1967 Shelby - fiberglass nose - 2 pieces?

[BGlover67]

Since Michael (2112) brought my attention to the strabismus (lazy eye) headlight issue, I see it on every original Shelby I look at.  Only really reworked (overly restored) cars seem not to have it.

[2112]

Umm,

Brian and I have OCD.

It is in our nature.

Of course, having all these flaws is assemblyline correct.   

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.

I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).

"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).

Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."

For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to.  Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in. 

[Richstang]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.

I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).

"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).

Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."

For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to.  Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in.

Please accept my apology Bob.
Brian had given me permission to share his working theory with the forum in his first email to me on this topic.  Your forum question was a good one. I thought if I posted his reply, others who have been following along would not be left in the dark. I didn't realize there was a different context in your question to him in the private email. I do not normally share anything private with an open forum unless given permission. Thanks for your understanding in this particular situation. I do hope he is able to share something concrete and complete as well, such as those Ionia work orders if he has them.

It's difficult with Brian being banned from our forum (for reasons we don't need to get into here). Through his extensive research he has gathered more info from "behind the scenes" on the '67's than most of us have ever seen. I am thankful for his website and all he shares on it. He asked me to share a second email on another thread I started, but I'm not with him 100% on the reply. So, we're waiting for more feedback from another person. I don't enjoy being a middle man, but poking into these '67 details is putting me in that spot. As always, I appreciate all your help too.
Rich

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob,
It's good to know you also think there are a lot more than a half dozen. For those wondering, it's to soon to take a guess on how many have the 2 pc nose with so few cars known, so I won't at this time. Once we get more cars to look at the dates, we can take a better educated guess.

In the meanwhile I just received a note from Brian Styles (blue ink) that I find very interesting;
"Remember, Ford stepped in and took control in October '66 (basically the first full month of '67 production)  My $0.02 (working theory) is that the 2-piece front ends were the emergency "intervention" --  the temporary fix provided by A.O. Smith as Shelby continued to struggle to finish cars (even working 7 days a week) -- because the one piece front-ends didn't fit. A.O. Smith's 2-piece front end (temporary fix) was used until the new molds could be created for the second version of the 1-piece front-end. I believe this is referenced by item #3 of the VanAkin letter:

http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-12-08-letter-to-ken-vanakin.asp 
3.   Engineering Assistance during 1967 Shelby Program, including paint and finishing technician's time in California and the engineering requirements involved in the emergency fabrication of components for the 1967 Shelby. (Ionia Work Orders #2633 and #2635)

The 2-piece front-end and other running production changes are an important bit of research into the SA timeline."

Brian's theory is certainly worth considering. I recall reading the early fiberglass nose pieces hand to be hand fit with many hours of labor just to get them to bolt on.

I would like to see the documentation or evidence that AO Smith supplied the 2 piece nose components. I am not saying I don't believe that it couldn't happen just that I hadn't seen anything to indicate that AO Smith supplied finished front nose items that were used in 67 production.

I've attached Brian's reply to Bob's question for those following along (again in blue ink).

"Sorry Bob. I didn't mean to imply that A.O. Smith Plastics was "manufacturing" or "supplying" the 2-piece fiberglass front ends. I meant to imply that the 2-piece design was A.O. Smith's "intervention." i.e. their temporary approach to solving the problem SAI was facing in assembly. If I'm right, then I'd further suspect that A.O. Smith may have built molds and sent them off to SAI's fiberglass supplier(s) (possibly Barry and/or Plaza?).

Then I'd guess that while the 2-piece front-ends were being used, a new 1-piece front-end mold was created, which is why the 2-piece design was only temporary."

For future reference as a matter of polite protocol you should ask permission to share someone else's private email . However under the circumstances I am perfectly fine with that this time. My email reply back to Brian had to do with asking for help to understand the context of the word "intervention" . I asked if he could show me the memo that the word was used in?
I said if proprietary I would not reprint it if he didn't want me to.  Brian ,emailed me back that the use of the word "intervention" was his interpretation of the situation. Brian said that AO Smith was the party Ford brought in to help solve the problems . Context or evidence to what kind of specific help AO Smith gave is what I am trying to determine and how that help relates to the two piece nose . Brian said that he was going to be busy today but would try and get back with me on Wed with "some snippets" from which he proposed his theory from . I hope it is not a redacted copy like something from current political news . My concern is that a brief quotable passage may be too brief and because of that change the context in which words are used in.

Please accept my apology Bob.
Brian had given me permission to share his working theory with the forum in his first email to me on this topic.  Your forum question was a good one. I thought if I posted his reply, others who have been following along would not be left in the dark. I didn't realize there was a different context in your question to him in the private email. I do not normally share anything private with an open forum unless given permission. Thanks for your understanding in this particular situation. I do hope he is able to share something concrete and complete as well, such as those Ionia work orders if he has them.

It's difficult with Brian being banned from our forum (for reasons we don't need to get into here). Through his extensive research he has gathered more info from "behind the scenes" on the '67's than most of us have ever seen. I am thankful for his website and all he shares on it. He asked me to share a second email on another thread I started, but I'm not with him 100% on the reply. So, we're waiting for more feedback from another person. I don't enjoy being a middle man, but poking into these '67 details is putting me in that spot. As always, I appreciate all your help too.
Rich

No need for apology but accepted all the same. We are good. You are just too efficient for your own good.    I was getting ready to share the info when I saw your post. Like I said before under the circumstances I am perfectly fine.

[KPHARTLEY]

GT350 #403 HAS A TWO PIECE FRONT END

[Richstang]

GT350 #403 HAS A TWO PIECE FRONT END

Excellent, another GT350 for the list.

Thank you KP (and welcome to the forum)
PM sent

[Richstang]

updated list on first post;

[67350#1242]

Thought I would post this picture from my files - labeled L Automobile Magazine Jan 68.  Shows 2 piece nose w/slanted grill.  Can't tell if 350 or 500.
Kurt.

[Richstang]

Thought I would post this picture from my files - labeled L Automobile Magazine Jan 68.  Shows 2 piece nose w/slanted grill.  Can't tell if 350 or 500.
Kurt.

NICE CATCH!
I've seen the photo before, but never noticed the 2 piece nose.

[Wedgeman]

Just spoke with Bob Hamilton..67 GT500 Nightmist Blue. # 482... 2 piece nose.....

[JD]

Just spoke with Bob Hamilton..67 GT500 Nightmist Blue. # 482... 2 piece nose..... 8)

Possible to post any photos??

[Wedgeman]

Car is in storage, I will ask Bob

[Richstang]

Car is in storage, I will ask Bob

Thanks Wedgeman,
#0482 added to the list. It would be great to see any photos of this car.
Do you know if it has a vertical or slanted inboard grille?

[Wedgeman]

I believe he mentioned to me the slanted grill. I will try to get some pics....