original junkyard photos by Jim Klein

Automotive history of 1950s is commonly reduced to an orgy of fins, chrome, V8 engines and the inexorable influence of the longer, lower wider mantra. They were heady times for the Big Three, especially GM and Ford, as they rolled up ever bigger sales, market share and profits and steamrollered the independents. But one of those independents, Nash, started the decade with a brilliant and unique vision for a different sort of American car, the Rambler, as the way to survive.

Unlike the common image as boring cars for the thrifty and practical, Rambler started out very different, with Buick-territory prices targeting an affluent demographic—particularly women. Rambler in the early-mid ’50s was the closest thing there was to a chic, upscale continental-style American “import”; the BMW of its day. That’s how it survived the onslaught of three other new compacts in the first half of the ’50s and then just barely staved off extinction from a price war by Ford and GM. It then leveraged that image—along with more affordable prices—to fight back and take on the Big Three at the end of the decade. By 1960, Rambler had increased AMC’s market share by a whopping 270%.

How Rambler pulled that off is the biggest and most unlikely automotive story of the 1950s.

Defining “Compact”:

Before we take what’s going to be a deep dive on this subject, a brief note on the terminology of “compact”. Prior to 1962, when the Ford Fairlane introduced the concept and term “mid-sized”, which then defined compacts as a specific category, the term “compact’ was used to define any car that was relatively smaller than the traditional cars (not yet called “full sized”) from the Big Three and other independents. That leaves a bit of gray area, as the traditional big cars were mostly not all that big at the beginning of the decade, but grew dramatically throughout it.

For this exercise, compacts are defined as having a maximum 110″ wheelbase. That leaves at least two somewhat smaller cars out of the discussion, which I’ll address here briefly.

The 1949-1952 Plymouth P17, P21 and P22 series had a 111″ wheelbase, and was 185″ long. It was essentially a shortened (at the rear) version of the regular 118.5″ wb Plymouth, and only accounted for some 13% of total Plymouth sales, the majority of those being the wagon (more on that later). There was also a related Dodge Wayfairer with 115″ wb and only available in two-passenger business coupe and roadster body styles. They were a short-lived attempt at something a bit shorter, but fall outside of our criteria.

Some may suggest that the Studebaker Champion should be considered a compact, due to its relatively narrower body and lighter weight. But there’s two arguments against that: in the early ’50s, its body wasn’t all that narrow in relation to other full-size cars, and its length was always very much full size. At 197″, this ’51 Champ is the same length as a ’51 Chevy. And in the later ’50s, the same was the case: the ’55-’58 Champion was a couple of inches longer than a ’57 Chevy. Length creates the visual indication of size, and impacts maneuverability and such. And its wheelbase (112″-116.5″) was always solidly in full size territory. For what it’s worth, the smaller of Nash’s “full size” cars, the Statesman, had a 112″ (later 114″) wheelbase, but was a bit over 200″ long too.

Although the term “sub-compact” didn’t exist in their time, I’m going to use it for the Crosley (l) and the Metropolitan (r), as they’re clearly well below the size and passenger capacity of the compacts in this analysis. But they are a reflection of the interest in such a category, as they both sold in not-utterly insignificant numbers during their peak years, the Crosley attaining a 0.8% market share in 1948, thanks in good part to the post-war seller’s market.

Setting the Stage:

Before we jump into what actually transpired in the great compact war of the ’50s, we need to consider what almost happened, but didn’t. The Big Three all had various experimental small car projects going back to the 1930s, when their cars started to grow and the Depression created interest in smaller and cheaper cars. These efforts were stepped up during WW2, as there was a widespread belief among economists that the country would fall into a deep recession after the war ended, as had been the case after WW1.

This resulted in some very well developed compact cars, and in one case, a quite ambitious one, in the form of the 1947 Chevrolet Cadet (above). The brilliant engineer Earl MacPherson headed up a development team and was given wide latitude to explore the concept of what a modern American compact car could be. The result was a compact and light (2200 lbs) sedan that seated four comfortably, and some of the solutions to achieving that end were novel. It had a 133 ci (2.1L) ohv six, with the transmission under the front seat for maximum space efficiency, four wheel independent suspension via the first intended application of MacPherson’s famed struts, as well as other advanced features.

It never went into production because i deemed yo be too expensive to achieve the high internal profit goals at GM at the time (30%), and GM anticipated the very issue that occurred in 1960 with Ford’s Falcon, that the Cadet would cannibalize the full size cars, which would then hurt their profitability from reduced volumes. Why build two lines of cars when one will do, especially when one has the volume to price the lowest trim versions at unbeatable prices?

Similarly, Ford developed a compact car in during and after war, intended to go into production in 1949. But when the 1949 Ford was reduced in size from its original Mercury body, Ford also anticipated the 1960 Falcon scenario of cannibalization and pulled the plug, sending off the final version to France in the form of the Vedette. I’m not sure what engine the US version would have had, as the French version was also given the old V8-60 flathead.

Chrysler also had various experimental small car programs active at the time, as a fall-back in case either Ford or GM put theirs into production. If any one of the Big Three had put their small car into production, the other two would almost certainly have put theirs into production also, as a defensive measure. This acted as a brake, as none of them wanted to start an unwinnable compact war. If it had happened, the independents would almost certainly never have jumped into the compact segment, and the automotive landscape altered very significantly. Nash/AMC almost certainly would have died along with the other independents. The Big Three’s resistance to building compacts created an opening for the independents. It turned out to be a very compact opening.

As is invariably the case, the success story behind Rambler and the survival of Nash/AMC was written by an exceptional man. George Mason was not the typical automobile industry CEO. Highly intelligent, energetic, and visionary, Mason had a keen insight into human psychology behind consumer decisions.  A key protege of Walter Chrysler, Mason moved on to head up appliance maker Kelvinator, where he quadrupled profits in the depths of the Depression, and made the firm the second largest appliance maker after GM’s Frigidaire. His experience successfully selling appliances mainly to women would color many of his future decisions at Nash/Rambler.

Approached by aging founder Charles Nash to be his successor, Mason insisted he would only come if Kelvinator came along too. The subsequent merger in 1936 created Nash-Kelvinator, and by 1940 the firm was enjoying strong profits.

Mason was progressive in his thinking, and adopted new ideas and technology readily. During the war years, he and his team of engineers explored aerodynamics in a wind tunnel. The result was the aerodynamic 1949 Airflyte range of full-sized cars, the 112″ wb Statesman (top) and the 121″ wb Ambassador, commonly referred to as “bathtub” Nashes.

Mason (r) had always been intrigued by smaller cars, which would eventually lead to the two-passenger Metropolitan, the Nash-Healey sports car, and of course the Rambler.

What arrived late in the 1950 model year was utterly different than anyone might have expected an American compact to be, certainly so what GM, Ford, and Chrysler had in mind, and as we’ll see, what Kaiser, Hudson and Willys actually built. It was not just a smaller, cheaper sedan; it was a high-content, high-style small car with a body style utterly out of the ordinary: a fixed-profile convertible dubbed “convertible landau coupe” by Nash. The fixed roof rails allowed the unibody to be very rigid, and an electric motor opened and closed the top, not unlike a Fiat 500 and a few others.

click on all images for max size

The Rambler came fully equipped with standard features that even Cadillacs didn’t have: whitewall tires, full wheel covers, clock and even an AM radio. Price? $1808, almost 30% more than a basic Chevy full size sedan and $5 more than a Buick Special fastback 8 cylinder coupe. Now that was different and unprecedented.

The Rambler’s target demographic was all-too obvious: style-conscious women who could afford a stylish car.

Like Lois Lane, reporter for the Daily Planet. “Superman” was my tv screen introduction to the Nash Rambler, as I don’t ever remember seeing one of these convertible landaus in Iowa City after we arrived in 1960.

What would this demographic be buying in 1960? A Karman-Ghia or Corvair. And in 1965? Mustangs, of course. And in 1980? A VW Cabriolet or a BMW 320i. George Mason was way ahead of his time, and playing the long game. He rightfully anticipated that the Big Three would crush the independents’ big cars through their huge volume and pricing, so he was positioning Rambler in a niche of its own, along with some of the early imports. Establishing the right public perception was more important than volume; that could and would come later. It’s the same playbook used by almost every successful new premium-brand introduced in the US; mostly imports, of course.

The convertible landau was just the opening act.

Quite late in the 1950 MY, a cute little wagon appeared, being admired once again by only women. And yes, that body style was almost as radical as the convertible landau. It’s easy to forget, but before WW2, essentially nobody bought station wagons for personal use; they were expensive, built out of maintained-intensive wood, and were bought for commercial use or for ferrying guests at a rich man’s hunting lodge or country house.

Willys broke the mold with their all-steel 1946 wagon (with faux wood-grain paint). It was the first step in domesticating the station wagon, if a bit too Jeep-like for women. The Willys Wagon essentially saved the company after the war, as its Jeepster was a sales dud.

Plymouth went one step further with their 1949 all-steel Suburban. It was on the short 111″ wheelbase, and only 185″ long, and as such can be considered a near-compact. To put it in perspective, its dimension are almost identical to a modern Toyota RAV4; no wonder the Plymouth wagon was a hit with women and young families: compact, easy to drive, and plenty of room for kids and whatever needed hauling.

The Rambler wagon was something totally new again: the first lifestyle wagon ever; the Audi Avant of 1950. Like the convertible landau, it was equally-well equipped and priced at the same $1808 in 1950, but both had a substantial increase in price for 1951: $1993. America’s first premium compacts.

1951 brought the third addition to the Rambler line: a hardtop coupe. Still no sedan! Hardtop coupes were the hot new thing, having been pioneered by GM just two years earlier. Rambler beat both Ford and Chrysler as well as the other independents in the hardtop race.

It’s easy to dismiss these little Ramblers from a modern perspective as dumpy and silly little cars, but that would be missing what was the most important story of the early 1950s. They were bold and stylish at the time, and the choice to start with these three highly unusual body styles was  radical and unprecedented.

A key part of making the Rambler appealing to fashion-conscious women was that its interior fabrics and trim were designed by the renown Helene Rother, who had been GM’s first woman interior designer back in 1943. A woman’s touch can’t be easily faked.

Let’s take a closer look at the technical aspects of these initial Ramblers, as they largely formed the basis of every Rambler to come until 1963/1964. Nash was a pioneer in unitized body construction (unibody) having switched to that back in 1941. This alone was technically advanced and almost unique in the US at the time, along with Hudson. It created a strong, stiff structure, which contributed to the Rambler’s feeling of solidity and more worthy of a premium price, especially compared to the oft-willowy BOF cars from other manufacturers.

The Rambler’s front suspension was similar to that used on the large Nashes, with long coil springs seated above the upper control arms. Ford (and others) would adopt this with their 1960 falcon, and use it for two decades. Although the trunnions that were necessary in that pre-ball joint era later got a bit of a bad rep, it was also a very advanced design at the time, offering a very good ride as well as decent handling.

The following description of this system (and related issues and repairs) is from this site, which describes more detail and rebuilding:.

This is a double wishbone and trunnion system, with the road spring directly over the steering knuckle, in line with the virtual kingpin. This design has wonderful control over understeer in turns, and a anti-roll bar is unneeded (and not available). The spring carries load directly, not multiplied by moment (distance from fulcrum) so the spring is softer and lighter. Spring-over-knuckle also eliminates decreasing roll resistance in turns, a characteristic of most American suspensions through the 1980’s, often compensated for by anti-roll bars. The downside of the spring-over-knuckle system is that it is very tall — this really limited AMC’s styling choices until the adoption of the new system in 1970.

The upper control arm trunnion system fails more often than not. The head of the trunnion pivot bolt is supposed to “jam” on the leading arm, and a nut and lock washer jams the bolt to the arm on the other (at pink Y). This does not survive ordinary use patterns.

The bolt is supposed to rigidly connect the arm halves, and pivot within the casting. What usually happens is that given the large contact area the bolt freezes in the casting. This forces the bolt to rotate in each arm half, stripping the threading in the thin, stamped arms. No longer a stiff A-arm, all of the components shift around in operation, ruining the arms.

The rear suspension was a typical Hotchkiss set-up, with a live axle suspended on semi-elliptic leaf springs. This would be used on the 100″ wb Ramblers until their end in 1964, and on the 1954-1955 108″ wb Ramblers before being replaced by a coil spring and torque tube drive design in 1956.

The Rambler’s flathead six displaced 172.6 ci, and was rated at 82 (gross) hp. This small Nash six dates back to the semi-compact Nash 600 from 1941. Weighing 2430 lbs, the Rambler had a favorable power-to-weight ratio for the times, and was deemed to be relatively nimble. A test by the British Magazine Motor yielded a 0-60 time of 21 seconds, which was quite typical of the times, and a top speed of 81 mph. Fuel economy was 25 mpg. Overdrive was optional, and Ramblers quickly established a reputation for good mileage; 30 mpg was possible with a light foot.  Handling, steering and braking were all deemed to be good to very good.

As is quite obvious, the engine is a rather wedged in between the massive inner fender bulges, due to the narrow track of the front wheels (52.25″), in order to provide adequate movement for them inside the covered outer fenders. The turning circle was 37 feet, not superb but not bad considering the design of the skirted fenders.

The Rambler had a stylishly simple instrument panel—not unlike the recent Fiat 500—which reinforced its image. The column shifter was nicely enclosed unlike most at the time, and the single round combo instrument was easy to read. It had a decidedly European air, as did much of the car. Nash’s vastly superior integrated heating and ventilation system only enhanced the positive qualities further.

The Rambler was billed as a five passenger car; three in the front and two in the back, where the wheel wells intruded into the seat cushion. Its exterior width was fairly ample at 73.5″, thanks to its bathtub styling. Interior width was of course not quite up to the bigger cars, but at 56.2″ inches at the front (hip and shoulder room) it was just a hair less than the 1960 Falcon would have.

We’ll get to some detailed sales analysis with charts a later, but sales for an abbreviated 1950 totaled 11k and 69k in 1951. But here’s the most significant number: 50% of those were for the wagon. That is utterly unprecedented; as a point of comparison, the popular Plymouth all-steel wagon represented all of 6% of 1950 Plymouth sales and at Chevrolet, wagons were 2% of the total. Although those percentages would not quite hold up, Rambler would go on to consistently have much higher share of its sales be wagons than any other manufacturer.

Despite the addition of two and four door sedans in 1955, that year Rambler wagons’ share of sales increased further, to 55%. And in 1959, it was still at 44%.

As a point of comparison, wagons made up 9% of Chevrolet’s sales in 1955, and 17% in 1959. It was slightly higher at 19% for Ford in 1959. Rambler had staked a claim to compact wagons, and held it. It became a key aspect of their image, which continued to resonate with a key demographic; buyers who eschewed excessive size and poor space utilization for the inherent advantages of a wagon. They really were the Volvo wagon of its time.

Page 2: The compact competition:

∗Some of the best new family haulers you need to test-drive∗

There’s no stopping the snowball that is the SUV onslaught in the USA, and with so many new utility vehicles in the market, it stands to reason that manufacturers will try to outdo each other. Some offerings, like the new Genesis GV80 read here, are proof that carmakers are upping their game in terms of what they offer to prospective buyers. The benefits of the sport utility segment are not just limited to increased space in the cabin and cargo hold, due to larger body sizes, but many offer true practicality and versatility in terms of performance on, and off, the tarmac. And, with the family-hauling nature of these cars, the vast number of standard and available safety features is a boon, too. Carmakers continue to try and top the charts with what these beasts offer.

It’s not just homegrown brands that are pouring their energy into better designs, however, with the Genesis SUVs as only one example in a wide range of contemporary offerings that have recently flooded the market. SUVs from German brands like BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi remain popular as luxury choices for their ability to merge comfort and practicality, but what about those with more reasonable price tags? With that in mind, here is a list of excellent SUVs that you simply must test drive if you’re shopping for a new family vehicle.

1. Genesis GV80

All-new for 2021, this luxury mid-size cruiser has yet to hit US shores, but has been launched on home turf in South Korea. Embodying the “athletic elegance” design philosophy from Genesis, this is the manufacturer throwing down the gauntlet in the luxury segment and making a very clear stand that it, too, can compete with the likes of the premium marques we are accustomed to seeing in this category. The beautiful exterior comes courtesty of the input of Luc Donckerwolke, Chief Design Officer at Hyundai, who has credits such as the Lamborghini Murcielago and Bentley Flying Spur to his name.

More than just a pretty face, though, the GV80 is equally lovely inside, with space for two or three rows of seating, depending on your needs. The cabin is also jam-packed with the latest technology, including a 14.5-inch split-screen infotainment display and a plethora of active and passive safety systems.

2. Ford Bronco

Brought back to life after a 25-year absence, the Bronco can be had in either two-door or four-door bodystyle and doubles as a daily driver and an off-roading adventurer. Built to rival the Jeep Wrangler, the Bronco looks as tough as it is, with an advanced 4×4 system available with dual-range gearing and numerous terrain modes. It has around 8.4 inches of ground clearance, give or take a smidge depending on body type, although if you equip the optional 35” tires, this increases to a height of 11.5/11.6 inches. It can also wade through up to 33.5 inches of water. This is ideal for those who take the road less traveled, much more often than not, and as retro-cool as the exterior is, the interior is comfortable and contemporary, too.

3. Volvo XC40 Recharge

The first ever fully electric vehicle from the Swedes, the XC40 Recharge is based on the gas-fed compact crossover of the same name, but boasts a platform designed for an electric motor and floor-mounted battery pack. While it looks much the same as it’s combustion-driven sibling, the Recharge has a unique grille and some special wheel designs to set it apart, too. The carmaker claims there’s a total system outpt of 402 horsepower from the electric powertrain, and features standard all-wheel-drive. What sets this SUV apart is not just it’s striking good looks, but the ability of the car to manage EPA gas mileage figures of 85/72/79 MPGe while getting to 60 mpg in the mid-four-second range. Add to that a full consignment of safety features, and you’ve got a winning recipe – not that we’d expect anything less from Volvo.

4. RAV4 Prime

Toyota’s RAV4 nameplate has long been the best-selling crossover from the brand, and after the original variant underwent a full redesign in 2018 and the popularity of the hybrid version became clearer, the manufacturer has decided to add a plug-in derivative to the family. It’s powertrain setup is efficient, with over 40 miles of pure EV range, making it much quieter from in the cabin, and is still thrillingly quick off the line for the segment, with a 302-horspower kick to get to sixty in 5.7 seconds. It’s boldly styled and packed with creature comforts like dual-zone climate control, heated front seats, dynamic radar cruise control, lane trace and lane departure warning, and wireless charging on the top-spec trim. Although it’s a pricey option from the lineup with a starting price just under $40k, it is an option that should definitely be on your short list.

5. Kia Seltos

The Korean brand has made waves in the industry for its superb contributions of late, with its most recent range being truly contemporary, efficient, and high quality. The Seltos is brand new for this year and brings an affordable starting price, a top-notch interior, ample space, and a number of safety elements as standard to the party. Although in review, some have found the base engine to be a little dull and the DCT to be somewhat iffy, the Seltos presents a brilliant value-for-money package and remains one of the most highly recommended new sports utility vehicles in the category. For only around $22k, the base model comes fitted with keyless entry, an eight-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and a six-speaker sound system. Upper trims get heated seats and premium audio, to name but a few.

The post 5 New SUVs You Didn’t Know You Needed appeared first on Atlanta Celebrity News.

The Frenchman talks a bold game about the fourth largest car firm and has the credentials from his time at PSA to back it up

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:56 pm
As for PC parts, that seems a little strange. What would GameStop be selling that isn’t immediately known online at other major PC part retailers? Is this a big enough enthusiast market to really matter? Most PC enthusiasts are pretty well knowledgeable in terms of making their computers and can find better prices online. I don’t see a big market for this.

Fry’s Electronics is one of the last significant brick & mortar retail chains to offer competitive pricing on PC parts for custom builds. They’re fairly regional and also appear to be in decline. Last I heard, they were closing stores and failing to restock shelves, although they were being fairly quiet about whether it was pandemic-related or permanent. Other major retailers like Best Buy more or less gave up on that business many years ago, although they still offer a few parts, but not really with the intention of competing with online suppliers. The more common approach seems to be partnering with custom PC builders. I’ve seen people walking out of Best Buys and Walmarts with custom orders from companies like iBuyPower.

The problem here when it comes to Gamestop is they have A LOT of ill will in the PC gaming community that some of the more optimistic investors seem to be glossing over. I vaguely remember it being around the time when the 1st Crysis came out in 2007 that the gaming media world seemed to have declared PC gaming all but dead. At the time, the trend was away from PC exclusives towards cross-platform console-first games with poorly done PC ports. Steam wasn’t nearly as established or popular back then (it actually had immensely negative early reviews, in part because people were still not sure about the paradigm shift to digital), and stores like Gamestop and Walmart were steadily decreasing their PC offerings in favor of console games because that’s where the money was. I remember Crysis being a notable exception, as it made a big splash on PC amidst a sea of bad ports. Furthermore, companies like Gamestop were really doubling down on the exclusive preorder bonus marketing method, which often meant that PC versions of games simply lacked content that was available on console versions from various retailers. It wasn’t until Steam took in a bunch more publishers and opened the floodgates to indie games, plus the rise of Twitch streaming, that PC gaming really made a big comeback, but most physical retailers, especially Gamestop, missed the boat. When Gamestop is mentioned, PC gamers are usually the quickest and loudest to ask, «Wait, that company still exists? Why haven’t they gone out of business?» I suspect most Gamestop bulls forget this important history because they’re either drooling over the growth of PC gaming as investors, or they’re looking at it from the perspective of console gamers who were never really negatively impacted by those decisions.

Gamestop can continue to do okay in tangentially related businesses like selling collectibles and retro games, although even those are dangerous businesses. Retro games are hampered by the fact that they can mostly be pirated and emulated, so there’s a limited pool of buyers willing to pay for old, potentially damaged copies sold at a high markup. They also have the same issue as PC gaming where the company built a lot of ill will from retro gamers for their ripoff trade values and gobbling up all the mom-and-pop retail competition in the 90s. I just don’t see Gamestop sitting well with a lot of retro gamers, and there is already competition dedicated to that space anyway. Collectibles face cheap knockoff competition, although I don’t know how big of an issue that is for limited-run high-dollar items.

I also don’t see how Gamestop fits in the new world. I already went over how they face an uphill battle when it comes to bringing PC gamers back. On PC, there’s just so much digital competition. Steam is obviously king, but you also have Humble Bundle, Epic, Big Fish, G2A, GOG, GMG, Uplay, EA Origin, other publisher-direct stores like Square Enix, the F2P portals, etc. Why in the world would anybody favor Gamestop over all these established players? And when it comes to consoles, you have the online retailers selling physical copies, such as Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, etc., the 1st party digital stores from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, and now you even have some of the digital code retailers offering console codes as well, such as PS4 codes via GMG (I have no idea how the business deal between them and Sony works, but I can’t imagine there’s much profit for GMG). Are Sony and Nintendo really likely to partner with Gamestop to sell digital codes online? I know they have the physical cards with the digital codes that they sell in stores, but that relies on Gamestop, you know, actually having stores to provide any kind of value, which is losing them money.

I think Gamestop is hopeless as far as returning to its former profitable self. I do think it can come back as a much smaller, leaner digital version of itself, but the question is how small and how much will it be worth? Also, somebody mentioned that Gamestop could revive itself by providing extremely good customer service. Yeah, good luck with that. The company became the antithesis of customer service in the hopes of sucking every last penny of profit out of customers, and when that strategy began to fail, it doubled down. Anybody who has walked into a Gamestop in the past 5 years is emotionally scared from the constant up-selling of garbage. Gamestop could create the best online service ever and it would still have to spend millions just to convince people to give it a chance again. Expecting Gamestop to come back on good customer service would be like expecting Enron to come back on financial transparency in mid-2001. And the 300% growth in online sales is a bit tricky because a lot of that is due to bulk pre-owned deals they offered around the holidays, which were heavily discounted and relied on having substantial used stock, something which they’ve yet to prove will work with an online-first model. They’re talking about mailing in trade-ins, but that’s still an unproven model, and it may well be that without customers going into the store and seeing new games to trade in towards, they may just opt to buy digitally from home in the first place. And even if it works, physical is still a declining market, and one which console makers can pretty much eliminate any time they want.

The only thing that gives me any faith is that it seems the new wave of investors are legitimately interested in rebuilding the company, and I suspect they will go through as many iterations as it takes to find what works. I would not be surprised if they ended up becoming a Microsoft-only retailer that specialized in unique digital game bundles, something like a Humble Bundle for Xbox.

MIKE TYSON welcomed Frank Bruno into his home with open arms, instead of clenched fists, to celebrate their reunion 31 years on from their undisputed heavyweight world title battle.

In February 1989, with Iron Mike perhaps at his terrifying peak after recently demolishing an aging but all-time great Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks, Bruno went to Las Vegas for his second crack at gold.

Mike Tyson and Frank Bruno boxed twice with the American former monster winning both world title clashes but remain friends

The build-up was ferocious, the fight was even delayed after Tyson battered former opponent Mitch Green in a street brawl, slashing a gash into his eye and breaking his own hand.

The Sky Original documentary that brought the two fighting icons back together captures how vastly different each Adonis was depicted leading up to the clash.

On the mouth-watering press tour, Tyson said he could not imagine Bruno even being a prize fighter because he was such a “sweet and docile guy”.

While Tyson was billed as ‘an animal’ a warped human being who took immense pleasure from inflicting pain.

The childhood bullying victim lisped little more than threats now he was a fearsome man whose fanbase seemed to grow in tandem with his rap sheet.

Bruno, in stark contrast, was the 6ft 3in powerhouse still struggling to convince hardcore fight fans – who doubted his courage and chin could match his bodybuilder muscles – that he was the real deal.

The Englishman’s adoring family, including daughter Rachel, did not want their hero to leave them for the fight and she had good reason to be cautious.

The gentle-giant Londoner was battered into the canvas from Tyson’s first trademark attack but bravely beat the count.

FANCY A PUNT? TODAY’S BEST ODDS BOOSTS FROM THE UK’S LEADING BOOKIES

And he even wobbed the 22-year-old Brooklyn monster, for the first time in his career, with a peach of a left hook.

At the end of the third, Tyson clumped Bruno after the bell but in typical fashion the Brit was a gentleman and did not retaliate or make a fuss.

Bruno was brutalised in the hard-to-watch fifth but refused to return to the canvas. But the proud nation was relieved when referee Richard Steele dived in to save him from any more punishment.

Tyson, though, did not revel in his one-sided victory. Even with his new and toxic entourage clambering for his attention, the Baddest Man on the Planet walked back across the ring to embrace Bruno in a hug that marked the start of the sort of friendship only boxing can create.

Seven years later, with enough water under the bridge to drench the desert, the pair crossed swords again.

Bruno had finally been crowned WBC champion six months earlier, at the fourth time of asking, by beating Oliver McCall in a tear-soaked night at Wembley. 

Tyson had lost four prime years of his career to a rape conviction and saw a ripe and vulnerable 34-year-old Bruno as easy prey for the green and gold belt.

Back in Sin City, Bruno’s left eyelid was slashed open in the opening round and his jaw and brain reminded brutally of Tyson’s ferocity.

News Group Newspapers LtdIn 1989 a prime Mike Tyson butchered Bruno in their first clash in Las Vegas[/caption] News Group Newspapers LtdGentle-giant Bruno took a savage beating from Tyson in their first 1989 meeting[/caption] ReutersThe Brooklyn bad boy brutalised the brave Brit in their 1996 rematch for the WBC title[/caption]

The housewives’ favourite was rescued by ref Miles Lane in the third and, having suffered eye a torn retina, he retired with his name etched into the history books forever.

Both men went on to suffer mental health breakdowns and addictions and seemed destined to live out the remainder of their lives unhappily.

But in 2021 they are both in superb shape, so much so that 54-year-old Tyson just boxed Roy Jones Jr in a pay-per-view smash hit.

It was in December when Sky managed to get Bruno on a Covid-compliant trip to the US to break bread, instead of bones, with his old foe.

At the time, the national treasure could not hide his boyish excitement, telling his Facebook friends: “I am delighted to say after almost 9 months waiting we have filmed the Sky film special of Mike Tyson & myself.

“I went to the USA last week and yes we were all tested a number of times!”

The documentary airs in February, SunSport has an exclusive look at the trailer today, and it looks like a heartwarming tale of two brutally broken men rebuilding themselves and finally finding peace again.

When the pair first reunite, Bruno’s unmistakable giggle cracks the ice and Tyson smashes it by whispering “I’m here for you, baby, I’m here for you.”

Bruno v Tyson is available on Sky Documentaries and NOW TV from Friday 26th February at 21:00. The exclusive trailer was made available by Sky as part of announcing a record line-up of new and exclusive original TV shows and films for 2021 and 2022.

ReutersThe Londonder was almost smashed through the ropes in the third round when Iron Mike secured the win.[/caption] Tyson and Bruno have both battled addiction and mental health problems and are winning the battle

Ahh, a deck. The perfect place to hold family reunions in the summertime, have casual drinks with friends anytime, spend time with your sweetheart underneath the stars, or chill with a nice thick book and glass of lemonade (or cabernet) on quiet evenings.

Whether you’ve just had a deck installed or plan to DIY soon, there’s at least one thing that all woodworking projects have in common: you’re going to need a sander sooner or later.

Anytime we talk about power tools, things have the potential to get murky. But in this article, I’ll do my best to provide you with all of the information you need to make an informed sander purchase. But first…

How to Build a Deck

Believe it or not, spring is on the way and summer is right on its heels. That means fresh, breezy mornings, delightful afternoons filled with family fun, and long evenings that draw on till eight or nine p.m. in the company of friends and loved ones. What better way to savor the coming seasons and entertain guests than with a brand-new deck?

While this is a time-consuming task and requires some attention to detail (and a whole lot of patience), it’s absolutely worth every second and penny spent. To keep things simple for the sake of this article, here’s a quick breakdown of how to make your very own deck. Feel free to click on the provided links to learn more about how each step works.

Clear the Porch

This step is pretty self-explanatory. You’ll need to clear away everything that is currently on or near your porch.

Remove Concrete

The next step is to get all of the concrete removed. This might be the most strenuous step, but Homedit has a few tips to make the process go smoother for you. Using only a pry bar, a sledgehammer, and a high lift jack (and maybe a second set of hands) you can have the concrete removed by day’s end.

Make the Concrete-Mounted Frame

Depending on your preferences and where exactly your deck will be built, you can make a concrete-mounted frame. Essentially, this means that you’ll secure the frame right onto the concrete of your existing steps and along the side of your house. This can be done using a rotary hammer drill and just a few other tools. See Homedit’s dedicated project page to learn the specifics!

Prepare the Footings

Of course, not all of your intended deck area is going to be next to concrete. To finish making the frame, you should prepare footings. Homedit suggests a simple method: dig an appropriately sized hole, insert a concrete form, place the lumber piece inside, pour in concrete mix, and let it set. Do this for each footing you’ll need.

Build the Deck Frame

Using the concrete-mounted frame and footings, you’ll begin building the deck frame. This is a complex process with many steps, but the gist is that you’ll end up with pieces of lumber extending from one end of the framing to the other. These lumber pieces will be fastened in key areas to shorter lumber pieces, which will be positioned vertically to hold the actual floor.

Install the Deck Joists

The deck joists will run perpendicular to the deck flooring and will be the main component supporting it. The core concept here is that these perpendicular boards will be secured to the frame using brackets and nails. You can find all of the details you need in our dedicated article. Good news: This is the final step before you install the flooring!

Install the Flooring

The glorious moment has arrived: it is time to start installing the flooring. But before you get too excited, pace yourself. You’ll need to ensure that your framing is done correctly and take a few measurements before getting started. To learn the best method for how to lay your deck flooring, see our detailed article. (Alternatively, you can read up on how to install the flooring if your deck will be curved.)

Install the Deck Trim

All you need to install the deck trim are a few basic tools and some key measurements. Adding the trim will enhance the overall appearance of your deck, giving it a clean and “finished” look.

Stain and Seal the Deck

You’ve hung in there all this time, huh? Then you more than deserve the honor of putting the final stain and sealant on your deck! A stain goes a long way toward adding color and character to your deck, working together with the sealant to protect it from UV rays and other environmental elements.

Pros and Cons of Sanding the Deck

A common concern many people have before staining their deck is whether it needs to be sanded or not. The consensus is that you should absolutely do so! That said, you should be aware of the pros and cons associated with deck sanding so you can prepare for the project in advance.

Pros

• Prevents wood splinters from forming
• Sands off any damaged or discolored wood
• Gets rid of the old stain color
• Provides better results than the chemical stripping alternative

Cons

• Involves a lot of prep work and cleanup
• Can cause gouges in wood if using a rough grit
• Can negatively affect absorption of the new stain
• Is a time-consuming task

Keep in mind that you can avoid or offset most of the cons by using the proper tools and techniques!

How to Choose a Deck Sander

Now that we’ve (hopefully) convinced you to purchase a dedicated deck sander, you’re probably wondering how to choose the best one for your project. Because deck sanders come in many types and with varying features, there is an overwhelming selection on the market today—but not to fear! We’ve compiled a practical list of characteristics to consider before buying.

Type

One of the first things you’ll want to determine is which type of sander you’ll need. To help you make this critical decision, here is a little information on the three sander types we’ve mentioned.

Belt Sander

Belt sanders are perhaps the most useful tool for deck sanding. They work in a linear fashion to provide a clean finish and work wonders on rough or coarse wood surfaces—like your deck! In addition, belt sanders are known for their versatility. This means that even after your deck sanding project is over, you’ll be able to find other uses for your new belt sander in the future.

Orbital Sander

As opposed to belt sanders, orbital sanders are ideal for finish work rather than rough work. The orbital sander features a square foot, which makes it perfect for sanding in otherwise hard-to-reach corners or edges. In addition, the orbital sander is known to remove less of the surface material a belt sander would.

Random Orbit Sander

Random orbit sanders are known for their round shape and the random oscillating motion they use to remove wood. This type of sander has a lot to offer: more material removal than orbit sanders but less than belt sanders, less impact on the wood grain, and a more user-friendly design. However, they tend to be more expensive than their orbital cousins, and they are not ideal for sanding corners or edges.

Features

Depending on the type (or types) of deck sander you decide to purchase, there are a few features you should look for.

Dust Collection

Sanding, by nature, produces a lot of dust. One way you can avoid a huge sawdust mess is to purchase a sander that has a dust collection unit built in. The unit will collect a good amount of the dust while sanding so there’s less of the stuff floating around in the air (which is a health hazard, by the way!).

Variable Speed

Sanding projects are not one-speed-fits-all, so investing in a sander that has multiple speed options is a great idea—better still if it’s easy to switch between speeds while sanding!

Power Options

In a similar vein, you’re going to want different levels of power depending on what you’re sanding. Spending a little extra cash on a sander with different power options will save you a lot of frustration later.

Tracking Window

A tracking window allows you to see the area of the wood you’re sanding, while you’re sanding it. This is convenient for so many reasons, chiefly in that you can worry less about over-sanding.

Comfort

Survey says that sanding…kinda sucks. But you can make your deck sanding experience just a tiny bit better by opting for a sander that’s comfortable to use. Make sure the product you purchase is relatively light in weight, features a user-friendly design, and has other comfortable amenities such as an ergonomic grip. Emotionally, you might be ready to kick the bucket by the time you’re done sanding—but your hands and muscles will feel great.

Noise Level

If you’re the kind of person who goes months without vacuuming because you hate turning it on, pay attention here! Unfortunately, many sanders (and power tools in general) lean toward the excessively loud end of the spectrum. Make sure you check the noise level on any sander you’re thinking of purchasing, and opt for one with the least amount of volume. Most belt sanders can reach volumes of 103dB(A), while orbital and random orbit sanders tend to hang around 85dB(A).

Budget

As with any major purchase, you need to consider your budget before setting out to buy your new sander. In many cases, the price of a sander correlates to the item’s quality as well as how reputable the brand is. For a belt sander, you can expect a median price of around $150 with higher-end models costing more and lower-end models costing less. A quality orbital sander will cost you upwards of $50, while a random orbit sander can range anywhere from $35 to $300.

Check Out These Awesome Deck Sanders

Alrighty. You now have all the information you need to build a deck, know which types of sanders are best for sanding it down, and are aware of what factors to consider before making a purchase. That means you’re ready to dive in and see our top picks!

1. BLACK DECKER Mouse Detail Sander

It should come as no surprise that BLACK+DECKER has created such a user-friendly sander. Its Mouse Detail Sander, featuring 1.2 amps of power and 1400 orbits per minute, is perfect for small sanding projects or detail work. Its compact and lightweight design further adds to its ability to provide a nice finish, as it’s comfortable to use and can reach those hard-to-get-to corners with ease.

Throw in its ergonomic handle (which provides three possible gripping positions), its dust collection unit, and its included sanding pads and finger attachment, and you have one heck of a sander. Best of all, it comes with a two-year limited warranty and won’t break the bank!

2. SKIL 7510-01 Sandcat 6 Amp 3-Inch x 18-Inch Belt Sander with Pressure Control

Anyone who has sanded before knows how easy it is to press down a little too hard and end up with a worse problem than you started with. The folks at SKIL know this too, which is why they’ve created a practical belt sander that employs a pressure control system.

This system gives an alert any time you start applying excess pressure, so you’ll never again have to worry about damaging the wood while sanding. Its 6 amps of power make it quite the powerhouse for all your belt sanding needs, and its auto track belt and dust collection unit will make each and every sanding experience so much easier for you. And all of this convenience is at such an affordable price for the quality…what are you waiting for?

3. DEWALT Random Orbit Sander

As per the norm, DEWALT has crafted yet another tool keeping the end user firmly in mind. Everything about this random orbit sander ensures comfort and ease of use, from its short stature for extra user control to its easy-to-lock dust bag. This bad boy boasts a moderate 3 amps of power and an OPM range of 8000 to 10,000, lending it more than enough power to get that detail work just right.

If you have a large project up ahead or plan on using this product often, you’ll certainly appreciate the efforts taken to minimize vibration and keep the user—you—feeling up to the task with reduced fatigue. Oh, and it comes with convenient carry bag. What more could you ask for?

4. Makita 9403 4″ X 24″ Belt Sander

If you’ve done any research before coming to this article, you’ve probably seen the name Makita come up quite a few times. That’s because, quite frankly, it is the best of the best in so many categories! Considering its 11 amps, 4-inch belt, and crazy-fast removal rate, you may be surprised to find out that it’s one of the quietest belt sanders on the market at 84 decibels (about the same noise level as a diesel truck, but still…).

Its motor is kept safe from dust buildup via its labyrinth design, it has a cleverly placed grip on the front for comfort and control, and it comes with a one-year warranty. I mean, come on. If you’re a professional in any woodworking field, you have to get this.

5. TACKLIFE 5-Inch Random Orbit Sander

Affordable, attractive, compact, comfortable…need I go on? This 5-Inch Random Orbit Sander from TACKLIFE does more than get the job done: it gets it done well, while providing you with all of the comfort and maneuverability you could need. It runs at 3 amps with an OPM of 13,000 and it features six different speed settings so you can choose the best option for your current project.

When you add in its effective dust collection unit, ergonomic rubberized grip, and vibration reduction, you have yourself a sander you’ll just love to use! Finally, you’ll appreciate that it comes with twelve sandpaper pieces (half of them 80-grit and half 180-grit), which is one less thing you’ll have to buy. The reviews speak for themselves—see why others are raving about this random orbit sander and try it out for yourself!

Frequently Asked Questions

If you’ve never sanded a deck before or are still new to the DIY game, you probably have some questions. To give you a hand, we’ve answered a few of the most frequently asked questions for you!

What type of sander do you use to sand a deck?

As mentioned above, there are three main types of sanders used for deck sanding: belt sanders, orbital sanders, and random orbit sanders. Of these, professionals tend to lean toward belt sanders as they offer plenty of power and make for a more efficient sanding process. Some people prefer to use a palm sander as well for the finish work.

Can you use a floor sander on a deck?

Floor sanders are not an ideal option for sanding decks. Though it may be tempting to use a floor sander—especially if you happen to have one on hand already—it’s much better to spend the money on a more suitable sander option. This is because floor sanders are specifically designed for use on flat surfaces; because the boards of your deck are curved, it will render the floor sander ineffective.

How can I sand my deck fast?

Unfortunately, there is no fast way to sand your deck. The typical deck-sanding job takes upwards of eight hours. The best way to speed up your sanding time is to use the proper tools and techniques.

Conclusion

We hope our article helped you get your DIY affairs in order and gave you a better idea of which sander is best for your upcoming project. Any of the products we listed will be a fantastic addition to your tool collection, but you can always keep looking if you haven’t found your perfect match yet. Remember: Taking the time and effort to find the best deck sander for you will pay off big in the end. Good luck!

The post Ensure Your Deck is Smooth with the Right Sander appeared first on Home Decorating Trends – Homedit.