35 replies to this topic

[Victor]

Having started to watch F1 in 1972 I never had the opportunity to see Bruce McLaren racing.
He created a great team, was very successful in Can Am, but his F1 stats are not that great compared with others of his time.
How good was he?

[Ray Bell]

He did win at Monaco in '62, that took some kind of skill...

And that wasn't his only World Championship win.

[R.W. Mackenzie]

I was fourteen years old and about to attend my very first race, the 1970 Mosport Can-Am. I was incredibly excited. I had been following racing fanatically since the spring of 1968 and part of that excitement was the anticipation of seeing Bruce McLaren in the car that he had developed into the dominant Can-Am marque.

 

Like everyone else, I was stunned and greatly grieved when he died testing the latest variant only days before the Mosport event. I never got to see the man in the flesh.

 

Was he good? Absolutely! He won the US GP at Sebring in 1959, the Argentine GP in 1960, the Monaco GP in 1962 (all in Coopers) and the Belgian GP in 1968 (in his own car). He won the Le Mans 24 Hours in 1966 and the Can-Am series in 1967 and 1969. He won many lesser events and was a contender whenever he got behind the wheel.

 

But he was more than just a good driver. He was an incredible intuitive engineer, an astute businessman and a natural leader of the racing/manufacturing operation he founded.

 

There were three of them in the sixties, Jack Brabham, Dan Gurney and Bruce McLaren. They not only won races at the highest international level of the sport, but they developed and manufactured the cars that took them to victory. Jack had the greatest success as a driver, but both Dan and Bruce had equal success as developers and manufacturers. Of the three, only the organization that Bruce founded still exists.

 

Grand Prix racing has changed radically since then such that it is almost unrecognizable to those who were fortunate to have experienced it before it became a contest to see who could outspend everyone else. I am now an old fart and as such my views sound like quaint nostalgic sour grapes. But I can say that I witnessed a greatness in those three men the like of which we will never see again.   

[PCC]

R.W., I was at that '70 Can-Am too! I shared your shock and grief - probably to the minute. Fortunately, I'd seen him at the Can-Am and GP the year before, and even acquired his autograph (still a treasured bit of paper in my scrapbook).

 

As you say, any assessment of Bruce's greatness has to consider that he was a driver, an engineer, a team boss and a leader. Taking the whole package into account, there are only a handful who can compare with him.

 

And although I only spoke to him once, I have to add that he was extraordinarily nice to seven-year-olds.

[D28]

He was very good indeed. When he won at Sebring 59, he set a record for the youngest F1 winner (depending on how Troy Ruttman is considered) which stood  for 44 years. He also won the 60 opener and finished 2nd at Monaco, so he was leading the WDC in the early going in 1960, all at age 23. Jack Brabham had to bear  down and win 5 in a row to put his stamp on the season. He was steady, made very few mistakes and was quick enough to do well at difficult circuits like Monaco, Spa and Monza. 

Edited by D28, 18 November 2018 - 15:12.

[2F-001]

I don't think there's much else to add - except that when I was a lad collecting autographs at F1 meetings, of all the people I pestered for a signature, Bruce was one of the friendliest, most generous with his time and happiest to share a moment of idle chat. A cherished memory.

[Ray Bell]

He held the outright lap record at Warwick Farm for a couple of years...

 

Set in a Cooper during a race in which both Moss and Brabham competed, that says something.

 

I think it was Stirling Moss who wrote about Bruce, I think in All But My Life, that he wasn't really a pace setter. "But if you get him on your tail he can follow you and you know he's there." Or at least that's the thrust of what he said.

[Patrick Fletcher]

Story about the house Bruce built in NZ Herald this morning.

https://www.oneroof....-for-365m-35643

[john aston]

Having started to watch F1 in 1972 I never had the opportunity to see Bruce McLaren racing.
He created a great team, was very successful in Can Am, but his F1 stats are not that great compared with others of his time.
How good was he?

 I guess he is one of many drivers who are proof that statistics are the beginning of a story, not the end of it and are certainly not the whole story . We have seen from some of the absurd F1 league tables prepared by people who don't get out very much that drivers such as Coulthard or Arnoux were better than Moss or Rindt so any stats need a reality check . 

 

I applaud your interest in asking for the story behind the bare numbers - I never saw him race live so my view is formed only by press reportage of the era but with that caveat McLaren was not a Clark , and possibly not a Hill either , but he was someone whose reputation would still echo now , even if he had never created McLaren the team .  

[Doug Nye]

How good was Bruce as a driver? I feel that he was not quite from the top drawer - which is very, very small - but he was certainly from the next one down - which is small enough for its limited number of occupants still to deserve more respect than "F1 stats" alone now appear to give them.

 

Statistics have become gravely distorted by the great number of qualifying races run in the 'modern era' compared to the number run up to the '80s or '90s. The situation regarding Championship points is even more deformed by changes to the scoring system, with points awarded to the top ten instead of only to the top five or six, and in any case more lavish points per race.

 

Oh yes - and 'Formula 1' was never (in Bruce's day) the only aspect of motor sporting endeavour which seemed to count towards demonstrating a driver's quality.

 

DCN

[Tim Murray]

In my view his F1 career suffers in comparison with others because for most of it he was driving relatively uncompetitive cars. After the 1959 - 1960 period with Cooper (when he finished championship runner-up in ‘60) the next time he had a genuinely competitive car for a whole season was in 1968 with the M7A. By that time he was devoting most of his energy to running McLaren, so would have had less time to concentrate purely on driving. He did manage the win at Spa, a fast and demanding circuit where (as D28 said) he always went well.

[Bloggsworth]

Very good, but not a great driver; but as a person, that's something else altogether - Top man.

[Barry Boor]

I always felt that Bruce was more aware of the extreme dangers that came with driving racing cars in that era, much along the same lines as Tony Brooks. Maybe this caused him to be just that tiny bit 'slower' that he might otherwise have been. (I use the word slower although I suppose I should have said 'less quick'.)

I would whole heartedly agree with the comments made by DCN earlier.

[Charlieman]

When Bruce McLaren established his F1/GP team, his cars weren't always as fast as the opposition. McLaren raced in WDC events for Eagle and in the Tasman series for BRM. That shows how much respect other teams had for Bruce McLaren. They were prepared to show their hand in return for his speed in their cars.

[D28]

In my view his F1 career suffers in comparison with others because for most of it he was driving relatively uncompetitive cars. After the 1959 - 1960 period with Cooper (when he finished championship runner-up in ‘60) the next time he had a genuinely competitive car for a whole season was in 1968 with the M7A. By that time he was devoting most of his energy to running McLaren, so would have had less time to concentrate purely on driving. 

Bruce's forte was high powered Gr 7 cars, so it is understandable why the 1.5 l era didn't  work so well for him, or for Cooper. He remained with Cooper past their high water mark, probably a necessity in getting his team up and running. There was just the one win in that period, though he did score some Non championship wins for the marque. The 3 l power formula suited him better and he scored McLaren's first victory at Spa. Had he concentrated solely on driving, his win column could have been padded, no doubt with a seat at Brabham Racing Organization. But what would be the point? Had he done so he wouldn't today be the subject of films, books, articles and discussion in racing forums; his significant achievements show that his choice was the correct one. Racing enthusiasts can be thankful that he made it.

[Bikr7549]

It is interesting that the 3 'builder drivers' from that era worked together often and apparently pretty well. Brabham and Mclaren appeared to be good team mates at Cooper, Gurney drove successfully for Brabham several seasons and then Bruce drove occasionally for AAR, followed by Dan stepping in for Bruce after the accident-the latter says volumes about that relationship. Although competitors there seems to be some real kinship among the 3 that is very pleasing to see.

 

Post #3 mentions that only McLaren still exists as an organization, but AAR is still alive and very well, however with a move unfortunately away from Motorsports.

Edited by Bikr7549, 18 November 2018 - 17:57.

[Nick Planas]

I seem to recall (and apologies for not being able to verify the source) that Mario Andretti spoke very highly of Bruce's speed and skill as they worked together on testing the LeMans GT40s - particularly through and exiting low speed corners.

 

As per Doug's comments above, I felt he was not quite in the very top drawer but a mere smidgen below it. I recall watching him winning the Race of Champions in 1968 - he was by far the smoothest driver around Clearways - 1 move of the wheel on entry and that was pretty much it (compared with dear old Pedro R whose arms were flapping like mad in pursuit). Undoubtedly some of that was down to the car, but then, who built it and developed it...?

 

Top man as well, taken far too young but towering achievements. What a legacy.

[B Squared]

It's with a bit of irony that I happen to be making my way through my old Road & Track magazines and the current one being reviewed is from July 1965 - in it, there is a 3/4 page bio on Bruce. It mentions him finishing 5th in the Cooper in his first Grand Prix at the 1959 Monaco Grand Prix, no small feat. The finishing sentence reads, "His name commands respect wherever there is road racing and it is altogether likely that his greatest years still lie ahead."

I shared the story of meeting him in another thread when I first started posting. For those that missed it, My brother Bruce and I (then 14 and 12 years old) encountered him in the garages after the 1970 Indianapolis 500 and after some talking, with us enthusing over McLaren now being an Indy Car constructor and us paying as close attention to Can-Am as we could, brother Bruce (born on June 2) hit him up for his silver pit badge with backer. Mr. McLaren had taken it off his shirt and had presented to Bruce when he apologized profusely that upon rethinking it, he had to return to the track the next day and that they'd never let him back in without the credential. He said that with us both being so familiar with the Speedway and procedures, that he hoped Bruce understood. Disappointed certainly, but yes he understood. As brother Bruce turned 15 a few days later, we heard the terrible news from Goodwood. A fine man that is well-remembered by the Brown family.

[Roger Clark]

I think that McLaren’s formula 1 career suffered, firstly through the gradual decline of Cooper and later through the effort required to establish McLaren Cars.

Coopers’ decline started after Brabham left, partly due to Charles’ conservatism and unwillingness to risk having McLaren leave as Brabham had done. They fell behind Lotus and Brabham in the Climax pecking order and that made a huge difference. Despite that, it is surprising how often McLaren got onto the front row of the grid.

I would have loved to have seen him in a BRM, alongside Graham Hill. They alone could have produced two equal cars and I really don’t know who would have come out on top.

The problems of establishing his new team cannot be underestimated, particularly in the pre-DFV years. We must be grateful that he persevered with Grand Prix racing instead of going full time where the dollars were. It must have been very tempting.

Those years brought out probably his greatest quality: leadership. Howden Ganley said that if Bruce has come into the factory one day and said "today we’re not making racing cars, we’re going to walk across the Sahara”, the whole team would have followed him.

Ranking of drivers is totally subjective but interesting. In 62-64 I rated Jim Clark first, Graham Hill, Surtees and Gurney a point or two behind then Brabham and McLaren. The Australian and the New Zealander gave ample evidence that it could have been five snapping at the Scots' tails.

[E1pix]

It's with a bit of irony that I happen to be making my way through my old Road & Track magazines and the current one being reviewed is from July 1965 - in it, there is a 3/4 page bio on Bruce. It mentions him finishing 5th in the Cooper in his first Grand Prix at the 1959 Monaco Grand Prix, no small feat. The finishing sentence reads, "His name commands respect wherever there is road racing and it is altogether likely that his greatest years still lie ahead."I shared the story of meeting him in another thread when I first started posting. For those that missed it, My brother Bruce and I (then 14 and 12 years old) encountered him in the garages after the 1970 Indianapolis 500 and after some talking, with us enthusing over McLaren now being an Indy Car constructor and us paying as close attention to Can-Am as we could, brother Bruce (born on June 2) hit him up for his silver pit badge with backer. Mr. McLaren had taken it off his shirt and had presented to Bruce when he apologized profusely that upon rethinking it, he had to return to the track the next day and that they'd never let him back in without the credential. He said that with us both being so familiar with the Speedway and procedures, that he hoped Bruce understood. Disappointed certainly, but yes he understood. As brother Bruce turned 15 a few days later, we heard the terrible news from Goodwood. A fine man that is well-remembered by the Brown family.

This.

[DanTra2858]

Yes Bruce was great, but it is sad to see that no one has mentioned the people that he had around him to assist him achieve his great history in motor sport.

[as65p]

Yes Bruce was great, but it is sad to see that no one has mentioned the people that he had around him to assist him achieve his great history in motor sport.

 

If only someone who knew those people would do it.

[B Squared]

Yes Bruce was great, but it is sad to see that no one has mentioned the people that he had around him to assist him achieve his great history in motor sport.

I believe Jerry Entin started a thread on Gary Knutson and Nigel Beresford has contributed info about his father, Don Beresford, during their time at McLaren - surely there is more in the TNF archives, if only the search function was navigable. Oh, Howden Ganley has a thread too, I believe.

[jeffbee]

McLaren's driving career suffered because he stayed with Cooper for too long, and because setting up and running a business is hard enough without having the distraction of racing as well.  Having said that, he won races in an era when cars were unreliable and dangerous, and plenty of drivers didn't achieve that.

 

He was under no illusions about his abilities and acknowledged that Denny Hulme was probably slightly better than he, but that he, McLaren, was a better engineer.

 

There are always plenty of stories, warts and all, about drivers and their personalities, untidy lives and sordid little secrets.  But I have never heard anyone say a bad word about Bruce McLaren, and that says it all.

[D28]

 

He was under no illusions about his abilities and acknowledged that Denny Hulme was probably slightly better than he, but that he, McLaren, was a better engineer.

 

There are always plenty of stories, warts and all, about drivers and their personalities, untidy lives and sordid little secrets.  But I have never heard anyone say a bad word about Bruce McLaren, and that says it all.

Accepting that Bruce was just slightly below tier one in F1, consider just who he was competing against. For starters, Clark, Moss, Brabham, Stewart. Gurney, G Hill, Surtees. and Rindt. Many of these reckon in lists of best ever F1 pilots. One has absolutely no control over who shows up to race, but McLaren did compete against very stiff competition. Arguably certain others had a bit easier route to their F1 victories.  

Edited by D28, 20 November 2018 - 15:35.

[rl1856]

How good was Bruce McLaren ?   Well we are still talking about him.   Unlike other drivers who achieved similar historic results.  

 

As others pointed out, he was let down by the slow decline of Cooper from 1961-65.   However, when he was in a car that was more or less equal to other top cars, he ran up front.  Coventry Climax gave everyone roughly equal engines through much of 1962, and chassis technology had not advanced that much.  In 1962 McLaren won at Monaco, and was among the title leaders early in the season.  After 1962, Climax began to give priority to other teams..... and Cooper chassis design was a step or two behind Lotus, BRM and maybe Ferrari.    In 1968, Ford made the DFV available to paying customers and everyone received the same spec engine.  McLaren won at Spa, and Hulme was a championship contender deep into the season.   After 68, Stewart and Rindt received the best engines, and others were left behind.

 

F1 receives the most attention.   But consider his results in sports cars.  First in the old Zerex Special, then in the first McLaren Olds, McLaren Chevy, Ford GT40 program, and in Can Am.

 

May not have been the best, but he was very good and versatile, at a time when versatility was rewarded.

[F1matt]

Is there an argument for drivers who are engineers/constructor been distracted from driving by the engineering side of the sport? I appreciate Jack Brabham won a title in his own car but could he have won more if he hadn't gone down that route or does the engineering and driving suit some people as it refines their driving style?  

[B Squared]

Is there an argument for drivers who are engineers/constructor been distracted from driving by the engineering side of the sport?

Mark Donohue did alright in both roles.

[2F-001]

I'd say that in the case of Donohue, the two roles were 'mutually beneficial' (for want of a better expression),

[Charlieman]

Is there an argument for drivers who are engineers/constructor been distracted from driving by the engineering side of the sport? 

I'd suggest that the financial and organisational aspects of running a racing team are a bigger distraction than the engineering side. Bruce McLaren found people who enabled him to go racing and design staff who built good stuff. McLaren achieved an awful lot thanks to those people.

 

I think there is a strong argument that drivers who understand the engineering side can make a contribution. In recent years, Nico Rosberg benefited and contributed owing to his knowledge. On the other hand, Tony Rudd suggested that the BRM might have gone quicker if Graham Hill had stopped fiddling with it... So it depends.

[Mallory Dan]

I think the Great Ron T was somewhat involved with Brabhams too...

[Dave Ware]

Howden Ganley's view is well worth reading:

 

https://www.mclaren....rt-one-2133333/

[charles r]

Howden Ganley's view is well worth reading:

 

https://www.mclaren....rt-one-2133333/

 

Thank you Dave, a wonderful read.

[Victor]

Thanks for sharing this Dave. It was a fascinating reading.

[Ray Bell]

Another vote from me...

 

But it doesn't touch on his driving abilities.

[Doug Nye]

As a driver he could demonstrably live with the finest of his day...

 

To be able to do that while remaining such a fine, engaging and inspiring human being speaks volumes for his quality.

 

DCN