18 replies to this topic

[KarlLeFong]

We are well versed in the tactics of Enzo Ferrari, but it seems to me that 1959 was a "highpoint" in his manipulative machinations.

Consider:

Behra, by all accounts, was still smarting from playing second fiddle to Moss at Maserati in 1956, and was still a Grand Eprevue winning virgin......probably with a self-image which exceeded actual reality

Phil Hill, after an apprenticeship in sports cars and some impressive outings in 1958 F1, was expecting a full F1 season ...legitimate expectations borne of hard work and natural ability

Dan Gurney, a highly talented and very successful US sport car driver, anxious to make his mark in the "real world".....a "hotshot" with ambitions.

One might say, a typical Ferrari view of what he mght be consider to be a "balanced and internally competitive" F1 team but...........

Add to this a quiet modest, Englishman, Tony Brooks .

Brooks, acknowledged as being second only to Moss and indeed considered by many to be one of the greatest GP drivers of any era, was "added' to this already volatile mix, which it might be added, people waiting in the wings such as Von Trips and Gendebein.

Surely Enzo would have been seized with delight over such a mix.

It is of course a matter of historical record that Behra "spat the dummy " at Rheims and also that the seemingly unpeturbed Brooks went on to almost win the 1959 Championship in the outmoded front-engined Dino 246 and as such, clearly established himself as the No 1 driver in the team.

The things I ponder over are:
What was the attitude of the two Americans to the late-comer Brooks?"
Did the Behra-like resentment prevail?
Was there an official No 1 in the F1 team?

I have never seen any comments from either the late Phil Hill or, the still with us Dan Gurney, re Brooks and the 1959 season.

Can anybody help?

Karl

[Bruno]

Gurney and Brooks have never commented, because for them everything was fine. everything was clear. there has never been at Ferrari.

only bad spit in the soup

[RStock]

We are well versed in the tactics of Enzo Ferrari, but it seems to me that 1959 was a "highpoint" in his manipulative machinations.

Consider:

Behra, by all accounts, was still smarting from playing second fiddle to Moss at Maserati in 1956, and was still a Grand Eprevue winning virgin......probably with a self-image which exceeded actual reality

Phil Hill, after an apprenticeship in sports cars and some impressive outings in 1958 F1, was expecting a full F1 season ...legitimate expectations borne of hard work and natural ability

Dan Gurney, a highly talented and very successful US sport car driver, anxious to make his mark in the "real world".....a "hotshot" with ambitions.

One might say, a typical Ferrari view of what he mght be consider to be a "balanced and internally competitive" F1 team but...........

Add to this a quiet modest, Englishman, Tony Brooks .

Brooks, acknowledged as being second only to Moss and indeed considered by many to be one of the greatest GP drivers of any era, was "added' to this already volatile mix, which it might be added, people waiting in the wings such as Von Trips and Gendebein.

Surely Enzo would have been seized with delight over such a mix.

It is of course a matter of historical record that Behra "spat the dummy " at Rheims and also that the seemingly unpeturbed Brooks went on to almost win the 1959 Championship in the outmoded front-engined Dino 246 and as such, clearly established himself as the No 1 driver in the team.

The things I ponder over are:
What was the attitude of the two Americans to the late-comer Brooks?"
Did the Behra-like resentment prevail?
Was there an official No 1 in the F1 team?

I have never seen any comments from either the late Phil Hill or, the still with us Dan Gurney, re Brooks and the 1959 season.

Can anybody help?

Karl

I'll give the best answer I can. Both Americans had nothing but respect for Brooks. Gurney and Hill were both just getting a start in GP racing at the time and were not in a position to complain about Brooks, even if they had been inclined to. Neither were "wired" the way Jeannot was, both being milder sorts. While there was no official number one at Ferrari, as Gurney said "Tony Brooks was rightfuly considered the team leader".

Behra is not a good measuring stick for other driver's attitudes. Jeannot was the tempestous type who didn't hesitate to use "sharp elbows". That said, Gurney told that he liked both Tavoni and Behra and didn't really understand what the trouble was between them. Brooks for his part didn't get what the problem was with Behra either and like Gurney never had a problem with him personally. Brooks surmised perhaps Behra felt he should have been named number one driver. Carlo Chiti described Behra as "not a very likable character", but still felt Ferrari had somewhat "abandoned him" by doing nothing to ease the situation. All seemed to think Behra's intense desire to win was the impetus to his stormy behaviour.

[KarlLeFong]

Hello

Thanks for the considered replies to my questions.

It would seem that if Mr Ferrari had hopes that bitter internal rivalries would spur drivers on to "better" things, such hopes would have evaporated wth Behra's departure.

Indeed, from all accounts, Brooks, Hill and Gurney were of a similar ilk - not threatened by each other and were quiet, friendly types who respected each other and who all also respected the concept of sportsmanship. Incidently, from what I can gather, Von Trips was very much in the same mould.

As a not unconnected aside, I was thinking of these guys at the "personal human " level and couldn't help reflecting on the physcology of GP drivers of that era.

In Brooks' case, he had come from Vanwall where teamate Lewis Evans had perished "in" the last race of 1958, to Ferrari whch had lost Musso and Collins in 1958. He shines in a foreign team throughout 1959 with "only" former teamate Behra killed at Avus and similarly Ivor Bueb in France. He then joins Yeoman Credit for 1960 and in quick succession, loses team-mates Harry Schell and Chis Bristow ....can we see a "tailing off" of the Brooks performances from early to mid-1960?

I know in my case at that stage, I would have been thinking about taking up Lawn Bowls !

Karl

[pilota]

We are well versed in the tactics of Enzo Ferrari, but it seems to me that 1959 was a "highpoint" in his manipulative machinations....Was there an official No 1 in the F1 team?
Karl

As an aside, but related. Ron Dennis/McLaren refuses to name a No.1 and he is applauded for his sportsmanship.
Ferrari have a no.1 (as proved by the use of team orders) and they are criticised for it, but when Ferrari refused to name a no.1 he was also criticised. Sometimes you just can't win?
Nathan

[RStock]

Hello

Thanks for the considered replies to my questions.

It would seem that if Mr Ferrari had hopes that bitter internal rivalries would spur drivers on to "better" things, such hopes would have evaporated wth Behra's departure.

Indeed, from all accounts, Brooks, Hill and Gurney were of a similar ilk - not threatened by each other and were quiet, friendly types who respected each other and who all also respected the concept of sportsmanship. Incidently, from what I can gather, Von Trips was very much in the same mould.

I'm not so sure you could say Enzo hoped for a "bitter rivalry", but he did believe, as Tony Brooks put it, that "psychological pressure would produce better results". I don't think Enzo intended for it to produce rivalry among his drivers, but more to make a driver "push" more than he normally would. Some drivers fell into that trap and some didn't. Brooks for example didn't believe in going beyond the normal bounds of what he himself or the car was capable of.

It didn't work with Collins and Hawthorn either, who were good pals both on and off the track. Most of the drivers would say they received fair treatment while at Ferrari, particularly concerning equipment. Brooks did and said it was more than he could say for Vanwall. I don't believe either that Behra was signed to the team to induce rivalries. Behra was a very good driver who had earned his ride with Ferrari and none of the drivers seemed to have a problem with him. Jean was just perhaps "wrapped too tight" to make it at Ferrari. Things just didn't work out.

As a not unconnected aside, I was thinking of these guys at the "personal human " level and couldn't help reflecting on the physcology of GP drivers of that era.

The "human interest" stories are what I love most about racing. There seems to be more there than in any other "sport". Perhaps the life or death factor figures into it, that and it is a much more "individual" endevor. GP racing seems to me to be where most of the better "human interest" stories are, with Ferrari being a virtual goldmine of such tales. Perhaps the longevity of both Ferrari and GP racing are why. What made these guy "tick" is a much more interesting aspect than technical deatils or who won, to me anyway.

In Brooks' case, he had come from Vanwall where teamate Lewis Evans had perished "in" the last race of 1958, to Ferrari whch had lost Musso and Collins in 1958. He shines in a foreign team throughout 1959 with "only" former teamate Behra killed at Avus and similarly Ivor Bueb in France. He then joins Yeoman Credit for 1960 and in quick succession, loses team-mates Harry Schell and Chis Bristow ....can we see a "tailing off" of the Brooks performances from early to mid-1960?

I know in my case at that stage, I would have been thinking about taking up Lawn Bowls !

Karl

I've never seen where Brooks has said clearly that the danger was why he quit, but it seems from his words that it was certainly a factor. He tells that well before he had joined Ferrari, in 1956 I believe it was when he shunted at Aintree and Le Mans, that he decided not to overcompensate for a car's shortcoming, which is why Enzo's "psychological pressure" wouldn't work with him. He realizes it probably cost him the championship at Sebring in '59 by coming in to have his car checked after contact with Von Trips.

It probably was a culmative effect for Brooks that caused him to leave racing, not just what happened after he left Ferrari. I think his desire was already waning when at Ferrari, and it was a slow process for him to come to the realization he didn't want to race anymore, rather than a sudden decision. I've always considered both Brooks and Phil Hill as somewhat "reluctant heroes". I don't get the feeling either were concerned with winning championship but rather proving to themselves they could "get the job done" at the top level, and in the end both were satisfied they had done so.

It's really too bad, because in my opinion Brooks was one of the best ever. I've read that Enzo was sorry to see him leave Ferrari, which seems to be high praise from a "hard case" such as Enzo. It also seems to show Enzo didn't just want someone with "sharp elbows" on the team to stir things up, and was just as happy to have the cool, calm, collected type such as Brooks.

[Robin Fairservice]

I've never seen where Brooks has said clearly that the danger was why he quit, but it seems from his words that it was certainly a factor. He tells that well before he had joined Ferrari, in 1956 I believe it was when he shunted at Aintree and Le Mans, that he decided not to overcompensate for a car's shortcoming, which is why Enzo's "psychological pressure" wouldn't work with him. He realizes it probably cost him the championship at Sebring in '59 by coming in to have his car checked after contact with Von Trips.

It probably was a culmative effect for Brooks that caused him to leave racing, not just what happened after he left Ferrari. I think his desire was already waning when at Ferrari, and it was a slow process for him to come to the realization he didn't want to race anymore, rather than a sudden decision. I've always considered both Brooks and Phil Hill as somewhat "reluctant heroes". I don't get the feeling either were concerned with winning championship but rather proving to themselves they could "get the job done" at the top level, and in the end both were satisfied they had done so.

It's really too bad, because in my opinion Brooks was one of the best ever. I've read that Enzo was sorry to see him leave Ferrari, which seems to be high praise from a "hard case" such as Enzo. It also seems to show Enzo didn't just want someone with "sharp elbows" on the team to stir things up, and was just as happy to have the cool, calm, collected type such as Brooks.

I can remember reading that Brooks was concerned that he might damage his hands in an accident, and not be able to practice dentistry, which is what he studied to be.

Edited by Robin Fairservice, 04 January 2011 - 03:17.

[Arjan de Roos]

In addition to former replies I never read anything of EF staging or manipulating anything with his 1959 driver line-up. He was basically more regrouping. Musso and Collins gone, Hawthorn retired. All drivers whom he had in the Scuderia for years. And Ferrari stated: "It takes 6 months to develop a car, it takes 10 years to develop a racing driver"

Dan Gurney was young and had come to Ferrari through Hill. Hill some years of GP experience and known to Ferrari since 1954. Brooks and Behra where the more experienced racers with whom he thought he could clinch the drivers title.

In hindsight EF wrote about all his drivers in his memoirs. Looking at the 1959 squad he seemed to be somewhat disappointed with them. Even considering Hill not the best of racers. Brooks he saw as a driver that drove too careful not to hurt himself and others, still runner up in the 59 championship.

[David McKinney]

Hill some years of GP experience

Not at the end of 1958 he hadn't

[KarlLeFong]

In hindsight EF wrote about all his drivers in his memoirs. Looking at the 1959 squad he seemed to be somewhat disappointed with them. Even considering Hill not the best of racers. Brooks he saw as a driver that drove too careful not to hurt himself and others, still runner up in the 59 championship.

I think your last comment says it all.....

In 1959 Brooks came to Ferrari as second only to Moss in world rankings..he had never lost a race at Spa, indeed in 1958 he won at Spa, Nurburbgring and Monza and then in 1959 quickly showed his class in the Dino 246 at Ferrari .......it is telling thet EF only saw Brooks "as a driver that drove too careful not to hurt himself and others" despite the fact that Brooks, by the time of the "memoirs" were penned, was universally accepted as an all-time great...

Would be interesting to know what C. A. S. Brooks has to say on the subject

Karl

[Tim Murray]

It's interesting to speculate on how things might have panned out if Behra had not fallen out with the team. As it happened, Brooks and Hill contested all the F1 championship races that Ferrari attended, but would Hill have done them all if Behra had stayed with the team? Cliff Allison (not mentioned so far in this thread) did five of these races, and Gurney four, but would Gurney have got all those drives (and made his mark in the way he did) if Behra had stayed?

[Eric Dunsdon]

I dont recall Jean Behra having any problems with being teamed with Stirling Moss at Maserati in 1956 or indeed, with Fangio the following year. For 1956 in fact, Jeanott adopted a less forceful approach to his driving which actually put him into contention for the 1956 drivers championship by the final round at Monza. In 1957 he responded to the challenge many times, notably at Aintree and Casablanca where he outraced an admittedly off form Fangio. He was more likely to have been unsettled by his experiences at BRM in 1958 when he found himself unable to match the pace of his team mate Harry Schell on several occasions, something that had never happened previously at Gordini and Maserati. After leaving BRM for Ferrari, I would suspect that Jean would have quite rightly, considered himself the natural number one driver until the arrival of Tony Brooks. I have read that halfway through the 59 season Behra was already considering a return to BRM. Tragically, this wasnt to be. As was the case with Emilio Villoresi, Eugenio Castellotti and possibly Gilles Villeneuve, Jean Behra was not well served by Enzo Ferrari.

Edited by Eric Dunsdon, 05 January 2011 - 15:29.

[RStock]

I think your last comment says it all.....

In 1959 Brooks came to Ferrari as second only to Moss in world rankings..he had never lost a race at Spa, indeed in 1958 he won at Spa, Nurburbgring and Monza and then in 1959 quickly showed his class in the Dino 246 at Ferrari .......it is telling thet EF only saw Brooks "as a driver that drove too careful not to hurt himself and others" despite the fact that Brooks, by the time of the "memoirs" were penned, was universally accepted as an all-time great...

Would be interesting to know what C. A. S. Brooks has to say on the subject

Karl

Brooks has said he never had the dedication of say, a Stirling Moss. I've not seen what Enzo had to say about him, but I have read that Enzo was sorry to see him leave, so evidently he thought rather highly of him. Brooks might have been a bit more "timid" on track than more daring drivers, but he still produced results. I've always felt it was more Brooks decision to leave Ferrari and the team would have been glad for him to stay. I also thought Brooks was just ready to get back home and more calmer surroundings. I haven't seen where either he nor Enzo spoke about his leaving, that's just what I've surmised from second hand reports.

[RStock]

I dont recall Jean Behra having any problems with being teamed with Stirling Moss at Maserati in 1956 or indeed, with Fangio the following year. For 1956 in fact, Jeanott adopted a less forceful approach to his driving which actually put him into contention for the 1956 drivers championship by the final round at Monza. In 1957 he responded to the challenge many times, notably at Aintree and Casablanca where he outraced an admittedly off form Fangio. He was more likely to have been unsettled by his experiences at BRM in 1958 when he found himself unable to match the pace of his team mate Harry Schell on several occasions, something that had never happened previously at Gordini and Maserati. After leaving BRM for Ferrari, I would suspect that Jean would have quite rightly, considered himself the natural number one driver until the arrival of Tony Brooks. I have read that halfway through the 59 season Behra was already considering a return to BRM. Tragically, this wasnt to be. As was the case with Emilio Villoresi, Eugenio Castellotti and possibly Gilles Villeneuve, Jean Behra was not well served by Enzo Ferrari.

Behra was not well served by his own temper. Brooks was consistantly faster than him and Jean wanted to blame Ferrari, saying they weren't giving him equal equipment. He did himself in when he punched Tavoni. Perhaps Ferrari could have done more to quell the situation, Chiti thought so, but if the problem was that Brooks was simply faster than Behra, there probably wasn't much they could have done to fix that.

[Roger Clark]

Behra was not well served by his own temper. Brooks was consistantly faster than him and Jean wanted to blame Ferrari, saying they weren't giving him equal equipment. He did himself in when he punched Tavoni. Perhaps Ferrari could have done more to quell the situation, Chiti thought so, but if the problem was that Brooks was simply faster than Behra, there probably wasn't much they could have done to fix that.

Is it true that Brooks was faster than Behra at Ferrari? in Grand Prix cars they raced together four times:

Aintree 200 : Behra 1st, Brooks 2nd.
Monaco: Behra a second faster in practice, led the race until he hit trouble.
Zandvoort: Behra 1.3 seconds faster in practice, difficult to tell who had the better race as Behra had a bad start and Brooks had trouble early.
Reims: Brooks faster, and won of course, but Behra stalled at the start and recovered to third before retirement. We all know what happened after that.

Denis Jenkinson wrote that Behra was not very popular with other drivers. I don't know whether this was the cause of, or was caused by, his problems at Ferrari, but he could race.

[Eric Dunsdon]

Is it true that Brooks was faster than Behra at Ferrari? in Grand Prix cars they raced together four times:

Aintree 200 : Behra 1st, Brooks 2nd.
Monaco: Behra a second faster in practice, led the race until he hit trouble.
Zandvoort: Behra 1.3 seconds faster in practice, difficult to tell who had the better race as Behra had a bad start and Brooks had trouble early.
Reims: Brooks faster, and won of course, but Behra stalled at the start and recovered to third before retirement. We all know what happened after that.

Denis Jenkinson wrote that Behra was not very popular with other drivers. I don't know whether this was the cause of, or was caused by, his problems at Ferrari, but he could race.

- - .

[RStock]

Is it true that Brooks was faster than Behra at Ferrari? in Grand Prix cars they raced together four times:

Aintree 200 : Behra 1st, Brooks 2nd.
Monaco: Behra a second faster in practice, led the race until he hit trouble.
Zandvoort: Behra 1.3 seconds faster in practice, difficult to tell who had the better race as Behra had a bad start and Brooks had trouble early.
Reims: Brooks faster, and won of course, but Behra stalled at the start and recovered to third before retirement. We all know what happened after that.

I should have been clear that I was refering to thr Reims race week specifically, which makes Behra's claiims even more curious as he had been faster all year. He accused Ferrari of trying to humiliate him in front of his home crowd.

Denis Jenkinson wrote that Behra was not very popular with other drivers. I don't know whether this was the cause of, or was caused by, his problems at Ferrari, but he could race.

I've seen where both Brooks and Gurney both say they had no problem with Behra, but Brooks also said because of the language barrier they didn't have a lot of personal interaction, which was probably the same for Gurney.

[KarlLeFong]

Hello

I have always considered discussions about the relative abilities of drivers, even those from the same era, as rather pointless, in that they are so influenced by personal subjective views as to be little more than interesting chit chat - and I don t exclude myself from such personal bias.

However, in this case, I don't believe that any serious argument can be made to demonstrate that Behra was anywhere near the same class as Brooks.

Brooks has been variously described as

" ...one of the greatest talents in motor racing history.." - Mike Lawrence

"...one of the truely great postwar grand prix drivers... - Mike Argetsinger

"...far better than many who won the world championship.." - Stirling Moss

I doubt even the most ardent Behra fan would suggest that Jean was anywhere near that level - indeed in 1958 he was overall, probably little better than his team-mate Harry Schell.

There can be no doubt that the inclusion of a driver of Brooks' calibre in the team would have put a great deal of pressure on Behra.

Karl

[RStock]

Hello

I have always considered discussions about the relative abilities of drivers, even those from the same era, as rather pointless, in that they are so influenced by personal subjective views as to be little more than interesting chit chat - and I don t exclude myself from such personal bias.

However, in this case, I don't believe that any serious argument can be made to demonstrate that Behra was anywhere near the same class as Brooks.

Brooks has been variously described as

" ...one of the greatest talents in motor racing history.." - Mike Lawrence

"...one of the truely great postwar grand prix drivers... - Mike Argetsinger

"...far better than many who won the world championship.." - Stirling Moss

I doubt even the most ardent Behra fan would suggest that Jean was anywhere near that level - indeed in 1958 he was overall, probably little better than his team-mate Harry Schell.

I agree most wouldn't argue that point, but Behra was very good in his own right. He did have 12 non-championship wins, a lot of those against rather formidable competition. Behra was no slouch.

There can be no doubt that the inclusion of a driver of Brooks' calibre in the team would have put a great deal of pressure on Behra.

Karl

Again, I agree most wouldn't argue that point either, yet the pressure came from Behra himself, not an organized effort by the team or fellow drivers. You have to keep in mind Behra had a "stormy" personality.