Jump to content


Photo

Building copy of the Penske Zerex Special


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#51 P 4 Staff

P 4 Staff
  • Member

  • 367 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 10:29

Originally posted by Brian Nordby
Hello All

Thank you all for giving me a very small nostalgic taste of the experience Penske himself must have faced when he first introduced the car. I'm am truly flattered by all of your all of your comments negative and possitive. This car has still got what it takes to at least rev up imaginations. Please keep them coming.

I will be trying to recreate the version of the car that Roy Gane built in Molin. So any Pictures of the single seat version would be greatly appreciated.

Brian Nordby


Hi Brian.
I hope "they" don´t scare you away...and that you keep us informed about your project

Here´s a link http://www.vsrnonlin.../MC_Plans_1.htm where you can find an interesting article about the car...and even a beautiful scaledrawing.

Very Best: Staff.

Advertisement

#52 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,074 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 March 2005 - 10:37

Originally posted by David McKinney
Not a good example, Ray
Most of the rear-engined P48 BRMs were rebuilt as front-engined cars in the 1970s - defined either as fakes or re-creations according to each person's beliefs. I've seen most if not all of them racing since then. There's a photo of one of them in the current Stoneleigh thread


You could be right, David (that it's not a good example, that is)... but it's an example proved by what you've written. I had the impression that there was only the Spencer Flack car, but I must have got mixed up with someone's use of the word 'original' in there.

What really gets to me is that there can be argument about it. Or as you put it, 'fakes or re-creations according to each person's beliefs'... how can anyone get upset if a car is put back into use?

I frankly would have thought that owners of the P48s would have kept them that way (if they were into Historic Racing) because they'd be faster.

So what happens with the Flack car then? Clearly it's needed a massive amount of freshly created components to make it right. Is that a 'fake' or a 're-creation'?

#53 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,903 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 04 March 2005 - 10:41

Originally posted by David McKinney
... defined either as fakes or re-creations according to each person's beliefs ...

I think the difference between a fake and a recreation is a simple one: the way it is presented. The Zerex copy being discussed here would be a recreation. A fake implies it would be presented as being real and, quite clearly, it wouldn't.

I share Ray's bafflement at Richard's posts here. His impolite initial response is not part of the TNF tradition and I don't see Haymarket as remotely relevant to that. When he's seen so many TNF regulars post in favour of this recreation, I can't see where he's coming from.

Allen

#54 Richard Neale

Richard Neale
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 11:38

Allen ~ I really can't believe how many people on this forum are encouraging the diminution of Historic cars by building replicas.

This is obviously not the place for me any more ~ It's pretty obvious that rebuilding the crashed Flack car is entirely different to recreating a car.

We might as well put all the genuine cars in museums and just replicate them and race the replicas.

#55 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,074 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 March 2005 - 11:51

Do you really think it's the dimunition of Historic Cars?

I'm not so sure about that, myself. After all, so many are going into museums and private collections where they don't get used, so many have been destroyed and so many have been dispersed around the world, there's got to be room for some of these.

Not everyone's going to build a replica. It would have to be a real passion that would drive someone to do it, and isn't it that passion that enables Historic Racing to continue anyway?

#56 Richard Neale

Richard Neale
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 12:00

I like 'Historic Cars' and antique furniture because they are Old ~ It has a Nostalgic appeal to me and has had for earlier generations who have preserved these things for us to use with a little care.

I do not venerate copies. They have no awe ~~

In 30 years time are you expecting a kid to say Wow! When you show him a 2005 copy of a car raced by Fangio? I guess you'd like modern copies to take part in the Brighton run too???

#57 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 12:18

Originally posted by Richard Neale
I like 'Historic Cars' and antique furniture because they are Old ~ It has a Nostalgic appeal to me and has had for earlier generations who have preserved these things for us to use with a little care.

I do not venerate copies. They have no awe ~~

In 30 years time are you expecting a kid to say Wow! When you show him a 2005 copy of a car raced by Fangio? I guess you'd like modern copies to take part in the Brighton run too???


But what is an old car that has had its engine or chassis replaced by a modern replica (on the grounds of satefy or expense)?

Personally I think it is no longer original, but some chassis number historians think it is still original.

Do you not enjoy seeing the ERAs & 250Fs racing (because most of them have new engines)?

And what about Audi's Auto-Unions?
I love seeing these cars because (un?)fortunately I'm not old enough to have seen them run at the time. What is a shame is thay they don't run them properly.

When you have the Thinwall Special in your museum is it not commendable to show the car in every stage of its life?
Likewise showing all the variants of Vanwalls, Chaparrals etc (the person who built the new Chaparral chassis for the museum told me that there was only ever a handful of chassis that were continually updated, so the Chaps don't all have their original chassis).

I think we have to accept the replicas are going to be built, and rather than stand there knocking them it would be far more constructive to record exactly what they are - so that they are not passed off as anything else in the future.


What I can't stand is cars that aren't like they were originally, and being told the are original - but that happens just as much with 'original' cars as it does with replicas.
If someone can help them make an exact replica of the Xerex special then surely it is better to help them do that rather than produce some approximation.

#58 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 04 March 2005 - 12:31

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I frankly would have thought that owners of the P48s would have kept them that way (if they were into Historic Racing) because they'd be faster.

Faster, certainly. But not eligible for the historic front-engined class, which is all there was at that time

So what happens with the Flack car then? Clearly it's needed a massive amount of freshly created components to make it right. Is that a 'fake' or a 're-creation'?

The car has been rebuilt, probably with fewer replacement parts than some other 'original' cars in historic racing.

#59 ggnagy

ggnagy
  • Member

  • 261 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 13:11

Are those who decry "replicas" of cars also as outspoken when the real cars are driven @ historic events by anyone other than the driver that made it famous, if he/she is still living?

I know alot of "historic recreationists" involved in US civil war re-enactments, and I never hear from them that there are people upset that they are not exclusively using guns produced pre 1865 even though there are perfectly serviceable ones sitting in museums and private collections.

Advertisement

#60 MGAdams

MGAdams
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 04 March 2005 - 13:37

I will not contribute to the debate, but as requested, forward an additional image for information.

Posted Imagehttp://[img=http://img223.exs.cx/img223/3985/rogerpenskezerexspecial8iy.th.jpg]

#61 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,903 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 04 March 2005 - 13:51

Hi Richard

I agree with you completely that recreations do not have the 'value', either financial or otherwise, of 'real' historic cars. All I'm suggesting is that an honest recreation does not need to be discouraged. I won't be queuing to see it at Goodwood because a) I know it won't be real and b) it won't get invited anyway.

It sounds like a fun project for Brian and it will rank alongside Tom's BRM P25s and that early 1960s F1 Ferrari as 'a bit of fun'. Better this than Brian finds a wishbone from the original car or secures a letter from its last owner and then claims to have 'the' Zerex Special.

Can I take issue with on one point from your email? You seem to believe that TNF has changed if it now supports such things. But the very people who are making generally supportive remarks are the same people who've been here for years. Remember that I used to be Cooper F1 Registrar. This is nothing to do with TNF changing. We're exactly the same argumentative old sods we always were!

Allen

#62 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,119 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 13:57

"This is my Grandfather's axe. My father changed the head and I changed the blade".


Welcome to the club and good luck with the project. Hope you have gotten some useful information within the invective being spread by people that should know better than to spew of without courtesy.

#63 Richard Neale

Richard Neale
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 14:03

Allen ~ Touche ~ thank God for Grumpy Old Men and argumentative 'Old Sods' ~~~~~

#64 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 14:47

It sounds like the disappovers are in the minority here. I agree that anybody with enough money should be allowed to recreate whatever historic competition model appeals to him/her. Heck, what is there to stop them. But the fawning feedback on this Forum goes against my grain. The Zerex-Duralite was not ugly, it was well constructed but I always thought it rather bland, with that admittedly effective low-line body design. Not the kind of car to thrill any spectators. More like a roller skate on Dunlops. But my main objection is that it was a cheater car, in spite of the fact that Penske got prior permission to enter it in the 1962 Times GP, by Henry Banks of USAC and Glenn Davis of the LA Times. Both should have known better. The Zerex did not meet the most rudimentary requirements for sportsracing cars at the time, re. windshield, doors and seats. Only good sportsmanship, a quality Penske has not been well-known for, of the Riverside competitors prevented the car from being protested and disqualified. After Riverside the precedent was established and there was no stopping the entry at Monterey. But Penske's victories at Riverside, Laguna Seca [where in spite of having a 2.7 Indy Climax he did not manage to win the individual heats, which went to superior drivers with 2.5 Climax Lotus 19s] and Puerto Rico [against feeble opposition], were NOT popular ones, among the spectators or his fellow drivers. Unfair Advantage in a rather pathetic way.

To reinvent history and present the original Zerex model as God's gift to 1962 sportscar racing is an aberration. All this fawning is really a disgrace. Anybody with any knowledge of what happened at Riverside in October 1962 should know better. Once completed the replica should be booed by the public, if it ever shows its face on the Classic Car circuit where it does not belong.


WINO

#65 GeorgeTheCar

GeorgeTheCar
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 March 2005 - 16:05

When the Zerex Special first made it's appearance I was a very young and eager race fan and any criticism of the advancement of the art got neither attention nor support from me.

Looking back we can see that the roots of the "Unfair Advantage" ran deep.

As a young engineer I loved the innovation that was included in the "unfair Advantage". As someone caught up in the Chevy vs Ford battle, I cheered every Penske success.

From the perspective that surviging has given us we can see the roots of the technology that has given us fighter planes on wheels and the commercialism that has made Bernie Ecclestone and others rich at the cost of the the sport.

That sport is being reborn in vintage racing and we will have to re-live some of the old battles.

I really appreciate the history lesson that accompanied the discussion. It should also be remembered the car in question lead to Bruce McLaren building his own sports cars and that lead to many more things.

Finally the nostalgia thing. Some of us will want to rememebr the good times, some of us will want to recreate those good times and others will want to belive the intervenng years never happened.

Just let us remember that these are race cars and the people who raced them typically cared little about them as long as they worked. We, as fans, have a much greater attachment to the items than did the people who built and raced them on the day.

I for one would love to see some of the grids at Mosport that distance and the lack of a licence prevented me from seeing 40 plus years ago.

#66 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 16:31

Its not a fake if it is admitted up front that it is a copy; and if it means that somebody today may get a clearer idea of the history of our sport then I’m all for it. Further, what is the original car? Its been thru at least 3 engines, 2 frames, 2 transmissions and several bodies. By all odds, there maybe no part of the present car that ever felt the hand of Roger Penske! The fact of the matter is, this copy may be more original then the actual car itself it today.

#67 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 17:41

I think a big part of this is that some people are content just to experience historical events, and some have a need to own the things involved. The desire to drive a historical vehicle, in order to have the experience of what it was like is one thing; the need to own one, or a recreation of one that no longer exists, is quite another.

#68 philippe charuest

philippe charuest
  • Member

  • 701 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 March 2005 - 19:31

slightly off topic . theres a new book call "vintage american road racing cars 1950-1970" . does someone have purchase it? is it well done?.

#69 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,903 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 04 March 2005 - 19:58

Originally posted by philippe charuest
slightly off topic . theres a new book call "vintage american road racing cars 1950-1970" . does someone have purchase it? is it well done?.

I bought a copy at the NEC last month. It's beautifully produced and has a huge amount of information so I'd recommend it but I do have a couple of minor gripes: too many of the pictures are of restored cars running at Monterey; and too much of the information has come from a relatively small number of sources. Lots of Car & Driver and Road & Track articles have been mined. It's the sort of book where a third edition will be quite magnificent but the first edition only gets 8 out of 10.

Allen

#70 P 4 Staff

P 4 Staff
  • Member

  • 367 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 21:01

Hi all.
I red that James Glickenhaus had the Ferrari factory make 2 sets of 330 P4 uprights....for his Ferrari P 4 Replica.
Well...Real or WHAT????

Staff.

#71 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 22:24

Those Ferrari guys should burn in hell.

WINO

#72 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 March 2005 - 23:26

Given enough money....

As to Jim's P3/4, I believe that there is enough of the real car there to call it a restoration rather than a replica.

#73 MKIVJ6

MKIVJ6
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 23:39

Originally posted by WINO
Those Ferrari guys should burn in hell.

WINO


Why, because after reading over 100 pages of research, photos and forensic investigation, and examining my chassis many have come to believe that what I posit: That my car is built on the chassis remains of 330 P 3/4 0846 is true?

In the four years that this research has been public, as Dr. Stu has pointed out NO ONE has offered credible proof that I am wrong. That remains fact.

Posted Image

#74 P 4 Staff

P 4 Staff
  • Member

  • 367 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 23:42

I call Jims car a replica...and a very good one...even with some parts made by Ferrari to original specs.

I hope Brian can make such a good one...I´d really like that.

Best: Staff.

#75 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,074 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 March 2005 - 23:47

On the Lotus 12 thread there is some level of decrying Graham Howard for claiming the Sabakat he brought (back) to life is somewhat connected to the original car...

Who cares? If he hadn't built it, I'd never have seen it!

#76 rosemeyer

rosemeyer
  • Member

  • 245 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 04 March 2005 - 23:55

I realize this is turning into a controversial thread but think for a minute we need to pass the wonderful experiences to our children a lot of cars are to valuable to be raced so how else can we show our children what we were able to see in our older years we need to let them see what we experenced in our younger days we cant keep this experance from our siblinges.

#77 P 4 Staff

P 4 Staff
  • Member

  • 367 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 00:02

Originally posted by WINO
Those Ferrari guys should burn in hell.

WINO


Oh...I am just not sure that is a sober statement...sorry.

I am here to make friends...and at the same time tell my opinion without getting enemies.

Staff.

#78 P 4 Staff

P 4 Staff
  • Member

  • 367 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 00:18

Originally posted by rosemeyer
I realize this is turning into a controversial thread but think for a minute we need to pass the wonderful experiences to our children a lot of cars are to valuable to be raced so how else can we show our children what we were able to see in our older years we need to let them see what we experenced in our younger days we cant keep this experance from our siblinges.


How true Rosemeyer...I´d like my grandchildren to expereance the same I did as I saw David Piper win at Gelleråsen in Sweden in 1968. May it be the real thing or a replica.
That was awsome.

Best: Staff.

#79 Magee

Magee
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 05 March 2005 - 00:25

WINO quote
"But my main objection is that it was a cheater car, in spite of the fact that Penske got prior permission to enter it in the 1962 Times GP, by Henry Banks of USAC and Glenn Davis of the LA Times. Both should have known better. The Zerex did not meet the most rudimentary requirements for sportsracing cars at the time, re. windshield, doors and seats."

That was not the only car that did not meet the most rudimentary requirements. Have you seen the Cooper Streamliner turned into a sports racer campaigned by Pete Lovely? If you want I'll describe my Cooper too.

Advertisement

#80 Brian Nordby

Brian Nordby
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 March 2005 - 03:00

T54 Wrote

As far as the Zerex, its original engine is now back in the car from which it came, the Cooper Indianapolis car, and the modified frame (and regardless of the modifications, STILL the original frame) is still around, even if very modified.



What if you take the part of the frame that was cut out and make a car out of it wouldn't that be more "original" than the modified frame? Please define what makes something an original once its been modified. If you cut a cake and eat it to, do you still have your original cake?

Brian

#81 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 March 2005 - 03:28

The discussion as to how much of a car as first built must still be there to be considered a real car has been going on forever. If it's 100%, then there are NO real cars left!

I have no problems with replicas or recreations or whatever you want to call them, IF there is clear indication they are that.

#82 Frank S

Frank S
  • Member

  • 2,157 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 05 March 2005 - 04:03

·
·
Pooper (72K version under the thumbnail)

Posted Image


--
Frank S

#83 Gerr

Gerr
  • Member

  • 687 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 04:53

Hi Brian,

I just wanted to say, I'm another who does not have any problem with a faithful recreation of the Zerex being built as long as it is never represented as anything other than a recreation. That's cool.

However, I do have a problem with a someone asking for information, specifications and photos, that the enthusiasts at TNF and elsewere have saved, catalogued, treasured and likely spent some money to aquire, when that someone is going to profit from the construction of the recreated car. I don't have any problems sharing info on any cars/specs/races with anyone, but when they only offer "appreciation" for my efforts and they stand to profit, I get a trifle annoyed.

If "your client from Seattle" (the guy willing to pay to build his dream-car) had approached TNF, enthused about his project Zerex recreation and asking for assistance, I would have been happy to help if I could. I would never have thought that we were being used for gain. Funny....

I do think that you have been honest and clear about your intentions with this car as being only a recreation, Brian. That's certainly something that I appreciate, thanks.

#84 Brian Nordby

Brian Nordby
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 March 2005 - 08:36

Gerr
Great point. Appreciation comes in many forms. I have tried to be as up front as I can, but I have found it nessesary to hold my cards close. Thanks for your observation.
So after having stated my plea and induring some bashing and some welcomed support, I will lay some of my cards on the table (cliche edicted).
It has been pointed out to me, through the help of this site, that not only is Roy Gane ( Penske's Mechanic ) still alive but also his place of employment. Though I'm not at all comfortable with contacting him there, and I'm not sure how to procede. I would like to get his blessing ( if you will ) and his help, not only for accuracy but to also lend an aire of legitamcy (oh!!! I know I will hear this repeated back to me). Also Harry Tidmarsh ( Zerex, body builder) is also still with us and I would also like to get his input.
I guess this is where I introduce myself. I love to restore cars back to their former "original" selves. Some of the cars I have worked on have gone to Pebble Beach, Forest Grove, Dearborn. Their owners have won first places with that goal in mind. I am pleased to have been a part of that. But even more than the love for restoration I love to make parts that are no longer available. For instance [URL=http://home.comcast.net/~seattledl/B_29_Before_After.html] ( pictures in my shop is at the bottom of the page) one of my current projects. To make an accurate part that fits and looks good is my payoff. Yes I charge for my work and it's very labor intensive. But I'm not getting rich yet. I still rent the house I live in. I rent the shop I work out of. I owe for some of the tools I work with, and I owe for the taxes on the money I make. No appologies.
I think I do some nice work. So when one my clients asks me if I would be interested in making a copy of a version of a car that no longer exists (period). Yeah, you bet I jumped at the chance to make a car from scratch ( one of my top goals ). I don't profess to know a lot about race cars, but I know people who do, my client being one of them. There are alot of very historic race car here in the northwest. Some, I've worked on, some, I know the people who work on them. Yes, there are some people that have a lot of money and some of them do good things with it. I personal think this car was yet another beautiful example of what we as humans are capable, and in my humble opinion is worthy of being recreated as. if nothing else. a peice of rolling art.
Still, I'm just looking for some help.

Yours truly, Brian

#85 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 05 March 2005 - 09:16

I must clear up a point I made earlier.

All of the cars in the Chaparral museum are original based on their original bodywork & chassis, converted back from later specification cars where necessary.
Only the 2E sit-in mock-up isn't.
The replica fibreglass tub car(s?) were not made for the museum.

This means that they haven't got an example of every variation, because there were more variations chassis.
Of course they have the right to produce an example of every version, but they are more concerned about history/originality rather than completeness.

But what about something like the Thinwall special where the owner has produced examples of the car in all (5?) of its different specifications, this gives us the opportunity to study the development of the car rather than restricting us to just one of them?

#86 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,903 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 10:26

I just remember that Ferrari appear to have built replicas themselves. Several of the 1979 312T4s exist despite their chassis being used to create 1980 312T5s. In theory, both cars can't exist simultaneously, but they do. I suspect this is similar to the Chaparral situation.

Allen

#87 MKIVJ6

MKIVJ6
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 12:35

Originally posted by Allen Brown
I just remember that Ferrari appear to have built replicas themselves. Several of the 1979 312T4s exist despite their chassis being used to create 1980 312T5s. In theory, both cars can't exist simultaneously, but they do. I suspect this is similar to the Chaparral situation.

Allen


This goes back to the first two Ferrari's ever built. When the 125's were no longer competitive Ferrari deconstructed them, and at a later date re stamped their chassis and built 166 Spyder Corsa's on their scrapped 125 chassis. Should Enzo burn in hell for that as well?

#88 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,903 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 14:14

Originally posted by MKIVJ6
Should Enzo burn in hell for that as well?

I sincerely hope not!

#89 MKIVJ6

MKIVJ6
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 14:30

Originally posted by Allen Brown
I sincerely hope not!


As an aside should any of you wish to see the updated 0846 documents including some recently discovered photo's of 0846 after the Le Mans Fire of 67 PM me and I'll send you a link.

#90 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,075 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 05 March 2005 - 14:51

A long way back someone said that the original Penske Zerex Special was a cheater. It was not! It complied with the rules as they were written.

The rules were loosely framed; Penske read them carefully; he remembered the Bobtail Cooper and realised that something similar would fit the rules; he asked the rule setters whether what he proposed would comply; he was told it was; so he built the car. It was more extreme than the opposition and blew everybody into the weeds. But it did comply with the rules.

If anybody was at fault it was the people who wrote the badly framed rules. They realised this and changed them for the next year and the car was changed to comply.

As to the rights and wrongs of creating a replica, I'll leave that to another posting as the issues are very complex.

#91 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 16:31

The 1962 professional West Coast races were "open" events, sanctioned by USAC but falling under the international FIA rule book. We are not talking about Bobtail Coopers in fifties SCCA and Cal Club races, where no international drivers wer allowed to participate. Based on international FIA rules the original Zerex was a cheater car.

WINO

#92 cabianca

cabianca
  • Member

  • 641 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 20:12

I agree with D-Type on this one and think Wino has it backwards. The Zerex DID comply with FIA rules, it was SCCA rules that it didn't fit. The race in question was run to FIA rules. The "experts" criticized the car because it did not comply with the SCCA rules they were used to. I think that, even though it was a more sporting time, there was enough money on the table that if someone could find fault with the Zerex, they would have protested it. No one did. That should tell us something.

#93 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 20:51

The question is, what FIA rules?
Certainly it would not have complied with WSC rules - AFAIK central-seaters were banned in 1956

#94 cabianca

cabianca
  • Member

  • 641 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 March 2005 - 21:05

Believe it was Appendix C. Perhaps WC races had changed in '56, but maybe organizers could still use Appendix C.

#95 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 22:37

It was FIA Appendix C, with USAC waivers for windshields and doors.

Jim Crow had an interesting article in the Oct 27, 1962 issue of Competition Press about the illegality of Penske's Zerex. The essential part was the fact that the car should have had two seats of equal size, on both sides of the center line of the car. Since it only had a driver's seat one inch to the right of the center steering wheel and a tiny, totally unusable token seat left of the driver, the Zerex was clearly in violation of the rule book and as a result: illegal. The car was banned in its original form on Novembr 2, 1962.


WINO

#96 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,074 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 March 2005 - 23:53

Originally posted by Brian Nordby
.....I guess this is where I introduce myself. I love to restore cars back to their former "original" selves. Some of the cars I have worked on have gone to Pebble Beach, Forest Grove, Dearborn. Their owners have won first places with that goal in mind. I am pleased to have been a part of that. But even more than the love for restoration I love to make parts that are no longer available. For instance ( pictures in my shop is at the bottom of the page) one of my current projects. To make an accurate part that fits and looks good is my payoff. Yes I charge for my work and it's very labor intensive. But I'm not getting rich yet. I still rent the house I live in. I rent the shop I work out of. I owe for some of the tools I work with, and I owe for the taxes on the money I make. No apologies.

I think I do some nice work. So when one my clients asks me if I would be interested in making a copy of a version of a car that no longer exists (period). Yeah, you bet I jumped at the chance to make a car from scratch ( one of my top goals ). I don't profess to know a lot about race cars, but I know people who do, my client being one of them. There are alot of very historic race car here in the northwest. Some, I've worked on, some, I know the people who work on them. Yes, there are some people that have a lot of money and some of them do good things with it. I personal think this car was yet another beautiful example of what we as humans are capable, and in my humble opinion is worthy of being recreated as. if nothing else. a peice of rolling art.

Still, I'm just looking for some help.


And let's hope you find it...

#97 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 March 2005 - 23:55

I forgot to mention, no rule changes were made on November 2, 1962, the day the original Penske Zerex was banned.

WINO

#98 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,075 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 March 2005 - 00:06

Brian, going back to your original question Marsh models made scale models of the 1962 and 1963 versions of the car a couple of years back, which are illustrated in earlier postings. If you contact them via their website, they may let you have copies of the data they used to produce their miniature of the Zerex

This article gives some background to the legality or otherwise of the Zerex. Surely if the USAC Technical Committe ruled the car complied with the regulations for that series then it must be considered legal, regardless of the fact that it didn't comply with the FIA rules. USAC obviously tightened up their rules the next year as Penske modified the car to have two same-sized seats.

#99 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 06 March 2005 - 00:13

D-type,

Once again, USAC did not tighten up its rules for 1963. The Zerex was banned on November 2, 1962, within a month of the West Coast races. No rule changes were necessary for the ban. The car was illegal, pure and simple.

WINO

Advertisement

#100 WINO

WINO
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 06 March 2005 - 00:42

And it is rather risque to use a write-up by one Wayne E. Moyer used in Four Small Wheels as a subsitute for real historical research. The guy does not even know the difference between the SCCA sponsored USRRC series and the USAC sponsored West Coast series. Penske in the Northwest GP a couple of weeks after Riverside? Oh dear! He wasn't even in the one held before Riverside.

WINO