smhardesty

It's coming along just great. Those wheels look super. I'm thoroughly enjoying following this. Thanks for all the photos.

Very nicely done. Excellent build. 2 thumbs up!

And there is no sweeter sound, nor prettier picture!

I picked up a CustomShop '69 Charger kit on eBay just a while ago for $4.99 plus shipping. I know it's not the best of kits, but for 5 bucks I figure it will make a nice project to detail and upgrade.

I'm going to follow this closely. I've just had my interest in diecast drastically increased. I can barely wait to see what you do to this. I saw the exact car on eBay last night.

Or the Rustoleum rep is a whole bunch cuter than the Duplicolor rep. ?

Just go to the post with the photos and click on "Edit". You're basically back in the same mode as when you first posted. It's just labeled as "Edit" and you "Save Changes" instead of "Post".

No problem. I get a lot of paint info from this site: http://paintref.com/paintref/index.shtml

The '71 Barracuda and 'Cuda were available in Y1 Top Banana. That should be the "real" yellow you're looking for. PPG number 2211. .

There is really nothing wrong with the stance of your car, Bill. Here are just a few photos I found really quickly that show that many of the gassers over the years DID in fact have a "nose in the sky" stance that met rules for whatever era they represent. The link is to a discussion on the jalopyjournal.com website and the quote is directly from Wikipedia. I added the bold type to emphasize the reason for jacking the "nose to the sky" as it was often called. The cars were not necessarily level at standstill then raised during acceleration. The cars were very deliberately and intentionally built with the front ends as high as they could be without breaking the current rules at the time. No, not every gasser was built jacked on either end. There isn't a specific rule that required a car to be, or not be, raised on either end. There were rules that limited the amount of lift on either end. For more on gassers start here - http://gassermadness.us/ "Gassers are based on closed body production models from the 1930s to mid-1960s, which have been stripped of extraneous weight and jacked up using a beam axle or tubular axle to provide better weight distribution on acceleration (beam axles are also lighter than an independent front suspension), though a raised stock front suspension is common as well. Common weight reduction techniques include fiberglass body panels, stripped interiors, and plexiglass windows (sometimes color tinted)." https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/gasser-question-why.188361/

The engine weighs as much as the car! LOL! Get that engine weight transferred to the rear!

That was one of the things on the top of the list when we had all the remodeling done on this new house before we moved in. Then I had the plumbing contractor build a "control board" for all the water in the house to include dual carbon filter housings with bypass valves. I didn't want a "big surprise" 6 months after we moved in. Bought the most energy efficient water heater I could.

Snake, the reason for the "nose to the sky" stance of gassers dates back to the 50s when gassers game into their own. They ran narrow slicks made of very hard rubber compounds. Gassers produced way more horsepower than the hard slicks could handle via the beefed up positracs. Lots of things were tried to transfer as much weight to the tires as possible. Raising the front end raised the crankshaft centerline and on launch transferred the most weight to the rear tires. The engines were also set back as far as current rules allowed. Lots of guys hung heavy rear bumpers on the cars and even added concrete filled pipes as bumpers. I'm sure there were a ton of tricks that were never made public. As for any aerodynamic concerns, there wasn't much work along those lines at the time. Besides which the advantage of weight transfer FAR outweighed any advantage a car might realize aerodynamically by lowering the stance. One further note. Some guys can't figure out why the back ends were so high. That was simple necessity. The guys couldn't get the slicks under the car with the rules in force so they "jacked up" the rear ends to clear the slicks. EDIT: After rules changes, some guys continued to jack both the front and rear of their cars simply for nostalgic reasons. They still benefit from the weight transfer and don't lose enough aerodynamically to be a concern.

I would have tried to help you out, but it has been made pretty clear that my help is neither wanted or appreciated. Good luck with any type help!

Those are certainly different types of boats. Both kinds appear to be scary fast. I know pretty much next to nothing about boats. Many, many years ago a family member took me out near Galveston in what I recall being called a "cigar boat". We were flying across the water at unreal speeds and he casually asked, "Want to run tabs down?" I had absolutely NO idea what that meant, but to be cool I said, "Yeah, sure." Then he did it. That entire boat, with us in it, was flying across the Gulf of Mexico perched on those 2 small tabs at the back of the boat. Pretty much reminded me of getting way too much traction at the drag strip, but on water. You bet I was scared.

Great deal on the Mustang. I need a couple more Mustang kits. That '71 would have done me nicely. And you sure can't go wrong with a '57 Nomad. The possibilities are endless. Great hunting.

That's not a link. It's an email address.

Yep. Same thought I had. Be prepared to NOT be able to load the site.

I've never seen or heard that term for these boats. "offshore boats"? Is that what they are called? Never knew that. I've seen them race once, but I don't know anything about them other than they are just scary fast.

Nope. I am not volunteering. I spent over 30 years in the industry. In more than one situation I managed a staff of IT personel. I never had a problem with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. That could be a result of management or a result of excellent hiring practices. You state you work in tech support and see all sorts of horror stories due to miscommunication. There should NEVER be any miscommunication in an IT department. Every trouble call should be directed to the IT manager, or depending on the size of the department, to an assistant manager. The trouble call should then be routed to a specific technician who is directed to resolve the issue and also to remain in tight communication with the manager, who is then ultimately responsible to see that the problem is brought to successful resolution in an appropriate amount of time. If the departments you have worked in don't do this, I understand why you would be familiar with horror stories. But before we start discussing management and staff, let's first address the problem of salaries. Are you telling me that all the moderators and the single Admin on this forum are paid employees or contractors? Do you know that for a fact? If so, do you know what they are each being paid? If you can't answer yes to those questions then you're simply attempting to cloud the real issues with smoke. Fact is, I have no idea how many Admins or moderators are being paid, but I'll venture out on a limb and suggest that none of the moderators are paid employees. One further note regarding paid IT support. The position we would be discussing would actually run more along the lines of a webmaster or site creator. In case you're unfamiliar with how those people work, they don't get up, get dressed, and go into a building to go to work. The vast majority are independent contractors that work from home, never even meeting the person(s) they are working for. By doing that they can accept multiple contracts from various businesses and make a very handsome income while charging each business they work for far less than a full time employee would cost. At times the difference is from one fourth to even one tenth as much or even more depending on what is expected of them. The bottom line is that I don't believe there is a major problem, or any problem at all, in finding volunteers to serve as moderators or even to volunteer as full blown Admins. I have been either an Admin or a Moderator on several different forums over the years, mostly on IT related forums. I'm a full blown Admin on one site right now with 3 other full blown Admins and never once has any of us done anything that irritated the others. I'm also aware of at least 2 other forums with multiple Admins and those forums seem to run flawlessly.

Yep, I got it just fine.

Sorry to hear of your health issues. That being said, this is exactly the situation I pointed out in the past on a different thread. I've actually brought it to light a few times. You just CAN'T have one, single person in complete control of a forum of this size. Moderators need additional capabilities to begin with, then there needs to be a minimum of two, if not three or four, with full control of the forum. Thankfully it sounds like you'll be recovering from your medical condition in a short time, but what if this had been a much more serious event that left you unable to continue? Who is going to be expected to instantly step in, know everything he needs to know, and then enthusiastically accept the problems and responsibilities? Not only this particular problem, but I have seen comments made on various threads about the huge back log of maintenance and problems. On a forum like this, there should NEVER be a back log consisting of more than two or three items, and it shouldn't last more than a week to ten days. I posted a comment two or three months ago about removing the reference to www.eModelCars.com from the Trading Post description. I was told there is only one individual with the capability of editing a board's description. Kind of blew my socks off. That information however, did explain why so many "housekeeping" chores have been neglected for so long. Maybe you guys should consider placing one or two more individuals in the roll of Admin with full privileges and then modifying the privileges of the Moderators to allow them to take care of simple things like removing that dead reference in the Trading Post description. Just a thought.

It doesn't appear that any of the moderators, administrators, owners, or other powers that be are too worried about helping you with your problem. I'd try and help you, but I have no access to the forum that would allow me to do so. I took you as far as I could and managed to get the correct piece of information to help those powers that be resolve the issue, but then no one decided to pick the ball up and run with it. Kinda sad, really.

It doesn't make sense for any shelter to charge fees of $100 or more, then go on local TV or newspapers and sing a sad song about having to put animals down because no one is adopting. I fully understand the vet's bill, but some of these shelters immediately ship the animal to the vet for a complete checkup, shots, and embedded "chips". Then because of high fees, no one wants to adopt, then the shelter puts the animal down. It seems to me if the shelters lowered the fee they would then get more adoptions, gain much needed cash flow, and ultimately put fewer animals down. What good does it do a shelter, or any business, to set prices really high, then not sell anything? Cut the prices (fees) in half and see how much business is generated. After all, 100% of nothing is nothing.

I wish some of the shelters near us would consider an event with the fee waived or at least reduced. A couple of the places now have fees well over $100. One of them is now at $140. That prevents a lot of families from even considering an adoption. We got our little Chihuahua from a shelter 8 years ago and I paid just under $100 back then. We would probably at least consider a second dog if they reduced or waived the fee.