AMBR No headlights

The current AMBR winner has no headlights, according to more than one person who was there. Straightforward yes or no question, should an AMBR winner at least maintain the illusion of being used on the street, or is it rolling sculpture. Please direct the "f*ck you ***hole" type responses as PM's where they will be deleted. If you dont care about AMBR winners, and feel they have no relevance to the HAMB, you can demonstrate that by ignoring this.

 

I would think it needs to be a streetable car. I wouldn't go as far as saying they need to p*** a NSRA inspection, but it should at least have headlights and taillights.

 

x2 it isn't really streetable without 'em. any past winners omit lights?

 

It HAS headlights- they were in the trunk. They run through a hole in the front of the hoodsides so with the one hoodside off it would look dumb to have one headlight on and one off.

The poll is not necessary. And for the compe***ion look "no headlights" goes back to the earliest days of lakes and drag racing. They were the FIRST thing you took off, so maybe that "traditional"? It would be different if it were missing the grille shell.

 

I think it should be a legal, streetable car that could run and drive! Maybe a rule that if somebody protests, they have to prove it! Seems I read somewhere that the second AMBR winner won without an engine? (full hood). Wasn't that **** Flint's roadster in '51? After that year an engine was required. Seems the engine wasn't ready in time for the show.

 

Oh for Christ sakes. A pretty cool car finally wins the AMBR, after all the glitzty **** that's won in the past, and you're still *****ing.

 

Haha yeah really

 

Do you have tangible proof it has no headlights? Otherwise I'll go with Groucho. Quit *****in'. You people sound like a bunch catty old women.

 

Yes the AMBR should have headlights, and no, the AMBR is not relevant.

 

Doing a past winners check for wiper blades.

 

PMs guys, PM's

 

Do you need a PM to tell you THE CAR HAS HEADLIGHTS? Sorry your experts on the scene couldn't see that.

 

ahahahahahahahahh

 

Hmmm. I guess I do care about AMBR winners. They are like a beautiful woman nice to look at but..... I responded to the poll that they should be a street legal car. What other reason would you have it displayed?

 

It has detachable lights. Not a new idea, either. Nice car.

 

I think that part of the judging criteria this year was they had to drive the car to the judging area, so the judges could see what the cars looked like with a driver in them and hear what the engines sounded like. Definately an improvement over static displays.

And I'll be a weeks wages (not much around here sometimes) that the car has provisions for headlights. Why would someone spend that much time and effort building a car and just leave them off.
Larry T

 

BB

 

It should be a streetable car.

....however should it have to be displayed in a streetable condition? (ie with all wheels on it....on the ground....etc) It is just a car show and not a car drive....jus sayin'.

 

Jim A
Grenade Inspector




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 281 Re: AMBR No headlights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you need a PM to tell you THE CAR HAS HEADLIGHTS? Sorry your experts on the scene couldn't see that.

x2? or is it 3?

 

I also think AMBR contestants should have 4 wheels and 4 tires!!!! This trouble maker thought it would be cute to try and get away with just TWO!!!! No wonder he didn't win!

 

its a CAR SHOW and it is a SHOW CAR...and a *****in ride at that........end of the story! congrats to the owner and the guys that competed,and props to the judges for doing a hell of a job!

 

The car had all the necessary provisions for headlights. Just my 2 cents, I looked this car over for a long time. It's a very well built ride. Not as flashy as most and not what I expected to win but some of the pictures don't do this car justice. If it ever comes to a show near you check it out. It may change how you feel about it.

 

I asked SEVERAL times on the other thread if the car had headlights, didnt get ONE affirmative response, couple that said no. Then asked a couple guys that were there off-board if it had headlights. No. Now you b*st*rds come out of the woodwork! Ok, fair enough, I look like a jack*** now. WHERE the hell were you guys on the other thread??!!

 

An automobile should be a combination of form AND function.

Roadster... "Road" ster implies that it belongs on the road, and therfore, legal on the road. If the lights can be attached to drive at night, then cool- if not... sorry.

 

PM's man, PM's

 

Ba Dum Bum!!!!!

 

Thanks for the explanation. I'd rather look at cars with wheels attached, hoods, doors, deck lids closed and if they have a top that should be up.

 

Hahaha.

This thread is great example of why I both hate and love the hamb.

 

People will ***** no matter what wins...

Oh, and as far as no headlights - night vision goggles.

 

I DID Groucho, I DID! F*ck, f*ck f*ck!!!! I asked several guys off board, posted the question on the main thread, no-one said ******-all. I'll see if Ryan or someone can delete this boondoggle..