Thank you, Akismet!

Happy Holidays from the Big Bear Lyons…

Clearing the way to a better year…?  (Lorna Lyons photo)

Say, have you had a challenging 2009 too? Well, who hasn’t? At least we’re still here to swap our war stories, right?

Ours concern another loss of a beloved pet, health issues (now resolved) and — this won’t come as unfamiliar news for a lot of you — a testing time pulling in enough income.

Sadness dominated the beginning of the year, when we lost our Samoyed dog Dakota in January, only a couple of weeks after Christmas. He was coming up on his 14th birthday and it was pretty obvious he was feeling it.
Yet he was still a happy guy, still able to enjoy his walks — well, slow ambles — around the neighborhood twice a day. Indeed, sometimes he’d muster a trot, and every so often at the top of a downhill the spirit of a canter would seize him. That was a joyous sight to behold.
Incredibly, one evening with Lorna at the leash Dakota broke into a hard gallop! He seemed inspired. His trademark Sammy grin splitting his mischievous face, he proceeded to tear around the entire walk at full charge, even on the uphills, Lorna flying along behind. It was the good old Dakota we used to know and a happy thing to remember him by.
Two days later he was gone.

Dakota was our third dog to pass on. It was two years earlier that our wonderful German Shepherd, Tessa, left us. And of course even after 15 years we still deeply miss Midnight, our marvelous black Keeshond.
Everyone asks, are we getting another dog. The answer is no, at least not now. For one thing, honestly, we don’t want to go through the loss and grieving again. It’s too raw right now.

Cats of an earlier time, Poindexter and Victoria, are still in our hearts, too.
Our current kitties, Pumpkin and Spooky, the pair of pampered princesses, are both aging fairly well. They’re 16 now.

Here is “Spooks”

and “the Pumpkin-colored cat”

The shot with Lorna (always appropriately attired) was taken on Halloween day, the anniversary of the cats coming to us and — as you must have figured out — the genesis of their names. Spooky has once-daily shots of insulin, and both get a regimen of liquid oral meds twice a day for various old-age ailments involving heart, thyroid and arthritis. They still live for the quiet hours of the evening, after mom’s work day is done, when they can clamber onto her toasty warm lap to help her watch HGTV.

Mom kind of likes that part of the day, too.

This summer we enjoyed the company of Diva, a “deer head” Chihuahua, while her Significant Person, our friend Willow, found a new house. Diva is incredibly bright and trained as a Service Dog to do things that make your jaw drop. She’s also drop-dead adorable:

Diva dancing

Late addition: Here by popular demand are Diva’s buds, whom we dubbed “The Boys.”

Bun-Bun is the one on the left, with the droopy ears. Pete wanted to rename him “Bugs,” but couldn’t sell it. Bun-Bun is very sweet and mild-mannered, but not much of a conversationalist. Pig-Pig, tho, is a very assertive little guy. Whenever he heard someone approaching he would whistle piercingly, come rushing out of the little birdfeeder he had adopted as his very own and stand up on his hind legs, pawing at the pen wire. He figured he was in for a baby carrot or leaf of lettuce. He was usually right.

They, Diva and Willow are now in their new house, a really nice place with ample room for Willow’s garden. The Boys are especially pleased.

Lorna’s work day continues to revolve mostly around her duties for MPG, aka the Motor Press Guild. She operates their website, a daily all-day task, and in her spare time (cue derisive laughter) works on the following year’s annual Membership Roster and Media Guide. For that, she’s responsible for the accuracy of data about members and services and also for selling the ads that pay for the book.
She’s really got a gift for ad sales. Astoundingly in this economy, she’s already sold most of her target of ad pages for next year’s Roster — a month ahead of deadline.
Her work is so appreciated by MPG that they’ve given her a raise — again an astounding thing in this year of hardship in the auto industry.

Pete also was rewarded with a raise this year for his work as editor of MPG’s monthly newsletter, MilePost.
That came in handy when, in March, we abruptly got cost-cut by one of our biggest and longest-standing magazine clients. They’ve been struggling, all magazines have, so it was understandable. But it was sudden. Chop! A two-minute phone call and 40 percent of our income axed.
Kindly, that magazine’s editor has managed to send a few jobs our way regardless. Even better, Pete’s column continues in the first-rate monthly Vintage Racecar. We were also very glad to have some assignments from Road & Track, a premier publication to which Pete has been contributing off and on for over 35 years.
Also ongoing is work on two books, one a biography, the other a third Can-Am book. Both should be done in the new year.

Freelancing may have its pay challenges, but against that one has to factor in experiences like Pete enjoyed at Long Beach in April. Among other great things, he scored a couple of hot laps in a Porsche GT3 RSR driven by ALMS and Grand-Am star Darren Law. Rides in race cars…Priceless!

(Larry Mason photo)

One of the R&T assignments mentioned above was a major honor: a Lyons calendar. Every year they put out a high-quality, fine-art B&W calendar with a historic racing theme, and for 2010 they chose the photography of Ozzie and Pete Lyons.
Pete wrote the captions, too, striving — this is a personal grumble of his — to make them informative, pertinent and generally worth reading. His fee was a small stock of product to sell through our website and sales have been going fairly well.
If you will forgive us a shameless plug, we still have some autographed and numbered 2010 calendars available through our recently revamped site, www.petelyons.com

Let’s see, what else about this year… In March we took part in a film festival at the new Riverside Automotive Museum, where Pete presented the first film to be shown, the Duke DVD “Can-Am Thunder,” in which Pete and his pictures play a prominent part.

(Lorna Lyons photo)

The same month took us to two vintage car shows, the first devoted to Porsches and the other to British marques. At both venues we enjoyed good photo and DVD sales. In June we had similar success at an historic race at the speedway in Fontana.
But an experimental visit to a different kind of show, which featured street rods and classic American cars, gave us an economic beating. Lesson learned, this is not our clientele.
In November the Petersen Automotive Museum generously let us set up a vending table (photo below) during a fundraising gala called “Tribute to Trans-Am.” This was our crowd and we went home happy. So did the museum director. Pete donated two prints for the auction, and the combined benefit to the museum came to $2700.
Maybe we are undervaluing our pictures on our website!

No overseas trips in 2009, for the first year in many. In fact, not many business trips at all. Our clients just don’t have the money. Nor do we.
However, thanks to thoughtful friends who passed along a time-share condo reservation they couldn’t take up themselves, we have just enjoyed a week on the beach at Dana Point. Sun, sea and skies free of snow. Sweet!

December brought Lorna her 60th birthday. We had two special celebrations. The day itself coincided with MPG’s annual banquet, where 120 of Lorna’s closest friends sang Happy Birthday to her. On a moment’s notice the caterer whipped up a “cake” — two cookies, a mountain of whipped cream and a handful of berries. Hard to eat, but very nice.

(Larkin Hill photo)

To celebrate more formally, Lorna sat for a neighborhood friend who is launching his own portrait business. He did a superb job. Here is Pete’s favorite image of his honey:

(Jim McClune photo •  www.jimmcclune.com)

What will 2010 bring? If we can stay as generally healthy and happy as we have been, we’ll count it a winner.
May each of you be able to say the same. Meanwhile, warmest of holiday wishes to all!

Lorna and Pete Lyons

…and Pumpkin and Spooky too!

“Ya,” replied the reigning world champion, and he stopped in his headlong rush and stood there with us, talking. He told us about the 44-mile mountain road circuit and the Ferrari sports racer and how his throttle had stuck and he went over the edge into “a bean field,” as I remember he called it.

The reigning world F1 freakin’ champion chatting amiably with two utter strangers, just fans, on a spring evening on a sidewalk in Sicily.

That was the first time I’d spoken to him, but not the first time I’d seen him in person. That happened probably two years earlier at Sebring. Midway through a hot Florida afternoon he finished a driving stint, climbed out drenched in sweat and went to a corner of the pit stall, where he slumped to the ground, back against cinder blocks, and lifted a half-gallon glass jug of orange juice.

At that instant a man with a microphone bustled in, thrust it out and asked one of those dumb man-with-a-microphone questions.

I was close enough to see Phil’s eye measure him up and down. Then he tilted his head back and drained the jug, drained it in one long, throat-pulsing swallow, taking his sweet time, draining it of every orange drop. Finally he wiped his sweaty face with the sleeve of his pale blue driving suit. Then, only then, he began his response to the question.

First things first. I admired Phil Hill for that, and for many other things. No nonsense. No pretense. A straightforward man who raced because he was a racer, just that, and thereby kept the whole thing straight in my mind.

Straightforward, but not simple. Others knew him better than I and have written eloquently about his complexity, but I was able at least to experience some of his independence of thought. One time, long after his racing days, my wife and I went to interview him at Hill and Vaughn, his highly regarded classic car restoration shop.

Leaning back in his classic old desk chair, trying to look at ease but fidgeting continually, swinging back and forth, waving his arms, talking a torrent, he told us many things, but one stands out now in my mind.

Kids today, he said with consternation, are so darn safety-minded. Why, when he takes young people for a ride in some wonderful old car, they look around and complain there aren’t any seat belts! He was genuinely puzzled.

I understood perfectly. I watched this man racing when racing was not all about depending on technology for survival, but yourself. Yes, drivers worried about injury and death—so did we passionate onlookers—but the defense measure was to race with intelligence and vigilance and care. Just like flying and motorcycling and shooting, other activities I enjoy precisely because the self-reliance factor is so high.

On another occasion, Phil went on a press trip to Mexico and he brought a knife. A group of us journos were walking along with him through a crowded city street when conversation turned to his record-breaking speed on a particular leg of the old Carrera Panamericana. He stopped, unzipped a bag and pulled out the prize he’d been given for that: a  huge Bowie knife. Unsheathed, it glinted wickedly in the sunlight. Proudly, he showed us the engraved inscription.

I couldn’t help but imagine his trying to explain self-reliance and personal responsibility and treasured history to some airline baggage checker who happened to find such a weapon.

Later on that trip each of us got to ride along with Phil along sections of the old Carrera route. Honestly, it was hard to relate. The car he was driving was very modern, very high-tech, very smooth and quiet and its road manners were unflawed. Nor was he driving very hard, just a pleasant touring pace. I kept trying to strip away all the luxury and weight and safety measures from my mind, trying to imagine what it had been like to drive these relentlessly rugged roads at racing speed in the sketchy, brutal beasts of half a century before.

I couldn’t. The only point at which I caught glimpses was at corner entries. Phil would wait until the last meter before he nailed the brakes. That must have been ancient sense-memory I was witnessing. I hoped so.

Everyone who remembers Phil Hill mentions what a fine person he was. A time I saw that side of him was after I’d asked his help with a book on Chaparrals, and had thanked him in the forward. Fully a year after publication I was in Monaco for the GP, and came across Phil also watching the action. Over the screams of engines he made a particular point of expressing his appreciation for mentioning him.

I thought, it isn’t often in this business that you get sincere thanks from a racing driver. Mostly, their self-absorbed minds just don’t work that way.

And then there was the last time I saw him, at a gala awards function in Los Angeles earlier this year. Phil arrived in a wheelchair, his frailty a shock to anyone who remembered the vigorous athlete he’d been all his life.

He couldn’t speak loudly enough to be heard over the noise of the party, but his eyes were still sharp and alert. He was wholly aware of his situation. At one point, as his loyal friend John Lamm wheeled him by where I was, Phil’s glance met mine. He smiled, and his eyebrows went up and the look on his face was young and bright. What I believe his expression was saying is, “Isn’t this the darndest thing!”

It was work for him to be there, but he came. It was work to stand when acknowledged from the stage, but he stood. It was extremely hard, slow, labored work to sign autographs, but he did it, resolutely, painstakingly, completely. People wanted it, so he obliged.

A gentleman as well as a champion.

(From Pete’s regular monthly column, FAST LINES, in Vintage Racecar magazine, 2008)

Shooting Speed

Ozzie Lyons, my dad, began capturing the magic of motor racing in the late 1930s with a Speed Graphic, a “view camera” whose design dated to 1912. Belying its branding, and notwithstanding its popularity with mid-century newsmen, that big, boxy contraption was anything but speedy.

Ozzie and his Speed Graphic, circa 1952

(photo by Geraldine Lyons — my mom)

First, it was heavy and bulky enough that just lugging the thing was a chore. Once the right shot came along, that’s all you got—one shot. As I recall the sequence, before making a second photograph you had to:

1. slide a thin metal plate into the removable, two-sided film holder on the back of the camera, and also remember to turn two little security latches, all to protect the 4-inch by 5-inch sheet of naked film from further exposure;

2. pull out the wooden film holder, flip it back-to-front, and shove it in again;

3. remove the second protective metal plate and stow it…somewhere.

Oh, and don’t forget to reach around to the front of the instrument and manually re-cock the shutter mechanism alongside the lens. While you’re at it, better check that the iris aperture, shutter-timing and focus settings—all strictly manual—are correct for the conditions of the moment.

Ok, you’re finally ready for your next shot. Say, is the race still going on?

Looking back, it reminds me of the elaborate rituals early motorists had to perform to start their cars. Some days the trip must not have seemed worth it.

Up close and personal at Andrews AFB

(photographer unknown)

Like his professional fellows of the day, Ozzie put up with all this awkwardness for the sake of image quality. At the time, the results that could be obtained in the 4×5 format were simply superior to anything smaller.

Of course that changed as technology progressed in both film emulsions and lens optics. By the late 1950s even my die-hard dad was an enthusiastic convert to 35 mm cameras. These marvelous minis were so much smaller, lighter and handier that you could easily carry two or more, and they used roll-film. That’s right, you could take as many as 36 photos as rapidly as you could twist the advance-knob on a Contax. Just think of the opportunities that opened up around the track.

When Ozzie upgraded to Nikons, wow—there was a thumb-lever to advance the film, letting you keep the camera to your eye! These beauties seemed made for racing!

To put it in automotive terms, it must have been like the advent of electric starting and synchromesh. Whether driving or taking pictures or doing anything else, such improvements change the very way you go about it—even the way you think about it.

Ozzie is the man with the mini-cam, between the guy looking down into his Rollei with flash attachment and the one still hefting a bulky Speed Graphic; Watkins Glen 1955 (photo by someone named “Sully”)

Thirty-five mm cameras were so small that an ambitious photojournalist could carry more than one. At Sebring in 1960, engineer Ozzie tried a home-made bracket mounting one camera loaded with color film, the other with monochrome. (He and I had just ridden the blimp; note how as it reared into its next takeoff, I reflexively tilted my own camera.)

Fast-forward to this century. I’m a gleeful convert to the Digital Revolution—the term is apt—and, once again, I notice my own approach to, attitude about and practice of photography have changed greatly. Especially, my enjoyment level is higher.

I used to fret about what film to load and which filter to screw on to suit the situation. Was the sky going to stay bright, or turn cloudy? Did I plan to keep shooting through sunset into nightfall? Would I be working inside a home (with reddish tungsten lighting) or a race shop (greenish fluorescents)? All that techno stuff is no worry any more; I can let my cybernetic Canon figure it out.

Another fret was the cost of the film and processing. I used to calculate I was out about 50 cents every time I pressed the shutter. It became hard to press that shutter! But doing the math made it easy to justify the price of going digital. In my case, at the time, I reckoned shot number 4411 put me ahead.

Oh, the freedom to fire at will! With my current setup, I can record better than 375 exposures on one memory card. That’s like shooting more than 10 rolls of film without reloading. And it’s all free.

The confidence you gain from being able to check what you just shot on the camera’s review screen is priceless. Did I get the whole car in the frame? Did somebody blink? Could I improve my composition? Going digital leads you to make many more photographs and, if you learn from them, your photography improves.

After the shoot, instead of sloshing around in chemical baths inside a dank darkroom, fretting about what developer, fixer and paper to use, back aching, today’s imagecrafter sits in ergonomic, air-conditioned comfort before a crisp, brilliant screen displaying his or her work in glorious color. Any aspect of the photo can be massaged until it’s just right.

Darn it, digital is just plain fun.

I do respect the accomplishments of photography’s Old Timers, back in the Analog Era. Like racing drivers then, they had to spend more of their mental capital on managing the process. Having to think about films and exposures while you’re working the race track is exactly analogous to staying mindful of not fading your brakes or damaging your dog-rings in cars without discs and electronically-managed transmissions.

Masters like Lartigue, Klementaski, Alexander and, yes, my father managed to do stunning work with equipment that looks archaic to us now—just as the Nuvolaris, Fangios, Mosses and Clarks did. To work their magic, all those people had to bring cerebral powers to bear that frankly awe me today.

In fact, given what I’ve recently learned about photography thanks to modern technology, I think I’d like to go back now and try my hand again with the old tools. Current race drivers enjoy sampling vintage machinery; I’ll bet a racing safari with dad’s old Speed Graphic would be fun.

(photographer unknown)

(Text written for a “GUEST SPEAKER” column in Classic Motorsports magazine, 2006)

Now that history can be witnessed first-hand, I have ventured back to November 3, 2007. Yes, the date recognized by every schoolchild: the single day nearing the end of the Age of Risk when our Age of Automation truly began.

As everyone knows, the DARPA Urban Challenge was conducted at Victorville, California, north of what used to be Los Angeles. Now part of Greater Las Vegas, the site was then a desert (a place deficient in natural water) and ample room was found to hold the competition through the empty streets—imagine!—of a former military base.

Despite my special crash course in non-autonomous driving, I found getting to the venue absolutely terrifying. Though traffic was sparse by our standards, every one of the hurtling vehicles had a human hand on the controls! Let me tell you, risk is one thing when studied, quite another when experienced. I was enormously relieved to arrive alive and reenter the modern era.

Not that the Bots looked very modern to my eye. Robotics required much added equipment back then, so each of the 11 competitors (culled from 35 early hopefuls) in the final competition was a standard production vehicle festooned with primitive multi-emitter Lidar scanners operating in the infrared, plus old-fashioned optical cameras and GPS receivers. Inertial navigation contraptions and several of the astonishingly bulky computer units of the era occupied interiors. Most teams made use of control actuators already on the market for handicapped drivers.

The driver’s position remained open for a human to take over if necessary—as sometimes proved to be the case—but no one was aboard during the competition. My fellow spectators seemed to find that remarkable.

It was the simulated urban environment that distinguished this Challenge from its predecessors, the 2004 and 2005 tests across the open countryside which still existed in those days. Today’s task was to safely and accurately negotiate courses adding up to nearly 100 kilometers of streets and roads, complete with lane delineations, curbs and stop signs, plus merging, overtaking and self-parking exercises, all while observing California traffic rules. The trial was made enormously more complex by the simultaneous presence of rival Bots and also a fleet of human-driven automobiles, each following prescribed courses of their own. The time limit was six hours, although onlookers were cautioned that “we could run into dark.”

According to Dr. Tony Tether, legendary Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), this was the first time multiple robotic vehicles had interacted in such a way, and before the event he frankly said he was “scared.” To forestall collisions, each competing Bot was trailed by a Control Vehicle fitted with a roll cage and driven by a helmeted human who could transmit a shut-off signal.

Funded by DARPA and numerous sponsors, the goal was to meet a U.S. Congressional mandate to have one-third of battlefield vehicles operating autonomously by 2015. The government’s stated motive was to save soldiers’ lives; many of the university students and industry personnel involved meant to extend the benefit to the public at large.

However, most with whom I spoke did not expect to see full automation of the world’s highways, “at least in our lifetimes.” They were merely looking to systems that would aid the human driver, extending the reach of Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning and similar functions that already existed. Of course we know what really happened, but we must not blame the good folk of the 21st for their short foresight, it’s a human characteristic. That’s why we have robots.

Although I wondered if we would, for a moment. The call to “Launch the Bots!” came at about 7:50 am, but it was 8:07 before one moved. And it wasn’t the designated first starter. That one, so honored because of its performance in qualifying rounds, was “Boss,” a modified Chevrolet Tahoe entered by Tartan Racing, aka General Motors in cooperation with Carnegie Mellon University. Why did it remain stationary?

Because its GPS navigation system had been scrambled by radio frequency emissions from a large television display nearby! The screen had to be switched off and the Bot rebooted while jokes went around that “Boss” had become fixated watching itself on TV. I rather doubt it; this was too early in robot evolution.

Meanwhile, others started at two-minute intervals, each following its assigned route, sounding various distinctive alarms and trailed by their Control Vehicles. Having studied my transportation history, I was put in mind of the famous “man with a red flag” that by law had to walk ahead of motor vehicles in Olde England. I must go back there some time.

When all was well the competitors moved along briskly, but very often one Bot or another found itself blocked or confused and abruptly stopped. Comedy would ensue, as the poor thing cast about with its whirling sensors and struggled to match what it “saw” with the Mission Definition File loaded into its little electronic mind. There would be much turning of front wheels this way and that, shifts into reverse, false starts and nose-diving halts until finally, to cheers from the crowd, progress would resume. Briefly.

One entry named “Knight Rider,” a Subaru from the University of Central Florida, spent a very long time utterly puzzled by a stop sign. It finally figured that out, only to veer off its route into a driveway, where it was terminated just short of the house. “Oshkosh,” a giant truck formerly known as “TerraMax,” took itself out by charging a storefront. Two other competitors had a face-off at an intersection, neither backing down until officials forced one to retire. Another clipped a curb.

“Talos,” a Ford from MIT, appeared to have the most trouble with a rugged dirt road segment of the route, although it haltingly soldiered through. But at one point it collided with “Skynet,” a Chevy from Cornell, which forced the whole event to pause for 20 minutes. Both Bots did continue to the finish.

Of the 11 starters, five were out by the end of the first of the day’s three “missions.” The remaining six went all the way to the end. As they began rolling under the checkered flag, event officials became more and more elated. This result exceeded their most optimistic expectations.

First across the finish line, some 5 1/2 hours after it started (including the race pause and pit stops between missions) was “Junior,” a diesel-powered VW Passat entered by Stanford, winning team of the 2005 Challenge. Averaging some 13 miles per hour, “Junior” was a standout for its smooth, confident-looking progress around the course.

But “Boss,” the Tahoe in trouble at the start, was going even better, averaging 14, steadily making up time, and when DARPA tallied up judging notes from more than 100 human observers this fastest of the robots had also made the cleanest run and Tartan Racing was declared the winner. The prize: two million dollars. That’s quite a lot of money back here and now.

Stanford’s “Junior” came second, earning $1 million. Third at $500,000 was “Victor Tango” from Virginia Tech. “Little Ben,” a first-year effort by a two-college team from Pennsylvania, was fourth. “Talos” and “Skynet” also finished the course, although outside the six-hour limit.

“A fantastic accomplishment,” declared Dr. Tether. For me, the fantasy was witnessing the very beginnings of the wonderfully safe and sane world we know today, when human driving is forbidden except in our few remaining Performance Preserves. I will return to my own time with new appreciation for our Brother Bots, and I must say I look with more favor on their desire to be Unionized.

As my Comm Implant is inoperable in this era, I must compose this report manually with something called a keyboard, an irksomely archaic method, and transmit it via the ancient Internet—which itself sprang from another DARPA initiative—for retrieval a century from today.

Of course the old Internet’s notorious insecurity means I am risking interception and premature publication, leading to incalculable Temporal Paradox.

I can only hope that doesn’t happen. But then, this is the Age of Risk.

(Prematurely published in November 2007 by autoweek.com)

]]> http://petelyons.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=292 0 http://petelyons.com/blog/?p=148 http://petelyons.com/blog/?p=148#comments Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:56:10 +0000 pete http://petelyons.com/blog/?p=148 Student of Speed that I strive to be, I’ve had the luck to log innumerable laps of track instruction alongside many superb wheelmen. Bob Bondurant, Danny McKeever, Jacques Couture, David Murry, Al Unser Sr., Parnelli Jones, Peter Gregg…I’ve learned much by revealing my ineptitude to people fully qualified to criticize me.

But the toughest passenger I’ve had is Hurley Haywood.

The man brooks no fault. See, unlike commercial schoolmasters, who tend toward tolerance, Hurley wastes no concern on nurturing repeat business. He works for Porsche, a hard bunch anyway, and feels no need for soft soap. Drive around with Mr. Haywood and you hear precisely what he thinks of your driving.

HH has the credentials, for sure. Think of all those wins at Daytona, Sebring, Le Mans. I think of Road Atlanta and riding as his passenger in a race-prepped Nissan 300ZX. “I’ve never driven one of these,” he remarked cheerfully as we blasted away from the pits. By Turn 5 he was its master.

I’ll admit our scholastic relationship got off on the wrong foot. The first time I strapped in to his left, some years ago in a 996-type 911 at Willow Springs, out of habit I used our warm-up lap through the long, long Turn 2 to see what this model did if I lifted the throttle.

You’d think I’d kicked his dog.

“WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING???” he inquired conversationally. “YOU NEVER, EVER DO THAT!!!” he offered helpfully.

Sensing there was no point in attempting to explain myself, I shut up and planted my foot. Driven like that it was quite a nice car. Hurley kept on muttering, but didn’t actually yell at me again.

Next time we met over a gear lever was at California Speedway’s infield course in Fontana. I’d never so much as seen a map of the lap, and the car was an evilly-glinting new Carrera GT. Priced at $440,000. Packing 605 hp.

“BE CAREFUL!!!” were his first words of counsel.

That outburst was provoked by my getting on the gas in the wrong place. Even 302.5 hp was too much, and the silvery serpent let us know it. Viciously.

A couple of corners later, the Haywood hand appeared atop the steering wheel and yanked us onto the correct line.

We proceeded on around our five allotted laps. Long laps. He might have spoken gently to me once or twice more, I don’t know, my brain was all froze up.

The good news was, Porsche’s program for the day paired us up five more times in five more cars. A great day of driving great machines under the guidance of one of the greatest, most accomplished drivers in the history of sports car racing.

I kept fancying he hid a wince every time he recognized me sliding in beside him.

Tough love does work. Like a horse under the lash, I knew I had to step up. I tried to raise my line-learning pace, tighten my apexes, widen my perceptions. During our second five-lap session, in a 997 Coupe, I think, a third fist only appeared under my nose once, and I only detected a couple of angry shouts.

By my third run, Mr. Haywood was confining his guidance to hand signals.

Our fourth car was a Boxster S (it was my favorite), and at one glorious moment, as I finished throwing us through a sequence, the corner of my eye caught a subtle nod of approval.

And all around all five laps of our very last session, Hurley’s hands remained in his lap and he didn’t utter a sound until we stopped and I was climbing out of a very fine 911 Cabriolet. Then I distinctly heard him say, “Good job.”

I wear those words like a medal on my puffed-out chest. Coming from Mr. Haywood, they carry worth.

Story and all photos © by Pete Lyons

(From a story first published in 2007 on the AutoWeek magazine website, www.autoweek.com)

FAST LINES

Bruce’s Legacy

by Pete Lyons

Bruce Leslie McLaren won the first-ever Grand Prix of the United States in 1959, but really established his life’s legacy eight years later. It was September 3, 1967, at Road America when his Can-Am team began a five-year run of dominance in the fastest kind of road racing the world had ever seen.

So strong and so solid was the foundation laid then that McLaren remains one of the greatest names in motorsports today.

Kiwis can be crusty (they’re not alone in this), but Bruce was blessed with one of the sunniest natures ever to venture north from New Zealand. Open of face, friendly of manner, self-effacing and always on the brink of a laugh, he had a gift for bringing talented and ambitious racers—not the easiest of personality types—together in a loyal, tight-knit, intensely competitive team.

McLaren also stood out for blending exceptional driving ability with his education in engineering. He was always bubbling with ideas to improve his cars, which he would then personally evaluate at speed. Yet, entirely typical of the man, he would grinningly discount himself in both areas. Bruce showed no reluctance to hire drivers even faster than he was, and when discussing new concepts with his designers and fabricators he’d say, “Make it simple enough even I can understand it!”

The simple, sturdy, eminently pragmatic racing cars his company turned out reflected Bruce’s own straightforward approach to life.

Born in August 1937, the son of an Auckland garage owner, McLaren started competing with his own small Austin car at 16. By 20 he was driving Cooper racing cars, and in 1958 won his enthusiastic nation’s annual driver-to-Europe scholarship program. Cooper gave him a Formula 2 ride, and he did so well that in 1959 they moved him up to F1 to partner Jack Brabham.

That was Black Jack’s first championship season, of course, but at the British GP young Bruce set fastest lap and finished third. Then, at Sebring in the inaugural U.S. Grand Prix right at the end of the year, McLaren was holding second when Brabham ran out of gas. Presto, the 22-year-old rookie was a winner.

That early success in America seems to have set a path for McLaren, as he went on to be a major player in professional sports car racing in both the U.S. and Canada. While still at Cooper, on the side he become a constructor in his own right. With a small group of buddies, including Americans Tyler Alexander and Teddy Mayer, he further modified a former Cooper F1 chassis that Roger Penske had turned into a sports racer (the “Zerex Special”) by installing Oldsmobile’s aluminum V8.

Dubbed the “Jolly Green Giant,” this unabashed hot rod promptly won its first race at Mosport in 1964—Bruce beating the likes of Jim Hall in a Chaparral and A.J. Foyt in a Scarab.

That fall McLaren finished his first all-McLaren sports car, the M1A. This and successors earned good money in North America and elsewhere through early 1966, but when the big-bucks Canadian-American Challenge Cup series launched in September of that year, Bruce felt personally humiliated to find himself left behind by Chaparral and Lola.

Determined to step up its program for 1967, McLaren’s team designed an all-new car, the M6. It featured a stiff monocoque chassis rather than the tube frames used earlier, a high-downforce body reflecting Bruce’s experience with the Ford GT40 program (he co-drove to a Le Mans win in 1966), and stout small-block Chevy engines featuring fuel injection, then a novelty, tuned by another American, Gary Knutson.

But McLaren knew design is one thing, development another; aided by BRM running late on the engines he wanted to use in F1, Bruce spent months fine-tuning his sports car. As his new team mate, fellow Kiwi Denny Hulme, later commented, “We got those cars perfect, so when we came racing, we were ready to go racing. We weren’t ready to go testing.”

Turned out in a bold caramel color, the two McLarens sparkled at the head of the long Road America grid. Bruce won pole with a lap ten seconds better than any previous time there. An oil leak stopped him in the race, but Denny effortlessly took over, winning at an average speed higher than the previous single-lap record.

So began the Can-Am’s “Bruce and Denny Show.” The Kiwis went on to win five of that year’s six races, and McLaren himself became the 1967 series Champion. Hulme took the title the next year and McLaren repeated in 1969—a year with 11 races, of which Bruce or Denny won every one.

Ten days before the 1970 Can-Am was to start, Bruce McLaren died in a testing accident. The tragedy only seemed to toughen his team, with Bruce’s good friend Dan Gurney stepping in to win the first two races and Hulme finishing the year with another championship. In 1971 another American, Peter Revson, earned McLaren’s fifth title in a row.

The strong little team Bruce built managed two more victories in 1972 against the well-funded might of Penske’s turbocharged Porsches. Then Teddy Mayer had to face financial reality and pull out of the Can-Am. But if you know your F1 and Indycar history, you know the rest of the Bruce McLaren legacy. It’s one of the brightest in all of auto racing.

(From Pete’s monthly “Fast Lines” column in Vintage Racecar magazine, published September 2007. For more photos of Bruce McLaren, see the “People” section of our Gallery. )

Let’s talk technique today. Way back when I was learning to photograph race cars, and then how to develop the film and make the prints, one night in the darkroom my dad was looking over my shoulder and commented, “You’re good at panning.”

What a thrill of pride went through me! Dad might only have been making a casual observation, but as a callow teenager I took it as invaluable validation. I was good at something!

That little ego boost came my way over 50 years ago, but ever since I’ve been especially conscious about the technique of tracking moving cars in the viewfinder.

Such action photography is enormous fun for me. It’s like a shooting sport with firearm or bow, but without the social stigma.

However, I find I have to fight falling into complacency. When shouldering cameras and setting out on a day’s hunt for trophy race cars, it’s tempting to use all of today’s technological firepower. It’s so easy to freeze the speeding vehicle in its tracks. But maybe I should be letting it melt a little.

I did know that, but what made me realize it anew happened a little while ago when, as a gift, I made a print of a friend’s vintage car in action at the Monterey Historic Races. On the spur of the moment, mostly as a learning exercise, I used Photoshop to speed-blur the background.

When my friend looked at his photo, the first thing he said was, “Oh, good, you made the car look fast. Most pictures make it look like it’s standing still.”

What a wave of guilt went through me! My friend might only have been extending a casual compliment, but I knew it was undeserved. I’d fallen into the habit of setting fast shutter speeds, simply because it pretty much guaranteed a sharp image of the car.

Then I’d faked the impression of velocity.

Not cool.

Since then, as another learning exercise, I’ve been spending a lot of my time at races with the camera set at slower shutter speeds, sometimes as low as 1/30.

You know, it’s a lot harder to get sharp pictures that way!

Here’s an example of a relatively successful attempt at 1/30 sec, showing a Viper diving into the Laguna Seca Corkscrew:

I’d rather not display my many less successful attempts.

Back in the days of film, when you had to stop and reload every 36 exposures—each exposure having to be paid for in film and processing expenses—it seemed important to make every shot count. Some of my race film would be going straight to a magazine, to illustrate my report, and I wanted to give them sharp pictures. So I strove for a high percentage of “keepers” by using short exposure times.

But digital photography has set us free. Pixels don’t cost a penny. Best of all, you get the luxury of reviewing your work on your laptop and selecting only the best frames to transmit to the client.

So go out and run wild, like you’re firing at will in a shoot-em-up computer game!

I did just that at the recent Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach, and I learned a lot.

First, let me show what I think is a pleasing speed-blurred photo:

This image is exactly what I was looking to capture. The Porsche may be going about 50 mph around the very tight fountain turn at Long Beach, but a shutter speed of 1/125 (I know, because the digital camera records such details) makes it look faster. The speed-blurred background—real, not Photoshopped—lets the sharp front end of the car stand out.

Of course, only the nearer front corner of the car is sharp. Parts farther away from the point I was tracking, especially the rear wing, were moving enough in relation to the camera sensor to show speed-blur even at 1/125, which is an infinitesimal snap of time to our human perceptions.

I feel it’s important, in a view like this, to have the nose of the car look crisp. If your hands lag just a little, so the camera is tracking a point farther back on the car, the result looks like this:

Though this attempt at 1/60 may look successful at first glance, it isn’t what I was trying for. What’s tracked is the region of the BMW’s door number. That would be fine if I were trying to showcase the driver, or perhaps a certain sponsor decal, but I wasn’t.

To my eye, it’s unsatisfying that I failed to capture this car’s particularly distinctive face. In this tight crop of the same image, see how the grillwork is blurred:

Comparing the relatively stationary lower wheel spokes with the blurry upper ones proves I wasn’t swinging the camera fast enough to keep up with the front end of the car as it arced past me.

I fired at this same BMW with the same camera settings on half a dozen other passes, but none of them were any “better” than this. It wasn’t until later, reviewing the day’s take onscreen, that I realized how often I’d missed.

My takeaway lesson: Facing this particular panning challenge, keep your eye on the front of the target. And shoot a lot.

Other panning situations exist, of course. When a car is coming straight at you, you really aren’t panning, but still you have choices in your shutter speeds. If you set a very fast exposure time, it keeps the whole car sharp, rather than letting everything around the center speed-blur radially. During my Long Beach safari, this shot of two Corvettes was made at 1/1000 of a second:

It’s an adequately sharp, publishable photo, but these cars might be parked. My fast shutter speed robs the image of a sense of speed. I can only hope the tight crop, the tilted frame and the bright colors make up for that.

But what about the much older, b&w picture posted at the top? It’s one of my personal favorites, because it represents an experiment that worked. I took that shot after sundown at the Daytona 24 Hour in 1971, across from the pits at about the S/F line. The car, of course, is the magnificent Penske Ferrari 512M driven by Donohue/Hobbs.

The situation was similar to that with the Corvettes above in that the Ferrari was coming more or less at the camera, although its velocity was vastly higher. This 600-hp race car would have been going something near 200 mph, and even 1/1000 of a second would have yielded a decent amount of motion-blur.

But the very low light required a pretty long exposure (sorry, that was way before digital and I kept no records of my settings). This risked speed-blurring the whole car out of recognition. Obviously a hopeless situation that you would normally avoid when trying to give your client publishable images.

But I’d already made a lot of conventional pictures that day, and I remember banging off a dozen of these gambles just to see what would happen.

As I found in the darkroom later, not much good happened. Every one of those other photos was a waste of film. But in this one case the experiment worked.

What makes it work, I think, is that something specific to the car, its nose number, remains recognizable amidst all the speed-zoomed violence.

That was pure blind panning luck. I was simply playing. But, for once, play paid off.

Long live play.

Contents and concept copyright © 2009 by Pete Lyons

]]> http://petelyons.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=19 0