Register now to get rid of these ads!

Projects Twisted Drill Special LSR Build

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by kasselyn29, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    Twisted Drill Special LSR Build 1929 Model A 1935 Ford Roof
     

    Attached Files:

    Nailhead A-V8 likes this.
  2. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    Hope to drive this car to loring next year and them hopefully run in the 175 Class.
     

    Attached Files:

    Nailhead A-V8 likes this.
  3. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    I jumper the photos ahead a little My friend Barney Is doing the sheet metal work ont this car,he has build a couple of other land speed cars. Will post more pictures if there is interest Thanks
     
  4. Crazy idea that should not work but it does!
     

  5. Mr48chev
    Joined: Dec 28, 2007
    Posts: 33,994

    Mr48chev
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Ditto the I like it. That looks slick.
     
  6. Marcia
    Joined: Feb 27, 2009
    Posts: 944

    Marcia
    Member

    Looks great.
     
  7. Boeing Bomber
    Joined: Aug 5, 2010
    Posts: 1,079

    Boeing Bomber
    Member

    Looks real good. what's going to power it to 175?
     
  8. resqd37Zep
    Joined: Aug 28, 2006
    Posts: 3,216

    resqd37Zep
    Member
    from Nor Cal

    I was thinking the same thing. Looks good!

     
  9. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    Thanks Marcia. SBC four speed winters V8 rear.Couple more photos.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 56,111

    squirrel
    Member

    neat! what (body) class are you planning to run in?
     
  11. JimC
    Joined: Dec 13, 2002
    Posts: 2,241

    JimC
    Member
    from W.C.,Mo.

    That's just crazy!




    Wish I had thought of it.
     
  12. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    Competition Coupe & Sedan Class
     
  13. metalix_421
    Joined: Mar 24, 2010
    Posts: 890

    metalix_421
    Member

    I like the look
     
  14. dirtbag13
    Joined: Jun 16, 2008
    Posts: 2,540

    dirtbag13
    Member

  15. Joe's 32 Ford Sedan
    Joined: May 15, 2010
    Posts: 38

    Joe's 32 Ford Sedan
    Member

    What a great Idea.It looks like Ford could have build it. It really blends together,Great work. Only on the HAMB would you see this. Joe.
     
  16. electromet
    Joined: Mar 19, 2011
    Posts: 151

    electromet
    Member
    from Tucson, AZ

    I'm really liking the look of this project. I do have one observation, however. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to narrow the top to fit the body rather than widening the body? I understand that it would entail more welding and massaging, but reducing the frontal area is the name of the game here.;)

    Mike
     

  17. Pretty sure changing the roof is not legal in Competition Coupe.
    At least according to SCTA rules.


    But it does look very good.
     
  18. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    We didnt widen body only the front cowl area for al ittle more foot room.The trans and bell housing real intrude in to the cowl and space is a problem.Thanks
     
  19. Kevin Lee
    Joined: Nov 12, 2001
    Posts: 7,584

    Kevin Lee
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Model A with a 35-36 windshield? That will never work. :)
     

  20. Yeah, but he took it one step further and used the whole roof!:) Looks like a Thom Taylor Phantom.

    Better buy a rulebook if you want to run it.
     
  21. jay7262
    Joined: Jun 6, 2011
    Posts: 124

    jay7262
    Member

    It worked !!!
     
  22. Marcia
    Joined: Feb 27, 2009
    Posts: 944

    Marcia
    Member

    The Loring rule book is the same as SCTA. But I know you have a Loring book.
     
  23. Jeem
    Joined: Sep 12, 2002
    Posts: 5,882

    Jeem
    Alliance Vendor

    I love it! Please tell me you'll work on the base of the A-pillar some more. Really bitchin'.
     
  24. 38FLATTIE
    Joined: Oct 26, 2008
    Posts: 4,349

    38FLATTIE
    Member
    from Colorado


    IF the Loring rule book is the same as the SCTA rulebook, what makes you think this modification is allowed?

    The way I read the rules, this won't make the cut!
     
  25. I like it - all I'd do is take some bulk out of the crown as it seems heavy up there. Really like the transition at the rear above the beltline - the "kick" forward gives it a great look.

    Steve
     
  26. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    Will run T/O class if I have to. The real fun is building the car.
     
  27. doctorZ
    Joined: Apr 10, 2006
    Posts: 1,271

    doctorZ
    Member

    it looks great, but you will end up in T/O if you want to run Bonneville. remember, if you're running T/O you essentially still need to build to the record for the 'closest' class. running an SBC (probably C-class 306-372 ci) will put you around a 200 mph record (whether you're running G/BG/F/BF). you will need to build to that record to pass tech which will require higher SFI rated equipment, parachute, full fire system, etc. it's a lot of work for T/O!!
     
  28. gotit
    Joined: Aug 27, 2009
    Posts: 357

    gotit
    Member

    I wonder how an a-400 Vicky rear section would flow with that top.
     
  29. kasselyn29
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 242

    kasselyn29
    Member

    I was aware of that rule for scta I remember Sam explaining that problem to me years ago but, I don't know if it is the same for ecta or Lta. that is the reason I was going with the safety equipment for 175 Lta rules.Going to call Joe Timney next week to ask a few questions.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.