1967/1968 Dick Harrell funny cars

[sYc]

As most of you know, the thread concerning my funnycar was locked yesterday, to try and let things settle down a bit. I know several of you want to believe what I am saying is true, but would like to see some concrete evidence refuting what was being said on the other site. The only problem was, until last night, I was unable to access the pictures on the site, so was really in the dark.
Well, lo and behold, being the fine gentleman he is, Dave Libby called Mo to discuss what was being said about my car, and to see what our thoughts were. Once Mo explained to Dave the situation to him, that neither of us could view the pictures, Dave agreed to allow Mo access.
After viewing everything, I must say someone(s) went to a lot of trouble to piece the thing together. But, except for the one color picture of the Red/Black colored car that was taken from this site, there were ZERO pictures of what we believe was Dick’s first fliptop funnycar. The reason for this is simple. In the whole time I have owned my car, I have only seen 3 quality color pictures of the R/B car. Why? I would love to know.
For the moment, we are going forget about Larsen and Platt’s cars, and only concentrate on 1967/1968 Dick Harrell flip top, 1 piece body funnycars. And for reference purposes, I am going to call the what I feel is Dick’s first car (my car), CAR-1, and the second car, the burgundy car with the vanes on the rear deck and the opening door, CAR-2. Car-1 started life as red a car, with the black top added shortly after, most likely a 1967, not like Car-2 and the Kirby, which are out of a later mold, thus ‘68s.

[sYc]

The first picture I am posting, IMO, is the missing link, and ironically, has been posted on this site on numerous occasions. I would love to know who has the original and get a copy of it. Why this picture is so important? IMO, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Dick did indeed have a FC with real taillights and that the spoiler, at least on Car-1, was added on, not from the mold. Also, notice the funky parachute attachment, no doubt temporary.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/36727-fgcars.JPG

[sYc]

Now to the two car theory. Compare the rear end of this car to the red one on the transporter. Molded in taillights, vanes and spoiler. The tail light section of this car matches the same section on the Kirby.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178872-bs-7.JPG

[sYc]

Next, comparing the door area of the two cars. Car-2, "the opening door car", noticed the gaps near the front pillar and above the door handle.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178873-bs-5.JPG

[sYc]

Now lets look at the same area on the Car-1. Notice no gaps near the front piller post or above the door handle. Judging by the gaps, or lack of them, no signs pointing to this car every having an opening door.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178875-bs-4.JPG

[sYc]

Another shot of the door on Car-1. Does not appear to be a door gap, just the indention from the mold.

Take note of the fit, or lack of it, of the door with the rocker. Car-2 and the Kirby car have a better fit.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178876-BS-1.JPG

[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.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178879-bs-2.JPG

[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.
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178909-67dh.JPG

[sYc]

My car, today.
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178912-DHFC6.jpg

[sYc]

Check out this picture I just received of Car-1. Is this site cool or what...? Thanks Jeff. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

http://www.fredgibb.com/history1/images/34.jpg

[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

[55chevy]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone has a photo(s) of Car-1, I would love to see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've got a couple I'll post when I get home. Don't go locking the thread. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

[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 http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[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

[moparts]

Greg
Ok you just jumped from all the things wrong with the body to finding fault with the chassis. Its a good thing your stick isn't sharp or there could be damage done. I hope you are comparing the then and now picture of the car in question and not comparing the now pic to some other car. That has been most of the problems so far. Per my phone conversation last night with Dave Libby he said the only questions he had was with the body and that the chassis was good. There is no doubt that looking a 2 different pictures from 2 different distances away and 2 different angles things will look different. The position of the ladder bar is different in the 2 pics and the sheet metal doesn't come all the way down to the lower bar in the old pic. I had hopes of driving the car and made the foot area deeper to allow for more leg room but tight quarters in other places stopped my plans short.

I am NOT looking at the ladder bars..the wheelie bars or the things sticking out the back of the car..I am looking at the 45 degree bracing that connects the 2 parallel pieces of frame..I noticed on the other site there was a reference to the 1968 body being removed and the chassis being used by another car...The implication is that the chassis under this car is the actual 1968 DH chassis..if that is the case..which chassis is under Tom car? Also for the record I'm looking at the pic of Tom's car..the port side pic and the port side pic of what he calls "Car 1". His last set of pics posted showing 2 cars...pics on top of each other..

Does anyone know if the Kirby car was from the same mold as Dick's 68 car? If so wouldn't the most direct comparison be a side by side of these 2 cars..I beleive (might be wrong)that car still exist. Also can someone tell me why Dick would have used the Kirby car if he had 2 cars in his stable...I believe it is generally accepted he drove the Kirby car in a few races if I'm not mistaken. The 2 car hypothesis works if a back up car is needed, but why would Dick need to use someone's else's car. Also are there any dates on any of the pics?

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Gregg, I believe there is a long thread about the Kirby car that should clear up any issues about it.

[55chevy]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't this the first DH FC? The '67.
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178969-67.jpg

[55chevy]

same 67

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178971-67-1.jpg

[55chevy]

last one of the 67

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178973-67-2.jpg

[55chevy]

Now the '68

I'll stick with the "CAR-1" "CAR-2" names

CAR-1 THEN
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178974-1.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 NOW

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178976-2.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 THEN

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178977-3.jpg

[396L35]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if the Kirby car was from the same mold as Dick's 68 car? If so wouldn't the most direct comparison be a side by side of these 2 cars..I beleive (might be wrong)that car still exist. Also can someone tell me why Dick would have used the Kirby car if he had 2 cars in his stable...I believe it is generally accepted he drove the Kirby car in a few races if I'm not mistaken. The 2 car hypothesis works if a back up car is needed, but why would Dick need to use someone's else's car. Also are there any dates on any of the pics?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dick's 68 car was the first car Hardy did that year and it was tagged the #1 car, Mike Burkhart's car was #2 and the Kirby car was #3. When I talked to Jim Kirby about his car he said they were all done within a few weeks of each other. In fact Kirby raced his car before Mike B did because in transport of the #2 car the body flew of and Hardy had to make another one, or at least the story goes. In 1969 the #1 car went back to Hardy's shop and was fitted with a 69 body on the 68 frame... As for Tom's car, if he says his car was the car before the 68 car then I hope somemore pictures will surface and put this discussion to an end. Im just getting tired of all this fighting between the two sites. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[55chevy]

CAR-2 ?? THEN (NOTICE THE SHEETMETAL ON THE FRONT IS WIDER THAN THE OTHER CAR)

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178979-4.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 NOW

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178980-5.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-2 THEN

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178981-6.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR 2 THEN

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178982-7.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 NOW

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178983-9.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 THEN

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178984-10.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 THEN

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178985-11.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 NOW

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178987-12.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 NOW

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178988-13.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 THEN (ARTICLE PAGE 1)

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178990-ph680607.jpg

[55chevy]

CAR-1 THEN (ARTICLE PAGE 2)

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178991-ph680608.jpg

[55chevy]

ok I'm done... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/headbang.gif

[70 copo]

Ed,

GOOD JOB!

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

Phil

What are the dates of the magazine?

[55chevy]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the dates of the magazine?

[/ QUOTE ] http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif Sometime in 1968

[Rat_Pack]

Tom, I started typing this before all of the above pictures showing car 1 and car 2 made things even more confusing. So bear with me.

First thank you for making another post. I want you to look at the photo of the original Dichk Harrell car the body up that shows the bottom of the drivers side rocker panel and the interior tin work, with someone standing next to it. This car in this above picture shows the rocker panels ending about 2-1/2" below the drivers door just like on EVERY picture that has been posted of the original Dick Harrell funny car. Your rocker panels wrap under your car and a full Camaro rocker panel like USA1 posted. To say that yours are different because of the added fiberglass and aluminum, that is an incorrect statement. Those rockers that are on your car are were made in the mold of the car and were have not been added after the fact. The picture that USA1 posted showing the passenger side rocker proves that, inside and out.

The pictures I have seen that USA1 posted of your windows and trim, you have never done any kind of major repair work around them. Those are in MINT shape, especially on the inside, and are from the original mold. Also there has never been any windows glassed in from the back side like the original car from the pictures shown. There may have been some areas slightly repaired but I cannot see them in any of his pictures shown. If there are some areas repaired on your car then post some pictures showing the repair. There is nothing wrong with repair work done to these old cars as they were fiberglass. Also I have looked at Matt’s car and observed the windows as to how they were glassed in and I do not see any signs of them pulling apart of loosening up from the years of drag racing. Now if your body is only attached to the chassis at the rear, then you have a major problem with your car. Every funny car I have seen all have pivot points at the rear (except a few Palamedes bodies) and they have latches at the front to keep the body from flying up during a run. One thing, I have never seen a chassis take off and the body stay still. That must a cartoon type of some sort, like the horse taking off so quick the rider and saddle stay still…………………….

As for the rear spoiler being added to you car, you are right, all Camaro funny cars had the spoiler added to the rear after the car was pulled from the mold. Now I have over 20+ years with mold making and design and for someone to make a mold from a car with the spoiler already molded on it would be very difficult and expensive. To keep from "locking" the plug in the mold (for novices that is the part that the mold is being pulled from is called a “plug”) you would have to have a four piece (or more) mold in the rear of the car alone. This is not cost effective as without the spoiler the mold for the entire body could be made with a 4 piece or less mold. Even the 1969 Dick Harrell funny car has the rear spoiler added to it and then "molded" or slicked in.

I have always played the middle ground between your site and others, sometimes being on your side and sometimes on theirs. You are trying to make a good case that there were two 68 funny cars used by Dick and you are right: his car plus the Jim Kirby car, but he only owned one 68 Camaro funny car. There are too many people that can back this statement up and they are not the ones involved in this argument. You need to be the leader of this site and step up and show everyone pictures of your car as you found it(no matter what kind of shape it was in nor how much repair work has been done)and some during the restoration showing why you think you have a Dick Harrell car. Also I noticed that Valerie had posted pictures of her car on her website in the “as found” condition and it looks kind of rough. I feel if you do the same it can help end the arguments on both sides and get everyone back to talking about other things, like Christmas presents, check out one of mine!!!! Thanks to Santa for that one................RatPack...............

[DarrenX33]

Good thing you read all those old magazines Ed. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

[Steve Shauger]

Tom& Ed thanks for laying your case out for all to see. I am sure there will be more questions, but you do make a strong two car argument. And as I stated previously, funnycars by their nature change dramatically from one season to the next...let alone 36 year of pure abuse.
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Belair62]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to be the leader of this site and step up and show everyone pictures of your car as you found it(no matter what kind of shape it was in nor how much repair work has been done)and some during the restoration showing why you think you have a Dick Harrell car.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty weird statement...he IS the leader of this CLUB but for my 2 cents he really doesn't have to keep you happy...you have thrown around a lot of BS here Ratpack....coyly saying it may be a historical southern car...making references to people who know there were only 1 car but not naming anyone and since when did you become a funny car expert ?.....lets be realistic here..it's a funny car that was a POS and has probably been to 14 different hands and messed with each time...measuring magazine pics is pretty stupid. Just what is your whole interest in this anyway...tell me its just your historical interest right ? Lets face it..you , Val, Pulde or Timmy wouldn't know what the real Harrell car looked like if it walked up and bit them in the ass...most people wouldn't, myself included. All you can go by is what you can dig up and what people "who were there" tell you..Look at what happened when Pudle made the call on the Kirby car...he said it will never be a real Harrell car back then...they all peed on themselves and fawned over Toms car... now all of a sudden a message from the spirits or something and the [censored] hits the fan. Looks pretty obvious doesn't it ? If it were my car I would have the sandpaper out already whether it was Dicks car or not. All this really does is give people a chance to spank their little chubby because they think they finally are creating havoc with their arch enemy Tom ...hey maybe they want to steal the Gibb name and license the Harrell name and stop all the evil websites from using those name without paying http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif. This is a joke...these are cars and personal vendettas are for kids...but I guess if YOU have a "leader" that has absolutely nothing else to do but worry about how he can destroy the SYC it will go on forever...why don't people just tell him to screw off ? Tom...you guys can delete this...or fire me or whatever...this is just too much of a laugh for me...these are some strange birds and for me to try and be objective and try to pretend this is all about the funny car would be an insult to my intelligence....

[LVCamaro]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Rick H]

Breath Bob, breath, in and out, in and out, that's it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Rick H.

[Belair62]

Thats why I like 409's

[Rick H]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats why I like 409's

[/ QUOTE ]

And I bet she's real fine. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

Rick H.

[JChlupsa]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom...you guys can delete this...or fire me or whatever

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess a promotion to senior moderator is in order, FIRE YOU HELL NO!!!!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Steve Shauger]

There are a lot of people that feel the same way you do Bob, but...
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/BelairSucks.gif

This hobby is about havin fun with your buddies and true enthusiast. Lets focus what make this site great the PEOPLE and our CARS.

[Rat_Pack]

Bob, first off this is nothing personal towards Tom or anyone else on this site but some are trying to make it personal. As for my interest in funny cars, I have had one since 1970 after watching Dick, Don Prudhomme, Tom McEwen, and others racing at Bristol. I have been watching the posts on the other website and when you have an outsider, whether posting here or there, comes on and shows obvious evidence that a car is bogus then one has to wonder why it wasn't caught during the restoration. I have never been an expert on funny cars but I am an expert when it comes to researching a topic, ask Kim Howie http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif. I made a post stating something and then he came back and challenged it. Then what happened HE and I found out the truth talking on the phone and came to the same conclusions. We were both wrong, and both were right in the end.

I just read on the other site that Bob Gibson, who IS a funny car expert, has just stated what everyone wanted to know in the first place: Tom's car is not a Dick Harrell car and in fact it is the Huston Platt Dixie Twister. Congrats Tom!!! A "Southern" drag car found!!!.............RatPack....................

[Mr. T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to be the leader of this site and step up and show everyone pictures of your car as you found it(no matter what kind of shape it was in nor how much repair work has been done)and some during the restoration showing why you think you have a Dick Harrell car.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty weird statement...he IS the leader of this CLUB but for my 2 cents he really doesn't have to keep you happy...you have thrown around a lot of BS here Ratpack....coyly saying it may be a historical southern car...making references to people who know there were only 1 car but not naming anyone and since when did you become a funny car expert ?.....lets be realistic here..it's a funny car that was a POS and has probably been to 14 different hands and messed with each time...measuring magazine pics is pretty stupid. Just what is your whole interest in this anyway...tell me its just your historical interest right ? Lets face it..you , Val, Pulde or Timmy wouldn't know what the real Harrell car looked like if it walked up and bit them in the ass...most people wouldn't, myself included. All you can go by is what you can dig up and what people "who were there" tell you..Look at what happened when Pudle made the call on the Kirby car...he said it will never be a real Harrell car back then...they all peed on themselves and fawned over Toms car... now all of a sudden a message from the spirits or something and the [censored] hits the fan. Looks pretty obvious doesn't it ? If it were my car I would have the sandpaper out already whether it was Dicks car or not. All this really does is give people a chance to spank their little chubby because they think they finally are creating havoc with their arch enemy Tom ...hey maybe they want to steal the Gibb name and license the Harrell name and stop all the evil websites from using those name without paying http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif. This is a joke...these are cars and personal vendettas are for kids...but I guess if YOU have a "leader" that has absolutely nothing else to do but worry about how he can destroy the SYC it will go on forever...why don't people just tell him to screw off ? Tom...you guys can delete this...or fire me or whatever...this is just too much of a laugh for me...these are some strange birds and for me to try and be objective and try to pretend this is all about the funny car would be an insult to my intelligence....

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said Bob. I was going to write-up something just like it earlier today, but you have chosen the right words, and it is well written. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

I commend Tom for restoring his 68 DH Camaro Funny Car, and let all of us who attended SCR8, see it, and watch it tear up the 1/4 mile. I had the chance to talk to Tom a couple of times, and I tell you, he is a great guy, and I feel privileged that I had a chance to see this remarkable piece of DH history. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Belair62]

You could take that last statement and put it in your eye and you wouldn't feel it RP...I have no idea who Mr Gibson but I am sure he is well respected. So now Tom has another expert telling him what the car is !!!! I would have thought the guy that worked on it would know more than anyone but what do I know..I'm just a Global Moderator..bottom line RP...what I said above is the real deal and you know it , I know it...and a LOT of other people around here know it too...when the behind the scenes stuff gets exposed people see what's going on and will just continue to ignore them and treat them for what they are...when cars take on a personal hatred level for people and websites it's just weird...thats not what this site is all about..I consider very many of the people here friends...its not life or death ..its cars and a website..most people never new of the trademark stuff and now they do..it's sick...and I think we would rather see each others cars and talk about supercars and other fun stuff...until your people figure out a way to infiltrate and cause a stir...your stirs don't last long...we move on and forget about you. Happy New Year. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[kwhizz]

It sure looks like the same car to me.........Stick a Fork in it..........LOL......I'm walking in Bob's footsteps


Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[kwhizz]

LOL.....Looks like a lot of "Lawyereze"...........

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

[Charley Lillard]

This has gotten as stupid as ever. I personally hope the car is not a Harrell car. Over about the past year the folks at Harrell and Rabbit keep mentioning something stupid like "The train is coming". Is this the train ? I figured it was trying to steal the Gibb name and trademarking the Harrell name in a effort to control anyone having a Gibb or Harrell car. The train crap was about Toms funny car ? Greg..It is amazing how hindsight is always 20-20 in how something should be done. The car was sold to Tom with a reciept as a Dick Harrell car. The experts claim that there was only one 68 car but Tom has posted pics of what appears to be a second car. It is easy to nitpick it to death after the fact but I can also see how from the info Tom had he represented it as a Harrell car.
I know Tom and personally don't believe he would try to fake the car if he knew it wasn't one. If it is the Huston Platt car, I'm sure that will be OK also.To think this is some big conspirecy by Tom to fake a Harrell is just stupid. The argument that Tom is profiting off this car is silly. Do you think Tom charges to show the car at Vettefest, York, Laharpe etc ? He ran this website and put on the Reunion for years at a loss. Who has done more to promote the Dick Harrell name than Tom Clary and Bill Porterfield ? Val gets angry at Porterfield for selling T shirts mugs etc with the Harrell name on it and wants a fee. Porterfield takes the name off the car. Is that good for the Dick Harrell name ? This is fighting over fuckying T-shirt money! Does anyone really think Val was trying to trademark the Gibb name just so she could use it on her car ? Picture this. If Val gets control of the Gibb name. Does Helen have to get Vals permission to use the Fred Gibb logo on shirts hats,business cards etc ? Does the Fred Gibb Memorial show need Vals permission and will she charge a fee ? The Rabbits are starting a fund to help Val in her quest to win her court case against Dick Harrells sister? Are the Rabbits then going to support her financially in her quest for the Fred Gibb name ? If they are so set on honoring the memory of Dick Harrell why paint the 02 car in Pulde Warbird colors ? This is about trying to make money and trying to shut down what we do with the SYC. I am personally so very sick of the antics that I can no longer stand anything Dick Harrell related. Nice way for the memories to live on.
The Harrell - Hall suit will probably be decided by the courts. My personal opinion is The Halls have been using the Dick Harrell name since the 70's and did it with Dicks blessing. Mrs Hall is Dicks sister. Do your homework before crucifying the Halls for trying to stop Val.
The biggest crime of all is trying to Trademark the Fred Gibb name. Helen doesn't deserve to be put through this kind of crap.

[Mr70]

I agree 100% w/all that has just been said.
At work we play a game.
Anytime the DHarrell or Rabbit site mentions this infamous "train coming" innuendo..you do a shot.
Everytime greg2001LS6 goes off on an unorthodox tangent about someone...you do two shots.
We usually have to call a cab for someone nightly. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Xplantdad]

Dammit...I told myself and a few others that I wouldn't post on this topic...but I'm going to anyways...contrary to my own better judgement.

First of all, I really don't care one way or the other whether or not Tom has the DH funny car...it's just a MATERIAL thing. There are WAY more important things in life to be concerned with...and focusing all ones energy on negative things is idiotic.


Secondly, I have made a lot of friends on this site...and that's why I keep coming back every day to check in...These guys are my "extended family" across these great United States http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif They are the reason that I come back every day.



Thirdly...from what I've read on the other sites...I don't know how I can be a member of this site...as I'm not one of their so called "members of the flock...who has a super car...and has the secret handshake or whatever" I'm just a guy who happened to stumble onto a cool site and talk shop with a bunch of cool people. Sure, I like to post pictures from Pavillions and other car shows...and I hope that every one likes them...that's why I do it.



I do check the other sites heck I even signed up on the DH site this past March...though I've never posted there. There's some cool information there and on other sites, too.

The one thing that I like about this site is that when BS starts to happen...the mods nip it in the bud right away...I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here...but there's alot less of it happening now...Why? It serves no useful purpose...

Like a person on the other site said today...it's amazing what's said online...when people get behind the protection of their computers. Funny, I said that to a few members of this site via PM the other day.

I look forward to seeing everyone at Barrett Jackson which is coming up really quickly! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[kwhizz]

I look forward to seeing everyone at Barrett Jackson which is coming up really quickly! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruce.........Let me give you a "Tip".................................................. .........................Keep your hands in your pockets.....................LOL.......

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

[Belair62]

[ QUOTE ]
and has the secret handshake or whatever"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruce...nanu nanu http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Xplantdad]

[ QUOTE ]


I look forward to seeing everyone at Barrett Jackson which is coming up really quickly! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruce.........Let me give you a "Tip".................................................. .........................Keep your hands in your pockets.....................LOL.......

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


No worries Ken...my pockets are empty anyways...

Though, I'm the richest guy in the world http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif if you know what I mean...and I know that you do! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[kwhizz]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif



Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

I guess I write this both alittle PO'd and alittle in awe with this whole topic. You guys have demonstrate at least to me you could care less about serious research and the "truth" whatever path it takes with this car...

This car was bought as THE DH car, it will always be THE DH car, not because research or serious study said it is...but because some guy wrote on a piece of paper it is and someone bought it that way and happens to be your buddy and the owner of this website..and you guys think that is enough and that warrants a 100% definitve statement that it is THE 1968 DH funnycar..no matter what credible evidence there might be out there casting doubt..So it really never matters as it is THE 1968 DH car..just because it is


I wonder if by your post and your attitudes about seriosu research you thought far enough to see the potential ramifcations... You guys just opened up a qaugmire with respect to ANY Chevrolet "supercar" where a VIN isn't known to be historical fact..everything really except ZL1's....your COPO's, SSL78's, Z's as now all it takes is a "it must be one because I bought it that way" or "someone said it was" and as long as it looks relatively close to what that particular car should how can you say it isn't...After all if you will validate with 100% certainity such a historical piece as the DH FC with the same info and no real research then a relatively common Z or a COPO is a piece of cake...You guys did it now live with it..

[Xplantdad]

Greg, All I said is that I don't care whether it is or it isn't. There are WAY more important things in life to worry about...at least for me.

I've read all of the posts on both of the sites...and most of the posts deal with negative comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand...par for the course.

Will anyone ever be 100% sure of what the car is or isn't? I don't think so...as I don't think that you're a FC expert...and I am certainly not, nor ever will be. One thing is for sure... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif

[Belair62]

Whatever you say Greg...you really come up with some doozies sometimes. It's like from Mars or something.

[Mr70]

Doing two more shots here...http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[Stuart Adams]

I agree with Charley. He actually makes the most sense of this whole thing.

Greg, I understand your desire to make this clear cut. As an objective observer that last post actually offends me and I have NO intrest in the DH FC other than its cool. But to slam ALL of us because of this issue is WAY not cool.

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100% w/all that has just been said.
At work we play a game.
Anytime the DHarrell or Rabbit site mentions this infamous "train coming" innuendo..you do a shot.
Everytime greg2001LS6 goes off on an unorthodox tangent about someone...you do two shots.
We usually have to call a cab for someone nightly. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[55chevy]

ok.......back to the damn car... (btw I've been playing the drinking game and I am FACED http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Dixie Twister car... Here you go.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179094-dixietwister67camaro.jpg

[55chevy]

DT 2

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179096-dixietwister68camaro.JPG

[55chevy]

DT 3

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179097-houston_platt_dixie_twister_vs_kelly_chadwick.jpg

[55chevy]

DT 4

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179098-GDR-00044.jpg

[Steve Shauger]

Greg, you have just about offended everyone on this site with your last statement. I remember the last time you stirred the pot on the chevelle site regarding the LS6 registry and alienated everyone there as well. Give it a rest, and don't put words in our mouths with your self serving preaching.

Give me a double shot also...

[55chevy]

last one. If you have a copy of 10/67 SS&DI. There are what looks like some decent detailed pics of the car. Here is a crappy pic from Ebay.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179100-10674.jpg

[55chevy]

Thats all I got.. Look at the pics.. Draw your own conclusions. Happy Fu#&ing New Year!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]
....I just read on the other site that Bob Gibson, who IS a funny car expert, has just stated what everyone wanted to know in the first place: Tom's car is not a Dick Harrell car and in fact it is the Huston Platt Dixie Twister. Congrats Tom!!! A "Southern" drag car found!!!.............RatPack....................

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of interesting you mention Bob Gibson. The very first show we had the car at was the Hot Rod Reunion in Bowling Green, KY, parked in the American Racing Wheel booth, a guest of who else? Yep, Bob's. He even gave us a set of center caps for the rear wheels, and put a deal together for me to buy a set of headers from the '69 car. The 3rd show was Etown, where Bob was at as well. No time did he ever mention to Mo or I that he saw issues with the car.

And I have heard that Dave Libby has denounced the car as well. He too has spent considerable time with the car, and until now, never questioned the car's heritage, at least to Mo or I.

To the point now, hard to know who and/or what to believe when even the "experts" cannot cannot make up their minds about what is real and what is not? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[55chevy]

FYI.. http://forums.hotrod.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=87336&an=0&page=0#87336

wonder who "annomyous" is... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[SS427]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember the last time you stirred the pot on the chevelle site regarding the LS6 registry and alienated everyone there as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, can't believe I am posting on this thread but at least I will change the subject for a moment. Steve, no offense meant to either you or Greg but in the interest of keeping the LS-6 Registry out of a negative discussion as that is the last thing I need, I think you meant to say the ACES Chevelle club guidelines thread NOT the LS-6 Registry thread. Just wanted to clear the air and keep the registry on a positive note as I have spent considerable amounts of time to keep it that way. Sorry if I missed something if in fact I did. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif
Rick

Tom and others,


That sure does look a lot like your car..and imagine that..no need to come up with other cars or 1 car has different doors or tail lights or a different spoiler.....BUT..wait a min..it can't be YOUR car..because you bought your car from some guy and HE SAID you had a DH car..man what was I thinking....man glad I don't have to go in the garage and always wonder if my homework was right...Hopefully for you Huston Platt or someone else doesn't get looking at YOUR DH car and say "ghee" ...

Might you want to at LEAST, POSSIBLY look at re-researching what you have????

As far as my comments go...well here is a real world situation of a car I actually own and have spoken to others here about...

I have a 1969 X11, 02 built Hugger Orange Camaro. It has a BE rear in it and all the attributes of a COPO. There is no engine or trans however. I have been researching the car and its' history to try and determine if it is a COPO. I haven't spoken to Ed C about the car, instead wanting to further research the car..

However based on what you guys as a collective group (and since all the post from about pg 4 or so have people with stars on them) you as a group are voicing your collective opinion. I now feel comfortable saying the car IS a COPO. After all I did alittle research, the car looks like one, the guy I bought it from about 10 years ago thought it was one, and most importantly YOU as a group say it is...since no hard research, no hard documentation, no matter if there is a chance I'm wrong or that possible evidence to the contrary shows up...So in the space of 2 hours I can now bring a new, previously unfound, highly collectible COPO Camaro to the table. Well I'm giving some thought to selling and since "The Premier Supercar Website" just validated it for me the value just went up...

Thanks guys..you made my night...even as I'm being the butt of a lot of your childish jokes and post..

All I'm going to say in regards to some of the personal attacks, mocking post and jabs..I guess you guys have all the answers... Since I didn't specifically call anyone out by name but instead was called out by a few..especially someone in Steve Shauger (paceme) that I respected..notice the past tense i will take a sec to make a few comments..stay in the Camaro world..the last time I checked your knowledge of Chevelles and specifically LS6's it was fractional at best..You neither truly know me or are a "drinking buddy".. I expected better from you however, especially given the fact we have corresponded for 10 years or so..guess my judgement of you and your character was wrong as you se fit to make your post personal..I expected that sort of stuff from the likes of Rick Peters..after all everyone knows he is a female dog, but you I thought highly of..

I'm done..you guys figure out what Tom has

[Belair62]

Tom has Harrells car...I'm an expert now...I looked at the pics.End of story...hey why not ...its as good as anything else...this guy who is an expert had the car in his show booth...and saw it 2 years after...and never had any issues but now miraculously he looked at some pictures or something and he says it's not the car after all these years ? None of it smells right...now they are trotting their proclamation out to all kinds of websites praying someone will believe them but in time they will all see right thru it all...no matter what the car is ...Harrells name has suffered . Hopefully Val sees that

[jg95z28]

So now its definitely the Huston Platt car? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif Gee and today in less than one hour on google I found no less than half dozen other period 68 Camaro funny cars with the same passenger door defect, same spoiler and at least one definitely has the same tail lights. P-L-E-A-S-E.

Here's one for you raced by John Dekker. (Several pictures halfway down the page.)

http://coloradoracingmemories.com/crm_dekker_john/crmdekker.htm

So why couldn't it be any of these if its not the DH car?

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[Kim_Howie]

I am not a funny car expert but in 30 seconds I noticed the brace bars between the frame rails on the Platt car all run the opposite way than Tom's. Somebody must have noticed this!!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif Come on experts!! good night

[jerry67]

I don't personally care about any of this BS,but I did read some not all, I can't figure out where this Greg2001LS6 fits into this, he seems like he's lonely and needs to be controversial just for someone to talk to. I must say if you EVER stuck your nose into my business you wouldn't be around to do it again. GET A LIFE

[hvychev]

lol http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The evidence keeps pouring in. Looks like a rabbits smoke and mirror show staring the MAD hatter......Timmy! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

BTW I see what you mean Kim!

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179124-joker2.jpg

[Charley Lillard]

I am not a student of those pics that Ed posted but the other camps arguement is based on there being only one 67-8 Harrell car. Tom has said all along he thought there were two cars. Do Eds pics confirm 1 or 2 67-8 cars ? The guys studying every nut and bolt must have a opinion on that.

[Motion Camaro]

<font color="blue">WTF GUYS?!?!?!?
The only thing that really matters is that Tom has a really cool
nostalgia funny car, that looks like a DH car.

If I saw that car at a Funnycar Reunion or the Hot Rod Reunion,
I would think it was the coolest thing since sliced bread!

NOW, if Tom decides to sell that car as an original DH car,
THEN &amp; only THEN. should any of this BS matter.

I have been on this site for a couple of years now &amp; enjoy it most of the time.
I try to post interesting (but mostly funny) comments, because I am no expert on ANY of this.
Controversy is great to a point, but to try &amp; put someones blood, sweat &amp; tears down
because YOU THINK they are doing it ALL WRONG is crazy.

I wish I had the patience to build one of these nostalgia cars, real or copy,
because they are much cooler to me than the new megadollar stuff.
Anyway http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif &amp; I will continue to post, look &amp; listen, but please, STOP THE INSANITY! </font>




Some idiot on this site made an original Baldwin car a Pro-Street!!! Can you believe that!!!


<font color="blue">(oh, that was me, s*it, I can't even start controversy right.)</font>
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Steve Shauger]

My last post was directed to you only, which is why I addressed you Greg. To insinuate we don't care about research or the pedigree of a car is wrong. This site has uncovered many fake and bogus cars. What is the big deal with using your first name you have signed your posts "GS CARLSON".
I was comparing your badgering and unwarranted innuendos, with what you had done in the past on the Chevelle.net site regarding ACES judging format. You called into question the integrity of the head judges with absolutely no justification. You did apologize but the damage had been done. Give it a break, and get off your horse. I feel the same way about as I have in the past.

Rick, sorry as stated above I was referring to the ACES judging format...amazing you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Regarding have a double shot, I am not planning on having a drink with you anytime soon.

Respectfully,

S A Shauger

[kwhizz]

..I expected that sort of stuff from the likes of Rick Peters..after all everyone knows he is a female dog,
(POSTED BY GREG)

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

[70 copo]

This whole issue is "moot" as neither party can "Prove it" one way or the other - to the other's satisfaction.

This has gotten sick and personal now, and looks like a well planned and coordinated premeditated attack on the entire SYC website and in addition the attacks have now spread to at least one secondary website.

This is not good as we as a site are being dragged through the mud on an issue that is not subject to debate. It is Tom's car and no one elses.

But Really this is not about Tom's car. This whole matter is about attacking this site and its members and seems to be part of a larger plan.

Moderators Please "call the cab".

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

[Stuart Adams]

Greg, I WAS going to just let your comments about ALL OF US just kinda slide off my back with little comment, but your last post blew that.
Being an outsider to this doesn't it seem real fishy how the TWIST of this has happened. People in the know praising the car then but suddenly now SPINNING it around. See as an unbiased obserever with no passion either way, I see the Harrell name severly damaged in this process. Look there are real SUPERCAR enthuisiasts that would not even touch one of the Harrrell cars now. I see no conclusive evidence its NOT a DH FC.
As far as your COPO, try and sell it as real and the market will tell you in $ if it is, get it. See the price of the cars now mandate thourough research and from the sounds of your copo docs the price won't be what YOU think.
I still don't understand why you would go to this extreme to alienate everybody over this , for what, who cares. Sell your computer and move on man.

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]
So now its definitely the Huston Platt car? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif Gee and today in less than one hour on google I found no less than half dozen other period 68 Camaro funny cars with the same passenger door defect, same spoiler and at least one definitely has the same tail lights. P-L-E-A-S-E.

Here's one for you raced by John Dekker. (Several pictures halfway down the page.)

http://coloradoracingmemories.com/crm_dekker_john/crmdekker.htm

So why couldn't it be any of these if its not the DH car?

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, WOW! Everyone really needs to check out that link. And I would love to see some of the other pictures you uncovered. Talk about shedding new light on the whole passenger door defect, same spoiler and definitely the same tail light theory posted elsewhere.

BTW, does anyone know, and/or can anyone tell what company produced the body for the Western Sound FC?

[Racefan]

I am not taking sides on any of this, as truly it doesn't effect my life in any way, shape, or form.

That being said, it seems to me that the only way to put thhis thing to bed is to post pictures of the car in both the "as found" condition and pics from the resto process. In sanding my plain jane '68 I got down to original factory paint, there HAS to be some photos documenting what you found. Post these and let's be done with the whole thing.

For the record, I agree that the only time this is really pertinent is if/when TC goes to sell the car. Otherwise, it is just a pi$$ing contest.

[sYc]

When times were simpler. Valerie Harrell with my car.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50145-VALCAR.JPG

[sYc]

Valerie and Pudle with my car. Is Dale trying to open the door? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50146-DP-VH.JPG

[sYc]

Pulde in my car, approaching the water box.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50149-BOX1.JPG

[sYc]

Pulde exiting the water box.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50150-BOX2.JPG

[sYc]

Dave Libby with my car, his hand resting on the spoiler.

BTW, the credit for these photos go to Mr. Libby.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50148-DAVE-CAR.JPG

[GRB]

I'm too ADD to know what the hell all this is about but somehow it kinda makes me glad I'm into the 02 Camaros. But then again, that's just me and I'm known for being very confused and a little slow on the uptake.

[sYc]

And this one, my car pitted along side Bruce Larsen's. Life does not get any better then that. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/50154-RESTCAM.JPG

[jg95z28]

Tom here's a few more cars from the same era..

Polar Chevrolet (Minnesota) sponsored car. (Not sure who the driver is.) Courtesy of nitrogeezers.com, photo by Vern Scholz. (Notice the door blemish?)

[jg95z28]

Polar also sponsored Jim Hodges Musicland Camaro (from the same series of photos by Vern Scholz). Notice there's no spoiler?

[jg95z28]

Mike Burkhart is another possibility...
(Can't see door blem due to the cars paint, but the spoiler matches.)

[jg95z28]

However, Tom did say he found the car in Illinois, correct?

Dekker was out of Colorado
Hodges and Polar Chevrolet, Minnesota
Huston Platt, Georgia
Burkart, Texas

According to the Dick Harrell website, he was in Illinois in 1967 and moved to Missouri sometime in 1968. Fred Gibb (one of the cars sponsors I believe) was in Illinois.

What are the chances of Tom's car being one of these others? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

[jg95z28]

Here's one more of the other side of Platt's car. Notice the odd window set-up? The other Platt photos don't show this.

[jg95z28]

Yet another Dixie Twister photo. Notice how the openings in the front valance appear to be cut-out?

(Also notice the '67 Altered wheelbase Camaro in the far lane?)

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Burkhart is another possibility...
(Can't see door blem due to the cars paint, but the spoiler matches.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgot about MB. From what I have read, his car was a twin to Dick's except for a working driver's door. Looking at him in the car makes it easy to see why the need for the door.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179174-burkhart%2Cmike1.jpg

[jg95z28]

Personally I like Jim Dekker's candy-apple red paint scheme the best. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

I wouldn't be too sure those were holes in the valence..More than likely paint..Wouldn't actual holes negate the oversize sheetmetal front spoiler all of these cars ran? The front spoiler I would think would help to keep air from getting under the car and creating unwanted lift. Same reason these cars sat very low on the track. Not to mention the front spoiler might in some way create downforce on the front end to keep nose down and an realtivly even although slightly rear biased weight transfer..

Race cars move around...wasn't ZL1 #1 at one point in TX or Fl?

As everyone can see there are quite a few 1968 cars that are very similar to Tom's car.

Was DH receiving any money or sponsorship from Fred Gibb in 1967 or 1968?

[Kim_Howie]

I was reading on the Harrell site that Dave Libby stated the frame was not right because the cage was too high maybe the frame is for a cuda or a mustang.Quote "roll cage too tall for the body" Also the body quote "Body needs to be 3-4" lower" Please look at all of the cars on both sites. The front lower valance panel on Tom's car is level with the spindle!!! Look at the old pics and the new pics. There all the same height!!! I don't see any of the lower than the spindle. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[Kim_Howie]

NO, Bill's # 1 ZL-1 was found in Des Moines ,Ia. Jim Cooper owned it. I use to watch in race at Eddyville,Ia I just about crapped when I found out in was the org. ZL-1. Des Moines is 149 miles from Laharp,Ill. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

I'm sorry..I was going off memory..I thought the car had been campagined or was going to be by a guy owning a Pizza Hut and he was somewhere south..


What about DH and Gibb in 1967 or 1968???

It is interesting to me that the 1967 DH car is shown with a black top..I would think he would have used that color scheme as his first color scheme on his 1968 car. But if he did and Tom's car is "Car 1" as he puts it..no door..how can that be..Wouldn't his first Car have the door like the 1967 car, which I don't think is in dispute? Why go from "door" (1967) to "no door" (TC's car), then back to "door" (Car 2 in Tom's hypothesis the burgundy car)???

Also is it possible that DH painted his cars in the same schemes as Gibb (look at Lil Hoss) because he received money or some sort of support there..After all the 1967 car while carrying both "Courtsey" and "Yenko" sponsorship was painted and looked very similar to "Lil Hoss" red/blk top, and Tom's "Car 2" looks like a very similar paint scheme to ZL1 #1 which was certainly a Gibb/Harrell collaboration. I guess I'm lost as the only way I can see Tom's hypothesis working is if his car is the first car and it has a door (which it doesn't).. he thinks his is Car 1 as well, However there isn't a door and general common knowledge, he evens makes reference to it in a previous post..about MB is this door..So if the Harrell, Burkhart, and Kirby cars were from the same mold and were identical..Where is the door?

[olredalert]

-------Greg,,,Several posts ago you said you were done. Whats changed??? Can we please count on you really being done the next time you say you are???.........Bill S

[Kim_Howie]

He owned a Pizza Hut in Des Moines, Ia. His dad Louie was a track offical at E-ville for years. Kim

[Belair62]

Jeff....see if you can dig up a 68 F/C in the Coke Cavalcade for me !

[ANDY M]

Greg, or GS Carlson, please allow me to offer some observations I've made in watching this whole clusterf*#k unwind:

1)I have never met most of the guys on this site, including you, yet I feel like I can call them friends.
The reason why I can say this is that there is no sense of hostility that can't be resolved with more than a simple PM. I have never met you, yet I seem to already know you.
2) As Bruce (Xplantdad) pointed out, these are just cars, THINGS that guys like to talk and argue about, but at the end of the day, they are still just things.
3) As someone who IS heavily medicated, I am truly amused as to why all of this BS is so critically important. Like several people have pointed out, the cars are not for sale, so is there nothing else to talk about than piddly details of a car that was probibly modified on a weekly basis?
If the crew chief thought he could shave a 100th off his ET by using Turtle wax instead of Simonize, he'd do it. If he thought a grade 8 frame bolt would save a 10th over a grade 5 bolt, guess which one he'd use. They didn't keep a diary for future documentation for guys like you. They worked their butts off to shave a 100th off their ETs, so their sponsor wouldn't hire someone else for next years season.
4) I too own a COPO with no documentation. Its been discussed on this site, but not argued about. Why? Because I don't care that it's incorrect, incomplete, and poorly detailed. I drive it, beat on it once in a while, and enjoy it. It's not for sale, so nobody has seen fit to try and tear it apart. If anyone wants to come to Columbus to look it over, give me a call. I would be happy to show it off. If you want to rag on it afterwards, be my guest.
My medication helps to keep me from getting overly emotional. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif (Check my signature)
Did I mention that there are other things in life that are more important? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif
Tom Clary is a credit to this hobby, and he will be the last guy to let you down. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Thank God we have the freedom to waste time like this. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif
Andy

[Seattle Sam]

[ QUOTE ]
But if he did and Tom's car is "Car 1" as he puts it..no door..how can that be..Wouldn't his first Car have the door like the 1967 car, which I don't think is in dispute? Why go from "door" (1967) to "no door" (TC's car), then back to "door" (Car 2 in Tom's hypothesis the burgundy car)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
The terms Car 1 and Car 2 were used to easily identify one car from the other, not to indicate which one was built first.

Greg, I don't know you and I have stayed out of this until now, but it becomes increasingly more clear with each of your posts that you are NOT trying to be objective and research a car, instead you are trying to discredit Tom's car as a DH car.

If you in fact think that you are neutral on the matter, I urge you to go back and re-read all of your posts, why have you taken it on your shoulders to question this so closely? What's in it for you?

I believe Tom has gone above and beyond where he "needed" to go to present why he believes his car is a DH car, and I for one believe him. You can't get away from the point that folks who were there have validated this car when it didn't make any difference to them one way or the other. Now that some of these same people have a dog in the hunt, they suddenly change their stories.

Greg, as Mr. Neutral, why don't you call them to task for changing their stories? Their motives should be clear to you from reading their web postings, why are you in support of them? Why, instead, are you challenging the integrity of the family who clearly has done far more than anyone to promote and preserve all these supercars?

I'm personally insulted by your insinuations and innuendos against the Clary's, you have stepped way over the line here.

[55chevy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet another Dixie Twister photo. Notice how the openings in the front valance appear to be cut-out?.(Also notice the '67 Altered wheelbase Camaro in the far lane?)

[/ QUOTE ] This is the same pic I posted earlier in this tread. I cropped and enlarged it. Look on page 3 for a better view.
.
.
.

Also about the 1967 FC (Dicks 1st FC).. Look at the photos I posted. It is clearly a different car (body and chassis) than the 1968 car/cars.. What does the damn door and paint job have to do with the '67 car as compaired to the '68?? The '67 is a longer nose front engine setup that has lift off hood and poor fitting panels. It's NOT the same car as the '68 car. That's obvious.

[redeuce]

The ’68 Funny Car thread has prompted me to enter this post. I am a member of numerous boards, almost never post (I don’t like to argue) unless it is in defense of a “wronged” car. I never quite seem to fit in as a member of any of the boy’s clubs. However, I am not a novice. I have been in the hobby my whole life and in the business over 10 years. I have been involved in the sale of many high profile Classic vehicles. I have also appraised/sold/brokered/attempted to sell/ or represented numerous race cars- Red Alert Chevelle, Arnie’s Judge, Nicholson’s Super Cat, Scavo’s ’65 Impala, CC Ryder ’41 Willys, Chuck Finder’s 33 Willys Replica Darkhorse II, Just A Lil’ Trip Willys, Pulsation Mopar,. Etc. This thread has prompted me to air 4 major concerns I have regarding the state of the market and hobby in general

.EXACT SCIENCE- Many in the classic car circles are attempting to elevate the documentation of Collector Cars to some form of exact black and white configuration. Granted, there are hundreds of fully documented, positively identifiable examples. However, there are also many lesser known vehicles falsely debunked for lack of “full evidence”. Truthfully, back in the day, the factory made errors, line changes, or some vehicles just slipped through the cracks. These vehicles were produced in an era when documentation was sometimes sketchy- the builders, sellers, racers of these beauties had no idea at the time the value would be elevated to such present day figures. Henceforth, to attempt to pigeon hole every vehicle is not always possible. This leads to the second concern.

DOUBLE STANDARD- I see many sites employing 2 sets of standards concerning vehicles. Many car owners are crucified for replacement trim tags, partial rebodies, etc, yet some of the high profile vehicles out there have undergone the exact same process.

SCOPE OF WEBSITE- Most respected websites began as mother sites for a certain select type of vehicle. Yet many have now expanded into documentation sites for all vehicles, sometimes well outside of the website’s expertise. Anyone can pick out a book in their personal auto library and offer an “expert” opinion. However, unless one has hands on experience with that particular car, I believe they should remain silent. I have seen many false opinions on many boards. I have also seen reputations questioned and sales sabotaged by false information.

MARKET- As an appraiser, I have a growing concern regarding the trends in the market. More and more investment quality vehicles are flowing to a relatively smaller pool of collectors. As in the late ‘80’s, early ‘90’s, the average person is being priced out of the market. As the smaller pool gains control, they have an ability to set the market. However, at some point, when all the high dollar collectors finish trading back and forth, selling, and buying, there is an inevitable leveling of the field that will occur, followed by some type of adjustment. When this occurs, the effect on the hobby concerns me. OK- Get out your chain saws and slice me up. These are just my observations.

Randy Paddock
No Fear Motor Sports Inc.

[Kim_Howie]

Greg, The 67 car is a STEEL body car. They have doors. All cars after that are full body glass cars. I hope that answers your question door no door door.

[Kim_Howie]

Randy good answers http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

[jg95z28]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff....see if you can dig up a 68 F/C in the Coke Cavalcade for me !

[/ QUOTE ]

I found some Coke Cavalcade photos from the 1970's.

Exactly what car are you looking for?

[Belair62]

A 67/8 Camaro http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Jeff H]

Hey Jeff, great pictures you dug up showing the same 68 funnycar body. I think that shows there were a few of them running around back then from the same mold. But to my untrained eye, neither of the 68 DH cars that have been shown look like Tom's car. The lower rocker area appears to be very different on the 1st DH car(non opening door car) where Tom's lower rocker area appears to be identical to the Platt car and the others that Jeff linked pictures to. The height of the rocker and the angle it bends down and in behind the front tire don't match. But I know I'm not a funnycar or fiberglass expert so please don't throw anything at me. JMO for what it's worth.

I forgot I wanted to ask another question. I'm lost in all the information that is going around. Did I read somewhere in these posts that one of the 68 cars had the body removed and a 69 body placed on it for the 69 season? If so, would that have been the 68 with the open door? Sorry if I'm getting my information mixed up. I think this is a great discussion as long as we keep it civil.

[DaJudge]

Here's a cool picture of the 68 car that Dave Libby posted, he is on the left.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/L67WT1/SEPT68.jpg

[jg95z28]

Just in case you folks get bored...

http://www.60sfunnycars.com
http://www.70sfunnycars.com
http://www.nitrogeezers.com/Contents-Photo%20Collections.htm
http://www.gilchristbnw.com/GPC/drag_racing.html
http://www.quartermilestones.com/indy1970.htm
http://coloradoracingmemories.com/index.htm
http://www.classicthunder.net/
http://georgiadragracing.com/photos/byclass/class-funnycar.html
http://www.nitrosteve.net/

[PeteLeathersac]

I lost track waaaaaay back and am thankful I don't need to worry about it....sure am enjoying all the pics though! ~ Pete

[MikeA]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a cool picture of the 68 car that Dave Libby posted, he is on the left.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/L67WT1/SEPT68.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but is that Car #1?

Also, I think Mr. Libby should be a "stand-up" guy and explain his apparent change in opinion.

[Stuart Adams]

Pete, me too. Being an eye doc, I thought I said "which is better one or two", alot." My head is spinning at the moment.LOL.

All these cars look alike after while.

Rick, pour me a shot!!

I debated about posting agian as I think the outcome will stay the same and I don't think the majority on this website will ever want to truly engage in a rationale, objective, jab free discussion about a members car..let alone THE head members car...When I use the term "you" in this post..it means a majority or the site..not necessarily one person..

I guess what I have always saw from this site, and heard and chose to ignore from other sites (and interestingly NOT just the 2 you guys are probably thinking of..hell not even only Chevrolet sites..remember if you like hi-po Chevies you probably also like other makes as well..) I finally saw firsthand. This time I can't look the other way...you guys (the majority here..so if "you" feel it applies then it does) are soo hypocritical....You slam and publicly pick apart guy cars that come here looking for answers, cars on Ebay and other websites that have NEVER been here, yet yuo feel teh need to stick your noses into their auctions, and in some cases make such a mockery of others work that it is sickening..How would you feel if some bozo's on SYC were slamming your car when you had no idea who or what SYC is???Yet when the critiquing turns inward you circle the wagons, make trite stupid post, refuse to engage in meaningful discussion, deflect all questions, and attack anyone that dares challenge your cars, views, or this stupid website..

Well no offense the last time I checked there wasn't a Jesus among anyone here..You guys come off like this how the hobby is supposed to be..when in actuality you are soo far removed from it in a lot of cases. It is supposed to be about having fun and being able to engage in discussion that teaches, entertains, and is meaningful. However that isn't done here..instead you put yourselves, your collections, and your pompous attitudes above others and it shows. Don't believe me..go to other sites and read some of the post..not from people you kicked off, but from people that came here looking for an answer or to see some really cool cars and read some of the post..I'm done with this website and the attitudes here..You guys are soo blinded that you validate and hold everyone's car to a higher standard yet can't do the same for a member..no matter who he is...All I've heard is how "those" guys were so bad..how they caused problems, etc..Well maybe they do and maybe they are asses who knows..BUT when THIS website and members here had a chance to apply the same attitudes, criteria,etc to a members car they couldn't..NO MAKE THAT WOULDN'T.....that is the travesty to me...the visible double standard that is here..

I honestly enjoyed meeting some of you guys..even if only through the internet..C. Lillard, BelAir Bob, Kim Howie (thanks for answering my questions..) and many more..


Here is an IM I sent to Tom earlier today. It is composed of 2 Im's I had sent to another very senior member here that I enjoyed chatting with and learned from.

Tom I'm actually not over my head, ad I'm very familiar with 'glass..The point I was making and have been making all this time is you are so focused on proving you have the DH car...the one the guy said you bought, the one you have marketed all these years, ets. that you aren't even being objective in looking at other possible cars. Here is a copy of a IM I sent to one of the more senior guys here, who I always think is objective..I'll give you his name if you wish as there is nothing to hide:

After reading all the post and trying to ask questions here is my take on it..

It seems IMO that there was 1 car....The one thing that I'm not sure has been done is take ALL the evidence and not just "sound bites" if you will and look at it from an objective standpoint. People are using pics..well are there dates on the pics..if not do they know where they were taken and then events can be looked up to find the dates..what are the dates of magazines...betweent the introduction of a new model year (body stlye) how much time is there to actually race..mostly good weather right..no winter..??? these are the types of things that need to be done and it sounds like neither Tom or anyone else has probably done that. The impression from Tom I get is he bought the car ONLY because he was TOLD it was a DH car..he even says so in his original threat..not wanting the other car..only the DH car. So he went into this automatically thinking he had a DH car..wrong think to do with a race car.

I've been around drag racing, as I'm sure you and many others have. I'm from the south.. Virginia actually where a lot of these types of cars ran on the match race circuit..These cars are much like NASCAR cars..the chassis's are pretty identical, but the bodies can have difference (as can the chassis's ) I'm not sure how many chassis builder's there were, but probably only a handful, same as bodies..so you get more than 1 or 2 cars looking pretty damn near the same..Remember competitve advantage? Take a NASCAR today as well as the current FC...they can and do change boddies, even between makes on the same chassis...

Back to the DH car..IMO there was 1 1968 DH car...I think what is being posted is actually the same car..just wearing different paint schemes as either damage, sponsors, or the racing year changed. Interesting I haven't seen where anyone has thought that maybe DH and Gibb as a result of their 1969 endeavors together might want his (DH)1968 car in a more "Gibbish" color scheme...look at the ZL1 and the "2nd" car as Tom puts it..pretty similar color scheme and colors.
I feel that the 1968 car started out either as an all red car with no roof, then went to the red/black roof (which in the pics actually looks like a vinyl roof..complete with a grain texture..vs. Tom's black paint), of course you can change first red/blk then to all red at this point until dated evidence comes in.. and finally as a result of the ending model year (racing season) and a new car/deal with Gibb (either money for the new car or commonality) to the late, burgundy scheme. I feel another reason the 2 car argument doesn't hold water is why would Dick, having 2 cars drive the Kirby car??? Aren't multicars indicative of a back up car...no need to drive someone else's car to meet comittments..

Tom has used his photos to try and say there are 2 cars..I would think if the true 1967 car..the one with the steel rear and more of a Pro Stock today, had a door which no one is suggesting otherwise, then wouldn't DH had wanted a door on his "new" 1968 car..after all he would have been accustomed to it and it could have been something that the car body builders were set to do..There is photographis evidence showing at least 1 Harrell car had a door..Tom is saying it is the later car..IF that is so why wouldn't his earlier car have one??? Makes no sense..The ONLY way Tom's 2 car theory works is if HIS body is the earlier car..the car he says has bolted in lights and roof...trouble is it doesn't make logical sense...Why would DH have a later car with a door, no door on the "early" 1968 car, when his 1967 car had a door as well..

2nd part in another IM

Sorry for the 2 parter...

Following my previous thoughts... If I'm not mistaken the Gibb cars were red (or I believe that is the way Lil Hoss is currently done)..red with a black vinyl roof..isn't it possible or has anyone even thought/researched if there was a tie between Dick and Fred at this point..We know that in 1969 there certainly was and what Tom calls "Car 2" was painted at some pont with a Gibb color scheme..why not have a similar color scheme at an earlier date...although on the same body. Why did DH paint a car..whether his only car or another car in the same scheme that was used by Fred Gibb... Tom says in some of the pics he is SURE there are 2 cars shown but the pics are very inconclusive at best..Instead of HYPOTHESIZING there are 2 cars he accepts it as FACT and claims his car is in FACT one of those cars..yet in his post he says he isn't sure there were 2 cars or that he even owns one...Since he claims not to have gained anything from owning the car..no notoriety, money or anything else..and hell Rob even sent me an unsolicited, somewhat caustic IM yesterday saying they don't..why not remove the DH name from the car and put retractions here and in the mags..stating he can't be 100% sure and rather than use the name he wants to error on the side of caution..What does it hurt..He can't and won't as this car is something he both bought as a DH car, with only a "someone said it is" for docs and without proper research, has stated publicly it is. Let's face reality..if he doesn't steadfast swear his car is, even though 10 mins of internet searching produces many cars that are extremely similar then he looks like an idiot and is guilty of what he preaches here about clones, recreation, and all that stuff..

I guess the biggest problem I have with this whole fiasco is the way it has been viewed..If someone other than Tom, both everyone's buddy here and the owner of the site , brought a 1968 FC Camaro to light and plastered "Harrell" on the side and said he had the definitve 1968 DH car..wouldn't the car and also they be scrutnized??? Hell "you guys" (the collective members here)..scrutnize cars daily..off Ebay, other websites, your own site...hardly ever a members car though. Can I do it and receive the same unbiased support through refusing to even have an open mind most have taken on here..If so maybe I should go find an old 1968 FC Camaro with a door, as we KNOW DH had one of those..not only by the photos, and movies, but by Tom's own admission..letter it as a DH car and call it as such..there is no burden of proof as there hasn't been with Tom..see my point?

It is so far out of hand now..guys I thought I had somewhat of a peronal correspondence with such as Steve Shauger are questioning why I sign a post a certain way..how crazy is that??? Unfortunatly it seems meaningful, educated discussion about a members car can't take place here..that is a shame. Sad as all I wanted was to find out what car Tom has and how he arrived at that conclusion...


Tom I have and alwasy will be somewhat on your side, as I truly don't believe you are trying to defraud anyone or use the Harrell name where it isn't warranted. However you need to produce the "as found" pics of the car. This is the only way to clear this up...I personally think it was very premature for you to put definitve statements on your car given both the nature of the car (an old race car) and the obvious lack of concrete documentation. Now that you have publicly said you can't prove 100% it is a DH car or that there were 2 cars in the first place..doesn't it make alittle more sense to retract the "irrefutable, definitive" statements you made and continue to make and do some follow up research. What if by chance you DO have another car..better to take the high road, then find out later. I will of course not be truly affected either way..but as you can see there are OTHER entirely plausible HYPOTHESIS, which is all you have to say YOUR car is THE DH car.

Repectfully,

G S Carlson


xxxxxx


Please remove my profile from your site. I would like to be able to come here and view post as there are some great guys with tons of knowledge. I do not to be able to post here or contribute any idea, knowledge or thought I have. This is my own wish.

Respectfully,

G S "Gregory" "Greg" "Gregg" "G Dog" (old Marine name..)Carlson..that's for you Shauger..guess it makes you feel better..get a life..you were much cooler when you were "Steve Shauger..Camaro guy" instead of "Steve Shauger Yenko owner"

[DaJudge]

Mike, like I said it's a cool picture, I don't care if its car 1 ,2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 or even car 51. I will not express any opinion as it is not my business and I don't have one, all I know is that I have learned a helluva lot about funny car drivers and some cool history. The parties involved are the ones who need to discuss this and preferably not in an open forum where the whole story may not be told.

Keep the pics coming as I said they are very cool !

[70 copo]

G Dog...

WOW you finally called your own cab...

Bye Bye.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[sYc]

NHRA National Hot Rod Reunion 2003
Home &gt; Articles &amp; Stories &gt; NHRA National Hot Rod Reunion 2003
NHRA National Hot Rod Reunion 2003

by David Dilbeck, Editor
GeorgiaDragRacing.com

(See, also, NHRA National Hot Rod Reunion Photos. Sorry, photo album is no longer available.)

WOW!

Where do I begin? The Reunion staff (Bob Daniels, Eileen Daniels, Steve Gibbs, Ryan Ono, George Phillips, and Yvonne Wagner) put together an amazing event.........

Larry Reyes and his wife were spotted and we had a short visit. I had met them last September at Sol and Anne Stewart's Old Drag Racer's Reunion in Panama City Beach, FL. It was good to see them again. <font color="red"> Next, I stopped by Bob Gibson's American Racing Equipment trailer and met Tom Clary and Maurice Wiggs. They had brought Tom's restored Dick Harrell Camaro funny car to the reunion. Another fun time talking racing and restorations! </font> While talking to Bob Gibson, I learned that Dan Storey had purchased the Hubert Platt Mustang funny from Georgian Donnie Reeves. Dan and his sons are the owners of Tennessee Thunder Motorsports (an amazing collection of Ford drag cars). I met Dan and later took <font color="blue">Hubert Platt </font> by to meet him and his sons. Photos were taken and Hubert was soon 'on stage' with his tales of drag racing.


Thought this was interesting and ironic. Here is alink to the whole article. http://georgiadragracing.com/articles/hot-rod-reunion-2003.html

[Charley Lillard]

I actually like the G dog name. Instead of anyone telling Tom over the last couple years that they had doubts about the car, it appears they have spent about a years building up their case against it. It is too bad it happened that way. Is Tom supposed to refute all this stuff in a day or two ? Does that seem fair ? I'm guessing that if you allowed me a year I could probably make a pretty good case for the world being flat also.
Were there 2 67-8 Harrel cars ? The pics that are posted make me think so. I see pics of a car without opening doors and a narrow spoiler that Tom thinks is his. I also see a car with opening doors and a long 3 ribbed spoiler that Tom does not think is his but others think that is the one he is claiming. I don't know if Tom has a Harrell car, a Platt car or one of the many other cars that are now surfacing. What is the car that Tom posted with the stubby non 3 rib spoiler and non opening doors ?

[sYc]

Exactly! In the beginning my two car theory was shot down because the experts said Dick's car had a functional door. Which I agree with 100%, I have seen the pictures and the video. But, I think any open minded can person clearly see that car-1, R/B in the color pics, on the lift with Libby in the magazine article, does not have a functioning door.

In fact, Mo asked Libby this, "if Tom's car was supposed to have a door, as you now say, how could you spend hours with the car and not notice that Tom's car did not have a door?" Dave's reply "Dick did not use it much".

Libby missed the door, but knows the spoiler is at the wrong angle, a brace is a tad off, etc.

To sum it up, the only person who should know more about the car then anyone, either has been forced to change his story or simply does not have a clue.

I would like to know which one it is?

[Chevy454]

Another thing I'm wondering about in the picture below...*if* the car has a functioning door, shouldn't the interior tin work reflect that? I don't see any breaks on the driver's side tin? To get out with the door, you'd have to go *over* what looks like a pretty tall lower rocker tin, but *under* the cage's diagonal cross bar, and still yet *behind* the bulkhead and front cage bar...can you say contortionist?! Also, what kinda latch is that gonna use, 'cause a regular door latch ain't gonna work (no door jam)? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/L67WT1/SEPT68.jpg

[sYc]

For now, I would like everyone to not focus on my car, but on the two car theory. Once that is settled, then throw my car into the mix.

Points to compare.
<font color="red"> One car real taillights, one molded.
One with functional door, one not. </font>

[Jeff H]

I know I'm seeing several different paint and sponsor setups in these pictures. And I can't really imagine how the opening door would really be set up on the one car. But if I assume I'm looking at 2 different cars it also looks like both were solid red at one time and both had the black top at some point in time. The latest picture shows the "Howards" in what appears to be black or dark paint but it appears as a light color paint in the other pictures. The "*" is in some pictures and not others. And there appear to be fender and quarter pinstripes in some pictures but not others. Would they have used Kirby's car and painted over Kirby's name for whatever race they needed it? It seems like way too many changes to be 1 car showing up with different paint/sponsors that many times but I guess it's possible. If there was any way to date the pictures it would help understand if there was a sequence as the car changed. But it's hard to look at old photos that could be distorted and the black/white photos that could be reflecting a gold or silver background as light or dark depending on the angle. Whhhewww, my eyes need a beer!

[Belair62]

Hey Rob...just a side note...the 66 GTO Grey Ghost was not a fliptop and had a drivers door...they used a fence gate latch !!! I cant figure out why there would ever be a door on a flipper...

[musclecarjohn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike Burkhart is another possibility...
(Can't see door blem due to the cars paint, but the spoiler matches.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgot about MB. From what I have read, his car was a twin to Dick's except for a working driver's door. Looking at him in the car makes it easy to see why the need for the door.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179174-burkhart%2Cmike1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I met Mr. Doran awhile back (he still lives in Pebble Beach) and it was great talking with him about the good 'ol days.he is so unassuming,you'd never know who he was.Great guy to talk to.

Speaking of F/C's,my dad built the first flip-top '67 Buick Skylark F/C called "Ingenue" and it was sponsored by the New York Buick Dealers Association.It was powered by a blown 430 ci Wildcat buick motor and my dad's shop was Brooklyn Speed &amp; Machine.I found a photo of it on the 'net at NY National Speedway vs. M. Durham's Strip Blazer '67 Camaro.
I was just a kid but I remember when he picked up the body from F-Trends in Chicago in the dead of winter...that thing must have been 5/16" thick if it was anything! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

Anyone heard about this car...? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[markjohnson]

As far as doors go, I guess the reasoning is for a very quick exit during a fire. Those were the days before on-board fire suppression systems and I believe even Gas Rhonda was burned badly in a funny car fire. If you've seen the video of Dick's famous wheelstand in New York that ended in a fire, it's amazing how fast he gets out of the car!

[Belair62]

By the looks of that car I think he would need Hurst tool to get out !!! These guys were nuts !

[Mr70]

Those guys were Warriors!


...Adios "G Dog" http://home.mchsi.com/~angieknoll/drunk.gif

[Chevy454]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that the 1968 car started out either as an all red car with no roof, then went to the red/black roof (which in the pics actually looks like a vinyl roof..complete with a grain texture..vs. Tom's black paint), of course you can change first red/blk then to all red at this point until dated evidence comes in..

[/ QUOTE ]
Something else to note...the black "vinyl" top on the red/black car was a *spray on* type vinyl top...that is why it has some texture to it, but it was still painted on...that info was straight from Dave Libby himself. So changing the overall paint scheme on the car wouldn't have been as simple as a "mask it &amp; spray it" deal...I'm betting it would take some time to get the vinyl roof area smooth...

Sooo...any ideas on the tin-work and a functioning door? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[sYc]

Since some folks are not buying the two car theory, lets see how the one car theory flies.

We know the car was all red, no spoiler, real tail lights in early ’68, in California.

Next it appears in KC , Red with a spray can black Vinyl roof, spoiler (no vanes) and real tail lights. And no door?

Fast forward to mid ’68, the car now has a spoiler with vanes (some one did a hell of a job with the vanes), the tail lights are now molded in (once again some one did a great job), a functional door, and beautiful tri-color burgundy, with lace paint job.

Now, according to the attached article, notice Dave Libby under the car that is still red/black, it says that the <font color="purple"> “The tri-colored burgundy on the new Camaro was sprayed by Corky Larson, of Phonnix, Ariz, Harrell’s original hometown. The car took eight weeks and $12,000 to compete and…
</font>

Now ask yourself these two questions. Would Dick do without his racecar, right in the middle of the race season, to simply have his car repainted, keeping most of the same sponsors on the side of the car, and B. would Dick have paid someone $12,000, in 1968 mind you, to repaint his racecar?

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179361-1cartheroy.JPG

[JChlupsa]

I like the last part of the caption
"Since Dick has <font color="red"> another similar car </font> , he has appointed his top wrench, Charles Therwhanger, to drive the new car

[MikeA]

Based on that article alone it seems pretty clear there were two cars.

[55chevy]

Ok.. I've been watching all this and I have something to add... Here is a quote from Dave Libby taken from the Harrell site and the pic he posted.

[ QUOTE ]
OK. As I understand it the owner has been quoted saying"thats my car."
That is incorrect. Altho it cannot be seen in this picture or at least clearly defined because the seam is hidden behind the blower/injector this car has a working door. True enough it was used very seldon but it was there none the less.
There is a video tape of Dick getting in the door that many here have seen
that I happen to have a copy of which just today sent to be processed into
some still pictures. The car in this video shows Dick getting into the car through the door
The so described Tri-color Burgandy paint on this car was done by Corky Larsen
of Phoenix AZ and is in fact that color in this picture. Also I might add the
much studied "Vanes" on the spoiler were added by Larsen when the color was changed on this car from red to the above mentioned color.

One more thing worth mentioning the "flaw" in the pass.side "door" where the bottom sort of juts out as if the door was not compleatly closed (bottom)
as photographed on the car in question. That "flaw does NOT exist on the car in the picture. IMO that is a defect in the mold the body was made from and
exactly matches Bruce Larson's 68 car Houston Platts's car
(body mfg by A&amp;A fiberglass of Atlanta I believe). Not Fiberglass Trends of CA. or Fiberglass LTD. of Chicago

Well I fully expect this to be spin doctored but it does not matter truth is truth, even if it isn't what one wants to hear
Oh yes one more thing the similar car mentioned in the text is pointed out and is Dick's 67 car in it's last livery before it was sold to Bruce Neff (yellow/Blk)

Hopefully this will be my last post on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179375-text.jpg

[55chevy]

I read things a little differently.. MY edits are in Red.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179376-textcopy.jpg

[55chevy]

And I will repost this pic again.. Read what I have circled in Red.. This is the 1st car.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179377-178990-ph680607.jpg

[Chevy454]

All right, another color debate! But since when is "tri-color burgandy" anywhere CLOSE to the bright red color w/black top as in the magazine article?

From Merriam-Webster: burgandy - a reddish purple color

[sYc]

Here it is. It appears to be a darker shade then the one on the lift. And no black top.

I see three cars in this article. The altered WB '67, car-1 on the lift and car-2 burgundy.


http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179381-page1.JPG

[sYc]

All of the other page.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179387-page2.JPG

[55chevy]

I see the same thing in these pics.. Also notice the wider sheet metal under the front bumper on the burgandy car.. (but I'm sure that was changed at the same time the magical trunk lid/spoiler vains were added with the new paint job..right?) btw.. what exactly did those vains add to performance?? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[55chevy]

BTW.. is there anyway you guys can increase the allowed file size for a pic?? I have to reduce the quality of the pics just to get them to post.. Can that be changed to allow for better pics??

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the same thing in these pics.. Also notice the wider sheet metal under the front bumper on the burgandy car.. (but I'm sure that was changed at the same time the magical trunk lid/spoiler vains were added with the new paint job..right?) btw.. what exactly did those vains add to performance?? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Ed, looking at the red car on the transport truck there is not a spoiler, but something silver on the rear edge of the trunk lid, maybe a metal piece to attach/support a spoiler.?

With the vanes, part of the mold, too perfect and alike to be added later.

Think back to what I said early on. Car-1 was one of the first Camaros ever molded, in late '67, was racing in late Jan. of of '68, somewhat crude (heck, maybe even a flaw at the bottom of the door). I really think it should be called a 1967. This car replaced the stell bodied 67, this door handle, real tail lights, basic red with the black top to come.


Car-2 burgundy, was the new and improved 1968, with the tail lights and spolier (with vanes) molded in.

Funny cars and their development were changing dailey back then, a lot of times by trail and error. And who would be at the forefront of this technology, wanting to run what ever was current? Yes Dick Harrell, one of the funny car guys who bought a 1967 body only to see the 1968 bodies emerge 6 weeks Later. Dick would have wanted a new and improved '68. See below.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179391-1320.JPG

[Chevy454]

Ed, use your photo gallery [hint hint]...

[55chevy]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gifhttp://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[sYc]

Jeff, some neat pictures on those sites you posted. I had seen some of them, but there were several new ones. Man, what an era. Wish they had taken more pictures though, and all in color. Some really creative painters back then. The part that bothers me the most about not always thinking to take more pictures (I am the world’s worse) is all of the history lost, such as what was sitting in the shop of the guy I bought my car from. Not only my car, but two more vintage funny cars, tons of vintage speed parts and some cool stuff back of the shop in the weeds. Kind of reminds me of the stash in Wisconsin that just sold. The first time I did not take a camera along as I had no idea that I was about to walk into a time warp. When Mo and I went back to pick up my car, Mike was tied up with some other business, so all he had time for us to put the rear wheels from the other car on mine and load it. And as you guys who have helped me wheel push it around know, hard to do with just your self and 2 others. guy. Good thing Mo was there. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

One of the rides that I remember out back was an old ambulance/hearse, the paint all faded and such, but clearly on the side was painted Barry Grant. We were told this was Gary’s first support vehicle.
As you walked inside the front door of his shop were several engines on stands (W shaped heads), 2-3 blower setups and a couple injection setups, complete with stacks. Once in the main area of the shop, stacked along side the walls were piles of alternators, distributors, intakes, wheels, on and on. We did not go up into the loft, but he said he had some where over 300 engines up there, and by the looks of it, may have been so. Supposedly there was a complete DZ engine up there. Mike told us he had turned down 1 mil for the whole lot.
In the center of the main shop were several cars, including a sweet ‘66/’67 Nova, day two with Cragars, wide tires, etc, his daily driver.
The other three cars in the main shop were funny cars. The one I bought, another was a mid year Corvette, ‘64 I believe he said. It had a flip top one piece body, was white at the time and Mike was unsure who’s car it was. He asked me to do some research on it, which I did, but was unable to find anything. It would be a neat car to have, as I have yet to see another vintage funny car like it. At the time, same as with the car I bought, it was not for sale.
The only car for sale at the time of our first visit was another other flip top funny car, similar to mine. A ‘67/68 Camaro, long nose, front bumper ?, funky spoke front wheels (sort of looked like motorcycle wheels), and as I said above, the rear wheels that are on my car now. I will never forget who he said he thought once drove the car, Dickie Montoya. Dickie because it made me think of Dick (Dickie) Harrell and Montoya because of the road race driver, Formula 1 maybe? Because at the time this was the only car he was willing to part with, I did some research when I got home, but was unable to find anything. Later on, when I met Bob Gibson, he told me he had heard of him. Some sort of regional racer, I believe he said Nebraska, Texas, ? Another interesting fact about this particular car, as with many others (remember the ‘68 DH Chevelle most of us passed on), it was shopped around at SCR2. Mike lived near Rogersville and showed up at the track to see if we were going to race. He told me he visited with some one there who had a Harrell race car there (Porterfield). Bill, as well Howie, have told me about meeting Mike. As my luck goes, I was in Springfield watching it rain instead of at the track where the sun was out. BP still ribs me about not racing that day. Mike did his best to sell him the Montoya car to Mo. Mo still tells me it would have made a neat pulling rig. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

And by the way guys, a few months after all of this, I tried geeting a hold of Mike to see about getting a set of Halibrands for the rear of my car, the phone had been disconnected and heard the stuff was no longer there. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[sYc]

From the DH site.

<font color="red"> #1
68TopStock
Forum Member


Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 28 1967 Nickey Camaro FunnyCar by Bill Thomas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this ad in several fall of 1967 AHRA DragWorld newspapers. In another post on this Nickey forum, there is mention to Dick racing a Nickey 1967 Camaro 440" funnycar, the article is dated late 1966? From what I have read in the literature, Dick left Nickey Chevrolet in early 1967, and from what I think is known, his first Don Hardy Camaro funnycar was under construction in early 1967.

This car was built in CA, and powered by Bill Thomas. Is much known about what transpired regarding this car, and who ended up purchasing and racing it?
</font>

Bill Thomas in CA. was involved. Could explain why the first picture of any DH fuuny car is of the red car in Califonia, and still under construction (no spoiler, funky parachute attachment, etc)

[sYc]

Also from the DH site.

<font color="red">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nickey Funny Car
Date: 12/27/2004 12:52:00 PM PST
From: tstephani@cus......

Hi,
My name is Tom Stephani and my Dad (Jack) was one of the
owners of Nickey. I am the unofficial historian of Nickey and its
racing exploits due to the fact that I ended up with all of the
archives from the dealership. The funny car that you are inquiring
about was built for Nickey, but never ran as a Nickey car. All of the
Nickey's 1967 racing plan was abandoned due to financial reasons.
I have no idea where the car ended up.

Best regards,
Tom Stephani
__________________

Val </font>

[Belair62]

So does this validate the 2 car theory ? Seems like it to me..

[Rat_Pack]

Bob, Dick had Bill Thomas build him an injected Camaro funny car that he was goig to run in the 67 season. Before the car was finished Dick parted ways with Bill Thomas and Nickey and formed a relationship with Don Yenko which left Nickey and Bill Thomas holding the bag on the Camaro funny car. I have attached a copy of the ad where they were trying to sell the car which did not sell until sometime around 1969. This is the car that is referenced above and it never was a Dick Harrell car. Bill told me that he did not know where the car ended up at as it was sold by Nickey..............RatPack..............

[Belair62]

Hmmm... That is sinister looking...

[396L35]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom has Harrells car...I'm an expert now...I looked at the pics.End of story...hey why not ...its as good as anything else...this guy who is an expert had the car in his show booth...and saw it 2 years after...and never had any issues but now miraculously he looked at some pictures or something and he says it's not the car after all these years ? None of it smells right...now they are trotting their proclamation out to all kinds of websites praying someone will believe them but in time they will all see right thru it all...no matter what the car is ...Harrells name has suffered . Hopefully Val sees that

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">WTF GUYS?!?!?!?
The only thing that really matters is that Tom has a really cool
nostalgia funny car, that looks like a DH car.

If I saw that car at a Funnycar Reunion or the Hot Rod Reunion,
I would think it was the coolest thing since sliced bread!

NOW, if Tom decides to sell that car as an original DH car,
THEN &amp; only THEN. should any of this BS matter.

I have been on this site for a couple of years now &amp; enjoy it most of the time.
I try to post interesting (but mostly funny) comments, because I am no expert on ANY of this.
Controversy is great to a point, but to try &amp; put someones blood, sweat &amp; tears down
because YOU THINK they are doing it ALL WRONG is crazy.

I wish I had the patience to build one of these nostalgia cars, real or copy,
because they are much cooler to me than the new megadollar stuff.
Anyway http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif &amp; I will continue to post, look &amp; listen, but please, STOP THE INSANITY! </font>




Some idiot on this site made an original Baldwin car a Pro-Street!!! Can you believe that!!!


<font color="blue">(oh, that was me, s*it, I can't even start controversy right.)</font>
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is funny how you say "NOW, if Tom decides to sell that car as an original DH car,
THEN &amp; only THEN. should any of this BS matter." Well the car was offered to a man for the price of $235,000.00 for the car??? Now would you like to buy this car thinking it was the real thing or would you like to see the original pics and try to figure if this is the #1 car or the Dixie Twister????

Tom, if you wont just post the pictures of what your car looked like when you got it, then just tell us why. It surely was the newest flagship car to your collection and you don't have any pictures of it . . . I find that hard to believe. I'm not trying to start any shiit but since you dont want to share the pictures then tell us why the car is for sale??? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[nuch_ss396]

Hi everyone,

I have been following this debate from afar on this site as
well as the DH site. This is really getting a lot of people
hot under the collar. I am not a Funny Car expert in any
stretch of the imagination, so forgive my ignorance. But,
I do have an observation I would like to share.

If there were indeed two 68 DH FC's, would it not make sense
that there have to be pictures showing both cars together?
Did I miss something on that? Also, don't you think that
the Harrell organization ( Val included ) would have some
old pictures of all the Funny Cars together? Would that
not make the debate about a second car go away? Or, do
members here feel that possibly these possible proof
pictures are being kept burried for a reason?

One last question for the more knowledgeable. I believe
that Funny Cars were of a work-in-progress nature, weren't
they? If so, could it be possible that there were two
fiber-glass bodies and one frame? Just a hypothesis......

Steve

[jerry67]

Is this car 1 or car 2 or neither
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/26001-Harrell%2067%20wheelie.jpg
http://www.yenko.net/attachments/26003-Harrell%2067wheelie2.jpg

[Stuart Adams]

Cool pictures.

[moparts]

that is the 67 steel body car

[jg95z28]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that is funny how you say "NOW, if Tom decides to sell that car as an original DH car,
THEN &amp; only THEN. should any of this BS matter." Well the car was offered to a man for the price of $235,000.00 for the car??? Now would you like to buy this car thinking it was the real thing or would you like to see the original pics and try to figure if this is the #1 car or the Dixie Twister????

Tom, if you wont just post the pictures of what your car looked like when you got it, then just tell us why. It surely was the newest flagship car to your collection and you don't have any pictures of it . . . I find that hard to believe. I'm not trying to start any shiit but since you dont want to share the pictures then tell us why the car is for sale??? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What about Tom? You forget that he may be the victim here. He has already said that the car was presented to him as an original DH car. He also said that when he purchased it, the body had already been crudely stripped with a scrapper and the fiberglass was in bad shape. Furthermore, with all the other more likey candidates we've uncovered over the past few days, why is everyone so quick to claim its the Dixie Twister? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

[sYc]

[quote
What about Tom? You forget that he may be the victim here. He has already said that the car was presented to him as an original DH car. He also said that when he purchased it, the body had already been crudely stripped with a scrapper and the fiberglass was in bad shape. Furthermore, with all the other more likey candidates we've uncovered over the past few days, why is everyone so quick to claim its the Dixie Twister? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, Thanks for the nice lead in. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif


I want to first apologize to you and everyone on here for this thing dragging on for so long. but as Charley posted, my distracters have had months to put their “case” together, I have had but a few days. But, now that I have had a little time to search for a few things, I am ready to provide some sound evidence backing up my claims.

Here is the receipt clearly showing that the seller (Mike Menter) was knowing selling me what he thought was a 1967 Dick Harrell funny car chassis and body, and that I was buying what I felt was a 1967 Dick Harrell funny car chassis and body..

I will be the first to admit that this receipt is quite crude, but this transaction was done in haste, sitting in my Suburban at a rural Aamaco gas station.

And I think the amount of money I paid for the car reflects just how certain I was that this was a DH car, when at a time (June of 2000) old racecars, unless associated with a “name” racer, were dime a dozen.

If nothing else, IMHO, this receipt clearly disputes any theory that I simply found an old race car and turned it into one of Dick’s.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179663-receipt-1.JPG

[70 copo]

Tom,

Ok there is the receipt. Now perhaps the personal attacks will stop. But on the other hand they will likely not.

One look at the other sites where the crap is posted will reveal the true agenda: Example: There is little real technical discussion of the detail photos shown here, right now there is complaining that the photos posted here for comparison are "too enlarged" and lack detail--- WTF???

Bottom line:

SYC leads in finding and locating the truth.
SYC is fair and encourages open discussion.

Tom you have taken quite a bit of bashing here for no good reason, but you have been fair about it.

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[rpoz11]

WOW!
That just took me over an hour to read all of this!
I was barely a few years old when all this was alive in 67-69. I will never know!
I would like to offer my opinions only!
I dont know everything as it comes to Camaros but I am able to continue to learn because of this site and many others.
To clill, Clarys, BelAir...:
Thanx for making these forums having free speech and kept honest throughout the years, including this thread!
If we can all keep open minds working together, final determinations can be concluded over time!
Hopefully, all this can be decided at one pointe and the hobby can continue on as we would like it to do!
Tom, I like your car, and hope all this ends as you like!
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[markjohnson]

For a site that thrives on paperwork documentation, that is a ridiculous piece of evidence. Anybody else would be laughed off this site if they produced that handwritten Waffle House napkin as a piece of evidence towards a valuble car. Put it back in the safe please. Anyway, maybe this will help, about a year ago while packing I came across one of the east coast magazines circa 69-70 that had a feature on a 67-68 Camaro funny car that was purchased from Dick Harrell and being raced with a new paint job. I don't remember if the car had a functional door or not but I spent SEVERAL hours yesterday unpacking my mags trying to find it with no success. Somebody with a large collection of these east coast magazines needs to read all the funny car features and maybe this wil be the missing link in the disputed history of this car. Good luck.

[Belair62]

[ QUOTE ]
One look at the other sites where the crap is posted will reveal the true agenda: Example: There is little real technical discussion of the detail photos shown here, right now there is complaining that the photos posted here for comparison are "too enlarged" and lack detail--- WTF???



[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what is posted..no matter what is said...whether Toms car is the one or not..there will always be something else...when/if this dies down they will trot out some other steaming pile. When you can't get respect any other way...you sneak around in the shadows and try and smear crrap. They are even trying to undermine the Reunion by e-mailing people...myself included and trying to sway people into coming to their show which is a Supercar Show..hope no one is conned by their feeble and psychotic attempts to "ruin" Tom Clary. It must be an ego thing. The pied piper is probably sitting on a dirty couch somewhere trying to figure out what to do next to get some attention. This whole deal is starting to get boring.

[Mr70]

Found this on a Chevrolet filmstrip.
Is this the 1967 F/C?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Rick_Peters/DHSB0006.jpg

[kwhizz]

[ QUOTE ]
For a site that thrives on paperwork documentation, that is a ridiculous piece of evidence. Anybody else would be laughed off this site if they produced that handwritten Waffle House napkin as a piece of evidence towards a valuble car. Put it back in the safe please. Anyway, maybe this will help, about a year ago while packing I came across one of the east coast magazines circa 69-70 that had a feature on a 67-68 Camaro funny car that was purchased from Dick Harrell and being raced with a new paint job. I don't remember if the car had a functional door or not but I spent SEVERAL hours yesterday unpacking my mags trying to find it with no success. Somebody with a large collection of these east coast magazines needs to read all the funny car features and maybe this wil be the missing link in the disputed history of this car. Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom.....Look under the gas tank for the "build" sheet...............LOL..........That "Magic" moment probably still wouldn't be enough to satisfy ......

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

[Belair62]

Mark thats not documentation by any means..it's a receipt for what he feels he bought and how it was represented..no more and no less.

[markjohnson]

I really wanted no part of this debacle and I really DO WANT to believe that the car is the real deal. But far too many unanswered questions have arisen and no concrete evidence or "as found" photos have been produced. If this mess is not straightened up soon, that car's reputation will be forever tarnished and that would be a travesty if it really is the real thing. The car's next appearence will be surrounded by people whispering to their buddies and families that "it's not real" and I would really hate to see that happen to the car. My ex-Braun Bros. '55 Chevy C/Gasser, though in no way in the same league as a Dick Harrell car, even has photos of the car as-found and during the paint and body work so there's no question to it's authenticity.

[Charley Lillard]

Most of the arguements against this car were made by someone going by the handle of USA-funnycar. Who is USA-funnycar ? He also made this statement......


"I know that the guy that sold you the car (M.M. are his initials) told you he did not know if it was the DH funnycar and he didn't think it was, neither did BP. So quit playing your games and that will stop all of the name calling on both sites."

USA-funnycar..You also mention BP as also not thinking it was the Harrell car. By BP I assume you are talking about Bill Porterfield. I spoke to Bill today. Bill told me he had never seen the car or been to the guys place. He said the guy offered him the 67-8 Dick Harrell funny car but Bill wasn't interested because he wanted the 69 Harrell car. Bill said he would like to remain neutral on this discussion.. So Porterfield never saw the car and you claim you know the seller didn't think it was a Harrell car yet it appears he signed a Bill of Sale stating otherwise. Can you explain that and maybe tell us who you are ?

[sYc]

Sorry about taking so long guys, but here we go. For last couple of days I have been searching high and low for any pictures of the car before we sprayed it. During the period we were working on the car, my camera was one of those digital ones that used a 3 1/4 floppy disk. The same camera we used to photograph all of the cars at 2-3 SCRs, so needless to say, I have 100s of disks. But I was able to find this one, while not real clear, I think it does shed considerable light on the body in question. I only found a couple.

Here is a shot of the passenger side of the car. Note a couple of things.

First the angle/size of the rocker. With the absence of Red shiny paint, IMO, does not appear to be my car, even though it is.

Second, and IMO, most important, notice the area inside the red mark. The dark line, which is actually a seam, is repair work. This seam is there on both sides, still visible on the inside of the car today. This was the patch job Dave Libby pointed out to us at Etown, At the time, when Dave said the car had been damaged and then repaired, I thought he meant the usual minor damage. But a couple of nights ago, he told Mo the front end had been “clipped”. The presence of these seams indicate that this body has been “clipped”.

As most of us know, when trying to sort out old racecars, prior damage and repairs is one of the things you look for. If not mistaken, another Harrell car was identified in this fashion, ZL-1 #1, as Fred Gibb know where to look for damaged areas.

I think showing that my car may have been “clipped”, same as one of Dick’s, certainly lends credence to the fact that the two bodies could be the one and the same. And, since it is pretty obvious that my car has been "clipped" at some point in its racing career, makes it tough to try and compare the portion of my car from the seam forward with the same area on any other car, as who knows when, how, where or what parts from what company were used.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179661-seam-2.JPG

A close up.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179660-seam-1.JPG

[sYc]

These two pictures show another interesting part of the car. Note the “trim” pieces around the back glass. When I first got the car and studied pictures of the Red car with the Black roof, I really thought it had a real vinyl roof, but was puzzled how they did it. That was one of the first questions I asked Dave Libby, how did they do the roof. He laughed for a few seconds, then explained. The black was simply spray paint in a can, meant to give a vinyl roof look, and then the area where the moldings are were painted silver. To me, the black vinyl roof look is one of the most unique and interesting things about my car, always sure to draw a comment or two at shows. I know a lot of the cars back in that era have these trim pieces, and on several cars were painted silver, but IMO, they really accent the black top and red bottom. I have had a couple of folks tell me they like the burgundy colored DH cars better, but I am kind of fond of the Black over Red look.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179348-body-2.JPG

[Charley Lillard]

Did I hit a nerve there Mr Lopata ? Why the secret ? Who is USA-funnycar ? This is not to divert attention from Toms car. I would also like to get to the bottom of just what car it is. I think both Ratpack and 55Chevy make some valid points and they tried to lay them out to lessen the confusion. But to make these bold acusations and hide behind a screen name seems pretty chickenshit. Who is USA-funnycar ?..

[Charley Lillard]

Bob Gibson posted this.....
"Bob Gibson
Forum Member


Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Midweset
Posts: 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure trying to keep up on this thread... I have some good pictures of the Kirby car taken right after the Super Rat name was put on it.
A person would be a bloom'in idiot to think Matt's, Jim Kirby car isn't an authentic Dick Harrell team car.
I may be the butt here but I know what I'm looking at and TC's car as far as I'm concerned is not one of Dick's old cars.
That car was in my display booth at Bowling Green in 2003 and I looked the car over real well and I had a few doubts then but wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to voice an opinion, but as I've gotten more pictures of it and started compairing certain things, I start seeing things that don't add up.

I'll bring my pictures and if TC will let me near the car I'll show him some differences that will prove it.
TC, It's ok to build a clone in honor of a great racer... but admit it, people will enjoy looking at the car just the same.

Bob..The person saying that Muphys car was not a Harrell car was Dale Pulde.....
"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Ebay the Jim Kirby Camaro is being sold as an Orignal Dick Harrell 68 Funny car. This car was used and run to fill match races by Dick, He and Charlie Therewanger raced it for a while then the owner Jim Kirby ran the Harrell name for a while.
It was NEVER an original Dick Harrell car. This car is still appears to be on great shape and a real good find. DP"

Bob..Are you thinking Tom is trying to say his car is the same as Murphys ? What do you have pics of ?

[moparts]

You know Tom when I went with you to pick up that funny car we talked on the trip over that if it turned out to be nothing it would at least be fun playing with.

We picked up the car that day and the fun did begin. Looking over hundreds of pictures and reading tons of magazines before even thinking about what car it was seemed at the time like alot of trouble. When we was looking at all these pictures we kept coming up with the red/black car that just didn't look like all the others. In the end that came to be the deciding factor on which car we decided it had to be, it just didn't match the other cars that the pictures showed as Dick's.

Then we finally started by cutting away years of misuse and abuse and trying to get down to something savable which was quite a job. After several hundred hours of work we had learned how to re-gelcoat a body that some had said was junk. Re-built a chassis that the engine had been moved in at least twice, changed from a auto to a manual, foot brake to a hand brake. During all this time we had kept on looking at all the pictures we could find, reading all the articles possible and talking to who we was told at the time was the best we could talk to for verification and information on what we had.

I remember the day that the lettering was put on the car, we were both speachless when we stood there looking at what had transformed in my shop. At that moment we knew that we had brought back to life a tribute to a great driver and a time gone by.

Now we load up and go to our first show, to where the experts are, nervous yes, confindent no way. We get there, set up in the booth of one of the experts and start asking questions. Is anything wrong with the car, what do we need to do to make the car more period correct and so on and on. Man it felt good to see the hundreds of people come by and look at the car and alot of them tell us the stories they had with Dick and the car.

Next the trip to Englishtown and the meeting with what seemed like everyone else in the world who knew anything about Dicks or anyone's funny car as far as that goes. Still wanting to find out everything we could about the car and if we had what we thought we had, we asked questions. Sometimes to the point of being afraid that these experts and racers and mechanices were getting tired of talking to us. We found out several safety items that needed to be addressed on the car, but all the experts there gave nothing but praise to the car and our hard work.

This goes on for a couple more years. And I will have to say we had a blast.

Looking back on everything now we could have spent a lot less time trying to make sure that we had what we thought we did. Less phone calls and travel time seeking out the experts and getting their worthless opinions and just had more fun with the car. Shoot I should have bought that other car they had for sale. We thought it was just a nobody car but heck if I could have got all these experts out there working on it there is no telling who's car I would have now.

Sell it........Park it.......Set it on fire......it doesn't really matter....Life's too short for this rabbit-$hit....

Let's move on to something else.....Lets have some fun!



http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

[Belair62]

Good idea Mo... This train has run out of steam...

[sYc]

Hopefully this email, sent out by Bill Porterfield, (who ironically has had his own battles over the DH name and his car), will help explain a few things of what was being sold, what I bought, what the seller said, etc. Even though copied to folks associated with other sites, I doubt if it will show up on any other sites, so here it is. Thanks Bill http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

<font color="blue"> Valerie, Charlie, Matt and Tom,

Just in case 'someone says what I said'.....this is what I know about the 1968 Camaro funny car that is currently a point of discussion on a few websites:

While we were setting up our pit spot at the 2000 Supercar Reunion (we were ready to race at 8:30 AM and the sun was shining at the track but the event was called because of rain in the area) a guy came up to me and asked if I was interested in a Dick Harrell funny car. I asked him what year it was and he said a 1967 or 1968 model. At that time I was looking for a 1969 funny car and was also short on cash so I told him I was not interested.

A few weeks later I got a call from a Mike Menter (I have previously mis-spelled the last name as 'Minter'). He told me he was the guy who had talked to me at the track regarding a funny car and asked if I was still looking for one. I told him I did not have any cash and really wanted a 1969 car.

I got another call a few weeks after that....same question....same answer.

In December 2000 I got the last call from Mike and he asked me if I was still looking for a car. I told him I might be interested in something and asked him what he had. He said he had a 1967 Harrell funny car but sold it to a guy in Alton, Illinois. He said he still had a 1967 Dickie Montoya Camaro funny car and a 1964 Corvette funny car. I told him I was not interested in his last two cars.

I have never seen any of Menter's cars nor any photos of the cars, therefore I have no way of knowing exactly what year the subject car was or what provenance may have been attached to it.

Life is toooooo short....I hope the dust can settle and everyone can just get along with each other....

Porterfield </font>

Amen to the last part.. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

[Stuart Adams]

I still don't understand why they would not want the Harrell name on cars, its seems it would be good for the Harrell family and good for the hobby in general.

All this has backfired it seems. Now the name Harrell has a bad taste in peoples mouth all because of greed and politics.

Personally I think the FC has nothing to do with it, if I owned the car they probably could care less. But since Tom owns it, the attacks are personal. IMO. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

[396L35]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a shot of the passenger side of the car. Note a couple of things.

First the angle/size of the rocker. With the absence of Red shiny paint, IMO, does not appear to be my car, even though it is.

Second, and IMO, most important, notice the area inside the red mark. The dark line, which is actually a seam, is repair work. This seam is there on both sides, still visible on the inside of the car today. This was the patch job Dave Libby pointed out to us at Etown, At the time, when Dave said the car had been damaged and then repaired, I thought he meant the usual minor damage. But a couple of nights ago, he told Mo the front end had been “clipped”. The presence of these seams indicate that this body has been “clipped”.

As most of us know, when trying to sort out old racecars, prior damage and repairs is one of the things you look for. If not mistaken, another Harrell car was identified in this fashion, ZL-1 #1, as Fred Gibb know where to look for damaged areas.

I think showing that my car may have been “clipped”, same as one of Dick’s, certainly lends credence to the fact that the two bodies could be the one and the same. And, since it is pretty obvious that my car has been "clipped" at some point in its racing career, makes it tough to try and compare the portion of my car from the seam forward with the same area on any other car, as who knows when, how, where or what parts from what company were used.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179661-seam-2.JPG

A close up.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/179660-seam-1.JPG

[/ QUOTE ]
That is some good reading Tom but I would have to disagree with your "clipped" theory. ALL '68 and '69 Camaro Funny Cars have that section on both sides of the body. This is the section where all Camaro FCs are sectioned together to lengthen them to the costomers wants. As for being clipped the I guess all FC cars were clipped before they were painted and given to the customer. This might even be a safty crash test to see if the car will hold up to being T-boned??? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

I am saddened that Mr. Libby has now changed his opinion, especially since his memory has been his best asset - your credibility is history. We are now supposed to believe that your opinion now is more reliable than several years ago? I listened at E-town while you reviewed pictures, mag articles, etc... pointing out the smallest of details, but now you change your mind and say that you simply missed an opening door? Shame on you.

Anybody wondering what the 'root cause' is for this issue? You newer guys may not be aware, but this is not the first time for this type of topic to arise. The prior discussion went down with a member making up stories for his car, with buddies who weren't there backing him up. The stories were debunked, the member was booted, and has had an axe to grind ever since. For him, this is Retribution, but if this is all you got for a 'train' - HA

Somebody find that thread about the other funny car at vette fest.

[Stuart Adams]

Thanks Marlin, this whole thing just screams of a personal attack and not the car.

[kwhizz]

I have just proven that Tom has the real Harrell car.....I had my wife look at the pic's and she said it was the same car http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif..........Hasn't been wrong since we got married..........LOL............ http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/youguysrock.gif

Put this one to bed.......

[Kim_Howie]

Marlin, Try Fred Gibb &amp; Dick Harrell, Click on it and go to page 13 in page 13 there is a thread called Dick Harrell race cars. This is 28 pages long Tells about Tim's car. Also look at page 13,14,15 of that thread VERY INTERESTING READING KIM

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

That's the one, gotta link?

[Belair62]

The only link Kim knows is the one on his breakfast plate... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

no, that's links - plural!

[Belair62]

I think you need to change your page defaults to look like this to find the pages he is talking about..you have to go to My Home first and these 2 need to say 10....I think

Total parent posts to show per page: (default is 10)


Total posts to show on one page when viewing a post in flat mode (default is 10)

[Jeff H]

Well, after going back through that old thread I think it's explained pretty well by Dave. The Kirby car was the backup car for DH and they even had it painted the same(except for Jim Kirby on the front fenders, maybe his name was removed when Dick or Charley raced the car). There was only 1 68 Dick Harrell funny car along with the Jim Kirby and Burnansky(sp?) car. But Dick's car went through several different paint jobs throughout the season which is why it looks like 2 different cars. Dave thought Tom had the 1 and only Dick Harrell 68 funny car but without the opening door it appears he doesn't. From what I understand in reading through those posts there never were 4 cars and that DH only had 1 car. Case closed?

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Hardly

[Belair62]

Found this quote from Dave...I would think he would not forget about a door when he saw Toms car. If Dave had a change of heart he should have discussed it with Tom...I still smell a Super Rat

[ QUOTE ]
Good answer, Exactly why the "flip top" all fiberglass body came into being displacing the "door cars" (ie)Cars like Dick's 67

[/ QUOTE ]

[jg95z28]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, after going back through that old thread I think it's explained pretty well by Dave. The Kirby car was the backup car for DH and they even had it painted the same(except for Jim Kirby on the front fenders, maybe his name was removed when Dick or Charley raced the car). There was only 1 68 Dick Harrell funny car along with the Jim Kirby and Burnansky(sp?) car. But Dick's car went through several different paint jobs throughout the season which is why it looks like 2 different cars. Dave thought Tom had the 1 and only Dick Harrell 68 funny car but without the opening door it appears he doesn't. From what I understand in reading through those posts there never were 4 cars and that DH only had 1 car. Case closed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sorry but I just reread the whole thread and I thought he was talking about the 69 car when he said there was only one.

Here's the link btw:
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat...6&amp;fpart=all (http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=harrell&amp;Number=9643&amp;page= 6&amp;fpart=all)

[Charley Lillard]

There is no need to further muddy the issue by digging up the Lopata funny car.
Toms latest pics show the rear window area with the recessed lip to set the rear window into. Ratpack stated something about the rear windows on the harrell cars being glassed in. In that case after removing the rear glasss you would not have a clean lip like on Tom's car. If all the pics out there show glassed in rear windows it would be hard to believe Tom's car is a Harrell car. If there are pics or a rear window with removable glass then that proves nothing.
I'm still waiting for USA-funnycar to come out of the closet.

Bigger yet is Val Harrells application to trademark the Fred Gibb name. What do the Rabbits think of that ? When they are sending their dollars to help Val in her feud with the Halls are they telling her to not use the money to take the Fred Gibb name from Helen ? Val has sold T-shirts in the past with the Gred Gibb name on them without asking Helen and Helen did nothing to stop her so why think someone would stop her now ? The name belongs to Helen and nobody should ever try to take it.

[rpoz11]

TOM C &amp; Charley:
Is it known exactly how many Camaro bodies were used in NHRA thru 67-69?
As I am reading all of this, couldnt it be possible to determine every Camaro body sanctioned to run thru NHRA, get that number narrowed down, and then get images of all that were in those years, and then put all the images of the known Camaros ran side by side to get a better way of comparisons?
There must be only X amount of Camaros ran in those years 67-69, maybe most of those body/chassis remains are gone but there must be more information than what is present to find some close relative answer...
Tom C, I will PM you with something that I have found...

I can't beleive I'm actually going to post again..maybe this thread is like crack...who knows..It is hilarious to me that throughout 21 or so pages hardly ayone has thought to ask some questions and look at this in a logical manner..


Here are FACTS..

1) DH had a 1967 FC that was a steel bodied car with 2 fiberglass doors..

2) DH had a 1968 car with a funtional drivers door

3) Both Bruce Larson and DH had suffered accidents in their respective cars, and both accidents involved fire

4) In 1969 DH ran a FC with no doors

Now let's examine some hard evidence..

We know both DH and Bruce Larson were at the top of the FC orld in 1967 and both ran cars in which they had accidents and fire was involved..There are pics of the 1967 DH car in this thread take during the accident. We know both guys were switching to the then new all glass flip top cars for 1968. We know as professionals neither driver installed equipment that was frivilous and or a safety hazard. We know nitromethane was and still is a very dangerous propellant in regards to fire. So with all of that out of the way..I think I can show through a logical process why TC car IMO isn't the DH car..

1) DH drove a 1967 FC with a steel body and 2 TWO fiberglass doors in 1967. This car was supponsed by either "Yenko" or "Courtsey" at various times that year. The car started out wearing a paint scheme of red with balck top and later a yellow with balck top..I think the color scheme was a direct result of DH having a working relationship with gibb, as keep in mind Gibb's Lil Hoss also ran the same red blk top scheme. Now when looking at the 1967 car..we notice a few things..

1) the car has 2 fiberglass doors
2) the driving position is on the drivers side
3) the car has a SINGLE door handle on the drivers side...this is the side DH entered and existed (even a photo showing the door open after the fire
4) When looking at the passengers side..there ISN'T a door handle, since it would have served novalue..all entering and existing was done via the drivers side..

Now we have to think logically..DH wouldn't have added something to this car that wasn't needed or could have fell off trackside..and he wasn't trying to completely relicate a 1967 Camaro..or he would have added a passengers side handle

Move to the 1968 car..

Know DH had a 1968 car with a door and that Bruce Larson also had a door..now for the million dollar questions:

What is the purpose of a door handle???

Go research the web and look at pics of FC that are know to have a drivers door..

Bruce Larson's "USA-1"
DH car called "Car 2" by Tom
Mike Burkhardt

What do all three cars have in common beside a working door?

Answer a single door handle on the drivers side only..

Why..Well in the case of DH and Larson it would have been as a safety measure and in Burkhardt's case because he was too damn big!!

Look at all the pics of DH 1968 car (or cars if you belive TC)..they all show a single drivers side door handle only...No passengers side handle....This is the most amazing thing to me..NOBODY has asked TC why his car has a damn door lock cylinder?? Why would a race car, with no door need first a door handle and then a door lock cylinder??? If you assume TC has the DH car..who put in a door lock cylinder and why wasn't it glased over when restored..It certainly wasn't to replicate a real car..then you need hanldes and cylinders on both sides and all the DH cars do not show a cylinder..

Ok..let's examine some other cars..cars we know do not have doors..first the Kirby car..It was 1 of the 3 original cars built and yet doesn't have a door..or more importanly a door handle...After all why would a drag racer, install a door handle only on 1 side of a car onto a non-fuctioning door??? What is the purpose of that??? Can't be to replicate a stock car, can't be as a means to get in and out..hell you'd crack the 'glass applying weight to it..

Kirby's car was a DH "stable" car and yet no door..Why..Well IMO the cars were all built originally without the door being cutout..then the doors were cut and a door handle installed but ONLY on the 2 cars that had doors..DH car and Burkhardts..Ther are plenty of pics showing Kirby's car, and even to this day there isn't a door handle..Also the tailights of both Kiby's car and Burkhardts car are molded in..as was DH car..same mold..this is shown in photos..Yet TC car has bolt in lights...

Ok now let's look at EVERY other 1968 FC I can find on the 'web...no door handles..Platt's, the cars pictured here by various people, hell even looking just at other well known drag racers..Jungle Jim for instance..no door handles on cars..I honestly could not find any other cars, whether Chevy, Ford or Dodge that looked like they had door handles on them that didn't have what appeared to be a working door..

Now we look at DH and Kirby's cars for 1969..different body and different molds..yet BOTH cars actually have what appears to be fake (painted over) door handle on both sides yet we know these cars didn't have doors..Why??..IMO simply that is how the cars were molded..

People are saying they can't see a "door" in the pic Dave Libby posted and was replicated here..Look at the pic..there is a definite break in the tin work, multiple pieces of tin being used, and a vertical break appears to follow the "A" pillar would be..The angle of the pic and the fact the body is up will obviously distort to some degree this, but still somesort of break in the approxiamte area of where a door would be..

Now let's discuss the color of the car (or again cars if you are TC)..First the 1967 car was red with black..DH had a red balck 1968 car, that I thinkwas the first scheme for the car..Secondly he went to an all red car, and finally the more burgundy car "Gibbish" paint scheme..This all makes sense..DH and Gibb had a working relationship and they would have wanted the cars to be simialar in color..Look at Kirby's car..he even had "DH" on his quarters and a DH color scheme..they were stablemates..Also the idea that in the Libby pic the car appears red, vs burgundy makes no sense..look at the car and where the pic is taken..it is in a garage with flourescent lights, very close to it..flourerscent lights LIGHTEN up colors..also the pic would have required a flash...notice the tin work appears brighter on the lower half of the car..the brighter pieces are exposed to a flash more..hence the car can look more of a red vs a burgundy..

Ok..know let's discuss this "2 car" issue,..

We know DH had a 1967 car..one which it is assumed he stopped driving once his new FC became available..yet there is at least 1 pic of the car being ran against Burkhardt's car and Burkardt's car is a 1968 car..IMO the 2nd car everyone is reading about it really DH 1967 car..a car he still campaigned...a car still wearing a red paint scheme..so when comapred to the 1968 car in it's burgundy scheme (later scheme) any reference to it is "the red 2nd car"

I think i have laid out a logical idea as to why DH only had 1 1968 car..Ask yourselves a few questions:

1) Why would a drag racer on a professional level have a door handle on a car that doesn't have a door...especailly when that door handle is a GM handle and might fall off, cause someone to lean on it and crack the body,

2) IF DH put a door handle on car without a door why not put on the passenger side as well..both in 1967 and 1968???

3) If it was for looks or something else..why didn't any other racer without a door follow suit??

The door handle being on a car without a door makes no sense...

[Mr70]

I JUST WON $100.00! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Belair62]

[ QUOTE ]
2) DH had a 1968 car with a funtional drivers door

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is actually a fact you would think Dave Libby would have remembered that...agree ? Follow the link above to all the old posts...

[Kim_Howie]

Greg, Funny thing yesterday when you called me.I show you Dale P 68 funny car had a door handle. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gifps the picture we both looked at.

[rpoz11]

Greg2001LS6
What is your invested interest in the outcome of all of this?

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no need to further muddy the issue by digging up the Lopata funny car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand, I don't really give a crap about this anymore, but was trying to understand the motive behind it all.

"Carry on my wayward sons...."

Kim,

We did and I think we discussed it looks like a steel bodied car..notice the stock appearing nose..very similar to the DH 1967 car..also a door is pretty evident there IMO..notice the pretty pronounced gaps..

My interest is simple..it is an interesting topic..you guys need to be looking less for a "conspiracy" and more at the cars..I can't say it any plainer...Ask Kim..

[Kim_Howie]

No Greg, I never said Dales was a steel car. You said it!! Then I said how come the info under it stated it was FILP TOP funny. You didn't say anything to that comment.You also stated it was a 68 not 67 because it had marker lights. The reason for my post about Dales car is because you stated above that "Ok now let's look at EVERY other 1968 FC I can find on the 'web...no door handles" I am going back to wall papering http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

No offense Kim,

I would think most can see that is a 1968 car..marker lights and all, no side vents, etc.....the car was actually owned I believe by a Charlie Wilson i think and driven by Dale

Either way..whether it is a steel rear car, with glass doors, like the DH 1967 car or a true flip top car it doesn't take the discussion away from Tom's car..

Also I guess Tom really has the 1967 car, since people don't make mistakes and Tom bought a FC with a receipt caying a "1967" car....

[Charley Lillard]

Greg..your post was so long I had to post you doing it. Greg (http://myspace-297.vo.llnwd.net/00165/79/25/165835297_l.gif)

[kwhizz]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg..your post was so long I had to post you doing it. Greg (http://myspace-297.vo.llnwd.net/00165/79/25/165835297_l.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

Ken http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

[rpoz11]

OH MY GOD!!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif
LMFAO!!!!
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/CharleySucks.gif

[rpoz11]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/CharleySucks.gif
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

[Stuart Adams]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Rick H]

It didn't take me this long to read Gone With the Wind!

And like the famous line I've gotten to the point I don't give a damn.

Isn't it time to stick a fork in it because it is WAY over done!

Rick H.

[mr396]

Thats funny. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[rpoz11]

Ok, well back to the topic at hand...
Charley:
Has there been any conclusions to the amount of Camaro bodies in total sanctioned in the first three years?
Being I was too young to know what was occurring then,
Was AHRA or any other racing ciruit using these bodies?
There just cant be THAT many Camaro FC shells around then as well as now....
What is generally accepted to this?
At this point, thousands here are interested in the outcome of this!
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[70 copo]

G-Dog,

Your Rant is missing one phrase:

"pictures please" (Dont forget it the next time you post)

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

Now where is that Damn cabby.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Phil

[musclecarjohn]

Oh God,I was just lulled to sleep....what was this thread about again...? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[70 copo]

Rabbit attacks innocent guy...

Quick Someone get a carrot!!

[Charley Lillard]

RPOZ11. I have no idea. I think there should be enough here in all the pics if everything were just laid out in a orderly manner. I know Ed Gilpin was trying to lay out stuff where you could put the idea with the pic. I started to re-read the thread at the Harrell site but all I could do was imagine bad actors reading a script. How many phone calls did it take to decide who was going to say what ?

[Charley Lillard]

Matt Murphy had posted on the Harrell thread....
"Someone asked me if TC was told that the car he had was Dick's car and I talked to a guy who almost bought it before TC and he even told TC about the car. It was mentioned that the car could have been DIck's '68, but not sure. That guy did his homework and didn't buy it,"

Who was it that told Tom about it Matt ? He did his homework and didn't buy it ? Who is this guy and what did he find out ?

Still nobody going to say who USA-funnycar is ?

[musclecarjohn]

[ QUOTE ]
Matt Murphy had posted on the Harrell thread....
"Someone asked me if TC was told that the car he had was Dick's car and I talked to a guy who almost bought it before TC and he even told TC about the car. It was mentioned that the car could have been DIck's '68, but not sure. That guy did his homework and didn't buy it,"

Who was it that told Tom about it Matt ? He did his homework and didn't buy it ? Who is this guy and what did he find out ?

Still nobody going to say who USA-funnycar is ?

[/ QUOTE ]

HMMMM.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[sYc]

Bueller... Bueller.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Belair62]

I think USA1 is Matlock. This is so stupid its a joke...I think it's time to put it to bed and if Tom wants to do any more research then thats up to him...too bad there is no one with any credibility to ask anymore...seems they all got on the train to nowhere....

[Xplantdad]

Boy...you sure got done quick... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LOL http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[GTO_DON]

[ QUOTE ]
I think USA1 is Matlock. This is so stupid its a joke...I think it's time to put it to bed and if Tom wants to do any more research then thats up to him...too bad there is no one with any credibility to ask anymore...seems they all got on the train to nowhere....

[/ QUOTE ]AND THERE THEY GO!!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

See the post about the Vintage drag pics..looks like the the same car..and the story is DH sold the 1968 body and used the chassis under his 1969 car..Notice the colors, complete with shield, and even sponsor decals, and placement...The "Super Camaros" wording.. Also notice the door handle and what appears to be a working door..The tailights are molded in and the spoiler has the "vanes" seen in the DH photos..

Now the DH car...

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Snore ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

[sYc]

Greg, very nice posts, and pictures, as it shows both cars with an <font color="brown"> obvious </font> opening door, taking special note of the entire door gap. Now, point out the <font color="red"> obvious </font> opening door on this car, taking speical note of the entire door gap.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178837-bs-4.JPG

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/178832-BS-1.JPG

Someone mentioned that Tom thinks his car was a 2nd car..Not the car that is in the pics..and therefore "found"..I know this is his opinion. However the consensus is that DH sold the 1968 body and used that chassi for the 1969 car..Here we have photos of what appears based on the pics to be the 1968 body, yet on a different chassis...

IF Tom is correct..logically doesn't it stand to reason DH would have had the "2nd" car body made by the same person that made the 1st..the guy that made his "stable" mates (Kirby) car..so both the "2nd" car and Kirby's car have molded in taillights, but not the "1st"???

So we are to believe if we buy into Tom's thought process..DH had a funnycar made without a door and BOLT in tailights..installed a door handle only on the drivers door, when there ISN"T a need for one, ie: no door.. adding both weight and the possibility that it might fall off...

Then DH decides he wants another car built as a backup..forgetting that he actually already has a back up in the Kirby car (DH names is on the side of that car as evidence by photos), and instead of simply having another body made from the existing mold..He has the guy making his bodies..completely RE-ENGINEER the rear of the "new 2nd" car to have molded in taillights..WTF???? Why go through all of that logically speaking..especially mid season...

Not to mention there is possible evidence to suggeest DH was using the 1967 car later than 1967..hence when writen up the discussion about 2 cars..it is entirely possbile the 1967 car is being acounted for...one red/black (the 1967 car) and the burgndy car (1968)

Give me a break guys..DH was a drag rqacer..a very good one at that..The guy doesn't have time or the energy to put door handles on non-existent doors, or mid season have another body mold made for a back up car, when he already has the use of a back up car...1 guy = 3 or maybe 4 cars if you account for the 1967 car???? IMO not likely...

[sYc]

Greg, you did not answer my question. Judging by the door gaps, do these two bodies appear to be the same? Yes or no????????

I have been asked to provide proof to back up my theory, which I feel I just did, you need to do the same.

BTW, door handles on one piece bodies back then was not that uncommon. And yes, a few with real tail lights, to make the cars appear like their street driven brethens. Boy I wish that were true today.


So, YES OR NO??????

[70 copo]

Tom,

Looks like the Rabbit's are back in the hole trying to figure out how to reply.. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

Phil

Actually "yes" it does..look at the door near the top where the rear edge of the door curves towards the front of the car...notice the area appears to have a silvery appearance to it..this is from light hitting the area..Notice in your corresponding photos (all three are of the same car, at the same time..notice the rock color and lighting..) where the sun is coming from..it is shining from right to left as evidence by the 3rd pic and shadow of the guy bending down to look at the car..His shadow is cast on the left of the photo..hence the sun is shining from right to left when viewing the photo..If the there wasn't a pronounced "thickness" from a door in that area the area wouldn't be the silvery in apearance..

Now look at your second pic...the pic taken from the drivers side but showing the engine and interior..notice the shadow from the body line on the front of the door..Notice how this shadow appears "staggered" or not uniform..This is from the sun hitting the car and because of a door there the shadow appears "broken"..if there wasn't a door there there would be a uniform line in that area..as the "scribed" door would be in line with the fender..

Also notice how the gaps appear larger in certain areas..because the 1st photo was taken almost perpendicular to the car shouldn't those scribed lines be uniform if in fact they are scribed..vs an actual seperate panel...

Finally with the body being in the air a door would more than likely add weight to the center of the car..hence body lines would be tighter..and not uniform..You guys are really funny..i'm not a "rabbitt" or anything else..you guys need some serious help..

Tom what can you tell us about the door lock cylinder??? I guess in restoring the car you didn't notice DH didn't use those...

Tom why don't we take these photos to someone that is an expert in studing photos..Someone like a Robert Groden. If he says you have no door in the pics then your case is certainly won and the value of your car shoots up...

Food for though

[camarojoe]

[ QUOTE ]

Give me a break guys..DH was a drag rqacer..a very good one at that..The guy doesn't have time or the energy to put door handles on non-existent doors, or mid season have another body mold made for a back up car, when he already has the use of a back up car...1 guy = 3 or maybe 4 cars if you account for the 1967 car???? IMO not likely...

[/ QUOTE ]


Wait a minute... You are claiming he didn't have time to add a door handle to a one piece body, but he DID have time to paint the same car 15 different ways, add/remove spoiler veins, change tail lights, etc.?

btw, couldn't the door handle serve to aid in lowering/raising the body into position?

[Charley Lillard]

Phil and Marlin the comments are not needed in this thread. It is already hard to pay attention without un-needed comments.

I would guess you could try to use the handle to raise and lower the body, but wouldn't you think if that is the purpose of it,there would be one on each side..that way 2 people could do it and lessen the chance for body damage..if one person trys to raise the body, I would think there is a very real chance on torquing the body and cracking it..Also why don't you see other cars with these handles if that is the way to raise and lower the body..even today...I honestly don't think this question is that complicated...

[jg95z28]

[ QUOTE ]
..DH had a funnycar made without a door and BOLT in tailights..installed a door handle only on the drivers door, when there ISN"T a need for one, ie: no door.. adding both weight and the possibility that it might fall off...


[/ QUOTE ]That's the stupidest assumption you've made yet. Go through the pictures posted and links to other 67-8 Camaros of the period. There were several that had stock emblems added to the fenders make them look like "real" cars. Obviously they weren't worried about extra weight and having them "fall off".

Besides I have seen at least one photo of the 1968 DH funnycar (can't remember where at the moment) where the at least the windshield "glass" had been reinstalled bolted in. (Perhaps after a repair). This was a photo from late 1968 if I remember correctly and it was still in the DH paint scheme. That's not to say it adds any authenticity to Tom's car, but looking at the picture of the Manhart &amp; Engle car from 1969, it appears that all the windows are still "glassed" in.

Furthermore, I believe Tom also said his car was the 1st car, not the 2nd car as you claim. And if you have been paying attention, Tom also said that the guy he bought the car from claimed it was a DH funnycar. This is different from what you and others are saying, it which you claim Tom bought just any old Camaro funnycar and threw the DH connection in all on his own.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm keeping an open mind based on the facts presented so far, and the fact that all the evidence isn't in yet.

I know which car Tom says he has..Also If you read my post no where do I say or imply Tom bought an old car and then decided it is the DH car..he bought the car thinking it was...maybe you should re-read the post and the last thread that was locked..


While some cars had bolt in taillights...Platts car being an obvious one..I don't see any other cars that have a door handle on a non-functioning door...The only other pic that even shows a door handle I could find, outside of the 3 (Larson, DH and Burkhardt's) is Pulde's Wilson owned car..and I would think most would agree that car looks more like a steel rear car, like the DH 1967 car..hence it would have had a functioning door..

[Jeff H]

Wow Greg! That Manhart and Engle sure looks like the DH 68 body. Most of the front fender sponsor decals/names are exactly the same, the opening door looks exactly the same and the rear driver's side window is exactly the same. If that is the DH 68 body then the chassis might be under the 69 body. I believe Val has the car now if I read the posts correctly. Has she ever checked the chassis for the Hardy tag like Matt showed on the Kirby car? As for Tom's car, it can't be the Platt car because the Platt car and a lot of those other similar 68 body's have no molded front bumper but Tom's car does. Unless Tom's car had a completely different front nose section replaced on his car. This is still really interesting stuff. And if you look at the older picture of the Kirby car that Dave put in that older post, you could see where it might have been raced by DH without the "Jim Kirby" on the front fenders and that could be the car in some of these old pictures.

http://www.yenko.net/attachments/25288-Chakib.jpg

[sYc]

"....Actually "yes" it does..look at the door near the top where the rear edge of the door curves towards the front of the car..."

I still say no, so I guess it is up to the jury now.

BTW, I have received several messages and the vote is about 10-1, guess which way?

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil and Marlin the comments are not needed in this thread. It is already hard to pay attention without un-needed comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then lock it up, it's been going nowhere.

Tom can you post pics of other 1968 cars that have door handles only on one side and no doors...especially since "BTW, door handles on one piece bodies back then was not that uncommon" I guess they were so common that Kirby, who ran out of the DH stable and didn't have a door in his car, just forgot to do it...

I would love to see the pics...

Sorry forgot to mention..look at your 5th pic in this thread, the one you comment about the door gap along the rocker..you mention the "2nd" car and Kirby's car have a better fit..Actually look at the Manhart car in the photo...same issue with the door and rocker...in the same spot..under the "Super Camaro". Tom I tell you what let's take the photos to someone who is versed in looking at photos and making comparisons...someone that is completely unbiased either way at this point..

BTW..any thought on the door lock cylinder that made me question the whole door in the first place..???