Dan Gurney

[chrisb]

yes, i do remember that Charles and I seem to remember Chris Amon's response disagreed with Ken's assertion, but I always felt Ken's role in the development of this beauty is often overlooked, and tea? well of course old bean, whatever else would one drink?

[Carl]

John Charles,

I have always felt a closeness to both. Dan Gurney, given near equality of race car, was the unchallenged master at Riverside. Being a local, it was his home track, and it was mine as a spectator.  Almost everyone who saw him drive there voted for him for president in 1964.

Ken Miles tested the early Shelby Cobras at Riverside and was testing there for Ford when the prototype "J car" he was driving had catastrophic structural failure at top speed. Ten years earlier he had designed the wonderful Willow Springs track, still in existence far from industrial expansion 90 miles north of Los Angeles. I attended a 3-day Jim Russell course at Willow Springs and had wonderful fun being instructed in a Merlyn Formula Ford.

At any race track, I would have thought someone with a teapot was by far cooler than college boys tossing empty beer cans.

Cheers, Carl

[Deleted]

[Carl]

Lucio,

Thank you for this great photograph! I was there, somewhat higher up in that Turn 6 grandstand and when the field came around in anger, no-one thought about sitting down for several laps. Despite the extremely fast M20, that year (1972) was the swan song for Team McLaren in the Can-Am because they could no longer prevail over a season. 

Roger Penske always sought an unfair advantage, and sadly this one hastened the end of Can-Am's glory years, although few realized it at the time.  George Follmer, on pole in his 917-10, reached a track record top speed of 219 mph in this race.  I'll never forget that number because we could see the cars as they exited the nearby Turn 8 onto the one-mile back straight and the Porsche gained speed like an illusion. The following year, Mark Donohue's prediction of 250 mph in the 917-30 caused the organizers to use the short course, directly onto the straight from Turn 7, to avoid that possibility.

Cheers, Carl
                                                                              Attachment Deleted

[charleselan]

The simple expediency to the Penske "Dream Roller" would have been for the Can Am rule makers to have banned the blessed turbo's. It was catastrophic to the series and Roger would have had his work cut out to make the Panzer Waggon competitive without the turbo. Of course it was sold as a no holds barred series but sometimes in life a little common sense goes a long way, sadly in motor sport that is commodity lacking as we can see to the day.

[Carl]

John Charles,

You're absolutely right, but the unlimited philosophy was like a religion, and until this point had worked well. People kept the faith and hoped for the best, unaware that the majestic series was taking on water and about to sink. Proper assessment of Roger Penske's competitive ruthlessness could have opened more minds to the expediency of banning turbos. It was talked about and advocated by some, but prophets are often without honor in their own time.

At the time I didn't know what would be best for the sport and a state of confusion ensued. I would miss Team McLaren but fall in love with Donohue in the 917-30.  As sublime as the 5 litre Can-Am was, it wasn't the same.  The spectacular beast had been tamed.

-Carl

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2018 21:48:12 GMT Carl said:

Lucio,

Thank you for this great photograph! I was there, somewhat higher up in that Turn 6 grandstand and when the field came around in anger, no-one thought about sitting down for several laps. Despite the extremely fast M20, that year (1972) was the swan song for Team McLaren in the Can-Am because they could no longer prevail over a season. 

Carl,

besides the great perspective, I put it on exactly because I was certain you were there somewhere. Beautiful photo indeed.

Cheers Carl

[René]

Fantastic discussion about the Can-Am series here.

What I find interesting is that the demise of the series seems to pinpoint a 'problem' that has shaped motor racing worldwide and can be felt to this day. Due to its extreme competitive nature and the continues development of new technologies, an 'empty rule book series' is virtually impossible to sustain. And ever since, more and more rules and restrictions have shaped motor racing as we know it.

And without wanting to protect the FIA or any other rule makers, but when you really think about it it is very complicated to continiously develop a series like Formula 1 without getting stuck at one point. In Formula 1 or sport prototypes you want technical freedom and at the same time you need a lot of rules to keep everything within boundaries without wanting to end up with a spec series... almost impossible. I know we all loath the ridiculous front wings of modern F1 cars but to end this development you need to specify exactly what the wing should look like which is against the spirit of the series and against exactly that what we all loved about the seventies; you could recognize every car, even if it was painted white.

I know it is impossible to go back to the 'old days' and maybe F1 (and all other series) is already a spec series and should the rule makers only focus on good racing. 

Sorry guys, just some random thoughts....

[chrisb]

i do like your thinking Rene,

when I think of the 92 Williams with all the electronic gadgetry - so sophisticated [and actually quite useful for us mere mortals] and do wonder where would it have gone? so rule book re-appears some 'interpret' it differently but that is really a different subject and the ultimate Group C cars - the Peugeot 905 etc = took it to a level only a serious investment could have competed, etc etc

but there are simpler ways of achieving rules that are relevant and allow the clever people to work within, but my question would be, should motor racing [and bike] be a part of the developmental process for road transport?

a simple way for F1 [ok money people will win initially but] you have a race lasting this long, you are permitted this amount of emissions and you have this amount of fuel, the rest is up to you - so if Renault can build a V10 with 1000bhp and 100 mpg - with minimal emissions then wouldn't that be a honey for us car users? then aero's - simple - this wide/ this high - this design type - no underbody or appendages

so it could be done, and yes I know this is rather a simplistic off the top of my head response,  and it doesn't include the clever electronics and I am guessing what am I actually asking is I understood why we raced but I'm not so clear now?

[robmarsh]

Good points Rene and Chris. Can-Am as we knew it died ostensibly when Porsche changed the technology game followed by the fuel crises in 1973/74.  McLaren's cars were coming to the end of their development life cycle and for a relatively small outfit to take on both Porsche and Penske, who both had more money than McLaren, coupled with trying to develop a competitive F1 car, the directors of McLaren chose to call a halt.  Even though McLaren has dominated Can-am since 1967, it was with equipment that was available to all ie american V8s, tyres and a basic aluminium constructed monocoque.  McLaren really won due to superior preparation and top class drivers.  Porsche and Penske changed all that with the very expensive turbo charged engine that was not available to all at a reasonable price. So once again the amount of money available determined success-a common occurrence in motor racing and that has been so throughout history.

With regard to modern F1, an inordinate amount of money is spent on trying to gain small increments of performance via aero.  An expense that adds little to improving road cars at all.  You just have to read Adrian Newey's book to see this.  The whole purpose is to make the car perform in still air.  That starts with the front wing, which channels all the air away from the tyres, into the engine, down the body work, past the coke bottle effect and on to the rear wing.  In order to make this air channelling more effect the coke bottle effect is important.  The longer the body is, the better the coke bottle effect and therefore the better the rear wing effect and the downforce effect.  Hence the ever increasing wheelbases and the monstrous cars. Actually they are beginning to resemble Land speed Record cars in the length!

The more disposable income a team has the more it can spend exploring different aero solutions that add nothing to the racing or the road car.  Just watch the little things that are already appearing on the zimmer frame above the driver.  To me that means the teams with more money will vastly out perform teams with less because they can explore more avenues so we are caught in an increasing spiral of un competitive racing.  Since it is virtually impossible to police development spend in a team why not level the playing fields by taking away the avenues they can spend money on that have no benefit to motoring at large.  Therefore to my mind the easiest way to do this is to take the front wing complexities out of the equation by reducing the width and making it two plane only-like Indycar.  If you also maximise the wheelbase to 103 inches or thereabouts you will get away from the need to lengthen the cars for better aero and then close another spending hole.  Money should be spent on improving the engine as suggested by Chris than wasting it on aero. 




  

[robmarsh]

I have just read an article on the autosport site about how the teams are now spending time and money investigating tiny little aero changes around the exhaust pipe in order to replace lost downforce when the "monkey seat" was banned. I now think that no matter how you rewrite the rules the teams will spend whatever money they have on whatever they think will make them competitive, wasteful or not. I don't think even a standard engine like the Cosworth was will make the little teams competitive. The big teams will just spend what they have exploring minute advantages. I mean McLaren in the late naughties spent a relative fortune improving the pit stop equipment and finding ways to cut out human reaction time.

Maybe the old days are well and truly gone and though we may mourn them they will never return. One will have to find something about modern Formula 1 that you can love if you want to watch it or else spend your time in other ways. For me the technology and how they do things is still exciting and at times mind blowing, but I often only get to know about it years later. I think if the teams were not so secretive and were forced to explain what they are doing, more interest would be shown by people like us. Isn't that why the Chaparral fan car or the Brabham fan car were so fascinating at the time because what they were trying to achieve was not hidden from the fans. So maybe the answer is to make the rules more free as suggested by Rene, but with the caveat that the teams are no longer allowed to be so secretive and the drivers be given more freedom about what they can say.

[Deleted]

Dan's children to restore and complete the unfinished 1968 F1 Eagle:

www.racer.com/f1/item/148018-1968-gurney-eagle-f1-restoration-a-labor-of-love

[René]

[chrisb]

flicking through youtub came across a couple of really respectful tributes to Dan, and what comes across is just what an amazing human being Dan really was, I am sure he had his foibles as everyone else has but what really appealed about these - one was Bell helmets and the other ESPN - was that they were so respectful without being sycophantic, and the highlight was watching Hobbo driving 104 - the Belgium GP winning car - around a car park and almost wetting himself in the process with joy, pure magic.

[charleselan]

Sept 5, 2018 8:02:25 GMT chrisb said:

flicking through youtub came across a couple of really respectful tributes to Dan, and what comes across is just what an amazing human being Dan really was, I am sure he had his foibles as everyone else has but what really appealed about these - one was Bell helmets and the other ESPN - was that they were so respectful without being sycophantic, and the highlight was watching Hobbo driving 104 - the Belgium GP winning car - around a car park and almost wetting himself in the process with joy, pure magic.

Chris,

Having read your post this morning I thought that you might like this extract from Autosport when its as a worthy magazine. It recounts the 1960 Nurburgring 1000kms where Dan partnered Stirling Moss in the Camoradi Maserati "Birdcage". I still remember the great picture that was on the cover of the monthly Motor Racing magazine in black & white of Dan Gurney coming out of the mist in the Maserati, it was wonderful and I have loved the "Birdcage" ever since.

No better compliment than from Stirling at the end:-

"With fog and drizzle reducing visibility, Moss pulled away and, just before one-third distance, handed over to Gurney, who resumed with a lead of a minute.

Then an oil pipe broke and Gurney brought the Maserati back in. Unlike the previous two years, Moss did not jump in to begin a recovery. Problem fixed, Gurney went back out, now down in fourth and 4m35s behind the leading Ferrari of Phil Hill/Wolfgang von Trips.

A fine charge brought Gurney up to second just after half distance, but still he wasn't done.

"The race continued, with Gurney driving absolutely brilliantly under quite dreadful conditions, slicing more and more off the Ferrari's lead," wrote Martyn Watkins in Autosport.

On lap 28 of 44, Gurney took the Maserati back to the front. He then handed over to Moss, who resumed behind the Jo Bonnier/Olivier Gendebien Porsche and the Hill/von Trips Ferrari.

When the Ferrari's engine failed and Porsche made its final stop, Moss swept by into an inevitable lead. The Maserati's final winning margin was nearly three minutes.

In Stirling Moss: My cars, my career, written with Doug Nye, Moss gave Gurney much credit: "It was a dazzling recovery drive through the mist and drizzle.

"I could not have done so well without such a superb co-driver, because Dan was quite brilliant that day. He was the best co-driver, along with [Juan Manuel] Fangio, I think I ever had."