A Tale of Two Bradley GTs
Growing up in Southern California in the 1980s, kit cars were a dime a dozen. But now, thirty years later, they seem to be rarer than Lamborghinis. In the last few months, I’ve had an accidental lesson in Bradleys, a new-to-me brand.
A few months ago, during a Nevada road trip, this silver tub was spotted in front of a VW enthusiast’s lair. That this is a Beetle-based kit car is fairly apparent. The lines are simple and are a bit reminiscent of the Opel GT (from the front). The biggest letdown, alas, is the rear end.
After a few minutes on Google Images, it became clear that I had spotted a Bradley GT. Around 6,000 of these were sold from the late ’60s to the beginning of the Carter administration. As far as I can tell from my web-based research, you can have your GT with or without gullwing doors. The most (in)famous owner of the Mark I Bradley GT? Liberace.
The story does not end there. Last weekend, while tooling around Oakland, I came across what looked like a miniaturized Chrysler Cordoba (from the rear). Thankfully, this car was wearing a name tag. It’s the Bradley GT II and it’s in impeccable condition.
Like a movie, the sequel is always worse than the original. The second iteration may be flashier, but somehow it inevitably falls short. It just looks too busy, especially the faux rear hatch. The company also sold electric versions of the GT II, but quality control issues led to the Minnesota company’s demise in 1981.
Related posts:
- A Tale of Two semi-Trucks
- Hooniverse Asks- What Car-Related Tale Has Hollywood Given the Short-Shrift?
- Hooniverse Weekend Edition: Two Historic Cars offered on Ebay, One increadable tale about their Makers.
- Goosebumps and Gasoline, a Hoonoween Tale
- Hooniverse Asks- What’s your Favorite VW-Based Kit Car?
Bradley GT was probably to largest volume kit car in the US, so I'm surprised you hadn't come across them before. I, however, hadn't known about the GTII. The GT was cheap and simple, and slightly more carlike than a Meyers Manx. Other kits were far less likely to ever become roadable, and their pricing limited purchasers further. Nice to see these two cars still plugging away.
If you didn't say "..in the US…" you were getting a picture of the 356.
I really don't know much about kit cars in other countries, except for the Lotus Seven.
OHHHHHH, That's what that is!! I saw one of these on the side of Highway 9 near Boulder Creek a while back on the way to Santa Cruz in similar condition to the first one you posted but a bit more weathered. I stopped and tried to figure it out, but only got as far as the Beetle-based nature of it.
When I was six years old, I couldn't wait until I was old enough to drive because I was sure I could afford a Bradley GT by then and all would be right in the world. Ten years later, I probably could have scraped together enough spare change together to drag one home, but since I was no longer six, I never looked for one.
I actually test drove a Bradley once. It was cool in a "well now that I've done that once in my life I really don't need to spend any money to do it again" sort of way.
Later on, I bought my Sport-T buggy, which was 1000x more fun to drive…when it was drivable. I loved it, but I probably won't attempt to do anything based on an air-cooled VW again.
<img src="http://www.tanshanomi.com/temp/sport-t-buggy-small.jpg">
When I was five or six (pre-Three Mile Island), I saw a hotrodded Nash Metropolitan that looked something like this:
<img src="http://www.remarkablecars.com/main/nash/1954-nash-001.jpg" width="400/">
I was in love. I wanted it more than anything I'd ever seen.
Imagine my horror when I found out a year or two later that most Metropolitans still looked like this:
<img src="http://www.my-car-picture.com/image-files/60-nash-metropolitan.jpg" width="400/">
My past is littered with broken dreams and with hopes tossed in the wind like discarded shopping bags.
You forgot the part about how awesome they are in your eyes now and you wish young you would have understood the beauty, right?
Yes. Yes, I did.
I still see a hotrod hiding under there, though.
Here's your chance:
"Pro-Street Nash Metropolitan project"
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/2779367920.h…
<img src="http://images.craigslist.org/5G75Q15Ka3Gc3J93H1c12b769e4ac8553146f.jpg">
<img src="http://images.craigslist.org/5N95L35J33I33L53H4c12a6d5bdc084411a5b.jpg">
…considering that I've seen it listed repeatedly for the last year. Take your time.
Dang. So much of the work already done! So danged overpriced!
Will look for it next fall.
I hope you keep using the pre/post Three Mile Island time reference where applicable.
Ha! Will try to, my friend.
You know what's funny? My next before/after memory milepost is Chernobyl.
Faux rear hatch? The other Bradley GT II that I've seen actually had hatch-like back glass….maybe not a true hatch, but the option of opening it was available, at least!
Cool article. The silver one reminds me of the "nice" go-karts of days gone by—crude fiberglass and all.
These things are so tacky that they're verging on cool. Maybe take the silver one, radius the fenders, put in a cage and longer travel suspension and make it into a bizarre Bradrail?
You can only put it together with small nails though.
Starting with what you see, it would have no choice but to look nailed together.
Think the top (plexi)glass pops out? If so, awesome.
Seriously? Man, I thought everybody knew about Bradley. Now I feel old. Where's the Professor? I always feel younger when he's around. Not necessarily more cheerful, but younger, nonetheless.
Crap, now I feel like a dumbass and a failure as a car enthusiast…
I'll be back in a few. I'm going to go do donuts on the roof of the parking garage to make me feel better about myself.
Reason #766 for having a GTO.
Donuts is that far down the list of "reasons to have a GTO", or is it behind "Donuts in your neighbors yard", "Donuts in the Piggly Wiggly Parking Lot", "Donuts in the Dunkin' Donuts Parking Lot", [snip 761 other places do to donuts], and "Donuts outside the CEO's window"?
It's behind all of those, plus quite a few of those that fall under the Donuts for Specific Reasons category (i.e. "Donuts because I'm happy", "Donuts because I'm sad", "Donuts because it's raining", "Donuts because it's Tuesday", etc.).
"On the parking garage roof" and "because I feel like a dumbass" are actually separate entries with much higher listings, but in combination come in at #766 (the list currently contains 6,993,011 entries).
How could I forget "Donuts because I am happy" and "Donuts because I am sad"!?
If I had a GTO, it would be time for "Donuts because I feel like a dumbass".
You're not a dumbass!
Everything else though…
(I wouldn't know a Bradley were it not for these gentleman, to be honest. Air cooled VW's around here tend to… evaporate.)
What's worse is that when The Professor's around I don't feel younger, just commiserative.
I'm gonna post this again, just because it's tangentially related and it needs to shown whenever possible.
<img src="http://www.tanshanomi.com/temp/camaro_replica_buggy.JPG">
It does? Are you sure about that? I'm not so sure about that.
Oh, c'mon…where's your twisted sense of humor?
As just exemplified above, I am a bit touchy at the moment. Just found out the Goat likely needs a clutch job. Not exactly what I wanted to be spending money on right now…
I'll try to lighten up. Hmmm… Okay, here's something funny and car related:
<img src="http://oi39.tinypic.com/2moys01.jpg" width="200"/>
Rooftop burn outs didn't go too well?
Not with the shitty differential the Goat came with. It likes to do one perfect donut, then sit there spinning the crap out of one tire.
That's what I really wanted to spend money on… TruTrac…
Amen.
If you can stand the downtime, and haven't actually smelled burning clutch, it's likely the slave cylinder. When I did mine at 50K, the clutch looked like new, but the slave was dead. Also, and I'm sure you've seen this, don't bother paying for the GTO slave, it's stupid expensive. The F-body slave is exactly the same if you transfer the inlet tube from the GTO one to the new one. It's just a roll pin holding it in.
Rebuttal:
<img src="http://hooniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/aztec_kit_1.jpg">
<img src="http://hooniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/aztec_kit_2-320×240.jpg">
Wow.
Someone thought that looked good.
That is well on its way to being fully prepped for Death Race 3000. All it needs is weaponry.
These don't look like proper Bradleys because they're not finished in a garish metalflake that is more appropriate for drum kits and bowling balls.
and bass boats…
And cabaret girl bustiers. . . .
In my spare time, for fun, I play around with 3D CAD software trying to design a car I could one day build. I can feel the Bradley designer's pain.
For small production numbers or kits, you have to start off with someone else's windshield. Because as a homebuilder, you're never going to make your own safe glass windshield. The rest of the glass is best left flat, so you can cut it from polycarbonate. Flat planes are your friend when it comes time to start making a buck for the body. When you have curves, it's best to leave them as simple as possible. You gotta either use sealed beams or someone else's headlights… taillights… mirrors… door handles…
Doors are a bitch. You can't just make the whole fibreglass body and then cut the doors out, so you need multiple molds, and then keeping panel gaps in check becomes a chore. Or you can just say "F-it" and get rid of doors altogether, but then the windows have to be cut low enough for the ladies to get in and out of it.
As demonstrated by the silver one, opening hoods and trunks makes are just as much of a pain as doors…
Into the 2000s, Lotus didn't even produce their own taillights for cost reasons. The 1988-2002 Lotus Esprit used Toyota Corolla (AE86) taillights. As a homebuilder, you might be better off to stick with your choices from the AutoZone trailer lighting section. Or you can start with someone else's windshield AND taillights and hope your results fall closer to the Esprit than the white Bradley above.
I can feel the pain of the designer of the silver one. In his head, it probably looked like a Porsche 917. Then he made the roof square because round side windows would have been a bear, then he moved the headlights off of the nacelles because covers on those compound curved nacelles would have been a pain. Then he had to rethink the flying buttresses because those would be a pain to lay up in the mold. Then he had to cut the bodyline ridiculously low in the center for entry and exit reasons.
And by the time it's done, the only person who sees the 917 inspiration is the dude himself.
Well I see it buddy. I feel your anguish. I've made a few digital Bradley GTs of my own, and I have the advantage of being able to see it in 3D before I call it done.
Designing a good looking car just ain't as easy as some people think.
This is a great summary. Thank you. Reminds me of that rare, ugly super car that won One Lap in the 1990s. Consulier? Wasn't its windshield and steering wheel straight out of a Caravan?
I don't know about the windshield, but since they used Chrysler turbo four cylinder engines it makes sense. It's another great example anyway.
In Mosler's head, it looked like a proper race car. Maybe a Mazda 787?
In execution… at least it worked pretty well…
Caravan windshield? 10x better than whatever the heck this is.
http://tuneman1.tripod.com/mosler-raptor.html
I mean, come on, there's a proper shaped windshield out there somewhere that's got to be better than that.
Lately my obsession has been putting a body on a Locost 7 chassis. Probably 50 hours of revisions, I'm still not happy with it.
<img src="http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq228/JamesISpalding/SE%20Cars/sp007-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">
<img src="http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq228/JamesISpalding/SE%20Cars/cc054-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">
Bigger pics.
http://s450.photobucket.com/albums/qq228/JamesISp…
Great work!
What software do you use? I ask because I desparately want to sharpen my skills.
I studied Transportation Design at university, majoring on the drawing and modelling side of things. This was my final project, to this day I wish I hadn't spent more time clicking with a mouse rather than stroking with a marker. What stopped me was that I found that I could be much more spontaneous with sketching than I ever could with CAD. It does, though, mean that the industry has rather left me behind.
I have a copy of 3D Studio Max which I've been fiddling with, but that seems far more suited to creating environments than meticulately detailed 3D prototypes like yours. I'd love to have access to Rhinocerous or something of that ilk.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
I'm using an old academic license (from when I thought I could get through ME Calculus classes) of SolidEdge. It's probably from ~2004, but the academic license keeps working so I keep using it.
It is MUCH more geared towards machine design than Rhino or 3DMax. You make parts and assemble them like you a real machine. But it doesn't do mesh editing nearly as slickly as Rhino or 3DMax. You can't just take a flat plane and move a key point around and make a smooth curved surface like with Rhino.
But at the same time, it means that every curve can be defined in 2D drawings – like if you were going to actually build what you drew. Can you imagine trying to build a Lotus Elise from 2D pictures? I can't…
And parts are articulated within the assembly like they would be in the real machine. Suspension can bump and rebound, wheels can turn, doors can open and close, merely by defining their rotation axes and angles or offsets. It'll even track component weights (which it will calculate based on material density and volume, or you can assign to each part) and center of gravity for the entire assembly.
I'll sing it praises forever if it means they won't zap my free Academic License. lol.
As for spontaneity in sketching, absolutely I can make a paper sketch must faster and it flows better, but when I make a mistake or want to experiment, I'm back to a blank sheet of paper.
http://s450.photobucket.com/albums/qq228/JamesISp…
That album is the stages that the roof went through. It's one evening's work. It would have taken me an evening to make one decent sketch of one roof. I'd probably have given up with the one that looks like Gremlin.
This thread has been a fascinating read. Thanks for that.
Thanks, too, for your desire to rebody a Locost. I love the thought of a car I built myself from scratch, love the performance of the Locost, of Caterhams, et. al., but I've always wished they didn't look so danged nerdy. These look really great, amigo.
The Mosler Raptor used flat glass on the v-shaped windshield, which comes full-circle to your premise that it's a bitch to make your own safe windshield on a small production run. Flat is easy. It's those compound curves that are the problem.
Is flat glass really that much easier when it's safety glass? I have no idea how the make safety glass so IDK. Those look like the cockpit side windows for a Boeing.
I get why he did it. I just don't get why he didn't find a more suitable, off-the-shelf windshield. He went to GM engines at the same time, probably GM minor components. How might a Corvette windshield have worked? I think he though he had a stroke of genius and it looked AWESOME in his head – just as the Bradley did to someone once.
Flat panes are much easier, as even safety glass can simply be purchased as sheet stock and cut to shape. I'm mostly relieved that so much of the glass in my old and/or obscure vehicles is flat but a bit worried that not all of it is.
The Intruder, the Raptor's predecessor, had a goofy look to it. Not sure I see a Caravan in the windshield, but I can see now that it's borrowed.
<img src="http://www.allcarpictures.com/pictures/mosler/intruder/mosler-intruder.jpg" width=400>
I actually love how low-volume manufacturers tend to use pre-existing head and taillights, it's a fun game in a province full of motor homes to try to figure out where all the parts come from. I totally understand how that could make it very difficult to design something attractive, especially if you're trying to hide the origin of parts AND make it look good AND viable to produce. Respect to anyone who can make a good looking low volume car.
I was maybe six when I saw my first one of these in the mid-70's, and I immediately was ashamed the family name is 'Bradley'.
Sigh.
Unfortunately, Fiberglas does not rust. Most have bass-boat glitter paint jobs, too, which just adds a lacquered layer of enamel to it.
Dar Robinson didn't merit the most famous owner tag? http://www.the-rocketman.com/dar/DAR%20GRAND%20CA… http://www.the-rocketman.com/dar/DOSNT-BELIVE-GOO…
I just saw the Bradley GT II. This is the first time I've ever seen a car that was featured on a blog in person. (I think have a bit of a lingering perception that internet people must reside in other cities, since they are on the other side of the computer screen, even though I know a bunch of you are Bay Area Denizens.)