Thread: tin-man has some questions, it begins.....

Tweet

Can anyone direct me to previous posts that discussed the merits of the factory five 1933 hot rod replicas or 33 roadsters in general. What concerns me based on pictures I have seen on various for sale sites is the front end always seems really low to the ground and I am guessing this would present speed bump or inclined driveway issues without modifications to overall height of front end. Yep, pretty obvious observation, but I would like to review any discussions on this subject and to understand how adjustments could be made. BTW, if I misspeak or misstate some mechanical or technical terms I would appreciate some slack, I will learn.

Cheers, tin-man

We did have a couple members discussing these. And I know of at least one build. Probably done about now...
A search (above right) revealed this = Factory Five kits try it out.

I think this is the Factory Five that Mike has mentioned. Arrowhead is the site name for the builder and does show up here occasionally. His car is done, but it is on tour with the World of Wheels. I have seen the car from the very first boxes that arrived at his home right up to the finished car in my driveway - and it is beyond great:

Arrowhead's Hot Rod Site

This was at our monthly cruise in -
s car.jpg

Originally Posted by IC2

I think this is the Factory Five that Mike has mentioned. Arrowhead is the site name for the builder and does show up here occasionally. His car is done, but it is on tour with the World of Wheels. I have seen the car from the very first boxes that arrived at his home right up to the finished car in my driveway - and it is beyond great:

Arrowhead's Hot Rod Site

This was at our monthly cruise in -
Attachment 53263

Thanks for the search data 34_40 and what a build story, fantastic, what perseverance, my compliments to Arrowheads skills and attention to detail that enabled him to create a such a fine piece of workmanship. That said, I'm guessing by the looks of this picture the distance from the bottom of the grill to the floor is about 6 inches. Can anyone confirm this or let me know where I can look to get this detail? Cheers, tin-man

John,
The FF33 has a space frame with a custom designed IFS (independent front suspension) that is purpose built for road course performance - the project engineer wanted to out perform the FF Cobra on the road course, and he accomplished that goal. You are not going to be able to adjust the front ride height much without fouling up the suspension geometry, and unless you also raise the back you'd end up with a reverse rake which would look kind of silly. The only way you could easily accomplish raising the car would be with tire size, and again you'd have to be very careful or you'd end up with a "look" that just doesn't work, like a ghetto cruiser on 30's "...just 'cause I can, man." IMO, with the FF33 you either like everything about it or you pass. I looked hard at the FF33 when I was getting started in my decision process, and it did not work for me. I'm a bit more of a traditionalist relative to "the look", and there were just too many liberties taken with the body design for me. The parting line on the top, the "I-beam" look to the frame covers, the 12" "step over" to get in (and about a dozen other features) - all in all it simply screamed "KIT CAR" to me. Unlike the FF Cobra which looks like an original '66/'67 Shelby Cobra, the FF33 is a uniquely styled body with a stylized '33 grille, and there's no question what it is - a Factory Five 33 Hot Rod, and a true Kit Car where one gets about fifty boxes with virtually every part needed to complete the car, just add engine, tranny, wheels/tires and paint. No one will ever look at a FF33 and say, "Glass or Steel?", or "What year is it?". They have not been around long enough to establish a market, but I don't believe you'll ever see one cross the Barret Jackson stage drawing six figures, or even upper five's. Just my $0.02 on them.

If you want to see the "traditional" build, check out this guys's blog - http://www.project33.com/start.cfm

Yes, IC2, that's the one I was thinking about. Thanks!

I'm no help on the FF33 in particular because my general feeling about them mirrors Roger's comments, neither good nor bad, just a matter of taste. But I'd like to comment on lowered cars, rods in particular, and "the look".

This is related to the other comments in your intro post. Something about this genre of cars tipped your bottle, think about what that/those thing(s) were. If you learn about the rod world, like the people you meet, and want to "fit in" it's because you're somehow sympathetic to the "culture". I don't get too wrapped up in the culture thing, that's more for the rockabilly crowd, but we "mainstream" rodders actually have one too, just not as in your face as the folks who get into an almost costume mode (well, unless you think of "hawaiian" shirts as costumes.

While we don't have formal rules for what a rod looks like, or how it should be built, we do have understoood customs or conventions. The FF33 is intended to be outside those customs, again, neither good nor bad, just is. But they wouldn't fit in with the normal rod crowd, they're just too "sports carish" if I may try to classify it somehow.

Ride height. That's a basic custom of hot rods and street rods, with lower being a convention since about the mid to late '70s. Earlier styles were lower than their stock bretheren, but not as low as the later versions. Some get real carried away with it and do the airbag thing so that they can "lay frame" when parked (almost/actually no ground clearance), yet still be able to raise it up for driving. These involve compromises that some find objectionable, others feel it's worth the trade off. Again, a live and learn thing. You mentioned that the car above looked like about 6 inch clearance. With most rods that would be somewhat generous, at least for the lowest point on the undercarriage. 4-5 inches is very common. Just for fun I'll post a pic of the lowest clearance car I had some 20 years or so ago................1 5/8" at the bottom of the grille.

If you're going to participate and not have what's sometimes referred to as a "nose bleed car", you'll need to be aware of your environment. A car with 4-5", good scrub angle, and relatively safe to drive only needs what I would term modest attention to potential hazards. Most common are road hazards like pot holes and man hole covers that are elevated for whatever reason. Yes, speed bumps can be a PITA, as can be some driveway approaches if the ramp is steeper. You learn to be aware of those things, or get a nasty noise to remind you that you should be more aware. You can usually take drive ramps at an angle to increase clearance effects. You creep over speed bumps, or search for alternate paths around them, and so on. Leave the inattentive driving habits to the Honda drivers.

And if road clearance is really important and you still want a more unique vehicle, do a data search for DONK (if the commie masters will allow it).

DONK - "...'cause I can, man, 'cause I can."

donk.jpg

Bob, after visiting DONK I can fully understand why the Sphincter Police here in China censure some web sites, yuck, what an experience. BTW we called em' hammers when I was decidedly younger and considerably more nasty. That said, thank you for the road clearance education. My question was posed out of practicality regarding potential damage that could be caused by the low ground clearance. In any event the roadster is on my list for consideration as are the 32/33 3 window high boy rods. Just so you know my druthers are leaning towards the 32 -33 era Fords. So here is a question that puzzles me and was considered as moving to the dark side on the Club Cobra Forum, why would somebody ever even consider putting a Chevy engine in a Ford?.....and then the fight began.

Cheers, John, AKA, tin-man

Hay John,

Chevys are easier and cheaper to work on. You can build a Chevy engine for half of what it costs to build a Ford and have the same power (or more).

Don't worry about going over to the dark side. Over here on CHR I think that we are all on the dark side.

Originally Posted by Bug

Hay John,

Chevys are easier and cheaper to work on. You can build a Chevy engine for half of what it costs to build a Ford and have the same power (or more).

Don't worry about going over to the dark side. Over here on CHR I think that we are all on the dark side.

Hi Bug, I recognise your signature from CC, really cool, err, read your comment and here's one back, does that mean hot rod builders would put a Ford engine in a 57 Chevy classic? Yep, this has got to be the right place OK, seems I just read..... ''cause I can, man, 'cause I can." Cheers, John, AKA, tin-man

Good scrub angle, this sinner needs some understanding on this term. Cheers, tin-man.

Originally Posted by Bug

Hay John,

Chevys are easier and cheaper to work on. You can build a Chevy engine for half of what it costs to build a Ford and have the same power (or more).

Don't worry about going over to the dark side. Over here on CHR I think that we are all on the dark side.

Well, a half truth. The chevy will be cheaper for certain, easier can be a relative term,IMHO!

And we are not all on the dark side. Some exercise maturity and patience and are tolerant of the misguided!

Originally Posted by 34_40

Well, a half truth. The chevy will be cheaper for certain, easier can be a relative term,IMHO!

And we are not all on the dark side. Some exercise maturity and patience and are tolerant of the misguided!

Originally Posted by tin-man

Good scrub angle, this sinner needs some understanding on this term. Cheers, tin-man.

John, Google "scrub angle" or "scrub radius" and you'll find an abundance of discussion about the measurement of the difference at the ground between the line through the kingpin, a-arm mount points or strut centerline (depending on your suspension type) and the center of the tire contact patch, and how that affects handling.

My error on the scrub angle deal, should have said scrub line. While Roger is correct for the variations he noted, the scrub line basically involves an imaginary line from the bottom of a deflated tire/wheel to other inflated tires. No portion of the vehicle should be at or below that line so as to come in contact with the pavement to cause loss of control (and of course the additional damage).

As for the Chevy engine thing, it's been beat to death even moreso in rods than in the Cobra world. I'll put more of a historic twist on the story to better frame the argument. If you were a rodder in the early '50s when the flathead Ford V8 was still reigning supreme (though fading a little to the newly minted overhead engines from Olds, Caddy, and Mopar) and you and your bench racing buddies sat down to design the "ideal" engine you'd stipulate things like; compact outer dimensions that would allow fitment in most of the more popular bodies (generally pre-war Ford) without being forced to do major surgery to frame, firewall, rad placement, hoods, etc. Also you'd put the sump at the rear as that would clear the steering and front crossmember configurations on a majority of cars preferred by rodders. You'd make it with the starter on the right side rather than conflicting with the steering box. You'd make it lighter than the flathead because less weight is like free horsepower. And you'd make it so it would produce more horsepower with modest (read lower cost) upgrades. And you'd make it in huge relative numbers so it was, again, cheap and readily available. In other words you'd build the small block Chev. I doubt that Ed Cole and his team of engineers specifically targeted the hot rod community in their design parameters (other than maybe the design elements that supported "easy" horsepower increases).........but for whatever reason it worked that way. It was like a revelation to the rodders of the time. A stock wrecking yard pull out SBC had as much or more horsepower than a built flathead..............and once the yards started getting wrecks, cheaper (and lighter). The hot rod aftermarket jumped on them right away and discovered how readily they responded to traditional hot rod power tweaks, and opened the door to new ones. The SBC grabbed a foothold.

Meanwhile the OHV engine that Ford designed around the same time, the Y block, wasn't nearly as hot rodder friendly, and earned the scorn of all but the most blue oval loyal. It took Ford another 7 or so years to come up with their own small block which is a very good engine. But in standard wrecking yard take out form in many hot rod engine compartments it required modifications to accomodate additional length due to a water pump longer than the Chev, and often, a change in oil pump pickup and sump relocation. There's more to the story, but that should give you an idea. Momentum was on the side of the SBC, just as it had been on the flathead Ford before it. The true blue Ford guys have all manner of rejoinders to this, but they all involve jumping through extra hoops. Which is fine if you don't mind being stubborn, pig headed, and irrational.

In the Cobra replica world there's an opposite convention. Since none of the early advantages of the SBC apply, there's no historical rationalisation, nor any physical restrictions that support NOT using the Ford engine, big or small block. And since it's replicating an historical, iconic car, again the zeitgeist demands a Ford. Put a Chev engine in and it kills the market value (except in Europe for some strange reasion). Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' with it, ...................watch for incoming.