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?
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
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.
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. Nice to see that some folks are still innovating and not afraid to try unorthodox combinations. That's what it was all born of.
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
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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 ============================
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.
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.....
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco]Thought you might enjoy this little ditty from MT about inventing the first slick after first running dual rears. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco]The Story[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco] in [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco]Mickey's[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco] own words[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco]: (Cont.)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Monaco] 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.[/FONT]
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
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. If it was, than why not just limit it to one twelve inch tire per side? Why not make it more complicated?? How about an electro-hydraulic drive?? 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.
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.
Run them if you want, but then the car is not an HA/GR. The rules plainly state, no slicks or radials. Robert
The Jalopy Journal
