Lotus verses Tyrrell
#1
Posted 19 April 2010 - 21:20
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)
Advertisement
#2
Posted 19 April 2010 - 21:34
(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
#3
Posted 19 April 2010 - 21:41
................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!
#4
Posted 20 April 2010 - 02:47
#5
Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:29
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.
#6
Posted 20 April 2010 - 09:12
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.
#7
Posted 20 April 2010 - 09:26
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.
#8
Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:47
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.
#9
Posted 20 April 2010 - 11:18
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.
#10
Posted 20 April 2010 - 11:25
The low black wedge closed inexorably on the blue chunk.
#11
Posted 20 April 2010 - 13:14
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.
#12
Posted 20 April 2010 - 13:19
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!
#13
Posted 20 April 2010 - 13:29
Purposeful, avery apt description of the 006 series, so ugly it's beau..... nearly pretty!
#14
Posted 27 May 2010 - 22:22
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...
#15
Posted 28 May 2010 - 02:27
#16
Posted 13 February 2012 - 19:35