As some may have noticed I am starting a build, right now it is still part collecting and sketches. While in the sketching mode I thought I would share thoughts and get your opinions.
The "theory" behind the car is that it was built for a long distance race open to all (thus the model T choice) circa 1914. Most of the parts and pieces are scrounged from earlier cars resulting in a very "brass" car. The engine is an unstamped replacement ford block I found a number of years back and that is where most of the money would have been spent. The body needs to be fast yet still carry a "crew" of at least 3 thus the need for a rear seat. Much of the body will be home built to keep things as light as possible eliminating things like doors and windshield although a top is retained. A T body might have been modified although the car was built in Australia (RHD) and shipped to America. Unfortunately the onset of WWI canceled the race and the car was parked for decades . . .
Anyways that’s the "theory" behind why a 4 seat speedster was built. The truth is that I want a speedster that I can travel with the family in, something more exciting than a touring. As for being an early car I always liked brass cars. The RHD simply adds to the unique factor and as I will eventually retire with my wife in Thailand the cars there are RHD.
Now that I have bored you here is a sketch, please do not be PC as this is still a planning stage and criticism is welcome.
From your posting at http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/599638/675925.html?1474076517 it appears you are familiar with T’s. And from that posting and your web site it appears you have a handle on casting/machining/ and have been using that in your black powder weapons reproduction/repair business.
If you were someone just starting out in Ts I would encourage you to join the local club and purchase a running/driving Model T rather than starting with a project. There is nothing wrong with starting with a project but there have been several folks get discouraged and loose interest in their project. If they had started with a running driving T they may have still been with us. Not a right or wrong but an easier/more encouraging way verses a more delayed gratification way.
Ref your idea. One of the great things about speedsters/racers and for that matter T’s in general – you can build them any way you desire (ok – speed and stopping power cost money …. How fast do you want to go?).
I do not see an easy way for the rear seat occupants to get into the rear seat. That didn’t stop Ford Mustangs from selling in the 1960s and if they are only occasionally going to sit in the rear seat it probably doesn’t matter. I looked for, but I did not find the photos of Rob’s Model K Roadster that I believe he is adding steps to the rear fenders so people can access the rear tourabaout seat. The idea is similar to the one shown in the photo below that Rob posted at: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/411944/420985.html?1391653074 and is reposted below:
In that case the car is a tourabout with the same basic seat front and back. Model Ts did that in 1910. They do not have doors on the front or rear seat area. In your case the sides of the car at the rear come up and I do not see a space for a rear door on the side. You could of course consider a door at the rear like the early 1903-1904 Model A USA cars used. [Ford Canada had a different body that had a rear door on each side.]
Note another option might be to build a replica of an “Aberdeen Cross-Country Ford". The US Army tested them back in the 1920s. Below is a photo taken from the Oct 1925 Popular Science article go to page 35 on their counter (page 33 if you are reading the page numbers in the magazine) it is available for viewing by Google Books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0CcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Aberdeen+cross-country+Ford+US+Army&source=bl&ots=sYfWN3LdHE&sig=q7xSX1ICIdflQ9O8IyhpB8N9_I4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nXxDT6WEAs2btwfi6NC3BQ&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Aberdeen%20cross-country%20Ford%20US%20Army&f=false And there is a thread at: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/257047/269059.html?1329828216
Not a lot of brass, but a sporty four seater.
You could still go Right Hand Drive and say it was a Canadian experimental for export.
There was also a book from 30 or 40 years ago called “The old car idea book” or some similar sounding title. It had several suggestions for bodies someone could build on a T chassis. When I “googled it” I did not find a copy so I may have the title wrong.
You might want to take a look at Mike Walker’s “Marriage Carriage” that he built a while back. I has a stretched frame and tourabout seating. See: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/80257/91001.html?1257580851 . There are several additional postings dealing with how it was built etc.
Good luck with your T. And yes, having a garage/workshop is a big plus.
Hap l9l5 cut off
Those wheels really interest me, as I have a full set of 4 wheels complete with the hub spacers to mount on wooden wheel hubs and 5 lock ring rims that appear identical to them. The loose lugs say USW on them. I've looked at various other disc wheels made for the T, but have never seen another identical set.
I see I can buy 600-21 tires and even 700-21 from Blockley.
I have this quite decent '27 RPU. I sold my Livingood 4WD for good reasons for me. Maybe I will craft one of my own
I apperciate the honesty, as far as getting burned out this has been something I have collected pieces for for many years that was put on hold. It will not be my first T and I have assisted many others into the hobby. There are no clubs where I am nor roads that are enjoyable to drive on. My first Endurance run was I believe the 25th (the 2 day run with the night in Monterey).
As far as the rear seats go, I have attempted several drawing (in the past) and just can't get doors in that look good. Getting in and out will be done like a rumble seat with steps on the fender. The benefit of not having doors will also make more useable space for storage when nobody is back there and ease the construction.
As far as fast, I want to be able to drive at 55-65. For this a built engine will be coupled with 3:1 ruxtel (yes I already have the ruxtel and geering). If I come across a decent priced warford I may run that as well. Stopping will be outside brakes, nothing on the front.
Updated photo, a little more to it
Looking better and better
i have seen and known Chad's mother, who drove her own speedster in several endurance runs, I knew his grandfather who had several T's and was probably the oldest to run his speedster in the Santa Clara endurance run, I know two of his uncles who are big in the antique car hobby, and I remember when Chad used a T speedster to go home on weekends when he went to college back in the days when he was a regular on this forum.
I don't think his dream of building a speedster is a dream that will drift away any time soon.
Very pretty, but how fast will your speedster go? I think that will determine whether you can have a top on it or not.
As far as speed, something that can run on the freeway so a driving speed of 60-65mph, top speed a bit more than that. If driving fast the top is down, simple as that. Although with a roll up rear window and lack of windshield it wouldnt be as bad. To get this speed there will be modifications to say the least.
Thank you Aaron, yes I was logging about 1-200 miles a week on my speedster when I was in college as I had the car there with me. Until very recently I had believed that the parts I had collected for this car were gone and it was going to be too much work to replace them. For the past decade I have been homeless and now that we finally have land and will be building a home and shop I can go back to the design and collection
Check out mid 20's Bentleys that raced in LeMons. I think that would give you some inspiration as well.
You mentioned taking family, if so, you may want rear seats enclosed so no one "falls out" of the seats. Many non-door equipped speedsters used small step plates on fender and body sides to provide access, you might think of those--note the Mercury #11 thread currently active for pics of those.
I've thought about the Bentleys however in my mind the style it much more 20's and I am looking to keep it prewar. As far as sides there may be more in common with a mother-in-law seat except that the lower is enclosed. Unlike the rootlieb seats the cut of these are different and hold one in better.
The images show the frame near the centerline of the wheels at each axle. In reality that won't work. You will need some sort of suspension and axles. There has to be room for those things.
In the rear you can "zee" the frame, but that will elevate the rear seat quite a bit. In front it is easier, you can move the axle in front of the frame.
The front will receive a reverse eye good for about an inch, chevy spindles, and a drop plate for the remainder. The wishbone will be cut and attached to the frame. As I am using a cross drive mag the flywheel will be cut down allowing the pan to be reduced if needed. A rear Z places the frame too high so instead I will be converting to elliptical springs mounting under the ruxtel. This will in total give a drop of 6-7 inches and should place the lower frame rails close to centerline.
With your amount of drop you will have to modify the rear radius rods also (maybe moving them to the outside of the frame).
Just my 2 cents worth.
Chad, With a cut down flywheel you will lower the torque of the engine and reduce a lot of the power for hilly driving. Also no ring gear for a starter. Les
I didn't mention rear radius rods as I haven't decided for sure if I might look for a warford as well. If I do then the shortened rods may clear, either way it will be something thought about when its going together. I'm aware of the drawbacks of a cut down flywheel although running an overhead and drilled crank a lack of power/lubrication for hill climbing shouldn't be an issue. As for lack of a starter I've already sourced an early RHD alum hoggshead so the electric start went out a long time ago.
If you go with a counterweighted crank then the cut down flywheel will be much less of a consideration.
Also with a cut down flywheel you can cut and raise the bottom of the pan and reduce the risk of ripping the drain plug out. I'm assuming you are also not going to run a T mag with the cut down flywheel
That would be correct regarding the T mag. As far as oil goes there will be an external tank which I plan on running a pressure bypass thru and then foreward to the timing gears thru a cooler inside the frame rails. Im thinking I will need to run drilled rods so that the pistons/wrist pins get there oil as there won't be enough flinging action.
Are you running full pressure oiling? Or splash?
The goal is for full pressure
Lots of us have run full pressure T engines without fooling around with drilling the con rods. I suppose if you got up to maybe 150 HP then some additional considerations might apply
Think about this, if you are going to run a Warford, then instead of shortening the drive line the 12 inches +/-, lengthen the frame the 12 inches +/-. You can then zee the frame behind the rear seat and keep the Model T rear spring. The longer wheel base will make the car more stable at higher speeds. It doesn't sound like you are going to use the car on 1/3 mile dirt tracks so the longer more stable wheel base should be of help.
A longer wheelbase is definatly something Ive considered. However having driven a speedster on good dirt roads and knowing what roads will await it over seas I really do want the shorter wheelbase. I haven't mentioned it but I should be able to make the rear seats removeable and able to be replaced with a fuel tank to turn it into a 2 seat speedster. As far as stability at speed unlike most T's I will be working to get as much of the weight (including people) as low as possible.
I'd bet you're going to want a windshield before it's over with, particularly driving at those speeds.
Also, you show a two man top, you'd be better off using a later design one man top that "locks" in position, and doesn't have to depend on front straps for all its strength.
Looks like fun!
I've thought about a monocle or windshield as well as a 1 man top but remember Im looking to keep this a prewar car (mostly 1910-1912) and a racer not a touring. As far as driving at speed without a windshield it works so much better for hair styling as the wind blows in one direction instead of all over ;) Not to mention the design would place the windshield so far forward as to be almost pointless even with the bottom angled. This is due to the lower seats requiring them to be farther back unlike a stock T.
I do have a little experience driving at speed with a lacking of windshield. Driving at speed with no windshield is not nearly as bad as driving at speed with no windshield in the rain without fenders!
Chad, Fashion a roll up windshield similar to the very earliest T's to be used in an emergency.I have one on my speedster. Les