26 replies to this topic

[mariner]

I suspect this race may have been covered before but I'l mention it again for two reasons.

 

IMHO it was one of Jim Clark's greatest drives. I know the fastest cars broke down or got delayed but to bring the awful, and in this race, very battered Lotus 40 into second place was a superb drive. Car and Driver described it as a "champion's performance" .. "the front end was lifting so badly on acceleration that he had to bang on what brakes he had left at each turn's apex just to bring it down enough to see round the turn"

 

The other reason to post is that it was one of the greatest international driver gatherings in US racing history. Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Dan Gurney,Jackie Stewart, Chris Amon, and of course, Bruce McLaren from F1 racing. From Indy racing  A J foyt, Parnelli Jones, Mario Andretti , Jim Hurtibise and Roger McCluskey. US road racing was represented by Jim Hall, Hap Sharp, Walt Hansgen,Ronnie Buckman, Bob Bondurant, Dick Thompson, Ken Miles, Augie Pabst and Charlie Hayes.

 

The Field was huge 58 cars entered of which 29 were decent level Group 7 cars. 2 Chapparal's, 3 Lotus 40's, 3 Lotus 30's , 6 McLarens, 6 Lola Chverolets and 3 Lola Fords among them. Qualifying and race attrition was very high due to a very, very dumb qualifying system but at least that gave the huge crowd plenty to see.

 

And big the crowd was as you can see from these two YT videos.

 

 

 

 

I suspect this race marked the beginning of true CanAm and the end of tradional Grup 7 at least in the USA.

 

 

[pete53]

That was certainly a very good entry but I am not sure you can say that this race alone marked the beginning of Can-Am. It's fair to say that the Riverside event, and indeed the Monterey GP at Laguna Seca, plus events like the Mosport 200, were the immediate precursors of, and inspiration for, the Can-Am championship. Also, there were the USRRC races that had taken place for several years before the advent of Can-Am. Big engine sports car racing had been pretty popular and  prevalent in the US for a number of years and I think it was more a steady blossoming of this type of racing than any one single event being a catalyst for Can-Am.

 

What you had by 1965 though , and paving the way for Can-Am in 1966, was a new breed of purpose built big-bangers - as you pointed out, the Lotus 30 ( and later 40), McLaren, Lola, and Chaparral. Early 1960s US professional sports car racing was a bit less sophisticated with a preponderance of cars like the Lotus 19 and Cooper Monaco with big V8s inserted into them, or the odd modified Ferrari prototype that would normally have raced in World Sports Car Endurance events.

 

As a fan of large cc sports cars I would love to have witnessed some of those big West Coast races in the US in the mid 60s. The closest I got was the Guards Trophy at Brands Hatch in 1965 which had a pretty impressive line-up but did lack the Californian sunshine!

[TIPO61]

Worth, a the very least, a 'mention' is that J. R. (Hap) Sharp won the damn thing!

Not too Shabby.

Edited by TIPO61, 31 March 2015 - 20:00.

[RA Historian]

Actually, in 1965 the Chaparral team ran 22 races, winning 16.

[mariner]

A very good point about Hap Sharp winning, I had sort of left the results to the commentary!

 

Also it was an early example of Chapparal's "only race if it is right" approach. Jim Hall's car was DNS because of a cracked ball joint - no bodging just to run for that team.

 

Incidentally, IIRC both Hall and Sharp had driven in F1 by 1965 so the number of US drivers with European race experience was actually quite high.

Edited by mariner, 28 March 2015 - 21:34.

[D28]

Most of the LA Times GPs were significant races with incredible line ups of premier drivers; this one has 4 WC entered, though Andretti and Stewart were DNS. Difficult to believe in todays strictly  structured racing scene that so many would simply show up to race. Even allowing for some appearance money specials, this still remains an impressive starting grid. No Ferrari entry; NART showed up at Mosport a month earlier with a 365 P2 and Rodriguez was badly beaten by Hall and McLaren. Endurance cars were just no longer competitive with the big bore V8s.

I agree Clark's 2nd place is remarkable. I knew he won once in England with the Lotus 30, but  hadn't realized he did so well with the 40 against a field like  this. Also somewhat surprised to see Hap Sharp as winner, but the Chaparral 2A was a the top of its development, Hall won at Mosport as Sharp was not entered, so they split back to back wins.

 

I never got to Riverside but was able to see some of the same entries at the Canadian Grand Prix. I count myself very fortunate to have done so, at least some of the old race days actually were superior.

. 

Edited by D28, 30 March 2015 - 15:16.

[RA Historian]

 

 

Also it was an early example of Chapparal's "

Please, the car is spelled Chaparral.Also, there was no such thing as a Chaparral '2A'. Jim Hall has stated that there is no 'A', simply '2', followed by subsequent models with letter suffixes. It is a very common error, but I will go with what the builder states.

[D28]

Please, the car is spelled Chaparral.Also, there was no such thing as a Chaparral '2A'. Jim Hall has stated that there is no 'A', simply '2', followed by subsequent models with letter suffixes. It is a very common error, but I will go with what the builder states.

As will I of course. I very seldom mention model # descriptions as I am not qualified, but in this case I took it from a historical site Racing Sports Cars, also the same on an alternate site. Doesn't mean it was right. Sorry about that.

Edited by D28, 29 March 2015 - 16:29.

[RA Historian]

Did not mean to don my anorak, but at times I get really picky about stuff like that. Being an historian and a writer, I tend to get very exact. Some say too exact.

 

Tom

[D28]

Did not mean to don my anorak, but at times I get really picky about stuff like that. Being an historian and a writer, I tend to get very exact. Some say too exact.

 

Tom

You have aroused my curiosity and left me wondering just how such model definitions find their way into common usage; obviously the net repeats descriptions from site to site, but someone must have made the original error. .I thought likely the historical result sites I consulted worked from original entry lists, but a copy of the Canadian GP displayed, simply lists the entry as a    Chaparral   without any further descriptor.  

A feature article on Jim Hall and his cars in Motor Sport does indeed refer to this model as a Chaparral 2, but other serious publications mention Chaparral 2A. Any thoughts on this, I don't believe the problem is limited to Chaparral models numbers.

Edited by D28, 30 March 2015 - 17:07.

[Tim Murray]

I don't believe the problem is limited to Chaparral models numbers.

Indeed. Those which occur to me straight away are:

Mercedes-Benz W163
Auto Union Typ A, Typ B etc
BRM P15 and P25

There must be many more.

[ray b]

Please, the car is spelled Chaparral.Also, there was no such thing as a Chaparral '2A'. Jim Hall has stated that there is no 'A', simply '2', followed by subsequent models with letter suffixes. It is a very common error, but I will go with what the builder states.

actually the first cars became several others at a later date

once there was a B or C bodywork there no longer was an A car just body bits leftover

I think he ran the under structure until a crash made it un-useable

[RA Historian]

I base my statement about there being no 2A, only 2, not on anything from back in the day, but from a couple interviews with Jim Hall. He was asked about the 2A, and he corrected the questioner, saying that there was no 2A, since he never used that term. The first cars were simply 2. Somewhere along the line some writer must have added the 'A' just for convenience in order to differentiate it from the 2C, 2D, etc., and people began thinking that it was fact, rather than a later convenient invention.

 

There were three 2s. Two became 2Ds, with the coupe bodywork fitted right over the original 2 body. One of those became the 2F. Open a little door on the side of the 2F, and one could see the original 2 underneath! Today all three original 2s exist, one as a 2, one as a 2D, and one as the 2F.

 

There was one 2C, which became a 2E. A second 2E was built from scratch. One of the 2Es became the 2G. Today, one 2E exists, while I understand that pieces of the 2G are still lying around the Chaparral shop, the car having been thoroughly wrecked in Hall's crash at Stardust in 1968.

 

The 2H and 2J were one-offs and still exist. All can be seen at the Petroleum Museum in Midland.

Edited by RA Historian, 30 March 2015 - 23:48.

[RA Historian]

Indeed. Those which occur to me straight away are:

Mercedes-Benz W163
Auto Union Typ A, Typ B etc
BRM P15 and P25

There must be many more.

A couple cars that are consistently mis-named are the Eagle and the Genie.

 

There is no such thing as a "Gurney Eagle"

 

As for Genie, more often than not I see it referred to as the "Huffaker Genie". No such thing. Huffaker built them for Kjell Qvale's British Motor Car Distributors of San Francisco. To be quite technical, the cars were badged as BMCs. BMC bullt Formula Juniors, Indy cars, and sports racers. The sports racers were named Genie, as in BMC Genie Mk VIII. The so called Huffaker Indy car is no such thing. They were BMC Mk IXs.

 

While I am at it, the so-called Howmet gas turbine car was a McKee Mk IX. Howmet merely paid the bills. Bob McKee built the cars and they had McKee chassis plates.

 

But all it takes is for someone to mis-label a car in print or on the air, and somehow or other the mistake gets baked in and after time is considered fact. As a historian, I am driven nuts by such stuff.

[RA Historian]

I overlooked an obvious one---the Eagle "T1G". Really, there is no such car, although that mislabel has been taken as gospel for decades. In his excellent book, "Dan Gurney's Eagle Racing Cars", which has the full approval and authorization of AAR and Gurney, John Zimmermann states that there never was such a designation as 'T1G.'. He writes that Gurney adamantly states that he never ever used that designation, and that it does not exist in AAR usage. The Formula One Eagle was simply the Mk. I.

Edited by RA Historian, 31 March 2015 - 13:05.

[Tim Murray]

To be fair, Tom, there is some justification for the T1G designation, even if Dan himself never accepted it. Here's what DCN posted here many years ago:
 

Okay - not messing about now... Eagle designations.

In 1965 Dan commissioned former Lotus designer Len Terry to create his new team's F1 and Indy cars for him. Len had begun his career designing his own sports and Junior cars under the name 'Terrier'. He created the Gilby cars for Syd Greene and his son Keith. Though they were known publicly as 'Gilby', Len - being an orderly-minded kind of chap - gave them a 'Terrier' project number of his own.

Colin Chapman spotted real talent and engaged Len to make the stressed-skin hulled Lotus 25 truly raceworthy. They developed it ultimately into the Type 33. Len regarded those cars - and the 1965 Indy-winning Lotus 38 as designs somebody else had started - so he recalls today he didn't really give them 'Terrier' project numbers. Then Dan made him a good offer, and he went off to California for the AAR Eagle project(s).

Point one - to Len those initial series Eagles would be his design from the ground up - so when he drew them the F1 variant was in his work portfolio the 'Terrier T9'. Check Len's book but from memory he thinks this is correct...

His original drawings for the project would have adopted his normal working procedure, based upon that used by Ford, in which each drawing identification serial would have been prefaced by 'Car model', then a letter to indicate which area of the car the drawing featured - as in 'A' chassis - 'B'body - 'C' front suspension - 'D' rear suspension, etc - and then a basically 3-digit serial to specify the individual drawing. Thus the very first chassis drawing for example would have been serialled '(Car Model code)-A-001'.

The car model code that Len chose - repeat, that Len chose - was 'T' for 'Terry', '1' for first version, and 'G' for Gurney - Eagle T1G - Indy version = T2G.

It would probably have been AAR F1 team manager Bill Dunne who told us about this being the car's type number - a la Lotus 25 or BRM P83 - in 1966.

The monocoques were fabricated solely in California - absolutely not in the UK - with ex-Team Lotus sheet metal man John Lambert amongst the build team. The Rye facility in England was little more than a race preparation shop with Weslake's adjoining engine shop not really giving Dan the tools this superb driver deserved.

Dan probably won't accept the above - but it's what we were told at the time - and what Len has just confirmed to me this bright and sunny morning...

Sorry about winding you all up previously...

DCN

[RA Historian]

I have heard that before, but one must bear in mind that T1G is the designer's internal code for his drawings, and not the official model designation as decreed by the guy whose name was on the building. As Doug says, Dan won't accept T1G.

[Tim Murray]

Agreed.

[Roger Clark]

Len Terry did refer to the Eagle as the Terrier Mark 9 (his book Racing Car Design and Development).  For interest, around that time:

 

Mk 10 was a Shelby CanAm car

Mk 11 was the BRM P126

Mk12 was the Gulf Mirage-BRM

Mk14 was the second Honda RA301.

 

The idea of various organisation involved in a car giving it different names is not new.  For example the 1939 Mercedes engine was known as the M163 to the engineers and K-series to the machine shop.

[Allen Brown]

The BRM P126 is a good example.  Designed by Terry and built at his workshops, not at Bourne, and called by him a Terrier Mk 11.  So why do we call it a BRM P126 when all BRM did was commission it?

 

That was a rhetorical question.  Of course it's the BRM P126.  It merely shows that the poor historian cannot simply set a rule and then always stick by that rule.  Eifelland or March?  Lec or Pilbeam?  Sometimes the poor historian has to make a deliberate decision to put the desires of the owner/builder to one side and give it a name that makes more sense.  So the JPS Mk III will always be the Lotus 78 to me, regardless of what both JPS and Lotus wanted us to call it.  Such is my untrammelled egotism, I sometimes invent models altogether.  There was never a car called a "Gerhardt 66" but I'm going to use that term to distinguish 1966 Indy Gerhardts because it makes it easier to write a history of the marque. 

 

But to return to the Chaparral for a moment, Tom is completely right of course about there not being a 2A, but when discussing these cars, it sometimes helps to refer to a 2A so everyone know you are referring to the three original 2s and not referring to all the different 2 derivatives (2C, 2D, 2E, etc).  Best example I have for this is the McLaren M16, where it is safer to refer to a M16A when talking about the 1971 cars because 'M16' could be taken to mean the whole series (M16, M16B, M16C, M16C/D and M16E collectively).

[D28]

Indeed. Those which occur to me straight away are:

Mercedes-Benz W163
Auto Union Typ A, Typ B etc
BRM P15 and P25

There must be many more.

 

 

 

I have read that 2 of the most famous racing cars ever,  Ford GT40 and the Ferrari 250 GTO were never referred to as such in official factory terminology. The Ford case may have been discussed here recently. Whatever they were officially called, not much chance of overturing popular titles at this stage.

[Michael Ferner]

The BRM P126 is a good example.  Designed by Terry and built at his workshops, not at Bourne, and called by him a Terrier Mk 11.  So why do we call it a BRM P126 when all BRM did was commission it?
 
That was a rhetorical question.  Of course it's the BRM P126.  It merely shows that the poor historian cannot simply set a rule and then always stick by that rule.  Eifelland or March?  Lec or Pilbeam?  Sometimes the poor historian has to make a deliberate decision to put the desires of the owner/builder to one side and give it a name that makes more sense.  So the JPS Mk III will always be the Lotus 78 to me, regardless of what both JPS and Lotus wanted us to call it.  Such is my untrammelled egotism, I sometimes invent models altogether.  There was never a car called a "Gerhardt 66" but I'm going to use that term to distinguish 1966 Indy Gerhardts because it makes it easier to write a history of the marque. 
 
But to return to the Chaparral for a moment, Tom is completely right of course about there not being a 2A, but when discussing these cars, it sometimes helps to refer to a 2A so everyone know you are referring to the three original 2s and not referring to all the different 2 derivatives (2C, 2D, 2E, etc).  Best example I have for this is the McLaren M16, where it is safer to refer to a M16A when talking about the 1971 cars because 'M16' could be taken to mean the whole series (M16, M16B, M16C, M16C/D and M16E collectively).

Thanks, Allen, for a sensible answer!

We use (car) names and (car) designations simply to make known of what we speak. Let's not make life more difficult than it has to be!


Michael Ferner, who also answers to the name of fines, and various others if need be.

[2F-001]

I'm aware that we're straying ever more from the original thrust of this thread (hey, what's new?), but just to add some more to RA's comments on the Chaparrals...


First, the 'plastic' cars:-

Both the 2Fs started life as 2s.

The first '2' (which won the '65 Sebring 12hrs) became the '2D' that won at the 'Ring and is now restored as such.

The second '2' (which had many wins in '64/65) became the less-distinguished of the '2D's, then became the '2F' which made fastest lap at Spa, Sebring and Daytona and won at Brands. This is the basis of the restored '2'.

The third '2' (almost as successful as the second), skipped the '2D' stage to become the second '2F' (which took pole at Monza and fastest lap at the 'Ring) and survives as the restored 2F.

At least, that's what I've gleaned from articles and race reports, but I think the Falconer/Nye book concurs with most of that - apart from referring at many points to the designation '2A'... I suppose, as Allen says, it does at least make it extra clear as to which cars are meant, although the detail specifications of the cars changed quite a bit during their life, even before they became coupés.

I don't get too wound up over folks using '2A' if for clarity, but I've now seen someone use '2B' to describe the later incarnation of the '2' and claiming it to be be the 'accepted', if retrospective, designation! That's just adding confusion (especially as I've already heard a few think - to themselves at least - of the GS-II as a sort of unofficial 2B). Doesn't work for me.

There are various references around to a fourth '2' chassis which was never raced (and possibly never assembled into a complete car).


And of the metal ones:-

One thing that doesn't seem entirely clear to me is the exact ancestry of the restored '2E'...

It's been reported in a few places (but possibly from the same source) that the restored car incorporates some parts of the crashed '2G' (which was originally the '2C', and then became the first '2E'), but that it is not based on the other '2E'.

The second '2E' was crashed (Bahamas, late '66). Don't think I've seen a pic of that incident, but presumably even well away from the pressure of rebuilding cars amid their racing careers, this one must have been further beyond repair than the 2G, for it not to be the basis of the restored car; yet Hap Sharp walked away from the Nassau accident. I did see someone (I forget where) suggesting there was another, spare, 2E chassis (in period I mean, not the continuation project) but I'm not at all convinced of that.



Oh, and thanks for the video links, Mariner; hadn't seen those before.

Edited by 2F-001, 01 April 2015 - 09:05.

[mariner]

Well. just to throw something else into this thread - the Chaparral 2C was actually built up around  a GM designed , and I think, built , metal chassis called the GS11b.

 

It was very lightweight creation , 68lb is mentioned but was able, just about , to handle a big block chevy power.

 

So based on the comments above what should we call the 2C?

Edited by mariner, 01 April 2015 - 15:15.

[TIPO61]

A Chaparral...of course.

[Doug Nye]

Hmmm - for my taste there's a degree of Talibanic over-zealousness about some of the postings within this thread.  Truth is that the more time one has spent (invested?) in rummaging about in motor racing history the more one appreciates how little one can really be emphatic about, and the more one appreciates the capriciousness of principal players' personal memories. To get precious about matters such as Chaparral "2A" when self-evidently it was a retrospective designation applied by the contemporary press once later variants emerged is to waste time, breath and energy...including right here, some of my own...       

 

DCN

[TIPO61]

To Mr. Nye and all. Apologies for the 'bolded and giant' type in my post. Mr. Andy Green from Plas-Trend Plastics and the early NASA programs utilizing fiberglass in their construction could tell you all you need to know about the Chaparral's construction. As your fine motorbook about the 'Chaps shows. The GM 'have a look at this chasis' GSIIb was never a Chaparral chassis. Never. Apologies to Mr. Nye et al.

Edited by TIPO61, 07 April 2015 - 02:06.