There is no challenge to any rulz here. Only a curious question. It seems to me that the main difference in HA/GR versus slingshot rails is the position of the driver. Has it ever been considered to have a cl*** HA/GR slingshot? All the same rulz apply but frame construction can seat the driver lower and behind the rear axle? As I said just curious. Hoping for some historical discussions or reference to previous threads.
I like the idea, early slingshots were indeed built with full width rears. However that period was very short, it didn't take long at all before they started narrowing'em. So, in that the wide slingshot era was over so soon, few aficionados remain, and the odds of getting enough together to get a cl*** started would be thin. Still, many do remember cars like the 'Slipper and such fondly. Perhaps there're enough after all. I have a like fetish in early '50s middies, and as yet there're but two in the HA/GR cl***. It strikes me that there may be more wide slingshot folks out there than those in my end of it. Build it anyway, you'll have the only one ......... 'til the next one's built. If nothing else it'll be fun coming up with a cl*** designation. On reflection, it could be a second life for some old slingshot frames laying around ............ hmmmmm.
There are already nostalgia dragster cl***es/events etc that would cater for them including the HAMB drags. I don't see the need for them , they are different to HA/GR because HA/GR are meant to represent an era that pre dates the slingshots. An era between when guys raced their street car, then added horsepower, and then started lightening the street car to go faster still. That is the Spirit of the Bug. http://www.hambdrags.com/HaGr/index.html "The Bug" was built and raced in the era when the body had been removed from the car altogether, and a few modifications made to the ch***is , but before the driver was moved back behind the rear axle. Here's Kevin Lee's post/thread from 2005 http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45877&highlight=parasite a bit of history and background http://www.hambdrags.com/HaGr http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127069 Aussie Hambsters http://www.hambstergarage.com/garage/
Yeah, a Green Monsterito. Actually, I'd dearly love to build a "Midnight Oil" layout car using a slant. I don't believe I could get it past tech anywhere these days, but I just may haul off and build a street one yet one day.
This is great stuff. Reading the links here is super cool. Really gives me a feeling for what got this HA/GR thing going. Most of the pictures are long gone but the reading was great! I really like the early slingshot cars and car see the transitions that happened as I study all the pictures I'm able to find on the web.
Thought I might have been a leg up on a build but my trade offer fell through. Bummer. If I'm going to build it up from nothing then it's gonna be what I think up and design in my head. Speed on...
What about Hagar the Horrible ?? $500!! Probably even less by now?? Call Glen. He is only 1 state away!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=589766
Glenn and I have already been trying to work something out. The trade I had hoped to make was for that ch***is and axles that he has. Money is tight for everybody now and I'm going to have to trade iron for iron to do this as it's cash I've already spent. The only other thing I can do to make it happen is find someone to buy my blower setup and take the money and buy the parts outright from Glenn or build my own design.
What kills me is the thought of doing one with a Corvair drivetrain, it's pre 62 so it falls into the 'time period' but isn't inline or V-8, over or flathead. But, 220 lbs, 130-140 HP... in a naturally aspirated configuration in an HA/GR, I bet she'd fly. But, alas, it's illegal. So, back to the front motored Corvair powered VW idea... JK
Yeah, unfortunately the 'Vair was a true late '50s product. Not representative of early '50s drags, like the inliners and flatties are (nor representative of earlier boxers either, engineering wise). Unless you're counting the '54 project 'Vair that was actually a really *****in' fast backed '53 'Vette. But yes, there were boxers around then; Porsche & VW, most notably in cars, and a few bikes as well. How 'bout a flattie boxer Harley drag bike?
I'm not sure. There are pictures of what looks to be the original body work with a Poncho four in it, circa early '60s. I've seen what could be the original engine in sheet metal & paint that isn't the same exactly, out at the Antique Nat's a couple years ago. Neither are puffed. Here're the two ....
here's a couple of bikes with a corvair engines. the 2nd and 3rd pics show the handy work of norm gabrowski. i understand building in the spirit of the bug but i do not understand why corvair engines are disallowed. the fact they are products of the late 50's should not be a consideration if pre 62 is the standard not pre 54. especially if other approved engines can be used with date codes after 62 just because they are in the same family of engines. as well as other late model parts are eligible for use. i.e. trennies, rear ends, wheels, etc. i think your car is great but i am ignorant of slant sixes eccept knowing that they can be damn near bullet proof. this leaves me with two questions. what was the earliest production of the slant engine and what year engine are you using. i know rules are rules and any advantage should be exploited in racing and i am not trying to start an arguement, just curious?
I believe first production slant's came out in '60, with the "compact" Valiant and Lancer, ironically to do battle with the Falcon and.... Corvair! They were 170 CID, and actually cleaned FRICKIN house in the Daytona race for Compacts. Google 'Hyper Pak'... them's were pure Billy Bad***. JK
Yeah, no sweat, it can be a confusing concept at first. The dichotomy lies between the era the cl*** represents and what it uses to do that representing. I first consider the concept of the cl***, and only then add in the accomodations. The concept is to represent the rails of the late '40s & early '50s (with '50 itself being sort of a general benchmark). The accomodations are then to allow later engines that were still using that era's engineering, in order to broaden the available choices and keep costs down. So, the pre '62 cut-off is applied only after the '50s concept is addressed. And even then only to those engines that can fairly represent the earlier engineering. In addition, after that, and only then, I can "grandfather" in an engine series that was unchanged following that. Once it was changed significantly from an engineering standpoint, and no longer represents the era fairly, it's out. There are a few factory engineering changes not outlawed. Those are changes that would've been done by a rodder of the era anyway, such as higher compression, larger valves, bore & stroke differences, cams, etc (in the case of the slants, there was a combustion area change in '67 that reflects a known speed trick of the early'50s). I can't speak for other engines, but as to the slant specifically; using essentially an early '50s design just laid over 30*, it's an acceptable stand-in. As an over square, in-line, six, pushrod, two valve, etc, it's all earlier engineering. In addition its 170 or 225ci displacement is in line (please note cutesy pun ) with the average in-line six of the early '50s as well. Thus the slant, which went on unchanged through '76, is grandfathered in 'til then. Admittedly, '77 & later slants had eventual engineering changes like the cast crank and peanut plug head, but as these did nothing for HP they aren't quibbled. It's still an over square, etc, engine whose design features were set in the late '50s. Even so, those of us hooked on the concept and running slants stop at '76. My car runs a "five plug" block with a "drool tube" head, both identical to the '59 design save in ***orted bits & bracketry. Further, the only work I farmed out was the valve seats and the milling (I don't have that machinery), all else I've done myself, in my one car garage, like the '50s. I know all this sounds rather silly to some folks not into the cl*** concept, but it's where my head's at on it, as are most of the HA/GR builders. ps. I've always loved Grabowski's Six Pack. Very nearly popped a bug motor into Nightwind (my loop frame Beemer) on more than one occasion.
great explaination, i hope it helps more people than just me to undrstand what seems like a huge loophole.
Personally, I think a Corvair powered car wouldn't be a problem...If it was done in a front engined altered style ch***is. But then again, I wouldn't have a problem with someone using a proper vintage aircraft engine either.
The Jalopy Journal
