Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Build Diaries => Topic started by: dshuken on July 23, 2010, 12:02:53 AM
-
The latest project at Shuken Racing is a belly tank. A few months ago, Scott Oliver approached me about building a new car. He already had a few parts on hand: an original aluminum tank from an F6F Hellcat, a recently running Model B four banger, an assortment of original bomber seats and a 1937 V8-60 front axle. His vision was simple: he wanted a racecar that was built to modern safety specs, but still looks like it belongs in the 50's. Here is a pic of the tank halves. They are actually two seperate tanks that Scott split to keep the lip on both sides. We adapted a Ford C4 automatic to the Model B, and coupled it to a Winters nostalgia quick change. Stay tuned for more pics as the car takes shape.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/00000008.jpg)
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/00000004.jpg)
-
I noticed your in Fresno, where is the shop located?
-
Im on McKinley, about 5 miles west of 99
-
Our car is currently at Precision auto near Mckinley. It's on Maple and fine, well be there after 2 most days until after our dyno sessions are over. Stop by and say hi if you want.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/00000010.jpg)
Here is front half of the cage/chassis. I am using 4130 tubing for the chassis. I bent the shoulder hoop in house, but I had to have the front hoop custom rolled to match the radius of the tank. I also had some pieces rolled that will go under the seat, so the driver can sit as low as possible. After the chassis is tacked, I'm going to take it off hte fixture and make sure it fits in the tank, before I go any further.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/00000011.jpg)
-
Hi Daniel...belly tank chassis is looking good, you going to Bville with the GMC roadster?
JL222
Keep us posted :cheers:
-
We'll be there. I talked to Marsh the other day and he said everything is ready to go. Hopefully we can bump our record by a few MPH, but there are a couple of strong running cars gunning for us. Looks like you guys are close to being ready too, see you out there.
-
The basic structure of the chassis is tacked together
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/tank%20pics%202/IMG_0571.jpg)
The rear end is solid mounted, since the transmission couples directly to the pinion shaft (no u-joints)
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/tank%20pics%202/IMG_0572.jpg)
-
I notched the tank for the axles and set the chassis in for mock up. It is a tight fit, but I guess that is just the nature of a belly tank.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/tank%20pics%202/IMG_0578.jpg)
the halves are clamped together, and so far, everything clears. Ground clearance is about 1 1/2".
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/tank%20pics%202/IMG_0576.jpg)
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/Belly%20Tank/00000012.jpg)
Finding a transmission for the model B was a challenge in itself. I found an adapter kit for Model A/B to Chevy automatic, but the chevy autos were all too long to fit in the tank. The C4 seemed like the best choice with a Chevy bellhousing to fit on the adapter. Mike at Mike's Transmissions in Lancaster, CA built us a C4 with a manual valve body and no torque converter. When I got the adapter kit, I learned the hard way that the Model B has a different flywheel cover than the A, so the adapter plate wouldn't fit. After making some phone calls, I found out that I could bolt a Model A flywheel cover on the B motor. I got a brand new aluminum cover from Snyder's Antique Auto Parts, and everthing finally went together.
-
Cool! More!!! :mrgreen:
Mike
OBTW, what's that starter??
-
bellytank looks great, I am starting on one myself so I will be watching your build and comparing ideas,Please keep the pictures coming.
CJ
-
Mike,
Im not sure what starter it is. It came with the adapter kit from Bendtsen's Transmissions. It just looks like an aftermarket mini starter with a 3 bolt flange. Hope that helps.
-
I have been accumulating the parts to build something very simular.
I have a F8F Bearcat tank, probably the same.
How long is the wheelbase and how much caster? It looks like maybe 15º ?
Thanks, John
-
John,
The wheelbase is 118" and I put 18 degrees of caster in the front end. Post some pics as your tank takes shape.
Daniel
-
Daniel,
I will post pics as soon as it represents more than a pile of parts on the floor.
I was planning on streching the WB to 124" and 15º caster.
John
-
Daniel,I am starting to get my parts together for my bellytankand I was wondering about the width of the front axle and the quickchange rear that you used.I got a P-38 fiberglass replica tank that I want to use a quickchange rear and straight axle front suspension in to run ECTA events with, but also run the salt flats. I'm going to be like John and stretch my wheelbase out to about 124"-130" if the frame dimensions work out.Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
CJ
-
There is a lot of builds in the archives. A little searching will show you lots on the builds.
-
The way I see it, the longer the wheelbase, the better. 118 was about all I could get out of this tank. If you guys can get 124-130, awesome. The front axle can go wherever you want it, but the problem is in the rear. The quickchange hangs so low in the back, you can only stretch it out so far, before you can't get the cover off. I don't remember the track widths off the top of my head, but when I get back into the shop next week, I will measure them.
As far as caster goes, I like a lot (I run a front engine dragster with 25 degrees). I ended up with 18 on the tank, because I had to modify the split wishbones. They were set up for about 7 degrees, so I had to cut them apart, change the angle and re-weld them. I didn't want to take off too much material, so I stopped at 18.
-
It has been a busy couple of weeks at Shuken Racing, but I am back from the salt, and working on the tank again. After test fitting the chassis in the shell, it is back on the fixture. Right now I am working on the accessories; shocks, brakes, steering etc. Hopefully, by next week I can weld the chassis on the fixture and get on the ground rolling. Here's what it looks like so far.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0585.jpg)
The front end is basically done, except for the panhard bar.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0598.jpg)
here is a close up of the Offenhauser friction shocks.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0599.jpg)
Here is a good shot of the cockpit. The rack and pinion is a Stillettlo designed for a dragster. I wanted to use a vintage style steering gear, but I couldn't find one that would work with limited space in the front end. Scott had the footprint gas pedal in his collection, and it worked perfectly. I fabricated the new brake pedal.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0593.jpg)
I built solid motor mounts using the stock mounting points on the engine and trans.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0594.jpg)
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0595.jpg)
The tailshaft housing is mounted solid as well and braced to the rear end crossmember to minimize lateral flex.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0596.jpg)
These bent tubes will stabilize the rear end, and telescope out of the way to remove it.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0591.jpg)
The seat and steering wheel also came from Scott's collection. The seat is a flight seat from a P-39, and the wheel is the bomb sight yoke from a B-17. The aluminum seat was a little thin, so I welded some reinforcement panels where it bolts to the chassis.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%203/IMG_0592.jpg)
Here you can also see the brake linkage from the pedal to the master cylinder.
-
On my old tank( 60s era) the body was cut and the end dzused back on so the quick change gears were accessible.
-
Love your work on the tank.
I am working on a design for a stream liner and wonder if you could help me.
I wonder if you could get me the deminesions indicated below?
The distance between the welds, and the diameter at the welds.
Thanks, in advance.
(http://nlancaster.shackspace.com/dimensions.jpg)
-
Weld to weld - 9"
Diameter at weld 4"
-
Daniel, great looking work on the tank, looks like you are on a roll, Can you tell me how wide the rear and front axle are? I am am trying to decide how wide to go so I can order my rear and front axle. Any Help would be Great.
Thanks,
CJ
-
Weld to weld - 9"
Diameter at weld 4"
Thanks alot man.
can't wait to see your tank done.
-
CJ,
Sorry it took so long with those measurements. Here's what I've got:
Rear end axle to axle is 56"
Since the front end is still in the fixture, I couldn't put the hubs on the spindles, but by eyeball,
hub to hub looks like 58 1/2".
We used a Model A width rear end just for nostalgia sake, that is why the front and rear are different widths.
Hope this helps,
Daniel
-
Thanks for the measurements Daniel.I am trying to decide how wide to go - out wide - clear of the tank line, or in as close as the rules will allow,(more or less stability ? ).I would like to say that I will get it right the first time, but then what would be the fun in that and I can always narrow it up if I decide it is too wide, I'm thinking 60 inches for the Quickchange width and about 54 to 58 inches for the front axle.Once again ,thanks for the info and keep up the good work !
CJ
-
I'd recommend making the rear track narrower than the front. It will lead to more stable handling, especially under acceleration.
Pete
-
come to think of it, I have heard the same thing about a wider front track width being more stable. I would be careful to not get too narrow with the track width. Considering the shape of the bottom of the tank, and how much air can get under it, if you got it a little sideways, or even spun it, having the wheels way out there might be the ony thing that keeps you shiny side up. Just a thought.
-
come to think of it, I have heard the same thing about a wider front track width being more stable. I would be careful to not get too narrow with the track width. Considering the shape of the bottom of the tank, and how much air can get under it, if you got it a little sideways, or even spun it, having the wheels way out there might be the ony thing that keeps you shiny side up. Just a thought.
On our car we set the track widths the same in the interests of clean aero. There are two arguments as to why a narrow rear axle will keep the car straighter, the drag racing argument that there is less "leverage" on a narrower axle is pretty flimsy when it comes to the amount of traction you have on salt , the gearing LSR cars run and the type of power you guys are talking.The other argument( for which the proper tech escapes me now) is debatable as well due to the limited traction and contact patch.
The wider your track the less likely the turbulance from the wheels is to affect the airflow around the body, the only penalty is a bit of extra axle. If the wash from the wheels disturbs the airflow over the body there's no point in having something as nicely shaped as a tank.
BTW shuken, the tank is lookin good..... :cheers:
-
On speedway it used to be that the front was wider than the rear.The thinking being that a car will roll forwards ie. usually over front right wheel, the further that was away from the COG the harder it was to lift the remaining three wheels so gave you more stability.
I assume this is the same with drag racing in our sport through it usually a case of the rear overtakes the front and cars roll over the rear tyres so a wider rear may be better?
Go Karts put the tyres in to get more grip and out to get less...... Not sure what this all means but I guess you need to either have the front wider or the back wider or maybe both the same..... :? :? :?
-
I have to agree with Doc Goggles regarding both the track width, having the wheels the same width, and having the wheel far enough away from the body so that they do not interfere with the body air stream.
When you build a lakester using a surplus tank, you start with a shape that the government has spent big bucks on to make it as aero perfect as possible and everything you do to it makes it less aero perfect. Also when you have a low powered engine like the V4F motor that you are using you only have a very limited amount of power which will be pretty much the same for all cars in the class. From the aero side there are a large number of things that can be done to go faster. If you are building this tank to be a "period correct" car then you should proceed with your present path, but if you are looking to try to set a record you probably need to reconsider your aero approach. Your chassis is certainly very well designed and your fabrication great but none of this will have much affect on if the car will go fast. It is horse power vs. aero drag that sets the max speed. You have a pretty well set amount of HPs only having better aero than the competition will make it a record setter.
Rex
-
Rex,
Thanks for the input. What your'e saying about keeping the front and rear wheels inline for better aero makes sense, if all we were doing is trying to set a record. However, like you said, we are trying to build a "period correct" car. I would take it a step further though. If I was going after a lakester record I wouldn't use a belly tank at all. Don't get me wrong, I love the look of a 'tank, so don't throw me under the bus yet. :wink: I would build a lakester with a body designed to get air up and over the body, not under it, which I think is a drawback with the tank, since all the air passing below the centerline of the tank is creating lift, however minimal as it may be. Let's not forget that these things were designed to go under an airplane, and affect the plane's handling as little as possible. All that being said, a purpose-built lakester just doesn't have the mojo of a belly tank. And more power to the tank guys who can compete with the "dragster" cars and still set records. What do you guys think?
Daniel
-
Daniel,
The "clean sheet of paper" lakester design that you are proposing follows the present day thinking of Jack Costella, long wheel base, small frontal area, very low ground clearance and a flat bottom. Jack's cars have been extremely successful as is shown by the large number of records that they hold. I don't happen to agree with all of Jack's thinking and am presently working on a small displacement lakester design that when (and if) built will be more along the lines of a wing tank with some modification to the bottom.
Your statement regarding wing tank cars developing lift , ( not under it, which I think is a drawback with the tank, since all the air passing below the centerline of the tank is creating lift,) is not correct. A wing tank car, if it has sufficient ground clearance will actually generate down force, cause by the air that is going under the car having to accelerate to a higher velocity. (Bernoulli strikes again!) regretfully most of todays "tank" cars are ran with extremely low ground clearance which completely disrupts the air flow beneath the car and can actually completely destroy the aerodynamics of the lower half of the tank.
Rex
-
Daniel, can't tell from the pics, is the steering rack mounted on the front axle? or the frame... mounted on the axle well eliminate any bump steer, put a collapsible d or double d slider in the column.
Just a thought...
-
Re Stainless' comment.
The pictures look like the steering mounts to the spring perch and ,as Stainless described, anything other than an axle mount -with proper U-joints and plunge to match the suspension travel, will indeed create "bump steer.
(As clever and knowledgeable as Landracing posters are I won't be surprised that somebody will describe a sytem of links, levers and so forth that will disprove the axle mount being the only solution, HA!).
On the plus side, what great construction work! But, unless the spring rate is INFINITY,better re- think the steering,
-
My thoughts on a COMPETETIVE Lakester:
Absolutely the lowest frtonal area as possible and the SMALLEST WHEELS & TIRES!!!
Wide frt axle and a blunt frt nose withbody shape to get most of air over it as possible
Flat botton with 3 degs of rake for a lot of reasons:
narrow rear axle with exhaust pointed back down the track between the body and wheels over the axle
NO QUICK CHANGE OR FORD 9"
-
Absolutely the lowest frtonal area as possible and the SMALLEST WHEELS & TIRES!!!
check
Wide frt axle and a blunt frt nose withbody shape to get most of air over it as possible
check
Flat botton with 3 degs of rake for a lot of reasons:
check
narrow rear axle with exhaust pointed back down the track between the body and wheels ovwer the axle
same width and with the tailpipe straight out the rear here,....
NO QUICK CHANGE OR FORD "
Thanks to our man in arizona :wink: we're getting there...
Building a lakester involves a lot of compromises, Sparky has obviously made some smart decisions and has hats to prove it.
BTW Bill I tried to ring you yesterday :cheers:
-
sorry I missed the call
-
Rex,
The reason most of the tank cars out there, including mine, are so low is that unless you run a huge rear tire, the rear end hangs so low that the tank cant come up any higher. you could always notch the bottom of the tank, but that would kind of defeat the purpose. If you raise the tank for aero, you also raise the CG.
Stainless,
Yeah I did mount the rack to the chassis, but steering is still in the experimental phase. I did think about mounting it on the axle, and use a slider shaft to eliminate the bump steer, but with the space available it just worked out better that way. The thing that i hope will save me is that in my experience, with enough leafs in the cross spring, there is only about a half inch of trravel. I just got the chassis on wheels today, so i will check the bump steer situation and let you guys know how it turns out.
-
Sparky, What type of rear do you think is the best to use in a tank, I am getting ready to purchase a quickchange but if there is a better alternative I am all ears for someone with past experiences.
Thanks,
CJ
-
Depends what you are running for drivetrain and where and how you plan to run---
there is an extended thread about rears in the archives
Rex I would say that it is about TOLTAL drag reduction--Aero is the largest one
It remains the combination that produces the greatest tractive effort to the salt, with the least amount of drag that one can keep together for the required number of passes.
There are combos that are better in one area but may not be the best choice
I just happen to feel like air shifted trans and quick changes fall into that category
A lot of people or suprised when they learn that I run an auto, no tq converter and a stock valve body
-
Sparky, I am planning on running Maxton,Loring and hopefully go to the salt flats at least once.As for drivetrain I am going to start out running a 315 cubic inch alcohol injected smallblock chevy and a one - off two speed trans and I could end up with a 410 cubic inch motor. I only want to go so fast and then I will turn it over to someone who wants to go real fast,I am more about having the fun of building and tweeking of the car. Any advice would be Great.
CJ
-
I run 7.5 GM with a Torsen---I do not run on pavement and have no tq converter and a relatively light rear weight car 2200#--
A GM 8.5 is available from 2.41 up
A GM 8 7/8 has a 2.28 up gear
The QC with a Torsen may be a good compromise for what your choices are---its just eats up some of your TE before it get to the track would be handicapped at B'ville
-
A lot of people or suprised when they learn that I run an auto, no tq converter and a stock valve body
Well, as long as you have enough line pressure to keep the friction parts engaged during the shift and in high gear, why not? 10 psi over slippage is hard to estimate, but sometimes you can feel it.
-
I want the friction parts to slip some; as well as the tires to spin a little--not hard to do on the salt :-D
-
I want the friction parts to slip some; as well as the tires to spin a little--not hard to do on the salt :-D
:cheers: :cheers: I like your style.
Tom G.
-
How do you monitor internal slip - engine RPM vs. driveshaft, then adjust the relief valve on the fly?
-
don't
I just have watched the tach a time or two on the up shift how fast it fell and how it started the climb back up. We have good friction stuff and a good pump. I just do not want "bang shifts. I want the car to feel as little as it can during the shift. When running the PG we actually fall out of the tq curve by 350 rpm and we get a bigger hit some times from coming back up on the cam than the trans shifts, There are noticeably two separate events on a good track--on a slippery surface it just sorta blends into one, that we may have to pedal just a tad to get back WOT sooner.
I have data logged a previous car and had a pretty good idea on what TE it is possible to hook up with a rear weight of 22 -2300". my idea of TATC or Texas Aggie traction control. That was one of the main reasons I went with a PG, my idea of TATC or Texas Aggie traction control.
Eventually want to run hair driers and I know that it will require more smarts.
-
Daniel,
I spoke with you on the phone today about the lakester I am building. Thanks again for all of your help. I really appreciate it. Your belly tank looks awesome.
Charlie
-
:-o :? :-o :? :? Your belly looks awsome???? Something aint right there me thinks!
-
It's been busy in the shop lately, but I have made some progress on the tank. here's where i am at:
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0621.jpg)
The rollcage is tacked up and the shell is trimmed out for the cockpit. You can also see the
wooden buck for the aluminum headrest fairing (in progress)
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0610.jpg)
Scott found the vintage Moon fuel tank, which fit perfectly over the tailshaft. The firebottle
came from DJ Safety. There has been some talk of doing a dry sump on the banger. If we do,
I think we can fit an oil tank under the firebottle.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0611.jpg)
I built the push bar on quick pins so it can fold up and out of the way to
change gears.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0612.jpg)
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0626.jpg)
I filled the holes in the split 'bones with tubing
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0627.jpg)
Here is about half of the firewall behind the seat. After the headrest fairing is done, I can build the
upper half.
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/dshuken/tank%204/IMG_0614.jpg)
Tank wihout the buck for the fairing.
-
I have a quick qestion about your cage. What is the angle of the front hoop compaired to the horizontal attachment point?
Mike
-
Mike,
I usually set front hoops at 20-25 degrees from vertical. (NHRA mandates no less than 20) I think this one ended up at 22.
Hope that helps
Daniel
-
Yes it does! Thank you very much.
-
You might want to contact someone from tech about that angle. I know I bought a project that was started back in the early 90's and tech told me the front hoop had to be at least 30 deg. You can get a deviation request . When you look in your rule book it depicts a example of what they are looking for. Better to be safe then.......
-
Thought the belly tank guys would like this link. Really cool picture. Maybe somebody should copy the photo and put it on Land Racing.
Doug
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=524065 :cheers: