Kopek on Shelby's trashing of Pete Brock
 

This is an interesting read.

http://www.cobracountry.com/SAAC/SAAC-UnderTheBus.html

Steve

Some of the thing Shelby does make me really sad. :(

When you fib to many times it always comes back to bite you in the ass. :rolleyes: Even if it's an old, wrinkled, grey, grandpa ass!:LOL:

Steve

Reminds me of a license plate frame I saw today.
"Don't suffer from insanity, Enjoy every minute"

Just Shelby pursuing his 'legacy' at full steam ahead. Quite a discussion with the author of that Hot Rod magazine article, Cam Benty, on the SAACforum as well.

Had a look at the SAAC forum thread, while I dont think anyone who has studied the evolution of the Cobra & more particularly the Coupe is likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes, unfortunately its those younger readers who may take it as Gospel since it was in 'that' magazine that will cause You & I endless aggravation in the future when we try to refute their story!:mad:
Fortunately I have a copy of the Coupe book with the drawings/sketches of the 'Ring' spoiler that was advocated even prior to the completion of the first car. That fact alone shoots enough holes in this latest tale of fantasy to make sure it wont float!

Sad to see ...


Ed

From everything I have read over the years...... some of which Shelby himself wrote, he was very good at assembling a good team of mechanics, drivers, and support staff and that was the secret to his success. Now it seems that he wants to try to re-write history and make it all about himself. What's worse is he is out there purposely trashing the very people that have greatly contributed to his initial success and those keeping his legend alive for 40+ years.

Instead of being grateful and humble, he is lying and distorting....

Over the years, I have enjoyed meeting Pete Brock, Bob Bondurant, Dan Gurney, Phil Hill, and Carroll Shelby. I have autographs from all but Carroll. For some reason, I never wanted his.....now I know why!!


THIS MAKES ME CHANGE MY WHOLE OPINION OF HIM!!!! GREAT JOB CARROLL.......YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!!:mad:

Howard criticized the car's aerodynamics, specifically Brock's application of some of Kamm's theories regarding air flow over a moving surface as opposed to a static body with air flowing over it. Recall that the latter is tested in a wind tunnel; the former is verified - using tufts of yarn - after the design implementing the theories has been built and is capable of moving at the desired speed. Howard's work in aviation gave him experience in both but most of his work was with wind tunnels - moving air, static model.

Brock's application of Kamm's work was modified to solve problems not directly attibutable to the theories Brock used:

(1) The openings on either side of the tail were closed - Kamm expected the moving car to create lower air pressure in the cut-off space directly behind it. This was true at a distance of several inches to perhaps a foot behind the car, depending upon vehicle velocity. It was not true in the boundary layer against the surface of the car. Here the air pressure was disturbed beyond what anyone could predict at the time. Brock planned for the lower air pressure trailing the car to draw hot air from the rear brakes. The turbulance around the openings resulted in air being drawn into the car, increasing air pressure in the wheel wells. No mistake: the tufts showed what was happening and the theory was not constructed to predict air flow within an inch or so of the surface of the car.

(2) The roof and windshield were not constructed exactly to Brock's dimensions. Whether the differece was contributory is a matter of conjecture; the tufts showed the flowing air to split up and down as it passed along the sides of the car, missing the air vents in the B-pillars. The solution: clear plastic slabs were added on each side of the A-pillar, creating lower air pressure in their wake and forcing the air back, following the the side windows and into the vents.

These are not the sorts of problems Ken Miles knew how to solve and 15,000 miles of testing are not needed to identify these problems and craft solutions. The changes have Pete Brock's knowledge written all over them, along with Phil Remington's uncanny ability to 'see' a solution before anyone says it. No one else. As Trevor might comment: "Aye, and there's the rub."

As Rick Kopec pointed out in his rebuttal there was no way the car underwent 15,000 miles of testing by Ken Miles or any other number of drivers before it's first race. The timeline from the first track test to the it's first race simply doesn't allow enough time for such extensive testing. Shelbys statement of 15,000 miles for testing is at best an exageration and at worst an out right lie. Given the circumstances of the comment and the timing, Shelby, in my opinion was lieing. Intentional and knowingly false to discredit Peter Brock. No gray area here, it's black and white and disgusting all over.

Shelby quote:
Just makes me sick to hear that.

I seem to recall Shelby (in the Cobra-Ferrari Wars) saying that he consulted Howard who told him to extend the tail out to a point about 8' back and that he (Shelby) felt that it would really ruin the looks of the car.

I think if he had done that, THAT would have been the biggest mistake of his life.

DD

I just really don't understand it. I can't really take sides, as I know Peter but do not know Carroll. What I can say is that Peter is one of the smartest, nicest, most unassuming guys I know. One guy charges money for his signature, the other will crawl under your car to help you fix it. That's the bottom line for me.

Doug, Brock Coupe 88

I didn't understand the Porsche 917 reference. Shelby said:

If I had built the car like a 917 Porsche, I would have been 10 years ahead of where we were.

The original 917's with the long tail were unstable disasters. It wasn't until John Wyers team hacked off the tail (like the Coupe) that the 917's became stable at speed and then began to dominate.

One positive thing to come of this: nice photos in the article! **)

Brock's Folly is what the suspicious people called the Daytona. It panned out.
Good for Pete.
I lost C. Shelby's respect when he "punked" Ken Miles at the 24 hour 1966
Le Mans race. It only really takes one time to see what a man's soul is made
out of.

I agree with you my friend
 

Hi Doug,
I certainly agree with your remarks about Peter, I am sure he is hurt by the comment from Carroll. I am sorry that I won't be able to make it to Reno next week - just too much going on.

Take care,
Larry

I don't think Carroll had anything to do with what happened to Miles at LeMans.

http://www.weismann.net/sportscars.html

I do not understand what is wrong with letting people that worked for you or with have credit where credit is due. From what I have seen over the years everything has to be about Shelby till there is a problem and then it is someones elses fault.
I to have met Pete Brock and seemed like a very nice man and was kind enough to share the story of the coupe with us at the Kirkham gathering this last year. With the GT40 coming from Ford Shelby pretty much gave up the Coupe for bigger better things. I found out that a team in England won the Championship with the car and not Shelby. I bet that has not been told by him and I thought Shelby had won it all this time. The way Pete talked Shelby wanted nothing to do with the car anyway. Now that there are replicas being done he is all about it. Same **** different day. It never ends does it.

+1000 to what Keith said. Brock is a class act.

The relationship between SAAC and Shelby can't go lower.

I wish Shelby would stop talking.

About the 917, John Wyer, John Horsman and company (JWA) were invited by the Porsche race team to participate in a test session. This was soon after the Jackie Ickx/Jackie Oliver #1075 GT40 beat the 917 at the 1969 24 hours of LeMans. Drivers weren't too happy with the 917 due to its instability at high speed. After observing a few runs, John Horsman convinced the Porsche guys to allow them to retrofit, i.e. rig, a tail onto the car. It was a straight tail sloping upwards toward the rear using tin secured with pop rivets. It was ugly. The first driver to chance driving the car with its new tail came pulled into the pits after some high-speed runs to report that the car was now stable. I wouldn't call the tail anything like the Coupe, but that's basically how JWA and the Gulf connection with the 917 began. That was the beginning of the Porsche 917 domination.

As for CS's trashing of Pete Brock, I suspect it's because Pete has gotten most of the credit for the Coupe design and its success. I imagine how tough it's got to be for old Shel to share credit for the Coupe, thus, since it wasn't all his, it was the "biggest mistake of his life."

The Ring Airfoil, etc.
 

In some of the early pictures of DAytona construction there are drawings on the wall in back of Brock that show the ring airfoil, basically a strip of metal or fiberglass raised from the surface on little stilts and wrapping around the sides. Brock got the Daytona coupe body accepted by Shelby but from what I understand Shelby said they would add the ring airfoil if they had any aero problems in track testing. Ironically they didn't have rear end lift at Riverside but did when they got to Europe where Phil Remington whacked out a ducktail spoiler that restored some color to P. Hill's face (after he came in ashen faced when he felt the tail lift at 180 mph).
The ring airfoil was subsequently used by DeTomaso n the Group 5 car (originally partly supported by Shelby) , the 70P built by Ghia but I don't know if the movable center section was activated because the car either never ran or ran in some minor events. The car is now being touted as being for sale but one never knows with DeTomaso if there is just one or several.

Brock also used the ring airfoil in a mid engined Hino Contessa powered car called the Samurai. On that car it probably worked as planned. The car seems to have disappeared but may someday reappear as many of Brock's projects do.

Neither Shelby or Brock in anything I've read ever refers to the precedents to the Daytona, the ASton Martin 212, 214 and 215 coupes, at least two of which had concave Kamm effect tails like the Daytona or the Maserati tipo 151 coupe one of which had a Daytona like nose and a chopped off concave rear end like a Daytona, and which ran in '63. When I asked Brock about it he said he didn't know about it but I found a picture of Brock racing a Cooper and the car ahead of him is a Maserati 151 coupe! Not to say the 151 was aerodynamically stable--Lucky Casner was its chief US proponent, he rolled his into a tight little ball. And when Briggs Gunningham had Momo put a 427 side oiler into one, Marvin Paunch (panch?) flipped it and they had a hell of a time getting him out because like the later Ford GT the doors went somewhat into the roof and once the car turned turlte, you couldn't open the doors. Mike Schoen, in his book does mention the Aston influence and I only mention the Aston and Maserati to illustrate that Brock's coupe was derivative of the latest trend of the times, not the first fastback coupe with a concave rear body panel and faired in headlamps.So when Shelby gave Brock the green light to build the car, he knew there were semi successful cars of that general shape.