97 replies to this topic

[David McKinney]

Your Lotus certainly seems to be going better with its "proper" engine, Peter

[Sharman]

Not that Peter the other Peter
What Peter was questioning was why more Cooper Juniors were not built. The ability to drive them sideways or not in comparison with 18s was not, at that time, a known quantity. When driven by JYS and Warwick Banks under Uncle Kens management etc they were competitive but that in part was due to the BMC Works link. 130 bhp made a lot of difference
John

[David McKinney]

Neither Jackie Stewart nor Warwick Banks ever raced Formula Junior Coopers ;)

A better illustration of your point might be 1961, when the 'Tyrrell Twins' Love and Maggs had a very successful season in Cooper-BMCs. But they rarely - if ever - beat the best Lotus-Ford teams

[David Beard]

Lots more Lotus 18 stuff on TNF...(I believe Twinny added all the "T"s to make search BB work better)

Why was the Lotus 18 so slow?
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

Lotus T18: unloved?
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

Lotus T18 Chassis 373
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

Lotus T18-Ian Burgess
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

An autocross Lotus T18
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

Lotus T18 exported to Jay Chamberlain
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

Lotus T18
http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

[Sharman]

I plead incipient drunkeness, and I got a bit in front of myself, historywise that is, they were of course in F3 by that time

[Peter Horsman]

372 in Coys Nurburgring auction this weekend.

Happy bidding.........

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


There is a theory that the Cooper chassis is more flexible which makes it a more forgiving car than the Lotus with its stiffer chassis.
Whether that is the reason (I suspect Lotus suspension was probably better than Coopers as well for example) most people who have driven both say that the Cooper is easier, but the Lotus is ultimately quicker just it requires more skill & effort to keep it near its limit.
As you say a great driver will be much quicker in the Lotus, but a lesser driver might be quicker in the Cooper.

As you say what that doesn't explain is why Lotus sold so many Juniors compared to Cooper - presumably Cooper simply weren't capable of building such numbers, or did their preference for BMC engines hold them back?

Presumably the absence of the perforated bulkhead and the smaller diameter tubes about which you posted earlier would have made the Junior chassis less rigid.

I think that the reason that Lotus sold so many Junior 18s was the usual: success of the works cars and availability of spares. It would be interesting to compare the success of the Junior cooper and Lotus cars disregarding the works 18s.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
It would be interesting to compare the success of the Junior cooper and Lotus cars disregarding the works 18s.

Of 62 FJ races in Britain in 1960, Lotus 18s won 43 and Cooper four. Half the Lotus victories were achieved by works entries, half by privateers. Other winning makes were Elva (8), Lola (2) and Gemini, Terrier, Deep Sanderson and U2 (1 each). Some of these races were of course very minor club affairs.
On the Continent there were 15 races over the season in which at least two factories sent teams. Cooper won four of these, Team Lotus three, Lola two and Continental makes the remaining six.

[Ray Bell]

Surely most of the orders for new cars would have been placed before much of the season had passed?

It might be the early season runs that would have won the orders, I'd think...

[Sharman]

Ray
In early 1960 when most orders would have been placed (if not late 1959) the sheep had not been sorted from the goats. Front engined cars were still in with a chance Mk 2 Lola for example was thoughtto be the car to beat. I had some photos sent to me in late February 1960 of a Britannia which was being conidered and was thought to be a good bet by a very well respected and winning FJ driver. I think the car was announced in May and but really sank without trace.
John

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


There is a theory that the Cooper chassis is more flexible which makes it a more forgiving car than the Lotus with its stiffer chassis.
Whether that is the reason (I suspect Lotus suspension was probably better than Coopers as well for example) most people who have driven both say that the Cooper is easier, but the Lotus is ultimately quicker just it requires more skill & effort to keep it near its limit.

That is quite funny, because the same applies for tennisrackets... if you take a racket with a big sweetspot (hundred inches or more), and not very stiff, beginning to intermediate players will say the racquet is 'easier' than a racket with a smaller headsize and a stiffer construction. The harder you swinger a racket, the smaller the margins are going to be. So for, say, Roger Federer, it would be HARDER to play with a big, relative supple racket than with his current smaller, stiffer racket.

I remember that Stefan Edberg, when he was still on the tour, tried several widebody rackets (rackets with a big head and very wide diameter). He said he could fire unbelievable aces with it, but for the rest could not keep the racket in court. I recently tried a Prince Oversize myself, and had the same sensation. Fantastic for serves and volleys, but when I even tried to swing it from the baseline the ball flew towards another zipcode.

So I think you make a good point there.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Sharman
Ray
In early 1960 when most orders would have been placed (if not late 1959) the sheep had not been sorted from the goats. Front engined cars were still in with a chance Mk 2 Lola for example was thought to be the car to beat. I had some photos sent to me in late February 1960 of a Britannia which was being considered and was thought to be a good bet by a very well respected and winning FJ driver. I think the car was announced in May and but really sank without trace.
John

Yes, that was what I'd have thought...

And I've got a copy of Motor Racing somewhere with a feature on FJr from that year, dozens of manufacturers!

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Roger Clark

Presumably the absence of the perforated bulkhead and the smaller diameter tubes about which you posted earlier would have made the Junior chassis less rigid.

I think that the reason that Lotus sold so many Junior 18s was the usual: success of the works cars and availability of spares. It would be interesting to compare the success of the Junior cooper and Lotus cars disregarding the works 18s.

True about the effect of the different rear bulkhead but the Lotus Jr chassis' straight tubes would still have an advantage over the Cooper chassis' curved tubes.
Also Lotus tried to avoid mounting the suspension pickups mid tube which should make them more rigid.

Cost could also be an issue, Lotus's 'mass-production' techniques might have kept the price down?

[Ray Bell]

Let's consider how buyers would be thinking at the end of 1959, the year Cooper proved for once and for all that the rear engine layout was the way to go...

Cooper are making a Junior along their regular lines, but Lotus, who have shown themselves to be innovative and are called upon by other makers to tidy up their suspensions, announce they are following Cooper's rear-engined path.

"Hmmm," the average buyer might think, "Lotus were just about on the pace with a front engine, they'll brain them with the engine behind the driver!"

Wouldn't you think that would be the rationale?

[fines]

The Lotus 18 first ran on Boxing Day in 1959, and did quite well - I think that's the rationale!;)

[Sharman]

Depends what you mean by well. It finished 10th beaten by 8 front engined cars and a Cooper

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by fines
The Lotus 18 first ran on Boxing Day in 1959, and did quite well - I think that's the rationale!

That would have been the decider for many, I'm sure...

And for others it would have confirmed their choice. So this was the 'early run(s)' to which I referred earlier, a performance indicator that would get the orders into the books.

And maybe there was a 'Racing Car Show' that would have contributed as well?



*Edit*... Maybe fee-nes should define 'did quite well'. Did it take pole, set fastest lap, lead the first seven laps, what did it actually do?

[fines]

... I'm not sure feeble memory and too tired to look things up!

At the very least, Ireland's performance in the Argentine must have filled the books. Chunky didn't use the same type designation for nothing!;)

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Let's consider how buyers would be thinking at the end of 1959, the year Cooper proved for once and for all that the rear engine layout was the way to go...

Cooper are making a Junior along their regular lines, but Lotus, who have shown themselves to be innovative and are called upon by other makers to tidy up their suspensions, announce they are following Cooper's rear-engined path.

"Hmmm," the average buyer might think, "Lotus were just about on the pace with a front engine, they'll brain them with the engine behind the driver!"

Wouldn't you think that would be the rationale?

No, not entirely

There were still a lot of people at the end of 1959 who thought Cooper were lucky to win the championship, and that Ferrari was just having a bad year

The Junior's Brands Hatch debut was a poor indicator of what it would achieve later

I agree that Argentina would have been the clincher - if the 18 could outrun the Coopers so easily in F1 trim, surely the FJ version would be equally superior?

[Barry Boor]

Nothing to add, other than, what an interesting thread!

[Sharman]

Fines
You do not need to look it up. Just look at my post in reply to yours. I did rely on memory and the result when looked up actually confounds your theory.more thoroughly, there were 4 Elva 100s, a Lola Mk 2, a Gemini (albeit driven by Jim Clark) and 3 Coopers in front of it.

[Gordon Graham]

This is the one going under the hammer soon at the Dawson-Damer sell-off, as discussed elsewhere. Amaroo, some time in the 80s

[ottoracing]

Hi all

As Barry mentioned, all very interesting.

Phil Lamont has a 1960 Lotus 18 FJr; I've attached my sketch of it:


Cheers!
Paul

[fines]

Originally posted by Sharman
Fines
You do not need to look it up. Just look at my post in reply to yours. I did rely on memory and the result when looked up actually confounds your theory.more thoroughly, there were 4 Elva 100s, a Lola Mk 2, a Gemini (albeit driven by Jim Clark) and 3 Coopers in front of it.

I knew it didn't finish well, but I was under the impression it showed speed, and lots of it. Apparently, I was wrong (it was late last night...), and I don't need to look it up now, now that you and David have proved me wrong. But Buenos Aires wasn't that much later, so my point's still valid!;)

[Sharman]

I haven't done a full check but the 18 did not start winning until the middle of the year (July) in Junior form

[Sharman]

I haven't done a full check but the 18 did not start winning until the middle of the year (July) in Junior form and when was the 20 introduced? So why so many 18s sold as opposed to Coopers which is where we came in.

[David McKinney]

I don’t know what source you’re relying on, sharman, but it seems to have overlooked one or two Lotus 18 FJ race wins before July:
19/03 Goodwood (Clark)
02/04 Oulton Park (Clark)
18/04 Goodwood (Clark)
18/04 Mallory (Summers)
24/04 Snetterton (McKee)
30/04 Aintree (Taylor)
07/05 Oulton Park (Taylor)
08/05 Mallory (Arundell)
14/05 Silverstone (Clark)
21/05 Silverstone (Andrews)
22/05 Roskilde (Pantlin)
29/05 Brands Hatch (Andrews)
06/06 Crystal Palace (Taylor)
06/06 Oulton Park (Costin)
06/06 Mallory (Arundell)
12/06 Snetterton (Hine)
18/06 Silverstone (Hine)
18/06 Aintree (Romanes)
25/06 Goodwood (Andrews)
25/06 Silverstone (Hine)
26/06 Pomona (Chamberlain)
The 20 was introduced for the 1961 season

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David McKinney
No, not entirely

There were still a lot of people at the end of 1959 who thought Cooper were lucky to win the championship, and that Ferrari was just having a bad year.....

But were they the people who were looking at getting into Juniors?

The Lola was a great thing, and very promising, but it was a big car. Juniors had a tiny engine, really, so frontal area must have been a consideration. And they weren't all that far removed from the old F3, so that history with rear engines was all there... if not some of the drivers.

The Junior's Brands Hatch debut was a poor indicator of what it would achieve later

I agree that Argentina would have been the clincher - if the 18 could outrun the Coopers so easily in F1 trim, surely the FJ version would be equally superior?

So my point also remains... people predisposed to be looking at rear engined cars with the deal sealed by a Lotus success before the season started. Sorry I didn't have any results to look back on, but that era's a loss for me.

I guess the early Clark etc wins would have brought further buyers, perhaps some of them people who were sick of waiting in queues for other marques?

[Sharman]

I looked briefly at the F2/Fj Register results which only lists Imternational races. Not club events. I should have remembered Oulton & Aintree races but the chances were I was otherwise engaged and did not get around to watching

[David McKinney]

There are several international races on my list (which was taken from the relevant Black Book...)

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by David McKinney


No, not entirely

There were still a lot of people at the end of 1959 who thought Cooper were lucky to win the championship, and that Ferrari was just having a bad year

People may have thought that Cooper were lucky to win the championship, but most in Grand Prix racing realised the superiority of the rear engined cars. Even Ferrari built one and would probably have raced it more if the formula wasn't coming to an end.

I haven't got full entry lists but I don't think there were many non-works 18s in the early season FJ races. It was Goodwood, Easter Monday, not the Argentine Grand Prix, that changed the world.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Roger Clark

People may have thought that Cooper were lucky to win the championship, but most in Grand Prix racing realised the superiority of the rear engined cars. Even Ferrari built one and would probably have raced it more if the formula wasn't coming to an end

My comment was based on my memory of the time ;)

I haven't got full entry lists but I don't think there were many non-works 18s in the early season FJ races. It was Goodwood, Easter Monday, not the Argentine Grand Prix, that changed the world.

Easter Goodwood only four Lotus 18 entries (three Team) against eight Coopers
By the Aintree 200 eight Lotus, four Cooper
At the International Trophy meeting ten Lotus, six Cooper
And by British GP meeting in July Lotus numbers up to 15, Cooper three
Maybe Lotus were better geared than Cooper to production
Perhaps the Argentine race was the trigger, and the early FJ races confirmed people's views

[RAP]

Originally posted by Sharman
Depends what you mean by well. It finished 10th beaten by 8 front engined cars and a Cooper

I have looked up the Autosport report of Boxing Day. The Lotus 18 started from the back of the grid (G12), worked its way upto 7th then spun. The comments on the marques are interesting and may have influenced prospective purchasers -
Lola - "very smart, proved that the boys will have to watch out or the marque will be cleaning up before long ...demonstrated superiority over everything except one more powerfull Elva "
Cooper - "were impressively turned out and except for one retirement, were reliable, yet seemed deficient in top speed. No doubt this will be remedied shortly"
Lotus - "went well before a spin but wore an extremely ugly, and we hope temporary, tank-like body"

[kayemod]

Originally posted by RAP


Lotus - "went well before a spin but wore an extremely ugly, and we hope temporary, tank-like body"

It's all 'eye of the beholder' stuff of course, but I've never really understood these oft repeated comments about the Lotus 18 being ugly. I like the way the 18 looks, especially in dark blue with a white stripe around the nose, and I always found contemporary Coopers unattractively bulbous, in fact I'm probably in a small minority here, but to my mind the T53 'low-line' was just about the only reasonably attractive car that Cooper ever produced, while there were very few 'back end of a bus' Loti. Does anyone else find the Lotus 18 a bit of a looker?

[Peter Leversedge]

kayemod
I aways liked the look of the Lotus 18 so you are not alone

[Derek Pitt]

Lotus 18 looks?...

I always thought the 18 was a nice looking car..functional but attractive and far nicer than say the contemporary BRM and many that followed, however, I disagree with kayemod's comments regarding Cooper looks.

The T51 was a handsome car and holds a special place in Australian motor racing, cos it brought current GP cars to the country in quite large numbers.

The T53 lowline and T55 "pencil-line" I think were superb looking racing cars - prolly among the contenders for the best-looking GP cars ever. The Coopers that followed right up to and including the Cooper Maserati of 1966 were all handsome cars in my opinion.

Lotus prolly reached its peak looks-wise with the 33/39 and therafter started to decline, but in fairness, I
guess it could be said that GP cars generally lost their lovely clean lines as the 1960/s progressed.

A you say though......beauty it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Derek

[Ray Bell]

You don't think the '64 Tasman car was a bit ungainly? I do...

The Lotus 18 was the very first openwheeler I drove, so what can I say?

[Derek Pitt]

Yup

I agree Ray, the 64 Tasman Lotus, was it a 33 modified to take the 2.5 FPF?, was ungainly and never looked attractive except from the nose to drivers seat - thereafter it looked a bit of a "bitza."

Having said that, it was very successful in Clark's hands, more so than the lovely 39 that followed and from memory, did win the Tasman Championship.

Surprisingly, unlike the 39, the car never did any good, post-Clark, in local events...was it Cusack and then Roxborough?

Getting a bit OT here..sorry

[Ray Bell]

I should have made it clearer... I was referring to the '64 Tasman Cooper there...

And you're right about the rear of the '32B' as it was always known. A shame it's been taken back to that ugly tail, the rear bodywork Jim Palmer (and his father) put on that car transformed it.

And it's a shame Cusack never came to terms with the car, even when they grafted Brabham suspension onto it.

[Derek Pitt]

It has been said

"There were still a lot of people at the end of 1959 who thought Cooper were lucky to win the championship, and that Ferrari was just having a bad year."

As much as I admire Jack brabham and the T51 Cooper, I think the above sentiment is true -Ferrari did have a bad year as follows:

Although Tony Brooks won easily at Rheims and at Avus however, Ferrari did not run at Aintree due to an "industrial dispute", there was no Belgian Grand prix in 1959, Brooks' clutch burnt out on the line at Monza and Von Trips hit Brooks at the start of the US Grand Prix.

Consider each in turn...

Ferrari had won the pre-season Aintree 200 early in the year and it follows that if Brooks had a Ferrari for the British GP in July he and his Ferrari would have been well-placed at the finish. - loss of points for Ferrari

Brooks had never lost a race at Spa and he is on record as saying he would have "taken on anybody in the Dino 246 on that circuit." - loss of points for Ferrari

Monza- Brooks won there in 1958 and had excelled in 1959 on the fast circuits at Rheims and Avus and it is reasonable to assume he would have won in Italy - Moss in a Cooper notwithstanding - loss of points for Ferrari.

At Sebring, Brooks was rammed at the start by teamate Von Trips and he stopped for a safety inspection, after which, he roared through the field to finish 3rd - loss of points for Ferrari

So yes... Cooper and JB were lucky in 1959

Hey... this has nothing to do with Lotus 18's..but the point was raised.

Derek

[Peter Leversedge]

I am I guess a bit like Ray Bell in regards to the look of the Lotus 18 [ FJ with a 1650 CC engine ] as it was the only rear engined open wheel car I raced except two meeting in a early F Vee. All the other open wheel cars I raced were front engined local built specials, a super modified and several sprint cars so racing the 18 [703] was sometime different and special

[David McKinney]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, but as far as racing-cars are concerned, it also has to do with success.
When I first saw the pictures of the 18 (Junior) its boxy looks certainly did not appeal.
But after Ireland's early-season domination of F1 and F2, and the performance of Clark (especially) in FJ, I came to regard it in a more positive light

[roger ellis]

Originally posted by kayemod


It's all 'eye of the beholder' stuff of course, but I've never really understood these oft repeated comments about the Lotus 18 being ugly. I like the way the 18 looks, especially in dark blue with a white stripe around the nose, and I always found contemporary Coopers unattractively bulbous, in fact I'm probably in a small minority here, but to my mind the T53 'low-line' was just about the only reasonably attractive car that Cooper ever produced, while there were very few 'back end of a bus' Loti. Does anyone else find the Lotus 18 a bit of a looker?

Yes.


http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t18

[Tigaracing]

Hey,
do you maybe know of a Lotus 18, probably raced in Europe, with a chopped up body? Its original paint is a bright orange and it has the starting number 400. Any informations would be helpfull.

Regards
Tigaracing

[275 GTB-4]

Great advert for the Geoghegan 18 from 1961 (not to mention all the other great info!)

Edited by 275 GTB-4, 09 September 2011 - 21:48.

[RonPohl]

The eBay thread shows a nice lotus 18 for sale. The price seems very reasonable, at least compared to what they were going for a few years ago. The lotus 18 has a special place in my heart, it was the first car I drove.....Jim Russell school at Willow Springs, 1967. $50 dollars for two ten lap sessions......those were the days.

[Barry Boor]

I'm looking for a Lotus 18 dimension, namely the width of the car (just the chassis/body, not the track measurement).

Having trolled through the www, the only measurement I could find was 1434 mm which, when I was at school, translated to something over 4 feet. This seems somewhat wide.....

Can anyone tell me the correct number, please?

[hatrat]

I have looked up the Autosport report of Boxing Day. The Lotus 18 started from the back of the grid (G12), worked its way upto 7th then spun. The comments on the marques are interesting and may have influenced prospective purchasers -
Lola - "very smart, proved that the boys will have to watch out or the marque will be cleaning up before long ...demonstrated superiority over everything except one more powerfull Elva "
Cooper - "were impressively turned out and except for one retirement, were reliable, yet seemed deficient in top speed. No doubt this will be remedied shortly"
Lotus - "went well before a spin but wore an extremely ugly, and we hope temporary, tank-like body"

 

There is a bit of a "twist" as to the Lotus 18's lack of performance at the Brands Hatch 1959 Boxing Day meeting.

 

The Lotus was entered with a relatively standard version of the Ford 105E engine while the only Cosworth version of the engine was (at least initially) in the Gemini Mk 2 of The Chequered Flag boss Graham Warner. During practice the Warner Gemini crashed when the flywheel became loose causing the car to leave the track. The damage was sufficient to scratch the Gemini from the race so a rushed engine swap was made on a trailer in the paddock between practice and the race. This swap entailed the Cosworth Ford 105E being taken out of the crashed Gemini and put in the Lotus 18.

 

Unfortunately the mounting and sump arrangement in the Gemini caused ground clearance issues in the Lotus 18 and during the race this inhibited the Lotus' performance and apparently contributed to its spin.

 

This Brands 1959 Boxing Day Formula Junior race had a number of firsts :

 

• the first race for a rear engined Lotus
• the first race for a Cosworth Ford engine
• the first race for a Lola single seater
• the first single seater race for Jim Clark (in a Gemini Mk 2 BMC)