1967/1968 Dick Harrell funny cars

[sYc]

This picture shows part of the door gap, the poor fit of the door to the rocker and also the bottom of the rocker area. I bring the bottom of the rocker area up because this has been become a point of emphasis. Well, we knew how the rockers were supposed to look, but when we got my car, there were two layers of tin work and at least 3 layers of fiberglass, complete with rivets. Not knowing that in future years that this would become such an important issue, rather then risk damaging the area by trying to remove everything, we simply took a jig saw and began cutting. Next time you see my car, take note of the this area. You will see that I can not follow a straight line, and this area still appears rough, do to the build up of finberglass.

[sYc]

Do to the fact that no other pictures exist on Car-1, only lots of pictures of Car-2 and the Kirby car, which most are on the other site, I will end the picture show there. Now I will do my best to piece this whole thing together, addressing some of the issues being raised.

Beginning at the rear. The taillight section of Car-1 matches the taillight section of my car.

In the first picture, Car-1, it is obvious not a molded spoiler, and hard to tell if there is even a spoiler there, which explains why the spoiler on my car appears to have been added.

The parachute attachment looks funky on the Car-1, not resembling anything Dick used. Makes me believe quickly changed. When I got my car, there was no parachute nor attachment piece. Like the aluminum blower scoop, Mo fabricated the piece, and knowing Mo, no telling where the idea for it came from.

Car-1 does not have a working door, nor does mine. Car-2, as seen in the picture and on a video several of us have, does.

The fit of the door to rocker panel on Car-1 is poor, same as with mine. The same area on Car-2 and the Kirby appears flush.

The lower portion of my car in the rocker section is wider then Car-1, but as explained earlier, do the multiple layers of tinwork/fiberglass.

The glass areas. When I got my car, there was no glass in the car, and the area around the frames was in very poor condition. These needed a lot of rebuilding. When we went to install the glass, we went with what looked best, the windshield on the inside and the back glass on the outside. As we did with the tin work, we bolted the glass in, as rivets and or fiberglass will not stand up to the rigors of racing.

To the front end. Once again, thanks to what Dave Libby told Mo last night, we now understand why there are some discrepancies with the front end. According to Dave, the front end “was clipped”. This I believe, and the area where the clip was attached can be seen on my car today.

We know the tinwork on our car does not match Car-1. We had no good pictures of how it was, plus Mo and I are not tinsmiths, thus we did it the simplest way possible.

The bulkheads in my car are different as well, for safety issues. We used heavy gage aluminum versus what appears to be a piece of wood sandwiched between two pieces of tin metal on Car-1.

Last but not least, why everything on my car is bolted in, not glassed or riveted like Car-1. On a funny car, the body attaches to the body at only two places, the rear pivot point. Thus, when the car is launched, the chassis is moving very quickly, while the body wants to remain where it was. Repetition of this process takes its toll on the body, especially parts glassed and/or riveted in. When flexed, glass separates and/or breaks, rivets become loose, with the only fix replacing them. Mo and I did not want to be bothered with these kinds of problems, thus 100s of allen head bolts with lock nuts.

[sYc]

The top photo is the best photo of Car-1 I have, taken sometime in 1968 at KCIR. In the picture is Dave Libby.

The bottom photo is of my car, as it appears today. As I have been saying for some time, I feel the two cars are the one and the same, but I will continue my research on the car. If anyone has a photo(s) of Car-1, I would love to see it.

[sYc]

My car, today.

[sYc]

Check out this picture I just received of Car-1. Is this site cool or what...? Thanks Jeff.

[Kim_Howie]

Looks like their are two cars!!

Tom,

Thank you for posting the photos and for allowing more discussion. I am going to be viewing the evidence and looking at all photos and I'm sure I'll have more questions..lol. The one thing with photographic evidence is it is extremely diffulct to get the EXACT same photo for comparison between 2 subjects respect to perspective. This has to be taken into account. I know you are concertrating on your car being a DH car, as that is what you were led to believe and also that is what you have been reporting. I would have to say that if you are psoting evidence it would be a much more equal comaprison if you also posted the "other guys" photos and his conclusions in respect to the H. Platt car as well.

First thing that jumps out at me is the photo in your last post shows what you label Car-1 as having a much different chassis bracing just forward of the rear slick. Take note of the angle and length of the @45 degree brace...It appears in the original photo that the brace is shorter and the angle less acute. The original photograph is larger (take a piece of paper and measure the nose to tail and compare length in both pics) so in theory I would think it would show up as a longer length brace when measuring it on your computer screen as compared to your photo. They actaully show up pretty close to the same length..To me this indicates the lower photo (yours) is in fact a longer length..Help me if my logic is skewed..Was the chassis ever changed on the car?

I am still looking at everything, but the pics you have shown so far as "Car 1" the first pic and the newest courtesy of "Jeff" really don't show comparing angles to either your pics or Car 2..It would be very shaky to say your #1 pic..Car 1 has bolted on taillights as:

1) the pic quality
2) the angle doesn't lend itself to making a comparasion

Can you post some detailed photos of your car replicating the angles and perspective of the pics you claim to show Car 1 and Car 2. Maybe we need Robert Grodden..lol

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

[ QUOTE ]
... I am going to be viewing the evidence and looking at all photos and I'm sure I'll have more questions...

[/ QUOTE ]

Gregg,
You seem to have an amazing interest in this debate. You have nothing to post for months, but all of a sudden this is of utmost importance to you? What gives

[hvychev]

Greg, not that I am looking for ANOTHER confrontation with you, but I had the same thoughts as well. Why are you acting as the judge and jury on this "case"?

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to be viewing the evidence and looking at all photos and I'm sure I'll have more questions

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am still looking at everything...

[/ QUOTE ]

Marlin,

I have always been interested in drag racing and reading about the old school guys that started it all. DH was one of those guys and his cars are certainly historically valuable and interesting. I can remember reading John Hooper's book on 1969 Camaros and seeing Bill Porterfield with what I think is one of Kelly Chadwick's old cars, and thinking how cool it would be to see that thing run again..not sure where that car is now, but super cool nevertheless. I think I also developed an interest as a result of Bill Porterfield and his dedication to researching his cars..and keeping them the way they were raced. Also there is/was a guy that I used to know (not very well..only in passing from the local dragstrip) who ran a place called "Gold Dust Classics" (at least that is what I believe it was called..)that had tons of old period photos..I used to look at his stuff and wonder how cool it would have been to be there in the "heyday" of a hobby I have been associated with since 14 or so.(20 years I guess..). Since I'm a student of history and always researching something it seems, I took an interest in this topic..that is all..nothing more nothing less..

To be honest I was very much under the impression that TC had done a massive amount of research on his car, as he has/had made some very definitive statements about what the car is. This car has been represented as a very valuable and historically significant car. Statements that I took for fact as I'm sure many have. Having owned a car that has some uniqueness about it, I know first hand how diffulct it can be to find info. that isn't "mainstream" Also I guess after reading the post here and on the other site (not supposed to name it..lol)I was curious as to what research went into the car as you have to admit it has been marketed in such a way that would make you think it was heavily documented. Upon seeing some evidence, and reading the post I began to wonder. In my experience when people make definitives there is usually valid research that back up their conclusion. I wasn't seeing the direct point to point answers from Tom (actually IMO the opposite..a lot of deflecting the questions..) so I posted what I feel are direct, research minded questions to him in a public forumn. Whether researching an old race car, an old car, a warbird, an old battlefield, etc. there are generally common accepted research methods..I wanted to see which ones Tom used to form his answer..That's all.


I'm not trying to start anything but your line of questions imply that there are more "sinister" reasons to my interest..if that is your opinion then I'm sorry..as you would be mistaken. If you read a post (only my 2nd) on the "other" site..who will find I was/am truly disappointed with the research Tom used to make his staements and the way he handled the last thread. I honestly think he believes, as I'm sure many here do, that he has a DH car and that there were 2 FC DH used. I hope in a lot of ways that he is correct as a DH funnycar IS a valuable piece of racing/musclecar history. While I'm leaning slightly to a different hypothesis it has nothing to do with Tom the guy, the SYC, or anyone here, on the other site, etc..Stop looking for some ridiculous conspiracy between "those guys" and me and this website or this car..If I have any problems with Tom it is IMO he applied very definitive statements, and led others to believe them, to something right now that is more speculation than fact.

Respectfully,

G S Carlson

BTW..Frank see above...you maybe watch too much conspiracy tv..Can we get back to either proving this is or isn't a DH car..and if not what car it is..I'm sure there are plenty of people (as evidence by the number of "hits" on both sites) that would like to keep it both civil and germane..as I've told you before it seems..if you don't have anything germane to say...don't post..Thanks and have nice day.

BTW..Marlin I also posted on the "pilot" 1967 Chevelle thread...another interest I guess