Jive-Bomber submitted a new blog post: The Roadsters Return... Continue reading the Original Blog Post
Yes, the T with the banger is really cool. But I couldn't resist the deuce with flathead and fiesta's.
Ooooh! I see some familiar material here...The yellow '32 roadster by Ivan Scorscur was 'petted' by humble self during its construction, as I was a 'San Jose Homeboy'... The '34 roadster was built by Henry Rootlieb, (owner/founder of the famous 'T' Hood Works, in Turlock, CA.) Car was built from a '34 sedan; a staple at Lodi every year, craftsmanship was impeccable. More roadsters are existent now than ever before...and even more under construction. (I heard a rumor that President Obama is funding a Fad T build!)
I really like the first car with the banger....I'm a fan of the "early" model T's....I have a 1914 roadster with inline six....it's small,... and reminds me of driving a street legal go-cart!....it's not for everybody, of course, but can't deny the fun aspect of it and the immediate smiles it creates on every stop light....I just get a kick out of driving it around town
That 34 is bad to the bone,but I like them all for different reasons.The last few years,even T's have become of interest to me,even,dare I say it,the highboys.
Looking at all these vintage rods, I see a uniqueness that is missing in most of the current traditional builds. Is it just me?!
I love the early T because it's got the right wheelbase, rear axle at the end of the turtledeck, not right behind the back of the cab. And a banger in a feature car in 56? That's very interesting. It seems guys were using early engines for a long time after OHV V8's were available. I have a Hot Rod Annual from 1960 and even then I think half or more of the featured cars were running flathead V8s yet. The other T almost looks like it has the back half of a coupe body (behind the doors)? They say all the seams are filled for a smooth look, but it sure looks like T coupe rear sheetmetal to me.
Not arguing with ya George. Just wondering what two examples of this statement might look like. What I really have a hard time pinning down is the difinitive difference between "traditional" and " traditionally inspired".
Its easy enough for me to piss off the hoards of rod-abillies all on my own, without you trying to lead me into it, Doug...
Go ahead George, Tell us what you really feel! I did a few weeks ago9 on a somewhat similar subject a few weeks ago and got my ass burnt!!!!!!!!!
"dirty old man", I just think you are a wee bit thin-skinned. AND, I believe your ride is not "traditional" in the HAMB sense of the word if it is "comfortable" to go across country without several adjustments from a chiropractor and a few sessions with a psychologist. Just saying. Anyone concur ?
No, not just you, and no need to apologize for your opinions. (I) think the uniqueness that is missing is what should be missing in a lot of the modern "interpretation" builds. Seems (some) people go a little overboard on all the doodads that they thought everybody screwed on their cars back in the day (whatever that means). The cars that seem to get my attention are the ones built with the "less is best" mentality.
Well, I'm not "thinking" what was on cars back then, as I was here then and active in the hot rod scene here in GA. I'm not at all "thin skinned" I just disagree, and if I get too aggressive about it I have gotten threatened with deletion more than once . I love HAMB for the tech info and the guys here, but it is sort of a "My way or the highway" type of forum. One of the biggest burrs under my saddle is the first thing on George's list; headlights. We drove what we built and oftentimes it was at night, and those big old headlights with the reflectors that had tarnished over the years and the incandescent bulbs were, as the old saying went, were "so dim you had to strike a match to see if they were burning"! There were adapter kits available to convert to sealed beams, but they sure looked like shit after the reducer ring tarnished or even rusted. Halogen and LED bulbs and vendor offered new reflectors have made those lights actually usable to see where you're going at hot rod speeds. My '32 3wdw had headlights even smaller than 6", as they were sealed beams from a WWII Jeep. Take a careful look at one if you can and you'll see there is a housing much like a King Bee or Dietz behind that olive drab grill. Don't remember the exact size but they were smaller than a standard sealed beam and available on on special order and in 6V only. George in his "score sheet' subtracts points for being channeled, and there were lots of cars, including my '32 3wdw on the East or "Right" side of the continent that were channeled but not chopped. I could go on and on, but my point is that "traditional" is many things to many people and many regions of the country. "
Dirty, you are reading my scoring system "upside down", or mis-interpreting it. Maybe its because I didnt link it with the original post, I will see if I can fix it. And keep in mind, its intent is at least somewhat satirical/humorous...
Ok, well just to help out my pal DDDenny, I have developed this handy, easy to use point system. print it out and carry it in your wallet! Any score over 10 equals "traditional" hot rod... Any headlight larger than 7" +7 6" headlights -7 16" ford wires with an overhead +8 Full wheelcovers -6 Any headlight with an integral park light housing +9 Channelled -8 Babyshit brown or babyshit green paint +27 Milk truck wheels on any car that isnt actually racing on a dry lake +29 Black paint +6 Spring in front -5 '34 commercial headlights on the ends of the frame horns +18 Bright primary color -4 Cycle fenders -9 Is this tongue in cheek?? well, maybe, then again....
Clearer?^^ Score under 10 is period correct. problem is, jokes fall flat on thier ass if you have to explain them.
The Jalopy Journal
