• Announcements

    • Site Upgrade   11/18/2017

      The Forums will be down, Sunday, November 26th starting 9 AM PST for upgrade.We'll probably be down until 1PM PST, but it might be longer. I'm doing a major forum software upgrade, so I expect the forums to operate somewhat differently when we come back online.  Update: I've had a medical issue come up, and this window might not get used. 
      Update 2: I'm moving the upgrade to 9 AM Sunday.  

BANTAM FUEL ALTERED - - New Pics 11-19

1,125 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This thread was originally for the rear engine mustang funny car but I've switched it to a Bantam Altered.......the pic of this Bantam, "The Tramp" is the inspiration.  The engine will be a 417 Donovan machined primarily from aluminum and some brass with the goal being 95% or better being scratch built.  Dave (comp1839) has been most helpful in sharing info on the engine and how to machine particular aspects of it.  Big thanks to him up front!!  I'm going to fab a Crower 8 port like this car and hope I can replicate the scoop as well. The rear end is a quick change fabricated / machined in brass. The car will be as true to an early 70's altered as possible. The wheel base will not be stretched like the car shown below. The wheelbase will be right around 100" in scale. Wheels were going to be from micro nitro but the goal is to make my own both front and rear. Chassis will be in brass with some pieces nickel or chrome plated.  Cheers, Tim

As an FYI, the first couple of pages revolve around the original funny car concept, I don't know how to edit / delete those pages so please jump ahead to page 2 to follow along on this build.  Thanks!!

DSC 0005

 

 

 

 

Edited by Codi
Switch from Funny to Altered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice start to this Tim.  Having recently completed the Jim Dunn cuda, I'll be keeping a close eye on your progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like where this is going!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What a cool project.  I'll be watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cool!  A new project... :)  Looking forward to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

NICE !

I've wanted to do this for a long time but so many other projects. If I ever get around to it I don't think it will be quit as detailed as as yours. Great start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice project, and very different. I like it. You say you might use Micro Nitro wheels...But he is retiring. Has the new owner started taking orders? I am dying to get a set of 1/16 wheels for my mustang project, and dont want a cheap set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Looks great so far. I've never seen this car before. Fascinating. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

AZ Boy- yeah I saw that one.  Nice nice job. Always liked that car and that he was able to "make it work".

Dennis / Ray / Scott and Matt, thanks too.  I like the challenge of machining A LOT and now that the Henry build has moved along I needed another project that would let me jump back and forth so I can still use my equipment while wrapping up the Henry.  Keeps the mind fresh too! 

Bill, yeah it was off the radar because of it's lack of success, but the stance, profile etc. of the car really caught my eye.  The pic below is not reflective of the stance I'm going for, it will sit down more in the back like the Cantorelli car. It would be cool to find out if the original builder of the 1:1 car is still around to be able to speak to him a bit.  hmmmmm

Dwayne, I'm not sure what's going on with MicroNitro.  You'll have to visit his site for updates (facebook)  At this point, I want to make my own wheels (or at least try my hand at it)  Jim makes nice wheels and hopefully the new owner/operator will continue on.  Here's a pic of the wheels I bought from Jim about 2 years ago that I'm considering for the car.

REAR ENGINED MUSTANG 2 004

Edited by Codi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here we go again. How are you going to blow our minds this time Tim? I'll definitely be following this one, and I'll make sure that I'm sitting down when I check on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I missed DSC due to family issues. Ended up in California instead of Arizona. Dad to the rescue.

This was a nice surprise to come home to though. I should have remembered this was not a sidewinder because, now that I see it again, I remember you had already moved the rear fender wells.

And now the metalwork begins. Strap in kiddies, Tim's going all psycho on us again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I had to miss it also as I was in California ( San Diego ) . Looks like we missed a good time. Next year ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cut the bottom off the block so I could see how the crank girdle I made fits it.  I also found the mistake in the length of the plastic block as well.  The gaps between the ribs was too wide by about .5mm.  It's been shortened 1.4mm to better reflect the real thing.  It was just an exercise to understand what the real one should look like as I go forward. I'm basing my engine on Dave's info as mentioned above.  I'll nickel plate the brass later.  cheers, tim

Rear Engined Mustang Crank Girdle Done 011

The letters are about 1.7mm in height and 1mm in length.  I could have used brass lettering that was just a wee bit smaller as the script just fits in the channel whereas the real car had more spacing between the letters.  I'm satisfied with the compromise and think it has merit as a possible resin casting, unfortunately I won't bother.

If you look closely at the block, you can see the 3 different slices between the ribs to remove the material as mentioned for proper length.

Rear Engined Mustang Crank Girdle Done 049

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Holy COW! That is not only wonderful work, it makes my eyes bleed just THINKING about trying to do the same! I am totally awed and jealous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Aside from just being different, what was the theory behind a rear-engine funny car? They obviously weren't successful, so why did they exist? Just wondering, not meant as a comment on your model at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Aside from just being different, what was the theory behind a rear-engine funny car? They obviously weren't successful, so why did they exist? 

My guess is that it was two-fold. Enhanced driver safety, like the move to rear-engined rails after Garlit's horrific ride...  Image result for don garlits car cut in half

...and better weight distribution for drag racing, with the engine weight closer to the drive wheels. 

It probably wasn't terribly successful because, as mentioned above, it was underfunded, and the design probably didn't become popular because it wasn't all that successful.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great progress so far Tim. I'm looking forward to more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My guess is that it was two-fold. Enhanced driver safety, like the move to rear-engined rails after Garlit's horrific ride... 

...and better weight distribution for drag racing, with the engine weight closer to the drive wheels. 

It probably wasn't terribly successful because, as mentioned above, it was underfunded, and the design probably didn't become popular because it wasn't all that successful.

I didn't know the Funny Car class even allowed rear-engine cars. And if it was in the interest of driver safety, why aren't all Funny Cars today rear-engine, like Top Fuelers are? Shouldn't Funny Car drivers be a safe as Top Fuel drivers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't know the Funny Car class even allowed rear-engine cars. And if it was in the interest of driver safety, why aren't all Funny Cars today rear-engine, like Top Fuelers are? Shouldn't Funny Car drivers be a safe as Top Fuel drivers?

I wasn't there, so I can't really say. I DO know that racing is a lot about winning, and if the thing wasn't fast enough or handled weird, due to a lack of development funds (or whatever), even if it WAS safer and had HUGE potential, if the drivers in the class weren't making a stink over it and it wasn't a winner, nobody would jump on the bandwagon and say "let's build 'em all this way from now on".

For another thing, you sat farther back from the engine in a funny than in a top-fueler, so the hazards of getting body parts removed by flying mechanical bits weren't quite so apparent.

And to make more of the point about winning and folks copying winners, there were more than a few rear-engined rails well before Garlits made the switch...but when HE did it, and was pretty much the man to beat, everyone in the class followed suit.

A thorough reading of the funny-car rules of the period might be revealing too. Maybe the rear-engine configuration was subsequently outlawed. The cars were supposed to kinda represent production cars, kinda, and rear-engine may not have seemed in keeping with the spirit of the class. 

I really don't know.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For another thing, you sat farther back from the engine in a funny than in a top-fueler, so the hazards of getting body parts removed by flying mechanical bits weren't quite so apparent.

Not buying that for a minute. At 300 MPH, if the blower explodes, doesn't matter if you're several inches further back. You're going to get a faceful of shrapnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not buying that for a minute. At 300 MPH, if the blower explodes, doesn't matter if you're several inches further back. You're going to get a faceful of shrapnel.

You wear a full face mask for one thing, and for another thing, it wasn't the blower that took 1/2 of Garlits' foot off. It was part of the exploding transmission. In a top-fuel car, you sat with your feet pretty much on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Still... if "safety" was the overriding factor, NHRA rules would mandate all cars be rear-engine, and all catastophic engine failures would be behind the driver. So obviously safety isn't the main factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Garlits was the driving force behind making the switch in top-fuel to rear engine. He was also an early promoter of fire-retardant full driving suits...well before they were required by NHRA.

If there had been the kind of frequent catastrophic failures in funnies that there were getting to be in top-fuel, and the injuries that went with them, you can be damm sure NHRA would have required SOMETHING.

" injuries and even death were a constant companion as engines, clutches, and bellhousings, pushed to and beyond their limits, began to give out with an alarming frequency, claiming heroes like Mike Sorokin. The aforementioned 6.43 was clocked by John Mulligan in qualifying No. 1 at the 1969 Nationals, but a disintegrating clutch in round one led to a terrible fire that ultimately claimed his life. Add in Garlits losing half of his right foot in the Lions transmission explosion and Jim Nicoll riding out his terrifying tumble alongside Don Prudhomme after a clutch explosion in the 1970 Nationals final, and you can see that it was a terrifying time to drive a fuel dragster."

But scattershields and bellhousings and ballistic blankets for blowers got better and better, and rear-engine configurations just weren't necessary for the funnies.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But scattershields and bellhousings and ballistic blankets for blowers got better and better, and rear-engine configurations just weren't necessary.

Necessary for Top Fuel... but not Funny Cars, which are basically the same thing under the skin? :blink:

Agree to disagree. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now