<VV> Tangled emails

[Charles Lee at Proper Pro Per]

Aahh !  This was a particularly tangled email to unravel ! That's the 
problem with emails that sometimes read from the top down, or the bottom up, 
and sometimes from the inside out !

Hard to tell which is the latest response without weeding through all the 
dates, and trying to figure out which "signature" matches which email 
address, etc, etc. which is the response to which other part, etc.

I was answering the next one down from the top (usually the most recent) 
from "JR" aka Chuck S, aka "chsadek at comcast.net" on Friday, April 13, 2007 
11:56 PM:

>>> While '66 (and later) trim will fit a '65, it is not "correct" from a 
>>> stock standpoint.

I think this is your response ? I didn't see it way down there (are you : 
"Dave Ziegler" <dziegler3 at comcast.net>  aka "BBRT") ?

>>>>>>>             Profile is different.  Much thinner and doesn't stick up 
>>>>>>> and outside the wheel well nearly as much - not as wide as '65's.
>>>>>>>             Seem thinner in gauge - thickness of material, but not 
>>>>>>> sure, especially toward 68 and 69.

I think we're on the same page (of the vendor catalog, or a P&A 30, or 
Assembly Manual) though !


I try to remove all extraneous parts of an email when responding but don't 
always remember, hence confusion like this.

Chaz

Entrails follow :
(Eventually VV snips emails that get too long)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BBRT" <chsadek at comcast.net>
To: "Charles Lee at Proper Pro Per" <chaz at ProperProPer.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim


> Charles,
>
> Did you read this email? The answer is in my original response; the bottom 
> message..
>
> Chuck
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Charles Lee at Proper Pro Per" <chaz at ProperProPer.com>
> To: "J R Read_HML" <hmlinc at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: "Virtual Vairs" <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:26 AM
> Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim
>
>
>>I think that's what I said - 65 is different from 66-69, no ?
>>
>> They fit the same shape, but "thin" would be wrong on a 65 (early-lates), 
>> and "thin" is wrong on late-lates ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "J R Read_HML" <hmlinc at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: "Charles Lee at Proper Pro Per" <chaz at ProperProPer.com>; "BBRT" 
>> <chsadek at comcast.net>
>> Cc: "Virtual Vairs" <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim
>>
>>
>>> While '66 (and later) trim will fit a '65, it is not "correct" from a 
>>> stock standpoint.
>>>
>>> Later, JR
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Charles Lee at Proper Pro Per" <chaz at ProperProPer.com>
>>> To: "BBRT" <chsadek at comcast.net>
>>> Cc: "Virtual Vairs" <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim
>>>
>>>
>>>> What about 65-66 ? Completely different, no ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "BBRT" <chsadek at comcast.net>
>>>> To: "Dave Ziegler" <dziegler3 at comcast.net>
>>>> Cc: <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:21 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For your edification, Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unlike the earlies (apparently), the late models all have the same 
>>>>> wheel
>>>>> well shape. Just refer to the trim moldings - they're all the same. - 
>>>>> Mark"
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>> From: "Dave Ziegler" <dziegler3 at comcast.net>
>>>>> To: "BBRT" <chsadek at comcast.net>
>>>>> Cc: <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:17 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: <VV> LM Wheel Well Trim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the question was about fender skirts. not wheel well moldings.
>>>>>> Dave.. .
>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2007, at 10:37 AM, BBRT wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I recall,  there are several differences between wheel well trim 
>>>>>>> for various years of LM Corvairs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '65s have their own set of wheel well trim while 66-69 are the same, 
>>>>>>> AFAIK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1965:    Front. Two pieces each side. An arch, and a rear lower 
>>>>>>> piece approximately where the rocker panel indentation/lower  body 
>>>>>>> crease is located.
>>>>>>>             Rear.  Originally three pieces each side. Arch, and 
>>>>>>> lower front and lower rear pieces, again located and shaped to fit 
>>>>>>> the lower body crease.
>>>>>>>             Both front and rear:  Sticks out considerably more and 
>>>>>>> sticks up much more than later years-almost like a shallow "C" 
>>>>>>> channel..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1966-69: One piece for each wheel well.
>>>>>>>             Mounting holes different locations than '65's. (I 
>>>>>>> think).
>>>>>>>             Profile is different.  Much thinner and doesn't stick up 
>>>>>>> and outside the wheel well nearly as much - not as wide as '65's.
>>>>>>>             Seem thinner in gauge - thickness of material, but not 
>>>>>>> sure, especially toward 68 and 69.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simple perusal of a vendor catalog, or a P&A 30, or Assembly 
>>>>>>> Manual would prevent any tyro from asserting incorrect information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck S
>>>>>>> BBRT
>
>