27 replies to this topic

[chr1s]

I remember reading years ago that Derek Gardener left Tyrrell abruptly after the 1977 Italian Grand prix, although no reason was given at the time.

Many years later I saw an interview with Derek Gardener, who gave the impression that the circumstances under which he left were less than amicable but, again declined to go into detail.

 

Does anyone here know exactly what happend?

 

Thanks Chris.

[Nemo1965]

What I remember is that the Tyrrell-team hired Maurice Philippe (ex-Lotus) as a replacement for Gardner and that the reason that floated around (by the team?) was that Derek's was having health problems. Considering the fact that there-after Gardner worked all his life for Borg-Warner (a technical firm, something to do with clutches?), that was odd.

 

Perhaps Tyrrell replaced Gardner without being straight forward about the reason?

Edited by Nemo1965, 30 September 2016 - 11:01.

[StanBarrett2]

I can only offer this piece about Gardner out of Autocar and Motor, where is mentioned that hew was offerred a senior post at Borg Warner

and immediately accepted that post. Maybe the less amicable parting was due to Gardner not wanting to finish his term.

 

macoran

[Dipster]

Perhaps the second paragraph of the attachment above is a clue. Could he have been pushing Ken too hard for the smaller engine (which would have been difficult for him for a couple of reasons)? Perhaps the discussion got acrimonious  causing his departure. Thus BW might have been the result rather than the cause.

[f1steveuk]

I spoke to Derek on many an occaision, and he was never anything other than complimentary about the Tyrrell team and especially Ken. Derek's health was always an issue, but one he never spoke of, and I for one never pried. I believe it was something  than could be worse some days than others, and the traveling and pressure didn't help. He started at Fergusons, in transmission, so going back to a factory based job, in transmission related stuff would make sense. He also designed  as a consultant, electric bicycles, microlites and small boats, and within this, still did some consultancy with Tyrrell, so I am not certain it was a "acrimonious" split at all. Maybe Ken thought it was short notice, but he would not have held a grudge, and obviously didn't. Liked Derek a lot, who would still get very choked about Francois' accident, talking about it many many years after the event, which shows what sort of chap he was.

Edited by f1steveuk, 30 September 2016 - 12:43.

[Nemo1965]

I spoke to Derek on many an occaision, and he was never anything other than complimentary about the Tyrrell team and especially Ken. Derek's health was always an issue, but one he never spoke of, and I for one never pried. I believe it was something  than could be worse some days than others, and the traveling and pressure didn't help. He started at Fergusons, in transmission, so going back to a factory based job, in transmission related stuff would make sense. He also designed  as a consultant, electric bicycles, microlites and small boats, and within this, still did some consultancy with Tyrrell, so I am not certain it was a "acrimonious" split at all. Maybe Ken thought it was short notice, but he would not have held a grudge, and obviously didn't. Liked Derek a lot, who would still get very choked about Francois' accident, talking about it many many years after the event, which shows what sort of chap he was.

 

Thank you for this post. I always wondered what it was about Gardner's health. Did he have asthma? I remember that in 1978 there were some stories about the split, some referring to mutual disappointment, sometimes to Gardner's health. It fluctuated...

[FLB]

In François Cevert's biography, La mort dans mon contrat (I don't have my copy with me right now), somebody describes him as being "liquified" upon learning of the Frenchman's passing.

Edited by FLB, 30 September 2016 - 16:24.

[f1steveuk]

Thank you for this post. I always wondered what it was about Gardner's health. Did he have asthma? I remember that in 1978 there were some stories about the split, some referring to mutual disappointment, sometimes to Gardner's health. It fluctuated...

I never asked him, it was obviously something he thought was personal and of no consequence to what we were talking about, I simply didn't ask if he brought it up, so  I have no idea what it was.

[PeterElleray]

Gene (Varnier) might know more about this one - he was at Tyrrell at the time.

[chr1s]

Thankyou everyone for your replys so far, if it helps, I found the interview with Derek (on VHS!) from an old channel 4 documentry about Ken Tyrrell and this was what he said:-   "Well certain things happend- I really don't want to discuss them. Ken was'nt the easiest of people to discuss anything... he would try to break you down... I mean he could be quite formidable..."

[PeterElleray]

Would still like to hear from Gene, or anybody with first hand knowledge, but having known both Derek and Ken, i have wondered in the past if the idea of marrying the Renault turbo to the 6 wheel concept was a step too far for Ken. In mid 1977 the Renault was still unproven and something of a joke  (though perhaps not by late summer, when Derek had already made his decision), and the 6 wheel concept was already in deep trouble by the middle of that year.

 

So It would be very easy to imagine a conversation along the lines ' Look how much faster than us Jody is going in that bloody Wolf with 4 wheels and nothing trick on it..." And the argument would have been a difficult one for a engineer like Derek, who had effectivelty bet the kitchen sink on the 6 wheel concept, to argue against.

 

In theory, perhaps, with the clear foresight of a gifted engineer, Derek was right. 6 wheels, with proper tyre development, and a 1.5 turbo should have been formidable, although with ground effect just around the corner that may not have been true for very much longer. But from Ken's perspective, his ex driver, driving something very similar in concept to the original - and most successful - Tyrrell was showing the way forwards in the shorter term. Pragmatism vs engineering logic...

 

Exactly how any that would fit in with the known facts, ie that Maurice Phillippe was working at Tyrrell on installing the turbo into the 6 wheeler, presumably under Derek's direction, is probably another story. especially when you reflect on Derek's departure and Maurice then succeding him and bringing along the design of a 4 wheeler that he had been working as a private project for some time...

[Gene Varnier]

Would still like to hear from Gene, or anybody with first hand knowledge, but having known both Derek and Ken, i have wondered in the past if the idea of marrying the Renault turbo to the 6 wheel concept was a step too far for Ken. In mid 1977 the Renault was still unproven and something of a joke (though perhaps not by late summer, when Derek had already made his decision), and the 6 wheel concept was already in deep trouble by the middle of that year.

So It would be very easy to imagine a conversation along the lines ' Look how much faster than us Jody is going in that bloody Wolf with 4 wheels and nothing trick on it..." And the argument would have been a difficult one for a engineer like Derek, who had effectivelty bet the kitchen sink on the 6 wheel concept, to argue against.

In theory, perhaps, with the clear foresight of a gifted engineer, Derek was right. 6 wheels, with proper tyre development, and a 1.5 turbo should have been formidable, although with ground effect just around the corner that may not have been true for very much longer. But from Ken's perspective, his ex driver, driving something very similar in concept to the original - and most successful - Tyrrell was showing the way forwards in the shorter term. Pragmatism vs engineering logic...

Exactly how any that would fit in with the known facts, ie that Maurice Phillippe was working at Tyrrell on installing the turbo into the 6 wheeler, presumably under Derek's direction, is probably another story. especially when you reflect on Derek's departure and Maurice then succeding him and bringing along the design of a 4 wheeler that he had been working as a private project for some time...

[Gene Varnier]

An interesting topic, but even though I was working in the design office at the time, I don't know for certain why Derek left Tyrrell and returned to Borg Warner, and this was in a small design office of 3 people, including Derek.
Health wise, he seemed fine to me, and Derek wasn't the type who would complain anyway.
Regarding how he and Ken got along, then with both of them being strong characters, there were going to be "moments". Whether Derek deciding to leave Tyrrell was caused by a "moment too far" we can only speculate.
What you say in your post Peter could certainly be right in that maybe Derek wanted to continue with P34, with the Renault Turbo installed,but Ken could probably see that the tyre problem would not improve and that Renault would have too great a task in running their own car AND supplying another team with their engines. We will never really know.
Maurice DID have a car largely schemed out before he came to Tyrrell, and with it being conventional in that it had four wheels maybe Ken preferred to go that route, although the fan and suspension were going to cost extra time and money !
So, as to why Derek left Tyrrell when he did I would say Derek was probably the only one who knew for sure.

[PeterElleray]

Thanks Gene - i think we've talked before about Maurice's design which became 008, i'd always assumed the timeline was post Parnelli / pre Tyrrell, but do you remember he had another, different model (wind tunnel?) hanging on the wall of his office aswell? Not a Parnelli, and not 008 - it had a wide nose. He told me that that was the design he was working on before he joined Ken? I think it was from the period that he and Andrew Ferguson was trying to set up their own team in Norfolk, so mid to late 75 thru into 76?

 

So i'm confused, maybe 008 was another iteration on that theme ?

 

Of course he also had a spell consulting with the Fittipaldi's from mid 76  until the end of the season (or early 77?). Maybe he just kept on designing F1 cars at the same time in the hope that someone would take one of them up - and somebody did...

 

How complete was Maurice's scheme when you first saw it? I'm just wondering if maybe Ken was aware of it and Derek wasn't and....

 

Peter

[Mohican]

Surely it was clear by mid-77 that the six-wheeler was not going to work - if for no more complicated reason that Goodyear was not going to continue developing special tyres for a single team.

With Renault coming in, using Michelin - and Ferrari switching to the same brand for 78, change was definitely coming. And a year later, Tyrrell really fell off the edge with the loss of both Elf and Citibank as sponsors.

 

But the Tyrrell 008 was not entirely conventional with its forward-angled front wings.

[PeterElleray]

Well, it already had worked - pretty effectively -right through 1976..

 

Easy to look back 40 years later and say it was never going to work, but especially from the designer's perspective you have to believe in your own work, and after the sort of season the 6 wheeler had enjoyed in 1976 i doubt if Derek's mindset would have been 'this things never going to work'. at least not in the early months of 1977. More likely it would have been, "What have we done to stop it working as effectively as it did and how do i fix it?". 

 

I think that situation developed rather rapidly over the next few months as the Lotus 78, M26 McLaren and Brabham Alfa came good, Ferrari caught a second breath and the 6 wheeler faded . By mid summer some of the 'fixs' started to look desperate - wide front track, 1976 bodywork etc. For years we've focused on those underdeveloped front tyres, but there were lots of other factors that played a part - weight was one such

 

The project to install the turbo definately happened around this time, and in retrospect that looks pretty desperate too, that has to be the point at which Ken saw 'the light'. Three months later Derek was gone.

 

Ironically the concept that Maurice brought along was far from conventional either (forget about the  forward angled wings, they could be changed, and were, very quickly), with its fan ducted water radiator/ underbody suction device, and its active susension controlled by gyro's and rams. It never raced with any of that fitted, and it's tempting to think what part Ken would have played in that... 

[Gene Varnier]

Going back to the general test at Ricard at the end of 1976, P34 with the new "streamliner" bodywork (as we called it ) was over one second quicker than Hunt's pole position time at the French GP at Ricard that year. So, at the time things were promising.
As we all now know, and still happens, pre-season testing can be VERY misleading.
My pet theory, with hindsight, is that it was a combination of little to no front tyre development, rear tyre DEVELOPMENT, and the car becoming increasingly overweight, the latter increasing the front tyre problems.Aero wise, I'm not convinced that the streamliner bodywork was the best solution at all the circuits, one reason for going back to the previous year's bodywork for Monaco.A problem of differential pressures.......as with the Chaparral 2H.??........but I digress.

[dolomite]

I may be wrong, but wasn't there a suggestion that the Renault deal would have also involved Michelin developing special tyres for the six wheeler?

[PeterElleray]

Gene - please digress a bit more on your differential pressure theory ! It's just getting interesting.

 

My ten pennyworth (maybe along the same lines ?) - when i look at the p34 aero i see a big rear wing and not much at the front to balance it with - the wide nose needed a splitter to do anything sigificant and then it becomes very sensitive to ride height.

 

Before mid season the oil coolers were in the nose too - loosing more potential downforce inducing surface area.

 

Compare the p34 wide nose with the Brabham BT45 for instance - much more aggressive.

 

'76 bodywork stayed on the car at other 'downforce tracks ' - - such as Zolder too.

 

Ironic that the p34 adopted a low drag (and low downforce?) body at the same time that Lotus, Brabham, Ferrari and others went in the opposite direction (not all of them intentionally though..)

[Gene Varnier]

Peter, that's pretty much my line of thinking. Also, P34 had much higher top speeds than the other runners at the Ricard test I mentioned previously, so there was a clue there. Although oddly enough, Patrick (Depailler ) did remark early in the test that the car felt stable in the high speed corners. I don't recall what he said by the end of the test.
Dolomite, didn't hear anything regarding Michelin tyres for P34 but obvioulsy would have been a good move. As an aside, Avon did a very competent job in Historic racing with the front tyres, and rears to match, for P34.

[PeterElleray]

I suppose the thinking in the team was that the high top speed proved the initial design concept once the new bodywork  was fitted...

 

I was looking at reports from that test after your mail, bit of an odd one. Looking at the cars which would actually prove to be fast during 1977, the Lotus 78 was having its first run outside the UK and was still not producing downforce AND top speed (so there's one potential comparison u/s). Ferrari were still in a bit of confusion trying to get the T2 back to where it had been earlier in 1976 (and Lauda was not allowed to drive!). The Brabham Alfa would have been the best comparison in retrospect, but nobody knew at that point how much quicker it would be in 1977 than it had been in 1976, and the same goes for the Wolf which was still very new. And the M26 McLaren was at much the same stage.

 

I can't help remembering that when we ran the early Bentley at Ricard 25 years later that felt similarily good in the high speed corner (Signes) and it was a different story when we got to LeMans!

 

I had a bit of a chat with derek about running the P34 in Historics on those Avon's. He certainly felt 'vindicated' with the way it went (he engineered the car a few times aswell). But i think you have to be a bit careful reading too much into the way cars go in those races. Lots of fast Arrows that were not at all fast when new and so on..

[f1steveuk]

I heard that there are some "DFV"s, that are actually DFLs, but would 500cc extra account for ALL that extra speed??

Edited by f1steveuk, 06 October 2016 - 08:03.

[PeterElleray]

Steve - are we talking about historic effwun here? or have you fallen into the wrong thread?

Edited by PeterElleray, 05 October 2016 - 17:26.

[chr1s]

Thank you everyone for your replys, fascinating stuff. A question for Gene and Peter about the P34 "streamliner" bodywork, would  that done in a wind tunnel or was that still a few years away?

[f1steveuk]

Steve - are we talking about historic effwun here? or have you fallen into the wrong thread?

Yes indeed Historic F1. I wont name names, but one car for certain, which in period was DFV powered, is supposed to have used a 3.5 DFL more recently

[PeterElleray]

Ah ha - but wouldn't that actually make some of the cars 'period correct'...

 

No, my point was that there are such a variety of factors  - drivers, setup, budget - etc that you can't read too much into a cars 'true' potential from its performance in an historic race.

 

Ofcourse the counter argument is that all the same factors, in a different order, applied in period aswell, so you can't make a judgement from that either.

 

Anyway, some cars seem to overperform, yes ?

[Gene Varnier]

chr1s, the P34 "streamliner" bodywork was designed in the days before there was the money ( and all that brings with it) and the abundance of windtunnel test facilities there are today. There were rare tests at MIRA in the full size tunnel to check the occasional aero race set-up, but there was no windtunnel model or aero programme.This was probably fairly typical of most of the F1 teams of that era, to a greater or lesser extent I would guess.

[rl1856]

Straight Line speed at Paul Ricard makes sense.  Wasn't low frontal area one of the design goals for the P34 ?  In retrospect, inadequate front tires, excessive weight, and other cars having caught up in handling certainly accounts for performance in 1977.  

 

RE: Chaparal 2H.  The bodywork was designed to act like a "wing" to create downforce without a high wing.  The desire for clean rear aerodynamics required that the intake manifold be completely within the bodywork of the car.  It was estimated that the resulting convoluted intake ducting cost about 100hp.  John Surtees hated the design and never fully committed to the amount of testing required to work out handling issues.  The designer, Jim Hall, was still recovering from an accident at the last race of the 1968 CanAm and was unable to test the car himself.