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

[plastic-mechanic]

Grumpy's Garage - i should have known!  http://www.grumpysperformance.com/

 

http://www.grumpysperformance.com/trac4.jpg

http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewforum.php?f=30

but seriously, of all the people whom i've heard whine about the injustices of the world, you should be willing to offer credit where it's due.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Grumpy's Garage - i should have known!  http://www.grumpysperformance.com/

 

http://www.grumpysperformance.com/trac4.jpg

http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewforum.php?f=30

but seriously, of all the people whom i've heard whine about the injustices of the world, you should be willing to offer credit where it's due.

OK, Ill give you that, but I pulled it from an un-credited source that had apparently copied it as well. Do a thorough reverse image search, and you'll see it appears MULTIPLE TIMES un-credited.

You should have known? Possibly, maybe, you might notice that the image is very obviously taken from a scan of PRINTED material. There is a clear ghost image of words on the reverse of the page that was scanned for the net image. I don't see anywhere on your cited "Grumpy" reference what the printed source material is (though I didn't read through every forum post to try to find it.) Did YOU ??

Tracing the origin of every internet photo or diagram I use simply to illustrate a point is not in the purview of my responsibility to humankind.

What IS within said responsibility is to not take credit for someone else's material or to try to profit by it...neither of which I did by action or implication.

If YOU inferred otherwise from my neglecting to research and post the original credit, it's not my problem. 

What's more, it ain't rocket science. 

But PLEASE, feel free to attack me on any petty grounds you like...while I try to help modelers understand how things work. 

PS: The video clip I linked to ain't mine either. 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[plastic-mechanic]

OK, Ill give you that, but I pulled it from an un-credited source that had apparently copied it as well. Do a thorough reverse image search, and you'll see it appears MULTIPLE TIMES un-credited.

You should have known? Possibly, maybe, you might notice that the image is very obviously taken from a scan of PRINTED material. There is a clear ghost image of words on the reverse of the page that was scanned for the net image. I don't see anywhere on your cited "Grumpy" reference what the printed source material is (though I didn't read through every forum post to try to find it.) Did YOU ??

Tracing the origin of every internet photo or diagram I use simply to illustrate a point is not in the purview of my responsibility to humankind.

What IS within said responsibility is to not take credit for someone else's material or to try to profit by it...neither of which I did by action or implication.

If YOU inferred otherwise from my neglecting to research and post the original credit, it's not my problem. 

What's more, it ain't rocket science. 

But PLEASE, feel free to attack me on any petty grounds you like...while I try to help modelers understand how things work. 

PS: The video clip I linked to ain't mine either. 

but instead of the "woe is me" attitude, think how many more people would be helped if you posted the source, and in effect 'taught a man to fish'

[Ace-Garageguy]

but instead of the "woe is me" attitude, think how many more people would be helped if you posted the source, and in effect 'taught a man to fish'

Warning warning danger danger Will Robinson. Logic disconnect.

The very act of putting up the diagram IS teaching men to fish. It's not a terse two-word response implying "cause I said so" with no valid and supportable references. It's a clear and easy to understand explanation of the physics involved, but not so in-depth as to cause instant boredom.

The net is replete with more in-depth information for anyone who desires it, and armed with that little drawing, they have a good basis to do their own "fishing".

And "woe is me"? You've GOT to be kidding.

Do you ever THINK before you post?

Since you like fishing SO much and want to be SO helpful, why don't YOU find the original printed credit? CONTRIBUTE instead of criticizing.

You might want to fix that "shift" key while you're at it.   

Edited July 15, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[ChrisBcritter]

From the aforementioned George Klass site: I triple-dog-dare somebody to build a model of this:

I guess nobody made a '54 Ford 'glass front end? (and yes, it's a Skyliner or at least 3/4 of one.)

Edited July 15, 2016 by ChrisBcritter

[signguy2108]

Good sight. Gassers have always been cool, but I never here any mention of the old MODIFIED PRODUCTION class. Stock w/b, stock sheetmetal, carbs, 4-speeds, and 10,000 rpm lauches! Kind of a middle ground between superstocks and gassers. prelude to the early prostockers

[Ace-Garageguy]

From the aforementioned George Klass site: I triple-dog-dare somebody to build a model of this:

... I guess nobody made a '54 Ford 'glass front end? (and yes, it's a Skyliner or at least 3/4 of one.)

I may have to take you up on that dare. It's such a cool oddball, it needs to at least inspire something similar.

I have a '55 Chebby that's already donated its frame to a '55 Olds conversion (from a diecast) and a '53 Ford that's minus a front clip.

Ought to be able to get in the ballpark. Maybe with a blown Y-block.  

Project #10,789 (give or take a few).   

[Snake45]

Good sight. Gassers have always been cool, but I never here any mention of the old MODIFIED PRODUCTION class. Stock w/b, stock sheetmetal, carbs, 4-speeds, and 10,000 rpm lauches! Kind of a middle ground between superstocks and gassers. prelude to the early prostockers

What, you mean like this?

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/96056-65-chevelle-wagon/

MPs were basically Super Stocks that had never been built by any factory. Create your own "phantom" Super Stock!

[signguy2108]

I started going to the drag races aruond 10 yrs old or mid 60's. All the local tracks by then were starting to running M/P classes. Anything that wouldn't pass tech to run s/s got put into modified production. There were some wild cars, slow by today's standards, but alot of fun to watch back then!

[Snake45]

I may have to take you up on that dare. It's such a cool oddball, it needs to at least inspire something similar.

I have a '55 Chebby that's already donated its frame to a '55 Olds conversion (from a diecast) and a '53 Ford that's minus a front clip.

Ought to be able to get in the ballpark. Maybe with a blown Y-block.  

Project #10,789 (give or take a few).   

Y-block? Lessee, Ford body, Chevy front clip...why, I've never heard of a project that cried out MORE for an early Hemi!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Y-block? Lessee, Ford body, Chevy front clip...why, I've never heard of a project that cried out MORE for an early Hemi!

Doh.   You're right. Something Mopar, fer sure. Maybe a DeSoto, just to keep it weird.  

[cobraman]

Thanks Bill, great site. I spent a lot of time there. I found one photo in the dragster section that really interested me. As I do like the oddball stuff I have already done a 3 wheel dragster but there is one photo of an early dragster with what looks like short wings mounted about where the engine is .Also it has dual slicks on the rear. Wings look like they may be about 4 feet. ?  I might like to take a stab at building that or my version of it. Does anyone know if there are any more or better photos anywhere of this dragster ? I did a search but came up empty.

[plastic-mechanic]

from Hemmings today

 

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/07/20/dragster-pioneer-art-chrisman-dies-at-86/?refer=news

[Ace-Garageguy]

He was the real-deal personified. (Images taken from open internet sources under "fair use" definition in copyright law)

                 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[10thumbs]

Wasn't a fellow named Chrisman whom in the early funny car era whooped on the Hemis with his blown Ford funny car.  Jack Chrisman?  His son?

This was the era around 66-67, like with Jack Nicholson's cool flip top Comet.

[10thumbs]

Another thing I'd like to mention, about the rear end "dropping down" during acceleration.  Better traction is achieved when the rear end goes up, because then the tires are implanted into the surface.  When the rear end sinks, the rear tires are actually wanting to lift up, hence lesser traction.

Was this "unknown" during the 60's gasser era?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Another thing I'd like to mention, about the rear end "dropping down" during acceleration.  Better traction is achieved when the rear end goes up, because then the tires are implanted into the surface.  When the rear end sinks, the rear tires are actually wanting to lift up, hence lesser traction.

Was this "unknown" during the 60's gasser era?

Think carefully about the physics involved, the forces, their vectors, etc., and look at the drawing I posted a while back. When the rear of a car drops under heavy acceleration, it's because the body weight is pushing down harder on the springs and compressing them, pushing the axle down harder as well, and in turn pushing the tires into harder contact with the pavement.

The rear doesn't drop because the axle is "rising" off the pavement, as your statement implies.

If the rear suspension were designed to force the rear of the body-chassis to rise independently of the front...which can be done... it would have the effect of transferring weight forward, which is obviously not what you want.

The long ladder bars of the '60s era gassers took the tendency of the front of the rear axle to rotate up during heavy acceleration, and applied that force as far forward as possible in order to raise the front of the car and transfer weight to the rear. (again, see drawing posted earlier)

Vehicle dynamics were pretty thoroughly understood by the 1960s, and really, suspension design has been subject to only relatively minor refinement since then, though tire technology has changed dramatically. This holds true in production cars, drag cars and road-racing cars including F1.  

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[10thumbs]

Interesting, I of course don't have the mechanical background to offer any halfway intelligent information.  What surprised me recently was an internet research during a previous Fiat Altered model build,  especially the 4 link application.   There was specifically the opposite mentioned, and this really caught my eye and interest of what you just posted;

"The rear doesn't drop because the axle is "rising" off the pavement, as your statement implies".

As I understood, under acceleration, there is an immediate weight shift, causing spring wrap-up and the applied torque has the tendency to twist the axle upward.  This weight/energy lets the body sink at the rear, thus actually causing the axle/rear wheels to raise upwards as the sprung rear axle counters the weight onslaught, lessening the imprint of the tires to the surface. 

The axle doesn't drop, then the body sinks down, but just the opposite is my understanding.

Interesting stuff.  As a sailor,  I like hearing that the wind puffs up the sails, and this is what pushes the boat further.  This is just not true.  What lets the boat go forward is the fact that there is because of the wind in the sails, a vacuum created just in front of this rigging, and the boat is sucked into this void.

Thanks for the interesting subject.

Edited July 20, 2016 by 10thumbs

[10thumbs]

Bill, if you don't mind, here a famous Gasser and the stance;

Looks level to me.

Edit:  I just noticed too, with that (lack of) tire clearance, this rig did not squat off the line.  Hmmm, did the rear raise up any?

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by 10thumbs

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

As I understood, under acceleration, there is an immediate weight shift, causing spring wrap-up and the applied torque has the tendency to twist the axle upward.  This weight/energy lets the body sink at the rear, thus actually causing the axle/rear wheels to raise upwards as the sprung rear axle counters the weight onslaught, lessening the imprint of the tires to the surface. 

What causes spring wrap-up isn't "weight shift", but rather the torque reaction of the axle trying to rotate around its own centerline. It makes a very important difference as to what order you perceive the actions to occur in. The torque reaction tends to raise ONLY THE FRONT OF THE AXLE.

Axle torque under acceleration / spring wrap or wind-up       (Image from Competition Engineering)

For a full explanation of how various locating arrangements for live rear ends work under drag cars, go here:   http://competitionengineering.com/content/understanding-basics-chassis-suspension-traction-equipment

[Ace-Garageguy]

Bill, if you don't mind, here a famous Gasser and the stance;

Looks level to me.

Edit:  I just noticed too, with that (lack of) tire clearance, this rig did not squat off the line.  Hmmm, did the rear raise up any?

Yes, the STATIC stance would be level, close to it, or on later gassers, nose down slightly.

Every car launches differently. I've seen poorly set-up cars with slicks protruding from the fenders like that cut nice grooves in the tread centers.

Watch the tails drop on these cars as they launch. Some more than others.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[10thumbs]

Thanks for the closer explanation, I think these things should be mostly understood by guys who want to build accurate models.

Also, the link to real competition axle assemblies is a great reference for my upcoming builds.

Gassers are still cool, after all these years!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yes, understanding how things work definitely helps to build better, more accurate models. 

I agree, gassers are cool. Some of my favorites of any competition cars. 

[plastic-mechanic]

[plastic-mechanic]

https://www.youtube.com/user/vintagedragsters