Part One:  Tires
Just gotta jot this down and get it out there: There is a lot of controversey out there right now about radial tires versus bias ply tires on so-called "traditional" hot rods. For purposes of this discussion, a "traditional" hot rod is one portraying the styling popular prior to 1965. Other definitions exist, but this is the one I'm using.

Now, radial tires are the modern standard. They're on every new vehicle. The advantages of the radial tire are obvious - they handle better, they have better performance in adverse weather conditions, they last longer, they're better made (fewer flats and almost no blow outs), etcetera etcetera ad nauseaem. The downsides are that if you are attempting to build a traditional hot rod they lack three things: aspect ratio, sidewall design and tread design. Radial tires were introduced in this country in the late-sixties and didn't catch on until the 1970s - therefore they generally look more appropriate on vehicles produced in that era and after. Bias ply tires are generally taller for a given width (that's "aspect ratio"), square shouldered (radial treads usually roll over onto the sidewall) and have more or less straight treads.

Some neo-traditionalists (and I don't use the term insultingly, only to differentiate from fellows who were actually hot rodding in the pre-1965 era and whose tastes may or may not still reflect the aesthetic of the era) have decreed that bias ply tires are the only acceptable tire on a traditional hot rod. Others will accept radials in virtually all applications, arguing that the benefits far outweigh the shortcomings and noting that provided one chooses carefully that many radial tires fit the height and width perceptions expected from a "traditional" tire.

My feeling, personally, is that radial tires only belong in applications where their aspect ratio is correct (generally speaking, early tires are equivalent to an 85- or 90-series tire today, which are virtually unobtainable) or wherein their incorrect width is well hidden by fenders. Generally speaking, that means I don't like radials on any car built prior to 1941 (I'm using Fords as my standard, some makes may look okay with radials at earlier or later dates). Not only do the fenders on the 1941 Ford products hide the wider-than-stock tire well, the visual bulk of the car corresponds well with the "bulgie" sidewall of the radial. Ford cars built in 1940 and earlier definitely require bias ply tires - especially when running fenderless!

Part One A: Brakes
Oddly, and contrary to most bias ply affacianados, I have no problem with disc brakes on an early car without fenders, provided their styling is blended visually with the theme of the car. A standard disc brake kit looks like you put the brakes off a 1984 Monte Carlo on your roadster. However, add a set of finned caliper covers and use correct-looking hardware to plumb the brakes (ala the Steve Hatcher roadster) and they appear to be 1940s aircraft parts or the like. Anyone truely "in the know" will immediately realize the parts are out of time with the rest of the car, but the damage is limited by how well the part is blended into the vehicle's overall styling.

Part Two:  Chrome
Now that we’ve tackled the tire controversy and defined traditional hot rodding as I see it, we can discuss some other minutiae without having to explain my angle of attack (if you missed this discussion, see “Tires” above).

I have noticed that aftermarket manufacturers as well as a lot of high end hot rod builders throw every polished and plated component available on their hot rod or custom.  This is particularly chronic in engine compartments although equally noticeable in suspension and interior components.  Personally, I would far prefer to see a durable painted or powder coated finish set off with selected chrome parts.  I also enjoy the serious, race-oriented look of as-cast aluminum pieces.

Take, for example, the Chrysler Hemi shown in the Hot Heads Hemi advertisement in the back of this month’s (July 2006 issue, page 94) Rod & Custom magazine.  One of two things happened when this engine was built and photographed.  Either they chose to hang every polished and plated component they make on this engine in order to show them off in the advertisement or someone actually thought all that shine made the engine look better.  In any case, the fundamental beauty of the engine as a well-designed machine was lost and it ends up looking like a beautiful woman buried under too much jewelry.

Given the same Hemi I’d have first removed the out-of-time components like the blower drive (wide cog belts did not become common until the middle-1960s based on the photography I’ve seen) and substitute simpler and understated bits like a multi V-belt setup or motorcycle chain.   I know, I know, you’re saying “can there be anything subtle about a 6-71 blower?”  Well, no, but remember we’re just trying to reduce schmuck on the engine and painted pulleys with multiple V-belts are a lot simpler in appearance.  Also, that disgusting wannabe drag racer scoop should go too.

The big thing about this engine is that there’s just too much to polish!  Sandblast that blower case to knock it down to raw aluminum, get me a set of Chrysler stamped steel valve covers with paint detailing and knock the chrome off those headers in favor of white or black ceramic coating.  Lastly, paint that (Big Block Chevy?) water pump the same color as the block so it disappears.

Whoa, wait, look at that.  There’s virtually nothing shiny on this engine at all anymore!  It’s a hot rod, folks, and “chrome don’t getcha home.”  Those two little seven inch chrome aircleaners on the (dull gold) carburetors will really pop now.  Shiny, I’ve always felt, is a substitute for detail for those who lack creativity.  A little chrome goes a long way on a painted engine.

God, as they say, is in the details.

en hopup veritas

-David Conwill