74 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

I would like to know more about the Lotus competition between Hill and Clark in the late 60s. Clark was faster, wasn't he? What can be said about that?

[RCH]

I would like to know more about the Lotus competition between Hill and Clark in the late 60s. Clark was faster, wasn't he? What can be said about that?

Never quite understood Graham's reasons for going to Lotus. Through the '60's the team was built around Clark and the second car was always a bit "hit & miss". Maybe he knew about the 49 coming and knew he would be better off being part of it rather than trying to beat it? Hill should have won at Zandvoort and Silverstone. By the British GP Hill and Clark were supposedly tossing a coin to decide who would win and Hill won the toss!

[JtP1]

Never quite understood Graham's reasons for going to Lotus.

A big retainer from Ford?
A DFV in place of an H16 BRM? In fact anything in place of an H16 BRM.

[RCH]

A big retainer from Ford?
A DFV in place of an H16 BRM? In fact anything in place of an H16 BRM.

Well yes but at least he wouldn't have been No. 2 to Jim Clark! Let's face it, however often they said they were equal number 1, when it came to the put to Jimmy was always going to be favoured.

[David Lawson]

I believe Hill was paid more then Clark in 1967 which seems like a good reason to join Lotus. Hill was used to having a faster team-mate at BRM so it didn't require too much thought.

David

[D-Type]

I'm not sure whether it is fair to say Clark was faster than Hill. It is certainly true that Clark had more 'natural' ability than Hill and that Hill had to work to hone his skills. But in 1967 I don't think there was much to choose between them.

One aspect of Clark's natural ability is that he tended to drive around a problem which meant that he was not a good test or development driver. A similar criticism has been aimed at Ronnie Peterson.

I do wonder whether Ford were prepared to pay Hill to drive for Lotus to keep him from driving for an opposing team. Who was to know in late 1966 that the H16 BRM was destined to never become good?

[Vitesse2]

I'm not sure whether it is fair to say Clark was faster than Hill. It is certainly true that Clark had more 'natural' ability than Hill and that Hill had to work to hone his skills. But in 1967 I don't think there was much to choose between them.

One aspect of Clark's natural ability is that he tended to drive around a problem which meant that he was not a good test or development driver. A similar criticism has been aimed at Ronnie Peterson.

Graham was by far the better test driver, mainly for the reason you mention, Duncan. But Jimmy's non-dom tax status would also have been a major factor - Lotus and Ford would not have wanted to do all their testing abroad. Most of his allowed days in Britain were taken up being "Farmer Jim" over the winter, so his time in Britain was strictly limited - the very reason he raced at Hockenheim on April 7th 1968 rather than at Brands Hatch. He'd never even sat in a 49 until he rolled up at Zandvoort in 1967.

I do wonder whether Ford were prepared to pay Hill to drive for Lotus to keep him from driving for an opposing team. Who was to know in late 1966 that the H16 BRM was destined to never become good?

I'm sure that was in Walter Hayes' mind, but we come back to the testing again there. OTOH - where would he have gone? Ferrari? Nah. Cooper? With a 10-year-old sports car engine? Don't think so ...

As for the H16 - just about everybody! Typical BRM madness - over-complicated, too heavy, late ... criticisms which can be applied to just about every car or engine they ever built, right back to the original V16! Or even the E-type ERA, really.

[Macca]

It's all made pretty clear in bits of various books - NGH thought if he stayed any longer at BRM they'd paint him 'Dk. lust. grn.', and he could see Tony Rudd's attention being diverted by a large number of commercial projects by which AGBO wanted to recoup some of his expenditure.

Walter Hayes told ACBC that he wanted 2 winning drivers in the 49 rather than a winner and a 7th-placer, so if the car/engine combination was good the investment wouldn't be wasted by a trivial fault to Jim's car - ironically it was usually Graham's car that broke, or both of them.

At the end of 1966 probably only Graham and Jackie knew how bad the H16 really was, but Jackie was in a 3-year contract to the end of '67. When Graham joined Lotus I believe he got the same money and perks as he'd had at BRM, and Jimmy was delighted as his money was raised (!) to the same as Graham's. Jimmy's tax exile status had expired before the 7th April 1968 so he could have been driving the P68 at Brands, but according to Andrew Ferguson 'Mann's lot didn't get in touch' so he opted for Hockenheim (or ACBC wouldn't let him off, or Hockenheim insisted on both top drivers in the works 48s, depending on which version of history you favour).

Only the two 16-cylinder BRM types were over-complicated and heavy - the P25 and V8 were just late!

Paul M

[JtP1]

I do wonder whether Ford were prepared to pay Hill to drive for Lotus to keep him from driving for an opposing team. Who was to know in late 1966 that the H16 BRM was destined to never become good?

Ford wanted 2 top drivers in the cars and Graham would be the logical GB choice as the driver free of contract and other encumberances. Iirc, Clark had his salary increased by Walter Hayes(?) who was shocked at how low his retainer was.

As for who knew the H16 was a failure? Maurice Phillippe for a start, who has been quoted as saying "I knew we had a weight problem when it took 3 mechanics to lift the first engine out the back of the van."

[john ruston]

Jim Clark was and is rated as the top driver of his generation by his contemporaries and the other great judge DSJ


Question answered

[Sharman]

Jim Clark was and is rated as the top driver of his generation by his contemporaries and the other great judge DSJ


Question answered

I saw them both many times, Graham was impressive but Jimmy was sublime.

[Nick Planas]

I'm not sure whether it is fair to say Clark was faster than Hill. It is certainly true that Clark had more 'natural' ability than Hill and that Hill had to work to hone his skills. But in 1967 I don't think there was much to choose between them.

IMHO Jimmy Clark was the best of all time, however I would like to dispute this myth of "natural ability" which persists today; I used to believe it too. Certainly Clark appeared to be slightly quicker in 1967 but also he achieved this speed without compromising his car mechanically. Sadly, I witnessed many of Graham Hill's later performances when he was considered to be past his sell by date - but this should not take away from his earlier achievements.

We hear a lot about how Hill had to work hard to make up for his lack of natural ability, but consider this: Clark was driving an old banger around a field at his parents' farm when he was 10. Hill did not learn to drive until he was 24 (though to be fair he was riding motorbikes before that). Clark won his first WDC at the age of 25 (15 years later though with less opportunity to drive in anger on roads due to his young age) - Hill was 33 - 9 years later. So, Jim Clark had much more practise at sliding a car around, learning about the delicacies of car control at a young and impressionable age: he jolly well should have been faster than Hill!

I think this says a great deal about how good Hill really was in his prime. He is talked about today by the likes of Stirling Moss as the least talented of all the racers he was against as if this was some sort of a crime. He was certainly no plodder!

Notice how similar comments were made regarding the comparisons between Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher. MS was karting at a very young age, and therefore seemed to have this "natural talent" that people talk about, whereas Damon most certainly was not - again, this should put Damon's achievements into sharper focus - all credit to men who can reach the top of their game when those around them have been doing the same thing for longer.

There's a very good book by Matthew Syed called "Bounce" which goes into detail about how much sportsmen, and many other skilful people such as mathematicians and musicians, actually work for their results. It enables one to reassess such historical figures as Mozart, who it is reckoned had achieved about 10,000 hours of playing music by the age of 12 - the rough equivalent to a modern day international violinist up to the time they leave music college. However it suits people to make sweeping statements about "natural genius".

[BRG]

Graham was impressive but Jimmy was sublime.

That puts it in the proverbial nutshell.

[D-Type]

Put yourself in Walter Haynes' shoes in mid-1966. You want the best team mate for Jim Clark at Lotus. Clark is the hot shoe so you want a test and development driver who can fully back Clark up. You have a generous budget. So who's a possibility (apart from Graham Hill)?
Jack Brabham - happy doing his own thing
Dan Gurney - ditto
Bruce McLaren - ditto
John Surtees - a possibility but he won't want to play back up to Clark and prefers to face the challenge at Honda
Jochen Rindt - happy at Cooper
Jackie Stewart - a talented youngster but not a development driver
Mike Parkes - would be a good development driver but he doesn't have the pace to back Clark up
and that's about it, apart from Graham Hill ...

[Roger Clark]

Put yourself in Walter Haynes' shoes in mid-1966. You want the best team mate for Jim Clark at Lotus. Clark is the hot shoe so you want a test and development driver who can fully back Clark up. You have a generous budget. So who's a possibility (apart from Graham Hill)?
Jack Brabham - happy doing his own thing
Dan Gurney - ditto
Bruce McLaren - ditto
John Surtees - a possibility but he won't want to play back up to Clark and prefers to face the challenge at Honda
Jochen Rindt - happy at Cooper
Jackie Stewart - a talented youngster but not a development driver
Mike Parkes - would be a good development driver but he doesn't have the pace to back Clark up
and that's about it, apart from Graham Hill ...

Mario Andretti or A J Foyt? I think Bruce McLaren might have been interested - he didn't have much of a Formula 1 programme in 1967, and surely would have welcomed the chance to learn about the DFV before it became available to other teams. Surtees might well have welcomed the opportunity to prove he was Clark 's equal (at least). You didn't mention the 1967 world champion.

I am sure that Hill's media skills and public profile were a major attraction to Ford. He was also the second most successful driver of the time. He was the obvious choice. The problems of the second Lotus have been greatly exaggerated: Arundell and Spence did pretty well in 64 and 65 so Hill must have seen it as an opportunity.

[ensign14]

There's a very good book by Matthew Syed called "Bounce" which goes into detail about how much sportsmen, and many other skilful people such as mathematicians and musicians, actually work for their results.

Syed's hypothesis though is flawed. You can spend all the training you like but without some natural gifts you won't run as fast as Bolt or for as long as Farah. Whereas for others it will seemingly come naturally. To give an easy example, Chris Rea didn't pick up a guitar till he was 22.

[D-Type]

I hadn't thought of recruiting from across the Atlantic! But the DFV was a Ford England initiative not a Ford USA one. Ford USA had 'done' Indianapolis and were now focussed on Le Mans rather than F1.

[HistoryFan]

Very interesting answers, thank you.

[JtP1]

Put yourself in Walter Haynes' shoes in mid-1966. You want the best team mate for Jim Clark at Lotus. Clark is the hot shoe so you want a test and development driver who can fully back Clark up. You have a generous budget. So who's a possibility (apart from Graham Hill)?
Jack Brabham - happy doing his own thing
Dan Gurney - ditto
Bruce McLaren - ditto
John Surtees - a possibility but he won't want to play back up to Clark and prefers to face the challenge at Honda
Jochen Rindt - happy at Cooper
Jackie Stewart - a talented youngster but not a development driver
Mike Parkes - would be a good development driver but he doesn't have the pace to back Clark up
and that's about it, apart from Graham Hill ...

Jochen Rindt happy at Cooper? Like Stewart, still with a year to run on a 3 year contract
Most of the others? Whatever their talents, I suspect would not have been interested in dealing with ACBC inside his team.

I remember at the time there was the story doing the rounds of A J Foyt joining Ferrari. It was reckoned that the partnership wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes, but it would have been an entertaining 5 minutes.

[Stephen W]

Put yourself in Walter Haynes' shoes in mid-1966. You want the best team mate for Jim Clark at Lotus. Clark is the hot shoe so you want a test and development driver who can fully back Clark up. You have a generous budget. So who's a possibility (apart from Graham Hill)?
Jack Brabham - happy doing his own thing
Dan Gurney - ditto
Bruce McLaren - ditto
John Surtees - a possibility but he won't want to play back up to Clark and prefers to face the challenge at Honda
Jochen Rindt - happy at Cooper
Jackie Stewart - a talented youngster but not a development driver
Mike Parkes - would be a good development driver but he doesn't have the pace to back Clark up
and that's about it, apart from Graham Hill ...

Mario Andretti or A J Foyt? I think Bruce McLaren might have been interested - he didn't have much of a Formula 1 programme in 1967, and surely would have welcomed the chance to learn about the DFV before it became available to other teams. Surtees might well have welcomed the opportunity to prove he was Clark 's equal (at least). You didn't mention the 1967 world champion.

I am sure that Hill's media skills and public profile were a major attraction to Ford. He was also the second most successful driver of the time. He was the obvious choice. The problems of the second Lotus have been greatly exaggerated: Arundell and Spence did pretty well in 64 and 65 so Hill must have seen it as an opportunity.

I doubt that Ford would have wanted McLaren or Gurney because they already knew of their own F1 projects and would not have wanted a one-season wonder.

Andretti & Foyt would have been unlikely due to their commitments to USAC racing and the calendar problems that would have thrown up.

Rindt was over the Winter of 1966/67 still 'happy with Cooper' although that did wane a bit during the 1967 season. I also doubt that Ford would have risked having him as Jimmy's team mate.

Graham Hill was the best possible solution and with a brand new car it was better to have someone alongside Jimmy who had more mechanical sympathy and a proven track record of developing new cars.

[David Beard]

more mechanical sympathy and a proven track record of developing new cars.

My understanding was that Hill was quite poor on the testing front, driving round endlessly and annoying mechanics with requests for trivial and illogical changes.

Edited by David Beard, 02 August 2013 - 10:12.

[David Wright]

Graham Hill was the best possible solution and with a brand new car it was better to have someone alongside Jimmy who had more mechanical sympathy and a proven track record of developing new cars.

I don't think mechanical sympathy is the right word. Jimmy was easier on cars and engines than Hill. More mechanical knowledge is perhaps a better phrase, though I don't think Colin or the Lotus mechanics were actually that impressed by Hill's technical meddling.

[JtP1]

More mechanical knowledge is perhaps a better phrase, though I don't think Colin or the Lotus mechanics were actually that impressed by Hill's technical meddling.

Hence the 72, to stop Graham driving endlessly round sorting out the bump stops.

[Nick Planas]

Syed's hypothesis though is flawed. You can spend all the training you like but without some natural gifts you won't run as fast as Bolt or for as long as Farah. Whereas for others it will seemingly come naturally. To give an easy example, Chris Rea didn't pick up a guitar till he was 22.

True - I agree some of it doesn't fully add up, but I would not say it is as flawed as saying that "X has e.g. a God-given talent" and leaving it at that. I teach woodwind instruments, so I know there are some kids who simply do not appear to have the mechanical skills to make it as a player, but one or two have persisted and have got much further than I expected. Motivation also has to be taken into account - how much they think (or rather, obsess!) about it day in, day out - as a teacher, trying to keep a student motivated is far harder than showing them how to play a particular note.

I'm sure Graham Hill was extremely motivated, thinking about driving all the time, probably doing what Senna admitted to doing years later - sitting in his armchair "driving" a circuit, doing the gearchanges, etc etc...

[Macca]

I don't think mechanical sympathy is the right word. Jimmy was easier on cars and engines than Hill. More mechanical knowledge is perhaps a better phrase, though I don't think Colin or the Lotus mechanics were actually that impressed by Hill's technical meddling.

Jim was certainly easier on cars, using much less brake pad and tyre tread than Graham in the 49s. I don't think the Lotus mechanics would agree about Jim's mechanical knowledge, as I believe they wouldn't let him help them on the spanners, whereas Graham had been a mechanic before driving for Lotus in the 1950s which may have influenced their attitude to him.

Graham's system, if you can call it such, for testing was apparently to try absolutely everything, every combination of springs, roll bars, bump rubbers, damping, gearing, toe-in and camber..........and to write it all down in his infamous notebook for future reference. Hence the story of him turning up for testing in '68 or '69 and referring to his notes before the car had turned a wheel and wanting the springs and bump rubbers changed on the spot, leading to a big row when Chapman arrived. I think he needed a firm hand in the way of a modern race engineer to insist on answers to specific questions, and to tell him when to do a quick lap, and he lost that when he left BRM and Tony Rudd.

Jim, I think, having come into race driving as an amateur and having always driven for Chapman, had no similar 'system' - he would just say what the car was doing and what he wanted it to do or not do, and let Chapman make the appropriate adjustments because he trusted Chapman (until all the breakages and failures of '67 that cost him the WC; he became more leery then, I understand).

Paul M

[BRG]

Jimmy was easier on cars and engines than Hill.

And yet Graham was King of Monaco whilst Jimmy never won there and rarely finished.

[Doug Nye]

And yet Graham was King of Monaco whilst Jimmy never won there and rarely finished.

Jimmy led there - often - don't judge merely by final results. Interesting to read some of the theories expressed here.

DCN

[Robin Fairservice]

S a Flag Marshall I was able to watch both Hill and Clark from close quarters. Jim always made it look easy, in fact once a in practice session, we decided to see if we could spot something that would indicate that he was really trying to set a fast lap. Our only conclusion was that he puffed his cheeks out on his fastest lap! Hill always looked as if he had to work hard. Another aspect of Clark was his starts. From Turn 8 on the bottom straight one gets a very good view of the race start. In the RoC one year Clark and Spence were on the front row, and Clark just drew away from Spence having what looked like a 100 yard lead into Paddock. I think that that was the year Clark went off during his intense struggle with Gurney. Afterwards I claimed that I was the first person to wave a Yellow flag for Clark!

[Gary Davies]

I wonder if the 1965 British Grand Prix at Silverstone, at which I happened to be present, goes some way to characterising the difference between them? Clark on pole in the Lotus 33, Hill alongside him in the by then very powerful P261. After a storming start by Ginther in the RA272 Honda, the race soon settled into a Clark vs Hill exhibition. Towards the end of the race, by which point Jimmy had eked out a lead of something like 20 seconds, the Climax engine began to cut out on corners and Clark took to coasting round the corners (was it left or right, or both?) only able to have full power available once the car was straightened up.

Graham sniffed the wind and put his head down over the last few laps, missing out by just three seconds when the flag fell after 80 laps.

When Motoring News came out a few days later, I read that Hill had set the fastest lap on lap 80.

A couple of weeks further on, DSJ commented in Motor Sport that had Hill driven more like that on the previous laps he could have won.

Pardon me if I have the odd detail wrong - this is all from memory; I'm currently building a house and so all my reference books are in storage.

Just like Moss and Senna and Alonso (amongst a small number of others) Clark was always, relentlessly, right on the pace. I've long felt that this quality is a key point of difference between the merely excellent and the sublime.

[Nick Planas]

I wonder if the 1965 British Grand Prix at Silverstone, at which I happened to be present, goes some way to characterising the difference between them? Clark on pole in the Lotus 33, Hill alongside him in the by then very powerful P261. After a storming start by Ginther in the RA272 Honda, the race soon settled into a Clark vs Hill exhibition. Towards the end of the race, by which point Jimmy had eked out a lead of something like 20 seconds, the Climax engine began to cut out on corners and Clark took to coasting round the corners (was it left or right, or both?) only able to have full power available once the car was straightened up.

Graham sniffed the wind and put his head down over the last few laps, missing out by just three seconds when the flag fell after 80 laps.

When Motoring News came out a few days later, I read that Hill had set the fastest lap on lap 80.

A couple of weeks further on, DSJ commented in Motor Sport that had Hill driven more like that on the previous laps he could have won.

Pardon me if I have the odd detail wrong - this is all from memory; I'm currently building a house and so all my reference books are in storage.

Just like Moss and Senna and Alonso (amongst a small number of others) Clark was always, relentlessly, right on the pace. I've long felt that this quality is a key point of difference between the merely excellent and the sublime.

I remember reading that - but of course, unlike now you always had to keep in the back of your mind the possibility of mechanical failure - had Hill driven flat out for longer, the car could have failed. I'm beginning to sound like an apologist for NGH and not a fan of Clark, but neither of those things are true - and I would most definitely apply the word sublime to Clark's driving skills.

[BRG]

Jimmy led there - often - don't judge merely by final results. Interesting to read some of the theories expressed here.

DCN

I think you missed my point Doug. Of course Jimmy was as great and as fast at Monaco as he was everywhere else. But Monaco was/is the toughest test of a F1 car that there is. If Jimmy was easier on cars and engines than Hill, as David Wright suggested, why did he suffer such bad luck at Monaco when Graham was able to win so often? It is a mystery and I do not know the answer, but it does suggest that perhaps Hill was lighter on the car than people think

My first ever GP attendance was Monaco 1970. Hill was in the Brooke Bond Oxo Rob Walker Lotus 49, still barely able to walk after Watkins Glen. In first practice, we stood at the exit from Casino Square. Stewart came through with the car following a perfect line. But we could see his bright orange gloves working frantically at the wheel to achieve that. Then Hill came though on an equally perfect line, but achieved with one smooth left hand turn of the wheel, followed by one smooth right hand turn. The car all but kissed the barriers at the apex and at the exit. Absolute perfection and I immediately understood why he had been so successful there.

[Gary Davies]

BRG, not being cheeky... I do take your primary point, but Jackie was in a March 701!

[BRG]

BRG, not being cheeky... I do take your primary point, but Jackie was in a March 701!

True, true*. But I used him as an example because people might have heard of him (;)) but also 'cos of his orange gloves. But the same applied to others like Rindt, Brabham etc who all worked hard to master their cars through Casino Square on their first practice runs, whereas NGH was totally on it from his first lap.

* although we didn't realise how....let's say, ordinary the 701 was at that time!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Syed's hypothesis though is flawed.

I didn't think his theory was that practice alone would make you a world beater?

You can spend all the training you like but without some natural gifts you won't run as fast as Bolt or for as long as Farah.

Almost intentionally poor examples. There's a lot less you can do over 100m vs practicing golf.

[ensign14]

I think you missed my point Doug. Of course Jimmy was as great and as fast at Monaco as he was everywhere else. But Monaco was/is the toughest test of a F1 car that there is. If Jimmy was easier on cars and engines than Hill, as David Wright suggested, why did he suffer such bad luck at Monaco when Graham was able to win so often? It is a mystery and I do not know the answer, but it does suggest that perhaps Hill was lighter on the car than people think.

Jimmy was driving for Lotus. That's perhaps your answer there...

Almost intentionally poor examples. There's a lot less you can do over 100m vs practicing golf.

You can do a fudgeload over 5,000m though.

[jj2728]

Graham winning the WDC in '68 will always stand out for me. True, he was a 'fiddler', and there are some terrific insights into this in "Tales from the Toolbox", but I oft think he's underrated by many. Jimmy? Well, IMHO, he was just such a great natural talent. I thought he and Graham got on quite well as teammates. My dad, when he was in the glove business and trying to market his company's line of sports gloves (before nomex mind you) travelled about and on occasion would ask the drivers if they minded getting on the phone with us to say hello. They were our heroes as youngsters and they, to a man, were always friendly and such pleasant guys to talk with. Great memories for sure.

Edited by jj2728, 03 August 2013 - 22:05.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You can do a fudgeload over 5,000m though.

There's a bit of technique, but nothing to really 'master'. You're dealing much more with DNA in those kinds of competition. It's the polar opposite of something like flying or driving. I doubt there are many racing drivers who have over 10,000hours of laps. Though with simulators they may get close eventually.

[ensign14]

And the drivers with the most experience aren't necessarily the best. From Martino Severi to Rubens Barrichello...

[mfd]

BRG, not being cheeky... I do take your primary point, but Jackie was in a March 701!

Yes you can see him here, leading through Eau Rouge
http://www.sonuma.be...à-francorchamps

[Nick Planas]

There's a bit of technique, but nothing to really 'master'. You're dealing much more with DNA in those kinds of competition. It's the polar opposite of something like flying or driving. I doubt there are many racing drivers who have over 10,000hours of laps. Though with simulators they may get close eventually.

The 10,000 hours was a quote based on the music example (from memory) - I think the survey of violinists was 10,000 hours - International soloist; 8,000 hours - professional orchestral player, 4,000 hours, good amateur player & teacher.

My point was, though, that whatever their DNA, if you put Clark and Hill side by side in any one year, Clark had a lot more actual driving experience, and from a much younger age, and therefore credit must be given to Hill for achieving what he did. "Natural talent", I would say, was potentially there in every one of those drivers - couple with extremely high motivation too.

[ensign14]

I actually think Graham Hill gets far too little credit, in that the opinion seemed to be he lacked Clark's natural talent and had to work hard to get success. Which surely shows that Hill was really better than pretty much everyone else on the planet; everyone else could have applied themselves in the same way, but only Hill was able to graft to two world titles. Ahead of many who relied on a natural talent but didn't have the same dedication.

[D-Type]

I actually think Graham Hill gets far too little credit, in that the opinion seemed to be he lacked Clark's natural talent and had to work hard to get success. Which surely shows that Hill was really better than pretty much everyone else on the planet; everyone else could have applied themselves in the same way, but only Hill was able to graft to two world titles. Ahead of many who relied on a natural talent but didn't have the same dedication.

Seconded

[David Wright]

I actually think Graham Hill gets far too little credit, in that the opinion seemed to be he lacked Clark's natural talent and had to work hard to get success. Which surely shows that Hill was really better than pretty much everyone else on the planet; everyone else could have applied themselves in the same way, but only Hill was able to graft to two world titles. Ahead of many who relied on a natural talent but didn't have the same dedication.

While certainly not doubting Hill's hard work or indeed, talent, but in terms of championships I think you are overlooking a vital factor - the team and car. If your car isn't quick and reliable, you can have all the dedication in the world but you won't win a championship.

[ensign14]

I appreciate that - but Hill's team-mates included Ginther, Gurney, Rindt, Brooks and Ireland, and none of them won a world title alongside him. Even Stewart, who was the only driver to have his level of success at BRM, didn't manage it; yet Graham was a Bandini battery away from a couple.

Plus of course you have to get to the drive in the first place. Some bought their way in; Graham did it bartering races for wrenching.

[mfd]

While certainly not doubting Hill's hard work or indeed, talent, but in terms of championships I think you are overlooking a vital factor - the team and car. If your car isn't quick and reliable, you can have all the dedication in the world but you won't win a championship.

Don't forget he was very consistent too, with three consecutive runner up positions in the championship after the first 1962 win.
A disappointing 1966 with the latter part being DNF after DNF probably turned him towards Lotus

[BRG]

Jimmy was driving for Lotus. That's perhaps your answer there...

True.

But of course so was Graham in 1967 (2nd), 1968 (1st) and 1969 (1st) at Monaco.

[Graham Gauld]

And yet Graham was King of Monaco whilst Jimmy never won there and rarely finished.

Jim Clark was always at a loss about Monaco. He loved the circuit and often commented that he could not understand how he could not win Monaco which was one of his favourite circuits and yet had won Spa four times and hated the place. Sometimes the cards fall the wrong way.

[ensign14]

It's in part because we have too small a sample, so things like the rollbar coming off are freaks that could have happened anywhere. And in any given race any given car/driver only had a 50% chance of finishing. Plus we're missing a crucial year cos Jim was busy winning Indy...

[Stephen W]

I appreciate that - but Hill's team-mates included Ginther, Gurney, Rindt, Brooks and Ireland, and none of them won a world title alongside him. Even Stewart, who was the only driver to have his level of success at BRM, didn't manage it...

Compare that line-up to Jim Clark's team-mates at Lotus!

[RCH]

Without wishing to denigrate Jim Clark in any way bear in mind his reputation was largely built driving the Lotus 25/33, widely regarded as the class of the field and a car that was to change F1 design for ever. So how would this scenario have panned out: Hill never leaves Lotus and gets to drive the 25; Clark after a non-season at Aston Martin gets snapped up by BRM for 1961 onwards? Would we still see Jim in the same light?