|
|
Post by lance on Mar 7, 2012 23:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on Mar 7, 2012 23:52:42 GMT -5
Cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by pje on Mar 8, 2012 0:43:26 GMT -5
Did we confirm that no one used the tail cover in qualifing or the race for the 1984 500?
Practice only?
Paul Erlendson
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on Mar 8, 2012 1:08:09 GMT -5
Did we confirm that no one used the tail cover in qualifing or the race for the 1984 500? Practice only? Paul Erlendson it most definitely was used in the race. Foyt for sure. Possibly Fittipaldi. Maybe more. |
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Mar 8, 2012 9:04:15 GMT -5
Yes... Cool ... thanks for posting that Lance. I assume the hole in the back was for the starter motor.
Rusty
|
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Mar 8, 2012 10:11:30 GMT -5
What the heck!?!? This tail cover thing just keeps on getting more confusing for me. This cant be the same one?   Maybe its this one?  |
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Mar 8, 2012 10:13:34 GMT -5
it most definitely was used in the race. Foyt for sure. Possibly Fittipaldi. Maybe more. I've never found proof of it. This is the one subject that I still cant figure out. This Tail cover deal is very confusing.  |
|
|
|
Post by lance on Mar 8, 2012 10:30:56 GMT -5
Yes this is from the 84 Foyt car. Lance
|
|
|
|
Post by harveythedog2 on Mar 8, 2012 10:42:12 GMT -5
In the first picture the tail is flipped over upside down.
|
|
|
|
Post by gavkiwi on Mar 8, 2012 11:51:50 GMT -5
Was this cover purely for aerodynamic efficiency ?
|
|
|
|
Post by professor on Mar 8, 2012 12:11:34 GMT -5
Many teams used them, The C-1 Michael Andretti car has one but not as long as on Foyt's
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Mar 8, 2012 15:57:19 GMT -5
I wouldn't be suprised if the length of the tail cone varied over time. Whether it had something to do with the rules or simply it was easier to get the starter into the back of the gear box with a shorter cone.
Rusty
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on Mar 8, 2012 16:15:12 GMT -5
This tail cone:  And this tail cone: Are almost certainly the same ones. The length is extremely exaggerated in the second photo due to the fact that it was taken with a very wide angle lens - in such cases images in the photo that are closer to the camera look significantly larger than areas that are farther away, even if it's only a few inches difference. Conversely the second image the length of the cone looks compressed because you're looking at it more from behind than from the side, combine that with you don't get the same distortion because the lens used was nowhere near as wide as it was in the first shot. I wouldn't doubt that the tail cones in the images are the exact same tail cone. But it's almost certainly not the same tail cone as this: |
|
