Void

Void (pronounced void)

(1) In law, having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.

(2) Useless; ineffectual; vain; devoid; destitute (usually followed by of).

(3) Without contents; empty.

(4) Without an incumbent, as an office.

(5) In mathematics, of a set: empty.

(6) In card games, having no cards in a suit.

(7) An empty space or one with a sense of emptiness.

(8) Something experienced as a loss or privation:

(9) A gap or opening, as in a wall.

(10) A vacancy; vacuum.

(11) In typography, inside area of a character of type, such as the inside of an O.

(12) To make ineffectual; invalidate; nullify.

(13) To empty; discharge; evacuate.

(14) To depart from; to vacate (archaic).

(15) In computer programming, a function or method that does not return a value.

(16) In architecture, a differentiated treatment of space.

1250–1300: The adjectival form was from the Middle English voide & voyde, from the Anglo-French & Old French voide, voit, vuide, & vuit (source also of the Modern French vide), from the unattested Vulgar Latin vocīta & vocita, feminine of vocītus & vocitus, an unattested and dissimilated variant of the Latin vacīvus, vacuus & vocīvus, (empty) from vacāre (to be empty).  The verb was from the Middle English voiden, from the Anglo-French voider, from the Old French, from the unattested Vulgar Latin vocitāre, derivative of the unattested vocītus & vocitus, noun derivative of the adjective.  Root was the primitive Indo-European wak-, an extended form of the root eue- (to leave, abandon, give out).

Void circa 1300 was first a verb (to clear some place of something) with the meaning "to deprive (something) of legal validity" attested from the early fourteenth century.  The adjectival sense evolved in parallel with the verb, again circa 1300, the meaning "unoccupied, vacant" soon extending to "empty, vast, wide, hollow, waste, uncultivated, fallow" and as a noun, "opening, hole; loss".  The meaning "lacking or wanting (something)” is recorded from the early 1400s while "legally invalid, without legal efficacy" is attested from the mid fifteenth century.  The adjective voidable is from the late fifteenth century 15c; the sense of an "unfilled space, gap" dates from the 1610s and the meaning "absolute empty space, vacuum" is from 1727.  Voider and voidness are both derived nouns.

In diplomacy

In fourteenth century Europe, French was the most widely-spoken language and in 1539, the court of Francis I (1494–1547; King of France 1515-1547) declared French to be the official language of government.  It was in this era that diplomacy began to assume a recognizably modern form with an increasingly consistent use of titles, conventions and institutions.  From this position of cultural hegemony, French emerged as the language of diplomacy, a position enhanced as the European colonial empires expanded.  It wouldn’t be until well into the twentieth century, under mostly US influence, that English began first to run in parallel as a language of diplomacy and later to assume primacy, English and French being the first two official languages of the United Nations (UN).  However, the linguistic legacy endures in the handbooks of diplomacy which include the standardized titles and phrases of the profession.  One phrase still used is that when one diplomat refuses to accept a message from another, returning the envelope to the sender marked nul et non avenue (literally “null and void”), creating the diplomatic fiction the envelope was unopened and the message thus unread, thereby relieving both parties of the need to pursue the unpleasantness.

In architecture

Once reduced, in architecture there’s only form and space but it’s helpful to imagine some space as part of the form so there’s thus form, space and void, void being a space defined by the form and theorists layer this further by distinguishing between voids cognitive and functional.  Cognitive voids are those created for emotional and perceptional impact, a kind of (usually static) visual effect whereas functional voids fulfil a technical requirement, typically ventilation or the movement of people.  Theorists tend to classify cognitive voids in the language of art: conceptual, perceptual, or sculptural while the functional are grouped by traditional terms from architecture: as entrance, courtyard, circulation et al.  In the analysis of the theorists, cognitive voids exist either as transparent or permeable spaces, the former most used to create perceptual effects, the latter for the visual.

Functional void: Grand Central Terminal (the official abbreviation is GCT although the popular form is "Grand Central Station" (often clipped to "Grand Central")), Midtown Manhattan, New York City, 1929.

Unfortunately, the clerestories which once shone no longer shine.  Because of more recent development in the surrounding space, the sunlight no longer enters the CCT's void through the clerestoried windows is such an eye-catching way (left).  In modern skyscrapers, light-shafts or atriums can extend hundreds of feet to ensure what sunlight is available can be captured; there's now often little at ground level.  When the a scene from the Lindsay Lohan film Just my Luck (2006) (right) was shot in the GCT, it was in a dimmer ambiance.  

Quash

Quash (pronounced kwosh)

(1) To put down or suppress completely; quell; subdue; used usually in a military or paramilitary context.

(2) To make void, annul, or set aside (a law, indictment, decision etc); to reject (an indictment, writ, etc) as invalid.

(3) To crush or dash to pieces (obsolete and thought possibly an imperfect echoic of squash).

(4) In the civil procedure rules of US courts (as motion to quash), a specific request that asks the court to render the decision of a previous lower court ruling invalid.  It is similar to a motion to dismiss, except it asks the court to nullify a previous ruling rather than the current filing.

Circa 1275: From the Middle English quaschen, quasshen, cwessen, & quassen (to smash, break, overcome, suppress) from the Old French quasser, in part from the Latin quassāre (to shake), present active infinitive of quassō, frequentative of quatere (to shake) and in part from the Late Latin cassāre (to annul), a derivative of the Latin cassus (empty, void) under the influence of the Alatin cassō (I annul), from the Latin quatiō (I shake).  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kweht- (to shake), the source also of the words pasta, paste, pastiche, pastry; cognate with Spanish quejar (to complain).  Similar to some degree are suppress, squash, repress, crush, quell, invalidate, annul, revoke, reverse, veto, void, undo, vacate, squelch, repeal, overrule, rescind, scrunch, annihilate and subdue.  Regarding quash and squash, the verb quash is now used to describe the crushing of something in a nonphysical sense whereas squash is applied when an object is physically crushed but both were for hundreds of years used in both senses, quash losing its physical sense only in the twentieth century.  Urban Dictionary also lists a number of non-standard meanings.  Quash & quashed are verbs, quasher is a noun, quashing is a noun & verb and quashable is an adjective; the most common noun plural is quashings.

In the matter of Cardinal Pell

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023): On appeal, the prosecution not having proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was quashed.

Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened.  What the court did was declare existing law and provide what are not exactly parameters but are more than guidelines.  If nothing else, it’s likely the judgment will cause trial judges more precisely to instruct juries about reasonable doubt:

(1) The accused on trial in a serious criminal matter is presumed to be innocent.

(2) The accused may but is not obliged to offer a defense; it is incumbent upon the prosecution (almost always the state) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused.

There’s nothing controversial about those positions, they’ve well known and have for centuries been accepted orthodoxies for the administration of criminal law in common law jurisdictions.  What the Pell judgment did was draw attention to other orthodoxies not as widely known:

(3) A jury is presumed to be comprised of reasonable people who impartially will assess the evidence (contested facts) presented; matters of contested facts are subjective and for the jury.

(4) It is the responsibility of the judge accurately and lucidly to instruct the jury on such matters of law which may be relevant to their consideration of matters of fact; matters of law are objective and for the judge.

Reasonable people on juries are thus required to decide if there is a reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case has proven guilt.  Reasonable doubt went back a long way but the phrase “reasonable person” was defined by English courts in negligence cases, an attempt to provide an example of the “the average man” or “the man in the street”.  Descriptions by judges vary but usually mean something like a “…reasonably intelligent and impartial person unversed in legal esoteric” (Jones v US, DC Court of Appeals), sketched rather more poetically by an English judge as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” (“a bloke on the Hornsby train” in Australian parlance).

(5) In exercising their subjective judgment to determine if the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt, the jury is required to decide this on the objective basis of reasonable doubt detailed in the judge’s direction or summing up.

(6) If a court of appeal found a jury, acting reasonably, on the basis of the evidence presented, should have found reasonable doubt of guilt, the judge(s) can order the conviction quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered instead.

Not only verdicts can be quashed.  If within their jurisdiction, a judge can quash a warrant or order.

Atomism

Atomism (pronounced at-uh-miz-uhm)

(1) In philosophy, an ancient theory, developed by Democritus and expounded by Lucretius, that the ultimate constituents of all matter in the universe are atoms which are minute, discrete, finite, and indivisible elements; also called atomic theory.

(2) In psychology, a method or theory that reduces all psychological phenomena to simple elements; that experiences and mental states are composed of elementary units.

(3) Within the sciences, any of a number of theories that hold that some objects or phenomena can be explained as constructed out of a small number of distinct types of simple indivisible entities; any theory that holds that an understanding of the parts is logically prior to an understanding of the whole.  These theories can be grouped under the rubric of reductionism

1670–1680: The construct was atom + -ism.  Atom was from the Middle English attome from the Middle French athome, from the Latin atomus (smallest particle), from the Ancient Greek ἄτομον & ἄτομος (átomos & átomon) (indivisible; uncuttable), the construct being ἀ- (a-) (not) +‎ τέμνω (témnō) (I cut).  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).

Many English nouns to which -ism is attached are loans from Ancient Greek (mostly via Latin and French).  In Late Latin, the -ismus suffix became the ordinary ending for names of religions and ecclesiastical or philosophical systems, a trend continued in Medieval Latin and from the sixteenth century, such formations became common in English although, until the eighteenth century, the use was usually restricted to either root words from Ancient Greek & Latin or proper names.   By the nineteenth century, the creation of “isms” began to expand and by the twentieth, coinages took no account of previous rules and conventions.  Atomism & atomist are nouns, atomistic & atomistical are adjectives and atomistically is an adverb; the noun plural is atoms.

Atoms and voids

Atomism was a philosophical theory which suggested the universe consisted of indivisible, minute particles known as atoms and the idea was ancient, the first known writings on the matter those of the Ancient Greek philosopher Leucippus who was born during the fifth century BC but it was his better-known pupil Democritus (circa 460-370 BC) who developed and systematized the ideas.  What emerged was the theory that the two diametrically opposed constituents of the universe are indivisible entities: the void and the atom.  Democritus regarded a void as being literally nothing whereas atoms were matter and intrinsically unchangeable; an atom moving about in the void and sometimes combining into clusters although, being separated by the void, they cannot fuse, but instead bounce off one another when they collide.  It was the origin of the understanding that in the material world, objects are transitory because they change as their constituent atoms shift or become detached; matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into something else.  To the philosopher, it meant everything we experience in the universe is doomed; it’s a question just of when it ends and how.  That’s sometimes expressed as “nothing lasts forever” and in a practical sense that’s correct but what was left unanswered (though not unexplored) was (1) whether the atoms survived no matter what and (2) whether the voids remained or became transformed into a singularity with an undetermined future.

Helpfully for some, the atomists’ postulation of the indivisible atom also provided a solution to one of the paradoxes of Zeno of Elea (circa 495–430 BC): that if magnitudes can be divided to infinity, it becomes impossible for movement to happen because the object would have to traverse an infinite number of spaces in a finite time.  If an atom is the point at which division is impossible, the dilemma, which admittedly occurs only in Philosophy 101 classes, dissolves.  Other problems however persisted because there was nothing to disprove the proposition an atom could infinitely be divided into progressively smaller parts and obviously such a process could be described mathematically, numbers extending infinitely in each direction from what would come to be called zero.

Atomism: Atomic Kitten, EMI promotional poster, 1999.

The notion all matter is composed of tiny, indivisible (and indestructible) particles called atoms (from a Greek form meaning “indivisible” or “uncuttable” endured well in both Western and Eastern traditions although there were those who resisted and clung to the model of continuous matter, something which would have seemed compelling obvious based on observation.  What the thinkers from Antiquity left however was something speculative and, given the technology of the time, wholly unsupported by empirical evidence but with the advances which followed the Enlightenment, there was renewed interest in what was at the time known variously as “modern” or “revival” atomism and the first structured theories emerged in the early 1800s.  Indeed, the diagrams and explanations which became widely available early in the twentieth century really made the atomic structure understandable (at least conceptually) even to those with no background which was fine until the shock of quantum mechanics, papers and discussions about which began to circulate in the 1920s.  Quite a jump in the understanding of atoms and sub-atomic particles, quantum theory did not describe atoms as solid, billiard ball-like objects but rather as probabilistic entities with wave-like properties, the most challenging implication of that being that such a thing could simultaneously be in two places (points in space) at the same time (points in time).  For those brought up on the neat little diagrams of the atom, it was quite a challenge to visualize those two points in space being possibly on opposite sides of the universe.

Unconscionable

Unconscionable (pronounced un-kno-shon-ible)

(1) Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.

(2) Not in accordance with what is just or reasonable:

(3) Excessive; extortionate, imprudent or unreasonable

1560s: The construct was un- + conscionable.  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).  Conscionable was from the Middle English conscions (the third-person singular simple present indicative form of conscion), an obsolete variant of conscience, +‎ -able.  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- or -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Conscience was from the Middle English conscience, from the Old French conscience, from the Latin conscientia (knowledge within oneself), from consciens, present participle of conscire (to know, to be conscious (of wrong)), the construct being com- (together) + scire (to know).  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- of -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Unconscionable is an adjedtive, unconscionableness is a noun and unconscionably is an adverb; the noun plural is unconscionabilities.

Like disgruntled, unconscionable is one of those strange words in English where the derivation has flourished while the source word is effective extinct.  That said, English is defined and constructed by being used and the word conscionable (in accordance with conscience; defensible; proper) remains good English; it has merely faded from use and is described by some dictionaries as obsolete, archaic or at least, since the eighteenth century, a fossilized form of its surviving negative: unconscionable. Conscionable in the 1540s meant "having a conscience", the meaning expanding by the 1580s to refer to actions "consonant with right or duty" and by the 1640s to persons, "governed by conscience".  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes both conscious & conscioned were probably popular formations from conscion, taken as a singular of conscien-ce by a misapprehension of the "s" sound as a plural inflection. The related form was (and is) conscionably.

Unconscionability in the law

Unconscionability is a legal doctrine (most often applied in contact law) which permits courts to strike-out or write-down clauses or agreements which are unduly harsh or so grossly unfair that that it would offend legal principles for them to be enforced.  When a court uses the word "unconscionable" to describe conduct, it means the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience as defined in law; it makes no judgment about whether they are at variance with other ethical constructs (although there will often be overlap).  In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.  If need be, entire contracts can be set-aside or declared void, even if they are otherwise constructed wholly in conformity with the rules of contract.  A contract therefore can be found to be "legal" yet still be voided because it's held to be unconscionable in the same way a contract (for example an agreement between two parties in which one is paid to murder a third part can be held to be a "legal contract" yet be declared  "void for illegality".

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.  

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances may include the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties and the doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce a contracts.  At law, as in moral theology, the concept of unconscionability is probably absolute; something is either unconscionable or not.  However, cases are considered on their merits and the circumstances in which the unconscionable arose might color the detail of a judge’s verdict.

Portrait of King Charles II in his Garter robes (circa 1667), oil on canvas by Sir Peter Lely (1618-80).

The Most Noble Order of the Garter, an order of chivalry and the senior order of knighthood in the UK’s honors system, was founded by Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377).  Appointments are exclusively in the gift of the sovereign and limited to two dozen living members (apart from royal appointees).  The Garter was of great significance to Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) as it had been his father, Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) who awarded it as something symbolic of the binding tie with his favored aristocrats.  For Charles II, as the only dignity he was able to confer upon his adherents while in exile during the interregnum (1649-1660), it was a potent symbol, proof the King still retained the mystique and the power of monarchy.  Charles II suffered a sudden apoplectic fit on the morning of 2 February 1685 and his doctors expected him to have the decency to die within the hour.  Instead he lingered another four days before expiring and just before, he apologised to those around him, his last words being: “You must pardon me, gentlemen, for being a most unconscionable time a-dying.”  In this, as in many other things, he was unlike his father Charles I, who died suddenly, executed by having his head cut off.

Homologate

Homologate (pronounced huh-mol-uh-geyt or hoh-mol-uh-geyt)

(1) To approve; confirm or ratify.

(2) To register (a specific model of machine (usually a car), engine or other component) in either general production or in the requisite number to make it eligible for racing competition(s).

(3) To approve or ratify a deed or contract, especially one found to be defective; to confirm a proceeding or other procedure (both mostly used in Scottish contract law).

1644: From the Latin homologāt (agreed) & homologātus, past participle of homologāre (to agree) from the Ancient Greek homologeîn (to agree to, to allow, confess) from homologos (agreeing), the construct being homo- (from the Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) (same) + legein (to speak).  Homologate, homologated and homologating are verbs, homologation is a noun.

Once often used to mean “agree or confirm”, homologate is now a niche word, restricted almost wholly to compliance with minimum production numbers, set by the regulatory bodies of motorsport, to permit use in sanctioned competition; the words "accredit, affirm, approbate, authorize, certify, confirm, endorse, ratify, sanction, warrant & validate etc" are otherwise used for the purpose of agreeing or confirming.  It exists however still in Scottish law as a legal device, used (now rarely) retrospectively to declare valid an otherwise defective contract.  The best known application was to validate contracts of marriage where some technical defect in the legal solemnities had rendered the union void.  In such cases case a court could hold the marriage “. . . to be homologated by the subsequent marriage of the parties”.  It was a typically Scottish, common-sense application of the law, designed originally to avoid children being declared bastards (at a time which such a label attracted adverse consequences for all involved), vaguely analogous with a “contract by acquiescence” from contract law though not all were pleased: one dour Scottish bishop complained in 1715 that homologate was a "hard word".

Case studies in homologation

1962 Ferrari GTO.

In 1962, fearing the effectiveness of Jaguar’s new E-Type (XKE), the sleek lines of which made it look faster even than it was, Ferrari created a lighter, more powerful version of their 250 GT, naming the new car 250 GTO (Gran Turismo Omologato (Grand Touring Homologated)).  The regulatory body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) required a production run of at least 100 "identical" examples within twelve months for a car to be homologated for the Group 3 Grand Touring Car class but Ferrari built only 33, 36, 39 or 41 (depending on how one treats the variations and 36 is most quoted) 250 GTOs, thus the enduring debate about whether the thing violated the rules.

Ferrari GTO production numbers 1961-1964.

There was though some "wriggle room" in those rules in that "special coachwork" was permitted for racing variants of a homologated Group 3 model, but mechanical modifications were banned and while strengthening of a chassis, was permitted, weight reduction of the structure was not.  On any objective reading of the rule book, the fact the 250 GTO used a custom, narrow-tube frame unlike any other 250 GT, certification should have been denied until the requisite 100 had within twelve months been built.  However, the FIA was aware of the "Ferrari factor" in these matters.  Race organizers had much influence on the FIA's thought processes and they really wanted Ferraris on their grids because people paid money to see the things race so the GTO was granted homologation as a legitimate "development" the 250 GT Berlinetta SWB (Short wheelbase), the papers for which had been first issued in 1960.  It was as an appendage to this document that the GTO (as "a clause driving through a loophole" as one critic put it) competed between 1961-1964.  They’re now a prized item, one in a private transaction selling in 2018 for a reputed, then world-record, US$70 million which makes it the second most expensive car ever sold, topped only by the US$142 million paid in 2022 for one of the two Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR (W196S) Uhlenhaut gull-wing coupés.

1965 Ferrari 250 LM.

The FIA’s legislative largess didn’t extend to Ferrari’s next development for GT racing, the 250 LM. The view of il Commendatore was the 250 LM was an evolution as linked to the 250 GT’s 1960 homologation papers as had been the 250 GTO and thus deserved another certificate of extension.  Stung by the criticism that Ferrari were being afforded blatant favoritism (the FIA dubbed by some: "Ferrari International Assistance"), the FIA which pointed out 250 LM (1) was mid rather than front-engined, (2) had a wholly different body and (3) used a different frame and suspension.  Neither party budged so the 250 LM could run only in the prototype class until 1966 when it gained homologation as a Group 4 Sports Car.  Although less competitive against the true prototypes, it’s speed and reliability was enough for a private entry to win the 1965 24 Hours of Le Mans, a Ferrari’s last victory in the race until 2023.  One quirk of the 250 LM was that when the FIA ruled against homologation, the point of retaining the 3.0 litre displacement became irrelevant and almost all 250 LMs used a 3.3 litre engine so under Ferrari’s naming convention, the thing properly should have been called a 275 LM.  In February 2025, at RM Sotheby's Paris Auction, the Scaglietti-bodied 1964 250 LM which won at Le Mans in 1965 (and the only Ferrari from the era to compete in six 24 hour races) was sold for US$36.2 million.  The car had for decades been on display at Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum, like the 1954 Mercedes-Benz W196R Stromlinienwagen (streamliner) which a few days earlier had fetched US$53 million.  

1969 Porsche 917.

In 1969, needing to build twenty-five 917s to be granted homologation, Porsche did... sort of.  When the FIA inspectors turned up to tick the boxes, they found the promised twenty-five cars but most were in pieces.  Despite assurances there existed more than enough parts to bolt together enough to qualify, the FIA, now less trusting, refused to sign off, despite Porsche pointing out that if they assembled them all, they'd then just have to take them apart to prepare them for the track.  The FIA conceded the point but still refused to sign-off.  Less than a month later, probably nobody at the FIA believed Porsche when they rang back saying twenty-five completed 917s were ready for inspection but the team dutifully re-visited the factory.  There they found the 25, lined-up in a row.  Duly the delegation granted homologation, declining the offer of twenty-five test-drives.

1969 Dodge Daytona (red) & 1970 Plymouth Road Runner Superbird (blue).

By the mid 1950s, various NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) competitions had become wildly popular and the factories (sometimes in secret) provided support for the racers.  This had started modestly enough with the supply of parts and technical support but so tied up with prestige did success become that soon some manufacturers established racing departments and, officially and not, ran teams or provided so much financial support some effectively were factory operations.  NASCAR had begun as a "stock" car operation in the literal sense that the first cars used were "showroom stock" with only minimal modifications.  That didn't last long, cheating was soon rife and in the interests of spectacle (ie higher speeds), certain "performance enhancements" were permitted although the rules were always intended to maintain the original spirit of using cars which were "close" to what was in the showroom.  The cheating didn't stop although the teams became more adept in its practice.  One Dodge typified the way manufactures used the homologation rule to effectively game the system.  The homologation rules (having to build and sell a minimum number of a certain model in that specification) had been intended to restrict the use of cars to “volume production” models available to the general public but in 1956 Dodge did a special run of what it called the D-500 (an allusion to the number built to be “legal”).  Finding a loophole in the interpretation of the word “option” the D-500 appeared in the showrooms with a 260-hp V8 and crossed-flag “500” emblems on the hoods (bonnet) and trunk (boot) lids, the model’s Dodge’s high-performance offering for the season.  However there was also the D-500-1 (or DASH-1) option, which made the car essentially a race-ready vehicle and one available as a two-door sedan, hardtop or convertible (the different bodies to ensure eligibility in NASCAR’s various competitions).  The D-500-1 was thought to produce around 285 hp from its special twin-four-barrel-carbureted version of the 315 cubic inch (5.2 litre) but more significant was the inclusion of heavy-duty suspension and braking components.  It was a successful endeavour and triggered both an arms race between the manufacturers and the ongoing battle with the NASCAR regulators who did not wish to see their series transformed into something conested only by specialized racing cars which bore only a superficial resemblance to the “showroom stock”.  By the 2020s, it’s obvious NASCAR surrendered to the inevitable but for decades, the battle raged.

1970 Plymouth Superbird (left) and 1969 Dodge Daytona (right) by Stephen Barlow on DeviantArt.  Despite the visual similarities, the aerodynamic enhancements  differed between the two, the Plymouth's nose-cone less pointed, the rear wing higher and with a greater rake.  It's a persistent myth the wing height was dictated by the need to ensure the trunk (boot) lid could be opened; the height a product of the point at which "clean" air, undisturbed by the car's progress, could be found while the two vertical struts improved directional stability while inducing minimal drag.     

By 1969 the NASCAR  regulators had fine-tuned their rules restricting engine power and mandating a minimum weight so manufacturers resorted to the then less policed field of aerodynamics, ushering what came to be known as the aero-cars.  Dodge made some modifications to their Charger which smoothed the air-flow, labelling it the Charger 500 in a nod to the NASCAR homologation rules which demanded 500 identical models for eligibility.  However, unlike the quite modest modifications which proved so successful for Ford’s Torino Talladega and Mercury’s Cyclone Spoiler, the 500 remained aerodynamically inferior and production ceased after 392 were built.  Subsequently, Dodge "solved" the problem of the missing 108 needed for homologation purposes by later introducing a different "Charger 500" which was just a trim level and nothing to do with competition but, honor apparently satisfied on both sides, NASCAR turned the same blind eye they used when it became clear Ford probably had bent the rules a bit with the Talladega.  Not discouraged by the aerodynamic setback, Dodge recruited engineers from Chrysler's aerospace & missile division (which was being shuttered because the Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) was taking the US towards détente with the US & USSR beginning their arms-reduction programmes) and quickly created the Daytona, adding to the 500 a protruding nosecone and high wing at the rear.  Successful on the track, this time the required 500 really were built, 503 coming of the line.  NASCAR responded by again moving the goalposts, requiring manufacturers to build at least one example of each vehicle for each of their dealers before homologation would be granted, something which typically would demand a run well into four figures.  Plymouth duly complied and for 1970 about 2000 Superbirds (NASCAR acknowledging 1920 although Chrysler insists there were 1,935) were delivered to dealers, an expensive exercise given they were said to be invoiced at below cost.  Now more unhappy than ever, NASCAR lawyered-up and drafted rules rendering the aero-cars uncompetitive and their brief era ended.

1968 Dodge Charger (left), 1968 Dodge Charger 500 (centre) and 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona (right).

Before the missile engineers got involved, the path to specific aerodynamic efficiencies had an element of trial and error.  Ascetically, the 1968 Dodge Charger (left) was visually a great improvement on its slab-sided predecessor (1966-1968) and the recessed grill with hidden headlights was much admired, as were the buttresses which at the back created what Chrysler dubbed the "tunnel roof".  However, although always intended for the NASCAR ovals, once used there at speed, the drivers found the grill functioned just like the parachute the shape resembled, increasing fuel consumption and lowering top speed while the tunnel roof created buffering, causing instability.  Above 150 mph (240 km/h), the 1968 Charger not only didn't work very well but was dangerous.  That same year, the Charger 500 (centre) appeared with the recessed grill replaced by what was close to a flat surface which to some extent ameliorated the "parachute effect" but it was still not an ideal shape with which to penetrate the air while removing the buttresses smoothed things at the back which was good but at the now higher speeds, lift became a problem, something potentially more lethal even than the movement induced by the buffering.  The missile engineers' combination of the nosecone and big rear wing on the 1969 Dodge Daytona (right) solved all problems and on 24 March 1970, at Alabama's Talladega Superspeedway, a Charger 500 (DC-93) prepared by Chrysler Engineering to Daytona specifications (originally on the press fleet, it was a recovered stolen car!) set the then closed course lap record of 200.447 mph (322.5882 km/h).

Fully restored DC-93, the Dodge Charger 500 which in Daytona trim set the 200.447 mph (322.5882 km/h) at Talladega, March 1970.  The relationship between this thing and even the Daytonas sold to the public was an indication of how far NASCAR's definition of "stock car" had travelled since competition began in 1948.   

So extreme in appearance were the cars they proved at the time sometimes hard to sell and some were converted back to the standard specification by dealers anxious to get them out of the showroom.  Views changed over time and they're now much sought by collectors, the record price known price paid for a Superbird being US$1,650,000 for one of the 135 fitted with the 426 Street Hemi.  Despite the Superbirds having been produced in some four times the quantity of Daytonas, collectors indicate they're essentially interchangeable with the determinates of price (all else being equal) being determined by (1) engine specification (the Hemi-powered models the most desirable followed by the 6-BBL Plymouths (there were no Six-Pack Daytonas built) and then the 4 barrel 440s), (2) transmission (those with a manual gearbox attracting a premium) and (3) the combination of options, mileage, condition and originality.  Mapped on to that equation is the variable of who happens to be at an auction on any given day, something unpredictable.  That was demonstrated in August 2024 when a highly optioned Daytona in the most desirable configuration achieved US$3.36 million at Mecum’s auction at Monterey, California.  The price was impressive but what attracted the interest of the amateur sociologists was the same Daytona in May 2022 sold for US$1.3 million when offered by Mecum at their auction held at the Indiana State Fairgrounds.  The US$1.3 million was at the time the highest price then paid for a Hemi Daytona (of the 503 Daytonas built, only 70 were fitted with the Hemi and of those, only 22 had the four-speed manual) and the increase in value by some 250% was obviously the result of something other than the inflation rate.  The consensus was that although the internet had made just about all markets inherently global, local factors can still influence both the buyer profile and their behaviour, especially in the hothouse environment of a live auction.  Those who frequent California’s central coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco include a demographic not typically found in the mid-west and among other distinguishing characteristics there are more rich folk, able to spend US$3.36 million on a half-century old car they’ll probably never drive.  That’s how the collector market now works.  

1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429.

Although sometimes difficult, NASCAR could however be helpful, scratching the back of those who scratched theirs.  For the Torino and Mercury Cyclone race cars, Ford was allowed to homologate their Boss 429 engine in a Mustang, a model not used in top-flight stock car racing.  Actually, NASCAR had been more helpful still, acceding to Ford's request to nudge the seven litre displacement limit from 427 to 430 cubic inches, just to accommodate the Boss 429.  There was a nice symmetry to that because in 1964, Ford had been responsible for the imposition of the 427 limit, set after NASCAR became aware the company had taken a car fitted with a 483 cubic inch (7.9 litre) engine to the Bonneville salt flats and set a number of international speed records.  The car used on the salt flats was one which NASCAR had banned from its ovals after it was found blatantly in violation of homologation rules related to bodywork so there was unlikely to be much leeway offered there.

1971 Ford Falcon GTHO Phase III.

Australian manufacturers were (mostly) honest in their homologation programmes, Ford’s GTHO, Chrysler’s R/T Charger and Holden’s L34 and A9X were produced in accordance both with the claimed volumes and technical specification.  However, although in total the numbers added-up, they weren't always so punctilious in the form the parts ended up in the hands of customers.  Ford's RPO83 (Regular Production Option #83) was a run late in 1973 of XA Falcon GTswhich included many of the special parts intended for the aborted 1972 GTHO Phase IV and although, on paper, that seemed to make the things eligible for use in competition, it transpired the actual specification of various RPO83 cars wasn't consistent and didn't always match the nominal parts list.  History has been generous however and generally it's conceded that in aggregate, the parts subject to the homologation rules appear to have been produced in the requisite number.  By some accounts, this included counting the four-wheel disk brakes used on the luxury Landau hardtops but CAMS (the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, at the time the regulatory body) was in the mood to be accommodating.

No homologation issues: Here and there, between 1938-2003, Volkswagen produced 21,529,464 Beetles (officially the VW Type 1).