Register now to get rid of these ads!

Gasser Question....Why???

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by UK Comet, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. UK Comet
    Joined: Nov 16, 2006
    Posts: 228

    UK Comet
    Member

    Is there any good reason for the Gasser style, or is it just 'coz it looks cool as hell?
    Obviously it's roots are in Drag racing with fat rear tyres & skinny fronts, but what's with the 'nose in the air' attitude?
    Trying to get more weight to the rear for more traction perhaps?
    Or were they just trying to get airbourne?
    Tried a search but didn't find anything.
    Your opinions please... (oh shit, now I've started something :D )
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Levis Classic
    Joined: Oct 7, 2003
    Posts: 4,066

    Levis Classic
    Member

    The stance is a traction thing
     
  3. usedall9
    Joined: Oct 30, 2006
    Posts: 423

    usedall9
    Member

    Weight transfer......
     
  4. what fenders
    Joined: Apr 26, 2005
    Posts: 204

    what fenders
    Member

    back in the day narrow slicks hard rubber compounds ,racers did anything they could to get more weight on the rear tires
     

  5. Aman
    Joined: Dec 28, 2005
    Posts: 2,522

    Aman
    Member
    from Texas

    You have to understand that the Gasser was developed during the "teeth-cutting" days of drag racing. The purpose of the nose up attitude is weight transfer that gave better traction. This was done before the development of more sophisicated rear end setups and before wind tunnel technologies came along leading to the development of nose down, more aerodynamic cars. The trend didn't last that long and was popular in the 60's. Some hot rods, back then, more resembled the 4x4's of today because they were lifted front and rear. The rear was lifted in order to get those MT Indys under it. The Top Lane Blacktop 55 set up came along in the early 70's and you never saw another gasser setup. Well, that's the best I remember anyway. I'm sure that someone will give me shit over this but screw em.
     
  6. Ebert
    Joined: Feb 13, 2006
    Posts: 1,915

    Ebert
    Member

    As "What Fenders" Says...all about moving the weight to the rear with shitty tires. Good question.
     
  7. In the days of poor rear tire selection/compounds, the "nose up" stance would transfer weight onto the rearend of the car from inertia on the launch for added traction. Engines set real high and rear axles shifted forward were also an effort for traction before stickier tires came around. Sure looks aggressive too, doesn't it? When i was a kid, and saw this for the 1st time, before i knew the reason, it sure impressed the hell outa me!
     
  8. yekoms
    Joined: Jan 21, 2007
    Posts: 1,088

    yekoms
    Member

    Now that's a Hybrid that I could drive. Screw the Hondas,Toyotas etc. Prius my ass....
     
  9. Kustomkarma
    Joined: Mar 31, 2007
    Posts: 898

    Kustomkarma

    Okay, we all know about the nosebleed stance, but why do so many gassers have their gas tanks mounted on the front bumper? You would think that they would want all the weight over the rear wheels. BTW, it's interesting to note that as most of you guys and gals already know, the "High and Mighty" Plymouth drag car was kind of a pre gasser. Here's a link to a so so picture of it. (scroll all the way down.) Somebody on here probably has a better one. http://books.google.com/books?id=cO...DwNQO&sig=6o1pXdgFuML16hYie9kXHkfF_lo#PPP1,M1
     
  10. I believe the front mounted tanks were pressurized by a built in hand pump. It was easier to get fuel to the injectors with inertia helping, instead of an uphill fight from the rear of the car with this system. This is a guess, but i'll bet on it. How'd i do?
     
  11. From what I've read...thats about it Groucho...
     
  12. Gassermadness.com
     
  13. Gasserfreak
    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 1,339

    Gasserfreak
    Member
    from Yuma, AZ

    Looks to me like you already know all this shit, and just wanted to start some HAMB drama. If I'm mistaken Go here as preveously suggested:
    www.gassermadness.com so we can put the "gassers are trendy or gassers are this and that" bullshit to rest.
     
  14. what fenders
    Joined: Apr 26, 2005
    Posts: 204

    what fenders
    Member

    The tanks were front mounted for the fuel injection system,the fuel pumps can be a SOB to get primed if the lines are too long or below the pump
     
  15. Wesley
    Joined: Aug 12, 2006
    Posts: 1,670

    Wesley
    Member

    one of the reasons the gas tanks are mouted in front is the reason stated before easier to get the fuel to the pump and keep it there with the inertia on acceleration. Yes some of the tanks in the early days were pressurized but it didnt take long for that to be out lawed since when you take a fuel tank and pressurize it you now have a bomb. Another reason for the front mounted fuel tanks is that the sanctioning bodies encouraged it. With front mounted fuel tanks you dont have fuel lines running near the flywheel that would be cut should a flywheel come apart. If you look at a NHRA rule book today it states that if a fuel line runs near the flywheel it must be encased in steel.
     
  16. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,682

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    The high and mighty car was very influential in spreading the high CG=more weight transfer...it was built by engineers, so it kinda put a stamp of approval on the theory. The car itself was not a gasser, it fit into altered class...lots of people seem to think any car with a high front is a gasser.
    The high look came along just as the class evolved away from its roots as a class for normal street machines like souped early Fords and '55 Chevies and became a hard core pro racer division. The high nose look and the popularity of the class peaked in the early '60's, then dropped dead as all racing shifted toward late-model bodies...
    If the class had continued as a major draw, I think noses would have come back down very soon, as the cars were becoming VERY fast and developing high speed control problems from attitude, spindly front suspensions, and puny brakes.
     
  17. Aman
    Joined: Dec 28, 2005
    Posts: 2,522

    Aman
    Member
    from Texas

    On the front tanks, I agree with the above. Weight would not be an issue here cuz 2.5 gallons X 6 lbs./gallon = 15 lbs. (or less) Not much to worry about.
     
  18. Larry T
    Joined: Nov 24, 2004
    Posts: 7,661

    Larry T
    Member


    The frontends did start coming down around 1965. Most of the "late model" Mustang, Opel GT, Barracuda, etc. gassers set pretty close to the ground.
    I think that the fact that they looked like slow funnycars in the early 70's is part of what killed the class.
    Larry T
     
  19. 2manybillz
    Joined: May 30, 2005
    Posts: 827

    2manybillz
    Member

    I'll weigh in here too. A lot of the classical gassers that ran the fuel tank in the front also kept the original tank full for ballast. Also look at the 4" pipe rear bumpers with the caps on each end - usually full of lead. Also the trunk mounted truck batteries - 150 lb. more ballast. That and stiff sprung, near solid rear suspension made them a handful but fun to watch. All the added weight in the rear along with the problem of running about a 1" fuel line plus return lines all the way to the back pretty much offsets a couple of gallons up front. The late ('60s) model, turbocharged, straight running, "slow funny car" looking gassers took all the show out of the AA/GS class and turned it over to the fuel funnys. Sad.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.