I'm going along with Rich on this one. After this post I'm done, not only with this thread, but with this forum. Presenting facts to certain people that are completely closed minded is a fruitless task. Regardless of how the facts are presented and what evidence exits, some folks just won't open their minds and realize that someone else might very well be offering them something new. For instance, several of you go over and over again about "reading the rule book". I say that's great. I think you should. If you did, you'd discover that the famed '24" rule' was first implemented in 1962. Now, slow down, read this carefully, and try very hard to process this logically. Why in the He!! do you suppose they had to implement such a rule in the first place? According to you close minded guys, it's because all REAL gassers from the beginning of the NHRA until 1962 were built level or nose down. Wait. Am I the only one that sees a problem with that totally ludicrous, asinine, cock-eyed attempt at logic? (if you don't know what they words mean, look them up, but try "amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity" for a definition of ludicrous) No, people. The reason the NHRA had to implement such a rule was because so many drivers and owners of gassers were jacking the fronts of the cars up so high it was becoming a safety concern! So yes, by all means, why don't some of you read the rule books then attempt to logically explain the reason for such a rule?
Bill, you go on a ridiculous rampage about how all the cars in the photos I posted are nothing more than "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabes, not actual period RACE CARS". Then you go to the trouble to post up an hour long video of "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabes, not actual period RACE CARS". What's even more outrageous is the fact that there are several "nose high" cars in that same video, but you make a feeble attempt to discredit those by saying these poor souls "have bought into the nose-high thing". Yes, they bought into it because it was the way a great many gassers were built in the 50s and 60s. Those gentlemen made a conscious decision to model their "recent reconstruction 'nostalgia' wannabe" gasser like the gassers from that era that they either vividly recall or found to be true classic gassers.
You also insisted on introducing a new phrase into the discussion that NO ONE before you brought up, and that is "nosebleed cars". No one here believes any of the cars with the noses raised to excess were, or are, serious race cars and definitely not gassers. Why did you insist on tainting the discussion? Was it because there were so many cars in your video that ARE nose high that you needed another way to try and sway the discussion in your favor? I think that might well be the case, so let's leave the term nosebleed or any similar term out of this discussion.
You implied that if I wanted to be wrong I should continue to get my "gospel from non-primary sources who really don't know what they're talking about". On more than one occasion you have slandered my quoted sources, even going so far as to call good men names. The one thing we seem to be lacking is any legitimate source that you are able to quote that very specifically states that "real" gassers are built with their stance level or nose down, and that any car built with it's nose high is not a real gasser. Please feel free to include a source that also specifically states that there never were cars (gassers) built in the 50s and 60s with a nose high stance. I, and several other forum members, would be extremely interested in reading any online or published article that makes such statements and/or claims. You are very quick to attack and attempt to discredit, but it seems you want us all the accept only YOUR OPINION on the matter as the "gospel" as you stated.
Your basis for wanting us to believe you are the gasser source savant that we only wish we could be is to state you have been an "adult in the motorsports industry, or very close to it, for almost 50 years" and that you have "experience setting up drag cars" and possess a "profound understanding of engineering, physics, vehicle dynamics, and aerodynamics". That seems a bit vague. Maybe you could enlighten us a bit. Are you saying you work for a drag racing team? Do you have a degree in engineering? Do you work for one of the Big 3? I'm just not sure what your statement of skill, knowledge, and general qualifications really means. Your use of the word, "profound understanding" further complicates understanding what it is you seem to know or do? And I'm still confused as to what "very close to" the motor sports industry might actually mean.
Here is a scenario that is similar to what Bill and a few others are attempting to present as fact. Let's say there are a boy and girl standing on the sidewalk. Two people have cameras. Person A takes a photo of the boy, then a photo of the girl. Person B takes ONLY a photo of the boy. A year later Person B tells everyone he sees that there were no girls present on the day he took the photo and to prove it, he presents just the photo of the boy. With only one photo in his hand he triumphantly proclaims there could not have been a girl present. Then person A presents both photos he took and explains that there was indeed a girl present. Person B denies that a girl was present stating that his proof is that he has only a photo of the boy, he knows what he saw, and anything the other person saw is wrong and not at all possible because he KNOWS what he saw. Period. End of discussion (according to him).
I searched the Internet for phrases like, "nose high gasser stance" and several similar phrases. I used multiple search engines as well as a few crawlers. Those of you not familiar with advanced searching via a search engine or unfamiliar with what a web crawler is, can rest assured that they are just ways to do complete, thorough searches on any subject. What I found was hundreds and hundreds of search results where either an individual was explaining what a "nose high" stance was, or explaining where the "nose high" stance originated, or an article referencing the stance that "classic gassers" had, or any similar type result. What I never found was any article stating that there were never any gassers with "nose high" stances, or that real gassers were built with the noses down, or any such negative response to gassers with a nose high stance. So I went out of my way and TRIED to find such an article. I used the same search engines and crawlers and tried multiple search phrases and in all my searching I was unable to find one, single article where any man or woman denied the existence of the nose high gasser. I also couldn't find any articles that stated there were only a couple or a few gassers built that way. In fact, I was unable to find ANY article that contradicts the fact that there were LOTS of nose high gassers in the 50s and 60s.
So here is my challenge to you, Bill and to any other individual that generally agrees with him. Do some work. Research the devil out of this subject and produce 2 or 3 Internet or other published articles that in some way denies that nose high gassers were very common in the 50s and 60s. Show us your sources that say that to be a REAL gasser the nose had to be at least level if not down. Produce photographs that prove the non-existence of nose high gassers, both in the 50s and 60s and any other era. And no, producing 10 million photographs of what you claim to be real gassers with noses down DOES NOT disprove the existence of nose high gassers. If you think it does, you obviously missed the whole point of the photo taking scenario and in that case, there is pretty much nothing that can be done for you as you just don't comprehend simple logic.