Jump to content


Photo

The Mickey Thompson 'Sears Allstate Special' cars of 1964


  • Please log in to reply
1764 replies to this topic

#151 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 22 August 2007 - 22:59

originally posted by Bob Mackenzie
For the aerodynamic reasons alone, the 1964 Thompson Indy cars must have been incredibly unstable both cornering and in a straight line.

I've never heard this argument raised by anyone else (and they certainly wouldn't likely have considered it back in 1964) so I'd be curious to hear what other people think about this as a possible cause for the handling problems of the 1964 Thompson Indy cars.

As to the cause of the accident, MacDonald was driving very aggressively and picking up places quickly. In a Lotus or any other more conventional car this might have led him to an excellent finish in his rookie year. But he was barely able to keep the Thompson car under control under the best of circumstances. I think that based on the above and what others have written here that as he tried to pass Hansgen, something caused Dave MacDonald to react and put his car into a condition from which he could not recover.

I think you are right, probably aerodynamics was the main reason for the kind of problems they had, although other causes may had contribute, but were only punctual and must had been of less importance.

Advertisement

#152 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 22 August 2007 - 23:24

Originally posted by David M. Kane
Historic Mustang:

Using the tubing for cooling was very, very common in the day. My wife's Lotus 22 is built that was, Royale RP3As were done that was as well as Meryln Mk.11A. I also think a lot of brabhams like BT-29s using the frame tubing for running coolant from the rad to the engine in the rear.

R.W. MacKenzie all of your points are excellent. I particularly agree with you on the tires, plus 60+ gallons of fuel is a lot of weight splashing around in 140mph+ corners!


Then a small crack could produce small coolant spills under pressure?

Henry

#153 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 August 2007 - 23:35

Henry, that's something I've never once heard of happening...

Not that it's impossible, of course. But usually the tubes carrying the coolant are only the ones that travel the length of the chassis. Bulkheads and suspension mounts are usually welded to, but unlikely to stress these tubes.

Generally, I think you're reaching a bit too far. Like I've just posted, you need more and better pictures of the car during that slide. Without visible evidence of something being broken, you'd be clutching at straws to find anything else.

My advice is concentrate on finding those. There are some good pics, but if you find the negatives you'll have even better pics. There will be more out there, just find it. Especially look for colour slides.

#154 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 22 August 2007 - 23:49

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Henry, that's something I've never once heard of happening...

Not that it's impossible, of course. But usually the tubes carrying the coolant are only the ones that travel the length of the chassis. Bulkheads and suspension mounts are usually welded to, but unlikely to stress these tubes.

Generally, I think you're reaching a bit too far. Like I've just posted, you need more and better pictures of the car during that slide. Without visible evidence of something being broken, you'd be clutching at straws to find anything else.

My advice is concentrate on finding those. There are some good pics, but if you find the negatives you'll have even better pics. There will be more out there, just find it. Especially look for colour slides.


Thanks Ray!

Frontal photographs in this thread have already been digitized without much success so these need to be exposed to higher means or perhaps there are others not yet located at Indy and I understand there may be a few at Watkins Glen.

I often wonder how many thousands of photographs were being taken on the second lap of the world's greatest race in 1964.

Henry

#155 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 August 2007 - 00:13

Exoneration of Dave MacDonald would be a nice thing if it's possible, Henry...

But at the same time it might tend to indict the designers, fabricators and the owner of the cars to some degree.

What I guess I'm getting at is this: Your need is to get to the truth, not to prove one thing or another is true, rather to get as much evidence as you can to show what actually happened. No matter who it tends to implicate.

After all, the guys were out there racing. Everything is at the cutting edge, everyone is working at the limit. If Dave MacDonald essentially died because he was in over his head, he wouldn't be the first nor the last. If it happened because of a breakage, it was not unusual for this at that time.

Just look for the evidence you need to swing the scales whichever way they will swing. After all, everyone closely involved has been dead for some time. Walt Hansgen, Eddie Sachs, Dave MacDonald, Mickey Thompson and others. It means nothing to them now, even though their families might get some relief or satisfaction from knowing more.

But in the main, their grief has long passed too. Answers they want, sure. But not undue vindication, surely?

#156 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 August 2007 - 00:27

Well stated Ray.

#157 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 August 2007 - 01:51

43 years after the fact, it is ALL CONJECTURE, to say it is anything else is not only a lie, but damned lie..
Bob

#158 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 02:22

Here is a picture of the start of the race that I don't believe has been posted anywhere before:

Posted Image

The picture is scanned from "Racing Cars Racing Cars Racing Cars Racing Cars" by Richard Hough (published by Paul Hamlyn Ltd., London, 1966) which I got for Christmas in 1968. According to the acknowledgements at the back of the book the picture was provided by Peterson Publishing Company, Los Angeles, California and I'm sure this image remains their property. I don't have their permission to post it but I'm hoping that by giving the above credit I've covered any copyright concerns.

After I scanned the image I added the driver names in Microsoft Paint. (That's as sophisticated as I get.) The names are placed over the names I wrote in ink when I was a kid. (I had a habit I now regret of writing drivers' names on perfectly good pictures in perfectly good books not realizing how it would affect their future value and usefulness.)

Originally posted by ovfi
2-On Sports Car Graphic, august 1964, pages 22 & 23, we can see pictures of the cars as they entered turn #1 on the first lap;


ovfi,

Any chance you could scan and post thoase pictures?

Bob Mackenzie

#159 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 23 August 2007 - 02:53

Here it is! I didn't added the names but I wrote them on post #23

Posted Image

Posted Image

Advertisement

#160 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 23 August 2007 - 04:19

I want to say something: I'm Brazilian, English isn't my mother language, so forgive me for any misunderstandings in the text. I have many American relatives from the Burks family of Oregon, but everybody speaks both languages, so I'm not used to speak exclusively in English...
What attracted me to this thread is that I have a great interest in learning everything about this accident because it occurred when I was a teenager in my very firsts personal contacts with the racing world, my idols at the time were Fangio (my father's heritage), Jim Clark, Bird Clemente (a Brazilian driver), and my most recent admiration was for Dave Mac Donald's style of driving.
I think this thread is doing very well in dissect what happened, mainly from pictures and testimonies. I think this is Henry's intent from the beginning, and he's making some pressure as to not end on easy conclusions.
This is the reason why I'm posting and reading everything here, and as said by Ray Bell "I think what Henry needs here is more and better photos of MacDonald's car in that fateful final slide". I would add that we need also photos showing Mac Donald's car in turns #3 and #4, shortly before the fateful slide.

#161 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 09:14

Originally posted by ovfi
I want to say something: I'm Brazilian, English isn't my mother language, so forgive me for any misunderstandings in the text. I have many American relatives from the Burks family of Oregon, but everybody speaks both languages, so I'm not used to speak exclusively in English...
What attracted me to this thread is that I have a great interest in learning everything about this accident because it occurred when I was a teenager in my very firsts personal contacts with the racing world, my idols at the time were Fangio (my father's heritage), Jim Clark, Bird Clemente (a Brazilian driver), and my most recent admiration was for Dave Mac Donald's style of driving.
I think this thread is doing very well in dissect what happened, mainly from pictures and testimonies. I think this is Henry's intent from the beginning, and he's making some pressure as to not end on easy conclusions.
This is the reason why I'm posting and reading everything here, and as said by Ray Bell "I think what Henry needs here is more and better photos of MacDonald's car in that fateful final slide". I would add that we need also photos showing Mac Donald's car in turns #3 and #4, shortly before the fateful slide.


This has been explaned better than I have been able to with numerous post.

My interest is up to the moment of crash.

Thanks so much as your English is perfect and thank you Ray for getting me going in the correct direction.

Henry

#162 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 09:50

Originally posted by R.W. Mackenzie
Not to stir the pot (rereading the posts in this fascinating thread I've noticed emotions raised here and there) but several things just occurred to me.

1. Under it's unique bodywork, the cars of MacDonald and Johnson were fairly conventional space frames and appear to have been reasonably well designed and built. (I realize others have argued to the contrary.) With conventional bodywork the car should have been as well handling as any of the other rear-engined entries (with the possible exception of the Lotuses). The change to 15" wheels certainly caused a change from optimum suspension geometry and settings but in itself shouldn't have made it as diabolical as it is reported to have been. But if they dropped the ride height to offset the increase in tire diameter without changing the suspension geometry itself and then added and extra heavy fuel load on top of that, the possibility of bottoming the suspension exists especially accelerating off the corners. The weight would transfer to the outside rear corner and if that corner bottomed on the suspension you would have instant (major!) oversteer.

2. The use of Allstate tires has not been raised as much of an issue in this topic or anywhere else that I know of but it strikes me as a rather scary prospect in itself. Firestone had been making the winning tires at Indy for decades and were the state of the art. Goodyear were relatively new on the scene but were a large tire company with some racing experience. I don't recall the details but I believe that due to a problem with their tires nobody ran Goodyears at Indy in 1964 (even Foyt who was contracted to them). And Dunlop who were new to Indy but had a wealth of racing experience also had troubles in 1964. Clark's suspension failure was the result of his Dunlop tires coming apart. So two very established and experienced tire companies were having serious problems in their early tries at Indy. I don't know if Allstate had any prior racing experience but it almost seems like they were learning mountain climbing by tackling Everest. It's almost inconceivable that they would not have had some problems in their first attempt.

3. The aerodynamics of the two Thompson cars were their most striking and unconventional feature. By fairing-in the wheels they were obviously trying to reduce drag. In 1964 streamlining was well understood but the affect of lift and downforce on race cars was barely beginning to be understood. In fact, the opening of the body above the front tires and the addition of ducting on the top of the front bodywork suggest they knew they had a problem with front end lift and knew something of how to reduce it. The nose of the Thompson cars was very similar to sports racing cars of the time and most of them suffered from front end lift at high speeds. With today's knowledge it seems obvious that air in great amounts is going to get under that beautifully sculptured nose and lift the front end. Jim Hall learned about that time that you needed to shovel that air up and over the bodywork letting as little as possible get under.

But I don't think that the nose was the biggest problem. I think the biggest problem was the bodywork between the front and rear wheels. Look at the underside profile of the side bodywork. Isn't that exactly the opposite of the profile used on ground effect race cars? I'm no aerodynamics's expert but I know that flow accelerates and pressure is reduced when the flow cross-section is reduced (as in ground effect cars) and that flow decelerates and pressure increases when the flow cross-section is increased (as you want it to at the radiator in a side-pod per Carroll Smith). Between the front and rear wheels the air flowing under the side "pods" (on the Thompson cars) encountered a considerable increase in flow cross-section. This would decelerate the air flow and create higher local pressure and therefore lift.

If you think this would be insignificant, consider this. I read fairly recently (but, damn it, I can't remember where!) that McLaren almost discovered ground effects in the late 1960's with their Can-Am cars. In 1968 the M8A had very square and boxy sides whereas the previous M6A of 1967 had sides that curved gracefully under the car. They somehow determined that the new square sides gave them significantly increased downforce over the M6A. This was augmented on the M8B of 1969 by raking the front wheel wells back at an angle to let more air escape from under the front of the car. McLaren and his people made note of the effect but never had time to pursue it further. What the McLaren team encountered and exploited was the benefit of forcing and keeping air out from under the car which had a greater flat surface area augmenting the effect. In contrast, the shape of the Thompson cars not only invited air in under the car, it gave it a surface to work on that was not flat or curved to produce downforce but was curved to produce lift.

For the aerodynamic reasons alone, the 1964 Thompson Indy cars must have been incredibly unstable both cornering and in a straight line.

I've never heard this argument raised by anyone else (and they certainly wouldn't likely have considered it back in 1964) so I'd be curious to hear what other people think about this as a possible cause for the handling problems of the 1964 Thompson Indy cars.

As to the cause of the accident, MacDonald was driving very aggressively and picking up places quickly. In a Lotus or any other more conventional car this might have led him to an excellent finish in his rookie year. But he was barely able to keep the Thompson car under control under the best of circumstances. I think that based on the above and what others have written here that as he tried to pass Hansgen, something caused Dave MacDonald to react and put his car into a condition from which he could not recover.

Bob Mackenzie


Hi Bob,

What struck me yesterday evening when digging in some books again. about the same time (early 1964) the Ford factory team was also in big troubles with ther GT40 program because of a car that was aerodynamically clean but as a result unstable at the track.

We'll never know but given the fact that the 1963 car of Thompson handled well enough to make the race, albeit with an underpowered Biuick V8, your suggestion that the chassis iteslf was good enough in itself may well be right. Putting the blame on the applied aerodynamics instead does make sense then.
Personally I think that the nose design also was responsible for lift. The underside of the nose is sloping down from nose end to the front wheels. But also the wheel fender in front on the front wheel is sloping down, directing the air to the pavement instead of alongside the wheel.
Just out of curiosity alone, I would love to see the results of a replica Thompsons being tested in a modern day windtunnel with rolling floor.

The 1963 `pancake` chassis seemed to have been good enough in the hands of a decent driver (Duane Carter). I think that, other than the added weird aerodynamics as well as the larger wheels and the effects that had as you described.

Sorry for the following being long in words but I hope it explains my line of thinking.
The 1963 car used a stockblock Chevy engine, the 1964 car a Quadcam Ford.
Now I don't know how heavy the Chevy was and out of the top of my head I don't recall the weigt of the Ford either.
But the Ford was based on a stock-block design as well, at least for the cylinderblock part. so in weight, the blocks may have been comparable. But the quadcam cylinder heads of the Ford will likely have been far more heavy than the pushrod twovalve lay-out of the Chevy. So with respect to the cylinderheads attached as well, the Ford was likely a bit more heavy.
But even it it wasn't more heavy, the Ford was higher in profile, not in the least because it also had the injectors and exhausts between the cams and inside the Vee of the blocks, adding extra weight on the top of the engine compared with the Chevy. The Chevy had exhaust on the outside of the block and lower.
So: even if the Ford weighted less, which I doubt, its center of grvity was surely higher than on the Chevy.
Thus, built into the same chassis, the GC of the entire car, including engine was higher with the Ford than with the Chevy.

Thus in the worst case scenario:
The used chassis was fitted with an engine that was heavier than the original engine, shifitng the GC of the entire car to the rear, thus making the mechanical grip of the front end because of weight on the front wheels than in 1963. wheels. (Now this could have been compensated weth partly with fuel tanks.
In addition, the GC of the car was also raised because of its engine having a higher GC.

And on top of that......
The entire platform being raised in hight because of the required larger wheels.
Even with a conventional read engined bodywork, withour all the aerojobs, the chassis itself had a drastic change in mechanical grip and handling behaviour due to all these changes.

And how good the Sears tire actually were, we'll never know either.


Or am I entirely worng with this deductions?


Henri

#163 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:04

Both had aluminium blocks and heads... but you'd be right about the additional weight at the top of the engines...

The bottom end weights wouldn't be terribly different, I wouldn't think.

#164 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:07

Originally posted by szautke


I understand that the main reason for MacDonald's death was flame inhalation, which usually causes death within an hour and even sooner die to duration (from my limited medical background).

IIRC, Norm Brown who was severly burned at Milwaukee in the Ronnie Duman wreck covered his mouth to shield himself from inhaling the super-heated air/flames, he remembered that many drivers died this way. My predecessor at the 'Mile was told via the track Dr. that Ed Elisian seared his lungs, causing his death as suppose to burns. Overall burns killed drivers such as Glen Roberts and Bobby Marshman after being admitted to the hospital.

Sorry to be so graphic, but advances were made on the sacrifices made by drivers killed earlier. Drivers like Gerhard Berger and even Dale Earnhardt, Jr. are alive due to advances initiated in the 1960's.


FLB quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by szautke
IIRC, Norm Brown who was severly burned at Milwaukee in the Ronnie Duman wreck covered his mouth to shield himself from inhaling the super-heated air/flames, he remembered that many drivers died this way. My predecessor at the 'Mile was told via the track Dr. that Ed Elisian seared his lungs, causing his death as suppose to burns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Same thing with Duke Nalon at Indy in 1949. He made a conscious decision to hold his breath, to avoid breathing the flames. The problem rears its ugly head when a driver loses consciousness or becomes confused, like Niki Lauda was at the 'Ring in 1976. Lauda's facial burns were mostly superficial, although spectacular; his pulmonary burns almost cost him his life.


Yes that's indeed all true.
Like HistoricMustang, I was indeed thinking about a possible "what if" scenario.

Had both McDonald and Sachs been in methanol fueled cars, would that have saved McDonald? I think he had a better chance but only if the fire fighters were equipped with tons of water. But I doubt if he would have made it. (look what happened to Duman who managed to at least eescape from his car. But what if he had been trapped in his car as well?)
But, if the fuel tanks on McDonald's cars should have held up and there wouldn't have been a fire, then he would not have had the burns.
Should he have survived the accident then?
I fear for poor Eddie that, whatever fuel was used, it made no difference for the fate of Eddie.
But McDonald? What other injuries did he have other than the burns and were those survivable?

And how would our feelings regarding the accident have been if there wasn't a gasoline fire but a methanol fire? (so everyone in the neighbourhood could see McDonald fight for his life and Eddie being, Jesus lets quit here.....)

And how would the feelings have been if there had been no fire at all but just a big smash up?
Would we then think about the accident like, for example the 1958 tragedy which `only ` claimed Pat O'Connor? (A bad job, sad and sorry but with less horror and hell as the 1964 job eventually was)

That kind of thoughs cross my mind when I think about the impact of the crash and how it could have been if...
And then we get all those ifs...

Henri

#165 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 23 August 2007 - 11:31

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
43 years after the fact, it is ALL CONJECTURE, to say it is anything else is not only a lie, but damned lie..
Bob


Well, this is certainly one way to look at things. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that you in are in violent agreement with Henry Ford's supposition that history is bunk? That to examine an event in the past and then discuss it based on what is found makes one liar? Using the word "conjecture" as a perjorative term smacks more of either a a serious disagreement with the broad consensus being discuss or a bias against historians examining and discussing events by delving into as many of the possible or probable reasons for its occurrance.

Could your statement be construed to mean that anything that you have written about past events was, therefore, also a lie?

#166 Seppi_0_917PA

Seppi_0_917PA
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 13:59

Peter Bryant states in his book CanAm Challenger that Dave MacDonald's car had a single 44 gallon fuel tank mounted on the left side, outside of the frame. He goes into some detail in describing how it was mounted.

At the end of the book, Peter provided this link to contact him:
http://members.aol.com/pebryant/

Just to help keep things straight, the Mickey Thompson line-up for 1964:
#82 blue, titanium frame, Masten Gregory
#83 red, steel frame, Dave MacDonald
#84 white, steel frame, Eddie Johnson

#167 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 14:43

Originally posted by Seppi_0_917PA
Peter Bryant states in his book CanAm Challenger that Dave MacDonald's car had a single 44 gallon fuel tank mounted on the left side, outside of the frame. He goes into some detail in describing how it was mounted.

At the end of the book, Peter provided this link to contact him:
http://members.aol.com/pebryant/

Just to help keep things straight, the Mickey Thompson line-up for 1964:
#82 blue, titanium frame, Masten Gregory
#83 red, steel frame, Dave MacDonald
#84 white, steel frame, Eddie Johnson



Thanks for the info Seppi.
This seems to confirm that the second explosion of the incident must have been a result of a tank within the Shrike of Sachs after all.

Henri

#168 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 August 2007 - 15:31

Was any information ever released on what the Thompson Team strategy was for Dave McDonald and Eddie Johnson? Was one to be the rabbit, the other the tortquise? Was Eddie also carrying a full tank of 44-gallons?

My point being why was Dave being such a rabbit on full tanks if he intended not to stop? I would have thought he would have tried to settle into some sort of pace? Was that engine really capable of getting in the neighborhood of 11.5 miles per gallon?

Lastly with no suspension off-set why was all the gas on the left side, granted all 4 corners of the track are left turns; but how would you/could you set-up such a car to track on the straights? :confused:

#169 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 15:35

Originally posted by R.W. Mackenzie


For the aerodynamic reasons alone, the 1964 Thompson Indy cars must have been incredibly unstable both cornering and in a straight line.


We don't know that at all. In the absence of any specific evidence we can't say with any authority what role if any aerodynamics played in the crash -- it's total conjecture.

The truth is none of the cars had decent aero by contemporary standards; it's sort of a moot point. In 1967 AJ Foyt was invited by Ford Motor Co to test his Coyote in the Ford wind tunnel. After the tests a Ford engineer reported to Foyt the results -- that the car had only 7 lbs of net downforce and was extremely unbalanced, and he dare not drive it until the problems could be corrected. Foyt replied, "Sir, I don't know what to tell you. That car just won the Indy 500."

#170 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 16:14

Originally posted by HistoricMustang
Two questions please.

Can anyone confirm that the frame tubing in this car was also used as a coolant line?

Also, can anyone confirm that the frame tubing wall was just .050 thickness?

Henry


We don't know either of those things about the steel-frame cars. They apply only to the ti-framed car as far as we know.

#171 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 August 2007 - 18:27

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Well, this is certainly one way to look at things. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that you in are in violent agreement with Henry Ford's supposition that history is bunk? That to examine an event in the past and then discuss it based on what is found makes one liar? Using the word "conjecture" as a perjorative term smacks more of either a a serious disagreement with the broad consensus being discuss or a bias against historians examining and discussing events by delving into as many of the possible or probable reasons for its occurrance.

Could your statement be construed to mean that anything that you have written about past events was, therefore, also a lie?


Anything I wrote is either from memory of various modes of having learned, and I often question that myself, or from written history, that I consult, and if I have not checked it in awhile, I will also question that.
Anything that comes out of this that is not preceded by "this is stricly my opinion" is at best arrogance, and worst BS.
One can take all that has been said by--people who were there--and analyse it, and make a sujective decision, and that is all.
There is more than one item that can cause any vehicle to go astray, including the driver. One does not know what was the single major cause, or which possible minor causes added together were the problem and to pretend one does is BS, unless the one was there and had spoken with the driver about troubles. That person's opinion counts the most.
Even at that point, 43 years later, it is all conjecture, although foir a very few, an observed or learned conjecture.

I will give you my opinion, formed decadeds ago, the aerodynamics of the car should have encouraged lift; therefore my conjecture leans towards the aerodynamics being the factor that multiplied any other problems.
Am I right, don't know.
Does it matter whether I am correct or incorrect, no, unless I am presenting my opinion as something other than opinion.

What I find annoying at this site is some people, discuss occurances that are decades old, will almost entirely second and third hand knowledge source, as if it is God's truth.
With rare exceptions, they are guessing based on personal opinions, based on others personal opinions.

Now tell me exactly, what happened to Amelia Earhart?

Bob

#172 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 August 2007 - 19:28

She was captured by the Japanese, interred for the duration of the war...

After that we're not certain.

#173 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 August 2007 - 19:58

I find it hard to believe MacDonald's car had only one 44 gallon tank on the left side when cars at that time routinely held 75 gallons. They didn't reduce fuel maximum to 40 gallons until after the 1973 fires if I remember right. A single 44 gallon tank in 1964 would have resulted in nearly double the number of pit stops as other cars. And if there was only one on the left side, why did the car explode into an instant fireball when it hit the angled wall on the right side? I am quite sure if there was a 44 gallon tank on the left side, if that figure is accurate, then there was another one on the right side too.

#174 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 August 2007 - 20:13

Buford you must be right, there is way that engine was getting 11.5mpg or anything above 10mpg.

75 gallons would translate to something like 6.6mpg. I'm still skeptical given an engine size of 4195cc and 425bhp, I just don't see that kind of mileage out of an engine of this type.

I would still like to know the Thompson Team strategy, surely he talked about it.

#175 indy500autographs

indy500autographs
  • New Member

  • 27 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 20:48

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I remembered seeing that someone had posted the very Marathon Ad that Buford mentions somewhere and I managed to find it.

I recall reading that fuel tanks on both sides of the MacDonald machine were damaged and leaked, causing almost all of the fire that occurred relating to that particular aspect of the crash. I do not recall reading whether any of the smaller tanks on the Sachs' machine were affected by the crash, but the larger side tanks apparently were okay.



I have another version of that same ad that says "Eddie Sachs starts the race completely surrounded by Marathon Gasoline".

#176 Seppi_0_917PA

Seppi_0_917PA
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 20:57

Originally posted by Buford
I find it hard to believe MacDonald's car had only one 44 gallon tank on the left side when cars at that time routinely held 75 gallons. They didn't reduce fuel maximum to 40 gallons until after the 1973 fires if I remember right. A single 44 gallon tank in 1964 would have resulted in nearly double the number of pit stops as other cars. And if there was only one on the left side, why did the car explode into an instant fireball when it hit the angled wall on the right side? I am quite sure if there was a 44 gallon tank on the left side, if that figure is accurate, then there was another one on the right side too.

Peter Bryant repeats the 44 gallon figure 3 times in his book. His comment regarding race strategy was that since they only had a 44 gallon capacity, their only hope for minimizing the number of pit stops was to switch to gasoline for the race. They would lose some horsepower but Mickey Thompson believed they would make one fuel stop fewer than the cars running on methanol. (There is no further explanation or milage figures.)

Were those cars with the 75 gallon fuel tanks running methanol or gasoline?

#177 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 August 2007 - 21:00

Most of the field ran methanol...

'Gasoline' (petrol to me!) was a rarity at Indy. Putting it right into perspective, it had only been six years since F1 regulated petrol in and fuel brews out.

#178 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 21:29

Originally posted by Ray Bell
She was captured by the Japanese, interred for the duration of the war...

After that we're not certain.


I think I spotted her on the Grassy Knoll with Mickey Thompson. :smoking:

Bob Mackenzie

#179 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 August 2007 - 21:30

Nobody ran gasoline prior to the rear engine cars arriving. I think Brabham ran methanol in 1961 so 1962, 1963, or 1964 would have been the first time since WWII I think. I have no knowledge of this but the car exploded instantly when it hit on the right side which would seem to indicate there was fuel there. But Walter's post 142 the photo does not seem to show a tank on the right side of the burnt out car.

Other stuff. I stated earlier Eddie Johnson didn't hit anything all month. I was wrong. Clymer yearbook page 119 for May 19 states

"Bad luck with a capital B keeps dogging Mickey Thompson, whose "sports car" envelope-bodied machines proved to be all wrong aerodynamically, had just about finished rebuilding the 84 car which Masten Gregory mangled on the 6th when Eddie Johnson shortened the blue 82 by plowing into the well (sic) headon today. The diminutive driver wasn't hurt but the car was. This leaves all three Thompsons hors de combat since Dave MacDonald blew the engine in his car Sunday."

And in the race report

"Exactly what happened in the lighting-fast moments of action may never be known, but what may well have occurred was a mechanical failure to MacDonald's car somewhere in the northwest turn.. a failure which prevented him from steering, or being able to apply full lock. (A widely published photo shows the young Californai driver in a slide sideways from the pavement toward the infield. His hands are on the wheel, in a straight ahead position. The car's wheels are also straight ahead, not turned in the direction of the skid - as would be the normal automatic correction)."

So the suggestion there has been a 4 decade choir singing the same tune "Driver Error" is false. In the official yearbook of the event, there is speculation of mechanical failure.

Advertisement

#180 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 21:50

Oscar (alias ovfi),

Thanks for posting the pictures. They were taken just after the picture I posted and the field has begun to string out.

Bob Mackenzie

#181 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 22:14

Originally posted by McGuire


We don't know that at all. In the absence of any specific evidence we can't say with any authority what role if any aerodynamics played in the crash -- it's total conjecture.

The truth is none of the cars had decent aero by contemporary standards; it's sort of a moot point. In 1967 AJ Foyt was invited by Ford Motor Co to test his Coyote in the Ford wind tunnel. After the tests a Ford engineer reported to Foyt the results -- that the car had only 7 lbs of net downforce and was extremely unbalanced, and he dare not drive it until the problems could be corrected. Foyt replied, "Sir, I don't know what to tell you. That car just won the Indy 500."


McGuire,

The main point that I was making about the aerodynamics was that viewing the underside contour of the side "pods" on the Thompson cars in light of what we now know about using ground effects to create massive downforce these cars had the potential to create the opposite effect. As a mechanical engineer, former race driver and student of race car design and vehicle dynamics I feel that this could very likely have been a major cause of the severe handling problems with these cars. But as I admitted I was no aerodynamics wizard and I've never heard anyone else make this suggestion I wanted to know if anyone else had an educated opinion about it.

Bob Mackenzie

#182 Seppi_0_917PA

Seppi_0_917PA
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 22:19

Originally posted by Buford
And if there was only one on the left side, why did the car explode into an instant fireball when it hit the angled wall on the right side?

Oh and actually, Bryant does give his answer to that question. I think this is why early in his narrative he goes into such detail about the gas tank and later when the story get past the wreck, he has laid the ground work for his explanation. I'm no expert here, I'm just a guy that has a new book that noone else has yet. So besides my fear of posting sound-bites from something that has some depth to it, this is a book for which the ink is barely dry on the first printing and I don't want to spoil it for folks who are ordering the book. I'll say the book adds a lot to my understanding of May 1964 but I don't think Henry will find his answer here.

I could send you a PM with Bryant's explanation though that would mean typing out a couple/few paragraphs, ugh.

#183 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 22:42

From a third party non-TNF member. Comments?

Henry

Zoom in on the bottom rear of the right front tire. Is this a suspension arm or a steering arm? It would seem that if it was broken off in the Impact of Eddies car, the stud would have sheered off. In the pic however, the stud is still in in tack. Was it possible that the nut holding this stud fell off due to lack of tightening or was never installed before the race started? Typically, those are designed with a taper built in. To me, it looks very suspicious and needs to be looked at carefully. Granted, the impact was at very high speed, but the other members running above are all in place.

Posted Image

#184 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 22:53

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


Just out of curiosity alone, I would love to see the results of a replica Thompsons being tested in a modern day windtunnel with rolling floor.


Henri,

I couldn't agree more!

I also agree that the lift at the front was significant. I don't know how effective the mods were that were made during practice. They were heading in the right direction but I suspect they didn't go far enough.

And I also agree that the changes made to the basic car (minus the aero) between the 1963 and 1964 races had the potential to add to the handling difficulties. (I'd love to know in detail what the full scope of changes was.) But I do feel that there was greater scope for disaster with the aerodynamics. I think they were really operating in the unknown when they designed the new body for the 1964 cars.

By the way, Simon McBeath has a monthly feature in Racecar Engineering magazine called Aerobytes. In the June 2007 article he did a full scale wind tunnel test of the 1983 Arrows A6 F1 car and in July it was a Minardi M185 F1 car. (These are the only 2 issues i have.) They are sort of a retro analysis of the aerodynamics of these cars and a test of a few tweaks that might have made them better. I wonder if he would be interested in tackling this question.

Bob Mackenzie

#185 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 23:06

Originally posted by ovfi
I want to say something: I'm Brazilian, English isn't my mother language, so forgive me for any misunderstandings in the text. I have many American relatives from the Burks family of Oregon, but everybody speaks both languages, so I'm not used to speak exclusively in English...


Oscar,

Don't worry. I can assure you that your English is way better than my Portugese! :lol:

Bob Mackenzie

#186 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,947 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 August 2007 - 23:08

Henry... regarding that picture...

Once again, I think you need to source the negative and get a very good enlargement of that section. Pics of this size are way too indistinct to give a definitive answer.

#187 R.W. Mackenzie

R.W. Mackenzie
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 August 2007 - 23:32

There are two other sources of accounts of this accident that perhaps people may not be aware of.

The first is a book called, "Ford: The Dust and the Glory" by Leo Levine. I recommend this book highly to anyone interested in the years Ford raced at Indy and Le Mans. It is actually a history of Ford racing from the very beginning until about 1968. I read it when I was a teenager and I recall it had a tremendous amount of detail of the goings on at Indy in 1964 (including the backroom politics). It was out of print for many years but is available again from the SAE along with a new second volume covering later years (which I haven't read yet).

The second is the July/August issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine. The May/June issue had Part 1 of an article about Johnny Boyd. Part 2 is supposed to detail his involvement in and recollections of the 1955 Vukovich fatal accident and the accident at Indy in 1964. I haven't been able to find a copy here in the St. Catharines, Ontario area but I saw a copy in the vintage tent at Watkins Glen during the the IRL weekend in July. It was sitting on someone's toolbox but unfortunately I didn't have the nerve to ask if I could look at it.

Well I've committed enough murder and mayhem here for one week. Have a great weekend everyone. In the morning I'm off to Mosport to watch the American Le Mans Series.

Bob Mackenzie

#188 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 23:53

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Henry... regarding that picture...

Once again, I think you need to source the negative and get a very good enlargement of that section. Pics of this size are way too indistinct to give a definitive answer.


Thanks Ray and a lot going on for a full time worker such as myself so help needed from others in all the areas being discussed. Can anyone do as Ray has suggested?

And, I am being provided with this from a third party so does anyone have access?

Henry

The 1964 Indy files are stored in Mezz box 9 Ph.1-607-535-9044 ask for Bill Green at the Watkins Glen Research Center.

#189 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 23 August 2007 - 23:53

Originally posted by McGuire


We don't know either of those things about the steel-frame cars. They apply only to the ti-framed car as far as we know.


I'm going by memory here, but I recall reading someplace that the reason the Zink Brabham BT-12 was copied by Brawner and Moore for the Hawk that Andretti drove in 1965, was that the Brabham chassis would have been illegal for the 1965 season due to the wall thickness of its' chassis tubing. Brawner made 3 chassis, Zink kept one, and Brawner got the other two.

It would interesting to track that story, and the rule change, down.

#190 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 24 August 2007 - 00:02

Bob
Thanks for your kind words.
I hope you enjoy American Le Mans series. I'm trying to contact an old friend who is aeronautical engineer with lots of experience on aerodynamics... maybe when you come back I can say something about his understanding on the point you raised. I'm mechanical engineer, former race driver , etc... like you, in my opinion you found the most relevant point in the aerodynamics mistakes of this car. Let's see what my friend thinks, if I can find him.

#191 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 24 August 2007 - 01:31

As with about anything else you might care to mention with lots of moving parts, the process of sorting out History from propaganda, nostalgia, opinion, bullshit, lies, facts, evidence, resources, memory, myth, legend, damned lies, records, and statistics is a very messy one, another of those enterprises akin to sausage-making.

Generally, this sort of thing has been done in isolation with someone -- the historian -- doing the review of the literature, conducting interviews, exchanging correspondence, perhaps even visits to the sites involved, discussions with peers or others with subject matter expertise, and then the messy process of sorting it all out and making enough sense of it all to reach some sort of conclusions -- and then put it some order sp as to present the initial findings. These findings, in the scholastic world at least, are subjected to peer review; then accepted or rejected or modified, and revised as necessary before being offered as a -- rarely "the" -- best idea of what happened in an instance during the past.

A forum such as this one certainly skews this process to an extent. Rather then the raw, unfiltered, unseen process of thinking through the various aspects of the past event taking place in private or being confined to a very small circle, in this case it is being held in a very public forum where much is being said, where notions are not being thought about quietly and then accepted or rejected. Opinions are a large part of this process, like it or not. And, some opinions carry weight and others don't. However, just as in any such process, those opinions found wanting are discarded and ignored, even if not overtly.

A collaborative process such as this one is inherently a bit chaotic. However, there is -- at least in my view, a fuller picture of the event that is beginning to emerge. Indeed, much has emerged that should give us a better idea of what we don't know, which is what is truly a crucial element when ferreting out the story of an event. That certainly seems to be the case.

To condemn this admittedly messy process as being "at best arrogance, and worst BS," is based either on a lack of understanding or appreciation of the process or simply a way to vent a little spleen. Given that the closing remarks, it appears to be both:

"What I find annoying at this site is some people, discuss occurances that are decades old, will almost entirely second and third hand knowledge source, as if it is God's truth.
With rare exceptions, they are guessing based on personal opinions, based on others personal opinions.

Now tell me exactly, what happened to Amelia Earhart?"

There are more than a few within what passes for what might be called "the automobile racing history community" that are very much opposed to what might be termed the "scholastic approach to the topic. I no longer have anything to do with the grossly mis-named "RacingHistory Group" at Yahoo after one of their periodic pogroms on the "liberal arts types" finally convinced me that I was wasting my time there. As much as it continues to amaze me, this is about the only such forum where there is any real effort being made to delve into the history of motor racing with at least an effort to do so with some sense of an ordered approach or with a curiosity often mixed with an academic or scholarly rigor.

As for the snide question, "Now tell me exactly, what happened to Amelia Earhart?" it seems that outside of the fact that the aircraft disappeared during that leg of its flight, we know exactly that. Anything else presented over the years has yet to withstand the close scrutiny of impartial observers.

#192 Seppi_0_917PA

Seppi_0_917PA
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 03:31

Originally posted by HistoricMustang
From a third party non-TNF member. Comments?

Henry

Posted Image

Isn't this the exact same picture as in Walter Zoomie's post #142 ??? :

Posted Image

He states that it's his Dad's photo...he should have access to the negative. Or am I missing something???

(This is the second time in this thread that your "third-party" has provided a photo which simply came from "Walter Zoomie's" archive.)

#193 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 07:28

Originally posted by Buford
Nobody ran gasoline prior to the rear engine cars arriving. I think Brabham ran methanol in 1961 so 1962, 1963, or 1964 would have been the first time since WWII I think. I have no knowledge of this but the car exploded instantly when it hit on the right side which would seem to indicate there was fuel there. But Walter's post 142 the photo does not seem to show a tank on the right side of the burnt out car.

Other stuff. I stated earlier Eddie Johnson didn't hit anything all month. I was wrong. Clymer yearbook page 119 for May 19 states

"Bad luck with a capital B keeps dogging Mickey Thompson, whose "sports car" envelope-bodied machines proved to be all wrong aerodynamically, had just about finished rebuilding the 84 car which Masten Gregory mangled on the 6th when Eddie Johnson shortened the blue 82 by plowing into the well (sic) headon today. The diminutive driver wasn't hurt but the car was. This leaves all three Thompsons hors de combat since Dave MacDonald blew the engine in his car Sunday."

And in the race report

"Exactly what happened in the lighting-fast moments of action may never be known, but what may well have occurred was a mechanical failure to MacDonald's car somewhere in the northwest turn.. a failure which prevented him from steering, or being able to apply full lock. (A widely published photo shows the young Californai driver in a slide sideways from the pavement toward the infield. His hands are on the wheel, in a straight ahead position. The car's wheels are also straight ahead, not turned in the direction of the skid - as would be the normal automatic correction)."

So the suggestion there has been a 4 decade choir singing the same tune "Driver Error" is false. In the official yearbook of the event, there is speculation of mechanical failure.



Buford,

Last night I also dived into the 1964 yearbook and run across the same fragment in the rce report you qouted. So I won't requote it again.

But I also dived into another book. Ands if one poster also reffered to me as being speculative etc. Well then now is the time for me to contribute some things that appeared in print.

But in advance I apologise for the length of this message and also for the cruelty of certain passages. They are indeed horrible.
I also apologise to Historic Mustang but what is said about MacDonald is what people said and has been copied from the book.

Finally, all statements may well have appeared somewhere else already. But I found all the following in the book "Ëddie Sachs the clown prince of Auto Racing" by Denny Miller.
By the way, the listed page numbers are so high because thius book (for they who don't know it) its a nearly 600 page book with large printing.
I sincerely hope that other than the cruelty of some passages, people will appreciate these contributions. I think they might answer some questions but likely raise a few more.

Page 532
Fireman arrived at the scene only seconds after the second lap tragedy. Fire chief Cleon Reynolds indicated over 100 fireman used at least 900 pounds of dry powder and more than 60 pounds of bottles CO2 to attempt to extinguish the fire, Six fire trucks were also employed and they poured tons of foam on the wreck.
It took 20 minutes before the the blaze was entirely extinguished.

Rodger Ward expressed his opinion of what caused Dave MacDonalds crash.
“The big trouble with him was that they had been practicing with a limited fuel load, but iit was gassed to the gills for the race. And with the added weight, it just got away from him.”

Johnny Rutherford is quoted on some occasions: Here are some parts of what I think to be of relevance to quote.
(Page 536)
“I think Mickey did have Dave pretty hyped up and he knew he had a car he felt was capable. My god, he was carrying 80 gallons of gasoline in this flimsy body work on the car. I don’t think anyone was worried about him before the race. I don’t think anybody knew the potential bomb he was driving.
I talked to Dave before the start of the race because we were close together on the line up and he was tense as everyone is at that time.
MacDonald was starting to my left and he took off like a scalded dog. He was really zig-zagging through traffic. He was passing guys down below the white line and he touched wheels with someone that first lap. I don’t recall who it was.

(Note by Henri: There are a lot of different quotes by Rutherford available in a number of books, he seems to be the one person who talked about what happend the most of all.)


Page 539
I went to the ambulance and they took me to the hospital. I was on the table naxt to dave MacDonald. I won’t even go into detail but I will never forget that. I was surprise he still had life signs. There just would not be anyway he could have lived. Dave was wearing an open face helmet as we all did in these days. The only thing not burnt on his head was his hair.


About Eddie Sachs bing killed on impact yes or no:
Page 545
A quote by Ted Hollingsworth, Race promoter.
I think Chuck Stevenson, if you could get him to talk about it and he’s only talked about it a couple of times that I know off, will tell you that he went over Sachs’wheel in the wreck. When he looked over, he saw Sachs struggling to get out of his race car. He was not dead on impact.



about MacDonald’s driving:
Page 549
Racing Films director Fred Bailey:
“MacDonald passed eight cars! I thought he was travelling about eight ninth when the accident happened. You could tell easily because our cameraman picked up the lead car and you can see all the cars coming through and identify them one after another. All of a sudden here comes MacDonald. You can see him heading towards us, facing us. By the time he hit, right square in front of Morris, his right side was almost broadside to the wall. He had passed eight cars at the beginning of the race. It’s entirely possible when he started his spintwo cars which he was just ahead of might have passed hin right then. He conceivably have been sixth ther for just a moment.
In the stuff that I’ve seen since and studied, I have been able to follow MacDonald from virtually the starting flag until the moment he crashed. He was driving down and passing underneath the cars.
He almost lost it a time or two before. He was driving over his head. I think had he taken his time and settled down for a few laps and gone with the flow, things would have been all right.
One of our cameramen was up in the Air Florida helicopter right at the time and he got everything up to the actual accident, just as he was to spin. He had been following him on the backstretch through turn three through the short chute and into four. The he stopped shooting. You could see him just starting to go sideways. We had good ground coverage. It was interesting to study this fim and watch what MacDonald did because you could see what it was building up to.


Mickey Thompson statements.
Page 550.
I’m not gonna quote this but he tells that Ford mandated the use of gasoline because the Ford passenger cars used it too.

PAGE 551
"Dave spun in the straightaway. He came out and he was straight. I don’t want to elaborate but I saw pictures taken from the GoodYear blimp that shows exactly what happened. He had to move down t miss another car. He was about 10 miles faster because he had come out of the corner so fast. He hit the wall on the main straightaway just before the pit entrance.
Dave lost most of his fuel when he hit the wall, because the fuel cell exploded. It probably wouldn’t have broken if it wasn’t full of fuel and had some air space. You can compress air.
There is no question in my mind that he would live if Sachs did not hit him. But Sachs had no place to go. Dave’s car was still moving when it was hit. It went right back in front of Sachs. Dave only lived about an hour. The fire was so massive the firemen couldn’t get close to it. It was huge, about 50 feet away from the cars. When Sachs hit him, his tanks went away too. It was terrible.
Dave and I both thought we would win. I would have won if the rules comitte didn’t keep having me make changes to my cars. When he came back for fuel test driving Carburetion day, I had the car sorted out. Whe had a different nose on the carand he was absolutely elated. Where did he go on the first lap 14th to 6th? That should tell you something. Through the curves he drove down on the apron, below them and passed everybody.
I had a horrible feeling, a premonition. I told him, Dave please go slow at the first. He said “All rightI’ll be very careful.”

On the death of Eddie Sachs.
Page 555
Dr, Bob Raber.
When they brought him in into the emergency hospital his face was absolutely burned to a crisp. Oh yes, he was dead. Everything that was exposed was actually burned to a crisp. It was just like putting him into a fire oven. It was mainly the exposed flesh. I could tell it was Eddie. After all he was a friend of mine and I knew him pretty well. I suspect he was sitting in there and what actually killed him was the fact that he couldn’t get air.
MacDonald was burned similar to Eddie. They were both burned pretty badly as far as their faces were concerned. MacDonalds hands were also burned. He probably aspirated a lot of hot air into his lungs.

Raber then described what kind of aid he applied on MacDonald but let’s leave it here. Raber accompanied Dave to the hospital by ambulance. He had asked the ambulance driver to take it easy but the ride was a near 95 miph ride through the city.


Quote by father George MacDonald.
(page 556)
The only reason he drove It was that he felt obliged to. I very seldom worried about Dave because he had so much driving ability ane mechanical scill. But he tos met the car seemed to lift and float on the turns.



About the wreck of Sachs’ car.
Page 561.
Crew member Goerge Morris told that the car had only 52 gallons fuel capacity and 35 gallons were drained from the wreck.

Both Morris and car builder Ted Halibrand stated the the car wasn’t burned that badly. The cockpit wasn’t damaged and all absorption was done in the leg compartment where the radiator was mounted


Fred Bailey stated on page 561 that he was convinced that MacDonald was “definitely driving over his head He was driving down under the yellow line and passing cars, coming underneath theirs. The reason I can say this is because I have film of it.”
The record shows that MacDonald passed eight cars on the first lap or up to the point he crashed. The big question at the time was whether the tank on the right side of the car had fuel in it or not. You see, after the crash the officials claimed he was carrying fuel in the right side of the tank.
One story I heard was that MacDonald had it in his mind to go the distance without making a pit stop and thereby win the race. Depending on who was telling the story, the morning of the race when Mickey wasn’t around, MacDonald had tehm fill the fuel tank on the right side of the car. The left side was full. I don’t remember if the left tank held 75 gallons, I believe so. The story was he filled the right tank.
Mickey said that the tank on the right side didn’t even have a bladder in it, so he couldn’t have filled it. Well that differed from his early statement that it was empty but there was a bladder.
All I know is when that car spun and came into the wall, it had spun half around ans hit with the right rear almost broadslide. There are about two frames of film which show white flecks of fuel like water droplets escaping into the air. Then it became a ball of flame. So it is purely my opinion, based on what I found in examining the film, that there was fuel in the right tank.


On page 562 a certain David Cassidy stated that there wasn’t that much fear for Dave since he was fairly unknown. But there was worry about the Thompson equipment that was deemed marginal at best. But Mickey believed in it, and all Dave had to do was `push the button`.

Well known veteran driver Henry Banks, at that time the USAC director of competition talked with Dave shortly before the start and told Dave:
“Dave, you qualified quite well. But this car, in my opinion is not capable of winning the race. Why don’t you cool it for the first few laps.”
Dave looked at Banks and replied: “I want to thank you for all the help you have given me.”


end of book quotes

That’s my contribution in this thread if it comes to quotes and so on. If I find more, I'll be happy to share them. Apologies for length and harshness of what’s written.


Best reagards,

Henri

#194 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 August 2007 - 08:47

Thanks Henri. Never read most of those accounts. OK this says the MacDonald car had 80 gallons. This Bryant guy Seppi quotes says 40 but I still doubt that.

#195 Jerry Entin

Jerry Entin
  • Member

  • 4,636 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:04

Buford: The Bryant guy is Peter Bryant. In 1964 he was helping Mickey Thompson on the car. He was a former Formula One mechanic on the Lola cars of Surtess and Salvadori. After Indy racing he went on to help many teams and he also made CanAm type cars on his own. They were initially called TI cars. This stood for Titanium. I think one was called the TI 22 and Jackie Oliver was his driver. After his own Titanium cars Peter Bryant went on to held Shadow design their CanAm cars. Peter has just written a great book on all his experiences and that is what the Indy facts are being quoted from. While signing his new books last weekend at Monterey, Peter had the pleasure of meeting Dave MacDonalds brother.
Peters new book is called Can-Am Challenger. It is published by David Bull publication.Has 400 page and 137 color pictures and 23 black and white pictures. Many coming from Forum member Tom Schultz and there are also pictures from Pete Lyons and Dave Friedman and Al Willard among others in this great book.
Posted Image

#196 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:09

Originally posted by Seppi_0_917PA

Isn't this the exact same picture as in Walter Zoomie's post #142 ??? :

He states that it's his Dad's photo...he should have access to the negative. Or am I missing something???

(This is the second time in this thread that your "third-party" has provided a photo which simply came from "Walter Zoomie's" archive.)


Not so much refering to photograph, the comments were provided by a non-TNF member.

Sorry,

Would anyone entertain the idea that the reason for Dave's so called "odd racing line" in turn 4 was that he was attempting to reach pit entrance?

Henry

Thanks Don. This process just needs to be attempted.

#197 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:19

Originally posted by Buford
Thanks Henri. Never read most of those accounts. OK this says the MacDonald car had 80 gallons. This Bryant guy Seppi quotes says 40 but I still doubt that.



You're most welcome Buford, my pleasure.
I also wonder about McDonald really starting with only 40 gallons of fuel. It was often said that MacDonald was loaded with fuel. But 44 gallons seems not so much to me but maybe that's because I'm more familiar with fuel tank capacities of the Novis. And the FWD's had a 112 gallon fuel tank to enable a single stop race fromn 1948 on.

I honestly don't know how serious we can take all Thompson has said. Looks as if a decent stdy on Race day pix and practice shots must reveal more differences in nose design.

The thought which crossed my mind when I read about McDonald having the risht tank filled that if there was indeed no bladder in the right fuel tank but the actual tank still in the car and MacDonald indeed have it filled up....
But no approval of course yet.
The picture of the crashed wreck appears to have no tank on the right anymore, adding to all the confusion of yes or no fuel in the right tank. But was there actually one to begin with?
Or was this tank by chance torn off the chassis during the collision with Sachs and the others who ran into onat over him?
I'm affraid that with all that I quoted, I likely added more uncertainties than answers.

Did you get that PM from Seppi about what Bryant had to tell? 'don't have that book Seppi took from but I am indeed curious about what Bryant had to tell.


Henri

#198 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:29

Jerry - didn't mean to diss the man. I just don't believe MacDonald only had 44 gallons when the norm was 70 or more in those days. That would have meant something like 8 pit stops when everybody else was making 3 or 4. I just can't believe he had only 44 gallons. Why spend all that time and money and have Ford backing, and put yourself at such a competitive disadvantage of so small a fuel tank? Doesn't make any sense to me.

No Henri I didn't expect him to type a bunch of stuff. I have no knowledge of how much fuel the car carried. But nobody was carrying as little as 44 gallons in those days as far as I know. That didn't come until mandated after 1973.

#199 Jerry Entin

Jerry Entin
  • Member

  • 4,636 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:42

Buford: I didn't imply you had said anything bad about Peter Bryant. I was just trying to explain who he was and how he would have knowledge of how much fuel was on board. I wanted the forum members to understand how Peter would know the details of the accident. He was standing right there.

Advertisement

#200 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:46

Originally posted by HistoricMustang



Would anyone entertain the idea that the reason for Dave's so called "odd racing line" in turn 4 was that he was attempting to reach pit entrance?



Henry,

If there was something wrong with the car for which Dave wanted to reach the pit, then that must have been an lightning fast decision. The quotes I gave of this film fellow Bailey suggest that Dave was really on the move. Mickey Thompson said that from the footage he saw that it appeared as if Dave had to avoid a car in front of him because he came out of the corner much faster.

That doesn't read as if Dave was already having plans to make a pitstop and was heading for the pittlane. And if this was his manner to make a stop then I think he did it at a most stupid manner. Given the fact that he was treported to be way low in the turns already, then why didn't he stay there? Be low in three and four already, Perfect place to be if you want to go into the pits.
I don't know what was the last time when Dave was low in the turns, wished those films were available to see. But let's assume he was still low in turn three.
Getting up high again in order to pass one or two more opponents and then dive from outside to the inside across the straight, in front of the field behind him and hoping that someone else doesn't block the pit entry for you.

Having decided to make a stop, that simply doesn't make sense to me to be honest. Unless it was a split second decision at the very last moment.


Henri