Thread: Anyone built/building a Shell Valley roadster???

Tweet

If so any input?


Thanks, Scott

If this http://www.shellvalley.com/Replicas_...a/roadster.asp is what you are talking about I am not impressed. Does not look "right" to me. But what do I know?

Did you mean the '28 roadster?? If so, nice car for the price. I've put two of them together, and have one of their bodies going on a narrowed Deuce frame now. Their glass is good quality, doors and deck lid fit good. Been to their plant and know some of the guys fairly well. For what they cost, it's a lot of car. E-mail me if you have any other questions and I'll see if I can help you.

I agree with Bib_overalls...Somethin just doesn't look right about those roadsters. Kinda looks like a combinaton Go kart/Shriners car replica.
STEEL IS REAL! (expensive)

Ya that lowboy Duece is Right ON!It looks Pretty Slick

As one who enjoys the rear quarter panels of the '28-'29 as "art" with erotic overtones, I would say the the rear view is pretty good, although I am fainting just over the thought of the cost of chroming the 9" rear! Anyway if you look at the Speedway catalog, the '32 Loboy built by Street Rodder is close to AMBR quality in appearance, but the other two are not even though built from the same kit. What this means is that some small key features (and color) define good style in the collective consciousness of Rodders, although we may not all agree on specific features. What this means to me is that "the look" depends on trends which may or may not be timeless. Since I have to have fenders to gain the approval of my wife, I will probably stay close to the "resto-rod" look and hope that it is classic and timeless, although baby moon caps on steel wheels takes me back to good memories of the '50s even though modern mag wheels are almost standard. So "the look" is subjective, but the three examples of the Speedway Loboy show that you can goof it up if you are not careful. Maybe the side shot of the Shell roadster would look better from a higher angle? As it is the shot is too low and again we may overlook the skill of car photographers in making pleasing layouts for magazine features.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Haven't seen these in person so can't pass first hand judgement, but the one's in the link Bib posted are probably offending your eyes because the grille shell is too far forward and sits a bit too high. That coupled with the hood panel wrapping down too much make it look nose heavy. The channel over a stock A style frame is too shallow to make it look low enough, but if it were mounted on top the frame wouldn't have enough heft to balance the body.

Dave, if you get a chance to post a pic of it on the deuce rails with the grille shell in the right place it might look better.

Don, your comments about "the look" being subjective is fairly accurate. However, proper proportion is a constant. If a car's got it, it will look right whatever the style. If it doesn't, most folks who can tell the difference will feel "uncomfortable" about it even if they can't express why specifically.

Bob, thanks for an excellent observation about the deuce shell. While we are on that topic, I will have to face the same question soon. I have always wanted a Deuce shell but as this example shows it is possible to mess it up and I have seen a lot of Deuce shells without the proportion you mention. So, what is the proper height for a '32 shell on a '29 cowl? One article I read said to get a '31 A radiator from Walker to get the right height for the deuce shell on a Model-A but that may still be too high for a '29? The cop out for me would be to just install a chromed stock appearing '29 shell and achieve a resto-rod look for a '29, but maybe I can squeeze in a slightly larger radiator with a Deuce shell AND maybe the Deuce shell offers just a tad of aerodynamic streamlining on an otherwise non-aerodynamic '29 body. However it is all too easy to just hang a Deuce shell on the front and end up like the Shell roadster. In your experience what is the correct chopped height of the '32 shell for a '29 cowl. Maybe Dave Severensen has also thought about this. In the absence of a comfortable feeling about the proportion of the outcome I will just go with the resto-rod stock '29 look.

Best Wishes,
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Getting the proper fore/aft would be easy since you're doing the beam axle setup, the rad mounts to the crossmember, and the shell mounts to the rad. As for height that will have to be a function of your doing a mock up. I haven't done one of those personally so don't have any typical measurements for you. But what you want to do is set the chassis at ride height and then run a line forward from the cowl. You want the top of the rad shell slightly lower than the top of the cowl. You've got some to play with depending on what looks good to you. Remember though, if you drop it too much then the side panels will have to be more like parallelagrams and you won't be able to use ready made parts (which end up needing some trimming anyway to get "perfect" gaps). Once you've done the setup then you can figure out if you need to section the shell, or just trim the bottom to allow it to drop down far enough. Since the fender/gravel shield are different on the A from the '32 you'll be doing trimming anyway. Then, based on the space behind the shell, you'll know what size radiator will fit in there.

Richard's comments alert me that I probably need to clarify what I mean by slightly. We're talking fractions of an inch, probably less than 3/8. And for a stock A or a '32 shell, I agree, lean back or forward looks weird. Didn't mean to imply that if I did. If you look at my '32 roadster in my gallery that was about 1/4" down.

The other point to clarify is that this fitting thing can be a bit tedious. You really need to start by shimming the body to square it up, particularly for the sake of the door and deck openings. Then as you move forward hanging parts you may have to raise or lower the cowl or the tail, or maybe do some twist to the body shell, and then tweak the hinges for the doors. And you may have to play with the fenders too. It's a back and forth process where you may sometimes feel like you'll never hit it right. That's when you want to do as Richard suggested and step back again. Look it over from a distance and visualize what needs to be done.

BTW, that fraction of an inch thing can be quite apparent to the eye. Next time you're at a rod event see how many cars are just a bit off with the grill shell too high. It seems to be especially prevalent on model A's. Once you're aware of it the upward sloping (to the front) hood looks pretty dorky.

Bob and Tech1, thanks a bunch for the details. It would seem that using a '32 shell on a '29 cowl is not easy, but when it is done right it looks great, not otherwise. Maybe it is worth trying/wasting a fiberglass Deuce shell and if it doesn't look "right" I can go back to a chromed '29 shell. Probably I will have to use an extra radiator fan anyway so a slightly larger radiator won't make much difference. Recent measurements prove the choice of a short water pump was right but maybe not the dual belt crank pulley. If I keep the dual belt pulley I may have to use just a fan shroud with no room for an electric fan. Anyway I think I will get a fiberglass Deuce shell and mess with it a bit. I started out trying to buy just what is needed and no more but I have already wasted a few items as the reality of installation set in. Thanks. Just to be fair to the Shell roadster would a straight view of the side show a parallel hood? Maybe the camera angle is too low and maybe it would look different with the camera higher? I still think a good photographer could make a more flattering shot, but a magazine shot is "art" while standing next to it in a gas station is "real".

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd restart this one which may be close. On the "carnut" site there is a nice fendered '28 roadster shown under 1928 Fords as No. 248 and 259. I think this car was also mentioned in Street Rodder at one time but I don't know the month. Besides a nice finish, the feature of interest to me is that the windshield posts appear to be tilted back by about 15 degrees, maybe 20. However neither picture of the car shows a side view that would show the angle of the posts. To me this looks like a relatively easy way to add a little less wind resistance to an otherwise vertical windshield. Of course this lowers the top a bit more so a related question is whether this was done to a 2" chopped windshield frame or to a stock height frame? Maybe someone remembers this car at a meet? I think it won some award at a meet about a year ago and I would like to contact the owner for a few details on the tilted posts. Anybody else ever try the "post-tilt trick" on a roadster?

Don Shillady
retired Scientist/teen rodder

Thought I'd try again on the idea of tilted roadster windshield brackets. At least maybe to get some comments on the roadster in the carnut site. It looks to me that the top of the posts must have also been tilted so that there would be a mount for the front bow. I guess that means the windshield frame brackets have been cut and "Z-ed" like a frame, with maybe a 20 degree Z. One drawback seems to be that the bow still forms a protruding edge on the top which kind of reduces the slight gain in streamlining with the back tilt. Maybe the brackets and bow can still be set up so there is less of an "eyebrow"? My interest is in a sort of poor man's Duval windshield by just tilting the glass back. Comments?

Don Shillady
Retired Chemist/teen rodder

Don,
That model A has the posts pie cut just above the top mounting bolt................perhaps it's just a terminology thing, when you say Z'd you meant pie cut. Pie cut is basically a V shaped piece removed and the remaining rejoined. Z'ing would have made the pillars return on itself at a different plane.

Here's a pic and a link showing a similar concept on a Deuce. In this case, new lower stanchions were cast to accomplish the layback. http://www.roadsters.com/rodwell/

Early Austin Healy afficionados will remember the 100-4's had a laydown windshield feature too..............for streamlining in race events.

I would suggest you don't want to totally eliminate the "brow" effect on the top from an esthetics standpoint. True, it corrupts the aerodynamics, but I think it would be difficult to get a "flush" header bow shape that wouldn't look truncated unless it had sufficient loft and flow.

Bob, Thanks for your usual quality expert answer. I can see the pie-cut at the bottom of the posts at the back to make the windshield lay back, but I wondered if there was a "Z" effect if the top of the posts also had a pie-cut in the front so that the top tips would again be vertical. To me that looks like a flattened Z. Anyway after thinking about it myself I can see that the layback trick could play havoc with the top bows (which are not cheap!) so the question will be for me whether the layback will mess up the top bows more than I can handle with shortening the front parts of the top bows. I think the eybrow could be reduced with a special header (all flat stock) in which the sockets are maybe a bit forward to make more of a flush front edge similar to what you show on the Deuce picture. Anyway does anyone know the owner of the roadster in the carnut pictures? It looks great to me!

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder