I am really thinking that I won't need to run slicks. The weight of two 153s is a tick over 700 lbs and then there is the weight of the rear end, clutch and bell housing. All this weight will be close to the rear axle. I am playing with the idea of making the chassis a slip tube design to get even more mechanical advantage (3" diameter of course). I will just have to see. Even with the two 153s I think this thing will be really light...and weight kills horsepower doesn't it?
I love the fact that Godzilla keeps getting shot down as he's throwing out different ideas by people stating it's "not in the spirit of the bug" so people don't want inovation but they want people to try different things, they don't want spec parts (don't even get me started on "Spec" racing) but you have to use what everyone else is using, man am I confused! I loved the idea of a HAMB rail because I thought it would be a neat, inexpensive way to go racing untill I read the rules and realised I would need $900 worth of carbs and $400 for a pair of rear tires! Don't get me wrong I still love the idea and am still thinking about putting one together I'm just tired of hearing folks say it's about inovation and the freedom to build what you want as long as it fits this mold. Don't quote the "Spirt of the bug" when you don't like something, if it doens't fit into the rules then say that but the whole "Spirit" thing is wearing a little thin. Not trying to step on toes I'm just sayin'. Later, Rog
Oh and before I get run outa town on a rail (no pun intended) I am in NO WAY saying the HA/GR rules should be changed, although i think a really skinny recap slick would look killer, i just don't want to see the inovation in this class die. I don't think anyone wants to see this class turn into a vintage supercomp dragster deal where the cars all look pretty much the same and run the same. Damn I just wish I haden't sold the great running litte 200 6-popper that came out of my Mustang lol...
It's called, "Innovation within the rules". HA/GR rules leave lots of room for inovation, in my opinion. Look at the variety of cars built so far. My rear tires were free. Got 'em from a neighbor's truck. However, I'm getting 6" slicks for when I run around home, where I'm the only HAMB-type car. They will last a long time, look great and provide more consistency when (gasp) bracket racing. My viewpint is that HAMB dragsters are both a concept and a class. It is a class where 2 or more cars run against each other. It is a concept where individuals build these things and probably will never run against another one. In this situation strict adherence to the rules is up to the owner because who else could give a care?
Oh no bracket racing! Say it isn't so bob! Just kidding, I really don't have a problem with bracket racing, I would prefer heads up but hey as long as we get to go out and play that's all that matters! I would imagine a pair of slicks would last forever yes. No disrespect was intended, it just seems like every now and then someone wants to try something new and gets shot down before a wrench is even turned. There are some guys in the group that want diversity in the class then there are those that get pretty bent outa shape the moment you mention something that deviates from the norm (whatever that is!) I'm not trying to start stuff or stir the pot, just keeping things lively as long as it stays friendly. As long as there is innovation within the rules I think it will continue to be fun. The day that everyone shows up with the same setup I will loose interest.
I started this thread to find out what kind of response my planned build would get, to point out where it would not conform to the generally accepted interpretation of the rules. So far I have not seen/heard anything that is rules-related to put it out of the class, like does not conform to rule number XX. I do hear that some guys might not want to run against it...the great thing is that they don't have to. If they pull up beside me they can always just sit at the line and watch my rear light go down the track...
Go for it man! I say build it and run the hell out of it. If I wasn't so far away I'd line up with ya, and if I loose well, I guess I brought a knife to a gunfight!
Let me know if you would like my plan for a slant 6 sidewinder rear engine car...my son turned that one down because of the short wheel base. Well... it is probably not in the spirit either cause we know they never ran sidewinders back in the day. I am going to let my son ramrod this deal. I am just going to be the Tech adviser. In fact...he had his older brother over here last weekend helping him. It was great to see them working on anything together.
Obviously, you don't understand the concept.......there is a lot of room for innovation in the existing rules. $900.00 for carbs?? $400.00 for tires?? There are lots of cheaper ways to get the job done and that is just part of the innovation. Don't rag on the "Spirit of the Bug", it isn't about building a car "like the Bug", it's about using the concept of back yard building and making stuff with your own hands. These cars aren't "kit built" they are "home built", to whatever design you desire. There are cars out there right now that were built for less than the $1,300.00 you would spend for tires and carbs, so you need to look at your ideas from a different angle. Not looking to run ya out of town on a rail, but the "really skinny recap slick" wouldn't be cheap and the you have already bitched about the cost of tires. The innovation has lots of places to be developed in the class, it just seems like folks think that the rules prevent it when in reality they encourage it. Bob, you seem to understand the concept. No problem.......built it, I'll be glad to race it.......don't see anything in the rules that say no twin engine cars. It's your dream, make it reality. I have no problem with anyone wanting to "try something new", the problems I see don't have anything to do with innovation, diversity, or deviation from the norm. It just seems that most of the time rather than working in the rules, the thoughts go more towards changing the rules to fit the desired innovation.
G'day. Firstly, it's interesting to see how this thread goes in circles.... I think you questions have been answered a couple of times, but, in the interest of clarity I'll offer my 2c. twin 4 cylinders? Nothing saying you cannot, and for the record, I think it would be pretty cool. Problem being I don't know of a track that would let one play these days within a 'race', I know of a couple which are permitted to perform 'display's, but they're not allowed to compete against another competitor, if you can find somewhere to race it then great, but until then I think it be just another neat bit of engineering sculpture. Dual tyres? I think this topic has been discussed a number of times since the conception of the class, naturally with mixed opion. Sure, history has ticked the 'been there/done that box', but with questionable result. I don't think there's anything in the 'rules' that illustrates that you can't, although I have sufficient experience to believe that it would be a dangerous thing in the context of HA/GR, and I certainly wouldn't be party to it happening in Oz. If you want to build it with twin wheels, go for it, show us we're (or I'm) wrong, but I don't see it as representing anything that 'the bug' portrayed...... Slicks - clear cut, not permitted, and whilst it would 'look' cool, and I'd love to have a set, certainly outside of the context of what this 'class' was aiming to achieve, both then and now. Lenco - rules don't say no, so feel free to go creative. I will however mention that I think you're kidding yourself if you think it's 'appropriate' in a class like HA/GR, but, if it allows you to successfully sort out your twin 4's adaption, then I'd love to see it, if for no other reason than to encourage your creation. Over and over you've hilighted good and bad about the class, to which I'm still unsure of your intent, as, you want to be 'a part of it', but in the same sentence think appropriate to be narrow minded suggesting that we're all living in the past playing with exhibition cars at a parade? If thats all it is, then I'm fine with that, but I'm interested to know why you want to join the 'festivities'? Cheers, and look forward to your twin 4 build thread, will be interesting to watch, Drewfus
Godzilla your not the first one i've heard talking about a sidewinder. It might have some merit as a traction improving possibility. It would make a wide car with a few drive choices. It would sure be something different. Give it a try.
A couple of sprockets and some chain would be lighter than a trany, and then you do away with the heavy rear axle. I can see a car of less than a 1000#.
First of all I like the concept of the sidewinder car. But will the nhra let a chain drive run? I've seen a couple at the sand drags but not the drag strip? It could be made lighter than a tranny car for sure. Hell might be able to run a belt type setup? Belt tech has advanced alot in the last 50 years. It would be nice if they(NHRA) had a little imagination!!! Dusty
Gary runs a Gilmore toothed belt on the starter on his dyno. The electric motor is a 25 HP which would put out about 3 times the torque as any 6 cyl. including my GMC. It would be easier to fabricate than a chain and the tech guys would be so nervious. Remember Jack Chrisman dominated Gas Dragster with a sidewinder. Before I did any building though I would talk to a tech. You know Tulsa is going NHRA next year. Roy
I have talked to them at SPS about making a "gear driven" transfer case to a live axle. They are strong enough to take the torque of 4WD rock crawlers so I would think it would work. My problem is...I put my son in my mini-sprint car back when he was only 12 years old and turned him loose in a gravel parking lot. He spun it three times and eventually found a large bush and spun it in nose first. He has made it clear...he is not going to feel comfortable in a sort wheelbase car. My current gasser project is 116"...Rodan was 120"...and I think the project we have decided on is going to stretch both of those. I have two sons...maybe I will get to built the side-winder yet...with my oldest.
A side winder does not need to be short. I would like it a little longer, at least 120 in to handle on the top end. Safety first.
I dont race HA/GR ,but have thought about it. The reason I havent built anything is the class seems fragile with NHRA and here. If you start playing between the rules knowing your pushing it, the class will go away like so many other fun race classes. Just a thought.
A car of 120" would be long enough that you won't have to use your toes as aiming devices. It would be long enough so as not to be twitchy with every movement of the steering wheel. I think it could be a fun car to drive. Not to mention the questions that you would get in the pits. " WHAT THE !!!! is THAT? "
A bit of length is a good idea. We're at 124" and on the naked asphalt at Eagle Field were lit up pretty badly in first, and again in second. Our car is nearly perfectly balanced laterally (allowing us to run an open rear) and was no problem to correct and drive on out (the video was cool) even with our very quick steering. As to NHRA (where's a spitting icon when you need it), they don't like chain much. I expect you'd need to go with a serious belt & guard or something with gears if you want their nod. Yes, Hi!, it's fragile. Still, part of the point of HA/GR is the variety and creativity within the intentional physics limits of the engines, tires and carbs. I know NHRA (spit) neither gets it nor gives a damn, but then that's a piece of the reason it's come as far as it has anyway.
I think if I ever get to build the side winder I will use Ollie's rear flatty as a model. He was able to make it work well enough and I liked the way it sat on the ground.
If I remember right it takes several hundred hp to turn the blowers on top fuel rigs? I doubt a v-belt drive would like the abuse much. Double the smoke show??? Dusty It would be a snap to change the gearing.
Gilmore toothed belts are not V-belts, they are positive toothed belt and toothed pully system that allows no slippage. Blowers are run buy them and oil pumps as well as distributors. 25 hp electric motors rip motor mounts that a stout V-8 wouldn't even bend. A guy has a S-10 pickup with a 10 hp electic motor and he has had to replce the motor mounts twice. Tremendious torque from electric motors. Way off subject, sorry Roy
OK, I'll chime in ..............................2 engines would be great, maybe run them side by side as Eddie Hill did to a rear drive axle with 2 center sections. All the weight would be closer to the rear axle (maybe easier on crankshafts) and although a little heavy'r I think it could be built with stock aluminum bellhousings (stamped steel is req. 11.50 and quicker) and pass tech. The lenco, I would consider that an automatic with it being a planatary transmission and does not require a clutch to shift it. Sidewinder, COOL build it with a belt, you got us on the dual Tires as the rules are written so I say OK. "O" and bring it to California for one or both of the TWO left coast true HAMB Dragster events so we can see it with our own eyes and try to beat you Rocky
I will post pics when it is standing up. We may be pulling the gassers out to AZ once next year for a match/exhibition race...maybe we ought to set something up to do a HA/GR thing there???
Hey Roy I know the difference I was trying to state that I don't think a V belt drive would do well in this app. The gilmore is better sutied for this type of thing. And I do think it would be way lighter than a traditional tranny and differental setup. Also power loss is about nill which would be an advantage at these power levels. Dusty
The Jalopy Journal
