Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[mike wilson]

Didn't say I didn't like them as cars, just that they are ugly monsters
that ought to race with sacks over their heads.  8-)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Wow, this may be the first time I've ever heard anyone express this.  I
> really like a lot of the Porsche cars, both race and street.  Trying to see
> what about them might put you of so much...nope, they're cool.
> Guess we disagree on that one.
> 
> Cory
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> >
> > Hmmm.  Not sure I've _ever_ seen a beautiful Porsche.  To me they are
> > all brutal, fugly (not to mention stolen) designs.
> >
> > m
> >
> >
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Stephen Moore]

Christian wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Geez, Stephen, I still have to find out what's on the bill at Mosport this
summer.  Once I do, I'll let you know, just in case...


Frank, get to DC in May (before GFM, not sure exactly the dates, but Mr.
Moore probably knows) for the Jefferson 500:
Thirteenth annual Brian Redman's Jefferson 500 runs 14-16 May 2003.
(track opens Thursday for racers and die-hard spectators).
Also on Sunday 16th is the grand opening of Summit Point's
new Shenandoah Circuit (third track on the site), which packs
14 turns into a configurable 1.7 - 2.1 mile loop, including a
replica of the real Karussell at the old Nurburgring. I had the
chance to walk part of it last fall during lunch at the bike
races. It's gonna be a *real* interesting learning experience
for racers, photogs, and corner workers alike.
BTW-1: I've no financial interest in Summit Point.
I just like the place a lot.
BTW-2: Christian, thanks for the plug!

Best regards,
Stephen

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[frank theriault]

That Big Chevy was a great engine, Paul, no doubt about it.

But, the Shadow must have had something else going for it.

Everyone else with money (including Mclaren) was using that same engine.  
The Shadow beat everyone else in '74.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:01:16 -0500
On Mar 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, frank theriault wrote:

 Must have been aerodynamics or suspension or something, because I refuse 
to believe that those big Chevy V8's could move the cars as fast as that 
Turbo.


It wasn't aerodynamics. In truth, it's not hard to make well over 1000 
horsepower with a normally aspirated Chevy V8. The ports and valves are 
sewer size, and the chamber design allows for at least 13.5:1 compression 
ratio with little valve restriction. That's horsepower. The engine doesn't 
know it has pushrods. Hell, the world's most powerful automotive engines 
are pushrod engines. Top fuel drag racing engines now make around 8000 
horsepower from 8 liters. That would be 8 litres to the Porsche boys .

_
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[frank theriault]

The '72 Shadow was ugly.  Or, as someone else said, fugly.

The beautiful one was later than that, after the Porsche Turbos were banned. 
 Maybe 75 or 76?

I've got photos of them, but lord knows where they are.  Still haven't 
unpacked that box since I moved in October.

I don't recall any Shadows back in the '70's using anything other than the 
big 7.5 litre Chevy V8's.  The one for sale is twin turbo?  That must have 
been modified after it's racing days were over, I'd think.

Every Shadow I ever saw had those beautiful chrome trumpets sticking out the 
top (hence, no turbo).

Cool, though...

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:48:30 -0700
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:36:00 -0500, you wrote:

Someone mentioned the Shadows:
> Shadows (maybe
>the most beautiful Can Am car ever!) 1972 SHADOW CAN AM
..and sure enough there's one for sale right now, at a modest
$325,000.
"Twin Turbo 510 Chev. 1350 hp. 1450 ft. lb. torque. 225 mph at
Daytona. Proven to be the fastest historic Can Am car in the world.
The ultimate testosterone ride!
Only $325,000
http://www.staufferclassics.com/72shadow.html
But I think I'd go for the '65 Shelby Cobra for my $325,000:
http://www.staufferclassics.com/65cobra.html
And to keep this in Pentax mode, maybe some of you car guys could
offer to make some better pics for this guy... for a modest fee, say a
few laps in the ride of your choice.
--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Christian Skofteland]

I'll take this one for half the price:

http://www.staufferclassics.com/rs200.html

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> ..and sure enough there's one for sale right now, at a modest
> $325,000.
> 
> "Twin Turbo 510 Chev. 1350 hp. 1450 ft. lb. torque. 225 mph at
> Daytona. Proven to be the fastest historic Can Am car in the world.
> The ultimate testosterone ride!
> Only $325,000
> http://www.staufferclassics.com/72shadow.html
> 
> But I think I'd go for the '65 Shelby Cobra for my $325,000:
> http://www.staufferclassics.com/65cobra.html

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[John Mustarde]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:36:00 -0500, you wrote:

Someone mentioned the Shadows:
> Shadows (maybe 
>the most beautiful Can Am car ever!) 1972 SHADOW CAN AM

..and sure enough there's one for sale right now, at a modest
$325,000.

"Twin Turbo 510 Chev. 1350 hp. 1450 ft. lb. torque. 225 mph at
Daytona. Proven to be the fastest historic Can Am car in the world.
The ultimate testosterone ride!
Only $325,000
http://www.staufferclassics.com/72shadow.html

But I think I'd go for the '65 Shelby Cobra for my $325,000:
http://www.staufferclassics.com/65cobra.html

And to keep this in Pentax mode, maybe some of you car guys could
offer to make some better pics for this guy... for a modest fee, say a
few laps in the ride of your choice.

--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Paul Stenquist]

That's true. They're kind of like a reciprocating explosion . But 
they do demonstrate that you can achieve pretty damn good volumetric 
efficiency with the old pushrod V8s.
On Mar 15, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

"...Top fuel drag racing engines now make around 8000 horsepower from 
8
liters".
Yep. For about 4 to 5 seconds!
Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

On Mar 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, frank theriault wrote:

 Must have been aerodynamics or suspension or something, because I
refuse to believe that those big Chevy V8's could move the cars as
fast as that Turbo.

It wasn't aerodynamics. In truth, it's not hard to make well over 1000
horsepower with a normally aspirated Chevy V8. The ports and valves 
are
sewer size, and the chamber design allows for at least 13.5:1
compression ratio with little valve restriction. That's horsepower. 
The
engine doesn't know it has pushrods. Hell, the world's most powerful
automotive engines are pushrod engines. Top fuel drag racing engines
now make around 8000 horsepower from 8 liters. That would be 8 litres
to the Porsche boys .

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Kenneth Waller]

>"...Top fuel drag racing engines now make around 8000 horsepower from 8
liters".
Yep. For about 4 to 5 seconds!

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies


>
> On Mar 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, frank theriault wrote:
>
> >  Must have been aerodynamics or suspension or something, because I
> > refuse to believe that those big Chevy V8's could move the cars as
> > fast as that Turbo.
> >
> >
> It wasn't aerodynamics. In truth, it's not hard to make well over 1000
> horsepower with a normally aspirated Chevy V8. The ports and valves are
> sewer size, and the chamber design allows for at least 13.5:1
> compression ratio with little valve restriction. That's horsepower. The
> engine doesn't know it has pushrods. Hell, the world's most powerful
> automotive engines are pushrod engines. Top fuel drag racing engines
> now make around 8000 horsepower from 8 liters. That would be 8 litres
> to the Porsche boys .
>

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Paul Stenquist]

On Mar 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, frank theriault wrote:

 Must have been aerodynamics or suspension or something, because I 
refuse to believe that those big Chevy V8's could move the cars as 
fast as that Turbo.


It wasn't aerodynamics. In truth, it's not hard to make well over 1000 
horsepower with a normally aspirated Chevy V8. The ports and valves are 
sewer size, and the chamber design allows for at least 13.5:1 
compression ratio with little valve restriction. That's horsepower. The 
engine doesn't know it has pushrods. Hell, the world's most powerful 
automotive engines are pushrod engines. Top fuel drag racing engines 
now make around 8000 horsepower from 8 liters. That would be 8 litres 
to the Porsche boys .

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[Christian]

A friend of mine (who owns Ferraris) says: "Porsches have no soul."  To him
they are too functional and lack the style and "soul" of his Italian works
of art.  Personally, I've always liked the 911 and all its derivatives.
Another friend, who has had the chance to drive many cars in a "spirited"
fashion, hated the Carrera 4 (all-wheel-drive version of the 911) because it
couldn't be upset under any driving conditions.  It was too "perfect."  Of
course he drives his Miata on the sidewalls

Christian

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies


> Wow, this may be the first time I've ever heard anyone express this.  I
> really like a lot of the Porsche cars, both race and street.  Trying to
see
> what about them might put you of so much...nope, they're cool.
> Guess we disagree on that one.
>
> Cory
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "mike wilson"
> >
> > Hmmm.  Not sure I've _ever_ seen a beautiful Porsche.  To me they are
> > all brutal, fugly (not to mention stolen) designs.
> >
> > m
> >

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[frank theriault]

Great shot of the 917K, John.  It gets my blood going just looking at one!  


Unfortunately, I can't pull up the Can Am one, but I do want to come back 
later and try again.  What a brutal machine that was!  Saw it race a couple 
of times at Mosport, both with the RC Cola colours, and the Penske Sunoco 
version, with Donahue.  I think the RC Cola colours were '72, the first time 
I ever saw a race at Mosport.  Some nobody named Charlie Kemp (I think;  not 
sure of the name) won - those cars were so much faster than the rest a chimp 
could have won (sorry Charlie...).

The next year was the Penske version wiith Donahue, and that was one of the 
fastest race cars ever.  Period.  A true tour de force.

Sorry to get off topic again, but I love Can Am.

I'm glad you got it back on topic by taking those shots with a Pentax!  


thanks,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

For those of you wondering what this was about (and seeing as this is,
after all, a Pentax photography newsgroup), I offer the following two
shots I took at the 1998 Monterey Historics (using my PZ-1p):
  
  
The first shot (the red car) is a genuine 917K, although I believe that
is not the original car that carried that particular livery at Le Mans.
The second car (the blue open-top car in Sunoco colours) never actually
raced.  It was to be Mark Donohue's car the next year (a plan which was,
unfortunately, curtailed by Mark's death).
_
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[mike wilson]

frank theriault wrote:
> But, there was something about the 917K (not the long-tailed version with
> the tailfins, the 917L - that was ugly, too) that really turns my crank.
> Just one of those things, I guess.

I _might_ have agreed with you, except I think that peculiar
lightblue/orange livery brings out the brutality of the design much more
than more orthodox colours and striping.  Not saying I don't like the
cars, BTW, just that I consider them to be not beautiful.

mike

Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies

[frank theriault]

Except for the 917K (in Gulf Mirage livery), I agree with you, Mike.  Funny, 
but the CanAm Turbo 917 was one of the ugliest cars ever!  Especially the 
last version (can't remember the exact model designation), in Sunoco 
colours, that Mark Donahue drove in CanAm, and in which he set the record 
for the fastest speed ever sustained on a closed oval.  That was one "fugly" 
(I like that, btw ) vehicle.

As are/were most Porsches that I've seen.  Can they ever be forgiven for the 
914?

But, there was something about the 917K (not the long-tailed version with 
the tailfins, the 917L - that was ugly, too) that really turns my crank.  
Just one of those things, I guess.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT:Racing Movies-was:Pentaxc in the movies
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:12:09 +
Hi,

frank theriault wrote:
>
> I keep hearing that Grand Prix is the greatest racing movie ever made.
>
> Maybe it is, but I liked Lemans, with Steve McQueen, better.
>
> Mind you, that could be because I only ever saw Grand Prix on TV, but I 
saw
> Lemans at the theatre.  Not only that, but I thought that the Gulf 
Mirage
> Porsche 917K was (and still is) the most beautiful racing car ever 
built.

Hmmm.  Not sure I've _ever_ seen a beautiful Porsche.  To me they are
all brutal, fugly (not to mention stolen) designs.
m

_
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines