AntiqueCraftsman

Maybe the car in the photo isn't new? Maybe that photo was taken in '51, or later.

Another possible difference is that the original car in the OP appears to have a raised hood ornament where the one that belonged to Gene Tierney doesn't appear to have any raised hood ornament. It's probably not the same car. But it's hard to say as the one in the link I posted could have been reworked or modified who knows how many times over the years?

I just noticed a difference between the photo in the OP and the car I linked to. The car I linked to appears to have light on top of the fenders above the headlights. The car in the original photograph doesn't appear to have those lights. I wonder whether those lights are original or perhaps someone added them later?

Just for kicks I did a Google search for "1941 Lincoln continental movie star" and found a car that looks very similar that belonged to actress Gene Tierney. Of course that wouldn't be her sitting in the car, but maybe it's her car? Here's the car I found: 1941 Lincoln Convertible It could also be that someone else might have bought her car. Perhaps this photo wasn't taken in 1941? This photo could have been taken in the late 50's? Still, if it was her car, some actor might have bought it from her. Just thought I'd share the fruits of my search for whatever it's worth.

Here's an article that goes into a bit more detail of how to actually build the wooden rotisserie. (or roll-to-one-side type) https://brainpowermotorsports.com/rust-removal-simple-solution-ugly-job/ Here's another wooden rotisserie that is more conventional. However, this one requires that you are able to run a steel pipe clear through your car. It may also be picky about having that pipe in the center of balance lest the car might want to flip over due to being off balance. https://www.minimania.com/How_To___Build_a_Mini_Rotisserie_for_less_than__200 I'm going to personally go for just rolling the car over on one side. You can always modify it to roll over in the other direction too if that might be useful.

I was looking for a safe and affordable rotisserie myself. I never thought of making one out of wood. After seeing the following YouTube videos I will definitely be building my own wooden rotisserie. Especially considering that I have a sawmill and so lumber is next to nothing for me. It's obviously not as nice as an expensive rotisserie, but considering the price difference, functionality wins the day. If it works and it's inexpensive you won't get any complaints from me. And how long could it take to build one? There isn't even any welding involved. Just bolt it together. What could be simpler? I don't know how they built these but I would use large bolts with through-holes and large washers nuts on each side. I wouldn't trust lag bolts or wood screws. Just my thoughts. The one in the first video appears to be bolted together with large bolts. The one in the second video appears to be screwed together with lots of wood screws. I'm going for the large bolt construction myself.

I like to think the hobby of restoring antique cars can be for everyone, not just for the rich. Why cast out an entire group of people based on their financial status in life? What's the point in that? I would much rather see someone restore a car on a budget as a fun hobby then to see them be discourage from doing anything simply because they can't afford to pay for the highest quality restoration. I also think that different people have different motivations for "restoring" an old car. They also may very likely use the term "restore" to mean quite different things. For example, someone who is interested in taking a car to an antique car show may see the term "restore" to mean "Restored to perfect factory condition". However, for someone else the term "restore" may simply mean to bring a car back into usable service. If I get the thing running and put it back on the road street legal, then I've "restored" it from its previous condition which may have been simply sitting in a field rusting into the ground. So even the term, "Restoration" can mean quite different things to different people. I'm definitely interested solely in the latter. I have no interest at all in trying to compete with rich people to obtain a trophy for the most convincing factory restoration. I may as well give that up right now. Why compete with rich people when I'm at such a huge disadvantage financially? That makes no sense. So for me painting parts that were previously chromed is the only rational option. The only question for me is what color of paint would be best used for a specific part? Should I paint previously chromed parts silver as a "poor man's chrome job"? Or should I choose another color so there's not even any suggestion that I was trying to emulate chrome? I like the bumper in Jack M's post #9. I think it looks great! In fact when I see something like this I say to myself, "Now there a SMART MAN!". He chose to wisely save a lot of money instead of foolishly throwing money away on something that didn't need to be chromed. And it looks just fine. Sure there will be those who scream and complain that it's not factory original. So what? Who cares? If it bothers them that much let them pay to have it chromed. ? if they thought they were going to have to pay for the chrome job they'd suddenly be saying, "You know, on second thought, it doesn't look all that bad after all". ?

I probably should have qualified that my experience with the deer are on quiet back roads. I'm not sure if it would make much difference at interstate highway speeds. One thing I have noticed about deer is that when they panic they don't seem to be smart enough to choose to run in a direction that is necessarily away from an oncoming car. I actually hit a deer once that was running in a field alongside my car parallel to me. I never dreamed it would decide to turn out onto the road right in front of me. But that's exactly what it did. And it clearly saw me. So I'm not so sure that a deer can be "frightened" away from an oncoming car with deer whistles. There's no guarantee that the deer will actually run away from the sound. Sometimes they'll jump right out in front of you when it's clear that they already see you coming. They don't seem to know enough to turn around and go the other way.

I meant to comment on this. Where I live there are a lot of deer so I see deer jumping out in front of me quite often. And over the years I've noticed something. This seems to hold true, but I say for certain. It's something I noticed and have tried and it seems to work. What have I noticed? Well, I've noticed that when I see a deer standing alongside the road it typically just stands there doing nothing. But then I'll hit the brakes to slow down just to be sure that I won't hit the deer. What I've noticed is that usually the moment I hit the brakes the deer with then suddenly jump, often right out onto the road in front of me. So it dawned on me that maybe the deer can hear my brakes being applied? I'm not hitting the brakes so hard as to squeal the tires. But when I do hit the break even I can hear a faint sound of the brake shoes or pads rubbing against the drums or rotors. This sound isn't real loud, but it certainly more noise than if I don't hit the brakes at all. My theory is that even though I only hear a very mild rubbing sound, the deer may actually be hearing a very loud screeching sound coming from by brakes that is simply too high in frequency for my human ears to hear. And it might be that high-pitched screeching sound from my brakes that cause the deer to panic and jump. So to test my theory when I see deer along side the road I avoid hitting the brakes at all and simply just let up on the gas and let the car slow down normally without the brakes being involved. This seems to work better as the deer then usually just continues to stand beside the road as I drive by and not be startled into jumping. It's just a theory, but I've been doing this for years now and it seems to work. So I'm pretty convinced that the deer are actually hearing my brakes squealing at a frequency that I can't even hear and that's what causes them to be startled. Because after all, before I hit the brakes my car wasn't making such a threatening noise. Anyway, that's my theory. So when I'm driving along and I notice deer right on the edge of the road I never hit my brakes I just let off the gas. And then I coast by them and they just stand there and watch me coast by without being startled. It seems to work. In fact, I even tested this theory a few times at low speeds. When I see deer close to the road I coast up until I'm almost ready to pass them. They just stand there calmly watching me approach. When I'm almost read to pass them I'll apply the brakes. Not enough to squeal tires, but just enough to start to slow the car down. And sure enough the very moment I apply the brakes the deer are all startled and take off running. So I'm pretty convinced that they hear my brakes being applied in a way that I can't even hear. This seems to work with enough consistency that it's unlikely to be a coincidence. Anyway, from this experience I would question the value of deer whistles. A deer whistle might actually startle a deer into panicking, and that's when they are more likely to jump out in front of the car. So wouldn't buy deer whistles. I think a quite car is better. Just don't hit the brakes if the deer aren't moving and chances are they'll just stand there and watch you coast by quietly. Of course this isn't going to work for deer that are already running toward the road. But this seems to work pretty well if they are just standing alongside the road. Hitting the brakes seems to be trigger that sets them off into a panic. I'm guessing they hear the brake shoes squealing at a high frequency that we can't hear.

Personally I like the insect archer. I could put him on my Escort and claim that he's the reason I never get any bugs on the windshield

It would still be fun to see Destin do his experiments with this. The Butterfly deflector doesn't really need to work for the experimenting to still be fun. But yeah, I suggested smoke tunnel tests as a preliminary idea. In fact, it would probably be cool to see smoke wind-tunnel tests done on antique cars versus modern cars. There would definitely need to be a major difference since modern cars are more aerodynamically efficient. This my also play a role in whether something like the Butterfly bug deflector might do anything at all. The butterfly deflector in the photo in post #3 sure looks BIG enough to do something. If nothing else it might be causing the car to have worse gas millage. The first thing I thought of when I saw it was that it appears to obstruct the driver's view of the road. I'm not sure I'd want such a large hood ornament. Even if it worked as a bug deflector. A person would also need to live in a pretty buggy area for this to be important for them. I drive a 1998 Ford Escort with no hood ornament at all and I never get bugs on my windshield. Could it be that the car is just so aerodynamic that bugs aren't likely to splat on the windshield? Or do I just live in an area where bugs aren't a huge problem?

Having an interest in physics questions myself I actually thought about this quite a bit last night. Obviously the idea of this thing is to create an airflow pattern that deflects the insects, snow, or dirt away from the windshield. At first glance I can see where it might have some potential for this. But there would be so many other factors that would come into play. For example, the general shape of the car itself would most likely play a role. For example, given a large butterfly deflector like the one in the photo in post #3 it might have some success in creating a potentially effective airflow. I'm also thinking that the shape and contour of the car itself may play a large role. For example, it might work better (or worse) on an antique car that has a pointed hood and lower front fenders versus a more modern car that has a large flat hood. The whole question is pretty silly of course. It's not likely to be all that great in any situation. But you know how engineers are. They want to do the experiments and see the actual data. Guessing is the job of philosophers. ? Destin, from Smarter Every Day specializes in extreme high speed photography. I could just see him having a ball putting this on a car and then driving it through a buggy area and photographing the how the bugs might be deflected in extreme slow motion. He would be more excited about watching the bugs being disrupted in their flight than anything else. He's like that. ?

I've replaced windshields in the past too. And yes, I had problems with the first ones I installed. Never broke one, but I did have problems trying to get them to seal completely. What I've learned is that it requires a lot of patience. For one thing lay the windshield in place first. And if it isn't laying in really nice and even all the way around, then better get out the hammer and dollies and take car of that first. No amount of trying to fit a new windshield into a bent window frame is going to work well no matter how professional the installer is. So making sure the window frame is in pristine condition is paramount. As you can see on my truck photo from my previous post, getting the window frame back into pristine shape is going to be my greatest challenge. And there's no point in trying to fit a window into the frame until that task has been accomplished first. It's certainly not going to fit the way it is right now. ?

I've decided to replace the rear window and windshield of my truck. Actually a 60 foot tall Oak tree made the decision for me. I live in the woods and I was working out in the back yard. My truck was parked in the front yard. It was a bright sunny day with a cloudless sky and no wind whatsoever. I hear a crack and looked up to see which branch was about to fall. Something that happens from time to time around here. Unfortunately it was a HUGE branch about 60 feet directly above my pick up truck. I watched it break off and fall directly on the roof of my truck. There was nothing I could do but watch the rear window explode as the log crushed the roof of my truck. So now I need to straighten the roof back up and replace both front and rear windows. The good news is that all the side windows are just fine. ? There's no way I'll pay to have this done. In fact, I'm actually looking at buying another entire truck for $500 just to use the windows out of it. Of course, I'll get that whole second truck as a parts truck too. But yeah, replacing windows is on my agenda too thanks to Mrs. Oak Tree. This just happened yesterday.

We can see that one works. No need for an engineering video on that one. ?

Hi everyone, I just sent Destin at Smarter Every Day <-- Link to his webpage, a video suggestion to investigate whether these actually work. If you aren't familiar with Destin's videos check them out here: Smarter Every Day on YouTube If you would like to see Destin make a video on whether or not these might work please go pester him on his webpage When you get there you can go to CONTACT by clicking on the contact button in the upper right corner of his webpage. Then click on VIDEO IDEAS and suggest this idea (I already did this, but if more of you do it he'll be more likely to see an interest in this) You can also contact him on his many social networks also listed on his contacts page. You can also send him an email via his YouTube Channel as well. If enough people show an interest he might response. If nothing else he might at least come here and comment on this. I sent him a link to this thread since this is where the idea came from. So go pester him and maybe we can get him to do a video on these Butterfly deflectors. I also suggested that he might just do an experiment with a model car in a small wind tunnel just to get an idea of whether this might work at all. In any case, GO PESTER HIM to do this. Remember: "The squeaky wheel gets attention!" So go squeak on Destin. ? Maybe he'll do a short video for us. That would be GREAT!

I would say that it would stop in the same distance it would if there was no cow. But then I'd probably be shot on sight as a pragmatic cowpoke party spoiler.

My sentiments as well. ?

I found another one. Although I wouldn't even bother restoring this one. I'd just jump it in and drive it as is. It has a 261 truck engine in it and an automatic transmission. '51 Chevy 2-door But it also comes with this additional '49 chassis and 235 engine: I wonder if that '49 chassis would fit under my '54 body? This sounds like a good deal for me. A car I can just jump in and drive away plus a chassis and spare engine for my '54 restoration project? Now the only question is whether this deal will still be around by the time I get my trailer done?

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to high-jack the other thread. I'm sorry my posts are being seen that way. I was actually just trying to explain that the problems they were having wouldn't apply to my situation. I understand that their experiences is valid. I never questioned that.

` You can jump to your totally bogus conclusions all day long. That's not going to make them true. Everyone who has shared their problems thus far has actually included information of what they have done wrong and why it didn't work for them. So I'm paying attention to the details. Are you? Just don't do what they did and you'll be fine. I'm learning a lot here from other people's mistakes. This is a very useful forum. ? So far I've learned the following: 1. Don't try to fix a bad installation by trying to glue them down where they don't want to lay naturally. 2. Don't install them on a car that will be driven at 65+ mph on a regular basis. 3. Don't buy the hard portawalls. Use the soft pliable ones. Otherwise they might cut into your sidewalls. 4. Don't install them on highly flexible radial tires All GOOD ADVICE! I'm paying close attention to everything everyone has offered thus far. Contrary to your claim that I haven't heard a thing.

You used them on highly flexible radial tires. Your experience isn't going to apply to someone who is using a bias 6-ply very stiff, very high-wall tire that doesn't flex like a radial tire. So yes, your experience is useful for someone who has the same situation you had. But it's not going to apply to everyone. Edited it to ask the following: What kind of portawalls did you use? The man in the video says there are two kinds, soft and hard. He said not to use the hard ones. If the portawalls cut into your tires it sure sound like you were using the hard ones. It's not likely that soft ones would cut into tires. So based on what the man in the video said you may have gotten the wrong portawalls to begin with.

The man on YouTube told me what can go wrong. Matt Harwood verified those predictions. So I basically learned the same information from both places. I don't see where they are in conflict. I'm grateful to have the information verified by both sources. I appreciate the information. I posted the videos so others can avoid those same mistakes.

With all due respect I actually posted a video where a person who is in the business claims that you can't tell them apart from the real thing when "done right." He even included dos and dont's. And from what I can see your experience is associated with having done all the "dont's." So I thank you for sharing your experience. Now I know what not to do. So the information you have shared was indeed helpful. Thank you. ? Don't put them on a car that will be driven at high speeds, and don't try to glue them down with rubber cement. Understood.

That's old line is kind of outdated with the advent of YouTube. You failed to take into account the different driving habits and other factors. All you did was cite an example where someone put them on a car and drove it too fast. What good is that information doing me when it doesn't apply to me?