More Old Photos

Seth, Indeed a "Speciale" car. Last fall I had the pleasure of meeting Iori's son at a concours in Scarsdale, NY. He had a 330GTC. Happy New Year!

CQ

 

Even the Pit Babes Were Better. | The Chicane

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Amon said he had better luck than some as he survived. A similar image appears in Lou Stanley's book of that year. Big Lou's Year Book of sorts.

 

Some of Big Lou's comments on the GP distaff are delightfully inappropriate in hindsight.

 

Great website. You have pre-war Alfa Romeo, Bugatti, Maserati and Ferrari in Ethiopia.

GRANDI SFIDE in ERITREA

Gastone Barone at Asmara in 1959 !
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very interesting pics. Thanks.

500 Mondial s/n 0468/MD...

 

THE H.A.M.B. - View Single Post - Vintage shots from days gone by!

 

No offence intended, but did Louise have a medical condition resulting it that waist size?
Pete

 

Still working on the 1951 year but I have also begun 1963 as it's the 50th anniversary of this year :

1963 - Curve

Next drawing on February 17 with the victory of Pedro Rodriguez at the Daytona 3 Hours...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Driving Styles at Monaco. 1955. | The Chicane
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

A School of Sharks | The Chicane
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Amazing.. looking at that photo I was thinking the exact same thing as the quote in the link before I clicked to it.

 

I understand perfectly why they were destroyed: the engine was a design disaster and cost them two seasons (62 & 63). I think it was easy to see afterwards that they should have built a V8 as soon as they saw Climax-engines in the grid instead of tinkering with the troublesome V6. Having these things around would have served no purpose but keep the painful memories alive, so why not crush them?

 

So the engine was a design disaster was it? Do tell us about 'the troublesome V6'...

DCN

 

According to Ferrari 156 F1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they did have lots of retirements. I don't know why though.
Pete

 

Non troublesome V6.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

beautiful vintage photo I guess

 

Quick look at what they achieved in racing in 1962-63 should tell the whole story - as should the fact that they finally changed for a V8 in 1964.

 

I think not. The success or failure of a racing car is not based only on the engine ... even if Ferrari can be faulted for sometimes behaving as if it was only the engine (and perhaps the driver on some occasions) that were the most important elements. This is subtle stuff. The good and the great were often only a tiny bit different in their performance potential. Sometimes it is only a tiny bit that makes the difference.

 

A quick analysis of all of the races in '62 and '63 shows:

1962
A total of 7 DNFs - 2 directly attributed to the engine, 1 bad Distributor, 1 collapsed suspension, 1 faulty ignition and 2 driver accidents/spins

1963
A total of 11 DNFS - 4 directly being the engine, 2 transmission failures, 2 faulty fuel pumps, 1 disqualification, 1 accident and 1 faulty ignition

The overall packages were just not good enough to take on the combinations of Lotus/Coopers/BRM - credit where credit is due.

 

Aside from the fact that we cannot always rely on the stated reasons for a DNF ... the quick statistical compilation does not tell us how other teams fared by comparison. Of course, a "team" consisting of a single car cannot make for much of a listing in the same sense so we might have to toss out a few comparative samples from the start?

I am not one to be a champion of Ferrari against all others. Quite the contrary! I take nothing away from any of the other builders. In fact, that's the whole point. When we focus on year-end statistics (that may be flawed) as the means to tell a story of racing, we might fail to see the whole picture. Your listing of problems illustrates my point perfectly. There was no one other builder that was truly superior in the sense of a design that made for a dominant winner at every event. Or, if one design was perhaps truly superior from a conceptual standpoint, the mix of driving talent on the scene equalized things to some degree. And we should not ignore that fickle foe called "luck".

During this time Ferrari lost a good portion of the old guard while demoralizing a good many who remained. Both Von Trips and Phil Hill had uncommon mechanical sensitivities that might have made for some finishes at times where another driver might have pushed too hard & too long to a DNF. I am not going to go into a series of "what-if" discussions here, but the point is that it was not all about an inferior engine design. That is NOT the whole story. Far from it. Again, this is complex stuff. And yet, it all leads to one winner for each race and one winner of a championship. If you break something important for any reason, it is generally not possible to win. Unless your name is Juan Manuel Fangio?

Again, don't forget the exodus of a large portion of the team's "brain trust" in design refinements, race strategizing, race preparation and development. This was a time of man-power shake-up at Ferrari as much as anything else. If a bit of focus was lost, that should be understandable.

A failure of an engine. Two failures of engines. Four failures of engines. Gearboxes. Suspension. Ignition. Etc., etc. These need not have all been a failure in the basic design of an engine or a package. There was undoubtedly a lack of continuity in the thought processes that had created these designs ... and the thought processes which then did the development. And if some of the mechanics had lost their mentors and some inspiration in the process? .... Very complex stuff!

And then again, maybe some aspects of the design were truly inferior? But, there were some performances that don't seem to support that idea completely.

John

 

I'm trying to keep this short: when engine performance is not up to the task, the driver needs to push harder to compensate. Certain engine speeds may need to be avoided because there is not enough torque & hp or there are vibrations. With a 120-degree V6 may have suffered from both problems - I would be really surprised, if vibrations were never an issue with a 120-degree V6 turning close or up to 10'000 rpm. It might be interesting to look at driver comments in the day. Then again the introduction of a 90-degree V8 for 1964 is quite revealing: for a reason or another they decided to try a completely different approach after two seasons of total failure. Best wishes, Kare

 

I distinctly remember that shot as being on the cover of Road and Track, way back when..

 

That R&T cover photo, if memory serves, was taken by Rick McBride, one the co-founders of Auto Expo. I worked for him for a short period in 1967. Rick drove a Lusso, Bob Topaz drove a 275GTS and I had a 330GTC that was on loan from a friend at USC. Fun times.