Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by smhardesty

  1. There are new listings from a couple of members over on the Market forum. In addition, I have lowered the prices on several of my own kits. be sure and check it out. https://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
  2. There are new listings from a couple of members over on the Market forum. In addition, I have lowered the prices on several of my own kits. be sure and check it out. https://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
  3. I kind of thought there would be more activity on the new forum considering the number of posts regarding selling and/or trading.
  4. You're a hard guy to figure out. First, you try to trade the 57 Chevy off, then you withdraw the offer. Now you've bought a second 57 Chevy that needs glass, but you are once again trying to trade the other one off. I'm guessing a lot of guys are going to be a little leary of trying to do business with you. That's not a solid trade history.
  5. You're welcome. Please note: This is a totally FREE place to list items for sale, to trade, or wanted.
  6. There is a new site to sell, trade, or post your wants/needs. It's free and restricted to non-military cars and trucks. Check it out here: http://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
  7. There is a new site to sell, trade, or post your wants/needs. It's free and restricted to non-military cars and trucks. Check it out here: http://modelcarmarket.proboards.com/
  8. 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. .
  9. Mike, Rich, and you other guys that seem to at least acknowledge that nose high gassers existed in the 50s and 60s and right up to today, thanks for your support. Originally I simply wanted to show Scott that nose high gassers not only existed, but were extremely common in the 50s and 60s. He wanted simple knowledge of how gasser classes were determined and some other very basic gasser know how. I was afraid he had gotten the wrong idea about gassers having to be nose down to be authentic and genuine. I wanted to present a few photos and a little knowledge so he was at least aware that nose high gassers were not only authentic, but pretty common back in the era he was interested in. Unfortunately we're all aware that there are certain individuals in the world that just absolutely know everything and don't care if they present non-factual and incorrect information to those that ask for help. Scott's gasser will be a great looking build, I'm sure. He has chosen to build it nose down and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Best of luck, Scott. And now I'll present my very last post on this forum. There are lots of great guys on here, but the fact that certain individuals on this forum possess all the knowledge that any drag racing fan could ever ask for kind of dampens the mood on here. I'm sure many of you will appreciate at least a few points in my next post, and I'm also sure that there will be a few that still absolutely deny that the sky is blue. One final note on this next post. Over the past few days I have received several emails from a small group of forum members that are as dumbfounded as I am with this mess. They have chosen to remain anonymous and that's their right. Instead, they have voiced their support of me in the emails. I speak for them as well.
  10. Thanks, Rich. Couldn't have said it better.
  11. Make sure you build it level or nose down. Otherwise the engine runs backwards, makes the car hopscotch down the track, then flip up on it's back and spin like a turtle. 😂
  12. Well, Bill. I have to say I'm a little dumbfounded. I'm just stupefied. You have as much as said that your point of view is the only one that counts and only you are right and you are never wrong. On an open forum you have stated that 14 car owners don't own the gassers they say they are. You stated that the black Willys and the maroon '37 Chevy (not Chebby. I quit such nonsensical language in grade school) couldn't be real race cars because they are on street tires. Were you not aware that many gasser type cars served dual purpose, especially in the 50s and 60s, but even yet today? Street tires don't disqualify a car from being a drag car. You have continued to claim that it is completely and entirely impossible for a car with an elevated nose to race. You also allude to the fact you were there when all these period race cars were at the strips all across the country. If you were there in the 50s and 60s you would have seen cars just like the ones in the photos making their passes down drag strips across the country and not flipping over on their backs like turtles. The George Klass site is indeed a fine website for some research. It is not however, a one stop, Gospel of drag racing or even gassers. There are a great many sites on the 'Net that can contribute to your knowledge. Try checking a few more out. Sorry to see that you chose to attack and vilify Mike Bumbeck, Hagerty, and Hot Rod. If you don't mind I believe I'll choose to believe those accredited sources over your quite opinionated one. You state that Bumbeck is a "noob" simply parroting misinformation. Could you identify his sources so I won't read and believe them anymore? As for the Hot Rod article, you might have misunderstood it being about only "tribute and themed cars". Slow down and re-read paragraph 5. It specifically states, "Gathered here are 13 tasty gassers. They range from restored originals to recent recreations and tributes. Some are spot-on correct right down to their bias-ply cheater slicks while others take liberties with the theme and blend in a heap of modern amenities." Very specific in that it states some are restored originals, just like you seem to prefer. It's extremely difficult to completely disregard any information gleaned from an article due to your not understanding what the author was referring to with the 111/42 inches comment or because there was an unfortunate typo. Mistakes do happen when publishing written documents. Together the two attacks on otherwise sound technical sources seem like maybe you skimmed over the articles and picked out pieces, or possibly had trouble comprehending what the author was stating. One thing I've never done is completely discard a well written technical document of any kind simply because I disagreed with one sentence or one paragraph. In 30 years of the computing industry I read an awful lot of tech manuals, found mistakes in many, disagreed with a few, and learned from every one. My experience with those manuals began in the early 70s while teaching myself first COBOL, then FORTRAN for use on IBM mainframes. Finally you state that the cars in the video are the "real deal", thus implying that a car with a nose high stance isn't a real race car. I can provide an estimated 150 or more photos of cars that have a nose high stance. That doesn't prove or even imply that all gassers were nose high. It doesn't even imply that MOST of the cars were nose high. It just proves that the cars did exist, they were there in the 50s and 60s, they are still here today, and history can not be changed by the will of a single individual. Meanwhile, here are 8 more photos. The first is from George Klass' site. The source of the rest SHOULD be easily identifiable. I fully expect to hear how these guys are doing it wrong, or they aren't real drag racers, or something similar, but here they are none-the-less. To the best of my knowledge after looking over the websites I retrieved these from, none flipped over on their backs.
  13. OK. I stand corrected and offer apologies. As for mechanical advantage, yes. Once the center of gravity is raised by raising the nose, the weight transfer to the rear wheels is much quicker and more of the weight gets transferred. Here are a couple of quotes and links to the actual article regarding the "nose high" stance. If you do a search for "nose high stance gasser" you can find several other articles discussing the typical nose high stance of gassers. "The gasser look and stance – nose-high, the better to transfer weight to the rear wheels for traction" https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2016/11/16/gassers-rule-the-strip-and-street "To many hot rodders, young and old, there’s just nothing as cool as a gasser. The nose-high stance and brutal simplicity take us all back nearly a half-century to a time when amateur drag racers ruled." https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0606-traditional-gasser-hot-rod-cars/ .
  14. I don't know if it's "too high" or not, but it definitely is what I would call "nose high". It's what most guys think of when the term gasser is thrown out. .
  15. The vehicles I posted photos of are NOT street freaks. Every car in the photos is a legitimate gasser. I'm fully aware of the 24" crankshaft center line rule - NOT the engine, but the crank centerline. If you will look closely at each of the photos, the cars either have their gasser class posted clearly on the car, or they are otherwise obviously drag racing cars. I took every photo off the web from a gasser site. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the fact that there were, and are, gassers that raced that had a "nose high" stance. These photos are pretty plain and obvious to that fact. And yes, I'm fully aware of the George Klass website. One of my photos came from his site. Regardless of the number of photos you post showing a gasser that is either level or lower in the nose, the fact remains that cars with their noses to the sky existed in the 50s and continue to this day. .
  16. I thought I'd post up just a few of the dozens and dozens of photos of gassers with their noses to the sky that I have on my hard drive. Recently Scott (Oldmopars) had asked for assistance with understanding the rules for gassers and also general help with his build. I'm afraid he might be slightly mislead regarding the stance of gassers. After getting some advice from forum members he went out of his way to be certain the front of his build was lower that the rear. There seems to be some differing of opinions on the stance of gassers. I'm thinking that Scott, and others, might get the wrong idea about what is and isn't acceptable regarding the stance. So here are 15 of the many dozens of photos I have of gassers with what most would consider a "nose to the sky" stance. Most of these cars have their gasser class designation on the car and it's easy to see that the ones that don't are actual racing cars and not show cars. None of these photos depict a car launching on the strip as all are at rest. This is NOT to say that a gasser must have a stance similar to these. It only illustrates that "nose high" stances are very common on gasser class vehicles. .
  17. I'm afraid you're going to meet with some resistance to that way of thinking, Ed. The forum seems to generally reject the idea that there were a great many gassers and other drag cars that were built with the "nose to the sky" stance. I'm not sure why that seems to be the general consensus, but it sure looks like it is. I have dozens of photos of gassers with the "nose to the sky" stance. I also have distinct recollections of a great many cars with noses up from several drag strips in Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Texas from "back in the day". I wouldn't claim that all, or even most, gassers or other cars were that way, but there sure were a good number of them. There were several such cars at Little River Dragway near Temple, TX and also present when we raced at the railhead on Ft. Hood in the 70s. I know that Little River is an IHRA track now and I believe it was in the mid to late 70s when I was there. The IHRA has a "Match Race" and "Exhibition Vehicles" class so this could possibly be where all the "nose to the sky" gassers run. The reason for the peculiar stance of these cars was a result of the lack of a good racing tire (slick) when gassers got their start. The tires were made with a very hard rubber compound that was exceptionally prone to spinning on the hard, smooth surface of a drag strip. Race teams figured out that by raising the front of the car they changed the center of gravity of the car which allowed for the weight on the nose to be transferred to the rear wheels very quickly, thus giving them a much improved launch. Even after tire technology caught up and began providing softer compounds racers knew that they could still benefit from the fast weight transfer to the rear wheels. Yep. I applaud your effort, but I'm afraid you'll meet with some differing of opinions. .
  18. I do the same thing. I'd like my builds to be as close to realistic as I can make them. My real point was for you not to get TOO caught up in whether your build is a C/G or a D/G. You can drive yourself nuts trying to be that exact. Like Bill said, posting a non-supercharged class designation in the window of a car with a big, old blower and hat sticking through the hood is an obvious mistake you'd want to avoid. As for nose to the sky stances being "wrong", well that's not entirely true. Exceptions to the norm - yes, but they can't be labeled as wrong. Once again, as Bill has already stated, you'll find photos of gassers from all periods that seem to somehow openly deny conforming to the 24" rule. There has to be something we're missing by only viewing the photos and not knowing all the facts about that car. Build your car the way you think it should be. This is a hobby and should be fun. Don't turn it into a job or a school project that is to be "graded".
  19. My wife has never seen it either, and I won't be changing that. I can do pretty much what I want, but I've learned not to expect too much companionship on some of my treks.
  20. Let me ask you something, Scott. Do you intend to enter this build in a contest/show somewhere where the rules state all details on the build must be correct or be disqualified? If not, why not relax a little and just get somewhere close on your class designation? There are a lot of unknowns in the scale world that wouldn't be on a 1:1 car. For instance and as stated previously, the car might be stripped of every once of weight legally possible, plus a few illegal pounds, OR as Muncie stated, the car might have had some weight added to push it into the next lower class, especially if it was close to the weight break but the motor was a bit weak for whatever reason. As for finding "errors" in photos and drawings, there is too much unknown to be sure they are errors. The "Anatomy of a Gasser" is an artist's rendering for "Street Rodder" magazine. Maybe the artist just didn't know, or maybe it just slipped by him. And street rods don't necessarily depict an NHRA race car. Try this. Do an image search for "41 Willys gasser" in your search engine of choice. Then just browse through all the images noting the different class designations. Same car photo to photo, but you'll find lots of different classes. Choose the year you want your car to depict, look at the rules for that year, locate the weight of your car on the 'Net, divide by the cubes, decide if your engine will be supercharged or not, then use the class designation from the table in the rulebook.
  21. Nope, don't know her. Her voice does kind of wear on a guy though. Kind of a nasal whine.
  22. There are a few advantages to living in a really small, podunk type city. Not many, but that's certainly one. Never a traffic jam.
  23. Once I get it here and do a full inventory it'll probably be a trader. I do have 2 already. This one was an open box. There was a photo of all the sprues and plastic bags laid out. It sure looked complete, but those photos aren't real big. I don't want to offer it or make a trade commitment until I'm sure it's all there.
  24. Dang. Here I go again. Who the devil is SHE? Must be from some TV show and not movies, or at least not the type of movies I watch. I don't recognize the name at all.
  • Create New...