You are viewing old version of our website. Please click on HOME link to be redirected to new site. Thanks.
"real" tumbler specs
| Posted: 7/25/2005 8:12:28 PM
"real" tumbler specs
I'm interested in buildling a Tumbler and am, probably like everyone else, trying to find any "real" specs that I can. I'd like to try and get a collection of all the information everyone actually has. I have a ton of pictures, but otherwise, very little, ACTUAL, information. For instance, the front tires are constantly refered to as Hoosier racing slicks. Anyone managed to figure out the size and actual style on these? How about the SIZE of the rear wheels? I read the wheels were actually custom built, so I guess that explains them. I just mention these initially because the wheels/tires are the obvious questions about the car. I've seen a bit of tech stuff on the front steering and suspension, but really, that doesn't seem like it will be that much of a challenge.
Also, regarding the thread on how it steers, I recently read an article saying that for, "extremely" short radiused turns, it had overly large disk brakes on the rear, which could be independly actuated to turn quicker. I just mention this for anyone else consider the build as it's an interesting point.
Why is there so little information on this? I would think anyone with even an ounce of the engineering-spirit in them would be itching to mess with this kindof project. It seems to me that, compared to an 89 car, this is a pretty easy build. The Keaton car requires a TON of skill in terms of fabricating that sleek sexy body. The tumbler requires a lot of ingenuity, and design skill, but realistically, very little artistic ability.
Comeon, some of you have to know SOMETHING about this car.
Last Edited by hedgrinder: 7/29/2005 9:22:07 PM
| Posted: 7/25/2005 8:21:12 PM
Oh yes...this is the current list of, "pseudo-specs" I have. Yes, I noticed the irregularities in the tire info, but I'm pretty sure the 44's were used. And hey, I'd use em anyways. :)
As far as the chevy 350 goes, the movie version specs at 500hp, but apparently the real version just had 320hp or something. This would lead me to believe it's just some basic crate motor. It's not particularly important. For the version of it with the removable jet engine, any idea what type it might have been? Even it didn't make the car jump, I'd still like to put the original one in.
# 2.5 tons
# 9 feet 4 inches wide
# 15 feet long
# HOOSIER SPRINT racetrack tires on front
# 4 Rear 44 inch SUPER SWAMPERS, a four wheel drive conversion component
# Jet burner in rear with vector controls for the jet
# Backend flaps for quick stops
# Landing Hook
# Enabled with front-firing machine guns
# Built-in safety link for petrol control
# Built-in fire extinguisher system
# Front wheels on bolted arms for an axel-less front end
# Conventional single axel rear end
******How Stuff Works******************
The Actual Components
When they had the test frame performing the way they wanted, the basic configuration of the car and its drive train were set:
* The car uses a 5.7-liter Chevy V-8 engine. This engine has been tuned so that it can provide the power necessary to take a 5,000-pound vehicle from zero to 60 mph (100 kph) in 5 seconds.
* The rear axle is a truck axle, with a truck transmission carrying power from the engine to the axle. The truck axle added a lot of weight to the vehicle. They wanted the car to be as light as possible so it would jump better, and this axle was the opposite of "lightweight." That extra weight is one of the things that contributed to the strain on the front end in the first jump tests.
* The rear tires are 37-inch-diameter, off-the-shelf, 4x4 mud tires called Super Swampers made by Interco.
* The front tires are racing tires made by Hoosier.
* The front wheels have independent suspension elements inspired by the long-travel suspensions of Baja racing trucks. When airborne, the front wheels pop out about 30 inches on their suspensions to absorb the shock of a 30-foot fall.
| Posted: 7/26/2005 1:05:24 AM
WOW! Sounds like you are the expert on the Tumbler. Lets see those pictures.
Last Edited by Jack: 7/26/2005 1:05:47 AM
| Posted: 7/26/2005 1:13:08 AM
We used to have a guy here whose tag was 'Tumbler Owner'.
Now he's 'MIA'
| Posted: 7/26/2005 5:09:41 AM
I'm not here
| Posted: 7/29/2005 12:22:03 PM
I beg to disagree with the concept of the tumbler not being as artistic. I have sculpted a 95' car from scratch, and I'm currently building a tumbler so I bring experience to the subject.
I think that the tumbler body is a different kind of art. At one point I wanted to do an original concept batmobile. The problem I had was that everything I came up with had elements of some pre-existing batmobile. To do something truly original you have to have the guts to take the form to a place it has really never been before. This is what Crowley did. It takes some nerve to re-design an icon like that. To totally mess with what everyone is comfortable with. When I first saw it, I had a hard time accepting it as a batmobile, but the newness of the concept was a relief from the constant use of curvy shapes.
Usually when a movie is well liked, then all the props become well liked. I have never heard of anyone ever wanting, or pining for a B+R batmobile. Even though technically that car was beautifully done, everything ass. with it turns people away. What if they had filmed it in a darker movie? i.e. not so glam. So I wonder if Batman Begins had been a stinker, would people still dig the tumbler?
From afar, the tumbler looks plain, but as I have found the artistic points are different, and in many ways really complicated. The body is a massive jigsaw puzzle, and there are curves in there as well. In my opinion, so far none of any of the models available for the public have been that accurate. And I would assume these folks had some pretty darn good references. Point is, is that the tumbler is not a walk in the park, to truly get the likeness correct that is.
We do this mainly for VISUAL reasons. not for making a faster car per se', or a more fuel-efficient car, etc.. That to me is Job no. 1. otherwise, I might as well just do an original design. And I can tell ya that without having the orignal car in front of you, it's a bitch. I have done lotsa costumes, and a couple dozen likeness of famous heads, and if done by mere photos, it's a bitch. The 2 dimentional part is easy, it's the 3rd dim that will have you in angst.
| Posted: 7/29/2005 2:22:02 PM
I agree with Youngbat...
When I first saw the press photos of the Tumbler, I thought it was the most butt-ugly vehicle I'd seen since the Bluntmobile. I had heard; "It's supposed to be what's under the 89 shell!"
Not a chance...
But its design kinda grew on me.
One of the things that "did it" for me was one of Nathan's design sketches showing the "bat" design that was incorporated into the overall look of the vehicle. (It's in the Art of book... anyone got a copy of that sketch handy?)
And I got to thinking...
"OK... here's the assignment! Make a vehicle, part tank, part Murcialago, made from all flat-panel material, that resembles a bat."
And I instantly had a lot of respect for the work that Nathan Crowley has done.
You literally have to think outside the "bat box" to appreciate this car.
"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
He MAKES them you idiot!
| Posted: 7/29/2005 9:18:21 PM
I'm not here
I don't think that sketch was in the "Art" book. it was posted here and then later reprinted in the LA Times. I think it was done by the guy at the Batmobile History website (DH knows).
| Posted: 7/29/2005 9:20:10 PM
>>I beg to disagree with the concept of the tumbler not being as artistic. I >>have sculpted a 95' car from scratch, and I'm currently building a tumbler >>so I bring experience to the subject.
I wasn't saying the Tumbler wasn't artistic, so I guess it was just a bad choice of words on my part. I was just trying to say the body required a lot less sculpting than a Keaton car. It's almost entirely flat panels, whereas the Keaton car is ALL curves. Way less work for a fabricator in my oppinion.
Now, as I understand it, you are building a Tumbler. Care to share any of your measurements, guesses, or other maybe technical "SWAGS" on it?
I'm still in extremely annoyed shock that there is no more information on this. Think open-source.
| Posted: 7/29/2005 9:25:26 PM
Also, why don't any of you building a Keaton car actually put a turbine in it? The cost of building the car is pretty expensive to begin with, so I wouldn't think adding in a used jet engine off ebay(or wherever) would really be all that infeasible. Chrysler's made a turbine car before, and there have been plenty of jet dragsters, so it's not as if the information isn't out there.