Ted on the Prowl in the Early Days.....

[JRoberts]

I have seen many pictures of Ted Harbit and the Chicken Hawk, but I do not remember ever seeing this one.

[BobPalma]

That is probably 1962, Joe, when Team Harbit/Hawk won The NHRA National Drags in class for the first time.

After the 1962 win, he lettered "62" National Winner on the front fenders, which is absent in this photo.

I'll be having supper with Ted this evening as we prepare to leave for the Martin MI event tomorrow (Friday, June 13). I'll ask him to verify and post if that is incorrect. BP

[clonelark]

Ted if it asking to much could you say a few words about racing the Oldsmobiles back then. Did they come over to your car in the pits and talk racing? Did any Oldsmobiles or Studebakers have headers?

[BobPalma]

Check out Ted's "dumps" in Joe's OP, above (the open exhaust pipes under the car, exiting in front of the rear wheels). There's an interesting story behind those.

Ted started out with a given length of exhaust pipe aft of the headers. He wasn't sure of any scavenging effect there might be, so he made a run and recorded his time on the county-road quarter mile he had marked off in front of his Dad's farm [see Exhibit A], with the pipes at their original length.

He then went back and cut off specific lengths of each pipe, in increments, making another pass after each circumcision, until he found what he thought was the optimum length, based on the best ET attained!

Exhibit A:



BP

[PackardV8]

It is also instructive for us to remember all of Ted's early racing wins were with the 232" 2-bbl in the stock classes. If in the right hands, maybe the 232" and the T86 aren't total junk.

jack vines

[BobPalma]

Anyone else notice the misspelling in the OP caption from the magazine?

I think the writer meant to use the word credible, since there is no such word as "creditable!"

'Just noticed that. BP

[ddub]

I noticed that but thought maybe the writer meant the performance was worthy of credit. You may be right, he meant believable and used the wrong word. I'm not sure if creditable is a legitimate word. I taught math, not English.

[StudeNewby]

Anyone else notice the misspelling in the OP caption from the magazine?

I think the writer meant to use the word credible, since there is no such word as "creditable!"

'Just noticed that. BP

Actually, "creditable" is a word and it COULD be used in that instance, meaning worthy of praise or credit. I only know this because I read it this week in a column on oft-mistaken words, and I'm a nerd.

By the way, Bob, LOVE your column in Hemming's Classic Car...always a great read.

[BobPalma]

I noticed that but thought maybe the writer meant the performance was worthy of credit.

Well, we learn something new everyday!

I just thought I'd check my trusty 1967 Random House American College Dictionary and by George; the OP author was right to use creditable. Both words are in that dictionary, with the following definitions:

Credible: 1. capable of being believed; believable. 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy.

Now, we'd all agree that both of those definitions apply to Ted Harbit and The Chicken Hawk.

BUT: Equally valid and possibly more appropriate is creditable, which is a word (or was in 1967):

Creditable: bringing credit, honor, reputation, or esteem.

Ted and The Chicken are all those, too!

OK, the bell just rang, so we've got to leave Mr. Palma's English Class and go to Mr. Wilson's math class to compute the horsepower the 232 needed to produce to achieve that 16.90 elapsed time. (Geeze, when is lunch?) BP

[Chicken Hawk]

Ted if it asking to much could you say a few words about racing the Oldsmobiles back then. Did they come over to your car in the pits and talk racing? Did any Oldsmobiles or Studebakers have headers?

We raced a slew of Oldsmobiles over the years and won all of them except one. He was from Wisconsin and I don't recall what year but I overhauled the engine just before the Nationals and didn't get the rings seated before the meet. It ran about two tenths slower than it did before overhualing it and the next week it was running slightly better that it did before the overhaul so if I had done the overhaul a week earlier we probably would have won that one.

I had a set of "Y" headers and most of Olds had tube headers as I recall. I made about three sets for the '51 but none made hardly a bit of difference. I made a four tube set once spliting the center port and it sounded MUCH meaner but didn't run any quicker.

As Bob mentioned I did make a set with long pipes running to about the rear of the door and cut them off about a foot at a time trying to see if it made any difference. End result was it was a lot of work and time for hardly any gain.

Yes, got to know and be friends with a lot of the competitors. Got all kinds of different stories about things to do to run quicker and one I remember telling people and they thought for sure I was not truthful but it was. I ran a total timing of almost 50 degrees. That's where it ran the best. This was with about 6.9 compression (Had to be no more than 7.0 and after the deal with the overbore of .003" that was NOT the case, I started being on the safe side). And this was with farm TRACTOR gas.

I also experimented with advancing and retarding the timing I actually got to the point I advanced and retarded the cam one whole tooth? It did run a little slower but not enough you could feel it, only about a tenth or less.

[Lark Parker]

Re:BP's post#8
My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary does not list circumcision as a word.
Perhaps I have a gentile dictionary?
I've had the dictionary since 1955 and it has been infallible.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Are they looking up infallible?

[Chicken Hawk]

It is also instructive for us to remember all of Ted's early racing wins were with the 232" 2-bbl in the stock classes. If in the right hands, maybe the 232" and the T86 aren't total junk.

jack vines

Yes, the 232 is one stout little engine and I never broke the T-86 but did finally break the overdrive. Granted it was only a 232 but with 7" slicks and some launches at close to 5000 rpm's, never broke low gear or any other gears. I did go to a crash box, rock crusher or what ever you want to call it. I ground every other tooth of the slider, same for the second gear and input shaft and did away with the plates and brass rings (syncros) and did butcher them up after about two months racing but sure did shift nice. Harder you shifted the better it was. Trouble was it took a lot of time and work to grind all those pieces.

The last year I ran ('72 I think) the 232 turned 15.40 @ just under 88 mph. I had the weight down to 3030 (had to weigh at least 3000) and with the forumlas for figureing hp, it came out to about 180 hp.

[clonelark]

15:40, Thats cooking with a 232 and 2 bbl carb.

[Chicken Hawk]

Actually, "creditable" is a word and it COULD be used in that instance, meaning worthy of praise or credit. I only know this because I read it this week in a column on oft-mistaken words, and I'm a nerd.

By the way, Bob, LOVE your column in Hemming's Classic Car...always a great read.

Thanks, Mike; 'glad you enjoy it.

(Posted from Ted Harbit's computer, as you see...I'm checking the Forum Friday morning at Ted's house before we head up to Martin MI for the Martin F.A.S.T. drag race adventure with The Tomato and The Plain Brown Wrapper.) BP

[bezhawk]

Anyone else notice the misspelling in the OP caption from the magazine?

I think the writer meant to use the word credible, since there is no such word as "creditable!"

'Just noticed that. BP

Speaking of the picking of nits.....I noticed someone changed the header title from prowel to prowl!