Art Anderson

Of course, in a plastic model, chopping a Hudson wouldn't be all that hard, pretty much the same as with a 49-51 Merc, but in real life? Hmmmmm! Hudson's term for their unibody construction (starting in 1938) was to build a car like a truss bridge, virtually every body component is structural in some way. The rocker panels actually form the side rails of the underbody, the C-pillars are steel beams underneath, as are the A-posts. Around the roof, under the skin is literally a roll cage of fairly heavy steel shapes. Even the side members go OUTBOARD of the rear wheels, just above the opening for the fender skirts (Stepdown Hudsons look AWFUL without their skirts!) '56 Packard taillights could work, IF one used '54 Hudson rear quarter panels, with their flow-through styling though. But, why chop one? As they came from the factory, the side windows are only about 10" tall or so, not much more than that, with a very high beltline. Lower one mebbe, the suspension is pretty conventional for the time frame. Stepdown Hudsons were fairly heavy cars for their day, up around 5000lbs, due to all that steel structure. Where they shine is on the highway--in many ways a car built for Interstate Superhighways, before there were Interstate Superhighways. And that huge flathead 6? That engine was happy as a clam, purred like a pickleseeder all day long at 75-80mph, and got 20mpg in the bargain (still have my Dad's travel journal from a 3-week trip to AZ, he and mom carefully calculated gas mileage on that trip, in the days of 23-cent a gallon gasoline to boot. In a pinch, you could seat 4 fully grown adults across both the front and rear seats, or 5-6 kids. And, it did it all in relative quiet, only on hard acceleration could you hear the designed-in piston slap from the engine. But roll one over? Only dented the sheet metal, never saw one with a collapsed roof (they were hard bodies to crush too!). Art

A As with just about any other model car subject, to see who buys a particular new kit, and then to discover who DIDN't buy it, can often be very surprising! Art

Mark, You will be interested then, for sure! Both cars will have NASCAR versions, the kits are being designed and mocked up with that in mind--and I don't mean just AMT Corporation-style tack-on roll bars, and a set of decals either--try gutted interiors and the like. Additionally, a release of the Hudson as the convertible is in the plan as well, in addition to the Hudson's being mocked up with parts to do both a 1952, AND a 1953. Both kits are being worked up as full detail--the dual-carb 354 Hemi in the Chrysler, the Hudson with its trademark 308cid inline flathead 6, with Twin H-power and 7X cylinder head, parts which do the Nascar racers happen. In addition, the Hudson is being done with a 3-speed transmission and shift lever, I suspect the Chrysler is as well. Art

Uh, to set the record straight here Harry: Moebius isn't Playing Mantis/Polar Lights, and Playing Mantis/Polar Lights, being gone from the scene, have no direct connections whatsoever to Moebius--it's somewhat coincidental that Dave Metzner worked at Playing Mantis, same as me, and now heads up product development for Moebius. My model building, fellow employee and now working relationship with Dave goes back about 25yrs before our co-experiences with Playing Mantis. There are light years of difference in the approach taken by Moebius and that employed by Playing Mantis. At Moebius, model kits are pretty much their business, their only business; at Playing Mantis, through the brand Polar Lights, model kits were very much the stepchild, Johnny Lightning diecasts being their "signature" product line, and it showed. I'm not going to rehash all the things experienced at Playing Mantis, that isn't the thrust here, and I'm not really into any sort of "tell all". All that said, the focus is quite different today, David has a great deal more to say about just what the Hudson and Chrysler kits need to be, rather than someone in an upstairs office, that is pretty clear to me. The three kits under development have FAR MORE in the way of upfront research done beforehand, given that this isn't some "nostalgia trip", nor is any "reverse engineering" of former kit offerings by others involved. The abiding principle with all three kits is accuracy, as much as can be achieved, and a price point that will allow that to happen. With the Hudson, for example, one of the best-known names in the model kit industry aided considerably with research and reference, supplemented by a lot of cooperation of the Hostetler Collection, which is the largest, most comprehensive museum devoted to the Hudson Automobile, and is conveniently located in far northern Indiana, only about 30 miles or so from where Dave lives. The Chrysler is a similar issue, lot's of help coming from a couple of owners and restorers who live in the same area as Dave. In addition, the lead time allowed is far more generous than with nearly any model kit produced by Polar Lights, as there really isn't any dependence on convincing WalMart or other Big Box stores to pick up the line--and having been on the inside track on stuff like that, it's a pleasant breath of fresh air. I'm in possession of zip files of photo's of both sets of mockups, and both are already stunning, but as with any model kit project of this scope, of which little, if any factory information exists anymore (Hudson Motor Car Company merged into AMC just about 56 years ago, production moved to Kenosha WI, the old Detroit facility closed down completely. Chrysler doesn't have, apparently, anywhere near the the historical archives organized in the manner of say, GM or Ford--so factory help just isn't much--these are subjects that are having to be done from real cars, by photograph and measurement, in a very old-fashioned manner. That makes it even more critical (and both Dave and I know it!) to carefully scrutinize the mockups before they are sent from China, compare those pics with photo's of the real cars, get any corrections made that we can, before we take the step of reviewing them in person. I can say, at this point, that by and large, the shapes, dimensions and proportions appear to be right on the money--now the "Devil is in the details". But, we both know that it's the subtle stuff that can make or break any model car kit. Fortunately, the company in China who is doing the work is one well-known to both Dave and I--they did virtually all Johnny Lightning tooling (and most of JL production), and did the Polar Lights kits to the best of their abilities, given the unfortunate constraints thrust on them by PM upper management and sales department. But, they are just as committed as Dave is, that these be excellent product. I'm just as interested in these two subjects as anyone else, my passion for accuracy is just as high also. I am also aware that across the industry, every manufacturer has at times gone with "Close is good enough for Gov't Work", but I don't see that as the case here. So, be a little bit more patient, OK? On that other, non-magazine-supported forum, Dave posted a few pics of the International LoneStar--and it's a stunning project already, and those are first review pics sent from the mockup shop (of course, that one is done from CAD files provided by Navistar--no such reference info exists for the two cars from the 50's). Art

Revell shows two engines: The legendary 91-102-110cid Offenhauser DOHC with either Winfield or Riley side draft carburetors (very correct for 1945-the beginnings of Hilborn fuel injection) and a full race Ford flathead V8-60. Wonder which of the engine resin casters will step up for say, the Elto outboard motor, a Drake V-twin, 144cid Falcon 6, or the late 1960's Sesco Chevy 4 (left cylinder bank of the Chevy 327)? Art

Christopher, Monogram made two distinctly different Kurtis Midgets: The first was their first plastic model kit, numbered PC1, and was a 1/20th scale Kurtis midget, done in 1955. The second was a rather out of proportion 1/24th scale slot car which used the same chassis as their 1/32 scale 1.5 liter BRM and Ferarri F1 slotcars. The Hot Shot body kit was modified in 1966 with a plastic belly pan, front and rear axles, and plastic Halibrand 6:00-12 mag wheels, which fit the neeprene rubber 1/32 scale Goodyear Blue Streak Sports Car Special racing tires as were used in their 1/32 scale slot cars of a couple of years earlier. It is very apparent to me that the two new Midgets are all new tooling. Art

I see far too many differences from the Monogram Hot Shot Midget, which started out as a slot car body, making it out of proportion in order to fit over the Mabuchi smallest slot car can motor (chassis was the same as used under their 1/32 Ferarri and BMW 1.5 liter F1 cars). Hot Shot didn't have a full depth cockpit, nor an opening hood, and was done with the early 60's era Bob Peck nose, it having a very small, low mounted horizontal bar grille. In short, Revell would have to have done these from all new tooling. And a great shout-out to them for doing them!!! Art

Oh yeah on the Midget!! Now, would it not be cool to get a model Elto 2-cylinder outboard engine for it, as well as the legendary Dale Drake designed watercooled Drake V-Twin (watercooled version of the H-D Knucklehead)? Art

I understand, but while I am definitely not the one calling the shots here, my 30 years or so in the retail hobby business taught me that even in the heyday of big rig model kit popularity, trailers in general sold in very low numbers compared to tractors. I suspect that it is more a matter of size, where would most modelers (and we on boards such as this are but a small but dedicated minority in the overall marketplace for model vehicle kits) put them on display? From personal experience, I can only say, that "where would I display a trailer, itself perhaps 26.5" long, on my shelf"? has been pretty much the reason why more modelers don't build trailers to go along with the tractors. Now, perhaps if you brought along say, 9,999 of your closest friends??? (assuming each would buy a caselot, of course). Art

All well and good, of course, but I do see some difficulties. With a project of not only this magnitude, but also a most modern subject, I imagine that it's doubtful that the CAD files provided by a manufacturer will show much of the layout of the various systems--not exactly the purpose of such drawings and photographs unfortunately. Additionally, while it might seem strange, or "penny-pinching" almost always, bringing a new kit to market is very much a game of counting pennies, and that gets done wherever surplus pennies can be found in the equation (I know, a very simplified example). This sort of careful accounting is simply necessary, due to the very narrow margins that model companies often operate with. It can truly be a matter of "A cent or two here, a cent or two there (multiplied by a production run figure) and pretty soon you are talking about some real money". With this in mind, sometimes it's perhaps better in the long run to leave advanced detailing info acquisition to the builder him(her)self at times. Service manual references may be a bit tough to find, but the trucks themselves won't be, and with a digital camera you can often gather much more information than can be had from a booklet full of drawings, and I suspect that with any modern vehicle, car, pickup, SUV or big truck, there is literally a plethora of details that could be added. Don't get me wrong, I've been researching detailing information for more than 4 decades now, even referred to factory assembly manuals when available, and my findings are that generally, the best information I have found has often come from my own observation, my own photographs, and that includes the half-dozen or so big rigs I built and superdetailed back in the mid-1970's. I doubt this is what you want to hear, but I'm likely fairly close to the mark. Art

I believe that the shell of the cab and sleeper will be one-piece units, as that is pretty much the expected standard in the US market and it's far easier when one does not have to align cab sides, ends, cowling and roof all the while being careful to get those parts together cleanly; but the pics of the mockup do show a "platform" interior, that is separate floors and side panels, which of course are much easier to detail, in addition to making it possible to have scale-appearing high-relief surface details molded in. This has become the expected standard for model car kits, no reason it shouldn't be done in a truck kit as well. As for 1/24 vs 1/25 scale: This kit is being done primarily for consumption in the US, and 1/25 scale is by far and away the most popular scale of the two, for street vehicles of all types. 1/24 scale, oddly enough, seems to be the standard in Europe and the Far East, for reasons which escape me, given that 1/25 is much easier with which to work in both English (feet & inches) and in metrics, as a scale inch equals both .040" AND 1mm, great interchangeability. But more than 50 years ago, Monogram Models sort of popularized 1/24 scale, and given their penetration into the markets in Europe and Japan, that scale was adopted wholesale in both regions of the World. However, IF one has a 1/24 scale model, done to exact 1/24 scale, and a 1/25 scale model done exactly in that scale, the dimensional difference is less than 4%, hardly noticeable unless you compare the same part from each kit, side-by-side.

In 1940, Pontiac had a 4dr Deluxe sedan bodied in Plexiglas as well, for display at the New York World's Fair. This was a complete running car, all the body structural steel parts were painted white, Goodyear made up special all white tires for it, on white wheels. The engine was painted up much like the display autoshow engines that were popular exhibits as well. The car still exists, at last count, it was in the collection of Harold Kleptz of Terre Haute IN, completely restored, and still driveable. Art

It does to me! Long and tall. Art

They, of course, will want to see how well the LoneStar does first, before just jumping into another project like this, I would think. Art

Bryan, Dave Metzner, who does product development for Moebius, was the brand manager for Polar Lights Division of Playing Mantis, where I worked heading up product development for Johnny Lightning diecasts from early 2002 until RC2 bought the company in mid-2004. Dave and I go back about 35 years or so, when we used to bump shoulders at IPMS meets all over Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. I was invited to be a consultant when Moebius first started thinking about a line of automotive subjects, and was asked to be available to assist in reviews of mockups and forthcoming test shots, something I've done off and on over the years with a couple of model companies. As regards the LoneStar, the mockups show me a very nicely done kit. The chassis detail appears to be second to none as regards a truck model, nice and crisp, air suspension, appears to be the longest wheelbase available from Navistar. The cab is where it really grabs me though--as nice a set of bodywork as I have ever seen in a model kit, appears to have been engineered with flush fit windshield, no "bucket of clear plastic glass" there. The cab interior has full detail, and the long sleeper has a full interior in it as well, including cabinetry. The engine will be the new MaxxForce13, the new engine built to Navistar specifications by Cummins. The truck will have all the aero stuff on it as well. The first all-new OTR tractor in model form in how many years??? Art

Photo's? I would right now if I could, but until the mockup's been approved by both the Product Development guy at Moebius (I and another modeler are assisting with this process) and by Navistar, and gets committed to tooling, my hands are tied. However, I felt I could safely say what I just did--and I don't think anyone is gonna be disappointed! Art

Just got pics of the tooling mockup (masters made for tooling) of this tractor this morning, and WOW! Talk about what is shaping up to be one awesome truck! Let's just say, if I didn't know who was doing the project in kit form, I'd have sworn I was looking at mockups for a Tamiya kit! Art

Talk about a VERY early Wabash National trailer! Jerry Erlich and his management team left Monon Trailer in the summer of 1985, IIRC, moved down here to Lafayette, leased the closed National Homes (largest maker of prefab homes) and started in, first trailers were that fall, I seem to remember. A now-deceased friend and I built up a set of display models of their first trailers that winter for them. Art

And for very good reason! In the days of wooden spoked automobile wheels, the wheel it self was semipermanently mounted to the axle or spindle, as its hub held the roller bearings which were, just as with cars today, tapered roller bearings for the most part, riding against equally tapered bearing races. Additionally, those old wood wheels were considerably heavier than the more modern steel disc wheels, which came into use (those mounting to a hub by means of lug bolts anyway), which would have meant serious work on the part of anyone attempting to change the entire wheel and tire out. Those early car tires themselves used deep, clincher style rims, which gripped as much as half an inch into a corresponding groove or channel around the bead of the tire, and that made for an awful lot of oofing and grunting to pry such a tire off the rim--so, enter the demountable rim. With demountable rims, the steel rim holding the tire and innertube was mounted to the wooden wheel (and the early flat disc steel wheels as well) by a set of 4-6 heavy steel lugs, which were formed to fit along the side of the "felloes", the sections of curved wood which formed the circumference of the wood wheel itself. That meant that the bad tire could be left on the rim once flat, whether that rim was on a wheel, or mounted to the spare tire mount itself. Thus the wheel-less tire and rim you see slung on a spare tire mount at the rear of the car is actually carrying a demountable rim. Art

Harry, you are right on target here. Unlike the other areas of scale modeling, the model ccar hobby is probably the most diverse, free-spirited, almost anarchic, occasionally rebellious, once-in-a-while-obnoxious, yet all the while a fun-filled group of individuals all on a common march--to build the meanest, nastiest, baddest model cars ever regardless of the scale, subject matter, or area of interest. And that can make being a contest judge an almost formidable task indeed! Let's compare with the others for a bit: In model railroading, structure modelers tend to judge structures, those with an abiding interest in steam locomotives judge those 4-8-4's and ancient 4-4-0 American Types with equal intensity. Freight car specialists can let what few prejudices they have (RR/RR, Boxcars/tank cars, etc.), and fanatics of gleaming passenger car varnish have little trouble scrutinizing fluted polished streamliners. Over at IPMS, there are so many aircraft classes, based on the scale, wingspan, time frame, number of engines, planes with props get judged separately from those that are pretty much flying blowtorches. Same with armor, ships, military figures. Judging attention to accuracy comes a lot easier for those who follow the aforementioned areas of modeling interest. Not quite so with model cars, though! Very few of us are really conversant with automotive subjects that are outside our particular area(s) of interest. True, we do have builders who are conversant with multiple subject areas, but darned few car modelers are capable of judging with any authority on all areas of the contest table, each and every class, if accuracy of the model is to be questioned, even considered at all. Yet most any of us who have been around the hobby for more than just a few years can spot the obvious errors and ommissions, notice that really great paintjob, a well (and hopefully reasonably accurately detailed engine or chassis, but it doesn't really go beyond the basics of building that awesome model as opposed to an also-ran. One huge thing that seems to be lacking, more and more, is good, old-fashioned sportsmanship. Hey, it's only a contest, folks, not the Superbowl, the Championship Game in March Madness, nor is anyone's very life on the line at 225+ mph, coming down neck and neck to the Checkered Flag signifying the completion of hte 200th lap at Indy (thus winning that famous drink of milk, picking up a multimillion dollar purse at the victory banquet, knowing you will have your head engraved in solid sterling silver to be affixed to the Borg Warner Trophy--not even close to any of that. Yet, so many modelers get all banged up, bent out of shape, because their entry didn't win, may not even have placed. So what? One can learn from such experiences, whether it's that the model car in question had some shortcomings vis-a-vis the others, or perhaps it was just not that well judged (all the contest judges I have ever seen are amateurs--they don't get an honorarium check for accepting that job. With this in mind, it seems to me little wonder so very few modelers jump at the chance to be a contest judge--who among us wants to be faced with disgruntled entrants wanting to know just why their model(s) didn't bring home the gold? That's not MY idea of how to have fun on a Saturday afternoon, believe me! No, leave accuracy, authenticity out of the contest equation, unless the model is so obviously correct as to be unavoidably noticeable, or so way off that it sticks out like a bloody thumb. Concentrate on judging the workmanship, and everything that entails. Art

Chris Etzel (for many years a pretty close personal friend) closed up shop in the summer of 2002. As for his dirt track tires (Speedway tires too) Those are from the era about 10yrs earlier than the Edmumds CRA Supermodified (a sprint car with mere vestiges of a roof around it's early roll cage), and are far narrower and taller than the tires used on dirt by 1967-68 (Don Edmunds completed that car in late 1967, it was on the cover of Hot Rod Magazine in late spring 1968, almost simultaneous with the release of the Monogram kit). Etzels tires were made for his fantastic 1954 Kuzma dirt track AAA & USAC Championship car, as driven by the legendary Jimmy Bryan of Phoenix AZ on the Championship (Indy car) Trail in 1955-56 (second at Indianapolis on May 30, 1955) and are sized as follows: 8:00-18 rear, 7:00-16 front (the only wheels these fit are the excellent Halibrand Championship Mags, which Chris also mastered and cast), where by 1968, dirt track Champ and sprint cars were using 15" rims all around, 9:50-15 rear, 8:00-15 front (the once legendary Firestone or Goodyear "Wide Oval" style tires). Unfortunately, Monogram chose to not tool up correct dirt track racing tires for their Edmunds Supermodified, but rather, they packed the same tire set in that kit as in their Li'l Coffin show car, whitewall drag slicks out back, ordinary but generic street tires up front. Art

You don't say how old you are now, nor is it necessarily anyone's business, but if you have reached that "magical" half-century mark, and you haven't seen an opthamologist, you really ought to consider making an appointment for a complete eye exam. By ophthamologist, I'm not talking about your friendly eyedoctor down at Lenscrafters, or WalMart (they can do a pretty good job of fitting eyeglasses or contacts, and are supposed to be able to spot any diseases of the eye) but rather, an MD who specializes in eye care. As we age (I'm almost 66) some things do change, for example it can get harder to see things up close that you used to be able to, which is correctible by eyeglasses most generally. Or there could be more serious diseases at work. Some of them are high blood pressure (had your's checked lately--surprising how many people don't!) which can cause small capillaries in the retina of your eyes to break, making small dead spots (infarcts) which appear as blind spots right where you least expect them. Diabetes is a disease that probably more people have than know about it, diabetes can cause the same problems as hypertension (high blood pressure), if left undiscovered or untreated. Glaucoma is an insidious disease, causing elevated fluid pressure in the eye, and if undiagnosed and untreated, will eventually cause blindness. Macular degeneration is the loss of pigment in the retina, irreversible, but it can be controlled and its progress markedly slowed down before it results in blindness. Cararacts also often begin showning themselves by middle age, and at the proper time, are almost always successfully corrected, by means of lens implants (which nowadays is virtually painless) and the new lens implants can also be corrective for near- or far-sightedness. Why do I relate all these things? Simply put, by early December 2005, I could notice my eyesight failing badly, not only did things not look at all right, night vision was disappearing rapidly (over a matter of a few days) and I was nearly colorblind along with it. I managed to get an appointment with an opthamologist on an emergency basis, and very quickly he took my blood pressure--WHOA! 250 over 150! A quick phone call on his part, and within minutes I was on my way, in a blinding snowstorm, to the nearest hospital ER, where I was treated, then admitted into ICU--I was THAT close (perhaps mere hours) from either a massive heart attack or a major stroke, either of which may well have been fatal, certainly disabling for life (it's a strange sensation, having blood pressure reducing medications by IV, not all that uncomfortable but very wierd indeed!) Upon dismissal 24hrs later, I was instructed not to drive--at that point, I was legally blind. Fortunately, over the next two weeks, my eyesight recovered to the point that my driving privileges were restored, but my eyesight bore the results still, and to a great extent, still do today, and will for the rest of my life. I have numerous little blind spots in my right eye, and a couple of nagging ones in the left, along with some distortion (I have to use a straight edge to assure that I am looking at a straight line, as it will look ever so slightly jagged). I am on 6 different meds daily, to control blood pressure, and to control the effects of stage 2 kidney disease (yeah, untreated hypertension damages kidneys) which can lead to all manner of imbalances, things like calcium, potassium, in addition to making it imperative that I continue my daily regimen of meds, lest the reduced kidney function further aggravate things. It's lead to an enlarged heart, with the beginnings of heart failure, so one daily med treats that. And, all of this was discovered by my eye doctor! As for the vision problems, he suggested early on that I would learn to adjust to the new realities, knowning that I am an avid model builder, and he's been very right in that. It may take me a bit longer than some to accomplish fine details, but I can do it still, for which I am grateful. And now, I religiously maintain my schedule of visits to my three docs, my primary care, my kidney specialist, and once a year, my ophthamologist (without whom, I probably would not be here today). There, I've given you some food for thought, take care of your eyesight, you only get one chance at that in life, you know! Art

By 1905, the automobile had ceased to be the exclusive toy of the rich, and began its much larger role as a utilitarian means of transportation, spurred on by the likes of Ford's Model C, the Oldsmobile Curved Dash, and the one cylinder Cadillac (long before Caddy became synonymous with luxury cars) along with a burgeoning number of other cars made at far lower prices than say, the likes of Packard, Peerless, Pierce and Locomobile. It was that expansion of the automobile's role in everyday life that made advances in such as tire design even more important. Art

I hesitate to ascribe "poor quality" to those early car tires, because in fact, they were probably as high a quality as could have been achieved. Rather, I would prefer using the word "primitive" as they certainly were exactly that. On the other hand, not the same could be said for road and street surfaces of the era. Likely it was not at all unlikely for a motorist to have encountered a thrown horse shoe on a street, nails still sticking in it, and for that matter, if you have ever been around a farrier (he who shoes horses) often times they tend to bend over the sharp ends of a nail if it comes through the hoof, particularly on the toe area (forward facing hoof portion), so if one of those came out, double the danger on say, a brick street. Add to that the often careless street cleaning of the day--while much attention was made to remove the layers of horse manure, that was by scoop shovel mostly, perhaps spot sweeping with a broom, but street sweeper machines? Not yet, really (although many urban streetcar companies were under requirement to operate mechanical sweepers along their rights of way (the strip of pavement having the rails in it) as a condition of their generally exclusive mass transportation franchises. On country roads, well not much more can be said--theyh likely had nasty bits of metal, even glass mixed into the dirt and the occasional gravel or gravel Macadam surfaces. Add to that the numerous bits of wood and other debris that might be barely buried and I think you can get the picture. Those early tires were also quite high pressure--often as high as 80psi, which rivals bicycle tires of today (my mountain bike loves tires at 65psi for example. Those old tires started out with woven cotton fabric, often in layers (plies) upwards of 10 plies, as tire engineers had yet to discover the concept of bias ply cord casings. That is what forced such high pressures, as high psi was required to keep the casings from as much flexing as possible, in order to prevent overheating and failure of the casings. However, casing separation was a problem, especially once there was the slightest cut in the tread or sidewall, resulting in water and sand (or soil) being admitted, which forced its way between the plies of cording, thus creating a blister, a weakened spot that eventually would blow out (bicycle tires can still suffer this sort of blistering, BTW) In addition, car weights were immense, when compared to the "footprint" of those often narrow tires--adding to the stress applied to them. Some cars, particularly the legendary and HUGE 1911 Oldsmobile Limited, put as much as 3 tons on tires like those, or 1500lbs per tire. With all that weight, it's little wonder that tire failures were so frequent, so common. With the advent of the low-pressure (if 45psi can be considered low pressure today!) balloon tires by Firestone in 1925 (Peter DePaolo made them a household word when on May 30, 1925, he drove his 122cid supercharged Duesenberg to victory at Indianapolis), a huge step was made, as lower pressures meant that a tire could roll over otherwise puncturing objects with the rubber simply bending and flexing over the obstruction, thus eliminating what had been a true hazard. True, a nail or broken glass could, and did, puncture, many other bits of road debris became more of a non-issue. Art