History proportions .stance. tire size. rake .opinions

trying to build this in the early to mid 50s era looking for opinions am i close ?

 

I like the 3rd. pic down...

 

they are all the same ,,,wondering if it looks right for the period ..the soft top also ?

 

I like the last one the best

 

they are the same car different angle pics ... looking for some input if i am in the neighborhood for the period ..

 

Looking good! I like the proposed tailight placement as well as the lower rear panel. To me it has a subtle, well rounded look. The top is very fitting as well. Some like them a bit more sloping but yours will be practically comfortable. You also have the rad shell height just right. That is something that throws off the look of many other cars for me if too high. Period correct to me. Good work!
OK...carry on.

 

i think you are right on the top..more angle from the rear wood snaps to the top bar. like this /

 

I like it just the rake and top shape you have. No idea as to your physical size, especially your height, but you must be able to sit in it comfortably, and don't forget entry and exit also! As I'm 6'3", I' m particularly aware of that.
As for tire sizes, unless you get into high dollar specialty tires it's getting harder and harder to find 15" tires any taller than about 29"-30" except in truck tires that ride rough as hell and are heavy as well.
Point being, don't count on big back tires to get the rake to front too heavily.

 

thanks for the input.. those are 16s 850s rear 650s front .not much rake but i think that is what the era called for ... i thought they ran taller in front back then..the little fronts came in the 60s,,, i am 5 10 190lbs .i chopped and channeled my pickup... this has more room

 

I like the rear tire size, it fits the wheel well perfect. I do like a smaller front tire though. Just my two cent.

 

All of your questions look good to me.. Keep it going....

 

I would like to take a little bit out of the windshield posts, but you are the one who has to fit in it, not me. Nice little car, I think it sits bitchn'

-Abone.

 

Smaller fronts

 

Shorter fronts would give it the ideal rake, rears are on the money.

 

I don’t like the rear tires. Look kinda fat. Are they dirt track tires? Fronts are fine. Stance is nearly perfect in my opinion. Beautiful damn roadster there. Top looks good, too.


Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.

 

thanks i cut em down ..i forget how much ...i think 32 roadster height...or model A deluxe height

 

yes dirt track tires

 

i may go a little smaller ...i thought they ran a taller front tire in the 50s ..not going to run 550s that is to small

 

I agree, perfect with smaller fronts.

Just my $0.02

 

Doesn’t look bad, my avatar is the car my dad had back in the 50’s (although I have changed it some) , I have the original front tires from mid to late 1950 with original air, I’ll post a picture tomorrow just for fun

 

I like it. It shows that you took the time to think the little details out like having an even line showing with the wheel opening and rear tire and the rears very close to centered in the openings.
The radiator shell is spot on height wise. that is one thing that bugs me with a lot of cars when it is too high or too low. I like the shape of the top as it appears that it is built to be driven and not just all for looks. No stiff neck from having to sit just so to keep your head from rubbing on the back of the top that slants too far forward.
I really like that you have the headers that run inside the frame rails as I am dead tired of looking at megaphone headers on rods. More common than innie belly buttons on blonds.

 

Think you got it right on. The stance and tire size give the car a real competition look, from the profile picture.

 

I'm diggin it

 

I think you nailed the early to mid-50s look, including the front tire size. It looks pretty dadgum good to me. And the early 50s hot rods did run taller front rubber, as seen on the cover of the January, 1954 issue of Speed Mechanics magazine as one example.

 

Looks good....but could use a little more rake....smaller front tires would do it!

 

does not look like right at all to me - the tires/rims look unusual for period, certainly not the giant holes in deck lid, top looks like black duct tape, no door handles and filled in cowl and headlights not common, etc - maybe check some magazines from the 50's

 

The car looks real nice. As others mentioned, the rear tires match the wheel well opening just right. As far as the tire height goes, taller tires in back began at least in the 1940s, the goal being a higher top speed from the resulting higher overall numerical rear ratio they afforded - as you may know. Check out the photo of the T ‘coupe’ my dad and his buddies ran back in the day (photo from one of Ganahl’s books).

 

its not on the road ..mock up ..40 wheels firestone tires ?.it is temp duct tape trying to get the right look.there is no deck skin. thanks though

 

I have 31/2 inch rake. 19 inch in the back 17 inch in the front

Sent from my SM-J337P using The H.A.M.B. mobile app