118 replies to this topic

[Ibsey]

I am intending to release my second book, which will be entitled; Team Lotus & Their Decline Between 1983 & 1990. You can listen to a free audio book sample & find out more about this book here; http://www.1994f1.com/lotusbook/

 

Team Lotus & Their Decline Between 1983 & 1990 will just be released on audiobook format initially around January 2020 via the retailers shown within the above link. Please note the audiobook is unlikely to be available at Audiable until mid 2020. This is because the process of getting the audiobook onto audible is especially time consuming (i.e. you need your ebook uploaded onto Amazon.com first!). So please let me know here if you require an update on this here. The ebook & print book's expected release date (likely to be Spring 2020 ATM). 

 

FYI – the publishers of my debut book (Performance Publishing) are the people behind Absolute Lotus Magazine, likewise this book has been inspired by Neil White's amazing research since 2012:  https://forums.autos...p/#entry6509860. Indeed I've been in contact with Neil about his Lotus book since 2013 (Neil helped with my 94 book, including producing the Telmentry traces contained within it). As such our research, book contributors & experiences have all been shared to ensure both of our Lotus books are as good as they possibly can be. This is why I am so proud of my Lotus book (as I am with Neil's Lotus book who I understand will release his in late 2020) and why I am going to the trouble of alerting this forum to the existence of both of our books, which I am not doing with every F1 forum. 

 

Hopefully the reviews of my debut book; 1994: The Untold Story of a Tragic and Controversial F1 Season might give TNF'ers some idea what to expect in terms of quality, the detail covered and the upcoming Lotus' book value for money. FYI here is a selection of 1994 book reviews in case you are interested; http://www.1994f1.com/sample-page/ (the audiobook is currently on Xmas special offer FYI). Also if any TNF'ers have read any of Neil's draft chapters then you should know how good this particular story is.

 

If this all sounds of interest to you then, please register at http://www.1994f1.com/contact/ to receive book updates (on not just my about my book, but also Neil's book as I hope to co-write a future blog with him about his book), special offers Team Lotus blogs & more.

 

 

Thanks & Merry Xmas.

 

Ibrar Malik

Edited by Ibsey, 20 December 2019 - 11:30.

[blackmme]

Thanks Ibsey, I look forward to reading/listening to it and wish you the very best of luck with it!

 

Regards Mike

[Nemo1965]

Ibsey, very quicly from the hip: I think that already after 1979 Lotus was not a topteam any more. If you look at the approach Chapman took versa the Lotus 25, the 49, and compared THAT to the approach with the 78 and the 79 cars already showed that Chapman still had cutting-edge ideas but not cutting-edge development. Not that the knowledge was not there any more, but Chapman just did not want to be...tenuous anymore. 

 

I assume that you will include Mario Andretti's views on the development of the 79 in your book. Andretti has told in several interviews how he bitched and pandered with Chapman to enhance the rigidity of the 79. Chapman did not listen.

Then there was the 88. A clever idea, but aerodynamically not sound. The ban of the car by the FIA, in my opinion, just prevented a debacle that would have paled the horror of the Lotus 80. Then, after Chapmans death in 1982 (or the end of 1981) left behind a team with a good budget but with a development-team that, well, did not perform miracles. The win of D'Angelis in Austria in 1982, the arrival of Senna (and Gerard Ducarouge, who managed to turn around the totally failed Lotus car powered by Renault) kind of covered the truth. Remember Senna, who said himself after he blocked Derek Warwick as a teammate: 'In a topteam one can two number 1 drivers. But Lotus is not a topteam anymore.'  1985, remember...

Edited by Nemo1965, 20 December 2019 - 12:36.

[Ibsey]

Ibsey, very quicly from the hip: I think that already after 1979 Lotus was not a topteam any more. If you look at the approach Chapman took versa the Lotus 25, the 49, and compared THAT to the approach with the 78 and the 79 cars already showed that Chapman still had cutting-edge ideas but not cutting-edge development. Not that the knowledge was not there any more, but Chapman just did not want to be...tenuous anymore. 
 
I assume that you will include Mario Andretti's views on the development of the 79 in your book. Andretti has told in several interviews how he bitched and pandered with Chapman to enhance the rigidity of the 79. Chapman did not listen.
Then there was the 88. A clever idea, but aerodynamically not sound. The ban of the car by the FIA, in my opinion, just prevented a debacle that would have paled the horror of the Lotus 80. Then, after Chapmans death in 1982 (or end of the 1981) left behind a team with a good budget but with a development-team that, well, did not perform miracles. The win of D'Angelis in Austria in 1982, the arrival of Senna (and Gerard Ducarouge, who managed to turn around the totally failed Lotus car powered by Renault) kind of covered the truth. Remember Senna, who said himself after he blocked Derek Warwick as a teammate: 'In a topteam one can two number 1 drivers. But Lotus is not a topteam anymore.'  1985, remember...

 
Great points, and in fact both Neil and myself feel there might actually be another book's worth of material between Lotus' 1978 & 1982 years because as Neil White highlighted to me only yesterday, at the winter of 1978 that was really the start of the tide turning for the team:[/size]

1979 - half the points scored over the previous season.[/size]

1980 - half again. [/size]How can a driver win the championship and then two years later score just one point for the same team?[/size]
 
 
I've heard similar things to what you've said from the likes of Bob Dance & Chris Dinnage (whom I met at Race Retro) that C[/size]olin Chapman was also getting disillusioned with the way the regulations were going in 1981 and spoke of the space shuttle launch. He was also quite loyal to his rivals and apparently the Lotus 88 could have been raced provided he voted with Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo on FOCA matters. But apparently Chapman refused. Then you have the rumors surrounding Chapman's death, so plenty of content there isn't there for a book on Lotus' 78-83. [/size]
 
However I am hoping to price my Lotus audiobook / ebook around the £15 (UK Sterling) or $20 (US Dollar) mark with the intention that my Lotus book is affordable to the causal F1/sports fan. Thus for that price, I cannot include all the detail & research that was included within the 1994 book for instance. Hence why I am only covering the years between 1983 & 1990 years at the moment. If this upcoming Lotus book proves popular with F1 fans then I might consider then writing that 78-83 Lotus book (possibly together with Neil). It could even turn into a set of Volumes. So alot does rest on how well this upcoming Lotus book does. [/size]
 
FYI I have just mentioned this thread to Neil, so hopefully he will post here soon. 
 
 
 
 
 
 [/size]

Edited by Ibsey, 20 December 2019 - 13:06.

[Macca]

I think Lotus were in decline after 1973 - Chapman was getting increasingly distracted with boats and road cars. For 1974 he said 'all we need is a lighter 72', which was an over-simplification, and the new car didn't receive his close attention, I believe.

 

For 1975 he said to Ronnie Peterson that he could have a pay cut and a new car, or not, to which Ronnie reasonably replied that he had a contract and it wasn't his job to find sponsorship.

 

When Mario agreed to rejoin in 1976 it was conditional on Chapman concentrating on F1, and the result of that 3-year project was the WC. Then it all slipped back again.....

 

 

Paul M

[john aston]

It didn't look too much  in decline in 1978, when I saw the exquisite 79... It had a dip between 74 and 76 but was on the ascendant again with the 78 - certainly not the reverse direction .

[Nemo1965]

It didn't look too much  in decline in 1978, when I saw the exquisite 79... It had a dip between 74 and 76 but was on the ascendant again with the 78 - certainly not the reverse direction .

 

 

The 79 was a brilliant car in concept, but Williams showed in the year there-after (1979) it was not the best version of the concept by far. As I wrote, Mario Andretti KNEW the car was too flexible and not rigid enough and fought with Chapman to improve it. Colin refused. In 1979, I believe it was, Peter Warr of Lotus was caught spying under the underside of the Williams FW07 with a notebook and a camera...

 

I always have believed that Andretti's role in the reversal of Lotus revival between 1976 and 1978 can not be overestimated.

[john aston]

I know all about the Williams FW 07 story but that's hindsight  really , From late 77 I don't think many doubted that Lotus' s star was , once more, in the ascendant . The decline was a long one, and the 80 felt like a dip in form ,rather than the end of the long saga which would end in ignominy.  But , fast forward a few years and even Senna's success felt only like part of his journey to better things - not Lotus's  

[E1pix]

The 79 was a brilliant car in concept, but Williams showed in the year there-after (1979) it was not the best version of the concept by far. As I wrote, Mario Andretti KNEW the car was too flexible and not rigid enough and fought with Chapman to improve it. Colin refused. In 1979, I believe it was, Peter Warr of Lotus was caught spying under the underside of the Williams FW07 with a notebook and a camera...
 
I always have believed that Andretti's role in the reversal of Lotus revival between 1976 and 1978 can not be overestimated.

One wonders if its flexibility was the primary reason it held the road so well.

Was the 80 notably stiffer? Perhaps too much so?

Agree with the Mario accolades, Thanks. The timing vs. success seem to make that irrefutable, and as I said, I don't think Mario's heart was nearly as hungry once Ronnie died.

[PayasYouRace]

One wonders if its flexibility was the primary reason it held the road so well.
 

 

It would be unique as a car if that was the case. Flexing chassis means the suspension can't do its job properly, and the car is less predictable. In a car which was so dependent on airflow underneath, then flexing and changing the shape of those underside channels would result in varying levels of downforce and drag.

[E1pix]

For sure, but only on tracks that are dead smooth.

On a street course for example, too stiff would compromise everything -- grip-wise.

[PayasYouRace]

For sure, but only on tracks that are dead smooth.

On a street course for example, too stiff would compromise everything -- grip-wise.

 

But you'd want to soften the suspension which is designed for that, with springs and, most imprortantly, dampers. A flexing chassis is no good no matter how bumpy the surface is. On a bumpy surface a chassis that isn't stiff enough is working against your suspension, throwing the weight transfer about unpredictably and ruining the handling. Even a rally car needs to have a rock stiff chassis and let it's suspension do the hard work.

[E1pix]

But you'd want to soften the suspension which is designed for that, with springs and, most imprortantly, dampers. A flexing chassis is no good no matter how bumpy the surface is. On a bumpy surface a chassis that isn't stiff enough is working against your suspension, throwing the weight transfer about unpredictably and ruining the handling. Even a rally car needs to have a rock stiff chassis and let it's suspension do the hard work.

I admit your thoughts seem to make more sense than mine on this application.

 

Mine come from extensive karting, and are absolutely true there. The difference may be that in that case, the "suspension" consists of the axle stiffness, the hub length and stiffness, and the frame itself. Stiff is really bad on rough circuits and on dirt in karts, the best dirt karts are often old, worn-out frames. I once ran a street race where my top speed was over 100 mph, and stiff was useless there as well. Flex can be a great thing, I'd thought the same might apply here.

 

All race cars have some frame flexibility, and my race tech buds have long said "some" flex is okay. Maybe what they meant is "manageable" over "desirable."

 

Thanks. 

[PayasYouRace]

I admit your thoughts seem to make more sense than mine on this application.

 

Mine come from extensive karting, and are absolutely true there. The difference may be that in that case, the "suspension" consists of the axle stiffness, the hub length and stiffness, and the frame itself. Stiff is really bad on rough circuits and on dirt in karts, the best dirt karts are often old, worn-out frames. I once ran a street race where my top speed was over 100 mph, and stiff was useless there as well. Flex can be a great thing, I'd thought the same might apply here.

 

All race cars have some frame flexibility, and my race tech buds have long said "some" flex is okay. Maybe what they meant is "manageable" over "desirable."

 

Thanks. 

Indeed, a kart is a totally different situation because it lacks any real suspension to speak of, and it’s also considerably lighter with knock on effects on inertial issues.

[Dick Dastardly]

I look forward to reading the print book, especially as my brother worked at team Lotus from Dec '82 [he started about 10 days before Colin Chapman died] through to around 1985. He was one of those working under Gerard Ducarouge from 1983... 

[Ibsey]

I look forward to reading the print book, especially as my brother worked at team Lotus from Dec '82 [he started about 10 days before Colin Chapman died] through to around 1985. He was one of those working under Gerard Ducarouge from 1983...

Cool. Did he work back at Ketteringham Hall or on the race team?

I ask because we may need contributors for the print & ebook versions as that will give readers more analysis than the audio book can (images etc can be difficult to explain within an audio book). The latter will merely take listeners through all of Team Lotus’ races between 1983 to the end of the 1989 F1 Season (ATM) with "light" analysis on TL in between those races and at the end of each season. Whereas the print / ebook version will give readers more "heavy" analysis in between races (i.e. things like the radial/cross ply tyre thing in 1983 seems to hold little weight when you scrutinise it on the face of things.
Ferrari were on Goodyear cross-plies and won the constructors' championship, so why were TL so insistent that only radials would do, leading to them going with Pirelli for 83 after Renualt blocked their use of Michelin's)

So in summary;

The audio book version is intended to be for someone who wants a "lightweight" overview of Team Lotus during this period. Whereas the print/ebook will be more of a collaboration effort with TNF'er neilwhitedesign so will provide more in the way of detail and will be priced accordingly. However both the audio & print books will provide great value for money, as Neil and myself hope this may turn into a volume of books on Team Lotus.

Edited by Ibsey, 22 December 2019 - 21:39.

[Dick Dastardly]

He [David Senior, do you have a list of personnel?]....worked at Ketteringham Hall, was on the design team. Will speak to him over the holiday period to see if he can remember much from those days.

[Nemo1965]

Perhaps I am going to overstate the obvious, but... the above posts about stiffness or flexibility don't mention the essential goal of the Lotus 88... and that was not only to escape the bans on skirts but above all the dilemma of the ground-effect cars: low ride-height and enforced stiffness of the suspension.

 

The thing is this: a car with full venturi channels works best when the car is as low to the ground as possible AND that the rake (difference of height between front and rear) is exactly right. But the problem with many ground-effect cars was that they started to bounce on the small undulations on the track and then you would get the so called porpoising effect - bouncing up and down, front to back and back. Which was extremely uncomfortable for the drivers and very dangerous - the ground-effect could be there here and gone there.

 

The Lotus 88 was trying to solve two problems at once: there was one chassis that was rigid sprung and the kept the sides to the ground at all times (supposedly) and one chassis (in which the driver was seated) that was softly sprung. Unfortunately the 88 - as far as I know - was quite dangerous also, because if there entered air between the two chassis, it would start to fly...

 

I remember later that a Lotus-engineer (or was it Tony Southgate?)  remarked that if only in the 80's they would have known about using active suspension managed by computers, both the Lotus 80, the Arrows A2 and the Ligier JS 19 could have worked beautifully... 

 

(Again, my apologies if I am stating the over-known obvious but I could not let the remarks above slip by. Perhaps someone stumbling on this thread does learn something new).

Edited by Nemo1965, 26 December 2019 - 14:59.

[guiporsche]

Well, at Lotus they knew exacty about 'active suspension managed by computers', which was why once the dead-end that was the 88 was banned they carried on with precisely such a project, that eventually raced as the 92 in 1983. Of course, even by 1987 the system was heavy and relatively unsophisticated, which is easily explained by how primitive electronics were compared to the 90s, not to say nowadays.

 

Here's a good primer, full credits to Motorsport Magazine and its archive:

 

https://www.motorspo...tive-suspension

[Ibsey]

Well, at Lotus they knew exacty about 'active suspension managed by computers', which was why once the dead-end that was the 88 was banned they carried on with precisely such a project, that eventually raced as the 92 in 1983. Of course, even by 1987 the system was heavy and relatively unsophisticated, which is easily explained by how primitive electronics were compared to the 90s, not to say nowadays.
 
Here's a good primer, full credits to Motorsport Magazine and its archive:
 
https://www.motorspo...tive-suspension

Thanks for sharing that link. IIRC Lotus' active suspension robbed the engine of 5% BHP and weighed something like 15KG's. I suspect that latter point is why Senna found himself having to save his brakes at some races that year like Detroit (which ironically in that case actually helped the Brazilian cool his tyres down, avoid a pitstop & win the race).

[Nemo1965]

Well, at Lotus they knew exacty about 'active suspension managed by computers', which was why once the dead-end that was the 88 was banned they carried on with precisely such a project, that eventually raced as the 92 in 1983. Of course, even by 1987 the system was heavy and relatively unsophisticated, which is easily explained by how primitive electronics were compared to the 90s, not to say nowadays.

 

Here's a good primer, full credits to Motorsport Magazine and its archive:

 

https://www.motorspo...tive-suspension

 

I wanted to mention that in my earlier post, but it is a good point. It kind of reflects the philosophy of Lotus which went astray already before 1983: finding technical, complicated tricks (Lotus after 1973) instead of good ideas plus sturdy mechanical developments (Lotus 18, 25,49, 72). Ibsey, it is kind of illuminating to read Mark Donohue's The Unfair Advantage. If Penske had failed projects in about the same time, it was always before they tried to be too smart for their own good, just like Lotus at the end of the 70's, IMHO. 

Edited by Nemo1965, 27 December 2019 - 11:30.

[Ibsey]

It kind of reflects the philosophy of Lotus which went astray already before 1983: finding technical, complicated tricks (Lotus after 1973) instead of good ideas plus sturdy mechanical developments (Lotus 18, 25,49, 72). Ibsey, it is kind of illuminating to read Mark Donohue's The Unfair Advantage. If Penske had failed projects in about the same time, it was always before they tried to be too smart for their own good, just like Lotus at the end of the 70's, IMHO.

Good point & I think nowhere was that underlining sentiment more apparent than during the first half of 1983. Below is a little extract of the upcoming Lotus audio book which hopefully explains what I mean;

"Lotus’ 1983 season had been the team’s second worst since 1958. Perhaps it was the result of so many changes in between 1982 / 83 particularly after the loss of the team’s founding father. Incoming team boss, Peter Warr’s management style proved very different to that of the late Colin Chapman. Whereas the latter had supported its drivers and was even viewed as a father figure by Mansell. Warr, a former officer in the Army, is reported to have shown less empathy towards Mansell in particular. Instead he seemed to use fear and paranoid with his drivers, namely by keeping their future at the team uncertain, as his tactic to getting the best out of them. He also appeared to be a believer in a clear no.1 driver and no.2 driver and as Mansell later claimed within his subsequent autobiography, Warr apparently took steps to create division between Lotus’ two drivers. However this appeared counter initiative because perhaps it gave the two drivers a common enemy in Warr, which helped them bond throughout their troubled season?

On top of this the team tested active suspension during race weekends within the Lotus 92, throughout the first half of the season. This not only proved erratic since the technology was unreliable, but doing so also comprised their understanding of the new Pirelli tyres. Because what the Italian tyre company needed most of all to improve it’s product was consistent data during race weekend. However given that the two Lotus drivers were typically using two different chassis (i.e. he Lotus 92 / 93T & 94T) & different engines as well, looking back with the benefit of hindsight it is not hard to see why the team were all at sea before Silverstone. Gerard Ducarouge’s arrival, the new 94T car and retaining JPS as their title sponsor all gave the team a much need morale boost and stability as well. From this platform one could see a steady upturn in performances during the second half of 1983, which appeared to be the key factor in retaining Elio. An important factor considering the Italian showed at Brands Hatch he would have been a front-runner had the equipment matched his considerable talent."



Oh & Nemo1965 yes Mark Donohue's the The Unfair Advantage is on the top of my reading list. Just as soon as I get the time to read it.

Edited by Ibsey, 27 December 2019 - 22:31.

[Nemo1965]

Ibsey, there is a former Lotus-employee a regular poster on these threads, I think you know who I mean. It would perhaps be a good idea to get in touch with him, because he can perhaps shed some light on Colin Chapman's managing style. I remember that when the book 'Flawed Genius' came out, several ex-Lotus-employees posted in a thread about it.

 

Strictly personally speaking, with no real insight knowledge of the team or the man: I never could grasp Colin Chapman. I was born in 1965, F1-fan since I was five or so, so everything about Chapman I learned much, much later... but still I think I can understand his relationship with Jim Clark and Graham Hill, and I could never grasp his relationship with drivers thereafter. The fact that he ignored Jochen Rindts letter about the safety of his cars, that he ignored advice from Mario Andretti about the Lotus 79, Chapman's own comments about drivers... to me, it is an enigma.

 

One example about Mario Andretti. I think most posters here would agree that he was instrumental bringing Lotus back to the winning circle. But perhaps few posters or fans, know that Andretti said in 1977 (the year he should have the champion-ship already: 'Colin and I have a perfect professional relationship. I don't think we will ever be good friends.' And then, Chapman, in 1979 said something to the effect of: 'I won't let Mario spoil a relationship with a driver. He did it with Ronnie and I won't let it happen to Carlos (Reutemann).

 

Eh? What?

 

To me, it seemed that Colin was hovering a little bit above reality. But again: this is just from reading stuff about and from him, I never met the man. But perhaps ex-Lotus employees could shed some light on Colin in how he see his relationship with drivers. 

[Sterzo]

Strictly personally speaking, with no real insight knowledge of the team or the man: I never could grasp Colin Chapman.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned Tony Rudd's autobiography "It was fun."  While it doesn't directly answer the questions you raise, Rudd suggests the deaths of Mike Spence (straight after Clark's), then of Rindt and Peterson in allegedly 'fragile' Lotuses, really got to him, and Chapman changed greatly.

[guiporsche]

One of the interesting things that comes out of both Lotus & Williams' use of active suspension in the 1980s is that although it was not (still) the ace Chapman thought it would/could be, it was certainy a valid and effective technology - if realistically applied per financial means available, as in the case of Williams already in 86-7. Which points to one thing, that besides being in dire straits financially & located at unfitting premises, maybe already in Chapman's time the team was losing in engineering resources (as in quantity/quality:depth) what it had not lost in engineering ambition/intellectual daring. This is La Palisse, but it's one thing to come up with a good idea and quite another to develop it and make it work reliably... This at a time when F1 was about to take a massive leap forwards in the use of wind tunnels, composites, electronics, etc. 

 

This French interview to Ducarosso shortly before he died highlights that (see the remarks on Ketteringham and on the 93T) very well. There's a sense, which the interview indirectly reinforces, that prior to his arrival the team had kind of forgotten about the basics of coeval F1 design (small, lite, compact) while nevertheless still having enough resources to build a simple, good car. It's a must read as to my knowledge there's not that many good interviews with Duca for he became a bit reclusive after leaving F1 and Senna's death affected him immensely, quite understandably. Another very good one is in the 2nd edition of Doug Nye's precious, still unrivalled Theme Lotus book.

 

https://www.classicc...rard-ducarouge/

[Charlieman]

"Lotus’ 1983 season had been the team’s second worst since 1958. Perhaps it was the result of so many changes in between 1982 / 83 particularly after the loss of the team’s founding father. Incoming team boss, Peter Warr’s management style proved very different to that of the late Colin Chapman. Whereas the latter had supported its drivers and was even viewed as a father figure by Mansell. Warr, a former officer in the Army, is reported to have shown less empathy towards Mansell in particular. Instead he seemed to use fear and paranoid with his drivers, namely by keeping their future at the team uncertain, as his tactic to getting the best out of them. He also appeared to be a believer in a clear no.1 driver and no.2 driver and as Mansell later claimed within his subsequent autobiography, Warr apparently took steps to create division between Lotus’ two drivers. However this appeared counter initiative because perhaps it gave the two drivers a common enemy in Warr, which helped them bond throughout their troubled season?

Nigel Mansell raced at Lotus over five seasons (1980-84). I don't think he would be bothered by anyone who managed army-style. John Player Special wanted a fast, bounce up and down, British driver at Lotus. Mansell fitted that qualification. After yonks at Lotus, Mansell needed to move on. Senna was quicker but wrong for Lotus.

[Ibsey]

Nigel Mansell raced at Lotus over five seasons (1980-84). I don't think he would be bothered by anyone who managed army-style. John Player Special wanted a fast, bounce up and down, British driver at Lotus. Mansell fitted that qualification. After yonks at Lotus, Mansell needed to move on. Senna was quicker but wrong for Lotus.

 

I respectfully disagree. Warr comes across extremely badly in Mansell's 1995 autobiography & here is Mansell saying there was "zero relationship" with Warr & that if Colin (Chapman) had still been around, then the chances were Mansell wouldn't have driven for anyone else"; https://www.youtube....h?v=bck2ykUay4g  (see from 7:59 onwards).

 

I think some of the reasons why Mansell feels this way is because; 

 

• Warr was openly seen talking to other drivers at the 1983 Dutch GP weekend when it had been rumored that Mansell was getting the sack for 1984. Interestingly at that race Mansell then tried an over optimistic lunge inside Warwick (one of the men rumored to be replacing Mansell at Lotus for 84) at Tarzan corner which then saw Mansell's race end in the gravel trap. I personally think those two incidents are related.
• Warr bollocked Mansell for easing up during the final yards of the 1983 Italian GP to avoid running over spectators on the track & thus lost a 6th place at the flag in the process. Nigel's reply; “I didn’t want to kill anyone.”  
• Mansell was always paranoid that he was getting inferior equipment in comparison to Elio.
• Quote from Grand Prix International, South Africa 1983, Peter Warr: "Mansell has been complaining that he has no engine. Next year, we'll make sure he hasn't got a car..." (at that stage Warwick was favorite to take the second Lotus seat for 1984...until Prost left Renault). 

Then there was that famous quote from Peter Warr after Monaco 1984..."Mansell will never win a GP as long as I've got a hole in my arse." The upcoming book provides some more examples, along with analysis on Mansell's Lotus' performances. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ibsey, 31 December 2019 - 03:05.

[Ibsey]

Strictly personally speaking, with no real insight knowledge of the team or the man: I never could grasp Colin Chapman. 

 

 

, Rudd suggests the deaths of Mike Spence (straight after Clark's), then of Rindt and Peterson in allegedly 'fragile' Lotuses, really got to him, and Chapman changed greatly.

 

 

Just add to Sterzo's response, I remember Emmo saying that after he joined Lotus in 1970, Chapman once told him "Emerson, I like you...but I don't want to get too close to you in case you are killed in one of my cars."  The source of that Emmo quote is ITV's pre-race build up of the 2000 Brazilian GP (Emmo was an ITV studio guest). 

 

@ Nemo1965 - can you kindly let me or neilwhitedesign know who the former Lotus-employee who regular poster on these threads is in case we need to contact them for the print book? PM us if you'd prefer.  Also I wonder if Andretti said that  'Colin and I have a perfect professional relationship. I don't think we will ever be good friends.' possibly because of things like Chapman costing Mario victory at the 1978 South African GP. In that particular example Mario was livid because to keep the weight of the car down, Chapman had taken out some fuel on the grid. Mario later recalled; 

 

"What made me so mad was that Colin had three gallons of gas taken out of my car on the grid!" Andretti recalled later. "I didn't really argue with him because the guy was nearly always right. Colin, I says to him, if I run out of fuel, I'll take it out on your hide. Trust me he says ..."

 

 

http://f1greatestrac...ix-kyalami.html

 

 

This is something neilwhitedesign & myself can investigate in a future volume of the Lotus book (i.e. the volume that might cover the 1977 - to end of 1982 period), if we ever get that far.  

Edited by Ibsey, 31 December 2019 - 00:16.

[Ibsey]

One of the interesting things that comes out of both Lotus & Williams' use of active suspension in the 1980s is that although it was not (still) the ace Chapman thought it would/could be, it was certainy a valid and effective technology - if realistically applied per financial means available, as in the case of Williams already in 86-7. Which points to one thing, that besides being in dire straits financially & located at unfitting premises, maybe already in Chapman's time the team was losing in engineering resources (as in quantity/quality:depth) what it had not lost in engineering ambition/intellectual daring. This is La Palisse, but it's one thing to come up with a good idea and quite another to develop it and make it work reliably... This at a time when F1 was about to take a massive leap forwards in the use of wind tunnels, composites, electronics, etc. 

 

This French interview to Ducarosso shortly before he died highlights that (see the remarks on Ketteringham and on the 93T) very well. There's a sense, which the interview indirectly reinforces, that prior to his arrival the team had kind of forgotten about the basics of coeval F1 design (small, lite, compact) while nevertheless still having enough resources to build a simple, good car. It's a must read as to my knowledge there's not that many good interviews with Duca for he became a bit reclusive after leaving F1 and Senna's death affected him immensely, quite understandably. Another very good one is in the 2nd edition of Doug Nye's precious, still unrivalled Theme Lotus book.

 

https://www.classicc...rard-ducarouge/

 

Great post & I agree that active seemed an effective technology by 1987 (Senna won twice with Lotus' version and Piquet won 3 times IIRC with Williams' version). Given the head start they had, what if Lotus continued to develop their version?

 

Exactly why Lotus didn't pursue with active into 1988, is something both neilwhitedesign & myself will be looking at in more detail for the print book. However the audiobook provides some interesting details over what Camel were paying Piquet in 1988 for bringing his number 1 to the car. I'll just say the numbers (which the audiobook details) will amaze you and I wonder if that has anything to do with Lotus' active programme being shelved for 1988?

 

Also for 1988 the turbos lost 225 bhp from their 1987's figures owing to new rules introduced (FISA’s lowering of the turbo boost limit from 4.0 bar to 2.5 bar). So, I wonder if this meant the power & weight disadvantages for 1988 were too high, hence why Lotus stopped running their system at the time? Then for 1989 the engines moved to normally aspirated engines, which were still some way short of Honda's 1987 race trim power output (in excess of 900 bhp).

Edited by Ibsey, 31 December 2019 - 01:09.

[PayasYouRace]

The fact that he ignored Jochen Rindts letter about the safety of his cars,

The fact that he was so disconnected from his star driver that he had to write him a letter rather than just talk to him about it?

[Nemo1965]

The fact that he was so disconnected from his star driver that he had to write him a letter rather than just talk to him about it?

 

 

Exactly. Jochen even offered to lose weight, if I recall correctly, if Chapman would strengthen some aspects of the suspension of his cars. 

 

Then, again, it was the same Colin Chapman who IMHO convinced to make the Ford-Cosworth DFV available to any F1-team that could afford it...imagine how dominant Lotus would have been from 1968 onward if Lotus had been the only team that could use it. That was VERY magnanimous of Chapman, because it was HIS engine to use as he chose, basically 

 

It makes the management-style of Chapman even more mysterious. He really marched to a different tune than most of us, and, again, I never met the man, it is hindsight, but I believe that after the early 70's he was just off the coast, regarding F1-management an politics.  

[Sterzo]

Then, again, it was the same Colin Chapman who IMHO convinced to make the Ford-Cosworth DFV available to any F1-team that could afford it...imagine how dominant Lotus would have been from 1968 onward if Lotus had been the only team that could use it. That was VERY magnanimous of Chapman, because it was HIS engine to use as he chose, basically

Although Chapman was the prime mover behind the scheme, it was always a Ford engine, not a Lotus engine. The original agreement with Cosworth stated "The choice of team will be at Ford's discretion...". It was understood, but not formally incorporated in any contract, that Lotus would have first use. Walter Hayes of Ford subsequently said: "Well, we could have given them to other people, but since the engine and the car were being developed together..."  And of course there would only be enough engines for one team in the first year, so it was natural for Lotus to have exclusive use initially. (The quotes are from "Cosworth: The Search for Power," by Graham Robson).

[Nemo1965]

Although Chapman was the prime mover behind the scheme, it was always a Ford engine, not a Lotus engine. The original agreement with Cosworth stated "The choice of team will be at Ford's discretion...". It was understood, but not formally incorporated in any contract, that Lotus would have first use. Walter Hayes of Ford subsequently said: "Well, we could have given them to other people, but since the engine and the car were being developed together..." And of course there would only be enough engines for one team in the first year, so it was natural for Lotus to have exclusive use initially. (The quotes are from "Cosworth: The Search for Power," by Graham Robson).

Agree.

[Charlieman]

Then there was that famous quote from Peter Warr after Monaco 1984..."Mansell will never win a GP as long as I've got a hole in my arse." The upcoming book provides some more examples, along with analysis on Mansell's Lotus' performances. 

Don't underestimate Nigel Mansell's ability as a self publicist at the time. Some people in the motor racing press were knocking him as a whinger but others were prepared to give him space, owing to his determination. Mansell had "ordinary man" appeal and was attractive to sponsors.

 

No doubt you have read Motor Sport's "Lunch With" interview with Peter Warr:

 

https://www.motorspo...unch-peter-warr

 

"I’d been keeping my eye on this young Brazilian Ayrton Senna da Silva in F3, and in September 1983 I invited him up to Lotus. I showed him round, and we agreed he’d drive for us in 1984 – for $50,000! I told Player’s we had the dream team: Elio, quick, responsible, experienced, and this brilliant Brazilian newcomer who was going to be very, very good. But Player’s said we had to keep Mansell, because of their British interests and the fact that the British press always followed him. I was furious. I said to Player’s, ‘If you insist we keep Mansell, I’m not paying for him.’ So Player’s paid Mansell’s salary. Senna went off to Toleman for his first F1 season, and a year later I had him sitting in my office again and signed him for 1985. But this time it cost me $585,000."

 

Warr's financial calculation also ignores that Toleman were paying for Senna's learning season in F1. It cost Lotus $535,000 to see if Senna lived up to Warr's hopes driving somebody else's car while Mansell scored (arguably easier) points for Lotus.

 

Edit: And Player's paid Mansell's salary that year.

Edited by Charlieman, 03 January 2020 - 11:54.

[as65p]

Warr's financial calculation also ignores that Toleman were paying for Senna's learning season in F1. It cost Lotus $535,000 to see if Senna lived up to Warr's hopes driving somebody else's car while Mansell scored (arguably easier) points for Lotus.
 

Well, Senna and Mansell scored the same no. of points in '84, and it's a bit hard to imagine Senna scoring any less in a Lotus, notwithstanding it being his "learning season" and that he evidently wasn't fully physically prepared for F1 yet.

 

I reckon Warr is spot on when he judges it as having missed a bargain by not being able to sign Senna already in '84. And that's without theorizing how Senna being in a top team from the go might make him learn faster and probably have a more serious shot at the 1985 title.

[Ibsey]

Don't underestimate Nigel Mansell's ability as a self publicist at the time. Some people in the motor racing press were knocking him as a whinger but others were prepared to give him space, owing to his determination. Mansell had "ordinary man" appeal and was attractive to sponsors.

 

No doubt you have read Motor Sport's "Lunch With" interview with Peter Warr:

 

https://www.motorspo...unch-peter-warr

 

"I’d been keeping my eye on this young Brazilian Ayrton Senna da Silva in F3, and in September 1983 I invited him up to Lotus. I showed him round, and we agreed he’d drive for us in 1984 – for $50,000! I told Player’s we had the dream team: Elio, quick, responsible, experienced, and this brilliant Brazilian newcomer who was going to be very, very good. But Player’s said we had to keep Mansell, because of their British interests and the fact that the British press always followed him. I was furious. I said to Player’s, ‘If you insist we keep Mansell, I’m not paying for him.’ So Player’s paid Mansell’s salary. Senna went off to Toleman for his first F1 season, and a year later I had him sitting in my office again and signed him for 1985. But this time it cost me $585,000."

 

Warr's financial calculation also ignores that Toleman were paying for Senna's learning season in F1. It cost Lotus $535,000 to see if Senna lived up to Warr's hopes driving somebody else's car while Mansell scored (arguably easier) points for Lotus.

 

Edit: And Player's paid Mansell's salary that year.

 

Your original point was you didn't think Mansell would have been bothered by anyone who managed army-style.(i.e. Warr).  I then put forward some strong evidence suggesting Mansell was bothered by Warr's management style (i.e.  Mansell saying pretty much that in the aforementioned MS podcast, along with 5 examples etc). Are you now suggesting all that was self publicity from Mansell, somehow because of the Senna / Warr's / JPS negotiations going on at the time?

 

Otherwise I'm not sure what point you are making in your post above.

Edited by Ibsey, 04 January 2020 - 00:23.

[Nemo1965]

Don't underestimate Nigel Mansell's ability as a self publicist at the time. Some people in the motor racing press were knocking him as a whinger but others were prepared to give him space, owing to his determination. Mansell had "ordinary man" appeal and was attractive to sponsors.

 

No doubt you have read Motor Sport's "Lunch With" interview with Peter Warr:

 

https://www.motorspo...unch-peter-warr

 

"I’d been keeping my eye on this young Brazilian Ayrton Senna da Silva in F3, and in September 1983 I invited him up to Lotus. I showed him round, and we agreed he’d drive for us in 1984 – for $50,000! I told Player’s we had the dream team: Elio, quick, responsible, experienced, and this brilliant Brazilian newcomer who was going to be very, very good. But Player’s said we had to keep Mansell, because of their British interests and the fact that the British press always followed him. I was furious. I said to Player’s, ‘If you insist we keep Mansell, I’m not paying for him.’ So Player’s paid Mansell’s salary. Senna went off to Toleman for his first F1 season, and a year later I had him sitting in my office again and signed him for 1985. But this time it cost me $585,000."

 

Warr's financial calculation also ignores that Toleman were paying for Senna's learning season in F1. It cost Lotus $535,000 to see if Senna lived up to Warr's hopes driving somebody else's car while Mansell scored (arguably easier) points for Lotus.

 

Edit: And Player's paid Mansell's salary that year.

 

Funny. I always thought that Mansell became a whinger only after he had won his first Grand Prix. I met Mansell once during a tyre-test in Zandvoort, in 1981 or 1982 (there are some magical days I always mix up), and he was the nicest bloke you could imagine. Modest, very friendly. Imagine my surprise when later he became the Driver with a Chip on His Shoulder.

[Charlieman]

Well, Senna and Mansell scored the same no. of points in '84, and it's a bit hard to imagine Senna scoring any less in a Lotus, notwithstanding it being his "learning season" and that he evidently wasn't fully physically prepared for F1 yet.

That is with the benefit of hindsight. Many quick F3 drivers fail to make the transition to lots more power.

 

Funny. I always thought that Mansell became a whinger only after he had won his first Grand Prix. I met Mansell once during a tyre-test in Zandvoort, in 1981 or 1982 (there are some magical days I always mix up), and he was the nicest bloke you could imagine. Modest, very friendly. Imagine my surprise when later he became the Driver with a Chip on His Shoulder.

 

I recall interviews where Nigel Mansell was fairly blunt about the F3 March-Dolomites. However it is probably kinder to remember his courage and determination when recovering from accidents.

 

Your original point was you didn't think Mansell would have been bothered by anyone who managed army-style.(i.e. Warr).

 

I have been making two points.

 

Nigel Mansell was an older, more mature driver than many F1 beginners. He didn't come from a massively privileged background and he had worked in manufacturing industry. He would have been able to ignore Peter Warr's management style while there were others in the Lotus team to support him.

 

Nigel Mansell was a popular driver with some of the UK press and with sponsors. This would have boosted his confidence when dealing with Peter Warr.

[guiporsche]

This is way off-topic, but before the 1984 season had started Senna had already tested with Williams (July, at Donington, where he beat Palmer's time by more than 1sec), Mclaren (October), Brabham (November), and Toleman (December?). There were not doubts that he could adapt well enough to F1 power. If he could not, then really nobody else could...

Edited by guiporsche, 04 January 2020 - 12:36.

[Charlieman]

Continuing guiporsche's digression: I should have said that stepping up to F1 is more demanding than "lots more power". Ayrton Senna had a huge wobble during his junior formula years, briefly "retiring" before he had properly got started. Senna met stronger drivers in F3 than previously and he didn't have things his own way. Senna struggled with physical strength (not the only driver, of course) during his F1 career and that would have been apparent at his early tests.

 

Senna looked fast at the time, and he proved to be faster, but there would have been questions.

[Ibsey]

 

I have been making two points.

 

Nigel Mansell was an older, more mature driver than many F1 beginners. He didn't come from a massively privileged background and he had worked in manufacturing industry. He would have been able to ignore Peter Warr's management style while there were others in the Lotus team to support him.

 

Nigel Mansell was a popular driver with some of the UK press and with sponsors. This would have boosted his confidence when dealing with Peter Warr.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying your points, unfortunately I still do not agree with you and in response to point 1 I would sight the example of Elio also being older and more mature than many F1 beginners by 1985. However by mid 1985 De Angelis was now getting the no.2 treatment by Warr & shortly afterwards he started to approach rival teams about driving for them for 1986. This was despite De Angelis having been the team’s main point’s scorer & leading the drivers championship going into that year's Canadian GP.  Elio would have been 27 by mid 1985  whereas Mansell was 30/31 years in 1983/84 so not a huge different there.

 

Interestingly, Johnny Herbert would have been 30/31 years old by 1995 & would have been through the school of hard knocks by that point, just as much as Mansell by 1983/84. Yet within his autobiography Herbert claimed during 1995 he was sabotaged at Benetton by Briatore (whose management style with drivers appears similar to Warr's) & ultimately that was why he left Benetton for 96. Herbert was also popular with the UK press and sponsors & within teams so would had others to support him. Yet all of that didn't seem to give him confidence when dealing with Briatore?

Edited by Ibsey, 04 January 2020 - 21:09.

[Charlieman]

Thank you for clarifying your points, unfortunately I still do not agree with you and in response to point 1 I would sight the example of Elio also being older and more mature than many F1 beginners by 1985.

Cite, not sight. That is an easy flaw for Brits and non-Brits.

[doc knutsen]

Cite, not sight. That is an easy flaw for Brits and non-Brits.

Some native English speaker's seem to have there own way of describing things on this forum. Now I'm off to investigate  replacement body's for 718 Porsche replica's.

[sstiel]

It wasn't just Peter Warr Nigel Mansell didn't gel with at Lotus. Chris Dinnage too mentioned: “We all liked how Nigel would drive the car absolutely flat-out but whenever there was a problem it was always the fault of somebody else, never his. Which grated a bit. Elio, on the other hand, took great care to involve us all and there was always a pleasant atmosphere around him."

[sstiel]

Congratulations Ibsey for the e-book!

[Ibsey]

Hi All, 

 

Just to let you know, that: Team Lotus: Struggling Beyond The Post Colin Chapman Era is now available to buy in audio book format or e book format here..A free sample is contained within those links, 

You can find out more about the Lotus book here and it will be just as good as my last book (1994 - The Untold Story was). There are some shocking stories to be told between the years of 1987-1989. I'll just say at the start of that aforementioned period Team Lotus had decent funds and active suspension. Whereas by the end of 1989 they had squandered their active advantage, their title sponsor was threatening to leave them and were a shadow of their former self having undertaken significant management changes. This new Lotus book investigates.    

[Richard Jenkins]

Hi Ibrar,
I had a read through the sample as I haven't (as you are probably aware) blessed with a lot of spare time currently.
One observation, being totally constructive, is there doesn't seem to be a link to a source for what you're saying, even if it is likely fact. For example, Mansell hated active suspension. What is the source? I'm not disagreeing, just saying it should be there somewhere.
The Head/Rosberg argument likewise. The Mansell 'killing someone' as well. If the source was there it wasn't immediately clear. Maybe this is something I'm more conscious of now but its something I noticed.

You mention a dismissal season before Ducarouge arrived. Should that read as dismal or do you mean the season had been effectively dismissed?

 

Edited by Richard Jenkins, 04 May 2020 - 22:12.

[Ibsey]

Hi Ibrar,
I had a read through the sample as I haven't (as you are probably aware) blessed with a lot of spare time currently.
One observation, being totally constructive, is there doesn't seem to be a link to a source for what you're saying, even if it is likely fact. For example, Mansell hated active suspension. What is the source? I'm not disagreeing, just saying it should be there somewhere.
The Head/Rosberg argument likewise. The Mansell 'killing someone' as well. If the source was there it wasn't immediately clear. Maybe this is something I'm more conscious of now but its something I noticed.

You mention a dismissal season before Ducarouge arrived. Should that read as dismal or do you mean the season had been effectively dismissed?

It reads well though and I admire your continued efforts to increase your portfolio.

 

Thanks for that Richard, and I’ve taken on board your constructive comments about having more references.   I will certainly do that for future e books. In regards to this one, it is the first time I’ve created an e book and to be honest I don’t normally read e books myself (I prefer the hard copy). So I didn’t know how many reference links to include, especially bearing in mind this is a £9.99 e book. I am working on a print version of this book, which will be fully illustrated and written with a co-author Neil White (user name: neilwhitedesign here). So happy to include more references in that, as we did in the 1994 book.  

 

In regards to the sources, the Mansell hated active suspension…I’m sure we could include a magazine source for that in the print book, but my own personal source is Frank Dernie telling me, when I chatted to him at Race Retro 2019. The Head Rosberg argument came from an Lunch with Patrick Head feature from MS magazine circa April 2012, and the Mansell ‘killing someone’ came from a forum topic. Oh and yes that last point should read as dismal, apologies for that.  

Edited by Ibsey, 14 January 2020 - 00:21.

[sstiel]

Hilarious Patrick Head, telling a reigning world champion to get back in his fxxxing car!

[Ibsey]

If anyone would like details of the print version of Team Lotus: Struggling Beyond The Post Colin Chapman Era (due for release on 1/5/2020) then please click here; http://www.1994f1.com/lotusprintbook/

 

Whereas this link gives an overview of our project; https://mailchi.mp/3...otus-print-book