Jump to content


Photo

Lotus 25/33 with BRM F1 engines.


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 February 2015 - 14:45

I remember reading back in the day a comment from, I think, Mike Hailwood. He mentioned that his Lotus did not handle well. Apparently Chapman commented that he was not surprised as the car was never designed for that engine (1.5 litre BRM V8).

 

I have always been puzzled by Chapman's comment. Surely the BRM V8 had almost the same size, weight and C of G as the Climax V8. The only noticeable differences I would have thought would have been slight differences to the power and torque band, and that would not influence the chassis design. Even an inch or two extra in length would not be significant, would it?

 

Other F1 cars of the time have appeared in different guises with totally different engines, even with 5+ litres in the back, and seem to have been tamed OK. So what was it that Chapman was getting at, or was he just winding up another team (I can't remember if it was Rob Walker or Reg/Tim Parnell in the other camp).

 

As I remember, Siffert in a 1.5 litre Lotus-BRM was able to beat Clark at some of the Sicilian high speed F1 races around 1964 or 65 - was that a case of the superior BRM power overcoming any Clark/Lotus Climax handling superiority?

 

Been curious for 50 years, I guess this forum is the place to ask.



Advertisement

#2 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 28 February 2015 - 17:22

Siffert won both the 64 and 65 Meditteraen GPs in a Brabham BRM with Clark 2nd on both occasions. A BRM powered car was 3rd in both races.

 

Working from memory, Clark used 25/R6 in 65 and used the same car to win the French GP 1 or 2 weeks later! So there is possibly some foundation that the power characteristics of the BRM engine suited Enna/ Syracuse(?). There was once a DSJ (64 Monza?) article on why a Brabham Climax was faster in a straight line than a Lotus 25/33 with the same engine with the Brabham having its suspension hanging out in the wind. 



#3 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 February 2015 - 18:43

If Mike did in fact say any such thing I suspect it would have been after driving one of the more tired Parnell Lotus-BRMs. Essentially they were good, effective and front-of-midfield competitive.

 

DCN



#4 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 February 2015 - 20:46

 There was once a DSJ (64 Monza?) article on why a Brabham Climax was faster in a straight line than a Lotus 25/33 with the same engine with the Brabham having its suspension hanging out in the wind. 

Now that's a surprise given the big outboard springs on Brabham's cars. Can anyone remember the reasons why the Brabham was quicker, or even have the original article? Could that explain to some extent why Gurney was so fast at Spa, or was Gurney just very good on high speed corners, as I seem to remember him saying.



#5 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 28 February 2015 - 21:46

By a twist of fate, I was just reading the September 75 motorsport with an interview with Mike Hailwood, probably on the back of his 4 wheel career finishing accident at the Nurburgring. Thanks to Brakedisc.

P1006, " We used those ex-works Lotus 25s fitted with BRM V8 motors. That was a complete and utter disaster. For some reason we never managed to make those engines work installed in a Lotus chassis" The whole season passed with a catalogue of engine, transmission and chassis failures.

 

Other comments in the issue were from DSJ recounting the exentricities of the British GP in recent years, " It might be wise to abandon the 1976 British GP now before the sporting world gets really rude about us." I wonder if DSJ remembered his words a year later.

 

DSJ thought on the relative top speeds of the Lotus 25/33 and the Brabham were along the lines of the soft long travel Lotus suspension soaked up more power than the stiff Brabham.

 

I see the Meditteraen GP was run in August after the French GP, but I remember a printed comment at the time that Clark had used R6 for both races. Probably Motorsport.



#6 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 February 2015 - 22:22

I did a story for 'Octane' magazine a few months ago recalling Dan's performance in the Brabham at Spa in 1964 when he outpaced the field.  He had the wire mesh screen above the  Climax V8's intakes raised clear of the trumpet mouths, and found a very useful increase in revs attainable on the long straights. Ron Tauranac had the chassis very well set up and Dan recalls he was able to negotiate the Masta Kink absolutely flat-strap, without the merest confidence lift, gaining several car lengths on any rival close to him.

 

DCN



#7 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,766 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 February 2015 - 22:48

I seem to recall reading something from Ron Tauranac along the lines of the speed difference was because the body on the Brabham car could be hung lower than the Lotus chassis giving a ground effect advantage.

#8 AJB

AJB
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 01 March 2015 - 00:28

Yet despite Chapman's comments, Graham Hill's Lotus 33 in 1967 used the BRM V8.



#9 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 01 March 2015 - 00:47

Lotus 2lt BRM V8 for one race. It's either that or a 43 round Monaco! Decisions, decisions.



#10 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 March 2015 - 08:40

I think it's like that Parnell's BRM engines were less good than the Climax engine Jim Clark had but better than the Climax engines Parnell could have got.

#11 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 01 March 2015 - 12:04

Back in the days when Clark was blowing off everybody in the Lotus 25s and 33s, his rivals had two options,  a: admit that he was a far better driver or b: believe that he was driving a far better car. Needless to say they chose the latter and the myth has survived ever since. Nobody, apart from Clark, ever achieved much in a 25/33 (Spence's two non championship wins being best of the rest). In private hands they were no better than customer Brabhams.



#12 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 01 March 2015 - 13:41

:up:



#13 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 01 March 2015 - 15:27

Back in the days when Clark was blowing off everybody in the Lotus 25s and 33s, his rivals had two options,  a: admit that he was a far better driver or b: believe that he was driving a far better car. Needless to say they chose the latter and the myth has survived ever since. Nobody, apart from Clark, ever achieved much in a 25/33 (Spence's two non championship wins being best of the rest). In private hands they were no better than customer Brabhams.

While I am very much a Clark fan, I have always thought that the argument that he was the only one who could bring the 25/33 in first, is a bit misleading. The others who drove the same 25/33 models were not top rate drivers.

 

Spence was still developing as a driver and had not reached the point in 1965 where people started to acknowledge his talent - they were just starting to do that in 68. He did win the Race of the Champions in 65, but was 20 or so secs behind Clark in the first heat, before Clark crashed in the second. Don't know what other race he won.

 

The regular No. 2's Arundell and Taylor never made the grade as top GP drivers.

 

Brabham hardly had time to adjust to the car in his brief Monaco outings.

 

Numerous Rent-a drivers were never top rate either.

 

However I seem to remember Stewart winning a one-off Lotus F1 victory in S. Africa in early 65, but possibly against poor opposition.

 

Once Chapman started employing genuine talented second drivers, then the successes went to each driver - admittedly after the days of the 25/33.

 

Hill and Clark.

Rindt and Hill.

Fittipaldi and Peterson.

Andretti and Peterson.

 

I guess it's one of the great "what if" questions. e.g.  what if Hill, Gurney or Surtees had been given equal No. 1 status with Clark in the Lotus team in e.g. 63, 64 or 65. I am sure the wins would have been spread around, though I like to think that JC would have grabbed the major spoils.



#14 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 01 March 2015 - 15:41

Back in the days when Clark was blowing off everybody in the Lotus 25s and 33s, his rivals had two options,  a: admit that he was a far better driver or b: believe that he was driving a far better car. Needless to say they chose the latter and the myth has survived ever since. Nobody, apart from Clark, ever achieved much in a 25/33 (Spence's two non championship wins being best of the rest). In private hands they were no better than customer Brabhams.

 

"The best thing about the Lotus 25 is Jim Clark" - Ron Tauranac.



#15 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 01 March 2015 - 16:25

The Ron T came from 66 when he was asked how his space frame Brabhams were beating all the modern monocoques.

 

"the only good thing I have seen in a monocoque is Jim Clark" Not that a 25/33 is a true monocoque.

 

JYS won the Rand GP in December 64 while JC was incapacitated from throwing snowballs, which must be close to the oddest reason to miss a race. JYS was contacted to BRM in 65, having turned down Chapman's deal with Lotus and about to sign for Cooper when the BRM deal arrived. Wonder how motor racing  history might have changed had he taken the Cooper offer. Where would Jochen Rindt have ended up?



#16 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 01 March 2015 - 17:15

While I am very much a Clark fan, I have always thought that the argument that he was the only one who could bring the 25/33 in first, is a bit misleading. The others who drove the same 25/33 models were not top rate drivers...

 

The regular No. 2's Arundell and Taylor never made the grade as top GP drivers.

 

 

 

Hmmm - yeah, but...  Pete Arundell should have been completely dazzling had he not been so terribly injured, both physically and psychologically, by the collision at Reims which ended his proper Formula 1 career after barely half a season.  Trev's is a more difficult case to plead but he had the talents of an excellent No 2 with confidence and inner Tiger badly affected by a serious of accidents which really were not his fault.  He was terribly unlucky to get into them - and fantastically lucky to get out them without major physical injury. The stature of both these drivers, in essence, suffered grievously from events which were pretty much par for the course in period.  Bernie E. once said to me - only half joking for effect - "...these days they don't get hurt badly enough or killed often enough to give other blokes a chance...".  Yes, well, back in the 1950s-70s - they did. Some with brilliant prospects "never made the grade", but not for want of talent.

 

DCN


Edited by Doug Nye, 01 March 2015 - 17:16.


#17 Vicuna

Vicuna
  • Member

  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 01 March 2015 - 18:42

Is there support then to the possibility that the 1.5 BRM-BRM was generally superior to the Lotus 25/33 with Climax power?

 

Or is it a probability?



#18 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 01 March 2015 - 19:11

A factory BRM was vastly superior to the customer cars.  Didn't one of the purchasers resort to litigation?

Likewise, Coventry Climax were choosy about who got their best engines and privateer Lotus 25&33 owners would be quite low in the pecking order, behind the works teams.  There was that much variation that you can't really say 'generally'



#19 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 01 March 2015 - 19:18

I think it's like that Parnell's BRM engines were less good than the Climax engine Jim Clark had but better than the Climax engines Parnell could have got.

Parnell presumably had less good BRM engines than the ones that BRM themselves had as well.

 

It could be that they were talking about installation issues though, a BRM V8 runs much larger diameter oil pipes than a Climax V8 and given the minimalist nature of a 25 it might have been difficult to fit them without compromising the design?



Advertisement

#20 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 01 March 2015 - 21:40

Hmmm - yeah, but...  Pete Arundell should have been completely dazzling had he not been so terribly injured, both physically and psychologically, by the collision at Reims which ended his proper Formula 1 career after barely half a season.  Trev's is a more difficult case to plead but he had the talents of an excellent No 2 with confidence and inner Tiger badly affected by a serious of accidents which really were not his fault.  He was terribly unlucky to get into them - and fantastically lucky to get out them without major physical injury. The stature of both these drivers, in essence, suffered grievously from events which were pretty much par for the course in period.

 

DCN

As I recall, Arundell started his F1 career in 64 with 3 podiums. Not sure what happened to him over the next couple of years, but remember a comment he made after Clark lapped him at the 66 Dutch Grand Prix (one of Clark's best races, giving away a litre to the dominant Brabhams, but taking the lead and stretching it). Arundell's comment was something like: "Jimmy passed me way beyond my usual braking place and he was very nearly sideways. I remember thinking "If you have to drive that hard to win then I don't mind not winning" "

To me that is a clear indication that Arundell did not consider himself to be in the top GP class. Or at least not in Clark's class.

 

Regarding psychological effects of disaster, or near disaster. Perhaps it is an indication of natural talent if a driver can maintain his previous top class form after such incidents. Few would dispute that Clark's experience at Monza in 61 was a traumatic experience. He was reported to have been changed by the event. Yet his race speed, if anything, improved with more driving experience.



#21 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 March 2015 - 22:04

He wasn't bad at Spa either, despite his harrowing memories of 1960.

#22 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 01 March 2015 - 22:56

 Ron Tauranac had the chassis very well set up and Dan recalls he was able to negotiate the Masta Kink absolutely flat-strap, without the merest confidence lift, gaining several car lengths on any rival close to him.

 

DCN

That would be the race where Gurney ran out of fuel on the last lap, and JC won by default and coasted to a halt beside Gurney, also out of fuel. Was it Stavelot or Malmedy? Anyway Gurney's comment to Clark was that his hair stood on end every time he went through the Masta kink. Clark immediately felt Dan's hair to check.

 

But I guess Doug, it is still possible to go through a corner with confidence even when your hair stands on end due to the experience. A bit like being a very nervous airline passenger on take off, armed with statistics about flying being a lot safer than driving home, but still crapping yourself.



#23 Vicuna

Vicuna
  • Member

  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 02 March 2015 - 08:39

So was a works 1.5 BRM-BRM a superior car than a works 1.5 Lotus-Climax 25 and 33? Would Clark in a dark green car with orange nose have generally been further up the road than NGH in a green car with yellow? 



#24 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:06

So was a works 1.5 BRM-BRM a superior car than a works 1.5 Lotus-Climax 25 and 33? Would Clark in a dark green car with orange nose have generally been further up the road than NGH in a green car with yellow? 

 

Not necessarily, it seems to me that the main reason for the success of the Clark/Lotus 25 & 33 combination was that the cars were designed in such a way that they were a perfect match for Jim's talents. Jim & Colin thought almost as one, so the cars that Lotus produced had traits that maybe only Jim could fully exploit. Jochen Rindt famously said that his Lotus 72 was so superior that a chimp could have won in the car, don't think anyone ever said that about the 25/33. Also, when Jackie Stewart retired, Tyrrell had to start making less nervous and pointy cars for the less good drivers that followed him, longer wheelbases and all that.



#25 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:43

Graham Hill and Tony Rudd also had a very close working relationship  and some might say that Hill's feedback to the engineers was superior to Jim Clark's.  Jack Brabham and John Surtees also had good communication with their engineers.

 

It's impossible to be certain, but I think the Lotus was the superior car in 1963 and possibly in 1965 when it had the 32-valve engine; otherwise there was very little to choose between the cars on outright performance.  I don't think you can assess drivers of that era by comparing them with their team mates.  Taylor and Arundell were clearly competent drivers and unlucky to have their careers ended in the way they did.  To say that either was not in Clark's class is not a criticism because, in my opinion, nobody else was either.

 

The only was to compare drivers is subjectively, on the way they won their races and the way they performed in races they didn't win.  On that yardstick Jim Clark, in my opinion, was the best.



#26 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:51

Graham Hill and Tony Rudd also had a very close working relationship  and some might say that Hill's feedback to the engineers was superior to Jim Clark's.  Jack Brabham and John Surtees also had good communication with their engineers.

 

 

But Colin Chapman was quite some driver himself, possibly even on the level of some Lotus no 2s. That was what made the Clark/Chapman relationship so different from all of the others, on that level no-one else was able to compete.



#27 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:17

There is a photo of the 2 of them at the end of the race sitting discussing the fact they have both run out of petrol and not finished the race with Clark not realising he had won. The flag man had been waiting for MaClaren to coast past him and completely missed the fact that Clark was passing MaClaren and not unlapping himself. Clark found out he had won from the PA system. Maybe Cooper shouldn't have lent Lotus their watering can.



#28 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 02 March 2015 - 12:00

 

It's impossible to be certain, but I think the Lotus was the superior car in 1963 and possibly in 1965 when it had the 32-valve engine; otherwise there was very little to choose between the cars on outright performance. 

In 1965, only three of Clark's six wins were with the 32 valve engine, in the other three he dominated completely with 16 valve units and even used the old spare 25 at Clermont Ferrand. The Lotus-Climax combination was a fragile one and only Clark could make the most of it. Graham Hill had BRMs which usually had bullet proof reliability and so could afford to be harder on his cars.



#29 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 March 2015 - 12:27

Quote is not working.

there was an article the end of 65 Motor/ Autocar iirc discussing the technicalities of the 65 season. Every improvement in power found on a 32v climax over the season was applied to the 16v with a similar improvement. There was only a 5 to 7 bhp advantage between the 2 engines and the main performance advantage was the increased rev limit on the 32v, which allowed lower gearing for the same top speed.



#30 WOT

WOT
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 02 March 2015 - 12:33

Graham Hill and Tony Rudd also had a very close working relationship  and some might say that Hill's feedback to the engineers was superior to Jim Clark's.  Jack Brabham and John Surtees also had good communication with their engineers.

 

 

It has to be remembered that Clark had no mechanical background and very little mechanical knowledge by comparison. The biggest problem that Chapman and the mechanics had was that if there was an issue with the car, Jim would just drive around it....



#31 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 02 March 2015 - 12:54

It has to be remembered that Clark had no mechanical background and very little mechanical knowledge by comparison. The biggest problem that Chapman and the mechanics had was that if there was an issue with the car, Jim would just drive around it....

 

True, but did he need mechanical knowledge? If Jim explained to Colin what the car was doing, he'd know exactly what he meant, Chapman drove all his cars, but Tony Rudd, Ron Tauranac, Mauro Forghieri etc never did.



#32 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,833 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 02 March 2015 - 14:03

 The flag man had been waiting for MaClaren to coast past him and completely missed the fact that Clark was passing MaClaren and not unlapping himself.

I did not know that she was in the race. Where was Pa Claren?

 

(sorry, could not resist)



#33 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 March 2015 - 17:35

In 1965, only three of Clark's six wins were with the 32 valve engine, in the other three he dominated completely with 16 valve units and even used the old spare 25 at Clermont Ferrand. The Lotus-Climax combination was a fragile one and only Clark could make the most of it. Graham Hill had BRMs which usually had bullet proof reliability and so could afford to be harder on his cars.

And he used it in two other races which he didn't win.  Brabham, in contrast, only got their 32-valve engine to the start line at Monaco, and Dan Gurney never did get to race it.  That must prove something.


Edited by Roger Clark, 02 March 2015 - 17:36.


#34 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 March 2015 - 18:35

Brabham led the Monaco GP for 10 laps with his 32v until it blew up, oil shortage. Can't remember if the rev counter drive fell out, or the oil disappeared down the valve guides. Gurney got as far as leaving the pits with a healthy 32v at Silverstone, it just wasn't healthy by the time he reached the grid. Maybe the wire mesh over the trumpets wasn't such a good idea.  Clark retired his 32v at Monza, but that was the fuel pump, not the engine.

 

G Hill's mechanical knowledge drove Chapman mad in his attempts to redesign the suspension of the 49.


Edited by JtP2, 02 March 2015 - 18:35.


#35 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 02 March 2015 - 19:31

 

G Hill's mechanical knowledge drove Chapman mad in his attempts to redesign the suspension of the 49.

 

A perfect illustration, as Colin Chapman's partner in crime, Jim knew just as much as he needed to know. Unlike Graham, he didn't fiddle endlessly, so who's approach was best?



#36 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 02 March 2015 - 20:33

If you want to compare cars, perhaps the answer is to compare how they went in the hands of the No 2 drivers to eliminate the Clark or Hill effect?


Edited by D-Type, 02 March 2015 - 20:33.


#37 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 02 March 2015 - 23:18

As I recall, Arundell started his F1 career in 64 with 3 podiums. Not sure what happened to him over the next couple of years, but remember a comment he made after Clark lapped him at the 66 Dutch Grand Prix (one of Clark's best races, giving away a litre to the dominant Brabhams, but taking the lead and stretching it). Arundell's comment was something like: "Jimmy passed me way beyond my usual braking place and he was very nearly sideways. I remember thinking "If you have to drive that hard to win then I don't mind not winning" "

To me that is a clear indication that Arundell did not consider himself to be in the top GP class. Or at least not in Clark's class.

 

 

Pete's F2 crash at Reims left his legs shattered and other injuries which proved very limiting and, ultimately, terminal for his career prospects as a frontline driver in any category in which he might compete. I remember visiting him in hospital adjacent to Hyde Park Corner, now a Hotel, several weeks after his accident and although he was putting a cheerful face on it he seemed a shadow of the man I had last seen racing. Jimmy never had anything anywhere close to such a physically injurious experience, until Hockenheim '68...

 

What Pete might allegedly have thought come 1966 is light years from his attitude and approach in the early part of 1964.

 

Brimming with self-confidence as the acknowledged 1962-63 'King of Formula Junior', in 1964 F1 he promptly finished 2nd at Goodwood, shared 3rd at Syracuse, 3rd at Aintree, 3rd at Silverstone, 3rd at Monaco, 3rd at Zandvoort, 4th at Rouen - not too shabby for a Lotus No 2 - yes, Lotus - at the outset of his first full season. Clark (and maybe Gurney) probably excepted, he showed a Stewart-like cheerful disregard for rival drivers...plainly feeling he was capable of taking them on upon at least equal terms. When he finally made his comeback in '66 his light was irretrievably dimmed.  The mere fact that Colin Chapman stood by his former star in keeping the place open for him that year is surely a telling testament to Colin's perception of Peter Arundell's pre-Reims quality. Sadly, the old skills and the confidence to demonstrate them in an albeit inadequate car, proved to be much diminished.

 

DCN



#38 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 02 March 2015 - 23:57

 Clark (and maybe Gurney) probably excepted, he showed a Stewart-like cheerful disregard for rival drivers...plainly feeling he was capable of taking them on upon at least equal terms.

 

DCN

Doug,

 

You have a distinct advantage over me and I guess most of the others who contribute to threads like these. You usually knew the guys involved and so the truth of the situation will be much clearer for you. It's like when I saw Rindt and Stewart and the rest of the field at a race meeting for the first time after a diet of Motor Sport - a reality that is not conveyed in print or even on the TV. I suddenly realised the gap between various drivers.

 

Anyway, what do you mean in the sentence above as it seems to me to be quite ambiguous? Do you mean that Arundell recognised Clark and Gurney as the best? Or do you mean that you saw Clark and Gurney as the best? Or do you mean that Clark and Gurney also had a cheerful disregard for rival drivers?



#39 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:20

I did not know that she was in the race. Where was Pa Claren?

 

(sorry, could not resist)

Where? Minding the kids. :cool:



Advertisement

#40 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 March 2015 - 16:36

Going back to Mike Hailwood's comments about the Parnell Lotus BRM a letter from Tim Parnell to Chris Amon dated 27 January 1964 may be of interest. As quoted in Eion Young's book Forza Amon Parnell wrote

 

"... we really do want to do as much testing as possible, particularly now that we have decided to fit BRM engines in the monocoques. I'm afraid we could just not hope to meet Climax bills in the future, and they seem very doubtful about their modifications and plans for this year, so we are going to BRM".

 

If the decision to use BRM engines was dictated by finances could that also have been a major factor in the failure to sort out handling and reliability issues?   



#41 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 March 2015 - 17:35

Pa Claren, is that Ron or his wife?



#42 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 03 March 2015 - 21:22

Doug,

 

You have a distinct advantage over me and I guess most of the others who contribute to threads like these. You usually knew the guys involved and so the truth of the situation will be much clearer for you. It's like when I saw Rindt and Stewart and the rest of the field at a race meeting for the first time after a diet of Motor Sport - a reality that is not conveyed in print or even on the TV. I suddenly realised the gap between various drivers.

 

Anyway, what do you mean in the sentence above as it seems to me to be quite ambiguous? Do you mean that Arundell recognised Clark and Gurney as the best? Or do you mean that you saw Clark and Gurney as the best? Or do you mean that Clark and Gurney also had a cheerful disregard for rival drivers?

 

Good question - any racing driver worth his salt has the unreal self-confidence that he can beat anybody else, any time - sometimes, "if only I had the car". I know Arundell recognised Clark's talent as being special, and I suspect he rated Gurney too.  But, just like Stewart upon his emergence amongst the top flight, I am pretty sure that Pete would have thought that all he might need is a little more experience to blow their doors off.  So it was a question of "in time I'll prove it" - and sadly, fate did not allow him time. By "cheerful disregard" I was intending to convey cheerful self-confidence that their abilities were superior - not, as might seem to be inferred, cheerful disdain for minor beings.  I doubt any such thought would have entered JC's consciousness (he always seemed puzzled that not everybody could match his times) while DG was hyper-competitive, but too much of a gentleman to diminish anyone else except by his performances on track.  Is that any clearer?

 

DCN



#43 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 March 2015 - 21:55

Good question - any racing driver worth his salt has the unreal self-confidence that he can beat anybody else, any time - sometimes, "if only I had the car". I know Arundell recognised Clark's talent as being special, and I suspect he rated Gurney too.  But, just like Stewart upon his emergence amongst the top flight, I am pretty sure that Pete would have thought that all he might need is a little more experience to blow their doors off.  So it was a question of "in time I'll prove it" - and sadly, fate did not allow him time. By "cheerful disregard" I was intending to convey cheerful self-confidence that their abilities were superior - not, as might seem to be inferred, cheerful disdain for minor beings.  I doubt any such thought would have entered JC's consciousness (he always seemed puzzled that not everybody could match his times) while DG was hyper-competitive, but too much of a gentleman to diminish anyone else except by his performances on track.  Is that any clearer?

 

DCN

Slightly. But some of my "Ors" have become your "Ands" so I don't think everything is completely logical and consistent. Never mind, I never had any aspirations to study philosophy and my brain is starting to hurt. But your last post seems OK on its own and provides insight.



#44 JtP2

JtP2
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 04 March 2015 - 00:02

Another thing not being allowed for is the extra power when moving up. A typical example is Dave Walker, who spent too long in F3, who then couldn't adapt to the extra power and delicacy required of an F1 car. Niki Lauda was the opposite, the more power you gave him, the better he became. Possibly Trevor  T spent too long with FJ and never quite came to terms with F1. Peter A never got the chance to demonstrate his full potential before what was a career finiishing accident, although his carreer didn't end till the end of 66.

 

Once had discussion with a retired works motocross rider and asked him why Dave Bickers often rode a 350 in the 500 class and beat everyone. He said because on some tracks the 350 was faster as the 500 was too much bike. He said a 350 was often too much for him and was often quicker on a 250.



#45 robjohn

robjohn
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:25

Doug N touched on speed differences between Brabhams and the Lotus 25/33 on fast circuits in his History of the GP Car, 1966-85, p46.
He was writing about the 1966 Brabhams, the BT19 & 20, but the interpretation probably applies to their predecessors too.

He said that, rather than the more-flexible-chassis theory, it would appear to be the aerodynamic forms of the Lotus 33 and Repco Brabham nose cones that contributed most to their relative high-speed behaviour. "The Lotus nose-cone was notably upturned with a lengthy exposed undersurface in the direct airstream. The Brabham cone was more bluff... It seems probable that this generated less lift..."

Driving at Spa with any front-end lift must have been less than fun.

 

A great book, by the way, Doug.
Rob B


Edited by robjohn, 04 March 2015 - 02:50.