1967/1968 Dick Harrell funny cars

[sYc]

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

[Kim_Howie]

Looks like their are two cars!!

Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[hvychev]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Marlin,

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

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


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

Respectfully,

G S Carlson

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

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

[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?