The rear part of a Model A frame tapers such that the bottom surfaces of the rails are 3° from horizontal. Setting the frame up so that the rear part is level with the road would cause the tops of the rails to fall from front to rear at an angle of 3°. This might provide a surbaissé frame much more elegantly than French Ford importers Montier's ungainly front Z, especially if combined with a dropped axle and all the usual methods of lowering. It would also need a shortened radiator and redesigned front crossmember to drop the radiator shell about 1½" between the rails, if Montier's forward-mounted radiator is to be avoided. But what would it look like? And could it be pulled off on a full-fendered car? Before - I pulled this pic of a stock '30/'31 coupé off the Internet: After - Photoshopped (or, strictly, Gimped) a bit: I'd call that rakish, compared to stock. What say you guys? More importantly, where else can we go with this idea? Thoughts?
I don't think it's a good idea. Drop the axle, reverse the spring eye, do whatever you want to get it down in front, but it's starting to look like the Graffiti Coupe in your photoshop, and that isn't necessarily a good thing.
[QUOTE More importantly, where else can we go with this idea? Thoughts?[/QUOTE] I'd file that idea in file 13.
I see where you are going with this. But I think you could achieve the same look by channeling the body the depth of the splash apron and raising the rear wheel well. No need to get funky with the, frame Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
Mr. Ludd does like his cars low though.... UNGAINLY FRONT Z he was referring to. I think I follow you.........you would have to pie angle the whole channeling of the body floor to correct....the frame taper correction.....yes ? ....probably easier to finish the photoshop. You know you will......so then what happens ??
A bit of background. I'd been playing with the 3° frame set-up for a design that would have a scratch-built body which extends down to the level of the bottom of the frame, so one wouldn't be aware of the frame at all, and it works well enough thus far. It got me to wondering if there is any potential for a stock-style body configuration. As a design professional I've learned the value of pursuing the apparently crazier ideas to see where they go. Some of them prove fertile, eventually opening up a whole range of clearly non-crazy possibilities. Others don't: but it isn't possible to tell until you've had a good thorough wrestle with the idea. If not for the willingness to embrace crazy, there would be no hot-rodding tradition to stick to. "No no no no no! What you've got there is a Mo-del Tee For-d. If you want to go that fast you want to be a lot richer and buy a Stutz DV32 ..." Perhaps the angled-back coupé looks a bit odd. Question, though: would it look odd if you've never seen a stock '30/'31 coupé? Just asking. Subsequent experimentation: Tilting the body back level about the rear fender's curve didn't seem to work: The cowl is probably more bother than it's worth, detail-wise, and the shorter doors make the roof look too tall. Perhaps we just tilt the roof back to the stock angle? Better? The body angle seems less obvious than before. But it's crying out for a chop: Getting somewhere? Or not? Now, just for the hell of it: ±15" wheelbase stretch, and it becomes a completely different animal, no?
I'd like to see you do this with a '28/'29 instead of a 30/31. The sloping earlier cowl might lend itself better to the changes?
Specials are Ned's speciality! He always finds the right lines. BTW: Specials have; Bonnet but no Boot! Petrol container aft. Mudguards Tyres
I'd like to see this with a classic big and little rubber rake. I'd also like to see this with a also with a 0 to 2" tapered section added to the bottom- lowering the bead line 0 at rear wheel 2" at cowl/hood. There's already a vertical taper cut in the cowl, you might need to massage that kink out by gently curving the "supposed to be straight " body line just under the windows.
The rear part of a Model A frame tapers such that the bottom surfaces of the rails are 3° from horizontal. Setting the frame up so that the rear part is level with the road would cause the tops of the rails to fall from front to rear at an angle of 3°. Ok, I'm looking at a model A frame and I'm not following you here at all. If I make the rear taper level with the road, ,, it raises the frame in front of the rear axle It Establishes 2 distinct rakes in the frame It does not lower the rear. How about a photo shop of the frame only, to see where you are thinking here
Sorry, not digging any of your photoshops. They have to be at least level or nose down to me. Even the gasser guys eventually fingered that one out! Gary
Ned, i think the first photoshop would look better if the "cabin/roof" was moved back so the back window was in line with the rear wheel center line. can you try that?
Everytime i see this guy post a thread, everything in it is completely ridiculous. Those pictures look fucking terrible. I hope no one ever sells you a half decent car.. i can just see it turning into a giant shit heap.
C'mon man, lighten up and realize all he is doing is saying "what if?" No harm is done to any real Ford sheetmetal...it's all digital.
I had to look that up. French for lowered. Now how about a pic of montier's things you are trying to avoid? Because when I looked that I up I came up blank
Not yet.. thankfully. I agree with the above though, it just looks broken. Whats wrong with lowering one the way everyone else does.. at least it works and doesn't look ridiculous.
The red line is horizontal. The front axle location would be pretty much as per normal. The rear axle would have to be sorted out subsequently: a large Z or underslung, perhaps; that detail isn't quite the point. As I said, quite unproblematic for a low, level stance where the lower body completely covers the frame (unlike my Photoshops.) And it isn't quite unprecedented. Some sports cars of the '30s were set up pretty much like this. There is very little information about Montier's modified Fords out there. I became interested in Montier because they were apparently planning to sell road-going As on their lowered racing chassis around 1930, and I've been trying to find out if they'd actually built any that way, or even a prototype, ever since. Here's a detail out of the pic kidcampbell71 posted above: Note the ham-fisted Z around the mid-point of the engine bay. And, because they were using stock radiators it was necessary to move the radiator forwards 3-4", which resulted in a longer hood (and, years later, the legend that they were running two bangers, one behind the other. Study the photos and it is obvious that there is nowhere like enough length there for two engines.)
The Jalopy Journal
