Yeah, I actually like that better than my fenderless version. I see what you did there......separate tub, roof and pickup bed moldings. Excellent from a production point of view and for swop ability, but getting that extra body seam to sit right might be time consuming. And do you have some kind of seal between the two moldings or do you propose a gap? I'm guessing the back of the cab/tub acts as the front of the pickup bed yes?
Like the filler cap panel, hard tonneau idea. Very practical. Are you thinking straight sides to the bed ala Aussie Utes, or tapering the body to the rear? You can keep straight sides for more cargo room if you deepen the inner wheel arch reveal. Hold on, that sounds confusing.......keep the inner arches (where the fenders bolt up) dimensionally in the same position as an existing FF Coupe body. That would allow the use of stock rear fender moldings and existing running boards would all line up.
Yeah, I actually like that better than my fenderless version. I see what you did there......separate tub, roof and pickup bed moldings. Excellent from a production point of view and for swop ability, but getting that extra body seam to sit right might be time consuming. And do you have some kind of seal between the two moldings or do you propose a gap? I'm guessing the back of the cab/tub acts as the front of the pickup bed yes?
Like the filler cap panel, hard tonneau idea. Very practical. Are you thinking straight sides to the bed ala Aussie Utes, or tapering the body to the rear? You can keep straight sides for more cargo room if you deepen the inner wheel arch reveal. Hold on, that sounds confusing.......keep the inner arches (where the fenders bolt up) dimensionally in the same position as an existing FF Coupe body. That would allow the use of stock rear fender moldings and existing running boards would all line up.
Martin.
There would be a gap between the cab and bed, there would be rubber spacers at the bottom between the cab and bed allowing the top part of the bed to flex some, also rubber spacers between the bed and subframe. The back of the cab would have an opening for the gas tank, which would be part way inside and part way outside with a outside cover which has a built in support brace going accross. I did that so you can change between beds.
The idea is to be able to use the orig fenders and running boards. Pretty much everything you said in that last part.
The body will taper in some. If you look at the orig full fenders they go into the body at the rear. The Bed would taper enough to go inside of the fenders, if that makes sense.
The Traditional Bed would be the width of where the inside wheel arch is, and straight back, which would determine the width of the top rails.
Good idea that man! I think the bed needs taper otherwize it would make the back too heavy looking.
My old VW Panel had a nice taper to the rear that gave it a shape my Ex-Father-In-Law christened "The Lozenge" because he always saw the car from his 3rd floor balcony.
The hood was styled after a '40 Ford, so the back end taper gave it nice lines. Everything you can see in this picture apart from the rear valance over the exhaust (in primer) is glass-fibre.
I remember those, they are pretty cool. Not sure if your's was BGW or not, but I remember BGW Spectre made some. http://www.bgwspectre.com/
I always wanted to do a VW panel with the 40 ford front, they look pretty good if done right.
Ok here we go!!! been busy last couple of days getting these done
33 Tudor
Note: this is not the way a normal Tudor looks, in the sense of the rear. I extended the rear by about 1.5" so that the side windows would be the same in length, going by the FFR window. I also recurved the rear from the beltline down to match up with the orig FFR and also to help give the tudor more of a raked look.
I remember those, they are pretty cool. Not sure if your's was BGW or not, but I remember BGW Spectre made some. http://www.bgwspectre.com/
I always wanted to do a VW panel with the 40 ford front, they look pretty good if done right.
David
Back in the 80's a guy called Chris Boyle got the rights to sell the BGW body conversions in the UK. A friend and I ordered kits at the same time (got us a bit of discount) and I picked them both up in a rental truck. The 3-piece alloy grille castings (styled after a 40 Ford) were "on back-order" from the foundry............bottom line is we never ever got them. Therefore, I thought outside the box and after numerous trips to wrecker yards I came home with handfulls of VW Bug chrome trim strips and made my own grille. It ended up being deeper than the cast ones and much brighter.
Your Vicky and SD are simply stunning IMO. Not exactly sure what you mean by "soft targa top". Do you mean a C400 style?
Did you mean to write "Ok here we go!!! been busy last coupe of days getting these done" or was coupe a Freudian slip? LOL!
Thanks Martin no that was a typo....lo, I fixed it...lol
That C400 is pretty, I have never seen one of those before. What I had in mind was just over the driver and pass seats.
I have another idea for the tudor/delivery, kind of a little of both. Martin if you go back to Gary Campesi site http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/GaryC/vehicles
look for the jeep wagon. I am playing around with some ideas in my head with something like that jeep wagon.
Ok here we go!!! been busy last couple of days getting these done
Note: this is not the way a normal Tudor looks, in the sense of the rear. I extended the rear by about 1.5" so that the side windows would be the same in length, going by the FFR window. I also recurved the rear from the beltline down to match up with the orig FFR and also to help give the tudor more of a raked look.
Both would have the same body, just different tops. The tops would interchange, like the top for the orig 33.
There would be custom interior panels. The rear would either have a hatch or a hatch tailgate.
Possible sunroof or top that could retract or take off.
Enjoy!
David
David
Those look great, can you scale them and tell us about what the wheelbase would be ?
A 4 bar wishbone kind of rear would make it fairly easy to stretch the 33 WB. The rear deck would need stretched a bit too for
the coil overs to have a mounting point.
Dale
David, the reason that you've never seen a C400 before is that as far as I can discern from an Internet search, they never made them.
Ford first brought out the Sedan Convertible body-style in the '31 Model A and it carried over to the '32. They were known as the A400 and B400 and were the most expensive Ford you could buy at the time costing a whopping $5 more than the Deluxe Fordor. Because of very low production figures of that body-style for A's and B's, survivors are very rare. All 33/34 C400's seem to be "Phantoms" created by rodders who wanted that body style and seem to be created from existing Tudors.
I like that idea from Gary Campesi's site on the Jeep. It would work on a '33 Tudor.............sort of half C400 roof and actually have a smoother profile over the windshield.
David
Those look great, can you scale them and tell us about what the wheelbase would be ?
A 4 bar wishbone kind of rear would make it fairly easy to stretch the 33 WB. The rear deck would need stretched a bit too for
the coil overs to have a mounting point.
Dale
Thanks Dale
The wheelbase would be the same as the orig FFR 33, which is 112". The wheelbase for the pickup would also be 112". The rear subframe would have to be designed to work with the Tudor, Delivery, and pickup bodies. A 4 bar suspension would work the best, and yes the coil over shocks would have mounts that would not interfere that much with the area above, another words there would not be a crossmember to get in the way that normally sits right above the rear axle.
One of these days I will have to draw up the subframe.
Here is a comparison between the orig. FFR 33 and the Tudor design.
David, the reason that you've never seen a C400 before is that as far as I can discern from an Internet search, they never made them.
Ford first brought out the Sedan Convertible body-style in the '31 Model A and it carried over to the '32. They were known as the A400 and B400 and were the most expensive Ford you could buy at the time costing a whopping $5 more than the Deluxe Fordor. Because of very low production figures of that body-style for A's and B's, survivors are very rare. All 33/34 C400's seem to be "Phantoms" created by rodders who wanted that body style and seem to be created from existing Tudors.
I like that idea from Gary Campesi's site on the Jeep. It would work on a '33 Tudor.............sort of half C400 roof and actually have a smoother profile over the windshield.
I found this video this morning done by Wizard of Rods back in the 80's. Coincidentally, there are some cool '34 coupes in it as well as his VW body kit components.
The parts prices will make you laugh compared to today's prices.
I thought about the logistics of a bolt-in subframe to support a Sedan Delivery or Vickie body and looked at some chassis pictures. I think it would be a breeze. You could clamp around/bolt through existing tubes like the add-on tow-bar, plus bolt up using the top shock mounts and the plate beside each one.
BUT.............have we been ignoring the one big honkin' thing that upsets the everyday logistics of using a SD or Vickie? Or did we just get lost in the beauty of your designs?
The FF fuel tank position...........great and logical for a Roadster or Coupe..........even a Roadster Pickup..........but completely negates the practicality of a Delivery and there's nowhere to put the rear seats in a Vickie which is why you'd want one right? A tank could go behind the axle with either of these body designs, but we all know the danger level in an accident then goes beyond acceptable limits. Under-floor saddle tanks might work, but there's then no room for the exhaust. This works for Zipper Motors T's because outside exhausts look cool on them............ but not on a smooooooth '33.
I found this video this morning done by Wizard of Rods back in the 80's. Coincidentally, there are some cool '34 coupes in it as well as his VW body kit components.
The parts prices will make you laugh compared to today's prices.
I thought about the logistics of a bolt-in subframe to support a Sedan Delivery or Vickie body and looked at some chassis pictures. I think it would be a breeze. You could clamp around/bolt through existing tubes like the add-on tow-bar, plus bolt up using the top shock mounts and the plate beside each one.
BUT.............have we been ignoring the one big honkin' thing that upsets the everyday logistics of using a SD or Vickie? Or did we just get lost in the beauty of your designs?
The FF fuel tank position...........great and logical for a Roadster or Coupe..........even a Roadster Pickup..........but completely negates the practicality of a Delivery and there's nowhere to put the rear seats in a Vickie which is why you'd want one right? A tank could go behind the axle with either of these body designs, but we all know the danger level in an accident then goes beyond acceptable limits. Under-floor saddle tanks might work, but there's then no room for the exhaust. This works for Zipper Motors T's because outside exhausts look cool on them............ but not on a smooooooth '33.
Houston, (well Florida) we have a problem.
Yeah, I know, that is something I have been thinking about a lot. I brought it up a bit in post #15. Something tells me it will end up in the aft part of the subframe. FFR has the fuel tank in the rear on the Roadster, so danger can't be too much of a concern.
With a 4 link suspension etc. and considering the body roof height and leg room I don't think there is anyway to put back seats in either the tudor or the delivery, at least on FFR's design, mostly since the body over all sits so much lower then most of the hot rod ones. I was thinking just for the looks of a tudor or delivery plus some more space in back.
Oh how designing things gets your brain working in overdrive!
I would so rock that Tudor design. The one with the windows. That was gorgeous. By the time I can build my '33 my kids will be teenagers. Just think, the '33 Tudor, a group of teenagers and prom. Will definitely have vinyl seats.
I'm really enjoying this thread! I hope Dave is considering the option of using the "swatch watch" approach to the 33 like he is planing for the 818.
The Jeep drawing you mentioned is cool.
That would be nice if Dave Smith was considering a so called "swatch watch" option for the 33, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yeah I like that jeep rendering to.
Originally Posted by MiniVanMan
I would so rock that Tudor design. The one with the windows. That was gorgeous. By the time I can build my '33 my kids will be teenagers. Just think, the '33 Tudor, a group of teenagers and prom. Will definitely have vinyl seats.
Thanks won't be able to carry any backseat passengers though, not enough room mostly due to how low the body sits and where the rear axle sits.
Here is the 33 Tudor Sport Wagon, well that is what I call it
The rear area is open and would have a ragtop. The front sunroof would have a sliding ragtop. If I get some time later I will put in the sliding ragtop open.
Opps, forgot to mention about the B Pillar, it is wider then the Tudor design to allow for a electric window partition. That is also why the rear side window sits back as well.
That would be nice if Dave Smith was considering a so called "swatch watch" option for the 33, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"Dave s did admit to thinking about a truck or maybe a delivery" <DB
won't be able to carry any backseat passengers though, not enough room mostly due to how low the body sits and where the rear axle sits.
David
The space frame really needs the tank shelf dropped 5-6" for all other styles of 33. That might leave enough room for a slightly higher bench seat.
Now if David will just learn solidworks in his spare time we can get him working on the new spaceframe <DB
I have been rethinking the longer wheelbase for the pickup design. I think I might have figured out a way to use the same subframe for the pickup and the Tudor/delivery without any major changes, just make 2 of the frame tubes 2" longer. This would increase the wheelbase to 114".
Also started working on something I thought I wouldn't really work on, design wise. Let's just say that being a former custom cabinet builder, it would be right up my alley
Ooh yeah............wood is good! With the FF sportscar like handling it wouldn't lumber right?
Aw heck stop it David......I just got a brain picture of a fenderless woodie with sort of Butterscotch candy paint running Billet Specialities Bonneville rims in 17 and 18"....matching surfboard on the roof......hula girl on the dash............
Here's another idea. You said you like 37's so how about this '38 for ideas? Pillarless Tudor Sport Wagon?
David
I love the way that undulating top just screams for a surf board.
I just found the answer to the wheelbase locations and gas tank shelf problems with using the FF frame.
It's a head smacker when you see it done and it works for any wheelbase and body variations you need
Dale
You nailed it. I built a bolt-on bumper mount for my roadster, similar to the trailer hitch that Erik sells. The same basic design could be used for the rear sub frame. Install the gas tank behind the axle and the cargo area would have a flat floor. Now if i could just afford to build another one.........
www.33coyote.com
Built with the help of my dad and sons
coyote/TKO 600, Wilwood Brakes,Boyds tank, QA1 shocks
Speedhut Gages, rag top, bike fenders, power steering
"Never let physics or common sense get in the way of a good idea"
You nailed it. I built a bolt-on bumper mount for my roadster, similar to the trailer hitch that Erik sells. The same basic design could be used for the rear sub frame. Install the gas tank behind the axle and the cargo area would have a flat floor. Now if i could just afford to build another one.........
The key is the reversed 4 link with the links going to the back
Did you see the bolt on bumper I just made, it's in my albums.
Dale
The key is the reversed 4 link with the links going to the back
Did you see the bolt on bumper I just made, it's in my albums.
Dale
Put "Reverse 4-link" in as a search criteria and see what horrors you come up with. These get used by the bagged Mini-Truck guys as a packaging solution, so you'll get a lot of links into those forums. Put something like this under a FF33 and say goodbye to all the handling that FF engineered in.
The Woodie is beautiful David. Lots of work and extra weight, but it could be molded that way in fibre-glass and then airbrushed to resemble wood by a good artist.
This was done with Posies' Extremeliner.
Waiting with baited breath for your "custom" one now.
[QUOTE=MT-ED;140133]. Put something like this under a FF33 and say goodbye to all the handling that FF engineered in.
Their 33 chassis design is great but the harsh ride, quadrabind and bumpsteer fall short of well engineered handling IMO.
I have no doubt that some of the baggers have very poor suspension design, the one I referenced was on a well engineered
tubular rear clip for a full bodied car. Again it all comes back to how you use it, and a well sorted reverse 4 link would be
worthy of carrying one of V-mans designs. Autocross queen not likely but quite functional for a beautiful streetrod.
Love the ones you posted too
DB
Their 33 chassis design is great but the harsh ride, quadrabind and bumpsteer fall short of well engineered handling IMO.
I've been doing lots of research and reading on the car and it's clear that FF built a reasonably capable basis for the average guy to build a fun car to drive. However, there's always people that have higher ideals and also build capabilities, be they either the financial capability or the design/engineering capability to make a good thing even better. Ideally, the design and the cash to bring it to reality are the best combination. Everyone has different tastes and priorities in how their car rides and handles, so it's inevitable that not everyone is going to be satisfied out of the box. And this is why there's such a healthy cottage-industry associated with these designs.
It would seem that Ridetech are the ones who've taken this car outside the envelope of its design the most. There's not a lot of the FF suspension left which I guess you'd expect from a suspension specialists. Obviously their back end bears little in common with the FF suspension apart from being a 3-link design.
I read the other day that they pulled out the FF design steering rack and went to a front steering rack on their own bracketry because the FF mounting moved around too much with the huge tires they had on the car. I've seen some close ups recently of the FF chassis and if I'm ever in the fortunate position of being able to get into a '33 build I'm definitely getting a bare steel chassis. Not only would I want to clean up lots of the welding before laying out money for powder-coating, but I would have all sorts of bracketry changes to do to go the way my plans are working out. The Ridetech quick-change rear is nice, but I'm liking even more the set up in this 57 Chevy owned by Ben Thomas.
It's a 3-link with a Watts-linkage centering the axle at all times. I want to use a Winters Quick-change for looks and gear-whine . All the bracketry, adjustable swaged rods, rod-ends and shock mounts are available off the shelf from several suppliers to the Circle-track racing world, so putting it all together wouldn't be hard and apart from the axle itself I'm surprised how reasonably priced some of this functional eye-candy is. I'd centre the rear tires in the wheel arch reveal too, so the wheelbase would go up by an inch or so. When we get the 33 kit in Canada, due to some import restrictions, it has to enter the country with a big chunk of parts excluded (which are supplied later). A lot of it is suspension related stuff so I would just substitute all these racing world components instead of buying the FF stuff I don't need.
Originally Posted by myjones
I have no doubt that some of the baggers have very poor suspension design, the one I referenced was on a well engineered
tubular rear clip for a full bodied car. Again it all comes back to how you use it, and a well sorted reverse 4 link would be
worthy of carrying one of V-mans designs. Autocross queen not likely but quite functional for a beautiful streetrod.
Yes, I'll give you that as long as well engineered is part of the mix. However, I think David primarily started out these design ideas as being more or less bolt-on swoppable additions to the current chassis design that FF might consider as a production viability. Once you do a 180 on the rear suspension it rather goes beyond that. I'd love to see design sketch ideas though. The baggers primary goal is laying frame and most openly admit that they do not drive their trucks hard. Apparently reversed 4-bars can lead to weird things like rear lift on acceleration and drop under braking which is totally counter to the weight transfer you want onto the front end at that time. It's all in the angles of everything and sometimes these guys only go for what gets them closer to the ground. Everything else is secondary.
Holy cow! A lot of reading since my last post....lol
However, I think David primarily started out these design ideas as being more or less bolt-on swoppable additions to the current chassis design that FF might consider as a production viability.
Yes that is more or less my intention. I'll have to explain it more though. I have somewhat explained bits and pieces through out the thread. I have a plan, but not sure if all of it should be let out, since part of the idea is a business idea, but as far as the design ideas aka bodies, chassis etc. I'll get into the "what the Plan is". Give me a few here as I gather my thoughs so I can somewhat explain what the ideas are, since there are so many of them
The ideas have many parts, so I guess I should break it down.
1st Part, Body
This mostly deals with the aesthetics of the 33 Hot Rod.
The first area would mostly be small stuff like,
different tops, roll pans, fenders, tail light options, engine panels etc.
This would also include interior ideas as well, like door panels, dash options etc. The fiberglass stuff could be done by builder or say FFR, they would be already molded and would have to be installed as either a bolt in or molded in my the builder.
The second area would be more body changes that either the customer or say FFR would do.
This would more along the lines of major changes like for example a new door to allow for side exhaust, or
a new front design. This would also be where the Speedster for example comes in that I somewhat explained in post #4. about the 3 different versions, or think of them more as stages. Stages 1 & 2 the work is more done by the Builder. Now this doesn't mean that the builder makes all the fiberglass parts, the fiberglass part would already be made, just that the builder would have to either mold them into the body or bolt them on depending on the part.
The third area would be complete molded body changes. This would include the Speedster, roadster-coupe pickup, tudor/delivery, woody?
This is where it gets somewhat complicated to explain, so I guess I'll start with the roadster-coupe pickup 1st,
since I put that design up 1st, not done yet, but was posted 1st in the sense of complete body changes. My intention was to work on the different tops 1st (most are already done), then the speedster.
Ok back to the roadster-coupe pickup.
Roadster-Coupe Pickup.
It would have a main body based on the orig FFR, but modified already molded, then you just add the windshield etc. fenders if you want of your choice or no fenders using the orig FFR ones or you can use optional bobbed ones. Then choose the bed style you want, which would come in a kit. Add the top you like. Now that is just the body stuff, as far as the chassis goes I'll explain that in the 2nd Part.
Tudor/Delivery
This would be like the Roadster-Coupe Pickup, a main body based again on the orig FFR. Same idea with the fenders using all the orig FFR or option ones. Now this is the idea I like a lot, the tops would work just like the orig. FFR top, just choose either the tudor top or the delivery top,or the Sport Wagon top (open in back and front rag top) there could even be some custom tops.
Speedster
This body has the most changes. This design would be designed for performance, for track or street.
The body is still based on the orig FFR body, but with major changes. A complete new front end, which would include a more rounded nose, think of a tracknose. New shaped hood, engine panels. Custom top (haven't decided on which one yet), which is more streamlined. A full roll pan, bike fenders that are custom, there would be no full fenders as an option. Most "speedster, tracknose, lakeside" designs don't have fenders. The idea I have in mind, all the rounded trim (think of the beltline) that goes all around the body would be gone, the only rounded accent would be a rounded one that starts on the engine panel and curves up into
the door. I'll have to get this one done for ppl to really see what I am talking about.
Full Fendered Race/Street Body
The front would have the front fenders come all the way down with the nose to create a front airdam which
would still have the flow and feel of a 33. The running boards would be higher to allow for side exhaust exiting
outside the running board near the rear fender. The read fenders would be extended down some, not much with a piece that goes from fender to fender, which is where the rear of the body is extended down. There would be a full rear diffuser.
Now keep in mind that the over-all idea is to make it easier for the builder
Ok I think I pretty much have all the fiberglass stuff talked about...lol
Like is mentioned before, I think...lol a lot of it will make more sense as I go along posting pics.
This area would not apply to the Speedster or the Full Fendered Race/Street Body, since the chassis would remain the same. This would apply to the Roadster-Coupe Pickup, Toudor/Delivery and possibly the Woody.
The main idea is to have a one rear subframe design that can be used on the pickup, tudor/delivery, woody. This rear subframe could either be bolted in or welded in, but I would think it would be better welded in, mostly for integrity to the overall chassis.
Now this is where it is a matter of practicality. Is it better to cut off the aft portion of the orig FFR chassis and add the new subframe or have a chassis jig with moveable color coded clamps for the chassis jig and have it done at FFR? The way I see it the latter would be better. I can't see spending money for a chassis then cutting off the aft section and adding a new subframe, in the sense of paying for something that jus ends up getting thrown out for the most part. Where as if I could have the option of having a different rear subframe when ordering, in the long run I would think it would save money, might have to pay a little more since there is a little more work and material, but overall would save time and money.
This new rear subframe would still have to have the quality and performance capability as the orig. FFR Chassis.
The rear subframe would have to allow for more room as well to be able to use more of the rear area.
The overall idea of the new rear subframe would allow for several body platforms in one nice package.
That's about all I can think of right now on the chassis as far as an overall idea, details would have to be figured out.
This area is where it's up to the builder's preference, which is only limited by their imagination.
This would be anything from headlights, tail lights, exhaust, seats, gauges, gauge panels, exterior and interior
trim, engine options etc.
There would be resources and sources at the builder's disposal in one common area to gather information and ideas for their build. This would allow to free up a lot of builder's time to spend more time building instead of doing a lot of research and such. Now that doesn't mean all of the builder's questions would be answered, but it would help those that are not as knowledgeable in some areas help get them in the right direction on their build. One of the ideas of the resources and sources is to help builder's not to get discouraged and loose confidence in their vision of their build. I believe that some builder's may get frustrated and end up compromising on their build. So with the help of the forums, without a doubt and good resources and sources it can help builder's on their way to a great and rewarding build.
I wish there was a way for me to share all of my bookmarks I have. I have tons of them. Anybody have ideas on how I could share those without having to email them to everybody who wants them? Maybe somewhere I can upload them so ppl can download them and put them in their favorites. I really don't want to start an account somewhere just to upload them. Maybe someone could put them on their website?
MT-ED, I forgot to address the woody. As far as doing it in fiberglass then making it look like wood. What I have in mind is more along the lines woodenboat building with epoxy resin, which would keep down the weight. The thing I like about woodenboat building is if you do it right using hollow tubes (instead of solid frame, beams etc.) and thinner plywood and use the woven mesh sheets with epoxy, is it makes it light weight and tough as nails.
Now most of this is research I have done over about a 30 yr. period. Something I have always had a deep passion for is building a sailboat. Got to love those strip kayaks and canoes! My problem so much isn't the woodworking part, but the space, even doing a kayak or canoe. But someday I hope
Thanks David for the breakdown on your ideas. You certainly have a lot going on in the brain
I read the Speedster part with interest and this is what my mind's eye made of it................
That's your A2C roof design. Note raised doors for side-pipe clearance.
Very Nice
I like the hood sides and how you carried the feature line across the door to tie it all in
The side pipes would let the 33 crowd experience what the Cobra boys call "snake bit" < Their phrase for a burn on the back of your leg from a lazy dis-mount.
If FF doesn't fall in love with this version they are too far into the 818 to see the true potential here.
On V-mans busy brain< I heard he had to take several naps a day just to keep it from blowing up ;>)
DB
Duckin and runnin for the door
Very Nice
I like the hood sides and how you carried the feature line across the door to tie it all in
The side pipes would let the 33 crowd experience what the Cobra boys call "snake bit" < Their phrase for a burn on the back of your leg from a lazy dis-mount.
If FF doesn't fall in love with this version they are too far into the 818 to see the true potential here.
On V-mans busy brain< I heard he had to take several naps a day just to keep it from blowing up ;>)
DB
Duckin and runnin for the door
I have a lot planned for the Speedster, which means a lot of brain drain....lol