Weird, or unusual racing cars

[jimclark]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Yup.
@Everso Biggyballies
I still contend the first rear engine 500 win should have been in '63. At least two cars spun on Jones' leaking oil which should have seen him black flagged, as per the rules, allowing Jim to take the win. USAC didn't wave it.

USAC was comprised of dinosaurs that resented change. The turbines of '67 and '68 confirmed that (as Art Pollard acknowledged to me at Trenton in '68).....they too were not allowed to win the race. All three '67, lap 197, Jones a "gear box bearing failure"; '68, (Graham crashed just past half-way) Pollard, and Leonard who was leading, both having "fuel pump shaft failures" laps 188 and 191.....what a cincidence........

1969, the Lear steam car never showed due to "insufficient engine development".......not what I was told by insider. USAC said it would be allowed in the race unless it was "too slow" (duhhh, of course) and even though it met the rules, "if it was too fast".......(no, they didn't have BoPing twixt practice and the race back then.....like the ACO, they just ruled as they wished......

[PTRACER]

A stroke of genius by Colin Chapman to exploit the American racing scene who still thought lots of power and huge, front-engined beasts were the way to go!

Wrong on both counts.

Jack got the idea of an F1 style Indy car first; finishing 9th in the 1961 '500 with his Cooper Climax.

Though Lotus/Chapman was my team/principal, it was Dan Gurney that enticed Colin, and put the Ford/Lotus deal together for (finally) the '63 rear engined win (Milwaukee; the week after the 500, Jim 1st, Dan 3rd).......

Maybe he wasn't the first, but it looks like all but a handful of the other runners in 1963 were all front-engined and looked about 10 years out of date aerodynamically:

https://www.indycar.com/photos/gallery?g=1561

[jimclark]

Absolutely.

Like I said, Colin was my "second" hero to Jim. I was just pointing out that, genius that he was, he may never have come over if it weren't for Dan's prompting and connections. Dan was no slouch of an engineer himself......

[EB]

they too were not allowed to win the race. All three '67, lap 197, Jones a "gear box bearing failure"; '68, (Graham crashed just past half-way) Pollard, and Leonard who was leading, both having "fuel pump shaft failures" laps 188 and 191.....what a cincidence........

Conspiracy theory alert. What are you suggesting here?

Incidentally the Milwaukee race that Lotus dominated was the 200 miler in August, they did not compete in the June one.

Trivia question - name the first driver to put a rear engined Lotus on pole in a USAC championship race. The answer will surprise many.

[Everso Biggyballies]

Trivia question - name the first driver to put a rear engined Lotus on pole in a USAC championship race. The answer will surprise many.

Well obviously not Clark at Milwaukee (that would surprise no one) but I know Lloyd Ruby played around with a Frank Harrison owned Lotus 18 earlier in the year, so, Ruby? Dont think it was very reliable in races though

[EB]

Yep, in the race before the 1963 Indy 500.

[jimclark]

Conspiracy theory alert. What are you suggesting here?

Incidentally the Milwaukee race that Lotus dominated was the 200 miler in August, they did not compete in the June one.

Trivia question - name the first driver to put a rear engined Lotus on pole in a USAC championship race. The answer will surprise many.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no theory. I've explained elsewhere, sitting with Art for a few minutes at Trenton, 9/68, and asking what happened to the turbines at Indy. I explained what I thought and he indicated to me that I was correct. Granatelli's turbines got STP it's exposure, even in losing; as did USAC/Indy.

Oooooppppsss... Got me months wrong by a bit, no? More indication of my senility. But, dang, I thought it was the short term that was the first to go.......

And I didn't know about Ruby's Lotus endeavours. 'Twas a bit before me..... I do now.

[Michael Ferner]

Yes!! It's about time American Conspiracy theorists discover auto racing! Of course, USAC meddled with the gearbox bearing in 1967, and with the fuel pump drives in 1968, how stupid was I all these years to not even consider that? I still wonder how they did that? Did they freeze time, and open the gearbox on the track in '67? If so, there should be tell tale oil patches on the track in photographs, we just need to find them. And the fuel pump drives? That's easier, they could have interfered by transmitting oscillating waves which would destroy the shafts in rotation. Hmm. Makes me think, maybe they heated the surface under the '67 car to make the bearing bleed out its oil? Tons of possibilities!

[hollie3sa]

Yes!! It's about time American Conspiracy theorists discover auto racing! Of course, USAC meddled with the gearbox bearing in 1967, and with the fuel pump drives in 1968, how stupid was I all these years to not even consider that? I still wonder how they did that? Did they freeze time, and open the gearbox on the track in '67? If so, there should be tell tale oil patches on the track in photographs, we just need to find them. And the fuel pump drives? That's easier, they could have interfered by transmitting oscillating waves which would destroy the shafts in rotation. Hmm. Makes me think, maybe they heated the surface under the '67 car to make the bearing bleed out its oil? Tons of possibilities!

Remember: @Michael Ferner is German. So he most definitely does not know the concept of jokes/humor/sarcasm.

[Lor Bet]

Bruce McLaren testing the car owned by Shelby Racing Company at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in 1967

Two thangs.....

1) Did it really test in '67....or was it actually '68? I ask......
2) ......as it wasn't so unusual having been beaten to the punch by Wallis' first design, Granatelli's '67 Indy (should have been...) "winner"
(Take that Parnelli..... "Karma" for "stealing" Jim's '63 (also should have been...) "win" perhaps??? )......



Edit: Another not so usual Indy car, and third "should have".....Chapman's 56....

Yep, Bruce tested the turbine car in '68, the photo was in an album of Indy 1967 so I wrote '67.
Just edited my previous post

[jimclark]

'Had a feeling something like that....

[jimclark]

Yes!! It's about time American Conspiracy theorists discover auto racing! Of course, USAC meddled with the gearbox bearing in 1967, and with the fuel pump drives in 1968, how stupid was I all these years to not even consider that? I still wonder how they did that? Did they freeze time, and open the gearbox on the track in '67? If so, there should be tell tale oil patches on the track in photographs, we just need to find them. And the fuel pump drives? That's easier, they could have interfered by transmitting oscillating waves which would destroy the shafts in rotation. Hmm. Makes me think, maybe they heated the surface under the '67 car to make the bearing bleed out its oil? Tons of possibilities!

Remember: @Michael Ferner is German. So he most definitely does not know the concept of jokes/humor/sarcasm.

Guess what my dear? My father's parents arrived here from Germany. My mother's side from England a couple of generations before.

None of those things (jokes/humor/sarcasm) were what I implied. Nor what MF suggested ("meddling" with the cars), which would be totally asinine of me to suggest.

If one doesn't understand/believe there are things that go on behind closed doors (deals; USAC and Granatelli in this case) in the name of business/promotion...........

Like plans to shut down three excitingly new and unusual cars (4 including Hill's if he was still in it) that "we" (the USAC dinosaurs) didn't want to be allowed anyway...
One, '67, Jones, 3 laps from the end. With the public announcement (excuse) of a "bearing failure"...
Two others, '68, Pollard and Leonard, 3 laps apart near the end...worse yet...with that ooohhh so coincidental "fuel pump shaft failures". This, on engines that have hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of hours, on them.....powering all sorts of aircraft where reliability is paramount.....less than three minutes apart. With less than 3 hours on them. Yeah, okay.


..........they can buy it. My "German" father didn't raise me to be that naive.

I guess I shouldn't have (and will 'til I die) believed Art's "telling" smile and body language (no, he didn't say it outright, how could he? Say it he did, however) in his station wagon that Sept. Sunday, when I asked about what happened. 'Sorry, that daawwg 'don't hunt.....

[Michael Ferner]

Well, at least get the facts straight: not USAC didn't want to allow the turbines (heck, they made the rules! If they didn't want them, they could have simply struck out the paragraph that explicitly allowed turbines ), it was the rival team owners, led by Dan Gurney who raised a storm. As for suggesting that Granatelli and USAC made a deal to "shut down" the cars before the finish, words almost fail me, except for saying that is even beyond naive...

[EB]

But...but......Art Pollard gave him a knowing smile, don't you know?

I've always thought snipers were involved, probably stationed at the grassy knoll.

[Michael Ferner]

Totally by chance, I just found the actual results of the commitee session that restricted the turbine engines for 1968, as reported in The Republic newspaper of Columbus/IN on July 13, 1967, page 17:

Of the ten members, three were against the restriction, four in favour and three not present for the vote (!)

Joe Cloutier (IMS) nay

JC Agajanian (owner) nay
Lindsey Hopkins (owner) not present
Al Dean (owner) not present
John Mecom (owner) not present

Ted Halibrand (constructor) nay
AJ Watson (constructor) aye

Johnny Rutherford (driver) aye
Roger McCluskey (driver) aye

Charles Brockman (press) aye

Real news are so much more interesting than stupid conspiracy theories...

[jimclark]

All very true but the restrictions have nothing to do with the pulling out of the cars as they were not, under any circumstances, to win.
The deal was made as opposed to banning them altogether. Nobody wanted grids of silent whooshmobiles.
STP and the 500 got the exposure they expected.

You can call it a conspiracy theory all you'd like. I sat with Art and know what he was telling me in his silence.