51 replies to this topic

[nexfast]

The facts are well-known: after a quarrel on the eve of the Le Mans 24h hours, John Surtees left Ferrari, angry with the antics of team manager Eugenio Dragoni, the same team manager who had already angered him by forcing him to drive the 312 in the Monaco GP instead of the more nimble 246 V6 trusted to number two driver Lorenzo Bandini. Every thing I have read in English, including in TNF, confirms this version, making Dragoni the villain of the episode, moved by his nationalistic wish to make Bandini the Scuderia main driver

 

Without doubting the story as conveyed by such an iconic figure as John Surtees undoubtedly is, I have always wondering what would be Dragoni's version -since I believe we shall always get the two sides of the story -  but I never found any interview of the gentleman, his withdrawal at the end of the year seemingly confirming his apparent inability to solve the issue.

 

But digging in some Italian sources, I found a different perspective. According to Sergio Cassano in "Piloti and Gentiluomini, Gli Eroi Italiani della Ferrari", Dragoni was suspicious that Surtees was passing confidential information  about the Ferrari P3 to his friend Eric Broadley at Lola who was building the T70 model. Ferrari send his right-hand man Franco Gozzi to investigate and upon his report decided to fire Surtees. Mauro Forghieri in "La Ferrari secondo Forghieri" shares the same angle but with a twist, an important one. According to him, it was Ferrari himself who was suspicious and had instructed Dragoni to make life as hard as possible to Surtees to provoke the rupture. Still according to Forghieri, believing that Dragoni had the power to fire Surtees is nonsensical (he uses the somewhat stronger Italian word "sciocchezza"), only Enzo able to do so. He admits that the controversy in the British press helped Dragoni's departure but says it was already planed beforehand.

 

At least, everybody agrees on one thing: had Surtees remained at Ferrari, Maranello would have most likely add another champions trophy to its collection.

 

So, do we have here a nationalistic plot to promote a protegé or a suspicious mind convinced that there was a case of industrial spying? Dragoni, the villain or Ferrari, the manipulator?

 

Perhaps someone in the Forum has more information to add to clarify what really happened almost 50 years go.

[mfd]

Dragoni was suspicious that Surtees was passing confidential information  about the Ferrari P3 to his friend Eric Broadley at Lola who was building the T70 model.

 

 

The #11 of the two T73 Lola Aston entered at LM in 1967 and driven by Surtees had a rear engine cover identical to the Ferrari P3 Berlinetta 

[Ray Bell]

But a year later indicates a very slow response from Broadley to up to date information passed along to him...

 

It would, however, be enormously difficult for a driver involved in development of two different marques to not hint at things that might help one that he'd tried on the other.

[BRG]

If Surtees were the only driver to come a cropper at Ferrari, one might well look for underlying issues such as these.  But given that there have been a string of drivers who have left the Scuderia in a less than happy fashion, mostly recently Raikkonen (V.1.0) and now Massa, and previously Prost, Mansell. Schumacher, Ickx etc, the answer surely lies more in the basic culture of Ferrari (and the character of Enzo himself - " e la machina?").

[Emery0323]

If Surtees were the only driver to come a cropper at Ferrari, one might well look for underlying issues such as these.  But given that there have been a string of drivers who have left the Scuderia in a less than happy fashion, mostly recently Raikkonen (V.1.0) and now Massa, and previously Prost, Mansell. Schumacher, Ickx etc, the answer surely lies more in the basic culture of Ferrari (and the character of Enzo himself - " e la machina?").

That's reminscent of  an observation I read elsewhere about the Williams Team philosophy, which was attributed to Ron Dennis- Invest everything in the car, good drivers are cheap and replaceable.  Some of the drivers involved (Prost, Mansell) are the same.

Edited by Emery0323, 01 October 2013 - 14:33.

[Alan Baker]

The #11 of the two T73 Lola Aston entered at LM in 1967 and driven by Surtees had a rear engine cover identical to the Ferrari P3 Berlinetta 

Absolute nonsense.

[mfd]

Absolute nonsense.

Perhaps I should have said, similar? This is a 412P but you can see my point here

 

 

[bill p]

Absolute nonsense.

 

 

I don't think it's absolute nonsense - model of April 1967 Le Mans Test Day Lola Aston - rear body section certainly has the look of the Ferrari P3 !

 

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited by bill p, 02 October 2013 - 11:10.

[pilota]

Absolute nonsense.

Now that's absolute nonsense.

[D-Type]

How does the timescale work out?  Which was designed first and which was built first? These aren't necessarily the same thing.

i.e.  Was the P3 based on the T70, or the T70 on the P3?  Or were they both based on a Ford?

[bill p]

How does the timescale work out?  Which was designed first and which was built first? These aren't necessarily the same thing.

i.e.  Was the P3 based on the T70, or the T70 on the P3?  Or were they both based on a Ford?

 

P3 raced in 1966 and Lola Aston under discussion was at April 1967 Le Mans Test day

 

Based on Ford???????

[mfd]

P3 raced in 1966 and Lola Aston under discussion was at April 1967 Le Mans Test day

 

Based on Ford???????

Bill, I'm sure the tail we're discussing wasn't at the test, only later for the race. I'm think there was only one Lola Aston at the test & the tail had the centre valley & it carried #10

 

Sorry, I'd like to illustrate, but I'm really struggling to find a photo that isn't a model.

Edited by mfd, 02 October 2013 - 15:12.

[arttidesco]

I wonder how bad the rift between Surtees and Ferrari really was by 1970 the relationship was sufficiently patched up for Big John to drive a works Ferrari 512 in the 1,000 kms races at Monza, Spa and Nurburgring in which he finished 3rd, 2nd and 3rd with Schetty, Ickx and Vaccarella respectively.

[Macca]

I asked him that very thing at the Goodwood press day this year - he said they wanted his views on why the 512S was struggling against the 917, but then didn't act on them.

 

No change there then!

 

Paul M  

[mfd]

I wonder how bad the rift between Surtees and Ferrari really was by 1970 the relationship was sufficiently patched up for Big John to drive a works Ferrari 512 in the 1,000 kms races at Monza, Spa and Nurburgring in which he finished 3rd, 2nd and 3rd with Schetty, Ickx and Vaccarella respectively.

In 1970 he didn't have Dragoni to deal with. Wasn't it Mike Parkes running the team ?

 

Here's a photo of the model version  of the Test weekend car

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item58a1b66af2

[Bloggsworth]

I don't think it's absolute nonsense - model of April 1967 Le Mans Test Day Lola Aston - rear body section certainly has the look of the Ferrari P3 !
 

 
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Only if you suffer from a compound astigmatism...

[RStock]

But digging in some Italian sources, I found a different perspective. According to Sergio Cassano in "Piloti and Gentiluomini, Gli Eroi Italiani della Ferrari", Dragoni was suspicious that Surtees was passing confidential information  about the Ferrari P3 to his friend Eric Broadley at Lola who was building the T70 model. Ferrari send his right-hand man Franco Gozzi to investigate and upon his report decided to fire Surtees. Mauro Forghieri in "La Ferrari secondo Forghieri" shares the same angle but with a twist, an important one. According to him, it was Ferrari himself who was suspicious and had instructed Dragoni to make life as hard as possible to Surtees to provoke the rupture. Still according to Forghieri, believing that Dragoni had the power to fire Surtees is nonsensical (he uses the somewhat stronger Italian word "sciocchezza"), only Enzo able to do so. He admits that the controversy in the British press helped Dragoni's departure but says it was already planed beforehand.

 

At least, everybody agrees on one thing: had Surtees remained at Ferrari, Maranello would have most likely add another champions trophy to its collection.

 

So, do we have here a nationalistic plot to promote a protegé or a suspicious mind convinced that there was a case of industrial spying? Dragoni, the villain or Ferrari, the manipulator?

 

Perhaps someone in the Forum has more information to add to clarify what really happened almost 50 years go.

 

I have heard some about Gozzi's involvment, but never that it was due to them suspecting Surtees of passing information. My impression has always been that Gozzi had seen some of the spats Surtees and Dragoni were having, particularly the one at Monaco, and realizing it was a serious issue, had possibly spoken to Enzo about it. Someone had, as Enzo called the three to a meeting which reportedly ended with another fight between Surtees and Dragoni.

 

I believe at that time it was decided Surtees would not be with the team much longer, I only read that Enzo felt he was a bit out of control, now I don't know if that was just a worry about his temper and state of mind, or there was also worry he could take information to another team. It could have been a bit of both, as Surtees did have association with Lola well before this. I believe Gozzi said Surtees had supposed to have been let go before the Le Mans eruption, probably around the time of the meeting that had went bad, as Gozzi said Enzo started checking into the availability of Mario Andretti. I had always thought that was more of a back up plan in case Surtees walked out, instead of because they had intended on firing him, but perhaps not. Enzo must have decided after that meeting that the situation was at an impasse, someone had to go and it would be Surtees.

 

Surtees by all indications had a decent relationship with Enzo, all I have heard Surtees say about it was that Enzo was getting his information from the wrong people, by which I felt he meant mostly from Dragoni. Seems though that the Surtees/Dragoni relationship was doomed from the start, neither ever got along with the other. I would not doubt if Dragoni himself, along with any allies had planted the idea that Surtees was doing a bit of spying. I also doubt however that if Enzo thought Surtees had been spying, he would have never let him near another one of his cars.

Edited by RStock, 02 October 2013 - 17:06.

[bill p]

Only if you suffer from a compound astigmatism...

 

 

The rear window and the way the triangular ducts usually seen on a T70 are faired-in "remind" me of a P3 

 

By the way, how did you know I have an astigmatism  - it's not mentioned in my profile 

 

Yes, mfd, it was the race and not the test day that the revised rear bodywork was used - my mistake

[nexfast]

I have heard some about Gozzi's involvment, but never that it was due to them suspecting Surtees of passing information. My impression has always been that Gozzi had seen some of the spats Surtees and Dragoni were having, particularly the one at Monaco, and realizing it was a serious issue, had possibly spoken to Enzo about it. Someone had, as Enzo called the three to a meeting which reportedly ended with another fight between Surtees and Dragoni.

 

I believe at that time it was decided Surtees would not be with the team much longer, I only read that Enzo felt he was a bit out of control, now I don't know if that was just a worry about his temper and state of mind, or there was also worry he could take information to another team. It could have been a bit of both, as Surtees did have association with Lola well before this. I believe Gozzi said Surtees had supposed to have been let go before the Le Mans eruption, probably around the time of the meeting that had went bad, as Gozzi said Enzo started checking into the availability of Mario Andretti. I had always thought that was more of a back up plan in case Surtees walked out, instead of because they had intended on firing him, but perhaps not. Enzo must have decided after that meeting that the situation was at an impasse, someone had to go and it would be Surtees.

 

Surtees by all indications had a decent relationship with Enzo, all I have heard Surtees say about it was that Enzo was getting his information from the wrong people, by which I felt he meant mostly from Dragoni. Seems though that the Surtees/Dragoni relationship was doomed from the start, neither ever got along with the other. I would not doubt if Dragoni himself, along with any allies had planted the idea that Surtees was doing a bit of spying. I also doubt however that if Enzo thought Surtees had been spying, he would have never let him near another one of his cars.

 

Well, if we can't agree on the shape of the rear bodywork of a car I wonder if we ever will have some clarity about the whole episode. But thanks R Stock for bringing back the issue to its core. Forghieri in the same book I have mentioned, underlining he did not believe it, says there were rumours coming to Ferrari's ears that John was testing the Lola in Britain and had some financial interest in Lola. Now, how did Ferrari get this "information"? Gozzi? Dragoni? Someone else? Forghieri clearly admired Dragoni, who had brought to the team some discipline and organisation, and tries as much as possible to exonerate him in the whole affair, putting the blame very much on Enzo. On the other hand and comparing the team manager with Lini, Dragoni's successor, he says Lini lacked the courage to confront the boss as was the case of the predecessor. Therefore, Dragoni was certainly in agreement with Ferrari and possible even enjoying the assignment. As you offer, because he never liked Surtees (but still they got along without too many problems during the previous 3 seasons) or because he also believed in the rumours of the drivers's alleged bad behaviour? But your point on Surtees brief return in 1970 definitely puts everything under a new light as Ferrari was never known for his ability to forgive. In any case, I was expecting some Italian member of the Forum with access to local sources might give us Dragoni's version of the story (Nothing on Autosprint? Quatroruotte?) which would be interesting to compare with other sources, but so far niente.

[nexfast]

Sorry, R Stock it wasn't you but arttidesco who pointed out Surtees return in 1970.

[D-Type]

~

Based on Ford???????

Only in the sense that in 1964-66 Ford had invested a huge amount of money of which quite a bit had been on aerodynamics.and some of the results must have been right.  The T70 has been described as 'what Eric Broadley felt the GT40 could have been' and ne had access to some of the Ford research.  If nothiing else, Ferrari could see the various Fords on the track and might have been influenced by what they saw.

[Tim Murray]

Some more discussion in this earlier thread:

 

Ferrari and Surtees

[RStock]

Well, if we can't agree on the shape of the rear bodywork of a car I wonder if we ever will have some clarity about the whole episode. But thanks R Stock for bringing back the issue to its core. Forghieri in the same book I have mentioned, underlining he did not believe it, says there were rumours coming to Ferrari's ears that John was testing the Lola in Britain and had some financial interest in Lola. Now, how did Ferrari get this "information"? Gozzi? Dragoni? Someone else? Forghieri clearly admired Dragoni, who had brought to the team some discipline and organisation, and tries as much as possible to exonerate him in the whole affair, putting the blame very much on Enzo. On the other hand and comparing the team manager with Lini, Dragoni's successor, he says Lini lacked the courage to confront the boss as was the case of the predecessor. Therefore, Dragoni was certainly in agreement with Ferrari and possible even enjoying the assignment. As you offer, because he never liked Surtees (but still they got along without too many problems during the previous 3 seasons) or because he also believed in the rumours of the drivers's alleged bad behaviour? But your point on Surtees brief return in 1970 definitely puts everything under a new light as Ferrari was never known for his ability to forgive. In any case, I was expecting some Italian member of the Forum with access to local sources might give us Dragoni's version of the story (Nothing on Autosprint? Quatroruotte?) which would be interesting to compare with other sources, but so far niente.

 

Ok, hopefully someone will come along with Dragoni's side, and I'm surprised there isn't already a long thread on this here that explains everything in detail.

 

I will just add a bit more to help clarify some things said earlier after reading a bit more on this subject to refresh my memory. In the book "Go Like Hell" about Ferrari, Ford and Le Mans Gozzi gives information about all this. It seems Surtees was supposed to be fired before Le Mans as I said earlier but wasn't certain. Gozzi said he was told by Enzo to attend the Belgian GP, and to tell Surtees there after the race he would no longer be needed. But after his Belgium GP win Gozzi wasn't sure, so telephoned Enzo, who told Gozzi to wait on the dismissal.

 

Also the meeting I spoke about earlier with Surtees, Dragoni, Gozzi and Enzo. Apparently Dragoni made the accusation there, during the meeting, that Surtees had been helping Lola, he said something to the effect of " He's see's not just the F1 cars abut also the Prototype and now Lola has a car identical", those are not his exact words, you can find them in the book and I don't want to get into any copyright territory by placing the exact quote here. I do not know if anything had been said about before that meeting, but it certainly came out into the open at that meeting.

[Catalina Park]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

[RStock]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

Someone once said Surtees's idea of a great car is one owned by him, built by him, and driven by him, or something to that effect.

[P.Dron]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

 

And in 1978?

[rl1856]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

 

Surtees consistantly criticized Ferrari for neglecting the F1 program until after Le Mans.  In 66 he could clearly see that the WC was his for the taking if only Ferrari would focus on F1.  

 

Surtees questioned Honda's committment to F1 and the length of the management chain between Tokyo and England.   He also urged Honda NOT to run the ill fated air cooled car.

 

BRM management was in shambles in 1969.  Rudd had been booted, and no one had emerged to develop the car let alone run the team.  From what I have read, his suggestions indirectly led to the Big Lou BRM Team.

 

Surtees was hired to drive the Chaparall 2H, which was an appalling car that never lived up to its design intent.  For example the intake and exhaust systems were designed to fit inside a sleek flush mount body.  Futher testing revealed that the design resulted in a loss of over 100hp.  Precious time and money was wasted on the development of the 2H.  His performance markedly improved when Chaparral purchased a customer McLaren and began to develop it rather than the 2H.

Edited by rl1856, 02 October 2013 - 21:03.

[arttidesco]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

Big John does not suffer fools gladly ?

[pilota]

 as Ferrari was never known for his ability to forgive.

I'm afraid hustory tells otherwise. From the earliest Scuderia Ferrari days Ferrari would bring back drivers that he fell out with, or left. e.g Nuvolari and Campari. There are also numerous examples from the post-war period. e.g Ascari left in 1954 and went to drive for Lancia, but Ferrari leant him a car for the Italian Grand Prix that year because the Lancia wasn't ready. Farina was another, as was Hawthorn, and others.

Nathan

Edited by pilota, 02 October 2013 - 21:44.

[Bloggsworth]

By the way, how did you know I have an astigmatism  - it's not mentioned in my profile 

Me too, in a neat X in my left eye...

[Bloggsworth]

In the interview with Alan Jones, Jones said that Surtees would take a car to Goodwood and test it without the wings on, which Jones thought totally pointless as all the spring and damper rates would be wrong, the ride height wrong, the weight wrong... So he spent the winter trying to avoid Surtees so he didn't have to tell him he would never drive for him again. Surtees sounds a difficult man to deal with.

[scheivlak]

A comment from Big John himself recently: 

'I expected to see out my life at Ferrari and it was sad that politics reared its ugly head. It was sad for them, and sad for me. It was a mistake for Ferrari and a mistake for me that we parted company.

'I had this enormous accident in Canada in 1965 where I nearly lost my life, but (Enzo) Ferrari himself had been very supportive.

'I went to Le Mans the following season and it was going to be a very important race for Ferrari because Ford were there in strength.

'We had adapted a strategy to beat them where we decided to drive the 24-hour race virtually like a grand prix, but once we got there Eugenio Dragoni (Ferrari team principal) said the plans had changed, claiming that Fiat shareholder Gianni Agnelli was in the stands so his nephew Ludovico Scarfiotti, should start the race.

'Scarfiotti was 1.5 to 2 seconds off the pace of me so our strategy went to pot. I was already on a bit of a short fuse with Mr Dragoni because he never came up and congratulated me after winning the Belgian Grand Prix. He was disappointed that I came back from my accident, to be frank, and he did not like that I had a good report with Mr Ferrari himself. So that was it. I got up and into the car went back to Maranello and resigned."

 

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2374975/John-Surtees-exclusive-interview-Phil-Duncan.html

 

The Daily Mail then goes on comparing Cooper to Toro Rosso BTW   

 

 

Still some, maybe rather silly, questions come up:

- "1. 5 to 2 seconds" really means nothing on a track like Le Mans - certainly if a WDC is your partner. If I was John i would be worried if Scarfiotti was just as fast   So, is this really the reason? If so, Mr Dragoni showed a lot more sense that John IMHO. It seems telling that John now says he was wrong as well for leaving the Scuderia.

- We can ponder about how much espionage went into the Lola T70, but couldn't the starting point of irritation simply be the fact that Surtees kept on driving those pretty dangerous things while almost losing his life in it? Maybe Enzo Ferrari didn't care that much about the life of his drivers, but that his main ace took the risk of losing his life (and Ferrari's championship hopes) in another team's car must somehow have been slightly annoying and could have been the root of the divorce - or is this a too modern way of thinking?

- Would John have left Ferrari if he didn't think or know there was somehow an opportunity to get a seat in a works Cooper-Maserati? The car that - in Jochen's hands - should have beaten him in Spa if Rindt had not met some problems?

- Alternatively: isn't it a bit strange that John -telling us that he preferred  the 2.4 V6 car over the 3.0 V12- ended up in a F1 car that had the same strengths but far more of the same flaws that the 3.0 Ferrari had?

 

Just some silly questions.

 

 

 

[nexfast]

I'm afraid hustory tells otherwise. From the earliest Scuderia Ferrari days Ferrari would bring back drivers that he fell out with, or left. e.g Nuvolari and Campari. There are also numerous examples from the post-war period. e.g Ascari left in 1954 and went to drive for Lancia, but Ferrari leant him a car for the Italian Grand Prix that year because the Lancia wasn't ready. Farina was another, as was Hawthorn, and others.

Nathan

You might be right but a lot of time passed in the cases of Farina and Nuvolari while Hawthorn left in good terms. Ascari case was precisely considered exceptional at the time having in mind the circumstances of their previous break-up. In any case it is clear his personality was extremely complex  as well as his relations with his drivers, so I concede I might have over-simplified.

[Tom Glowacki]

1966, Surtees has a problem with Ferrari management.
1968, Surtees has a problem with Honda management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with BRM management.
1969, Surtees has a problem with Jim Hall's management.

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

Thereafter, Tim Schecken,and Alan Jones, have problems with Surtees management

[racinggeek]

 

BRM management was in shambles in 1969.  Rudd had been booted, and no one had emerged to develop the car let alone run the team.  From what I have read, his suggestions indirectly led to the Big Lou BRM Team.

 

 

The way I recall reading about it, yes, BRM was a shambles in '69, but Rudd was booted after a face-off with Surtees and the team backed Big John instead of its engineer, who promptly left for Lotus.

[MCS]

Thereafter, Tim Schecken,and Alan Jones, have problems with Surtees management

What was Tim Schenken's problem?

[Bloggsworth]

A comment from Big John himself recently: 
'I expected to see out my life at Ferrari and it was sad that politics reared its ugly head. It was sad for them, and sad for me. It was a mistake for Ferrari and a mistake for me that we parted company.
'I had this enormous accident in Canada in 1965 where I nearly lost my life, but (Enzo) Ferrari himself had been very supportive.
'I went to Le Mans the following season and it was going to be a very important race for Ferrari because Ford were there in strength.
'We had adapted a strategy to beat them where we decided to drive the 24-hour race virtually like a grand prix, but once we got there Eugenio Dragoni (Ferrari team principal) said the plans had changed, claiming that Fiat shareholder Gianni Agnelli was in the stands so his nephew Ludovico Scarfiotti, should start the race.
'Scarfiotti was 1.5 to 2 seconds off the pace of me so our strategy went to pot. I was already on a bit of a short fuse with Mr Dragoni because he never came up and congratulated me after winning the Belgian Grand Prix. He was disappointed that I came back from my accident, to be frank, and he did not like that I had a good report with Mr Ferrari himself. So that was it. I got up and into the car went back to Maranello and resigned."


www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2374975/John-Surtees-exclusive-interview-Phil-Duncan.html



The Daily Mail then goes on comparing Cooper to Toro Rosso BTW   [/size]
 
 
Still some, maybe rather silly, questions come up:[/size]
- "1. 5 to 2 seconds" really means nothing on a track like Le Mans - certainly if a WDC is your partner. If I was John i would be worried if Scarfiotti was just as fast ;)[/size]  So, i[/size]s this really the reason? If so, Mr Dragoni showed a lot more sense that John IMHO. It seems telling that John now says he was wrong as well for leaving the Scuderia.[/size]
- We can ponder about how much espionage went into the Lola T70, but couldn't the starting point of irritation simply be the fact that Surtees kept on driving those pretty dangerous things while almost losing his life in it? Maybe Enzo Ferrari didn't care that much about the life of his drivers, but that his main ace took the risk of losing his life (and Ferrari's championship hopes) in another team's car must somehow have been slightly annoying and could have been the root of the divorce - or is this a too modern way of thinking?[/size]
- Would John have left Ferrari if he didn't think or know there was somehow an opportunity to get a seat in a works Cooper-Maserati? The car that - in Jochen's hands - should have beaten him in Spa if Rindt had not met some problems?[/size]
- Alternatively: isn't it a bit strange that John -telling us that he preferred  the 2.4 V6 car over the 3.0 V12- ended up in a F1 car that had the same strengths but far more of the same flaws that the 3.0 Ferrari had?[/size]
 
Just some silly questions.[/size]

If you are planning to run a race "Like a Grand Prix" then you want your fastest driver to set the pace, as Jaguar and Aston Martin did with Stirling Moss.

I don't think that Lola needed to copy Ferrari in anything; in the chassis and aerodynamics departments, Lola was ahead of Ferrari who still thought that aerodynamics was for people who couldn't build engines...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 03 October 2013 - 19:07.

[kayemod]

I don't think that Lola needed to copy Ferrari in anything; in the chassis and aerodynamics departments, Lola was ahead of Ferrari who still thought that aerodynamics was for people who couldn't build engines...

 

Oh come on now, Lola produced more than their fair share of absolute dogs, and it's Ferrari who are still going strong today.

[ensign14]

If Lola had been bought by, say, General Motors in the sixties, Lola would also still be going strong today.

[Catalina Park]

Maybe he didn't tell Lola what to do, maybe he was telling them what not to do.

Remember that shortly before the Surtees/Ferrari split Lola won the Indy 500 and a year later Surtees won the Italian GP with a Lola chassis. 
So Lola was pretty much on the ball at the time.

[Tim Murray]

It doesn't matter, surely, whether Surtees was actually passing Ferrari secrets to Lola, which he almost certainly wasn't. The point is whether Enzo was induced to believe that he was.

[SEdward]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know whether John Surtees speaks (or spoke) Italian?

 

Apparently this made a difference back in those days.

 

I also find it quite refreshing to hear Alonso and his crew communicating in Italian on the TV.

 

Edward

[kayemod]

If Lola had been bought by, say, General Motors in the sixties, Lola would also still be going strong today.

 

You mean like Saab?

[Tim Murray]

As Ralliart pointed out here in the earlier thread (see link in post 22) Surtees was fluent in Italian.

[ensign14]

You mean like Saab?

 

Possible that Lola wouldn't e.g. redesign the General Motors satnav because they didn't like it.

[bradbury west]

I have no desire to get into the who said what, knew what, might have done what scenario, but ISTR that it was in Simon Taylor's Lunch with.... Article that John Surtees explained how Enzo Ferrari had not only paid the costs of all the medical needs etc for JS but had told his insurers that Il Grande was in fact doing test and research work for the Scuderia when he had his Can Am crash in the Lola, so no relationship problems there, I suspect. Facts not conjecture.
One day the rank and file will realise just what a talent Surtees was and remains, I suspect, or hope. BTW his views of Michael Parkes are a matter of record, I believe. qv DCN comments on the Michael Parkes thread.
Roger Lund

[Bloggsworth]

Oh come on now, Lola produced more than their fair share of absolute dogs, and it's Ferrari who are still going strong today.

And Ferrari produced none? The Lola T70, and derivatives, would comfortably see off any Can-Am Ferrari, when it came to sports cars, Lola needed lessons from nobody. And as to Ferrari still going, would they had they not been bankrolled by FIAT? I think not.

[kayemod]

And Ferrari produced none? The Lola T70, and derivatives, would comfortably see off any Can-Am Ferrari, when it came to sports cars, Lola needed lessons from nobody. And as to Ferrari still going, would they had they not been bankrolled by FIAT? I think not.

 

 

Ah yes, the Lola T70. And?

 

Admittedly they never did well, but CanAm was one of Ferrari's weakest and most half-hearted efforts, so not the best comparison, and post T70, the T260 almost an exception thanks largely to the efforts of JYS, Lola's CanAm record was never any better than among the best of the also-rans. I don't want to de-rail this thread, but if we're talking about dogs, the sound of loud barking was noticable over both Slough/Huntingdon and Maranello at various times, if you're going to copy, surely you'd try to copy the very best? John Surtees was never everyone's favourite, but I've never heard his honour questioned, so I'd have thought that alone puts any espionage suggestions in their place.

[RStock]

 John Surtees was never everyone's favourite, but I've never heard his honour questioned, so I'd have thought that alone puts any espionage suggestions in their place.

 

Agreed, I just can't for one moment believe that if Enzo thought Surtees was passing on vital information he would have let him stay even one day more. This seems to be something thrown out there by Dragoni during a moment of rage, so it had probably been on Dragoni's mind for awhile. Dragoni is often painted as the villian in all this but one must not overlook Surtees tempestuous nature.

 

I don't buy into this notion that Dragoni wanted Bandini as the number one driver either. Gozzi himself said Bandini was not a number one driver which is why they started seeking out Mario when they decided Surtees was going because they were in a bit of a panic about losing their top driver. Also Surtees said Bandini practically begged and pleaded with him not to leave Ferrari, so if the aim was to give Bandini the number one seat by ousting Surtees, Bandini must not have been in on it.

 

And as for the final straw, the incident at Le Mans, Ronnie Hoare seemed to think the decision was made because Surtees was still suffering from the effects of his Can-Am crash. Hoare tells of Surtees "looking like death" after stepping out of the car at the Nurburgring 1000km. He and Dragoni had spoken about it and both felt John wasn't in top shape and were concerned. According to Gozzi they had already decided by then to get rid of Surtees, so I think the Le Mans incident might be a moot point.

 

There just doesn't seem to be an easy answer to all this, that is because it is not one thing that brought this on but a lot of little things that had built up over several years.

Edited by RStock, 04 October 2013 - 18:57.

[MCS]

...I don't buy into this notion that Dragoni wanted Bandini as the number one driver either. Gozzi himself said Bandini was not a number one driver which is why they started seeking out Mario when they decided Surtees was going because they were in a bit of a panic about losing their top driver...

 

Seeking out Mario -really?