
Any information rolling around out there on this?
Posted 19 December 2003 - 18:15
Advertisement
Posted 20 December 2003 - 19:07
Posted 20 December 2003 - 19:58
Posted 21 December 2003 - 11:02
Posted 21 December 2003 - 12:19
Posted 21 December 2003 - 12:26
Posted 21 December 2003 - 14:29
Originally posted by Racers Edge
What really happen that day in 1964 at the Indy 500...?
Who started this horiffic crash?.... And I think it was the last time the Indy 500 saw Petrol, later all cars used Methanol....
Posted 21 December 2003 - 14:41
Originally posted by Racers Edge
Don..the photo was probably just a advertising photo, for the home market in England, ( DUNLOP at INDY) as at that time Firestone had a better developed tyre for Indy and Dunlop really did not have too much experience there. Firestone did alot of testing with AJ Foyt & Ford..I think you'll find Lotus / also switched to Firestone...for Indy...
Didn't Clark have a Dunlop tire failure in his first race, at Indy...just laps from the win? (or) was that suspension?
Posted 21 December 2003 - 17:43
Posted 21 December 2003 - 18:45
Originally posted by Racers Edge
..the photo was probably just a advertising photo, for the home market in England, ( DUNLOP at INDY) as at that time Firestone had a better developed tyre for Indy and Dunlop really did not have too much experience there. Firestone did alot of testing with AJ Foyt & Ford..I think you'll find Lotus / also switched to Firestone...for Indy...
Originally posted by Aanderson
Never have seen the photo's you mention, but no, nobody ran Indy in '64 on Dunlops, not even sure that any serious practice laps were, either.
As for Clark, and Team Lotus, they showed up in 1963 with the then-new (and very controversial!) 15" Firestone tires, then for 1964, Colin Chapman (over the objections of Ford!) brought Dunlop to the Speedway, apparently for the contingency money, depending on whose account you read. Dunlop apparently did not figure on the sustained high speeds of Indy, especially when compared to their normal venue of road racing, and supplied tires with treads that were either too thick, too soft, or both.
Clark's car experienced tread "chunking" midway into the event, which quickly developed into the tread peeling off the tire, the resultant imbalance and extreme vibration breaking the rear suspension, putting him out. On a subsequent pit stop, Gurney was discovered to have exactly the same problem, and upon the advice of the Dunlop representatives (by a newspaper account, I believe), Ford and Team Lotus withdrew Gurney's car.
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Jack took the Brabham to Indy on the Dunlop tyres on which I presume it had first turned a wheel in England but he says that John Zink was contracted to Firestone and so - yes - in any serious running at Indy it used Firestones instead. Jack would not have used Dunlops there by choice in any case since he considered even then that had they run the Kimberly-Cooper on Firestones rather than Dunlops in 1961 he'd have been seriously "in the money".
Posted 21 December 2003 - 19:01
Posted 21 December 2003 - 21:20
Posted 21 December 2003 - 21:37
Posted 21 December 2003 - 22:35
Posted 21 December 2003 - 23:17
Lotus used the Dunlop D12 in practice at Indy in 1963. Dan Gurney could lap 3 mph faster on the Dunlop than with the Firestones but tire wear was less with the Firestone so team chose the Firestone for the race. Later in 1963 Jim Clark won in Milwaukee on Dunlop tires. Lotus used Dunlops at Indy in 1964, with disastrous results.Originally posted by Aanderson
Never have seen the photo's you mention, but no, nobody ran Indy in '64 on Dunlops, not even sure that any serious practice laps were, either.
As for Clark, and Team Lotus, they showed up in 1963 with the then-new (and very controversial!) 15" Firestone tires, then for 1964, Colin Chapman (over the objections of Ford!) brought Dunlop to the Speedway, apparently for the contingency money, depending on whose account you read. Dunlop apparently did not figure on the sustained high speeds of Indy, especially when compared to their normal venue of road racing, and supplied tires with treads that were either too thick, too soft, or both.
Clark's car experienced tread "chunking" midway into the event, which quickly developed into the tread peeling off the tire, the resultant imbalance and extreme vibration breaking the rear suspension, putting him out. On a subsequent pit stop, Gurney was discovered to have exactly the same problem, and upon the advice of the Dunlop representatives (by a newspaper account, I believe), Ford and Team Lotus withdrew Gurney's car.
Team Lotus ran Firestones at Indy in 1965-69.
Art Anderson
Posted 22 December 2003 - 02:13
This would eliminate the possibility of a promo-picture for "back home" if Brabham was contracted with Goodyear.Originally posted by lynmeredith
During the mid to late 60s most F1 teams tested Goodyear tyres, no matter what tyre contracts they held. I was present at tests with BRM (Dunlop contract) Lotus (Firestone contract) and Ferrari (ditto). When I joined Goodyear late in 1964 Brabham and Gurney had personal contracts with Goodyear for F1 and Brabham (or MRD) probably had a contract for the supply of OE tyres for their production race cars.
I assume that the other tyre companies did similar testing with various teams. I don't know if Brabham tested with Dunlop or Firestone whilst he was contracted to Goodyear but I would not be surprised if he did and in fact he would have been foolish to turn down the opportunity. His next chat with Goodyear's chief engineer would have been worth hearing!
Lyn M
Posted 22 December 2003 - 02:42
Originally posted by Seppi_0_917PA
This would eliminate the possibility of a promo-picture for "back home" if Brabham was contracted with Goodyear.
Posted 22 December 2003 - 02:53
Posted 22 December 2003 - 04:26
Originally posted by Doug Nye
.....Masten Gregory had told Brabham that the Thompson cars were terrifying to drive and coming from the bravest driver in major-league motor racing that made Jack's eyes pop... He believes to this day that it was only the fact that he had his eyes absolutely glued on Dave MacDonald's car ahead of him at the start which enabled him to avoid probably fatal involvement when MacDonald lost control and the multiple collision erupted...
Advertisement
Posted 22 December 2003 - 07:28
Posted 22 December 2003 - 07:33
Posted 22 December 2003 - 09:35
Posted 22 December 2003 - 15:21
Strange because in his 1965 book, Jim Clark wrote that they used a nitro mixture in practice and opted for methanol in the race.Originally posted by Henri Greuter
I thought the same, that was till I read about Lotus still using gasoline in '65.
Posted 22 December 2003 - 16:54
Posted 22 December 2003 - 17:10
Posted 22 December 2003 - 23:04
Posted 23 December 2003 - 04:45
Posted 23 December 2003 - 07:49
Posted 23 December 2003 - 09:14
Posted 23 December 2003 - 15:25
Posted 23 December 2003 - 17:39
Posted 23 December 2003 - 17:55
Originally posted by Buford
Hey Don. Go get Walter's photos for the museum.
Posted 23 December 2003 - 19:39
Posted 23 December 2003 - 21:17
Posted 23 December 2003 - 21:21
Posted 23 December 2003 - 21:50
Posted 23 December 2003 - 21:53
Posted 23 December 2003 - 21:58
Originally posted by Ray Bell
Photo number 5 is certainly a graphic image of the start of the tragedy...
What of the other photographers whose images are shown... Oates, Ramsay and Lacopo?
And is the cover over the Sachs car because his body is still inside it?
Posted 23 December 2003 - 22:14
Advertisement
Posted 23 December 2003 - 22:25
Posted 23 December 2003 - 22:59
Posted 24 December 2003 - 04:20
Posted 24 December 2003 - 04:52
Originally posted by theunions
Paul, how did your dad get from shot #5 to shot #6 (I assume he simply took off running down pit lane, then went back to work once he was out of immediate danger)?
Posted 24 December 2003 - 13:19
Posted 24 December 2003 - 16:36
Posted 24 December 2003 - 17:13
Posted 24 December 2003 - 21:04
Posted 24 December 2003 - 22:58
Posted 25 December 2003 - 16:01
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Another point here regards the 1964 multiple accident which has been discussed previously at length in a TNF thread. Surely the point of Mickey Thompson's strategy with his cars was that they carried enormous amounts of fuel to minimise pit stops...the fuel load's immense weight exacerbating their desperately poor handling qualities. Masten Gregory had told Brabham that the Thompson cars were terrifying to drive and coming from the bravest driver in major-league motor racing that made Jack's eyes pop... He believes to this day that it was only the fact that he had his eyes absolutely glued on Dave MacDonald's car ahead of him at the start which enabled him to avoid probably fatal involvement when MacDonald lost control and the multiple collision erupted...
DCN
Posted 25 December 2003 - 20:47