Poll #2

[Gordon Maney]

Here is a different poll about 1-ton Power Wagon terminology.

Don't forget the flat fender M37 and the flat fender WWII
WC 1/2 and 3/4 Dodges.

How can we keep them all straight? The WC 1/2 is differently flat than the WC 3/4 ton.....

[JStinson]

The trouble I have with using the term "flat fender" to describe a power wagon, or any truck, with rounded, yet flat fenders, is that it evokes some recollection of the jeeps with the flat fenders. Any time I hear the term "flat fender" I instantly think of the jeep. This is probably because the power wagon fenders are curved, whereas the jeep fenders are truly flat panels with sharp angles, not curves. Having said that, I have no idea what term would be better. Round fender? Curved fender? Loopy Shwoopy Fender?

[Cheyenne Dave]

You would have to say then that they are all flat fenders. But of those, there is only one Power Wagon.

One could imagine that followers of other-brand trucks have a flat fender or two in their pedigree as well, such as GMC and Studibaker.

We are not alone...

C.D.

[Cheyenne Dave]

The trouble I have with using the term "flat fender" to describe a power wagon, or any truck, with rounded, yet flat fenders, is that it evokes some recollection of the jeeps with the flat fenders. Any time I hear the term "flat fender" I instantly think of the jeep. This is probably because the power wagon fenders are curved, whereas the jeep fenders are truly flat panels with sharp angles, not curves. Having said that, I have no idea what term would be better. Round fender? Curved fender? Loopy Shwoopy Fender?

[IMG]http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/editorials/better-than-sema/24518866/a-very-clean-flat-fender-jeep.jpg[

Very nice! Do you suppose that is the O.E.M. hood support or a repro?

[Gordon Maney]

The WDX-WM300 truck is a Power Wagon. The original, 1-ton Power Wagon.

After that came Power Giant Power Wagons, W-series or Sweptline Power Wagons, and so on.

The term Power Wagon requires no additional term. It is generally thought that the language flat fender was created by people who did not know Dodges very well and struggled to keep them all straight. The clear heritage of the commercial model Power Wagon makes it apparent that no additional terms are needed. Note that the military Dodges do not get any flat fender terminology applied.

[Kevin Mienke]

Power Wagon is a fine name all by itself, but often times I will use 1961 WM300; it adds any clarification that might be needed. It saves me from having to further describe my truck to the guys behind the parts counter, or even to people on the forums. 1961 WM300 says it all.

The same clarification could not be achieved if I used the term flatfender. I would likely leave the parts store with the wrong parts or no parts at all. Nowhere will you find the term flatfender in a Dodge manual. Nowhere will you find it in a parts book.

Dodge has an identification system that is very simple.
I understand it. The guys at O’Reilly’s and NAPA understand it. I know several women and children that think it’s easy enough.

If a person thinks it’s necessary to simplify something, why try to simplify it with terms that only serve to muddy it? FFPW muddies it. The fenders are not flat.

I can think of a few good examples of things that are flat. Power Wagon fenders are not one of them. Pancakes are great examples of flat. I love pancakes. I think they are at their best when served on a flat plate…at a flat table. Keeps the syrup on.

I don’t suppose you’d want to serve them on one of these fenders, so as not to upset the syrup.

[OLD DODGE]

So if the term flat fender is ok to describe a round fender, does this mean that people who claimed the world was flat really understood it was actually round?

[Gordon Maney]

So if the term flat fender is ok to describe a round fender, does this mean that people who claimed the world was flat really understood it was actually round?

A useful question. Also, what would you call a Jeep fender, a flatter fender?

[Clint Dixon]

Consider this

A useful question. Also, what would you call a Jeep fender, a flatter fender?

The Jeep guys might find that description flattering.

[JStinson]

So if the term flat fender is ok to describe a round fender, does this mean that people who claimed the world was flat really understood it was actually round?

What are you talking about?

www.theflatearthsociety.org

:D

[OLD DODGE]

From their website

"History of the Flat Earth Society

The modern age of the Flat Earth Society dates back to the early 1800s, when it was founded by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an English inventor. Samuel Rowbotham's Flat Earth views were based largely on literal interpretation of Bible passages. His system, called Zetetic Astronomy, held that the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth. After Rowbotham's death in 1884, followers of his Zetetic Astronomy founded the Universal Zetetic Society"

Perhaps we should invite them to participate in the poll. They would surely be able to tell us if the fender is flat or round.

[Gordon Maney]

As I look out the windows here it seems like the earth is flat. To the south there are some hills, though.

[JStinson]

Fun Facts

Off the Flat Earth site.

Physics

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

Q: "Why are other planets round, but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

UPDATE:The theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration is currently being developed and reviewed by members. Once completed, Electromagnetic Acceleration will be used as an alternative in explaining sunrises, sunsets and horizons for the dark energy model only.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

Q: "Aren't the accelerating Earth models flawed? Wouldn't planes crash into the Earth as it rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is accelerating up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, why does a feather fall slower than a bowling ball?"

A: It is due to air resistance. The Earth accelerates the air, and the air in turn accelerates the feather up faster than the bowling ball. In our reference frame, it appears that the feather is falling slower than the bowling ball.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, how does one reach terminal velocity?"

A: Once the acceleration of the object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object reaches terminal velocity.

Q: "Wouldn't the Earth crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball if it's indeed a disc?"

A: The dark energy model assumes that the Earth does not possess a gravitational field. What we know as "gravity" is provided by the acceleration of the Earth.

Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.

Q: "Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude.

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

[Gordon Maney]

As a young kid I reasoned that the thing that lives under your bed cannot get you if you do not let your arms or legs hang over the edge of the bed.

That method still works to this day.

[Clint Dixon]

Okay, you have convinced me

Off the Flat Earth site.

Physics

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"............

..........A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

The doggone fenders are flat! ;^)