Jump to content


Photo

Can Am rules?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 09 March 2010 - 23:18

The original Can Am series was intended to be a 'formula libra' but it had some concessions to make them more like sports cars, like two seats and working doors ect. However I remember reading that there was a maximum weight limit but I can't remember what it was, does anybody know? I also head that turbans wern't specifically banned but it was implied that they were illegal. Has anybody heard of anyother rules?

Advertisement

#2 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 09 March 2010 - 23:26

I found this on vintage rpm :Can-Am cars were classified as Group 7 racers by the International Motorsport Federation (FIA). Group 7 racers had very few restrictions placed on them. (Restrictions were added over the years, but it was pretty much an “open” formula.) No maximum engine size or turbocharger boost limits. No minimum weight. No tire limitations. No structure or material limitations. (Both monocoque and tube frame chassis were used.) The cars did have to be open-cockpit, closed-bodied cars with two seats and two doors.

As far as 'turbans', well i don't know that they were illegal, but i never saw anyone wearing one..... on a serious note, i wonder just how competitve a turbine may have been were they legal, me thinks not so much.

Edited by jj2728, 10 March 2010 - 00:21.


#3 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,846 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 March 2010 - 23:44

Grabbing a Yellow Book at random (1972), the specific regulations for Can-Am are pretty sparse, saying only that cars should conform to FIA Group 7 and/or SCCA Sports Racing category. Minimum engine size 2500cc. Turbines specifically banned, but that may not apply in earlier years - I can check if you want as I have all the relevant Yellow Books. Various bodywork and safety regs but no weight restrictions.

Group 7 is similarly loosely worded - G7 is for two-seater racing cars (as opposed to sports cars).

#4 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 09 March 2010 - 23:56

Oh sorry I meant turbines.

What are the yellow books?

#5 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,846 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 00:05

FIA Year Book of Automobile Sport. First published in 1968 and containing race regs, results etc. Pocket sized in those days but now bloody enormous, blue and published in two volumes (maybe more now!)

#6 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 00:52

The original Can Am series was intended to be a 'formula libra'


Formula October? :confused:


#7 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 10 March 2010 - 05:13

Formula October? :confused:

That is funny.


#8 david5

david5
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 March 2010 - 05:21

That is funny.


Oh now I understand, I thought it was a series for ladies hygene products. :confused:

#9 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 10 March 2010 - 06:13

Grabbing a Yellow Book at random (1972), the specific regulations for Can-Am are pretty sparse, saying only that cars should conform to FIA Group 7 and/or SCCA Sports Racing category. Minimum engine size 2500cc. Turbines specifically banned, but that may not apply in earlier years - I can check if you want as I have all the relevant Yellow Books. Various bodywork and safety regs but no weight restrictions.

Group 7 is similarly loosely worded - G7 is for two-seater racing cars (as opposed to sports cars).


Could you check 1968, because I heard someone planned on racing a turbine.

#10 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 10 March 2010 - 06:14

Formula October? :confused:


Isnt that what its called?

#11 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:01

So, when the Watkins Glen rounds of the Can Am series featured some runners from the 6-hours World Championship round (held on the same weekend) - such as 917s and 512s - were they actually running in a different class and not eligible for points? Or would they have met the rules for the SCCA sports-racing category mentioned above?

I believe that G7 regs also stipulated that rear wheels/tyres had to be mostly covered when viewed from the rear - unlike cars such as the 917K, 512 (or Chevron B19).

Edited by 2F-001, 10 March 2010 - 07:03.


#12 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:14

Isnt that what its called?

Formule Libre (it's a French term) though most people these days make the first word Formula


#13 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:19

Further to my query about G5 cars in the (1970) Watkins Glen CanAm race - I've just read elsewhere (Pete Lyons' race report in Autosport) that they did, indeed, have to cover the rearward aspect of the tyres down to the hub centreline. Some also increased fuel capacity, since the CanAm machines would expect to run non-stop.

Re. G7 regs - the two seats, two doors stipulation was something that the Chaparral 2H was called upon to demonstrate (since those features where not so immediately or outwardly obvious as on more 'conventional' cars) - but that car was originally planned to run as a coupe; I've always understood that the move to run it as an open car had more to do with Surtees's reluctance to drive it as a coupe...?

One presumes that Jim Hall had considered the rulebook before embarking on the build, so it would appear that closed cockpits were permitted in Can Am (if not other G7-based events). Closed-cockpits were clearly not a problem for the 917s running in that race (the 512s could be configured as open-top, couldn't they?). Another possibility is that the rear wheel 'coverings' were principally a safety consideration (stone guards) rather than a matter of eligibility. However, Pete Lyons' report suggests that the prize fund was a significant lure for the G5 competitors, so I assume they were running for points too. Does anyone have chapter and verse on this?

I've no doubt the G5 cars made a great addition for the spectators, but it might have seemed a bit tough on the bulk of the regular Can Am field - places 2 to 7 were bagged by the 'endurance' machines (although a Can Am race was somewhat longer than a stint in the 6-hours). Although the front of the Can Am grid was way faster, in practice, than anything in the 6-hours, the quickest lap in the Endurance race (quicker than pole) was a little quicker than fastest lap in the Can Am and Andretti (G5 512) improved on that in Can Am practice.

#14 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:51

Could you check 1968, because I heard someone planned on racing a turbine.

The First FIA Year book in 1968 was relatively sparse particularly on Formula Specifications.So 1968 does not define any of the FIA formulae.

#15 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,846 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:49

The First FIA Year book in 1968 was relatively sparse particularly on Formula Specifications.So 1968 does not define any of the FIA formulae.

Correct. But when I started checking back, I found that the Can-Am wasn't actually an official FIA championship until 1971 - when turbines were also specifically banned. Pete Lyons' book gives a good overview of how Can-Am came into being, but on quick scan through I can't see anything about turbines: at a guess might it be that they were not eligible for the SCCA category?


#16 hansfohr

hansfohr
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 March 2010 - 14:51

Correct. But when I started checking back, I found that the Can-Am wasn't actually an official FIA championship until 1971 - when turbines were also specifically banned.

From the start in 1966 the championship was only eligible for cars complying with FIA's Group 7 regulations, but has it really been a FIA championship since 1971? In my memory it was always an SCCA-sanctioned championship.

Edited by hansfohr, 10 March 2010 - 14:52.


#17 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,846 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 16:06

Absolutely, Hans. Can-Am events are not specifically identified in the Yellow Book calendar until 1971 and Pete Lyons specifically mentions the introduction of FIA championship status in his book: it was hoped that this would attract more European drivers as there would no longer be date clashes with other equivalent FIA series. Wrong ...

#18 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 10 March 2010 - 16:49

I believe that G7 regs also stipulated that rear wheels/tyres had to be mostly covered when viewed from the rear - unlike cars such as the 917K, 512 (or Chevron B19).


I kind of doubt that...
Posted Image

Posted Image

About the FIA championship:
The bann of the high wings was decided by the FIA for 1970 after some horrible crashes in formula 1.
Americans don't really care about the FIA when it comes to racing but the Can-Am also banned the high wings for the same year.
I think there was some kind of connection before.

#19 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 16:53

I kind of doubt that...
Posted Image

Picture taken in 1969. Starting in 1970 the rear wheels had to be at least partially covered on their back sides. Notice that all new cars for 1970 on had enveloping bodywork over the rear tires and earlier cars were converted to this, often with clumsy results. Think of the Smith-Oeser Lola T-160 as driven by Bob Bondurant that year which had ugly aluminum flaps tacked onto the bodywork in order to cover the rear of the tires.
Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 10 March 2010 - 16:54.


Advertisement

#20 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:03

Thanks Tom - although I've seen pictures of both the Porsche and the Autocoast before, I hadn't recalled their rearwardly-exposed tyres (fading memory... sigh!); so thanks for clarifying the date on that.
The earlier McLarens and Lola had partially cowled wheels at the rear, so I wonder if that was a striclty FIA G7 thing rather than Can Am? Or if they would have made them that way anyways?

Regarding the high- (and suspension-mounted) wings - they were outlawed from part-way through the practice days of the '69 Monaco GP, whilst I think they continued on Can Am cars through to the end of the year, but not into 1970 (for eg. the M8D, which had the vertical rear fins supporting the lower wing).

Edited by 2F-001, 10 March 2010 - 17:14.


#21 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:06

Formule Libre (it's a French term) though most people these days make the first word Formula


Oh..

I've always been confused about the FIA's and SCCA's relationship in the Can Am. What authority did the FIA have in governing and could the SCCA have just broke it off when they started making their more unpopular rules?

#22 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:14

Thanks Tom - although I've seen pictures of both the Porsche and the Autocoast before, I hadn't remembered seeing them with reawardly-exposed tyres; so thanks for clarifying the date on that.
The earlier McLarens and Lola had partially cowled wheels at the rear, so I wonder if that was a striclty FIA G7 thing rather than Can Am? Or if they would have made them that way anyways?

Regarding the high- (and suspension-mounted) wings - they were outlawed from part-way through the practice days of the '69 Monaco GP, whilst I think they continued on Can Am cars through to the end of the year, but not into 1970 (for eg. the M8D, which had the vertical rear fins supporting the lower wing).

Right Tony. As you say, the FIA banned them with immediate effect in F-1 at Monaco, 1969. They continued in use in the Can Am through 1969 but were gone from 1970 on. In US F-5000 however, high wings continued in use through 1970, going away after that year. (Yes, you do detect a pattern of inconsistency here!).

As far as the rearwardly exposed tires, that did not really happen overnight. It sort of grew in the late '60s, becoming decidedly noticeable in 1969. For example, the McLarens had louvers immediately behind the rear wheels on the 1968 M8A, whereas for the 1969 M8B variant the louvers were missing and while there was bodywork at the back of the car, there were openings immediately behind the tires.

Another example is Lola. That year's car, the T-163, had an attractive rear, tapered, molded, and with the exhausts protruding through circular openings. But for the last couple races of 1969 Chuck Parsons was driving the latest semi works car for Carl Haas, the T-164. This had no bodywork whatsoever behind the rear wheels, similar to the photo of the Bryant Ti-22 pictured above. The Porsche 917-8 driven by Jo Siffert also had very open bodywork at the rear.

As far as whether the shrouding of the wheels was an FIA thing or Can Am rules, I really don't know. I suspect that it may have been a Can Am rule regarding the flinging of stones and other debris backward as opposed to an FIA rule as on the world scene such cars as the Porsche 917-K continued with open rear bodywork.
Tom

#23 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:16

Oh..

I've always been confused about the FIA's and SCCA's relationship in the Can Am. What authority did the FIA have in governing and could the SCCA have just broke it off when they started making their more unpopular rules?


There is a difference between FIA Championships and International events.The Can Am series were all and always international events in which holders of non USA licences, FIA International licence holders, could take part.The events were on the FIA International calendar and that required that the organisers complied with the International sporting code, which deals with sporting regulations, but not the Technical regulations

Edited by Red Socks, 10 March 2010 - 18:05.


#24 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:19

Oh..

I've always been confused about the FIA's and SCCA's relationship in the Can Am. What authority did the FIA have in governing and could the SCCA have just broke it off when they started making their more unpopular rules?

Probably not. SCCA wanted to keep the international sanction as that allowed graded drivers to participate in the series. The rules about driver participation were much stricter back then and without the appropriate sanction such drivers as Hulme, McLaren, Surtees, Cevert, Oliver, and others could not have competed.

To elaborate a bit on what David McKinney posted. Formule Libre is a French term, loosely translated as "Formula Free", which is what it was. Do not confuse with the sign of the Zodiac, 'Libra'. If it is any consolation, you are far from the only one to use the wrong word.
Tom

#25 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:29

That's fascinating Tom - although I must have seen photographs at the time (I was quite heavily immersed in the motorsport mags in 1970, just into my teens) I hadn't recalled the F5000s Stateside continuing to use the high wings. You'd have thought that of the two series, Can Am would be the most likely to plough its own furrow since F5000 was essentially the same in the US as Europe (and a few of the UK-based drivers forsook some of the UK rounds to race in the US). Was that perhaps something to do with the SCCA wanting to stay a bit more in line with the FIA? The F5000 series was USAC-sanctioned, wasn't it?

Interesting points about the louvred rear ends... I think the louvres returned on the M8D, but where not present on the production-orientated M8E. (I don't have any pictures to hand - I'm thinking back to a favourite slot car I had...).

edit:
Ah, you've possibly answered my point about SCCA and its alignment to the FIA.

Edited by 2F-001, 10 March 2010 - 17:34.


#26 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:37

I hadn't recalled the F5000s Stateside continuing to use the high wings. You'd have thought that of the two series, Can Am would be the most likely to plough its own furrow since F5000 was essentially the same in the US as Europe (and a few of the UK-based drivers forsook some of the UK rounds to race in the US). Was that perhaps something to do with the SCCA wanting to stay a bit more in line with the FIA? The F5000 series was USAC-sanctioned, wasn't it?

Can't really answer that Tony, as I am not totally up to speed with the various machinations of the SCCA back then! Probably nobody is, as the SCCA has always seemed to work in mysterious ways... But SCCA did sanction the F-5000 series by itself up through 1973. It was in 1974 that a co-sanction agreement was worked out with USAC. That arrangement continued for three years through the 1976 season. At the end of the '76 season, USAC withdrew, and shortly thereafter the SCCA made the (IMO) horrible decision to kill off F-5000 and bring back Can Am in the guise of fendered F-5000 cars. I don't think that the two events were related, although they did occur around the same time.

The M8D and M8E had very similar rears, with the louvres, as you recall.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 10 March 2010 - 17:41.


#27 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 March 2010 - 17:58

At the time of the Can Am was re-born, F5000 was on the wane here too (to be replaced by 'Group 8' - essentially all-comers single-seater category - and then a domestic 'Formula 1' series, which has some impressive machinery but, for me, never quite delivered to goods). I can see that there could have been a strong desire to re-create something of the Can Am magic, but at the expense of something that had been, outwardly, a good series? I'd have though the SCCA would have relished having a high-profile single seater series to go against USAC's Champcars, but perhaps the Formula was on the wane anyway (for particular reasons I've haven't understood).
Those last few years of F5000 - I know the championship was dominated by Redman - were they generally well-liked by the public? I always assumed they were. Races like the one at Long Beach had an entry list that read like a Who's Who of motorsport.

Edited by 2F-001, 10 March 2010 - 18:01.


#28 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 18:23

Yes. I have never fully understood the dynamics of the death of F-5000. It was a very good series with interesting cars and a fine array of drivers. The numbers fell off a bit the last year, with fields at times below the standard 24 cars in the "feature". Perhaps the promoters began to panic a bit at that. Couple that with the lure of "Can Am" and the result happened. Of course, while they tried to recapture the magic of the original, that was gone, never to return.

The USAC-SCCA co-sanction was an interesting effort at possibly merging the series, but it never really gained any momentum. USAC champ cars were eligible for F-5000 those three years, but one could probably count on one hand the occasions when any USAC cars actually ran in F-5000. Road America in 1974 saw entries from John Martin, McLaren M16B; Grant King for Tom Sneva, Kingfish Eagle copy; Dick Simon, Eagle; and IIRC Dan Murphy, Cicada. Also, IIRC, Murphy never showed and Simon withdrew after shooting off his mouth about how he was going to blow the F-5000 cars into the weeds. When he practiced several seconds slower, he went away. Only Martin and Sneva made the race, with Sneva an early DNF while Martin lapped respectably but was not a front runner.

I should point out that Bobby Unser, driving an AAR Eagle with turbo Drake, did win a preliminary heat at Riverside, which if nothing else shows that when driven by a competent top level driver an Indy car could be competitive when fielded by a front running team and on a course which lends itself to such a car.

Conversely, F-5000 cars were eligible to run in USAC Indy car races. Off the top of my head I can recall only one such outing, Phoenix perhaps in 1974, where a few F-5000 cars ran on the one mile oval in the Indy car race. I believe that they did essentially nothing.

That was about as far as the experiment went. A noble idea, but never really implemented. If it had succeeded, the mind can only wonder as to the changed landscape of US racing that would exist today.

The F-5000 series was popular with the fans. The format that was used from 1973 on, after experimentation with other formats, was a winner. The field was divided into two groups based on qualifying times, and each group ran in one of two qualifying heats of approximately 60 miles each. Qualifiers numbered 1-3-5-7 etc in one heat, and 2-4-6-8 etc in the other. The top ten finishers of each heat would advance to the 100 mile final with four "promoter's options" added to make up a 24 car field. Hence, fans saw three races for the cars, a winning format. Up to the last year, 1976, it was common to have entries numbering over 30 cars, so the qualifying heats were important. As mentioned earlier, the numbers dipped in 1976.

Brian Redman did indeed win the title the last three years, 1974-75-76. But his competition was formidable indeed. 1974-76 the Vel's Parnelli Jones team ran Lola T-332s, with Mario Andretti in '74 and Mario and Al Unser Sr in 1975. They divided the wins with Redman, who drove for Carl Haas/Jim Hall. David Hobbs snagged the occasional win in Carl Hogan's Lola. Shadow joined the fray in 1975 with Jackie Oliver driving. Their best moment was an overall win at Road America in 1976 with the Dodge (!) powered DN-6. Alan Jones won two races in 1976 driving for Teddy Yip, one in a Lola T-332 and the other in a March 76A. In 1976 Mario had moved on to F-1 full time with Lotus and the second Vel's-PJ car was driven by Danny Ongais alongside Al Unser. The talent certainly was there!

Those who were around to witness the F-5000 series know they saw something special and I believe to a person mourn its passing.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 10 March 2010 - 18:26.


#29 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 March 2010 - 18:32

The M8D and M8E had very similar rears, with the louvres, as you recall.

Tom


Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?
Here's a shot from my father's archives of the '71 M8F.

Posted Image

#30 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 March 2010 - 18:53

Once again from my father's archives, here's Lothar in the MBD at Mid-Ohio in '71. While going thru my copy of AUTOMOBILE YEAR 71/72 I noticed that Bob Bondurant drove for him in a few races using the M8E. I wonder why it was Lothar's preference to use the ex-factory M8D instead of the M8E.

Posted Image

#31 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 10 March 2010 - 19:03

It seems funny everybody blames technology for killing the Can Am when they bent over backwards to accommodate the high profile drivers.

#32 Andre Acker

Andre Acker
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 10 March 2010 - 21:57

At the 1971 Watkins Glenn CanAm race, the Ferrari 312pb was not allowed to take part.
As far as I could understand, the cockpit was not in accord with the rules ...
It seems that the 2 sides (right and left) of the cockpit should have the same dimensions.
I wonder how important this could be in a category where almost all was permited ...

André Acker.


#33 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 21:58

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?

Yes. The M8E was the 1971 customer car. M8D 1970 works car. M8F 1971 works car.

Once again from my father's archives, here's Lothar in the MBD at Mid-Ohio in '71. While going thru my copy of AUTOMOBILE YEAR 71/72 I noticed that Bob Bondurant drove for him in a few races using the M8E. I wonder why it was Lothar's preference to use the ex-factory M8D instead of the M8E.

Don't know for sure, but it may have been simple preference. For all intents and purposes the 'D' and 'E' cars were virtually the same. Even more so with the two Motschenbacher cars as Lothar had an M8D style body put on his M8E. In addition to Bondurant, Gregg Young and Chuck Parsons also drove the Mostschenbacher M8E during 1971. This car went to Steve Durst the next year while Lothar kept his M8D.

In fact, when one of the works M8Ds in 1970 was crashed by Hulme, its replacement was built up on the prototype M8E chassis.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 10 March 2010 - 22:03.


#34 Andre Acker

Andre Acker
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?
Here's a shot from my father's archives of the '71 M8F.

Posted Image



JJ2728,

Please show us more of these fantastic CanAm photos that you have !

Best regards.

André Acker.

#35 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 457 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:01

Once again from my father's archives

Posted Image

jj2728: Please, please, please feel free to post more from your father's archives! I just love those cars! :love:

Edited by PCC, 10 March 2010 - 22:02.


#36 Andre Acker

Andre Acker
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:10

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?
Here's a shot from my father's archives of the '71 M8F.

Posted Image



JJ2728,

Please show us more of these fantastic CanAm photos that you have !

Best regards.

André Acker.

#37 Bryce Armstrong

Bryce Armstrong
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:17

I wonder what influnce the FIA had on the Interserie or Japan's Can Am series (forgot the name)?

Also, what was the idea behind the open rear wheels, it seems strange for something so... wrong aerodynamically?

#38 hansfohr

hansfohr
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:26

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?

Yes. :)

BTW The track of the M8E - built by Trojan - was 4" narrower than the M8D. Also instead of the sidefins it had a rearwing which was supported by a low strut, making it 22 lbs lighter.

#39 hansfohr

hansfohr
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 March 2010 - 22:40

I wonder what influnce the FIA had on the Interserie or Japan's Can Am series (forgot the name)?

The same, its Group 7 regulations were also applied in the Interserie and the Japanese CanAm series.

Edited by hansfohr, 10 March 2010 - 22:40.


Advertisement

#40 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 11 March 2010 - 00:48

Here you go. I still have many, many of his negatives and 35mm slides to archive and categorize.....and I'm having a great time doing it.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#41 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:05

Those who were around to witness the F-5000 series know they saw something special and I believe to a person mourn its passing.

Tom


I hated when it was killed off.


#42 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 457 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:07

Here you go. I still have many, many of his negatives and 35mm slides to archive and categorize.....and I'm having a great time doing it.

And we are having a great time seeing the results, thank you!

For my money, Can Am cars are still the fiercest, most stunning racing beasts I ever saw. In fact, I'd like to change the name - or rather the punctuation - of this thread to "Can Am rules!"

#43 Zagato_Olaf

Zagato_Olaf
  • Member

  • 52 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:25

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the M8E the customer car?
Here's a shot from my father's archives of the '71 M8F.

Posted Image


Great material for someone who considers making a book about CanAm and is looking for pictures not published earlier!

Ciao, Olaf


#44 Manfred Cubenoggin

Manfred Cubenoggin
  • Member

  • 795 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:17

:lol:

Good one, PCC!

Edited by Manfred Cubenoggin, 11 March 2010 - 11:19.


#45 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 March 2010 - 13:27

Great material for someone who considers making a book about CanAm and is looking for pictures not published earlier!

Ciao, Olaf

A good point. I suggest you watermark each picture with a copyright statement.

#46 hansfohr

hansfohr
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 March 2010 - 14:32

Here you go. I still have many, many of his negatives and 35mm slides to archive and categorize.....and I'm having a great time doing it.

Posted Image


Breathtaking images, Seppi was one of the best! :clap:

Edited by hansfohr, 11 March 2010 - 14:32.


#47 AJB

AJB
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 12 March 2010 - 22:44

At the 1971 Watkins Glenn CanAm race, the Ferrari 312pb was not allowed to take part.
As far as I could understand, the cockpit was not in accord with the rules ...
It seems that the 2 sides (right and left) of the cockpit should have the same dimensions.
I wonder how important this could be in a category where almost all was permited ...

André Acker.

CanAm rules from 1970 required a symetrical cockpit opening with similar protection for the (non-existant) passenger as for the driver. The 1970 rules also required bodywork behind the rear tyres, hence louvres fitted to the M8D where the M8B had open vents.
I believe the rules catered for 2 seater cars conforming to Group 7 regs, either open or closed. The Chaparral 2H was entered (and allegedly designed) as a coupe ("Show the man the doors in the side, Frans" was a magazine comment at the time) which just happened to have a lot of ventilation for the driver, as John Surtees not surprisingly didn't like the closed version. Eppie Wietzes finished in the points in 1966 in a Ford GT40 and Jo Siffert managed a 2nd place in a 917K at Watkins Glen in 1970.
Alan

Edited by AJB, 24 March 2010 - 20:48.


#48 fbarrett

fbarrett
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 13 March 2010 - 00:46

Durn, the photo links are currently unavailable, labeled (or labelled) as "This image or video has been moved or deleted. Photobucket."

Frank (loved watching the Watkins Glen Can-Am & Six Hour races with the 917s)

#49 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 March 2010 - 03:57

Durn, the photo links are currently unavailable, labeled (or labelled) as "This image or video has been moved or deleted. Photobucket."

Frank (loved watching the Watkins Glen Can-Am & Six Hour races with the 917s)


Not to worry, had a few issues. They'll be back shortly.

Edited by jj2728, 13 March 2010 - 03:59.


#50 Andre Acker

Andre Acker
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 15 March 2010 - 22:03

CanAm rules from 1970 required a symetrical cockpit opening with similar protection for the (non-existant) passenger as for the driver. The 1970 rules also required bodywork behind the rear tyres, hence louvres fitted to the M8D where the M8B had open vents.
I believe the rules catered for 2 seater cars conforming to Group 7 regs, either open or closed. The Chaparral 2H was entered (and allegedly designed) as a coupe ("Show the man the doors in the side, Fritz" was a magazine comment at the time) which just happened to have a lot of ventilation for the driver, as John Surtees not surprisingly didn't like the closed version. Eppie wietzes finished in the points in 1966 in a Ford GT40 and Jo Siffert managed a 2nd place in a 917K at Watkins Glen in 1970.
Alan


Thanks, Alan, for explaining the situation.
So, the "cockpit rule" was addressed to Chaparral ?

André Acker.