19 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

We had just 16.5 racers per race in the 1969 Formula One season. Why?

 

Why did Honda, Cooper, Matra and All American Racer leave Formula One?

[Catalina Park]

I thought Matra won the championship?

[pete53]

I thought Matra won the championship?

There were no works Matras. Jackie Stewart's car was entered by Ken Tyrrell.

[Vitesse2]

Cooper: no money, no sponsors, no customers.

 

AAR: USAC more lucrative and attractive.

 

Matra switched their focus to support Tyrrell - for one further year only - before unveiling their own Simca co-branded engine in 1970. So - French pride, plus Ford politics.

 

Honda: fallout from the death of Schlesser. Japanese antipathy to 'loss of face' after that. IIRC there's more - to do with disagreements with Surtees - in DCN's Motor Racing Mavericks, but I can't put my hand on that at the moment.

[FLB]

Ferrari were in the proverbial financial doldrums because most of their money was being spent on developping what became the 312B, so they only ran a single car at most Grand Prix and none in Germany. The deal with FIAT was only finalized in early 1969.

[HistoryFan]

Cooper: no money, no sponsors, no customers.

 

AAR: USAC more lucrative and attractive.

 

Matra switched their focus to support Tyrrell - for one further year only - before unveiling their own Simca co-branded engine in 1970. So - French pride, plus Ford politics.

 

Honda: fallout from the death of Schlesser. Japanese antipathy to 'loss of face' after that. IIRC there's more - to do with disagreements with Surtees - in DCN's Motor Racing Mavericks, but I can't put my hand on that at the moment.

 

 

But why had Cooper no costumers after so many years in which their system functioned?

 

And why was USAC more attraktiv for AAR?

 

[Vitesse2]

Cooper hadn't been independent for some years. They were well down the queue behind Lotus and Brabham in the 1500cc era when it came to getting the latest tweaks from Climax and hadn't really had a top-line driver since McLaren left. Their owners, the Chipstead Group, had been subsidising them for some years, but the company's main focus was now the Mini Cooper - which was something of a barrier to getting a Ford engine.

 

Nevertheless, a deal was struck to buy DFVs, but nobody wanted to buy a chassis - which Cooper couldn't afford to build 'on spec'. Especially since they'd already done that with the two T90 F5000 chassis, attracting precisely no interest, let alone any buyers. They'd also lost their Firestone deal and a sponsorship deal with Wilkinson Sword fell through. So, no money to run a team ...

 

This and much more in Doug Nye's Cooper Cars book pp304-5.

[pete53]

I am sure there are other TNFers with more knowledge than me about Cooper's last years. However, Cooper had obviously been in decline as a force in Formula One for a few years.

 

They picked up the odd win in the first couple of seasons of the new 3 litre F1 but this was largely thanks to the unreliability of faster cars around them. In 1968 they used the BRM engine (apart from S.Africa at the start of the season) and were simply not competitive starting most races, apart from the Nurburgring, near the rear of the grid. Successes were few and far between. Brian Redman and Scarfiotti finished 3rd & 4th in Spain, Bianchi & Scarfiotti 3rd & 4th in Monaco (only 5 finishers) and Vic Elford was 4th in France. After that things went downhill.

 

Also, as you can see, they weren't employing the top-line drivers of the day.

 

As in all walks of business sometimes a previously successful venture runs out of steam and goes into decline. This can be for all sorts of reasons - lack of investment, poor decisions, bad luck etc. Once the decline starts it can be hard to stop.

Edited by pete53, 05 April 2015 - 14:37.

[FLB]

Cooper was built on the success of their F3 500cc cars, in the 1950s. View them as the first successful bespoke chassis-only mass manufacturers. Othe people had built customer cars before, but most of the times it was the complete car, chassis + a variety of different engines. Lotus, Lola and Brabham emerged as credible chassis manufacturers as well. The Lotus 25 became a dominant car in 1962. Lotus 18s were cheaper that their Cooper counterparts.

 

By 1965, Cooper were in financial trouble. The Coventry Climax V8 was going to have to be relaced by something else for 1966 (a 3l engine). The deal they made with Maserati for 1966 simply wasn't enough. The engines lacked power and reliability. The arrival of customer DFVs in 1968 was its death sentence.  

 

A truckton of chassis manufacturers emerged over time (Crosslé, Merlyn, Tecno, McLaren, Matra, Lola, Lotus Components, Brabham, etc.) and took what was once Cooper's customer chassis business away. The offer from competitors was simply better.

 

As for AAR, they realized there was a customer chassis market in the US for rear-engined cars and they took it. There was much more money in USAC than there was in F1.

 

 

An interesting 'What If' scenario is What if Cooper and followed through on their 1961 Indy 500 venture and had started making chassis for the masses?

[D28]

 

 

And why was USAC more attraktiv for AAR?

 

The Indy winning purse alone in 1969 was $206,727 for Mario Andretti and that is only 1 race.

 

A retrospective on Dan Gurney's career in the current Vintage Motorsport  points out victories in NASCAR, Grand AM, Can-Am, Trans Am, IMSA as well as USAC and Indy Cars.  His cars won Indy 3 times as well as Sebring and Daytona and many others. The 1973 Indy included no less than 19 Eagles,  in all 158 single seater Eagles were built over the years.

 

By 1969 Gurney's driviing career was winding down and the opportunity to return to Cal permanently, run his business and enjoy family life must have been very attractive.  By all accounts AAR was very successful in US racing, F1 involvement would likely have precluded such success, as resources became over extended.

Edited by D28, 05 April 2015 - 15:24.

[HistoryFan]

Very interesting posts! Thank you very much! There is less to find about the last years of Cooper in Formula One in the internet and I didn't yet have any Cooper book. So that posts are very informative for me! Thank you very, very much!

[D28]

 

 

An interesting 'What If' scenario is What if Cooper and followed through on their 1961 Indy 500 venture and had started making chassis for the masses?

Or if they had followed Masten Gregory's urgings to develop the Monaco further for the burgeoning US pro sports car racing scene. 

[Roger Clark]

Cooper ..... hadn't really had a top-line driver since McLaren left. .

.

Apart from Surtees, Rindt and Rodriguez, of course.

[Lee Nicolle]

The Indy winning purse alone in 1969 was $206,727 for Mario Andretti and that is only 1 race.

 

A retrospective on Dan Gurney's career in the current Vintage Motorsport  points out victories in NASCAR, Grand AM, Can-Am, Trans Am, IMSA as well as USAC and Indy Cars.  His cars won Indy 3 times as well as Sebring and Daytona and many others. The 1973 Indy included no less than 19 Eagles,  in all 158 single seater Eagles were built over the years.

 

By 1969 Gurney's driviing career was winding down and the opportunity to return to Cal permanently, run his business and enjoy family life must have been very attractive.  By all accounts AAR was very successful in US racing, F1 involvement would likely have precluded such success, as resources became over extended.

46 years and money values. $206k to win Indy in 69 . That is now F1 lunch money for the weekend!

[Michael Ferner]

Honda: fallout from the death of Schlesser. Japanese antipathy to 'loss of face' after that. IIRC there's more - to do with disagreements with Surtees - in DCN's Motor Racing Mavericks, but I can't put my hand on that at the moment.

This "Japanese loss of face" business is, excusez moi, BS - a Western myth, at best, that gets far more mileage in European and American pseudo-intellectual discussions than its actual "tank capacity" suggests. They are no worse or better than us Caucasians in that.

In reality, Honda was also in financial difficulties, and dropped out of motorcycle racing at the same time - actually, one year earlier. They had been hugely successful at the two-wheeled sport, and just kept going in F1 for one more year because they felt it was unfinished business. Couldn't be helped at the time, but a decade and a half later they picked up where they left off - in both disciplines!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 05 April 2015 - 22:59.

[robjohn]

I haven't done a count, but there may also have been fewer private entrants in the European GPs than pre-1969, and I don't think there was a semi-works Parnell BRM after Monaco.
BRM was having a dreadful season and, though it entered three cars in the three N American races, it had just one or none in a few of the mid-season rounds.

Another reason for the departure of AAR was that the F1 Eagle, or at least its unreliable engine, was no longer competitive. Gurney did only five GPs in it in 1968 and finished in just one of those. He drove a Brabham in an early round and finished the season with three drives in a McLaren-Cosworth.
In contrast, as has been said above, he was having success in USAC racing.
Rob B

[HistoryFan]

In reality, Honda was also in financial difficulties, and dropped out of motorcycle racing at the same time - actually, one year earlier. They had been hugely successful at the two-wheeled sport, and just kept going in F1 for one more year because they felt it was unfinished business. Couldn't be helped at the time, but a decade and a half later they picked up where they left off - in both disciplines!

 

Your knowlege is impressive!
 

[HistoryFan]

I haven't done a count, but there may also have been fewer private entrants in the European GPs than pre-1969,

 

Perhaps because there were less engines around in the early 3.0 litre Formula...
 

[Stephen W]

After the 1967 & 1968 seasons had pointed the way forward with respect to the Ford Cosworth DFV V8 it was obvious that unless you could muster some financial backing then running anything else would leave you in the back third of any grid - Ferrari being the one exception but at this time you had two chances of getting a lease contract for Ferrari V12s (slim & fat). There were plenty of privateers about but mainly in South Africa where their natioanl F1 searies was thriving.

 

BRM's absence at the French GP was due to an internal dispute that saw Tony Rudd depart. There were two BRMs at the German GP but only one started (Surtees not taking the start due to engine problems). Otherwise there were two BRMs at all the mid-season races plus three at the top & tail events.

 

The Matra V12 had made its debut in 1968 but more development was underway and Matra were also building their own chassis to the new for 1970 regulations. The company built two new chassis for Ken Tyrrell and alos loaned Tyrrell their number one driver Beltoise.

 

Lotus, McLaren and Matra also ventured up the blind alley that was four wheel drive.

 

As for Cooper, Honda and Eagle I think that has already been covered. I would also add that Cooper for several years had seen their market share of none-F1 single seaters dwindle dramaticxally so the 'bread and butter' businees had gradually deminished.

[bschenker]

At that time the organizer had it in hand, to organize herself, maybe it would not come then to the present situation where you are simply omitted whom you do not raise the necessary money to compensate the deficit.

 

We were ready with the BT24 for the GP at Silverstone, have spent a lot of money also in terms of the following GP at the Nürburgring. We had our base at Bill Lacey, then 50 ~ 100 meters south of where today Force India is at home. The same at the Nürburgring, but FIA it does it get permission to ride a field of F2. The nice thing Exhibitors lamented the lack of cars.

 

What happened in 1970 as there were always at least 20 cars, it took over the system of Monte Carlo and limited the number of participation by qualification, with a few competitors with fixed starting places.

 

.