Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: zenndog on April 16, 2012, 12:38:15 AM
-
Has anyone ever run a 26/27 roadster pick up in street roadster? Would it be allowed?
-
Yes, a T RPU would be allowed. I've seen few A rpu's run in STR before but there's no reason why you couldn't run a T.
-
It sure would make it hard to get a lot of the driver out of the wind with the short passenger compartment. I'd guess it would be harder than the 26-27 roadster, a few of which look like they're hauling an oil-drilling rig.
Stan
-
Cword here and on the HAMB is part of the North of the 49 Crew and they run a roadster pickup.
-
Cword here and on the HAMB is part of the North of the 49 Crew and they run a roadster pickup.
Their website http://1149.ca/ (http://1149.ca/) hasn't been updated for several years.
Believe they are now running a B/GRMR (see last year's results):
18 1149 N49 Racing B GRMR 0.000 230.192 Ted Allan
Mike
-
Cword here and on the HAMB is part of the North of the 49 Crew and they run a roadster pickup.
Their website http://1149.ca/ (http://1149.ca/) hasn't been updated for several years.
Believe they are now running a B/GRMR (see last year's results):
18 1149 N49 Racing B GRMR 0.000 230.192 Ted Allan
Mike
Yeah the RPU was set aside but I think Mike mentioned they were going to dust it off?
-
Hi everyone. Yes we ae running the B/GRMR now but the RPU is in the garage. After the Jesel boys bumped our record in B/GSTR we didn't know if the RPU would be slippery enough to challange. We felt the step from the cockpit down to the top of the box was a negative. The cramped cockpit was a problem as we had to sit more out in the wind than we liked, of course being 250 Lbs had nothing to do with it.
We had a bit of a problem trying to get enough weight forward. When the car was built it weighed in at 2600#s with the bias being 65/35. When we stopped using the truck it was 4200#s which put us at about 55/45. the truck did like more weight forward.
-
Thanks for the details!
-
Thanks for the comments and the details about your truck.
I was wondering about the model T cockpit size restraints. and the other issues regarding the way the bed fits the body. Which are similar issues to the model A truck.
-
One thing sure to be checked would be the bed height in relation to the body. Be prepared to substantiate that.
-
I have a 26/27 real steel body. I hope it meets the specs.
Why don't they just tell us in the rule book what grill shell we have to use? What is grill 530 sq inches? I assume it is a 32. But I guess that it is a bobbed 32 grill, so bobbed how much?
-
I could modify the post above but I will leave my snarky post. It is a 1928 ford right? It was in a different part of the rulebook.
-
We used a 28/29 body with a 32 grill. I assume you could us any Ford grill. I still don't understand the 530sq.in. as I don't think the 32 grill even fits that requirement. We used an automatic in the truck because we found it just too hard to get a standard in there with all the associated hardware and roll cage. Plus we had a sponsor for the automatics.
I believe the T body would be much more aero as there is no step at the cowl and no posts. The body is fisically smaller. We looked at putting a 26/27 body on the truck chassis but I decided the new car direction was the better way to go. You never know but the truck may see the salt again as racer or as a street car left as is less the cage.
-
I believe the 530 minimum is bases on a model A grill, a 32 is more than that. Tony
-
The T body is physically smaller. That's part of the problem in Street Roadster. The driver's compartment is both shorter and lower. And the hood is shorter. All make the driver stick out in the wind a great deal more, al least with a V-8 motor. The 530" is based on a 28-9. But you can use the stock T if you're using a T body. Read the book, then read it again.
-
Thanks Stan, I didn't see the stock T grill part though, I will re read.....I keep in in the bathroom on top of the toilet :-D
I found it in another part of the rule book, a different roaster class, it is based on a 1928 ford grill. The model T grill is smaller I think.
Yeah as I sit here trying to finish my taxes I was thinking about the difficulties of trying to squeeze in a clutch pedal ect. Especially as my budget continues to shrink :?
Rich's 29 GR is a tight fit and that is not restricted to the original passenger area.
I think a bobbed 32 shell would be the most areo
I was curious about the rear fenders, most of the images I see of STR seem to stretch the rules as written, at least as far as what it looks like to me. Am I wrong?
Thanks for all the feedback everyone
-
I was curious about the rear fenders, most of the images I see of STR seem to stretch the rules as written, at least as far as what it looks like to me. Am I wrong?
Believe you can bob to the bottom of the body. Seems like most that I've seen are compliant.
-
Gotta use T fenders on a T. The use of other fenders, '32, trailer, etc not llowd.
DW
-
I'll point out one more item on the fenders...Stock location. Seems like everyone with a street roadster want to lower them and that would be to run a 22" tire because the body positioning must be in the stock location so all the SR's are up in the air.
My rule books are not in front of me but I think it is written you definately can use the tee grille shell on the 26-27 but it you cut down a later one like a '32 IT must not be smaller than the 530"....Check that would you J.K.
The 530 also is measured at the hood part line and not the front....Up thur 31 the front and back are probably the same...............Good Luck
-
One slick body for SR is the 30-31 Model A. It doesn't have the coupe' pillar of the 28-29, the stock hood is 2" longer, plus there's a indent under the seat in the stock floor that goes down an inch or two for side curtain storage. Just so happens that your seat can fit there at a nice angle.
And there's the 28(?) Dodge that the Montana Dodge Boys use. Looks about as narrow as a 26-27 T, but has a longer hood and passenger compartment to offset the T problems.
If we hadn't owned our 29 for 50 years this month, and after 10+ years figuring out the above, I think we'd of looked around for some other candidate of some off-brand (non-Ford) shell that might measure up. They could come a lot cheaper (you don't need the whole car) and who knows -- maybe the '24 Willys Great-6 might be a winner.
Stan Back
(I personally like the 30-31 Model A 2-door phaeton (or whatever it's called) with a hard tonneau. The only real problem with that is -- it's illegal.)
-
Can the PU bed have a cover?
-
Can the PU bed have a cover?
Yes, flush
-
And must be full length.
-
DW- I figured the fenders had to be model T
Thanks for all the input everyone. I know this is an unlikely choice for a competitive LSR car but I appreciate the responses to my query.
I am keeping my eyes peeled for a turtle deck but I am looking into the PU while I wait.
I had actually dismissed the idea of this body a while back but now I am reconsidering.
-
Isn't that body more like half a touring rather than the front half of a roadster -- or are they all the same? Fiberglass turtledeck sure wouldn't cost much.
-
Roadster pick up and roadster bodies are the same. The panel behind the seat on a "factory" roadster pick up is smooth while the roadster has a raised section that sits under the turtle deck where it mounts. This is mainly cosmetic and not seen. I believe the PU bed could be ordered from/at the dealership if you wanted to change your/a Roadster into a truck.
Here is a roadster pick up seat back
http://macsautoparts.com/model-t-ford-front-seat-back-panel-no-embossing-roadster-pickup-tm332pu/camid/MDT/cp/JS0R3CHL1129042/
Here is a roadster
http://macsautoparts.com/model-t-ford-front-seat-back-panel-flat-panel-portion-roadster-tm332/camid/MDT/cp/JS0R3CHL1070926/
The profile in terms of how they sit in the wind is the same.
-
This post has nothing to do with land racing, just sharing.
Here is a picture of a "junk" body that came with my 26 PU. There was also a front seat back in the stuff from what I assume is a 26/27 touring. The body had sat on the "points" of the rear quarter panels in the dirt so they were rusted away. I spent a summer staring at it and held the Touring seat back in place and then fit it in as such. I cut up two rotted doors and used the tops, my plan is to weld in some panels where the doors would have been. This is not for a LSR project, as I said above.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/100_3088.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/100_3089.jpg)
-
Zenn --
Got it!
PM sent.
Stan
-
I turned all the lights on.
FREUD
-
The T body is physically smaller. That's part of the problem in Street Roadster. The driver's compartment is both shorter and lower. And the hood is shorter. All make the driver stick out in the wind a great deal more, al least with a V-8 motor. The 530" is based on a 28-9. But you can use the stock T if you're using a T body. Read the book, then read it again.
I have been unable to locate the rule that states I can use a stock t grill/radiator. All I find is the 530 sq in requirement. Can anyone point it out to me? :?
-
5.B.3. Second paragraph. If switched must be 530 sq. In. If you use a stock T shell it's not switched. Run your rear end idea here and see how many think the same as me.
-
"If switched, ...same manufacturer...530 sq. in...."
:cheers:
Mike
-
Rich and Mike-I see said the blind man! I knew I was missing it completely.......thanks.
Rich-I think I will keep it under my hat for now if you don't mind. I ordered a couple of roadster pick up model kits and I am going to make it in 1/24 scale before I post more wacky ideas. Based on your reaction I am certain it will be shot down in flames.
-
"If switched, ...same manufacturer...530 sq. in...."
:cheers:
Mike
How does one explain the Bantams with 32 Ford shells then? Or aren't any being run anymore?
-
I don't really remember lots of Bantams in Street Roadster class.
-
Bantams run in fuel/gas roadster classes. I don't remember any street roadsters. Different class/different rules.
DW
-
With the hood length and maximum engine set back restrictions the wheelbase would be really short and the cockpit smaller that a T.
-
Did not know what class they were running in, just remember seeing them in pictures.
-
The way I read the rules I thought having a suicide front end would not be legal. for some reason I assumed the axles need to be in the stock position, only allowing moving the front axle forward three inches by stretching the hood?
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/random%20posts/0705sr_18_zel_mirage_salt_racing.jpg)
Interesting note on this photo, it was from a hot rod publication website, one of the big ones and the caption was "El Mirage Salt Racing???????" I guess the person who wrote the article thought that was salt blowing around everywhere.
-
Did not know what class they were running in, just remember seeing them in pictures.
They are legal in gas/fuel roadster, you just cant use a grill later than a '32 on a car with a '32 and older body. Tony
-
1. Stretch the hood 3".
2. Move the engine forward as far as possible.
3. Move the front axle forward until you almost reach 15% engine setback.
More detailed discussion: http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,2943.0.html (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,2943.0.html)
Mike
-
The way I read the rules I thought having a suicide front end would not be legal... for some reason I assumed the axles need to be in the stock position
Sounds like your answered your own query. You didn't read anything about a suicide front end being illegal, you just assumed that it was.
-
Tony and T-Man. With that body you can't run a newer that 32 grille shell for ANY year of the body. I believe that all, from 30 thru 41 which was the last one, all were considered the same. One that runs in Gas/Fuel Roadster is a steel '37 and was denied the use of his 37 grille shell. I still have a 30/31 grille shell and hood in my stash of stuff that I needed to prove length and sizing from many, many years ago.
As for running is Street Roadster. since Lattin has been able to run the coupe style body in the VF class this COULD be possible. Highly unlikely do to the seating but possible. . . . .JD
-
I am playing around with a model and it dawned on me that if the body is channeled over the frame on a 26/27 T the radiator needs to be bobbed so the hood line is flush. It seems this should be ok according to the rules.
-
If you channel the body over the frame mounting the rear fenders in STOCK location will be difficult at best. You may end up with a wheel tire combo about 17" in total dia.
DW
-
"radiator needs to be bobbed so the hood line is flush. It seems this should be ok according to the rules."
The stock radiator shell must not be altered in depth or width.
-
"radiator needs to be bobbed so the hood line is flush. It seems this should be ok according to the rules."
The stock radiator shell must not be altered in depth or width.
Maybe my use of the term "bobbed" is incorrect, I meant to shorten the height, not alter the depth or width. Maybe this is an affirmation that I am correct?
DW - With a 14" inch minimum wheel size, a 17" wheel/tire combo seems unlikely.
-
How do you intend to "shorten the height" without sectioning the shell? Thus altering the square area of the radiator? Or are you meaning to just drop it down between the fram rails the same amount as you channel the body? How will that work with the crossmember?
-
I don't see any restrictions on radiator size, IF USING THE ORIGINAL GRILLE SHELL.
5.B.3 A radiator/grille shell may be sectioned or bobbed, but the width may not be altered. If switched...not less than 530 sq. in....The radiator shall fill the shell opening..." etc.
Mike
-
How do you intend to "shorten the height" without sectioning the shell? Thus altering the square area of the radiator? Or are you meaning to just drop it down between the fram rails the same amount as you channel the body? How will that work with the crossmember?
I think it can be sectioned as Mike pointed out above, but I am not certain it would be necessary. Dropping it through the frame rails may be better. Barring any obvious rules issue I think it could be decided when building.
I am putting the finishing touches on a 1/24 scale model of my ideas, I plan to post some pics soon.
-
I think it can be sectioned as my 32 shell on my 29 roadster to make it 29 size. But you can and should run this past the SCTA for a good answer. Dropping it would be what I would do. You can only channel the body the width of the frame. That's not a lot on a T
-
I think it can be sectioned as my 32 shell on my 29 roadster to make it 29 size. But you can and should run this past the SCTA for a good answer. Dropping it would be what I would do. You can only channel the body the width of the frame. That's not a lot on a T
I don't have my T shell here in Santa Cruz but I am pretty sure a T radiator is already smaller than a 29 grill.
I miss the point. "The body may be channeled to the bottom of the frame."
-
There's not a lot of room inside that T. You'd be better off with enough Z in the rear to tuck your tires into the fenders and as much Z in the front as is possible.
Or, angle channel the car: none at the rear (a 2" Z should get it as low as possible, depending on the tire size) and full frame width at the firewall. Then continue the downward swoop by really lowering the grille to maintain the required "stock panels...mounted in their original relationship to each other."
Lots of options.
Pic is a roadster with 2" Z and ~27" tires, but the fenders should be in exactly the same position on an RPU.
2nd pic: 27 T angle-channeled 1/2 the depth of an A frame. The T grille is already dropped approx 3/4" on a flat front crossmember and needs to be dropped another 1.5-2" to get the smooth "original relationship" of the body panels.
Mike
-
There's not a lot of room inside that T. You'd be better off with enough Z in the rear to tuck your tires into the fenders and as much Z in the front as is possible.
Or, angle channel the car: none at the rear (a 2" Z should get it as low as possible, depending on the tire size) and full frame width at the firewall. Then continue the downward swoop by really lowering the grille to maintain the required "stock panels...mounted in their original relationship to each other."
Lots of options.
Pic is a roadster with 2" Z and ~27" tires, but the fenders should be in exactly the same position on an RPU.
2nd pic: 27 T angle-channeled 1/2 the depth of an A frame. The T grille is already dropped approx 3/4" on a flat front crossmember and needs to be dropped another 1.5-2" to get the smooth "original relationship" of the body panels.
Mike
Strange....the 2nd pic wasn't there when I started the post.
How wide is the T from outside of the fender to outside of the fender?
-
I know you could get away with dropping the grille shell between the rails if you channel the body. But sectioning it, even if it's what you read, could be trouble. There's something in play here called the "spirit of the rule" that may nip you. I, personally, can't see any advantage in channeling a T in Street Roadster. All you are doing is shoving the driver, a blustery thing himself, out into the wind. With a T, you've got him sitting almost upright already. I don't know from frickin' computer modeling or whatever. But I do know a little from parts. The short hood length, the short cabin, the short cab sides, don't make the best StR situation unless Billy Barty, rest his soul, is retained for a driver.
Stan (Cranky) Back
-
As usual, thanks for all the great input guys. I appreciate all the feedback.
I am waiting to put my kids to bed and then I will post some pics and you guys can shoot my idea all to pieces. :cheers:
-
You're way ahead by kicking the frame up in the front and the rear, lowering the Roadster body, putting the floor on top of the frame, and allowing the driver to sit lower than he could with a body channeled over a straight frame.
-
Thanks, as always, Professor K, for you response.
Seems strange (especially in the roadster world) how some cars seemingly get away with blatant disregard of the written rules even thru the protest process, while others are brought up against the unwritten "spirit of the rules".
Ah, well. No roadsters for me for the time being.
Zenndog, find pictures of the Rocket Science STR. That seems to be more aero than any other STR.
Mike
-
You are all probably right.
My thought was not to try to make the shell smaller for the sake of it. It was more of a case of thinking out loud as I looked at the way the shell reacted to the frame being channeled.
Here are some pics. This was built using a kit and the specific shapes are not exactly like a T but this is more to get a sense of the more radical departure from the norm. I think the "spirit of the rules" is the grim reaper in the case of my idea. Unless I missed something....which is very possible......this is allowed if I interpreted the rules correctly.
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010496.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010495.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010494.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010493.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010492.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1926%20Model%20T/P1010497.jpg)
Top of page 60, 2012 rules
"Any type of rear end may be used,and widening of the rear tread to allow the tires to protrude beyond the fenders is permitted"
And yes I know I need headlights.
-
This is only to demonstrate the rear wheels idea and so I could see how it might look.
The model above is not to show how I plan to eliminate all original body reveals, That is the only kit I could find that was a 26/27 T. I think the bed is too short, the fenders are not like a T, the door lines are not there. The body I would use is a real T pickup body and would have all the original features. I built this model in an evening using a model kit and balsa wood.
-
Oh, this is going to be wonderful. Great idea and implementation on the model. A new thought in roadsters :cheers: I can think this way because I do not have a dog (roadster) in this fight. Love the concept!
What engine are you going to run? Most will not allow your feet to go forward to keep your head down. I think the firewall rule limits foot placement forward anyway. Perhaps rear engine dragster positioning with your heels by your butt and your hands by your calves looking just above your knees. Unless you have a motor like the 300 mph roadster then all the lowering does not mater because of the outside dimensions of the motor.
I like it because of the different thinking in the confined roadster world. Will it work? Perhaps no better and no worse. Still it's cool.
Geo
-
"And yes I know I need headlights."
And a driver.
-
"Most will not allow your feet to go forward to keep your head down. I think the firewall rule limits foot placement forward anyway."
You certainly can extend the firewall forward in StR. It would be best to run a V-4 to meet the hood length and wheelbase restrictions.
And increasing the frontal area with, say, two 28" tires might be a concern.
-
Thinking along these lines, I wonder if it would be advantages to narrow the rear track enough to put the tires in the bed. Maybe put some of dan's 17 inch dia tires in the fenders just to fill them in somewhat.
-
There is a minimum rear axle width.
I don't fully understand the wheelbase restrictions yet.
I still don't get how set back enables someone to run a suicide front end on a T. My first interpretation was that the wheel base had to be stock + 3"
I don't get the comment about 28" tires and frontal area. This was a pre made model kit and the tires i would pick for the front would be the goodyear 21" tires, or the 17" x 2.5 drag frontrunners if they could handle the weight.
-
Clue me in -- I've never seen a minimum axle width in StR. You must retain the stock rear quarters, so it would be difficult to inset the wheels inside the frame rails. And the old "spirit of the rules" thing -- some of us (not many) believe that a Street Roadster should look like a street roadster. Some of us still have ours licensed.
"My first interpretation was that the wheel base had to be stock + 3""
Nor are there any wheelbase restrictions in StR. But it works as if there is one when the only body panel you can lengthen is the hood and you must not have more than 15% set-back.
"I don't get the comment about 28" tires and frontal area."
Well, I'm no aerodynamicist(?), but putting a 28-inch drive wheel on the outside of each rear fender would seem to add to the area exposed from the front.
And, again, the main problem of the T in Street Roadster is packaging the driver.
-
Oh, I get it. In regards to the tires. I never said this was a great idea, just an idea. I am not sure it makes any sense at all. Again, the tires are what was in the kit, I would use whatever the the drive train called for, with an eye towards smaller tires.
I know this idea is on the fringe but I think it might work out.
How do I run it by the roadster guys at the scta? Can someone PM me an e-mail?
I will play with the wheelbase and setback.
In my dreams I would be able to put different engines into it, but I know size and space are major constraints.
Here is an engine I was thinking about running
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/32%20PB/P1010222.jpg)
Here is another
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/temporary/IMG00663.jpg)
I don't want to rule out a V8 either though
-
Stan- Page 54, top of page, 2012 rule book
"The minimum tread dimensions for all Vintage Category vehicles are 44 in. front and 50 in. rear. Modified Roadsters are exempt from the front requirement."
-
The problem with channeling the body so deeply is that the driver must sit on top of the floor and the floor must be on top of the top frame rail. The driver already hangs out in the breeze on a T and this dosent help. Getting it low by having the tires outside the fenders is a novel approach but it increases the frontal area significantly. The rules have pretty much evened out the resulting frontal area so that the various years of roadster body all show up in the records.
-
Amen!
-
Amen to what?
Well, that is why I built the model, to see how it would look and be able to show people so we could have a discussion.
I see it being tight but not impossible.
-
I see it being tight but not impossible.
I agree and it certanly looks neat but I think the drag penalty of the rear tires will be a big handicap.
-
I don’t have a dog in this fight (as I’m in another roadster camp).
However, I think this concept is innovative and clever. Nonetheless, I suspect it will run afoul of the “Spirit” rules.
That aside, I really like the concept. I’d like to see it run, even if it’s TO.
Nonetheless, I’m with jdincau as I suspect the drag penalty (even with 17" & 21" tires) will cancel out the advantages. The only way to know is build it.
Skip Pipes
-
No fight, just questions.
I barely have time/energy to build a land speed racer, much less fight over it.
Just an idea so I ask the people who know or have an opinion.
I had a conversation with Rich and he had a couple ideas about the space issues that really fleshed out/completed some ideas I had been playing with in my mind.
Loving the feedback
I sent an e-mail to Russ
-
If you could make it lean 20 degrees you could run two wheels and call it a motorcylroadster! :-D
-
Uh...Tman............. :roll:
-
having held that record a few times...
years ago,
maybe you need a short and small driver like ME...
-
Sorry Zenn, just trying to add some levity to your already OUT THERE thread. No offense meant, your are grazing the edges of sanity/legality :cheers:
-
No problem Tman. I was just bugging you.
-
I am pretty sure that, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, (the late) Fritz Kott ran a T-roadster pickup..... I do not recall that it was a record contender but, it was a "stock bodied" classic style roadster which sat relatively tall.....
Personally, while NOT an aerodynamics expert, I am pretty much of the belief that frontal area is frontal area whether the car is wide and low or narrow and tall..... but a body panel that is set at an angle in the same frontal area will, in ALL likelihood, create less drag than a vertical "flat to the wind" panel....and the Cd is a consideration that needs to be factored in.
As a chassis builder, my big question would be - can we get you into or out of a seating position which you can enter/exit with ease as well as drive the car without your knees locking up etc (knee problems are MY problem - so - just saying)?
-
Yeah, the wheel question set aside, fitting in the car will be a challenge.
I sat in Rich'a roadster and was setting up my head/neck restraint yesterday. His car is tight and the seat is behind the stock seating location since his car is a GR. So that got me thinking.
To be honest I have concerns about the roadster pick up body style. The bed sticks off the back of the car, I would venture to guess that over 50% of it hangs behind the rear axle. If the wind is trying to push it down...or up :-o, I imagine that it will act a lever. I don't have the body here, it is in Ojai so the next time I can go take a good look at it I will take some measurements and pictures.
-
I see it being tight but not impossible.
I agree and it certanly looks neat but I think the drag penalty of the rear tires will be a big handicap.
I would love to see your car, are you taking it to any events this year?
-
The way I read the rules I thought having a suicide front end would not be legal. for some reason I assumed the axles need to be in the stock position, only allowing moving the front axle forward three inches by stretching the hood?
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/random%20posts/0705sr_18_zel_mirage_salt_racing.jpg)
Interesting note on this photo, it was from a hot rod publication website, one of the big ones and the caption was "El Mirage Salt Racing???????" I guess the person who wrote the article thought that was salt blowing around everywhere.
BTW....This car looks an awful lot like the car that used to belong to Nate Sable in the late 70s..... It is something in the shape of the top of the roll cage. I remember this because my younger brother towed the car out to the SF Bay area for the person who bought it from Nate in about 1980.... I gave the whole trailer and hitch area a good going over as well as the car, of course, before my brother left the salt.
-
The wheels outside the fenders are a no go....surprised anyone?
-
Zen,
Did they say why?
-
The way I read the rules I thought having a suicide front end would not be legal. for some reason I assumed the axles need to be in the stock position, only allowing moving the front axle forward three inches by stretching the hood?
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/random%20posts/0705sr_18_zel_mirage_salt_racing.jpg)
Interesting note on this photo, it was from a hot rod publication website, one of the big ones and the caption was "El Mirage Salt Racing???????" I guess the person who wrote the article thought that was salt blowing around everywhere.
BTW....This car looks an awful lot like the car that used to belong to Nate Sable in the late 70s..... It is something in the shape of the top of the roll cage. I remember this because my younger brother towed the car out to the SF Bay area for the person who bought it from Nate in about 1980.... I gave the whole trailer and hitch area a good going over as well as the car, of course, before my brother left the salt.
I think that is not the Nate Sable car, I believe Bob and Judy Sights had that car and the chassis has supsequently been junked.
-
Update- In my reply I pointed out the rule, Russ agreed with me on my interpretation, the wheels can be run as I constructed my model.
That doesn't mean it is a good idea but maybe it would be interesting to try something outside of the norm.
My basic idea for the build allows me to raise or lower the rear end in case this idea is a complete failure.
I am excited in general about this build and have come up with some ideas I think people will find interesting.
I think a build thread will be coming here in the future.
-
As I remember. The rule used to be stock width or you could go a little wider to clear the body on channeled cars. Then Tone came out with his Bantam and other roadster guys cried that his rear tires were inside the body and not out in the air like theirs. Tone said his rear axle was stock width for a Bantam and he was within the rules. So the rule was changed to 50 inches to make the model A guys happy. And also applied to Street Roadsters. But the rule is poorly written and appears to allow what you propose. I believe that is not at all what they had in mind when the current rule was written. And if anyone actually came out with such a car the rule would be properly written.
-
On another note . . . Does anyone remember the guy that had a long, flowing blue line that represented the car he wanted to build? And he was searching for the proper name for the team? Anyone know how that project's coming?
-
Is there a point Stan? I kind of remember seeing that thread.
-
The #173 Roadster is Shane Hill`s car. It`s previous owner escapes me. Shane hasn`t run the car for a while. He worked for Jay Steel at Taylors Engine for a while, as well as driving a Brown truck. His family man duties may preclude the car coming out for a while longer.....
-
Did they say why?
The guy who wrote the SR rules said that "widening of the rear tread to allow the tires to protrude beyound the fenders" wasn't ever meant to mean that the tires can be completely outside the fenders. Protruding from implies that at least some of the tire is being covered by the fenders to begin with.
-
Well Nathan, we already know that there is no width rule on rear fenders in S/R, just look at all them trailer fenders...... :-o :-D
-
Dyno-The fenders must be stock. I think there is a reference to stock width as well.
-
"I sent an e-mail to Russ"
So did I about 3 weeks ago---no reply yet!
How long did you have to wait for a reply :?
I have a 34 ford Pu cab and bed---that is the last year that Ford built roadster pickups.
My questions are:
where can one find the "allowed" dimensions
can pickup roadsters be run in the other roadster classes,
if so, how is the bed treated when the others allow for the seat placement be moved out of the original driver compartment.
-
The Bob & Judy Sights/Nate Sable street roadster is in Penn Valley Ca. (North east of Sac.) and being worked on slowly. Owner Lee Wilbourne has replaced the rusty frame rails, upgraded the roll cage and is bringing it up to 2014 rules and standards. It may be on the salt in 2014 with Ray Fioresi's Hal (V4/VOT) in it.
-
Happy to hear that car is being "racerstored" back to active duty
-
I am new to asking questions about Roadsters:
just acquired a 34 Ford Pu cab and bed---1934 is the last year of Fords roadster pickups the top of this cab is a mess considering making a roadster pu out of it.
I didn't want to start a new thread about Roadster PU because I believe in trying to add as much info in one thread to make research easier.
1. Does Russ reply to emails? How long should I expect?
2 What is the relationship of Roadster Pus to roadsters, ie is the bed considered part of the body?
-
Sparky, might be worth talking to the North of the 49 Crew since they ran a RPU for a few years.
-
I don't see your point Sparky. Stock fenders in stock location. I believe they can be "bobbed" to the bottom of the body. Yours are mounted on the bed. Rule says body so they must only go as low as the body. My guess would be where the running board was if you are removing them. Most have found out the lower the fender is the better aero so some have quit "bobbing".
If you have the idea of make the rear tread width so wide that you could lower the rear of the vehicle and the rear tires were outside of the stock fenders that may not break a "rule" but would never pass muster in any state that required fenders. These are considered to be "street legal" cars: lights, horn, etc.
This comes for a guy who has had more rules added to the roadster classes to eliminate a vehecle than anyone. (not by me but against)...Mark my words and be very carefull how you "use" the roadster rules. They all come out of the woodwork..."just sayin"
Street roadsters just stick up in the air and the only way to get the rear down is 22.5" tires under the stock fenders and if you've ever seen that you know why guys don't do it.....Good Luck
-
The thread was started by asking about roadster pickups in Street Roadster.
Sparky seems to be asking about Gas/Fuel Roadster.
Either way, the Rule Book is clear about using (in bold face) Production Automobile bodies. Does a '34 roadster pickup use the same Automobile body as earlier (Ford) roadster pickups did -- such as a Model A? Or does it use the Commercial (Truck) cab and grille?
-
Sparky, which roadster class do you want to run?
If You want to run in STR than the driver must sit in the original
drivers compartment.If You wish to build Your
34 for FR/GR , I do not know why You could not sit back in the car as the rules
allow, bed or not. I will question the master for You when I talk with later today.
Hoping You are have a productive lakester day.
Eric
-
As far as I can tell, Ford built 347 open cab trucks in 1934. That cab is IMO worth way to much to make into a Bonneville racer.
Mike
-
Mike, don't worry, its a regular truck, Bill is whacking the top off... so it is just rare.... not ultra rare :roll:
:cheers:
-
I don't think that a pickup or coupe with the top cut off is a SCTA legal roadster :?
Butwaddaeyeno? :-D
Mike
-
. . . at least when it doesn't match a PASSENGER cab, not a Commercial.
-
Scotties muffler did it. Coupe into a roadster it was a 34 and hauled A$$.
-
5.B.1. Modified Roadster..."production roadster body or an exact replica of a roadster body..."
5.B.1a Rear Engine Modified Roadster..."production or exact replica of a roadster body..."
5.B.2 Fuel-Gas Roadster..."production roadster body or an exact replica of a roadster body..."
5.B.3 Street Roadster..."American production roadster body or an exact replica..."
(http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/4-BarrelMike/Miscellaneous%20stuff/dunno_zps09e85c3d.gif)
Mike
-
"Scotties muffler did it. Coupe into a roadster it was a 34 and hauled A$$."
Scotty's Muffler. Same contour and shape as a roadster with the doors a little longer. Probably closer to an actual roadster than the fiberglass "replicas" are today -- at least the 28-29's.
He also filled in the wheelwells with this one a couple of years ago.
-
Modified Roadsters or Fuel-Gas Roadster
As I read and re-read the rules if I chopped the a pillar and the back of the cab down to the top of the doors and maintain the required 28.25 "
this should "exactly duplicate updated 10-20-2013" the roadster pu body.
I should be allowed the 152" for a 34 Ford or the original overall length. Am I missing something?
-
Modified Roadsters or Fuel-Gas Roadster
As I read and re-read the rules if I chopped the a pillar and the back of the cab down to the top of the doors and maintain the required 28.25 "
this should duplicate the roadster pu body.
I should be allowed the 152" for a 34 Ford or the original overall length. Am I missing something?
Time and Money :-D
Have fun Bill
-
There only one gas/fuel roadster I know that is still running and started life as a coupe. The practice is allowed but most today do not use steel bodies which as the say are too valuable. To me using a pickup in the Street Roadster class not worth it BUT using a 29-31 coupe with the top wacked off is promising so I could keep my 6'1" frame out of the air as much as possible by sitting back. The pickup does have enough room to sit in stock seems like a waste of a good start on a street rod or rat.
If I were to do that I would document every cut and measurment to prove I did it at the exact spot the top met the rear deck so as not to be ch--ting which I would never do. :roll: Good Luck
-
Thank you 4 Barrel Mike!
From post #107, in several places; ..."production roadster body or an exact replica of a roadster body..."
The word production can be researched in Wiki, Webster's and many other spots. Boils down to the SCTA interpretation, the old wrestle with a pig in the mud. One of the two enjoy it.
Don't you have a lakester to work on Sparky?
DW
-
Yes Dan, but the Lakester is almost finished and I have a bunch of left over "Stuff" that could be put to higher and better use--- like a "fuel-gas ROADSTER" or a mod roadster! :cheers:
-
Maybe you should start with a passenger roadster rather than a commercial vehicle. Just a thought before you get too far.
-
Stan has a good idea. Plus--I`ve a soft spot for 34 Pickups....I almost finished one 20 plus years ago, but had to sell it when I moved North. How about engineering a trade of sorts, Sparky?....
-
SB a roadster PU is far from just a "commercial vehicle." It is a 3 pass vehicle with a short bed. In most states one must be over 8600# or 10,000# to be considered a "Commercial Vehicle" But I understand what the Mayor is trying to tell me. There are more that just written rules. The rules have to be "explained".
I am just trying to get them explained to me by the Roadster Committee Contact. So far no response.