type 65 with peter brock

Why didn’t your Type 65 design have a ring spoiler? There’s none shown on your clay model.

The Type 65 “Super Coupe” was designed to replace the Daytona Cobra Coupe in 1965.  It had a 427 engine, modern suspension and a shape that would theoretically have allowed speeds well over 200 mph.  What it didn’t have was a moveable driver-controlled wing at the rear called a “Ring Airfoil” that was initially planned for the Daytona Cobra Coupe. type 65 clay model

Had the wing been used on the Daytona it would have been faster, safer and far easier to drive.  Once it was “discovered” that the Daytona was unstable at speed without the Ring Airfoil a far less complicated “spoiler” was added to the rear which helped tremendously in improving the Daytona’s performance.  Even though the opportunity to fit a Ring Spoiler to the Daytona existed through the 1964 season there was simply no time or opportunity to replace the spoiler and the cars had already proven its superiority over the once invincible Ferrari GTOs. The attitude within the Shelby team was “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Fast enough to win was considered “good enough” without spending more time and money to improve what was already a proven winner.

The Type 65 didn't have a Ring Spoiler because the opportunity to use a “moveable aerodynamic device” on all racing cars had passed by then due to regulations banning them. Others who had adapted moveable “wings” during the interim, like Jim Hall’s Chaparrals and several Formula 1 racers in Europe, were banned when the FIA determined that failures of such devices at high speed would cause a loss of traction and result in crashes that would endanger spectators.

type 65 and daytona coupe

3 thoughts on “Why didn’t your Type 65 design have a ring spoiler? There’s none shown on your clay model.

  1. Greetings! A few weeks ago, I visited the Chaparral Museum in Midland, and enjoyed seeing the Chaparrals at last. Huge wings on some. The aerodynamic research, testing and implementation, by Jim Hall and his team there and at GM, was beautifully done, and the cars look amazing! Much better than current race cars with computer dictated aerodynamics. The art is gone. Your cars, as well as many 60’s cars are expressions of a human understanding of airflow (intuitive and tested) and car design passion, while advanced technology, amazing and effective as it is, has replaced the beauty we enjoy in your designs and others, with harsh, blunt and incomprehensible appendages and doo-dats. Just yesterday, I was looking at the Hino Samurai model I have of your racer design. Beautiful! And a fixed loop wing like we saw on your Daytona sketches. Would this have been considered a movable device? Would the 65 have needed it, as it looks like the shape, Kamm tail and all, is more tapered and longer to allow for better surface attachment of air, and less drag. Would it not have reduced rear lift also? Anyway, I really enjoy your work, your books, your newsletters and stories. And also my full set of the 1:43 Daytona collection (#7 for all of them)! Best wishes, and be well! PS: Finally / At Last / Why needed? – a mid- engine Corvette in July. Your thoughts, also upon reflection to your and Mitchell’s 1963 design? Thanks and Cheers!

  2. Great story; 1960’s racecar research & development was really a “seat-of-the-pants” deal as compared with today’s computer simulation & wind-tunnel tools. Test driver’s really had to earn their money, and risk was far higher…

  3. Interesting

    In your opinion, would a Ring Airfoil that would be adjustable off the track but locked into a fixed position while on the track or a more traditional spoiler as on the Daytona been necessary for stability?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *