Belly tank lakesters

[Tman]

I'm not Glen but I never saw Bobby. Wayno

Thanks wayno! I was looking through Doug's coverage on the HAMB and noticed no shots of it. But, there were several nice tanks

[fastman614]

Fastman- Thanks for putting a little thought into the subject.

Although I've never read 1959 SCTA rules, wasn't the lakester class (even then) a special-construction category? I'm guessing there was no maximum length or maximum wheelbase rule- racers simply had not yet "gotten around to" building machines of twice-a-tank length.

In retrospect, I should have titled this thread "drop tanks", rather than "belly-", "wing-", or whatever.

Yes, it was (and always was) a special construction category. There were minimum wheelbase requirements as per the numbers in the present rule book....

... bellytanks/droptanks etc were the norm until the late 1960s when Howard Johnson and Jeff Shipley brought a front motor dragster to the salt - and went 270.885 mph for the A/Lakester record.... sort of an "unheard of" speed at the time..... Top fuel cars were "only" going high 220s.....

From there, several other dragster type cars showed up - most notably a #500 car belonging to Les Leggitt - and it was long - probably 240" w/b... If I recall correctly, in 1973, the car went 299 mph with a blown 300 inch motor and Mike Cook driving....

Rear engined dragster style lakesters have become more common ever since.... and suddenly, over the decades, the "unheard of" speed of 270.885 mph, set by a blown fuel "A" class car of yesteryear, has been exceeded by several miles per hour by a naturally aspirated 368 c.i.d Dodge engine on gasoline.... in a dragster style of chassis with a fully body "wrapped around it"....

WOW!

[Dr Goggles]

How about a belly tank "shootout" under about 1959 class rules - although with modern safety rules for roll cages, fire systems driver safety equipment etc?

This sounds fun enough to build one just for the event!

I love the enthusiasm, it's just that anyone who's built one will tell you.........

Oh it doesn't matter , I already said it, and so did some of the others...........

[kiwi belly tank]

There are so many different tank styles & different styles of cars built using tanks, that I don't differentiate between them. To me they're just all tanks & all just oozing with gallons of cool!
It doesn't matter if they fell off the wing of a 105, were stuck to the belly of an F16 or came out of a mold!
They're just all bloody cool!!
  Sid.

[greyforestlakester]

I got one from an Albatross that I want to build.  My design goal is to build it to current safety standards but for it to be like a modernized version of the SoCal tank.  I even have a v-8 60 for it.  I was disappointed to learn on my first visit to the salt last year that a "flathead is a flathead", no distinction for the smaller cubes.  I also have a friend who will donate a 215 Buick so maybe that could have some speed potential.  I just want to build the thing and have it pass tech.

[RichFox]

The only place that a V8-60 would be happy is Midget Oval Track. And that's a shame. I still think the X claswses should have a F-E-D-C range.

[Dr Goggles]

I got one from an Albatross that I want to build.  My design goal is to build it to current safety standards but for it to be like a modernized version of the SoCal tank.  I even have a v-8 60 for it.  I was disappointed to learn on my first visit to the salt last year that a "flathead is a flathead", no distinction for the smaller cubes.  I also have a friend who will donate a 215 Buick so maybe that could have some speed potential.  I just want to build the thing and have it pass tech.

This bloke is near the middle of it. For starters if you want to build one like the So-Cal you should sell the tank off the Grumman ( unless of course if it is the same tank as the "38" style)and buy one of Wayno's 'glass 38's, there are some very good models and a heap of photos of the So-Cal so the historical aspect would a whole lot more authentic.

I agree with you and Rich that there should be class breaks for the flatties.

Packaging is one of the real issues for tank builders and I'm pinching myself at the big fish that this very topic has landed. Jack mentions...

"Although I've never read 1959 SCTA rules, wasn't the lakester class (even then) a special-construction category? I'm guessing there was no maximum length or maximum wheelbase rule- racers simply had not yet "gotten around to" building machines of twice-a-tank length."

Anyone who has built one and talked the talk with other builders knows the exponential increase in work of fitting everything in as the car approaches completion.........

"This sounds fun enough to build one just for the event! "

Ha!..... I defy anyone who thinks they can build a competitive one IN AN ORIGINAL TANK cheaply, or quickly.

The Buicks are a great choice due to their length( any V6 is ) but you need to remember where the class breaks are for engine capacity a 215 is way short of the 260 you can use in E class, a 232 is better use of the space. However, you might want to look at the 181 as it sneaks into F class and it means there are OEM bits designed for the larger capacities that are easily adaptable/bolt on for the 181.

[Stan Back]

The 215 is the aluminum model V-8 -- a long way from being competitive in the E Class.

The great thing about the SCTA is that they let you build almost anything.  There is no requirement to be competitive -- if there was -- most of us couldn't run.

Every time someone wants to build something non-competitive, they want a different class.  I'm sure there already over 1000 SCTA classes and only 500 vehicles run at SpeedWeek.

But they can.

Stan Back

[fastman614]

Dr G.... I well understand the trials and tribulations of building cars!.... Not that I have ever built a belly tank lakester though! (and, who knows - perhaps that little fact may disqualify me from knowing anything about the topic...)

... but I HAVE built cars .... and street rod chassis'.... and roll cages ....and full rolling dragrace chassis' ..... and motorcycles .....etc ..... from the ground up....

But if there was an era specific shootout - on a regular basis (at least annually) ..... I stand by saying it would be a fun event and fun enough to build a car for it....

BTW -competitive, quick and cheap were concepts that you, sir, added.....  I was NOT inferring or referring in any way that a retro look belly tank car would have competitiveness with or against today's records.... I would keep my rear engined dragster style car for that....as, so far, it has been up to the task of running fastest in it's class...

[Brad54]

As a new guy here (but long-time unregistered lurker) and fresh owner of a "belly tank" (as of 1pm this afternoon!) I completely get what the OP was talking about.
Maybe that's because I can also see the difference between "Vintage gassers" and modern gassers and "vintage Front Engine Dragsters" and modern front engine dragsters without shooting someone down on little more than semantics.

The OP was talking about a sub-category for tear-drop shaped Lakesters and streamliners, so that they aren't forced to compete against Cigar Tube Lakesters and Streamliners.

If someone is building a vintage-appearing gasser to race (or restored one from the '60s), it's got modern safety equipment, probably a modern engine, but no electronic delay boxes, it sits nose-high with a tube axle, and has period-looking wheels and paint, and no aero.
Modern gassers are slammed, have aero noses, modern scoops and often rear wings, and modern paint jobs. While the nostalgic body may be a '41 Willys, it sure doesn't resemble the car Stones, Wood and Cook ran.
Guys building the modern cars don't care about the guys building the vintage style, and tell them "If you want to be competitive, then build a competitive car."
Guys who like the old stuff want to race against like-minded individuals with similarly styled, technologically-similar cars.

I found some of the posts here interesting... guys talking about how they like the open rules and don't want to be hemmed in by sub-classes, and the general feeling of "if you want to be competitive, then build a competitive car" when some of the records are over 300mph.

But it's obvious SCTA has seen a need for these kinds of changes in other classes, hence the Classic category for the door-slammers, and the V4 and XO classes...
Otherwise, the guys who wanted to be competitive should have built competitive cars... they shouldn't have asked for dedicated classes to run their pre-'80s body styles, or their flat-head 4 cylinder engines... I mean, there are already engine classes covering every displacement... if someone wanted to run an antique 4, then that's their problem. They should have just sucked it up and gone out for fun, rather than ask everyone to cater to them.

Right?
(and while I'm on a roll for my first post... how much of an affect did opening up new classes and niches have on Land Speed popularity, interest and new builds/competitors?)

I'll shut up now.

-Brad

[maguromic]

But it's obvious SCTA has seen a need for these kinds of changes in other classes, hence the Classic category for the door-slammers, and the V4 and XO classes...
Otherwise, the guys who wanted to be competitive should have built competitive cars... they shouldn't have asked for dedicated classes to run their pre-'80s body styles, or their flat-head 4 cylinder engines... I mean, there are already engine classes covering every displacement... if someone wanted to run an antique 4, then that's their problem. They should have just sucked it up and gone out for fun, rather than ask everyone to cater to them.

Right?
(and while I'm on a roll for my first post... how much of an affect did opening up new classes and niches have on Land Speed popularity, interest and new builds/competitors?)

I'll shut up now.

-Brad

I wouldn't say vintage engines aren't uncompetitive, there is a 200 mph Model T engine and a bunch of records over 200 with model A engines and a bunch of XF and XXO engines over 200 and a few over 300. Also lets not forget the flat head A motors like Nathan's that are running some crazy speeds

The big hurdle you will have for a new class is getting all the clubs inline.   Tony

[racergeo]

   I'll go out on a limb and make the following dogmatic statement. You put Fastman 614's engine in Charles Markley's belly tank and you got a 290mph potential ! Years ago I used to go to a church that fasted a few times a year, so Fastman I feel your pain.
           
                           

[RichFox]

If you put the Markley Brothers old Dodge in the Markley Brothers tank it had 290 potential. And proved it.

[Brad54]

But it's obvious SCTA has seen a need for these kinds of changes in other classes, hence the Classic category for the door-slammers, and the V4 and XO classes...
Otherwise, the guys who wanted to be competitive should have built competitive cars... they shouldn't have asked for dedicated classes to run their pre-'80s body styles, or their flat-head 4 cylinder engines... I mean, there are already engine classes covering every displacement... if someone wanted to run an antique 4, then that's their problem. They should have just sucked it up and gone out for fun, rather than ask everyone to cater to them.

Right?
(and while I'm on a roll for my first post... how much of an affect did opening up new classes and niches have on Land Speed popularity, interest and new builds/competitors?)

I'll shut up now.

-Brad

I wouldn't say vintage engines aren't uncompetitive, there is a 200 mph Model T engine and a bunch of records over 200 with model A engines and a bunch of XF and XXO engines over 200 and a few over 300. Also lets not forget the flat head A motors like Nathan's that are running some crazy speeds

The big hurdle you will have for a new class is getting all the clubs inline.   Tony

You made my point for me... why are there XF and XXO classes designed specifically for Model T, Model A and Flathead engines? The Model T engine is a four-cylinder that is easily covered by the cubic inch class breaks... why shouldn't it run against an Ecotech or Honda 4-cylinder? If someone wants to run a 4 cylinder and be competitive, there were already classes that covered them... Why did they need their own V4 and V4F classes? Why the need for the XO and XXO classes?

-Brad

[Tman]

Welcome Brad, and remember, this is a different game.