'60s Drag Racing...a real deal reference

[Ace-Garageguy]

GEORGE KLASS REMEMBERS... CLICK HERE:    http://georgeklass.net/index.html NOTE: In the Gasser section, please note the static stance of the cars

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[High octane]

Yes it is the "real deal" as I've seen that site before and need to spend much more time on it. I started going to the drag strips and drag racing in the mid-60's and it was a great time. A time that I'll never forget.

[Fat Brian]

I remember reading in another post that the NHRA rule for gassers specified that the crank centerline could be no more than 24" off the ground so the massively jacked up noses are more street mimicry than actual race legal cars.

[Roadrunner]

Very cool. I could dwell there for hours.

[unclescott58]

Great site in some ways. But, almost too much. Long on photos, but short on information. I got bored somewhat quickly with it.

[afx]

Good stuff, thanks for posting.

[FordRodnKustom]

Great site! Thanks.

[Snake45]

Great site in some ways. But, almost too much. Long on photos, but short on information. I got bored somewhat quickly with it.

It's called "information overload."

Every so often, I wonder "Was there ever a ____________ gasser?" And I'll go there and look, and by gosh there was at least one.

[bismarck]

Static stance on the cars is fairly flat. Like Brian said, 24" crank centerline rule. I always thought the nose high look was more of a street/custom thing.

[Snake45]

Static stance on the cars is fairly flat. Like Brian said, 24" crank centerline rule. I always thought the nose high look was more of a street/custom thing.

And also because the hot rod rags ran so many pics of the cars at the starting line, taking off, when the nose really was higher. So you could kind of get used to that being "the look" if you were reading a lot of car rags of the day.

[Modelman37]

Nice! Thanks!

[espo]

Thank you for sharing this info. I just added this site to my favorites.   

[Ace-Garageguy]

Static stance on the cars is fairly flat. Like Brian said, 24" crank centerline rule. I always thought the nose high look was more of a street/custom thing.

And also because the hot rod rags ran so many pics of the cars at the starting line, taking off, when the nose really was higher. So you could kind of get used to that being "the look" if you were reading a lot of car rags of the day.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make.

If you didn't understand the nose-high attitude comes from weight transfer as the cars LAUNCH, you could think, I suppose, that's how they looked at rest.

Then you get the legions of monkey-see-monkey-do folks who just copy all the folks who got it wrong without ever bothering to understand what's the 'real deal'. 

[bismarck]

I liked the nose high look at first, but then I grabbed a copy of the gasser build rules, and it was a real eye opener. I had been building my gassers wrong for quite awhile. It LOOKS cool on some cars, but its not realistic with the 1:1 rulebook. Wasn't that the reason for the 1/2 leaf springs on the rear ends of the early gassers, to get more rear suspension travel to get the nose up on launch for better/ faster weight transfer?

Edited July 14, 2016 by bismarck

[Snake45]

I liked the nose high look at first, but then I grabbed a copy of the gasser build rules, and it was a real eye opener. I had been building my gassers wrong for quite awhile. It LOOKS cool on some cars, but its not realistic with the 1:1 rulebook. Wasn't that the reason for the 1/2 leaf springs on the rear ends of the early gassers, to get more rear suspension travel to get the nose up on launch for better/ faster weight transfer?

Rulebook doesn't say anything about how far the front end can come up on launch, just how the car's supposed to sit sitting still.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I liked the nose high look at first, but then I grabbed a copy of the gasser build rules, and it was a real eye opener. I had been building my gassers wrong for quite awhile. It LOOKS cool on some cars, but its not realistic with the 1:1 rulebook. Wasn't that the reason for the 1/2 leaf springs on the rear ends of the early gassers, to get more rear suspension travel to get the nose up on launch for better/ faster weight transfer?

The Stone Woods Cook Willys really got the quarter-elliptic leaf spring setup with long ladder bars working. One of the reasons the car went so quick was because it launched so hard.

Rulebook doesn't say anything about how far the front end can come up on launch, just how the car's supposed to sit sitting still.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[bismarck]

Launch geometry. Push "go" pedal HARD. Back of car drops under hard torque and acceleration, thus compressing said half leaf springs, moving forward. NOSE of car lifts up, thus giving the impression of that nose high stance that some (including myself till recently) people get confused with how a gasser looks at rest. My point being the 1/2 rear leaf springs of the early gassers allowed enough travel under hard acceleration to "pop" the front end into the air for snap weight transfer to the back. Get that formula wrong, and it makes for some killer wheel stands too!!! I wonder how many seat cushions vanished till they came out  with the wheelie bar?

Edited July 14, 2016 by bismarck

[Ace-Garageguy]

The loose quarter-elliptic springs on cars like the SWC Willys let the rear of the car come down fast under hard acceleration. The rear coming down is essentially the same as far as weight transfer goes as the nose going up. But that's not the whole equation.

Part of the way the geometry works has to do with the length and positioning of the forward ends of the ladder-bars too.

Early "traction bars" existed (and still do) primarily to resist wind-up of rear semi-elliptic leaf springs, which could get into a cyclic wind-up, snap-back, inducing axle-hop. Not good for maintaining traction, and tends to snap axles and universal joints and transmission parts too.

Ladder bars, being very stiff, took the "wind-up" torque of the rear axle and applied it through a long 'lever' forward to the point the bars are mounted to the chassis.

This 'lifts' the nose of the car, further enhancing rear weight transfer.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[bismarck]

The loose quarter-elliptic springs on cars like the SWC Willys let the rear of the car come down fast under hard acceleration. The rear coming down is essentially the same as far as weight transfer goes as the nose going up. But that's not the whole equation.

Part of the way the geometry works has to do with the length and positioning of the forward ends of the ladder-bars too.

Early "traction bars" existed (and still do) primarily to resist wind-up of rear semi-elliptic leaf springs, which could get into a cyclic wind-up, snap-back, inducing axle-hop. Not good for maintaining traction, and tends to snap axles and universal joints and transmission parts too.

Ladder bars, being very stiff, took the "wind-up" torque of the rear axle and applied it through a long 'lever' forward to the point the bars are mounted to the chassis.

This 'lifts' the nose of the car, further enhancing rear weight transfer.

That's what I was getting at, I just couldn't post the illustration.  Thanks Bill. In my own crude way, that's the point I was trying to make. I understand the mechanics, I just don't always get them across verbally( or in written form) your illustration pretty well sums it up.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yes sir, you got it. I was just trying to further clarify.

The ideas of traction bars and ladder or "lift" bars get confused sometimes, and a clear illustration of how they work should help anyone who wants to do period gassers get the suspension right. 

[plastic-mechanic]

shouldn't we at least cite the source of the diagram? (unless it's an original.)

[Snake45]

In the '90s, I was working with an old guy who I found out had been on a crew racing a Gasser Willys in the mid-'60s.

"So why were they all jacked up," I asked him, "weight transfer?"

"Well, there was that," he said, "but mainly it was so we could crawl around underneath them and fix stuff between rounds without having to jack them up."

He might have been serious or yanking my crank, I really couldn't tell you.

[bismarck]

I think some of those guys still jacked up the rear of those old gassers to avoid flat spotting the slicks, and to avoid getting debris on the tire surfaces.(?)

Edited July 14, 2016 by bismarck

[Ace-Garageguy]

shouldn't we at least cite the source of the diagram? (unless it's an original.)

Ok, Mr. "mechanic". Glad to do it.

NOTE: REFERENCE DRAWING ABOVE TAKEN FROM OPEN INTERNET SOURCE AND USED UNDER "FAIR USE" DEFINITION OF US COPYRIGHT LAW.

For additional information as to what constitutes "fair use", please see the following:  Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

In the '90s, I was working with an old guy who I found out had been on a crew racing a Gasser Willys in the mid-'60s.

"So why were they all jacked up," I asked him, "weight transfer?"

"Well, there was that," he said, "but mainly it was so we could crawl around underneath them and fix stuff between rounds without having to jack them up."

He might have been serious or yanking my crank, I really couldn't tell you.

If the car was fast, he was crank-yanking. If it was a dog, he was serious.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy