| Stroker | -- 10-13-2012 @ 3:45 PM |
|
It's a slow day here in Iowa, so I thought I pose a question. Why did Ford abandon the Wide-Five wheel concept? A few background concepts: 1. The wide five appeared on two continents about the same time. The Volkswagen and the 1936 Ford. There is a common denominator in the form of John Tjaarda, who's design influences are visible in both the VW Beetle, and the Lincoln Zephyr. 2. The wide five concept was also used by the Pontiac Division of GM in the mid-sixties as an option on their full-size performance line. 3. The wide five design has also seen use in dirt track racing for many years, and is still popular today in Sprint Car oval-track racing in the US. 4. While the bolt-circle spacing obviously is not the same on Ford/VW applications, and I'm unsure of the GM/Pontiac spacing, the concept was interesting. 5. Brake drums are big, heavy and by function must be strong. The wide-five "multi-tasked" these to also double-up as wheel centers, with the total assembly being lighter than a drum, disk wheel combination. So....my question to my fellow "Fordophiles" is why did Ford quit in 1940? I can understand switching, once disc brakes became the norm, but why was 1939 the last year?
|
|
| fenbach | -- 10-13-2012 @ 7:59 PM |
|
let me add to the list, 6. why did ford [or VW for that matter] adopt the wide-5 pattern in the first place? ps if someone researches this topic, i think it would make an interesting article for the V8 Times.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 10-13-2012 @ 9:37 PM |
|
The multi-tasking concept was a brilliant idea, reducing unsprung weight and cutting material cost in manufacturing. Unfortunately (as I heard it), the drum was subject to distortion from the wide bolt pattern under certain conditions, rendering the brakes less than reliable. Having a '38 myself, I've always been careful to torque the wheel nuts properly, not wishing to push my luck. Alan
|
|
| 37 Coupe | -- 10-14-2012 @ 7:40 AM |
|
I probably have this wrong but remember reading an article in V8 Times which naturally I cannot find about one of the reasons Ford went away from the wide five wheel in 1940. I believe it was the transfer of a slightly rougher ride,vibration or something. Mayby the engineers were able to read it with instruments,never noticeable to me. Why were the wide five wheels used for stock car racing? Were they more rugged ? Did Ford actually come up with the design or was it Kelsey Hayes?
|
|
| deuce_roadster | -- 10-14-2012 @ 9:10 AM |
|
It has always been my suspicion that most all changes were to make the part cheaper to manufacture or speed up assembly, then sold to the public as a "new improvement". Henry was cheap, and practical.
|
|
| supereal | -- 10-14-2012 @ 10:37 AM |
|
One of the main reasons the "wide five" wheels were used for stock car racing is that most of the race cars of the days were '37-'39 Fords, which were built with those wheels. Likewise, many of the light trucks also used them. One of the most successful stock cars we had used a "wide five" rear axle from a '37 3/4 ton truck. The high ratio allowed us to run in third gear, instead of the second gear, which required a hook on the dash to keep it from jumping out of gear. Another benefit was the full floating hubs eliminated the constant threat of broken axles common in those years. I searched my stock of books, and didn't find a difinitive reason for the wide pattern, but because it coincided with the arrival of cable brakes, it was likely an attempt to prevent the drum warping that hindered the reliable mechanical braking that had increased pressure on the shoes. As the narrow pattern returned when Ford finally adopted the Lockheed hydraulic brakes, that seems to be a plausable reason. As a sidelight, I did learn that old Henry, who fought "juice" brakes until competitors already had switched, had his new '39 converted to mechanical brakes!
|
|
| fenbach | -- 10-14-2012 @ 7:58 PM |
|
alan, you are "careful to torque the wheel nuts properly." proper torque being how many foot-lbs? thanks bob
|
|
| Stroker | -- 10-15-2012 @ 3:17 PM |
|
Thanks to all who have chimed-in on this discussion. I've convinced myself that the wide-five was in the making, probably by Kelsey-Hayes before being adopted by Ford. The Tjaarda designed Briggs prototype "world car" concept which greatly influenced Zephyrs, VW's, 37 Fords, etc. after serious tweaking by E.T. and Edsel. While it's hard to tell from photos, this car was equipped with wide-fives in 1934. Stout (yes, the same Stout that pioneered the Ford Tri-Motor airplane), also came up with another rear-engined "car of tomorrow" in 1935 that used "wide-fives". I also found the bolt circle dimensions of the two most popular wide fives: Ford 1936-1939 was 10-1/4 inches vs the VW 1935-1967 dimension of 7-3/4 inches. Porsche also used the VW bolt pattern up to the mid-sixties. I was in error on the Sixties Pontiac though, as it was a "wide-EIGHT", also produced by Kelsey Hayes, only available as an option on the full-sized Pancho's. So....I believe the concept was designed to relieve the "wheel" of any job other than mounting the tire. The wide bolt-pattern reduced the strain on the lug bolts, and made the hub/brake drum assembly do all the work of absorbing lateral loads. The "dirt-ballers" still love the design, as they are trying to save weight while severely side-loading their rear tires. Also, they are restricted by "the rules" to using steel wheels, so the less steel you have, the lighter the total assembly is. I'm still not convinced why Ford would abandon a concept that Porsche and Pontiac embraced into the mid sixties. This message was edited by Stroker on 10-15-12 @ 3:24 PM
|
|
| 37 Coupe | -- 10-16-2012 @ 5:21 AM |
|
Why and when did Kelsey Hayes make the wide five 15" wheel that is 6" wide instead of 4"? The ones I have seen belonged to couple friends who raced stock cars and are not modified one still has the Kelsey Hayes label still on it. Were they Lincoln or Mercury rims? Thanks
|
|
| supereal | -- 10-16-2012 @ 7:04 AM |
|
The wide rims we used came from light trucks.
|
|
| Stroker | -- 10-16-2012 @ 7:11 AM |
|
37 Coupe: I bought a set of 15" Kelsey's at a salvage yard in the late 50's for my 38. They had the stock hubcap clips, were riveted construction, and as you say, wider. I don't know when they were first produced, probably post war though, as that's when the 15 inch "lower profile" tires became available. They allowed me to run "big & littles", and lowered the car slightly. With the stock hubcaps, they looked quite original to me, but of course they wouldn't to an EV8CA judge! I think the "why" was simply to satisfy a demand to run then current 15-inch popular tire sizes on the part of Ford, Mercury and Zephyr owners. Even though they were embraced by circle-track racers for reasons set forth by Supereal, The fact that they came with hub cap clips indicates to me they were an aftermarket "Upgrade". Attached is a photo of the 1934 rear-engined "dream car".
|
|
| Stroker | -- 10-16-2012 @ 7:18 AM |
|
Here's a photo of the 1935 Stout (of Stout Metal Airplane fame). In "the day", we called wide-fives "skeleton wheels". This message was edited by Stroker on 10-16-12 @ 7:21 AM
|
|
| wmsteed | -- 10-18-2012 @ 7:00 AM |
|
The real reason why Ford went to the wide five bolt pattern in 1936 will most likely never be known. What is known, is documented in the 1935-36 Ford Book, pages 90-91. Ford discontinued the wire wheels in '35 in favor of the 16 x 4 steel wheel because the all steel, riveted wheel, "improved the ride quality" of the '36 Ford.. The wide five wheel also eliminated the need for a hub on the drum to support the wheel and reduced the unsprung weight by 20 lbs. The cost savings to Ford must have been huge.. As usual, Ford was a little slow in discontinuing the use of wire wheels. Chrysler switched to steel disk wheels in '34, GM started the change over in '34 on some of their vehicles.. Very few '35 and later GM cars had wire wheels. Bill 36 5 win delx cpe
|
|
| trjford8 | -- 10-18-2012 @ 9:10 AM |
|
I suspect that old Henry went to the wide five as a cost saving measure. Cutting his cost kept the price of the cars down. He was good at saving a nickel anywhere he could. Much like putting only one door lock, rather than two, on each car. I believe the wide five 15" wheels were an aftermarket wheel sold by Kelsey Hayes. They were marketed just the same as the General Jumbos. Car guys always have a need to make changes to the stock appearance of their cars. Wheels are the easiest thing to change to individualize a person's car. Not much different today with the fancy alloy rims we see adorning SUV's and other cars on today's roadways. I'll have to look through my Fordlife magazines as I think Lorin Sorenson did an issue on specialty wheels/tires on old Fords.
|
|
| fenbach | -- 10-18-2012 @ 8:17 PM |
|
anybody know the right torque for the 5-wide wheel bolts?
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 10-18-2012 @ 10:57 PM |
|
Fenbach, Lugnuts should be torqued to 75-85 ft lbs. Tighten in a star pattern in several steps.This torque value would apply regardless of the lug diameter, but is most important on the '36 - '39 10.25" bolt pattern, as the drum is subject to distortion from incorrectly tightening the lug nuts. As a side note, wheel lugs being subject to road conditions, they and their nuts suffer corosive elements making installation and removal less than rocket science. Contrary to perfect world torqueing techniques, a single drop of motor oil per lug nut (conveniently supplied by the engine dipstick), does provide for more accurate and easier operation. If you've ever tried in vain to remove a lug nut, in the process rounding it over, you'll remember the dipstick solution forever. Due to the lubricity of the oil, the specified 75 - 85 ft lbs should be raised slightly. I take it to 90 lbs myself. Alan This message was edited by ford38v8 on 10-18-12 @ 11:08 PM
|
|
| supereal | -- 10-19-2012 @ 6:29 AM |
|
Using a torque wrench to tighten lug nuts is a standard practice, and is important to prevent distortion of the braking equipment, whether drums or rotors. Too often, careless tire shops just use an air wrench on them and vastly overtighten. We found one that took over two hundred foot pounds to remove. Try that along the road sometime! Check your owner's manual for the spec. For cars, it is usually in the 65-75 range. More for trucks. My pickup, with 20" wheels, calls for 150. Always use the cross pattern, as well.
|
|
| Dale Fairfax | -- 10-19-2012 @ 6:59 AM |
|
Can't comment with any confidence on why Ford went away from it, but as to why the went TO it; seems that any perceived weight savings in the wheel center would have been more than offset by the need to beef up the drum. Wheel mounting loads in the 5 1/2" B.C. system are born by the hubs-not the drums. As to the popularity of the "wide five" with the racers, the use on the 3/4 ton rearends was certainly a significant factor-along with the popularity of ANY Ford part but one overiding item was the better resistance to the side loading that circle track racers subjected their wheels to. In my collection of photos of the old "Roaring Roadsters", there's several shots showing flying wheel/tire assemblies-a result of the smaller B.C, centers ripping out of the wheel.
|
|
| Stroker | -- 10-19-2012 @ 3:30 PM |
|
Dale: I think you're right regarding weight savings, as 36-39 drums have thick cast sections and stiffening ribs on the inside. As for cost savings, if they were that much cheaper to build than the later disc wheel 5 on 5-1/2 centers Ford would have stayed with them in 1940. The large 2-piece large diameter 36-39 hubcap cost would also have factored-in. I agree with you regarding their great strength when 15" versions are subjected to side loads. Today of course the hubs are generally alloy racing-only lightweight pieces, and the only steel in the assembly is the "rule-mandated" rim. At any rate, I like "wide-fives", but I wish someone would make repop 36-39 Ford drums, as most of ours are getting pretty "long of tooth". VW, Porsche, & Pontiac and dirt-baller's obviously felt there were merits to the wide bolt circle, and I believe there are. Weight/cost savings are probably not the primary pluses.
|
|
| Zoin | -- 09-09-2014 @ 6:55 AM |
|
I am trying to find out what these rims are from but for the life of me I cant find any info about them. Does anyone know what they are from?
|
|
| MICHV8 | -- 09-09-2014 @ 8:07 AM |
|
OK…this has bothered me for years. Back in 1971, I bought an all original 1939 Tudor. The Tudor had drums so used that the shoes were imbedded and had created an outer groove in the drums and the shoes had to be fully retracted to get the drums off. So I went down to the Firestone store and the owner ordered 4 brand new drums for me. When I picked them up in a week they were brand spanking new and I asked him who the heck manufactures the drums these days. ”They’re Volkswagen drums” he told me. Now I was buying parts from Joblot in those days and Dennis Carpenter had just started his knob business and I was a subscriber to the old thin paper cover Hemmings that listing their subscriber number at the top right of the cover, so I wasn’t completely in the dark about old Ford parts. So my question for you guys is “was this guy for real or was he an early advocator of medicinal marijuana?”
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=5305 |