15 replies to this topic

[rallen]

Hello everyone, I have asked this question in another forum but wanted to open it up to a wider audience. The Lotus 72 is my favourite car and is regarded as one best cars of all time. However Jackie Stewart won the title in 71 and 73 yet no on ever mentions the Tyrell’s of those times as amazing cars- they certainly don't have anywhere near the profile of the Lotus even among F1 enthusiasts. Lotus had a strong driver line up - certainly you would have expected them to do better - Fittipaldi ended up a young double world champion and seemingly everyone adored Ronnie and always say he was the fastest driver of the 70's and truly exceptional. Was the Lotus 72 potential not fully realised and is a 'great' more because it was so innovative?

Can anyone with more knowledge than me tell me how good those cars were and how they performed against Lotus - and indeed the other cars or was Stewart just that much better than everyone else? (despite wining 3 WDC's and 27 GP's in that era Stewart doesn't seem to get the praise he deserves - he always seems to fall outside the group of very greats, people always say it's Clark, Fangio, Moss, Prost etc. but people never seem to bracket Stewart in this group, or at least not as frequently) How were they so successful? As I have said already, I adore the Lotus 72 and it is the team I love but I have never understood why the Tyrrells of this time don't really register or why Lotus didn't do more - and I don't mean because the Lotus driver's kept taking points off each other, I am talking about the actual performance of the Tyrrell's. Though naturally anyone wanting to expand on the Lotus 72 and inform me more would be magnificent (I asked the gf for the Michael Oliver book for Christmas but she said it was too expensive! bugger)

[sterling49]

(I asked the gf for the Michael Oliver book for Christmas but she said it was too expensive! bugger)

................a must have for any fan of the 72, a great book

[rallen]

................a must have for any fan of the 72, a great book

Yeah, but I just can't afford it, just looked it up on Amazon market place and it is £75! she wouldn't buy it when it was £40! pity f1 books are so expensive, Bernie must be behind it!

[RogerFrench]

I saw the thread title and expected rhyme. Oh, well.

[EcosseF1]

Hello everyone, I have asked this question in another forum but wanted to open it up to a wider audience. The Lotus 72 is my favourite car and is regarded as one best cars of all time. However Jackie Stewart won the title in 71 and 73 yet no on ever mentions the Tyrell’s of those times as amazing cars- they certainly don't have anywhere near the profile of the Lotus even among F1 enthusiasts. Lotus had a strong driver line up - certainly you would have expected them to do better - Fittipaldi ended up a young double world champion and seemingly everyone adored Ronnie and always say he was the fastest driver of the 70's and truly exceptional. Was the Lotus 72 potential not fully realised and is a 'great' more because it was so innovative?

Can anyone with more knowledge than me tell me how good those cars were and how they performed against Lotus - and indeed the other cars or was Stewart just that much better than everyone else? (despite wining 3 WDC's and 27 GP's in that era Stewart doesn't seem to get the praise he deserves - he always seems to fall outside the group of very greats, people always say it's Clark, Fangio, Moss, Prost etc. but people never seem to bracket Stewart in this group, or at least not as frequently) How were they so successful? As I have said already, I adore the Lotus 72 and it is the team I love but I have never understood why the Tyrrells of this time don't really register or why Lotus didn't do more - and I don't mean because the Lotus driver's kept taking points off each other, I am talking about the actual performance of the Tyrrell's. Though naturally anyone wanting to expand on the Lotus 72 and inform me more would be magnificent (I asked the gf for the Michael Oliver book for Christmas but she said it was too expensive! bugger)

A good question IMHO. Tyrrell certainly achieved a great deal for such a smalll team. I suspect it's because the cars were very well built and prepared but they didn't have an awful lot to distinguish them from most of the grid (until the P34 anyway). The Lotus 72 with its "rising rate" torsion bar suspension/inboard brakes etc was an innovative design and it doesn't hurt that the car had such a long career and was driven so effectively by Rindt/Fttipaldi/Peterson on several memorable occasions.

The JYS question's been discussed quite a bit on here. Stewart (IMHO), came from the very top drawer but didn't care a great deal about popularity. His attitude to circuit and driver safety wasn't popular at the time and I'm not sure quite how to put the other elements but people who know exactly what they want and aren't afraid to talk about it always ruffle some feathers. His driving style was very smooth and undramatic too. Impressive but not the most crowd-pleasing blend...

Edited by EcosseF1, 20 April 2010 - 04:44.

[Peter Morley]

A good question IMHO. Tyrrell certainly achieved a great deal for such a smalll team. I suspect it's because the cars were very well built and prepared but they didn't have an awful lot to distinguish them from most of the grid (until the P34 anyway). The Lotus 72 with its "rising rate" torsion bar suspension/inboard brakes etc was an innovative design and it doesn't hurt that the car had such a long career and was driven so effectively by Rindt/Fttipaldi/Peterson on several memorable occasions.

Tyrrells were always built to an extremely high standard, even in the 80s when they had no sponsors they used the best quality materials and fittings - where someone like March would just use a bolt and tube for a pivot, Tyrrell used roller bearings, components were extremely lightweight due to the use of aerospace materials (e.g. having a pair of Tyrrell wishbones made costs nearly 3 times as much as March ones!).
A lot of attention was paid to the details - bolts are always surprisingly small and lightened where possible (a cheap way of saving weight) and all the bolts were lockwired etc. which wasn't the case for some other teams.

I've got various Lotus parts that aren't as well made as the Tyrrell ones, but they probably weren't expected to last as long since they were constantly trying new things.

Whereas Lotus were always looking for some development to give them an edge Tyrrell tended to try to build good reliable cars to allow the driver to do his best.
Of course they did try a few innovations - 6 wheels, X-wings, high nose - the high nose being the most influential in the long term.

[f1steveuk]

While growing up, my brother was a Lotus fan, and I followed Tyrrell, then years after when I started working in motor museums, telly, and finally F1, I got to speak to people who were involved at the time.

Without doubt Lotus tried to innovate, whereas Tyrrell would design a little more conservatively (until the P34!), but as has been said, to a very high standard. As a fourteen year old I sat in 006/2, and it was similar to being in the cockpit of a fighter plane, even years after when I started racing, I recalled that cockpit as very very very well made and laid out. Where Tyrrell succeded, in my humble opinion, in the era of the 001 through to the 006s was that they had been built around Stewart and his driving style, so he could maximise the design to it's fullest. Cevert learnt to adapt, and was giving a lot of tuition by JYS on how to expoilt the design to it's fullest. The 72 on the other hand had been designed to maximise the tyres it was contracted to use when new, Firestones, and the change of tyres, drivers, suspension systems etc can't have helped. That it continued, and succesfully, for so long indicates that it was an excellent design, but maybe just not as simple as designing one car around your number one driver?

Edited by f1steveuk, 20 April 2010 - 09:28.

[Michael Ferner]

One very simple answer to the question could be that the Lotus 72 ran for six years in F1, from 1970 (when Tyrrell still ran customer cars) to 1975 (when Tyrrell ran already their third design, and had stopped winning more than one race per season). Longevity is the key here, much like with the M23 McLaren. And it certainly didn't help that Tyrrell didn't use type designations for its first two designs, only chassis numbers, so that people unfamiliar with that concept still think that the team ran seven different types during that period. At the time, though, the Mk 2 Tyrrell certainly attracted due attention from the enthusiasts as a great and innovative design, but as has been said, it was largely confined to Stewart's artistry behind the wheel to make the car shine, and once JYS was gone it was dropped very quickly indeed. At the same time, it should be mentioned, when Lotus regarded its 72 as obsolescent, but was forced to revert to it when the 76 turned out to be a huge step indeed, but in the wrong direction...

As for Jackie Stewart not being mentioned in the same breath with Moss, Clark or Prost, I do not really think that to be the case, although I'm not really up to date with the current rating fashions of the great unwashed. For me, he always was the logical successor to Clark in terms of dominance, but with the changing of times it's certainly difficult to make those comparisons, and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Tyrrell's success was largely Stewart's, whereas Lotus had Rindt, Fittipaldi and Peterson to make the 72 shine - probably a factor as well.

[Chezrome]

The way Stewart drove the car certainly made Tyrrels success... often it is said that Ceverts and Stewarts followers could not cope with the short wheelbase of the Tyrrels of the days.

Stewart on driving

On the film, Stewart explains his approach, and I have to say I don't quite get it. It is not slow in fast out, it is not tailbraking... What I take from it is a very different entry

I tried in GP Legends and rFactor to employ it, and it worked... I was just too slow.

Edited by Chezrome, 20 April 2010 - 11:26.

[Tim Murray]

Slightly OT, but when I think about the difference between the Lotus and the Tyrrell in 1973, one classic line from Pete Lyons, in his Autosport report on the 1973 Argentine GP, always comes to mind:

The low black wedge closed inexorably on the blue chunk.

[john winfield]

Slightly OT, but when I think about the difference between the Lotus and the Tyrrell in 1973, one classic line from Pete Lyons, in his Autosport report on the 1973 Argentine GP, always comes to mind:

"The low black wedge closed inexorably on the blue chunk."

Nice quote Tim. Pete Lyons sums it up well - the 72s used to look sleek, the Tyrrells purposeful.
And, given what happened at the end of Hangar Straight in July 1973, it was probably a good thing. If Ronnie had been squeezed into the wheat field we'd have lost him for good. At least we could spot the high, chunky Tyrrell and, with the airbox turned through 90%, it could have made a decent combine harvester.

Edited by john winfield, 20 April 2010 - 13:24.

[Stephen W]

Pete Lyons sums it up well - the 72s used to look sleek, the Tyrrells purposeful.
And, given what happened at the end of Hangar Straight in July 1973, it was probably a good thing. If Ronnie had been squeezed into the wheat field we'd have lost him for good. At least we could spot the high, chunky Tyrrell and, with the airbox turned through 90%, it could have made a decent combine harvester.

I remember it well especially JYS trundling round trying to find his way out!

[f1steveuk]

"and now Stewart's really in the agricutural business", as Ray said those words I knew my team weren't going to win, and I told him that many years after when I worked with him, to which he simply laughed.

Purposeful, avery apt description of the 006 series, so ugly it's beau..... nearly pretty!

[rallen]

Thanks Ecosse (and the rest of you for your responses) regarding the JYS issue, I too find it strange when you look at his record and stats - in such a dangerous time as well, but he is never mentioned along with other greats. However I can see how because of his unspectacular style of driving he perhaps didn't catch the public's attention in the same was as other drivers, but surely on a specialist forum like this people here would appreciate him (like they seem to do Prost)

A good question IMHO. Tyrrell certainly achieved a great deal for such a smalll team. I suspect it's because the cars were very well built and prepared but they didn't have an awful lot to distinguish them from most of the grid (until the P34 anyway). The Lotus 72 with its "rising rate" torsion bar suspension/inboard brakes etc was an innovative design and it doesn't hurt that the car had such a long career and was driven so effectively by Rindt/Fttipaldi/Peterson on several memorable occasions.

The JYS question's been discussed quite a bit on here. Stewart (IMHO), came from the very top drawer but didn't care a great deal about popularity. His attitude to circuit and driver safety wasn't popular at the time and I'm not sure quite how to put the other elements but people who know exactly what they want and aren't afraid to talk about it always ruffle some feathers. His driving style was very smooth and undramatic too. Impressive but not the most crowd-pleasing blend...

[MWiklund]

Is it possible that those who describe JYS's style as too smooth to be exciting never saw him drive the Lola T260? Making that car a contentor required that he drive it with considerable flair.

[rallen]

Been pondering the 1973 season again and I just wondered, if Fittipaldi was at Tyrrell and Stewart was in a Lotus 72 - would Stewart have won the WDC or Emmo?