|
Agreed, Amigo.
But what the hell are we going to do about it now ?
Of the few D-500-1 cars made, who is going to trash one of the few survivors today to "prove" its cajones ?
If we could just march on down to Dodge and order up spare parts .... afterall, we HAVE the parts books, right ???? ..... we could just go on racing like it never ended ! But the "Big Race" these cars ran was against time and technology. We all know why 95% of these cars went to the scrap heap ..... "newer is better !" So, with few remaing examples to test and fewer in the hands of anyone willing to beat them like they were thrashed in 1956, what are we going to do ?
Is your point to disprove the D-500-1's were really that fast, or the opposite ? I have never set eyes on one. But I have driven 300's and Furys and regular D-500's. My 60 crossram / stick DeSoto would bury all of them, and my 66 Coronet 440 / stick is far faster still. It seems all a matter of defined scope and study. What are we trying to define ? I am just as interested in this as anyone, but I cannot see ever finding hard results without returning to 1956.
B.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx (eastern sierra Adj Services)
> One man's passion is another man's pointless.
>
> What grinds my gears is the irrational performance numbers that have
> been attributed
> to the 56 500-1, over the years, especially in the 1980's-early '90's.
>
> The most compelling, essential fact of any scientific experimentation
> is result-repeatability
> and controlled testing.
>
> The 500-1 results were NOT universally reported as being world-beating,
> or anything special.
>
> I do have the CD (if you'll pardon the _expression_) of the NHRA results,
> as published in Drag News, and I sent about 50 (so-so-quality) screen
> images therefrom, along with separate captions, of the 1956 season, for
> assemblin!
g, and
dissemination, by Jim Hoekendijk, but Jim never
> undertook that project--too bad, but, it is re-doable if anyone is
> interested in that project.
>
> My other issue with the mythological performance of that car is due to
> the general laws of physics: weight/mass of car, rear wheel horsepower
> of car, inefficiency of transmission and tires(!!), and result-recording
> deficiciencies.
>
> If the car were really all that fast, it would have made headline news
> ,somewhere.....and its performance results would be REPEATABLE..
>
> Neil Vedder
>
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
--- Begin Message ---
- From: esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx (eastern sierra Adj Services)
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:32:22 +0000
--- Begin Message ---
- From: Brent Burger <cgico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:40:09 +0000
There might be that select group of owners who happen to possess actual survivors from these years AND possess the desire and willingness to really push them to the limits to see how they all stack up, but I suspect these numbers are almost in the nil range, particularly when it comes to ultra exotics like the D-500-1 cars. Getting those virtually non-existant owners together in one spot at one time to make a few passes seems an impossibility.
Back when parts were not so uncommon, I might risk breaking something in the pursuit of fun, but anymore ? It seems an unneeded concern to know if my car can whoop the pants off another one. Maybe I am getting old ? Maybe this is "maturity" setting in ? Just sitting at curbside is good enough if it involves the right car. To look under the hood of our D-500 is magic. It is all there ( I still need to find a correct oil filler cap), and unmolested from the day it was built. I have not even got it running yet, and it is plenty muscular, just sitting there in quiet repose. It WILL go like hell. I have no doubt. Just like any stock Fury or 300, they are the embodiment of the fledgling spirit of new-stock racing that was an exciting part of the 1950's car scene. That pretty much sums it up for me. Can your 300 whoop my DeSoto ? Maybe it can beat it to the line, and maybe it can't!
.
It doesn't really matter. Both made it to survivor status, and that is the toughest run these cars ever faced. I am just tickled to see them at all.
B.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: DupontTim@xxxxxxx
Neil, As I have pointed out the 56 D500-1 was never tested by any magazine and therefore no publication compares figures on what the 56 D500-1 was capable of. This whole question of what cars were capable of should include the scope of performance that was recorded by all sources to see a clearer picture of performance in respect to other contemporary vehicles. The lack of overall direct comparisons and incomplete information leaves us resorting to speculation on how these subsequent cars match up. When you revert back to just the verifiable facts......When contemplating "stock vehicles" I conclude that with respect to stock competition the best performance Chrysler vehicles of the Forward Look era were the C300 and 300b letter cars and the 56 D500. These cars when shown on the national stage were consistently breaking thru a wide range of performance barriers. While Chrysler's emphasis on performance was still quit!
e formi
dable for many years it nevertheless failed to see the across the board success in a broad range of performance areas that was the hallmark of these early performance oriented models. There are probably a lot of contributing factors... but the facts are the facts. I would fully expect that eventually the early performance marks would fall but when you look at performance or Racing competition as a realtime test of capability when it came to the national venues the history shows that these three models were Chryslers best performers of the Forward Look era. We can bench race from here to eternity swapping trannies and gears til the cows come home, but the real story is only what the recorded history can reveal. Tim
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network