Been doing some "engineering time" on a future project and have come to the conclusion that while the channeled cars look outwardly cool....interior leg/foot room really does get compromised a bit too much. Any examples of frame designs that give the "look" but still allow the car to be driven practically?
Measure the use of space on some small sports cars like AH Sprite/MG Midget, Miata, (all unibody) and Lotus 7, MGA, and TR-3 TR-4 etc. Those will give you some idea as to how tight you can go in width and height and what you have to do to get there. Note, you can't get a pair of normal-wide "street sneakers" on just one pedal at a time in the Lotus...
I've managed ti get 3 pedals into 9.5'' in my model 'A' thats with a MOON gas pedal.I'm 5'10''ish but my brother inlaw Mercurial is 6'5''ish and he could drive the car it can be done with a bit of planning.
Jimmy Shine's '34 pickup is channeled and the frame only has cross-members down near the bottom of the frame in the middle area, so the floor drops down to near the bottom of the frame. It doesn't look like the frame would have much strength like that though with all the upper crossmembers missing. Maybe enough for a flathead, but it might twist up with something with a lot of torque.
Rusty Bolts, That's kind of along the lines of what I was considering. My current project is a 1933 Chevy coupe body channeled over a 1953 Chevy frame. The 53 frame is wide enough in the foot room area (cowl) that we have recessed the floor boards like the Jimmy Shine pickup. With the floorboard even with the bottom of the frame instead of the top, an additional 4 inches or so of leg/foot room is achieved. The 53 frame is fully boxed, so stregnth is not a real issue. But, I don't see how it would be possible with a 30's straight rail frame. I've seen the ones that are "Z'd" to get the middle of the car lower. How about a "frame" that is built around the perimeter of the body, so the floor could be on the bottom, but still be as wide as the body? Maybe the front and rear clips could be stock frame materials mated to a 2x3 rectangular steel frame below the car body?
The frame rails on a '32 Ford frame aren't really straight if you're looking from the top. They do bow out to come close to the shape of the perimeter of the body, but not quite. I think having parallel rails, you need to have X or K shaped cross members top and bottom somewhere in the middle to give the frame any strength against twisting. Some frames are actually a big X shape. The strongest frames are the ones under big heavy convertible cars, because when they chop the roof off, they a lot of stiffness from the body, and the frame needs to be extra stiff to keep the doors from rattling around. In those unibody sports cars that sit low, most of the strength comes from the beefy design of the driveshaft tunnel and the rocker panels, which are sort of rectangular tube shaped. The tunnel adds a lot of stiffness. If you're going to try to lower the floor down into the frame, maybe you can add some strength by using some heavier than usual steel for the transmission and driveshaft tunnel and floor -- so that they become almost structural members and not just flimsy covers. I think I remember the driveshaft tunnel on a '64 MG Midget I used to have was closed along the entire bottom. The driveshaft tunnel was a true tunnel all the way around the driveshaft. My front u-joints went out and I had to pull the whole engine/trans/driveshaft out to fix it. My memory is fuzzy though, because that was about 25 years ago.
4 or 5 years ago, there was a HAMBer who built a coupe that was for the most part a unibody construction... if i remember correctly: front subframe and rear subframe, attached to the body... body structure was a supporting member. no crossmembers, no frame rails to speak of. the floorboard was a supporting member and the body significantly strengthened obviously... it was low, and had tons of leg/interior room. the thing apparently didn't twist at all and handled well, too... can't for the life of me remember who's car it was... even searched for it... but it was pretty bitchin'. edit: it was metalshapes'
Yeah, I built my car as a Unibody... I'm 6'2" and I have plenty of space inside the Car. Its less than 4' tall with the Hardtop on, with about 6" of ground Clearence ( sides & middle, the Grilleshell hangs a bit lower...)
Cool car...guess you decided against the authentic "rag top", LOL So is the body actually welded to the frame? Floorboard welded to the bottom of the frame rails?
^ thats it... still one of my favorite cars on the HAMB... the unibody idea is what i'm plannin' with my '28 dodge brothers truck. any more pics of it? i seem to remember that there were only a few build pics (if any?)...
The Frame Rails are American Stamping. Boxed. There is a front X-Member to hold the Front Spring and a Rear X-Meber to hold the Rear Spring, but nothing in between. The Body is Welded to the top of the Rails, the Floor to the Bottom ( so the Floor is Flush & even with the lower edge of the Rails). The Firewall & Rear Panel hold everything together ( including the Dreiveshaft Tunnel which is closed off at the Bottom...) The Engine is mounted on Tri 5 Chevy Mounts and the Gearbox hangs off a Early Cast Aluminum Scattershield ( Hanging unsupported at the back...) Of the Roadsters I've driven, this is the one that has the least Scuttle Shake. So its stiffer than most... Handles good too...
Check out the Model A frames VAPHEAD is selling. They are kicked at the cowl, hidden by the cowl and again in the rear giving the elution of a channeled car but with all the leg room.
metalshapes, What you have done is a lot like what we are doing with our 1933 Chevy coupe. We plan to have the car completely welded together when done. Ours is on a shortened 1953 (or so) Chevrolet frame. The 37 through 54 frames were factory boxed and very rigid. They are a like an upside down "U" with a flat plate across the bottom. The bottom plate sticks past about 1/2" on both sides and it is spot welded to 1/2" flages that are on the ends of the "U" frame rails. Anyway, our steel floorboards are right on top of that flange so they are about 1/4" above the bottom of the frame. We do have a bolt in crossmember for the transmission to rest on. We also added some crossmembers back farther, under the seat where the foot room was not needed. Our car also has a structural steel rollcage, so chassis rigidity is not going to be a factor at all. Here are some pictures:
My '26 RPU is on a perimeter frame and I eliminated all of the old floor parts and set between the rails. I boxed the side of the rocker panel area and set foot boards on top of 1-1/2" tubing that forms a k-member at the bottom of the frame. Then I sank a heel box on the drivers side to the top of the belly pan. I'm 6'3" and needed all the room I could find. I look out just over the top of the w/s and the slant pushes the wind overhead.
Yeah...I think this one is going to work out real well....just wondering if I should go in the same direction on the next project, or something different to achieve similar results. I didn't have the original frame for the 1933 Chevy, but I do have the stock frame for both of my next potential projects. One's a 35 Chevy sedan and one's a 36 Pontiac coupe. Just in the planning/gathering phase right now. What power is in that #43? I see intakes and exhausts on one side???
The Jalopy Journal
