got the Hornets and Ramrods style 'rails', and now we've got Dmarvs excellent rear engine car which smacks of drylakes flavor, would a dual (or triple) purpose modified roadster be too far out?

i know, i know...dont think the thing to death.

having been involved in 'nostalgia' drag racing for some time now and seeing where its gone, i'm wondering if we will stay self policed or if we will wind up needing policing and rules.

definitions and rules kill innovation and creativity, but when do you put the reigns on how far that envelope gets pushed.

i'm sure the engine and suspension restrictions and the framerail guidelines will dictate alot in the months and years to come and i dont think i've been more excited about drag racing in a LOOOOOOONG time.

[plan9]

id say build it to whatever you want it to be... you are over thinking things :)
as a group we chose a rear engine because it is something none of us have done before, there will be a lot of firsts for us on this project.

point is to Keep.It.Simple.Stupid ;)
you already have an engineered balls out altered.... just have some fun with this one, build the chassis to serve as a dual purpose car. you can make design adjustments as you use it.

[alteredpilot]

i'm not really talking about me...

i've always marched to a different drummer.
if it dont fit HAMB guidelines stylewise, it will still fit ANRA guidelines.
that being said, i'll probably wind up going generic.

i was just ruminating, mulling, pondering, looking forward.

i remember the birth of 'nostalgia racing' and how it was compared to what it is.

i'm curious to see who starts to push, who starts to push back, and where this thing will expand and contract....

[plan9]

yah i hear you... we talked briefly about this subject at the Luau and over PM's, we are on the same page. our car will be built to HAMB specs which in turn should be A-OK with ANRA.

in fact, my statement wasnt necessarily geared towards you 100%... its also a reminder to myself and perhaps anyone else that has the tendancy to get overly excited, which tends to make life a bit more difficult.

for me, this whole endevour is to just have a blackboard for FH tuning and building. i can probably use my '34 for this same purpose, but wanted some guys in the club who often talked about building a race car and no funds to get involved.

plus SoCal dudes need to help support the sport or else we will be talking about the good ole days when you could drive 1 hr to LACR or Irwindale to race your car.. not a whole lot of racing participation from what ive seen... most are happy sitting around at a car show...nothing wrong with that, it has always been too fuckin boring for me.

[chuckspeed]

yah i hear you... we talked briefly about this subject at the Luau and over PM's, we are on the same page. our car will be built to HAMB specs which in turn should be A-OK with ANRA.

in fact, my statement wasnt necessarily geared towards you 100%... its also a reminder to myself and perhaps anyone else that has the tendancy to get overly excited, which tends to make life a bit more difficult.

for me, this whole endevour is to just have a blackboard for FH tuning and building. i can probably use my '34 for this same purpose, but wanted some guys in the club who often talked about building a race car and no funds to get involved.

plus SoCal dudes need to help support the sport or else we will be talking about the good ole days when you could drive 1 hr to LACR or Irwindale to race your car.. not a whole lot of racing participation from what ive seen... most are happy sitting around at a car show...nothing wrong with that, it has always been too fuckin boring for me.

To both plan and altered:

If I'm readin; Ryan right - he's posted a pic and some loose rules. Go figure it out - as long as the heart of the beast and the spirit of the chassis are true to a time period.

I REALLY like the idea of wringing the snot outta a period mill - limited by period rubber. It ain't as easy as it seems; bias ply skinnies are like dancin' on glass comin' outta the hole. Easy to make torque - not so easy to get it down! Easy to lighten the car (unless you like cheeseburgers) but not so easy to make it breathe on the big end.

Yah - it's supposed to be fun and passion, but it's STILL racin'. The comp spirit will drive design; that coupled with the idea of a period racer will tend to narrow the field to 'stuff that works'. For the sake of the Ford Flattie - let's hope that's true!

Me?

I'm thinkin vintage redemption is an inline Big Six with a cut down Ford 8N hood and grill to cut the air...no one said I can't run tractor parts!

[plan9]

To both plan and altered:

If I'm readin; Ryan right - he's posted a pic and some loose rules. Go figure it out - as long as the heart of the beast and the spirit of the chassis are true to a time period.


pretty sure alteredpilots original post was more or less geared towards anyone that isnt sure about what they want to build, wether it be HA/GR or some kind of rail/hot rod hybrid thing due to lack of funds.... i *get* the whole Parasite idea and already have plans for something in the spirit of it all.

i dont think there is any question as to what can and cannot be driven... and you are right, im here to have fun... as well as win. ;)

[chuckspeed]

pretty sure alteredpilots original post was more or less geared towards anyone that isnt sure about what they want to build, wether it be HA/GR or some kind of rail/hot rod hybrid thing due to lack of funds.... i *get* the whole Parasite idea and already have plans for something in the spirit of it all.

i dont think there is any question as to what can and cannot be driven... and you are right, im here to have fun... as well as win. ;)

Don't want you to think I'm doggin' ya - I'm not. what's really amazing (and challenging) is the rules are screamin' wide open for interpretation; we could be seeing some wild designs - like engines in the 'wrong' place (behind the driver) for example...:eek: Folks tried suff like that back in the day.

Of course - you wouln't do that for a comp advantage, wouldja?

[plan9]

Don't want you to think I'm doggin' ya - I'm not. what's really amazing (and challenging) is the rules are screamin' wide open for interpretation; we could be seeing some wild designs - like engines in the 'wrong' place (behind the driver) for example...:eek: Folks tried suff like that back in the day.

Of course - you wouln't do that for a comp advantage, wouldja?

chuckspeed - nooo, i didnt take your message as a slight on us ;)
wrong engine placement? me? never.... :D:cool:

you are right, i like the "interpretation" part... if someone has an advantage because they interpreted the rules in a clever manner, then by all means he has the upper hand.... maybe what its going to boil down to is driver skill.. all this stuff has been gone through before, 55-60 yrs ago, long before i was ever a twinkle in my pops eyes.... but i say hell yes, lets re-invent the wheel!

[alteredpilot]

what's really amazing (and challenging) is the rules are screamin' wide open for interpretation; we could be seeing some wild designs - like engines in the 'wrong' place (behind the driver) for example...:eek: Folks tried suff like that back in the day.

Of course - you wouln't do that for a comp advantage, wouldja?

EXACTLY.
what you said is exactly what triggered my thoughts.
i've been involved with drag racing for over 30 years (i'm still a pup at 33) and i'm well versed in the history. matter of fact i still have the privelige to hang out with alot of guys who were there when history was being written in the 50's and 60's.
even in the 70's and eighties i remember alot of what was going on in the 'interpretation' of rules.

my post wasnt intended to ask whats cool and whats not, i already get that part.
its more about how far can we 'stretch' what we're doing while still preserving what we're doing.

the rules are what make it cool.
engine type, induction, trans, wheels and tires. you figger out the rest. thats what is so simplisticly beautiful about it.

but again, all things have a grey area before the line is crossed....

it would be a shame to have a 'spec style' HA/GR because guys are either just not creative enough, lazy or afraid of going outside the box by too much. we have four unique but similar cars right now, all super bitchin'.

whats next?

thats what is at the heart of my thoughts.

Me?

I'm thinkin vintage redemption is an inline Big Six with a cut down Ford 8N hood and grill to cut the air...no one said I can't run tractor parts!

chuckspeed...
i think you and i think alike.
see if you can find a copy of the fall 2006 edition of Traditional Rod and Kulture Illustrated. page 5. yup.

[ThingyM]

As the Alteredpilot was saying,We yaked this over last saturday. I have already built my chassis and am ready to start putting the rest of the junk on it. Ive had a couple of the guys say it looked too new. Even though it has formed channel for the main rails. Then at what year does the running gear stop. A 51 Chrysler block,66 ply gear box. ? year 8 3/4 Chrysler rearend.
I am one of the guys that he was talking about that was around in the 50s at all the local Calif. drag strips. There were some of those cars that you wouldn't strap your butt into for all the tea in china. But they still ran them.Alot of twin engine combos etc. We were not trying to over think this thing, Just trying to figger out where it will stop at. And to what point will the builder of his car stop building, If you know what I mean. Maybe a limit on to what a motor can be built to etc.

[Mr. Mac]

You guys are making interesting reading,keep up the good work.:)

[REJ]

I'm trying to finish mine as of now and still can not keep thinking about a twin engined one!
If the first one works out, that may be next. And I said this was going to be the last one I built!!!:eek:

[chuckspeed]

Okay -

I've had beer; this makes for a loose keyboard, but whathehell!

Every nite as I fall asleep, I build a chassis and test it. Been doin' this ever since I thought I was gonna design chassis for Ford as a kid. Ever since Ryan mentioned HA/GR, I've been building and testing these infernal contraptions in my head; I'll build a chassis, run it, and then make changes. when I get stuck, I go look at the parts I need to complete the job - wherever they may be.

this week?

The Kruse Museum in Auburn, IN... I wanted to look at torsion bar front suspensions, as they were available in '62. There are three slingshots on display there; got a good look at front suspensions and front end geometry as a result. those '60's slingshots ran a LOT of caster! 40-45 degrees!

Anyway, the Cord L-29 gave me an idea about using quarter-elliptics on the frontend to eliminate the 'bones; weight saving stuff. Gotta test it tonite...

But the wild hair:

I've finally figured out how to build a HA/GR with a frame that's less than 6" (yes, inches) long. The frame's been buggin' me... a car that's essentially 4 wheels, a motor and a trans doesn't need a frame, methinks. If it was okay for the Vincent Black Shadow circa 1955, it's gotta be okay for a rail...

but if it has a frame the size of a short penis - is it still a rail?

[chuckspeed]

I'm trying to finish mine as of now and still can not keep thinking about a twin engined one!
If the first one works out, that may be next. And I said this was going to be the last one I built!!!:eek:

A twin would be kewl - and within the regulations!

Seems like a twin would run jus' fine with NO trans, just an in 'n out. there was a Michigan boy who ran a V8 inna WLA Harley frame on exhibition runs back in the 60's - I forget his name. Anyway, when you got more torque than tire - no trans needed. Since you'd have a motor per tire - no trans needed.

Eliminating the trans allows you to direct couple the motor(s) to the rear axle - you'd hafta sit up front, but the weight dist. would be pretty good! Designed right, the rig would weigh 1600 lbs or so and have over 300 HP at the rear wheels...nothing to sneeze at!

[alteredpilot]

chuckspeed...
i like the way you think!

Anyway, the Cord L-29 gave me an idea about using quarter-elliptics on the frontend to eliminate the 'bones; weight saving stuff. Gotta test it tonite...
let me know how it goes.
been doing some 'testing' of my own.

1st rule of competition...

its not what they say you CAN do
its what they DON'T say what you CAN'T do!!!

[buffaloracer]

E J Potter. The Michigan Mad Man. I remembering him talking about running a pair of small block Fords on a custom chassis. Don't know if he ever got around to it.
I thought about a couple of bangers end to end but have decided to go with something a little less complicated.
Pete

[buffaloracer]

He launched the the thing by kicking it off of a center stand. Wonder if a HA/GR can spin the tires for a 1/4?

[alteredpilot]

He launched the the thing by kicking it off of a center stand. Wonder if a HA/GR can spin the tires for a 1/4?

is that a dare?? :D :D :D

[REJ]

I think if you built a twin engine, I would still run a tranny and just leave in high gear. In and out boxes have to be push started if I am not mistaken. According to the rules, they must be self starting.
I had a friend who built a twin engine Kawasaki years ago, that he rode on the street. Talk about a torque monster!
Two 1040cc motors coupled with a chain drive with a five speed tranny. It would smoke the rear tire just by cracking the throttle at any speed in high gear.

[Ryan]

- I think a twin engine would be rad... If it ran twice as fast (heheh - get it?) as a single engine, then so be it... If it got ugly we would class it.

- What's so wrong about a rear engine HA/GR car? I actually know of two being built right now and they are both GORGEOUS.

The cool thing about the HA/GR rules is that folks can create VERY different cars and race them against each other. It's a learning experience.

[plan9]

some really nice rear engine cars have been built - all of these have been yoinked from the HAMB at some point.. ;)
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/plan92/rail/elguapo2.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/plan92/rail/rail.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/plan92/rail/CopyofIMG_0195.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/plan92/rail/CopyofIMG_0099.jpg

[Jim Marlett]

I don't know when it was actually built, but this picture is from about '64 or '65. I suspect it is more likely to be from the '50s originally. I am told by those who saw it run that it didn't perform all that well. I am also told that as of a few years ago, the car still exists.

Late '50s and early '60s are way out of era for my vision of HA/GR's. Late '40s - very early '50s is how I see the style of a proper HA/GR.

[Mr. Mac]

- I think a twin engine would be rad... If it ran twice as fast (heheh - get it?) as a single engine, then so be it... If it got ugly we would class it.

- What's so wrong about a rear engine HA/GR car? I actually know of two being built right now and they are both GORGEOUS.

The cool thing about the HA/GR rules is that folks can create VERY different cars and race them against each other. It's a learning experience.

There might be three.:D

[Old6rodder]

........ or four. :cool:

[Rand Man]

I see no advantage to a rear engine in this class. We have about 60 - 40 rear bias now. Yes you can move the engine mass back, but you put all the driver mass back towards the front.

HAMB Gas Rails represent the begining of organized drag racing in the post-war-early fifties era. I only restate this in response to questions about style, not engine placement.

[plan9]

once these rear engine rails are built and go toe to toe with other front engine rails we wont ever know if any advantage is to be had... everything before this is just speculation, albeit logical speculating.. (im somewhat agreeing with you, by the way).

we think rear engined rails look cool, so thats the design we are going for.... nothing more, nothing less. ;)

I see no advantage to a rear engine in this class. We have about 60 - 40 rear bias now. Yes you can move the engine mass back, but you put all the driver mass back towards the front.

HAMB Gas Rails represent the begining of organized drag racing in the post-war-early fifties era. I only restate this in response to questions about style, not engine placement.

[Rand Man]

If a class ever opens up for later model sixes, I'd build a 300 Ford six rear engine rail. I think rear engine rails can be cool.

[chuckspeed]

I think the point of the 'open' rule set is to encourage a wide range of configs; while there may be minimal benefit to a rear-engined runner...

The best tuned, prepped, and driven car will prevail.

[Old6rodder]

Those're pretty much our conclusions as well. Even at our elementary math skill levels the rear (mid) engine configuration for this class looks to be giving up a bit of weight transfer to the fronties, and our choice of a slant will certainly be giving up some cubes to others.

Still, our slanter group's just plain ol' hooked on the style of some of the very early middie attempts and we want to play in that vein (though we WILL forego that three wheeled one :rolleyes: ). We're actually looking forward to it being a bit harder fight for us (prefabbed excuses and all, you know :p ) with no expectations to be competitive our first season, just have fun and sort out the package. Hell we're already used to being underdogs in the rest of the world anyway.

Could you see someone even crazier than us cobbling up an "Odd Couple", say a flattie eight and a Jimmy? Nah, wouldn't be able to decide which one'd lead and which'd follow .........

[ThingyM]

What about a sidewinder?? The only thing is it would be rather hard to use channel,rectangular tube, or 3" dia tube for the chassis. Also a trans would be necessary. making it awful wide.. I know where the original sidewinder car is. But of course he won't let it go. The original one had a bone stock Chrysler hemi. and chain drive. still went really fast. Jack Chrisman drove it. It would be fun looking into something like that.))))))grin

[chuckspeed]

Those're pretty much our conclusions as well. Even at our elementary math skill levels the rear (mid) engine configuration for this class looks to be giving up a bit of weight transfer to the fronties, and our choice of a slant will certainly be giving up some cubes to others.

Still, our slanter group's just plain ol' hooked on the style of some of the very early middie attempts and we want to play in that vein (though we WILL forego that three wheeled one :rolleyes: ). We're actually looking forward to it being a bit harder fight for us (prefabbed excuses and all, you know :p ) with no expectations to be competitive our first season, just have fun and sort out the package. Hell we're already used to being underdogs in the rest of the world anyway.

Could you see someone even crazier than us cobbling up an "Odd Couple", say a flattie eight and a Jimmy? Nah, wouldn't be able to decide which one'd lead and which'd follow .........

The slant is an interesting pick...

Yeah - you're givin' up cubes, but a short-stroke slant can be wound out to high heaven, makin' for some sweet trap speeds. The really hot ticket would be an aluminum block slant...When were those made? Would they qualify? Seems an alloy slant could be built which would weigh in at under a thousand pounds - that would give the slushbox boys a run for their money in '07!

[REJ]

The slant is an interesting pick...

Yeah - you're givin' up cubes, but a short-stroke slant can be wound out to high heaven, makin' for some sweet trap speeds. The really hot ticket would be an aluminum block slant...When were those made? Would they qualify? Seems an alloy slant could be built which would weigh in at under a thousand pounds - that would give the slushbox boys a run for their money in '07!

Aluminum slants had their problems with sealing the head to the block, that why they only made them one year. On the Rt.66 cruise in '05 HAMb drags, we went into an old drive-in, and the guy that owned it had an aluminum slant in a tractor pulling rig, alcohol injected, that would be perfect in an HA/GR, except for the injection.:(

[Darwin]

Over at the Mopar engines site there are several extensive interviews with a member of the Slant Six design team. The guy's favorite was the 170 which he said was a seriously sweet engine that would rev 'till forever. He claims that he routinely shifted his stock 1bb. Valiant at 6400rpm and claims that with a good 4-speed trans he could have humbled more than a few bent eights. Somewhere in there he claimed the short-stroke 170 forged-crank bottom-end was good to 8000rpm. If a 170 was cammed, carbed, and pumped to turn say 7500rpm then you could use a 5.13 axle which in top gear would equal roughly 120mph in a HAMBster. Not much torque there but loads of torque-multiplication and with such a limited tire contact patch maybe not such a liability.

[REJ]

Are you trying to give away all of our secrets?:D
This is the very reason my HA/GR engine will be a 170ci.
The slant's bottom end is tough. They run the same main bearings as a hemi motor.
I have had a 225 on the road for the last 4-5 years with a 471 blower on top of it. 6-8 lbs of boost normally, and have put 15 lbs on it. If I have not killed it yet, I do not think I will.
The motor had 96,000 miles on it when I pulled it out of the donor car and stuck it in my bucket. No rebuild, no freshening up of anything. I did replace the oil pump.

[Old6rodder]

Good point on the 170s tach capabilities (try http://lotuseleven.org/DarkAges1/open_exhaust.htm for a little 1960 eye opener ;) ) and bottom ends. They're the most nearly bullet proof four bearing made.

Also, all the slants bolt up to the same mounts and bells, making it a drop-in change over should we wish to try that route in the future.

We're hoping to use the lighter (and hopefuly strong enough) 7 1/4" rear but so far have found nothing lower than 4.10 gears for it. The need for lower gears may lead to a larger (read heavier) pumpkin style, possibly even different make (oh, the shame) rear.

The aluminums were indeed hard to deal with, and finding head gaskets could be an issue. Might be a fun cobble though.

[Darwin]

If you could scare up a Dana 44 you can get gears from Motive Gear as low as 5.38. Heavier for sure but probably bulletproof and it's a Chrysler product.

[Old6rodder]

If you could scare up a Dana 44 you can get gears from Motive Gear as low as 5.38. Heavier for sure but probably bulletproof and it's a Chrysler product.

When was the 44? If it's good, Chrisman even goes down to 5.89 for it. We're really hot to stay with the period style. So much so that we'll only be butchering a ladder frame, not scratching one for this. May be a bit manic but it's what's turning our cranks.

Just wish we could drive'er in "period" attire ........... :D .

ps. The thing I remember most about the early sidewinders was the HUGE sprockets, always wondered what kind of damage the asphalt'd take if the left tire went flat (envision a several hundred horsepower chainsaw). Hell, Honda once even crammed an in-line six sideways in a bike.

Now a slanted sidewinder ...................... hmmmmmm :cool: .

[Darwin]

[QUOTE=Old6rodder]When was the 44?


http://www.jeeptech.com/axle/d44.html


Should be plenty stout enough.

[64 DODGE 440]

Just found this thread and had to bring it back.......

The beat goes on.......lets see who comes up with the most unique design.

Creativity is where hotrodders made their name.

very little has been done in the way of bodywork, but something along the line of "Speed Sport" has potential and a comp coupe might not be bad either.......

Anybody got a bantam coupe body they want to donate to the cause?:D

[Rand Man]

I'm thinking Comp Coupe should be the next step up from HA/GR. I'm trying to decide what to do with my rail. My engine partner had to back out. Should I try and replicate the same flathead combination? As much as I want the answer to be "YES", I need to face the facts. Five of the last nine (including Outlaws) U.S. rails have been big Jimmy sixes. They are hard to beat, unless you've got a really hot shoe. Maybe there is another engine/trans combination. Maybe transform this thing that looks and performs completly different. Maybe add weight, but increase power and traction and safety. Maybe make slicks and wheelie bars mandatory. (I popped a wheelie in my new digger last weekend and it was pretty fun).

I think Comp Coupes would be great crowd pleaser and a fun step-up for the owner-builder. For the time-being I'm on the sidelines of HA/GR. I've got some decisions to make.

[64 DODGE 440]

You can always make it as complicated as you want.......just remember to keep it fun, 'cause that's what we are here for.

I'm just thinkin' that something like Gabby Bleeker's Bantam would be cool on an HA/GR, and all the added weight would be over the rear wheels.:D