Buddy Bakers Daytona

[Aero426]

Let me give you some advice - all of you - if you have a chance to learn some history - from those who actually lived it - you should forget all your preconceptions and bullshit and forget how you read about it in books or how so and so said it was - that is not reality. You do not know the True Reality - you can't - because you were not there. I have tried in vain to relay the True Story exactly as I have been told it. I have encouraged you to contact Cotton himself to get the remaining blanks filled in.

YOU then might actually learn something FOR REAL. Not an anecdote.

With all due respect to your grandfather, what are we to do if there are people who also knew the car back then, who disagree with what he remembers?   Because that is the situation.    

[Redbird]

What I see is this is an opportunity to learn something about things I'm interested in. I don't have to have all the answers. I do know a bit about the shows and others can help me learn more.

[hemigeno]

If I recall, you guys first claimed that they never raced with windows. Then you said that wasn't a real race car. Then you said ok it could be. Then you said it was.

I don't recall any of the above comments coming from the main participants in this discussion.  Certainly not from me.  There are numerous photographic examples (from Buzz McKim and the NASCAR archives) on my office walls right now of both with-windows and without-windows setups for various wing cars.  Think what you will.

When first seeing pictures of the Canepa car after Cotton removed it from the Weatherly museum, I was quite intrigued by the genuine race equipment on the car and have never doubted its status as a race chassis.  What we HAVE collectively doubted is that the car has the exact race pedigree you've claimed, although I am not sure any of us have absolutely ruled out the possibility the chassis raced in Daytona trim - just that it did not race during the 1970 race season (how could it, if it was on the show circuit beginning in February 1970 through early 1971?).  Again, think what you will.  

[Ghoste]

Your memories, connections and knowledge of esoteric trivia are outstanding and completely INHUMAN. Frankly, they are UNBELIEVABLE.

Your evidence and stories are nothing but HEARSAY and CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

Completely INADMISSABLE.

You mean circumstantial evidence such as if I "HEAR" someone"SAY" they ran 200 mph but they have no way of proving it?  And in that case should I be doubtful?

[6bblgt]

They cannot promote a 200 mph lap unless it was official.

If it happened during qualifying, it would have been official.

It happened during a race. In the draft. With other cars around.

No way it could ever been officially referred to, and that's why you won't find a shred of hard evidence to back it up. Sure, they had stop watches and seems everyone but you knows they ran more than 200 mph on several occasions. But a stopwatch is unofficial. And back then, they were analog stopwatches.

In order for an "official" organization like NASCAR or Chrysler to make a claim like that, they had to do it "officially."

That is why Chrysler set out to claim that record, with their #1 driver, before anyone else did it - officially.

So no, I have admitted several times there is no real evidence. You don't have to believe if that makes it easier to live with yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... ALL laps during a NASCAR race are OFFICIAL.
The un-official 200+mph laps were plenty & by numerous drivers at the Chrysler Proving Grounds.
The first official 200+mph closed course laps (with NASCAR officials present) was March 24, 70 during a test session with the Chrysler Engineering #88 Dodge Daytona being driven by Buddy Baker.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Mopurr]

The Washington story was about cutting down a Cherry tree not planting them......and that has been proven to have been just that a story not actual event.......

And the window thing is that cars were raced with windows until Nascar changed the rules and made them take the glass out for safety.

So the date when that happened was after the 500's raced so it would have made sense for the picture of the 500 race car to have had glass.

[6bblgt]

Are you claiming that all of the 1970 season COG cars were retired and NONE were reskinned as Road Runners for the '71 Season with Pete Hamiton?

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[chargerboy69]

Loosing a discussion?

It's LOSING.

Loosing is how a car handles. The opposite of Tite.

That is it?  That is right, you got me.  I did put an extra "o" in the word "losing"  I do need to slow down and proof read my post.

Let me give you some advice - all of you - if you have a chance to learn some history - from those who actually lived it - you should forget all your preconceptions and bullshit and forget how you read about it in books or how so and so said it was - that is not reality. You do not know the True Reality - you can't - because you were not there. I have tried in vain to relay the True Story exactly as I have been told it. I have encouraged you to contact Cotton himself to get the remaining blanks filled in.

So Mr. Spelling Bee, since you are wise in the ways of crafting a reply, I find it my duty to point out your excessive use of run-on sentences.  Also, didn't you ever learn you are not supposed to end the sentence with a preposition?

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Aero426]

QUOTE:

3. Photos exist of it at Chicago in 1970, and as we now see at a 1971 show as well.
Not the same car. As previously explained.

Actually you never explained.   So what's different?   And don't say "the decals"!

[C5HM]

QUOTE:
what are we to do if there are people who also knew the car back then, who disagree with what he remembers?   Because that is the situation.    


ANSWER: Bring them forward and out into the spotlight. Have them post their version of events in a public forum on this very message board. Have them do it themselves, under their own name. Not retold by you or anyone. Only then can we admit that as "evidence" and rightfully debate it.

All the "evidence" that is necessary is already posted in this thread in the form of period pictures. Those picture are the same as being there and are far more accurate that the memories of one who was a child at the time or the sepia toned recollections of your storied and legendary Grand Father. I have personally had the pleasure of interviewing and getting to know a great many of the folks who made NASCAR what it once was (and--sadly--is no more, thanks to Brian X. France). I won't bore you with the list, but it is extensive.  Their memories of events 40 years in the past are on many occassions inexact. Pictures, on the other hand, do not lie. Pictures do not forget and pictures do not mis-remember. The photographically documented differences between the Canepa car and the Southern 500 car are legion (to include side glass, rivet count on "A" pillars, shape and rivet count on door handle holes, lanyardless street wing, street supports, lack of drive shaft loops, street chin spoiler, over flow vent location, size and shape of fender flares, and on and on) . To attribute them to cosmetic preferences is tendentious and contrary to logic. This does not mean or even suggest that the Canepa car  is in some way sub rosa, or not a legitimate racing chassis (specific racing history unknown at present). What is does mean is that the Canepa car is not the car that you want it to be (for reasons unknown).  It is not the Southern 500 winning car on the facts presented. And your 200 mph claim has even less support in objective fact than the contention the car won the Southern 500. You have taken a position on the Canepa car that is based more in emotion and ego than logic or fact. As a result, you are unable to objectively evaluate the "evidence" that has been presented here. This has even impaired your ability to digest the facts set out in this thread such as the undisputable fact that NASCAR rules changes in 1970 outlawed the use of side glass in Grand National Stock Cars---the shot you posted of the 500, therefore, is a non sequitur). Further discussion would seem to be unproductive.

[Aero426]

6. Andy's position has been that if it was not on display at a show, the car was in a warehouse in storage during 1970.    
Wrong date. Car was in pieces in 1970 until rebuilt and raced in second half of 1970. 1971 - maybe. Still trying to pin down when the car ended up at Atlanta dealer, when Cotton took possession of it again, and when he put it in museum. Or Andy may have the two cars confused - a definite possibility.

You have 801,000 reasons to spin the tale your way.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[1RareBird]

Just a few thoughts here.  First, none of the cars ran 243mph at Chelsea proving grounds.  Not even the #88.  That came right from Larry Rathgeb when I questioned him on it about a year ago.  Second, has anyone really looked close at the bodywork of the supposed winning/show car?  The reason I ask is if the car was converted from the race car into the show car and the wing was changed (along with other stuff) for the show circuit then there should be sure sign of that on the car.  Let me explain.  If the daytona show car originally had a race wing, then the supports required the holes in the top of the quarter to be enlarged do to the diameter of the aluminum tubes.  So, since a steet wing only required small 3/8 holes for the studs, you would think there would be evidence that larger holes on the top of the quarters still exist or were modified.  (I could tell by looking at it)  Also, at the base of the supports, the were bolted directly to the trunk floor with four bolts on each support.  Are those still there?  This may help with identifying weather the show car was a dautona race car at some point or if perhaps it was a modified 500 used for the show circuit.

As for my knowledge, I don't know everything but I have spent a few hundred hours working on and studying a certain well known 69.

Also, if Nichels built the show car for chrysler as you say, there should be certain noticable differences in the chassis.  For example the torion bar adjuster.  Just my .02.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[richRTSE]

[How many 1969 Charger 500s and/or Daytonas did you actually own?]  Two cars of the 500s that I actually raced with. Then I bought the car that they used to make up the car (Daytona) with that you saw in the magazine. I bought that car. It was stolen out of California. It was brought to me. I carried it to Detroit. They cut the nose off of it and made the needle nose car and then I bought it back, fixed it and then I bought a nose that Neil Castles wrecked going across the Daytona Speedway in, I guess it was '69. He had a white 500, and I bought it from Chrysler. You know, they loaned us cars back then. So I'd say all together, four of them total. I just got through building that, I guess four or five years ago, I had two or three of those kits that we put in it back there; we sold them now. I don't have another one. I sold the last one. I really gave it to a friend of mine, Rodney Daniels out of Detroit. The car is in Spartanburg. It's a 500 now, but it's really just a '69 Charger. He's making a Hemi-powered car out of it. I don't know if he's going to put the wing on it or not. So far, he's just got it as a 500.

Am I reading this right? Cotton Owens is saying he bought the car THEY used to make the Daytona that was in the magazines. He brought it to Detroit, THEY cut the front of the car off and made a Daytona (needle nose car?). He then later bought the car and fixed it IN "I guess" 1969, and I assume went racing with it??? And who are "THEY", Chrysler and Ray Nichels?

[therealmoparman]

💩

[1RareBird]

Personally, I think a good close visual inspection of the car would tell a lot to what it was.  As for the car being wrecked and possibly totally rebuilt with new sheet metal, I can believe that but the odds of the rear section (trunk pan and rails for ex) being replaced is slim.  Someone with a good eye could tell where the previous damage was repaired whether in involved welding on new quarters or replacing a rail.  Trust me when I say repairs and or modifications were fairly crude and easily spotted.  Again, these were race cars and appearance was not favored over function.  Someone really needs to take a good, in depth look at the "show car" chassis.  I think it would answer a lot of questions.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[69_500]

The car just pictured is a legit street HEMI 500. It was stolen early in life in California from a dealership and it is definitely not a race car by any stretch of the imagination. HEMI 4 speed car to boot.