Search results

Fascinating seeing these notes, gives a real insight into the way they tested. Thanks for posting. Also interesting to see the significant difference in power:weight between the XJ13 and the top running cars at the time.

Apparently J9 also had a few off track excursions, which explains a lot of the time loss. However I would still suggest that the car wasn't being run at the top of its potential. A.J. Foyt was a professional racing driver (and a very quick one at that) who had previously competed in a...

But the guys racing out there aren't top notch F1 stars. There was a very diverse mix of drivers, from recent top level drivers, to drivers who dabbled at the top flight many years ago down to complete amateurs. The difference between an amateur and a pro can easily be upwards of 4-5 seconds...

That has to be one of the slowest gear changes known to man. Still interesting though.

It seems you're right looking at race photos, I suppose they must have set up a system similar to Shelby at a later stage than Shelby, as the openings seem to have been covered rather than blocked permanently.

I'm pretty sure another difference is that the HM cars used brake cooling ducts in the front of the nose, whereas Shelby moved them behind the radiator so that the brakes would not cool too much on the Hunaudieres and risk a warped rotor from the extreme changes in temperature.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the timing hut was at the 4.4km mark on the circuit, which is a good 1.25 miles short of the Mulsanne Kink, so I think it's safe to say that the MkIV was capable of 216mph+.

I believe one of the reasons the XJ13 project was shelved was because with the introduction of the 427 Fords, it was deemed to be unlikely to be competitive?

The race photo? Or the modern one? The 2nd race one is I think, as it has the same fading number and the mirrors are in the right place. And I'm pretty sure that's Dan Gurney behind the wheel. If you're talking about the modern one then I'm not certain, but I think so.

Wouldn't lens distortion just alter the perceived distance between different parts of the livery though? Not actually alter the rotation of a single part of the livery? :confused: ^Another thing that makes me dubious is that there is significant fading of the black paint on the #1 on the front...

I suppose that with such an iconic and eye catching car, it's bound to attract the attention of photographers. Nice photos, by the way, Jamesst.

Race Photos: Not blindingly obvious, but the #1 is canted over to the left slightly. This one shows it more clearly: And current photos: And: The number in these is quite clearly more centralised, if not a couple of degrees in the opposite direction. I might just be being dim, and...

Not sure exactly how he got those photos but a quick image search yielded quite a few pics of your car, one guy on Flickr seems to have rather liked you car: Brands Hatch - 750MC - Porsche 917 by jamesst1968, on Flickr Gulf Porsche - Brands Hatch 750mc by jamesst1968, on Flickr Tons more as...

Thanks for the confirmation that it wasn't painted and I take the point about the number being off centre for the benefits of stewards/marshalls, but to me that doesn't explain why it would now not be the same unless there was some sort of re detailing on the car. :confused:

I've come across a few articles across the web that state that J5 was repainted after Le Mans and after comparison of pictures from the race and of the car as it is now, there are some discrepancies. Most notably between the number 1 on the front of the car which is off centre in a clockwise...

Fantastic video. Love that sound. :thumbsup: