Just getting into the nitty gritty of these cars, which used bodywork that was at least very similar to the M7 F1 cars... can I call upon the knowledgeable ones here to detail what changes there were?
Even delving further into the M7/M10 similarities, would the F1 chassis forward of the rollbar be the same too? Obviously it relied on the DFV to carrry the loads further back, something McLaren were unwilling to entrust to Chevrolet castings, but I'd imagine there was a reasonable amount of interchangeability of parts on the cars.
The first M10B here was Niel Allen's brand new one (Chassis No 400-2 according to Donn Anderson's report on Levin), Allen later got a second one, Matich replaced his M10A with one and then got another to replace a damaged tub IIRC.
Over to the experts...
The McLaren M10s... how did they differ?
Started by
Ray Bell
, Aug 19 2005 04:40
27 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Patrick Fletcher
-
- 775 posts
- Joined: February 04
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 11:43
Maybe we can start with an early M10 A - C300-6 may have had a spacer between the b/housing and the bits behind that, to make it longer?
#3
Cirrus
-
- 1,753 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 12:12
DCN's book on McLaren shows an M7 tub under construction, and the detail work on the internal bulkheads is amazing. I doubt if there would have been as much effort expended on a production car.
#4
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 21:15
Ray, The 10A was a complete Gorden Coppuck design based loosly on the M7. Its most noticable feature was the up and over tub constuction rather than the bathtub Robin Herd 7A tub.This carried over into the Mclaren M7B (the wide pannier tank car) and C. The nose cones were a" generic piece" I extended a Monaco short M7 nose back to long format as a plug for a mould for the Church Farm 10 A we have (The Works prototype). The picture in DCN's book shows those exquisite bulkheads, which I have always thought of as belonging to the M5 car. After Sir Jack bumped it I surveyed the damage and recognised those same pieces.The M7 ones, I thought, were not so complicated to make, not having anywhere near as many flared holes. The M10 bulkheads are nowhere near as frilly, and only a trained eye will tell the differance between the Works and Trojan pieces.The prototype tub is slightly different over all to a production one but only detail stuff. As to interchangability of parts , when I look at the Formula A build list I see not one M7 part#. Coppuck drew heavily on parts from the M8 sportscar and M6 GT program for this build. The brakes for example are M8A,CP2270, whereas the production cars used smaller rotors and calipers. CP 2260's.
#5
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 21:32
Thank you Duncan...
Were the radiators larger for the M10s than the M7s?
Were the radiators larger for the M10s than the M7s?
#6
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 21:59
Yes, the M10 rad was a fairly substantial piece of brass and copper, A more simple shape resulted in an alloy piece for the M10B.
#7
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 19 August 2005 - 22:29
Which was a straight Corvette radiator, wasn't it?
#8
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 01:35
No, you would never get the corvette unit in! The alloy ones were purpose built by Marston Excelsior in Wolverhampton G.B. They were 4" thick with shaped tanks.
#9
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 10:35
Hi Ray
Now I know what questions you were talking about.
Regarding differences between the M10A and M10B, Motoring News (9 Oct 1969 p18) reported that the M10B "closely resembled" the M10A but incorporated many of the modifications made to the M10A during the 1969 season, including "redesigned front and rear suspension, re-styled body fairing, a new cooling system using an aluminium radiator, wheel sizes changed to 11in low off-set front and 16in rear". Also the tub "has been lightened and modified to accept immediate installation of a dry sump engine".
Duncan - could a M10A be modified so it was indistinguishable from an M10B or would there be tell-tale signs?
Allen
Now I know what questions you were talking about.
Regarding differences between the M10A and M10B, Motoring News (9 Oct 1969 p18) reported that the M10B "closely resembled" the M10A but incorporated many of the modifications made to the M10A during the 1969 season, including "redesigned front and rear suspension, re-styled body fairing, a new cooling system using an aluminium radiator, wheel sizes changed to 11in low off-set front and 16in rear". Also the tub "has been lightened and modified to accept immediate installation of a dry sump engine".
Duncan - could a M10A be modified so it was indistinguishable from an M10B or would there be tell-tale signs?
Allen
#10
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 11:16
I seem to remember (from 35 years ago) that you could tell an M10B from an M10A by the different shape of the tub rear of the cockpit. If I'm right, that wouldn't mean an A could easily be converted to a B, though the suspension and wheels could, I imagine, be swapped over easily enough. Also, ISTR being surprised to learn how cheap a bare M10B tub was, so I guess some owners might have bought one, plus the revised body and suspenion, to take their other bits. I can't recall anyone doing that, and of course if they did they'd then have had an M10B, wouldn't they 
No doubt Duncan will be able to say how wrong I am in all this...
No doubt Duncan will be able to say how wrong I am in all this...
#11
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 11:36
I've always wondered if Matich just bought a M10B tub and assembled it himself. That might mean that his M10B doesn't appear in Trojan records.
It would also explain the coincidence of him having 300-10 and 400-10.
Allen
It would also explain the coincidence of him having 300-10 and 400-10.
Allen
#12
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 11:40
Rear of the cockpit?
From the meagre collection of magazine photos I have available to me here, I can't see any difference.
From the meagre collection of magazine photos I have available to me here, I can't see any difference.
#13
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 21:23
David is correct.The rear pontoon is 1.25 taller at the mid rear b/hd on the A resulting in a greater angle downwards (11 degrees) on the top panel back to the rear bulk heads.The B is an 8 degree slope. When first looking at any M10 picture I always look at the position of the top rear f/w radius arm mount, On an A it appears to be at the same height with the top panel ,on a B it is above.As David said this would be a major job to change. This is the biggest single differance between the two tubs. The rear b/hd on an A did not go right across the floor. The B linked the sides with an steel box section on the floor that formed part of the rear b/hd, the engine balancer just cleared it. The lower portion of the A nose front opening was lifted up and flattened out on the u/side to allow the car to sit lower with more "wedge" Some of the distinctive M7 shapes were filled in to make for smoother air flow and a pip pin recess appeared on both sides at the front b/hd to retain it. To answer Allens question , no A car Ive seen has ever been modified so as to become indistinguishable from a real B , just the LG vs DG switch is difficult when you cant get the engine exhust down low enough because of those high pontoon sides. As for the Matich cars, his A tub turned up at Shelbys( along with a VW transaxle an a pile of other junk) and was later discarded, I believe that that was done to import a "new" M10A but really a B either from or thru the U.S.duty free. C300-10 / C400 -10 , looks close enough to me .The more I think about that one the more plausable it becomes. What do you think Ray? was Matich squeaky clean or could he have engineered that one ?
#14
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 21:37
That Matich scenario cannot have happened the way I proposed ,because he and Don O Sullivan were entered and ran in the 71 series here with both cars 300-10 , 400-10. So why the delivery of junk to Shelbys?
#15
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 22:01
Did Matich crash his 10A during the previous year? Ive just looked at my notes and the tub that arrived at Shelbys was discribed to me as not appearing to have been as badly damaged as the O'Sullivon one was , suggesting 2 tubs ( or 2 cars) can you help here Ray ?, and also John left Shelbys earlier than I thought, which now means the timing is workable. Allen; possibly a tub out of the U.S.?
#16
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 22:05
I have no doubt that there was a need to cleanse an issue for customs somewhere...
I have yet to check with Matich, but I know he's said before that he was doing the development work on the M10s for McLaren and that his suggestions were taken on board by the factory. Just what arrangements there were for the ownership of the car, who can say?
If the car wasn't Matich's it would arrive duty free here, but would have a time limit to leave the country. Some funny things have happened when customs arrangments had to be worked around. There was an Alan Smith F5000 engine arrived for Gary Campbell that finished up in a hillclimb car while a bog standard Chevy was sent out of the country with fancy rocker covers fitted.
I don't think there would be many people in the business who were immune to trying on a fiddle somewhere. There aren't many stories of people being caught, so I imagine the popularity of the game spread wildly and embraced many.
It's the reason, I think you'll find, for the likes of KB, Stewart and Bob Muir going off to race in America during the T330/332 period. They had cars that had to go for a trip anyway, by using them overseas they could write down their value for customs purposes and probably save what it cost for the expedition in the process. So the duty would be paid only on the second entry of the cars into Australia.
A VW transaxle, though... that would require a fairly untrained eye in the Customs Hall!
I have yet to check with Matich, but I know he's said before that he was doing the development work on the M10s for McLaren and that his suggestions were taken on board by the factory. Just what arrangements there were for the ownership of the car, who can say?
If the car wasn't Matich's it would arrive duty free here, but would have a time limit to leave the country. Some funny things have happened when customs arrangments had to be worked around. There was an Alan Smith F5000 engine arrived for Gary Campbell that finished up in a hillclimb car while a bog standard Chevy was sent out of the country with fancy rocker covers fitted.
I don't think there would be many people in the business who were immune to trying on a fiddle somewhere. There aren't many stories of people being caught, so I imagine the popularity of the game spread wildly and embraced many.
It's the reason, I think you'll find, for the likes of KB, Stewart and Bob Muir going off to race in America during the T330/332 period. They had cars that had to go for a trip anyway, by using them overseas they could write down their value for customs purposes and probably save what it cost for the expedition in the process. So the duty would be paid only on the second entry of the cars into Australia.
A VW transaxle, though... that would require a fairly untrained eye in the Customs Hall!
#17
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 20 August 2005 - 22:19
Originally posted by Duncan Fox
Did Matich crash his 10A during the previous year?
Which year are we talking about?
Niel Allen had his harmonic balancer come adrift under brakes for the hairpin at Warwick Farm one day and it severed a brake line (funny... I just realised, that's what happened to KB in the T400) and he crashed into Matich as he turned into the corner. Would have been RH damage to the Matich tub. This was July 12, 1970, but the report says it was an M10B (and it would have been, being Repco-Holden powered).
Matich's and Allen's chassis have been discussed before somewhere... I might do a search...
*edit* And the search finds:
http://forums.atlasf...&postid=1188266
#18
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 21 August 2005 - 05:34
No help at all, but the number I noted for the Matich-O'Sullivan M10A in New Zealand in 1971 was M10A-SR10. It was fairly badly bent by O'Sullivan at Teretonga
#19
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 21 August 2005 - 09:56
Actually, that's a lot of help.
Do your notes give any clue whether the chassis plate was the original Trojan one or something different?
Do your notes give any clue whether the chassis plate was the original Trojan one or something different?
Advertisement
#20
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 21 August 2005 - 11:37
No
But Matich's earlier sportscars had been SR3, SR4 etc
But Matich's earlier sportscars had been SR3, SR4 etc
#21
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 23 August 2005 - 15:02
What's the rundown on the Radisich and Francevic cars? I get the impression that Radisich first had the McRae M10A, but then he got Matich's M10B/C with a Holden engine. At the same time, Francevic's name starts appearing alongside an M10B.
Could this really be the ex-McRae M10A moving on another step?
Or is this information in the other thread?
Could this really be the ex-McRae M10A moving on another step?
Or is this information in the other thread?
#22
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 15:55
Francevic's McLaren was the ex-Radisich M10A
#23
Ray Bell
-
- 80,264 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 16:09
Thought so... that means it's definitely not an M10B... thanks David...
By the way, was KB's 1972 win at Teretonga the last-ever major win for an M10?
By the way, was KB's 1972 win at Teretonga the last-ever major win for an M10?
#24
Vicuna
-
- 1,607 posts
- Joined: March 02
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 18:13
No - Brian Redman won 2 rounds of the 1972 British 5000 championship while waiting for the Chevron B24
#25
Vicuna
-
- 1,607 posts
- Joined: March 02
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 20:33
I can't find any record of M10As in the British championship in 1970.
What happened to the 1969 title winning car in 1970? Was it retained as a spare?
What happened to the 1969 title winning car in 1970? Was it retained as a spare?
#26
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 20:35
It was sold to Doug Serrurier for Paddy Driver to drive in South Africa in 1970.
Allen
Allen
#27
Duncan Fox
-
- 191 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 20:45
Vicuna, its the car we have here in Auckland, your'e welcome to come see .Where are you in N.Z. ?
#28
Vicuna
-
- 1,607 posts
- Joined: March 02
Member
Posted 25 August 2005 - 21:00
Yes I'm aware of that and I keep promising myself to try and get to Whitford one day.
