74 replies to this topic

[ensign14]

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.

Who was it that said the best thing about the 25 was Jim Clark?

[D-Type]

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?

An interesting thought: Jim Clark and Tony Brooks in the same team. And if Brooks had continued into 1962?

[Emery0323]

Who was it that said the best thing about the 25 was Jim Clark?

That reminds me of an interview with either Ron Tauranac or Jack Brabham (can't remember which one):
In the Mid-60's, the Brabham team decided that they could stick with tubular frame construction and did not really need to emulate the Lotus monocoque.
Monocques were much harder to repair, particularly in-paddock away from the workshop, and the big advantage the Lotus had was Clark, not the monocque design.

[kayemod]

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?

As Murray was wont to say, "If is F1 backwards". RCH's scenario would never have happened, Colin Chapman's best work happened when he was inspired by his driver, without Jim Clark, the 25, 33 & 49 either wouldn't have happened, or wouldn't have been as good, the Lotus troughs occurred when The Great Man lost interest. Chapman got on well enough with Graham, he went back to the Hornsey days of course, but was constantly irritated by his endless fiddling with set-up, even if Graham has stayed at Lotus, although he'd probably have done well in the cars, things just wouldn't have been the same as they were with Jim, Team would never have reached the same heights.

[Roger Clark]

That reminds me of an interview with either Ron Tauranac or Jack Brabham (can't remember which one):
In the Mid-60's, the Brabham team decided that they could stick with tubular frame construction and did not really need to emulate the Lotus monocoque.
Monocques were much harder to repair, particularly in-paddock away from the workshop, and the big advantage the Lotus had was Clark, not the monocque design.

I always like Jack Brabham's remark after practice for the 1964 Belgian Grand Prix, with both his cars on the front row of the grid: "Must be our monocoque chassis construction and inboard springs paying off on this fast circuit".

Edited by Roger Clark, 05 August 2013 - 16:34.

[RCH]

I have always tended to shy away from any "Who was better, X or Y" type questions, largely because everyone's view is different and circumstances; even that thing that doesn't exist, luck; come into play. Having said that if someone was about to pull out my fingernails to elicit an answer I would have to say that Clark was a bit better than Hill. And this from someone who was a Graham Hill fan ever since seeing him swoop past Clark to win at Silverstone in '62!

However I think the responses to my previous post have more to do with personal adulation than rational thinking...

[jeffbee]

An interesting thought: Jim Clark and Tony Brooks in the same team. And if Brooks had continued into 1962?

If Brooks had continued into 1962? Now that would have been interesting!!

As for Clark -v- Hill, at the risk of being shot at I think that Clark had that vital edge insofar as natural talent and ability are concerned. My problem with him was that he made it all look so easy and boring. As years have passed I've come to appreciate the subtle finesse of Prost and Button and think I was probably unfair on him.

Hill had to work hard to get where he was and, lacking that extra ingredient, had to work even harder than almost everyone else.

If you're comparing two supremely talented drivers that are drenched in natural ability in equal measure it's probably okay to attempt a comparison. In this case, it's chalk & cheese.

[BRG]

My problem with him was that he made it all look so easy and boring.

Ah yes.

Jim Clark
Alain Prost
Sebastian Loeb

Under-regarded because they made it look a bit too easy!

[Doug Nye]

Ah yes.

Jim Clark
Alain Prost
Sebastian Loeb

Under-regarded because they made it look a bit too easy!

[Nick Planas]

This from Paul Fearnley on the Motorsport website (hope it's OK to quote him directly - if not please delete with my apologies) talking about the 1963 German Grand Prix

"Clark and Lotus oversaw a 1.5-litre formula abundantly blessed by driving talent. BRM’s Graham Hill, who had plenty of natural skill, thank you, also had a happy habit of hoovering up bits and pieces from the top table;" - that's a bit more like it; not taking anything away from JC either!

[RCH]

This from Paul Fearnley on the Motorsport website (hope it's OK to quote him directly - if not please delete with my apologies) talking about the 1963 German Grand Prix

"Clark and Lotus oversaw a 1.5-litre formula abundantly blessed by driving talent. BRM’s Graham Hill, who had plenty of natural skill, thank you, also had a happy habit of hoovering up bits and pieces from the top table;" - that's a bit more like it; not taking anything away from JC either!

That sounds distinctly insulting to Graham Hill! Maybe not quite at the head of it but on the top table surely?

[Doug Nye]

That sounds distinctly insulting to Graham Hill! Maybe not quite at the head of it but on the top table surely?

These matters involve the peak of a pyramid. It's a point, which means there is only room there for one talent at a time.

From 1962-68 - replacing the injured Moss - I have no doubt whatsoever that talent was Clark. His main rivals were more or less upon a level, on the course below that peak. Only one would climb the extra height, sadly not as Jimmy aged, but after he died. That replacement standard-setter was - of course - Jackie Stewart.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 10 August 2013 - 20:18.

[William Hunt]

I have calculated F1 championship standings according to the current points system (so top 10 points, winner 25 pts) and remarkably Graham Hill would have won 4 world titles instead of 2! Those years would be 1962, 1964, 1965 (2 pts more as Clark even though Jimmy won 6 GP's that year and Graham just 2) and 1968! I think that says a lot about Graham's talent and consistency.

Edited by William Hunt, 10 August 2013 - 21:03.

[Collombin]

But anyone beaten 6-2 in race wins can hardly be considered a more worthy champion, especially when one of those wins was achieved when the dominant rival was absent, winning $$$$$$$$$$$$.

And in the danger of sounding like a broken record, you cannot retrospectively apply alternative point systems because the drivers were racing to the rules in force at the time, and who knows what might have changed if the system was different?

Does Hill belong on the top table? The simple answer is that it depends on the size of the table.

[William Hunt]

@ E.B.: off course I realise that applying an alternative points system is not really correct because drivers were driving under different rules but it does provide an interesting comparison and makes it easier to compare points stats from now with then (off course now there are much more races that make it easier for drivers to gather points). On forums we do a lot of speculation and talk a lot about 'what if that happened' or 'what if he had lived' or 'what if driver x drove for another team' so with that in mind it is justified to compare championship tables under different points system. Our current system rewards consistent drivers a bit more and if anything is proven from those stats it is that Graham Hill was extremely consistent.

A lot of people argue that applying a different points system to the past is unfair because if that point system had been in the rules the drivers would have used a different strategy because the standings would be different and I agree with that but I wouldn't agree completely because back in those days and up until the '80s-'90s F1 cars were much more unreliable and a lot of results were determined by mechanical issues, much more than we have seen in recent years in F1. So even if they were driving under a different points system the cars that have broken down still would have broken down.

In 1965 Clark was clearly in a class of his own, completely dominating and winning 6 races but when he didn't win he wouldn't even be in the top 10 because his car broke down. Graham Hill's car was more reliable that year, up to the point that he would have 2 points more as Clark under the current system. The question is: would Clark's car not have broken down in the races he didn't win just because there was a different points system? I don't think so.

PS: I do realise that Clark didn't drive in Monaco because he was at Indy, but again: would he have entered at Monaco and not at Indy under a different points system? I think he would have been at Indy just as well.

The whole point that I posted this here is to show that Graham Hill is underrated. I personally don't rate him as good as Clark but still just under Jimmy. In 1967, when they were teammates at Lotus, Hill managed to score 3 pole positions, how many teammates of Clark can claim that they scored a pole as his teammate? None.

Edited by William Hunt, 10 August 2013 - 21:35.

[Nick Planas]

I have calculated F1 championship standings according to the current points system (so top 10 points, winner 25 pts) and remarkably Graham Hill would have won 4 world titles instead of 2! Those years would be 1962, 1964, 1965 (2 pts more as Clark even though Jimmy won 6 GP's that year and Graham just 2) and 1968! I think that says a lot about Graham's talent and consistency.

...although... we don't know how differently people would have driven had the points scenario been different. It's an interesting exercise to recalculate historical championships but it proves little really. Although I've been defending his memory to an extent on here, I'm loathe to suggest NGH would have been a 4 times champion, just as I am to suggest that Prost would have 5 WDCs against Senna's 2 (as he scored more points than Senna in 1988). As modern F1 drivers seem to say more and more "It is what it is" (and a few years ago they would have also said "for sure"!)

[Roger Clark]

.

, how many teammates of Clark can claim that they scored a pole as his teammate? None.

Apart from John Surtees, of course.

[William Hunt]

Apart from John Surtees, of course.

Portugal 1960 in Porto! I had completely forgotten that Surtees had also driven for Team Lotus that year and even scored a pole. Very well spotted!

[kayemod]

Portugal 1960 in Porto! I had completely forgotten that Surtees had also driven for Team Lotus that year and even scored a pole. Very well spotted!

Jim was only 8th on that grid. He was also beaten by Dan Gurney, Jack Brabham, Sir Stirling, Graham Hill, Bruce McLaren and Innes Ireland in that order, though Jim did finish third in the race, behind Jack & Bruce. Wasn't that the race where Stirling was disqualified, for doing the very thing, driving the wrong way, that he'd successfully supported Mike Hawthorn over a couple of years earlier?

[William Hunt]

On the other hand: that was just Clark's 5th official F1 Grand Prix in his rookie season so beating Jimmy at that point in his carreer was less impressive as beating him a couple of years later. That Clark scored a podium on his 5th race was impressive though.

[Collombin]

True, but Surtees was runner up in his second race and sat on pole in his third.

I am too young to know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if Surtees was considered the better prospect at that time.

[William Hunt]

True, but Surtees was runner up in his second race and sat on pole in his third.

I am too young to know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if Surtees was considered the better prospect at that time.

He probably was considered a better prospect but not just because he sat on pole in his 3rd race. Surtees had alread won 5 Motorcycle Grand Prix World Titles (for MV Agusta) when he made his debut in F1 (3 in 500cc, 2 in 350cc) and he would add two more world titles (500cc & 350cc) to his cv that year. In other words: Surtees was already a huge star when he switched to F1 cars, Clark was still rather unknown. I don't think they were considering John Surtees as just a rookie like Clark, even though he ran on 2 wheels before.

Edited by William Hunt, 11 August 2013 - 20:09.

[JtP1]

That reminds me of an interview with either Ron Tauranac or Jack Brabham (can't remember which one):
In the Mid-60's, the Brabham team decided that they could stick with tubular frame construction and did not really need to emulate the Lotus monocoque.
Monocques were much harder to repair, particularly in-paddock away from the workshop, and the big advantage the Lotus had was Clark, not the monocque design.

RT was interviewed in 66 and asked how his spaceframe was winning over the superior monocoques. He replied " the only good thing I have seen in a monocoque is Jim Clark"

[DeweyAIA]

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.

Hi Graham.  A pleasure to "meet" you.  If I recall, Clark was doing very well in his last Monaco GP (1967) in an outdated, smaller engined Lotus until he had a mechanical failure.  Was the reason he raced in that car, which was underpowered compared to the rest of the field that day, because the H-16 Lotus was such a failure and the Lotus 49 was not quite ready yet?

 

Also, no one has yet mentioned Hill beating Clark in the 1966 Indy 500 here.  Clearly, Clark would have won easily had he not spun and spectacularly saved himself twice, but in all of the confusion as to which of the two drivers completed 200 laps first, did Jim ever make any candid comments as to his own opinion about which one of them won the race?

[D-Type]

Indy 1966 has been discussed elsewhere.  At that time they used a timing system that recorded onto punched paper tape.  The times were automatic but the driver identification was input manually, I believe in duplicate because of the possibility of mistakes..  A time wrongly allocated to Spence(?) would have shown up as an extremely quick lap.  A  missed car would have shown a correspondingly long lap.  "Long laps" due to pit stops could be correlated with the pitstop records.  So there was a full record.  But, because of its nature it took significant time to check.  The organisers carried out the necessary checks and confirmed that their result was correct.  But this confirmation wasissued, at the earliest, the day after the race and by then in news terms the story was dead.