Hot Rods Can there be life without "Bigs N Littles?"

Gang,
I remember seeing several build threads and photos of open wheel rods posted a year or so back that were using the same size tires all around (or perhaps just a couple of inches difference in diameter instead of 5-6 inches) for an early vintage racer look (oval, road, jalopy... whatever).
If anyone else is interested or can help out, I'd welcome any and all ideas on the subject, pix or links to builds posted here, if you can spare the time. I haven't had much luck searching the archives on it. Thanx, Gary

 

Just found a link. Gary

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309452&highlight=same+sized+tires

 

Thanks for drawing attention to that thread, Gary. I've been developing a constant-diameter approach around larger-diameter rims on the front and wider tyres on the back; sort of a custom-bike approach. It was inspired by the 19"/16" combinations occasionally run on early trials specials.

Whatever the case, same-diameter tyres all round need to be tall. Especially if the car is bigger than the early Ford range, small wheels tend to give that Regency dresser/Wurlitzer organ look associated with American luxury cars of the '80s: not nice

 

Ned, I've been thinking of putting all the rake (aero / streamlining) into the body and chassis ICW same size diameter tires during the build... but I'm also thinking of running narrower rims and tires in the front. The width differences might help retain the semblance of rubber rake and even appear more aero, too. Gary

 

700 x 16s and 600 x 16s. They look fairly close in diameter. I think there's actually about 3" difference.

 

Nothing looks worse "to me" than the 750-16 huge whites with the 475-16 with MUCH narrower white.

If you look at the 40s pic thread or the one for 50s, you see that the 750 with 475 in white or black, is a modern trend, not period. Many were same size or not much difference.

 

The main thing about having front and rear tires the exact same size is that there is sort of an optical illusion that makes the fronts appear to be larger than the rears......anyone else notice that?

 

My brother is doing a pre-war dry lakes style 32 roadster. Same size tires at all 4 corners. He said thats what was done. Not my cup of tea but....

 

Differient strokes???

 

On an open wheel car it has always been what I notice. If tires are the same size or really close the fronts always appear to be larger to me as well.

I think the way around it is to go a lot narrower with the front, finding a front tire with the same or close OD but narrower so that it doesn't balloon out from the rim as much.

 

They just don't look right with big front tires.

 

I think not.

 

I love big and littles.

 

I LOVE this look...

Fronts: 5.50x17 BFG's on stock '33-'34 wheels...27 1/2" tall

Rears: 7.00x18 Firestones on stock '32 wheels...32" tall

 

Fronts: 5.50x17 Rears 6.50x17

 

It's really more of an era issue (not to mention personal taste).
Personally, I'll give up hot rods when my big and little ratio become homogenized.

 

I'd be a bit cautious combining same-diameter tyres with a rake. It works on some early-'50s GM cars for some reason, and on quirky French cars; but it can very easily look very wrong.

A rake puts emphasis on the front wheels and takes emphasis off the rears. When combined with bigs and littles proportional to the rake the bulk of the rear wheels and delicateness of the fronts counterbalance the emphasis loading due to the rake. Where the counterbalance is spot-on one gets that just-right hot-rod look. The corresponding perfect counterbalance with equal-size tyres describes a level stance.

A rake plus equal-size tyres works for the weird French cars because they're front-drive and the rear wheels aren't doing a lot. The rake tells you as much. The rear wheels are little things flapping around in the wind while the fronts are visually heavily loaded, and that is how the car works.

I have no idea why equal-size tyres with a rake works on a '50 Olds, but it somehow does.

 

Fronts: 6.00x16 Rears: 7.00x16

 

Similar sized front & rears on my old bucket...



and now on my current project



edited (code issue)

 

sick looking roadster larry....... subtle yet noticeable...

 

Front: 5.50x17 Excelsior's... Rears: 7.00x18 Excelsiors

 

Just lost the "/" before the first "img"

 

Fronts: 5.50x17 Firestones on stock '33-'34 wheels

Rears: 7.00x18 Firestones on stock '32 wheels

 

I probably would have liked a little bigger white in the front but it just was not an option with how low my front end is. It doesn't help that my rear is probably the biggest WW available. I love it on my car but I get what you mean.





My understanding especially during the 40's there was less difference between bigs and littles. Most guys were running the stock tires up front that came on the wheels so more then likely they were 6.00's because that's what Ford provided on a 16" wheel. Then they would step up the rear for more gear ratio but there really wasn't a 7.50 available until the early 50's. Most guys ran 7.00's out back because that's what they could get at the time if they were running 16" wheels. Larry's examples of the 17" and 18" wheeled roadsters are good examples of early 40's style where using the stock wheels of that particular model was more common. So yeah extreme big and littles might be more of 50's type deal....or 60's type deal if anything.

 

when you take a picture of a car, or look at a car, it's usually from a front/side view. The natural way that perspective works, makes the front tires look bigger than the rears. Having big-n-littles makes the tires look the same size....

I wonder if that's why it looks so natural? and if the fronts are not small enough, they look huge?

 

Perfect!

 

To add to the previous statement that when running the same front and rear, the fronts look larger, especialy when the car has a rake, larger rears make the front wheel look huge and the rear small....i still like a good rubber rake.

 

Another thing I like about not having really small tires up front is it keeps the wheel base visually shorter. I don't think there is a better combo then 7.50's and 6.00's mounted on 16" wheels. I plan on running that setup on my '32.

Any while I was planning on running 7.00's and 6.00's on my '33 I have recently fell in love with 17" wheels and now will be running a set of those.

 

Some cars look great done either way and some look off if the tires are the same height. I've just always done big and littles because that is my preference, but some have posted pictures of cars in this thread that look great with same sized tires all around.

Probably the main reasons bigger tires were run on the back in the old days was twofold: It gave the car a rubber rake and bigger tires meant more traction and smaller ones meant less rolling resistance.

Don