|
odcics2
|
 |
« on: October 11, 2012, 04:31:54 PM » |
|
Found an old Speed Sport News that shows Bobby Isaac setting a record at Talladega in the fall of 1970. I don't know of any other photos of that event. It appears to be the car that eventually went to Bonneville the following year to set many records on the Salt Flats. The ground clearance looks correct. What looks odd is the "A" pillars appear to be all molded in and it looks like the side windows are missing the drip rails and the roof drops down over the side glass a little. (if that makes sense) Basically, like the car that ran Bonneville. Check out the Talladega photos and look at the Bonneville photo. Opinions?  |
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've never owned anything but a MoPar. Can you say that?
|
|
|
|
Ghoste
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2012, 04:34:04 PM » |
|
They do look like the same car.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
held1823
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2012, 05:40:49 PM » |
|
i know the thread concerns the car at talladega, but this video clip of it at bonneville is just too awesome to not add to the discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdcPSDunrtA |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ernie Helderbrand
XX29L9B409053
|
|
|
|
Indygenerallee
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2012, 05:53:30 PM » |
|
On the deck!! Love it, makes me want to paint my Daytona red with a white wing with a big ol' black lightning bolt on the upright!!  That video is great I have seen it several times!!! does not get old!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sold my Charger unfortunately....never got it finished.
|
|
|
|
odcics2
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2012, 08:15:34 PM » |
|
You know that on aerowarriors, you can download that clip. Better quality, too!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've never owned anything but a MoPar. Can you say that?
|
|
|
|
Mike DC (formerly miked)
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2012, 08:41:39 PM » |
|
I think the whole front end of that #71 car in the 'Dega pic is drooped down some. Look at the hood/fender gap line, and how "curved" it looks (on the #71) at this angle. stock:  
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aero426
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2012, 08:23:57 AM » |
|
The race fenders evolved over time and were massaged more and more during 1970. Compare the Isaac record car to the show car #6 Daytona which looks much more close to stock.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JB400
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2012, 08:28:34 AM » |
|
On the racecars, they cut out some of the firewall to lower the front end down to get the rake effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aero426
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2012, 08:40:51 AM » |
|
On the racecars, they cut out some of the firewall to lower the front end down to get the rake effect.
The firewall below the cowl panel is completely fabricated and shares nothing with the street car. The entire outer body in some situations was detached from the rest of the unibody, then re-positioned for optimum aero. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tan top
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2012, 02:03:51 PM » |
|
Found an old Speed Sport News that shows Bobby Isaac setting a record at Talladega in the fall of 1970. I don't know of any other photos of that event. It appears to be the car that eventually went to Bonneville the following year to set many records on the Salt Flats. The ground clearance looks correct. What looks odd is the "A" pillars appear to be all molded in and it looks like the side windows are missing the drip rails and the roof drops down over the side glass a little. (if that makes sense) Basically, like the car that ran Bonneville. Check out the Talladega photos and look at the Bonneville photo. Opinions?  good find , have wondered before if there was any pictures & news paper coverage of bobby making that run great stuff thanks for posting  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
odcics2
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2012, 02:55:58 PM » |
|
On the racecars, they cut out some of the firewall to lower the front end down to get the rake effect.
The firewall below the cowl panel is completely fabricated and shares nothing with the street car. The entire outer body in some situations was detached from the rest of the unibody, then re-positioned for optimum aero. Absolutely correct. DC-93 (later known as the 88) was built from Day 1 with the body 1.5 degrees nose down, relative to the chassis. It was a Charger 500, rolling out of Nichels Engineering right before Thanksgiving, 1968. On Charger 500s, that was the way speedway cars could be constructed from then on. A short track car would not be modified like that, nor were Plymouths. Below is a photo during the 200 mph run on March 24th., 1970. Keep in mind the front spoiler is 6.5" from the ground, at rest. The dry sump pan was 5" off the ground. Both those numbers were the Nascar legal minimum. The nose is 'drooped', being at least the second generation front end on the car. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've never owned anything but a MoPar. Can you say that?
|
|
|
|
Aero426
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2012, 03:00:18 PM » |
|
On your original front clip, were the fenders pie cut in the wheel opening? Or was flaring out the wheel opening enough to get the droop. I assume there were some pie cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
odcics2
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2012, 06:21:48 PM » |
|
Oddly enough, no pie cuts. Flaring the wheel well was enough to drop the front edge of the fender 2", compared to a production piece. I can only speak for THIS front end.
The droop begins over the center line of the front wheels. Add another 18" of cone length and you end up with the 4" droop at the leading edge of the cone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I've never owned anything but a MoPar. Can you say that?
|
|
|
|
Mike DC (formerly miked)
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2012, 07:27:27 PM » |
|
It's revealing to compare the center point of the front wheels to the bottom edges of the doors & rockers. Those front wheels were WAY up into the chassis compared to stock. It would be a lot more visually obvious if we could see those racers wearing stock production wheels/tires.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aero426
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2012, 07:34:56 PM » |
|
An astute observation. About 4".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike DC (formerly miked)
|
|
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2012, 07:00:17 AM » |
|
Yeah, I was pretty startled the first time I noticed how different the wheel centerline locations are from stock.
I was thinking, "WOW, those cars really were nothing like stock! No wonder people's homebuilt NASCAR replicas never ride low enough to look right."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kowal
Junior Member
 Offline
Posts: 181
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2012, 05:08:56 AM » |
|
I was lucky enough to get a very up close and personal tour of Richard Petty's shop due to some work thing Iwas involved with.
They had a stock Daytona they were restoring in the bay next to one of Richard's cars which was also being restored. The difference was pretty amazing, almost two completely different designs from the firewall forward, and even around the rest of the car. Actually pretty amazing what these shops were able to routinely do given a stock piece or template to start with. Our sense of how the fenders, nosecone and other parts bolted on the car based on the factory pieces bears almost no relationship to how the race shops did it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'69 Hemi Charger 500, '70 U Code Challenger R/T (These two and a bunch others at www.dkowal426.com) "P. J. O'Rourke: The old car ran perfectly, right up until it didn't." |
|
|
|
Ghoste
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2012, 05:18:38 AM » |
|
Did each shop follow its own idea or did they stick closely to a version recommended by Chrysler?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike DC (formerly miked)
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2012, 08:19:13 AM » |
|
In 1960 they were heavily modified production cars.
By 1970 they were more like custom-built cars made from a pile of stock production parts. The fact that the unibodes arrived from the factory already spot-welded together was becoming a drawback as much as a benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aero426
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2012, 09:19:38 AM » |
|
I was thinking, "WOW, those cars really were nothing like stock! No wonder people's homebuilt NASCAR replicas never ride low enough to look right."
People like to wax romantically about the good old days. But even back in 1970, there wasn't very much "stock" about a stock car. More than today of course, but it is shocking how little of anything on the mechanical side interchanges with street. It's true that they started with a unibody and retained the general torsion bar suspension layout, but that is where it stops. Just about everything was modified, beefed up, or purpose built. You guys think the COT was something new? How about 1966 when Ford tried to race the unibody Fairlane with shock towers. They quickly wound up ditching the entire unibody forward of the firewall and grafting in the full frame stub of a '65 Galaxie. Talk about something you couldn't buy on the street! In my mind, THAT was the first Car of Tomorrow. Outside of the Mopars, the Galaxie setup became the standard for NASCAR front suspension geometry for three decades. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ghoste
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2012, 09:25:28 AM » |
|
But at least you could tell the cars apart without relying on a brand decal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike DC (formerly miked)
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2012, 11:52:38 AM » |
|
True that.
But NASCAR never really had a chance of racing truly stock cars. Even back in the 1940s. Even if we were willing to put up with slower & more dangerous racing, stock production cars never had the durability to finish a decent length race.
It's debatable where the ideal compromise is. But the cars definitely need to be more modified than the fans fantasize about them being. It's show business. Selling an illusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ghoste
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2012, 12:03:17 PM » |
|
True that.
But NASCAR never really had a chance of racing truly stock cars. Even back in the 1940s. Even if we were willing to put up with slower & more dangerous racing, stock production cars never had the durability to finish a decent length race.
It's debatable where the ideal compromise is. But the cars definitely need to be more modified than the fans fantasize about them being. It's show business. Selling an illusion.
It is for sure, but I wish they wouldn't genericize (is that a word?) the illusion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JB400
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2012, 12:06:40 PM » |
|
I'm one that is more in favor of at least running a stock body. The only addition should be a rear spoiler and a splitter. Save the decals for the numbers, sponsors and the lights. I don't care what is underneath the skin:Twocents:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moparstuart
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2012, 03:04:57 PM » |
|
I'm one that is more in favor of at least running a stock body. The only addition should be a rear spoiler and a splitter. Save the decals for the numbers, sponsors and the lights. I don't care what is underneath the skin:Twocents:
and let them all run their own destinct drive trains and actually let fans be loyal to there brands |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
GO SELL CRAZY SOMEWHERE ELSE WE ARE ALL STOCKED UP HERE
|
|
|
|
