Wheel Vintiques "Gennie's" from Summit, not cheap!! A tip that I got from a more experienced builder, "Buy your wheels and hubcaps from the same shop."Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry clayton
Printable View
Wheel Vintiques "Gennie's" from Summit, not cheap!! A tip that I got from a more experienced builder, "Buy your wheels and hubcaps from the same shop."Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry clayton
Roger, bear in mind that the 700R4 has a 3.06 first gear. Put that in front of 3.89's, and you have the first gear equivalent of an M21 Muncie in front of a 5.41 differential. I have 3.70's in my '34, and it doesn't need any more "punch" in the lower gears. If the tires stick, the acceleration is insane!
Thanks for that input Jack. A 3.70 set will put me at 1922rpm at 70 with the tall tires I've got coming, which is just about right.
Oh man, don't lighten up now Roger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put a set of 4.11's in the back with a spool, some big sticky Goodyears and go play with the kids on Saturday Night!........Then put the 3.70's with the posi back in when someone tells you to act your age!!!!!!!:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
Old story and probably told you.....Had the Nash 5 speed, (2.64 low) 6.00's on a spool and 10.5 X 29.5 Hoosier DOT slicks, and one of Scott's 408 Windsor's in a Maverick that was my Saturday Night Special for a few years-------Absolutely the most fun you could ever hope to have in a car (clothes on, that is)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:whacked::whacked::whacked:
Glad you've taken some of my suggestions Rog, it outta turn out killer.
Another suggestion,get your color for the body picked out, then your interior
color. Match your wheels to the interior color and Bingo ! Clean, simple and SWEEEEEEEEEEET.
Windshield and top ordered !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:LOL::eek::LOL: 6's w/ a 2.64 is a 15.84 mechanical advantage out of the hole!!:eek: That first gear must have been done in about 75 feet!!:LOL::LOL: The 3.06 and 3.7's is 11.3 which is pretty deep for the street!:LOL::LOL:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
Funny you should mention the colors, Don. I was at the paint store yesterday afternoon picking up some black & clear for the loose frame parts, fanning out color chips and talking to the two young artist's in the back about complimentary colors for wheels. I'd like to get the wheels painted in the next couple of weeks so that once the frame's sorted out I can get it sitting on rubber. The black top is going to look great with black frame, dark body, black top. Now for interior that adds some pop without looking funky....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DA34GUY
Oh, and the six little words that are so often found to be false when strung together, '...the check's in the mail!!!';):3dSMILE::3dSMILE:;)
Can/t go wrong with a worn saddle look roger, in either black, dark blue, dark green etc
.....or with the right medium dark blue on the body maybe a dark charcoal gray in the cockpit. I foresee another hour or two at the paint shop with the color chips **)Quote:
Originally Posted by DA34GUY
When I got back home from a late afternoon errand Big Brown had dropped off an offering of four new tires for the project!
Attachment 60778
I set one of the back tires next to the BFG P285's on the '33 and they're just shy of a full inch taller, which is soooooo cool! They measure 31.7" diameter and should fill the wheel well perfectly with a strong 8" of tread width at less than 50% of Coker's price for the big meats on the '33 :D:D Four tires for $410 at my door. Not bad, not bad at all!!
Nice score on the tires Roger!
If you're going for dark blue and trying for some nostalgia vibe I'd suggest oxblood for the interior and wheels. Grey is too street roddy......................release your mind...........:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by rspears
Attachment 60779Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
Attachment 60780
Something like this, Bob?
Ox Blood and Dark Blue :cool::cool::cool::cool:
Great combo
So the PO painted the chassis black, but the differential, ladder bars, brake pedal and extension bar were all painted an "interesting" greenish gray.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...ps15afe396.jpg
He "remembered" that it was an epoxy primer with Eastwood's Aluma Blast, which is an acrylic lacquer which would mean it has to come off before re-spraying. However, the finish would not soften with lacquer thinner or reducer, so I'm going to rough everything with a red scotch brite pad, clean it good and give it a seal coat of good epoxy primer followed by black base & clear.
With the body on the frame I realized that the back end was not seated and noticed that it was sitting on the brake line fittings. A quick look at my '33 confirmed the need for a relief cut which I should have known was necessary, but was done on my roller package from N&N.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...psb95bfa0c.jpg
With the body back on the frame and down tight I hogged out the holes a bit and got everything bolted down. In that process I noted that the metal internal bracing, which fits at several of the body mount holes, is not bonded to the body anywhere. This structure is at the cowl, and there is a piece of sheet metal welded to the top rear that sort of forms to the top of the cowl but it has a gap of at least 1/4". Seems to me that for the steel to function as an overall stiffener it needs to be bonded to the body. I can use body filler, but there may be a better way?
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...ps807ff980.jpg
I had looked at the bracing in the back earlier, but the more I thought about it the less I liked the way it was done. The 1x1 tubing structure braces the door latches, and extends back to wrap across the interior seating area which is fine. What concerned me is the extension that angles back on both sides, anchoring at the rearmost body bolt and extending with a loop across the back just below the trunk opening.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...ps6e90cbec.jpg
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...psa2b467f6.jpg
My concern is that any significant impact from the rear is going to push through that bracing into the structure immediately behind the seats, an potentially deforming that structure into the driver/passenger. Since I've been hit twice from the rear, the more I looked at it the less I liked it so it now sits on the shop floor.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...psf707904f.jpg
This is the revised view from the trunk opening, which is very nearly like my '33 in function.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...psb78b1bf9.jpg
Monday I'll stop by the metal shop and pick up a couple of pieces of 1/8" strap, nominal 1.5" x 30" and form them to fit the arch of the floor between the two rear body mounts.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...pscb2df32c.jpg
Once bolted in place I'll weld it to the tab of the remaining bracing which shows on the left, tying them all together. Any lifting force will have to rip out the entire trunk floor area as opposed to pulling out a small plug around a mounting bolt.
I've got a bit of welding to do, then will be pulling the body again and getting everything out of the way to paint the loose parts of the driveline, and to hit the outside rail of the frame with two or three coats of clear. Once that's done I'll get started mounting the front & rear suspension, and get this chassis on the ground.
Looking GOOD Roger !
Wow, I don't like that bracing at all!!!! Just a suggestion to ponder. How about if it were a "two rail" brace, the bottom rail following the trunk floor and attaching into the other structure where the cross bar is on the bottom, then a second bar about at the peak of the trunk floor and going to where the top cross brace is? The force would still be moving into the passenger compartment, but it would seem the lower bar would also bend down from the point where the top bar welds to it to the back of the car????
At this point all of the bracing back from the passenger compartment surround is out of the car, which mimics the bracing on my '33 coupe other than the fact that this one is not tied to the body at all, other than at the floor in six of the twelve frame mounts. I'm going to add a strap brace on the trunk floor, to spread the forces beyond the bolt points. In a rear end collision any force that's not absorbed by the frame shatters fiberglass until it reaches the area forward of the differential. If it reaches that point and is still significant it's time to kiss one's butt goodbye anyway.
Interesting discussion on the steel, "planning" for a rear end collision raises a lot of questions that just can't be answered. Like the speed of the "offending" vehicle, or the size of it!
I am NOT saying you shouldn't go through the exercise of trying to better what you have! I'm just a curious and interested observer!! :LOL::LOL:
Oh, in regards to color choices... you can use the "standards", you know... the been there / done that's.. or try and find something that's just a bit original! Like the rear axle, that was a unique color, curious if it could've been easily duplicated?
But it isn't my car, just my opinion! and no ones paid me to run their wheels ever!:LOL:
Not my car either, but I sure do agree with Mike! Last "big" show I went to I got so tired of looking at all the "look alike" coupes and roadsters.....I think I saw every variation of red/buckskin cars imaginable!Quote:
Originally Posted by 34_40
It's going to take something unique to make the car look personalized. A personal note, when I got my '57 I had a few too many "experts" tell me everything the car HAD to have to be an old style gasser clone that I just flat gave up listening to anyone about it and decided to build what I wanted...Now the car is a fun build again!!!! Oh yeah, last 30's coupe I built was "back-halved" with 1 5/8" tubing, had a 12 point cage, an ex-sprint car style (ie all lightened up) Brodix aluminum block and heads and an old "mid rise" Offy dual four intake, narrowed up quick change (bought at a circle burner swap meet) complete with pinion yoke driven cooling pump, two aluminum drag car seats with some extra foam under the upholstery.
I seriously doubt you'll succumb to the pressure of "how it has to be", just wanted to toss in my 3 cents worth (up a penny due to cost of living increases).:whacked::rolleyes::LOL:
Thanks for the comments, guys. I truly appreciate any comment that's about the build approach, what's being done, "should be" done, or might be cool! Those things plant seeds in the mind, and when I'm out in the barn all of a sudden become a new approach. I'm also very much in agreement about color choices. The cars that draw my attention are those that stand out because they're not just cookie cutter clones of something that "worked" for somebody else. I'm thinking more & more that I need to go get the paint chips and spend a morning with them ;)
On the bracing, to me the bracing on a fiberglass car is there for only to stiffen the body and help prevent flex that's going to lead towards cracking down the road. The puny 1x1 mild steel tubing cannot be considered a "safety" feature to protect the occupants as it's just not beefy enough or there's not enough of it. I looked at the way the rear loop was done, decided it didn't add enough value to overcome the risks I saw (having been hit from behind with a 70mph differential) so it's gone. That's also why I think it's important to "glue" the body to the steel around the cockpit, to tie the steel and glass together into one integral unit bolted to the frame.
Roger, I've never worked on a fiberglass car, but on boats they use wood stringers for structural support that are resigned and glassed in that give quite a bit more strength to the vessel. Not sure if you can glass over steel, but you could definately get more stiffness and protection with some hard wood glassed onto the inside of the rear where nobody would see it.
Very Nice, it's coming to gether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rspears
Roger one reason the steel is not bonded to the fiberglass is that the glass and steel move around different in the heat and you would be able to see that in the sun after it was painted... My '33 roadster was from Westcott and it had a steel cage in it and that was the reason they gave me for not bonding the steel to the glass... even the coupe from N&N the steel is not bonded in places you could see after it's done..
I'd thought about that, wondering if the bonded spots might be a "tell" in the heat. On my coupe the steel in the body and door that mounted the hinges ran full height against the fiberglass, and the same for the striker side. This one has a piece of steel "floating" on the front door edge of the body, simply bolted to the fiberglass and not tied into the steel structure of the cowl. I suppose that the body is pretty stiff in that area, but it strikes me odd. On the jamb side the steel in the body surround runs up from the body to frame bolt, and has a little box kickout about 3" high and 2" wide to close the gap to the door jamb, and the only thing tying them together is the striker bolt. Again, just strikes me odd that the support was not shifted forward and tied to the body in a few places. I guess it's OK, but I'm feeling a little "iffy" with it at the moment. I suppose the steel is just there to hang things from, like the steering column up front, and not so much to stiffen the body.Quote:
Originally Posted by parkwood
YES, do not bond the steel to the fiberglass. Would make a real mess of outside surface of your car after it heats in the summer and cools in the winter and goes through lots of heat/cool cycles daily during its lifetime. You are right, just there to hang things from and stiffen the door hinges and latches, to to stiffen body
As Gary said Rog, DON'T bond it. Nothing wrong with bolting the 2 together
Steel and fiberglass expand and contract @ a differant rate, causing lot's of problems.
That's the way Cheeeeeepie bodies are made, and most of those are done with a chopper.
OK, I've got the No Bonding point. I'm not sure if it's that this body sat on a flat dolly for five years, or if it's just a normal thing but the doors are about 1/4" wider at the top than the bottom and the passenger side has to be forced closed at this point. I was attributing it to not being anchored well enough but I guess that's not the case. I'm going to look at it closer tomorrow, but thinking that I need to shim the body mount at the back of the cowl up a bit,the one just at the back of the door, or both.
Roger take a look at the Wescott web site they have a good tech part about how to shim the body.... www.wescottsauto.comQuote:
Originally Posted by rspears
Thanks for the Wescott link! That's a very well written guide.
Yes i pretty much wore the pages out on that plan when i was shimming my roadster body for the first time... never having done one before it was sure a lesson by fire..Quote:
Originally Posted by rspears
Good source, Wescott's have been at it a long time and sure do build some quality units!!
Hummmmmmmmm---post # 22??????????????
However---I don't agree with the article about supporting the frame at the front and back----it needs to be supported by the suspension or possibly at the wheel c/l areas so it has the natural flex to the frame--support at the ends causes a dip to the middle which distorts the roadster (topless) bodies severly in the door opening/door fitment area-----------an issue that doesn't show up as bad with a coupe/sedan-----
Not to argue the point Jerry, but if you look at the cross section of the fully boxed '32/33/34 frame it's hard for me to imagine that there is much flex influence by shifting the rear support points back two feet to the rear spreader bar. The only force involved is gravity on the mass of the frame, and the article deals with measuring the static level points across the rails. I can't see that placement of the support points really matters as long as they are consistent and not staggered.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry clayton
Its your car Roger-------------
However you are dealing with a frame with a c notch cut over the rear axle and using a poorly braced open top body----if you would place a cross pole in/at that c notch, you would eliminate most of the flex------------maybe some of the other body work guys will chime in--------
and Roger this isn't just nitpicking your work but trying to contribute some usful info to a thread that might be helpful to some others--------
To be clear, we're talking about a bare frame sitting on three jack stands with no weight considered other than the mass of the frame itself, as shown in the Wescott Instructions, and you're opinion is that the frame is going to flex at C notch because the supports are on the back spreader bar? I think you'd better go back and review basic statics. If the C notch allows flex under that loading it would be sagging when you fill the gas tank!!
Thanks,daytonagary,,and parkwood.. I've only just got back to this thread,,and I was going to suggest Wescott's site,too.. They would have to have the best looking steel cage I've seen,,and intend to use a few of their ideas in our own glass bodies..:cool:
No Roger I'm not saying that the frame is going to flex at the c notch----------I'm saying that the whole frame will have enough droop over its total length that isn't consistant with the down force from the length between the suspension points-------and then with the weight of a body added, especially an open top body, it will flex even more and will be an issue with the door gaps at the top------------and the issue with the c notch is that normally about all that is behind there is the fuel tank and yes, definitely you will have different droop with full/empty tank that will be evident at the trunk door line---------
and as to basic statics--------I'd probably have to guess if you want to list your experience with statics-----maybe I'd list mine---maybe we could do a poll???
Sorry Jerry, but your position switches more often than the weather, to suit the whim of the moment and prolong the "discussion". Kind of like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize that the pig simply enjoys the mud, and couldn't care less about the wrestling. Just declare yourself the winner and I'll get on with my build.
Poll, Schmoll.
Jerry, I've built over 100 32's in my years of being @ this game, and have never had 1 have the frame flex as you so stated. These frames are 2" x 6 " and they don't flex @ all, they may twist a little but that the nature of the beast.
I usually don't comment on your post's but Roger is doin it right.
Go back and lay by yer dish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rspears
This is your post that caused me to tell you about the support while working on it-----------I'll remove myself from this thread
