History Classic Indy roadsters: Most beautiful oval racers ever?

I suspect it could go pretty fast, but the big problem with turbine cars is the lack of compression braking. If the brakes/chassis wasn't up to the job the driver had to start slowing it up way early thereby giving up the speed advantage.

 

Thanks guys. Every little bit helps make the picture clearer. Over 50 years on.

 

This view of the 1961 Chenowth Chevy shows clearly how spacious the engine bay of the roadster was. Quite a lot of additional equipment could fit in there, if needed:


So it is difficult to understand why the original Mallards had the exhaust header, turbocharger and blow-off valve hanging out in the breeze. More so as the car is not a “standard” roadster, so things could be arranged as the designer chose:


And the later version must have had even more drag, with the induction manifold and what looks like an intercooler sitting on top, in the airstream:


Were they smaller and more compact than the usual roadsters?

 

I can think of several reasons the turbo was positioned as it was.

1 : It keeps the turbo closer to the header exit so the exhaust gases have less chance to cool. The hotter the gases, the more efficient the turbo is. It also cuts down on the complication of the exhaust system and there's no massive heat source under the hood to transfer heat to the fuel system or cockpit.

2 : It might have been done to enhance left side weight bias, Although I'm not sure that was as much of a consideration as it later became to be.

3 : The placement of the turbo probably was not much of a detriment to the aerodynamics, being tucked in behind the left front and the tire acting as a wind deflector. Also, as with most open wheel cars, the tires are the main spoiler of air flow over and around the car since they have the aerodynamics of a concrete block.

Any reasoning beyond that you would have to ask Herk or Pete.

 

Looks as if a intercooler took up a lot of space

 

Thanks guys, that accounts for it, I guess.

 

Smokey Yunick’s “Python” of 62-63 (Simoniz Special). Just about the most radical roadster of all. Chassis and upright engine offset to the left were fairly standard roadster, but fuel tank in a left side pannier was not.
Independent suspension all around, arranged to cause the car to bank inwards on the turns: how this was achieved is fairly apparent at the rear, where the upper wishbones are unusually long and steeply angled so that their inboard ends are well below those of the lower wishbones, and nearer the car centreline. Looks like simple geometry does the trick. Not so apparent at the front, where the wishbone geometry appears fairly conventional as IFS systems go.
Some unusual features of the chassis mounts, for the upper wishbones and for the coil/shocks, may hold the secret here?
Whatever the method, banking the car inwards is exactly opposite to the natural tendency, and can only be achieved by overcoming the weight transfer, thus generating unusually high forces at some points in the suspension and the chassis?
Did it work as intended? Were the drivers able to adapt to this unusual behaviour?

 

To slow in 62 and then put itself out of its misery running into the wall at high speed in 63. Lots of whizz-bang, whirly gig stuff to see but in the end it ended up in the scrap dumpster. His only real success at Indy came when he was wrenching on a Watson type roadster which was about as simple as dirt. Sometimes the KISS principle really does apply best to the situation.

 

Incredible pics, Smokey was ingenious no doubt.
It looks like both pics depict attempts at different approaches. What looks strange to me is that I would guess the right rear upright would be fixed to the housing and the left to float (in and out). Otherwise the bind in the mechanical movement would induce an uncontrolled rising spring rate.
Keep this info coming, it is great to see, John

 

The third member is fixed and the driveshafts appear to have splined "plunge" connections just outboard of the inner U joint as evidenced by the reduction in diameter (just inboard of the frame rail)

Roo

 

Roo,
Yup, I see what you are saying, my bad. I knew something didn't look right to me.
J

 

Thanks Rootie, yet again, for the most stunning pictures I have seen of this car. Comparing them shows some of the very different arrangements they tried, so much a part of any innovative/experimental work. Which also seems to show that Smokey and his crew were not easily discouraged, as they sought to find ways of overcoming whatever difficulties they faced.
No denying the connection between the KISS principle and success, but how boring it would have been if it had not been for the stream of ideas that showed up every year at Indy, during this period and in fact well into the eighties!

 

A rather hazy, just-about-readable copy of the Indy displacement-weight table of 1942:

Anyone have any better?
Since the formula did not change when racing resumed after WW2, this table presumably remained in force at least until displacement was reduced in 1956(?).
And a new table then came into effect, even though by that time almost everyone chose the maximum allowable displacement?
Was there a time when the table was finally dropped, and a simple minimum weight limit took its place?

 

..............Any A.M.R.A. members / car owners on this site , or fans of A.M.R.A. ?

 

The only contemporary picture I am able to find of a Kurtis KK500L, possibly the last roadster built by Frank Kurtis? It does not seem to figure in any Indy 500 results, so presumably DNQ.
Some recent pictures of the car (as restored?) seem to show independent suspension front and rear, perhaps an attempt to keep competitive with the threatening rear-engine cars? Externally at least, no other apparent changes from earlier roadsters: upright engine offset to the left, fuel tank at the back, no reduction of frontal area, aerodynamically similar to KK500H and J (was there a KK500I?).

 

Thanks Rootie for another set of amazing historic pictures, clearly showing so much detail.
Independent suspension all round, fairly similar to various road racing cars of that era, though with typical Indy torsion bars. No apparent offset to the suspension, though it is difficult to be certain.
Good to see the safety belts and the full roll cage (even if ugly): driver safety at last being attended to!
In the fifth and sixth pictures, there is some device just ahead of the jack, and to the left. It seems to have two pipe connections: what could it be?
Was there only this one car of this type?
Thanks again.

 

If my memory is correct, Ed Hite's book on Kurtis speaks directly about this car. The car was built for Junior Johnson to drive. The car owner insisted on a distributor ignition instead of a mag. Frank Kurtis talked until he was blue in the face, trying to convince him to change his mind about that ignition but to no avail. The combination of owner, ignition , roll cage, and Junior's reluctance about the car all added into Kurtis' decision to end the Indy car business.

 

Here's a couple of pics without the nose on. I'm thinking that the chingus with the pipes is this circled part ( whatever it may be) that was unattached and laying upsidedown on the bottom of the nose.

 

To venture a guess. I'd say the circled item is part of a transistorized ignition system.

 

I agree about the transistor box, it looks like the Prestolite 201 that Chrysler used. Could the component laying upside down be a hydraulic pump for the jacks on the car? The lines look to be -8, or maybe -10 but either way they appear to be the same size as the hose to the front jack. Were those jacks hydraulic or air operated back then?

 

I think the device laying in the early photos is the fuel pump for the injection.
The pic above with the red circle shows the FI pump just below the mag drive.
The early pics have no motor in the chassis. Pump laid forward (yeah I do that when can..........lazy)
Don't want to open up lines unless necessary, or just lazy

 

Thanks guys! Much appreciated.

 

Thanks deucemac. What a pity, after all those years of setting the standard.

 

That's absolutely correct. The stubborn owner was John Chalick.

 

In all fairness magneto failure was pretty common reason for a DNF during the 50s and 60s but don't think this was the answer either!

 

While stationed at Ft. Ben. Harrison (1985) I brought a 1952 Chrysler from a lady (she was in her late 70s at the time) who lived in Speedway (next to Indy). I only wanted the motor (331 HEMI) and was not really paying to much attention to what the lady was saying about the car. After pulling the motor and relooking the car over, finding it pretty much rust free and well taken care of, I decided to make into a 2 door custom (still after 15 years still not completed/finished). I pulled the dash apart and found a picture of the same car towing on a open trailer a Indy car up under the glove box (the only way to get it or to know that it was there was to pull the glove box). Since I had not lost any of the paperwork the lady had given me (surprise surprise), I look her up and gave her a call. She had pass away but did talk to her son. I guess the story was the car was raced at Indy (the car on the trailer) in the early 1950s and was family owned with the financial aid of the garage the gentlemen work for. The son requested if I could send the picture or a copy of the picture back to him, so not thinking I sent him the real thing and was glad of it.

 

Quin Epperly built Maxson Special. Probably the last roadster ever constructed, and the first with a monocoque chassis. All the fuel carried on the driver’s left, helping with weight distribution.
Front suspension appears fairly conventional double wishbone and coil spring IFS. Rear suspension appears to be a modern version of De Dion, with a tubular lattice replacing the old-style large-diameter single tube. (Something similar was used on Sam Posey’s Caldwell D7 CanAm car of 1968, with a horizontal Watt linkage below).
Supposedly fitted with a Turbo Offy engine, if so, all that plumbing and hardware is cleverly concealed within a very smooth body. Must have been a tight fit.
Does this car still exist? DNQ at Indy, but surely of historical significance.

 

IIRC collector/racer Jim Lattin has/had it in his collection in So.Cal.

 

Thanks Rootie.