Technical No Radial Tires?

Well, it IS a costume ball.

 

Funny you said that, I was thinking the other day while reading this thread of my 62 Nova I sold a couple years back. It had radials when I purchased it and it drove like crap, I put bias ply red lines on it and it drove exactly the same so why not make it look the part? It was a good safety feature, you couldn't fall asleep driving it especially on the freeway!

 

You might want to research this a bit more as Radial tires were invented in 1916. I believe it was Michellin that fully developed them to their potential.

 

While each venue we participate in has its own right to define what falls into the "traditional" genre, to me I don't get caught up in verifying that everything I see on a vehicle must fit into "specific" features identified as acceptable. I'm more general in viewing a vehicle. Basically I like the older stuff (basically pre-66 or there about) for the cars I enjoy viewing. That doesn't mean I don't also enjoy some later models like a 70 Mustang, or a 69 Camaro, or a 70 Chevy pickup, or certain Corvettes, and even S10s. I realize that in general there does need to be a "cut-off-date" as to what we want to see at specific "era" type events as far as allowable vehicles. The purists want to view a car and look for things that they feel aren't specific enough for their narrower acceptance standards. Thats fine, they should enjoy what they went to see and what they enjoy seeing.
Myself, I'm happy with seeing cars that are basically limited by production year and also happy to see innovation and variation. I'm more into just enjoying how the finished car looks overall. I don't care which type of tire or engine or wheel or custimization, or color, or even if it has chromy header coatings that weren't around in the sixties. What I care about is simply that someone took an older (pre 66) vehicle and modified it in some way that I find appealing. I find there is a lot more to enjoy that way.

 

Most people that don’t like rules when they create their own event, have rules that fit their taste.
It’s not about being a “rebel”, it’s about having it their way (usually)
I’ve only put on one car show. It had one rule .
“Open for anything you think is cool”
I guess I’m not a rebel either.

 

I can't tell what tire { Pi or rad } is on a cool car as it goes by,as long as it's sized right,car looks great. Nether can anyone !! or they like to BS.
I was lucky too have tires in 1959 with air n tread of the right size hight an tread bit,about the same even up to now,often got used an sometimes recap. White walls were just,if it was no extra cost thing an still is!.
When looking at other's cars,tires are not really a big + or -,except if new type low sidewall big rim, will often make me move along too cooler looking rods or customs to enjoy looking at.

 

I never raced on beach sand, but this summer I did an all-flathead race on an airstrip and even the 4 banger guys were chirping tires off the line. The advantage would probably be slight, but I think on pavement the radials would have an advantage, especially on the more powerful cars (over 100hp in the case of flatheads).

Much more so with transmissions, it takes more skill (and more time) to shift a not-fully-synchronized 3 speed than it does one of the modern stick shifts.

The whole point is to challenge drivers and builders to compete with what the pioneers of hot rodding were using in the decade right after WWII. Even if some of the new parts give no advantage, or are cheaper/easier to find, they would spoil that.

 

Of course you know this but...........not all radials are created equal.
Besides, being a Nova owner, I can say unequivocally that their suspensions were marginal from the day they left the factory.

 

you mean the later 60's Nova? the suspension were based on the camaro? what was marginal, rear leafs?

 

I think he means the early ones, through 67. They were a copy of a Falcon, basically....

 

A lot of the F body "Hugger" parts do fit the '68+ Novas...

 

Ha I use radials and god forbid Pertronix. I don't spend much time at any of those theme type events called a race its more like play acting what once was.

 

No and as Jim clarified, gen 1 (62-65) and gen 2 (66/67).
I would show how I addressed the "under engineered" suspension on my 67 but it would not stay posted very long.
We now will return to the debate debacle.

 

I already showed how I addressed it
<<<------

 

The Chevy II/Nova was a cheap economy car, as was the Ford Falcon, Dodge Dart, and Plymouth Valiant. None of them were designed to hug corners or ride super smooth, they were simply cheap transportation to get you to work, to school, the grocery store and maybe to Grandma's house on holidays. A throw away car if you will. Wear it out, throw it away, buy another. It wasn't until a bunch of hoodlums on the streets and in the factories started putting bigger engines in them did their short comings surface. And really, they aren't that hard to set up. The bean counters just wouldn't let the factories spend the money on better parts.

I buy cheap tires, so radials are usually it. Haven't seen many cheap bias plys in years, and nobody hardly stocks them, you have to order them.

 

I'd sell my car before I put radials on it. It would look ridiculous and I'd be embarrassed to drive it.

 

Guys who are into surf fishing let a lot of air out of the tires when they go to drive the beach in search of fish. With less pressure, the tires flatten out and get more traction in the sand. I may be wrong, but I think radials flatten out a lot more than stiff-wall bias plys at lower pressure.

...I know, silly me, I keep coming back to the orginal question instead of reveling in the old bias ply vs. radial squabble. For the record, I run bias plys on my open wheel roadster and wouldn't even consider radials.

 

I feel like it's time to talk about oil.

 

Lol

 

Black socks & sandals. That.