Underwater Ferrari

I would urge fchat to reconsider. IMHO, given his vast, personal experience with Ferraris past and present, Bill's participation in fchat was an enormous asset that distinguished fchat from other Ferrari websites. That involvement improved the value of the site far in excess of whatever you would charge him to be a sponsor.

 

I agree, but since I have not "paid in", I probably don't have much say in the matter.

 

I dunno guys, I think you could argue that one both ways. Why cant a grown man abide by the rules? Especially when that person isn't a subscriber.

As stated however, my $.02 is worth about what ya'll paid to hear it.

 

If you charge businesses to sponsor a website with a substantial number of views, it's unfair to let other competing businesses to promote themselves for free because of some sort of perceived value attributed to the comments by the non paying business. It also severely diminishes the value of sponsorship, which is part of what keeps this website alive for all of us who are not businesses to learn and contribute.

Them's the breaks.

If Noon posted simply as a person, not as his business, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

Are you kidding?????? This is a guy who regularly buys and sells multi million dollar cars.
He can't subscribe?????

 

That was in the 1980s, not in 2014.

Marcel Massini

 

"Army Corp of Engineers and EPA will not allow any dredging or sediment displacement period. Silt is soft and the car can be moved by five or six divers. Floats would get the car to the surface but again, no where can the car be "floated" and moved of the shoreline as the water and shoreline is strictly controlled by the Army Corp of Engineers."

Interesting, this is not that difficult a hurdle to overcome. I've had several dealings with the ACOE in regards to gold prospecting. In the Commonwealth of Virginia we worked with the VMRC and the ACOE to clarify and define the " Virginia Code" in regards to using suction dredges for gold prospecting.

I've had dealings where they were friendly to engage with and one dealing when the local ACOE representative was hostile. To make a long story short, I beat him using the US Federal code. He has since retired and works for the Sierra Fund...those guys are the real problem.

Most people read the laws and assume the hurdles are too burdensome to overcome. We engaged by simple asking questions and a wonderful dialog opened up. What we found was both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the US Government were concerned if we were going to permanently affect the bottom of the river.

According to the loosely defined code of Virginia we may have had to apply for dredging permit each tim ewe wanted to dredge for gold. When we asked for clarification they responded that we needed to fill out a 50 plus page application each time we wanted to prospect. So, a handful of us filled out over 200 applications and sent them in for trips we wanted to make that summer. By law, they HAVE to respond to each request. This is when they came to the table. They don't have the resources to manage a hand full of prospectors.
The exact quote was, call us if you are building a dock or a bridge and have a good time.

When we were able to demonstrate that what we were doing didn't affect the river lands they worked with us the VMRC and the VA DEQ to outline the regulations. We worked that into the Virginia legislation to get our activity exempted from the permitting process.

Just so happens that our group in Virginia also worked with our buddies in New York. The ACOE is a government agency and doesn't own any land in the eastern part of the US. Most of that land is either privately owned or owned by the local state. In Virginia the water ways are considered public land so they waters are open to all citizens. You just can't cross private land without permission to get to the water. I'd have to check with my buddies in New York to see who owns the land and the waterways.

Anyway, in a nutshell. This is very workable, I could go into more detail....

 

Chevvies in the Hudson - IT'S TRUE!!!
Details to follow.

Bob Z.

 

When I was in engineering school in 1963 in Terre Haute, Indiana, I came across a collection of old engines, most of them donated to the mechanical engineering department.
One of them was a four-cylinder air-cooled Chevrolet engine and the paperwork stated that it was part of a small run of prototypes, never having made it into mass production. They were assembled in Tarrytown, New York. A number of them were fitted into cars but never exposed to the public. The paperwork also stated that the engine was complete and in running condition.
In the late 60s, when I lived in Westchester County, New York, it turned out that one of my neighbors had worked in the Tarrytown, NY GM plant for most of his career. He was in production management when he retired.
I asked him about the cars and what happened to them. He said that after GM decided that they were not feasible products, they should be scrapped. Instead of taking them to a salvage yard, they were loaded onto a barge, towed out into the Hudson and pushed off. GM did not want any exposure. He was not sure of the date but he thought it was in the late 30s.
As far as he knew, none of the approximately 20 cars survived and all records and documents were destroyed. Nor did he know if any of the cars had been driven or how well the engine performed.
When I told him about the engine I saw at school, he figures that it was donated as a leftover, never having been in a car.
The engine had a large blower on the front and ductwork on top. The cooling air was directed downward over the cylinders, each having an array of radial fins.
Bob Z.

 

I would have gladly paid his subscription just to hear more stories!