| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 8, 8:47*am, (Richard Casady)
The exotic **** he has in the books was stuff like shoes with hidden daggers, with the heels for handles. Hidden compartment for a large handgun in the dash of his car, stuff like that. Simple, cheap, easily fabricated stuff that would work in real life. Casady But like I said it's amazing what you can do with government money. ?;^ ) |
Whoooo hooooo
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:26:35 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message om... Actually it is a road race. Sort of like driving in Boston and trying to get out of a round-a-bout. Or whatever those things is called. They used to be called a "rotary". But, as the liberals have become more influential over the years, they are now called "round-a-bouts". I never called them a rotary nor did I call them a "round-a-bout". I called them #$%%##$%*&*&&##@$$%%##$&**&*&^ pains in the ass. Espiecally the one in Revere by the MTA station and the one in Lynn at the Swampscott line. ~ mutter ~ -- "I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally." W.C. Fields |
Whoooo hooooo
"Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in message ... On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:26:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message news:Tp6dnWBwFZdashLUnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@earthlink. com... Actually it is a road race. Sort of like driving in Boston and trying to get out of a round-a-bout. Or whatever those things is called. They used to be called a "rotary". But, as the liberals have become more influential over the years, they are now called "round-a-bouts". I never called them a rotary nor did I call them a "round-a-bout". I called them #$%%##$%*&*&&##@$$%%##$&**&*&^ pains in the ass. Espiecally the one in Revere by the MTA station and the one in Lynn at the Swampscott line. ~ mutter ~ Years ago, this state decided that rotaries were a traffic impediment and safety hazard, so a program was funded to do away with them. Then, years later, somebody realized that a rotary in a multi road intersection was the most efficient way to move traffic safely, so they started rebuilding them. Go figure. One thing is for sure though. The traffic going over the Sagamore Bridge to Cape Cod moves much better since they eliminated the rotary that existed for years on the north side of the bridge. Now they call it a "fly over". Eisboch |
Whoooo hooooo
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in message ... On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:26:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message news:Tp6dnWBwFZdashLUnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@earthlink .com... Actually it is a road race. Sort of like driving in Boston and trying to get out of a round-a-bout. Or whatever those things is called. They used to be called a "rotary". But, as the liberals have become more influential over the years, they are now called "round-a-bouts". I never called them a rotary nor did I call them a "round-a-bout". I called them #$%%##$%*&*&&##@$$%%##$&**&*&^ pains in the ass. Espiecally the one in Revere by the MTA station and the one in Lynn at the Swampscott line. ~ mutter ~ Years ago, this state decided that rotaries were a traffic impediment and safety hazard, so a program was funded to do away with them. Then, years later, somebody realized that a rotary in a multi road intersection was the most efficient way to move traffic safely, so they started rebuilding them. Go figure. One thing is for sure though. The traffic going over the Sagamore Bridge to Cape Cod moves much better since they eliminated the rotary that existed for years on the north side of the bridge. Now they call it a "fly over". Eisboch They put a couple rotaries in the road near my house when they developed some lots. Bad design, but they did leave a very small curb at the edge. Maybe 1.5" so the firetrucks could make it around the rotary faster. Best thing they did with the rotaries was take a D-9 Cat to them after too many accidents and complaints. |
Whoooo hooooo
"Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in message ... On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:56:45 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 8, 11:47 am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote: On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 07:38:44 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 8, 9:53 am, wrote: On Feb 8, 9:49 am, wrote: On Feb 7, 11:43 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in messagenews:u3kso4pu9djhbhfo28q82ahq75tfonm8tf@4ax .com... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:18:17 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 9:17 pm, Zombie of Woodstock wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:58:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: Just out of curiosity.. er. what's the fastest care you own? Could it beeeeeeeeeeeeee a frekin' Cheby??? Ahem...um...er... Yes. :) Yes indeed.... Although technically, it's not a Chevy. It's a Corvette. Made by GM, but it's not a Chevy. One Ford in the top ten?? I mean he's in first, but there are two laps and he is surrounded by the enemy;) It's a conspiracy by GM - all their Chevy drivers took out the Ford drivers. What's the matter - your Chevy drivers can't keep their cars straight? Damn - my wife drives better than that. -- "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright Jeff Gordon. How can they not shake a flag at him for such bad driving. Gets to the almost front and then slows down through the middle of the pack causing carnage. Then speeds up again. Couple times. NASCAR has a reputation of letting their "stars" get away with anything. DE paved the way with his "If you can't beat 'em, wreck 'em" driving style. NASCAR sold their soul to GM years ago, and now with the COT, it's just a joke. Bring back Pearson and the Woods Brothers, and I'll watch again. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, if you want to see racin' like that, you have to go to your local track on Friday Night, but it's still better than Basketball;) I hear ya... growing up, I had two uncles that built and raced dirt track cars. One was in my home town, and my Dad did most of the fabricating on his car. While my Dad was (and is) a machinist by trade, he was also a good bodyman and mechanic. He'll be 82 this June, and while he's slowed a bit, he's still doing well. Here's a pic of one of my uncle's car: http://members.fortunecity.com/oldsprinter/skee14.jpg He was pretty famous in the area, always placing in the top 3, and winning most races. Pretty cool... I hadn't thought about him in a while. He's been dead for about ten years now. Great guy. Ah - legend cars. Love 'em. They run those up at Darlington on Saturday nights? Or is that Lowes up in Charlotte? I believe they run them up in Charlotte, but that's not a legends car. That car is a dirt track "skeeter" that was run back in the 60s to mid '70s on dirt tracks in the south. That thing has real sheet metal in it... it started life as a real '30's car. As I remember, they ran three classes at local tracks back then. "Hobby" (newbies), "Late Model Sportsman", and "Skeeter". Uncle Fred, who campaigned that car, ran in the Skeeter and Sportsman classes. His number was always 90, and his cars were black and gold. Ah- well, similar at least. -- "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright My dad was a supplier of machine shop services to lots of racers. He at one time shaved probably 60% of the V8-60 race heads west of the Mississippi. Built a rig that screwed into the sparkplug holes so he could chuck up the head and shave it. Before the days of Flycutters. My uncle ran a couple service stations and garages and sponsored the local champion. The days when we had about 5 dirt tracks in the bay area. I think Stockton 99 and San Jose Speedway are the only ones left. http://vallejospeedwayhardtops.homestead.com/ has some great old pics. |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 8, 11:46*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 06:49:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 11:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in messagenews:u3kso4pu9djhbhfo28q82ahq75tfonm8tf@4ax .com... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:18:17 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 9:17 pm, Zombie of Woodstock wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:58:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: Just out of curiosity.. er. what's the fastest care you own? Could it beeeeeeeeeeeeee a frekin' Cheby??? Ahem...um...er... Yes. :) Yes indeed.... Although technically, it's not a Chevy. It's a Corvette. Made by GM, but it's not a Chevy. One Ford in the top ten?? I mean he's in first, but there are two laps and he is surrounded by the enemy;) It's a conspiracy by GM - all their Chevy drivers took out the Ford drivers. What's the matter - your Chevy drivers can't keep their cars straight? Damn - my wife drives better than that. Jeff Gordon. *How can they not shake a flag at him for such bad driving. Gets to the almost front and then slows down through the middle of the pack causing carnage. *Then speeds up again. *Couple times. NASCAR has a reputation of letting their "stars" get away with anything. *DE paved the way with his "If you can't beat 'em, wreck 'em" driving style. *NASCAR sold their soul to GM years ago, and now with the COT, it's just a joke. It's endemic in all motor sports. *Hell, even F1 got caught up in it when they obviously knew that Schumacher was running rocket fuel until word got out, then all of a sudden - whoops - naughty, naughty. Ferrari owns F1 like GM owns NASCAR. I hate the COT and I blame Jeff Burton for that - he caterwauled about driver safety, driver safety and too expensive, too expensive, too expensive and look what we got - crappy looking cars that don't handle for squat on any type of track and you get lousy races like last night. Bring back Pearson and the Woods Brothers, and I'll watch again. *Race on Sunday, sell on Monday. *:-) Damn straight. *:) -- "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around! |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 8, 10:38*am, wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:53*am, wrote: On Feb 8, 9:49*am, wrote: On Feb 7, 11:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in messagenews:u3kso4pu9djhbhfo28q82ahq75tfonm8tf@4ax .com... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:18:17 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 9:17 pm, Zombie of Woodstock wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:58:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: Just out of curiosity.. er. what's the fastest care you own? Could it beeeeeeeeeeeeee a frekin' Cheby??? Ahem...um...er... Yes. :) Yes indeed.... Although technically, it's not a Chevy. It's a Corvette. Made by GM, but it's not a Chevy. One Ford in the top ten?? I mean he's in first, but there are two laps and he is surrounded by the enemy;) It's a conspiracy by GM - all their Chevy drivers took out the Ford drivers. What's the matter - your Chevy drivers can't keep their cars straight? Damn - my wife drives better than that. -- "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright Jeff Gordon. *How can they not shake a flag at him for such bad driving. Gets to the almost front and then slows down through the middle of the pack causing carnage. *Then speeds up again. *Couple times. NASCAR has a reputation of letting their "stars" get away with anything. *DE paved the way with his "If you can't beat 'em, wreck 'em" driving style. *NASCAR sold their soul to GM years ago, and now with the COT, it's just a joke. Bring back Pearson and the Woods Brothers, and I'll watch again. *Race on Sunday, sell on Monday. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, if you want to see racin' like that, you have to go to your local track on Friday Night, but it's still better than Basketball;) I hear ya... growing up, I had two uncles that built and raced dirt track cars. *One was in my home town, and my Dad did most of the fabricating on his car. *While my Dad was (and is) a machinist by trade, he was also a good bodyman and mechanic. *He'll be 82 this June, and while he's slowed a bit, he's still doing well. Here's a pic of one of my uncle's car:http://members.fortunecity.com/oldsprinter/skee14.jpg He was pretty famous in the area, always placing in the top 3, and winning most races. *Pretty cool... I hadn't thought about him in a while. *He's been dead for about ten years now. *Great guy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I used to spend almost every summer Saturday night in the pits wrenching on my cousin's sprint car. Good times! Have to fight your way out of the infield sometimes! |
Whoooo hooooo
|
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 8:53*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:38:53 -0800 (PST), wrote: Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around! You think? Not to me - they are unstable as all hell and when you read what the crew chiefs and drivers are saying "off the record" they hate the freakin' car. NASCAR designed a safe car - no doubt about it - but it drives like crap and it's a constant battle to keep the thing on the track. One of the SAE engineers I know that was marginally involved in the project told me that NASCAR is requiring too much precision in the manufacturing process which is stifling development. When you watch the in-car cameras on the COT compared to the previous model car, these things are jumping all over the place and have a horrible tendency to suck up sideways in multi-car drafts. *And you never know if you are getting a push or are loose until it happens - it constantly changes from lap-to-lap. And, just listening to a comment on SPEED from Mike Wallace, the car eats tires - none of the compounds they used to use are any good on the new car and according to Zipendelli, the compounds were never right last year because what looked to be the right choice from previous testing turned out, in general, to be wrong for track conditions on race day. Plus, it's ugly and you can't tell, unless there is a really distinctive paint job, which car is whose like you used to be able to. It's going to kill NASCAR and quicker than you might expect. -- When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****... |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 8:53*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:38:53 -0800 (PST), wrote: Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around! You think? Not to me - they are unstable as all hell and when you read what the crew chiefs and drivers are saying "off the record" they hate the freakin' car. NASCAR designed a safe car - no doubt about it - but it drives like crap and it's a constant battle to keep the thing on the track. One of the SAE engineers I know that was marginally involved in the project told me that NASCAR is requiring too much precision in the manufacturing process which is stifling development. When you watch the in-car cameras on the COT compared to the previous model car, these things are jumping all over the place and have a horrible tendency to suck up sideways in multi-car drafts. *And you never know if you are getting a push or are loose until it happens - it constantly changes from lap-to-lap. And, just listening to a comment on SPEED from Mike Wallace, the car eats tires - none of the compounds they used to use are any good on the new car and according to Zipendelli, the compounds were never right last year because what looked to be the right choice from previous testing turned out, in general, to be wrong for track conditions on race day. Plus, it's ugly and you can't tell, unless there is a really distinctive paint job, which car is whose like you used to be able to. It's going to kill NASCAR and quicker than you might expect. -- When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you They didn't like the car at first, but are warming up to it, besides, if they had everything they wanted (crew and driver) then it would surely be a boring contest. Goodyear had problems dealing with tires, but seems to have gotten a handle on it. And cars have always been jumping around, it's just part of it, the tracks are sometimes rough in spots (like turn #1 in Daytona where the tunnel is) etc. Again, if you listen to the chiefs, they are horrible, but if you listened to the chiefs before, they've always complained about one thing or another. That's racin', I've been involved in racing even when I was a little kid, I'd go to the shop and hang all day, then a little older, got to go the the track and help pit the car, as well as help out with the after race fights! |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 9:24*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:53*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:38:53 -0800 (PST), wrote: Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around! You think? Not to me - they are unstable as all hell and when you read what the crew chiefs and drivers are saying "off the record" they hate the freakin' car. NASCAR designed a safe car - no doubt about it - but it drives like crap and it's a constant battle to keep the thing on the track. One of the SAE engineers I know that was marginally involved in the project told me that NASCAR is requiring too much precision in the manufacturing process which is stifling development. When you watch the in-car cameras on the COT compared to the previous model car, these things are jumping all over the place and have a horrible tendency to suck up sideways in multi-car drafts. *And you never know if you are getting a push or are loose until it happens - it constantly changes from lap-to-lap. And, just listening to a comment on SPEED from Mike Wallace, the car eats tires - none of the compounds they used to use are any good on the new car and according to Zipendelli, the compounds were never right last year because what looked to be the right choice from previous testing turned out, in general, to be wrong for track conditions on race day. Plus, it's ugly and you can't tell, unless there is a really distinctive paint job, which car is whose like you used to be able to. It's going to kill NASCAR and quicker than you might expect. -- When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Or friggin' fuel milage races. |
Whoooo hooooo
wrote in message ... Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****... -------------------------------------- Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make them boring to me. I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend race. Eisboch |
Whoooo hooooo
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: wrote in message ... Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****... -------------------------------------- Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make them boring to me. I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend race. Couldn't agree with you more - the driver centric model replacing the car centric model drives me nuts. I stick with it only because I've been such a fan for such a long time. It seems to me that what the sport really needs is to return to the manufacturer model with NASCAR regulating engine size, shocks, tranny and rear end ratios. Let Hoosier (who actually builds a superior tire), Goodyear and Bridgestone (Firestone) fight it out on the track. Everything else should be left up to the teams. Like it used to be. Conservative I know, but that's the way I roll. :) -- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? |
Whoooo hooooo
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****... -------------------------------------- Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make them boring to me. I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend race. Eisboch NASCAR is just another variation on the NFL theme: packaging a product to sell other products. Funniest of all are the fans who think their favorite "marque" is out there, doing something. As if the cars are Fords or Chevys or whatevers. Yeah, sure they are, with their space tube frames, hand-molded sheet metal, and specialty running gear that is seen on no street car, and of course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car. Chevy Won! Sure it did. |
Whoooo hooooo
|
Whoooo hooooo
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. Hemi is somewhat overrated. If you have a flat top piston, the combustion chamber is hemispherical. If you want high compression, you used a domed piston and get a combustion chamber that looks like the peel from half an orange. It looks better in a long stroke engine, as the piston can be flatter for any given compression ratio, but today most mills are short stroke. Casady |
Whoooo hooooo
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:27 -0500, HK wrote:
and of course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car. It might use the same block as a street car. Casady |
Whoooo hooooo
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. Hemi is somewhat overrated. If you have a flat top piston, the combustion chamber is hemispherical. If you want high compression, you used a domed piston and get a combustion chamber that looks like the peel from half an orange. It looks better in a long stroke engine, as the piston can be flatter for any given compression ratio, but today most mills are short stroke. Casady You would have to explain that to the Ford and Chevy fans of the 60's. The fed had a limit on the maximum horsepower that a commercially available car could produce in those days. The limit was 425hp. When Chrysler introduced the 426 hemi in limited production, buyers were taking their new car to be dyno'ed. Many of the stock, unmodified engines, straight from the factory were producing over 500hp, even though they were "officially" rated at 425hp. What is over-rated is the newer, mini-hemi that came out in 2002 or 2003. Depending on the vehicle, it's rated anywhere from 335hp to 345hp, but, like most modern engines, it's horsepower and torque curve is peaked at very high RPM. The monster 426 hemi was pure, brute power. Chrysler made many versions of a hemi engine over the years. My father's 1955 Dodge Royal Lancer had a hemi. I think it was 331ci. Eisboch Eisboch |
Whoooo hooooo
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:27 -0500, HK wrote: and of course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car. It might use the same block as a street car. Casady I am not current with the rules for Nascar stock racing, but I believe the block must be of a standard manufacturers design. However, that's where the similarities ends. Eisboch |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 11:09*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 06:55:51 -0800 (PST), wrote: then a little older, got to go the the track and help pit the car, as well as help out with the after race fights! Well, on that we can agree. Ain't nuttin' like short track Saturday night Sportsman races when some guy gets shoved into the wall and the riot starts in the pits - or the stands for that matter. *:) Around here, Modifieds are the big thing - the Z class is particularly fraught with danger in the pits. *Half the time, it's more fun watching different pit crews express their displeasure over this, that and the other perception that somebody done did their driver wrong. And the gals - WOW!! *When they get going, it gets nasty quick. Ah yes - short track Saturday night. *:) -- Time flies when you are sick and psychotic. Amen! Many of nights our stuff would get torn up, either by accident or my cousin getting mad and retailiating, and we'd get our stuff loaded up in a hurry before the feature ended and drivers, crew, everybody started throwing beer bottles and stuff at us! I watched a Powder Puff driver slap another gal so hard one night that she hit the back of her head on the block wall and split it open! |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 11:07*am, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: wrote in message .... Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****... -------------------------------------- Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. *It's changed so much over the years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the race itself. *All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make them boring to me. I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci *Fords against 427ci Chevys *which were both blown off the map for a couple of years by the MoPar 426 Hemi. The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') *and the winning manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend race. Eisboch NASCAR is just another variation on the NFL theme: packaging a product to sell other products. Funniest of all are the fans who think their favorite "marque" is out there, doing something. As if the cars are Fords or Chevys or whatevers. * Yeah, sure they are, with their space tube frames, hand-molded sheet metal, and specialty running gear that is seen on no street car, and of course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car. Chevy Won! Sure it did.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You know about as much about racing as you do about Yale. Nothing. |
Whoooo hooooo
Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:27 -0500, HK wrote: and of course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car. It might use the same block as a street car. Casady It might have a block that measures the same as a street car's block...that's about it. |
Whoooo hooooo
wrote in message ... We had a 1955 Dodge Royal Lancer, too. It was a black on black convertible. Had about 500 pounds of chrome on the front, offset by little chrome fins on the rear. The rocker covers said someting like "RAM ROCKET" on them. It was pretty frisky. Had power windows and a power top among other niceties. The one my parents had was inherited by them from my grandfather and used as a second car. It was a tri-colored "Custom Royal Lancer. Cream top, dark royal blue hood and trunk and powder blue sides. It was my first "cruising car" when I got my license. I checked up on the engine and turns out they used a 270ci hemi in them. The Custom Royal Lancer was rated at 183hp or 193hp if equipped with an optional "power pac" which, for 1955 was quite a bit of power. Ours needed a valve job badly, so it wasn't exactly high performing, but it was quite a nice car. I think the valve covers said "Red Ram" on them. Eisboch |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 8, 2:26*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... Actually it is a road race. *Sort of like driving in Boston and trying to get out of a round-a-bout. *Or whatever those things is called. They used to be called a "rotary". * But, as the liberals have become more influential over the years, they are now called "round-a-bouts". Eisboch We had one right down the street from my house.. We called it a "circle" of all things....;) It was Vernon Circle... |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 8, 3:20*pm, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:26:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message om... Actually it is a road race. *Sort of like driving in Boston and trying to get out of a round-a-bout. *Or whatever those things is called. They used to be called a "rotary". * But, as the liberals have become more influential over the years, they are now called "round-a-bouts". I never called them a rotary nor did I call them a "round-a-bout". * I called them #$%%##$%*&*&&##@$$%%##$&**&*&^ pains in the ass. Espiecally the one in Revere by the MTA station and the one in Lynn at the Swampscott line. ~ mutter ~ -- "I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally." W.C. Fields Holy ****. That brings back memories. I spent a lot of summer days and weekends in Lynn, right there on top of the hill. Used to walk down to Revere with dad... |
Whoooo hooooo
On Feb 9, 11:09*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 06:55:51 -0800 (PST), wrote: then a little older, got to go the the track and help pit the car, as well as help out with the after race fights! Well, on that we can agree. Ain't nuttin' like short track Saturday night Sportsman races when some guy gets shoved into the wall and the riot starts in the pits - or the stands for that matter. *:) Around here, Modifieds are the big thing - the Z class is particularly fraught with danger in the pits. *Half the time, it's more fun watching different pit crews express their displeasure over this, that and the other perception that somebody done did their driver wrong. And the gals - WOW!! *When they get going, it gets nasty quick. Ah yes - short track Saturday night. *:) -- Time flies when you are sick and psychotic. The funniest thing I ever saw was back at Stafford.. Stabens Brothers drilling and Deb's auto used to get on it all the time.. One day afer the race old lady Stebens (the mom, must have been in her 50's) socked Debs driver and knocked him out cold.. We all had to get into that one that night, she was a tough old bird... |
Whoooo hooooo
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:59:47 -0500, HK wrote:
It might use the same block as a street car. Casady It might have a block that measures the same as a street car's block...that's about it Sprint cars have long been using aluminum 410 ci small blocks. My car was in the slower 360 class. I had one of the last iron blocks. A stock block. Perhaps 600 HP on methanol. About one MPG. An attempt to sell 90 pound magnesium blocks found few takers. You can have a 454 in aluminum small block if you want it. Small blocks started at 260, and were up to 283 by 1957 when we got the chevy wagon. Car had high compression heads, solid lifters, and seat belts. Guy ordered it and died. My old man never would have ordered the high performance stuff. Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com