Spyder shape

You've got to be kidding me- seriously!

@edsnova posted:

yup.
I smelt what you were cooking. I feel ya Brah! I'm down with the jive you were laying down. ;-)

I'm glad at least three of you know what this is all about.

I want the name of the dude who painted those first darts on the first few Spyder rear fenders. I want him credited for the subsequent fender profile. Who’s responsible?

IIRC, darts were painted on the factory race cars so whoever was doing the timing on pit wall could tell one car from another at a distance.

@dlearl476 posted:

IIRC, darts were painted on the factory race cars so whoever was doing the timing on pit wall could tell one car from another at a distance.

Yup. The cars are so small the numbers on the side are rarely visible, the numbers end up being hidden by the track walls and other cars.

Yes, we all know why the tail darts were painted. But the way those early darts were shaped was a decision someone made.

Those prototype cars had several rear fender shapes. Some—coupes only?—were like bobtailed; most had those high fins. I think there may have been variations between. (Here's 02 from Type550.com):

Then the 00-numbered cars got the iconic low clam. Every one from 15 through 0090 had that shape.

Who penned that shape? Was it someone at Wendler? Was it Ferry? Glockler? Or was it just some rando werks painter whose name is lost to history?

I believe Capri Blue designated a French racing team member.
Oui oui

Keep your oui oui to yourself!

Oui oui oui all the way home.

@edsnova posted:

Yes, we all know why the tail darts were painted. But the way those early darts were shaped was a decision someone made.

Those prototype cars had several rear fender shapes. Some—coupes only?—were like bobtailed; most had those high fins. I think there may have been variations between. (Here's 02 from Type550.com):

Then the 00-numbered cars got the iconic low clam. Every one from 15 through 0090 had that shape.

Who penned that shape? Was it someone at Wendler? Was it Ferry? Glockler? Or was it just some rando werks painter whose name is lost to history?

Ed, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the prototypes were hammered out one at a time (like the dashboard guy video you posted) and it wasn’t until Wendler started series production that a wooden buck was made. I think it was maybe type550.com.

I image they worked off plans from the factory (which are definitely on type550.com)

"The factory" is not what I'm after though.

How about we approach this from another angle? This

was drawn by Raymond Loewy.

This

was Harley Earl's thinking.

This car

was drawn by Malcolm Sayer...

This

was the work of Sergio Pininfarina.

Filling in the blanks, then, this

was drawn by _______________________?

Wikipedia says Erwin Komenda

“In November 1931, Komenda joined the engineering office newly founded by Ferdinand Porsche as head of the bodywork design department, which he headed until 1966. Among other projects, he developed the body of the VW beetle. With more than 21.5 million units, the VW Beetle became the best-selling automobile of the 20th century. With graduate engineer Josef Mickl, a Porsche employee specializing in aircraft construction and aerodynamics, Komenda developed the bodywork of the P-Auto Union racing car and Cisitalia racing car. As early as 1946 Komenda began work on the body of the first Porsche sports car. He developed the body of the Porsche 356, various following types and the Porsche 550 Spyder. As a responsible Porsche engineer, he led the Stuttgart-based company into the next generation, accompanying and supervising the bodywork production of the Porsche 901, which was further developed into the 911. One of his latest projects was the development of the plastic body of the 904 race car. Komenda's last phase of life was marked by in-house difficulties with Porsche family members during the development of the Porsche 911. Erwin Komenda died on 22 August 1966. He was an active employee at Porsche until his early, sudden death. His life ended with the development of the Porsche 911.”

Remember, at its heart Porsche is an engineering consulting company. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the 550 was “designed” by Komenda and engineers working in a wind tunnel. I know most of the “styling changes” from Glöckler through RS61 were aerodynamics driven.

Nice!

Except for the abject failure of the Mickey Mouse" car, yeah. They took "aerodynamics" a bit too far on that one. I believe the only engineering that carried on from that one was the oil cooler on the underside of the front bonnet in the later RS Spyders.

Right. The Buckelwagen was reportedly the most aero of the early designs but it wouldn't pass TUV or whatever Germany's Central Scrutineers were called in 1954.

You can see how laying the headlights back would help reduce frontal area.

The rear fenders, though. I'd still love to know more.

Now let's return for a moment to the performance wrung out of these early cars. A thread elsewhere focuses on 550-07/0043 and Annie Bousquet's speed record: 143 mph over a lap at the L’autodrome de Linas-Montlhéry. That was 1955, and it's recorded that the 550—remember it was a street-legal sports car at the time—was good for 130mph+ straight from the box.

Jaguar C cars and the D-based XKSS—also a street-going sports car—reportedly topped out at 143 mph. The Gullwing Mercedes could exceed 160. Again, early-mid 1950s this was.

Now here's a Car & Driver article from 1971 in which the writer spent days with Zora Arkus-Duntov driving brand new Corvettes. It is here breathlessly reported that the LS6 version of this well-developed sports car could reliably maintain an unheard-of, blistering, otherworldly top speed of 140 mph.* 

In 1955 you could (theoretically) obtain a 1.5-liter, four-cylinder German sports car that could do near 140 mph, or a 3.4-liter straight-six from England that could top it, or you could opt for the Mercedes and run 20 mph faster than that . . . and 15 year on it was news that America's most impressive, 7.4 liter V8 powered sports car could probably beat the four cylinder car on a banked oval.

==

*Until it overheated.

@edsnova posted:

In 1955 you could (theoretically) obtain a 1.5-liter, four-cylinder German sports car that could do near 140 mph, or a 3.4-liter straight-six from England that could top it, or you could opt for the Mercedes and run 20 mph faster than that . . . and 15 year on it was news that America's most impressive, 7.4 liter V8 powered sports car could probably beat the four cylinder car on a banked oval.

Yeah, but the 1971 Corvette could buck and chug for 30 seconds after you turned the ignition off. None of the 50's cars could match that...

It really is easy to forget about stuff that used to be part of the deal (like engine run-on).

.

@edsnova posted:

.

...Now here's a Car & Driver article from 1971 in which ... the LS6 version of this well-developed sports car could reliably maintain an unheard-of, blistering, otherworldly top speed of 140 mph.*

...In 1955 you could (theoretically) obtain a 1.5-liter, four-cylinder German sports car that could do near 140 mph, or a 3.4-liter straight-six from England that could top it, or you could opt for the Mercedes and run 20 mph faster than that . . .

*Until it overheated.

Well, sorta apples and oranges, no? Chevy was trying desperately to stay in the 'low-priced three', even with the new, uh, 'sports' car. As far as the accounting department was concerned (hey, this was GM, remember) the competition was the mighty Ford Thunderbird. And the only 'competition' that mattered was for sales figures, not lap times at the 'ring.

Even with the new V-8 in 1955, the 'vette came in at $2900. The 300SL roadster was $11,000 and a 4-cam 550 was, what - $10,000? Granted, the XK140 was a lot more earthly, but still $3800 — without the wire wheels or the driving gloves.

Also, those fancy schmancy foreign cars were mostly born of long-established factory racing programs. When GM went to the parts bin in 1955, all they found was a '54 Bel Air hardtop with Powerglide.

And, too, 1971 is a bad year to be quoting performance numbers for any car that had to pass the new US smog tests (I wonder how a 'smogged' 550 would have done). These were the sad years when everyone was desperately fitting old hardware with crude solutions to new problems. Power output suffered so badly that a lot of car companies stopped quoting hp numbers altogether. The '67 Vette was almost certainly a lot faster (in a somewhat straight line) than anything the general was making in '71.

.

I thought I read somewhere that a 550 was $6500?  IIRC, an article about Dean trading in his Speedster for his fateful car at Hollywood Sports Car.

.

@dlearl476 posted:

.

I thought I read somewhere that a 550 was $6500?...

That was without the Sports Chrono package, the body-color headlight washer trim ring, and the interior door handle delete.

.

Thought so

@edsnova I didn't mean the "Buckelwagen" prototype. That was one of the original Spyder concepts/prototypes(seven or eight) that were built to determine body shape. Here is the Buckelwagen(which I find to be pretty ungainly):

http://type550.com/history/spe...spyders/buckelwagen/

When I say Mickey Mouse I mean this car:

http://type550.com/history/spe...spyders/mickey_maus/

It was shorter, smaller, lighter than a regular 550. Very close to the Glockler cars that Porsche copied the basic design of. This is an example of more(less?) not being more.

The skin of the car was magnesium. That made the whole car a BOMB waiting to go off. Which it did, fortunately throwing driver/author Richard Von Frankenburg clear then catching fire and burning at Avus.

The other thing that is "common knowledge" aka "lore" or even better "BS" is front end lift in a Spyder.

Speedsters(especially replicas) do have a lift problem. I've never experienced this in either one of the two Spyders I've had.

The front of my Spyder is always under control and planted. I've no idea what other's experience or what alignment settings they use, but mine simply works. I've been to an actual speed of 125 mph(GPS speedo verified). I run 1/16" total toe-in, 1.5 degrees negative camber and a very slight rake forward(maybe a 1/4" lower in front versus back).

Your speed and experience may vary...

I don't think I'd ever go faster than that, and certainly nowhere near Annie's achievement, but I don't think a Spyder would have ever hit 143 mph if there was lift at the 100-110 mph everyone bandies about.

I hadn't known that particular speed(143). I have read many times of 138 mph down the Mulsanne straight.

Front end lift in a Speedster is definitely a thing, given that the shape is an almost perfect wing - curved upper profile, flat bottom, tapering to the rear. It's also why they struggle with cooling so - the places the engine is trying to get air are in negative pressure zones.

I've never driven anybody's Spyder but Danny's, but I suspect that they are more planted due to their smaller frontal area and more realistically aerodynamic shape, as opposed to one that just looks slippery (AKA: Speedster). This makes sense, as Mr. racing Porsche's machines didn't have any (real) power to speak of until they stuck a turbo on a 911 - the early cars were motion machines, giant killers made fast by means of light weight and better aero.

This was a particularly European way of doing things. American cars were built for Americans and American roads. Comparing one metric of American vs. European cars (top speed) ignores what domestic car makers of the '50s and '60s were aiming for. Americans always expected to be able to travel across timezones with passengers and all their luggage in ease and comfort and look good doing it. Fussy, maintenance intensive powertrains were not part of the deal, nor were lightweight bodies with no passenger or cargo carrying capacity.

The General expected to sell many tens of thousands of whatever they built, and what they built (even the Corvette) was priced as a mass market commodity. European car companies, by way of comparison, didn't seem to care so much what a sporting vehicle cost or how many they sold - as long as the racing program could stay afloat. Aston Martin has made a profit a small fraction of the time they've been in business. Porsche didn't even bother to build their own bodies, and let elves in boutique shops (Reutter, Wendler, et al) hammer them out one by one until the 911. The big 3 were stamping out thousands, 3 shifts a day, round the clock in the same amount of time it took to build one 356.

Axide from the fact that they have 4-wheels and an engine, I'm not sure how comparable a Jag and a Corvette of the same era really were.

Agreed on all counts, Stan.

The lower and definitely flatter hood contributes to the down force I think.

Additionally, I've fitted a 3 foot wide "splitter" to my car. This doubles as a winch hook attachment. I've no idea if it actually works.

I'd need to rent a wind tunnel and shock travel sensors. Anyone want to volunteer a couple wheelbarrows full of cash?

@DannyP posted:

....

Additionally, I've fitted a 3 foot wide "splitter" to my car. This doubles as a winch hook attachment. ...

Can you share a picture?
I'm trying to imagine a 3' wide Splitter with a Winch Hook attachment on a Spyder.
Sounds Mad Max

Sure. It's not Mad Max. It's leaning towards subtle.

3/16" aluminum sheet. Three bolts, two into the frame, the middle one just a placeholder into the fiberglass. It uses the same holes that secure the aluminum cover under the beam in a Vintage.

I had just driven to my customer Mike's house to work on his 550, hence the dead bug display.

@DannyP posted:

Sure. It's not Mad Max. It's leaning towards subtle.

yes, that is Nice.
I see too many neighborhood Hoons, so I had a poor reference...

Hoons. There are a few out there.

I also made up a splitter for my car. It's fiberglass and I think hangs lower than Danny's. After plowing the entrance of my gravel driveway a few times, I took it off. I never get up to the speed that it would make a difference anyway.

I could've sworn the "light nose above 115mph" lore came straight from Danny P. Thanks for that correction. And thanks for the pic of your little chin piece. That's super cool!

Then too, there's probably a reason the 550A nose is ever so slightly extended, the RSK moreso. Those guys reportedly did have a wind tunnel.

As to @Stan Galat's and @Sacto Mitch's points. touche, I guess. But also: talmbout luggage capacity and "grand touring" abilities en re the Corvette—which was famously without a trunk from 1962-1982? Really?

And, yes, GM built many Corvettes and made them to a price point, in 1971 and before and after. They were cheaper than a Mercedes or a Ferrari, for sure. And they had less compression ratio after 1970. All true.

But it's also true that European cars shipped to the USA had to abide (mainly) by US regulations, including the EPA regs. Jags were 150 MPH cars from the early 1960s onward. The Jag 3.8 produced 265 HP. The '61 E-Type was a $5,600 proposition as compared to $4,000 for the base 'Vette (but if you wanted some options—fuel injection was $483, for example—you'd be closer to $5,200 out the door). 

The fuel-injected Corvette in 1961 made 315 hp and weighed 3400 pounds, about 400 more than the Jag. The Vette did the quarter mile in 14.2 and topped out about 122 mph. The Jag would do a 14.8 quarter but walk away from the Corvette on a mountain road or a dark desert highway.

Basically the same Corvette that Briggs Cunningham raced at LeMans in June 1960.

And it was the same story still, 10 years later, when the Vette had 171 more cubic inches (double the displacement of the '61 Jag!) and 120 additional horsepower.

And the jag had a trunk.

Now, Stan is right about one thing. The '67 Corvette tested quicker than the '71—4.7 seconds to 60, which is pretty crazy. But the top speed figures for Corvettes were estimates. You see numbers like 170 mph bandied about, but first-hand documentation is rare enough I can't find any Googling around.

Which I guess goes to the point: Corvettes on the '60s were not built for multi-state high-speed running—just the opposite: They were made for stoplight-to-stoplight domination, just like the Chevelles and 'Cudas. Short-term gratification. Small town notoriety. Much in the same way today's American pickup trucks are designed to look like they can pop wheelies and crush lesser vehicles in an arena setting.

It's just who we are, as a people.

Nope, you can attribute that "lift" to someone else, not sure who it was though.

The American cars topped out at 120 or less, especially if they had short R&P ratios. I went for a ride in a '63 split window when I was 14(cool neighbor). It topped out under 100, I think it had a 4.86. But boy, did it get there quickly.

It was still the same RE: American car handling vs. European in the 1990s. I had a measly 158 hp G60 Corrado and dusted my friend in his Mustang LX 5.0 with solid rear axle in the curves. We were equal on the straights.

For the sake of discussion (as opposed to argument), and to take points one by one:

@edsnova posted:

Now, Stan is right about one thing. The '67 Corvette tested quicker than the '71—4.7 seconds to 60, which is pretty crazy. But the top speed figures for Corvettes were estimates. You see numbers like 170 mph bandied about, but first-hand documentation is rare enough I can't find any Googling around.

That was Mitch, but it really was crazy.

@edsnova posted:

As to @Stan Galat's and @Sacto Mitch's points. touche, I guess. But also: talmbout luggage capacity and "grand touring" abilities en re the Corvette—which was famously without a trunk from 1962-1982? Really?

That one was me, and by way of explanation, I offer you a picture of the luggage hold of a C3 Corvette. The '71 did not have the panoramic rear glass of the pictured '78, which meant that it would only hold a large steamer trunk an not an upright piano (as the pictured car seems to be able to). Imagine sliding that cargo cover back - there's almost a Honda Ridgeline's worth of payload capacity back there.

No, it wasn't accessible from the outside. It was one of the many ways they kept the cost down.

@edsnova posted:

Which I guess goes to the point: Corvettes on the '60s were not built for multi-state high-speed running—just the opposite: They were made for stoplight-to-stoplight domination, just like the Chevelles and 'Cudas. Short-term gratification. Small town notoriety. Much in the same way today's American pickup trucks are designed to look like they can pop wheelies and crush lesser vehicles in an arena setting.

It's just who we are, as a people.

I was reading between the lines, but I believed the highlighted text was Ed's point all along, because he's made it before.

There's no question that more than a few 'vette buyers (C2, especially) were stoplight heroes who couldn't have cared less what a funny little European car could or couldn't do - but by the time of the C3 (my time), the buying demographic was solidly middle aged and middle class. Nobody I knew was dragging their C3 - they were dentists and insurance salesmen who needed that rear storage hold to carry the golf clubs to their tee time. I did know more than a few guys who put a lot of miles on them, but I live in a place where putting a lot of miles on something is what makes it useful.

Jags were a curiosity out here - a few guys had the 4-doors, and I'll agree that they were generally used to cover long distances at speed. They were fast and they were mechanically fussy, and they had interiors that were an order of magnitude nicer than any Cadillac or Lincoln. They worked exceedingly well at doing what they were designed to do up until they didn't. No small number of them spent a fair amount of time up on a lift waiting for parts - at least here, where there was no pipeline for them.

In the spirit of finding common ground, I think (hope) we can agree that domestic cars were made for American tastes and American uses. Whether you see that as a problem or not depends on politics and perspective.

I guess I don't have the problem with it. The General built a car people would buy, and they bought enough to continue building them. As far as using drag-racing and pickup trucks as tropes for the entirety of 300 million people (a lot of whom would rather eat glass than buy a domestic car) - it seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'll go with it.

There are worse national impulses than a people who want to "git 'r dun". This is still a place most of the world looks to and would not mind living in at all. I feel very blessed to have grown up in a place of peace and opportunity.

.

@edsnova posted:

...Corvettes on the '60s were not built for multi-state high-speed running—just the opposite: They were made for stoplight-to-stoplight domination, just like the Chevelles and 'Cudas. Short-term gratification. Small town notoriety...

It's just who we are, as a people...

Yup. Volumes have and will be written about how we are what we drive and drive what we are.

It's more complicated, though.

A lot of it is about our roads and our space. Even in the '60s, most US small towns had wide and straight Main Streets, two lanes in each direction, punctuated by stop lights every three block or so, timed so you'd be stopping at almost every one. Add pimply-faced 17-year olds, Peggy Sue in the right seat, a posse in the back, and do the math.

Europe had narrow, twisty, one-lane city streets, more roundabouts than stoplights, gas that cost five times what it did here, and a tax structure that made three liters a 'big' motor for rich dudes.

Out there, between our cities, we had plains. Europe had Alps. The interstates were still in their infancy in the '60s — the network had huge gaps. A lot of inter-city travel was still being done on two-lane highways where the limit was 45 or 50. There were very few places where you could cruise over 60, and almost none over 70.

In Europe, there were lots of public roads where you could use a car that cruised comfortably at 100 mph or 120 and not go to jail — if you could afford one. Here, not so much. We became the land of the drag strip and the high-banked oval. Europe had Spa-Francorchamps, LeMans, and the Targa Florio.

All I know is when I turned my first corner in a BMW 1600 in 1968, after driving the '61 Galaxy in driver's ed class, I knew I wasn't in Kansas any more.

.

Mitch Toll, you're a national treasure. Well said.

@Stan Galat posted:

Mitch Toll, you're a national treasure. Well said.

Let's not forget this is an international site, Stan.

So, you can expand that comment.