Projects The bucket of ugly! A de-uglifying thread...

I would draw some holes on them with a black Sharpie first and see if you like them.

 

That's the Don Oaks T, eventually owned by Bob Reisner and then Dan Woods. There's a great write up on this car over at the T Bucket plans site, explains the hows and whys of this car's very interesting bits.

http://www.tbucketplans.com/1915-t-bucket-body/

 

I liked the design so much, I swiped it!

 

I just used a 4-5 inch chrome locking cap. As the fuel filler hole is way smaller than that, no******* can get in and under my cover, unless they have my keys with them. Poor mans security system

 

I have two Cam locks on my tailgate that need the key to open and that gives access to the fuel filler and storage under the fixed Tonneau cover. The cover can be removed by undoing four nuts that are hidden up under the side rails of the pickup bed.

 

I'm diggin' that Green one at least partially because it breaks one of the 'rules' and I like the ones that break that rule.
The engine is not level with the frame rails and is at an angle to the body (which is unchannelled but level with the frame)..
The rule says it makes the car appear broken and is jarring visually, but I have always liked this.
To my eye, it makes the car appear even more radical and accentuates the rake.
The exhaust makes it even more apparent.

 

Rod
I too like the green T bucket. Pretty interesting the link Phillips posted about it above.
To my eye as long as an exposed engine on a bucket is at least level to the ground it looks fine. As long as it isn't leaned back. That looks broken.

Gary

 

Go to post #5882.....open the link.....it's a worth the time read!

 

Question: What "rules" are you guys talking about? It's always been my understanding that form follows function, which means that engine position is determined by where "level" is and by drive line angles, not by where the frame happens to be in relation to the engine. Did I miss something...?

 

Dad
T buckets are such visual rods and their is a lot of latitude in angle when mounting an engine then why angle it so doesn't look good.

 

Geeze...that was fast!

My post was simply a question, but your answer begs another one...and please don't take it personally, it's just for information: Why would one mount the engine so that it looks good (to the builder's eye) when those who view the car would note that he had broken the "form follows function" rule in order to gain appearance points?

I guess in my simple-minded way I'd prefer to see that the builder (whether it was my car or somebody else's) had been aware of the level/drive line angle issue and had installed the engine/transmission/rear axle accordingly.

Again, this is absolutely not a criticism but rather a search for knowledge. Thanks.

 

Wow! What a great history that car has! Your link to tbucketplans has a fantastic build thread for the time in which it was documented.

 

Gary,i understand what you are saying about the visual line and your T is proof of that, BUT as an ex mechanic I know of the motor angle and the plane the carb(s) should be on for them to operate as designed, so what is done to correct this when the motor is set down at the front? JW

 

That's not what Gary said, that's what Rod said...sorta...and I'm curious as to where Rod came up with the "level with the rails" rule. I'd not heard that one before.

Gary's point was that the engine should be "at least level with the ground" (which as I understand it is pretty much okay in a hot rod, although it might be desirable to tip the motor down a bit at the rear to get the drive line angles optimized) but not pointed so radically down at the rear as to look "broken". I've seen 'em done that way and I think it looks broken, too.

 

I get that, I was also referring to an earlier post when it was said the motor should be lower at the front, at least thats how I read it. JW

 

Okay, standard engine angle in most cars is about 5 degrees down in the rear. This is easily seen in the intake flange for the carb, which is angled slightly up in back so the carb is level at rest.

The engine/trans centerline through the crank and mainshaft should point toward the differential flange on the rear axle. Exact driveline angles are often argued, but you do not want the output shaft to point up in the air or down at the ground.

As for the "engine level with the frame" rule, I was referring to fairly common practice, and especially the T Etiquette page in POST#5819.
It's kind of tough to see, but the main drawing shows everything level, except the wheel/tire rake. Look at the firewall/engine/frame meeting point and everything is at right angles.
The top left small drawing shows a body raked in relation to the engine/frame (indicating a 'flaw').
This is one of those things that is often suggested to new builders so they don't make major errors. However I think that if you are looking for a wild look (and a T Bucket is not boring!) having a rake to the body while the engine is closer to level tends to do this. It is similar to odd numbered spokes on a wheel; it is uneven and evokes tension and dynamics at rest to a component that is normally in motion.
I hope this explains where the 'rule' came from and how breaking 'rules' sometimes makes a car better in my eye.

 

Okay guys as I said before with the U joints you have a lot of latitude in driveshaft angle. Maybe if you have to lean the engine back in your build to make it work right their might be something else wrong with your design. I went back and looked at my post of the magazine with the T bucket rules a couple of pages back and they do call for the engine on the same plane as the frame. That might be something I don't agree with although a little low in front looks better than low in back.
This a de-uglifing thread and their is not much uglier than an engine leaning backwards in one. Sorry guys that have the engine mounted that way. It might not look as bad in some cars but in T buckets it just doesn't look good.

 

Same car here after Dan Woods got it? Mickey Thompson's Show, Great Western Livestock Barn in City of Commerce, Ca. in April of 1967

 

Question asked. Question answered. Thanks, guys!

 

I used the word sometimes!
Rules are great, they make sense almost all the time.
See post 400. Follows the rule. Perfect profile.
See post 413, the Arias blown T. Breaks the rule (note the angle of the body edge to the frame). You also see this in some cars where they channel more in front.
It's like the common rule don't mix wheel styles. In most cases it's correct. But a bucket or altered with mag rears and spoke fronts can be even better.

 

Speaking of Altered's Rod that is where all the rules are thrown out. They are built for one thing alone. Going fast. I've seen plenty of Fuel Altered's with the engine way jacked up in front and they just look badass******in.
I still like the little bucket above, maybe better in red. It has a lot right with it.

 

Then there is the FED practice of engineering "dump" into the engine placement - down in front. Of course, no carb flanges that need levelling like a carbureted street car so not as easy (or maybe not even possible) for a T bucket but you can't deny the killer look of a blown and injected Hemi dumped down and leaning forward between the pipes.
Steve

 

You know I never understood trying to level a carb flange. Cars are made to go up hill and down hill and that puts carbs. at all kinds of angles.

 

Gary....Even when I`m going Downhill, I seem to be going uphill.......

Taking a late lunch after spending the Morning getting the Family late model fixed,(check engine light/EGR), smogged, tagged and a New Tire....punctured sidewall not fixable.....

Maybe I can get something done this afternoon I can charge some hours against......sigh....

Stopped on the T for now....

 

True, Steve, but the downward dump is usually one of necessity, due to the difference in height of the engine (sitting as low in the frame as possible) and the pinion height (with 16x11 wheels and those TALL sidewall pie crust slicks!). It also helps with traction, as the engines trying to lift the entire nose of the car and using that leverage to plant the slicks. You know, I never thought I'd say this (in fact, the idea of it scared the***** out of me prior to trying it!), but Jeep Hampshire's brother Ronnie let me sit in his legs under car (Waterman Hampshire) and it was SO much more comfortable that I thought it would be! It also seemed like the engine wasn't as dumped that way, but sitting that low, it's harder to tell. The car does have to be a little longer at the back to allow you to get your legs under the rear, however. Dumping the front of the engine like that brings it's own set of problems, such as the loss of oil pan room to contend with. I can't imagine running a dragster pan on the street. It's bad enough dealing with the loss of oil pressure after the chutes pop (Engine off, clutch in, chutes out (IF you have the time) because I've yet to see a dragster pan (even with baffles and trap doors) that would maintain oil pressure for the full shutdown if you left the clutch out. On our dragster, we have the fuel shut off, chute, and fire bottle levers all on the same side in that order so a) when you shut down the excess fuel gets blown out the pipes, and b) if things really go to*****, one continuous swipe puts you in the safest possible situation. This allows Donnie to leave the clutch in about 5-10 secs before the pump*****s up all the oil trapped behind the baffle, and all the rest is in the front of the pan! Not a problem in a street driven T bucket, but I bet a dragster pan wouldn't work very well going around corners either.

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

Nevermind, I pulled up some pics and it's more nose down that I remembered....kinda makes sense, since your legs are under the rear end.

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

I LOVE that look! Maybe not practical but looks wicked!

Steve

 

Gary, that was my point and the reason why the carb mounting flange is level is so that when you go up hill things get a bit richer under load and leaner going down where it doesn't really matter and that's why the float bowl is in front of the venturi, except on secondary's and some other cases. JW

 

What is your thinking on tubs? Here's some shots of a tub a good friend owns and it has been in his family since his dad originally built it in the late forties. Started out with a overhead converted banger and then a V860 built by Louie Senter in '48 and still running great today. Even made it as a cover car for Hot Rod in the late forties. The last shot is of Louie being reunited with the car and engine at the WRA meet at Willow Springs Last Nov.

 

You know that makes sense. I never thought it through. Learned something today.