Wire Wheels - Seeking Input

[bradartigue]

I personally find nothing more hideous than the look of a bumperless Spider, yet they are all over this forum.

There's two of us!

[azruss]

lots of discussion about the beauty or period correctness of wire wheels. What turns me away from wire wheels is the fact that they are an old design that are expensive to make, heavy, difficult to keep in good working order. I don't even know where you could find a "tuner" any more. I suspect the Italian supercar builders discovered that alloy wheels performed much better in racing conditions as the tires got fatter and the cars got faster. The beauty of the 124s was how advanced they were compared to their british counterparts. this includes wheels.

[zachmac]

I personally find nothing more hideous than the look of a bumperless Spider, yet they are all over this forum.

There's two of us!

While again everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should indeed do whatever they want to their own car, there is a key difference between going bumperless and wire wheels: while I know of no one who ever competed a Spider seriously going to wire wheels, Abarth clearly dumped the federalized bumpers for bumperettes. So the latter has some precedence that is period correct.

Guess baltobernie and Brad find Abarth Spiders hideous?

[Frog2Spider]

Yo azruss,

I'm led to believe that the wire wheel manufacturing has changed considerably from the 'old days'. Dayton Wire Wheels has advised that you no longer adjust, tune, tighten or true wire wheels. As they explained it, all you need do is keep them clean! Which I admit would need to be a labor of love.

I'm not quite sure why wire wheels are so frowned on because of being 'English'. Countries, known for sport car production, is limited to Germany, Italy and English, and all used wire wheels on their cars in the 50ties and 60ties. And, while its easy to bash a MG or Triumph, it's harder to talk down a Jaguar, a Morgan or an Aston Martin. All of which used wire wheels into the early 70ties.

Mag, or Alloy wheels ( to me) have always been associated with hot, go fast cars, that while they may be 'sporty', are not sports cars. My G-35 Coupe is an excellent example. Wire wheels would not suit the car, in much the same way as they don't suit a Corvette or a '57 Chevy.

Still looking, with my mind wide open ...

[Frog2Spider]

Zachmac ...

There is a big difference between bumper-less and bumperettes!

[zachmac]

Zachmac ...

There is a big difference between bumper-less and bumperettes!

Not in a collision! But your point is well made; I like bumperettes but not "holes where the bumpers used to be".

[aj81spider]

Come on in - the water's warm!

Re: bumpers

The designer of the car designed it to have bumpers. The lines include bumpers. Without the bumpers the nose of the car looks just wrong. It falls away too rapidly under the nose and looks like it has an overbite. My personal opinion is that it's hard to be effusive about the lines and looks of the car (like I am) and then subvert the design intent by removing such a visually integral element. Admittedly the element was corrupted some when the big bumpers came along, but my opinion (which when paired with $1.25 will get a coffee in the cafeteria) is that even those look better than the bumperless version.

The Abarth cars got rid of the bumpers to save weight - not for looks. They didn't care about looks - they were racing - and in the autocross versions they added huge head lights that no one will maintain (I hope!) looked good.

That said - as a previous poster stated: it's your car, and it's not a historical gem, so if you like it without bumpers power to you!

[bradartigue]

CSA Spiders - Abarths - would have never had federalized bumpers, they were sold only in Europe and made during a single production run. The bumperettes were not at all light, if I recall they weigh more than the bumpers they replaced (which were very light). To each his own of course, but it can be debated. There is a reason why most consumers aren't car designers, we'd end up with a lot of Homer Simpson cars..



Without bumpers it simply looks like a car without bumpers. Which looks weird.

[zachmac]

I guess we have sort of high jacked this thread from wheels to bumpers but on the bumper point: IF I could easily and at a reasonable cost convert from theh Federalized steel bumpers to early chrome ones I'd do so in a heart beat, BUT given the work and cost to do so that ain't happening. The afterthought, NOT part of the original design, Federalized tube bumpers are INHO MORE hideous than none. That said, I sort of like the stubby front end without them look, but especially with some sort of bumperettes.

The early 70s US regulations led to awful bumpers on most all cars, think Jaguar E-type for example. They went from elegant little turn signals, tail lights and chrome bumpers to US spec giant taillights, front signals and the series II and III bumpers that were just as bad or worse than the Fiat tubes. And none of them will do much if anything to protect your car in a crash these days given most everything else on the road will hit you well above them.

My point is don't pretend they somehow were part of the "original lines of the car" (the tube bumpers). The were and they look like a bad afterthought to be able to keep selling what was a pretty car with the early bumpers in the US.

Let's complete the circle: Federal regs in the 70s is also why the later cars all sit so high, to try to get those ugly bumpers up to a height where they might play some role. Are those of you against removing the ugly afterthought bumpers also opposed to cutting or replacing springs to return a late cars back to an early car ride height?

If we are going to defend stuff based on "purity of design and designers intent" then I suggest we reference the models that the designers created, not the one the US government forced them to make later.

[bradartigue]

If we are going to defend stuff based on "purity of design and designers intent" then I suggest we reference the models that the designers created, not the one the US government forced them to make later.

So, everyone should have a 1966 Type AS? Because after that they all changed away from the designer's intent:

Taillamps grew
Bumpers got overriders
Mirrors grew
Interior changed
Engine size increased
Hood bumps
Different wheels

Then the aftermarket stuff - luggage racks, rims, etc.

There is this silly notion that the later cars were not designed, but they just slapped some old parts on them. The car was continuously designed, until the Spider 2000 when it kind of dead ended. And as to the tube bumpers being attractive - the highest sales years for the cars were 1976 - 1979, all "federalized" years. The biggest sales year was 1979 - arguably the least "pure" Spider made as it was the last styling change.

My point being, designer's intent isn't relevant for any car. Most designers put together concepts that cannot be built in the first place, and pieces of them are used in the final product. At least in the 1960's you got pretty close (the car more or less is identical to the drawings)...but even Tjaarda disappeared before it was complete, so who was the final designer, who maintained it throughout its life...what was their intent?

They may have thought "damn, I want tube bumpers and now that Tom's gone I can get them. Just have to wait until 1975."

[johndemar]

zachmac

You make some good points and probably most of us have done some modifications to our cars to please us. And I'm guessing most of us are at an age where we aren't trying to impress someone else. Think about it seats, roll bars, wind screens, dash wood, short shifters, lower springs, custom wheels, larger tires, different intakes and exhausts, high compression pistons, cams, carbs.

How many of us can truly say our cars are completely stock. Mine isn't although I have every piece I replaced and could put it back the way it was. But I made the changes to please me.

Oh, and I agree that it would be much less expensive to try the Fiat wire caps first. I have a set of steel wheel and wire caps that came with my car.
Been in the attic for about 35 years now so other than dusty, they're most likely in fair shape. The caps are heavy though and the wheels on the car now are pretty light.

And as far as bumpers go, I wish I did convert to the early blade bumpers, and may yet. I just need Russ to make the brackets for me.

[zachmac]

If we are going to defend stuff based on "purity of design and designers intent" then I suggest we reference the models that the designers created, not the one the US government forced them to make later.

So, everyone should have a 1966 Type AS? Because after that they all changed away from the designer's intent:



There is this silly notion that the later cars were not designed, but they just slapped some old parts on them. ."

I didn't say the later cars weren't designed, I just said lots of the design changes were driven by Federal regulation changes, NOT esthetics. Previous posters were defending the tube bumpers, etc based on "the designer put them there". I was simply pointing out that in almost every sports car built in the 70s lots of stuff got added on to meet regulations that almost all collectors universally decry as less pleasing to the eye than the original. The series I e-type has been hailed by many as the most beautiful car every penned (including Enzo) but hardly anyone would say the same about the SIII. The difference was the design changes FORCED by regulations, not by design choice. So I don't know who's "silly notion" you are referring to but just because a car company is forced to make a design change by laws doesn't make them an improved design.

An unwillingness to differentiate between good and necessary design changes (bigger displacements, better cooling, etc.) and changes to meet government regulations seems rather extreme. No everyone shouldn't have a 1966 Type AS. But everyone might prefer to the look of a 1966 Type AS with the mechanical improvements of the later cars. That certainly seems to be the most popular trend when it comes to modifications; make the driveline newer / better, make it look more like the first generation. This is why resto-rods have become so popular.

[DieselSpider]

I don't like the wire wheels much myself however the lack of bumpers on a body designed for them without re-sculpting the body lines to work without them is really just a hack plus the sheet metal is not stout enough to stand up to the most minor event that the body on a bumper-less 56 Buick Roadmaster would take in stride.

The twin tube bumpers look just fine to me and do help prevent quite a bit of damage even though they aren't 100% protection.

The rally road clearance is really a great thing where I live since you would have a pretty banged up undercarriage and would have to have some way to carry the car past all the traffic calming areas blocking your way. You would almost need a trailer just to get one that's been lowered out of most residential areas here. It is a bit insane to find a 5 or 10 mph speed bump/hump in a 25 to 30 mph zone.

[bradartigue]

I simply note that these were all modifications as part of design. Even the very first car was built to meet regulatory guidelines (color of lenses, height of headlamps, side markers, blinkers, etc.). The regulatory environment is always a design consideration, it has to be, unless they are making show cars.