41 replies to this topic

[bobbo]

Another of those "What if?" threads . . .

I've just been going over some reports of old races (1959 - 1968 or so. Thank you, Darren & Tam!) including F1 (WC and non-championship races) and I've noticed that Jim Hall had some pretty decent finishes (Not including his assorted wins in the Chaparrals!) for an independent, or at least I assume he was an independent in F1.

My question is: HOW good was he? If he had gotten on a reputable team (Lotus, BRM, Brabham), might he have done well in the WC standings? Stayed in F1? Might he have spent less time and energy on the Chaparrals?

Bobbo

[Don Capps]

Jim Hall was a very talented and skilled racing driver. His period with the British Racing Partnership was something of an interesting, well, lull in his career that showed that he had some real talent. He was racing in a team on which he was certainly the junior member, competing in a car (the Type 24) which was not remotely a challenger, on circuits he was seeing for the first time, often had his engineering skills ignored, and he still managed some excellent results when you consider what he had to work with.

Too often his performanaces in the Chaparrals are credited more to the cars than to Hall, but I think that is not necessarily the case....

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by bertocchi
.....My time in Midland was the greatest work experience of my life.

Off-topic, perhaps, but I just wish I could have been there too... it always impressed me, what little I read about the setup there and what I read about the cars.

Unfortunately I know too little about his F1 forays to comment... but being a second string privateer doesn't usually add up to a WDC point. Sure, there were some who achieved it through attrition, that's what you have to look at, I guess. Was it earned or thrust upon him?

[bobbo]

OK. Now, who has a report on the 1963 German GP? Jim Hall finished 5th with 2 points. A 5th at the 'Ring is certainly saying something.

Bobbo

[HistoricMustang]

The actual Sports Car Magazine article telling of Hall's talents in at least one race:

http://www.historicm...sportscar1.html

Henry

[MWiklund]

Being 56 years of age and a citizen of the USA who followed road racing in the 60's, I have a soft spot in my heart for Jim Hall and Hap Sharp and all of the boys from Midland. I know that there are folks that say that GM ran the show but I find it hard to believe that this "little old band from Texas" would be on marching orders from anyone. It was a special thing to watch them and AAR take on the best that Europe had to offer and beat them at their own game. Please don't take me for a Europe basher for saying that but it just made the competition so much more interesting for us just as Brabham and McClaren did for the folks Downunder.

[HistoricMustang]

Hap Sharp finished 9th in that same Augusta race.

Henry

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by bertocchi
In his brief foray into F1 the result that speaks more about his abilities than any other would probably be his first time visit to the BIG 'ring' and the championship point that he scored. Not a very good car the 24 he was driving. To their discredit, he was not with a team that was even interested in his skills in setup and engineering a better racecar. Neat that the 2D won the thang not too very much later.

He was a lap behind and there had been a lot of retirements. A lap is a long way in 15 laps. In the race he was about 15 seconds a lap slower than Jo Siffert in a basically similar car.

I am a huge admirer of Chaparral cars but there was little in Jim Hall's 1963 season to suggect he would be better than a midfield runner in Grand Prix racing. I know the BRP Lotus 24 was not competitive but genuine race winning talent shows itself whatever the machinery.

[Barry Boor]

I would class Jim Hall as a competent racer, though not near the very top level. Without consulting the statistics, I would say that he was not often ahead of Innes Ireland in ostensibly fairly equal machinery during 1963.

[Barry Boor]

Statistics confirm my memories. Innes' average grid position (up to the point when he hurt himself and missed the last few races) was between 8th and 9th. Hall's was between 14th and 15th.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
I would class Jim Hall as a competent racer, though not near the very top level. Without consulting the statistics, I would say that he was not often ahead of Innes Ireland in ostensibly fairly equal machinery during 1963.

Didn't he have something of a disadvantage in that he was far too big for a Lotus 24?

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Statistics confirm my memories. Innes' average grid position (up to the point when he hurt himself and missed the last few races) was between 8th and 9th. Hall's was between 14th and 15th.

Whoa!! I acknowledge that Samuel Clemens, as an American, was perhaps taking a chauvinistic position in his famous comparison between the performances of Ireland and Hall in '63 (see "A Texas Yankee in King Arthurs' Court") - but his comment that "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" is certainly appropriate here.

To believe that a comparison of lap times between two drivers on the same team in the early 60's (specifically, but largely true in general) is an accurate guide to their relative merit, is just not well founded. The teams were not well funded enough - nor was there necessarily sufficient availability of the right pieces, or a reliable enough flow of of supply, to make the second car on a given team the equal of the number one. This was true even of the top teams - but certainly true for BRP. I think this point is largely forgotten and ignored today - but it really renders a 'statistical' appraisal largely meaningless

Specifically,but not exclusively, I refer to the Lucas fuel-injection engines in Innes' car and the carburetor version available to Jim in the number two car.

Further, let us look at the German GP qualifying a bit closer. Innes, in a better car, was all of 8-seconds faster than Jim. This on a lap of 14.2 miles. Innes - a great driver in my book - was a veteran of the Ring - Jim a neophyte to this most challenging of circuits. I would say Jim Hall did a most credible job that weekend. Jim was seeing virtually all of the European circuits for the first time. At Silverstone he qualified just two/tenths of a second behind Innes.

To dismiss him as merely competent is way off the mark.

I'm not a big fan of driver rankings and such, but as to the original question posed here -"How good was he?" - - - he was very, very good!

Even Mark Twain would agree!

[Barry Boor]

Fair point, Mike.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger



Specifically,but not exclusively, I refer to the Lucas fuel-injection engines in Innes' car and the carburetor version available to Jim in the number two car.

Further, let us look at the German GP qualifying a bit closer. Innes, in a better car, was all of 8-seconds faster than Jim. This on a lap of 14.2 miles. Innes - a great driver in my book - was a veteran of the Ring - Jim a neophyte to this most challenging of circuits. I would say Jim Hall did a most credible job that weekend. Jim was seeing virtually all of the European circuits for the first time. At Silverstone he qualified just two/tenths of a second behind Innes.

Are you sure about the carburettor engine, Mike?

I think it's fair to say that the Nurburgring was not Innes Ireland's favourite circuit, I believe he crashed most times he raed there including 1963. At Silverstone, where he was something of a specialist, he was having a lot of problems with the new BRP car and was 2.4 seconds slower than he had been in May in the Lotus.

I'm not sure whether "merely competetent" is a phrase I would use, but I maintain that he showed no signs of troubling Clark, Surtees, Gurney and Hill. He may have reached the level of the better mid-field runners, such as McLaren, Ginther and Ireland. I am referring here only to his performances in Grand Prix racing.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by bertocchi
"Are you sure about the carburettor engine, Mike?"

I am, Absof'inglutly!

Obviously Denis Jenkinson got it wrong in his Belgian Grand Prix report. By this time most of the BRM private entries had injection engines, (eg the Sciroccos on their first appearance) so Hall must have been particularly handicapped.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
I'm not sure whether "merely competetent" is a phrase I would use, but I maintain that he showed no signs of troubling Clark, Surtees, Gurney and Hill. He may have reached the level of the better mid-field runners, such as McLaren, Ginther and Ireland. I am referring here only to his performances in Grand Prix racing.

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
To dismiss him as merely competent is way off the mark.

I'm not a big fan of driver rankings and such, but as to the original question posed here -"How good was he?" - - - he was very, very good!

Perhaps it is just me being the increasingly jaded curmedgeon that I am, but I think that there is often a lack of both context and how much subjectivity there is when a question like this is posed. While there is perhaps a place for the use of certain statistics in motor racing -- the current F1 scene seems completely incapable of functioning without spewing forth an almost neverending stream of data, as Mike correctly points out it is too often that the context of matter is ignored or not understood.

I will not belabor the point that "good" means no end of things to no end of people, especially in motor sports. To many even here -- but not everyone, "good" is interpreted only through a lens focused almost solely on GP and F1. As Mike points out, BRP placed its main effort on its No. 1 driver, Innes Ireland and Hall got whatever was left over. Making an engine last the entire weekend was the norm for a team such as BRP. Blown engines, bent chassis, and mangled bits were hard on such teams.

While I utterly loathe driver (and similar) rankings with a particular ill will that I reserve for few other endeavors, this does not mean that there aren't drivers (and so forth) that I don't admire or think highly or kindly about. Jim Hall is one of those. He had the urge to try GP racing and he did a stint with BRP. He was also working on the Chaparral 2. Draw your own conclusions.

[fines]

Quite contrary to Don, I driver rankings! Here's the 1963 score of my ranking program GPChart 7.0 (TOP 50 only, plus one old Hall buddy) - Jim is 14th, and in good company imho:

									   GPChart 7.0



									   End of 1963 



Rank Prev			   Name			  Nat Age Net Points  Per 1000 Races Wins



   1	2  Clark								   7245.4927 197.81918   24   13

   2	1  Hill									3134.9617  85.59191   19	4

   3	4  Brabham								 2641.9314  72.13103   25	4

   4	5  Surtees								 2509.9080  68.52645   19	5

   5	3  McLaren								 2496.8713  68.17052   23	4

   6   14  Ginther								 2056.9441  56.15947   15	-

   7	8  Ireland								 1374.5308  37.52795   17	1

   8   13  Maggs								   1343.5209  36.68132   22	-

   9	9  Gurney								  1162.3210  31.73413   15	1

  10   10  Bonnier								  814.8721  22.24795   19	-

  11	7  T Taylor								 693.5958  18.93681   19	-

  12   19  Bandini								  661.6929  18.06579   13	-

  13   17  Beaufort								 643.6535  17.57327   18	-

  14   31  Hall									 610.8625  16.67800   15	-

  15   29  Foyt									 607.1424  16.57643   12	5

  16   30  Siffert								  530.1508  14.47438   17	1

  17   79  Amon									 416.9677  11.38421   21	-

  18   26  Ward									 390.3682  10.65798   12	5

  19   38  P Jones								  314.9831   8.59979   12	1

  20  117  Arundell								 271.9305   7.42435	4	-

  21   28  Hyslop								   242.6443   6.62477	5	-

  22  ---  B Anderson							   231.3077   6.31525   11	1

  23   35  Settember								230.6688   6.29781	9	-

  24   99  Mitter								   202.7320   5.53507	3	-

  25   47  J Palmer								 187.2293   5.11180   11	3

  26   25  Stillwell								185.9814   5.07774	4	-

  27   22  Shelly								   182.6383   4.98646	9	-

  28   70  McElreath								180.3650   4.92440   12	-

  29  ---  Hailwood								 167.6426   4.57704	4	-

  30   37  Branson								  155.4324   4.24367   13	-

  31  ---  Raby									 146.9590   4.01233   10	-

  32   58  Collomb								  142.0426   3.87810   10	-

  33  102  Hulse									131.5368   3.59127   12	-

  34   88  McKay									130.7211   3.56900	4	-

  35  103  Tingelstad							   129.3849   3.53252	9	-

  36   52  Klerk									124.3754   3.39574   12	3

  37   18  Trintignant							  119.4142   3.26029	4	-

  38   11  Gregory								  118.2461   3.22840   10	-

  39   12  P Hill								   104.7479   2.85987	7	-

  40   94  Ruttman								  104.3589   2.84925	6	-

  41   51  Love									  99.6836   2.72160	7	-

  42  148  A Pilette								 92.5943   2.52804	9	-

  43   76  McCluskey								 88.0316   2.40347   12	-

  44  105  Histed									87.7057   2.39457	4	-

  45  131  Rutherford								84.7037   2.31261   12	-

  46   24  Burgess								   80.3655   2.19417	5	-

  47   32  Lederle								   78.4836   2.14279	7	6

  48   45  Youl									  77.6653   2.12045	4	-

  49  ---  Cabral									75.5639   2.06307	4	-

  50  ---  Scarfiotti								75.4773   2.06071	2	-

  51   71  H Sharp								   75.3469   2.05715	3	-

[Don Capps]

Michael, Does all that actually mean anything?

[fines]

Perhaps* not to you, but it's my pet project...

[* = mild understatement]

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Michael, Does all that actually mean anything?

One reason I ask is how -- meaning no offense to Bruce McLaren, Tony Maggs, Lorenzo Bandini, Jo Bonnier, Carel de Beaufort, and so forth (great gents each and every one of them) -- could remotely be ranked ahead of A.J. Foyt, Junior, and Rodger Ward during 1963?

Or, is this something I wouldn't understand even if you explained it?

[fines]

Well, it has something to do with the ranking being still incomplete (and, rather, imperfect I have to say ). Missing still are Formula Junior, Sprint Car and Midget results. FJunior is "on its way", but Sprints and Midgets are still far from fully researched and, I'm afraid, appear to remain so for quite the foreseeable future. I am happy enough to have a (hopefully) complete list of races and winners of USAC and CRA Sprints and Midgets, but only very few spotty results beyond that. Also, AAA and IMCA are still almost white spots, and this is only the major series!

Adding to that, getting a sort of equilibrium between "European Style" and "US Style" racing is a major headache along the way, but I'm quite satisfied so far. You have to keep in mind that USAC racing had a very limited appeal outside of the USofA, so that Foyt and Ward, for example, can't reach much further up the list without competing elsewhere, although I don't doubt for a minute they would have succeeded if they'd tried.

I reckon that in an"ultimate version" of this Foyt would end up around 10th, which I 'd think would put him perfectly in place - for 1963!

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by fines
Well, it has something to do with the ranking being still incomplete (and, rather, imperfect I have to say ). Missing still are Formula Junior, Sprint Car and Midget results. FJunior is "on its way", but Sprints and Midgets are still far from fully researched and, I'm afraid, appear to remain so for quite the foreseeable future. I am happy enough to have a (hopefully) complete list of races and winners of USAC and CRA Sprints and Midgets, but only very few spotty results beyond that. Also, AAA and IMCA are still almost white spots, and this is only the major series!

Adding to that, getting a sort of equilibrium between "European Style" and "US Style" racing is a major headache along the way, but I'm quite satisfied so far. You have to keep in mind that USAC racing had a very limited appeal outside of the USofA, so that Foyt and Ward, for example, can't reach much further up the list without competing elsewhere, although I don't doubt for a minute they would have succeeded if they'd tried.

I reckon that in an"ultimate version" of this Foyt would end up around 10th, which I 'd think would put him perfectly in place - for 1963!

Why? I mean, what does this really tell me? What does this data explain to me or show me? Where can it help in developing any analysis? How can this be used to help me look at the season? Why do I need this? (Sorry, this sort of thing brings out the professor in me.... )

PS: Didn't Ralph Money screw around with some sort of system combining all forms of major motor sports for years and years? Did anybody care?

[fines]

Well, who needs what? Do I need to know who won the 1939 AIACR Championship? Do I need to know who wrote "The Great Gatsby"? Do I need to know if the world is round or flat?

For me, and everyone else is (forgive me) irrelevant, these rankings do serve quite a few purposes. For example, before you can say "Doh..." I can make a list of races ranked by their relative importance, i.e. by the success of the drivers competing for them. Thus I get...

												   GPChart 7.0



										1963 Races by most points scored



Rank Year Mon  Date			   Race			   Formula				 Winner			 Nat Age  Points



  1  1963 Sep 8  Sun  I							WDC		   Clark								  695.163

  2  1963 Oct 27 Sun  MEX						  WDC		   Clark								  672.372

  3  1963 Aug 4  Sun  D							WDC		   Surtees								671.081

  4  1963 Jul 20 Sat  GB						   WDC		   Clark								  664.792

  5  1963 Jun 30 Sun  ACF						  WDC		   Clark								  664.639

  6  1963 Oct 6  Sun  USA						  WDC		   Hill								   663.774

  7  1963 Jun 9  Sun  B							WDC		   Clark								  651.978

  8  1963 Jun 23 Sun  NL						   WDC		   Clark								  648.000

  9  1963 Dec 28 Sat  ZA						   WDC		   Clark								  629.946

 10  1963 Sep 21 Sat  Gold Cup					 F1			Clark								  608.432

 11  1963 May 26 Sun  MC						   WDC		   Hill								   603.114

 12  1963 May 11 Sat  BRDC Silverstone T		   F1			Clark								  575.984

 13  1963 Apr 27 Sat  BARC 200					 F1			Hill								   459.844

 14  1963 Jul 28 Sun  GP der Solitude			  F1			Brabham								372.922

 15  1963 Apr 15 Mon  Glover T					 F1			Ireland								341.053

 16  1963 Feb 10 Sun  AUS						  FLibre		Brabham								325.821

 17  1963 Sep 1  Sun  A							F1			Brabham								325.705

 18  1963 Mar 30 Sat  Lombank T					F1			Hill								   320.573

 19  1963 Jan 5  Sat  NZ						   FLibre		Surtees								302.962

 20  1963 Jan 26 Sat  Teretonga					FLibre		McLaren								286.780

 21  1963 Jan 19 Sat  Lady Wigram T				FLibre		McLaren								279.594

 22  1963 Aug 11 Sun  Kanon L					  F1			Clark								  278.566

 23  1963 May 30 Thu  Indianapolis 500			 USAC		  P Jones								271.050

 24  1963 Jan 12 Sat  Levin						FLibre		Brabham								270.591

 25  1963 Dec 14 Sat  Rand GP					  F1			Surtees								252.162

 26  1963 Feb 17 Sun  Lakeside					 FLibre		Surtees								237.626

 27  1963 Mar 11 Mon  Sandown					  FLibre		McLaren								227.677

 28  1963 Aug 18 Sun  GP del Mediterraneo		  F1			Surtees								223.383

 29  1963 Sep 22 Sun  Trenton 200				  USAC		  Foyt								   219.079

 30  1963 Aug 18 Sun  Milwaukee 200				USAC		  Clark								  207.434

 31  1963 Mar 5  Tue  South Pacific T			  FLibre		McLaren								200.093

 32  1963 Apr 21 Sun  GP di Imola				  F1			Clark								  179.215

 33  1963 Apr 15 Mon  GP de Pau					F1			Clark								  165.588

 34  1963 Apr 25 Thu  GP di Siracusa			   F1			Siffert								 59.065

 35  1963 Jun 9  Sun  Milwaukee 100				USAC		  Ward									59.018

 36  1963 Oct 27 Sun  Sacramento 100			   USAC		  Ward									51.672

 37  1963 Nov 17 Sun  Phoenix 100				  USAC		  Ward									51.315

 38  1963 Sep 2  Mon  DuQuoin 100				  USAC		  Foyt									43.653

 39  1963 Sep 14 Sat  Hoosier 100				  USAC		  Ward									42.337

 40  1963 Jul 28 Sun  Trenton 150				  USAC		  Foyt									41.579

 41  1963 Jul 28 Sun  Hoosier GP				   FLibre		Gurney								  39.173

 42  1963 Aug 17 Sat  Springfield 100			  USAC		  Ward									36.984

 43  1963 Apr 21 Sun  Trenton 100				  USAC		  Foyt									32.839

 44  1963 Jun 23 Sun  Langhorne 100				USAC		  Foyt									30.321

 45  1963 Feb 2  Sat  Waimate 50				   FLibre		J Palmer								25.970

 46  1963 May 19 Sun  GP di Roma				   F1			B Anders								24.042

 47  1963 Mar 30 Sat  Rand Autumn T				ZA			Klerk								   17.087

 48  1963 Dec 28 Sat  Bay of Plenty RR			 FLibre		J Palmer								15.488

 49  1963 Jun 8  Sat  Festival T				   ZA			Lederle								 15.105

 50  1963 Apr 15 Mon  Coronation 100			   ZA			Lederle								 15.018

... a neat list of what I would regard the 50 most important Formula races of the year. And you can see that, i.e. the Gold Cup and International Trophy races were "full-blown" GPs in all but name, while the rather grandly named Syracuse GP wasn't much more than an Italian "clubbie".

Of course, lists like these can never be perfect, but they give quite a good idea of what was really important.

I like it.

[fines]

Also, I can make a list of, say, the ten most successful car makes in, say, 1903:

[I have to type this by hand because the program's yet not fully developed]

1 Mors 24%
2 Panhard & Levassor 16%
3 Mercedes 16%
4 de Dietrich 9%
5 CGV 6%
6 Gardner-Serpollet 5%
7 Darracq 4%
8 Pipe 3%
9 Gobron-Brillié 2%
10 Renault 2%

[Buford]

Originally posted by fines
Also, I can make a list of, say, the ten most successful car makes in, say, 1903:

An argument raging in bars and pubs through the world to this very day!!!

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be mean. I just find that kind of thing funny. That level of attention to detail and dedication should maybe be put to a better use. Like... hooters?

[fines]

Been thru' that - can't hold my attention anymore.

[Roger Clark]

fines,

I would be interested to know how your ranking avoids becoming self-sustaining: a race becomes important because of the drivers who compete in it, the drivers therefore are more highly ranked and so the races those drivers compete in become more important.

Even a Europhile such as myself has difficulty with the idea that the Kanonloppet race was more important than the Indianapolis 500.

[Buford]

Originally posted by fines
Been thru' that - can't hold my attention anymore.

Wow!!! My dad is 91 and he is still interested!

[Ray Bell]

...and I'm with his dad on that.

Fee-nes... you need to get out more!

[Magee]

Michael, from another Michael:

Relevancy is paramount as long as you have an audience.

[Frank S]

Originally posted by Don Capps


One reason I ask is how -- meaning no offense to Bruce McLaren, Tony Maggs, Lorenzo Bandini, Jo Bonnier, Carel de Beaufort, and so forth (great gents each and every one of them) -- could remotely be ranked ahead of A.J. Foyt, Junior, and Rodger Ward during 1963?

Or, is this something I wouldn't understand even if you explained it?

It will make perfect sense, and its relevance will be a revelation, if your cell and its echoes resonate with his cell and its echoes.


Frank S

[Don Capps]

Actually, I was just poking my dear friend Michael in the ribs a little bit. Although I often find it best to look in askance at such schemes, there is often enough the serendipitious effect of there emerging from this mass of data some relationships and patterns that might have otherwise gone unrealized to make one pay attention to such exercises.

A very, very positive outcome from all this work that Michael is doing (and has done) is that he has gained a very finely (sorry, couldn't resist) tuned sense of what data there is available and where the holes are. As is often the case, it is not so much the product, but exercise of producing the product itself that helps expand our knowledge.

[fines]

Roger, of course you're right - it's not perfect (and probably will never be) just because of this self-sustaining moment. Alas, I think I have already improved quite a lot over earlier versions, and there's more to come yet. Maybe it's Sisyphos' work, but I still enjoy it from time to time.

And Michael, yes, alright, I know I can be an overly self-important person at times... ;)

Originally posted by Don Capps
Actually, I was just poking my dear friend Michael in the ribs a little bit. Although I often find it best to look in askance at such schemes, there is often enough the serendipitious effect of there emerging from this mass of data some relationships and patterns that might have otherwise gone unrealized to make one pay attention to such exercises.

A very, very positive outcome from all this work that Michael is doing (and has done) is that he has gained a very finely (sorry, couldn't resist) tuned sense of what data there is available and where the holes are. As is often the case, it is not so much the product, but exercise of producing the product itself that helps expand our knowledge.

Thanks Don, you've hit the nail on the head (as usual)!;)


Oh, and for Bu and Ray, don't worry about or pity me, I don't miss sex at all! Like a racing driver who retires with all his limbs in place, I've had had my fun and stopped before paternity or a sexual disease could lessen the pleasure of my deeds...

[humphries]

In his early days of racing Jim Hall used a Ferrari 750S Monza and then a Chevrolet engined Monza called "Pigpen" according to the Chaparral book. In 1957, however, there appears to have been another Jim Hall racing a Monza. He was a friend of Masten Gregory's step-brother Dale Duncan, I believe, so he might have been from Kansas. Can anyone confirm that there were two Jim Hall's and who did what and where?! It would be very easy to get their racing stats mixed up.

John

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by fines
Oh, and for Bu and Ray, don't worry about or pity me, I don't miss sex at all! Like a racing driver who retires with all his limbs in place, I've had had my fun and stopped before paternity or a sexual disease could lessen the pleasure of my deeds...

I have to agree with fines here. While I haven't completely retired, I only take special drives now ;). Which brings me to Ray's comments in another thread, I've had my time and it was the right time. I would not have wanted to have been born even 10 years earlier or later.

You know Buford, you haven't checked my schedule...did you ever stop to think that someone had to keep the ladies entertained while you were out on the track or in the garage

Getting it back on topic, sort of...at least fines is taking Sprints and Midgets into consideration. They were the Champ Car equivalent of F2 and F3 during that era and it's nice to see someone view it that way.

[Buford]

Originally posted by Jim Thurman
You know Buford, you haven't checked my schedule...did you ever stop to think that someone had to keep the ladies entertained while you were out on the track or in the garage

That's the biggest regret of my racing career (other than not making it to Indy). All the babes I could have had that there was no time for. Oh yeah, I had time for some, but not all of them.

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by humphries
In his early days of racing Jim Hall used a Ferrari 750S Monza and then a Chevrolet engined Monza called "Pigpen" according to the Chaparral book. In 1957, however, there appears to have been another Jim Hall racing a Monza. He was a friend of Masten Gregory's step-brother Dale Duncan, I believe, so he might have been from Kansas. Can anyone confirm that there were two Jim Hall's and who did what and where?! It would be very easy to get their racing stats mixed up.

John

Yes, there were two Jim Halls. Jim C. Hall, an early SCCA racer, and of course Chaparral Jim Hall. I am not sure if Jim C. Hall was from Kansas or not but I will check into it.

[humphries]

Joe

Thanks for the confirmation. Thank goodness for the "C"!

John

[Joe Fan]

I have asked around and the Jim C. Hall is believed to be from Texas like the famous Jim Hall. After talking to Masten Gregory's brother Riddelle, there may have been a third Jim Hall from Texas that might have raced too, or this could be the same Jim Hall. Riddelle bought his first C-type from a older Jim Hall in Houston in 1953 but he said he didn't think he ever raced. But someone with a C-type at that time probably had to be a driver or know one to get a competition C. Masten had to use his brother-in-law Dale Duncan's racing credentials to get his C-type.

[bobbo]

Just bringing this up to the front again, especially since we recently had the opening of the "Chaparral (Never could remember how to spell it!!) Museum" in Midland. Perhaps someone who was there has something that might be added to this thread.

Thanks!!

Bobbo

[rjl850]

Originally posted by bobbo
Just bringing this up to the front again, especially since we recently had the opening of the "Chaparral (Never could remember how to spell it!!) Museum" in Midland. Perhaps someone who was there has something that might be added to this thread.

Thanks!!

Bobbo

Actually, I have a little something to add -- a picture of what I presume to be Jim Hall's Lotus. I really don't know anything about the car, except that it was there in the old Chaparral workshop.

-Bob

[Todd]

It is strictly anecdotal, but I remember reading a story about Jim Hall that was reminiscent of Rudolf Uhlenhaut. Apparently, the team drivers hated his innovative lay down Can Am car, the 2H. They called it undrivable, and I've read speculation that it was merely a diversion until the 2J was ready. To show his drivers that he was serious about the radically slippery Great White Whale, Jim Hall, who had already suffered his driving career ending injuries in the 2G, laid down in the hated 2H and proceeded to reset the track record at Rattlesnake Raceway. He wound up altering the driver's seat position to a conventional rake anyway, but he made his point that the concept had it's advantages. I suspect he was an extremely gifted driver.