Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Porsche 917s with 'snorkels'

Started by andydolermo , Jan 02 2009 14:48

Please log in to reply

165 replies to this topic

#1 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 02 January 2009 - 14:48

Hello, and happy 2009 to everyone!
I was curious about when the snorkel was used on the 1971 Porsche 917s. As far as I know it was use on car #18 (Gulf) at Le Mans 1971 and car #9 (Martini) at Brands Hatch 1971. I think at Brands Hatch car #9 actually raced that way. Do you know of any other time the snorkel was fitted on the car?
I have a picture (see below) of a test car but I don`t know where it was the picture taken.

Any clue?

Thanks!

Posted Image

#2 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 02 January 2009 - 18:11

Hi Andy, Happy New Year! The #3 Elford/Larrousse Martini 917 (020, the Sebring winner) ran with the snorkels at Monza, but only in practice. Certainly appear to have been used in the race at Brands Hatch; they were also tried at the Le Mans trials in April 1971, but not at Le Mans in June - they'd shown no benefit.

Pace lap at Brands (i.e. definitely used in the race)
http://www.porsche91...2LarrLennep.JPG

Monza - practice only (the photo only appears in the Spanish language version of the porsche917.com site, not the English version - couldn't understand why I kept 'losing' it!) - there's a photo of #3 during the race in the book 'The Fabulous Porsche 917', by Peter Hinsdale, without the snorkels fitted.
http://www.porsche91...1_05ElfLarr.JPG

Le Mans trials, April 1971
http://www.porsche91...ans71Test07.JPG

Don't know where your photo would be taken, though, however I believe the snorkels were tried on the first magnesium-chassis 917, 051, which was also the first chassis to be fitted with the lowered, finned tail. Perhaps that's the 917 in your photo, possibly testing at Weissach or Hockenheim?

052 ran at the Le Mans trials, but without the snorkels
http://www.porsche91...ans71Test13.JPG

Both magnesium test chassis, 051 and 052, were only run briefly then scrapped - you'll know the third magnesium chassis, 053, won the 1971 Le Mans!

#3 ZOOOM

Member

522 posts
Joined: April 08

Posted 02 January 2009 - 19:38

They would have been GREAT in the rain!
ZOOOM

#4 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 02 January 2009 - 21:32

Hello Mark!
Thanks for your note. Right! The snorkel was tried at monza too! very nice.

What drive me crazy about the white "test" car is that it does have the battery shut off (how don`t know how to better define it in english...sorry) on the front, under the windshield. All the magnesium cars should have had that on the left side, real panel (see car #17 from test le Mans or winning Le Mans car).

#5 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 03 January 2009 - 00:34

Originally posted by ZOOOM
They would have been GREAT in the rain!
ZOOOM

ZOOOM -

Andy - you have such an eye for detail, and you know so much about the 917s - NO WAY would I ever have spotted that - so, we've got another mystery on our hands, then!

If you look closely at the photo of the two Martini 917s in the pits on this page, #4 (019) also tried the snorkels in practice at Monza (you can just see them, even with the rear body section open - although #3 doesn't have them in this shot - they must have taken turn about to try them!), but not in the race (that makes me more of an anorak than you!) :lol:

http://www.porsche91...toria1971_3.htm

Re. the white car in your photo, if it wasn't 051, a couple of suggestions: 019 after it was rebuilt following the pit fire at Brands Hatch but before it was re-liveried, pre-Monza (highly unlikely)? Or 030, which was used to test Porsche's ABS system, was only raced once, at Zeltweg in 1971, but was visually identical to the other Martini 917s (and may have been used by the factory to test other developments?) - and was white. It also seems to have been the only chassis not otherwise requisitioned in 1971. Both long shots, though, but my money (if I had any) would be on 030.
:confused:

#6 mikegtr

New Member

26 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 03 January 2009 - 13:23

Andy, I believe the photogragh is actually -030 and taken at Weissach Test Track. There is reference to it in Paul Frere's book - The Racing Porsches - A Technical Triumph. On page 185 it states that -030 was used to test the airboxes and gave the following indication:
" a) Ram boxes have a worthwhile effect only if they are high enough to project well out of the boundary layer. Forward facing air scopes at body panel level, either above the cockpit or on the sides have very little effect.
b) Baffles must be fitted inside the airboxe to equalise the rame effect over the intake pipes.
c) The two ram boxes required to obtain a worthwhile ram effect on the 917 increase the drag by about 5%. Consequently there is little benifit to be expected from their use."

I have sent you another photogragh of the same car but viewed from the back. Please host it if you can.

#7 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 03 January 2009 - 13:48

Hello Mike! Thank You so much! You were right Mark...that car was -030 indeed. As a matter of fact even at Zeltweg car #28 had the battery switch on the left side of the rear panel...but on the nose too!

Thank You for the new picture Mike, which I am posting as you requested.

Technical question... Which is the most propper way of calling those things? Snorkels or RAM Boxes or Airboxes? In Italy we call them Snorkels but is it making sense in english? :confused:

Thanks again guys, another small chapter of Porsche 917 history that goes in the archive

#8 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 05 January 2009 - 20:51

Well done Mike! :up:

Paul Frere's 'The Racing Porsches' was like my bible when I was younger - I've got it but I couldn't find it - will start clearing up tomorrow (New Year's resolution!). 030 was just an educated guess, so well chuffed that you confirmed it.

Andy - they're known as 'airboxes' in English, but these were early days - notice how Paul Frere (in Mike's post) refers to them as 'ram boxes', a term no longer used. However, these early devices on the 917 were quite basic and peculiar, so I think 'snorkel' is actually more appropriate in this case, so you're correct! (ZOOOM was just having a laugh!)

(It's interesting that 'son (daughter?) of 917', the 936, had no airbox to begin with; when they faired in the roll bar Porsche then tried NACA ducts on either side of the rear fairing instead of an airbox, then settled on the airbox.)

#9 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 05 January 2009 - 21:14

Thank you Mark... nice consideration on the 936s. Was that maybe because of the Turbos? I notice also the 908/3 (or 908/4) had airboxes when car had turbo engines

#10 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 05 January 2009 - 23:43

Originally posted by andydolermo
Thank you Mark... nice consideration on the 936s. Was that maybe because of the Turbos? I notice also the 908/3 (or 908/4) had airboxes when car had turbo engines.

Remember when Kinnunen and Kauhsen's 917/10s were turbocharged during 1972 they had air intakes built in to the roll bar (same as the Penske cars, etc.) - that was how you could tell whether it was the normally aspirated engine or the turbo engine. Airboxes help both types of engine though. The Group C cars (956/962 etc.) couldn't use proper effective airboxes because of the regulations - they weren't allowed to have anything higher than the top of the windscreen.

#11 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 06 January 2009 - 13:59

Right... not a stupid rule in my opinion thought.... whatever rule will generate beautiful cars as the 956/962.... I`ll be ok with it

Just be honest... snorkel on 917s or any other car didn`t made them look prettier, maybe intersting looking and making a model looking more collectible... but I`d say they were rather the opposite of beautiful looking.
Maybe the turbo "snorkeled" cars were fast, but what is speed without Beauty?

The Daytona Prototype maybe? :rotfl:

(hope I will not be kicked out of TNF after this...sorry maybe are the holidays but I feel in a silly mood today...I promise I will be good from tomorrow);)

#12 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 06 January 2009 - 14:17

Jackie Oliver - I believe during the 1971 Test Weekend - in a less than usually pristine Gulf-JW 917K mit schnorkellen.

Photo Copyright: The GP Library

DCN

#13 Arjan de Roos

Member

2,584 posts
Joined: July 02

Posted 06 January 2009 - 14:31

Originally posted by andydolermo
... it does have the battery shut off (how don`t know how to better define it in english...

"Kill switch" Andy.

#14 fines

Member

9,647 posts
Joined: September 00

Posted 06 January 2009 - 16:31

I believe turbos need the airboxes because there's less of a suction effect than on normally aspirated engines. Mind you, it all depends on the aerodynamics around the intake, if there's a low pressure area the suction effect goes to hell... "Ram effect" is a term from the stoneage of aerodynamics, and generally means the same thing, helping overcome a low pressure over the air intakes.

In German, normally aspirated engines are usually called Saugmotoren, i.e. suction engines!

#15 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 06 January 2009 - 17:00

'Saugmotoren' indeed in these particular 917s...not a turbocharger to be found.

DCN

#16 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 06 January 2009 - 20:50

Doug,

Great to see new Photographs of the 917 turn up. Chassis No 917-016

#17 mfd

Member

2,987 posts
Joined: May 03

Posted 06 January 2009 - 22:14

Originally posted by 917historian

A new name Mike ;)

#18 mfd

Member

2,987 posts
Joined: May 03

Posted 06 January 2009 - 22:30

Originally posted by LOLE
I talked Hans-Dieter Dechent (Martini Team) last month concerning the perspex wing on the yellow-red psychadelic 917. He didn’t remember this device. He told me that they experienced a lot at that time, so was this trial with the airscoops. According to him, they were often used to make the other teams nervous…

Thanks for asking about the perspex panel. Did you show him the photo you have?
I would guess the JWA team tested the snorkels purely because Martini had done so already ;)

#19 LOLE

Member

313 posts
Joined: August 02

Posted 06 January 2009 - 22:30

I talked Hans-Dieter Dechent (Martini Team) last month concerning the perspex wing on the yellow-red psychadelic 917. He didn’t remember this device. He told me that they experienced a lot at that time, so was this trial with the airscoops. According to him, they were often used to make the other teams nervous…They had no positive result at all...

#20 LOLE

Member

313 posts
Joined: August 02

Posted 06 January 2009 - 22:32

Yes mfd, I showed him the picture but he didn't remember this at all...Strange isn't it? I suppose that a team director must be aware of any change on the car, who came up with the idea etc...but no.....

#21 mfd

Member

2,987 posts
Joined: May 03

Posted 06 January 2009 - 23:03

Originally posted by LOLE
Yes mfd, I showed him the picture but he didn't remember this at all...Strange isn't it? I suppose that a team director must be aware of any change on the car, who came up with the idea etc...but no.....

I suppose it is almost 40 years ago...

#22 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 06 January 2009 - 23:40

Originally posted by andydolermo
Right... not a stupid rule in my opinion thought.... whatever rule will generate beautiful cars as the 956/962.... I`ll be ok with it
Just be honest... snorkel on 917s or any other car didn`t made them look prettier, maybe intersting looking and making a model looking more collectible... but I`d say they were rather the opposite of beautiful looking.
Maybe the turbo "snorkeled" cars were fast, but what is speed without Beauty? The Daytona Prototype maybe?
(hope I will not be kicked out of TNF after this...sorry maybe are the holidays but I feel in a silly mood today...I promise I will be good from tomorrow);)

You're right about the snorkels on the 917s, Andy - quite crude and ugly - although IMHO the 936/78/81, with its high 'snorkel', was beautiful. :love:

You won't be kicked out of TNF - as long as you NEVER mention the Daytona Prototype ever again!

And if any smart-arse posts a picture of one... :mad:

#23 Phigr7

Member

110 posts
Joined: February 06

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:47

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Jackie Oliver - I believe during the 1971 Test Weekend - in a less than usually pristine Gulf-JW 917K mit schnorkellen.

Photo Copyright: The GP Library

DCN [/B]

Here're two other pictures from the april Test weekend.

Copyright "Echappement-Jeff".
Published in "Sport & Prototypes Porsche au Mans 1966-1971", François Hurel, Editions du Palmier.

#24 mfd

Member

2,987 posts
Joined: May 03

Posted 07 January 2009 - 11:29

Originally posted by Phigr7
Here're two other pictures from the april Test weekend.

Copyright "Echappement-Jeff".
Published in "Sport & Prototypes Porsche au Mans 1966-1971", François Hurel, Editions du Palmier.

Copyright unknown.

Interesting that the second photo shows the airboxes painted, part of the fan cover is too...your model is like this too Andy, well spotted :up:

On the photo posted by Doug earlier, you can see a line in the blue on the side of the nose, where it has previously been the orange stripe perhaps?

#25 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 15:03

Originally posted by mfd

On the photo posted by Doug earlier, you can see a line in the blue on the side of the nose, where it has previously been the orange stripe perhaps?

016 was the Rodriguez/Kinnunen chassis in 1970, Mike, with just the centre stripe (it was used by JWA as a spare car / test hack throughout 1971) - so there has to be a story there somewhere - again! :up:

Edit - if you were to look closely at the photo of Rodriguez' 917 (016) at Watkins Glen in 1970 on p39 of Peter Hinsdale's 'The Fabulous Porsche 917, it has the same 'ridge' in the paintwork on the driver's side of the nose. Given that the noses weren't detachable, it makes you wonder if Siffert's and Rodriguez's 917s were swapped around (even though records suggest that they weren't)? :confused:

Maybe mikegtr and LOLE were right enough about chassis numbers...

#26 zoff2005

Member

277 posts
Joined: October 05

Posted 07 January 2009 - 17:12

I read an article about Gerard Larrousse where he implied that the 917 had a kind of ground effect due to suction from the cooling fan - does anybody know if this was correct and if the fan sucks the air from the engine or blows cool air into the engine?
Marcus

#27 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 18:00

markpde quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mfd

On the photo posted by Doug earlier, you can see a line in the blue on the side of the nose, where it has previously been the orange stripe perhaps?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

016 was the Rodriguez/Kinnunen chassis in 1970, Mike, with just the centre stripe (it was used by JWA as a spare car / test hack throughout 1971) - so there has to be a story there somewhere - again!

Edit - if you were to look closely at the photo of Rodriguez' 917 (016) at Watkins Glen in 1970 on p39 of Peter Hinsdale's 'The Fabulous Porsche 917, it has the same 'ridge' in the paintwork on the driver's side of the nose. Given that the noses weren't detachable, it makes you wonder if Siffert's and Rodriguez's 917s were swapped around (even though records suggest that they weren't)?

Maybe mikegtr and LOLE were right enough about chassis numbers...

The chassis is 917-016 the only one never to have a reframe. Its interesting to see that the drivers door is from 917-026 or 917-031

mfd Originally posted by 917historian

A new name Mike

yes you are right Mike. Just thought it was appropriate. Mike ;)

;)

#28 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 18:41

Originally posted by zoff2005
I read an article about Gerard Larrousse where he implied that the 917 had a kind of ground effect due to suction from the cooling fan - does anybody know if this was correct and if the fan sucks the air from the engine or blows cool air into the engine?
Marcus

The fan sucks cool air into the engine. However, I read somewhere (can't find it - again!) that Porsche actually tried mounting the cooling fan below the engine, still to suck air into the engine, but from under the chassis (an idea inspired by the Chapparal 2J), in an effort to produce some kind of 'ground effect'. Predictably, though, it also sucked dirt into the engine (evidently they couldn't filter it effectively), so it was a blind alley.

042, the Elford/Larrousse 917 longtail now in the Porsche museum, actually lost its cooling fan at Le Mans in 1971 when the retaining bolts broke - the fan flew off into the countryside and the engine cooked.

(Re. the discussion about the term 'snorkel', I remember an article in Motor or Autocar in the early 70s investigating the possibilities of 'suction traction' - an early term for 'ground effect'!)

#29 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 18:45

'917historian' - re. the new name - you've earned it, Mike!

#30 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 19:10

Originally posted by Phigr7
Here're two other pictures from the april Test weekend.

Copyright "Echappement-Jeff".
Published in "Sport & Prototypes Porsche au Mans 1966-1971", François Hurel, Editions du Palmier.

Copyright unknown.

If you blow the first photo right up (you need to double click on the image again after you've brought it up in Casimages.com), you'll see there's a 'Daytona window' inserted into the cockpit roof but sprayed over.

What 917historian was referring to is that if you do the same to the second photo, you'll see '026' clearly written inside the driver's door! 026 was the Hailwood/Hobbs Gulf chassis crashed at Le Mans in 1970, returned to Porsche then stripped and rebuilt as a spyder for Jurgen Neuhaus to race in Interserie. So 026's door was evidently salvaged from the wreck and retained by JWA, then subsequently fitted to 016.

As to why, I think I've found the most likely answer, but I'll leave it to the rest of you!!!
(Clue: "Every time I get in the car that little Mexican bastard tries to kill me!" - Watkins Glen 1970...)

Edit -both doors have obviously been replaced - both are light blue while the cockpit is orange. Ah well, back to the drawing board re. the 'most likely answer'...

#31 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 07 January 2009 - 19:19

Originally posted by markpde

(Clue: "Every time I get in the car that little Mexican bastard tries to kill me!" - Watkins Glen 1970...)

Spa - not the Glen. I was there and heard it, I wasn't at the Glen. Interesting that the car in Phigr7's first pic is oversteering onto opposite lock. I wonder if this shot was taken just a split second before our's from the other side of the circuit? Interesting too to see number '18' on the nose - number '1' on the door. What's a missing '8' between friends? If I can find another clear ten mins I'll offer some more 917 pix shortly.

DCN

#32 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 19:23

markpde quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you blow the first photo right up (you need to double click on the image again after you've brought it up in Casimages.com), you'll see there's a 'Daytona window' inserted into the cockpit roof but sprayed over.

What 917historian was referring to is that if you do the same to the second photo, you'll see '026' clearly written inside the driver's door! 026 was the Hailwood/Hobbs Gulf chassis crashed at Le Mans in 1970, returned to Porsche then stripped and rebuilt as a spyder for Jurgen Neuhaus to race in Interserie. So 026's door was evidently salvaged from the wreck and retained by JWA, then subsequently fitted to 016.

As to why, I think I've found the most likely answer, but I'll leave it to the rest of you!!!
(Clue: "Every time I get in the car that little Mexican bastard tries to kill me!" - Watkins Glen 1970...)

The chassis used in 1971 by JWA was known as -026 even though it was built on -031. The door could have could have come from -026(031) following its last race at Sebring 12hrs. -016 at Sebring had the top of the door painted orange as the rest of the colour scheme, or again it could have come from the original -026!!!!

#33 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 19:44

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Spa - not the Glen. I was there and heard it, I wasn't at the Glen. Interesting that the car in Phigr7's first pic is oversteering onto opposite lock. I wonder if this shot was taken just a split second before our's from the other side of the circuit? Interesting too to see number '18' on the nose - number '1' on the door. What's a missing '8' between friends? If I can find another clear ten mins I'll offer some more 917 pix shortly.

DCN

Yeah, but what I was getting at was that, to quote John Wyer in 'The Certain Sound', "At Watkins Glen both made good starts with Pedro slightly ahead, and on the first corner after the pits Siffert tried to pass on the inside. Pedro smartly shut the gate [or the door - literally!] and the two cars touched. There was a perfect imprint of Seppi's front wheel on the door of Pedro's car. [...] Pedro had to stop for repairs to his door." - I thought that would be why 016's driver's door would have been replaced with 026's - presumably after the race at the Glen - but that doesn't explain why both doors would have been replaced, as they clearly were - me trying to be too clever by half!

:

Wish I'd been at Spa - never saw a 917 race in anger - first one I saw was 045, the 1971 Siffert/Bell longtail, re-liveried as 042 (why do they persist with that?!!!), in the Le Mans museum in 1977 at 3 o'clock in the morning while Jacky Ickx was pounding around outside in 936.001 trying to chase down the Renaults. That thing had more presence than anything else I've ever seen - as you've been known to say, it made the short hairs stand up on the back of your neck! More pix would be greatly appreciated. :up:

#34 swintex

Member

542 posts
Joined: February 04

Posted 07 January 2009 - 19:46

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Interesting that the car in Phigr7's first pic is oversteering onto opposite lock. I wonder if this shot was taken just a split second before our's from the other side of the circuit?
DCN

It looks like it's oversteering in your picture to me too Doug.

Richard

#35 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 20:28

Looking at photos of -026 from Sebring 12 hours the left hand door on -016 at the Test weekend looks as though it has come from -026 as well. The ID light and the race number appear to be exactly the same as on -026 from Sebring.

#36 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 20:40

Originally posted by 917historian
Looking at photos of -026 from Sebring 12 hours the left hand door on -016 at the Test weekend looks as though it has come from -026 as well. The ID light and the race number appear to be exactly the same as on -026 from Sebring.

There you go, then - mystery solved - ties in with Doug pointing out that it's carrying the number 18 on the nose and 1 on the door! :up:

As to why - the ID lights! - why fit new ID lights to 016's doors (for the night session at the test weekend) when it's easier just to swap the doors with those from 026!!! Yay!!! :clap:

#37 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 20:41

Do we get a prize?!!! :lol:

#38 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 20:56

Yes, but what will it be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap:

#39 markpde

Member

522 posts
Joined: March 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 21:23

Originally posted by 917historian
Yes, but what will it be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ask Twinny - he'll come up with something!

#40 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:29

7

Discuss? Sorry about the pink colour set on some - nobody's perfect and these transparencies apparently originated on 'pink' film! Ironic that the 1971 'Pig' should be seen here in white - not pink...

All Photos Copyright: The GP Library

DCN

#41 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:40

Great Photo's Doug.

Photo Numbers 3, 4 and 6 are of 917-041 taken at the LeMans Test Weekend in 1970. Practised by Herbert Linge. 6 Days later it was destroyed at Ehra-Lessien (VW Test Track) when driven by Willi Kauhsen. 10 days previous on the 7th April 917-040 was destroyed on the same track.

Photo Number 5 is 917-024 or 008 depending on period reports. Carried race # 22 and was driven by Derek Bell and Mike Hailwood. Again at the LeMans Test Weekend.

Photo Number 7. 917/20 from the 1971 Test Weekend

#42 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:43

Hello Mr. Doug:

Thank You so much for the wonderful wonderful pictures! I had the chance of being introduced to you a few years ago at Daytona and I was very honored to have met you. Is because of people like you that someone (like me) that was born a decade later have the chance of seeing and knowing about those times. I am really grateful for all that and sorry for using a public way for thanking you but I am sure many other fans feels the same way I do :up:

I didn`t knew numbers on car #21 were painted. I knew there were green but had no idea they were hand brushed. As a matter of fact... were the number on car #22 from test Le Mans 1970 red?

#43 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:53

I was talking with another big fan of Porsche 917s and we found out we both miss pictures of the same versions, so I guess those will be the hard to find. Anybody can help?

- DAVID PIPER FASSBERG 1970 (have some pictures but cannot figure our race #)
- DAVID PIPER DIJON 1970 (JUNE 7th) (UNKNOWN RACE #)
- DAVID PIPER HOCKENHEIM INTERSERIE 1970 #30 (JULY 5th)
- ZITRO HOCKENHEIM INTERSERIE 1970 (JULY 5th) (UNKNOWN RACE #)
- DAVID PIPER KEIMOLA 1970 (UNKNOWN RACE #)
- ZITRO HOCKENHEIM 1970 #64 (OCTOBER 11th)
- ZITRO LE MANS TEST WEEKEND 1971 #57
- DAVID PIPER IMOLA 1971 (MAY 9th) #15
- ZITRO IMOLA 1971 (MAY 9th) #40
- AUTO USDAU VALLELUNGA 1971 #8?
- AUTO USDAU ZOLDER 1971 #19
- DAVID PIPER IMOLA 1971 (SEPTEMBER 12th) #5?

Thanks

Andy

#44 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:57

andydolermo Hello Mr. Doug:

Thank You so much for the wonderful wonderful pictures! I had the chance of being introduced to you a few years ago at Daytona and I was very honored to have met you. Is because of people like you that someone (like me) that was born a decade later have the chance of seeing and knowing about those times. I am really grateful for all that and sorry for using a public way for thanking you but I am sure many other fans feels the same way I do

I didn`t knew numbers on car #21 were painted. I knew there were green but had no idea they were hand brushed. As a matter of fact... were the number on car #22 from test Le Mans 1970 red?

Andy, Great observation about the numbers on the Long TAil 917-041 being hand painted. No wonder that your models are so acurate. I'm not convinced that the colour of the numbes are green. The colour transparencies could give the wrong colour.

#45 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 22:59

andydolermo I was talking with another big fan of Porsche 917s and we found out we both miss pictures of the same versions, so I guess those will be the hard to find. Anybody can help?

Andy, I'm the other big 917 fan. Hopefully we can get some pictures. :clap:

#46 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 23:07

I know you are but I didn`t wanted people to know you communicate with such bad people... :rotfl:

#47 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 23:10

Somebody has to :rotfl:

#48 mfd

Member

2,987 posts
Joined: May 03

Posted 07 January 2009 - 23:14

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Ironic that the 1971 'Pig' should be seen here in white - not pink...

LM Test photo. Didn't it race like this? Was it a 3 hour "sprint" or something?

#49 andydolermo

Member

78 posts
Joined: February 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 23:18

Yes...there was a 3 hour race during the le mans test weekend. The 917 was retired and race was won by a Sonauto Porsche 908/2 driven, I believe, by Ballot Lena (but don`t trust me there...I could be wrong). Interisting was that in that race there were some "oneoff" cars like the yellow/black Porsche 906 #56 driven by Barney Barnes and the Ford GT40 with "cut tail" that was badly damaged during a fire.

#50 917historian

Member

140 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 07 January 2009 - 23:20

mfd quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Ironic that the 1971 'Pig' should be seen here in white - not pink...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LM Test photo. Didn't it race like this? Was it a 3 hour "sprint" or something?

Correct Mike.

Raced in the 3hr race. Gijs vanLennep and Willi Kauhsen shared the driving. The car retired on Lap 28 with Ignition Failure

Back to TNF's Archive

Quick Navigation

Porsche 917s with 'snorkels'

#1 andydolermo

#2 markpde

#3 ZOOOM

#4 andydolermo

#5 markpde

#6 mikegtr

#7 andydolermo

#8 markpde

#9 andydolermo

#10 markpde

#11 andydolermo

#12 Doug Nye

#13 Arjan de Roos

#14 fines

#15 Doug Nye

#16 917historian

#17 mfd

#18 mfd

#19 LOLE

#20 LOLE

#21 mfd

#22 markpde

#23 Phigr7

#24 mfd

#25 markpde

#26 zoff2005

#27 917historian

#28 markpde

#29 markpde

#30 markpde

#31 Doug Nye

#32 917historian

#33 markpde

#34 swintex

#35 917historian

#36 markpde

#37 markpde

#38 917historian

#39 markpde

#40 Doug Nye

#41 917historian

#42 andydolermo

#43 andydolermo

#44 917historian

#45 917historian

#46 andydolermo

#47 917historian

#48 mfd

#49 andydolermo

#50 917historian

Sign In