What Constitutes "Cool"?

As I type this, I'm sitting at a small round table in my very small breakfast nook, that sort of doubles as a mini-office at times. The goal is to be close to the kitchen. Not so I can grab a snack later on, but so I can either grab the editorial can opener or blogging crowbar. In the past, and especially in the hot rod / nostalgic racing genre, the concept of "what is cool" can open a can of worms or the proverbial Pandora's box.

 In my humble opinion, there are two main factors that, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your own personal experience and/or opinion, that drive this concept: perspective and age - both of which change. For example, 30 years ago, (or even 15 years ago for that matter), I was all about muscle cars and quarter mile machines from the 60's, mostly because that was what I grew up with. It was literally in my blood because I had relatives that worked at some of the assembly plants. I really didn't care about street rods from the 30's and 40's - that's what my co-worker who was 20 years my senior was for. But even back during that period of tunnel vision, change was already occurring. For example 30 years ago, I was solely Mopars... nothing else. However, 15 years later by the end of the 90's, I was eagerly embracing all makes and models of muscle cars. Fast forward another 15 years, and I have an open door policy of all American hot rods from the late 20's on up. In fact, a 50's era Gasser as well as an early 30's Model A have been added to my "cars to own" bucket list. I kind of consider this current mindset an epiphany of sorts.

Is it because I'm getting older? Maybe. Am I re-welcoming some forgotten memories from my past? Most definitely. But the bottom line is when I see a 1940 Willy's with Hilborn injection, or a 1956 shoe box Chevy with a snarling big block, or a 1970 Plymouth GTX with American Racing torque thrust wheels and a west-coast rake, my first thought is - "Man... this rig is cool!" The same goes for vintage drag and NASCAR racing machines, whether completely restored or in barn-find condition. I'm even gaining a soft spot for Bonneville and salt flat racers.

One thing I have also noticed, whether at car shows or racing meets, is there seems to be way less brand and model bashing than there was in the 80's and 90's. I can remember when nobody wanted a 4-door or a wagon - it wasn't cool enough. Today, the opposite is true. I have a certain take on this as I believe all this original coveted iron is still disappearing, despite the preservation efforts of enthusiasts or the fact that the after-market has really stepped things up in the past 10-15 years with parts galore. Face it - the days when one could stroll into almost any junkyard and find some early to mid 70's automobiles at minimum, are gone forever. If you're old enough, you'll remember the big push that salvage yards faced to crush all this "obsolete junk" - which many of them did - in some cases because they had to, not because they wanted to. Prices have also played a factor in appreciating more Americana. I can remember a time not so long ago, when you could purchase a decent restorable early to mid 70's Plymouth Duster, or a late 60's 4-door Chevy Nova for under a grand. Today? Forget about it. You have to pony up three to four times that amount in most cases.

On the flip side of this coin however, I still have some character defects. I will always gravitate towards a cool ride that's been worked on by its owner, is driven as often as possible - even if it's a work in progress and has primer for paint - over a 110% restored vehicle that was purchased that way, the owner trailers it in a climate-controlled rig to every show and it's never driven. I don't care what make and model it is or what it rates on the rarity scale. I know it's easy for me to say that because I don't own the car. I know it also takes nerves of steel to stroke a check for twenty or thirty-five grand

or more - I've done it.
This mindset has raised some eyebrows by people regarding cars and trucks that I have owned. I remember restoring / modifying an old Chevy C-10 truck. Nine months time and labor as well as over four grand on materials was spent for the custom paint job. Once it was all said and finished, what did I do? I drove the truck home - hard! It went into heated storage about two days later for the winter, but come next May, I drove the truck all summer - rain or shine. If a rock chipped the paint - no problem. That's what touch-up paint was for.

In the end though, it is your ride. You own it - so you have the final say as to how much you drive it, how to build it if you're restoring and/or modifying it, and ultimately what you do with it. I can remember a huge buzz-phrase back in the late 80's; "...it's only original once." While that's true, a vehicle was meant to be driven. There are more hot rods, street rods, and muscle cars, that have enough money invested in them where you could take those funds and purchase a house. But they are still driven regularly. Why? Because the coolness factor never goes away. And that "cool" is meant to be inspired upon, shared, and enjoyed. The road is calling... heed the call.

Until next time, peace out.
Dave

Unacceptable!!

"Unacceptable" - adjective; Not suitable or satisfactory. Synonyms include disagreeable, obnoxious, and/or half-baked. I find it ironic that as diverse as the hot rod / muscle car / old-school racing hobby is, with God knows how many different genres and sub-cultures that are under that massive umbrella, I still hear that term - unacceptable - when it comes to vehicles.

I know there are still some people out there who simply cannot accept the fact that a new Challenger R/T, Mustang GT, or Camaro SS, (never mind a 4-door Charger R/T), can be a muscle car. No matter how much power is at the rear wheels. No matter to the fact that any one of these four vehicles can now blow the doors off any 60's / early 70's muscle car. In my humble opinion, that's a shame. We're finally at the point, technology wise, where the manufacturers can literally flip the feds and the EPA the bird, with uber-fast and technologically advanced vehicles that will pass any safety, emissions, and gas mileage requirement that gets tossed at them. (Photo above courtesy of Hot Rod Magazine)

But, on the other side of the coin, I can sympathize with those out there who are still anti-modern muscle car. How? I can remember back in 1987 when Cars magazine drag strip tested a newly restyled 1987 Fox body Mustang with the 225 horse 5.0 V-8 against a 1969 Mach 1 with a 428 Cobra Jet. As I read the article and the results, I was pissed that the Cobra Jet lost. I mean, it wasn't even close. As a result, I will admit that it took me a number of years to fully embrace modern things like EFI, overdrive transmissions, and turbos in classic Detroit iron. Adding insult to injury, the magazine summarized the lop-sided results; "... the future is here. The refreshed 5.0 screams like a Boss."

I guess it all depends what's been beaten into you (brainwashed?) at a certain age or by society. In my freelance automotive photography, I love shooting vintage vehicles that are kind of rough and loaded with patina - sometimes more so than beautifully restored hot rods. At times, I feel there's more angles and characteristics to photograph. But in classic human fashion, there are still some aspects of the car and nostalgia racing hobby that I am trying to adjust to.

First, is the use of patina in cars and trucks. Oddly enough, for me the years differ between the two types of vehicles. For cars, nothing built after 1963. But for trucks, I'm cool with patina and the mother-nature look up to around 1970. I think this stems from the fact that trucks were always considered work vehicles while I was growing up. They were supposed to look more beat up than the family sedan. I can really throw a monkey wrench into this debate, by saying I'm cool with patina and faded paint on drag-only cars up to say 1974. I'm not just talking funny cars here - I'm talking mild pro-stock / super-stock cars, or those barn-find local race cars. Even though they look a hell of lot like what the factory offered, in my mind they were never driven on the street - only on the strip. That's different.

I was on a high performance Chevy forum and one thread in particular was on fire because of some pictures of a late 70's Nova SS (picture on right used for example purposes only) that had the factory applied medium blue paint, but was weathered with patina. It had cool mag wheels, the factory bucket seat interior with the atypical array of after-market gauges, and the usual big tires out back / smaller tires up front raked look. It was if someone took a car that was era-modified, shoved it into a barn for 40 years, then took it out when it was done. Members galore were saying the patina was unacceptable because the car was not old enough. Things got so heated, the thread was removed by one of the sites moderators.

Even street and rat rods have run into these scenarios, but people are usually a little more tolerable about things because the vehicles in question are way older - for some reason that makes a difference. I found that even with rat rods, people have their line in the sand. But in retrospect, that was one of the main reasons behind the rat rod movement - some people just don't give a shit what others think.  

There are different types of supposed unacceptability in other aspects of automotive, especially racing. Most enthusiasts have seen and/or heard of the famous Smokey Yunick "7/8ths" 1966 Chevelle he built for NASCAR. Even back then, NASCAR had stringent rules regarding a vehicles body. It had to be the same dimensions as the factory model or it was no-can-do. One of the controversies that surrounded this car was when NASCAR measured it, they claimed it was too short - the body was not a stock length. It was deemed unacceptable for racing. Smokey did two things to overcome this. First, he compared his measuring jig to the one used by NASCAR - it was the same. Then he had one of his crew go to the local Hertz office and rent a new 1966 Chevelle. When the rental came back, Smokey measured his race car, then the stock unit. It measured identical. To this day, no one knows how this happened, but Yunick was allowed to race his "mystery" Chevelle.

Another story that comes to mind was an article that appeared in the early 90's in Mopar Action, where the magazine's tech editor Richard Ehrenberg and a good friend of his raced a homely looking 1987 Dodge Omni GLH (with the factory 2.2 liter turbo engine) in the famous One Lap of America race (similar to the pic but without the hood scoop). The team replaced the factory boost gauge with a more accurate after-market one. Once the team started cleaning the clocks of much more expensive iron, that gauge sparked rumors of a nitrous-fed motor amongst other things. Once those rumors were quelled, about halfway through the race, the man who organizes this entire event approached the team. He basically told them that he just couldn't have an Omni win this race - it would be unacceptable to too many fans. Excuse me? Ehrenberg was so pissed off, he almost dropped out in protest, but he ignored the warnings of the organizer. They did run into one or two technical problems that kept them from winning, but they did finish 8th overall - out of 50 total entries.

Even muscle car advertising, as wild as things got by the late 60's, had it's "unacceptable" moments. The ad I'm featuring this week only ran once - in the December 1967 issue of Motor Trend. It shows a new 1968 GTO in a turn-around area off the famous Woodward Avenue in Detroit - known nationwide for it's illegal street racing activities. What little wording the ad contains says it all. It also conjured up concepts of a GTO owner waiting for his next street race. Unfortunately, GM brass knew it too and pulled the ad.

Embrace new things people! United we stand... divided we fall.
Until next time, peace out.
Dave

"Man, This Sucks! Wait A Minute - What If We Do This..."

We've all been in those situations - especially with our hot rods, racing machines, or even a daily driver. And it usually occurs at the worst possible time, or when we're under a time crunch to get things finished. Sometimes the "...this really sucks" scenarios can take one of two turns - either the

"give up now, because there's no hope" road, or the "what if we try this? We have nothing to lose" path. In my humble opinion, I believe most hot rodders go down the second avenue.

This concept popped into my head this week as I sold my 38 year old retro-motorhome. I remember driving it home from Connecticut and getting about 10 miles from the owners house when the right-front brake caliper froze. I realized that reality when I first got a whiff of that burning brakes smell, and then saw the smoke coming out from the wheel. I paid for the rig a week earlier and it was an as-is private sale. My son-in-law who made the trek with me and I were unsure of the exact parts to purchase as there were multiple options of calipers still available and we wouldn't know exactly what we were dealing with until we had everything apart. Our solution was to compress the caliper back into place, then use a pair of vise-grips to clamp the brake hose as tight as possible without damaging it or having it leak, and drive the 25 foot behemoth 250+ miles back to Maine. Simple but effective!

The same can be said throughout the history of high-performance and racing. There are countless simple-but-effective stories out there, but here's just a few.

At the start of the 1968 racing season, Richard Petty had come off a truly incredible and record-setting season, with some of those records still standing today. However, he didn't plan on some of the challenges he would face with the totally redesigned Plymouth B-body design. For some odd-ball reason, his new race cars came with vinyl roofs. I do believe the theory was that it would improve aerodynamics and air-flow over the car. Unfortunately, it didn't - in fact, the vinyl started peeling off at high speeds slowing the car down. Petty realized that his pit crew would never have the time to remove all the vinyl during the race, never mind a pit stop, Petty himself resulted to a simple remedy with a hammer and duct tape. He ended up hammering the crap out of the roof so it was bent downwards from the windshield, then taped the daylights out of it. It worked. That, my friends, was when racing was truly racing...

Speaking of windshields, back in the early days of automobiles, before seat belts and airbags were part of the package, one of the biggest dangers was injury from shards of shattered windshield glass. We can thank French artist and chemist Édouard Bénédictus for accidentally stumbling upon the invention of laminated glass, also known as safety glass. While in his lab, a glass flask dropped and broke but didn’t shatter, Bénédictus realized that the interior was coated with plastic cellulose nitrate that held the now-harmless broken pieces together. He applied for a patent in 1909 with a vision of increasing the safety of cars, but manufacturers rejected the idea to keep costs down. However, the glass became standard for gas mask lenses in World War I. With its success on the battle field, the automobile industry finally ceded and by the 1930s most cars were equipped with glass that didn’t splinter into jagged pieces upon impact.

I was reading an article this morning about a body shop, who's company name no one can remember, but many people remember the truck they did back in the 60's. It was (and still is) a 1941 Willys pickup known today as "Strip Tripper". The problem was the paint job was so intricate - and damn expensive - that the owner couldn't afford to pay for it once the job was completed. Rather than write it off as a huge loss, the body shop recouped their money by simply renting (yes, renting) the small-block Chevy as a race car to compete in the popular Gasser class. By some miracle, the truck has survived all these years with the paint, motor, and all its other components intact. It was beautifully restored a few years ago, and is still on the show circuit. (Photo courtesy of Street Rodder).

 I've got a two good ones when it comes to drag racing, which has always been at the fore-front of numerous new concepts - including photography. Just about everyone knows that selfies are nothing new. Guess what - neither are selfie sticks. I glanced at the front page of the local paper while at work the other day, and it showed a high school graduate taking a selfie of herself while using her selfie-stick right after she received her diploma. She was quoted in the paper, "she wanted to be innovative." Sorry - get in line. Photographers old enough to be her grandparents were already on this concept, minus the cell phone. Photo buffs are always on the lookout for that unique angle, lighting, or concept. Check the two photos - one of the 35mm camera setup on the front of a top fuel dragster (right) and the finished product (left). While the shot was taken by the driver and not during an actual competition run, it's way cool just the same.

The second example is of a photograph snapped by Bob McClurg. In this case, there was really
nothing innovative here - he just zigged, while everyone else zagged. The picture features the late "Wild Willie" Borsch and his Winged Express AA/FA Altered. The story goes is that Bob was standing on top of a ladder to try and capture a killer shot of the race. As the lights went down the starting line Christmas Tree, all hell broke loose for a few seconds. Willie's Altered hooked way hard to the right at the line almost taking out the tree. The problem now was, he was heading straight for the guardrail... and all the photographers. While everyone else dropped their equipment and ran like hell, Bob figured he would stay put. He says if he jumped off the ladder, he would probably break his leg anyways, so he figured he'd let Borsch do it.
Bob snapped his picture at the crucial time, but Borsch managed to get his rig under control barely tapping the guardrail. As a result, Bob and Wild Willie would go down in racing history. The picture of the Winged Express also reveals a great deal of simplicity, if one knows where to look. Note the cool chrome barrel-shaped Moon fuel tank dangerously unprotected right up front. Then notice the front axle ballast that is literally duct taped to the axle. Lastly, groove on the canopy wing on top of the roll cage - not only did it help top-end speed stability, but it also acted as an awning for the narcoleptic Borsch, who took cat naps during rounds! When he was due at the staging lanes, his crew would nudge the Altered (with Willie still in it) with their push truck. That would wake Borsch up fresh and raring to go!

Lastly, automotive manufacturers are always looking to come up with fresh ideas that won't break the bank. Back in the glory years of muscle cars, enthusiasts  as well as the general public expected models to be refreshed every year or two, and new options to be released along that same time line. In "Hey - what if we try this?" Chrysler simply looked at what hardcore enthusiasts did with their muscle cars after they purchased them. They noticed things like:

late 1969, Chrysler dropped an A-bomb on the high-performance buying public with their one year only specialty six-pack cars, an option on the Plymouth Roadrunner and the Dodge Super Bee. Again, the concept was,
 - Enthusiasts chucked the hubcaps and/or wheel covers,
 - Many street racers ditched the heavy stock steel hood and installed an aluminum hood, usually painted flat black with a large hood scoop,
 - They also modified the engine with a hotter cam and more carburetion.  
So that's exactly what Chrysler did. While the 440 magnum six pack engine, as well as the Roadrunner and Super Bee would stick around for a few more years, the unruly option package didn't. Still, in less than nine months, Dodge & Plymouth pumped out over 5,000 of these animals. No other performance car offered from the factory, in any point in history, offered this much performance hardware standard, at a truly bargain price, and looked this wild.

Until next time, keep it simple!
Dave

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

The Family Tree - "We're Not Dysfunctional... Why Do You Ask?"

It's the classic scenario - what it was like then compared to what it's like now. If you really pause for a bit and think about this in the realms of high performance automotive, it can be fairly eye opening. I was going through my collection of vintage automotive magazine ads this week and compared one of the oldest to one of the newest. The first one (the oldest) was a copy of an ad taken from Cycle and Automotive Trade Journal dated 1904 where the famous Ford 999 Racer set a new record for the straight-away mile at 39 2/5 seconds. In today's world, this is yawn city, but more than 110 years ago, that was cooking. In my opinion, bonus points should be awarded based on the fact that this historic event took place in January... in Michigan... on the ice. The second ad was one for the G-force tire manufactured by BF Goodrich. It shows two Mustangs - one Fox-body style from the late 80's as well as one from 2005, the debut year of the new modern retro style. The opening tag line states; "0-178mph in 7.9 sec. On street tires."

Comparing these two Ford race cars is like comparing lettuce to coconuts. The 999 Racer is basically just a frame, tires, engine and drivetrain, an uncomfortable place to sit, with very simple steering, suspension, and battery system. There are practically zero brakes. The Mustang, however, is a full-on race car with fiberglass body panels, roll cage, and more technology and safety equipment you can handle in a first look. As different as they are, however, they are part of the family high performance tree, regardless that they just happen to be both Blue Ovals.

The other connection I made was that throughout high performance and racing history, pushing the envelope and experimentation has always involved the unknown as well as a fair amount of risk. Whomever is involved, does not do this on purpose nor are they crazy or dysfunctional. They are just working with the knowledge they have. It's a classic case of "... it's only after the crash or mishap, we know how to prevent it." While I've had numerous "man - that was wild - let's do it again" experiences in various high performance arenas, I am a serious amateur when it comes to other people.

In drag racing, I've had the pleasure of driving some brutally fast cars - the fastest being a friends 1968 Dodge Dart that went deep into the 8's at almost 160 mph. That experience alone could fill its own blog post. But the Dart had a bevy of modern safety equipment and was set up so well, it was hard to get sideways in it unless something majorly went wrong. 40 years ago, drivers didn't have this luxury, especially in the Funny Car or Dragster classes. Then there were those incredible rocket drag cars.

And then there was "Slammin"

Sammy Miller. He was the first racer to crack the 3-second barrier in drag racing and for the longest time was the only driver to enter this rare atmosphere. His rocket funny cars back in the 70's were off the hook - and that was a massive understatement. The only bummer was he always had difficulty finding tracks to run at, and at most of the ones he did race at, he was only allowed to run an 1/8th mile. I saw him run once in his Vanishing Point funny car and that event has stayed with me to this day. Just before his run, the staff at the track would remove the starting line Christmas tree. He would have the crowd yell off "3--2--1!" and then BOOM! The rocket would fire and your eyes could barely keep up with the funny car - very psychedelic and truly wild.

Muscle cars from the 60's and early 70's - more tame right? Wrong! A good friend of mine from Holden Massachusetts used to own a 1970 Buick GS Stage 1. A very unassuming car with it's medium blue paint and automatic. It was 100% stock except for headers, an open air element / cleaner assembly, a slightly hotter cam (but nothing radical - he drove it daily in city traffic). It even had the factory air conditioning and tach. I knew these Buick's were quick, but this car was able to dip into the high 11's in the quarter. He always beamed,"and it's practically stock!" Driving it was a trip - even with the automatic and letting the car shift itself. Mashing the loud pedal would result in tons of smoke and tire spin as the suspension worked like mad to get all that torque to the pavement. A few seconds later, second gear came with a heavy bang, followed by a little more tire spin. Not much after that, third gear slammed into place. At least by this time, the tires had fully hooked, the engine was moaning loudly in that unique big block wail, and the scenery was starting to blur. I used to think to myself, "How in the world could a manufacturer release such an animal on an unsuspecting public... and advertise the daylights out of it as well?" And just think - Chrysler and Ford did the same thing with the Hemi and the big 427 V-8's...

Then I think back a few years ago, when Shelby released the Mustang Super Snake 1000. Yup - 1000 horsepower and 1200 pounds of torque... all legal in a car one could drive daily. With that car, I would probably either run out of real estate or nerve before I could reach it's potential on a public street. I would definitely have to exercise it a track.

Circle track racing also has its extreme then verses now moments. Fire up Google images and you can find a plethora of images of track racing from 1905-1920. All raced on dirt surfaces, all open roadsters, with the driver and mechanic leaning out what was the door area into the curves. Talk about risk - one roll over, and they're both dead. In today's NASCAR world, drivers not only survive, but also walk away from some serious high-speed crashes and spinouts. Take a close look at the picture on a modern NASCAR interior; Houdini would be proud! However, this is the result of endless refinement to avoid repeat unfortunate happenings.This same forward thinking has been openly and widely embraced in all aspects of racing - which is a good thing. (Picture courtesy of Speed Hunters)

Rat rods are especially deceptive in this area, but then again, that's the idea. Just about all quality ratrods  (now there's a statement), is that while they may look like a heap, they in fact have modern steering, brakes, suspension, tires and wheels, along with a top-shelf drivetrain. As one owner puts it, "... picture a nice tight street rod, except the body and interior went horribly wrong! It's not a dysfunctional vehicle or a death trap - it just makes a hell of ride and statement."

I don't think I could put it any better.
Until next time, peace out,
Dave

Women + Performance = History

I will openly admit something - at times it is downright bizarre where my ideas come from for this weekly blog. But that's the beauty of inspiration and innovation; it spawns creativity. I was going over some vintage drag racing pics from the 60's and early 70's this week and I happened to stumble upon an article from the Huffington Post about pre-World War II female mechanics. One thing led to another and somehow I arrived at today's subject. Sort of like loosely following Google maps while completely throwing caution to the wind.

When you think of women in automotive, what comes to mind? Possibly Mary Barra who made history in January 2014 when she became the first female CEO of a major automobile company (General Motors). Or maybe the World War II heroine of Rosie the Riveter? While she is primarily associated with making planes and tanks, who do you think made that equipment? Right - Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, as well as other companies - and they advertised the heck out of it. There are other historical landmarks just to name a few:
 - I don't know if Mary Anderson ever turned a wrench, but in 1902, she invented the first windshield wiper, adopting the idea from a device used on New York City street cars.
 -  Silent film star Florence Lawrence was another inventor. Around 1915, she came up with the idea of the first turn signal called an "auto signaling arm" that attached to a car's rear fender.
 -  According to the AACA Museum in Pennsylvania, Wilma Russey (pictured right) became the first woman to work as a taxi driver in New York and was also an expert garage mechanic starting in 1916.
 - By the mid-20's, high schools across the country, (like the one pictured above left in Washington D.C.), offered classes in automotive to students, both men and women. 

Let's look at those last two bullet lines - the licensed garage mechanic - or technician in today's speak. There's been a great deal of news lately about female mechanics. According to the American Auto Dealers Association, dealerships are hiring more female technicians that ever. Closer to home, my oldest daughter Meg (above left) is Head Technician at B.J's Automotive in Belfast Maine. She works closely with an apprentice technician named Mo (above right). While talking with them, one finds they have rather similar backgrounds. Both received their first taste of automobiles from a family member (in both cases, their Dads). Both attended the same college (at different times, however), after "taking the plunge" and getting serious about their future passions. Both have encountered a great deal of skepticism and ego BS from male counterparts prior to working at B.J.'s Automotive. Like other women throughout automotive history, they had to grow a thick skin. But as knowledge and experience grows, Meg and Mo are able to give back what they have learned. To their customers and especially to other women. They both love what they do, are good at it, are able to help as well as educate their customers about their cars, and work in an extremely supportive work environment thanks to owner Joel Knight, (as well as the three other people who help make things a cohesive whole - Matt, Jason, and Tracy). And that, my friends, is damn rare these days...

Now - what about women in performance, mainly racing? That's a slightly different kettle of fish. The first noted female race driver was Helle Nice, who raced numerous (and even won a few) Grand Prix's all over Europe during the 1930's. Fast forward to the mid-50's, England's Pat Moss, (pictured left) sister of Sir Sterling Moss who penned the incredibly sexist book, The Art Technique of Driving, was an phenomenal Rally driver. If there was an "Up Yours Gentlemen" award back then, she would have captured it hands down.

On this side of the pond, even though NASCAR as well as the NHRA openly invited women to participate as drivers, the first major rumblings didn't occur until the mid 60's and gained speed during the 70's when our society experienced that major pendulum swing from uber-conservative to rather liberal. Probably two of the most well-known drivers were Shirley Shahan and Shirley Muldowney. Shahan was solely Super Stock drag racing (except for her running and winning the 1968 running of the Mobil Economy Gas Run) who got her start in 1953 and blew the doors off many a competitor until 1972, driving for Chevy, Plymouth, and finally AMC.

Muldowney (pictured left) began street racing in New York back in the mid 50's, entered her first drag race at 18 in 1958, received her NHRA pro license in 1965, and has become the winningist female race driver in any aspect of the sport. Most of her career was in top fuel dragsters, although she did dabble in funny cars for a few years in the early 70's.
A third, but less well known racer of note, was one of the first African-American drivers who was also an independent racing company owner. Nellie Louise Goins, aka "Nitro Nellie" drove a Plymouth Barracuda and later a Ford Mustang funny car predominantly in the early to mid 70's.

How about NASCAR? It wasn't until about 15 years ago, where multiple women have truly started to shine in this arena. The most visible female driver today is Danica Patrick. While some people say she has "sold her racing soul for sponsorship, advertising, and risque photo shoots", (some with near and covered nudity), she is one of the few drivers, male or female, that has successfully competed in Indy, Sprint, and NASCAR racing. She also has more top ten finishes than any other female driver.

One of the lesser known female drivers that deserves attention, is Lyn St. James (pictured left). She is one of seven women who have qualified for the Indianapolis 500. She also has two victories at the 24 Hours of Daytona, another win at the 12 Hours of Sebring and competed twice at the 24 Hours of LeMans. This author has to give kudos to her based on the types of cars she drove especially in the late 70's - here she's sitting on the fender of a Porsche 917. A car, that almost every driver claims, is so fast, twitchy, and difficult to drive, that full focus is needed 100% of the time. Lyn retired in 2001.

One of the last bastions to finally embrace women and performance

was advertising. One of the first to chip away at those barriers was Corvette. As far back as late 1962, GM realized that women were quickly becoming a serious buying demographic. This week I've included a classic ad for the completely redesigned 1963 split-window Corvette. The opening tag line says it all. By the end of the decade, all other manufacturers would fully embrace women as customers - not just a "go talk it over with your husband first" encounter.

Times change, people - embrace it. It's good for all of us.
Until next time, peace out.
Dave

Editor's note: Thanks again to all who help contribute to the writing of this article, including the staff at B.J.'s Automotive, Belfast Maine, and the AACA Museum in Hershey Pennsylvania.