56 replies to this topic

[Vasco]

Colin Chapman is for sure the designer of all history of motorsport. His ingenuousity was undeniable.

But it seems to me that everytime he build a winning car (I mean world championship winning car), it happened thanks to a revoultion that eventually would be copied (and often improved) by the rest of the teams: monocoque chassis, Ford Cosworth engine, wings, sharp shaped car, ground effects.

My question is: has Colin Chapman managed to build a car that was simply better than the rest on the same technical grounds?

[Rainer Nyberg]

You mean he always had the "unfair advantage" ?
That was his real forte...to think of things that had not been explored, or to be more precise : He refined ideas that had been around earlier.

Others designed the cars from Chapmans ideas.
I don´t count him as a designer, he was more of a technical director as they are called today.

But in my opinion, I agree with you that he was over-rated.

He was also a crook, and his untimely death rescued him from prison for his involvement in the DeLorean scandal.

Rainer

[Vasco]

DeLorean scandal:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Sorry for my ignorance but I've heard about that.
Can you tell me more?

[Rainer Nyberg]

I don´t know the story in detail, but maybe others can fill in between the lines.
DeLorean was the stainless-steel clad sportscar. (Famous from the "Back to the Future" movies).
It was the brain-child of John Z DeLorean, an american renegade automobile man (the man behind the Pontiac GTO).
The backbone chassis and the suspension of the car was the design of Lotus.
The car itself was from the Giugiaro Design Studio.

However the he was involved in a massive fraud which also involved drug-trafficking in which also Chapman was part of.
His state supported car factory in Belfast went bankrupt and money disappeared.

I believe the FBI or DEA set up a trap that DeLorean went into but they had to release him on a technicality.

Maybe someone can fill in the details?

I know I have the story in some old magazine from the time.
And I can try to find it, if there isn´t anyone who can fill in.


Rainer

[Wolf]

Vasco, I think the scandal involved building of factory in Ulster to produce his engineered DeLorean car, for which purpose they obtained goverment (Brit and USA) funding, IIRC. The thing is that $16mil dissapeared, and some of those are supposed to end up in Colin's hands- but don't take my word on it. I'll check it out, I have seen a article recently which run borderline esoteric speculations regerding his death on net recently. I'll be back... soon.

Chapman 'Mystery'
That was quick.;)[p][Edited by Wolf on 01-25-2001]

[Bernd]

Then you have the conspiracy theory nutters who think that Chapman faked his death moved to South America (don't they always) and designed a Mid-Engined Coupe called the 'Phoenix'

[David M. Kane]

DeLorean was obviously desperate for quick cash so he got
sucked into a cocaine deal by the DEA. He needed like $20M
to pay the British Government on the loan for the Irish plant. A jury in LA ruled that he had been entrapped.

[Roger Clark]

A few month ago there was a threadon this forum entitled "Worst World Champions". There was animmediate move to close the thread on the grounds that it was not a worthy subject of debate here. I find it astonishing that such a move could be made over what was an informative and interesting discussion, but that some of te statemnts ade above should be allowed to go unchallenged.

We all knowthat Chapman's business ethics were far from pure and that tere was severe wrong doing over the delorean affair. Lotus' finance director went to prison as a result. We must remember , however, that Chapman was not charged with any offence. I knnow that he would probably charged if he had lived, but he would then have had the opportunity to defend himself. I believe we should recognise the probability that he broke the law but accept that alllegations were not proved in court. specifically, I don't think there was any serioous allegation that Chapman was involved in drug trafficking.

Having got that off my chest I'll address the original question. Of course Chapman didn't physically design all th Lotus cars, but neither did Porsche, Jano or Lampredi. Lotus cars were the technical pacesetters in Grand Prix racing and the credit for that must go with one man, who was also the Chairman of a fast growing car cmpany. The was a consistency, a theme if you like to Lotus development throughout that period that came form the genius of one man. i don't use the word genius lightly.

If the question is "did Lotus produce a conventional car that was superior to the opposition?" I could point to the 25/33 in 1964 and 65 or to the 72 from 1972 onwards. But really asking the question is a little like looking at the Cisteen Chapel and asking whether Michaelangelo ever proved himself hanging wodchip wallpaer.

[Barry Boor]

Surely the point is, the best car on the grid IS the best car on the grid. Whether it uses new ideas, technology, engines or whatever; as long as it's legally within the regs it IS the best car.

I have no respect for Chunky as a person outside racing, but you cannot dismiss him by saying "Oh yes, the Lotus was only the best car because it had a monocoque chassis."

The fact that it had a monocoque chassis was down to Chapman (and the rest of his design team - if he had one.) So it is hardly fair to say it happened because of a revolution. Maybe it did, but HE started the revolution, and that's the point!

[jmcgavin]

i'd say the Lotus 72 was still the best car in the field in 72/73, and by that point most of the other teams had caught up with any initial advance it made in 70. Arguably Fittipaldi would have won the 73 championship if their had been clearer team orders, hence his move to McLaren for 74

[Gary C]

Chapman? Blimey! What about the 25, 49, 72 AND the 79???
Surely that's enough???

[Ray Bell]

A lot depends on your paramaters... the 25 and 33 were beatable, if you had Dan and a Brabham or G. Hill in a BRM. The 72 was better than any of the other Cossie powered cars at that time, there's no doubt, and I exclude the 49 because of its frailties in its initial form.

The 79 was not beatable, however, so I think it fills the bill..

[Barry Boor]

Although I will argue Dan Gurney's corner til the cows come home, I think that to say he and the Brabham were quicker than Jimmy and the 25/33 is missing one tiny point.

Dan only outdrove Jim Clark twice in a straight fight. At Spa in 1964, where I believe he would have beaten ANYBODY (as per Graham Hill at Monaco in 1965) and at a Race of Champions at Brands Hatch (64? - 65?)

I know that Jim always said Dan was the man he feared most, but the fact is that if the Lotus was running and trouble free, Clark would probably have won virtually EVERY Grand Prix from 1962 to 1965.

As for dear old Graham, like many others, he was living on what was left over when the Lotus retired.

Here's a question for statisticians, how often did Graham Hill win a Grand Prix where Jim Clark finished, and had no car problems?

[Ray Bell]

Germany in 1962 was one of them.... a classic win in a classic car on a classic circuit and in very classic rain. Sure, Jim forgot to turn on the fuel pumps, but he still gave up, leaving the chase to Dan and FJ.

[ShaunUK]

Colin Chapman (regardless of his dubious business frailties) and Lotus were responsible for some of the most beautiful and inspirational cars ever built, whether they’re F1, F2, sports cars, Indy or road cars. You only have to look at the list of former drivers to realise that. It looks like a ‘who’s who’ of motor racing. He was also very much a designer, not just a team owner, although the 49 was primarily designed by Maurice Phillippe. I’m at a loss to understand how anyone could possibly exclude the 49 from any list of exceptional racing cars. It may have been initially frail but surely its record makes up for that. It won on its debut in ’67, with Clark, and won its last race in ’70 with Rindt. In deed the R1 chassis, raced by Hill at Zandvort in 67, was still being used in ’69 by Rindt as a rebuilt R9. How frail is that? It was also responsible for the Ford DFV (btw Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth were also former Lotus employees) which is probably the only engine know by every racing fan, regardless of age. I have also read that when Walter Hayes suggested to Chapman that if Lotus had the exclusive use of the Ford DFV such was its potential it could kill GP racing, Chapman immediately agreed that it should be made available to anyone who wanted one. How’s that for confidence in your chassis and drivers? I couldn’t imagine Ron or Frank being up for that today.

[Rainer Nyberg]

Here is John Miles view on the 72 :
The 72 started out with three basic design faults: excessive anti-dive, which led to instantaneous brake locking; equally excessive anti-squat, which resulted in very poor traction due to rear suspension 'jacking effects'; and Paxolin spacers, which were supposed to keep the heat generated by the inboard brakes from frying the inner CV joints. Once the 'antis' were removed and another material had been found to replace the melting Paxolin, the car really started to work - because so much else about it was right.

But boy, was it fragile. We seemed to be forever stitching things back together or making stronger bits. On top of that I was frustrated because I couldn't seem to keep an engine together (it later transpired that there was a fault in the oil system). And two weeks before Monza, at the Österreichring, a brake shaft had broken on my car, nearly sending me into the trees to meet my maker. A horrendous vibration from the front end early in the race had made me back off a bit for the corners. Without warning, when I braked, the car shot across the road to the right. I scraped round the corner - guardian angel in attendance. This was getting to me. Nearly every time I got into 72/1, the engine blew up or something fell off.

[Don Capps]

Two items:

One.

...but the fact is that if the Lotus was running and trouble free, Clark would probably have won virtually EVERY Grand Prix from 1962 to 1965.

Scary, but with many grains of truth. Clark went into the final round every year mentioned as either the Champion or the Challenger and only lost when sidelined by mechanical problems.

Two. The 72 was still an excellent machine even in 1974 and 1975, but basically handicapped by using tires that did not allow the best aspects of the car to emphasized, unlike the situation earlier when Firestone developed tires around the 72. The 72 and the M23 are still very remarkable machines even today. Like the 250F, they were good soldiers and marched on long past what anyone imagined.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Barry Boor


Here's a question for statisticians, how often did Graham Hill win a Grand Prix where Jim Clark finished, and had no car problems?

It's also worth noting how many times, in the years 62-65, Jim Clark finished in the points but failed to win. I thiink it's not more than 5 or 6.

[Ray Bell]

For all its race winningness, the 49 was not really so dramatically advanced. The only thing generally thought to be innovative was the stressed engine, but as we've discussed previously, this wasn't really all that new anyway (wasn't it used on the H16 model?).

One thing it had was the brake discs on the front running on the inner side of the uprights, getting them out into the airstream. This, I seem to recall, caused a problem with over-cooling when they first used vented discs, and they swapped between vented and solid discs depending on the circuit, IIRC.

The frailties were in the area of the rear suspension mounts, which were tubular frames bolted to the bellhousing/gearbox. These were redesigned a number of times, I think, but kept on breaking for much of the first 15 months or so of the car's life.

The ZF gearbox also protested at the cornering stresses being fed through its housing at Le Mans and was ultimately replaced.

Of course, no car had more wing collapses than the 49 during late 68 and early 69, and let's not forget that it was the collapsing wings of the 49 that led to their banning, virtually overnight.

All that apart, it was a great sight at Warwick Farm in 1969, Jochen winning in the rain, Graham storming through after a pit stop.

That it kept winning well into 1970 makes it another of the relatively long-lived cars.

[Milan Fistonic]

It's also worth noting how many times, in the years 62-65, Jim Clark finished in the points but failed to win. I thiink it's not more than 5 or 6.

It was four times, or five if you count him being classified 4th at the 1964 Monaco GP after he had retired. He also led 6 of the 9 races in 1962, 9 of the 10 in 1963 and 8 of the 10 in 1964 and 1965.

[Roger Clark]

And those four were:

1962 Germany (left at the start)
1963 Germany (7 cylinders for much of the race)
1963 USA (left at the start, rocovered to finish 3rd)
1964 Mexico (retired, seized engine two laps from the lead while leading)

[Barry Boor]

May I, therefore, consider that my earlier statement is proven, M'lud?

[Ray Bell]

I think, Barry, you reckon without the Clark factor... Maybe the 25/33 would not have been so superior without this driver at the helm?
Nevertheless, we can't dispute its successes.

[Barry Boor]

Believe me, Ray, I'm not forgetting the Clark factor. ALL of Chapman's early 60's success was due to the Clark factor. Looking at the results and performances of Jim's #2's over the 62-65 period, we might not consider the monocoque chassis as anything special at all.

Hang on, have I just argued my way out of agreement with my own my point?

[david_martin]

Wasn't Ron Tauranac famously quoted as saying that the fastest thing about the revolutionary Lotus monocoque was Jim Clark ?

[Ray Bell]

Not really, Barry, for the number two was getting number two service and support as the efforts went into making sure Clark had the best.

[ShaunUK]

I don't get the argument that no other car suffered more wing failures that the 49 during late 1968. How many other cars were running wings then? You'll have to forgive me my years as I was no alive to witness the 49 racing, but wasn't it the first car to race with a wings at Monaco in 68? I did read an old 67 Motosport article about the 49 by Denis Jenkison that said "Many other designers will no doubt endeavour to copy it."

It's all a bit of a shame for me as I always considered the 49 to be a wonderfully exceptional car that took Grand Prix racing to a new level. After reading your recent posts I know now that it was a fragile car of very little distinction (with exception of the engine, which apparently was far from innovative) that had a poor gearbox, frail suspension and problem brakes and was lucky to win races at all. Not only that but the 72 (another car I foolishly fell in love with) was even worse with terrible traction and hideous brakes. In fact it now appears that Lotus were probably the luckiest team ever.

Please tell me I haven’t stumbled onto a board full of aged cynics.

[Ray Bell]

The issues were resolved in time, Shaun. The engine certainly had merit, it went on winning GPs for another twelve or more years, the gearbox was just a proprietary part that could be changed, the suspension mounts were stiffened up enough by the middle of the second year.
Then they got into the wings. And, being Lotus, they went bigger and higher and, as with Chaparral, they mounted them to the suspension rather than the chassis. Where more vibrations could get to them. The brakes were far from a problem, they were just cooling better than expected...

Being on the 'cutting edge' they had to pay the price of unknown quantities, they had to be developed. Once they were, they were very good.

And there are very few aged cynics around here. Don is a cynic, but he's not aged at all. Hans is aged (forgive me, Hans!) but he's no cynic.

[Roger Clark]

I can understand Shaun's confusion. THe 49 and the 72s both sufferred reliability problems at first but they were quickly sorted. THe 49 won its first race, and the 72 was the class of the field once they had redesigned the suspension. As DSJ said on many occassions "doubtful designs don't win races",

As regards wings, everybody was using them by the end of 1968 and most had failures at one time or another. As an examples, both Brabhams suffered failures in South Africa in 1969 and Tauranac was one of the most careful strucural engineers around.

We should also question the myth of Lotus number 2s having a raw deal. The belief rests almost solely on Trevor Taylor's experiences in 1963 when he had lost confidence following a series of accidents which were not his fault nor his cars'. If you look at Taylor's record in 62, Arrundel's in 64 until his accident and Spence's in 65 I think they were comparable with any other number 2, except perhaps Jack Brabham. It's just that they were overshadowed by Jim Clark, but so, I believe, would eveybody else have been.

[Barry Boor]

Hear hear, Roger! I think you've got it spot on.

[Barry Boor]

This begs the question, had Jim Clark taken up the Aston Martin offer in 1960 or whenever, and not got tied up with Chapman at all, would the 25 have been built? And if it had been, presumably Innes would have driven it and being not much quicker, IMHO, than Taylor, Arundel or Spence, would the rest of the designers have looked at it, thought twice, and then carried on designing space-frame chassis?

THEN where would we be now?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Ray Bell (Regarding the Lotus 49)
The engine certainly had merit..

A previously unnoticed Australian talent for undestatemnt?

[Ray Bell]

Yes, I like understatemnts. But please don't ignore what I said in continuing... about it winning for some time to come!

[mono-posto]

If I may jump into the conversation, and preface the following comments with a 'I'm too young to really know' disclaimer, I would like to address the issue of Colin Chapman's 'Undeniable ingenuity'.

First in regards to the engine as a stressed member. If recollection serves me correct (from what I've read), Ferrari had used this concept some 3-4 years before Lotus, but had abandoned the design, only to have Chapman adopt it later. Some have also pointed out that the front engined Maserati also utilized the engine as a stressed member to some degree, so can be dated back to the late 40's.

Second of all, using aerodyanmic wings to generate downforce was also a Ferrari first, and though note often recognised for thier aerodynamic developments, Ferrari really explored this issue in detail, even being the first to use a spoiler on the back of a sports car to stabalize the rear end.

Also, the monocougue. Although to the best of my knowledge, Chapman was the first to utilize this concept in racing cars, it's not like he invented it. Some road cars from the fifties were built with monocougue chassis and I have no idea when the first plane utilized this concept, but I am sure it was long before Chapmans time.

I must concur with the first post. Though there is no doubt that the Lotus of the error was indeed fast and incredibly good looking, I have my doubts about the 'ingenuity' of the man behind them. Rather, he was a great observer at what had been done in other arenas of transportation and applied them to Grand Prix cars.

[Ray Bell]

I will agree with the view that Chapman was an innovator, but accept that many innovations are not totally new. The 49 brought together, almost for the first time, the monocoque chassis with the engine carrying all the chassis stresses between the back of the cockpit and the rear suspension.
The Lancia D50 had these things beforehand, but not so successfully, while the monocoque chassis was used as far back, I believe, as about 1938 by Alec Issigonis in a hillclimb car... I think it was a hillclimb car, anyway, and the mono was plywood, I think.
The brakes inboard of the uprights was an innovation, something the then-current Brabhams couldn't do with their Triumph Herald uprights, but it was a small thing.
Frank Matich reckons the wheels themselves were an innovation, with a very small centre boss. He said it was brave of Chapman to do that...

His Lotus 78 sidepods had factors (radiator ducting, I think) borrowed from the Mosquito bomber of the mid-forties, but that was nothing compared with what he tried to do with the Lotus 80, which was purely a poke at the regulations, IMNSHO.

Champman always pushed the envelope further than others.

[Roger Clark]

THe front brakes inboard of the uprights was a Cooper innovation and applied to all their post 1966 cars. THe Lotus 49 had the brakes mounted in the conventional position relative to the upright was shaped to allow the disc into the airsteam

[Wolf]

Roger, didn't W196 have all inboard brakes (ditto 300SLR)? That was something I learned around here...

[Ray Bell]

The M-B W196 and the 300SLR did have inboard brakes on the front and rear, but they were really inboard, mounted in the chassis and attached to the wheels with driveshafts.

This is just an issue of getting the discs in the airstream, where I've relied on my memory too heavily, it seems.

[Roger Clark]

As, of course, did the Lotus 72

[ShaunUK]

So the outcome of this thread was that Chapman was:
An overrated crook that lacked ingenuity and was not a designer. He was also responsible for exploiting other people’s ideas and producing frail cars that only won races because of the drivers ability.

Well I’m glad we got that straight. Who’s next on the list, Enzo Ferrari?

Mike Lawrence recently wrote that, "Chapman was a genius, perhaps the greatest figure in motor racing history. He was taken from us, aged only 54, and nobody wanted to believe that he had simply died. He had his faults, but he was never less than exciting. He could not have an ordinary death like the rest of us, he had to have prime ministers and presidents involved. We don't want to believe that our heroes are mortal."

Who am I to disagree with a man who refers to Sir Stirling Moss as God!

Something to bear in mind:
Nostalgia - A wistful reminiscence or longing.

Shaun

[Barry Boor]

O.K. Shaun, point taken.

[SteveB2]

I may be wrong but I took the meaning of this post to be a question of Chapman's car preparation (or possibly also a question of his willingness to get down to details in applying an innovation). He tended to win when he had just introduced something innovative (the monocoque, the ground effects 79,etc.). But after everyone else had applied these technologies, they tended to apply them in a more complete way than Lotus.

[RJL]

Well, that is the way of a genius isn't it? He invents the slingshot; and while all the lemmings are busy copying/ perfecting that, he's moved on to the catapult. I think Chapman was very forward thinking and therefore was easily bored with that which already existed.

RJL

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by SteveB2
I may be wrong but I took the meaning of this post to be a question of Chapman's car preparation (or possibly also a question of his willingness to get down to details in applying an innovation). He tended to win when he had just introduced something innovative (the monocoque, the ground effects 79,etc.). But after everyone else had applied these technologies, they tended to apply them in a more complete way than Lotus.

this is true of the 79 but not for the 25/33, the 49 and the 72. In fact the reverse is true. All had long development lives and were still winning racesin their third season and beyond.

[Vasco]

I may be wrong but I took the meaning of this post to be a question of Chapman's car preparation (or possibly also a question of his willingness to get down to details in applying an innovation). He tended to win when he had just introduced something innovative (the monocoque, the ground effects 79,etc.). But after everyone else had applied these technologies, they tended to apply them in a more complete way than Lotus.

That's exactly what I meant when I posted this thread.
No matter what has been said here about him, I consider C. Chapman a genius. He was always one step ahead of all the other designers.
Even if he hasn't invented all the technical revolutions he is credited for, at least he had the courage to dive in the unknown and believe he could take some advantage of his technical bets.
Don't you think it was much easier to sit back, see what the rest is doing and simply pick the innovations that are worth to be copied?
Except for the rear engine, at the dawn of his career, all the basic principles that slowly changed F1 form the rudimentary "4 wheeled cigars" of the 50's to nowadays superfast machines were introduced by Chapman.

Now my point was to know from the members who were lucky enough to witness those golden years of the 60's/70's if has ever been able to produce a good conventional car.
Many of you have answered that question for which I thank you.

Implicitely, I think I wanted to speculate whether he would be able to make Lotus thrive in modern technological status quo if hadn't died (or disappeared or whatever)...or maybe he would have found a way to go round the severe technical regulations a find a way to make his Lotus fly

[Ray Bell]

Sure, I would say that essentially the 49 was a conventional car. Nothing about the car was radically different from at least one other car running at that time, and it developed (as mentioned) to be competitive for three or more years, without much in the way of innovation or modification. Biggest change, I think, was the gearbox, almost merely a change of brand, and the wings came and went.

[Hissing Sid]

I found this quote which I think sums Colin Chapman up to a tee:

"If Colin had a failing it was that he always looked for the next thing no-one had rather than develop what he had."

Peter Warr former Lotus team manager

This is why the advantages from his innovations were so short lived. However, there is no doubting the contribution he had on the evolution of the F1 car.

[sterling49]

Originally posted by Gary C
Chapman? Blimey! What about the 25, 49, 72 AND the 79???
Surely that's enough???

Interesting one this..........so glad tha RC made a worthy statement

I wonder....being best, just what does that mean? Maybe, being Number 1, like World Champion Constructor and Driver's Titles...surely Team Lotus qualified......just I grant you


In a myriad of cars, all beautiful

[rl1856]

Well Chapman's first acknowledged F-1 design was the 1956 Vanwall.

It won on its debut and was fully competative for 3 full GP seasons. There were reliabiliity issues in '56, but when it was running correctly it proved to be the fastet car in the on track. By the end of 1957 it was unbeatable and in 1958 won the majority of GP Races contended. The basic Chapman designed chassis had not changed very much from 1956.

The Lotus 18 proved to be the class of the field upon it's debut in early 1960. In the hand of Moss, it was faster than the Brabham/Cooper. Who knows what would have happended in 1960 had Moss not crashed, effectively ruining his season.

We all know about the 25/33. It's legacy is not just the victories, but how many imitations it spawned. By late 1963, every major competitor, save Brabham either had or was working on a Monocoque.

The 49 was fully competative from its first race in 67, until the middle of the 1970 season. By 1968 it had many competitors with the same engine, but it won the championship that year.... Rindt pressed Stewart very hard indeed in 1969, and were it not for the points scored by Rindt while driveing a 49 in 1970, the Driver's Champion that year would have been someone else.

The 72 was basicly a clean sheet of paper, became dominent and it spawned many imitators. Yet is was fully competative for 5 full seasons.

The 78 and 79 were again trend setters that set the ground effects agenda for F-1 for many years to come.

I have often felt that at times Chapman was innovative or had the unique abilty to improve someone elses design. But no mater what the origin, he ended up as the designer most others imitated.

Chapman had assistance: Maurice Phillipe, Len Terry, Tony Rudd to name a few; but the basic concepts were Chapman's.

Best,

Ross

[mikeC]

I've only just found this thread, but here's my ha'porth, for what it's worth: Something that no-one seems to have mentioned is how many times Chapman's ideas got stamped on by the authorities before anyone else could have a go!
I'm thinking not just of formula one ideas like the twin chassis, but right back to the beginning, when he devised a way of de-siamesing the Austin Seven 6-port block on Lotus One - simple, easy and effective, anyone else could have done it too, but the 750MC dicided to ban it....
ACBC was just so clever at finding new ways to interpret the regs to gain an advantage.