Well I can't see how more cars would be bad? My thinkin is a 8 16 32 or 64 car field would be about the best thing since canned beer.
There seems to be "pockets" of HAMB dragsters around the country. Mo, Kan, Ark ,Okla area, SoCal, Indy, & Wisc. to name the ones I'm aware of. There are single cars other places. The closest ones to me are 300 miles away in Wisconsin. While I'll have a nice time running alone up here, against all the Camaros, the key, I think is to get a second one in the neighborhood. Much more fun to run against a mate and better for spectator interest. That could promote construction of addidtional cars. My intent is to be an active ambassador for HA/GR's. I'll have a binder with pictures of other cars, racing action shots, sheets of rules people can take, etc. If others build cars, great! If not, I'll have a good time running mine, and hopefully getting to the cradle of HAMBsters once a year. Regarding automatics; If I splatter lots of parts and can't figure out how to prevent it, I would put in an automatic. If my car is inconsistent because the driver sucks at leaving the line and shifting, well, that's part of the game.
Voted Out,HA HA HA HE HE Seems like I remember out running you guy's several times with our 2 speed Stick.And yes I remember that damn smell.
It seems like every few months we get some new folks who discover the HA/GR board and develop an interest in possibly building one of these cars. Often they express their desires and start out by asking questions about the class, what engines they can use, what basic construction methods and on some occasions "where can they get blueprints for the cars". Generally after the initial questions it seems that there is a tendency for many to ask why they can't run some combination of parts that are "outside the box" such as an automatic transmission or a Holley four barrel carb or some other pieces that don't quite fit the spirit of the class. First off, without wanting to sound like the grouchy old man that I am, if they would just look at the top of the forum, they would see the post "Sticky: HA/GR Rules..." that does a pretty good job of saying what is and what is not allowed in the class. There are no blueprints and the general design of these cars is left to the builder, as it was in the past. Second, if those rules don't appeal to them, I have no problem with that, build what you want, but don't expect those of us building to the rules and spirit of the class to change the rules to fit your feelings on what you want to build. Third, realize that this class is all about, "Run What Ya Brung, Heads Up, No Handicap Racing", in home built rails in the spirit of how it was done "back then" in the '40s, '50s and early '60s. That doesn't mean there aren't concessions to safety in construction methods and design, but the whole idea goes back to the concept of non-mass produced cars, and the design is left up to the builder, not laid down in the rules. Interpretation is left to the builder within the simple parameters that the driver sit in front of the rear axle, the axles not be narrowed, and suspension is whatever you do or do not desire. If you wish to "Bracket Race", fine.......many people enjoy the concept. If you wish to run a class where if you "run too fast" you can break out, fine, but please accept the fact that there are some of us who wish to build our own cars, our own way, without blueprints other than sketches on notebook paper and coffee shop napkins. As it was in the past, there will always be those who feel that the biggest and baddest engine is the only way to win and there will be those who feel that David can still slay the giant. That is the reality that this class is based on. If you wish to play the game, welcome aboard. There is always room for more to run and we are glad to have you, just realize that the rules are there and they aren't really that complex. Times have changed, they coat the track with contact cement now and a six inch tire sticks a lot better than it did in the days of bare asphalt or concrete, but the racing is still about who gets there first Hope to see you in the staging lanes.......and may the quickest one win.
Most decidedly, when Rocky and Lee showed up it was instantly more fun. As has been noted before, being the first one isn't for the uncertain. Being the first "flack" is exactly what it takes, glad to see you're up for it.
I've actually been considering starting a second car, completely different from the current one, so that I'll have somebody to race against, and hopefully drum up interest. But to me that means they'll BOTH take forever to build.
I was considering that as well the first year. However, my comprehension of people in general (such as it is) would make me build it to sell rather than keep. Very few folks properly value anything with insufficient "cost" to themselves, be that cost money or work. 'Tis sad, but mostly true.
besides having another car to race, It gives me a chance to design and attempt a whole different chassis style. I LOVE learning new stuff!!!! The intent wouldn't be to sell it, rather to put a buddy in the seat until such time as someone else builds their own.
In my case yes, I would be more inclined. I've seen the SDRA and HA/GR visitors race here in Tulsa and I find the concept interesting, but so far I've decided to sit back a while and see how all this plays out before jumping in. When I see the transmission subject discussed here, a lot of the rationale doesn't make sense to me. It was stated in this thread that automatics were originally allowed and later dropped as a competitive advantage. Considering the liberal rules on engines, where it has already been proven that someone willing to make the investment can build twice the horsepower over average in the field, this argument just doesn't wash. I've seen many comments when discussing engines such as "doesn't matter to me, I'm not in it to win, just have fun!" But when it comes to transmissions, it's a whole different ball game. I don't see competitive advantage as a valid argument. You can't argue the the expense or the safety factor. So, what's left is the "spirit" issue. Some seem to think that it just isn't fun if you aren't banging gears. I think that's understandable, but isn't this a personal preference issue? Maybe you think bouncing off the line has a cool factor. Maybe you think that breaking and fixing is a big part of the fun. Maybe you think a missed shift and a shower of hot oil in your face is as good as it gets. Again, that's just fine if that's your thing, but I don't think that any spectator, whether a 8 yr old kid or a seasoned drag racer could give a rat's ass about all that. I have raced both automatics and sticks. My personal opinion on what is the most fun would side with the autos. I found the anxiety factor to be considerably higher when driving a stick. Breakage no doubt higher, along with resulting expense, and work. All things that would be very important to me when considering a form of basic fun racing. One last thing I would like to comment on is that I think everyone involved in this should give careful consideration to the success of the SDRA. These guys have the most successful circuit by far for these cars in the US. I would think that there would be a lot to learn from them, and I don't think that labeling them outlaws and treating them as outsiders could possibly be productive. (No, none of them are my friends or anyone I know personally) It just seems to me that this transmission thing is the bottom line preventing a coalition in this form of racing, and shouldn't be easily dismissed. OK, that's my observations as an observer. I'll go back to lurk mode now.
Can anyone explain why I can't post on here, if I write over a couple lines? I just fired over a test post and it worked...I wrote an epic novel and it wouldn't post. This is the third time I've lost a post...any ideas?
You probably timed out, I'm guessin you had to sign in again to post your test. There's a thread in the FAQ's about stayin' logged it. I forget how they tell you to do it, but I hit 'preview post' every so often, primarily to proof read and make sure my post isn't too full of BS, or completely confusing (cause if the guy that wrote it can't understand, nobody else has a chance). FWIW that will keep you logged in too, any activity on the baord will (your own activity, not someone elses'). Hope that helps.
I'll try here. Rick Sis, the original question is actually self answering, therefor rhetorical. Of course more folks would be willing to build an "HA/GR" if more options were allowed, easier is always more popular. But have any of us stated that popularity is our first goal? Most at my age and many younger have raced both slush and stick as well, so with your permission I'll address your points. Horsepower disparity as advantage? Some, though not to the extent most would think. The 6" bias tread rule is a very significant leveller. Too many ponies makes it quite hard to balance traction. Slushpumps? Not possible to miss a shift, far easier to manage wheel slippage, far easier to control launch, definitely easier to cut lights. These aren't competitive advantages at the strip? Bouncing off the line, blowing parts? These are results of build, set-up and driving choices. Both of'em are being handled just fine by others in HA/GR. In fact, successfully handling exactly these is rather a big part of the intent of HA/GR. Success of the SDRA circuit (circuit? Hey, you guys holding out on us? )? They and we understand these are different things and have no problem with each other's venue. Indeed, we're quite looking forward to getting together when we might. I believe we both take pride in and enjoy our versions of the concept, and I'll bet we continue in that vein. I'd happily go to bat for an SDRA bunch out here as well. That said, we remain flip sides of this particular coin, there's no point or future in trying to make it a double headed coin. Spectators not knowing or caring the difference? Here you're spot on it, most won't. However, that very fact seems to me to argue successfully that the two versions can indeed co-exist to their mutual benefit. I hope I've been helpful, that's my sole intent.
Well, Old6Rodder....Ya stole most of my thunder in that post! I truely believe the narrow tires and clutch launches will equalize just about anything, in a light car like this. While my general level of laziness would prefer an automatic, I can't argue with what is proven to work. I have an extensive circle track background, and I've seen the three basics...traction, induction, and weight, equalize some real extremes. These cars are light, so when combined with a limited contact patch on the tires, major torque is largely wasted at the starting line. Since a good hole shot is where your ETs are either made or ruined, even a huge powerhouse has a hard time playing catch up. So this brings me to MY particular bitch...lol! One big advantage the guys back in the 50s had on us is this. They weren't scrounging around trying to locate 47 year old engines. I understand the reasoning behind the 62 engine cut off date....there are certain newer engines that would be capable of making big power numbers, most notably the Ford 300, and Chevy 292. However, I'm seeing two distressing things happening here at the same time. One, the older engines are drying up, and are very tough to find in some areas. Speed parts, and even rebuild parts can get pricey too. Secondly, there seems to be a wink wink, nudge nudge, thing going on here, where various people are useing engines that aren't exactly legal.....or ARE they? A case in point would be Toymaker's 200 Ford. (Please, I'm not bitching, or picking on you). That engine was not available in 1962. It's little brother the 170 was, however. So, if I look at the rules right, this engine would technicaly be illegal.....except for this. There are NO rules concerning boring and stroking, so the 200 is nothing more than a bored and stroked 170, right? So it's entirely legal then, as I see it. Based on that idea, let's talk about Thingy M's Chevy 194. Built in 62....so it's all good. Well, based on the precedent set by Toymaker's little Ford, I can bore and stroke a 194 all the way to 250 cubes, right? So since the block is the same, I can just use a newer 230 or 250 then? Now a 292 wouldn't be okay, because it's a different block casting altogether, with bigger mains, and a taller deck. Where does this "Spirit of the Bug and Other Early Rail Jobs" end? Could I run a Toyota FJ40 six banger? It's a copy of a Chevy 235, basicaly. Or how about a Toyota 3TC Hemi pushrod four? It's a knock off of the mid 50s Peugeot 404.... See where I'm headed? My fear is this. While I LOVE a liberal set of rules, it's possible that things could get out of hand in a hurry, without a bit more of a strict set of guidlines on engines. As it is, I'm getting a lot of positive feedback from people on these cars. Everyone wants to build one, but so many pause at the early engine rules, because of lack of easy availability. What I see happening is regional pockets of these cars..."splinter factions" if you will, doing their own thing as far as engine rules, based on what's easiest for them in their specific locations. Now I'm in no way saying that the HAMBERS should compromise themselves on this issue, any more than they should about the automatic transmissions. I'm only wondering when the time comes that there are 100 or more of these cars, there might be 10 different factions, with slightly differing rules. I believe that the basic formula of rail frame old style chassis, with wide rear ends and skinny tires, and stick shifts, will enable everyone to get together and have a great time at some future national meets, and be on a pretty equal level. Any ideas, or suggestions, or rude comments??
COME ON GUYS.. Just build something,, There are always guys who can push the rules.. Incliding the rules of the NHRA.. So if you feel you have to be the fastest..Build the fastest HA/GR around..But like you stated, Those skinny tires are going to let you know if you F&%$*d up or not..Lets just go out and have some fun...
........ says the guy having his engine professionally built and dyno tuned at a famous speed shop. Seriously though Thingy, you going to make Butch's opener?
Dick.. Who is having his engine pro built and dyno'd Sure in the hell ain't me.... I'm hope It will be done in time...
If some of you were around in the mid to late 50's when NHRA banned Nitro and Alcohol as a fuel for dragsters there was a great pulling by certain members of the racing people one way or the other. Tom Ivo, Gene Adams and some other well known drivers went the gasoline route. Lions was all gasoline for quite a awhile. The Bustle Bomb was the first really fast twin engine to come out of that era with Tom Ivo and the Freight Train being the giants of that era. Garlits, Chrisman and Cannon and a great many others ran the fuel circuit. I still believe that we need the early engine cut off because if we get the later engines such as the Ford 300 and the 292 Chev we can make to much HP and to much ready made speed equipment is available which means we have cookie cutter cars. If we make our own intakes and exhaust for these old engines we are still being like they did in the 50's. The Flatheads had lots of equipment in the 40's and 50's but the rest of the makes didn't. I know it is hard to come by these old engines but we can do it. If you remember the Chev. small block had to run against the 392 Chrysler hemi.in the 50's and 60's. Logghe Stamping made Garlits hang his head with an unblown Chev and Pete Robinson made the big Chryslers believers. I think that if we can just let SDRA run their auto's and HAGR run the sticks but try and keep the engines the same we can succeed at this. HAGR can run against SDRA's and that is fun but if we start getting the engines up in the modern era we will all suffer from it. This is one of those posts where I am trying to make a point that if this were easy to do then everybody would be doing it. I realize I am running an elephant motor compared to some but I seem to get beat by the Hornet and 2B quite often. Let's see, I got beat by the Hornet 4 times, 2B 4 times Red Baron 1 time and Okie Outlaw 1 time. So just having a big old motor is not the answer. In the 50's no one ran a stock motor and competed. My 1957 dragster had a 296 cu.in. flathead, 3 97's, Potvin cam and a Harmon and Collins mag. The Bug had a hopped up flathead. I believe we need to be specific about engines because like Smokey Yunick said the rules didn't say no. Roy
That seems to be the concept that people are missing, along with the fact that it seems like folks want to be able to buy a kit to build one, or at least a set of HA/GR plans. The old engines are out there, many for not much more than hauling them off. Manifolds can be made as they were in the past.......it ain't rocket science and the whole idea is to be creative. It's like "Hot Rodders Ingenuity" has died and been replaced with a new concept of "Show me how". This isn't a class for drag racing 101, in reality it is a graduate course for those who wish to return to the basics of garage building there own. Just my $0.02.
For those of you that want a set of plans let me tell you about something I did. I took a copy of the rules (both groups) to a friend of mine who is a computer NERD, with the mechanical ability of a phone pole, and ask him to read them both. When he finished I ask him to put on paper what he thought a car would look like based on what he had read. To my surprise his sketch (?) looked roughly like most of the cars that I have seen in these groups. The point being, that if he could envision a car from these rules I would think you wrench benders could come up a design or idea for a car. If I understand what Ryan was leading people to with this thing was, be creative and use what you have or can find, to have fun, and get a feeling of what it was like in the 40’s and 50’s before this sport became 1-800-xxx-xxxx. Back when it was man and his machine against the man and his machine in the next lane.
That's the point I was trying to make....as 348 Chevy said "If the rules don't say no". I wasn't suggesting that the engine rules be updated to more modern stuff. The fact is, the present set of rules has big enough loopholes to drive a semi through sideways, and ARE allowing newer engines as a result. I presently have enough stuff to build a chassis, so I think I'll go forward with the idea of building the frame to accomodate most any inline six. When it's finished, if I haven't located a suitable and affordable HAMB legal engine, I'll use what I have laying around, and I'll re power the car when do get the engine I need. Now if that isn't "In the Spirit", I don't know what is! LOL!
Hey four banger what kind of motor are you looking for? I'm only about 3 or 4 hours away for you. We have lots of old farms around here with most anything under the sun laying around. Mater of fact I have an old International Red Diamond in an old water truck in my rock pit. It ran when we shut her down. I think it's around 450 or 500 ci. But ya might need to build the chassis to 1 ton specs.
Hi Esfoder. Do you have a 262 ford, I think that they look just like a 223, and were only made from 60 to 64?
Hey esfoder, I'm hunting for the rarest of the rare engines, nearly non existant today. I'm looking for the cheap or free kind! Hey, I like that Corn Binder engine! If you used it as a stressed member of the chassis, and dry sumped it, so you could bore lightning holes in the block, you could probably get the weight down to around an even ton! LOL! Hmmm....now you have me wondering. Seriously, how heavy could it be? Worse than a 302 Jimmy, or a 261 Chevy, or a 263 Buick? Red Diamond....my Dad had one in a dump truck, and I thought it was a 376....but I may very well be mistaken. Lots of years, miles, and funny smelling cigaretts since then! There are lots of these old engines around this area in old farm trucks, too. Trouble is, hauling away a 5 ton truck, removing the engine, and getting rid of the rest isn't very easy when you live in a city like Boise. I need to look up the specs on an International Red Diamd, I guess.......
Joe if you could shoot me over a pic of one I'll see what I can do. I have a couple of old fords on portable welders around here somewhere? I could not find to much info on the red diamond. The thing is big to say the least. It's in a 10 wheel truck. I've heard anything from 501 to 370 something? At any rate I pulled the dipstick the other day and it smelled alittle gassy but no water none. I have a couple of pics if your are interisted. There is a fella named hudsonator on this site that might know more about it than I do. I guess he did some tractor pulling against the black diamond version. Dusty I did more research and the engine is 450C.I. And yes I would have to say it's bigger than a 302 gimmy. As far as weight it looks heavy. I think getting a tranny behind it would be the biggest task. Right now it has a 4 speed with a 3 speed brownie behind it. Not a bad looking engine though. I think a midengine setup would suite it best due to size and weight? I might tear it out and weight it on my truck scale. The bore is 4.375" and the stroke is 5".I think it would redifine the term lumbering giant. If a guy was to get all the heavyass truck crap off of it I'm sure a 100 pounds could be trimmed off ? Look up redpower magazine on the web for more info. It was 202 hp in stock form.
LOL! I think we'd better write off this idea! I haven't been able to find out exactly what one of these things weighs, but I did get a look at one today. It looks to be just about the same physical size as a DT 466 International diesel engine....and they weigh over 1400 pounds!!! Might be a tad heavy for this application, and I know I sure as HELL wouldn't want it behind me if I hit anything. A nice Stovebolt 235 or 261 is sounding better all the time. Very cool old engine, though...downright awesome, in fact.
how about inline buick no one has done one to date .with as much low end that they have you could pull a tall gear.the red baron used a 3 55 turning about 4800 at finish line.ran 11/80s
I love straight 8"s!!!! Just don't have any around this area. I knew a guy that had a v-12 lincoln flatty. Would"nt that look cool? Can't remember the size but it sure did run smooth in the old car of his. Didn"t caddy have a flat head v 12? I know it does not fit the rules persay but imagine one of thoes with 6 carbs hangin off the top!!! And comom four banger you don't want 1400 pounds of 202 hp engine in one of these things? Reminds me of a shot of the green monster!! Alla Art arfons??? but not surplus aircraft engines.I'm gonna measure it up today. Have a great weekend fellas!!! P.S. Frame rails to be here on Ground hog day!!! YEAH ME!!!
Hey Mudflap! One of the Aussies HAS done a straight eight. Check out the video. YouTube - Day of the Drags 08 Part 4 HAMBsters Those old engines sound good! I used to have a 53 Buick Special with a 263 and stick shift....I loved that car. And esfoder, I'm demented enough to try that Red Diamond anyway....but it would HAVE to be in front of me!!! How about direct driving the thing to a Ford nine inch rear with about 2.50 gears??? Just wind her up (relatively speaking), and turn her loose like the old fuelers did. Let the wheelspin be the gear reduction. It might be a turd, but it would be hillarious to drive! With 30 inch tires, and 2.50 gears you'd get 89 mph at 2500 rpms. I doubt it would wind any higher for long, just guessing. I wonder what it would sound like with straight exhaust stacks? A very dull but LOUD roar, I'm guessing. If it wouldn't build enough speed, we could turn a brownie around backwards to get an overdrive. Sigh....why couldn't I have been born normal? LOL!
The Jalopy Journal
