Jon Cole Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 The wheelbase seems to disagree with the fenderskirts, and after looking at it, I think the proper fix may be to bring the rear axle forward, rather than just rescribing the skirts. I am not sure how to go about it... that front yoke section on the axle contacts the driveshaft tunnel. Between the two is the crossbar for the shock mounts. If I could move all of it forward just 1/8" I think it would help. Any advice?
Chuck Most Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Maybe you could grind material off the frame rails. This would enable you to move the axle ahead, and you could modify the suspension so the axle doesn't fit to the frame, if you're one of the guys who's put off by that aspect of the kit. Not sure how you'd solve the axle yoke issue- you might be able to trim it a bit, or deepen the rear of the drivetrain hump with a file to gain clearance. I have a Hornet I plan to lower, and I'm thinking of cutting off the top of the trans tunnel and replacing it with a thinner piece of plastic in order to gain some extra driveshaft clearance.
Jon Cole Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 Here is a side shot of the model. Curious if anyone else sees a wheelbase too long? To fix it will require altering the frame, floorboards, leaf springs, shock mounts, and driveshaft.
jeffs396 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Jon, you can really see it when the wheel openings are cut out: Edited October 23, 2011 by jeffs396
mr moto Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 How does it compare to a 1:1 Hudson? It might be that the wheels are really that far back.
kingiguana Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Maybe the 1/1 is like that ? Being that the skirts are so low, I would think that You would need more wiggle room when changing a tire.
Chuck Most Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 The axle does seem to be a tad too far back- I've got a book with the wheelbase listed somewhere. Trouble is I don't have a Hornet built up with a stock chassis to measure.
Rob Hall Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Maybe the 1/1 is like that ? Being that the skirts are so low, I would think that You would need more wiggle room when changing a tire. I would assume when jacked up, the wheel would fall down a few inches...
Harry P. Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I used the chrome side trim as my guide... adjusted the relative sizes of the photos until the side trim was the same length. As you can see, the wheelbase of the model looks to me to be pretty much right on. You be the judge:
Chuck Most Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Looks like the rear overhang might be a bit short on the kit, too. Meh- won't stop me building this stack of them!
Jon Cole Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 Now you show us! I just started making my alterations. It's all good tho... I will be moving the rear about 1/8" forward. That pic does show... all someone would need to do is re-scribe the back edge of the skirt closer to the rear. All minor quibbles now. And, it has been noted, this will be fixed on the next run. Do like this Hudson!
Harry P. Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Seems to me that you guys are seeing (and "fixing") problems that don't actually exist...
Chuck Most Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Judging from the photo, the wheelbase IS off, but not by as much as was thought. I think it has to do with the rear overhang- look at it- on my monitor, the body aft of the rear tire looks about 1/16 or so short compared to the pic of the 1:1.
Art Anderson Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 As Harry P notes, the wheelbase and overall length are right on--those dimensions are easily found, in the Standard Catalog of American Cars, also from Hudson-Essex-Terraplane Club, The Hostetler Hudson Museum in Shipshewanna IN, who gave invaluable reference help to Dave when the kit was in development, as well as the October 2011 issue of Collectible Automobile Magazine: It's 124", overall length being 208". As an aside here: Where on most cars having fender skirts as standard equipment the skirts filled in the rear wheel arch for that smooth, streamlined look, Hudson had a real need for them: Behind that fender skirt is a frame rail, outboard of the rear wheels (not possible to put that in the kit given the material thickness of the plastic required--the stub ends of that rail are on the frame member itself though in the kit. Without the skirts, this area of the car would have looked VERY unfinished indeed, even though in production, that area of the frame got painted body color (I remember very well, as I not only washed and waxed Dad's Hudsons as a kid, and in HS, had to change a rear tire once--a B of a job, even with the "scissors" jack Hudson provided for their cars--not easy to work the spare wheel and tire up into that wheel well at all!). As for overhang, not all that much body overhang at front or rear, a good portion of that was in the bumpers, which are pretty deeply drawn steel, on brackets extending them well out from the body front and rear (also, for those of us who remember the 40's and 50's, the departure angles of driveways both at home and at the gas station and supermarket were a LOT steeper than seen today--meaning that there had to be a lot more limitation to the overhang at front and rear to avoid unnecessary scraping of bumpers on pavement). As John Cole notes, the cut lines of the fender skirts did come out in the wrong place a bit, which of course many modelers will correct, and it's my understanding that this is correctible in the tooling still. Art
Harry P. Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Art points out a very interesting fact: these cars had outboard frame rails; in other words, the rear wheels were within (or "behind," depending on how you want to say it) the frame rails. So a "gasser" like the one posted earlier here is pretty much an impossibility... you've just cut off the whole rear part of the frame!
Chuck Most Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 As John Cole notes, the cut lines of the fender skirts did come out in the wrong place a bit, which of course many modelers will correct, and it's my understanding that this is correctible in the tooling still. Art Dave Metzner told me in an e-mail that the cut lines will be corrected on later runs of the kit.
Jon Cole Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 So I guess there is no reason for me to continue, even tho I have started making corrections. Or is there? With all due respect. I'm just trying to work on what I have seen.
Haubenschild Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 will the wheelbase be the same on the stock car version?
Chuck Most Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 will the wheelbase be the same on the stock car version? Everything will be the same regarding the chassis/body. The stock car will have a different grille, wheels, and other parts, but the chassis and body are the same as the '53.
charlie8575 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 will the wheelbase be the same on the stock car version? Remember, until the mid-1960s, "stock car" was exactly that. A factory-built production car modified for racing. Charlie Larkin
Art Anderson Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Art points out a very interesting fact: these cars had outboard frame rails; in other words, the rear wheels were within (or "behind," depending on how you want to say it) the frame rails. So a "gasser" like the one posted earlier here is pretty much an impossibility... you've just cut off the whole rear part of the frame! Actually Harry, if you look at the kit parts, you will see not two frame rails, but four! At the rear wheels on the real car, the two frame rails are there, on inboard, and one outboard, of the wheels themselves. Stepdown Hudsons were built so stout, most scrapyards would not take them (back in the late 50's-early 60's, because they could not be crushed! Does that say stout, or what? (Dad's '54 is rusting away in a farmer's back lot as I write this, car retired in 1961 (after the engine threw a rod on me--geez, now who is gonna accuse ME of stoplight drags?) Art
Harry P. Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Not totally indestructible: Ah, but the chassis was probably still good!
Chuck Most Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 The car itself may be pretty stout,but picture no seatbelts and all the sharp, pokey knobs on the dash.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezEjae4WyM
jeffs396 Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Art points out a very interesting fact: these cars had outboard frame rails; in other words, the rear wheels were within (or "behind," depending on how you want to say it) the frame rails. So a "gasser" like the one posted earlier here is pretty much an impossibility... you've just cut off the whole rear part of the frame! If the 1:1 frame is configured like this, I think it would be OK! Edited October 25, 2011 by jeffs396
Guest Johnny Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 that's the cool thing about the model car world, you can have it any way you want. Hudson's uncrushable? seriously doubt that too Incredibly hard to crush! The hydraulic crusher we had at the yard in Portage Wi. could not crush a Hudson enough to go through the shredder in Milwaukee! Wasn't just the frame but also the design of the Body! The upside down bathtub Nash was almost the same way! They had to make cuts with a torch to get them to crush down enough and that was time and time is money so they started rejecting them unless they were cut up!
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now