LocostUSA.com

I love this forum and visit it every day. I've posted pics and info on some of my builds before. And, I've posted work on projects that never got finished. Most recently I had purchased Abarth SP1000 molds and was going to do a build using them. Multiple health issues made me rethink that project and I sold the molds.

I've been feeling some better and recently got clearance from my DRs to work alone in my shop. I have a knee replacement coming up on March 14. (was scheduled for Jan but got delayed)

This build is suppose to be simple and inexpensive. I was going to use an LS engine but I had a SBC that I had so I'm using it.

Here are the details.
A friend that owned a wrecking yard gave me a C4 Corvette rolller. I pulled the suspension and rolled the tub over. I welded 2 by 2 square tubing the length of the car, attaching it at the sills. I jigged the suspension pick up points and steering rack points which bolted to the 2 by 2 frame. Once done I removed the frame I built, turned it over, leveled it on jack stands and started my build.

I'm keeping the stock 96.2 inc wheelbase. The C4 Vette has a aluminum suspension parts. A 5 link IRS is in the rear and double wishbones in the front. The front uses long/short A arm technology. I was able to run the main frame rails from the width of the rear trailing arms to the front lower A frame mounts and keep the frame in the same plane. This creates a V shape that matches the the V shape of the 27 fiberglass ford body.

The main frame rails are 2 by 3 .083. I've used a combination of 1.5 .083 and some .120 wall, and 1 by 1 .065 tubing.
I wanted the look of a Hot Rod for a couple of reasons. A lot of my friends have Hot Rods. This car will let me go to meets and cruises with them. I also like the looks of Hot Rods. But, I want a good handling car. One that I sit low in. I'm 6'2 with a 34 in inseam. I used the 27 Ford body because it's longer and wider than the 1915 or 1923 T bucket. I want the car to be as minimal as possible so I'm using the Lakester look as inspiration.

Here is progress to date. I'm not a great welder. So, I've tacked my frame and worked out all of the details and fitment. I transported it to a friend of mines yesterday that owns a race car chassis shop. He's duplicating it for me (with improvements).

I'm having fun.

Having fun, huh? I'm not sure you're going to fit in with this group here.

PS--I like what you're doing with the body. What did you start with? I know it's a......but did you find a (dare I say it?) locost source for yours?

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

I like it. We need more rods here.

Where will you be putting the battery? It looks like there is room just behind the radiator.

I guess you will run a long pump to tuck the alternator in and the master under the floor?

Duvall vee screen?


Jack:
http://www.up22.com/t_bucket.htm

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

Nice looking "T" Rod. I'll be following your progress. It is nice to see others' perspectives on a "made from scratch" vehicle.

Cheers,
Roy

_________________
Build log http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16510

I hate for my first reply to a thread to go like this, being slightly negative and all.
One thing I noticed is you have all sorts of triangulation and bracing in the rear and then the front just hangs there all floppy like. You have the roadster type headers so you can still stiffen the front up and maybe you will. Your chassis buddy may tell you to make some changes.
I love the idea of the car though, a good handling street rod style beast will be nothing but fun. Put a roll bar on it and embarrass the local road racers. The same basic idea has crossed my gray matter also.

_________________
The biggest thing in motocross.

We all see things, but he is just showing the fruit of his labor and not asking for design improvements.

The front framing is typical t bucket, fwiw.

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

I like it loads!
I was going to go with ifs on mine, but decided I prefer more traditional hot rods, so stuck with an I-beam instead.
This should handle well. Lots of cutting and shutting on that body. Whose body is it? Being in the glass street rod business in a previous life, I know most of those guys. My business was "Real Hot Rods", we used a '28 Model A tub that I stretched and messed with to get the sizes I wanted. I love "modifieds".
Looking good, and good to see you "back at it". Good luck with your surgery.
Cheers,
Stewart.

Egoman maybe he'll have a couple of tubes running from the firewall over the headers to the front that bolt in as some of the tubes in a lotus 23 bolt in.

This is gonna rock...

Back in the '50s there were some T-bodied specials road racing, along with the specials from Max Balchowsky and Briggs Cunningham. And there have been a few successful T-bodied autocrossers too.

It may be worth noting that most I-beam (or tube beam, or whatever they call them these days) front suspensions bind when one wheel is lifted and the other isn't. The semi-flexy ladder frame is the front anti sway bar in those applications. If the frame is too stiff, suspension parts break.

This build and mainlandboy's "pseudo street rod" ( viewtopic.php?f=36&t=17167 ) both have IFS, so there's not much worry about making them too stiff. But not much necessity for it, either.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

[/quote]It may be worth noting that most I-beam (or tube beam, or whatever they call them these days) front suspensions bind when one wheel is lifted and the other isn't. The semi-flexy ladder frame is the front anti sway bar in those applications. If the frame is too stiff, suspension parts break.



Sorry Jack, have to disagree, up to a point. It depends what, and how, you locate the axle. I have an original '33 I-beam (that has been dropped), on my '33 coupe. It uses the original wishbone that I split and moved the ends out to the frame, and located them with truck tie rod ends. When it was under construction, I moved the axle through its range of motion without the spring attached. I had 6" of bump and 6" of rebound. This is not an off-road car, so I deemed that sufficient travel without bind. On a lot of the cars I have built using a Tube axle or an I-beam, I have used 5/8" Heims to locate the split wishbone, hairpin radius rod, or 4-Bar, all with the same similar amount of travel. As the great Colin once said "any suspension will work, if you don't let it".

The old "I" beam axles have relatively little torsional rigidity so the old 'hairpin' style radius arms would still allow generous lean in the corners without problems. On the other hand, cars with tubular axles will bind up and break things. That's one reason for the popularity of "4-bar" radius arms in recent years.

_________________
Mike - Read my story at http://twinlakesseven.blogspot.com/

Oh kay FINE LimeyKid, go ahead and trump my opinion-phrased-as-fact with actual knowledge gained from experience...see if I care. But as your punishment, you have to explain it to me.

What I see on most street rods is a solid beam/tube between the kingpins on the left and right spindles, and two "hairpins" locating the ends of the beam/tube longitudinally to the chassis. Here's a pic from Speedway showing what one side of this front suspension looks like:

When the axle goes up, it pivots at the 5/8 rod end in the rear of the hairpin, which causes the axle to rotate (clockwise when viewed from the left, as we're seeing this drawing) and when it goes down, it rotates counterclockwise. However, the tube between the wheels is robust enough to resist twisting, so either the hairpins or the chassis have to flex, or the axle binds.

The only time I've seen this type of suspension with the leaf spring missing and the chassis on blocks, I lifted the left wheel, and the right wheel came up too, as if they were solidly joined together. The builder told me that in practice, chassis flex and hairpin flex allowed the wheels some degree of up-and-down motion independent of each other, and that people who made their chassis "too stiff" (he and I were discussing the relative merits of my traditional space frame vs his traditional ladder frame) got front suspension failures for their efforts. It made sense to me--so much sense that I've believed it without question ever since. Until today. Now I'm just befuddled.

Here's another pic to help clarify my confusion:

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

Thanks, ngpmike, that helps. In Ye Olde Days this style of front suspension had a V-shaped thingie that attached to the front axle where the front of the hairpins attach in my pics, and had a single attachment to the chassis at the point of the V, under the frame. But I wonder...ah, I'm going to start a new Suspension Forum thread for what I wonder.

Meanwhile, I'll wonder if the transverse leaf spring is all that positions the front axle laterally with these single-beam suspensions.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

My "experience" would say that most of the parts in the early style front suspensions flex. As heavy as they are, the original forged I-beam axles flex. This is where some of the articulation comes from. The other is absolutely in the frame. We have a classic ladder frame. No matter how many tubular crossmembers are put in, it will still flex. The frame rails on my coupe are 6" x 2" C-channel, 10ga. They are boxed the full length and 2" o.d. tubular cross members put in. If I place a floor jack under one of the front frame horns, and lift, the 2 rear wheels will stay on the ground. The other front tyre will stay on the ground at first, but eventually lift. You can see the frame flex.
To put this into context, I also own a 2003 Ford F-150 pick up. If I put a floor jack under the frame on one end, the same result will happen as on my coupe. My coupe handles as well as my truck, or as badly, whichever way you want to look at it!
Most modern trucks aren't designed to corner well, it's just not their job. I have to say traditional hot rods aren't designed to corner well either.
I'm a teacher. I teach Auto Tech to high school students at a Community College. On the last day of the year we run the go-karts in the parking lot. One kart at a time, no racing, too much liability. Last year I drove my coupe round the course we had laid out for the karts. The body roll from a "buggy sprung", solid axle car had to seen to be believed!
In designing the suspension for my roadster, I realized I wasn't going to get flex in my frame, so had to incorporate it into the suspension. So I am using a 4-link with Heims at both ends of the links. Again I'm not going off-road with this car, so the actual amount of suspension travel I have is more than I need. I believe the use of an original forged axle and a 4-link will give the most amount of articulation. Let's face it, it's what everybody who uses a live back axle uses!
Bottom line, I believe traditional hot rod front ends articulate and flex enough for normal road use, before they begin to bind.
Oh, and yes, in lots of examples, mine included, the cross spring is the only lateral location. Cars built using cross steer, as opposed to side steer, tend to use a Panhard bar.
Cheers,
Stewart.