Javascript Disabled Detected

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

Jim Clark and Wings

Started by Herbert , Jul 02 2004 21:31

Please log in to reply

32 replies to this topic

#1 Herbert

Member

354 posts
Joined: March 03

Posted 02 July 2004 - 21:31

According to a story told by Jabby Crombac in his book about Colin Chapman, Jim Clark was very impressed by the effects of a wing which was mounted on his Vollstedt-Indycar at Riverside in 1967. During the 1968 Teretonga-Tasman-Race he got his mechanics to build him a rear wing from a helicopter rotor which didn't amuse Chapman very much. (This episode is also mentioned in Michael Oliver's book about the Lotus 49.)
Now I found a picture of Clark driving that Vollstedt-Indycar in Dick Wallens Book "Roar from the Sixties" on page 425. But that car has no wings!

So my question is: Where did Crombac get that story from? Is it really true and is the picture in Wallens book wrong?

#2 JB Miltonian

Member

548 posts
Joined: February 04

Posted 02 July 2004 - 22:24

The picture showing Clark's #21 car at the Rex Mays 300 at Riverside 1967, in Road & Track, February 1968, shows that it has a sizeable "ducktail" hanging off the back of the car, but not a high wing of the strut-mounted style.

#3 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 02 July 2004 - 23:00

I saw a movie of that race at the Riverside reunion. What a classic race!!! The Vollstedt #21 car was a piece of crap and had never been anywhere near the front with any other driver. Clark had it at the front. It was a ding dong battle with Clark, Foyt, Gurney, and Surtees. They were passing and repassing all over the place and going side by side through the esses. But no, wings were not yet legal then in USAC. They did have a flip up spoiler at the rear on the cars then. They were just experimenting at that time.

#4 D-Type

Member

9,705 posts
Joined: February 03

Posted 02 July 2004 - 23:16

This is all new to me.

Could somebody possibly post a pictureof the Vollstedt so that I and others know what this is all about?

#5 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 03 July 2004 - 01:30

Don Capps took all my pictures away.

#6 Don Capps

Member

5,933 posts
Joined: May 99

Posted 03 July 2004 - 02:11

Originally posted by Buford
Don Capps took all my pictures away.

Thanks, as if I needed more guilt..... :rotfl:

#7 Vicuna

Member

1,607 posts
Joined: March 02

Posted 03 July 2004 - 02:16

The story about the 'copter rotor is aslo told in D Nyes Green book.

I've spoken a number of locals who cliam to have been at Terribletonga that day, and so far I'm yet to meet anyone that recalls it

#8 Don Capps

Member

5,933 posts
Joined: May 99

Posted 03 July 2004 - 02:35

The "thing" in question was was merely a spoiler of the sort that they had to live with in UASC then -- it had to be integrated into the bodywork and not remotely like the wings they ran several years later when they were finally allowed.

#9 marat

Member

311 posts
Joined: February 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 05:34

From "L'Automobile" October 1968.
Dan Gurney and Jim Clark.

Posted Image

#10 Herbert

Member

354 posts
Joined: March 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 20:16

Thanks for your help so far.

You can find a picture of the wing mounted on Clark's Lotus 49 at Teretonga in Michael Olivers book about that car.

Is the picture of Clark following Dan Gurney from practice or the race?
My guess is that Rolla Vollstedt let Clark try the car with and without aerodynamic devices. Sadly nothing is said about it in Rolla Vollstedt's Autobiography. Perhaps someone has a more concrete answer.

#11 rlnorton

New Member

14 posts
Joined: February 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 21:00

You can check out my pictures from the 1967 Rex Mays 300 at http://www.pbase.com...67_rex_mays_300

Clark's picture is at http://www.pbase.com/image/24117258

Bob

#12 JtP

Member

358 posts
Joined: March 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 21:42

Possibly the use of part of a helicopter blade was an athema to Chapman. Having had to help move a Robinson blade with the hub attachment cut off, they are not exactly light. The weight of what ever part blade used must have driven Chapman crazy.

#13 D-Type

Member

9,705 posts
Joined: February 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 22:18

Slightly OT
Is this the only occasion that Clark raced a single seater that wasn't a Lotus?

#14 T54

Member

2,504 posts
Joined: November 03

Posted 03 July 2004 - 22:20

I believe that the Gurney-Clark pic is from the race in turn "7", not a practice pic because I have seen one and the car's car added device was different and without the bent-up rear. Indeed I saw a privately owned 30-minute 16mm color movie from a fellow who had attended the Rex Mays 300 and done quite a good job of filming, in almost every turn and from high. Many cars that day had added sheet metal to increase downforce, and they were called "wings" by most because there was no other name at the time for these air flow spoilers, and Hall had already run true wings in the Can-Am and Le Mans for 2 years.
The Vollstedt was not as bad as described above and even with all his talent, Clark would never have been able to stay with Dan, arguably as good as Clark, if the car had not been pretty decent. That day of course, it could have been different at other courses and other setups. It looks in the movie as Clark could go pretty much wherever he pleased especially in the esses and "9". You can be the best, you still need a car under you.
Those were some days...
Regards,

T54

#15 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 03 July 2004 - 22:26

Originally posted by JtP
Possibly the use of part of a helicopter blade was an athema to Chapman. Having had to help move a Robinson blade with the hub attachment cut off, they are not exactly light. The weight of what ever part blade used must have driven Chapman crazy.

Chunky wasn't in New Zealand - and after Dale Porteus (?sp???), Leo Wybrott and Jimmy had sampled the blade section on the car Jimmy concluded that they shouldn't run it in the race, although he'd told Colin on the telephone what they had been playing around with, and he had not - apparently - actually vetoed its use, but had merely advised extreme caution. The person the helicopter blade section REALLY impressed seems to have been the young Ferrari engineer looking after Amon's Dino 246T who photographed the device and enthused Mauro Forghieri back in Modena/Maranello. From that intelligence grew the Belgian GP wing attachment on the Formula 1 312...

DCN

#16 Vitesse2

Administrator

41,866 posts
Joined: April 01

Posted 03 July 2004 - 23:13

Originally posted by D-Type
Slightly OT
Is this the only occasion that Clark raced a single seater that wasn't a Lotus?

Nope - but it was only the second (and last) time. He made his single-seater debut in an FJ Gemini at Brands Hatch on Boxing Day 1959.

He tested others of course - the ERA at the 1964 French GP for example.

And can you count a milk float as a single-seater? He raced one of those once .... :lol:

#17 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 04 July 2004 - 08:21

Cale Yarborough and Arnie Knepper I think and maybe one other driver that season drove the car and nobody had it anywhere near the lead. So in my terms, it was a piece of crap. At least until Clark got at it.

#18 Dave Wright

Member

267 posts
Joined: July 02

Posted 04 July 2004 - 09:04

Originally posted by Doug Nye

The person the helicopter blade section REALLY impressed seems to have been the young Ferrari engineer looking after Amon's Dino 246T who photographed the device and enthused Mauro Forghieri back in Modena/Maranello. From that intelligence grew the Belgian GP wing attachment on the Formula 1 312...

DCN

Seems strange that Ferrari were inspired by a half-hearted Heath Robinson experiment in the 68 Tasman Series, but not by the Chapparal 2F they competed against in sports car racing in 1967.

Interviewed by Casucci, Mauro says the F1 wing was developed from sports car experience. Has Mauro confirmed the Tasman story to you Doug?

#19 T54

Member

2,504 posts
Joined: November 03

Posted 04 July 2004 - 21:54

Cale Yarborough and Arnie Knepper I think and maybe one other driver that season drove the car and nobody had it anywhere near the lead. So in my terms, it was a piece of crap. At least until Clark got at it.

To this I can only reply that Fernando Alonso was one of the two Minardi drivers 2 years ago, and that he was still mired in near-last. You give him a decent car like the Renault and guess what, he is up front. It does not matter if you are Jim Clark or Cale Yarborough, you need the car under you to perform because the best driver in the world is only worth so much compared to second best. The way it looked on the movie, the car did not have much to envy on the Eagle. If anything, it had more oomph down the straight and behaved quite well in "9", not fishtailing like Foy's car was doing.
My guess is that the car was poorly set up before and that Clark had the guys set it straight. If you look at a period Vollstedt chassis (an I have had this opportunity since one of the cars has been running with the Victory Lane vintage Indy group lately), it appears no worse of better than contemporary cars like the BT12 or Brawner-Hawks. I did not see it as being a flexi-flyer, a bit overweight may be but so were the Eagles.
Happy 4th of July and bless our freedom.

T54

#20 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 04 July 2004 - 22:26

Originally posted by T54

My guess is that the car was poorly set up before and that Clark had the guys set it straight.T54

I think that is exactly the case. The engines were all the same within brands. Nobody had a major horsepower advantage verses others with the same engine. Engineering wise, the Vollstedt may not have been inferior. They were all learning and all copying Lotus in that era anyway so whoever copied it the best, had a good package. But Clark knew how to set it up and knew how to drive it. What I am saying is that car was never at the front before or after Jim Clark drove it. So a whole lot of it had to be Jim Clark and all that he brought to the table. He took a non-winning car before or after, and on one day, put it up front.

#21 T54

Member

2,504 posts
Joined: November 03

Posted 04 July 2004 - 22:50

We agree on that, no doubt. I was merely suggesting that the car itself was not a bad car as suggested above.

They were all learning and all copying Lotus in that era anyway

AND Brabham! The Ron Tauranac BT12 and its simple and effective design inspired many indeed, from Clint Brawner to Rolla to Gerhardt to...
Regards,

T54

#22 Doug Nye

Member

11,534 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 04 July 2004 - 22:52

Originally posted by Dave Wright
Interviewed by Casucci, Mauro says the F1 wing was developed from sports car experience. Has Mauro confirmed the Tasman story to you Doug?

Sure did - combination of inputs, and if Lotus were considering following the Jim Hall lead then Ferrari certainly should also make the attempt. He told me it was the final competitive push for a notion which already appealed.

DCN

#23 Dave Wright

Member

267 posts
Joined: July 02

Posted 04 July 2004 - 22:58

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Sure did - combination of inputs, and if Lotus were considering following the Jim Hall lead then Ferrari certainly should also make the attempt. He told me it was the final competitive push for a notion which already appealed.

DCN

Thanks Doug

#24 Roger Clark

Member

7,508 posts
Joined: February 00

Posted 04 July 2004 - 23:07

Originally posted by T54

My guess is that the car was poorly set up before and that Clark had the guys set it straight.

T54

Jim Clark's well known abiity as a test driver?

#25 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 04 July 2004 - 23:20

Originally posted by T54
We agree on that, no doubt. I was merely suggesting that the car itself was not a bad car as suggested above.

AND Brabham! The Ron Tauranac BT12 and its simple and effective design inspired many indeed, from Clint Brawner to Rolla to Gerhardt to...
Regards,

T54

Right - the Brabham too. But most of the American car builders did not get it right for a few years. This more than anything brought on the road racers as drivers in Indy cars. They had always been looked on as sissy boys by American oval track owners. But when the dirt track types other than about 5 could not come to grips with the no warning breakaway characteristics, and the road racers could, it was the beginning of the end for Sprint Car drivers. The best ones still got some rides, way into the CART era when they tried Opperman and Swindell without success. But relatively unknown to the oval racing community drivers like Bucknum and Muther got the rides.

I remember when my dad's friend Wally Weir, a crusty as anybody total oval track racer bought a new car in 1966 just before Indy, it was to be his first serious effort with a decent budget. It was also his first rear engine car and he did not know how it worked. He decided he needed a road racer. He didn't have a clue though who was good but he knew F1 was supposed to be the top level and that is where Clark and Gurney and Brabham came from. Guys named Stewart and Hill had rides that year and were supposed to be good he knew. So he got a magazine and started looking for names that had not run Indy or were on the entry form but seemed to be front runners. He found a guy named Bandini seemed to be the best not already lined up.

So he called Ferrari or somebody and got Bandini's number and offered him the ride at Indy. Bandini accepted immediately and it was announced to the press. Unfortunately Bandini did not get past Monaco and Weir ended up with Al Miller, who was also very good and without looking it up, I think they got 10th or something like that.

#26 Ray Bell

Member

80,253 posts
Joined: December 99

Posted 04 July 2004 - 23:23

Good question, Roger...

Originally posted by Buford
Don Capps took all my pictures away.

Always passing the buck...

No mention in Racing Car News of Clark's experiments... was there anything in Motorman, David?

#27 Bernd

Member

3,313 posts
Joined: October 00

Posted 04 July 2004 - 23:32

Originally posted by Roger Clark

Jim Clark's well known abiity as a test driver?

Nah he would've just drove the wheels of it.

#28 T54

Member

2,504 posts
Joined: November 03

Posted 05 July 2004 - 00:50

Right - the Brabham too. But most of the American car builders did not get it right for a few years. This more than anything brought on the road racers as drivers in Indy cars.

The first modern American rear-engine car (if you consider the turbine-powered Zink as a modified Lotus 21) was the Cooper clone designed by John Crosthwaite and built by Thompson and financed by Jim Kimberly for Porky Rachwitz to drive in 1962, one year after Jack showed them a few things with the Cooper. The car was quite good, the Buick engine was slow. The other Thompson cars DNQ except for one, and Gurney was doing superbly until the 2-speed rear end broke, but was again too limited in power with the little V8. In 1963 the Loti showed and nearly won. Americans bought and ran the Loti faster than Gurney and Clark had done (Foyt, Miller, Marshman...). In 1964 Ward's tube-frame Watson was battling with Gurney for 2nd from the beginning of the race and did finish in second in spite of engine trouble. In 1965 Foyt beat Clark for the pole with an older but US-modified Lotus. So I don't want to argue but I think that they got it right real quick indeed, just as quick as the Brits adapted to the different circumstances, proof being that Andretti and Brawner did pretty good, and Andretti was mostly an oval racer before he was national champ with the Hawk. Of course it was a BT12 copy but a darn good one. Fred Gerhardt built some very good cars too. The works Loti were always a step ahead until 1966, when Foyt's home-built Coyote was clearly better. I think that it is pretty much balanced: the Brits brought in the new tech, 'Muricans made it to work consistantly.

Nah he would've just drove the wheels of it.

Sure he did. But you still need a car. There are plenty of races where Clark had an inferior car and he did poorly because the car was just no good and all the talent in the world will not replace a good chassis with a good engine, the whole mess properly set up. It does not matter how good you are, basic physics are the limit.

Weir ended up with Al Miller, who was also very good and without looking it up, I think they got 10th or something like that.

Al Miller was indeed a very good driver, able to handle the worst machinery and bring it back in good position as he did at Indy 4 times. In 1963 he drove one of Thompson's cars (the ones with the 12" wheels) and was the only finisher, a consistant 9th. In 1965, he was 4th in the ex-Gurney Lotus 29.

T54

#29 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 05 July 2004 - 01:07

Well Don Capps took all my pictures away so I can't go look up exampes but I recall several American built early rear engine cars that were terrible. One that comes to mind was the car Parnelli had built by Troutman and Barnes I think that he rejected and won with the roadster instead in 1963. Foyt had one in 1964 he rejected for his roadster and won in that. The Halibrands looked cool but didn't do much except the AAR one that Leonard drove. Probably because AAR developed it. Sachs was incinerated in his. The Thompson cars were junk. The MG Liquid Suspension cars never won anything that I recall. The wedge Gary Bettenhausen had didn't win anything I recall and flipped a bunch of times at Milwaukee. There were several others built that did nothing.

I do know at the time the drivers were saying they broke away with no warning. Of course they may not have if they had wings in that era, but the American's had the suspension geometries all messed up and they only learned by copying the Lotus and Brabham.

#30 Ray Bell

Member

80,253 posts
Joined: December 99

Posted 05 July 2004 - 01:16

Originally posted by Buford
Well Don Capps took all my pictures away so I can't go look up examples.....

Yeah, yeah, we know...

But if you had them could you post them? I mean, have you sorted out your Atlas webspace yet?

#31 Buford

Member

11,174 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 05 July 2004 - 01:20

No I don't have a scanner and I wrote asking for the webspace and got no response. You all will just have to go to Watkins Glen and see them there some day. I don't know how far they have gotten into reproducing the collection in the past 6 months but we are going out there in September so we will find out what they are doing then. The point is, I can't go look at my albums to refresh my memory of various cars anymore until I get it all back, and I assume that could be years.

#32 David McKinney

Member

14,156 posts
Joined: November 00

Posted 05 July 2004 - 10:28

Originally posted by Ray Bell
No mention in Racing Car News of Clark's experiments... was there anything in Motorman, David?

No, nor in Autonews or the Shell Annual.
The report in Autosport (2/2/68) does however refer to the wing, though the writer seems not to have grasped its significance:
“There were some quizzical stares when a miniature aerofoil was produced and placed over the top of the gearbox. Popular theory was that the gadget was to keep the big Firestones firmly on the road under braking and acceleration. In any case, it had everyone guessing, but, as far as Teretonga was concerned, it was nothing more than a legpull.”

#33 Megatron

Member

3,688 posts
Joined: January 99

Posted 05 July 2004 - 10:42

A lot of folks are under the impression that the day after Jim's death, Lotus gained wings and tobacoc adverts and replaced the Lotus colors.

Of course, he died in a tobacco car and I think he could see a few of the newer developments on the horizon but sadly never got to fully expereince them before that terrible day in Germany in 1968.