115 replies to this topic

[PeterElleray]

But didn't it start out as the Audi-with-roof from 1999? Which was previously Toyota TOM'S Europe/UK, etc?

Completely different car . The 1999 car was an audi, the whole rear end was identical to the open car.

This is all very well documented.

Peter

[mfd]

Completely different car . The 1999 car was an audi, the whole rear end was identical to the open car.
This is all very well documented.
Peter

I love it when someone like yourself Peter, comes along & puts all this (not really British) nonsense in its appropriate place

[PeterElleray]

I love it when someone like yourself Peter, comes along & puts all this (not really British) nonsense in its appropriate place

Indeed. The problem is that if you take the line that you just ignore it, this sort of 'internet chat' becomes hard fact in many people's minds - or anyone who cares anyway.

I won't pretend that it doesn't *iss me off personally, but there are a good number of people still working in the industry who sweated (british) blood over those cars for three years, with little tangible reward other than to be constantly reminded that they were infact 'audi's' with either a green paint job or a roof on. The very fact that some people who ought to known much better still think you could just 'put a roof on' an open sports car from that era tells volumes about how much they really understand about what they are repeating.

Anyway, i think this thread should now revert to a cat fight about what constitutes a Lotus and what doesn't...


Peter

[kayemod]

Indeed. The problem is that if you take the line that you just ignore it, this sort of 'internet chat' becomes hard fact in many people's minds - or anyone who cares anyway.

Couldn't agree more, particularly in this particular instance, but I think this is an apposite comment on the general principle.

[PeterElleray]

Couldn't agree more, particularly in this particular instance, but I think this is an apposite comment on the general principle.

very good, but what old f*r**s like us tend to overlook is that for anyone under 30 there is no other source of information.

now why do i find myself thinking of the video of buzz aldrin decking one of those 'moon landing hoaxers' in the lobby of a convention a few years ago?

peter

[alansart]

There is at least one TNF'r who works for the current "Lotus" team. He was there when it was Renault and probably doesn't give a stuff what it's called now.......cos we WON!!!!

[SEdward]

Sorry.

I didn't mean to offend anyone. But from the punter's side of the fence, where I have always stood, Bentley at Le Mans in 2003 did look very much like an excercise in VAG marketing. After all, there were no works Audis entered in the race that year, while they have been present every other year since 1998...

Edward

[mfd]

Sorry.
I didn't mean to offend anyone. But from the punter's side of the fence, where I have always stood, Bentley at Le Mans in 2003 did look very much like an excercise in VAG marketing. After all, there were no works Audis entered in the race that year, while they have been present every other year since 1998...

Edward

Yes it was a part of the wish of VAG to promote the brand. I have knowledge from sources within, the plan was for Bentley not to win in 2001 or 2002. However the whole point is, it was not an Audi, apart from the engine...

[PeterElleray]

Sorry.

I didn't mean to offend anyone. But from the punter's side of the fence, where I have always stood, Bentley at Le Mans in 2003 did look very much like an excercise in VAG marketing. After all, there were no works Audis entered in the race that year, while they have been present every other year since 1998...

Edward

Not strictly true. Joest have run Audi's prime cars every year since 1998 with the exception of 2003 when they ran Bentley's (well, one Bentley). There's a difference.

In 2003 the Audi runners found themselves in much the same situation as we did at Bentley in 2001/2 - ie up against it with the better tyres, engines, favoured drivers and, yes, race team down the other end of the pit lane wearing green socks.

Think of it as a re distribution of corporate assets - or, if you like, consider the Bentley's 2003 ace cards to have been given to Audi in 2001/2 ( 4 of them in 01, and 3 in 02!). Just as valid an overview, and yes, corporate marketing comes into that.

Worth remembering that we also qualified those cars that were specifically designed for LM 1-2 at Sebring in '03 - i have very good reason to believe that that was definately not in somebody's script and you might want to look at what happened next in sunny florida..

None of which alters the fact that all the Bentley's (there were 3 different versions) were designed and built in the UK - well Norfolk actually, which is almost the same thing.

Cheers, and if TW wants to move this non Lotus thread hijacker elsewhere please do..

Peter

[PeterElleray]

Yes it was a part of the wish of VAG to promote the brand. I have knowledge from sources within, the plan was for Bentley not to win in 2001 or 2002. However the whole point is, it was not an Audi, apart from the engine...

i much prefer the idea of the plan being for Bentley NOT to win in 2001/2, rather than for Audi TO win.

As i said in the last post, we were outnumbered 3:1 in 2002 and 2:1 in 2001 apart from anything else. Look at how many Audi's there were stacked up against the two B's in 2003..

Peter

Edited by PeterElleray, 05 November 2012 - 21:35.

[arttidesco]

Cheers, and if TW wants to move this non Lotus thread hijacker elsewhere please do..

Peter

Let's hope he does not, I am sure he will value and appreciate the view from inside a design office

[mfd]

Look at how many Audi's there were stacked up against the two B's in 2003..
Peter

Dare I say 2 plus one that scored an own goal

[PeterElleray]

Dare I say 2 plus one that scored an own goal ;)

yes, and i dont think that was in the script either...

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think it's fair to ask about the lineage of the RTN cars. I think you have to be an idiot to think the open topped R8s in any way morphed into a Bentley of any year.

[D-Type]

But, surely it is equally unfair to claim that the Bentley owed nothing to Audi. They certainly had no connection other than name with the cars from Cricklewood.

Edited by D-Type, 06 November 2012 - 00:26.

[arttidesco]

I think you have to be an idiot to think the open topped R8s in any way morphed into a Bentley of any year.

I don't think anyone without an anoraks understanding of the machinations of the Volkswagen Group marketing departments is necessarily an idiot, ill informed or cynical perhaps

[mfd]

But, surely it is equally unfair to claim that the Bentley owed nothing to Audi. They certainly had no connection other than name with the cars from Cricklewood.

No it's not pre war, but that's not the point - the EXP8 was built in Britain by...

[Ross Stonefeld]

But, surely it is equally unfair to claim that the Bentley owed nothing to Audi. They certainly had no connection other than name with the cars from Cricklewood.

I don't think anyone without an anoraks understanding of the machinations of the Volkswagen Group marketing departments is necessarily an idiot, ill informed or cynical perhaps

I've been talking purely about the 1999 R8C

[BoschKurve]

A month or so ago, I was doing some information gathering regarding Mercedes GP.

Under the listing of directors, the database I use does mention previous directors for the team.

One such former director listed is none other than Robert Kenneth Tyrrell.

So for anyone who wishes to mention MGP's lineage, it goes directly back to Team Tyrrell, not BAR as some have claimed.

[packapoo]

I don't buy it, not in the slightest. They may put the old badge on, they may paint it black and gold as much as they want, they may make Andretti swear on the Bible that it is the old incarnation. It is not. There is no continuity between that marque and this one. Not as the Colnbrook's McLaren and the Woking one or, say, the Scuderia Ferrari racing Alfas in the 1930s and the constructor from 1947. It is just a marketing exercise. They should have more respect for Chapman (Colin) and the huge legacy he has left to the sport. Just look at the racing cars today and try to imagine what they would look like without his contribution.

[uechtel]

A month or so ago, I was doing some information gathering regarding Mercedes GP.

Under the listing of directors, the database I use does mention previous directors for the team.

One such former director listed is none other than Robert Kenneth Tyrrell.

So for anyone who wishes to mention MGP's lineage, it goes directly back to Team Tyrrell, not BAR as some have claimed.

This is logical if you look from the "legal" side. Otherwise it would not have made sense to "buy out" a team. But in my opinion what counts is whether or how much of the old infrastructure (organisation, personnel, immobilia, design etc.) were retained.

As I said, I understood, that BAR bought Tyrrell to take over their FOCA franchise, but closed it down after the one year to start completely new operation from Brackley. If that is correct, then, regarding continuity, to me there would be certainly more Reynard than Tyrrell in this enterprise.

[PeterElleray]

Let's clear up the points raised in the last few posts on the Bentley LM cars 2001-2003.

It was not possible to convert an open top car to a closed one at that time, with the prevailing regulations - i know, Audi asked me to try to do so in 1999!

The result was a new coupe, pictured above, that used the whole back end of the open car plus lots of other parts. It was most definitely an audi and no one has ever claimed otherwise. About 60% of it was designed in the uk at rtn.

When Audi dropped that route in 2001 rtn were charged with designing a new coupe fror VW/VAG for whatever future programme they decided upon.

That owed nothing to the 1999 car, for the simple fact that the 1999 car had been a dismal failure. The new one had different chassis, gearbox, engine, body, and all the rest of it. It was therefore the first car i had design responsibility for from scratch. Because of my previous work on the r8c any lineage came from the knowledge in my head.

This car tested in 2000 with a DFR in the back, as its intended w12 never materialised.

In 2000 the Bentley programme was approved. This design was used as the basis for the first Bentley - with new body, modified chassis - and a derivative of the audi engine used in the old coupe in 1999. Putting a turbo engine into a car designed for a large normally aspirated w12 effectively redesigned most of the car.

That was the car you saw at LeMans in 2001 and in revised form in 2002.

For 2003 i agitated like hell to build a second generation car, with new chassis, body, suspension etc. This was approved in summer 2002 - after we had started to design it - and that was the car that finished 1 -2 in 2003, after which we all sailed off into the sunset with P45's tucked firmly in back pockets.

There - that's the lineage. I've never been to Cricklewood in my life but I was often in Crewe and that company has every right to claim the Bentley lineage - it's been in the same shadow factory since 1945 and is the same company that bought out WO in 1930 ish. No the car wasn't designed there but that is hardly uncommon in motorsport. When i last looked both were in the UK, and as i've said earlier, although rtn was in Norfolk, thats almost like being in England.

Finally - yes, i think you would have to lack a bit of the sort of understanding that you might hope to find amongst those who wished to discuss such matters if you believe that you can drop roofs on open cars and make them closed cars. Whether that makes you an idiot or not i'll leave hanging in the air but the rest of the information above will, i hope, clear up once and for all, on this board at least, the 'green audi' rubbish...

Then again, perhaps it won't.

Regards

Peter

[arttidesco]

Thanks for your patience Peter

[PeterElleray]

Thanks for your patience Peter

i will be on my tombstone - "it wasn't a green audi..."

[Stephen W]

Finally - yes, i think you would have to lack a bit of the sort of understanding that you might hope to find amongst those who wished to discuss such matters if you believe that you can drop roofs on open cars and make them closed cars. Whether that makes you an idiot or not i'll leave hanging in the air but the rest of the information above will, i hope, clear up once and for all, on this board at least, the 'green audi' rubbish...

Then again, perhaps it won't.

Regards

Peter

I wouldn't worry Peter someone somewhere is bound to misquote you and off we go again!

Some organisations have a Zero Tolerance of participation of their 'people' participating in Internet Forums. I can totally understand why that is so. The worst place for misquotes, misinformation and down right lies is Wikipedia.

I have a contact within the Bentley organisation and know how much British effort went into the team, sometimes reading the drivel that gets posted makes me wonder why I bother.

[Ralf Pickel]

Peter, thank you very much for sharing your first hand views from inside !

We did take part in the Ennstal Classic in 2001, which took place in August of that year.

Two members of Team Bentley have been there with the 2001 car, almost fresh from LM. We got some insights from them, too - all very interesting and two very nice chaps (one was named Les, the other Peter, IIRC)
I took the opportunity to park my car (which has not seen Cricklewood, either - but is still a Bentley for me, too) shamelessly in front of the transporter !

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think they allegation of 'green Audi' comes more from the R8C and the Bentley sharing some people/facilities/etc.

[PeterElleray]

I think they allegation of 'green Audi' comes more from the R8C and the Bentley sharing some people/facilities/etc.

i don't believe that's correct. It has usually been voiced in a rather snide way by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and weren't there to imply that the car was a rebodied and miraculously roofed over audi .

the important point about any shared facility is that they didn't include drawing offices.

the sad thing is that it took a massive investment from a (very) german company - VAG - to give british engineers a chance to show what they could do on the world stage, albeit, as they were apt to remind us, with a german engine..

Peter

[SEdward]

Peter.

Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

This is what I like about TNF. It is a forum where the anorak troglodytes leaning on the picket fence - like me - can exchange directly with people who work inside the sport.

So in my mind, you have set the record straight. The car that won the 2003 Le Mans 24 Hours was a Bentley, not an Audi.
Best
Edward

[PeterElleray]

Peter.

Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

This is what I like about TNF. It is a forum where the anorak troglodytes leaning on the picket fence - like me - can exchange directly with people who work inside the sport.

So in my mind, you have set the record straight. The car that won the 2003 Le Mans 24 Hours was a Bentley, not an Audi.
Best
Edward

Yes, that is correct!

Peter

[Doug Nye]

Just glanced again at this thread to find all of Peter's first-hand input. Wonderful stuff, straight from the horse's mouth. Thank you for that.

I must confess, having not paid much attention at the time, that I assumed the Le Mans Bentley project was merely a marketing department, badge-engineering exercise and my default reaction was absolutely in the so-what mould. My friend Andy English of the Daily Telegraph then put me absolutely right on that. He was a fan of the Bentley exercise, and converted me into one too. My pernickety side would still think of the Le Mans winner as a Bentley-Audi, but some old habits - like Lotus-Cosworth 72 instead of 'Lotus-Ford' - die really hard...

In retrospect, however, many congratulations Peter - fine effort.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 06 November 2012 - 16:57.

[PCC]

This is what I like about TNF.

Agreed. There are other message boards where this question might have been raised and debated - but precious few wherre the designer himself would step in and set the record straight! We are very fortunate.

[PeterElleray]

Just glanced again at this thread to find all of Peter's first-hand input. Wonderful stuff, straight from the horse's mouth. Thank you for that.

I must confess, having not paid much attention at the time, that I assumed the Le Mans Bentley project was merely a marketing department, badge-engineering exercise and my default reaction was absolutely in the so-what mould. My friend Andy English of the Daily Telegraph then put me absolutely right on that. He was a fan of the Bentley exercise, and converted me into one too. My pernickety side would still think of the Le Mans winner as a Bentley-Audi, but some old habits - like Lotus-Cosworth 72 instead of 'Lotus-Ford' - die really hard...

In retrospect, however, many congratulations Peter - fine effort.

DCN

Thankyou for that Doug - , Bentley-Audi in the same mould as Lotus-Cosworth would be a legitimate summary, in as much as it's implicitly understood by anoraks and enthusiasts to denote chassis - engine. But given the sort of stuff that has been written over the last dozen years, you can see why no one was keen to go down that route in public ! And it would not have been acceptable to Crewe, probably for much the same reason. But i believe Crewe were always very correct in publically crediting the 'Bentley' engine to Ullrich Bartesky's team in Necarsulm. Somewhere along the line the same thing on the chassis side seems to have been left up to those of us who did the work. A man could get cynical about why that was...

Peter

[kayemod]

Agreed. There are other message boards where this question might have been raised and debated - but precious few wherre the designer himself would step in and set the record straight! We are very fortunate.

Yes, priceless, and as I'm sure we all acknowledge, all discussed sensibly and with mostly good humour, something that in my experience is quite rare on internet message boards, long may it continue.

[MonzaDriver]

[Paragraphs removed by Twin Window]

Ciao,
MonzaDriver

[Andrew Kitson]

Yes thanks Peter for brilliant input, a lot of people in Norfolk are still very proud of the Bentley victory, which is why there is still a huge photograph of the car testing at Snetterton in the circuit restaurant and one of the straights on the re-vamped circuit is now called the Bentley straight. The Norfolk Bentley story also provides a tenuous link to the thread title. Tony Fernandes' ( reborn?) Lotus Racing F1 outfit set up shop in the same Hingham factory in 2009/2010 and for that first year had a proper Lotus F1 car or two from Clive's CTL collection in the foyer. It is now a Caterham factory, making composite parts for the Oxfordshire based Caterham F1 team and also houses Caterham R&D for the road car division which is about to expand in a deal with Renault...Lotus 7 anyone?

Edited by Andrew Kitson, 06 November 2012 - 18:48.

[arttidesco]

Dear PeterElleray,
You really are unpolite in your reply to SEward,
and if the forum's members and the intenet chat is so low level for you.
Why take the bother to reply or explain.
You speak from the inside of motor racing, you cannot deal with people like us, on the other side of the fence.
And this is the real meaning of your posts, what you really want to say.

Enzo Ferrari call you " garagiste " now I understand the reason why.

Ciao,
MonzaDriver

With all due respect MonzaDriver I think most of us here are grateful that some one as eminent as Peter took the time and trouble to elucidate his point of view on another matter that is not entirely unconnected to the thread specifically the use of storied names in a modern context.

Until now I have seen nothing but praise for Peters efforts to put his side of the story which is surely what a forum is about, so that we can make up our own minds ?

On a lighter note does anyone know if any of the 3 Speed 8 chassis are on display in the UK at the moment ?

[alansart]

On a lighter note does anyone know if any of the 3 Speed 8 chassis are on display in the UK at the moment ?

Bentley are one of the sponsors of the Cholmondeley Pageant of Power so there's usually one car out.

[SEdward]

Calm down MonzaDriver!

You've been around long enough in this forum to know that a contradiction is not an insult.
Peter corrected my assertions because he knows what he's talking about, and I don't.

That's all.

Edward

[Doug Nye]

I think there must be a language barrier problem here. This MonzaDriver post is entirely unjustifable and sullies an otherwise fascinating thread. Delete?

Edited by Doug Nye, 06 November 2012 - 19:46.

[fw07c]

Why not call kim's car a Genii because they are financing it like Renault, Benetton and Toleman?

[arttidesco]

Bentley are one of the sponsors of the Cholmondeley Pageant of Power so there's usually one car out.

I think I'll give Cholmondeley ago next year Alan, meantime I was hoping a Speed 8 might be on view somewhere in the off season, but I see only three were built so maybe not ;)

Edited by arttidesco, 06 November 2012 - 19:48.

[mfd]

I see only three were built so maybe not ;)

Do you mean the 03 cars or total built?
Cue Peter.

[SEdward]

"Why not call kim's car a Genii"

Or call a Lotus a John Player Special, like in 1972...

Edward

[PeterElleray]

Is it safe to come out over the parapet?

We built no fewer than 11 chassis in 4 years...

001 was the VW test car. Why 001? Because Hirsohi Fushida, MD of rtn asked me what we were going to call our new post 1999 coupe. 001 seemed about as unpretentious as i could come up with and avoided labeling it by year, as i already had a feeling that it might take some time to gestate into a real race car.. Also a nod to my childhood hero's Ken Tyrrell and Derek Gardner ( and Derek, at least, eventually saw it's offspring and knew why it had the type number it did.)

So, the second car, which was the first Bentley was 002. I was all for calling them 003, 004 etc etc, but overruled. Therefore we had three 002's , these being 002-2 , 002-3, 002-4. No 002-1. that was me being obtuse because that was 001, if you see what i mean.. (well it would have been under the original system that was voted down - got that one under the radar). Those were the 2001 cars.

We redesigned that car around the basic tub for 2002, and built 2 more 002's - so 002-5, 002-6. Eric van de Poole wrote 002-6 off at Paul Ricard when the rear wheel fell off at 200mph and he went into orbit.

The completely new, 'mk.2' that we did for 2003 carried the type number 004 (003 was another rtn project). We planned to build three, but then Johnny Herbert had a huge accident in 004-2 and wrote it off. As a result of looking at how that tub stood up to hitting a concrete wall head on at 100mph we revised the tub layup, and i blackmailed the management into making two more chassis on the basis that we could not give a 'safer' tub to one crew and not to the other. As fate would have it 004-4 then 'blew up' in the autoclave in cure and could not be repaired in time for LeMans, and so we did end up with one 'safe' tub and one that was 'even safer..'. That one, 004-5, won the race, so you could say that after 11 goes on the theme we finally built a winner.

except of course that all the cars you now see at the various shows are the 2003 winner..

i am right in thinking this started out as a lotus thread aren't I?

Peter

[VWV]

Is it safe to come out over the parapet?

i am right in thinking this started out as a lotus thread aren't I?

Typical TNF, and thank you Peter for your valuable input and for designing one of my favourite racecars! A real beauty!

[mfd]

We built no fewer than 11 chassis in 4 years...
Peter

I think this is great - it made me wonder, considering the strange historic complexities of BRM type numbers, have you created an inbuilt anomoly for future historians to ruminate over?
There is no 002-1, but there is an 004-1 ;)

[fw07c]

"Why not call kim's car a Genii"

Or call a Lotus a John Player Special, like in 1972...

Edward

In answer to the question of the name of Kimi's car the former names, Toleman,Benetton and Renault all owned the factory and employs the personnel that built the cars just as Genii Capital does. Whereas John Player only sponsorded the team

[PeterElleray]

I think this is great - it made me wonder, considering the strange historic complexities of BRM type numbers, have you created an inbuilt anomoly for future historians to ruminate over?
There is no 002-1, but there is an 004-1 ;)

i plan to cash in on it in my old age.

[arttidesco]

I'll settle for Genii as the name of the car that Kimi drove

And back to Bentley it would be lovely to see one of the three (?) 004 models up close in order to do a tenth anniversary LM winning blog next year.



I only have the one pic of a 004 from the FoS, I have no idea where it was hiding when I was wondering around the paddock area, it might have been hiding behind the knees of hoards of deservedly interested parties of course