Building copy of the Penske Zerex Special

David,

The Sept 30, 1962 Northwest Grand Prix at Pacific Raceways near Seattle was held in two heats of 100 miles each:

Heat 1:

1. Dan Gurney [Arciero Lotus 19]
2. Masten Gregory [Laystall Lotus 19]
3. Lew Florence [Costin Lister/Corvette]
4. Jo Bonnier [Porsche RS-62]
5. Pete Lovely [Lotus23]
6. Pat Pigott [Lotus 23]

Heat 2:

1. Dan Gurney
2. Innes Ireland [2.0 Rosebud Lotus 19]
3. Lew Florence
4. Masten Gregory
5. Billy Krause [Maserati Tipo 61]
6. Jo Bonnier

Combined results: Gurney-Gregory-Florence-Bonnier-Krause
Gurney set fastest lap [1'28"9] and won $4,400

As for trying to get the $18,000 back from Penske [the combined purses for winning Riverside and Laguna], ACCUSS must have decided that it was easier just to ban the car from future events.

WINO

Sorry Wino, I misread my own notes about Kent
I seem to recall the later banning as being a sort of compromise - "we'll let the results stand but don't do it again." Which does seem to suggest at least some question about the interpretation of the rules.

One of the problems with USAC in 1962 was that they ran both Appendix C and Formula Libre events as part of the same Road Racing Championship. The Zerex would have been perfectly ligitimate in the USAC races at Bossier City and Indianapolis Raceway Park, being F.L. events.

WINO

Originally posted by Ray Bell


And let's hope you find it...

I agree with Ray.

And come on guys - being a Grumpy Old Man is fine (most of us qualify) but lets not cross that line between being a GOM and just plain churlish or rude.

Well said.

I suggest that the tone during the exchange of historic interpretations be mellowed. The harsh voice witnessed here also appeared in the NASCAR thread. Just plain ugly exchanges without consideration of the members' right for respect. There's a way of putting forth your case that indicates class or crass. I prefer the class.

One of the problems with USAC in 1962 was that they ran both Appendix C and Formula Libre events as part of the same Road Racing Championship. The Zerex would have been perfectly ligitimate in the USAC races at Bossier City and Indianapolis Raceway Park, being F.L. events.

Not quite accurate to say that USAC used "formula libre" in the RRC series since the cars had to conform to one of the CSI formulae -- Intercontinental, Formula 1, or with the USAC sports car regs which were basically Appendix C with a few changes, the doors and windshields mentioned.

Amazing how over four decades later there are still blood pressures getting elevated over this.....

I don't think that the USAC F.L. events were confined to those three types of cars alone, unless something changed in the rules between 1959 ad 1962. But I am not aware of any changes in that time frame.

In the September 1959 F.L. race at Meadowdale, a 2-heat event that was part of the RRC, some midgets took the start as well as some sprint cars. Apparently the organizers were looking for a stock car entry as well, but nobody took the bait. Lime Rock a few weeks earlier is another example.

This leads me to believe that USAC F.L. events were eligible for anything on four wheels.

WINO

The entries for the 1959 Meadowdale USAC race included a Pontiac-engined Indy car. Hope they previously upgraded the steering to make it go right in additin to left.

The entries for the 1961 IRP USAC race included two Formula Juniors, a Gemini and an OSCA.

WINO

Although the first USAC FL races were indeed wide open, I think billthekat's right about the year under discussion, 1962

Among the starters in the 1962 Bossier Grand Prix, the first round of the RRC that year, I find:

- a Cooper Formula Junior
- a 1.3 Alfa Veloce [Appendix C???]
- a Bristol [Rule Britannia !!!]
- an ISIS single-seater with 1.3 Alfa Veloce engine [described as Formula Senior]

Not your typical Intercontinental, Formula One or Appendix C fare. I agree that most of the cars in the race were among these three categories, but was this cause or result? Don's categories were the only ones capable of winning overall, but I don't think the organizers confined the field to exclude other contenders.

Considering the above also-ran entries, I doubt the original center-steering/one-inch-off-center-seating Zerex could or would have been refused by the organizers. And it would of course have been beaten by the open-wheel Coopers and Lotuses.


WINO

And what do I see in a start photo of the next 1962 USAC round for the RRC, the July 29 Hoosier GP at IRP.......

.... Rodger Ward in the 1.7 liter Leader Card Offy midget, on his way to second place.

Don't think anything changed between 1959 and 1962.


WINO

Perhaps billthekat meant to include FJ in his list of CSI formulae. The Isis was presumably an F1 car (for the purposes of this race) and the Alfa and the Bristol Appendix C cars. I think.

However, all this talk of FL races is a red herring.
The rules under which the Riverside and Laguna Seca races were held did not allow for cars with seating positions like those of the Zerex-Duralite Special, which is confirmed by the subsequent decision to ban it from further events.

The fact that it did race and did win makes it a historic artefact worthy of restoration

I agree, provided that it is the original car that is RESTORED . A replica can't be subjected to that activity, it can only be [re]created.

WINO

I chose my words carefully ;)
But if I can't see the genuine car restored to its 1962 form - and there's surely not enough left of it for that to happen without a very high percentage of replacement parts - then I'd be happy to see a well-made100% fake

WINO

Seeing that T54 never answer my question maybe you'll answer. If McLaren cut out the center ( willowy section ) and made a new frame. Would the original frame (willowy part) be more correct to start a restoration from?


Brian

Heaven Preserve Us !!!!

Anyone care to donate an original brake caliper?


Come on, folks... it's a replica... let it be.

Ray

My apologies!

Like I said I don't know much about racing but I do know that this is a controversial subject and I have to know if the people here have real knowledge or are just blowing smoke. So maybe someone here can help identify this frame. Purchased in England as Lotus 19 parts. I have pictures but am having trouble posting them. Obviously I don't know much about computers either. [img]http://forums.atlasf1.com/images/Left Side Front.jpg[/IMG]

Just follow the directions after you open a window for Image Shack as in the sticky at the top of the page, Brian...

And trust me, there's some pretty serious knowledge around here!

Brian,

The worst thing you can do is take the weakest chassis part of the second generation version of a car you are trying to copy in first generation configuration and use it in your construction. Unless that part has a chassis number on it of course, because this will guarantee there will be somebody gullible enough to pay big money a few years from now.

I just had a look at a 27-minute promotional video I have, called The Zerex Special by DuPont. Lots of Sebring 1962 and Nassau 1962 coverage, but only a few stills of the car at Riverside, without any technical details. At Sebring Penske drove a Cooper/Maserati, at Nassau the second Zerex Special, a 2.7 Cooper Monaco raced by McLaren on the West Coast and then bought by Mecom.

Also an interview with columnist Art Peck, who said the following: "the Riverside organizers made a mistake by allowing the car to run. It was legal by SCCA standards but not by FIA [i.e. USAC] standards, and Penske knew it. Penske himself made two mistakes. As an Easterner he went to the West Coast. And he won the big prize money!"

WNO

Lets Try this
[IMG]http://img204.exs.cx...dypanels0ee.jpg[/IMG]

WINO,

Thanks for the reply, I think your right. But if this is the mid section,
do you make the copy of the second version or the first version?

Brian

To all,
I realize from these pictures it would be very hard to identify this frame. The body work suggest that this is what it was. That's part of the reason why I'm looking for pictures and such. I suggested to my Client we make the first version, due to the fact that the McLaren version still exist. But really I guess it really is a decision of what you like better. Single seat or widened.


Brian

Brian check your PM's (Private Messages)

I have no doubt I would build the first version...

That's the one that was famous. And you would avoid controversy over trying to cheat and deceive.

i guess i'll weigh in on the nuts and bolts [sorry] of building a replica....as i have done this in the past i feel the i learned a few things...first of all i did it for myself and not for a client so i can't comment on that relationship aspect. i chose to build a t-37 bugatti and from the outset decided not to use any original factory parts..this may be a bit different than the project under discussion as i had to make the entire engine and gearbox from thin air..but i digress..
first of all i'd recommend up front deciding exactly the car you are going to recreate...this will be important so that you can keep on track and not end up with a perfect rendition of the car you don't really want or a hybrid that never actually existed...then do what you appear to be doing; step up and declare you're making a replica of a real car that evolved and you've picked a point in time to recreate...then do the typical research, photos websites,etc...if you can possibly access the real car [in whatever state] do it! much can be learned from observing and docketing not only parts and their placement but actual construction details..weldind,joints,tabs,flanges types of fasteners used[and period available] all the tiny bits of filler that will become invaluable....find and see,photograph,draw ,measure cars and parts that may have been used as subassemblys...i have found that nothing is as valuable as seeing the parts in their proper place..having talked to peter shaw who did bob sutherlands millers,phil reilley who has assembled kits of parts into an embodiement of car long gone...and to buck boudeman when he was doing the golden sub, most of the above advice would be considered sound...of course how you present your case has a major impact on your success...i've found that if you appear up-front and sincere about your project in a way that doesn't threaten others then doors will swing wide open.

the things that will kill you is when the original used a modifed[for example]triumph starter...miserable then,miserable now...the overwhelming urge is to bolt in a "surper starter" a geardown piece of modern tecgnology....this is when steely nerves and resolve [along with the guilt associated with such a travail..kick in.
actually the research may take nearly as long as the build itself....

somewhere out there the late mr. sutherland wrote volumnous tomes on the creation of the bugatti tank replica....find his writings and pour over them.

as for my own personal philosophy; i really dont give a rat's bum as to who cares what i've done...i had the cash to support a brescia bitsa or a recreated 4 cyl gp car...when all was done, the phyical presence of a warmed up gp bugatti in the driveway was the final payoff. it's right there-it's MINE!!

oh yeah...there will always be people that will not be happy no matter what you do or say even as they confront the car itself ..i say **** 'em...let them build their own car.



just rememder; in a replica the devil is not in the details they are the details


but hey..what do i know..... :wave:

the zerex special was imported to Venezuela by the late Leo Barboza and raced in several ocassions, not sure if is stil in the country
Branko

Not quite accurate to say that USAC used "formula libre" in the RRC series since the cars had to conform to one of the CSI formulae -- Intercontinental, Formula 1, or with the USAC sports car regs which were basically Appendix C with a few changes, the doors and windshields mentioned.

Among the starters in the 1962 Bossier Grand Prix, the first round of the RRC that year, I find:

- a Cooper Formula Junior
- a 1.3 Alfa Veloce [Appendix C???]
- a Bristol [Rule Britannia !!!]
- an ISIS single-seater with 1.3 Alfa Veloce engine [described as Formula Senior]

Not your typical Intercontinental, Formula One or Appendix C fare. I agree that most of the cars in the race were among these three categories, but was this cause or result? Don's categories were the only ones capable of winning overall, but I don't think the organizers confined the field to exclude other contenders.

Considering the above also-ran entries, I doubt the original center-steering/one-inch-off-center-seating Zerex could or would have been refused by the organizers. And it would of course have been beaten by the open-wheel Coopers and Lotuses.

And what do I see in a start photo of the next 1962 USAC round for the RRC, the July 29 Hoosier GP at IRP.......

.... Rodger Ward in the 1.7 liter Leader Card Offy midget, on his way to second place.

Don't think anything changed between 1959 and 1962.

Perhaps billthekat meant to include FJ in his list of CSI formulae. The Isis was presumably an F1 car (for the purposes of this race) and the Alfa and the Bristol Appendix C cars. I think.

However, all this talk of FL races is a red herring.
The rules under which the Riverside and Laguna Seca races were held did not allow for cars with seating positions like those of the Zerex-Duralite Special, which is confirmed by the subsequent decision to ban it from further events.

I could have listed FJ, but thought that it was clearly inferred that being open to any of the CSI formuale would include FJ.

Perhaps one problem is with the term "formula libre" since the promoters apparently had an option to include any cars conforming to one of the CSI formulae -- including the modified Appendix C sports cars or one of the USAC "formulae," which allowed some cars in through the back door such as the "F/Senior" cars from the FRA.

Some time ago, I wrote a series of articles for RVM on the 1962 US sports car season, but only sent in a few of them, generally not being satisfied with several of the remaining articles and they simply never got "published." I found that the entire flap over the Penske car was pretty fascinating since, as mentioned, Penske read the rulebooks carefully and asked questions and produced a car that met the letter of the rules while certainly taking great liberties with the spirit of those rules.

There was no end of griping about the car, but nary a protest because it was "legal." More than a few of the racers grudingly tipped their hats to Penske for outfoxing everyone, but along with scorned women, cornered animals, and 19-years with automatic weapons, one of the more dangerous things you can encounter is a Blazer hoisted by his own rulebook. Contemporary accounts reflect an interesting contrast of outrage and praise for the Penske effort, various sources reflecting their committment to one viewpoint or the other.

Personally, at the time I thought that the Penske car was not a "cheater" car, but simply someone looking at the rules and doing what I might later term as The Blindingly Obvious. Whatever one might have thought about it then or later, the Zerex Special certainly made an impression and gave American sports car racing a much needed boost.

The USAC RRC was reorganized for the 1962 season and their were changes from earlier seasons, but generally nothing very drastic, simply UsAC trying to cope with a division that really wasn't delivering as it had anticipated.

imo it would be more historically interesting to do the first version, the "symetric " single seater one . add to that it will be much easier to find accurate data and spec of the frame,suspension ect cause the rolling chassis was basically an unmodified cooper lowline 1960 f1 ,btw theres one good pictures of the zerex without the fairing in the book "cooper cars" of mr Nye.

Originally posted by Magee
WINO quote
"But my main objection is that it was a cheater car, in spite of the fact that Penske got prior permission to enter it in the 1962 Times GP, by Henry Banks of USAC and Glenn Davis of the LA Times. Both should have known better. The Zerex did not meet the most rudimentary requirements for sportsracing cars at the time, re. windshield, doors and seats."

The fact that it was a "cheater" enhances its historic value.

Hello All
Just an update so far. Today I received a copy of the January 1963 Car and Driver article interveiwing Roger Penske from a kind viewer in Canada. Great article about the Zerex Special.
I will keep you posted as more info comes in. Thanks again Vince.

Brian Nordby

Originally posted by branko
the zerex special was imported to Venezuela by the late Leo Barboza and raced in several ocassions, not sure if is stil in the country
Branko

Hi Branko

Welcome to TNF. Sorry - I didn't notice this post at first.

Can you tell us more about this? When was the car imported and when did it race?

Thanks

Allen

Brian

Two images to amuse and entertain.

This first one shows the 'legal' Zerex at Brands in August 1963:



The second shows the Zerex at Nassau at the end of 1966. Now I know you'll have been told that it disappeared well before December 1966 but here's something that may just make a few people change their mind.



Both photographs are Copyright Ted Walker who has been kind enough to let me post them here. Click either for something larger.

Allen

First, I am sorry if my comment were taken as "aggressive" because they were not meant to be. I believe that I have not been "uncivil" in my brief comments. I do not know the parties involved and I am sure that they are nice and respectable people with excellent intentions. Again, I repeat that anyone has the right to do anything he wants, this is still a free country. But it does not mean that everyone has to applaude or agree with it.

I feel the same about this as with the recreation of Ferrari #1 by... Ferrari. Does not mean anything to me except turning me off it.
I accept and understand that others may feel entirely differently and respect their opinions, but I am much more on the side of Jenkinson on this matter. Now...

What if you take the part of the frame that was cut out and make a car out of it wouldn't that be more "original" than the modified frame? Please define what makes something an original once its been modified. If you cut a cake and eat it to, do you still have your original cake?

It does not matter in this case, because you do not have any part of that frame or any part of that car, so the question is moot if you allow me.

As far a given famous car vs. a replica, how can I put it? If someone over many years, has modified a famous axe used to build, say, the White House and has replaced both blade or handle because the axe became unusable or needed maintenance, it is not quite a new axe because it is really the original axe that received said maintenance, but kept in the hands of either the original owner or passed along through garage sales to its current owner. With proper documentation, it still owns an identity close to the original tool. The British Supreme Court ruled as correct this exact definition about "Old # 2" when a dispute arose between a Japanese concern and the seller of the famous Bentley.
NOT the same as buying a new axe in 2005 and saying, "this is the axe used by this given person to cut this branch in 1963".

So there is no talk of restoration here, strictly construction of a new car. You all agree?

Now how do I see something wrong with it? not absolutely, but there are two reasons why I think that this is going to cause more harm than good:

1/ The real car, in whichever modified configuration, still exists and WILL re-surface (trust me on this), meaning that some time in the (near)future, there WILL be (at least) two cars with one copy and one restored, just as "Old #2" was used and modified over many years, then freshened and put back to its original configuration, even if few or none original parts are still on the car.
2/ The NEW car meanwhile, WILL have been mis-represented to the general public, count on it. May be not by the first owner or the builder, but by the media and the second, third or fourth owner down the line. I have seen it, heard it and witnessed it, to the point where I was threatened of legal action if I kept telling what was after all, the documented truth about a given vehicle I was speaking of.

May be I should also build a replica too. I DO own parts and bits of the original Zerex-Cooper, so why not? Indeed, some of the bits purchased with the Indianapolis engine are from the Zerex car and not from the Indy car, and I still have them. So there might be now THREE cars: the original survivor still in Venezuela today, the future replica built up north and my own "restoration" using a couple of bits of the real car.
I think this is going to be weird.
Regards,

T54

Perhaps Terry O'Neil can idenify the entrant and the driver of the car at Nassau?

WINO

Is the Brands shot Penske or Mayer?

Ray,
definitely Roger.

Why would it be Mayer? Tim was racing Roger's old Cooper Monaco.

WINO

Here's a picture of Bruce McLaren in the Zerex Special, Brands Hatch 1964 where he drove it to victory :



Source: Auto Racing Magazine April 1967

and here's another picture from French l'Automobile:



Entered by the Texan Team of John Mecom, carrying the name of the king of Jordan and driven by AJ Foyt, the Hussein Zerex (formerly known as the Cooper Zerex) was the biggest challenge for the Chaparrals (1964).

There were a fair number of cars called Zerex Special, not necessarily the cheater car of Penske. The Hussein was one of them and had nothing to do with the car under discussion here, neither did the Mecom-owned Cooper Monaco, Scarab/Chevy, Ferrari 275LM, Lotus 19/Olds and Lola T70.

WINO

The Hussein was powered by a 426 Hemi.

Now we are floating in MAJOR KONFUZION...

Actually my fave of Roger's cars is the tail-finned "Telar Special" Cooper Monaco.
After the Cooper was sold by Mecom to Bruce, two Lola T70's inherited the "Zerex-Special" moniker. Driven by Uncle Walt and Rufus, they did quite well against the invincible Chaparrals in 1965...

WINO, according to Roger with whom I had a very long conversation a few years back about the Zerex-Cooper, only 3 engines were used in it: the ex-Indy 2.7 lump and two 2.5's built by Roy. I still have bits of both these engines that I inherited when I purchased the parts auctioned from the Mecom warehouse.
When they sold the car to Bruce, it went with a 2.5 installed and the Olds on a pallet.
The picture shown of Roy building the engine in a posting above is that of the 2.7 because it was taken in the shop before the car was made as a wide-body "sports" car, and that is the only engine they had since Briggs kept the 1.5 from the car when he sold it. Indeed, Roger drove at least one race with the repaired original T53 body and the 2.7 in a F-libre thing. I have pictures to prove it...

T54

Edited by T54, 05 August 2019 - 18:05.

T54,

Penske's memory [just like Gurney's when it came to his finish in the 1962 Daytona Continental] is selective, especially since he left the Mecom team at the end of 1963 to join Chaparral and does not know what engines were used by Mecom on the cheater car after he left. I submitted the full list of engine configurations earlier on this thread.

WINO

Forgot to make it explicit although it should be clear by now: all Mecom's cars [see the above list] were called Zerex Special as part of his sponsorship by Dupont.

WINO

Originally posted by T54
1/ The real car, in whichever modified configuration, still exists and WILL re-surface (trust me on this), meaning that some time in the (near)future, there WILL be (at least) two cars with one copy and one restored, just as "Old #2" was used and modified over many years, then freshened and put back to its original configuration, even if few or none original parts are still on the car.
2/ The NEW car meanwhile, WILL have been mis-represented to the general public, count on it. May be not by the first owner or the builder, but by the media and the second, third or fourth owner down the line. I have seen it, heard it and witnessed it, to the point where I was threatened of legal action if I kept telling what was after all, the documented truth about a given vehicle I was speaking of.

May be I should also build a replica too. I DO own parts and bits of the original Zerex-Cooper, so why not? Indeed, some of the bits purchased with the Indianapolis engine are from the Zerex car and not from the Indy car, and I still have them. So there might be now THREE cars: the original survivor still in Venezuela today, the future replica built up north and my own "restoration" using a couple of bits of the real car.
I think this is going to be weird.
Regards,

T54

I totally agree with you that somewhere down the road, someone will try and pass off the replica as the real car. It happens all the time.

Hello
Good to hear from you all again.
A short update.
Still doing lots of research and building a large list of questions. Have spoken to Roy Ganes (Many ,many, thanks to John and Harry, both leads from this forum, hurrah!), what an honor to speak to someone so steeped in this history. Wonderful man with a mind as sharp as ever I hope to be. He was going a mile a minute on the details of the car. He asked how hard it would be to make the Coventry Climax 2.5 we have to a 2.7. I said a longer stroke crankshaft and larger bores at least. He mentioned a spacer between the block and head and more.
We hope to keep in close contact with Roy and Harry Tidmarsh through out the process.
Does any one here know if Photographer Bob Tronolone is alive and how to get in contact with him? I've done a lot of searches on the net, but most are just references. His pictures seem to be the only one's with the body off.
Thanks also to John at Marsh Models for their collection of pictures of the car, we have a couple of good shots of the back end.
Racing season is just starting to warm up here, so have been very busy with lots of little fixes here and there. I may not be as prompt on the updates but I promise to keep you informed. I feel I owe it to you all. Thanks Again.

Brian Nordby

As far as I am aware, Bob is still living. The last time I saw him was about 2 years ago. Sorry, but I don't have an address or phone number. Tam McPartland might know. You can contact him through his web site http://www.tamsoldracecarsite.net/

WINO,
When I talked to Roger about this in 1990, his mind was very sharp and he recalled this in great details. He said that the car ran so well that the only reason why they would switch engines was purely to check the one taken out, to make sure that it was OK for a next race, so it was taken apart and everything checked. Apparently the third spare engine was only used once after the 2.7 "Indy" engine had blown in Pensacola. I also have a written record on the engine service that came with the bits and a whole bunch of spare parts. It mentions engines by #1, # 2 and # 3... but no FPF numbers. Besides, the Indy engine does NOT have an FPF number, but begins by "ET"...

He mentioned a spacer between the block and head and more.

This is when one takes a 2-liter short-stroke and makes a 2.5 from it. The 2.7 uses the taller 2.5 block, bored to the absolute limit. a crank with longer throw is then fitted.
The two Indy engines had chrome plated bores, but it appears that no other later 2.7 did.
I would strongly recommend that you stick to a 2.5 block to save yourself an immense amount of trouble... Both Mantle and C&G have new engines. Running an old one is fraught with expensive risks. Where are you going to find a C5S tranny?

T54