Changes - Things Don't Have To Be This Complicated

I don't know who said the iconic phrase, "Humans... we don't like change and we hate the ways things are", but they nailed it dead on. When you get down to brass tax however, it's not difficult to understand the basic workings of that concept. The way things are (or were) already has a history - you already know the outcome. Change, on the other hand, involves the unknown and risk. There are times when change is good - especially when one realizes that the current answers or outcomes could be better in some way or in fact just plain suck. And even though change can be a little complicated at first, it can transform into something that's sophisticated, more efficient, and way better once the trial and error has been worked through.

I was skimming an article this morning where the CEO of Fiat / Chrysler has called for a possible merger of the big three American auto manufacturers. GM and Ford have already turned that idea down flat. The reason behind this call to action is apparently according to Fiat, it has become cost prohibitive for each manufacturer to develop its own unique cars and trucks (read: it's all about money). As history has shown, Chrysler has gone through bankruptcy three times in the last 40 years. Is this another beginning of the end for them? As much as I would hate to see Dodge go away, I cannot see Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler putting out the exact same models, engines, etc., even though they currently share some of the same outsourced parts. To me, that would spell Armageddon for any and all innovation, regardless of the competition from European and Asian markets.

 Believe it or not, innovation was huge after WW II, especially in the 60's through the mid 70's. Quite a bit of this innovation also had some wow factor, but it was mostly to keep things simple... and more sophisticated. When it comes to muscle cars, enthusiasts in general are in awe of the 1969 Charger Daytona and the 1970 Superbird - especially with that H-U-G-E rear wing. Was it there for racing or engineering purposes, like for air down-force? Nope - the primarily reason was so that the trunk lids would open.
Carroll Shelby wanted his Mustangs from the late 60's to look unique. Those taillights certainly were cool looking. But were they complicated changes? Nope - case in point, the 1968 Shelby models used taillights from 1966 Thunderbirds.

Remember a few posts back where we looked at "Dyno" Don Nicholson's Eliminator 1 funny car? Also remember that there are only a few pictures of this car because the body flew off the separate chassis at speed and was destroyed? That was because air got underneath the car and things became unstable. The next result was the production of an identical body, but with changes made to keep the front lower to the ground. Enter front air spoilers as well as the historical "rake" of those cars.

But what about dragsters? If you're old enough, you may remember back to 1971 when Don Garlits debuted his rear engined Swamp Rat 14 and won that national event. It's the stuff of legends, considering his brutal clutch explosion and crash in March of 1970 that left him recovering in a California hospital for months. While Garlits captures most of the glory for the rear-engine dragster, because he perfected the concept and was the first to win with the combination, he was not the first to apply it. That goes as far back as 1960 with independent racers at small local tracks.

In early 1970, Dwayne Ong had the first, most notable, rear-engine dragster. He campaigned with it, but never won an event. The primary obstacle at that time was too short a wheel-base of the dragster and it's habit for flipping over backwards. As far as the basic design of the dragster however, was it really all that difficult to conceive? Not really - aside from a different steering and rear chassis setup (to support the weight of the drivetrain, as well as its horsepower, and torque), the engine / clutch / differential layout was pretty much borrowed from Indy and Formula 1 racing.

I'm going to take a different spin on things when it comes to NASCAR - the pit stop. While it's hard to keep up with all the technology used today, but one can't deny its impact. Do you realize in a modern day race, a pit crew can change a set of four tires, clean the windshield, and dump 18 gallons of gas into the car in 12 seconds or less? Compare that to the early 50's, and those early pit crews looked like cavemen before the invention of fire. Remember, there were no air tools and crews had to use 4-way tire wrenches. A set of four tires took as long as five minutes! By the way - they also used old crank-up bumper jacks. It wasn't until the late 50's when Smokey Yunick, who also owned a truck repair shop in Daytona, decided to use a hydraulic floor jack - the same ones he used in his shop. It worked on a big truck, why not on a lighter car? Uncomplicated beginnings, but thus began the science of shaving off precious seconds in the pit stop which could mean the difference between winning or coming in second.

I have another question for you - do know what a "gow job" is? Very few people still use this term (mostly historians), but it was the first slang applied to a modified vehicle that would become more commonly referred to as the "hot rod". Some people have emailed me wondering if I knew what the first hot rod was. While that's way unclear, the accepted history seems to be early Fords (1928 to 1934 model years) in Southern California where enthusiasts raced their vehicles on dry lake beds north of Los Angeles in the late 1930's. Speed parts were unheard of until after the war, so how did owners make their cars faster? Changes that were not complicated - mainly the removal of hoods, fenders, bumpers, and in some cases, convertible tops. Less weight automatically equals more speed. Simple...

Until next time, peace out.
Dave