137 replies to this topic

[CSquared]

Regazzoni, on Feb 22 2012, 09:18, said:

Actually, it is that simple.

If you have a ten of fifteen years career in F1 and all you can claim is a lucky shot at glory as in 1981 for Watson, or 1974 for Regazzoni, or 2010 for Webber, you've got to accept that you've fallen short and probably weren't worth the title.

Yes, in a below average year you probably collected more points than Lauda, but when it mattered, when the car was right, Lauda was winning the titles and Watson was watching Lauda doing it.

You work to put yourself in a position where you have more than one shot at glory, most years, such that the imponderables that so much exist in motorsport, as you say, even out. You exactly make your own luck. The harder and smarter you work, the luckier you get. Again, ask Lauda, among others.

Even Hunt, that got one probably lucky year to exploit, was in constant growth in the previous years, as it has already been noted in this thread, and grabbed his chance when it mattered.

If in a ten years career all you can gather are four or five (very honourable) semifinals at Wimbledon, then I am afraid luck has got nothing to do with it.

You said it yourself: he grabbed his chance. Hunt was extremely lucky to win that title. It was not his work, talent, or speed that caused Lauda to miss three races (I'm counting Germany), be injured for four more, and to pull out of one voluntarily.

As for Lauda's speed, I find these numbers interesting:
Pre-accident poles: 21
Post-accident poles: 3
Pre-accident fastest laps: 9
Post-accident fastest laps: 15

[longhorn]

seccotine, on Feb 22 2012, 20:14, said:

It also has to be said that, as a man, Hunt was very intelligent. He was smart, intense, in need of excitation, and that when he found what he needed to feel upbeat, he was great. As soon as frustration and boredom came, he was out.
But definitely a great driver, in a category of his own.

What Hunt had was the ability to focus on short term goals. So with Hesketh, the ideal outwardly laid back environment to attack & occasionally beat the F1 establishment. Then with McLaren, the opportunity to try to win the championship, made somewhat easier by Lauda's accident.

I don't think he was overly intelligent or smart, just a focussed & fast driver in the right car managed by the right team at the right time. Was he lucky to be champion? Possibly, but he did grab the opportunity with both hands & made the most of it.

[David M. Kane]

longhorn, on Feb 22 2012, 15:40, said:

What Hunt had was the ability to focus on short term goals. So with Hesketh, the ideal outwardly laid back environment to attack & occasionally beat the F1 establishment. Then with McLaren, the opportunity to try to win the championship, made somewhat easier by Lauda's accident.

I don't think he was overly intelligent or smart, just a focussed & fast driver in the right car managed by the right team at the right time. Was he lucky to be champion? Possibly, but he did grab the opportunity with both hands & made the most of it.

Yes he did. You only need to win one to be called World Champion for the rest of your life.

[john aston]

Hunt was quick and a great racer - if volatile. Lauda was extremely smart, seriously fast when he needed to be and not when he didn't.His gearchanging was the best I have witnessed and he was the bravest driver I have ever seen- proud to have seen him win his last GP at Zandvoort

[simonlewisbooks]

Regazzoni, on Feb 22 2012, 17:18, said:

Actually, it is that simple.

If you have a ten of fifteen years career in F1 and all you can claim is a lucky shot at glory as in 1981 for Watson, or 1974 for Regazzoni, or 2010 for Webber, you've got to accept that you've fallen short and probably weren't worth the title.

Yes, in a below average year you probably collected more points than Lauda, but when it mattered, when the car was right, Lauda was winning the titles and Watson was watching Lauda doing it.

You work to put yourself in a position where you have more than one shot at glory, most years, such that the imponderables that so much exist in motorsport, as you say, even out. You exactly make your own luck. The harder and smarter you work, the luckier you get. Again, ask Lauda, among others.

Even Hunt, that got one probably lucky year to exploit, was in constant growth in the previous years, as it has already been noted in this thread, and grabbed his chance when it mattered.

If in a ten years career all you can gather are four or five (very honourable) semifinals at Wimbledon, then I am afraid luck has got nothing to do with it.

I basically get what you mean, but maintain that motor racing is too complex a sport with too many outside factors to campare with stick and ball games. It's apples and oranges.

It was 1982 with Wattie , just to be pedantic, and if the engine of his McLaren hadn't conked out in the final stages of the German GP he'd have bagged the points to have beaten Rosberg . So in 82 Rosberg had that title winning luck (never to return again) and Wattie didn't. In 83 Rosberg was truly outstanding but the days of Cosworth power were over.

Fast forward to 86 and Mansell's tyre failure in Oz: If that hadn't happened AND Williams had left Piquet out rather than call him in for a precautionary tyre change, Mansell would have been champion. Prost was pretty much out of the hunt and really did nothing at all to actually 'win' the title at that last race, it fell in his lap.

The following year AUTOSPORT were minded to say "at this rate the World Championship will win Nelson Piquet", one of the great motor racing quotes of all time, because Nelson, great driver that he was, had generally not been that proactive in his title hunt.

You can put yourself in the position to win but in motor racing it all has to come right for that to happen, and so much is completely out of the driver's control.
So, simple? No. Never simple. But this is an interesting discussion and it brings back many memories of the jubilation, and despair, of those title-deciders of yore!

[E1pix]

john aston, on Feb 23 2012, 00:13, said:

Hunt was quick and a great racer - if volatile. Lauda was extremely smart, seriously fast when he needed to be and not when he didn't.His gearchanging was the best I have witnessed and he was the bravest driver I have ever seen- proud to have seen him win his last GP at Zandvoort

Agree on both counts... I'll never forget the first time I saw Lauda, bandaged still at the '76 USGP. I noticed his gear-changing as well, everything he did was identical within inches every single lap. So perfect as to look easy and almost mundane. It was my first GP, I was stunned and turned to my friends and said, "Guys, Lauda is a machine."

Prost was the only other driver I've seen since that compared in un-human style.

[jj2728]

simonlewisbooks, on Feb 23 2012, 05:18, said:

I basically get what you mean, but maintain that motor racing is too complex a sport with too many outside factors to campare with stick and ball games. It's apples and oranges.

It was 1982 with Wattie , just to be pedantic, and if the engine of his McLaren hadn't conked out in the final stages of the German GP he'd have bagged the points to have beaten Rosberg . So in 82 Rosberg had that title winning luck (never to return again) and Wattie didn't.

I'd also add that had Ferrari not lost their 2 star drivers, Keke probably would have finished no better than 3rd in the final standings that year.

[simonlewisbooks]

jj2728, on Feb 23 2012, 13:42, said:

I'd also add that had Ferrari not lost their 2 star drivers, Keke probably would have finished no better than 3rd in the final standings that year.

Putting my head over the parapet here - some might argue both were lost due to driver-error, rather than plain bad luck, such as a component failure....ducking back down to avoid in-coming....

But I agree that had both survived to the end of 82 intact, Ferrari were a shoe-in for a 1-2 in the title race.

[Michael Ferner]

simonlewisbooks, on Feb 23 2012, 11:18, said:

Fast forward to 86 and Mansell's tyre failure in Oz: If that hadn't happened AND Williams had left Piquet out rather than call him in for a precautionary tyre change, Mansell would have been champion. Prost was pretty much out of the hunt and really did nothing at all to actually 'win' the title at that last race, it fell in his lap.

There is a point when mere words fail me...

Some threads should be ignored, some closed. Some should never have been started!

[Allen Brown]

Yes, far too many ifs here. Let's remember that James actually won the World Championship in 1976.

It was a fabulous season and don't forget that at one point, before one or other appeal played out, James seemed an almost impossible number of points behind Niki. It was a season of great drama - I still distinctly remember the events in Spain, in France, at Brands, at the 'Ring of course, at Zandvoort, at Monza, at Watkins Glen and in Japan. There is no other season where I can remember so many twists and turns. It was a battle and one man won - and he deserved it!

[PCC]

Michael Ferner, on Feb 23 2012, 22:12, said:

There is a point when mere words fail me...

Some threads should be ignored, some closed. Some should never have been started!

Some of the speculation here has become rather gatuitous, but this thread has also provided some really interesting insights into Hunt from people who knew him.

If words fail you, you can always remain silent...

[David M. Kane]

PCC, on Feb 23 2012, 11:02, said:

Some of the speculation here has become rather gatuitous, but this thread has also provided some really interesting insights into Hunt from people who knew him.

If words fail you, you can always remain silent...

Silence is too deafening...

[rallen]

Michael Ferner, on Feb 23 2012, 17:12, said:

There is a point when mere words fail me...

Some threads should be ignored, some closed. Some should never have been started!

Do you think my thread was not valid or I was not entitled to gain more knowledge that I had not been able to gain on other threads?

I am still interested in learning more - James Hunt is amazing but it was before my time and you only ever get to hear stories of his private life or antics and not actually his driving. I think as a sport we should be interested in the style and 'how' he managed to fight and beat (even before Lauda's crash) a driver regarded by many as one of the best ever in a much much better and newer car. He doesn't seem to get much respect or acknowledgement over this. People are more interested in his commentary, his declining ambition as a driver and poor Patreses

[CSquared]

rallen, on Feb 24 2012, 11:09, said:

Do you think my thread was not valid or I was not entitled to gain more knowledge that I had not been able to gain on other threads?

I am still interested in learning more - James Hunt is amazing but it was before my time and you only ever get to hear stories of his private life or antics and not actually his driving. I think as a sport we should be interested in the style and 'how' he managed to fight and beat (even before Lauda's crash) a driver regarded by many as one of the best ever in a much much better and newer car. He doesn't seem to get much respect or acknowledgement over this. People are more interested in his commentary, his declining ambition as a driver and poor Patreses

He managed to fight and beat Lauda before Lauda's crash? Before the crash Hunt had 26 points and 2 wins to Lauda's 61 points and 5 wins.

[rallen]

CSquared, on Feb 24 2012, 19:36, said:

He managed to fight and beat Lauda before Lauda's crash? Before the crash Hunt had 26 points and 2 wins to Lauda's 61 points and 5 wins.

Are you counting in that the British GP that Hunt won beating Lauda and then was disqualified from? - so that would have be 3-4 not bad in a 3 year old car.... Also Hunt seemed to get more poles that I realised?

I am not saying Hunt was better than Niki at all or indeed that he deserved the WDC more than Niki, I am just interested in how good he was as a racer and what he was like as a racer - because not being around at the time I am reliant on reading about it and with Hunt he was so colourful people tend to miss out the racing!

[longhorn]

rallen, on Feb 24 2012, 19:09, said:

Do you think my thread was not valid or I was not entitled to gain more knowledge that I had not been able to gain on other threads?

I am still interested in learning more - James Hunt is amazing but it was before my time and you only ever get to hear stories of his private life or antics and not actually his driving. I think as a sport we should be interested in the style and 'how' he managed to fight and beat (even before Lauda's crash) a driver regarded by many as one of the best ever in a much much better and newer car. He doesn't seem to get much respect or acknowledgement over this. People are more interested in his commentary, his declining ambition as a driver and poor Patreses

Well, his regular tirades about Patrese were a disgrace & did him no credit but were probably prompted by his guilt for his part in the incident.

The McLaren M23 was still reasonably competitive in 1976 despite it's age, having been sorted out by Fittipaldi, much as the Lotus 72 had been previously. The Ferrari 312B3/T1's were certainly competitive, but carried more fuel, oil & coolant & were not as easy to drive as the M23. Lauda wasn't one of the best ever but he was clever enough & fast enough to be one of the best of his era.

Hunt, as I've said before, was quick & focussed but not overly intelligent or clever, but he was in the right car with the right team at the right time. He made the most of his opportunity but was often not as good after 1976.

Edited by longhorn, 24 February 2012 - 20:04.

[seccotine]

longhorn, on Feb 24 2012, 20:53, said:

his era.

Hunt, as I've said before, was quick & focussed but not overly intelligent or clever, but he was in the right car with the right team at the right time. He made the most of his opportunity but was often not as good after 1976.

Hunt was definitely an intelligent, or very intelligent, man.
Not the Jackie Stewart style (obsessive, rational, well organized). He was a more intense personality. Never forget he has something of an addict, to say the least... Keep that profile in mind. Very sensitive, very intuitive. To summarize it : the balance between his rationality and his emotions wasn't perfect, but definitely, he was more intelligent than the average driver.
So once again, when he had a goal, he was totally into it and was very able to focus on complex issues : 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977 are good examples.
When he didn't and when contrary emotions re-emerged, he was somewhere else. 1979 might be a good example.

[275 GTB-4]

David M. Kane, on Feb 24 2012, 07:48, said:

Silence is too deafening...

but sometimes, the best response!!

[David M. Kane]

longhorn, on Feb 24 2012, 12:53, said:

Well, his regular tirades about Patrese were a disgrace & did him no credit but were probably prompted by his guilt for his part in the incident.

The McLaren M23 was still reasonably competitive in 1976 despite it's age, having been sorted out by Fittipaldi, much as the Lotus 72 had been previously. The Ferrari 312B3/T1's were certainly competitive, but carried more fuel, oil & coolant & were not as easy to drive as the M23. Lauda wasn't one of the best ever but he was clever enough & fast enough to be one of the best of his era.

Hunt, as I've said before, was quick & focused but not overly intelligent or clever, but he was in the right car with the right team at the right time. He made the most of his opportunity but was often not as good after 1976.

I have to disagree with you on two points. First, Hunt was a very bright and clever sportsman. Lauda was a very bright and clever driver.
So in a way they were evenly matched.

Secondly I saw Lauda drive Ferrari F1 several times live at the Glen and I would say it showed very little disadvantage on the track.

Could you be more specific on these two points longhorn?

[Nigel Beresford]

David M. Kane, on Feb 25 2012, 18:02, said:

I have to disagree with you on two points. First, Hunt was a very bright and clever sportsman. Lauda was a very bright and clever driver.
So in a way they were evenly matched.

Secondly I saw Lauda drive Ferrari F1 several times live at the Glen and I would say it showed very little disadvantage on the track.

Could you be more specific on these two points longhorn?

Yeah, I struggle to understand the comments about Hunt's supposed mediocre intelligence - I'd be interested to hear the reasoning. As you say, Hunt and Lauda were intelligent, articulate, driven rivals and friends. Personally I always found Hunt to be very interesting to listen to, whether in person or via the medium of TV. One doesn't have to agree with everything he said - especially the infamous Patrese vendetta.

Also, development of the M23 was continuous throughout its life, and for 'Longhorn' to characterise it as having been "sorted out by Fittipaldi" before Hunt drove it is to imply that McLaren somehow stopped working on it at the end of '75, which is of course dosh. The '75 spec M23 wasn't good enough to win the championship, so how would it have become competitive in '76 after Emerson had moved on if McLaren were so reliant on him? (and yes, I have plenty of direct personal experience of Emerson's considerable car sorting skills, so I do know how very, very good he was as it. He was peerless when it came to setting up a car for Indianapolis, which I maintain is the hardest setup challenge in motor racing). Teams use input from the driver as part of the process of choosing the best potential development directions, and Hunt surely provided this through '76.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 25 February 2012 - 22:33.

[PeterElleray]

I was hoping you'd happen along on this one sooner rather than later Nigel....

Can you give any insight into how the McLaren team viewed James at the time? We have a few sources that are in print but i'm not so sure we have a balanced, objective , rounded picture?

I'm assuming that as the relationship developed, then matured, and finally came to a parting of the ways you must have been privy to a whole range of observations?

Peter

[Nigel Beresford]

Well, you have to remember that I was a kid at the time, hanging around the factory in the evenings, at weekends and during school holidays. I remember going to a couple of mechanics social occasions attended by James - one was a small party at a house in Datchet and the other was a boat trip on the Thames (imagine today's World Champions doing that...). On those occasions Hunt was the same character and personality in private as you'd have seen in public - articulate, funny, mischievous - your actual life and soul of the party.

As far as I recall, from something of a distance, the team was enervated when Hunt joined at the end of '75, and obviously it all grew to a tremendous crescendo at the end of '76. This momentum carried through '77, but then things just got old and, given Teddy's famous brusqueness with drivers, I guess it all petered out to a mutually convenient parting of the ways. Certainly there was an air of frustration that things weren't working out any more, but the team had lost its way technically and it was the beginning of three seasons of unhappiness. Of course, the guy you'd really want to hear from is Alastair Caldwell. Unfortunately my dad isn't around any more - it's one of the dozens of subjects I wish I'd broached with him.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 25 February 2012 - 23:13.

[PeterElleray]

Nigel Beresford, on Feb 25 2012, 23:11, said:

Well, you have to remember that I was a kid at the time, hanging around the factory in the evenings, at weekends and during school holidays. I remember going to a couple of mechanics social occasions attended by James - one was a small party at a house in Datchet and the other was a boat trip on the Thames (imagine today's World Champions doing that...). On those occasions Hunt was the same character and personality in private as you'd have seen in public - articulate, funny, mischievous - your actual life and soul of the party.

As far as I recall, from something of a distance, the team was enervated when Hunt joined at the end of '75, and obviously it all grew to a tremendous crescendo at the end of '76. This momentum carried through '77, but then things just got old and, given Teddy's famous brusqueness with drivers, I guess it all petered out to a mutually convenient parting of the ways. Certainly there was an air of frustration that things weren't working out any more, but the team had lost its way technically and it was the beginning of three seasons of unhappiness. Of course, the guy you'd really want to hear from is Alastair Caldwell.

Thanks Nigel, Alastair is one of the few people who have gone into some detail in both print and in person on the subject, to the point where he is often quoted and maybe the emphasis gets lost along the way. It seems that most of the retrospective comments derive from either Alastair or from John Hogan, although there is quite a bit of anecdotal stuff from other well known motor racing people in both the Hilton, and Donaldson books, not to mention 'Shunt', which , obvious factual errors aside, i thought contained some intersting material. Ofcourse we can no longer ask Teddy, but it would be great to get Gordon's perspective on that period don't you think?

Peter

[Nigel Beresford]

Yes, that would be really interesting. Our paths cross occasionally, so next time I'll have to hit him up, and give this thread a bump.

It's funny, I spent a great deal of time with speaking with Teddy in subsequent years, over dinners and on the 'phone, but he was never really in to discussing the past. He was all about understanding, discussing and offering advice about what was going on in the present. I did get the impression though that he liked James very much.

One of the interesting things about this thread (though it's by no means unique to this thread) is that it highlights for me the difference in opinions formed by living through the period under discussion (i.e. experiencing the zeitgeist) and those (necessarily) based on reading contemporary or subsequent reports. An example would be the opinions expressed by some herein that Lauda wasn't particularly quick, just clever. To me, from some time in '74 through to the end of '77 he was always very fast - always a very serious contender. An impression built by following the story in real time, weekend by weekend, event by event, rather than from a potted history. Just my observation, that's all.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 25 February 2012 - 23:55.

[PeterElleray]

Nigel,

Couldn't agree more with you on all counts (i think Niki was genuinely quick right through '78 as well). difficult to get across the impact that James' performance at the British GP made in 1973 if you werent there or tuned in to the live coverage- and pleased to hear that T.M had positive thoughts about James. When you speak to Gordon tell him it's me agitating for a response - that should get a reaction!

atb

Peter

[PCC]

I feel very lucky to be part of a forum that includes people like Nigel Beresford and peter Elleray!

[Twin Window]

Nigel Beresford, on Feb 25 2012, 23:41, said:

To me, from some time in '74 through to the end of '77 he was always very fast - always a very serious contender. An impression built by following the story in real time, weekend by weekend, event by event, rather than from a potted history. Just my observation, that's all.

I would cite Monaco, Britain and Canada '73 as being the major signs that NAL was fundamentally quick. His first few laps at Silverstone upon the re-start were utterly brilliant!

[PCC]

Twin Window, on Feb 26 2012, 06:27, said:

I would cite Monaco, Britain and Canada '73 as being the major signs that NAL was fundamentally quick. His first few laps at Silverstone upon the re-start were utterly brilliant!

I agree completely. I was at Mosport, and he was astonishing. Sure the tires helped, but they helped some of the others too. His speed and smoothness in treacherous conditions were a revelation. He was streets ahead of everyone else - and there were some great drivers in that field.

Edited by PCC, 26 February 2012 - 01:53.

[Option1]

PCC, on Feb 25 2012, 19:51, said:

I feel very lucky to be part of a forum that includes people like Nigel Beresford and peter Elleray!

+1

Neil

[john aston]

Old enough to have done the zeitgeist thing too and Lauda went from Niki who ? in the March to 'Christ that guy is seriously quick 'in the BRM to the searingly quick Ferrari driver he was in 1974-6. He then got a bit slower but even smarter than before.And time and again he would start way back but then inexorably overhaul everybody in front. Always a huge Lauda fan I would put him right up there with the best- and a long way above some of the more flamboyant 'all time greats'. Hunt was good- but not for long. Lauda was quick for a decade.

Edited by john aston, 26 February 2012 - 08:11.

[rallen]

Nigel Beresford, on Feb 25 2012, 22:00, said:

Also, development of the M23 was continuous throughout its life, and for 'Longhorn' to characterise it as having been "sorted out by Fittipaldi" before Hunt drove it is to imply that McLaren somehow stopped working on it at the end of '75, which is of course dosh. The '75 spec M23 wasn't good enough to win the championship, so how would it have become competitive in '76 after Emerson had moved on if McLaren were so reliant on him?

This was interesting Nigel, so if they kept developing it and it got more competitive throughout 1976, this indicates that James must have been pretty good at card development after all, contrary to what I had heard before. I wonder if his attitude to testing in 1977-78 obscured this fact?

[Nigel Beresford]

Thanks for the kind words - I'm blushing! It's great to have the opportunity to contribute when one can.

John, I completely agree with you about Lauda's race craft. He seemed to be the very best at setting up the car to be fast in the race and not worrying too much about qualifying pace. His races were all about moving forward through the field as the short term performance peaks of the others fell away.

[rallen]

Nigel Beresford, on Feb 25 2012, 23:41, said:

One of the interesting things about this thread (though it's by no means unique to this thread) is that it highlights for me the difference in opinions formed by living through the period under discussion (i.e. experiencing the zeitgeist) and those (necessarily) based on reading contemporary or subsequent reports. An example would be the opinions expressed by some herein that Lauda wasn't particularly quick, just cleverl.

I will hold my hands up to this, I was only born in the end of 1978 so was to young to watch any of them race. However motor racing before the 1990's is my passion and I do spend an awful lot of time reading old threads on here or reading old books. So naturally all I can go on is what other people have documented or chosen to say. A lot of books and pretty much most comments on Lauda threads here ALL talk about Niki being very clever and no one really talks about his speed (I am not saying he wasn't fast, its just if you never saw him and no one talks about it or documents it, what do you have to go on other than his main strength as being clever) of if they do, they say he was never as quick after his accident.

So that got me looking at prior to the ring and I was interested how James in an older car and not rated as 'a great' gave him such a good run - followed by myself watching the 1973 and 1975 season reviews. It just seemed fascinating to me at any rate that the package of one of the best drivers in one of the best cars Niki in the 312T (and with politics on his side!) could have been bettered in qualifying and races (prior to 1st August - admittedly not all the time or even as much) by a driver I know next to nothing about as a driver - I know plenty of him as a character.

Anyway hope this sort of explains why some of the younger members ask these questions, I realise to people that were there it can be frustrating to get certain threads pop up - but sometimes if you can't find it online and it was before your time you have to pop up and start a thread.

[Nigel Beresford]

rallen, on Feb 26 2012, 09:37, said:

This was interesting Nigel, so if they kept developing it and it got more competitive throughout 1976, this indicates that James must have been pretty good at card development after all, contrary to what I had heard before. I wonder if his attitude to testing in 1977-78 obscured this fact?

I guess I was just bristling at the assertion that Hunt somehow lucked in to a car that Emerson had sorted for him. I don't think James was on any sort of level like Emerson for that kind of thing, but as I say he must have helped them understand what they needed to do to go faster. At that time Colnbrook was stuffed to the rafters with creative, driven racers who were constantly coming up with new ideas to try.

Post Edit: I just read your note about the background to your thoughts on Hunt and Lauda - thanks for the comments. I was just using the example of the "Lauda wasn't particularly quick, just clever" opinion to illustrate the difference in opinions we all have depending on whether we lived through an era. It's a bit like The Beatles... if you didn't experience what things were like before they came along you might not understand what all the fuss is about!!

Cheers

Nigel

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 26 February 2012 - 10:06.

[jj2728]

PCC, on Feb 25 2012, 20:48, said:

I agree completely. I was at Mosport, and he was astonishing. Sure the tires helped, but they helped some of the others too. His speed and smoothness in treacherous conditions were a revelation. He was streets ahead of everyone else - and there were some great drivers in that field.

I was there also and agree wholeheartedly.

[kayemod]

PeterElleray, on Feb 26 2012, 00:46, said:

Can you give any insight into how the McLaren team viewed James at the time?

I got the impression that Hunt's parting with McLaren was fairly amicable all round, he had a bad year in 78, a lot of that due to car problems, but it's a fact not widely known that James won the last race he took part in that year, an admittedly fairly minor Australian F5000 race at Winton north of Melbourne.

I haven't got much more than the Donaldson biography to go on, but I've never heard the accuracy of that book questioned, so I think it's reliable. There's a great deal of interesting stuff between its covers, not least the fact that McLaren offered James an almost unheard of £1.4 million to drive for them again in 1980, so he clearly hadn't fallen out with them. He turned that down, but later that same year, after Alain Prost sustained a wrist injury, John Hogan of Marlboro tried again to get him back in a McLaren for Long Beach as a one-off appearance, and if James hadn't injured himself skiiing, he might have taken them up on that offer if money could be agreed, $1 million was rumoured at the time.

To those of us who were around back then, either working in the business or just following F1 through the then excellent Autosport, it seems a little puzzling that anyone could question Hunt's talents as a driver. He was a bit like Marmite in that most either loved or hated him. Motivation may come and go, but top drivers don't forget how to drive, James wasn't a "lucky" champion in 1976, he won on merit.

[Nigel Beresford]

Out on a nice long ride on my motorbike today, musing about all this, and it occurred to me that another good guy to ask about the team's feelings at that time would be Gary Anderson, who was a mechanic on the race team in '78 at the time it all started going downhill.

[longhorn]

Describing someone as not overly smart or intelligent doesn't mean that they are of mediocre intelligence, merely that they are average amongst a bright group of people.

The 1975 McLaren M23 had few revisions from the 1974 championship winning car except for some suspension changes. Also, Fittipaldi, after the first two races of the season, drove conservatively for places rather than outright wins & only showed fire at the end of the season. So a combination of reasons why the M23 didn't show great speed that season.

The 1976 M23, by comparison, had a six speed gearbox, had lost some 30lbs in weight & the Nicholson McLaren DFV was giving around 490bhp. The team also had a pretty fired up new driver in Hunt. So, whilst an ageing design, the M23 was actually still pretty competitive, & with the right driver a possible winner. Mass, although pretty good as a No. 2, was never in the same category as Hunt.

The 1976 Ferrari 312T2 was down to the weight limit of 575kg from the T1's 598kg but carried more fuel than the DFV powered cars. The flat 12 was giving a claimed 500bhp, which given Ferrari's usual optimism, was probably similar to the DFV's output. Forghieri was determined to lower the polar inertia of the car by packaging everything within the wheelbase, which would ultimately produce a fast car but it was somewhat more nervous & harder to drive at the limit.

During the first half of the 1976 season Lauda won four races, gained a number of 2nds & 3rds & had only one retirement. Hunt won two & had four retirements. After the contentious British GP, Hunt won four of the seven remaining races whilst a below par Lauda managed a 3rd & 4th place only.

If Lauda hadn't crashed so badly at the Nurburging & was able to compete at the same level as he had previously & given that Regazzoni managed two 2nd places amongst various placings in the latter half of the season, in the sister car, it is probable that Lauda could have won again or at the very least secured some good placings.

But he didn't & Hunt secured the championship. Certainly circumstances rendered him fortunate, but he was both fast & focussed & drove at the top of his game. He grabbed the opportunity & his name is indelibly in the Golden Book of champions.

Incidentally, Jenks reckoned that the title should have been withheld in 1976 but I consider that unfair.

Edited by longhorn, 27 February 2012 - 12:49.

[rallen]

longhorn, on Feb 26 2012, 22:28, said:

The 1975 McLaren M23 had few revisions from the 1974 championship winning car except for some suspension changes. Also, Fittipaldi, after the first two races of the season, drove conservatively for places rather than outright wins & only showed fire at the end of the season. So a combination of reasons why the M23 didn't show great speed that season.

The 1976 M23, by comparison, had a six speed gearbox, had lost some 30lbs in weight & the Nicholson McLaren DFV was giving around 490bhp. The team also had a pretty fired up new driver in Hunt. So, whilst an ageing design, the M23 was actually still pretty competitive, & with the right driver a possible winner. Mass, although pretty good as a No. 2, was never in the same category as Hunt.

The 1976 Ferrari 312T2 was down to the weight limit of 575kg from the T1's 598kg but carried more fuel than the DFV powered cars. The flat 12 was giving a claimed 500bhp, which given Ferrari's usual optimism, was probably similar to the DFV's output. Forghieri was determined to lower the polar inertia of the car by packaging everything within the wheelbase, which would ultimately produce a fast car but it was somewhat more nervous & harder to drive at the limit.

Interesting information longhorn thanks! where did you get it from? Do you know why Fittibapldi drove like that in 1975? seems strange. Do you think Emmo would have won the WDC if he had stayed for 1976?

[Nigel Beresford]

longhorn, on Feb 26 2012, 22:28, said:

Describing someone as not overly smart or intelligent doesn't mean that they are of mediocre intelligence, merely that they are average amongst a bright group of people.

The 1975 McLaren M23 had few revisions from the 1974 championship winning car except for some suspension changes. Also, Fittipaldi, after the first two races of the season, drove conservatively for places rather than outright wins & only showed fire at the end of the season. So a combination of reasons why the M23 didn't show great speed that season.

The 1976 M23, by comparison, had a six speed gearbox, had lost some 30lbs in weight & the Nicholson McLaren DFV was giving around 490bhp. The team also had a pretty fired up new driver in Hunt. So, whilst an ageing design, the M23 was actually still pretty competitive, & with the right driver a possible winner. Mass, although pretty good as a No. 2, was never in the same category as Hunt.

Okay Longhorn, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I fully respect that. I just personally never saw any evidence to support your assertion that Hunt was merely of average intelligence among his peers - I felt he was rather the opposite. It would be interesting if you could illustrate your case with examples of the contemporary drivers whose intellectual dexterity put Hunt so comprehensively in the shade.

With regard to the differences between the '74 and '75 McLaren - that wasn't really the topic of discussion (though the differences ran a bit deeper than merely "some suspension changes"). The topic was your assertion that Hunt inherited an M23 that had been sorted out for him by Emerson, but then as you yourself went on to point out in such detail the M23 continued to evolve significantly after Emerson had moved on, so the assertion doesn't really hold up.

In any case, the topic of this thread is "James Hunt as a racing driver", not as a brain surgeon or engineer. I think we all agree he was a bloody good driver in a bloody good era with some bloody good contemporaries, and I for one loved him for that.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 26 February 2012 - 23:58.

[PeterElleray]

Never thought i'd be contributing to a thread where the intelligence of James Hunt was under debate...

Anyway, you have to stand back and think about this emerson/james/m23 business..

i think it all stems from some contemporary press reports, dating from later in 1976 after the championship had been won but when there was a very understandable feeling of sympathy and empathy for Niki Lauda's situation and condition. Some of this impacted on a negative way on James and his own achievements , there was perhaps a tendency in certain quarters to play these down. Jenks saying that the championship should not have been awarded is one example. You can find something similar at the end of 1970, only in reverse, when there widespread relief that Rindt's point total had not been overhauled by any other driver by the end of the year.

i think James had already proven pretty adept at setting up a F1 car during 1972-75, the Hesketh March and 308 were entirely his own work in that department, and interesting to look at how far off the pace the latter dropped post Hunt..

Regarding the M23, i think Emerson's last test for McLaren was , i believe in November 1975. Not sure if the 6 speed box was fitted there, but certainly the car was not fitted with the post Jarama 1976 low airbox, relocated rear wing, revised oil coolers, lightweight body, air starter etc etc, in other words all the stuff that was pivotal to the M23 being alternatively fast/slow in 1976. We're led to believe for instance that moving the oil coolers was pivotal in maintaining performance, so how much relevence would all of Emerson's doubtless very good work have been? I'm prepared to believe that the car Emerson left behind was indeed 'very well sorted', but it differed significantly from the version of the car that James drove, and i'm not sure what Emerson's contribution would have amounted to. It's very simplistic to think that it was just a case of installing James in Emerson's car and lighting his fuse...

One point that has not, i dont think been made is that Jochen Mass provided continuity between 1975/6. Ok so James proved to be faster, but Jochen was not slow, and i would be interested to understand his part in the development of the car. Not perhaps relevant to this thread but an interesting sidebar.

Goes back to sniffing out those who were there,i wasnt !

Peter

Edited by PeterElleray, 27 February 2012 - 00:48.

[Twin Window]

Nigel Beresford, on Feb 26 2012, 23:28, said:

I just personally never saw any evidence to support your assertion that Hunt was merely of average intelligence among his peers - I felt he was rather the opposite. It would be interesting if you could illustrate your case with examples of the contemporary drivers whose intellectual dexterity put Hunt so comprehensively in the shade.

I quite agree.

Let's continue in keeping this a civilised debate, chaps.

So far so good, but I sense it's getting a tad strained...

[Hank the Deuce]

Twin Window, on Feb 27 2012, 12:26, said:

I quite agree.

Let's continue in keeping this a civilised debate, chaps.

So far so good, but I sense it's getting a tad strained...

no matter which we we cut it, James was (as also was Niki) a remarkable, stand-out personality within the sport, and his championship year was certainly memorable for any number of reasons. Niki maintains in the current day, that the DNF's he suffered in '76 were what the deciding factor in his candidacy for the championship. Had he retained the title that year, it would certainly have been all the more remarkable for his having missed the races between Germany and Italy, but it would seem that he certainly doesn't feel robbed of the title at all. Somebody had to win it, and James was That Man.

[E1pix]

James Hunt was a tremendous and extremely likable driver in a quite difficult era, with a huuuuge following around the globe. A deserving World Champion, and winner of the first two GPs I was lucky enough to attend (the latter in a McLaren M26 that Emmo hadn't touched). He was downright awesome in the underfunded Hesketh, and won his first race just two years after his first start.

He was as fast as anyone on his day, and I loved the guy. He defined race driver and was good to his fans as well.

Niki Lauda was one of the five best ever, IMHO... yet James could run with him. If Lauda's once-in-a-generation talents hadn't coincided, this conversation would be different.

F1 today could really use another Sir James.

Edited by E1pix, 27 February 2012 - 07:59.

[Nigel Beresford]

Twin Window, on Feb 27 2012, 00:26, said:

I quite agree.

Let's continue in keeping this a civilised debate, chaps.

So far so good, but I sense it's getting a tad strained...

I quite agree. I don't have much more to add anyway, because it's becoming a bit too subjective (but then, it's a subjective topic!).

E1pix - nicely put.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 27 February 2012 - 08:46.

[E1pix]

Thank You.

[longhorn]

rallen, on Feb 26 2012, 22:41, said:

Interesting information longhorn thanks! where did you get it from? Do you know why Fittibapldi drove like that in 1975? seems strange. Do you think Emmo would have won the WDC if he had stayed for 1976?

I'd not looked up any facts prior to sticking my head above the parapet so thought that I should do so prior to my previous response, to remind myself why I hold this opinion. Main points came from History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85 & McLaren - Grand Prix, Can-Am & Indy Cars, both by Doug Nye, & the 1976 Motor Sport volume.

The rumour grew during 1975 that Fittipaldi would retire at the end of the season & this seemed to be confirmed by his conservative driving after the first two races. However, he drove with fire again at the last two races, presumably when he'd made the decision to drive for his brother's team in 1976.

I take the view that you shouldn't be competing if you're not giving 100% but, clearly, Fittipaldi was still competitive when giving his all. Whether he could have raised his game again, or even wanted to, to the level required to beat Hunt & Lauda in 1976 is something I can't answer

Edited by longhorn, 27 February 2012 - 12:45.

[jj2728]

I think Fittipaldi had the capabilities in hand to raise his game (look at his CART career), but I've long been of the opinion that both he and Jacques Villeneuve chucked not only GP wins, but WDCs between them by choosing to get involved with untried and untested teams.

[kayemod]

jj2728, on Feb 27 2012, 15:40, said:

I think Fittipaldi had the capabilities in hand to raise his game (look at his CART career), but I've long been of the opinion that both he and Jacques Villeneuve chucked not only GP wins, but WDCs between them by choosing to get involved with untried and untested teams.

We're veering off-topic here, but in general I'd agree with that. JV I've never had much interest in, he got what he deserved by going to BAR, but Emerson is more interesting, especially in light of your 'raising his game' comment. Although it's been praised elsewhere, I wasn't too impressed with the Jo Ramirez biography, Jo of course was more or less running the Copersucar team when Emerson was driving for them. It's a few years since I read it, and I'm not going back to check, but I got the impression that he wasn't too impressed with Emerson's application or development skills, so maybe he turned them on and off as the mood took him. He accuses EF of not trying very hard in races, though with cars that were mid-grid at best, he could hardly be expected to put his life on the line to gain a tenth, but in general, Jo says that Emerson didn't put much effort into making Copersucar an on-track success, and the cars were much better than EF made them seem. James Hunt is accused of not trying for the latter part of his career, but he's far from alone, which makes me wonder just how good was the M23 that he inherited, and how much of it's success in his hands was largely down to his own development skills. Given his early success with the Hesketh and Hesketh March, I'd say he must have been somewhat better than average in that area.

[longhorn]

kayemod, on Feb 27 2012, 14:14, said:

James Hunt is accused of not trying for the latter part of his career, but he's far from alone, which makes me wonder just how good was the M23 that he inherited, and how much of it's success in his hands was largely down to his own development skills. Given his early success with the Hesketh and Hesketh March, I'd say he must have been somewhat better than average in that area.

Certainly better than I've given him credit for in my past posts.

In his autobiography Against All Odds, he describes testing as being a necessary evil & a means to the end of winning races. So he intimates that he did rather more testing than I remembered which rather wipes out my reasoning that he wasn't overly smart or intelligent because he did as little testing as possible. So can anyone shed any light on whether he did his share of testing & development?

Interestingly, Mayer also describes Hunt as the greatest natural talent by far of all the McLaren drivers. He goes on to say that whilst he perhaps made more errors, he was quicker than Fittipaldi ever was when driving for McLaren.

Edited by longhorn, 27 February 2012 - 16:34.