Jump to content


Photo

The Mickey Thompson 'Sears Allstate Special' cars of 1964


  • Please log in to reply
1764 replies to this topic

#651 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 02:51

Mcwire, can i ask you a question? Does all this apply to therories too? After all, arent theories thought up by people? And people are always the problem in error according to you, so does this not make them in error in just about every area as well? Im leaning something new everyday. Thanks, Mike

Advertisement

#652 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 16 November 2007 - 03:40

Originally posted by McGuire


No, that is not a fact. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "mechanical failure." Every component failure without exception can be traced to a human mistake, oversight, or miscalculation. A race car part is just a dumb, insentient object. It cannot fail except or until the laws of physics and mechanics command it to, and when that point arrives it must and will fail. Parts do not fail, people do.

Unless one can show me, ANYTHING, on this planet that is perfect, there is MECHANICAL failure, because nothing IS perfect, and sometime the that which goes askew, can do so in an a manner which never happened before, and MAY NEVER happen again.

Calculated risk, or even simply accepted unknown risk, IS NOT, human error, it is merely stepping into the unknown.
Nothing is a mistake, if there no standard against which to base one's decisions.
It is unknown because nothing has ventured there before, and until someone does, it will always remain that way.

If one does not like an arena where such an attitude exists, then LEAVE and do something else, or to put it at a base level; you pays your money, and you takes your chances.

Some-times-you get the bear, and some-times-the bear gets you.

Bob

#653 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,277 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 November 2007 - 06:13

I can see where McGuire's coming from here, though his approach in explaining lacks a certain element...

For instance, a billet of steel in a crank might have a flaw in it. "Mechanical failure!" you might say... but who didn't find that in the crack testing? A human.

A piece of a suspension might be perfect, but it might break under load. "Mechanical failure?" Yes, but the designer must have either miscalculated the stress or misjudged the load. Human error.

#654 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:35

BOB RIEBE> POST ^652 > That was a super thought out post, took the words right out of my mouth. No humans are perfect in anything period. I thank you very much for your support on this Bob. A good example here would be tires. Many thousands of crashes, some fatal are the result of tire failure, without any punctures or excessive wear, yet they come apart for no apparent reason. A thousand tires can be produced in the same mold using the exact same procedures and with the same balancing machine and operator. Yet, maybe 10 of those tires will come apart at different locations on each tire failure. Some of those failures may result in a crash. Just a case of imperfection, material variation, bonding issues, perhaps a dip in the track caused by weather deterioration, and the list goes on. But, for some strange reason, certain people want to place blame wherever they can, no matter what. Come up with a bunch of theories that sound good, just go with that and forget any facts. That is why i suggested the Cad Cam to measure tire angles in the first place. To look for facts that do exist. I noticed how carefully that subject was avoided and ignored, maybe because certain people do not want to know any facts. Just ride on the theories bandwagon. Its much easier to do it that way and take less overall effort. Plus, it make them feel smarter in some strange way, at least in their minds. But that is human nature, always be a few in any crowd. Thanks again Bob, Mike

#655 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 09:05

Originally posted by Bob Riebe

Unless one can show me, ANYTHING, on this planet that is perfect, there is MECHANICAL failure, because nothing IS perfect, and sometime the that which goes askew, can do so in an a manner which never happened before, and MAY NEVER happen again.

Calculated risk, or even simply accepted unknown risk, IS NOT, human error, it is merely stepping into the unknown.
Nothing is a mistake, if there no standard against which to base one's decisions.
It is unknown because nothing has ventured there before, and until someone does, it will always remain that way.

If one does not like an arena where such an attitude exists, then LEAVE and do something else, or to put it at a base level; you pays your money, and you takes your chances.

Some-times-you get the bear, and some-times-the bear gets you.

Bob


I am telling you how professional racing organizations approach mechanical failure. In preparation you must recognize there is no such thing as chance; all components fail for a reason. You must aim for 0% failure. If you aim for 1% failure the whole process is now out of your control.

For example, read any of Carroll Smith's books on race car preparation. "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MATERIAL FAILURE -- ALL FAILURES ARE HUMAN IN ORIGIN." - Engineer to Win, chapter one, his caps.

#656 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 09:16

Originally posted by old dirt
But, for some strange reason, certain people want to place blame wherever they can, no matter what. Come up with a bunch of theories that sound good, just go with that and forget any facts. That is why i suggested the Cad Cam to measure tire angles in the first place. To look for facts that do exist. I noticed how carefully that subject was avoided and ignored, maybe because certain people do not want to know any facts.


CAD is not the tool for what you had in mind. Won't work. You need forensic photography, and the result will only be as good as the resolution of the photograph. The best place to start is with the original negative.

I would have told you that earlier, but I have been trying to take all your misconceptions one at a time. :D

I have no problem attributing the crash to driver error, because I have a realistic understanding of what the term means in the context of auto racing. With all due respect, you do not. You hold MacDonald to an unfair, unrealtistic and unreasonable standard of performance. Race drivers cannot make mistakes? Please. The best ones ever born make mistakes all the time.

#657 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 09:29

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I can see where McGuire's coming from here, though his approach in explaining lacks a certain element...

For instance, a billet of steel in a crank might have a flaw in it. "Mechanical failure!" you might say... but who didn't find that in the crack testing? A human.

A piece of a suspension might be perfect, but it might break under load. "Mechanical failure?" Yes, but the designer must have either miscalculated the stress or misjudged the load. Human error.


Exactly.

The element lacking is asking people to reason this out for themselves: where do mechanical failures truly originate? Are they just randomly distributed by chance, or does each one have a real cause that can be identified?

I am appalled at the suggestion that we can make 1000 racing tires and 10 of them are going to fail and potentially injure or kill someone, and we must simply accept that as the natural order of things. I am sure glad the people who construct the race tires do not feel that way.

#658 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 10:05

Originally posted by old dirt
Mcwire, can i ask you a question? Does all this apply to therories too? After all, arent theories thought up by people? And people are always the problem in error according to you, so does this not make them in error in just about every area as well? Im leaning something new everyday. Thanks, Mike


Certainly theories can be mistaken. Take yours for example. :D

You are absolutely correct that there are some grey areas in the human enterprise; however, the MacDonald case is not really one of them. It's just not that much of a mystery. Reasonable people can study the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion: the spin was primarily due to driver error. After all, I am the most reasonable person you know and that is the conclusion I reached.

Look at the film and photos. If a part broke there is no sign of it. That is not to say there could not be a part failure, but most often when there is a part failure there is some visible evidence of it. That makes part failure much less likely in this instance -- it would have to be a relatively unusual and subtle failure as the car's alignment and ride height appear to be undisturbed. (Your call for "CAD CAM" notwithstanding.) Meanwhile we can see that if MacDonald had been traveling 3-5 mph slower or had taken a better line through the corner, the rear of the car would not have stepped out him and this spin and crash would not have occurred. You may come to other conclusions if you insist, but that is by far the most probable one.

#659 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,744 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 16 November 2007 - 10:34

Originally posted by McGuire
Meanwhile we can see that if MacDonald had been traveling 3-5 mph slower or had taken a better line through the corner, the rear of the car would not have stepped out him and this spin and crash would not have occurred. You may come to other conclusions if you insist, but that is by far the most probable one.

The smartest thing so far in this thread.

Advertisement

#660 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 11:10

I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU EARLIER, BUY I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE ALL YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS ONE AT A TIME > I didnt realize you were a genius McGuire. That is the reason you can theorize everything while others must struggle to obtain facts. And of course, your theories are always 100% correct, i believe that is a reasonable statement to make. After all, a genius can never be wrong, even in theory. You should have told everone this from the start of this thread. You hold back so much knowledge, and release it at such a slow pace, even in all your misstatements. But then, all reasonable people like you think this way. Yea, right. As long as you blame others, no one will even notice. Im just glad i never had to race you! I think i would pull into the pits before the start for my own safety. But on second thought, you can never make any mistakes, i forgot. Must be nice to take such a high view of yourself, unfortunately, you may be the only one, unless you have a dog.

#661 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2007 - 11:23

:evil:

For a new guy on the block you have a very sharp tongue! This place is normally a very courteous one, and we don't like barking (or even snapping) dogs - I suggest you lower your tone, or get elsewhere!

#662 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:13

Originally posted by Catalina Park
The smartest thing so far in this thread.


I certainly can't take any credit for it. That is essentially what most have been saying since the thread began. It was more or less the consensus in 1964 just as it is now: MacDonald's spin was primarily due to driver error.

I think people get hung up on the phrase "driver error," like it is a point of shame. Drivers are paid to operate within a very small margin of safety -- even moreso back then. It's their job to hang it out there at the extreme end of the envelope. Totally unlike say, airline pilots, who are tasked with maximizing the margin of safety, making the envelope as large as they can. So "driver error" is a very different thing than "pilot error." I don't think people realize that lots of drivers at Indy that day in '64 surely made similar mistakes. They just got away with them.

I strongly object to the idea that MacDonald commited some horrible crime for which he must be cleared. But clearly that is the motivation for some of the truly obsessive behavior here in trying to invent alternative explanations for the crash, many of them out of thin air. They need to stop it. He didn't do anything that requires exoneration. He was a courageous and talented guy doing his job.

#663 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:21

old dirt

1) You're not the only one here who has raced.

2) Listen to Fines. I've crossed swords with McGuire here before but I'd like to think that I've done so in a more civil manner than you show in your most recent post. In this case I happen to agree with him.

#664 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:22

I sincerely apologize for any offensive remarks that i made to McGuire or anyone else here. He is a highly intelligent guy, i know that. I did not come here to offend anyone, just to help Dave out as a former racer. You are correct that i am new on this block, but i do respect others opinions, even if i disagree. McGuire is trying to make sense of this accident, so we have a mutual understanding and goal. I did try hard at the start not to offend anyone, but if you let someone pummel you, that trend often continues or gets worse. Same in racing. In other words, i appreciate respect, but i am more than willing to give respect. So again, my sincere apology to everyone here. Its like in racing, you can fight it out, and 5 minutes later your shaking the guys hand and be best of friends. So McGuire, i do like you, your a fine man, and hope you feel likewise. I extend my hand of friendship. God Bless, Thanks, Mike

#665 Michael Oliver

Michael Oliver
  • Member

  • 883 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:46

Originally posted by old dirt
I sincerely apologize for any offensive remarks that i made to McGuire or anyone else here. He is a highly intelligent guy, i know that. I did not come here to offend anyone, just to help Dave out as a former racer. You are correct that i am new on this block, but i do respect others opinions, even if i disagree. McGuire is trying to make sense of this accident, so we have a mutual understanding and goal. I did try hard at the start not to offend anyone, but if you let someone pummel you, that trend often continues or gets worse. Same in racing. In other words, i appreciate respect, but i am more than willing to give respect. So again, my sincere apology to everyone here. Its like in racing, you can fight it out, and 5 minutes later your shaking the guys hand and be best of friends. So McGuire, i do like you, your a fine man, and hope you feel likewise. I extend my hand of friendship. God Bless, Thanks, Mike


Mike: Don't feel too bad about it, to be honest if I were on the receiving end of some of the comments you've had to endure from McGuire, I'd have snapped long ago! But I guess in this forum we

McGuire: I respect the fact that you have a lot of very strong opinions on a wide range of subjects and that you think you are right on just about all of them by the look of it but - and I have pointed this out to other posters on here - a touch of humility would not go amiss.

So perhaps the language could be toned down a bit and absolute statements could be adjusted to "I think..." or "It is my firm belief..." so that you demonstrate that you respect other people's right to have an opinion on the subject, even if you believe or even have factors to demonstrate that those opinions are incorrect.

FWIW, I happen to hold the same opinion about the most likely cause of the crash but trying to shout someone down, patronise them or pummell them with your point of view is not the way that we tend to do things on this forum.

Fines: do the words pot, kettle and black ring any bells...?!

Michael

#666 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:56

Originally posted by Michael Oliver
Fines: do the words pot, kettle and black ring any bells...?!

;) I thought for once I'd get away with it... :D

Seriously, I don't think you can accuse McGuire of "shouting down", "patronising" or "pummelling" anyone here, it's just that simple things are made extremely complicated here by several posters who really don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about. McGuire's is the voice of reason here, and if you go back and reread his posts I'm sure you'll notice.

This thread has gone so far off track that I sometimes wonder why I still care to take a look - it's just that it promised at times to find its feet, only to rumble off into the rough again... too bad! :(

#667 Michael Oliver

Michael Oliver
  • Member

  • 883 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 15:17

Originally posted by fines

;) I thought for once I'd get away with it... :D

Seriously, I don't think you can accuse McGuire of "shouting down", "patronising" or "pummelling" anyone here, it's just that simple things are made extremely complicated here by several posters who really don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about. McGuire's is the voice of reason here, and if you go back and reread his posts I'm sure you'll notice.

This thread has gone so far off track that I sometimes wonder why I still care to take a look - it's just that it promised at times to find its feet, only to rumble off into the rough again... too bad! :(


LOL!

I agree that there are people who are perhaps trying to find a more complicated explanation for what is in all likelihood a fairly straightforward instance of a driver making a mistake and spinning - albeit with disastrous consequences. All drivers make mistakes, even the great Jim Clark spun at Indy (twice in one race in 66, IIRC?) but the difference was that he gathered it all up and continued, whereas Dave wasn't able to.

I think that the only way this thread is going to make a genuine leap forward is if a photo comes to light that can be blown up and which shows something amiss, e.g. wheels out of alignment etc. Until then, we are boxing in the dark, in terms of looking for 'evidence'.

Michael

#668 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,908 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 November 2007 - 15:24

Another way of looking at the accident.

Looks likely as a human error, enhanced by circumstances regarding the quality of the car.
The accident itself could have been pretty harmless and likely wasn't that violent if there never had been a fire and all the havoc that caused for the other drivers that followed.

Which is, for once and for all the approval that no accident, mild or violent can be safe.
Unlike what I'vce seen as being posted out here when Suzuka 1990 was brought up and some diehard Senna fans stated that having an accident at that area of the track was pretty harmless given the large run-off area. And thereby excusing to deliberately cause an accident.
McDonald could have had a fairly mild accident yet something worked against him that makes his accident one of the worst ever registered. It makes every accident. how innocent it appears to be a risky event.

At the same time, a devastating accident may not be fatal after all. Senna was killed at Tamburello but Gerhard berger and Nelson Piquet had some pretty devastating accidents there but lived to tell and raced on.
Or what about Danny Ongais in 1981. He was lucky, Smiley one year later wasn't.
Marcello and Brayton didn't appear as violent as that of Danny. But....

That is likely one of the tragedies of MacDonald's mishap. His accident could have so easily been a rookie error that was soon to be forgotten but in his case all odds stacked up against him and made his accident a nigthmare.
Bobby Unser messed up big time too one year before in his rookie year too. But we remember him for other things because he got away with it.

Luck is a big factor too in every accident, and regrettably one we can't control. And poor Dave didn't have the slightest piece of luck in his accident, no matter what caused it.

Henri

#669 Johnny Mac

Johnny Mac
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 16 November 2007 - 23:02

This is a very interesting subject as I knew Eddie when he stayed at Lake Shafer with Jim Bryan, Cal Niday, Rodger Ward and others during the summer of 53 or 54. My stepdad was Jimmy Davies during this period. Eddie was full of life prior to making a success of racing as well as achieving his dream of being a Indy driver. Wonderfull man.

I watched the accident on closed circuit in LA.

This photo was taken by a friend at the race and I thought it might be of interest as I assume it has never been published. He started taking photos just as Dave contacted the wall and took as many as he could manually. I don't have access to the other shots but felt the quality of this shot would be of interest.

John McDowell


Posted Image

#670 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 16 November 2007 - 23:10

"There are 20,000 parts in the average race car.
If you're operating at 99.9% efficiency.

You still have 20 parts that aren't working."

Jim Hall

#671 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 23:25

Originally posted by Johnny Mac
This is a very interesting subject as I knew Eddie when he stayed at Lake Shafer with Jim Bryan, Cal Niday, Rodger Ward and others during the summer of 53 or 54. My stepdad was Jimmy Davies during this period. Eddie was full of life prior to making a success of racing as well as achieving his dream of being a Indy driver. Wonderfull man.

I watched the accident on closed circuit in LA.

This photo was taken by a friend at the race and I thought it might be of interest as I assume it has never been published. He started taking photos just as Dave contacted the wall and took as many as he could manually. I don't have access to the other shots but felt the quality of this shot would be of interest.

John McDowell


Posted Image



Wow! That is a very powerful image...thank you for posting it. I've never before seen a shot of Sachs just before he hit MacDonald. This view is very unique! All those cars running together directly in line with the spinning car, no wonder so many people who saw the crash thought there might have been 5 or 6 drivers killed...it's a wonder there weren't. This shot really brings that home.


Dan

#672 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 00:43

There is a video that mirrors that photo on youtube. Go to the search bar there and type in Audioslave "Gasoline" - Rare Vintage Indy Car Footage. It is a 4:40 min. clip shot from the outside grandstand. You can see Eddie jumping on the brakes at the last second, and looks like Rutherford going under Eddies rear end. Its replayed in slow motion and is of decent quality. I would post the link but i dont know how to paste here. Also at the start of the clip note Eddie Johnsons car at the beginning of the parade lap.

#673 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 17 November 2007 - 00:52

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Another way of looking at the accident.

Looks likely as a human error, enhanced by circumstances regarding the quality of the car.
The accident itself could have been pretty harmless and likely wasn't that violent if there never had been a fire and all the havoc that caused for the other drivers that followed.

Which is, for once and for all the approval that no accident, mild or violent can be safe.
Unlike what I'vce seen as being posted out here when Suzuka 1990 was brought up and some diehard Senna fans stated that having an accident at that area of the track was pretty harmless given the large run-off area. And thereby excusing to deliberately cause an accident.
McDonald could have had a fairly mild accident yet something worked against him that makes his accident one of the worst ever registered. It makes every accident. how innocent it appears to be a risky event.

At the same time, a devastating accident may not be fatal after all. Senna was killed at Tamburello but Gerhard berger and Nelson Piquet had some pretty devastating accidents there but lived to tell and raced on.
Or what about Danny Ongais in 1981. He was lucky, Smiley one year later wasn't.
Marcello and Brayton didn't appear as violent as that of Danny. But....

That is likely one of the tragedies of MacDonald's mishap. His accident could have so easily been a rookie error that was soon to be forgotten but in his case all odds stacked up against him and made his accident a nigthmare.
Bobby Unser messed up big time too one year before in his rookie year too. But we remember him for other things because he got away with it.

Luck is a big factor too in every accident, and regrettably one we can't control. And poor Dave didn't have the slightest piece of luck in his accident, no matter what caused it.

Henri

THere is no such thing as luck, period.

There is playing with fate, or the fates, but fortune or misfortune is always a calculated item.
One makes or accepts the odds, LUCK does not exist.

Bob

#674 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 November 2007 - 05:21

Yes that photo is amazing. I never saw the lineup of cars on the other side of the fire before. Thank you for posting Johnny Mac. I learned something there.

#675 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,277 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 November 2007 - 12:15

Of course, Buford, you were the other side of that wall of smoke...

Originally posted by old dirt
There is a video that mirrors that photo on youtube. Go to the search bar there and type in Audioslave "Gasoline" - Rare Vintage Indy Car Footage. It is a 4:40 min. clip shot from the outside grandstand. You can see Eddie jumping on the brakes at the last second, and looks like Rutherford going under Eddies rear end. Its replayed in slow motion and is of decent quality. I would post the link but i dont know how to paste here. Also at the start of the clip note Eddie Johnsons car at the beginning of the parade lap.


Here you go...

You can see the train of cars coming up on the wreck... then the impact drives the wreck down the track with an increasing amount of flame surrounding it all.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Basically, what seems to have happened there is that Eddie Sachs' car essentially pushed the MacDonald car out of everyone's way. Not that they escaped the flames, of course, but they missed the worst of it.

#676 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 17 November 2007 - 12:24

Originally posted by TrackDog



Wow! That is a very powerful image...thank you for posting it. I've never before seen a shot of Sachs just before he hit MacDonald. This view is very unique! All those cars running together directly in line with the spinning car, no wonder so many people who saw the crash thought there might have been 5 or 6 drivers killed...it's a wonder there weren't. This shot really brings that home.


Dan


WOW! And our friend Lotus23 could perhaps be one of the fans pictured.

This new photograph gives hope that others may be out there that can put some topics we have been disucssing to rest or provide some new evidence that is missing.

Henry

#677 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 November 2007 - 19:36

Originally posted by Johnny Mac
This is a very interesting subject as I knew Eddie when he stayed at Lake Shafer with Jim Bryan, Cal Niday, Rodger Ward and others during the summer of 53 or 54. My stepdad was Jimmy Davies during this period. Eddie was full of life prior to making a success of racing as well as achieving his dream of being a Indy driver. Wonderfull man.

I watched the accident on closed circuit in LA.

This photo was taken by a friend at the race and I thought it might be of interest as I assume it has never been published. He started taking photos just as Dave contacted the wall and took as many as he could manually. I don't have access to the other shots but felt the quality of this shot would be of interest.

John McDowell


Posted Image

Yes, the quality is excellent! You can almost count the leaves on the big tree...

I don't think we had that good a picture before showing the "offside" of the accident - there was the one from Turn 4 down the home straight, but it wasn't very clear and did show the cars only from behind. Here now we can firmly establish the order of the cars as Sachs-Rutherford-Duman-Unser; no real surprises here, but the closeness of that quartet is quite amazing! I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of bumping going on in that fireball, in fact I find it hard to believe that Rutherford would have been able to stop his heavy roadster from hitting Sachs (and bumping him into MacDonald?).

Something else: I finally got around to downloading the Flash player to view these Youtube feeds, but I have difficulty in handling it, perhaps someone out there can help me: how do you watch these feeds frame by frame, and how do you save a frame to your hard disk? I am still finding interesting details, but would like to investigate more thoroughly!

#678 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,277 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 November 2007 - 19:42

There might be better ways, Fee-nes, but what I did was simply hit the 'print screen' and 'alt' buttons, pasted to Irfanview and cropped the pics...

#679 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 November 2007 - 20:02

I had the life magazine photo from the inside of the track in my collection but it went to the Watkins Glen museum with the photo collection so I cant scan it. But it clearly showed the rear end of Sachs's car well up in the air immediately after impact, and Rutherford went under it and was veering to his left and then went over the top of Mac Donald's car and emerged on the other side. It was during this time the lemon around Eddie's neck entered the radiator slot in the front of the roadster they found in the garage later.

Another thing from the photo. Notice the smoke and massive fire just from the one car and it extends completely to the inside wall. The 4 drivers in the chain following had simply nowhere to go. They did not know where the car was and tried to make it to the outside gap before it closed. That accident was not survivable for Mac Donald even if he had not been hit as that fire shows. He was being fatally burned even before his car was hit by Sachs and Rutherford. Had they not hit him there is a small chance he could have freed himself and gotten out but in the days before Nomex it would not been soon enough to survive I am afraid.

Another thing I just noticed. Look at the safety worker in the blue shirt center of screen, directly below Unser the 4th car back. He is already reacting with his fire extinguisher. He must have been the guy who was vainly trying to fight the fire from outside the track. You can see in the videos a fire bottle being shot from over the wall through the fence.

Advertisement

#680 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 20:45

This is a very revealing photo. It is clear that Dave backed into the wall at an angle, not flush. The right rear wheel and suspension were almost torn completely off. Here is where we have to start thinking. When the right rear wheel and hub bit or dug into the wall, the front end of the car jerked back to the left or towards the track throwing the car into a counter clockwise spin back onto the track. That event clearly saved the right FRONT tire and wheel assembly from damage. If you go back and look at the aftermath side view photo, closely examine the right front tire and wheel assembly. The tire is still inflated and no apparent damage to the wheel. However, the camber is considerably negative. Probably more than 5 degrees. Go back to the current photo and closely observe the extensive positive camber of the right front wheel & tire. This is not an optical illusion. Bear in mind also, in the currently posted photo, Dave has not yet been struck by Eddies car. One can say then that after Eddies car rammed Dave, it broke the steering assembly off. What about the other suspension components? Were they still in tack or did they also sustain damage prior to the initial impact. In order for the right front tire to lay in towards the car, or negative camber, something was clearly amiss. Ok. But before Daves car was hit, the high positive camber becomes an issue. To go that far positive, without prior damage in the initial wall strike, we can assume something was amiss or damaged before the initial contact with the wall. Forgetting about all the theories that have been previously posted here for a moment, try to comprehend what is actually showing in both photos, and draw a conclusion on what we are observing. Whats your guys take here? And please dont tell me that im crazy, i already know that! Thanks, Mike

#681 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 November 2007 - 20:54

If you have looked that closely for clues, surely you'll have noticed that the car did spin counter-clockwise as well as clock-wise after the impact with the wall, have you?

#682 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:08

Could be it was broken in the crash and wobbling and when the car was at rest it ended with negative camber.

#683 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:11

Yes, i have more than 500 hours of factual research. Whats your take on the camber issue? Mike

#684 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:25

I have a photo taken from a videotape of MacDonald sliding back up the track after hittting the inside wall; it must've been taken at about the same instant that Johnny Mac's photo, but from the opposite side of the track.. In it, I can see that the chassis is fairly straight, and the bodywork is missing from the right side of the car. The right front wheel is fairly straight, almost in the 12 o'clock position, but it is also toed waaay out, at at least a 30 degree angle, maybe more. The steering had been damaged, certainly...I believe that both right-side corners of the car hit the wall; but, as you've indicated, the right rear hit was the most severe. It would seem that the frame was damaged by the impact with Sach's car...he apparently hit MacDonald just about dead-center between his left-side wheels;bending the cockpit section of Dave's car at about a 20-30 degree angle to the left, and also upward to a degree. According to content in post # 132 [rather graphic...], MacDonald was still conscious as the car came to rest...but I imagine that he was wedged in by the damage from being broadsided.

Mickey Thompson was adamant after the fact that MacDonald would have survived the crash, if Sachs hadn't hit him, according to content from post # 193. Of course, this must be taken with a certain grain of salt, since Thompson had a vested interest in the outcome; but Dave DID survive both impacts and explosions, if only for a couple of hours.


I've not had much luck posting photos here, so I'll try to post a link to the pohoto I've described, when I can find it.


Dan

#685 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:34

Is there any way you can get that photo posted TrackDog? Mike

#686 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,277 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:44

To say that the right front wheel didn't hit the wall is to be speculating beyond reason, IMO...

Even if the car did flick out away from the wall, it's very likely the front wheel hit momentarily. In fact, the front wheel hitting the wall would have helped it to flick away as described. So that corner was very likely no longer intact.

#687 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 21:57

You may be right Ray, but in all due respect that would also be speculation as well. Do you know that is what happened as a fact Ray? I am trying not to assume or rule out anything if possible. Mike

#688 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 November 2007 - 22:20

Originally posted by old dirt
Yes, i have more than 500 hours of factual research. Whats your take on the camber issue? Mike

Then you can't be helped... :shrug:

#689 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 November 2007 - 22:20

The right front almost certainly hit the wall because the nose of the car was tilted up at an angle sticking out from the flames. In other words front end damage after the initial inside wall contact.

#690 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 17 November 2007 - 22:29

I guess my only question is: if we want to know what the RF camber was doing BEFORE the crash, why are we are trying to sort out a photo from AFTER the crash? That doesn't seem terribly clever. Why don't we look at a photo from BEFORE the crash? Wouldn't that be a more productive approach?

This photo was snapped a mere instant before the impact. Nothing visibly wrong with the RF camber here. Looks like we can now move on to the next fascinating theory.

Posted Image

#691 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 22:57

I have more than a few hrs. viewing that photo McGuire. Try blowing up that pic directly over the front tire. You will notice an object that has a shape if you closely. By the way, good to see you posting again. The shape of that object is formed like 2 pieces flowing into 1. Also note the inner front fender skirt upright. In the front corner you will notice a piece missing. Now post Daves car from the direct overhead shot if you have it. Its a black and white photo. Look down at the same corner carefully. You will see the piece that appears in your last post. The tire struck the inner upright with enough force to break it off. That takes about 4.5 inches of negative camber to touch point on the skirt. To break it off, maybe a bit more. This you will see from the overhead photo. Mike

#692 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:03

Originally posted by TrackDog
I have a photo taken from a videotape of MacDonald sliding back up the track after hittting the inside wall; it must've been taken at about the same instant that Johnny Mac's photo, but from the opposite side of the track.. In it, I can see that the chassis is fairly straight, and the bodywork is missing from the right side of the car. The right front wheel is fairly straight, almost in the 12 o'clock position, but it is also toed waaay out, at at least a 30 degree angle, maybe more. The steering had been damaged, certainly...I believe that both right-side corners of the car hit the wall; but, as you've indicated, the right rear hit was the most severe. It would seem that the frame was damaged by the impact with Sach's car...he apparently hit MacDonald just about dead-center between his left-side wheels;bending the cockpit section of Dave's car at about a 20-30 degree angle to the left, and also upward to a degree. According to content in post # 132 [rather graphic...], MacDonald was still conscious as the car came to rest...but I imagine that he was wedged in by the damage from being broadsided.

Mickey Thompson was adamant after the fact that MacDonald would have survived the crash, if Sachs hadn't hit him, according to content from post # 193. Of course, this must be taken with a certain grain of salt, since Thompson had a vested interest in the outcome; but Dave DID survive both impacts and explosions, if only for a couple of hours.


I've not had much luck posting photos here, so I'll try to post a link to the pohoto I've described, when I can find it.


Dan



I've found the website that I gleaned the photo from. The shot is actually a framegrab from the DVD "The Roadster's Last Triumph" available from First Turn Productions. Here's the link:

http//www.firstturn.net/ftp64.html

Just right click on the thumbnail, it's the last one on the bottom row. There's also a great shot of Johnny Rutherford coming through the flames, and some interesting shots of several other cars, including the Ferguson-chassis Novi that Bobby Unser drove, and the Hurst Floorshift Special .

In my previous post, I mentioned Dave's right front wheel being toed out...I was actually referring to the camber of the wheel.


Dan

#693 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:16

One important thing i forgot to mention. I had been using professional photo detail stuff. That did enabled me to see that photos much clearer than you are viewing, unless you are using the same photo shop plugin. Infared is free, but is no match in quality compared to the pro plugin. Basically the pics i had were like modern digital stuff.

#694 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:16

Originally posted by old dirt
I have more than a few hrs. viewing that photo McGuire. Try blowing up that pic directly over the front tire. You will notice an object that has a shape if you closely. By the way, good to see you posting again. The shape of that object is formed like 2 pieces flowing into 1. Also note the inner front fender skirt upright. In the front corner you will notice a piece missing. Now post Daves car from the direct overhead shot if you have it. Its a black and white photo. Look down at the same corner carefully. You will see the piece that appears in your last post. The tire struck the inner upright with enough force to break it off. That takes about 4.5 inches of negative camber to touch point on the skirt. To break it off, maybe a bit more. This you will see from the overhead photo. Mike


Mike, does this help with what you are saying? I have always wondered about the part hanging down with no damage.....................if suspension part could a nut have come off? As you mentioned both front tires are still inflated and not any damage that can be viewed.

Just an observation gentlemen.

Posted Image

Henry

#695 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:30

I had that photo in digital high quality also Henry. I think the Corvair stock balljoints was a VERY weak link in the suspension. They were designed for less than 10% of the side loading G Forces which the Indy cars were capable of in 64. I did some research on that as well. I hate to theorize, but i believe that is the part that failed in Masten Gregorys crash. Also had that photo very nice. Its a poor quality pic as posted. Your the Man Henry, Mike

#696 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:44

Henry, i rode around for a half an hour last month to find Eddies place in Richmond Hts. There is like 50 streets there now!!!! I asked about 4 people and no one knew where the street was. It shows up on google map, but just try to find it! I figured maybe his his son still lives there he would know something of substance. I know he lived in Chagrin Falls or something in 64, but he moved to Richmond Hts. soon after because of the airport. I tried buddie! Mike

#697 old dirt

old dirt
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 November 2007 - 23:50

I feel smaller than Pistone on this forum, going up against Buddie Baker or something! I need help! I got Fines though, he loves me for sure. Only kidding guys. Help me Henry, Please> little mike now

#698 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 18 November 2007 - 00:15

Originally posted by old dirt
I had that photo in digital high quality also Henry. I think the Corvair stock balljoints was a VERY weak link in the suspension. They were designed for less than 10% of the side loading G Forces which the Indy cars were capable of in 64. I did some research on that as well. I hate to theorize, but i believe that is the part that failed in Masten Gregorys crash. Also had that photo very nice. Its a poor quality pic as posted. Your the Man Henry, Mike



Could that be the broken suspension part that was supposed to have been at the center of that phone call to a journalist that was mentioned early in this thread? Nobody ever ID'd the part, and the whole event seemed to be rather spurious, almost bizzarre. Why would anybody make use of a part that was that weak?


Dan

#699 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 18 November 2007 - 00:16

Mike,

Are you saying that in between the time of the photo in McGuire's post #690 and the point of impact, with the car in a rather slow spin, that the car rotated around enough to hit rear tire first?

I'd love to see your 500 0hours of factual research rather than just your conclusions.

Advertisement

#700 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 18 November 2007 - 00:32

Originally posted by MPea3
Mike,

Are you saying that in between the time of the photo in McGuire's post #690 and the point of impact, with the car in a rather slow spin, that the car rotated around enough to hit rear tire first?

I'd love to see your 500 0hours of factual research rather than just your conclusions.



When the car hit the grass, it brought the rear end around rather quickly. That hasn't happenned yet in this photo.


Dan