Jump to content


Photo

Ford P68


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 jacko

jacko
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: June 20

Posted 25 June 2020 - 14:44

I have had a keen interest for some time in the 3 litre ford prototypes built by Alan Mann in 1968/69. I have seen photos of both machines at the 1968 1000kms at the Nurburgring and noticed that only the car that started the race, race No.7, had the protruding lower "lip" modification. Was this done before or after the practice accident to Chris Irwin and could it have been a factor in the loss of control at the "flying place"?



Advertisement

#2 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,592 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 June 2020 - 15:25

Here’s an earlier thread on the cars which may be of interest, although it doesn’t address your specific question:

Ford P68 and P69

My understanding has always been that the Irwin crash was caused by hitting a hare.

#3 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 June 2020 - 17:40

Here’s an earlier thread on the cars which may be of interest, although it doesn’t address your specific question:

Ford P68 and P69

My understanding has always been that the Irwin crash was caused by hitting a hare.

I'd never heard the animal hypothesis, but I did enquire something along these lines on the "Mulsanne's Corner" Facebook group:

https://www.facebook...&epa=SEARCH_BOX



#4 1969BOAC500

1969BOAC500
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: October 19

Posted 25 June 2020 - 19:07

Alan Mann's memoir contains some interesting information about the P.68 - including the 'hare' theory. Apparently the decomposing remains of the animal were found in the wreck of the car which had been covered by a tarpaulin and pushed into a corner of the workshop/



#5 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 June 2020 - 19:30

Alan Mann's memoir contains some interesting information about the P.68 - including the 'hare' theory. Apparently the decomposing remains of the animal were found in the wreck of the car which had been covered by a tarpaulin and pushed into a corner of the workshop/

Interesting - it does seem plausible that it might have been enough to lift the front of the car enough to cause it to take off.



#6 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,524 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 June 2020 - 21:01

Still something of a mere sticking plaster theory which may well have caused a violent swerve but the notably short-wheelbase P68 was conceived as a nimble, swerveable low-polar-moment-of-inertia platform - and any 'hare' incident could well have triggered a 'tank-slapper' type gyration which ended up with the car leaving the road and somersaulting.  I was told that Chris Irwin had commented on it feeling "a bit nervous" before the incident.  

 

He was certainly a talented driver. Barely four weeks earlier he had won the F2 EifelRennen on the Nurburgring Sudschleife in a Lola T100.

 

DCN



#7 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 June 2020 - 21:47

Still something of a mere sticking plaster theory which may well have caused a violent swerve but the notably short-wheelbase P68 was conceived as a nimble, swerveable low-polar-moment-of-inertia platform - and any 'hare' incident could well have triggered a 'tank-slapper' type gyration which ended up with the car leaving the road and somersaulting.  I was told that Chris Irwin had commented on it feeling "a bit nervous" before the incident.  

 

He was certainly a talented driver. Barely four weeks earlier he had won the F2 EifelRennen on the Nurburgring Sudschleife in a Lola T100.

 

DCN

I see - I was under the impression that the car just took off as the Mercedes CLRs did at Le Mans in 1999.



#8 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 15,555 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 26 June 2020 - 07:09

I was always under the impression that the "remains of the hare" were found mangled around one of the front disk brakes.



#9 jacko

jacko
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: June 20

Posted 26 June 2020 - 10:19

Cheers folks, but still no explanations or theories as to why the nose mod was applied to only one entry at the Nurburgring?



#10 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 27 June 2020 - 06:28

I have had a keen interest for some time in the 3 litre ford prototypes built by Alan Mann in 1968/69. I have seen photos of both machines at the 1968 1000kms at the Nurburgring and noticed that only the car that started the race, race No.7, had the protruding lower "lip" modification. Was this done before or after the practice accident to Chris Irwin and could it have been a factor in the loss of control at the "flying place"?

 

 

Still something of a mere sticking plaster theory which may well have caused a violent swerve but the notably short-wheelbase P68 was conceived as a nimble, swerveable low-polar-moment-of-inertia platform - and any 'hare' incident could well have triggered a 'tank-slapper' type gyration which ended up with the car leaving the road and somersaulting.  I was told that Chris Irwin had commented on it feeling "a bit nervous" before the incident.  

 

DCN

 

 

With a somewhat shorter than usual wheelbase, and not many fittings located beyond that wheelbase, the P68 would probably have achieved a lower than usual polar moment of inertia, about the yaw axis. This should make it more than usually responsive to steering inputs, or to other yawing moments, such as a nudge from another car at either end. With that long tail, however, which should result in a Centre of Pressure well behind the CoG, a destabilising aerodynamic yawing moment is rather less likely.

On the other hand, the polar moment of inertia about the pitch axis would also probably be lower than usual, this being the result of some of the same changes which reduced the PMoI about the yaw axis. The car would then also be more responsive to pitching moments, and from its appearance, with long overhangs at both ends, such a moment could be caused by aerodynamic forces. Thus, coming over a brow at high speed, at first there could be an abrupt rise in the lift force acting under that jutting “chin”, particularly in a headwind which happened to be following the hillside at that point. This would add to the inertia which anyway would tend to cause the nose and the front wheels to leave the ground. The result could be loss of steering control, and even a “back flip” under the right conditions. And if at the same time the car were following a bend in the road, the response would be still more complex.

You will recall that there was much aerodynamic experimentation at that time, a number of cars appearing with chin spoilers (A.J. Foyt’s 1967 Indy winner comes to mind) or with steeply downsloped fins on either side of the nose (Chaparral 2C, Ferrari 312-68), which evolved into inverted aerofoils by 1969, on the single-seaters. The “lip” you have mentioned seems to have been one of these experiments, and its absence might have contributed to Irwin’s accident, provided it was effective.

In the days of front axles, pre-IFS, under the right conditions, cars could exhibit severe “shimmy” along with axle-tramp, causing the front wheels to oscillate violently from lock to lock as the result of one wheel going over a bump. The consequent sharp tilt of the axle set up a gyroscopic moment that would swing both wheels over to left or right. This could initiate the oscillation under the right conditions, but independent front suspension has cured this tendency, and the phenomenon is unknown in modern cars, so far as I am aware.



#11 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 28 June 2020 - 12:17

With a somewhat shorter than usual wheelbase, and not many fittings located beyond that wheelbase, the P68 would probably have achieved a lower than usual polar moment of inertia, about the yaw axis. This should make it more than usually responsive to steering inputs, or to other yawing moments, such as a nudge from another car at either end. With that long tail, however, which should result in a Centre of Pressure well behind the CoG, a destabilising aerodynamic yawing moment is rather less likely.

On the other hand, the polar moment of inertia about the pitch axis would also probably be lower than usual, this being the result of some of the same changes which reduced the PMoI about the yaw axis. The car would then also be more responsive to pitching moments, and from its appearance, with long overhangs at both ends, such a moment could be caused by aerodynamic forces. Thus, coming over a brow at high speed, at first there could be an abrupt rise in the lift force acting under that jutting “chin”, particularly in a headwind which happened to be following the hillside at that point. This would add to the inertia which anyway would tend to cause the nose and the front wheels to leave the ground. The result could be loss of steering control, and even a “back flip” under the right conditions. And if at the same time the car were following a bend in the road, the response would be still more complex.

You will recall that there was much aerodynamic experimentation at that time, a number of cars appearing with chin spoilers (A.J. Foyt’s 1967 Indy winner comes to mind) or with steeply downsloped fins on either side of the nose (Chaparral 2C, Ferrari 312-68), which evolved into inverted aerofoils by 1969, on the single-seaters. The “lip” you have mentioned seems to have been one of these experiments, and its absence might have contributed to Irwin’s accident, provided it was effective.

In the days of front axles, pre-IFS, under the right conditions, cars could exhibit severe “shimmy” along with axle-tramp, causing the front wheels to oscillate violently from lock to lock as the result of one wheel going over a bump. The consequent sharp tilt of the axle set up a gyroscopic moment that would swing both wheels over to left or right. This could initiate the oscillation under the right conditions, but independent front suspension has cured this tendency, and the phenomenon is unknown in modern cars, so far as I am aware.

Thanks for a detailed and iluminating post!  Do you think the lip spoiler would have actuaaly had any effect in reducing lift, and can you shed any light on the downforce-generating tail that was supposed to achieve this by inducing a vortex?



#12 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:36

Thanks for a detailed and iluminating post!  Do you think the lip spoiler would have actuaaly had any effect in reducing lift, and can you shed any light on the downforce-generating tail that was supposed to achieve this by inducing a vortex?

Appreciate your kind words. I'm no expert on the subject, just applying logic and a few engineering principles.

Hard to say about that lip spoiler. it seems rather similar to what the BRM P160 and the Brabham BT33 had, though both had front wings as well. By itself, I'd guess it could even create a small upward force, depending on the angle of attack. (So can an inverted aerofoil, but only at quite extreme negative angles).

I am under the impression that the vortex-generating tail was to reduce drag, but accessible contemporary literature is not very helpful. There was apparently a technical paper on the subject of the car's aerodynamics, but I have been unable to find it. Some useful information in DSJ's report in "Motor Sport" of April 1970, though not of a very technical nature. Still, pole position at Spa must mean something, I'm not sure what exactly!    



#13 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 30 June 2020 - 07:22

Appreciate your kind words. I'm no expert on the subject, just applying logic and a few engineering principles.
Hard to say about that lip spoiler. it seems rather similar to what the BRM P160 and the Brabham BT33 had, though both had front wings as well. By itself, I'd guess it could even create a small upward force, depending on the angle of attack. (So can an inverted aerofoil, but only at quite extreme negative angles).
I am under the impression that the vortex-generating tail was to reduce drag, but accessible contemporary literature is not very helpful. There was apparently a technical paper on the subject of the car's aerodynamics, but I have been unable to find it. Some useful information in DSJ's report in "Motor Sport" of April 1970, though not of a very technical nature. Still, pole position at Spa must mean something, I'm not sure what exactly!


It means Frank Gardner must have an enormous set of...anecdotes.

Did Frank have any comments about the P68? It sounds like the sort of car that would have interfered with his "aim to be not the fastest driver in the world, only the oldest".

#14 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 30 June 2020 - 11:19

One of the reports of Irwin's practice crash mentioned something about the front bodywork being significantly distorted by the impact with the hare, causing a drastic change to the aerodynamics at a place on the circuit where it resulted in the worst problem. Post-crash pictures show the front body section completely separate from the rest of the car, though that could have happened at any time during the incident.

 

One more factor re: front lip - these cars seemed to have problems with cooling. Could the lip have been an attempt to direct more airflow into the radiator duct?

 

I was very interested in this car as well, from the first time I saw pics of it in 1968, and I've tried to find as much info as I could ever since. A couple of things that have surfaced over the years are:

 

1 Alan Mann reportedly hated the car even though it had come out of his shop and he was relieved when Ford told him there was no budget to continue with it. Some of the mechanics and crew reportedly felt Irwin's #8 Nurburgring car was somehow jinxed. Whether this had anything to do with Alan Mann's feelings toward the car(s) is not clear.

2. Mike Spence insisted on either adding a rear spoiler or modding the existing one when he did the initial test sessions, upsetting Len Bailey, the designer. Once the spoiler was tweaked, Spence was able to beat the lap record for prototypes by a significant amount - but I don't remember which track this was.

3. Richard Attwood thought the car was very good, and has stated that at every race they were entered in 1968, the P68s had led, was on the pole, or set fastest lap.

 

I don't have sources for this info at hand but if I find them I'll post.



#15 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 03 July 2020 - 21:45

Appreciate your kind words. I'm no expert on the subject, just applying logic and a few engineering principles.

Hard to say about that lip spoiler. it seems rather similar to what the BRM P160 and the Brabham BT33 had, though both had front wings as well. By itself, I'd guess it could even create a small upward force, depending on the angle of attack. (So can an inverted aerofoil, but only at quite extreme negative angles).

I am under the impression that the vortex-generating tail was to reduce drag, but accessible contemporary literature is not very helpful. There was apparently a technical paper on the subject of the car's aerodynamics, but I have been unable to find it. Some useful information in DSJ's report in "Motor Sport" of April 1970, though not of a very technical nature. Still, pole position at Spa must mean something, I'm not sure what exactly!    

Cheers - were you able to find the Facebook discussion from the link I included?



#16 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 04 July 2020 - 11:01

Cheers - were you able to find the Facebook discussion from the link I included?

 

Sorry, I seem to have missed that. Could you please repeat?

Thanks



#17 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 July 2020 - 20:26

Sorry, I seem to have missed that. Could you please repeat?

Thanks

https://www.facebook...&epa=SEARCH_BOX



#18 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 05 July 2020 - 10:13

The P68 was one of the best  looking sports prototypes ever IMHO but it was designed at the cusp between low drag and high downforce design. It was , I think designed to optimise drag, hence the long tail, without much thought to downforce. So it may have been fundementally unstable regardless of wheelbase.

 

Len Bailey produced an almost identical design for Holman Moody for CanAm which still had very curvy bodywork but did have a suspension mounted wing. It had huge 494 cubic inch Ford engine but performed badly. whether that was the chassis design or the Ford " Canam curse" I don't know.

 

No offence to Len Bailey but he was  very much part of the works Ford GT efffort so I don't think he was directly  involved  what was going on in the  F1 and CanAm drawing offices at that time. So maybe  his designs may not have been aimed enough at downforce?



#19 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 560 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 05 July 2020 - 16:02

The P68 was one of the best  looking sports prototypes ever IMHO but it was designed at the cusp between low drag and high downforce design. It was , I think designed to optimise drag, hence the long tail, without much thought to downforce. So it may have been fundementally unstable regardless of wheelbase.

 

Len Bailey produced an almost identical design for Holman Moody for CanAm which still had very curvy bodywork but did have a suspension mounted wing. It had huge 494 cubic inch Ford engine but performed badly. whether that was the chassis design or the Ford " Canam curse" I don't know.

 

No offence to Len Bailey but he was  very much part of the works Ford GT efffort so I don't think he was directly  involved  what was going on in the  F1 and CanAm drawing offices at that time. So maybe  his designs may not have been aimed enough at downforce?

 

The Honker dates from 1967, so presumably it was from that design that the

P68 evolved.


Edited by retriever, 05 July 2020 - 16:03.


Advertisement

#20 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 July 2020 - 19:09

The Honker dates from 1967, .


About which Mr Andretti reputedly said it was fine, it was just that it did not go, would not stop and would not go round corners.....
I believe he told Paul Newman, the owner/entrant, that he could drive it and Mario would paint his name on the front of the car
Roger Lund.

#21 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 July 2020 - 21:21

 

 

Len Bailey produced an almost identical design for Holman Moody for CanAm which still had very curvy bodywork but did have a suspension mounted wing. It had huge 494 cubic inch Ford engine but performed badly. whether that was the chassis design or the Ford " Canam curse" I don't know.

 

No offence to Len Bailey but he was  very much part of the works Ford GT efffort so I don't think he was directly  involved  what was going on in the  F1 and CanAm drawing offices at that time. So maybe  his designs may not have been aimed enough at downforce?

The Honker II which looked pretty much like the P68 without the greenhouse ran in the 1967 Can-Am series which started in September of that year. It's conceivable its shape was developed concurrently with the closed P68 coupe. It ran a small-block and according to some reports a 390 cu in big block later in the season. The car with the high wing and 494cu in engine was built around a McLaren M6B platform and ran in the 1969 Can Am season. I believe all these Ford engines had cast iron blocks, which would have been a huge weight penalty after the aluminum Chevy/Reynolds big blocks appeared in 1968.



#22 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,524 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 05 July 2020 - 21:28

While some leading drivers of the P68 thought it had great potential in terms of sheer performance it wouldn't last long enough to succeed due to the DFV V8 engine's appallingly destructive vibration, which shook ancillaries and some structural elements to pieces...  John Horsman and Gulf-Mirage finally found the key to making a DFV-powered endurance racer consistently endure...but the V8 vibes ruined many teams' hopes.

 

DCN



#23 jacko

jacko
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: June 20

Posted 06 July 2020 - 10:33

Three cars ran in the 1969 Can Am series with the 494 Cu In Ford motor. One, entered by Holman & Moody on the M6B platform for Mario Andretti, one entered by Alan Mann as the "Open Sports Ford" for Frank Gardner at Riverside and Jack Brabham at Texas, and one, based on a Mk4 chassis, by the Agipou brothers for Brabham, Follmer Cannon etc.Thirds at Texas for Brabham and Riverside for Andretti best finishes but front row and early lead at Texas for Mario the highlight.



#24 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 06 July 2020 - 11:40

Thanks jacko - my memory had it that the Agapiou Brothers car and the Ford Open Sports had run 429s while the 494-powered Holman & Moody car had "429'er" painted on the side.



#25 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 06 July 2020 - 15:47

Three cars ran in the 1969 Can Am series with the 494 Cu In Ford motor. One, entered by Holman & Moody on the M6B platform for Mario Andretti, one entered by Alan Mann as the "Open Sports Ford" for Frank Gardner at Riverside and Jack Brabham at Texas, and one, based on a Mk4 chassis, by the Agipou brothers for Brabham, Follmer Cannon etc.Thirds at Texas for Brabham and Riverside for Andretti best finishes but front row and early lead at Texas for Mario the highlight.

Those three cars were referred to at the place where I was working at the time as "Honker", "Bonker", and Clonker", all three were failures and best forgotten.



#26 FLB

FLB
  • Member

  • 29,568 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 July 2020 - 17:06

Those three cars were referred to at the place where I was working at the time as "Honker", "Bonker", and Clonker", all three were failures and best forgotten.

And Mario Andretti is on the record saying the Honker II was the worst car he drove in his career:

 

https://www.motorspo...ar-i-ever-drove



#27 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 07 July 2020 - 03:40

Those three cars were referred to at the place where I was working at the time as "Honker", "Bonker", and Clonker", all three were failures and best forgotten.

 

Was it Colin Chapman who remarked that he learnt more from his failures than from his successes? It might be worthwhile finding out why they were so bad, rather than dismissing them altogether.

Has any one seen such a review of these cars?



#28 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 07 July 2020 - 12:35

Was it Colin Chapman who remarked that he learnt more from his failures than from his successes? It might be worthwhile finding out why they were so bad, rather than dismissing them altogether.

Has any one seen such a review of these cars?

Unless the problems are very much apparent and easily addressed, race teams don't really have the time nor resources to chase something good hiding deep within something bad. All three of these cars were driven in period by some of the best drivers in the world, and more than one-shot drives, yet much of their performance was due to their drivers and the cars were never anywhere near their intended potential. Sometimes they were fast but often unreliable. Design flaw? Inadequate preparation? Whatever - then the season was over, and nobody involved wanted to go through anything similar come next year. It happens to the best of them - think Chaparral 2H.



#29 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 07 July 2020 - 13:27

Something else to think about - These three Ford-powered cars were expected to win and when they didn't, they got tagged as "failures". If H&M, the Agapious, and Alan Mann had bought and run Ford-powered McLaren M12s or Lola T160-series cars, they probably would have had similar results with the same drivers, and possibly better due to better reliability. But customer cars were never considered failures. Sorting a one-off can be an adventure into the unknown. The learning curve with customer cars was encountered when the "A" models were being run, and that factor became a selling point for Bs, Cs, T**2s, etc.



#30 jacko

jacko
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: June 20

Posted 09 July 2020 - 08:18

If memory serves, I first came across the terms "Honker", "Bonker" and "Clonker" in a 1967 magazine article, possibly "Sports Car Graphic". "Honker" obviously referred to the Project 77 car built by Alan Mann for Andretti to drive for Holman and Moody, "Bonker", I believe, to a Len Terry designed machine, dubbed the "King Cobra", for Carroll Shelby and driven by Jerry Titus and "Clonker" to the G7A "Caliope", which failed to appear that year.

 

Returning to the P68, it should be noted that the car sat on pole at Spa almost 4 seconds quicker than Jacky Ickx, renowned Spa specialist, in a well sorted 5 litre John Wyer GT40. The time was precisely 0.7 seconds slower than the Chaparral 2F's pole time from the previous year, complete with 7 litre Chevy, high mounted rear wing and Phil Hill at the wheel.

 

I didn't think Frank Gardner could hold his breath for 3 min. 36.3 secs!



#31 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,061 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 09 July 2020 - 12:19

Originally posted by jacko
.....I didn't think Frank Gardner could hold his breath for 3 min. 36.3 secs!


You should have listened more carefully when he told of diving into the snake-infested lake at Enna to attach a rope to a sunken car.

#32 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 09 July 2020 - 12:42

Unless the problems are very much apparent and easily addressed, race teams don't really have the time nor resources to chase something good hiding deep within something bad. All three of these cars were driven in period by some of the best drivers in the world, and more than one-shot drives, yet much of their performance was due to their drivers and the cars were never anywhere near their intended potential. Sometimes they were fast but often unreliable. Design flaw? Inadequate preparation? Whatever - then the season was over, and nobody involved wanted to go through anything similar come next year. It happens to the best of them - think Chaparral 2H.

 

 

Something else to think about - These three Ford-powered cars were expected to win and when they didn't, they got tagged as "failures". If H&M, the Agapious, and Alan Mann had bought and run Ford-powered McLaren M12s or Lola T160-series cars, they probably would have had similar results with the same drivers, and possibly better due to better reliability. But customer cars were never considered failures. Sorting a one-off can be an adventure into the unknown. The learning curve with customer cars was encountered when the "A" models were being run, and that factor became a selling point for Bs, Cs, T**2s, etc.

 

 

If memory serves, I first came across the terms "Honker", "Bonker" and "Clonker" in a 1967 magazine article, possibly "Sports Car Graphic". "Honker" obviously referred to the Project 77 car built by Alan Mann for Andretti to drive for Holman and Moody, "Bonker", I believe, to a Len Terry designed machine, dubbed the "King Cobra", for Carroll Shelby and driven by Jerry Titus and "Clonker" to the G7A "Caliope", which failed to appear that year.

 

 

Can't argue about the priorities of the race crews; they are necessarily absorbed with set-up, repairs and all the rest of the everyday tasks, on and off the track.

I meant the designers; these being effectively "works" teams, I imagine the man with overall responsibility for the machine would be observing and analysing it's performance, if possible to improve it, and if not, to incorporate the lessons into the "Mark 2" version? 



#33 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 09 July 2020 - 15:20

Can't argue about the priorities of the race crews; they are necessarily absorbed with set-up, repairs and all the rest of the everyday tasks, on and off the track.

I meant the designers; these being effectively "works" teams, I imagine the man with overall responsibility for the machine would be observing and analysing it's performance, if possible to improve it, and if not, to incorporate the lessons into the "Mark 2" version? 

This can go a number of different ways. Considering the McLaren M6, very successful and clearly the class of the Can-Am field in '67, yet little was retained for the M8 series. And the changes weren't due to big blocks and much bigger tires, a number of quick M6Bs (and Penske's A) ran with them in '68. Then something like the Lotus 72 which evolved and ran quickly for a long, long time in a series known for tech turnover. My point is that even if a car like the M6_ was good right away, McLaren was willing to move forward. And the Lotus 72 had some growing pains that were worth working through, and it paid off over an extraordinarily long period. The designer takes orders from the guy signing the checks so if development looks like it could be too much trouble, starting fresh may be the plan.



#34 blueprint2002

blueprint2002
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 10 July 2020 - 00:47

This can go a number of different ways. Considering the McLaren M6, very successful and clearly the class of the Can-Am field in '67, yet little was retained for the M8 series. And the changes weren't due to big blocks and much bigger tires, a number of quick M6Bs (and Penske's A) ran with them in '68. Then something like the Lotus 72 which evolved and ran quickly for a long, long time in a series known for tech turnover. My point is that even if a car like the M6_ was good right away, McLaren was willing to move forward. And the Lotus 72 had some growing pains that were worth working through, and it paid off over an extraordinarily long period. The designer takes orders from the guy signing the checks so if development looks like it could be too much trouble, starting fresh may be the plan.

Point well made. Have to agree with you. :)



#35 jacko

jacko
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: June 20

Posted 10 July 2020 - 07:38

Reading your post mentioning the McLaren M6, I recalled that Dan Gurney had been promised the Ford 494 cu in motor but it was never delivered, hence the switch to Chevy power later in the 1969 Can Am series, Interesting to speculate how his beautiful little "McLeagle" would have gone with the big Ford in the back,

 

Yet another "What If".