Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I like the split rear window. Just like my old 55 VW Beetle!
Very cool photo document of his build! 
Four years to build. We do it over here in 40 hours......well maybe 44.
Well it's a range, actually. Anywhere from 40 hours to 40 years.
Al and Greg are going for more than 40 years I think.
DannyP posted:Al and Greg and going for more than 40 years I think.
Not yet...
I'm down to about 180 hours for a full build.
This is a similar top we did years ago, it snapped to the Carson style semi hard 1/4 boot.
I'm down to about 180 hours for a full build.
Attachments
Images (3)
That is impressive Alan, 180 hours for a full build you must have it down to a science now with the formula being able to repeat it at will.
He makes it look easy, and that is a problem.
This was a great build, and I know I'm the weird kid-- but I was looking at things other than his immaculate fit and finish work. There were several things that were really cool about the kit he used.
Did anybody else notice his subframe? Especially how looked around the door sills? The sills are quite a bit more narrow than the pan-based frames on the cars here, creating room for wider seats. There's more room in the footwells as well. It's a slick setup, and eliminates two of the major gripes about pan-based cars. This car is roomier in every dimension that matters.
The other thing was the trunk in front of the beam-- it's cavernous. Rather than sloping down from the top of the beam, and leaving a lot of dead real estate under the trunk, it drops almost straight down in front of the beam, opening up a very large area where most of us have a dinky space filled with a battery. That's also is slick.
It seems like both things wouldn't be that hard to replicate on this side of the pond, but it would take some re-imagining, and I know inertia is a powerful thing.
Your right Stan there is a modicum of extra space added to the sides of the pan each side which tapers but gives you a bit of extra space both sides which might make the difference for a wider seat or feet. 
You can see the difference in the frame when it is upside down. I wonder how much more it adds but if you look at the finished interior it does not seem that they make much use of it as the sill is still pretty wide.
Finally does it change how the pan fits or looks from the bottom.
Need more info to see if it is really wider.
Attachments
Images (2)
I don't know, Ray-- that looks at least 3" wider per side in the door area (up front). That's right where the pan-based cars here are silly narrow.
That's a big trunk, no matter who you are. There's no reason every replica couldn't have one like that.
Attachments
Images (3)
I stand corrected
Looks a bit wider at the base of the kick panels I wonder if they used a Karman Ghia chassis which is wider along there...
That is a stellar build. You all know I don't like the "tuck" seat inserts. Body color seatbacks? NICE! But everything else is so so sweet. I'd lose the whitewalls too.
That subframe is smart and safer, as well as elegantly done. And I like the trunk too.
I even like the George Jetson looking door panels. Stupid cool.
Did he ever say who he got the kit from. It certainly looks well- engineered. I like the idea of having some steel higher than the floor.
Lane Anderson posted:Did he ever say who he got the kit from. It certainly looks well- engineered. I like the idea of having some steel higher than the floor.
I did a little digging. He said it was kit from "Deventer", so I did a google search. I came up with a place called "Rebel Kit-Cars" (website: 356-speedster.nl) in Deventer, Netherlands. If you click around, I'm pretty sure it's the same kit.
I'd love to build one of these-- I think there's a lot to love about what they have going on. The hardtop is tasty as well:
That's a very nice shape.
Attachments
Images (1)
The only thing I find is that the sub frame seems a bit light for me, for rear butt sag prevention and for accident security. I Realize that I am comparing it to an IM frame.
The B coupe is also interesting.
IaM-Ray posted:The only thing I find is that the sub frame seems a bit light for me, for rear butt sag prevention and for accident security. I Realize that I am comparing it to an IM frame.
The B coupe is also interesting.
I actually love the lightness of the subframe. If you've ever seen the Kitman subframe:
... the one from the Netherlands is quite a bit more robust. The Kitman frame does widen the pan as well, which I think is great-- it's just a bridge too far in lightness for me.
I'll bet the Rebel frame/pan weighs half (or less) what an IM frame weighs. For a lightweight, it'd be a nearly perfect starting point.
Project X?
Attachments
Images (1)
Funny that they call it a notch back when it is really a fast back?
Although the large frunk is handy, I'd think that flashing the Speedster body in one piece makes it stronger and quicker to build. There are a lots of seams to bond together. The speedster is rarely selected for carrying luggage or a touring car.
Attachments
Images (1)
WOLFGANG posted:Although the large frunk is handy, I'd think that flashing the Speedster body in one piece makes it stronger and quicker to build. There are a lots of seams to bond together. The speedster is rarely selected for carrying luggage or a touring car.
I'll agree that a one-piece body is easier to build and stronger-- but I'm unconvinced about the rest. Lots and lots of guys would drive a speedster over long distances, if the seats were comfortable, and the trunks held enough luggage. I've been on 3-week long junkets to the left coast in my Speedster in a car with good seats and the same crappy trunk (very nearly) everybody's got.
I'd pay extra to have that kind of space up front, and that kind of width in a pan-based car.
It is not impossible to have your trunk reshaped Stan, if you were going to do it I would look at how much more room I could get by building a wooden box, or more than one box joined together to fill the hole or get as much trunk as I could. Then you could mold it to the largest size.
I essentially did that exercise with Henry when I was building my 911 front end car and we came up with the idea of having two rads behind the lights and making a larger gas tank and locating it low in front, and building a metal box around it for protection. The results produced a very large trunk.
I am sure two rads were though of before but we still had to do the R&D and work arounds for the thickness of rads, AC, and fans that could be located there. Many trials. ( We use a blow up 911 spare tire in the space but if your satisfied with a spray can tire sealant you have a cavernous trunk. )
Knowing what I know now, it is possible to have a Fuel cell out of plastic, molded, but made without the fiberfill, something that gives cells issues as it is for racing but since we are not racing we could have even more fire safety.
Just saying.
P.S. IM has now incorporated the trunk and tank into their product line.
The Beck cars have a frunk like that, and I could fit a full-sized spare, several bottles of oil, a jack and tire tools, and other sundry items up there. If I was bold enough to go without the spare it would have made a useful trunk.
Awhile back someone here had relocated their full size lead acid battery from frunk to in front of the passenger's side front wheel. There is a lot of room there. A secure bracket would have to be constructed. It would also help to compensate for no passenger or a lighter passenger. I have the 12.5 gallon gas tank and with the battery in the frunk not even a temp spare will fit. I like the added safety (and weight) of a spare tire as a collision buffer in the nose!
"I like the added safety (and weight) of a spare tire as a collision buffer in the nose!"
Me too!
When the car is not finished and you can't drive it safety isn't a concern.
Finish it!