I'm sure I've seen a pic of a Brands grid with Mayer in the Zerex and McLaren in an M1... or have I gone troppo?
Building copy of the Penske Zerex Special
Started by
Brian Nordby
, Mar 02 2005 07:41
231 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#152
WINO
-
- 622 posts
- Joined: April 04
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 09:26
T54,
Penske must have forgotten that when he had his temper tandrum while driven his Zerex Special at Nassau in 1963 [this was a brand new Mecom-owned 5.4 liter Chevy-engined Cooper Monaco] his team mate Augie Pabst ran the Zerex Special [the original Zerex-Duralite] with a 2-liter Climax engine in the same race.
WINO
Penske must have forgotten that when he had his temper tandrum while driven his Zerex Special at Nassau in 1963 [this was a brand new Mecom-owned 5.4 liter Chevy-engined Cooper Monaco] his team mate Augie Pabst ran the Zerex Special [the original Zerex-Duralite] with a 2-liter Climax engine in the same race.
WINO
#153
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 15:43
I'm sure I've seen a pic of a Brands grid with Mayer in the Zerex and McLaren in an M1... or have I gone troppo?
Ray, this is in late 1964. Mecom sold the car at the end of the 1963 season to Bruce, Penske was driving a Chaparral at the time.
#154
WINO
-
- 622 posts
- Joined: April 04
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 16:35
I would still like to come back to Penske's comments re. what engines the original Zerex Spl used, as these statements make no sense.
In 1962 he ran it in three races -Riverside, Laguna and Puerto Rico- , all overall victories and with the car well-described as having the 2.7 Indy unit.
In 1963 Penske ran the same car [now RHD and presumably with the same 2.7] at Marlboro and Cumberland; two more victories. Then Sharp blows the 2.7 unit at the Pensacola USRRC.
In the next race, the Mosport Players 200, the car reappears with a 2.5 and is suddenly no longer competitive. It can barely beat Jim Hall in a FRONT-engined Chaparral, let alone Ruby and Daigh in 2.7 Lotus 19s. It finishes fourth, no exactly Roger's way. Running well????
The next event is at Road America, for the June prints. It still may have used the 2.5 here, we don't know. The program does not list any engine sizes. Once again, a FRONT-engine Chaparral [Heuer] battles it for the lead and the Zerex retires. Running well????
It wins at Brand Hatch and scores a second at Riverside, in both cases the car being described as having a 2.7 unit [including the Riverside race program]. Suddenly it is competitive again.
If T54 claims he found the blown Pensacola 2.7 engine many years later, the unit at Brands Hatch ad Riverside must have been a different one.
In December 1963 the car reappears with a 2.0 liter Climax [probably from Mecom's Lotus 19, which had been converted to Olds power]. Pabst retires in the main event at Nassau.
The last race under Mecom is actually in April 1964 at Pensacola, where John Canon runs it again as a 2-liter entry, a DNF once more. Only then is it sold to McLaren.
WINO
In 1962 he ran it in three races -Riverside, Laguna and Puerto Rico- , all overall victories and with the car well-described as having the 2.7 Indy unit.
In 1963 Penske ran the same car [now RHD and presumably with the same 2.7] at Marlboro and Cumberland; two more victories. Then Sharp blows the 2.7 unit at the Pensacola USRRC.
In the next race, the Mosport Players 200, the car reappears with a 2.5 and is suddenly no longer competitive. It can barely beat Jim Hall in a FRONT-engined Chaparral, let alone Ruby and Daigh in 2.7 Lotus 19s. It finishes fourth, no exactly Roger's way. Running well????
The next event is at Road America, for the June prints. It still may have used the 2.5 here, we don't know. The program does not list any engine sizes. Once again, a FRONT-engine Chaparral [Heuer] battles it for the lead and the Zerex retires. Running well????
It wins at Brand Hatch and scores a second at Riverside, in both cases the car being described as having a 2.7 unit [including the Riverside race program]. Suddenly it is competitive again.
If T54 claims he found the blown Pensacola 2.7 engine many years later, the unit at Brands Hatch ad Riverside must have been a different one.
In December 1963 the car reappears with a 2.0 liter Climax [probably from Mecom's Lotus 19, which had been converted to Olds power]. Pabst retires in the main event at Nassau.
The last race under Mecom is actually in April 1964 at Pensacola, where John Canon runs it again as a 2-liter entry, a DNF once more. Only then is it sold to McLaren.
WINO
#155
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 16:54
It wins at Brand Hatch and scores a second at Riverside, in both cases the car being described as having a 2.7 unit
According to the records I have, he had only 3 engines. Once the 2.7 was blown (and subsequently repaired and running again today), one of the 2.5's was used. the second 2.5 MAY have been bored and stroked following the 1963 practice and available parts (pistons and crank) and run in the last races. Apparently, if the car indeed was running well with the 2.5, it did not have enough grunt, so the move to making the engine (assumably # 3) bigger.
Your analysis of the races is however correct and Roger may not have recalled the changes on the second 2.5-liter job. I still have the Coventry-Climax leftover gasket sets which I acquired with all the engine and chassis bits in 1989, with the actual engine numbers on top of each in black oil pencil : #1, 2 and 3, and "Roger" name also written on some! There is also a pair of untouched, complete sealed gasket sets marked "2-liter" and a box of cam bearings with a "John Mecom Bearing Company" sticker stenciled on it. Why do I keep that junk...
Time for some photography maybe? That is if I can first fix my floppy disk thing on my new mega-gig computer since I use an older Sony camera...
Regards,
T54
#156
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 21:12
Brian. Going back to your posting with the chassis photos.Are you saying that this chassis came from the UK ??? and that you are using this as the bones for the Zerex repro ?????
#157
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 22:05
Brian. Going back to your posting with the chassis photos.Are you saying that this chassis came from the UK ??? and that you are using this as the bones for the Zerex repro ?????
I was asking myself that same question...
#158
Ray Bell
-
- 80,260 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 22:28
Originally posted by T54
Ray, this is in late 1964. Mecom sold the car at the end of the 1963 season to Bruce, Penske was driving a Chaparral at the time.
Sure... but did I see that scene? Mayer drove for Bruce, Bruce owned the car, have I seen pics of Mayer driving the Zerex at Brands or have I gone mad?
#159
Keir
-
- 5,241 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 22:32
Ray,
If you have to ask if you're nuts, then you might be!!
If you think you're nuts, then you might not be!!
I hope I've been of some help??
..... but then again, you might ask Doug, he'll have the answer for sure!
If you have to ask if you're nuts, then you might be!!
If you think you're nuts, then you might not be!!
I hope I've been of some help??
..... but then again, you might ask Doug, he'll have the answer for sure!
Advertisement
#160
Andrew Fellowes
-
- 753 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 24 March 2005 - 22:54
Originally posted by T54
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.
.....So there is no talk of restoration here, strictly construction of a new car. You all agree?
T54
1 or 2? This is a short version;
Mr.Justice Otton went on to say that Old Number One
Cannot be properly described as original,
Cannot be properly described as genuine
Cannot be properly described as a mere resurrection
However it is the "authentic" "Old Number One".
http://www.gomog.com...1judgement.html
Urrrgh!
Clearly I would never have made it the legal profession.
#161
Brian Nordby
-
- 19 posts
- Joined: March 05
New Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 01:04
Ted[QUOTE]Brian. Going back to your posting with the chassis photos.Are you saying that this chassis came from the UK ??? and that you are using this as the bones for the Zerex repro ?????
This chassis came from England. No I do not and would not ever think of using any peice of this frame.
Brian
This chassis came from England. No I do not and would not ever think of using any peice of this frame.
Brian
#162
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:43
Brian, Ive been following this thread with interest,especially when you posted those pics which ive spent hours studying, you seem to have an opinion on just what that metal is, are you of the same mind as me in thinking that it is not Lotus 19? Although hard to believe ,I'd say that was the centre section from the Zerox or something that looked just like it! I'd like to run those pics past Wal Willmot as he and Tyler A cut the thing up . The provenence generally stays with the "car", this should make the repop issue a non event,but everyone has differing opinions on this. At what point does the car remain "the car" after a rebuild as major as McLarens gave it. After all they saw fit to change its name .as George Begg says in his new book "The new McLaren , it was a McLaren really,but for the purposes of peace at Coopers, it was called a Cooper Oldsmobile". So if Brian has the centre section and I think thats what it is, where do we go from here? A replica built around a sizable chunk of the period original? Theres probably more there than existing on the South American car.. TNFers, Your further thoughts please
#163
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 08:53
The first Mclaren was not built from the Zerex as my photo posted by Allen Brown proves. I have photos of the first car being built and apart from a few Cooper bits (wheels etc) its nothing like a cooper.
#164
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:44
I think the hypothesis being tested here is that the Zerex only goes as far as McLaren's 1964 rebuild at which point a new car, the 'Cooper-Olds', emerges. According to this hypothesis, it is the Cooper-Olds that appeared at Nassau in 1966 and is now in Venuzuela. The Zerex meanwhile consisted of various parts in a scrap bin at McLaren's (or wherever) and have now found their way to Brian.
I don't buy that hypothesis, as the way we traditionally view a racing car (in the UK at least) is that it can be very substantially rebuilt and yet remain the same car. This is Jenks' way of looking at things and I'm a disciple. If I'm unsure, I usually ask myself where the 'original' car is following the rebuild. In this case, the 'original car' was nothing more than a cut-out and discarded centre section and other less significant pieces. I agree with Otton's interpretation that, following McLaren's rebuild, the 'Cooper-Olds' is no longer original but it is the same car. It's the 'historical footprint' that matters in this context.
Even if this centre section is from the Zerex (and I don't have an opinion on that), I would still regard anything built from it as a replica.
Allen
I don't buy that hypothesis, as the way we traditionally view a racing car (in the UK at least) is that it can be very substantially rebuilt and yet remain the same car. This is Jenks' way of looking at things and I'm a disciple. If I'm unsure, I usually ask myself where the 'original' car is following the rebuild. In this case, the 'original car' was nothing more than a cut-out and discarded centre section and other less significant pieces. I agree with Otton's interpretation that, following McLaren's rebuild, the 'Cooper-Olds' is no longer original but it is the same car. It's the 'historical footprint' that matters in this context.
Even if this centre section is from the Zerex (and I don't have an opinion on that), I would still regard anything built from it as a replica.
Allen
#165
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 10:23
Having just - at Ted's urging - scan-read this thread again I hope I've understood properly but there seems to be a small element of confusion between what constituted "The First McLaren" and "The Zerex".
Bruce had the Zerex-based car out and running in England at the Aintree '200' meeting early in the year, Climax-engined.
Its rear frame was then cut about to accommodate an Oldsmobile V8 but in that form the car was still employing something of the 'Zerex' frame.
Meanwhile an entirely separate, independent, McLaren-designed chassis was going together and it was this entirely separate entity which emerged that Autumn as 'The First McLaren' - a different pile of bits, leading a different existence in parallel with what had been the 'Zerex' in its Bruce McLaren offset two-seat form.
Don't whatever you do muddle the two entities...
The 'Zerex'-based special was Bruce's first BMcLMR team stop-gap sports-racing car in 1964 - the McLaren-Oldsmobile M1A prototype (different pile of toobs) was Bruce's first works McLaren sports-racing car, emerging later that year.
So you have the 'Zerex'-based stop-gap car on one side - and the first works McLaren on the other.
DCN
Bruce had the Zerex-based car out and running in England at the Aintree '200' meeting early in the year, Climax-engined.
Its rear frame was then cut about to accommodate an Oldsmobile V8 but in that form the car was still employing something of the 'Zerex' frame.
Meanwhile an entirely separate, independent, McLaren-designed chassis was going together and it was this entirely separate entity which emerged that Autumn as 'The First McLaren' - a different pile of bits, leading a different existence in parallel with what had been the 'Zerex' in its Bruce McLaren offset two-seat form.
Don't whatever you do muddle the two entities...
The 'Zerex'-based special was Bruce's first BMcLMR team stop-gap sports-racing car in 1964 - the McLaren-Oldsmobile M1A prototype (different pile of toobs) was Bruce's first works McLaren sports-racing car, emerging later that year.
So you have the 'Zerex'-based stop-gap car on one side - and the first works McLaren on the other.
DCN
#166
Ray Bell
-
- 80,260 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 11:48
So Doug, is it not true that Tim Mayer drove the Cooper Olds at Brands?
#167
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 12:12
Not if we're talking about the 1964 Guards Trophy race, Ray. The Cooper-Oldsmobile's driver in that event was B McLaren
#168
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 16:38
I can't believe what I am reading on some of the postings in this threads... the center section of the original T53 chassis that forms the bones of the Cooper-Zerex Special was first modified by Roy Gane/Roger Penske to fit the wider alloy body, with round and square tubing and brackets added to support the new body and the extra mini-seat. In the winter of 1962, the entire center section was cut and widened by the same crew to provide symetrical seating to respond to the critics and be more acceptable to interpretation of the quickly-tightened rules to please the unhappy crowd. The car was sold to John Mecom in that very form, the body modified to conform the new seating arrangement, a new windshield and roll bar added, and repainted in the blue and white Mecom colors.
This center section is STILL on the real chassis now in Venezuela (at least as of 1994 from my information). Indeed, Bruce had no reason to change the center of the car, and pictures show that this is the case. After he took the Climax out, he modified as Doug clearly points out, the BACK END of the frame to fit the Olds V8, but not that much really from what I see on the period pics. He kept the T53 bottom tubes intact (no reason to move them as the Olds clears with plenty of room to spare) and simply cut the top tubes and bent them outwards to open them up, adding material and triangulation to connect them the the widened cockpit area, adding new tubing to connect the the still narrow front end, and fabricating new motor mounts. The back of the body was then opened up for engine clearance and added aerodynamic spoilers.
So it is my opinion, from close observation of photographic evidence from the many pictures I have gathered of the car over 15 years, that the center section and bits of body shown on the pictures in this thread cannot come from the Zerex-Cooper in any form.
T54
This center section is STILL on the real chassis now in Venezuela (at least as of 1994 from my information). Indeed, Bruce had no reason to change the center of the car, and pictures show that this is the case. After he took the Climax out, he modified as Doug clearly points out, the BACK END of the frame to fit the Olds V8, but not that much really from what I see on the period pics. He kept the T53 bottom tubes intact (no reason to move them as the Olds clears with plenty of room to spare) and simply cut the top tubes and bent them outwards to open them up, adding material and triangulation to connect them the the widened cockpit area, adding new tubing to connect the the still narrow front end, and fabricating new motor mounts. The back of the body was then opened up for engine clearance and added aerodynamic spoilers.
So it is my opinion, from close observation of photographic evidence from the many pictures I have gathered of the car over 15 years, that the center section and bits of body shown on the pictures in this thread cannot come from the Zerex-Cooper in any form.
T54
#169
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 17:42
That threw me too, Philippe...
DCN
DCN
#170
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 20:57
Guys , what have I gotten myself into? ...I need to clarify a couple of points. I am only talking about the Zerex car , in particular the Jolly Green Giant variant. I have allways been under the impression that the entire Cooper frame was removed bulkhead to bulkhead .Eion says it, pg 59 1st edition. Doug says and I quote "Tyler and Wally worked to make and fit an entirely new chassis centre section." pg 72. Ive only in the last couple of months spoken to Wal Willmot about this very subject, and he too says bulkhead to bulkhead. Wal has still got his diary and worknotes from this period. The 1st McLaren quote was I believe, Wals as taken by George Begg Have any others studied those frame remains? , please take another look This does seem rather far fetched but stanger things have happened.
#171
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 21:08
As I understand it the "Jolly green giant" was the First Mclaren sports car Chassis No BMMR/2/64 photos of the construction of which I have in front of me as I type ????
#172
Ray Bell
-
- 80,260 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 21:17
Okay, I'm mistaken then (in my private conversation here, having been aided by D. McKinney)... Mayer must have been in a Cooper Monaco.
#173
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 21:31
Ted ,are you seeing a frame with Cooper wheels and uprights, fitted with a Hewland transaxle ? . If so this is the M1A prototype. The Jolly Green Giant refered to the McLaren chassised Zerex. I have often wondered if this car (the Zerex)was given a BMMR i.d.
#174
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 21:42
I'm not qualified to contribute to the debate about which bits made up which car, but - like Ted - I've only heard the "JollyGreen Giant" tag being applied to the first genuine McLarenOriginally posted by Duncan Fox
The Jolly Green Giant refered to the McLaren chassised Zerex. I have often wondered if this car (the Zerex)was given a BMMR i.d.
#175
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 21:49
Duncan - writing only from memory is such a dangerous thing. 
I have checked my original notes from research in 1981-83 when I spend some time stuck into the 'Zerex' story with the McLaren boys. The car was brought to the UK just in time for the Oulton Park spring meeting in April 1964 NOT the Aintree '200'. Wally and Tyler Alexander barely had time to fit the regulation luggage boot (trunk) and spare wheel before rushing the Climax-engined car to Oulton where Bruce was forced to retire with low/no oil pressure. He subsequently beat Jimmy's Lotus 30 with it at the Aintree '200' meeting, which is the one I remembered.
At the big Silverstone International in May, Bruce won again, this time beating Roy Salvadori in Tommy Atkins's 5-litre Cooper Monaco-Maserati V8.
The day after that Silverstone win the car was stripped in Bruce's little workshop in New Malden, south London, and it was indeed the centre section which was cut out and "scrapped". The Penske-modified frame was described to me as using "curved piping which would have delighted a master plumber". Looking at the photos of the section in question today, that phrase hardly describes what is depicted there.
In this form the car lacked torsional rigidity and was clearly unsuitable to accept higher power. A new centre section was made up in which the main longerons doubled as structural members and oil and water pipes. The rear frame was necessarily modified as required to accommodate and mount the Oldmobile V8 engine in place of the original Climax 4-cyl in-line unit.
It was then that Eoin Young - working as Bruce's PA in effect - was despatched to find some paint to finish the job, and all he could buy was 'garden gate green' as he described it in his book on Bruce - from which the nickname 'The Jolly Green Giant' derived.
This nickname was applied to the McLarenised Cooper-originated 'Zerex' - and NOT to the completely McLaren-made M1A prototype which was built subsequently in the team's new, larger works behind a shopping centre in Feltham, Middlesex, not far from Heathrow Airport.
Sorry about being as confused as anybody else here...
DCN
I have checked my original notes from research in 1981-83 when I spend some time stuck into the 'Zerex' story with the McLaren boys. The car was brought to the UK just in time for the Oulton Park spring meeting in April 1964 NOT the Aintree '200'. Wally and Tyler Alexander barely had time to fit the regulation luggage boot (trunk) and spare wheel before rushing the Climax-engined car to Oulton where Bruce was forced to retire with low/no oil pressure. He subsequently beat Jimmy's Lotus 30 with it at the Aintree '200' meeting, which is the one I remembered.
At the big Silverstone International in May, Bruce won again, this time beating Roy Salvadori in Tommy Atkins's 5-litre Cooper Monaco-Maserati V8.
The day after that Silverstone win the car was stripped in Bruce's little workshop in New Malden, south London, and it was indeed the centre section which was cut out and "scrapped". The Penske-modified frame was described to me as using "curved piping which would have delighted a master plumber". Looking at the photos of the section in question today, that phrase hardly describes what is depicted there.
In this form the car lacked torsional rigidity and was clearly unsuitable to accept higher power. A new centre section was made up in which the main longerons doubled as structural members and oil and water pipes. The rear frame was necessarily modified as required to accommodate and mount the Oldmobile V8 engine in place of the original Climax 4-cyl in-line unit.
It was then that Eoin Young - working as Bruce's PA in effect - was despatched to find some paint to finish the job, and all he could buy was 'garden gate green' as he described it in his book on Bruce - from which the nickname 'The Jolly Green Giant' derived.
This nickname was applied to the McLarenised Cooper-originated 'Zerex' - and NOT to the completely McLaren-made M1A prototype which was built subsequently in the team's new, larger works behind a shopping centre in Feltham, Middlesex, not far from Heathrow Airport.
Sorry about being as confused as anybody else here...
DCN
#176
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 22:32
Doug. Hey, we are only human after all. Thats probably the reason I finally replied to the thread. Look carefully at those photos, those cutoff " toobs" (I liked that one) that would have joined to the bulkheads are curved sure the centre section are staight but then you would expect them to be. O. K. look at that rear view mirror stalk, look at the dzus holes for the bodywork, look at those doors, the side scoops and their position, Does any one have a good photo of the chassis as recieved by Bruce & co ? I only have one unanswered question on my match it list , and its where was the roll bar attached.? And I'm still waiting to see if Brian replies , I,d like his input, it is his post after all! Brian made the comment on pg 4 "but if this is the mid section" this is a pretty hefty project that Brian is taking on for his client and mentions of things such as tracings of body bucks suggests to me that someone has come across a "package project" If the photos are not aligned to the program why post them?
#177
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 23:15
Well I'm glad we've got that sorted out. I was on the verge of quoting Doug to counter Doug!
I'm curious about this BMMR chassis plate on the Jolly Green Giant, as we're now calling the post-new-centre-section-by-McLaren Zerex. If this is BMMR/2/64, what exactly was BMMR/1/64? A Tasman car? Which Tasman car?
And was that number actually stamped on a chassis plate or is this a later 'interpretation'?
Allen
I'm curious about this BMMR chassis plate on the Jolly Green Giant, as we're now calling the post-new-centre-section-by-McLaren Zerex. If this is BMMR/2/64, what exactly was BMMR/1/64? A Tasman car? Which Tasman car?
And was that number actually stamped on a chassis plate or is this a later 'interpretation'?
Allen
#178
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 March 2005 - 23:28
Allen ,isnt it past your bedtime? Iwondered the exact thing re those tags,These were actual plates attached to the car . Brass to start with , then a proper screenprint tag from early 66 onwards. I reread your post 166 and I do agree ,But things are looked apon differantly by some people on the other side of the Atlantic. There is a danger here if McLarens created a different identity which is why I was interested in the tag comments
#179
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 06:11
Originally posted by Doug Nye
It was then that Eoin Young - working as Bruce's PA in effect - was despatched to find some paint to finish the job, and all he could buy was 'garden gate green' as he described it in his book on Bruce - from which the nickname 'The Jolly Green Giant' derived.
Originally posted by Doug Nye
writing only from memory is such a dangerous thing.
Advertisement
#180
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 09:03
Allen the BMMR chassis plate I was refering to is fitted on the FIRST PROPER McLAREN SPORTS CAR not as it would now appear the ZEREX. I would love to know who had this "chassis" in the UK.After all its a very important car.
#181
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 16:43
To "deconfuse" this chassis-rebuilding exercise, I am presently making drawings of the original configuration to the first Penske-made alterations, then to the second (and final, save for some possible butchery by post McLaren owners) McLaren-made alterations of this Cooper T53 F1 customer frame originally sold by the works to Briggs Cunningham.
I am still amazed that many here are unable to discern between this Cooper and the first McLaren M1 which has absolutely nothing to do with that car, the Zerex-Cooper turned Cooper-Oldsmobile, eventually sold by Bruce so that he could concentrate on his new purely McLaren product.
The first McLaren was painted in black and silver and led its first serious race, the LA Times GP in 1964 but did not finish and Bruce will have to wait 1965 and a new body shape (M1B) to encounter success.
T54
I am still amazed that many here are unable to discern between this Cooper and the first McLaren M1 which has absolutely nothing to do with that car, the Zerex-Cooper turned Cooper-Oldsmobile, eventually sold by Bruce so that he could concentrate on his new purely McLaren product.
The first McLaren was painted in black and silver and led its first serious race, the LA Times GP in 1964 but did not finish and Bruce will have to wait 1965 and a new body shape (M1B) to encounter success.
T54
#182
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 16:57
To restore my mana somewhat, I might point out that the LA Times GP was the McLaren's second race.
Also, speaking for myself, I have never got the Zerex/Cooper-Oldsmobile and the first McLaren mixed up, though I did attribute the JJG epithet to the wrong one
Also, speaking for myself, I have never got the Zerex/Cooper-Oldsmobile and the first McLaren mixed up, though I did attribute the JJG epithet to the wrong one
#183
Ray Bell
-
- 80,260 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 21:28
Restoration will come when you confirm what the real answer to my question is!
Oh, and wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the initials 'JGG' instead of 'JJG'?
Oh, and wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the initials 'JGG' instead of 'JJG'?
#184
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 21:43
Last night I studied as many photos of the Mecom Zerex as I could find. I compared these to shots of the car at Aintree and Silverstone and for a while could not see a great deal different except the flaired fenders and items to legalise the car , and then I saw it ,no rollover bar. Now my list has all its matches ticked off.
I am not confused regarding these early McLaren exploits and one thing I have learnt is to expect the unexpected, they were an industrious group always trying something different. what else was altered to remove that bar? My money is still on the "Lotus 19 " bits
T54, am I correct in my thinking here: Penske buys wrecked T53 F1/16/61 rebuilds ,adding passenger seat and outriggers, 1st Modification. Mecom then buys car, cuts frame rails and provides a full width cockpit including r.h.d 2nd Modification. McLaren buys car, rebuilds entire frame bulkhead to bulkhead. 3rd Modification. I am only interested in that 2nd mod, for the purpose of comparing to those posted photos. Doug says Mecom only cut the top rails, but you simply could not get a 2 seater without widening the bottem ones , now look at the bottom rails on the 1st and 2nd pictures posted, what do you see ? rails that have been cut and Zedded. Lets find photos of the Mecom mods and put this to rest once and for all. Meanwhile I am going to see if Wal Willmott can recognise that metalwork.
I am not confused regarding these early McLaren exploits and one thing I have learnt is to expect the unexpected, they were an industrious group always trying something different. what else was altered to remove that bar? My money is still on the "Lotus 19 " bits
T54, am I correct in my thinking here: Penske buys wrecked T53 F1/16/61 rebuilds ,adding passenger seat and outriggers, 1st Modification. Mecom then buys car, cuts frame rails and provides a full width cockpit including r.h.d 2nd Modification. McLaren buys car, rebuilds entire frame bulkhead to bulkhead. 3rd Modification. I am only interested in that 2nd mod, for the purpose of comparing to those posted photos. Doug says Mecom only cut the top rails, but you simply could not get a 2 seater without widening the bottem ones , now look at the bottom rails on the 1st and 2nd pictures posted, what do you see ? rails that have been cut and Zedded. Lets find photos of the Mecom mods and put this to rest once and for all. Meanwhile I am going to see if Wal Willmott can recognise that metalwork.
#185
WINO
-
- 622 posts
- Joined: April 04
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 22:04
Mecom did not have anything to do with the car's modifications to a legal two-seater. Penske drove the two-seater Zerex in the first two races in 1963 in its regular red color and it was only at Pensacola in 1963 that the car ran under metallic blue Mecom colors. The two-seater conversion was done by the same Philadelphia people who converted the original Formula One Cooper into the cheater car, a couple of months before Mecom became involved with the whole thing.
WINO
WINO
#186
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 22:28
Wino, You are I think correct. I used Dougs McLaren book for that Summery, but when I read Dave Freidmans McLaren Sports Racing Cars he says Gane had Widened the car by the start of the 63 season Dougs facts are correct, Ive just interpreted them badly.
#187
Brian Nordby
-
- 19 posts
- Joined: March 05
New Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 22:34
Duncan
Check your PMs
Check your PMs
#188
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 23:25
I agree. If McLaren created a different entity, we do have an interesting situation. A chassis tag would have indicated to me that a different entity had come into existence, albeit based very heavily on the Zerex. But all I've read here suggests that the JGG was a continuation of the Zerex.Originally posted by Duncan Fox
... I reread your post 166 and I do agree ,But things are looked apon differantly by some people on the other side of the Atlantic. There is a danger here if McLarens created a different identity which is why I was interested in the tag comments
Allen
#189
Doug Nye
-
- 11,535 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 26 March 2005 - 23:56
Fresh off the press from Wal Willmott himself:
"We cut at the rear of the engine bay and at the front of the cockpit bay leaving only the original Cooper suspension carrying areas(which was roughly the bit that Roy Gain had replaced with bent tubes anyway). The whole exercise was to get some torsional rigidity back into the frame by
replacing all the bends with straight tubing and it finished up a fairly simple structure with, if my memory serves me correct, the cooling water running through the chassis rails as we had done on the Tasman car.
"We used the Colotti gearbox from the 2.5 litre Tasman car and the shift gate was also a Colotti component. The shift movement in the Coloti was arse backwards to, say, Hewland and the pre-made shift gate was the simplest solution, although to get around the exhausts with the shift shaft required a couple of uni joints.
"We were constantly working/modifying on the run, and to my mind it was never finished until Brands when we finally had the under body exhausts and the body repaired and repainted after returning from Mosport. By then we had cut the top of the nose and exhausted the radiator air upwards."
Wal is surprised to hear of the supposed centre-section's survival.
"Why the F*** we would have bothered to keep it I would not know, and I would be very surprised if we didn't give it the fate it deserved and throw it in the rubbish."
He has given me a name he thinks could well have rescued and preserved the discarded material....adding "...talk about Steptoe & Son"!
But because of that I dont think it's fair for me to mention that chap's name...perhaps the purchaser will do so instead?
In normal circumstances the amputated material would NOT have survived.
DCN
"We cut at the rear of the engine bay and at the front of the cockpit bay leaving only the original Cooper suspension carrying areas(which was roughly the bit that Roy Gain had replaced with bent tubes anyway). The whole exercise was to get some torsional rigidity back into the frame by
replacing all the bends with straight tubing and it finished up a fairly simple structure with, if my memory serves me correct, the cooling water running through the chassis rails as we had done on the Tasman car.
"We used the Colotti gearbox from the 2.5 litre Tasman car and the shift gate was also a Colotti component. The shift movement in the Coloti was arse backwards to, say, Hewland and the pre-made shift gate was the simplest solution, although to get around the exhausts with the shift shaft required a couple of uni joints.
"We were constantly working/modifying on the run, and to my mind it was never finished until Brands when we finally had the under body exhausts and the body repaired and repainted after returning from Mosport. By then we had cut the top of the nose and exhausted the radiator air upwards."
Wal is surprised to hear of the supposed centre-section's survival.
"Why the F*** we would have bothered to keep it I would not know, and I would be very surprised if we didn't give it the fate it deserved and throw it in the rubbish."
He has given me a name he thinks could well have rescued and preserved the discarded material....adding "...talk about Steptoe & Son"!
But because of that I dont think it's fair for me to mention that chap's name...perhaps the purchaser will do so instead?In normal circumstances the amputated material would NOT have survived.
DCN
#190
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 27 March 2005 - 00:26
As I said stranger things have happened .My theory here is, the frame section was possibly used as a buck for new sills and doors and disposal "was by others" Wals discription sure fits.So, if these are the amputated remains do you now replicate the Mecom or late Penske version?
Ted, that chassis #2/64 I have logged as the Gurney works built M1A which survives today in the U.S. BMMR 1/64 was the prototype built by Wal and Tyler, Howden Ganley built the other one This is the only sports car chassis (#1)that I have not found to date. I have photos of it being rebuilt at the works in early 66, but have never placed it after this.
Ted, that chassis #2/64 I have logged as the Gurney works built M1A which survives today in the U.S. BMMR 1/64 was the prototype built by Wal and Tyler, Howden Ganley built the other one This is the only sports car chassis (#1)that I have not found to date. I have photos of it being rebuilt at the works in early 66, but have never placed it after this.
#191
Roger Clark
-
- 7,509 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 27 March 2005 - 18:14
Taken in September 64, these two photos show the first McLaren sports car, chassis number BMMR/2/64.
Copyright, Ted Walker.
.JPG)
.JPG)
Copyright, Ted Walker.
#192
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 04:58
Roger , thanks for posting the pics, wasn't that a pretty car.Does Ted know who took them? Its definately the prototype, but that tag is now attached to a car in the U.S. that the owner says is the Gurney Ford M1A works car. I'll have to do some more digging. Interesting thing here is that with the one exception of the Amon M1B (which never returned to England after the season finished) all of the works tube frame cars have muddled identities. I know which survivior car is which but the tags dont match. I'm unable to explain this. Another thing now springs to mind that we have touched on previously. If the Sept 64 M1A prototype was chassis #2, What was chassis #1? All the single seaters had their Cooper i.ds. Hmmmm...........
#193
diego
-
- 390 posts
- Joined: June 01
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 05:50
Originally posted by dbw
...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.
#194
dbw
-
- 993 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 05:58
toobs indeed..more importantly in the second ,interior shot ,is that not the rubber bulb of a bicycle horn protruding from under the dash between the two instruments?? road equipped i'd say! 
#195
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 07:45
The photos were taken by a chap called Eddie State who was an early employee,and shareholder of Mclaren .I love the bulb horn fitted to comply with current sportscar regs. Dougs last post was very interesting because if you look at the chassis photos posted by Brian ,they do in fact show the chassis fitted with a Colotti style gear change casting..........very interesting.I also think it would be intersting to list all the Mclaren M1 variants on a seperate thread.
#196
doc540
-
- 259 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 14:34
"....but it feels to me a little like tarting up a plumpy blonde to replicate Marilyn for a cheap movie."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
#197
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 16:03
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I think it is. "Some like it hot" can harly be replicated, or a jazzified version of a Bach cantata is exactly what it sounds like: sh*t.
Now this does not apply to a good copy of a given car, but it does apply to it when people lie about it. Remember that fake 212 or 214 Aston a few years back... a beautiful job if the fellow had not lied about it. Now it's toast wherever it will show. It would have been a lot smarter to just tell it like it is, and everyone would be happy about it.
On the McLaren MK1, the bicycle bulb horn is there because of the "Annex J" of the FIA sports car code requiring not only that but a windshield wiper, fully functional lights, a measured luggage space and a spare wheel with tire that logically must fit both axles. This French-generated stupidity explains a lot of strange protuberances to clear such useless implements on various period sport racers, from Cooper Monacos to Lotus 19 to Brabham BT8 to this Mac.
#198
doc540
-
- 259 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 16:58
"Some like it hot" can harly be replicated, or a jazzified version of a Bach cantata is exactly what it sounds like: sh*t."
Well, ok, ya got me there with your first example. No one but MM could appear in that dress worn in the yacht scene with Tony Curtis.
But when it comes to "jazzified" covers of Bach I'd have to hold judgement until I'd heard if Louis Armstrong took a shot at it.
Well, ok, ya got me there with your first example. No one but MM could appear in that dress worn in the yacht scene with Tony Curtis.
But when it comes to "jazzified" covers of Bach I'd have to hold judgement until I'd heard if Louis Armstrong took a shot at it.
#199
dbw
-
- 993 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 17:09
T54---[in what i imagine to be a loud voice]
"This French-generated stupidity explains a lot of strange protuberances to clear such useless implements on various period sport racers....."
you say that like it's a bad thing....geeze-lighten up...in the midst of toobular yells and the ever popular repop-not salvos of acrimony i think a fairy-cycle horn attached to a serious piece of Big Loud and Fast should generate a few chuckles at least.
but what do i know. :
"This French-generated stupidity explains a lot of strange protuberances to clear such useless implements on various period sport racers....."
you say that like it's a bad thing....geeze-lighten up...in the midst of toobular yells and the ever popular repop-not salvos of acrimony i think a fairy-cycle horn attached to a serious piece of Big Loud and Fast should generate a few chuckles at least.
but what do i know. :
Advertisement
#200
T54
-
- 2,504 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 28 March 2005 - 17:22
But when it comes to "jazzified" covers of Bach I'd have to hold judgement until I'd heard if Louis Armstrong took a shot at it.
Louis Armstrong had too much class for desecrating good music.
you say that like it's a bad thing....geeze-lighten up...in the midst of toobular yells and the ever popular repop-not salvos of acrimony i think a fairy-cycle horn attached to a serious piece of Big Loud and Fast should generate a few chuckles at least.
You are talking to a fellow who owns one of these toob-framed cars, fitted indeed with the said implements. I don't see any reason to lighten up, I was merely describing what the powers-to-be did then, which was frankly rather stoopid, would you not say, or would you also have required on-board jack and wrenches to change the flat tire outside Becketts? Come to think of it, my car has nice sandwich-and-drink pockets in its glass doors... and one may even cook there on the hot-water return toobing, eh!
Regards,
T54
