"John Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:36 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

That was the claim. An early stock 100-4 was rated at 90 hp, in a car that
weighed 2,200 lb. I won't dispute what John says, and maybe my exposure
was
to bad examples, but the ones I knew about were not fast in stock form.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snip

The handling was also better than you recall. There were some "loose"
ones, but that was often due to actual looseness in the front
suspension. The front shocks consisted of a casting bolted to the
frame, with arms on each side that served as the upper wishbone. Four
small screws mounted the casting to the frame, and it was not uncommon
to find the outer ones stripped or broken and the inner ones loose,
with the shock flopping around.

I was referring to the grip getting a little loose, as was typical with
sports cars of that era, due to chassis flex combined with stiff springs. My
recollection of the big Healeys was that they'd understeer but then the rear
end would want to swap on you if you got too aggressive, or if it was
hopping around on a rough road. Right?

But few cars from the early '50s were much better. The most God-awful scary
thing I ever drove was an HRG. If the wheel tramp didn't send you hopping
off the road, bouncing over a cigarette butt would send you sideways.

--
Ed Huntress

I wish I still had it. Storage in a dirt-floored barn did a job on
the underside, though.

John Martin

Too bad. They're fine classics.

--
Ed Huntress

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look up "air tabs" Vortex generators to fit transport trucks and RVs.
They DO work.


Interesting. I just posted this one to rec.aviation.homebuilt this
morning...


went looking for some "how it works" articles...
with varying degrees of sucess.

These were the more interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator

http://www.microaero.com/

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/d...vg-design.html
Chris Heintz 701 VG page

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0009.shtml
Interesting description...

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...004/16E_03.pdf
Mitsubishi is using them on automobiles now!
Interesting paper.

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182564-1.html
The use of vortex generators is nothing new. First used in England, VGs
have been used on transport jets for decades, and on bizjets since Bill
Lear invented them. But historically they were used as an aerodynamic
"band-aid" to deal with localized mach buffet problems at the high end
of the airspeed envelope. MacDonnell Douglas engineers would routinely
scoff at the VGs on Boeing jets and brag, "see, we don't need those
things because we got our aerodynamics right in the first place."

http://cas.umkc.edu/physics/sps/proj...ex/vortex.html
Vortex rings - like smoke rings?
Dolphins make air vortex rings in the water and play games with them.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/.../Micro-VG.html
NASA paper about micro VGs on the FLAPS (way cool)

http://home1.gte.net/pjbemail/VortexGen.html
VGs used to enhance top speed of ice skaters???

http://www.flxsys.com/Applications/A...x%20Generator/
ACTIVE (dynamic) VGs developed for the Air Force?

http://www.physorg.com/news85159467.html
Silly things are even being used under water...


Richard

--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:13:49 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

Erm, you mean to tell us that you couldn't discern that just from
lookin' at it? Or were you just young(ish), full of testosterone, and
had far too much time on your hands? Methinks it's the latter.

No, I'm not good at judging Cd (coefficient of drag) just by looking at a
car. Let's see how good you are. g The Cd of a Hummer H2 is 0.57.
Without
looking it up, what do you estimate is the Cd for a Lotus 7? How about a
1992 Ford Crown Victoria? BTW, the Fiesta is alleged to be 0.41.

I can tell you precisely within my set of standards. "Is" and "Ain't"
(streamlined) are the criteria. Jag/Lotus vehicles IS. Fiestas,
Hummers, box vans AIN'T.

Coefficient of drag, 1992 Ford Crown Victoria: 0.33. Fiesta: 0.41. Hummer
H2: 0.57. Lotus 7: 0.7. Brick: 2.1. g

That's not total drag, of course, because you have to multiply Cd by frontal
area for that. Then the Lotus looks better. But so does the brick.

Looks can be deceiving when it comes to aerodynamic drag. The 1962 Porsche
356 Carrera Coupe had a Cd of 0.39; just slightly better than the Fiesta,
and somewhat worse than the Crown Victoria. I've gotten enough surprises on
this that I don't even try to guess anymore.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:12:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.


Gee, I could have told you that without using yarn tufts, Ed!!!

Well, where were you when I needed you?
You didn't ask!!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:36:19 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look up "air tabs" Vortex generators to fit transport trucks and RVs.
They DO work.


Interesting. I just posted this one to rec.aviation.homebuilt this
morning...


went looking for some "how it works" articles...
with varying degrees of sucess.

These were the more interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator

http://www.microaero.com/

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/d...vg-design.html
Chris Heintz 701 VG page

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0009.shtml
Interesting description...

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...004/16E_03.pdf
Mitsubishi is using them on automobiles now!
Interesting paper.

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182564-1.html
The use of vortex generators is nothing new. First used in England, VGs
have been used on transport jets for decades, and on bizjets since Bill
Lear invented them. But historically they were used as an aerodynamic
"band-aid" to deal with localized mach buffet problems at the high end
of the airspeed envelope. MacDonnell Douglas engineers would routinely
scoff at the VGs on Boeing jets and brag, "see, we don't need those
things because we got our aerodynamics right in the first place."

http://cas.umkc.edu/physics/sps/proj...ex/vortex.html
Vortex rings - like smoke rings?
Dolphins make air vortex rings in the water and play games with them.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/.../Micro-VG.html
NASA paper about micro VGs on the FLAPS (way cool)

http://home1.gte.net/pjbemail/VortexGen.html
VGs used to enhance top speed of ice skaters???

http://www.flxsys.com/Applications/A...x%20Generator/
ACTIVE (dynamic) VGs developed for the Air Force?

http://www.physorg.com/news85159467.html
Silly things are even being used under water...


Richard


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:00:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:13:49 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.

Erm, you mean to tell us that you couldn't discern that just from
lookin' at it? Or were you just young(ish), full of testosterone, and
had far too much time on your hands? Methinks it's the latter.

No, I'm not good at judging Cd (coefficient of drag) just by looking at a
car. Let's see how good you are. g The Cd of a Hummer H2 is 0.57.
Without
looking it up, what do you estimate is the Cd for a Lotus 7? How about a
1992 Ford Crown Victoria? BTW, the Fiesta is alleged to be 0.41.

I can tell you precisely within my set of standards. "Is" and "Ain't"
(streamlined) are the criteria. Jag/Lotus vehicles IS. Fiestas,
Hummers, box vans AIN'T.

Coefficient of drag, 1992 Ford Crown Victoria: 0.33. Fiesta: 0.41. Hummer
H2: 0.57. Lotus 7: 0.7. Brick: 2.1. g

That's not total drag, of course, because you have to multiply Cd by frontal
area for that. Then the Lotus looks better. But so does the brick.

Looks can be deceiving when it comes to aerodynamic drag. The 1962 Porsche
356 Carrera Coupe had a Cd of 0.39; just slightly better than the Fiesta,
and somewhat worse than the Crown Victoria. I've gotten enough surprises on
this that I don't even try to guess anymore.


Things like panel gaps, flush vs recessed glass, protruding door
handles (or gaps behind recessed handles) presence or absense of chin
spoilers, all make a difference - as does the shape of the rear of the
car. Surprisingly, many older "streamlined" vehicles had much lower
drag in REVERSE than forward. The little lip spoiler on a Kamback is
more efficient than a rounde (bulbous) or tapered (torpedo) rear enf.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:00:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
I can tell you precisely within my set of standards. "Is" and "Ain't"
(streamlined) are the criteria. Jag/Lotus vehicles IS. Fiestas,
Hummers, box vans AIN'T.

Coefficient of drag, 1992 Ford Crown Victoria: 0.33. Fiesta: 0.41. Hummer
H2: 0.57. Lotus 7: 0.7. Brick: 2.1. g

thud I never woulda thunk it for the Lotus OR the Fiesty.


That's not total drag, of course, because you have to multiply Cd by frontal
area for that. Then the Lotus looks better. But so does the brick.

Looks can be deceiving when it comes to aerodynamic drag. The 1962 Porsche
356 Carrera Coupe had a Cd of 0.39; just slightly better than the Fiesta,
and somewhat worse than the Crown Victoria. I've gotten enough surprises on
this that I don't even try to guess anymore.

I hear ya.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

On Mar 28, 1:35*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John Martin" wrote in message

The handling was also better than you recall. *There were some "loose"
ones, but that was often due to actual looseness in the front
suspension. *The front shocks consisted of a casting bolted to the
frame, with arms on each side that served as the upper wishbone. *Four
small screws mounted the casting to the frame, and it was not uncommon
to find the outer ones stripped or broken and the inner ones loose,
with the shock flopping around.

I was referring to the grip getting a little loose, as was typical with
sports cars of that era, due to chassis flex combined with stiff springs. My
recollection of the big Healeys was that they'd understeer but then the rear
end would want to swap on you if you got too aggressive, or if it was
hopping around on a rough road. Right?

But few cars from the early '50s were much better. The most God-awful scary
thing I ever drove was an HRG. If the wheel tramp didn't send you hopping
off the road, bouncing over a cigarette butt would send you sideways.

--
Ed Huntress

With so little ground clearance (ask any owner how many exhaust
systems they'd replaced) you had little suspension travel, therefore
stiff springs. They could hop around a bit on rough roads. Any
understeer you could quickly cure with the application of throttle
which is, I think, just as it should be.

The frame wasn't too bad, although I suspect that as the cars aged and
absorbed the bumps it did become more flexible.

John Martin

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:12:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:16:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I also put closed-tube manometers (made from aquarium hose) at different
points around the car and tried *that*. The car was an aerodynamic mess.


Gee, I could have told you that without using yarn tufts, Ed!!!

Well, where were you when I needed you?
You didn't ask!!

True, true...

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 28, 1:29*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:08:59 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Rex
quickly quoth:

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. *The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. *If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?

Then what about the 3000? *Did someone forget to put in the solid
rocket boosters and Bussard ramjet?


The first 3000 was just under 3 liters, thus its name. The 100 was
2,660 cc, and the 100-6 was very slightly smaller. Most of the 3000s
used the 3 liter engine, although some used the smaller engine from
the 100-6 but with 3 SU carbs.

John Martin

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:08:59 -0500, Rex wrote:

John Martin wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I loved the 100-4. Slow as molasses (85 mph top speed, stock) but it felt
like an old-time race car. That is to say, you'd pitch it into a corner like
a dirt-tracker and pray everything didn't get too loose. It was a bit...er,
flexible.

When I first started racing there was a 100-4 at Lime Rock, H production,
that didn't do too badly.

--
Ed Huntress

There was a trick to getting it over 85, Ed - a chrome plated lever on
the side of the transmision tunnel. You pulled up on it a bit, pushed
in the button on the end, and pushed it down as far as it would go.
It's called a parking brake.

A stock Healey 100 would do just over 100 mph. The 100M would do
about 110, and the 100S a lot more. If yours topped out at 85 it was
sick, or you're confusing it with an MG or something else.

Yep. The Healey 100 was supposed to be a 100 mph car.
that was the way it was advertised. Might be what the 100 was for?
100 kph?
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

Things like panel gaps, flush vs recessed glass, protruding door
handles (or gaps behind recessed handles) presence or absense of chin
spoilers, all make a difference - as does the shape of the rear of the
car. Surprisingly, many older "streamlined" vehicles had much lower
drag in REVERSE than forward. The little lip spoiler on a Kamback is
more efficient than a rounde (bulbous) or tapered (torpedo) rear enf.




--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


That was the point I was trying to get across to TMT.
A long streamlined body just isn't necessary.
In fact, often counter productive due to the increase in
wetted surface.


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


BTW, that (airtabs.com) didn't turn up much...

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


That was the point I was trying to get across to TMT.
A long streamlined body just isn't necessary.
In fact, often counter productive due to the increase in
wetted surface.


Richard


that was prolly me and not TMT. it was just that i'd never seen an airplane
or a america's cup racing boat with a squared off tail like a semi truck
cargo box. i figured if it was more efficient to use a vortex generator
we'd see a lot more rectangular airplanes and racing boats, etc.

b.w.

(i still find it hard to believe vortex generators are better than a good
streamlined design. i always figured they were a patch fix (for a design
that can't be altered, as in a box truck) or they improve upon already good
streamlining.)

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

If one was to blow off on the freeway, it might cost the trucking company
a lot depending on the traffic behind. I can see the surviving spouse of
a motorcycle rider that had one of the inflatable blow off in front of him
having a field day with lawyers. That said, it does sound like a good
idea. I wonder what I could gain with one on the back of my Lance camper?
stu




yeah, having one blow off would suck. but it seemed an inflatable one
blowing off would be less harmful than an aluminum or fiberglass one blowing
off. surely they WILL blow off, but there's lots of other road hazards out
there right now, tires exploding, ice blowing off the roofs, etc. it would
seem there must be a good reason they're not already in use. it can't just
be that truckers don't want to use them because they look silly, if there
was a cost savings to be had surely the large trucking companies would
already be using them, no?

b.w.

i want to see if i can try out the air tabs on my pick up truck cap. (i had
this silly idea to try to make some sort of fairing for the back of my
truck/cap but figured it would be illegal, would garner me a ticket for a
"unapproved covering" for my tail lights/etc.)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:07:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


BTW, that (airtabs.com) didn't turn up much...

Richard
Make that www.airtab.com!!!
Sorry.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


That was the point I was trying to get across to TMT.
A long streamlined body just isn't necessary.
In fact, often counter productive due to the increase in
wetted surface.


Richard



this is what i mean.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0228.shtml

it says "...remains attached..." behind the square box of a semi truck
there's nothing to remain attached to. vortex generators might reduce the
drag but won't "eliminate" it like a fairing would (i assume). i'd assume
vortex generators would improve the already low(er) drag of a fairing,
especially an imperfect fairing as would be possible attached to a square
semi truck box with the limitations placed upon it, length (of the truck),
cost, reliability (not falling off) etc.

b.w.

(these are very simple to make/copy. (sorry hall bros.) i believe the guys
at my eaa made up copies of their own.
http://www.hallwindmeter.com/vortex.php they're nice because you can just
use tape to attach them. (the article says you can permanently attach them
w/ rivets, never saw that before but it sounds reasonable.)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), John Martin
wrote:

Only 90 hp, but tons of torque.

So much so that the earliest ones - the BN1 version - were sold as 3-
speeds even though they had a 4-speed transmission. What should have
been first gear was blocked off, because with the low ratio and the
torque of the engine it was too easy to break an axle. And, with the
light weight of the car, starting in second was easy. You could start
it in fourth if you wanted, with only a bit of clutch slipping.
Second, third and fourth (first, second and third as labeled) were all
synchro, but the low first gear was not. The shift pattern as sold
was very odd. First, third and reverse were all back, only second was
forward. I still remember sitting in it (stopped) one day, pondering
how odd the pattern was, thinking that there really should have been
something ahead of the labeled first - where reverse would have been
on a typical US three-speed. So I played with the stick a bit, and in
it went. Whoa, what do you do next? I pushed down the clutch,
started the engine, and let the clutch out just as slowly as I could.
Still, it took off with a jump and scared the hell out of me. I found
out that mine - like lots of others - had been modified by filing out
the shift gate to allow selecting the low gear. The BN2 cars had four
speeds with closer ratios.

Except for the crash-box first gear (which is just fine, as long as
you are rolling you can start off again in 2nd...) why didn't more
owners open up the hidden first gear and put in a LOT taller rear end?

Most 3-speeds in those days (and this was a 'fake three speed' so
logic should still apply) didn't hit their top speed because they ran
out of engine power, they ran out of revs - because they needed
another cog in the box that they didn't have.

Would have made highway running a lot nicer at speed, and probably
crashed right through that 100 MPH limit with an engine that has had
some TLC applied.

If I had a nickel for every time my brain said {"Dummy! Over-Rev!!
Upshift!! NOW!!!"} and I tried shoving my old Datsun B210 into a
fifth gear it didn't have...

-- Bruce --

William Wixon wrote:

this is what i mean.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0228.shtml

it says "...remains attached..." behind the square box of a semi truck
there's nothing to remain attached to. vortex generators might reduce the
drag but won't "eliminate" it like a fairing would (i assume). i'd assume
vortex generators would improve the already low(er) drag of a fairing,
especially an imperfect fairing as would be possible attached to a square
semi truck box with the limitations placed upon it, length (of the truck),
cost, reliability (not falling off) etc.

b.w.

(these are very simple to make/copy. (sorry hall bros.) i believe the guys
at my eaa made up copies of their own.
http://www.hallwindmeter.com/vortex.php they're nice because you can just
use tape to attach them. (the article says you can permanently attach them
w/ rivets, never saw that before but it sounds reasonable.)



You can't eleminate drag. It will always be there in one form or another.

Regressing a bit, there are three kinds of flow. Laminar, turbulent,
and seperated. Seperated flow has the highest drag.
Anyting that will reattach the flow to teh surface will cause a
reduction in drag, and _possibly_ (depending on a lot of other factors)
an increase in lift.

We don't want the truck box producing lift (shudder).

A large afterbody may reduce it some, but at the cost ot a lot more
wetted surface. I think it would be an ever trade off.

Take a peek at clares' site.
THIS will do it.


http://www.airtab.com/

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:22:49 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:07:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


BTW, that (airtabs.com) didn't turn up much...

Richard
Make that www.airtab.com!!!
Sorry.

Interesting.

Now I curious as to what the effects are on the vehicle Behind the
truck equipped with a full compliment of airtabs?

No more drafting I take it?

Gunner

Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:22:49 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:


On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:07:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:


clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


BTW, that (airtabs.com) didn't turn up much...

Richard

Make that www.airtab.com!!!
Sorry.


Interesting.

Now I curious as to what the effects are on the vehicle Behind the
truck equipped with a full compliment of airtabs?

No more drafting I take it?

Gunner

Good point.
Draft might be signigicantly reduced.


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:42:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Bruce L. Bergman quickly quoth:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), John Martin
wrote:

Would have made highway running a lot nicer at speed, and probably
crashed right through that 100 MPH limit with an engine that has had
some TLC applied.

If I had a nickel for every time my brain said {"Dummy! Over-Rev!!
Upshift!! NOW!!!"} and I tried shoving my old Datsun B210 into a
fifth gear it didn't have...

That's especially fun on trannies with the reverse at the top of the
second H. Go from second or third to reverse with spectacular results!
It's been so long, I can't remember which mfgr forgot to put a reverse
lockout on their old boxes.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:42:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Bruce L. Bergman quickly quoth:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), John Martin
wrote:

Would have made highway running a lot nicer at speed, and probably
crashed right through that 100 MPH limit with an engine that has had
some TLC applied.

If I had a nickel for every time my brain said {"Dummy! Over-Rev!!
Upshift!! NOW!!!"} and I tried shoving my old Datsun B210 into a
fifth gear it didn't have...

That's especially fun on trannies with the reverse at the top of the
second H. Go from second or third to reverse with spectacular results!
It's been so long, I can't remember which mfgr forgot to put a reverse
lockout on their old boxes.

Here's a strange one, that was guaranteed to screw anyone up the first
twenty times they tried it: The Morgan 4/4, which was the smaller, very
low-profile one with the four-banger Ford engine, had the entire 4-speed
pattern reversed. Reverse was to the right and back. First was next to it.
Fourth was forward and to the left.

The transmission was pretty far forward in the car, so the shift lever was
pivoted in the middle, before it went forward to the actual shift stalk
coming out of the transmission.

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:53:38 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:22:49 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:07:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.


BTW, that (airtabs.com) didn't turn up much...

Richard
Make that www.airtab.com!!!
Sorry.

Interesting.

Now I curious as to what the effects are on the vehicle Behind the
truck equipped with a full compliment of airtabs?

No more drafting I take it?

Gunner

No more free rides. You are no longer towing the sucker behind you.
Also, cross winds are almost inperceptible. No more buffetting when
passing other vehicles (or at least VERY little). Makes the driving
experience a lot easier as well as cheaper.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:42:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Bruce L. Bergman quickly quoth:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), John Martin
wrote:

Would have made highway running a lot nicer at speed, and probably
crashed right through that 100 MPH limit with an engine that has had
some TLC applied.

If I had a nickel for every time my brain said {"Dummy! Over-Rev!!
Upshift!! NOW!!!"} and I tried shoving my old Datsun B210 into a
fifth gear it didn't have...

That's especially fun on trannies with the reverse at the top of the
second H. Go from second or third to reverse with spectacular results!
It's been so long, I can't remember which mfgr forgot to put a reverse
lockout on their old boxes.

Here's a strange one, that was guaranteed to screw anyone up the first
twenty times they tried it: The Morgan 4/4, which was the smaller, very
low-profile one with the four-banger Ford engine, had the entire 4-speed
pattern reversed. Reverse was to the right and back. First was next to it.
Fourth was forward and to the left.

The transmission was pretty far forward in the car, so the shift lever was
pivoted in the middle, before it went forward to the actual shift stalk
coming out of the transmission.

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.


Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Here's a strange one, that was guaranteed to screw anyone up the first
twenty times they tried it: The Morgan 4/4, which was the smaller, very
low-profile one with the four-banger Ford engine, had the entire 4-speed
pattern reversed. Reverse was to the right and back. First was next to it.
Fourth was forward and to the left.

The transmission was pretty far forward in the car, so the shift lever was
pivoted in the middle, before it went forward to the actual shift stalk
coming out of the transmission.

That 'splains it. Linkage effectively reversed the motion. What can be
even more fun is when someone sticks the wrong shift knob, complete
with someone else's shift pattern, on it.


When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

I'll bet!

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Here's a strange one, that was guaranteed to screw anyone up the first
twenty times they tried it: The Morgan 4/4, which was the smaller, very
low-profile one with the four-banger Ford engine, had the entire 4-speed
pattern reversed. Reverse was to the right and back. First was next to it.
Fourth was forward and to the left.

The transmission was pretty far forward in the car, so the shift lever was
pivoted in the middle, before it went forward to the actual shift stalk
coming out of the transmission.

That 'splains it. Linkage effectively reversed the motion. What can be
even more fun is when someone sticks the wrong shift knob, complete
with someone else's shift pattern, on it.


When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

I'll bet!

Hmm. I got it partly wrong, partly right. The forward-and-back was normal,
but the left-right was reversed. After 40 years, my brain takes a half-hour
or so for the cobwebs to clear out. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just let
your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT Monza, BTW.)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:10:04 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...
Yeh - I started driving on a '61 Mini 850 and "cut my teeth" on a 1943
ex-military PowerWagon that was the "tow truck" for the garage I
apprenticed at. Later I had a '28 Chevy that was fun to shift too.
I drove the mini without the clutch most of the time. When I get into
my daughter's Neon I don't use the clutch much either.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:40:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just let
your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT Monza, BTW.)

Wasn't the early corvair a non -syncro low? Thought I read that
somewhere.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 28, 5:04*pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:



Look at airtabs.com
The RV trailer shown is my buddy's trailer.
We did a test, using my Corvair Aircraft engine to produce the wind,
to see how much difference there was. Without the airtabs, ropes tied
to the back corners of the trailer crossed behind the trailer and
snapped against the back of the trailer viciously. With the airtabvs
the roaps streamed out over 15 feet straight behind the trailer. I was
IMPRESSED.

That was the point I was trying to get across to TMT.
A long streamlined body just isn't necessary.
In fact, often counter productive due to the increase in
wetted surface.

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *John Wayne

Sorry Richard...I haven't been following this discussion laterly.

I would agree that you don't NEED a long streamlined
body...alternatives are available...but seldom used.

Many vehicles could stand some serious drag reduction.

With increasing fuel prices, the demand will cause it to happen.

TMT

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:40:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just let
your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT Monza, BTW.)

Wasn't the early corvair a non -syncro low? Thought I read that
somewhere.

Not the '63, and I don't think the '62 was either, although I don't remember
it very well. It was all-synchro.

The cars of that era that had no synchro on first were most of the Brit
sportscars, including Jag, MG, Triumph, etc. But they all went all-synchro
sometime in the '60s, IIRC.

A racing crashbox was available from the factory for my '67 Midget Mk III
but I couldn't afford it.

--
Ed Huntress

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
et...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop,
in neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a
lifetime ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira
Ontario - 1937 or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated,
with adjacent gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse
step. All straight cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was
large enough that 1st and 3rd were not necessary unless starting
uphill. Start in second, jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th
(IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just
let your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT
Monza, BTW.)


Hey Ed,
Monza wasn't a GM name on this vehicle, was it? They wanted it, and even
ran
the tooling, in Syracuse BTW, to plaque them but couldn't get the name
free
and clear.
What you eally had was a John Fitch Spyder GT, as did my mother. A
convertible.
I could be remembering this wrong so feel free to correct me.

Monza was the name. They got into a legal battle with someone (Ferrari?) and
had to drop it, but the Monza name was used for the Corvair through at least
'64.

No, I didn't have a John Fitch Spyder GT. It's a long story, but mine was a
Monza, and a convertible.

At least in '63, there were two ways to get a John Fitch GT: buy one from
Fitch, or buy all the parts from Fitch and do it yourself. I think that
Fitch used Spyders (the turbo version) for the basis of his cars. But you
could start with a Monza. Either way, the Fitch GT had no turbo, and you had
to cut holes in the manifold for two more carburetors. So it had four carbs.

There were many bits and pieces required to make a Fitch GT: heavy-duty
clutch (standard on the Spyder); short steering arms; rear springs that gave
2-1/2 deg. of negative camber; Michelin radials; Koni adjustable shocks; a
stop for centrifugal advance on the distributor; and (this may have been an
option) solid lifters. You could get solid lifters from Cheby if you knew
what to ask for. They were optional lifters for the truck version of one of
the old V8 engines (348?). The carbs were regular Corvair units. You just
bought two more standard carbs, and the jets for all four that Fitch
specified. You also needed the flamethrower driving lights with stone
screens to look official. I put Lucas units on mine but they kept blowing
fuses. g

If you built one that way, most motorheads at the time called the car a John
Fitch GT Monza.


Here is something you might be interested in. The Vega GT was to have been
branded with the "Chaparral" name.
I tagged along with mu old man to that meeting, not with Hall but
internally. You see, GM had once again run tooling in advance of approval.

I've got a couple of Dolly Cole stories I'll tell one day, and while pops
is
dead, I'll want to be a little closer first.
LOL

"Dolly" Cole? Dave Cole? I photographed Dave for an article once, but the
interview was done by Joe Jablonowski.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:
You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

It did take a bit to learn to down shift on my Berkley.
A non synchro motorcycle transmission with a progresive
shift lever. But up was a dream, as fast as you could flip
that lever. Was a neet little machine but for the middle
cyl fouling the plug all the time.
...lew...

Ed Huntress wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:40:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:


On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop, in
neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a lifetime
ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira Ontario - 1937
or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated, with adjacent
gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse step. All straight
cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was large enough that 1st
and 3rd were not necessary unless starting uphill. Start in second,
jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just let
your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT Monza, BTW.)

Wasn't the early corvair a non -syncro low? Thought I read that
somewhere.


Not the '63, and I don't think the '62 was either, although I don't remember
it very well. It was all-synchro.

The cars of that era that had no synchro on first were most of the Brit
sportscars, including Jag, MG, Triumph, etc. But they all went all-synchro
sometime in the '60s, IIRC.

A racing crashbox was available from the factory for my '67 Midget Mk III
but I couldn't afford it.

--
Ed Huntress

Even in 1963 you'd be hard pressed to find a US made car with synchro on first gear
in a 3 speed box, unless it was a Mopar product. The Corvair had synchro smash on
first then.

Tom

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message et...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop,
in neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a
lifetime ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira
Ontario - 1937 or something like that. EVERY shift was
complicated, with adjacent gears next to each other and, IIRC,
one a reverse step. All straight cut (crash box) too. Thankfully
the engine was large enough that 1st and 3rd were not necessary
unless starting uphill. Start in second, jump to 4th, and in town
5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the
good old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you
just let your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT
Monza, BTW.)


Hey Ed,
Monza wasn't a GM name on this vehicle, was it? They wanted it, and
even ran
the tooling, in Syracuse BTW, to plaque them but couldn't get the
name free
and clear.
What you eally had was a John Fitch Spyder GT, as did my mother. A
convertible.
I could be remembering this wrong so feel free to correct me.

Monza was the name. They got into a legal battle with someone
(Ferrari?) and had to drop it, but the Monza name was used for the
Corvair through at least '64.

No, I didn't have a John Fitch Spyder GT. It's a long story, but mine
was a Monza, and a convertible.

At least in '63, there were two ways to get a John Fitch GT: buy one
from Fitch, or buy all the parts from Fitch and do it yourself. I
think that Fitch used Spyders (the turbo version) for the basis of
his cars. But you could start with a Monza. Either way, the Fitch GT
had no turbo, and you had to cut holes in the manifold for two more
carburetors. So it had four carbs.

There were many bits and pieces required to make a Fitch GT:
heavy-duty clutch (standard on the Spyder); short steering arms; rear
springs that gave 2-1/2 deg. of negative camber; Michelin radials;
Koni adjustable shocks; a stop for centrifugal advance on the
distributor; and (this may have been an option) solid lifters. You
could get solid lifters from Cheby if you knew what to ask for. They
were optional lifters for the truck version of one of the old V8
engines (348?). The carbs were regular Corvair units. You just bought
two more standard carbs, and the jets for all four that Fitch
specified. You also needed the flamethrower driving lights with stone
screens to look official. I put Lucas units on mine but they kept
blowing fuses. g

If you built one that way, most motorheads at the time called the car
a John Fitch GT Monza.


Here is something you might be interested in. The Vega GT was to
have been branded with the "Chaparral" name.
I tagged along with mu old man to that meeting, not with Hall but
internally. You see, GM had once again run tooling in advance of
approval.

I've got a couple of Dolly Cole stories I'll tell one day, and while
pops is
dead, I'll want to be a little closer first.
LOL

"Dolly" Cole? Dave Cole? I photographed Dave for an article once, but
the interview was done by Joe Jablonowski.

No Ed.
LMFAO
Ed Cole, not Dave.
One thing I have dredged up is that Mom's Spyder was a 63 or 64 and the
family wasn't far from Carrier Circle at the time. It was a 210 HP model.
I do remember the controversy over the name but as an aside at the dinner
table.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
et...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message et...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop,
in neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a
lifetime ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira
Ontario - 1937 or something like that. EVERY shift was
complicated, with adjacent gears next to each other and, IIRC,
one a reverse step. All straight cut (crash box) too. Thankfully
the engine was large enough that 1st and 3rd were not necessary
unless starting uphill. Start in second, jump to 4th, and in town
5th and 6th (IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the
good old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you
just let your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT
Monza, BTW.)


Hey Ed,
Monza wasn't a GM name on this vehicle, was it? They wanted it, and
even ran
the tooling, in Syracuse BTW, to plaque them but couldn't get the
name free
and clear.
What you eally had was a John Fitch Spyder GT, as did my mother. A
convertible.
I could be remembering this wrong so feel free to correct me.

Monza was the name. They got into a legal battle with someone
(Ferrari?) and had to drop it, but the Monza name was used for the
Corvair through at least '64.

No, I didn't have a John Fitch Spyder GT. It's a long story, but mine
was a Monza, and a convertible.

At least in '63, there were two ways to get a John Fitch GT: buy one
from Fitch, or buy all the parts from Fitch and do it yourself. I
think that Fitch used Spyders (the turbo version) for the basis of
his cars. But you could start with a Monza. Either way, the Fitch GT
had no turbo, and you had to cut holes in the manifold for two more
carburetors. So it had four carbs.

There were many bits and pieces required to make a Fitch GT:
heavy-duty clutch (standard on the Spyder); short steering arms; rear
springs that gave 2-1/2 deg. of negative camber; Michelin radials;
Koni adjustable shocks; a stop for centrifugal advance on the
distributor; and (this may have been an option) solid lifters. You
could get solid lifters from Cheby if you knew what to ask for. They
were optional lifters for the truck version of one of the old V8
engines (348?). The carbs were regular Corvair units. You just bought
two more standard carbs, and the jets for all four that Fitch
specified. You also needed the flamethrower driving lights with stone
screens to look official. I put Lucas units on mine but they kept
blowing fuses. g

If you built one that way, most motorheads at the time called the car
a John Fitch GT Monza.


Here is something you might be interested in. The Vega GT was to
have been branded with the "Chaparral" name.
I tagged along with mu old man to that meeting, not with Hall but
internally. You see, GM had once again run tooling in advance of
approval.

I've got a couple of Dolly Cole stories I'll tell one day, and while
pops is
dead, I'll want to be a little closer first.
LOL

"Dolly" Cole? Dave Cole? I photographed Dave for an article once, but
the interview was done by Joe Jablonowski.

No Ed.
LMFAO
Ed Cole, not Dave.

Oh, yeah. Some Cole. Maybe Nat. g Anyway, it was on press day at the '78
NY Auto Show.

One thing I have dredged up is that Mom's Spyder was a 63 or 64 and the
family wasn't far from Carrier Circle at the time. It was a 210 HP model.
I do remember the controversy over the name but as an aside at the dinner
table.

Hmm. I didn't realize the horsepower ever got that high. It was a fun car to
drive, but it had one strange quirk: The negative camber was pretty severe
for a road car, and, when you started to turn in one direction, the car
would start to turn in the other direction for just an instant. It felt like
turning a motorcycle by pushing the handlebars the opposite way.

It was unnerving at first but the decambering was really effective.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:41:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:00:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

When I first drove one of those things I'd almost come to a stop,
in neutral, while my brain re-adjusted.

Or like the old International Fire Truck I used to service a
lifetime ago. Belonged to the Naugatuk Chemical plant in Elmira
Ontario - 1937 or something like that. EVERY shift was complicated,
with adjacent gears next to each other and, IIRC, one a reverse
step. All straight cut (crash box) too. Thankfully the engine was
large enough that 1st and 3rd were not necessary unless starting
uphill. Start in second, jump to 4th, and in town 5th and 6th
(IIRC) were not needed.

You sure learn how to drive with your own synchros on a crash box,
don't you? I did that with my old Corvair and impressed lots of
friends, both male and girl-. Sync the engine with the box and not
ever touch the clutch, except for stop signs and lights. Ah, the good
old days...

Jeez, how did you wind up with a crash box in a Corvair? Did you just
let your synchro rings wear out? g (I had a '63 John Fitch GT
Monza, BTW.)


Hey Ed,
Monza wasn't a GM name on this vehicle, was it? They wanted it, and even ran
the tooling, in Syracuse BTW, to plaque them but couldn't get the name free
and clear.
What you eally had was a John Fitch Spyder GT, as did my mother. A
convertible.
I could be remembering this wrong so feel free to correct me.

Here is something you might be interested in. The Vega GT was to have been
branded with the "Chaparral" name.
I tagged along with mu old man to that meeting, not with Hall but
internally. You see, GM had once again run tooling in advance of approval.

I've got a couple of Dolly Cole stories I'll tell one day, and while pops is
dead, I'll want to be a little closer first.
LOL

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com