9 replies to this topic

[D-Type]

I've done a search for "Cooper + Indianapolis + Brabham" and this question doesn't seem to have come up.

The record shows that in 1961 Jack Brabham drove a Kimberley sponsored Cooper T54 with 2.7 litre Climax engine to 9th place in the Indianapolis 500. A successful result for a first attempt. It appears that with the same car and a less conservative tyre strategy they could have improved on the result. So what might they have done with an improved car? So why didn't Cooper enter Indianapolis again?

Was it because Jack Brabham had left Cooper? After all he did run a Brabham there in 1964 and later years.

John Cooper's accident wasn't until 1964 so that wasn't the reason.

Was it a question of engine? Was the 2.7 litre stretch the development limit for the FPF and there wasn't anything more to gain? If the FPF was at its development limit were there alternative engines available to Cooper? The aluminium Buick that Mickey Thomson used comes to mind. I wonder, if the will (and the money) had been there, could Coventry Climax have made a "Super Godiva". The FPF started life as half a Godiva so could they have combined two FPFs to make a 4.2 litre V8?

John Cooper's accident wasn't until 1964 so that wasn't the reason.

[RA Historian]

Or might they have just made a stronger chassis and put the 4.2 Meyer-Drake four into it? That is essentially what BMC, Halibrand, Watson, Vollstedt, Gerhardt, Troutman & Barnes, and Sir Jack with the BT-12 did.

[RCH]

I think this was more of a Kimberley/Brabham effort than a Cooper one. Possibly by 1962 they all had different things to do and were maybe putting things off until more suitable engine/tyres were available. I may well be wrong but weren't they running Dunlop who didn't really have the correct tyres because Firestones were not available to them? They were then beaten to it by Lotus.

[austmcreg]

I think this was more of a Kimberley/Brabham effort than a Cooper one. Possibly by 1962 they all had different things to do and were maybe putting things off until more suitable engine/tyres were available. I may well be wrong but weren't they running Dunlop who didn't really have the correct tyres because Firestones were not available to them? They were then beaten to it by Lotus.

I agree with that. The factors I see are
1. Dunlop tyres not suitable
2. Coventry Climax not interested in a new engine. They were more than occupied with the 1.5 litre V8 F1 engine at that stage.
3. Brabham had left Cooper. By the time he was in a position to do Indy again, with his own team, he did.
4. Cooper were in beginning of their decline, and having lost Brabham, had other things to focus on.

Rob Saward

[Ray Bell]

Jack was still with Cooper at this stage, but he had the MRD operation building up with Ron Tauranac in charge and Cooper not being totally aware of what he was doing. Though I'm sure they knew something at that stage and Jack had probably told them he wasn't going to be there after 1961.

Cooper's 'decline' hadn't really yet begun. Bear in mind that they won the 1962 Monaco GP when they got their new and much more modern design completed, Bruce McLaren was highly competitive that year and he was to go on to win the Tasman Cup in 1974 in a Cooper.

Cooper's decline would have begun, I would say, about 1965.

I think the use of the FPF engine was a central part of Jack's plan. He wanted to keep the car light, it was a known and (relatively) reliable quantity. The tyres would, then, appear to be the big issue.

[Roger Clark]

Coventry Climax were adamant that the FPF could not be expanded beyond 2.7-litres and were reluctant to go even that far. I'd be surprised if they even considered a 4.2-litre V8; their technical and financial resources were fully utilised with the FWMV.

Jack Brabham said, in his Motor Racing magazine column after Indianapolis 1961, that a 4.2-litre car would have to be front-engined. He changed his mind later, of course, but that was after the Lotus 29.

THe Cooper Car Company lost its guiding light when Brabham left. They, or specifically Charles, were unwilling to let Bruce McLaren fully take his place. From being the first in the queue for a Climax V8 in late 61, they were last, even after some private teams, to produce their 1962 car. They stopped producing customer cars for F1 at the same time. I don't know the reasons for this; I don't think it's addressed in Cooper Cars.

[ry6]

It must have been a wonderful race to watch. Something different from the 'norm'.

An interesting part of motor racing history.

The little rear engined Cooper amongst the big front engined roadsters.

Jack Brabham must have also had to be very careful to avoid 'brushing' it with one of the roadsters.

Thinking back I never appreciated the skill he demonstrated in this event.

[RA Historian]

I agree with that. The factors I see are
1. Dunlop tyres not suitable
2. Coventry Climax not interested in a new engine. They were more than occupied with the 1.5 litre V8 F1 engine at that stage.
3. Brabham had left Cooper. By the time he was in a position to do Indy again, with his own team, he did.
4. Cooper were in beginning of their decline, and having lost Brabham, had other things to focus on.

Rob Saward

Plus Jim Kimberly took his backing to a Thompson-Buick project which showed up sporadically during 1962.

[Ray Bell]

You would think Jack might have been feeling a little threatened by the size of the cars around him...

But he must surely have been used to that in racing against Vanwalls, Ferraris, Maseratis etc in the Coopers over the previous four or five years.

[wenoopy]

You would think Jack might have been feeling a little threatened by the size of the cars around him...

But he must surely have been used to that in racing against Vanwalls, Ferraris, Maseratis etc in the Coopers over the previous four or five years.

Don't forget that Jack's introduction to motor racing was several seasons of midget-car racing on quarter-mile or similar cinder or dirt oval tracks in Australia.

From Jack's comments at the time (Floyd Clymer's 500 Indianapolis Yearbooks etc) the Cooper was much lighter and much more manoeuverable than the Indy "roadsters" and on the one occasion when trouble loomed he was able to turn right around the spinning cars and stay out of trouble. The Cooper was much faster through the corners than the Indy cars, but understandably slower along the straights, and unless Jack was able to outbrake them going into the corners, he had to follow them through on the racing 'line'. As for the tyres, I gather that tyre wear was underestimated, and had they planned for one more tyre stop, they could have run a bit faster and ended up a place or two higher at the finish.

Stu