Next installment on the 32 roadster gasser project.

just thinking out loud here, cuz I aint no engineer..

if you were to take an imaginary rectangle and draw a line at 45 degrees diagonaly across it's face

and another starting at the intersection of the 45 degree line and rectangle edge but perpendicular to the rectangle edge

and then draw a circle radiating from the middle point of the perpendicular line to the 45 degree line

and repete that layout down the length of the rectangle

you would end up with what looks like a bridge truss with circular openings...

the stress lines will travel uninterupted from side to side..

I think I have a book on trusses at home...

Paul

 

Paul,
That looks logical to me. Post the information from that truss book if you could. I'm sure a lot of guys would want to know how to pick the best way to lighten that rod. Instead of letting the hole saw size dictate how big a hole to punch.

Cheers

 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul,
That looks logical to me. Post the information from that truss book if you could. I'm sure a lot of guys would want to know how to pick the best way to lighten that rod. Instead of letting the hole saw size dictate how big a hole to punch.

Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

Being the one to have opened her fat mouth about the chassis...I think Paul has a really logical way of doing it without compensating the chassis/body/or yer ass on the track. Old railway bridges were done that way as well to allow for constriction and expantion without weakening the system.....does the same apply?

Brandy

 

4ever4, Could you please explain in detail the testing procedure used to determine that the unsleeeved wishbone was just as strong as the sleeved one? I'm very interested when someone can back up a statement like this with factual data. I think it makes it easier for everyone to visualise a safety advantage when proven data is applied to the anaylsis of any component. thanks in advance,I'll await your reply.

Frank

 

Just to let everyone know the holes were not drilled without any thought put into it. A friend of mine builds touring cars professionaly which are lighten in the same manner. A 4" x 2" box section, the holes on the side are 2" with a 1" space between each hole, which also gives a 1" space above and below the hole. Which is the same principle as Paul mentioned. This way you are removing weight without losing strength.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Looks awesome Jim, can't wait to see the finished article.

You gonna paint it like a race car too?
Dave

[/ QUOTE ]
That makes two of us Dave. The car will be painted totally in metal-flake with the name of the car sign-writtin on the side. Hense why i need to keep the car as light as possible because the paint will weigh a ton.

 

Hugh Tucker, lookout!

Bitchin' machine.

 

Mike, What a coencidence, This thing reminded me of the Hugh Tucker Roadster. I watched that thing in person and was always impressed by it. It made me wonder if Mr. Tucker was still around, I haven't seeen his car since the 60's. It was a VERY clean competition roadster. I think the last time I saw it run was at the Indy Nationals.

Frank

 

Hugh Tucker indeed! And this '32 has me more stoked than any I've seen in a long time. I've been using the same lightening hole formula for a few years - reassuring to hear someone who knows what they're doing back up the theory...
Anyway, congrats on a great car - please keep posting pix - keeps me inspired...

 

I don't know if Hugh Tucker is still around, but I know the car still is. I first saw it in person a two or three years ago at the LA Roadster Show and I've seen it at the last couple of CHRRs. I believe when it's not out "on tour", it resides at the NHRA Museum in Pamona.

 

Damn that car looks awesome,,, keep the progress pics coming!!!

 

Jim, did you make Hemsby? Progress? Nos. Nats. or HotRod Drags?

Koops.....