Was "cycle-car" a defined group in europe at the time to make the vehicles fall within a lower license tax group than full cars? I've heard that in England motorcycles, two or three wheeled were taxed different and "owner assembled kit cars" were taxed less than funished cars and that was part of their popularity. I raise this question because there is such a wide range of cars in these ads that are called "cycle-cars" in the ads.
I've heard modern folks from the UK talk about decreased taxes for vehicles without a n accessable reverse gear in the transmission because they could be licensed as motorcycles, so I would not be in the least surprised to learn that similar criteria existed in the pre-WWII era. -Dave
HP rating and seating capacity.................... it's a long read .... .. http://www.britishtaxdiscs.co.uk/tax-disc-history.php ,
In a "car" with so many "safety features" any extra padding is probably an improvement (doing my share for safety also).
I've been following this thread for a while now, and was wondering what defines a "cyclecar"? Also, how off-topic would it be to use a mid-80's Japanese powerplant in one of these? Has anyone thought of connecting a u-joint to the output shaft of a Jap engine that is turned 90* connected to a light duty rear differential? Would have to work out a reverse or get out and push, but it could be done, I think..... Thanks for the inspirations......I'll go back to lurking for now.....
I think Wikipedia sums it up as well as anyone Ive seen: More simply put, Id say they are an extremely lightweight automobile utilizing motorcycle-type engines and drivelines. And no, I don't think using a Japanese motorcycle engine is off topic. Practically speaking, we don't have the variety of European and domestic manufacturers of motorcycle-type engines that they did in the teens and twenties. It's Harley, European, Japanese, or something vintage and unobtanium. -Dave
Yeah, not much more choice than to use a Jap engine. Harley and Euro bike engines are usually a bit steep! I've considered taking a small FWD car and making something similar to a Morgan. An early Geo Metro or Subaru Justy three cylinder engine exposed up front, radiator behind, one rear wheel in the back. Frame wouldn't be hard, but it would probably weigh more than 772 lbs. Heck, my GS1000 motorcycle (old 1980 model) weighs 600 lbs.! I'd think a car like I described would weigh about the same as a T-bucket with a four cylinder, maybe a bit less. What.... 1200-1500 lbs? Might be able to make it lighter. The Tr-Magnum weighs right at 1200 lbs. with a light weight foam core body. http://www.rqriley.com/tri-mag.html
If I were going to build a cycle car right now, here’s what I would be thinking: Double-round-tube frame with a wheelbase around 72 inches and a track width of around 60 ½ inches. Either VW Beetle front suspension, or a tube axle on quarter ellipticals. Banjo rear axles are probably the handsomest ever, so I’d be looking for the highest-geared Model A unit I could find. I’d mate the torque tube to the engine and transmission from a Honda Valkyrie (hot rod Gold Wing), controlling the latter with a Model T parking brake lever as a gear selector and a foot clutch. Steering would be with an early sprint car style wheel and a Schroeder cowl box. Instrumentation would be akin to whatever was on the Valkyrie, but using New Vintage USA Woodward-series gauges. I’d probably use a tach instead of a speedometer, though. Bodywork would be taken from a small Farmall tractor (designed by Ray Loewy!) with a fabricated boat tail and cycle fenders made from ‘36 Ford spare tire carriers. Brakes would either be early Ford (Lockheed) hydraulic on all four wheels, or VW up front and Ford hydraulic on the back, and rolling stock would consist of 5.50- or 6.00-16 bias plies on ‘35 Ford wheels. Headlights would be Guides with the marker lights on top, and taillights would be ‘37 Ford bullets. Kind of a late-thirties take on the deal, but I think it would make an awesome commuter. -Dave
I was able to "aquire" a basketcase '87 VFR700 (V-four, water cooled, 6-speed) a while back, no title, but the engine turns free. I was thinking of turning it 90* and attaching a u-joint to the trans output shaft (where the drive sprocket would be), then attaching it to a small differential-type rear (maybe from an ATV) on shackle-less over/under quarter-eliptical springs. Tube axle with over/under quarter-eliptical (again, shackle-less). Maybe using the Ford aluminum space-saver spare wheels on all four corners (some are 15", some are 17"). As for a body.....maybe a narrowed 'glass t-bucket with a really narrow track nose or a narrowed A-bone 'glass shell (it will need a small radiator). What are the chances of doing this (safely) on a shoestring budget?????
I think that all depends on your time, talent, and resources. Also, there's the question of titling. I occasionally see flickers of information regarding the titling of cyclecar-type vehicles. In some states they are in a marginal/gray area and can be very easy to get on the road, in other states, nearly impossible. -Dave
Titling was something I was thinking about too. Shouldn't be any harder to title than any other home-built "marginal" car -- like a T-bucket (by "marginal" I mean minimal body and safety/comfort features). Using FWD and only one wheel in the back should be easier since it would be titled as a motorcycle in most (if not all) states. In fact, if you had the MC title I'd run it off that. Check with your DMV about home built cars. Most states require an inspection by a highway patrol before a state VIN is issued. I would think somewhere like CA would be tough -- probably have emissions laws to deal with as well. Now you can circumvent a hard to title state IF you have a good friend in an easy to title state. Get the title in the easy state then transfer a few months later in the hard state. A bit of trouble and cost, but shouldn't be hard to transfer the title from another state.
If you're using the VW front beam (I'd narrow it in to make a 48" track) why not adopt the steering box as well. My solution to reverse and differential needs (I'm currently looking for the right motorcycle engine) is to chain drive from the bike output to an old FWD transmission and then use counter shafts off of those outputs to chain-drive the two rear wheels. I do this because I have the trans from a '78 Rabbit Diesel with a dodgy 2nd gear synchro taking up space in the shed. Adds quite a bit to the weight, but 5 reverse gears and 20 forward sounds like a blast to drive.
I second using the VW bug axle and gear box. Using the FWD trans and chains will add weight, so why use the chains? Use the outputs from the FWD trans directly. Would be easy to make swing axles (U-joint just on the inside) and use whatever wheels you want. Adjust springs so that the tires are straight up with a normal weight load.
The Jalopy Journal
