Ok Been seeing more and more of these beasts.My question is why so high in the back?? I mean is'nt that hurtingh weight transfer as well as making the back end sloppyy when your trying to hook up?
Hey Devil- newbie here, where in PA are ya at? Alot of traffic on the g***er look lately. Truth is, the "mile-high" setup never did help anything to hookup- it was all a big myth, but as they say, "monkey see-monkey do". Don't get me wrong, I LOVE old racecars, but alot of what is now fondly remembered as old-school tech. was really, really scary, uninformed hack-jobs, and alot of fine old cars were destroyed, and went alot slower than they should have as well. Fun as heck to watch, though!!
It's always funnier to hear someone slag a new guy because he's new. The raised suspension deal was short lived. The reason for raising the back high way back then was because few people had the resources to narrow a drive axle. The nose high stance was never, never seen on a successful late sixties race car. By the late sixties even the altered wheelbase cars were GONE. The devil chick is correct in ***uming that the *** high look causes unstable handling. Racers found that the weight WAS transfered to the drive axle but by the 60' mark the suspension would begin to unwind and the car would begin to transfer the load OFF the rear. Cars like the Ramcharger's High & Mighty illustrate the willingness to try things, but the world of racing moved on. Because nothing succeeds like success. And the Newb is correct in many cars were screwed up and many cars are being ruined now. People can do whatever they want to with their own cars, but the So-called G***er fad is the new flat black with red wheels and wide whites. It's being done to cars that would never have that done to them in the days of the G***er Wars. Go and find an old NHRA rule book and see what the gas cl***es were. I can't remember all of the rules but 10% engine set back, stock frame, a certain distance from the ground for the crankshaft, limited body mods were some of them. I probably shouldn't respond to these posts, but one of the things that bugs me the most is this. Building a car that looks like a stocker, but runs 12s or better is called a Sleeper and is the very essesence of cool. Making a car that looks fast that is an oil leaking, ****py handling, dog slow POS is the perfect definition of LAME. This is a board for traditional hot rods, customs and race cars. It won't be long before I see Old Skool Gazzerz magazine on the rack. Sheeeesh! pant, pant, pant. Off the soap box and into the kitchen to make a drink for me. Faux-G***ers ****.
. Building a car that looks like a stocker, but runs 12s or better is called a Sleeper and is the very essesence of cool. my buddy normans 56 ford is stock as it gets except the custom mexican blankets. original light blue and white paint and a screamer. stock and fast = cool, for sure
Hey Satanherself....What are you doing asking questions here? I think the mile high look wasn't for racing at all. I think the real "g***ers" only raised the rear enough to stick some fat meats on the back. The 4X4 look is just that...a look. I'm pretty sure it was just for the street.
The fact is... the "jack-it-up-clear-the-wide-rear-tires-on-a-stock-width-rear-end-with-stock-wheel-wells" look was more of a "Street Machine" look than it was an actual "G***er" look. Gas cl*** drag cars had everything from stock suspensions to solid front axles... but one thing is for sure, they usually had cut our rear fenders to clear the rear wheels. Here's a quick reference chart for all the "slow" people: Stock rear fenders, car jacked up to clear big tires = Street Machine Cut out rear fenders so big slicks could be used = G***er/drag car You will be tested at a later date. Sam.
French Tingler nailed it... Here's your test: Label the following either G***er or Street Machine It must be noted that both types deserve a spot in our history, and have their place.
The one on the left is a "street machine" and the one on the right is a "g***er". Now which one is actually cooler/better? The one on the left is obviously the coolest one of the two. I mean, it might not be faster, but if you have kids, they can use the front suspension parts as a jungle gym. (ps. actually I do love the "street machine"...its so ROTHesque)
It must be noted that both types deserve a spot in our history, and have their place.[/quote] True words and I think the real reason for the high rears and cut out wheel wells we Just hadn't raced long enough to think about narrowing rearends and tub'n cars yet--- let alone Having the bucks
Highboys were at the end of a style.As time goes by every look becomes more and more radical.In other styes such as customs,by the sixties they became garish and fur covered and outrageous.Same type of fate with g***er style rods in the seventies.They got higher and higher until they became outrageous.(sick and wrong) With all trends, eventually the mine's higher,mines lower,etc.hits it's peak.As said before,the highboys had nothing to do with weight transfer or hooking up.It was mine's higher than yours...and they'll be back again.BTW,I still think they're cool.But then I like sick and wrong. -Strat.
*WARNING DUMB NEWBIE QUESTION* When people talk about setback being %10 or %25 what is that a percent of?
Phat Rat is right and also it is measured with the number 1 spark plug on the motor as referance point to the wheel base, not the front of the motor or the pulleys and accessories
im building an axle car right now i want the nose so high that i need a step ladder to ajust the solid cam in my nailhead.... and im 6'5" i don't know who has this as a quote on here but" i want to be different.. just like everyone else" just build something and have fun with it hell my daily driver handles like ****, drips oil and is slow.. and i love it tk and thats my 2c
Sometimes I'm truely amazed at some of the pronouncements I read on this board - especially those written by someone who wasn't there, but are trying to explain how it was, and why it was. Actually, the raised-all-around stance did help traction over a lower car, because they used soft springs and shocks to get weight transfer to the rear wheels, with the high stance allowing more body shift to the rear wheels. In the natural progression of things, spring and shock improvements allowed the body to be lowered, and still get weight transfer, and the cars were lowered, giving them more stability on the top end. It's easy to say a lot of cars " went alot slower than they should have as well" because you have hindsight over the guys that were DOING it at the time. They didn't have your expertise to guide them in their experiments, which eventually resulted in the developments we enjoy today. ..."but alot of what is now fondly remembered as old-school tech. was really, really scary, uninformed hack-jobs, and alot of fine old cars were destroyed..." Speaking of uninformed, I don't know of anyone, other than "Rat Rodders", who "fondly" consider old school tech as superior to today's build techniques. When you consider that the welds were gas welded, the cuts were made with a torch, and we didn't have all of the fancy tools that are now available to the home builder, the cars were not too shabby. The cars from the old days that are restored are usually done to standards beyond original, and yet get criticized for it. If you build a race car, and not a poser "g***er", and you use ****ty construction, you will not run. Take a close look at the frame of Garlits' first cars, and you should gain some appreciation for the balls those guys had. We destroyed a lot of fine old cars for many reasons, and I don't apologize to any of you. If you are unfortunate enough to have been born too late, that's your problem, not ours. I don't see any of you putting a car away for the future generations to use. Quit *****ing about how much it costs nowadays - it was just as expensive for us as it is for you. And take the time to learn what you are talking about - ESPECIALLY about race cars and cl***es. MOST '60's model cars were not Gas cl*** cars. They ran Stock, Modified Production or (if straight Axled) Factory Experimental. For some reason, young guys think they have to write a gas cl*** on the side to be cool. Mutt
Thank you Mutt. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is tires. The first tires I ran on my first altered were stiff sidewall M&H slicks. Having the weight up high so as much as possible was transferred to the slicks on launch was how those tires seemed to work best. Changing to wrinkle walls made it a whole new car requiring suspension and at***ude changes. Seems to me that when the wrinkle walls came out the drag cars started getting lower.
I think Mutt is correct (like he needs me to say that)... I have owned TWO 60's "g***er" cars and one was a sky high (for the time) 70's street machine, a 1960 Falcon... and the other, my current project, a 1955 Chevy. The owner of the Falcon built it in '72. He said they raised the car to get better traction AND "because it was what guys were doing back then"... if you pay attention to certain history books, and magazines... you could UN-validate BOTH his statements. That does not make it untrue, or what he did wrong, it just validates that guys jacked their cars up for different reasons, and at one point in time, "for better traction" was not a good reason or choice. On my '55... the car was built into a street racer drag car in 1962. It had a Buick nailhead and a solid front axle. In '66, that set-up gave way to a 283, 4 speed, stock suspension, wrinkle wall slicks (in about '67 it was running) and times that were a second and a half faster than it had run as a jacked up g***er. Several factors played into it running faster... tire technology, suspension technology and engine technology. Not one factor (going from jacked up to stock height) made it run better... they all went hand in hand. So Mutt... I wasn't born yet when my car was built... so was that comment directed at me on the age thing? Or was the internet ***-reaming meant for sneakyPete? He sounds like he may have actually been there... so I dunno. You seem kind of upset, angry even... I got a shoulder if you need it. Your pal, Sam.
Sam, that don't make you a bad guy ..there are a lot of hotrodders 20 or 30 years younger than me that are very knowledgeable on cars of an earlier era... be it g***ers, customs or another preference. But as with any other fad the 'experts' seem to ooze out of the greasepit just in time to save me from my own stupidity..... I was around for the g***er era and watched the street cars morph into street machines, the racer's at***ude/style always made it's way onto the street, mostly in 'appearance' only and sometimes with ill-conceived or outlandish results. I guess we were all 'posers' in the 60's too. Your comments on the tire/engine/suspension technology are all very true.... they also resulted in quicker et's and faster speeds which to me was a bigger contributing factor to the g***ers being lowered for stability. cc
Aw, garsh Sam - Nah - it wasn't directed at you - you've proven your mettle time and again, not only with your build prowness, but in statements like this: "Not one factor (going from jacked up to stock height) made it run better... they all went hand in hand." And it really wasn't at Mr. Pete particularly - although what I quoted from him put me over the spew mark. I usually write a reply, and then erase it before hitting the submit ****on, but every so often there's a build up of "you've got to be ****ting me", and it spews out......it was just a release of build-up... The first 15 years of drag racing were the greatest advancements in acceleration, with the innovations made by ordinary guys, for the most part, with little help from industry. What they accomplished is amazing, and the lack of serious accidents (fatal) to the number of runs made is a testament to their ability to build a safe car, even if it looked like a "hack job" especially considering the safety equipment available. I'm not angry, or even upset. It was just spew.... Thanks for the shoulder offer though....but I'm afraid people might talk... Mutt
Cool... I've been known to spew myself. In fact, I spewed one time and haven't recovered on certain folks friend-factor-meter since... So from here on out... it's Mr. Nice Guy. And if I do not have something constructive or nice to say... I won't say anything at all. Sam.
Sam's post above is the equivilant of a "Sleeper". You guys with Street G***ers better wear your seat belt when he comes to town. You don't want to fall out when he Blows Your Doors Off. Maybe you ought to paint Mr Nice Guy on the trunk, Sam. In big letters because most will see it briefly, from a loooong way back.
It is amazing that we try to pigeonhole, organize,signify,modify, and qualify the G***er/Axled streetcar debate that rages on the HAMB. But, I gotta tell ya. As I entered my teens in the late '60's, the way many, many cars were set up was to "raise" them. What started out as emulation of the G***er and early "Altered" wheelbase cars at the dragstrip, became a "Style" look on the street. Nothing more or less. There were many cars that had "built to hilt" motors and many that did not. Jacking up of suspensions was a excercise in what looked "Cool" or "Tough" at the time. Cars had to have at***ude to project a "Mean" or "Nasty" look. Jacked up suspensions provided that look. Even with raised suspensions "Rake" was a important ingredient. The car just had to look right. For every "Axled" car there was 10 that were "Jacked Up" just using taller front springs or leafs that were re-arched. It was all about the "Look" much like "Pro Street" cars did in the '80's or "Suicide Axled" deathrod C-Dans do today. My point/opinion on this is that sky high, straight-axled cars were very cool and not "Posers". They had a place back then and have one historically today. They were not g***ers, although it was not uncommon to see bonifide g***ers run on the street back then. These are recollections and a informed opinion from how things were in Chicago back then. The resurgence of old and new G***er and Straight-Axled cars is exciting to me and I look forward to seeing many more around here. Joel Here's a "Straight-Axled" street car circa 1976. I bet this car was a older build from the late '60's Here's what I consider a '70's dragcar with a "Straight-Axle", this isn't a "G***er" to me. I took this pic in '72. I took this pic in 1977. Shows "Traditional" styled 3 Window. Is it a "Streetrod" or a "Hotrod"?
[QU Here's what I consider a '70's dragcar with a "Straight-Axle", this isn't a "G***er" to me. I took this pic in '72. Uh, How can this NOT be a G***er? Some terms in hotrodding (and bike building) kinda worked their way into the language, but G***ers were a specific cl*** with rules written in black and white. The only one who said if a car was a g***er or not was the Tech Inspector. If there's cat sitting there and I decide to call it a dog, does that make it a dog just because that's "my definition" of dog? I don't think so. Peter Pan of Chicago, I'm not picking on you, just commiting on the whole "my definition" deal. Larry T BTW, we called the jacked up street cars Street Freaks, but that's just my definition. LOL
Larry T, I'm glad ya weighed in, that's what healthy debate is all about. Up until lately the above '57 was a G***er to me. I would definately say it was "G***er Styled". I do know I sure would love to have that car today, just the way it is. I would agree on the "Street Freak" moniker for wild, al***ude, nose bleed cars. Although I do believe Car Craft magazine coined that phrase well after "when straight-axled cars ruled the earth"(TM) period. Joel
Joel, I would love to have the 57 too, so we're not in different corners of the universe. (G) To keep the post on subject, I think the 57 was pretty obsolete in 1972. By then the modern g***ers were about as close to the ground as possible. And I guess on any given day at the races, if there were to many cars or a "killer" in the Gas cl***, the 57 could have been an Altered. On the Street Freak deal, I think it's probably a late 70's term but it could be later. Also, I'd bet that someone called the jacked up cars Street Freaks before the CC article came out. Off to work, talk to you later.
Hey Guys- now, this is fun!! Makes me wonder why I lurked so long before jumping in. Guess Mutt and Chili told me.....Funny how y'all talked "about me" for 2 days, a****st yourselves, so to speak, but nobody addressed me head-on. I read the whole thread again, and just about everyone has a valid point or 3. Including mine. I was just answering a question......with a touch of sarcasm- just like most everyone else here. Be back for more later Pete
One more thing- I think Peter Pan has made the most insightful and considered observations on this thread. Seriously. I wrote out a whole bunch of "spew" directed at some of the other "opinions" that were posted earlier, and then deleted it- I'm gonna take the high road instead. peace.
The Jalopy Journal
