Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rich

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Originality / Re: M58 LOF Glass on 1969
« on: November 03, 2023, 01:05:27 PM »
Kurt woke me from my current genealogy obsession to put out my annual forum response for 2023.  We don't have a record of M58, so yours is the first we've encountered.  (To others that might ask, sorry, that does NOT add value to your car... LOL)  My glass contacts are by now long gone (I'm so glad I did that research when I did, as at the time I could still find people at the source that either were there at the time, or had access to historical documents), so odds of finding new contacts that know the history to this level of detail are slim, but here is what I would say about your glass based on what you've presented:

1) You have no plant code on your glass - that is normally the mark of plant 8, which normally supplied only laminated glass (not this glass)

2) You have the DOT supplier code mark (not required until 1973, but LOF started using the mark as soon as DOT assigned it, in early 1969)

3) The M5x series applies to AS-2 (non-laminated) plate (not float) tempered glass used for GM on non-windshield applications.

4) For the known models of the M5 series:

a) M51 and M52 were untinted 1/4- and 3/16-inch thick respectively.  The thinner was normally used for 67 vent, backlight, and rear quarter windows; the thicker for the large (and unsupported on two sides) door windows, to provide greater stiffness.   M53 hasn't been observed (yet); perhaps was reserved.

b) M54 and M55 were tinted (Soft Ray) 1/4-inch and 3/16-inch respectively (see above for applications based on thickness).  M56-M58 hadn't been observed until now.

At this point I frankly can't be certain what distinguished M58 from, say, M55.  But I can speculate.  I doubt that it was the application of the DOT15 manufacturer number that caused it to be redefined; we haven't seen this before.  However, we have seen a new glass model number used for glass simply because it was produced at a different factory (see the glass article regarding windshields produced at plant 10).  Plant 8 is the plant that normally did NOT use a plant code, and that plant normally supplied only laminated (windshield) glass.

LOF skipped (or reserved) M53, so I wouldn't be surprised if they skipped M56.  That would leave M57 as the next model in this set to be used, and M58 after it.

Based on their typical consistency in assigning glass models, M58 might be expected to be AS2 (check), Soft-Ray (check), safety plate glass (check),  and 3/16 inch thick (we don't know the thickness of your glass, but your photo is in a backlight that would normally be 3/16 inch thick).

So my speculation based on what you've told us is that perhaps M58 was simply a rare run from plant 8 of 3/16 thick Soft-Ray AS-2 plate tempered glass (non-laminated) - and if so - I would expect M57 to be the 1/4-inch thick version.

Do you see this same glass on your doors, and if so, what is the thickness?  Only rarely was the thinner glass ever applied to door windows; that has been seen, but would definitely non-normative based on earlier designs.

Can you post a photo of your door glass, and measure the thickness of that glass, please?

Thanks, Rich

Restoration / Re: Front sway bar and springs
« on: March 12, 2023, 12:58:27 AM »
My once per decade login/post.   ;D  What Kurt said is correct, in that there are all sorts of heat treats and all sorts of alloys, even just within the generic class of carbon steels.  Without knowing the details of the metallurgy (and I'm not privy to the alloys being used for roll bars at that time, or any time for that matter) or the specific design objective, the part could be air quenched, water quenched, oil quenched, (some other medium), or no heat treat at all (though that is less likely than some type of quench).  Rich

No matter that it is legal to take pictures in the open at public events, CRG has long striven to honor personal privacy by not publishing detailed information on individual cars that are not already published in the public domain or for which owner permission was not given.

I think the thread discussion above has reached the desired conclusion; thanks for that, all of you!  That said, my personal preference would be for the original posters of the images and data above to edit those posts and retract those data for which the owner did not have opportunity to clear for public release.  Thanks in advance for doing that.

Going forward we expect that CRG Forum members, especially when representing themselves as CRG Forum members either verbally or by wearing a CRG logo, would honor this approach.

Thanks for your support and interest!


General Discussion / Re: Official CRG Cap?
« on: November 01, 2012, 12:01:02 AM »
Awakened from the dead for my biannual post... ;) I will note that the core group is having a discussion spawned by this thread.  There are issues associated with creation and selling of items with CRG logo designs that we haven't yet wanted to deal with.  But we're talking about it.  Main thing is we're all plenty busy and bird-dogging this though all the issues would require some time, and even if there were helpers, a core member would have to oversee it, and we don't as yet have a core volunteer for this.

That said, not previously appreciating the demand for such, I just dug up my "original" CRG hat (complete with some sweat salt stains on the black brim - needs to be washed).

If the core group itself also doesn't object (I haven't asked yet ;) ) to a one-off auction (we don't do these things here, normally) , would there be any interest/objection to me auctioning this off here with the proceeds to benefit the American Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy victims?


Site Comments/Discussion / Re: Virus running in background
« on: August 08, 2010, 02:19:33 PM »
There is a redirect to a Russian site that has been attached to the site home page and probably the forum page(s).  It loads a JAVAscript files that does various undesirable things.  Common up-to-date virus and malware checkers will stop that, but it's a PITA.  Working to get it off.

In meantime, disabling JAVAscript in your browser is another approach.

BTW, these attacks have been hitting other sites, like MSN.

Sorry for the troubles.


General Discussion / Re: Hallo from Denmark
« on: April 18, 2008, 12:14:36 PM »
Welcome, and congratulations on your car.  You'll find a good group of people here with a fair amount of international participation, though spread thinly across a big world.  Rich

General Discussion / Re: Site updates
« on: April 18, 2008, 11:58:45 AM »
The mini icon is a special formatted file that is on the site that your browser picks up, or should.  Should have nothing to do with the forum issue.  You might need to do a refresh on your browser; it is somehow confused.

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fake Cowl Tag??
« on: March 31, 2008, 07:06:34 PM »
I locked this thread and cleaned up the end of it.  Past the point of usefulness - if you all want to go toe to toe, do it somewhere else.


General Discussion / Re: corvette bronze 68 on home page?
« on: January 30, 2008, 01:10:29 PM »
I updated the name.  Sorry Pat - the msg didn't come thru right.  Nice car.  Rich

General Discussion / New CRG Research Report - First-Gen Carburetors
« on: November 30, 2007, 10:17:06 PM »
Please congratulate long-time Forum member, and our most recent CRG member Ed Bertrand, on the great job he has done on the latest CRG Research Report.  Thanks Ed!


Restoration / Re: Replacement glass
« on: August 18, 2007, 06:59:34 PM »
That said, I believe Pillkington is buying at least some of their repo glass from the orient and simply reselling.  Marking them here though.  That's what I recall from a discussion I had with them several years ago.  Main thing, however, is, does the glass fit.

Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps
« on: August 18, 2007, 06:47:44 PM »
Not to reopen old wounds, but here's a picture of a 63 Impala SS cover, taken in the GM Heritage Center on 9 Aug 2007 (by Daniel).  They appear to be physically identical, just painted differently.

General Discussion / Re: 67 Yutivo Camaro ad
« on: August 15, 2007, 06:41:00 PM »
Thanks for the info Claus - great info.  Please let us know if you find any more.  I've lost touch with my original contacts since I wrote the article.  Rich

General Discussion / VT
« on: April 20, 2007, 04:44:24 PM »
Using my perogative as CRG Coordinator and primary site maintainer, I've taken a slightly unusual step - which I believe is warranted - in adding a temporary gesture of solidarity to the main CRG page.  This will be a very rare thing and has never been done before by us for an off-topic issue, though in hindsight I should have done this at least one other time.  I did not even do this after 9/11 - but I was overseas when that happened and afterwards I think I was still in too much shock to be creative enough to realize that I should have done something then with the site.

This has personally affected me in ways I did not expect and am still discovering.  I took my master's in Engineering Mechanics from the ESM department of VT in 1981-82. I still know and am in occasional touch with some of the faculty, as well as a number of alums that I see as a result of my professional career.  My little research assistant "office" was just inside and to the right of the bottom floor entrance to Norris Hall, adjacent to the doors that you've seen on TV that appear behind the emergency crews carrying out the injured and the dead.  The entire building is now closed and will remain a crime scene for a number of days yet - but the department is pulling itself together, moving to temporary quarters, and the university is reopening come Monday.  Of the five faculty killed two were from the ESM department.  Amazingly, no ESM students lost their lives, due to the timing of class scheduling and because Prof Librescu, aware that something bad was going down in the building, sacrificed his life to hold his classroom door shut while most of his students escaped out the windows.  His grip on the door failed only after he was shot in the head through the door.  There are other acts of heroism, both large and small, that will eventually come to the surface.

The Hokie Nation will survive.  But this time is, for them. in the words to me of one of my former profs - "hell on the brains and emotions for all of us".

Your thoughts and prayers for those affected are greatly appreciated.


Originality / Continuing education on forum decorum
« on: March 01, 2007, 03:14:52 PM »
I'm on the road while I write this.

CRG has, on a couple of very rare instances in the history of its forums, edited or deleted an especially offensive post.  We've never had to go to the extent of monitoring that this (and the previous related) threads have required.  CRG forum members have typically held themselves to a higher standard.  However, as the forum grows, and as we gain new members that come from other forums where they are used to a lower standard of experience, we may have to do some education.

To that end I have edited a number of posts in this thread that I feel were unnecessarily inflammatory. I have left the mostly tolerable content, which does not effect the technical content of this thread.

It is fine to express an opinion.  It is fine to disagree wiith someone.  It is fine to discuss and attempt to influence the readers to your view.  But please remember that disagreement does not mean that the person you disagree with is either an idiot or an underhanded no good.

There is no need to bring personal attacks into CRG discussions, and there is no excuse for it.

Please monitor yourselves - I don't want to have to do it, and neither does Kurt nor the rest of the CRG leadership.

Thanks for your adherence to this, and for your patience.

CRG Coordinator

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6