Power Plant Question

[Godzilla]

I started collecting parts to build a rear engined car about a year ago (when I sold "Rodan"). I bought two 1962 152ci Chevy II 4 cylinder engines to run in it, in tandem (inline). I just want to make sure that if I go ahead and finish this car that it will fit current rules. As I read the rules it should be in the spirit with a full width 8" rear end and model A width tubular front axle. There does not appear to be any restriction on overall length or the number of rear tires...only the size. Have I got this right? What do you think...within the boundaries of the rules?

[esfoder]

That sounds kick ass. Hope it's legal.



Dusty

[Joe Hamby]

Welcome back again Ron. I think that these rules are simple and you can interpet them, I think that some try to add in between the lines, they don't need to. I have never seen anything limiting the number of motors, wheels, carbs or year of transmissions. Go for it, I will enjoy seeing it run, even if you out run me. Joe

[Godzilla]

Thanks Joe...I am going to keep it real simple...going to put my youngest in it for his first taste of racing. I have gone back into racing gassers myself...this project will be a fun father-son deal.

If what I have planned will pass tech with this group we will get it hammered out this winter. I have the parts for a direct drive set up or a two speed Lenco that I bought for my drag boat. Only real decision left is which way to go. All the rest of the parts needed are left over from building Rodan...great way to get them out of my way. Thanks for your encouragement...well see what other kinds of feedback I get. Zilla.

[64 DODGE 440]

Hmmmmmm.......that sounds interesting, 304 cu. in. "composite straight 8".

Find a short, strong transmission, the weight will be on the rear end and it should haul ass.

Still waiting on someone to gear together a couple of slant 6s side by side and make a 450 cu. in. V12.:eek:

Nice to see that some folks are still innovating and not afraid to try unorthodox combinations. That's what it was all born of.:D

[esfoder]

Ya know mercrusier makes a 181 ci version of that motor for boats?
Crank and pistons get another 50 or 60 cubes?

Just a thought.

Dusty

[Godzilla]

Chevy 283+60 are the hot ticket, there are a lot of cam choices, Marine head with porting and aluminum rods will make big power. Just have to do it twice if this deal works out for this class.

[Rand Man]

I would like to see that car built. The little Chevy four is a great engine and twins are better. The 6" tire rule needs to stay in place for all cars. We all know that means 6" total tread width, on each side. I believe that twin wheels and tires could cause weird handling problems. If a lot of thought is put into the gearing and throttle setup, traction might not be an issue. I will also say agian that I would like to see 6" pie crust slicks on these cars.

[nexxussian]

Rand Man, I'm glad you mentioned that, there was an ice racer up here in the late 60s or early 70s that beat a stud limit rule that way (duals in the back as there was no rule against it).

[ThingyM]

Randy,,, Me too, But who has them anymore.??...

[esfoder]

Chevy 283+60 are the hot ticket, there are a lot of cam choices, Marine head with porting and aluminum rods will make big power. Just have to do it twice if this deal works out for this class.
I had thought about doing a single of that type. It would be lite but I got going on the Hudsons instead.I was thinking it would take the better part of 300 to 325 hp to be competitive in this deal. I think that might be tough to get out of one and keep it together.But two would be no problem. I never thought of puttin two of them together?

Whod a thunk it?

Dusty

P.S. it also solves the tranny problems. Modern bellhousings and such.

[Rand Man]

The guy that runs Hurst Racing tires is a HAMB'er. They have re-caps that are close to 6". I think he would make us a deal, if we could agree on a new spec tire. I hate to bring up rule changes, but I think the lack of a tire that resembles something that should be used for drag racing is one of the things that has held back HA/GR all along. Don't change the early fifties, stick shift dragster concept, just give them a tire that makes sense.

[Godzilla]

I would like to see a rear tire change to a slick...much easier than having duals built (two individual 6" rims + Bias Ply tires). Ole Eddie Hill use to run dual rears on his dual front engine dragster. I saw several more examples of the dual rear wheel cars in the NHRA museum in LA.

So...count me in on running anything with a slick tread...and save my slipper clutch a major heart ache.

[Joe Hamby]

Hi Ron did you ever run that black car that you sold and where did it go?

[2b-banjo]

It has been quoted that the tire is the equalizer for everyone, I don't think running 2 per side is within the spirit of the class. My 2cents.

[mudflap261]

The rules dont say you cant run lenco but if you start this then someone with deep pockets will want to put one behind a gmc the autos were outlawed idont see a whole lot of differance my two cents

[Godzilla]

The little 6 in Rodan ran well enough and all...but was a little too tame for my taste, so I sold it and started building another gasser. Last year my youngest said that he wanted to give drag racing a try...so I put the two 153 deal on paper and started collecting parts. I already had most of them.

I think that 1.5 hp/cube is within reach of these little engines, pretty easy, without getting exotic parts made like I had to with the 235. Two of them should net about 460 hp. With all the weight on the rear, I am leaning toward using the direct drive set up...but I have the two speed if I can't get it to work right.

What I remember about being "in the spirit" from when I built Rodan, with the powerglide, is that the car needs to have a clutch and shifting lever to be HAMB'ish. The car will have both if I run the Lenco...so not sure how it would fail the "taste test". Besides...it will be hid under a blanket anyway.

As far as the two rear wheels/on each side...I guess there is a need for a rule change...the rules don't say you can't run them. Besides it was not uncommon to see them back in the day.

I plan to start the car out with the direct drive and one wheel/side to give the kid a chance to sort the car out. If I decide to run the Tulsa deal only...I also have a pair of 300s that might make for an interesting...if not very long...ride for him. But I think the 153s will be plenty to cut his teeth on.

[esfoder]

The rules dont say you cant run lenco but if you start this then someone with deep pockets will want to put one behind a gmc the autos were outlawed idont see a whole lot of differance my two cents
If I remember right a lenco is a planetary type transmission that can also be configured with a torque converter?(Bruno) It's alot closer to a automatic than a manual?


Dusty

P.S. I would still like to see it run!!!

[Used Up Junk]

A lenco can be set up with a clutch or a torque converter, if you go the clutch route the car is still launched with the clutch but is shifted without using the clutch. To shift you just pull the shift lever without getting out of the throttle.

[Godzilla]

As I recall from the discussion that took place back when I decided to run the automatic in Rodan, running an automatic would not be in the spirit because the spectators would not be able to see the driver shift down-track and it would not have a clutch. This car will have both...clutch pedal and shift down track...if the direct drive does not work out.

I really think this car will ET well with the direct drive...and it will mean the boy can just sidestep the clutch, hammer it and steer it straight. What a no brain-er. He weighs 100 and nothing...so this thing should be pretty light and I think will mph good too, with a 3.0 rear gear.

[bobw]

This race car needs to be built.

[mart3406]

Hmm?? If they don't like your 'dual wheel' set-up
- ie - 4 wheels on the rear axle , what about a
tandem rear axle setup - ie - only 2 wheel per
axle, but with 2 rear axles??? Weight transfer
might be a problem with a tandem axle set-up ,
but that could be solved somewhat by mounting
the engine(s) separate from the frame, in a
cradle attached to the first rear axle and allowing
the housing to freely rotate a fixed number of
degrees. You could "tune" the chassis for track
conditions by controlling the amount of weight
transfer by limiting how much the engine cradle
could lift and the amount the axle housing could
rotate, by using a simple chain or cable with an
adjustable turnbuckle at the front of the cradle.
For safety, you could weld a positive stop to the
frame to limit the total amount of cradle lift and
axle rotation, in case the chain or cable ever
broke. The second rear axle could be a simple
tube or I-beam affair, with spindles and hubs
attached and the wheels chain driven off of the
first axle.

Mart
============================

[Godzilla]

I think I can get one tire to do...with a little liquid "tire dressing" (goat piss). They won't last long...but they will bite like a bad boy. Put a little extra weight on the clutch and the 60 might suck but it will motor on after that. Just a thought.

[ThingyM]

Mart.. They already tried that back in the 60s..I seem to think it was Ernie Hashim that tried.. The farthest aft axel was harrowed so the tires would fit close to the inside of the other tires and axel.. Didn't work very well, was scraped after a short period of time,, Too much power robbing drive line..But still a good thought.....

[Godzilla]

Thought you might enjoy this little ditty from MT about inventing the first slick after first running dual rears.



The Story in Mickey's own words: (Cont.)
There was another problem to traction and that was the amount of rubber on the ground. If you could double the area of rubber on the pavement, you could probably transmit almost double the horsepower to the road before the wheels would spin. That is when I went to dual rear wheels and everybody laughed at my "Truck" But I got the results I'd hoped for. Then I went to the A-1 Tire Company and talked them into building molds for the first recap wide-tread slicks, which I seemed to have invented. This paid off some more.

[esfoder]

I think most of the guys here don't want the slicks? I on the other hand don't care one way or the other. If anyone has ever been around big trucks you know the short falls with the dual rear ends. If they were spooled up might be next to impossible to turn?I like your direct drive idea. I don't know if it will work or not but a good idea never the less. I don't think it fits the manual tranny rule. No shifting and such??

Build the sucker!!!!!


Dusty

[64 DODGE 440]

The guy that runs Hurst Racing tires is a HAMB'er. They have re-caps that are close to 6". I think he would make us a deal, if we could agree on a new spec tire. I hate to bring up rule changes, but I think the lack of a tire that resembles something that should be used for drag racing is one of the things that has held back HA/GR all along. Don't change the early fifties, stick shift dragster concept, just give them a tire that makes sense.

Once you go to a "spec" anything, the ingenuity goes away. It seems like everyone wants the same stuff and that no one has bothered to look at other solutions within the limits of the rules. Just my two cents.

It has been quoted that the tire is the equalizer for everyone, I don't think running 2 per side is within the spirit of the class. My 2cents.

If it was, than why not just limit it to one twelve inch tire per side?

Hmm?? If they don't like your 'dual wheel' set-up
- ie - 4 wheels on the rear axle , what about a
tandem rear axle setup - ie - only 2 wheel per
axle, but with 2 rear axles??? Weight transfer
might be a problem with a tandem axle set-up ,
but that could be solved somewhat by mounting
the engine(s) separate from the frame, in a
cradle attached to the first rear axle and allowing
the housing to freely rotate a fixed number of
degrees. You could "tune" the chassis for track
conditions by controlling the amount of weight
transfer by limiting how much the engine cradle
could lift and the amount the axle housing could
rotate, by using a simple chain or cable with an
adjustable turnbuckle at the front of the cradle.
For safety, you could weld a positive stop to the
frame to limit the total amount of cradle lift and
axle rotation, in case the chain or cable ever
broke. The second rear axle could be a simple
tube or I-beam affair, with spindles and hubs
attached and the wheels chain driven off of the
first axle.

Mart
============================

Why not make it more complicated?? How about an electro-hydraulic drive??

I think I can get one tire to do...with a little liquid "tire dressing" (goat piss). They won't last long...but they will bite like a bad boy. Put a little extra weight on the clutch and the 60 might suck but it will motor on after that. Just a thought.

Hell.......bring back the "rosin burnouts" while we are at it. They go good with the lenco trannys. Who will be the first to build a $40,000.00 HA/GR?? Why not? It's all in the concept of how it was back in the early days. Line up the corporate sponsors and go for it!! How about making a billet aluminum GMC block to shave some weight off while we are at it.

You can make it all as expensive and complicated as you want, but is there any real point to taking that path? It seems like the goal of having fun with cars built at home from old parts in the "spirit", (yes I used the "S word") gets lost real fast and easy in the translation of why not see if we can build the quickest, fastest, trickest, double whammy car that money can buy just to be the best of the best.

Toymaker had the idea with his Eagle Field meet.......no tree, no times, no contact cement on the track. Perhaps we should look at really going back to the "way it was". The more rules or "spec items" the class has, the farther away from the concept it gets and the less bang for the buck. Just my curmudgeonly rantings, but if you all are so wound up into "change" to make the class into what you desire, why not develop a new class of car to fit your needs.

Sure, I hear voices and I know they aren't real, but they have some pretty good ideas anyway.:p

[REJ]

10x what Tom said in the above post.
Robert

[Godzilla]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just sit at home and build model cars from old model car parts? How about having an "in the spirit" car show and just look at the cars sitting in a parking lot somewhere and then have the police lead a parade of them down the street. Or maybe see who can drive the fastest around a bunch of cones in the parking lot down at the Dairy Queen.

That all gets messed up when you take these things to a drag strip and drive down it...cause that is where men take their machines to race them. To see how fast they can make them go. Risk life and limb. Go as quick and fast as you can with something that you built, staying within some set of rules...is where its at.

OK, don't spec a slick tire...just allow those who want to run them to run them within the rules. But don't kill an idea cause it means you might have to drive to the parts store and buy a new part. Anyone should have the choice to run Grandma Betty's old wide whites off her Dyna Flo if that is what they want. I am just saying don't take choices away from others.

[REJ]

Run them if you want, but then the car is not an HA/GR.
The rules plainly state, no slicks or radials.
Robert

[Godzilla]

I am really thinking that I won't need to run slicks. The weight of two 153s is a tick over 700 lbs and then there is the weight of the rear end, clutch and bell housing. All this weight will be close to the rear axle.

I am playing with the idea of making the chassis a slip tube design to get even more mechanical advantage (3" diameter of course). I will just have to see. Even with the two 153s I think this thing will be really light...and weight kills horsepower doesn't it?

[Used Up Junk]

I love the fact that Godzilla keeps getting shot down as he's throwing out different ideas by people stating it's "not in the spirit of the bug" so people don't want inovation but they want people to try different things, they don't want spec parts (don't even get me started on "Spec" racing) but you have to use what everyone else is using, man am I confused! I loved the idea of a HAMB rail because I thought it would be a neat, inexpensive way to go racing untill I read the rules and realised I would need $900 worth of carbs and $400 for a pair of rear tires! Don't get me wrong I still love the idea and am still thinking about putting one together I'm just tired of hearing folks say it's about inovation and the freedom to build what you want as long as it fits this mold. Don't quote the "Spirt of the bug" when you don't like something, if it doens't fit into the rules then say that but the whole "Spirit" thing is wearing a little thin. Not trying to step on toes I'm just sayin'. Later, Rog

[Used Up Junk]

Oh and before I get run outa town on a rail (no pun intended) I am in NO WAY saying the HA/GR rules should be changed, although i think a really skinny recap slick would look killer, i just don't want to see the inovation in this class die. I don't think anyone wants to see this class turn into a vintage supercomp dragster deal where the cars all look pretty much the same and run the same. Damn I just wish I haden't sold the great running litte 200 6-popper that came out of my Mustang lol...

[bobw]

It's called, "Innovation within the rules". HA/GR rules leave lots of room for inovation, in my opinion. Look at the variety of cars built so far.
My rear tires were free. Got 'em from a neighbor's truck. However, I'm getting 6" slicks for when I run around home, where I'm the only HAMB-type car. They will last a long time, look great and provide more consistency when (gasp) bracket racing.

My viewpint is that HAMB dragsters are both a concept and a class. It is a class where 2 or more cars run against each other. It is a concept where individuals build these things and probably will never run against another one. In this situation strict adherence to the rules is up to the owner because who else could give a care?

[Used Up Junk]

Oh no bracket racing! Say it isn't so bob! Just kidding, I really don't have a problem with bracket racing, I would prefer heads up but hey as long as we get to go out and play that's all that matters! I would imagine a pair of slicks would last forever yes. No disrespect was intended, it just seems like every now and then someone wants to try something new and gets shot down before a wrench is even turned. There are some guys in the group that want diversity in the class then there are those that get pretty bent outa shape the moment you mention something that deviates from the norm (whatever that is!) I'm not trying to start stuff or stir the pot, just keeping things lively as long as it stays friendly. As long as there is innovation within the rules I think it will continue to be fun. The day that everyone shows up with the same setup I will loose interest.

[Godzilla]

I started this thread to find out what kind of response my planned build would get, to point out where it would not conform to the generally accepted interpretation of the rules. So far I have not seen/heard anything that is rules-related to put it out of the class, like does not conform to rule number XX. I do hear that some guys might not want to run against it...the great thing is that they don't have to. If they pull up beside me they can always just sit at the line and watch my rear light go down the track...

[Used Up Junk]

Go for it man! I say build it and run the hell out of it. If I wasn't so far away I'd line up with ya, and if I loose well, I guess I brought a knife to a gunfight!

[Godzilla]

Let me know if you would like my plan for a slant 6 sidewinder rear engine car...my son turned that one down because of the short wheel base. Well... it is probably not in the spirit either cause we know they never ran sidewinders back in the day.

I am going to let my son ramrod this deal. I am just going to be the Tech adviser. In fact...he had his older brother over here last weekend helping him. It was great to see them working on anything together.

[64 DODGE 440]

I love the fact that Godzilla keeps getting shot down as he's throwing out different ideas by people stating it's "not in the spirit of the bug" so people don't want inovation but they want people to try different things, they don't want spec parts (don't even get me started on "Spec" racing) but you have to use what everyone else is using, man am I confused! I loved the idea of a HAMB rail because I thought it would be a neat, inexpensive way to go racing untill I read the rules and realised I would need $900 worth of carbs and $400 for a pair of rear tires! Don't get me wrong I still love the idea and am still thinking about putting one together I'm just tired of hearing folks say it's about inovation and the freedom to build what you want as long as it fits this mold. Don't quote the "Spirt of the bug" when you don't like something, if it doens't fit into the rules then say that but the whole "Spirit" thing is wearing a little thin. Not trying to step on toes I'm just sayin'. Later, Rog

Obviously, you don't understand the concept.......there is a lot of room for innovation in the existing rules. $900.00 for carbs?? $400.00 for tires?? There are lots of cheaper ways to get the job done and that is just part of the innovation. Don't rag on the "Spirit of the Bug", it isn't about building a car "like the Bug", it's about using the concept of back yard building and making stuff with your own hands. These cars aren't "kit built" they are "home built", to whatever design you desire. There are cars out there right now that were built for less than the $1,300.00 you would spend for tires and carbs, so you need to look at your ideas from a different angle.

Oh and before I get run outa town on a rail (no pun intended) I am in NO WAY saying the HA/GR rules should be changed, although i think a really skinny recap slick would look killer, i just don't want to see the inovation in this class die. I don't think anyone wants to see this class turn into a vintage supercomp dragster deal where the cars all look pretty much the same and run the same. Damn I just wish I haden't sold the great running litte 200 6-popper that came out of my Mustang lol...

Not looking to run ya out of town on a rail, but the "really skinny recap slick" wouldn't be cheap and the you have already bitched about the cost of tires. The innovation has lots of places to be developed in the class, it just seems like folks think that the rules prevent it when in reality they encourage it.

It's called, "Innovation within the rules". HA/GR rules leave lots of room for inovation, in my opinion. Look at the variety of cars built so far.
My rear tires were free. Got 'em from a neighbor's truck. However, I'm getting 6" slicks for when I run around home, where I'm the only HAMB-type car. They will last a long time, look great and provide more consistency when (gasp) bracket racing.

My viewpint is that HAMB dragsters are both a concept and a class. It is a class where 2 or more cars run against each other. It is a concept where individuals build these things and probably will never run against another one. In this situation strict adherence to the rules is up to the owner because who else could give a care?

Bob, you seem to understand the concept.

I started this thread to find out what kind of response my planned build would get, to point out where it would not conform to the generally accepted interpretation of the rules. So far I have not seen/heard anything that is rules-related to put it out of the class, like does not conform to rule number XX. I do hear that some guys might not want to run against it...the great thing is that they don't have to. If they pull up beside me they can always just sit at the line and watch my rear light go down the track...

No problem.......built it, I'll be glad to race it.......don't see anything in the rules that say no twin engine cars. It's your dream, make it reality.:p

it just seems like every now and then someone wants to try something new and gets shot down before a wrench is even turned. There are some guys in the group that want diversity in the class then there are those that get pretty bent outa shape the moment you mention something that deviates from the norm (whatever that is!) I'm not trying to start stuff or stir the pot, just keeping things lively as long as it stays friendly. As long as there is innovation within the rules I think it will continue to be fun. The day that everyone shows up with the same setup I will loose interest.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to "try something new", the problems I see don't have anything to do with innovation, diversity, or deviation from the norm. It just seems that most of the time rather than working in the rules, the thoughts go more towards changing the rules to fit the desired innovation.

[esfoder]

Obviously, you don't understand the concept.......there is a lot of room for innovation in the existing rules. $900.00 for carbs?? $400.00 for tires?? There are lots of cheaper ways to get the job done and that is just part of the innovation. Don't rag on the "Spirit of the Bug", it isn't about building a car "like the Bug", it's about using the concept of back yard building and making stuff with your own hands. These cars aren't "kit built" they are "home built", to whatever design you desire. There are cars out there right now that were built for less than the $1,300.00 you would spend for tires and carbs, so you need to look at your ideas from a different angle.



Not looking to run ya out of town on a rail, but the "really skinny recap slick" wouldn't be cheap and the you have already bitched about the cost of tires. The innovation has lots of places to be developed in the class, it just seems like folks think that the rules prevent it when in reality they encourage it.



Bob, you seem to understand the concept.



No problem.......built it, I'll be glad to race it.......don't see anything in the rules that say no twin engine cars. It's your dream, make it reality.:p



I have no problem with anyone wanting to "try something new", the problems I see don't have anything to do with innovation, diversity, or deviation from the norm. It just seems that most of the time rather than working in the rules, the thoughts go more towards changing the rules to fit the desired innovation.
Thats the biggest post I've ever seen



Dusty

[Drewfus]

G'day.

Firstly, it's interesting to see how this thread goes in circles....

I started this thread to find out what kind of response my planned build would get, to point out where it would not conform to the generally accepted interpretation of the rules. So far I have not seen/heard anything that is rules-related to put it out of the class, like does not conform to rule number XX. I do hear that some guys might not want to run against it...the great thing is that they don't have to. If they pull up beside me they can always just sit at the line and watch my rear light go down the track...

I think you questions have been answered a couple of times, but, in the interest of clarity I'll offer my 2c.

twin 4 cylinders? Nothing saying you cannot, and for the record, I think it would be pretty cool. Problem being I don't know of a track that would let one play these days within a 'race', I know of a couple which are permitted to perform 'display's, but they're not allowed to compete against another competitor, if you can find somewhere to race it then great, but until then I think it be just another neat bit of engineering sculpture.

Dual tyres? I think this topic has been discussed a number of times since the conception of the class, naturally with mixed opion. Sure, history has ticked the 'been there/done that box', but with questionable result. I don't think there's anything in the 'rules' that illustrates that you can't, although I have sufficient experience to believe that it would be a dangerous thing in the context of HA/GR, and I certainly wouldn't be party to it happening in Oz. If you want to build it with twin wheels, go for it, show us we're (or I'm) wrong, but I don't see it as representing anything that 'the bug' portrayed......

Slicks - clear cut, not permitted, and whilst it would 'look' cool, and I'd love to have a set, certainly outside of the context of what this 'class' was aiming to achieve, both then and now.

Lenco - rules don't say no, so feel free to go creative. I will however mention that I think you're kidding yourself if you think it's 'appropriate' in a class like HA/GR, but, if it allows you to successfully sort out your twin 4's adaption, then I'd love to see it, if for no other reason than to encourage your creation.

Over and over you've hilighted good and bad about the class, to which I'm still unsure of your intent, as, you want to be 'a part of it', but in the same sentence think appropriate to be narrow minded suggesting that we're all living in the past playing with exhibition cars at a parade?

If thats all it is, then I'm fine with that, but I'm interested to know why you want to join the 'festivities'?

Cheers, and look forward to your twin 4 build thread, will be interesting to watch,

Drewfus

[CrkInsp]

Godzilla your not the first one i've heard talking about a sidewinder. It might have some merit as a traction improving possibility. It would make a wide car with a few drive choices. It would sure be something different. Give it a try.

[Old6rodder]

Let me know if you would like my plan for a slant 6 sidewinder rear engine car. Well... it is probably not in the spirit either cause we know they never ran sidewinders back in the day.

A bit of homework for you. :cool:

http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt187/old6rodder/itza.jpg

[348chevy]

Like Old six said lots of sidewinders in the "DAY". Chain drives were the most popular.:)Roy

[CrkInsp]

A couple of sprockets and some chain would be lighter than a trany, and then you do away with the heavy rear axle. I can see a car of less than a 1000#.

[esfoder]

A couple of sprockets and some chain would be lighter than a trany, and then you do away with the heavy rear axle. I can see a car of less than a 1000#.

First of all I like the concept of the sidewinder car. But will the nhra let a chain drive run? I've seen a couple at the sand drags but not the drag strip? It could be made lighter than a tranny car for sure. Hell might be able to run a belt type setup? Belt tech has advanced alot in the last 50 years.

It would be nice if they(NHRA) had a little imagination!!!

Dusty

[CrkInsp]

I'm sure a guard / cover of some type to contain the chain would be required.

[348chevy]

Gary runs a Gilmore toothed belt on the starter on his dyno. The electric motor is a 25 HP which would put out about 3 times the torque as any 6 cyl. including my GMC. It would be easier to fabricate than a chain and the tech guys would be so nervious. Remember Jack Chrisman dominated Gas Dragster with a sidewinder. Before I did any building though I would talk to a tech. You know Tulsa is going NHRA next year. :( Roy

[Godzilla]

I have talked to them at SPS about making a "gear driven" transfer case to a live axle. They are strong enough to take the torque of 4WD rock crawlers so I would think it would work.

My problem is...I put my son in my mini-sprint car back when he was only 12 years old and turned him loose in a gravel parking lot. He spun it three times and eventually found a large bush and spun it in nose first. He has made it clear...he is not going to feel comfortable in a sort wheelbase car.

My current gasser project is 116"...Rodan was 120"...and I think the project we have decided on is going to stretch both of those. I have two sons...maybe I will get to built the side-winder yet...with my oldest.

[Joe Hamby]

A side winder does not need to be short. I would like it a little longer, at least 120 in to handle on the top end. Safety first.

[Hi!]

I dont race HA/GR ,but have thought about it. The reason I havent built anything is the class seems fragile with NHRA and here. If you start playing between the rules knowing your pushing it, the class will go away like so many other fun race classes. Just a thought.

[CrkInsp]

A car of 120" would be long enough that you won't have to use your toes as aiming devices. It would be long enough so as not to be twitchy with every movement of the steering wheel. I think it could be a fun car to drive. Not to mention the questions that you would get in the pits. " WHAT THE !!!! is THAT? "

[Old6rodder]

A bit of length is a good idea. We're at 124" and on the naked asphalt at Eagle Field were lit up pretty badly in first, and again in second. Our car is nearly perfectly balanced laterally (allowing us to run an open rear) and was no problem to correct and drive on out (the video was cool) even with our very quick steering.

As to NHRA (where's a spitting icon when you need it), they don't like chain much. I expect you'd need to go with a serious belt & guard or something with gears if you want their nod.

Yes, Hi!, it's fragile.
Still, part of the point of HA/GR is the variety and creativity within the intentional physics limits of the engines, tires and carbs. I know NHRA (spit) neither gets it nor gives a damn, but then that's a piece of the reason it's come as far as it has anyway.

[Godzilla]

I think if I ever get to build the side winder I will use Ollie's rear flatty as a model. He was able to make it work well enough and I liked the way it sat on the ground.

[esfoder]

Gary runs a Gilmore toothed belt on the starter on his dyno. The electric motor is a 25 HP which would put out about 3 times the torque as any 6 cyl. including my GMC. It would be easier to fabricate than a chain and the tech guys would be so nervious. Remember Jack Chrisman dominated Gas Dragster with a sidewinder. Before I did any building though I would talk to a tech. You know Tulsa is going NHRA next year. :( Roy
If I remember right it takes several hundred hp to turn the blowers on top fuel rigs? I doubt a v-belt drive would like the abuse much. Double the smoke show???


Dusty

It would be a snap to change the gearing.

[348chevy]

Gilmore toothed belts are not V-belts, they are positive toothed belt and toothed pully system that allows no slippage. Blowers are run buy them and oil pumps as well as distributors. 25 hp electric motors rip motor mounts that a stout V-8 wouldn't even bend. A guy has a S-10 pickup with a 10 hp electic motor and he has had to replce the motor mounts twice. Tremendious torque from electric motors. Way off subject, sorry:p Roy

[Toymaker]

OK, I'll chime in :D..............................2 engines would be great, maybe run them side by side as Eddie Hill did to a rear drive axle with 2 center sections. All the weight would be closer to the rear axle (maybe easier on crankshafts) and although a little heavy'r I think it could be built with stock aluminum bellhousings (stamped steel is req. 11.50 and quicker) and pass tech. The lenco, I would consider that an automatic with it being a planatary transmission and does not require a clutch to shift it. Sidewinder, COOL build it with a belt, you got us on the dual Tires as the rules are written so I say OK. "O" and bring it to California for one or both of the TWO left coast true HAMB Dragster events so we can see it with our own eyes and try to beat you:D Rocky

[Godzilla]

I will post pics when it is standing up. We may be pulling the gassers out to AZ once next year for a match/exhibition race...maybe we ought to set something up to do a HA/GR thing there???

[esfoder]

Gilmore toothed belts are not V-belts, they are positive toothed belt and toothed pully system that allows no slippage. Blowers are run buy them and oil pumps as well as distributors. 25 hp electric motors rip motor mounts that a stout V-8 wouldn't even bend. A guy has a S-10 pickup with a 10 hp electic motor and he has had to replce the motor mounts twice. Tremendious torque from electric motors. Way off subject, sorry:p Roy


Hey Roy I know the difference I was trying to state that I don't think a V belt drive would do well in this app. The gilmore is better sutied for this type of thing. And I do think it would be way lighter than a traditional tranny and differental setup. Also power loss is about nill which would be an advantage at these power levels.
Dusty

[bob hindman]

How are you going to hook them together....

HINEY...

[esfoder]

How are you going to hook them together....

HINEY...
Good question

Sidewinder is a single engine concept I think?


Two engines would be a little wide???

Dusty

[Godzilla]

The way we use to run two SBC is in phase - 180 degrees out. With aluminum rods there will not be the problem with harmonics that we use to run into with steel rods. Also, I am partial to a two groove piston with very little skirt.

[bob hindman]

ZILLA hoh r u going to hook the front crank to the rear one....


HINEY...

[Godzilla]

Coupled together...not connected. Connected the harmonics will kill the front brg of the second engine.

[bob hindman]

what meathoddd of hook up


HINEY...

[Godzilla]

A 4 pin coupler.

[bob hindman]

What is going to hold it on the back engun...

HINEY...

[Godzilla]

The orientation is back to front. The pins do not slip in...they drop in from the side and are captured between the two halves of the coupler. This allows some floating and flexing. This kind of coupler is used a lot in the oil field to connect a series of pumps to a single diesel engine.

[bob hindman]

I see I see....


HINEY...

[Godzilla]

These couplers handle incredible amounts of torque and MUST be dependable. When I got the idea for this project I went to a tractor pull and asked questions.

[FANTASY FACTORY]

The way we use to run two SBC is in phase - 180 degrees out. With aluminum rods there will not be the problem with harmonics that we use to run into with steel rods. Also, I am partial to a two groove piston with very little skirt.

HMMM? years ago we inherited a twin BBC rail, It was phased 45* out.
Cyl #1 on rear engine was set to tdc half way between #3 & #6 of frt engine,
firing order looked like.
1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2
_5 7 2 1 8 4 3 6
Had what appeared to be a giant Luv Joy coupling, dude was a machinist and mosy likely cobbled it himself, But i remember the thing idled like a rolls royce, even with big cams. Now the 4 carbs were a *itch!

[ScottV]

ZILLA hoh r u going to hook the front crank to the rear one....HINEY...

I have an idea ...

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h268/VETRAN_883/th_JBWeld.jpg

[esfoder]

HMMM? years ago we inherited a twin BBC rail, It was phased 45* out.
Cyl #1 on rear engine was set to tdc half way between #3 & #6 of frt engine,
firing order looked like.
1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2
_5 7 2 1 8 4 3 6
Had what appeared to be a giant Luv Joy coupling, dude was a machinist and mosy likely cobbled it himself, But i remember the thing idled like a rolls royce, even with big cams. Now the 4 carbs were a *itch!
Ran more like a V-16 than two V-8s? In the Navy we had patrol boats that had 2 522 BBC's. it sounded like a top fuel digger at idle.
WAY COOL!!!

But they were not coupled together in any way..

Dusty

Hey would you post a couple of pics of the coupler?