comp1839

"one last comment" ? don't make me laugh. your ability to read is appalling, danno. you and the rest of the "dogpile freedom fighters club" have once again started trouble where there was NONE. if you have a problem with me, at least have the testicular fortidude to bring it to me directly. stop using the guise that someone needs YOUR help. ray has already said there is no problem and still you keep trodding down the path of" ira needs to be saved................whether he likes it or not". just for the record. 1) if ray (sorry ray) didn't want anyone to comment on the build, there's a section for that. it's called "on the workbench". it might be a good suggestion for you, john and darryl to hang out there. it's a safe place. 2) you may want to re-think (if that's possible for you) the " nobody ever bangs on ira....." comment. it sounds a little bit like a threat. 3) if you are going to quote sombody ( "gee... that might not work."). at least get it right. i said.............. it won't work!

wow, i guess i stepped on a few ego's here. you know, i removed the comments (out of respect to ray, not because they were incorrect.) but, you guys just love a dogpile don't ya. first thing. i NEVER said anything negative about the build. in fact i like it. second my reply was to dave c. who's comment was "I'm no mechanic but I would think if you can get better traction, you could put in more clutch. Less slip, more grip. Bye Bye!" i'm sorry if what i know about drag racing offends you....... too bad. get over it. there are smarter people out there, in the real world. by the way, were ANY of my comments incorrect? third, bill, if things changed a little from 1902 to 1903. imagine .........it's 2013. the "experts" ain't guessing no more. ray, i apologize to you. this should have stopped a long way back.

love the build! cool idea ray. great "out of the box thinking". seriously, it looks neat! just for you john, i've removed my answer. dave, your idea is great. satisfied john?

wow,....... good stuff, dale.

niko, i will give you some things that are EXTREMELY important. the numbers i'm giving you are 1:1 numbers. this is so anyone can use these numbers in any scale IF THEY WISH TO. we've all seen cars that are narrowed way too much. so much that the rear w/ wheels and tires on it won't fit inside the quarter panels. ovbiously "too" narrow. the rear width of the body can be determined by the width of the 4 link system you choose and the width of the tires plus clearance. on most pro mods and please note i said MOST pro mods ( i'm sure there are some out there that may be different) the four link system is between 16 and 20 inches on center (you can go to wark williams or strange engineering websites for their availlable widths). to get to the outside dimension of the 4 link add 1.5" you'll need 2" clearance on each inside of the tire. the cross section of each tire is around 22" ( you can go to goodyear or hoosier or m/t website for their info.). then add 2" per side for body clearance. so here's the tally. 16.0" center 4 link 1.5" to get to the outside dimension of the four link 4.0" inside to frame rail clearance ( l&r sides added together/ 2.0"per side) 44.0" cross section width of both rear tires (22" per tire) 4.0"body clearance (l&r sides added together / 2.0" per side) ---------------- 69.5 total body width needed for this combo. you can see the pro mod camaro body dale posted has a 70.125" width between the rear quarters over the tires. if you want to build your body using 1:1 info. as a base for the body. i can go on. I FIND the biggest mistake a builder can make, when starting a build like this, is not getting all of your thoughts together, not getting accurrate info. and not developing a plan on how to execute the build. jumping in with both feet and no game plan is a sure recipe to building a "junker" as dale calls them.

i would believe it has to do with exactly how both of these bodies were concieved and built greg. you started with a copy of a real '69 body and built and stretched and massaged it. much like the picture on the right in your post. the car has retained many of the actual '69 body lines and really looks VERY close to your body. the cynergy body is sort of a clean sheet of paper design. it was a complete overhaul of the body. you can see there is not one area of the body that wasn't changed at least slightly. there is nothing wrong with either design. both are kinda cool in their own way. it does explain the " you can't get there from here" look of the cynergy body, though. there are just "too many" changes and variances in the body to get there from modifying a stock body. if you haven't cut out the doors yet, i think you should think about building your body into a nostalgia funny car. i think it has exactly the right flavor for the class and you wont weaken the body any more with working door cutouts. then you could have 2 virtually one of a kind cars for your collection........just a thought.

greg, i'v been looking at the 2 bodies sitting on your bench. it's amazing how close (similar) they are yet how different they are. know what i mean?

cool model. but, seriously? there's someone who believe's any of this could possibly work? someone pass the crack pipe, please. wow,...........

looks great greg. looking forward to seeing this progress.

niko, how will you be building this "pro mod" ? is it going to challenge your skills to build an accurate replica or are you going to build something "close" and put a pro mod sticker on it? while neither direction is right or wrong (for you the builder). however, the advice you get, will be right or wrong based on the direction you choose.

WOW, leonard. THAT..... is looking gooooooood. no luck needed for you, my friend. your skills require NO luck,

the "trick", i believe, harry isn't to leave out detail (to achieve balance) but, to get the details CORRECT. if the details were correct in their scaling. then the model would look like a scaled down picture. again, dimensionally correct parts are needed. not the old artistic thumb as a reference kinda thing. of course in 1/24 or 1/25 scale that could mean some really small stuff but, that's the other end of the price you pay when you work in that scale. it's less exspensive but, finer/ smaller parts. joe, never heard any one offer you any kool aid.

since i build mostly in 1/8 scale (sometimes 1/12) i find that accurrate details are even more important to building a model, IF you're building an accurate replica. also, i build at least 90 - 95% of my parts from scratch. i'd simply be wasting my time if i didn't build them as accurrate as i possibly could. at these scales, things like firing order (if it applies, should be considered by the builder) they are easy to check on the internet. finding out the details to make a build better detailed is easier than ever through the use of the internet. as far as builder mistakes, i think parts (whether scratch built or kit parts) that are obviously dimensionally wrong, really stick out for me. since the title to this topic is "mechanical mistakes when building" i'm trying to figure out all the hub-bub from the "i don't build that way" crowd? no one said you had to build that way and not to be a smart guy but, one can look at your work and know you don't build that way. you don't need to tell every one. if my comment offends you, i'm sorry. the truth is the truth. i can look at dr. cranky's post apocolyptic work and while i appreciate it and admire it. i know it wasn't built to be an accurately detailed model. (sorry if you think i'm pickin' on you doc. i'm not. i do like your work) i'm just sayin'. how about we keep the topic, on topic. if you wish to start a new topic to express your opinion. i'm sure, that's what this board is here for.

incredible workmanship and detailing, chris. certainly a fitting tribute.

hey niko, maybe this will fit your interests. recently, my friends at precision chassis completed a rebuild on a car for a guy out in your neck of the woods. his name is victor jansson. i understand he purchased the car from a gentleman who "tagged the wall". victor then sent it over to precision chassis to have it fixed. the car was originally built by precision for duece staley. any way here are some before during and after pics of the car. as it arrived. front halved. new body. new nitous system. plus a ton of other stuff . back home and doing a burnout.

great start, chuck. i really like that style olds body. will this be a period correct prostock? also, are you doing a replica of someones car or a fictitious build?

another front shot. also made some blower clearance.

i had a some time to do a little more to the car. fabricated the front axle w/ mounting plates. machined a set of spindles, steering arms and support arms from the front torsion bar. partially assembled.

chris, if i can be of any further assistance, just yell. you have my email.

hans, if you're referring to the last pic on the site you posted, i wouldn't get to upset. it's not the right car.

i think i have the pieces, that paul is talking about, in these pics. i can only guess as to the setup as i have never owned or raced a funny car. the stuff i am familiar with due to hanging out at the chassis shop is also much newer. so, it may or may not be applicable to this build. here is the rear of the lenco trans. i believe the lip paul is talking about with the "v" is machined into the rear trans cover plate. here is a shot of the same car. showing the rear axle pinion support and the rear of the trans. perhaps paul can verify if i'm right on the trans piece. again, i hope this helps but, remember this stuff is much newer than what the build is.

chris, wonderful work! a simple solution to this may be to just add a driveshaft cover of some sorts. they are mandatory today, don't know about back then. although, i would find it hard to believe the nhra would allow an exposed driveshaft running between a drivers legs. where anything could wrap around it as it rotated. edit: so, got off my lazy butt and looked up the rule in the 1974 rulebook. "a full 360 degree 1/8 steel driveline cover extending the full length of the driveshaft from the rear of the transmission case or tramsmission adapter shield to the rear end center section is acceptable and highly recommended. all funny cars using couplers must have a loop as described above - 360 degree- in the area of the drivers seat." maybe this will give you something to work with. hope it helps.

thanks guys. i gotta agree with you joe. i'm just not sure what i'm going to do with it yet. i'm thinking about a full length belly pan and i guess it will depend on where it looks good at. maybe i'll do some kind of rolled back pan or something?

it's been a while since i've gotten to work on the car. what i've been doing is alot of stuff you wont' see but, here are some pics any way.

still here joe. i gotta hand it to you. that was a masterful job. you reeled in steve and jon like fish on a hook. jeez, they even called me a self righteous poophead. (wow, guys , that really stung). you had bill looking up info that you were going to push back down his own throat. and you proved me correct. i'm having a wonderful day. i don't think it gets any better than this. thanks!!