Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: I wonder who has passed the most cars on the first lap of the Indy 500

  1. #31
    On topic,

    is Parnelli's run from 6th to first within little less than the first half lap of '67 worth a honorable mentioning?


    Indyote

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post
    The story I have heard about `herk` in '65 was that by then the rear wheel tires on the Novi were wider than he was used to in '63 but also softer and more grippy because of that. And that he had floored the accellerator, counting on the familiar wheelspin to take over. But due to the better grip, the tires held so instead of grip being the weakest link, the next weakest ling between engine and tires had to give in, in this case: the transmission.

    Another very weak point of the Novis was their rate of fuel consumption. Powerful as they were, all that power required way too much fuel, increasing their weight even further, which had it effects on the tire wear, the handling, a vicious circle that could not be broken.....
    it is also told that the fuel efficiency of the earliest Novi was not very well and a lot of fuel effectively been wasted. Rogher Huntington mentioned within his book "Design & development of the Indycar" that the Granatelli brothers found out on a dyno test that the engines had a fuel consuption of some 140 gallons per hour which should have given some 700 to 800 hp but they got a bit less than 500......

    Nevertheless, one of the most fascinating stories ever in indy history and racing history in general.... Though I am of European background, I prefer the Novi Legend over the European counterpart of the Novi: the BRM V16 of 1950-1955...

    Indyote
    1965 must have been very disappointing for Herk given the hard work of his recovery and the nasty practice crash.

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post
    On topic,

    is Parnelli's run from 6th to first within little less than the first half lap of '67 worth a honorable mentioning?


    Indyote
    From my view, Parnelli's start in 67 is surely worth an honorable mention.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by preacher View Post
    From my view, Parnelli's start in 67 is surely worth an honorable mention.
    Well, maybe. But first you have to repeat the mantra:

    Parnelli did not sandbag.
    Parnelli did not sandbag.
    Parnelli did not sandbag.



    There's a reason Andretti gave him the one-finger salute when Rufus blew past him on the first lap.

    That's not to demean Parnelli.
    The car he drove was pronounced legal. And he was a good driver. The fact that he had enough HP* and grip to blow right past everyone is no black mark against him personally.

    Andretti and the rest wished they had the same car.

    *According to Pratt & Whitney, the PT6B turbine in Jones car was rated @ 981 HP. Even with the inlet area reduced by 33% (still 648 HP), the next year, the turbine made enough HP to qualify on the pole.
    Last edited by jnormanh; 02-07-2017 at 05:51 PM.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post
    Well, maybe. But first you have to repeat the mantra:

    Parnelli did not sandbag.
    Parnelli did not sandbag.
    Parnelli did not sandbag.



    There's a reason Andretti gave him the one-finger salute when Rufus blew past him on the first lap.

    That's not to demean Parnelli.
    The car he drove was pronounced legal. And he was a good driver. The fact that he had enough HP* and grip to blow right past everyone is no black mark against him personally.

    Andretti and the rest wished they had the same car.

    *According to Pratt & Whitney, the PT6B turbine in Jones car was rated @ 981 HP. Even with the inlet area reduced by 33% (still 648 HP), the next year, the turbine made enough HP to qualify on the pole.



    I hope that my reaction won't cause any of the feuds currently going on elsewhere.

    But can you by chance tell where you found that statement about the power output of the PT6B being that powerful?


    From what I have heard, the turbine was, powerwise in the ballpark with the strongest of the piston engines, more power being possible but deemed not necessary to generate because of:

    Unlike what is told, the car was far more heavy than generally was told it was so in order to reduce the weight a bit, the engine wasn't prepped to deliver maximum power but only `sufficient` power. This required less fuel, hence reducing the maximum weight of the car a bit. Besides that, since the engine had no additional brake capaicities, the braking on the car was already marginal as it was thus mor power for even more top speed had results for reducing the car to corner speeds again.

    Another reason as of why Parnelli had such an advantage on race day over his components is one that is very much overlooked and/or deemed as insignificant.
    Parnelli qualified his car in race trim and with the engine in race trim as for power output. This unlike the majority of the `Piston Brigade` who, in their quest for top speeds and the pole had `tipped the can` (For they who are not familiar with that expression: instead of running on 100% methanol, the teams used brews of Methanol and Nitromethane. I have no idea or approval as of how much Nitro was used. But this power increasing additive was not used on Race day and the `piston brigade` instantly had a power deficit of up to 30 to 50 hp compared with practice and qualifying to deal with.

    Finally, anothr reason why Parnelli was as fast as he was had to do with the chassis. Perhaps it looked ungainly and was more heavy than generally believed, thanks to the 4WD (including those big fat tires at the front!) and the fine balance of the car it had a handling like few cars ever had up till that moment.

    So at best, even if Parnelli had more power, that was also because of the opposition being stronger and faster in Practice and Q-trim than in race trim, something I think you can not held against Parnelli and/or the car.


    Again, I hope I didn't light up a fues with this,


    Regards,

    Indyote

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post

    But can you by chance tell where you found that statement about the power output of the PT6B being that powerful?


    Indyote
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post

    But can you by chance tell where you found that statement about the power output of the PT6B being that powerful?


    Indyote
    Features

    PT6B Series engines incorporate the latest technologies in the drive to exceed our customers' expectations in performance, reliability, durability, fuel consumption and environmental friendliness. Six PT6B models have been produced ranging in shaft horsepower power from 900 to over 2,000 shaft horsepower. Key innovative design features have been introduced to the PT6B Series over the years to further increase its appeal in the market. The PT6B-37A features an automatic fuel control and an electronic power turbine governor with a manual back-up – a feature unique for single engine operations.

    http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pt6b

    Because of the date, I assumed that Jones' was the version in production at that time, 981 HP.

    But maybe it was the earliest model with only 900 HP.

    -----------------------

    If you search around, you can find references that call Jones' engine a STB-62, but I can't find a P&W engine of that designation, so believe it was a PT6B as stated most places.

    There are a few things we do know:

    Jone's car weighed 400# more than the Fords. The Fords made maybe 550+ HP.

    Now, given that the Fords had a 400# weight advantage, and about 550 HP, watch the first lap . Jones blows right past the Fords.

    Lap 6 Jones ran FRL @165 mph, within 1 mph of his qualifying speed, on still full tanks. So, how much HP do you think it took to do all that?

    Let me repeat: Nothing I have said is intended to denigrate RPJ. He was a damned fine driver, capable of winning head-to-head against his contemporaries.
    Last edited by jnormanh; 02-08-2017 at 10:12 AM.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post


    Another reason as of why Parnelli had such an advantage on race day over his components is one that is very much overlooked and/or deemed as insignificant.
    Parnelli qualified his car in race trim and with the engine in race trim as for power output. This unlike the majority of the `Piston Brigade` who, in their quest for top speeds and the pole had `tipped the can` (For they who are not familiar with that expression: instead of running on 100% methanol, the teams used brews of Methanol and Nitromethane. I have no idea or approval as of how much Nitro was used. But this power increasing additive was not used on Race day and the `piston brigade` instantly had a power deficit of up to 30 to 50 hp compared with practice and qualifying to deal with.

    Finally, anothr reason why Parnelli was as fast as he was had to do with the chassis. Perhaps it looked ungainly and was more heavy than generally believed, thanks to the 4WD (including those big fat tires at the front!) and the fine balance of the car it had a handling like few cars ever had up till that moment.

    Correct.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post
    Features

    PT6B Series engines incorporate the latest technologies in the drive to exceed our customers' expectations in performance, reliability, durability, fuel consumption and environmental friendliness. Six PT6B models have been produced ranging in shaft horsepower power from 900 to over 2,000 shaft horsepower. Key innovative design features have been introduced to the PT6B Series over the years to further increase its appeal in the market. The PT6B-37A features an automatic fuel control and an electronic power turbine governor with a manual back-up – a feature unique for single engine operations.

    http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pt6b

    Because of the date, I assumed that Jones' was the version in production at that time, 981 HP.

    But maybe it was the earliest model with only 900 HP.

    Thanks!

    But I remain pretty confident that this amount of power was never ever achieved with the engine in `Silent Sam`.
    Even if, allegedly, `Silent Sam`was fitted with most of the driveline components of the 1964 built Ferguson-Novi P104. Even that drive line had never been exposed to 750+ hp so was it strong enough to cope with 981?
    Maybe the engine did have a lot more potential but if there was one car owner who know how one could be embarrased with too much power, then it were the Granatelli's. Even as late as in 1965 they had already learned that less could be better with their Novi: It was detuned in Atlanta '65 and holeymeloney it scored one of its finest performances ever!

    Maybe the '67 turbine did indeed have more that the listed 550-575 hp that is often mentioned. Could be. But 981? No way.
    Same kind of deal for what is told about the turbo Offies producing up to 625 in '68 already. Yes they could before blowing apart so they ran at about 575 at best to have something of an edge over the Quadcams and still be reliable enough to survive.

    Indyote



    Based on what I have read and what I have heard, I think that the most often told stories about Parnelli not sandbagging are correct. The one thing of sandbagging that I believe is definitely the case however is: the car had a lot more potential on tap if needed and looked for. But the STP team never bothered to look for that ultimate level of performance since it wasn't needed. They were competitive with whatever they faced in competition on any moment already so there was no need to look for more and risk overstressing the car or vital components of the car even further then they already did
    I must look up where I have read the following.
    A number of gear sets within the drive line were broken during practice already. Yet that was a fault due to inproper treatment after the making of the gears. Story is that parnelli qualified with a collection of gears that had been salvaged from setd in which one or more gears had broken and that these were the last gears before new ones came in. Come to think of it, that might have been a reason for some sandbegging ....


    Thanks again!

    regards,

    Indyote

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post
    Even if, allegedly, `Silent Sam`was fitted with most of the driveline components of the 1964 built Ferguson-Novi P104. Even that drive line had never been exposed to 750+ hp so was it strong enough to cope with 981?

    Granatelli claimed 838 HP for the Novi in the Ferguson. Whether those were real HP or Granatelli HP, I don't know.

    But, no it wasn't strong enough for the turbine.

    Maybe the engine did have a lot more potential but if there was one car owner who know how one could be embarrassed with too much power, then it were the Granatelli's.

    But of course Granatelli didn't want to be disqualified.

    You may not be old enough to remember, but I was, and I remember many drivers complaining that they had no chance against the turbine. Of course Parnelli ran some slow practice laps as he learned how to handle the throttle lag, but other drivers also saw how easily he could blow them away. They complained loud and long to no avail.

    IMO, and that's just what it is, my opinion, Parnelli never showed the full potential of the car in practice or qualifying. But he gave a hint on the first lap.

    And the next year, with the inlet considerably restricted, it was still the fastest car on the track.

    We'll never know for certain.

    I wish we had that sort of innovation today.

    Cheers.






    Indyote
    .......
    Last edited by jnormanh; 02-08-2017 at 11:53 AM.

  10. #40
    GIMME A SWORD Jamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Buddhist Republic of Breezy Knoll
    Posts
    17,209
    Blog Entries
    2
    Seriously. Are there any records anywhere of lap charts for the 500? That would be fascinating reading. I know they used to print lap charts in the 500 programs...

    F'r'instance...Andretti in 78 starting dead last in one of the fastest cars in the field. Sneva in 80 and he and Andretti both in 81. Wonder how many those guys gobbled up on that first lap.
    "And our credo: 'Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc: We gladly feast on those who would subdue us.' Not just pretty words."

    TrackForum Pick 5 International Sweepstakes Point Standings

    Brian's Wish * Jason Foundation

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamski View Post
    Seriously. Are there any records anywhere of lap charts for the 500? That would be fascinating reading. I know they used to print lap charts in the 500 programs...

    F'r'instance...Andretti in 78 starting dead last in one of the fastest cars in the field. Sneva in 80 and he and Andretti both in 81. Wonder how many those guys gobbled up on that first lap.
    I used to love to read the lap charts when they were available. I believe it was 81 when Sneva was in a new March (was it?) and was fast qualifier but not on the first day. I remember being amazed at his quick journey up the chart. He was rolling on that day.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Yeah, I certainly can understand that Mario was not pleased when Silent Sam when roaring past.

    On the other hand the Turbine was true innovation and Parnelli was a master.

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by preacher View Post
    Yeah, I certainly can understand that Mario was not pleased when Silent Sam when wooshing past.

    On the other hand the Turbine was true innovation and Parnelli was a master.
    Edited that for you.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post


    Granatelli claimed 838 HP for the Novi in the Ferguson. Whether those were real HP or Granatelli HP, I don't know.

    But, no it wasn't strong enough for the turbine.


    But of course Granatelli didn't want to be disqualified.

    You may not be old enough to remember, but I was, and I remember many drivers complaining that they had no chance against the turbine. Of course Parnelli ran some slow practice laps as he learned how to handle the throttle lag, but other drivers also saw how easily he could blow them away. They complained loud and long to no avail.

    IMO, and that's just what it is, my opinion, Parnelli never showed the full potential of the car in practice or qualifying. But he gave a hint on the first lap.

    And the next year, with the inlet considerably restricted, it was still the fastest car on the track.

    We'll never know for certain.

    I wish we had that sort of innovation today.

    Cheers.





    .......
    The 838 hp claim for a Novi was not with the Ferguson but for the 1966 car and that had a chassis built by the Granatelli's themselves.

    I was only 5 years old in '67 and to be honest, I had never heard of Indy and its existence and what it stood for until 1973. But I think it's fair to say I caught up fairly good thereafter, at least given my background that is....

    To be honest, I think there is a good chance that a lot of the complaints about the turbine of '67 were overexaggerated by the other drivers with the hope to get the car outlawed or at least its performance level reduced. And some of the claims were beyond the point of being rediculous, given what those drivers did themselves with their cars. Complaining about the airbrake coming up which blocked their view while exhaust pipes of the Quadcams were covered with sheet metal to create a primitive spoiler that was permanently blocking the view for someone behind him.

    I also have the sincere belief that the '68 cars were nowhere near as fast as they were said to be. Yes they were very fast in qualifying but it took a lot more efforts and prepping the cars to and over the limits than one year ago to make it faster. Parnelli could race it as he qualified it, but that was not possible with the '68 cars, these were tuned down for Race day.
    I also think that lots of the speed increment compared with '67 were not because of engine improvements (anything but!!!) but a quantum leap forward jump in chassis technology. Those two type of race cars easily qualify among the 5 most innovative chassis innovations seen at Indy ever.

    I can't say that I was a fan of Granatelli though I liked his cars. And if I had a chance to re-write Indy history of both 1967 and 1968, be assured that the result would be that once I was ready, then there were only two 4 time winners today, the list of three time winners read different with a new name among them but also one name gone and there were two more two time winners. And another one time winner.

    These cars deserved a better fate than they have. I can see why people didn't like them and I agree that they caused a lot of troubles that USAC could have avoided. But as USAC showed over the years, they were hard learners until Roger Penske finally got them on their own grounds in '94. But they do make a fascinating piece of Indy history that is hard to be matched in any race formula worldwide.

    I agree with you, I also miss that innovation. But I can't think of a manner how to get it back. and make it work.

    Regards,

    Indyote

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post
    Edited that for you.
    Wonderful!

  16. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post

    To be honest, I think there is a good chance that a lot of the complaints about the turbine of '67 were overexaggerated by the other drivers with the hope to get the car outlawed or at least its performance level reduced.

    I also have the sincere belief that the '68 cars were nowhere near as fast as they were said to be. Yes they were very fast in qualifying but it took a lot more efforts and prepping the cars to and over the limits than one year ago to make it faster. .... these were tuned down for Race day....
    I also think that lots of the speed increment compared with '67 were not because of engine improvements (anything but!!!) but a quantum leap forward jump in chassis technology.

    I can't say that I was a fan of Granatelli

    These cars deserved a better fate than they have. ...they do make a fascinating piece of Indy history that is hard to be matched in any race formula worldwide.

    I agree with you, I also miss that innovation. But I can't think of a manner how to get it back. and make it work.

    Regards,

    Indyote
    Thanks. I've edited down your post to those things I agree with, and eliminated a few bits I don't understand.

    I think the turbines were a great addition to Indy, taking the place, perhaps, previously occupied by the Novis.

    I still think innovation at Indy is possible. For a simple start, one could have a formula such as -
    unlimited displacement, two valves/cyl, atmospheric aspiration, one camshaft. The stockblock experts would come up with some wild stuff.

    Or, my favorite formula: No bodywork more than 12" in front of the front tires, no bodywork more than 12" behind the rear tires, no bodywork past the inside edge of the tires, no bodywork above the driver's helmet, minimum 4" ground clearance. Engines: as above, or, if you're feeling brave, unrestricted.

    I'd like to see what that produced. LOL!

    Thanks for the polite and informative discussion.

  17. #47
    Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mojave Desert, California
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyB View Post
    Speaking of books, let me know when yours is coming out. I would like to place my order now. For that matter, I'd order any books written by Michael Ferner, Don Capps and a few others I could name.

    Cannot get enough Indy 500 history into this aging head.
    Thank you for the kind words DannyB. Sadly, due to time constraints and having to actually attempt to make a living (since racing history isn't something one can make much money out of), it's not very likely I'll be able to do much more than the contributions I made to several books in the 90s-00s. There's also the lack of paying outlets for these kinds of stories. I really should look into doing something with what I've managed to research and gather, though with the folks involved long gone and myths surviving, there's not much chance of getting an accurate article, let alone book, out of it. At least, not one I'd feel comfortable putting my name on.

    I'd love to see Michael update and revise Paul Rhoads open wheel racers bios.
    "Versions of a story that are more tidy, compact, and camera-ready should generally be viewed as historically suspect." - Jackson Landers

  18. #48
    no longer a mere Hobbyist Michael Ferner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Bitburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by JThur1 View Post
    I'd love to see Michael update and revise Paul Rhoads open wheel racers bios.
    Really? That's a new one...


    Seriously, I'd love to do that, too, and I think I probably will... some day! Most people probably don't realize just how much hard work writing a book means. And Jim is absolutely right, there is no money in it, either, so it all boils down to a labour of love. I love it, that's why I still plan on doing it, but circumstances need to be right, too - I've got a job that's eating up most of my waking hours, and I can't just quit because I really enjoy some of the luxuries of life, like food, or a roof over my head. And if you want to do this after work, you can't afford too many distractions. Then, there's the research - no matter how much you know about a subject, there's always a lot more that you don't know, but would love to find out. A while ago, it looked like I hit a brick wall in research, and I was beginning to think about publishing, but more recently (and still ongoing), research is very good again, and I can't find enough hours in the day. So, writing will have to wait.

    That said, it's nice to hear positive comments once in a while (oops! ) - many thanks, DannyB!! Did you know, I have written a book about Cretan Philosophy in the 8th Century? (Joke!!!)

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Ferner View Post
    Really? That's a new one...


    Seriously, I'd love to do that, too, and I think I probably will... some day! Most people probably don't realize just how much hard work writing a book means. And Jim is absolutely right, there is no money in it, either, so it all boils down to a labour of love. I love it, that's why I still plan on doing it, but circumstances need to be right, too - I've got a job that's eating up most of my waking hours, and I can't just quit because I really enjoy some of the luxuries of life, like food, or a roof over my head. And if you want to do this after work, you can't afford too many distractions. Then, there's the research - no matter how much you know about a subject, there's always a lot more that you don't know, but would love to find out. A while ago, it looked like I hit a brick wall in research, and I was beginning to think about publishing, but more recently (and still ongoing), research is very good again, and I can't find enough hours in the day. So, writing will have to wait.
    Aw, jeepers, Michael. Such a whiner. You want to eat, have a roof over your head, maybe a girl friend and a bit of a social life?

    And that's your pitiful excuse for not publishing The All Time, Absolutely Complete, Infallible History of Automobile Racing?



    I've been trying for a while to reconstruct the history of Husett's Speedway, a very minor dirt/later asphalt 3/8 mile in the boonies of SD. I'll never live long enough to complete that.

    And I am retired, have all the GFs I'll ever need in life, and enough money to live forever.

    However, I hope you have already gotten a bit of payment. I know that you have done a few laps in the Boyle Valve car and a Roadster.

    That's more than I'll ever deserve.

  20. #50
    Moderator DannyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Columbus, IN
    Posts
    14,713
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post
    I've been trying for a while to reconstruct the history of Husett's Speedway, a very minor dirt/later asphalt 3/8 mile in the boonies of SD. I'll never live long enough to complete that.
    That would be quite a book...especially the past 2-3 years.

  21. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    According to ABC's Jim McKay Lloyd Ruby passed ten cars on the first lap in 1970. Not bad for the slow talking Texan,

  22. #52
    Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mojave Desert, California
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Ferner View Post
    Seriously, I'd love to do that, too, and I think I probably will... some day! Most people probably don't realize just how much hard work writing a book means. And Jim is absolutely right, there is no money in it, either, so it all boils down to a labour of love. I love it, that's why I still plan on doing it, but circumstances need to be right, too - I've got a job that's eating up most of my waking hours, and I can't just quit because I really enjoy some of the luxuries of life, like food, or a roof over my head. And if you want to do this after work, you can't afford too many distractions. Then, there's the research - no matter how much you know about a subject, there's always a lot more that you don't know, but would love to find out. A while ago, it looked like I hit a brick wall in research, and I was beginning to think about publishing, but more recently (and still ongoing), research is very good again, and I can't find enough hours in the day. So, writing will have to wait.

    That said, it's nice to hear positive comments once in a while (oops! ) - many thanks, DannyB!! Did you know, I have written a book about Cretan Philosophy in the 8th Century? (Joke!!!)
    This! Strangely, the same folks here at TF that question Michael, Don and myself with "when is your book coming out?", either fawn over or don't seem to question authors, especially over any passages that contain something they wish to believe. Since these same folks often use terms like "self-apointed" (sic) and "so-called experts", it's also clear they know nothing about our resumes or CVs. Again, something authors seem to get a pass on.
    Last edited by JThur1; 02-11-2017 at 03:10 PM. Reason: Lack of coffee

  23. #53
    Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mojave Desert, California
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by jnormanh View Post
    I've been trying for a while to reconstruct the history of Husett's Speedway, a very minor dirt/later asphalt 3/8 mile in the boonies of SD. I'll never live long enough to complete that.
    I hear you on that jnormanh! Huset's would be a great project. Track histories are much needed, appreciated and quite useful.

  24. #54
    Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mojave Desert, California
    Posts
    1,771
    One last reply and then a return to your regularly scheduled topic.

    DannyB, a better way to put what I was trying to write in my reply is that so many of the principals have passed away, that I truly don't feel I can do the subjects justice. One is left with patchy results and shreds of detail, but not much solid information. For example, Ed Elisian. His story needs to be out there, if for nothing more than to combat the ridiculous folklore about him that has spread more widely since the internet came along. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone with first-hand relationship to Ed (even second-hand is getting rare). His brothers have passed away and I haven't been able to track down the whereabouts of the son of one of Ed's best friends that had a large collection of Ed's memorabilia and personal effects. Sadly, this is repeated over and over again, more and more often. The true stories are just lost over time
    Last edited by JThur1; 02-10-2017 at 07:41 PM. Reason: Lack of coffee

  25. #55
    Moderator DannyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Columbus, IN
    Posts
    14,713
    Quote Originally Posted by JThur1 View Post
    The true stories are just lost over time
    Even under the best of circumstances the truth is elusive. And in the cases of racers that many of us saw in our youth, eyewitnesses, reliable or otherwise, the mists of time have prevailed and the truth recedes and myth takes over.

  26. #56
    I was in H stand in 1970 and the Ruby drive was one of the most spectacular I ever saw.... He was passing cars WAY out of the groove in turn 4, running consistently up in the gray until he had the lead...

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajandretti View Post
    I was in H stand in 1970 and the Ruby drive was one of the most spectacular I ever saw.... He was passing cars WAY out of the groove in turn 4, running consistently up in the gray until he had the lead...
    That must have great to watch! For many, many years Lloyd Ruby knew the quick way around the track during the race. He maybe didn't close the deal, but his race craft was only matched by his bad luck.

  28. #58
    Indy since '66 kevin99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    40 miles north of the greatest track that has the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.
    Posts
    6,437
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Indyote View Post
    I hope that my reaction won't cause any of the feuds currently going on elsewhere.

    But can you by chance tell where you found that statement about the power output of the PT6B being that powerful?


    From what I have heard, the turbine was, powerwise in the ballpark with the strongest of the piston engines, more power being possible but deemed not necessary to generate because of:

    Unlike what is told, the car was far more heavy than generally was told it was so in order to reduce the weight a bit, the engine wasn't prepped to deliver maximum power but only `sufficient` power. This required less fuel, hence reducing the maximum weight of the car a bit. Besides that, since the engine had no additional brake capaicities, the braking on the car was already marginal as it was thus mor power for even more top speed had results for reducing the car to corner speeds again.

    Another reason as of why Parnelli had such an advantage on race day over his components is one that is very much overlooked and/or deemed as insignificant.
    Parnelli qualified his car in race trim and with the engine in race trim as for power output. This unlike the majority of the `Piston Brigade` who, in their quest for top speeds and the pole had `tipped the can` (For they who are not familiar with that expression: instead of running on 100% methanol, the teams used brews of Methanol and Nitromethane. I have no idea or approval as of how much Nitro was used. But this power increasing additive was not used on Race day and the `piston brigade` instantly had a power deficit of up to 30 to 50 hp compared with practice and qualifying to deal with.

    Finally, anothr reason why Parnelli was as fast as he was had to do with the chassis. Perhaps it looked ungainly and was more heavy than generally believed, thanks to the 4WD (including those big fat tires at the front!) and the fine balance of the car it had a handling like few cars ever had up till that moment.

    So at best, even if Parnelli had more power, that was also because of the opposition being stronger and faster in Practice and Q-trim than in race trim, something I think you can not held against Parnelli and/or the car.


    Again, I hope I didn't light up a fues with this,


    Regards,

    Indyote

    Another reason the turbine did so well in 1967 was because of the driver.

    Mario moved up pretty fast on the first lap in 1978. I seem to remember from 33rd to 12th?
    "You just don't know what Indy Means", Al Unser Jr.

    "That's why to me it does feel more precious when an American wins it...", Michael Andretti

  29. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin99 View Post
    Another reason the turbine did so well in 1967 was because of the driver.

    Mario moved up pretty fast on the first lap in 1978. I seem to remember from 33rd to 12th?
    I concur with the opinion that the 67 Turbine success was influenced by Rufus Parnelli

    I can easily picture Mario having a great start in 1978. I just rewatched the early laps. It is hard to track his first lap performance. I'm sure it was strong. I'm not sure that I can accept that he gained 21 positions in one lap.

  30. #60
    I know this doesn't count because its not on the start, but Scheckter had some pretty spectacular starts/restarts.

    In 2011, on a restart with about 40 to go, he passed around 14 cars (from what I could count) in 1 lap (start at 1:46):

    It was clever and brave because he drove it way high, completely out of the groove, passing everyone on the outside - and got away with it because they swept the marbles during the yellow:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1CqBtGezss&t=8398s

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •