Jump to content


Photo

Clark at Monaco in '66 and '67


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 August 2014 - 00:03

Jim Clark won every world championship Grand Prix of his time, except Monaco. That was despite many of his best Grand Prix drives taking place in that principality, comparable to his exploits at Spa. However fickle fate conspired to deny him such a victory.

 

In 1963 he was comfortably leading when his gearbox elected to select two gears simultaneously, bringing the Lotus to a halt at the Gasworks. In 1964, despite a pit stop to remove parts of his suspension, he brought his new-handling car onto the leaders' tails (Gurney and HIll) before the gremlins struck again. Unprecedented in these days to catch up after a pit stop. However it's the races of '66 and '67 I have always been most curious about, as I never did get the full story about how likely he was to win.

 

In 1966 he was on pole with a 2-litre Lotus against the likes of the 3-litre Brabhams and Ferraris. Unfortunately he got stuck in 1st gear off the line, ending up last at the end of the first lap. However he carved his way through the field, getting within range of the leader (Stewart in a BRM) before his car succumbed again. What I would like to know is just how close he had reduced the margin to Stewart - did he have a real chance of taking the lead? He certainly seems to have passed just about everyone else on the way - no mean feat at Monaco. Was Chapman expecting him to win as he monitored his progress? I would love to know what the buzz was at the time as Clark made his progress.

 

In 1967 he was up front on the first lap (again with only 2 litres) when he took to the escape road at the (then high speed) chicane when it looked like there would be a serious coming together of the cars in front - in these days you were unlikely to walk away from such an incident. Again forced to be last on the first lap, he carved his way through the field, eventually passing team mate Hill into 3rd place and closing on Bandini. Bandini in turn was pressurising leader Hulme. Clark's car then expired with plenty of the race still to go (it sounds suspiciously like flimsy Chapman light engineering when the suspension took the force of the bump at the Tabac). It seems to me that he was well on schedule to challenge Hulme for the lead. However the Bandini tragedy pretty much stopped any detailed analysis of what might have been.

 

There must be some old farts out there who were there at the time who remember the fine details at the time. Possibly there are those who even have these old fashioned lap charts that spell out the times written down painstakingly at the time. That would provide incontravertible evidence.

 

I am an even older old fart who remembers watching Moss in a Vanwall at the same circuit in 1958, courtesy of BBC films rushed back to London.

 

Anyway, just how close was the prospect of a Clark victory in these races?



Advertisement

#2 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 3,620 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 19 August 2014 - 01:21

Jim Clark won every world championship Grand Prix of his time, except Monaco. That was despite many of his best Grand Prix drives taking place in that principality, comparable to his exploits at Spa. However fickle fate conspired to deny him such a victory.

 

In 1963 he was comfortably leading when his gearbox elected to select two gears simultaneously, bringing the Lotus to a halt at the Gasworks. In 1964, despite a pit stop to remove parts of his suspension, he brought his new-handling car onto the leaders' tails (Gurney and HIll) before the gremlins struck again. Unprecedented in these days to catch up after a pit stop. However it's the races of '66 and '67 I have always been most curious about, as I never did get the full story about how likely he was to win.

 

In 1966 he was on pole with a 2-litre Lotus against the likes of the 3-litre Brabhams and Ferraris. Unfortunately he got stuck in 1st gear off the line, ending up last at the end of the first lap. However he carved his way through the field, getting within range of the leader (Stewart in a BRM) before his car succumbed again. What I would like to know is just how close he had reduced the margin to Stewart - did he have a real chance of taking the lead? He certainly seems to have passed just about everyone else on the way - no mean feat at Monaco. Was Chapman expecting him to win as he monitored his progress? I would love to know what the buzz was at the time as Clark made his progress.

 

In 1967 he was up front on the first lap (again with only 2 litres) when he took to the escape road at the (then high speed) chicane when it looked like there would be a serious coming together of the cars in front - in these days you were unlikely to walk away from such an incident. Again forced to be last on the first lap, he carved his way through the field, eventually passing team mate Hill into 3rd place and closing on Bandini. Bandini in turn was pressurising leader Hulme. Clark's car then expired with plenty of the race still to go (it sounds suspiciously like flimsy Chapman light engineering when the suspension took the force of the bump at the Tabac). It seems to me that he was well on schedule to challenge Hulme for the lead. However the Bandini tragedy pretty much stopped any detailed analysis of what might have been.

 

There must be some old farts out there who were there at the time who remember the fine details at the time. Possibly there are those who even have these old fashioned lap charts that spell out the times written down painstakingly at the time. That would provide incontravertible evidence.

 

I am an even older old fart who remembers watching Moss in a Vanwall at the same circuit in 1958, courtesy of BBC films rushed back to London.

 

Anyway, just how close was the prospect of a Clark victory in these races?

I'm actually now warming upto Clark a lot. '81 born, so you will have to tolerate me. Apologies! There are some "old farts" who could perhaps share notes with some authority, but i know them from elsewhere. If you would like i could tell you by pm about those two forums where those chaps (and others like minded) are active. As far as i'm aware. 2-3 of them have been following GP racing for now more than 3-4 decades, close to as much as you.



#3 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,582 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:13

The 1966 race report in Autosport gave race positions and times every ten or twenty laps. These show that at 10 laps Clark was up to 7th, 33.4 sec behind the leader (Surtees). At 20 laps he was 5th, 38.5 sec behind Stewart in the lead and 6.9 sec behind Hill in 4th. At 30 laps he was still 5th, 38.2 sec behind Stewart and 7.2 sec behind Hill. At 50 laps he was up to 4th as he and Hill had got past the slowing Rindt. He was still 31.9 sec behind Stewart, but had closed to 1.1 sec behind Hill, with Bandini 3,2 sec ahead of Graham, who was starting to have trouble with his clutch. At 60 laps he was still stuck behind Hill, 24.8 sec behind Stewart and 8.5 sec down on Bandini. He finally got past Hill on lap 61, but retired at the end of that lap after a rear upright failed. It therefore looks possible that if Clark had kept going he might have got past Bandini into second place, but would never have caught Stewart.

The 1967 Autosport report didn’t include the regular position/time updates. However, it’s clear that Clark was the fastest man out there. By lap 36 he had caught the Bandini/McLaren duel for second place, with Hulme another 15 seconds or so up the road. It therefore seems likely that, had he not retired on lap 43, he would have passed McLaren and Bandini. Hulme, however, was obviously driving with something in hand, so whether he could have held Clark off is not easy to determine.



#4 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 8,397 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:08

Is it possible that Autocourse might throw some light on Clark's progress in the '67 race? They used to include lap charts although I don't have copies for the years in question 



#5 TecnoRacing

TecnoRacing
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:34

Here's the Autocourse lap chart, Monaco 1967:

 

http://i.minus.com/imRb4kVNsicH3.jpg
 

Sorry for photo curvature (wouldn't fit in the scanner :wave:)



#6 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:31

I'm actually now warming upto Clark a lot. '81 born, so you will have to tolerate me. Apologies! There are some "old farts" who could perhaps share notes with some authority, but i know them from elsewhere. If you would like i could tell you by pm about those two forums where those chaps (and others like minded) are active. As far as i'm aware. 2-3 of them have been following GP racing for now more than 3-4 decades, close to as much as you.

Thanks for your info. Yes I would certainly be interested to know these other forums and view the comments of these old farts wonderful chaps.



#7 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:51

Here's the Autocourse lap chart, Monaco 1967:

 

http://i.minus.com/imRb4kVNsicH3.jpg
 

Sorry for photo curvature (wouldn't fit in the scanner :wave:)

Thanks for this. Now today's daft question: What do the large numbers in the box signify? (e.g. for Bandini these start: 18 9 9 9 4 . . . ) Probably immediately obvious to most afficionados, but I'm likely suffering from brain fade (according to DSJ  a type of malady often occuring to drivers, not that I'm much of a driver).



#8 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 August 2014 - 12:04

Had a look at Autocourse from those years.

 

Clark was 25"2 behind Stewart on lap 60 in the 1966 GP. For comparison: he was 38"8 behind after lap 15, 38"2 after lap 30 and 34"5 after lap 45. So he was closing but not by great leaps - of course he lost time every now and then having to pass other cars on the street circuit. The lap chart in Autocourse gives lap 60 as his last completed lap though the text says that he passed Hill on lap 63 immediately followed by his retirement.

 

In 1967 he was 19" behind Hulme when he retired after lap 42. For comparison he was 14"7 behind after lap 15 and 27"3 behind after lap 30. He was 4th immediately behind McLaren when he retired when both were setting pretty good times though losing time occasionally, probably due to having to lap other cars.



#9 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 August 2014 - 12:11

Thanks for this. Now today's daft question: What do the large numbers in the box signify? (e.g. for Bandini these start: 18 9 9 9 4 . . . ) Probably immediately obvious to most afficionados, but I'm likely suffering from brain fade (according to DSJ  a type of malady often occuring to drivers, not that I'm much of a driver).

The first names on the chart give the positions after lap 1 in vertical order : Bandini - Hulme - Stewart etc.

For the remainder of the lap chart the top column gives the leading driver after that lap, the next column the driver in 2nd position et cetera. So Bandini led after lap 1, Hulme after lap 2, Stewart after lap 6 and Hulme again after lap 15.


Edited by scheivlak, 19 August 2014 - 12:12.


#10 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 19 August 2014 - 17:00

Race history chart in graphic view

 

Those graphs are amazing... You don't have to watch the race, but you can still see all the story within.

 

It seems that Hulme reduced his pace after Bandini had his crash, for he had noone to fear anymore. As for Clark - if his car made it through (which it rarely did in Moanco, if ever), he would be in very strong position for a win. Up to he point when he reitred, he drove constantly faster laps than Denny. Don't forget that Hulme, by that point, yet didn't have a GP win; Monaco '67 was his first. Who knows if he could maintain the pressure from Clark?

 

My guess is that he could not. But hey, that race took place only 10 years before I was born... :)

 



#11 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 19 August 2014 - 17:58

A win at Monaco for Clark seemed inevitable, but sadly fate intervened. !968 should have been a classic matchup between the acknowledged master, Hill and the best anywhere Clark in identical Lotus 49s. Although Monaco was just 4 days before Indy both were scheduled to race the 500, and Hill actually did, so Indy would not have presented the problem it did some years. (In 1965 Clark missed Monaco altogether while winning the 500). Hill did qualify on pole and won his 4th Monaco GP, but he would have had stiffer competition were Clark to be present.



#12 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 August 2014 - 22:17

.

 

It seems that Hulme reduced his pace after Bandini had his crash, for he had noone to fear anymore. 

Don't forget that everybody had to tiptoe past the burning wreck of the Ferrari almost blocking the complete track - in my memory it seemed like it kept burning for an eternity. Everybody had to reduce their pace.

 

Nowadays it would have been a more or less automatic red flag situation. Not only because of the severity of the accident but also because the way the track was blocked with debris and the remains of strawbales everywhere across the track.



#13 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,704 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 August 2014 - 09:12

Jim Clark won every world championship Grand Prix of his time, except Monaco,

 

Portugal, Austria and Canada.

 

Race history chart in graphic view

 

Those graphs are amazing... You don't have to watch the race, but you can still see all the story within.

 

They really are. It's amazing how you can read a race with them.



#14 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:14

Portugal, Austria and Canada.

 

Of course you are correct. How could I have thought all these years it was only the Monaco GP he never won? I think it may have been a Chapman comment in "Jim Clark. Portrait of a Great Driver" where he commented on the Monaco race he never won. Can't remember his exact words, but thank you for pointing out my error.

 

One of the great things about this forum is the detailed knowledge of the true enthusiasts.



#15 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:18

Don't forget that everybody had to tiptoe past the burning wreck of the Ferrari almost blocking the complete track - in my memory it seemed like it kept burning for an eternity. Everybody had to reduce their pace.

 

Nowadays it would have been a more or less automatic red flag situation. Not only because of the severity of the accident but also because the way the track was blocked with debris and the remains of strawbales everywhere across the track.

 

Oh, you're right. I only saw Hulme's graph, and only now I noticed that Amon and Hill in 2nd and 3rd also slowed down considerably.

 

One can only say that at least after that they learned a lession or two. It's just too bad that usually it takes a victim to do so...



#16 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,704 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:31

Of course you are correct. How could I have thought all these years it was only the Monaco GP he never won? I think it may have been a Chapman comment in "Jim Clark. Portrait of a Great Driver" where he commented on the Monaco race he never won. Can't remember his exact words, but thank you for pointing out my error.

 

One of the great things about this forum is the detailed knowledge of the true enthusiasts.

 

You can be forgiven as he only competed in one in each of those countries. Given his win ratio, you'd need about 3 attempts to guarantee a win.



#17 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 20 August 2014 - 15:11


Up to he point when he reitred, he drove constantly faster laps than Denny. Don't forget that Hulme, by that point, yet didn't have a GP win; Monaco '67 was his first. Who knows if he could maintain the pressure from Clark?

 

My guess is that he could not. But hey, that race took place only 10 years before I was born... :)

 

 

Never underestimate Denny in a competitive car. No question that Clark was the best, but Monaco was only the second race of the season, and Denny had suffered from awful reliability in the BT20 the year before, if the car had held together he'd have done much better. Of course he slowed after having to pass Bandini's burning Ferrari each lap, but his pit signals would have told him that he wasn't in any danger and didn't need to push, so I don't think that lap times tell very much in this instance. Not in any way underestimating Jim's talent, but it's a puzzle to me how Denny seems to be an almost forgotten Champion, he was one heck of a driver in his day.



#18 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 20 August 2014 - 15:36

Hulme was in a well sorted Brabham-Repco with a litre advantage over Clarks' Climax. No way was he going to be beaten on this particular day. He would have enough on hand to deal with a late challenge from the Lotus.