On a traditional 30's 40's rod, what would be a typical big and littles combination. Is this only the with and sidewall of the tire? or different rim sizes as well? Thanks
It really depends on the car and the year you are trying to replicate. As a general rule, rods in the '30s used a matched size tire front and rear. 600-16 or 650-16 tires all the way around seem to predominate. It wasn't until the immediate prewar period (very late '30s and early '40s) that guys on the dry lakes started using a taller rear tire than the front to gain the advantage of speed on the big end of the land speed courses. 600-16 or 650-16 up front and 700-16 or the occasional 700-17 in the back seems to be common. In the postwar period of the late '40s is when the exaggerated "big n' little" combinations took hold on the streets, the 'look' bleeding over from the lakes. This is when you commonly see 500-16, 550-16, or 600-16 tires up front with big 700-16, or 750-16 tires out back. 16" wheels predominated throughout the '30s and '40s, 17" wheels were sorta old fashioned, and the 15" wheel was only offered in any quantity when Mercury started offering them in 1940.
1936 - Note same size front and rear... 1939 - big (probably 650-16) tires on all four corners... 1942 - Bigger tires in the rear, but not exaggerated... 1949 - Definitely big n' littles, probably 600-16 in front and 700-16 in back...
X2 what Rainerhooker said, then read this: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/wheels-tires-stance.272403/#post-2892163 In my opinion, on a highboy, you should shoot for about 5"-6" difference in tire height between the fronts and rears. Less if you're building a '40's themed car and a little more if you're building a '60's drag-themed car. Cars with fenders usually look best with a slightly smaller height difference. Hope this helps.
I was kinda leaning toward the late 40's style with my Deuce pickup,bias ply front tires 5.60 x 15" with 5" wheels,the rear tires were L78 x 15" with 7" wheels. HRP
We run old Ford 16" rims with 600's in front and 750's out back. Firestone WWW. Don't really like the bias tires because of road manners but they sure look the part.......
RainerHooker posts are gospel in that precise time era. super early cars were go-faster more than looks. Take parts off for wind resistance, work on engine, and go faster. early 1950's-up, things started to change a lot in many areas of the States.... "go faster" mixed with more emphasis on "looks". Cars were not just for the tracks, and many built just for street use. .
Did the introduction of the VW Bug, have anything to do with the availability of the 5.60-15 and further the big/littles ratio difference? Isn't that the tire size for the Bug?
The OP said 30s to 40s rod. The VW bug first appeared in 1938 with 16" and had that 16"rim size until 1953.
this answers my question. Working on a 32 tudor banger. For some reason my eyes had me convinced is was the diameter of the wheels that was different.
Some pics really do look like two different rim OD on front vs rears, if the tire diameters are very different. Optical illusion.
The differently sized wheels do come up, if only infrequently, in pictures of cars at the dry lakes from the late '30s on. This car, the "McClair Phaeton" ran at Harper Dry lake in 1940, and is a major source of inspiration for my war-time period-correct Model A build: It appears to be running a 17-700 tires on either Ford, Lincoln, or aftermarket wheels in the rear and either 650-16 or 600-16 tires on 1935 Ford wheels in front. My car duplicates this with 700-16s on 1935 Lincoln wire wheels and 650-16s on 1935 Ford wire wheels. This phenomenon seems to be fairly limited to guys running for speed on the lakes, and is especially well documented with high-clearance wheels (i.e. the mis-named "Divco" wheels) on post-war and 1950's cars at Bonneville. I have yet to find any compelling evidence that this trend actually caught on for street-driven rods until recently.
I agree, it looks the era...and the headlight type and placement, and the lower than "normal" back of the roof. (the roof cloth on the side slopes down as it heads to the rear) Neato
Why, yes indeed! ALWAYS put both big tires in back, then the two 'lil tires HAVE to go up front. Wanted to clear this up.
I thought the little ones go on the drivers side for going around the track. LOL Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
I found my "Big".... believe it or not this is NOT photo shopped. Saw a set of four, in four separate trucks, on route 26 outside Charleston, SC
So, besides the fact that it looks photo shopped, are we supposed to assume that they cut the top out of four shipping containers to move these tires down a stretch of road that had no overpasses?
Those look to be tires for a Cat 797 dump truck. Each 797 wheel is attached to the axle using 54 - 36-mm nuts that are torqued to 2,300 lb·ft (3,118 N·m).[17] A size 55/80R63 radial tire was developed by Michelin in conjunction with Caterpillar specifically for the first generation 797.[18] The Caterpillar 797B and 797F run 4.028 m (13.22 ft) tall, 5,300 kg (11,680 lb) Michelin 59/80R63 XDR. Most first generation 797s have been retrofitted to use the 59/80R63 tires as well.[19] Six tires are required per truck at a cost in 2009 of approximately US$42,500 per tire.[20] 13.22 ft tall and the tread pattern is an exact match.
the photo is real through the windshield of my pickup. I do agree that for some reason it has that photoshop look. maybe the tint on the windshield. Wonder where they are running trucks that big near Charleston.... but then again that is Way off topic. how big a tire can you put on a stock 1932 ford rim? I am running the original size right now.
Yokahama has a big plant outside Greenville SC. They do make Caterpillar tires but I'm not sure if they make those tires at that facility. Inventory gets run ahead and shifted around, never seen them ship like that, typically rail. On an export machine, everything has to get to port somehow.
The Jalopy Journal
