118 replies to this topic

[Blue6ix]

Wasn't that Mansell 'killing someone' supposed to be based on what happened back in the 1983 Italian Grand Prix and after the race when Mansell had to drop off his speed because of the crowd spreading to the circuit naturally after the race and only because Peter Warr had once again seen supposedly enough for his then 'non-willing to win' attidute?

 

Naturally they had some issues after the race for that incident and even with that supposedly meagerly better amount of prize money going to a waste for just a one or two positions at time when there was a calling for possible tragedy at stake to occur.

 

As when what comes to mentally punching sandbags with prize money that issue had happened even with a year before in 1982 Italian Grand Prix as well.

 

Mr. Mansell really had some other very near close-call strucks on his career, but luckily always without human life loses like very majority of the race drivers.

 

One of them was actually Portuguese Grand Prix 1987 and that first aborted start when there was one certain Herr Linge just exited from his Course Car on the track and almost being run-over by Mansell because of the dangerous spot and with ineffective yellow flags!

Edited by Blue6ix, 17 February 2020 - 04:53.

[sstiel]

Yes. Mansell writes about that in his autobiography as well. He felt he had no choice but to slow down because of spectators on the track. 

Chapman's death and Peter Collins joining Williams didn't help Mansell's situation at Lotus at that point.

Edited by sstiel, 07 March 2020 - 21:30.

[Ibsey]

In case you are in need of something to cheer yourself up during these dark times, i'm pleased to announce an exciting update. We have the following contributors helping with our Team Lotus book;

• Frank Dernie – Lotus’ Technical Director Between 1989/90.
• Peter Wright – The man behind Lotus’ active suspension during the 1980s.
• Willem Toet – Designer of race-winning Benetton and Ferrari F1 cars & F1 aerodynamics expert.
• Antony Burton – Lotus Head of Archives, and someone who worked on their active suspension in the 1980s.
• Nigel Beresford - Tyrrell Race Engineer to Palmer & Alesi (between 1986 -1990)

There will only be 100 copies available initially (we are self publishing) and the book's release date is 1/5/2020...so it is very likely we may sell out & quickly. To find out more about our Lotus book click here: http://www.1994f1.com/lotusprintbook/

If you want to Pre-order the Lotus book please send me a message here; http://www.1994f1.com/contact/

It will be every bit as good as the 1994 book was (see the reviews for yourself); http://www.1994f1.com/sample-page/

 

[Ibsey]

Firstly, hope everyone is continuing to keep well and safe during these strange times.
 
Pleased to announce the release of the highly anticipated book, Team Lotus: Beyond the Colin Chapman Era. Which is available in paperback or Ebook format here: https://www.amazon.c...52080_397514860

You can view a free sample within the above link. 

 

FYI the book contains over 150 rare photos to bring the story to life, and the paperback is 202 pages long (at 21.64cm x 21.64cm) and is priced at £23.99. Thus making it comparable to similar books. Like my 1994 book which was 164 pages at 270mmx210mm. In short it is great value for money, and the Ebook is priced at only £9.99, making that outstanding value. 

 
You can find out more about this new Team Lotus book here: http://www.1994f1.com/lotusprintbook/ In my view, it will be just as good as the 1994 book. Pleased to confirm this book contains many exclusives, and its findings are controversial. Contributors towards it include:

 

• Frank Dernie - Lotus' Technical Director between 1989/90.
• Peter Wright - The man behind Lotus' active suspension during the 1980s
• Willem Toet - Designer of championship-winning Benetton's and Ferrari F1 cars & F1 aerodynamics/wind tunnel expert
• Antony Hayes - Historian for Team Lotus, and someone who worked there during the 1980s & 1990s. 
• Nigel Beresford - Race Engineer to Palmer, Alesi and Modena between the 1989-1991 F1 seasons

Meanwhile, an abridged Audiobook version is also available to buy https://play.google....UmgSFM&hl=en_GB More details over what is included along with a free sample are contained within that link. I’m very proud of this Lotus book so if you are tempted, please look out for reviews of it. Peter Wright has read some of the draft and calls it an "interesting read." 

 

• If You Still Want a Hardback Copy of This Lotus Book;

A few people have expressed an interest in purchasing a hardback copy of this Lotus book. This is something I can look into once the UK coronavirus lockdown has been lifted, depending on demand at the time. If you are interested solely in a hardback copy of this book, then please send me a PM expressing your interest, and I shall add you to my list. Please note, a hardback print run all depends on demand, which in turn then dictates its price. Essentially the more copies printed together, the cheaper the hardback book price will be. Should there be enough demand at the time, then I’ll send those people an email.

 

Happy reading 

 

[BRG]

Ibsey, on 28 Apr 2020 - 04:34, said:

• Frank Dernie - Lotus' Technical Director between 1989/90.

I remember attending the tyre testing session at Silverstone back in the day.  We were on Lotus guest passes via my mate's business involvement with Derek Warwick.  We met Frank Dernie who didn't know us from Adam, but proceeded to tell us many jaw-dropping tales (none of which sadly I can remember now!) as well as detailing which f the other teams were cheating - basically all of them.  He was somewhat of a loose cannon, I reckoned, who the team's PR people shouldn't have allowed out unattended, so I wonder if he told you much that you felt was not perhaps wise to put into print?

[Ibsey]

BRG, on 28 Apr 2020 - 12:29, said:

He was somewhat of a loose cannon, I reckoned, who the team's PR people shouldn't have allowed out unattended, so I wonder if he told you much that you felt was not perhaps wise to put into print?

Actually managed to use everything Frank told me because I self published this book, so there were no editors in bed with certain people to censor things. Also got the impression Frank was keen to get a few things off his chest because he has been quoted as saying joining Lotus "was a mistake, because they didn’t have the budget to do any proper R&D and wind tunnel work."https://www.motorspo...ch-frank-dernie

So the book explores that and uncovers some exclusives which are IMO mindblowing. Frank did point me in the direction of those exclusives, but left it to me to work out the details by researching things further (other contributors & books / old F1 documentaries / autosport quotes etc). So I don't believe Frank got himself into any trouble and I made sure he was happy with his quotes (as I did with the other contributors). So in summary Frank is controversial within this book, but on the right side of libel laws.

Have a lot of respect for Frank as well, because he achieved some amazing things at Williams (first person to propose an in house wind tunnel in 1980 etc). He was also a pleasure to speak with because he is not afraid to voice his strong opinions. So it was definitely one of the highlights of this project to speak with him.

Richard Jenkins, on 28 Apr 2020 - 13:37, said:

Good luck with the book Ibrar and I will have a look when I can. Aside from book writing, I'm still working full-time. No book reading for me just yet..

Thanks Richard & likewise I hope your book is also doing well? Working full-time whilst writing almost broke me, so hats off to you for keeping that going. Also if you need any advice to convert your book into an audio / ebook format, then I'm more than happy to help out.

[BRG]

Frank may of course be older and wiser these days. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge in 40 odd years!

[hogstar]

Charlieman, on 03 Jan 2020 - 11:53, said:

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.

 

The Motor Sport piece with Warr was a very interesting read. It showed that Warr wasn't strong enough to run the team as Senna was indirectly calling all the shots and the team suffered because Warr kept trying to please him. I can't imagine Chapman putting up with Senna in the way that Warr did. Although Senna was a more than a good signing, the fact that he was not grounded by Warr meant that he was not right for Lotus. Warwick was not as quick, but would have been a lot less maintenance and a team player. 

[dolomite]

Just reading the free sample of the book. In the first chapter, the following quote is attributed to Gerard Ducarouge: "Peter Warr had shown me the car that Lotus was driving in 1983. The car was not easy to modify, it had a very small engine and was actually not worthy of F1." What is the source of this? Is this a mis-translation, or if not, what on earth is he talking about?

[Ibsey]

dolomite, on 30 Apr 2020 - 00:20, said:

Just reading the free sample of the book. In the first chapter, the following quote is attributed to Gerard Ducarouge: "Peter Warr had shown me the car that Lotus was driving in 1983. The car was not easy to modify, it had a very small engine and was actually not worthy of F1." What is the source of this? Is this a mis-translation, or if not, what on earth is he talking about?

 

The source is this: https://www.gptoday....ning-lotus-1986

 

Ducarouge was talking about the 93T which achieved poor results before Lotus binned it mid season in favour of the Ducarouge designed 94T: https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Lotus_93T

Edited by Ibsey, 30 April 2020 - 06:16.

[guiporsche]

Well, I find it a bit sad to see that Gptoday not only did not refer to the source of all those quotes but proceeded to butcher the translation. They could not even bother to copy translate it correctly, let alone give credit, but I guess that's per the norm in these days...

The original was published by Mémoire des Stands in 2012 and meanwhile republished (once Mémoire went offline, if I remember correctly) by Classic Courses.

Full quote on its original here, in one of Duca's last interviews before dying: https://www.classicc...rard-ducarouge/

 

Ducarouge actually said: "La veille de mon installation, Peter Warr m’avait montré la F1 avec laquelle il fallait faire la saison, la 93 T. Je lui avais dit tout de suite : « Cette auto, telle qu’elle est conçue, n’est pas facilement modifiable, ce n’est pas du tout ce que j’attends d’une F1, un moteur tout petit dans une coque monstrueuse. »

 

So, 'a smallish engine on a very large chassis", with the emphasis being on the 93T being an uncessarily gigantic thing when compared to the size of the Renault V6. Duca clearly thinking the latter permitted building a much smaller and efficient car, which Lotus had failed to do. 

Duca had actually said similar things many times before: in the second edition of DCN's Theme Lotus and in interviews to the press during 83-4, like GP International.  And I remember reading an interview with Martin Ogilvie in Motorsport Magazine, maybe published probably after Duca's passing, that touches the same points.

Edited by guiporsche, 30 April 2020 - 08:57.

[Ibsey]

guiporsche, on 30 Apr 2020 - 08:47, said:

 

So, 'a smallish engine on a very large chassis", with the emphasis being on the 93T being an uncessarily gigantic thing when compared to the size of the Renault V6. Duca clearly thinking the latter permitted building a much smaller and efficient car, which Lotus had failed to do. 

Duca had actually said similar things many times before: in the second edition of DCN's Theme Lotus and in interviews to the press during 83-4, like GP International.  And I remember reading an interview with Martin Ogilvie in Motorsport Magazine, maybe published probably after Duca's passing, that touches the same points.

 

Indeed, and the newly released Lotus book also alludes to Warr touching on that same point within an Autosport feature on Lotus' decline. In it Warr admitted the unloved 93T chassis seemed developed more to maximise sponsorship revenue rather than speed.[1]

[1] Autosport 18/2/2010

 

That Autosport article (and Warr's comment on the 93T) is referred to towards the end of chapter 2 within the Kindle book free sample here https://www.amazon.c...52080_397514860 (3rd paragraph from the end). 

[dolomite]

Ok, thanks guiporsche, that makes much more sense now. He was referring to the relatively small physical size of the engine when compared to the cumbersome chassis, not suggesting that the engine was too small for F1 which is what the quote in the book seems to suggest.

[Tim Murray]

Wasn’t the 93T nicknamed Big Black Betty?

[Ibsey]

dolomite, on 30 Apr 2020 - 18:51, said:

Ok, thanks guiporsche, that makes much more sense now. He was referring to the relatively small physical size of the engine when compared to the cumbersome chassis, not suggesting that the engine was too small for F1 which is what the quote in the book seems to suggest.

 

If I may say so, that is a bit of a strange conclusion to reach in my humble opinion. Especially as elsewhere within the book it refers to the 1983 Renault engine as being "highly desirable" & "Renault were still believed to be the leaders of the (1983) turbo revolution". FYI those two aforementioned statements are just above the photo of the Renault turbo engine within the free sample of the book - hence why I can't understand how you arrived at your conclusion above? Anyway I'm glad things are now clarified for you.        

[guiporsche]

Dolomite is referring to the Ducarouge quote - which on its botched translation did not make any sense at all, especially when put in the mouth of a very intelligent man as Ducarouge was. Ducarouge would have to be very, very stupid to say such a thing making it difficult to take that nonsense quote from GP Today for granted, right?

Just acknowledge the mistake of relying on that piece of second-hand info without checking its source, correct it in the book and move on. It happens to everyone. Everybody has done it at least once, myself included either with newspaper sources from decades ago or from current-day websites, and learnt with it. Good luck with the rest of your book.

[F1matt]

hogstar, on 28 Apr 2020 - 17:08, said:

The Motor Sport piece with Warr was a very interesting read. It showed that Warr wasn't strong enough to run the team as Senna was indirectly calling all the shots and the team suffered because Warr kept trying to please him. I can't imagine Chapman putting up with Senna in the way that Warr did. Although Senna was a more than a good signing, the fact that he was not grounded by Warr meant that he was not right for Lotus. Warwick was not as quick, but would have been a lot less maintenance and a team player. 

 

 

I didn't realise it was a choice between Senna and Warwick for Lotus in 1985, I always heard stories of Senna blocking Warwick from joining Lotus in 1986 so Johnny Dumfries got the drive instead? That probably ties in with Senna calling the shots as mentioned in the above post? 

[hogstar]

F1matt, on 01 May 2020 - 13:04, said:

I didn't realise it was a choice between Senna and Warwick for Lotus in 1985, I always heard stories of Senna blocking Warwick from joining Lotus in 1986 so Johnny Dumfries got the drive instead? That probably ties in with Senna calling the shots as mentioned in the above post? 

 

I was referring to 1986 (Warwick famously turned down Williams for 1985). Warr was 'in charge' of Lotus, told Senna they were signing Derek for next season. Senna would not have it. Every team manager/owner would have told Ayrton to •••• •••, but not Warr. So Senna was the de facto manager of Lotus. Desperately sad. 

Edited by hogstar, 02 May 2020 - 12:23.

[sstiel]

Team Lotus has been called a small team with a big name. Derek Warwick did say Ayrton Senna was right in that the team couldn't run two cars at the same level. However, this is another area where Colin Chapman's death really hurt the team. No one would be better than Jim Clark in his eyes and he would have stood by Warwick. Lotus had had strong driver lineups before.

[Dunc]

This is an old documentary featuring a lot of people who worked at Lotus with Chapman it does seem to back up the idea that he was not all there towards then end of his time at the team, especially after the death of Ronnie. The incident with the mistress in part five is really a bit disturbing.

 

[sstiel]

More knowledgeable members of this Forum have pointed out in previous threads the shortcomings of this documentary. Hazel or other members of the Chapman family were not interviewed in it.

[Gary C]

It's a hatchet job.

[sstiel]

Yes Gary. I'm sure you could have suggested other people. An awful lot we will never know about the DeLorean affair.

Edited by sstiel, 04 May 2020 - 17:01.

[Ibsey]

sstiel, on 04 May 2020 - 16:12, said:

More knowledgeable members of this Forum have pointed out in previous threads the shortcomings of this documentary. Hazel or other members of the Chapman family were not interviewed in it.

 

This TNF thread https://forums.autos...e-2?hl=delorean is a interesting read into some of the points covered within that documentary, namely some aspects surrounding the DeLorean/Lotus affair. TNF member Kayemod (who seemly worked at Team Lotus) appears to back up some of what that documentary said. See his posts #9 #56 & #61 for instance.  

 

The book looks a bit further into the Lotus/DeLorean affair and how that whole thing may have hung over TL during the period the book covers (1983-1989). I did try getting the Chapman family involved within this project, but they did not want to co-operate. Presumably because they don't want the public to know how some of the £77 million of taxpayers money went missing. Money that could have been used to fund our NHS for example (Cov-19 anyone?). No problem, since the book summaries various other sources, like this report: https://www.niaudito...ry-public-funds as well as TL's accounts which are freely available on companies house's website. I personally think the findings are mindblowing, but look forward to others view on the matter. 

 

 

Gary C, on 04 May 2020 - 16:22, said:

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 17:49.

[Ibsey]

Gary C, on 04 May 2020 - 16:22, said:

It's a hatchet job.

 

Any idea why the Chapman family did not sue them for defamation in that case? 

 

[E1pix]

I'm no lawyer but believe defamation cases require proof of income lost from said defamation.

In this case, I am unclear where such income loss would have occurred.

[sstiel]

Ibsey, this is the thread that discussed the shortcomings of the documentary: https://forums.autos...-colin-chapman/

Edited by sstiel, 04 May 2020 - 17:55.

[Ibsey]

E1pix, on 04 May 2020 - 17:49, said:

I'm no lawyer but believe defamation cases require proof of income lost from said defamation.

In this case, I am unclear where such income loss would have occurred.

 

 

The UK legal definition of defamation is explained at 1:16 into this video: https://www.youtube....h?v=9b38Vgn9HOo  Moreover at 10:30 it explains what a claimant must prove. Nowhere within that video does it support your suggestion above. 

 

 

I would find it unfair if the Chapman family had to prove a loss of income for their defamation case to go ahead against those documentary makers. Because what about people who aren't earning incomes for instance? Because either they are retired, unemployed or working for free. At 3:40 into that video it explains how Wills and Kate were defamated via Juxtaposition, and I'm no expert on the matter but don't think Wills and Kate earn an income. Us UK taxpayers look after that for them don't we? Thereby seemly disproving your suggestion.      

 

Also worth noting Classic Team Lotus is run by Clive Chapman (and Fred Bushell when he was alive) so they could have shown a loss of income there or difficulties in running their business / maintaining a positive image etc. I certainly would have taken defamation action had I been the Chapman family or Bushell and felt that documentary was a hatchet job. So the question remains IMO why did the Chapman family / Bushell not do so? 

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 18:38.

[sstiel]

I don't know who made the documentary. It was aired on Channel Four. I don't know whose name was bleeped out during the Tim Enright interview.

 

Litigation is costly.

Edited by sstiel, 04 May 2020 - 18:46.

[Ibsey]

sstiel, on 04 May 2020 - 18:45, said:

 

Litigation is costly.

 

If it was a hatchet job, then the Chapman family would have been awarded damages. As well as cleared the air in regards to any false claims. So why didn't they do so?

[E1pix]

Ibsey, on 04 May 2020 - 18:31, said:

The UK legal definition of defamation is explained at 1:16 into this video: https://www.youtube....h?v=9b38Vgn9HOo Moreover at 10:30 it explains what a claimant must prove. Nowhere within that video does it support your suggestion above.


I would find it unfair if the Chapman family had to prove a loss of income for their defamation case to go ahead against those documentary makers. Because what about people who aren't earning incomes for instance? Because either they are retired, unemployed or working for free. At 3:40 into that video it explains how Wills and Kate were defamated via Juxtaposition, and I'm no expert on the matter but don't think Wills and Kate earn an income. Us UK taxpayers look after that for them don't we? Thereby seemly disproving your suggestion.

Also worth noting Classic Team Lotus is run by Clive Chapman (and Fred Bushell when he was alive) so they could have shown a loss of income there or difficulties in running their business / maintaining a positive image etc. I certainly would have taken defamation action had I been the Chapman family or Bushell and felt that documentary was a hatchet job. So the question remains IMO why did the Chapman family / Bushell not do so?

My comment was correct as part of proving defamation -- Edit: clarifying, not "proving" so much as "winning" a defamation case -- at least in the laws of many nations.

See item 4 here:
https://www.law.corn.../wex/defamation

As far as the family not pursuing a case, I can tell you such proceeds can constitute Hell for the plaintiff. I say this as someone who spent over three years proving medical malpractice, only for deep corruption to intervene from those having endless pockets.

I see no actual motivation for Chapman's family to expose themselves to such proceedings when, as I said, there's little to be gained decades later.

It seems far more prudent to let the past stay as such, particularly when public memories are short and the perception of Colin being a hero is far more important than his being portrayed in any less-favorable light.

In other words, why bother?

Edit 2: Adding that I, too have enormous respect for Chapman, his achievements, and his contributions to racing. Regardless, the telecast has damning details that, if a pack of lies, make little sense to broadcast in common-sense terms.

I will add that a longtime banker friend was part of the Delorean drug smuggling case that occurred at about the same time. He literally risked his life to help prosecute Delorean from a money-laundering perspective, and I find it unlikely that anyone could do a substantial business deal with Delorean and be completely unaware of whom they were dealing with.

On a personal note, I find it impossible to support anyone whose achievements are later compromised by illicit activities. We have a term "Hero to Zero" here in the States, and for me many like Delorean fall straight into the Zero category.

At that point, at least for my ethics, any prior accomplishments mean absolutely nothing. Criminals should be forever remembered solely as that, and if not I find it disrespectful of every successful person who was honest and legal.

Edited by E1pix, 04 May 2020 - 19:56.

[sstiel]

I don't know in this case. 

 

Unfortunately it is one thing that separated Team Lotus from other teams who lost their founders. Legal issues did not help with further development and the arrest of Fred Bushell frightened potential sponsors away.

Edited by sstiel, 04 May 2020 - 19:32.

[sstiel]

hogstar, on 02 May 2020 - 12:22, said:

I was referring to 1986 (Warwick famously turned down Williams for 1985). Warr was 'in charge' of Lotus, told Senna they were signing Derek for next season. Senna would not have it. Every team manager/owner would have told Ayrton to •••• •••, but not Warr. So Senna was the de facto manager of Lotus. Desperately sad. 

It was in one of the Senna books that mentioned during that year, Motoring News ran spoof news articles that would announce: "Ayrton Senna has been appointed Chief Designer at Team Lotus."; "Ayrton Senna has been Team Manager at Team Lotus."

Senna was incredibly tough about the whole thing.

[F1matt]

Litigation in the UK is hardly black and white, so many grey areas which leads to court cases that last for years and can cost 10x what was agreed with the legal team which puts pressure on family life, lead to sleepless nights and what you lose in money you gain in grey hair. Getting a successful outcome, awarded the amount you feel you are owed and then managing to get 50% of that figure in five years is next to impossible. If the Chapman family have a decent family solicitor he would of told them to not bother as it isn’t worth the time. 

[E1pix]

Exactly!

[Ibsey]

E1pix, on 04 May 2020 - 19:27, said:

My comment was correct as part of proving defamation -- at least in the laws of many nations.

See item 4 here:
https://www.law.corn.../wex/defamation



In other words, why bother?

 

That website is from an american law school, and we are talking about a potential defamation in the UK. So not entirely relevant. Item 4 within that link  states: "damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

 

The bolded bit suggest there are other ways a claimant can prove this point without showing any loss of income. Which is precisely the suggestion I was making in post 80 in response to you. So my understanding from all this is, whilst it would be easier to show a loss of income from defamation. That is not the only way to do so. Can we agree on that? 

 

In regards to your why bother comment. The Chapman family were bothered enough to get involved in the Team Lotus naming rights of 2010/2011 to protect the legacy of their brand: https://www.eurospor...886/story.shtml

 

I can also tell you I had to get my manuscript checked by about 10 different people at Lotus who were VERY bothered that I did not defamate the Team Lotus legacy or the Chapman family's name in any way shape or form. The book doesn't hence why I was able to publish it. They were also making sure I had the job title of certain contributors in a certain way, again to protect the legacy of their brand . Given that experience had the Chapman family felt that documentary was a hatchet job against them, then I believe they would have taken legal action.   

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 20:28.

[Ibsey]

F1matt, on 04 May 2020 - 20:09, said:

Litigation in the UK is hardly black and white, so many grey areas which leads to court cases that last for years and can cost 10x what was agreed with the legal team which puts pressure on family life, lead to sleepless nights and what you lose in money you gain in grey hair. Getting a successful outcome, awarded the amount you feel you are owed and then managing to get 50% of that figure in five years is next to impossible. If the Chapman family have a decent family solicitor he would of told them to not bother as it isn’t worth the time. 

 

At the same time there have been defamation cases for far less trivial things as well. See 8.15 into this video: https://www.youtube....h?v=9b38Vgn9HOo and details of the case Robbie Williams won. Chapman family, might have just wanted to clear the air on any false claims, irrespective of how much time/costs were involved. Surely their reputation and legacy is worth more than any sum of money? They also could have sub contracted this all out to their lawyers/other staff to deal with, so they wouldn't have needed to get involved in all the headaches themselves. Personally I think there wasn't enough wrong with that documentary to warrant any defamation action. Others are welcome to disagree (it would be a boring world if we all agreed on things). Interesting what Doug Nye's view is on that documentary (see post #33 in this thread: https://forums.autos...-colin-chapman/) 

 

 

Quote

 

Having known ACBC and the family reasonably well and having grown up through a motor racing era in which Colin was GOD I am instinctively biased...but there's only one aspect of the programme with which I recall taking serious issue. And that's the disloyalty and fertile imagination of the unappealing Tim Enwright.

What has been written here about Colin's personal vanity, discomfort with his weight, ethical dyslexia (!) etc etc is all pretty much well-founded, to my personal knowledge and recollection.

He certainly had a morbid fear of confronting death itself. When father Stan was killed in a road accident Colin opted out and sent Andrew Ferguson instead to identify his body.

Colin harboured a deep grudge against HM Government for having shown no sign of providing any financial help to Group Lotus at any stage - and yet the same politicians had simply rolled over before De Lorean's trans-Atlantic blandishments and offered the con-man tax-payer funding which could at various stages have purchased Lotus thirty times over.

Something within ACBC then convinced him that a proportion of the Goverment money was his by right. He was dazzled by the glitz, glamour and lifestyle surrounding JZdeL - right from the man's cosmetic chin extension to his trophy wife - and Colin seems to have been seduced by it to move from the buccaneering, edgy, tightrope, outer limits of acceptability upon which he had operated for many years...into the unacceptable, illegal, guilty darkness which beckoned beyond.

And perhaps a suddenly surfacing realisation of exactly what he had done - and where he had moved to - might be what finally killed him? Tell you what, though, he's still got my vote... 

 

I think Colin Chapman was a great engineer (and the book is dedicated to his memory). Indeed I try and live my life by his motto of "add simplicity and lightness". But there was another side to him, which everyone within that thread discussing this documentary seems to acknowledge. I'm interested in how the DeLorean affair came back to haunt Team Lotus in later years. Hence my probing.

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 21:00.

[Michael Ferner]

Gary C, on 04 May 2020 - 16:22, said:

It's a hatchet job.

 

I thought it was excellent. And very probably, very accurate.

[E1pix]

Ibsey, on 04 May 2020 - 20:20, said:

That website is from an american law school, and we are talking about a potential defamation in the UK. So not entirely relevant. Item 4 within that link  states: "damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

 

The bolded bit suggest there are other ways a claimant can prove this point without showing any loss of income. Which is precisely the suggestion I was making in post 80 in response to you. So my understanding from all this is, whilst it would be easier to show a loss of income from defamation. That is not the only way to do so. Can we agree on that?     

First, my comments are without malice or any self-interest, but rather my simple interp of a video — including signed documents presented! 

 

I never meant to say loss of income was the only way to sue for libel. So in essence, Yes, we agree on that.

 

The "damages" link you left out of your reply says, in part: 

"Damages

Definition

 

In civil cases, a remedy in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party.

 

Damages refers to the sum of money the law imposes for a breach of some duty or violation of some right."

 

This is what I said to start with.

 

But Yes, there can be non-monetary losses, but they only apply here if the video is indeed a pack of unsubstantiated fallacies.

 

I suspect British law is very similar on this point, and perhaps our esteemed colleague with the blue avatar can weigh in on the British requirements. 

 

 

Ibsey, on 04 May 2020 - 20:20, said:

In regards to your why bother comment. The Chapman family were bothered enough to get involved in the Team Lotus naming rights of 2010/2011 to protect the legacy of their brand: https://www.eurospor...886/story.shtml

 

I can also tell you I had to get my manuscript checked by about 10 different people at Lotus who were VERY bothered that I did not defamate the Team Lotus legacy or the Chapman family's name in any way shape or form. The book doesn't hence why I was able to publish it. They were also making sure I had the job title of certain contributors in a certain way, again to protect the legacy of their brand . Given that experience had the Chapman family felt that documentary was a hatchet job against them, then I believe they would have taken legal action.   

Entering a case over the Lotus name is an absolute cakewalk by comparison, both legally, and emotionally. And it was much later after the pain of family loss subsided. Completely different effort, and dare I say irrelevant to what the other case would have cost in several painful ways.

 

As an author myself, I understand your reasoning in ignoring the "ten Lotus members." But that would have given me serious reservations, per my comments above. But that's just me...

 

On a humanity level, again, I totally understand why the family didn't take legal action — especially here in disproving some reasonable doubts of quite egregious accusations. If you've never fought such a battle, sans personal judgment, I have to add you seriously have no basis for questioning why they would or would not jump into such a snakepit. As said, it is daunting, and in some cases, enough to kill some people. And even 100% innocence guarantees nothing, certainly not a just outcome, and is a bleeding nightmare that can last a huge part of one's life. Dare I say, "totally waste a part of one's life."

[Ibsey]

Going to keep this brief as I think the thread needs to move on from our discussion now.

 

 

E1pix, on 04 May 2020 - 21:38, said:

 

As an author myself, I understand your reasoning in ignoring the "ten Lotus members." But that would have given me serious reservations, per my comments above. But that's just me...

 

 

Never ignored the ten Lotus members. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion? 

 

I'll repeat what I said in post #88 which was; 

 

Quote

I had to get my manuscript checked by about 10 different people at Lotus who were VERY bothered that I did not defamate the Team Lotus legacy or the Chapman family's name in any way shape or form. The book doesn't hence why I was able to publish it. "

 

 

That means prior to releasing the Lotus book, I engaged with those 10 Lotus people (very time consuming just finding their contact details, let alone discussing the book with them). Gave them all a copy of the draft manuscript and said please let me know if they had any problems with it (from a libel point of view) by such & such date. None of them did, hence why I could publish the book. No-one was ignored.

 

E1pix, on 04 May 2020 - 21:38, said:

 If you've never fought such a battle, sans personal judgment, I have to add you seriously have no basis for questioning why they would or would not jump into such a snakepit. As said, it is daunting, and in some cases, enough to kill some people. And even 100% innocence guarantees nothing, certainly not a just outcome, and is a bleeding nightmare that can last a huge part of one's life. Dare I say, "totally waste a part of one's life."

 

Been involved in legal disputes myself and even acted as an expert witness in some court cases on property leases gone wrong (I used to be a chartered surveyor). All of this is of course in addition to protecting myself against any libel action over the 1994 book & the Lotus book. So know where you are coming from above. 

 

In addition to the points made in post #89 (i.e. less trivial cases going to court, and the Chapman family could have outsourced things to someone else tasked with clearing their name etc). As F1matt says Litigation in the UK is hardly black and white,  many grey areas. So with that in mind, why didn't the Chapman family simply release a statement following that programme highlighting what was untrue about it for instance. Thereby clearing things up because that is exactly what Max Mosley did after he felt he'd been wronged by the teams following the 1994 Spanish GP and the politics occurring during the Friday morning of that weekend. 

 

Another case in point, Prost felt he was wronged by the Senna film, and has since made that clear in interviews. Thereby putting his case forward without going to court. Has the Chapman family made it clear that this documentary was inaccurate in any subsequent interviews? No 5 year legal action required to do that. Read the TNF thread discussing that documentary, and no-one seems to dispute its findings over the DeLorean affair which is frankly all I care about at this stage since the book covers Lotus's post Chapman era. So lets not take up any more of this thread with an increasing petty point now.  

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 22:26.

[E1pix]

Fair enough Ibsey, thanks for the open discussion.

 

My use of "ignore" was unclear, Sorry. Just meant I'd have personally included "the whole story," for better or worse — as it sounds like those members preferred as well.

 

Regardless, I do wish you well in sales! I may well buy one, but owe purchases to a couple other members first.     

 

All the Best.

[Dunc]

If that documentary truly is a hatchet job, I apologise for posting it here. I will read up on the matter.

 

As regards legal action, I would guess that the defence would be that the documentary is about Colin Chapman, who is dead and, legally, you can't defame a dead person.

[Ibsey]

Dunc, on 04 May 2020 - 23:06, said:

If that documentary truly is a hatchet job, I apologise for posting it here. I will read up on the matter.

 

As regards legal action, I would guess that the defence would be that the documentary is about Colin Chapman, who is dead and, legally, you can't defame a dead person.

 

Fred Bushell was implicated within that doc over the DeLorean affair, which was aired around the summer of 1998 IIRC. Bushell died in 2006. 

 

Also wonder if the Chapman family (heirs to Colin's estate) could of claimed defamation/libel to their various businesses like Classic Team Lotus which seemed to trade of Colin's legacy?  

Edited by Ibsey, 04 May 2020 - 23:43.

[Dunc]

Ibsey, on 04 May 2020 - 23:35, said:

Also wonder if the Chapman family (heirs to Colin's estate) could of claimed defamation/libel to their various businesses like Classic Team Lotus which seemed to trade of Colin's legacy?  

 

I doubt it because there is no specific mention to those businesses in the documentary. One of the things you have to prove with defamation suits is that the defamatory comment is about you.

 

If things written or said about you are untrue and cause you financial loss then you can sue for malicious falsehood, the only problem with this is you have to prove intent, which is notoriously difficult.

[sstiel]

Tricky legal issues in this, especially about 1990-95. One Lotus insider said about the period 1983-89, the sport was changing, Team Lotus wasn't. "Don't get me wrong, I love my team but we were fighting against the tide."

Edited by sstiel, 05 May 2020 - 11:05.

[Charlieman]

Ibsey, on 04 May 2020 - 20:58, said:

But there was another side to him, which everyone within that thread discussing this documentary seems to acknowledge. I'm interested in how the DeLorean affair came back to haunt Team Lotus in later years. Hence my probing.

If we go back to 1978-1982 when the DeLorean Motor Company (DMC) raised the money to build a factory and start production, we'll find that everyone in the UK who followed current affairs was an expert on the motor industry. News and serious investigative reports told us about the decline of the British car industry and the factors in its decline. As observers we knew quite a lot, and because we knew different things and interpreted them in our own ways, we all got it wrong. Sadly, so did the people running the industry.

 

One thing on which most reporters agreed was that John DeLorean was a wrong'un. Few said outright that they didn't trust him but they picked quotes and news clips which showed his worst moments. The only people who fancied DeLorean were UK government ministers and Northern Ireland local politicians who held their noses in the hope that DMC would be a successful employer.

 

The car itself went through several evolutions, being launched at a time of low economic confidence in the USA. Owing to cost and technical limitations, the car had unremarkable performance. The only things in its favour were its styling and image. Lots of European manufacturers had struggled in the USA market in the 1970s. Buyers liked the image, liked the cars, but didn't like the reliability of MGs, Fiats, Alfas. Sadly, many DeLoreans needed substantial rework before they could be delivered to dealers and buyers. (The British car industry learned nothing from this in the 1980s, with Sterling (Rover) and Jaguar offering great cars which were badly made.) It also emerged that nobody on the DMC design team had tested how brushed stainless steel responds to encounters with pigeons or schoolboys with sticky fingers.

 

An English court determined that a company (GPD) run by Fred Bushell and Colin Chapman charged DMC for services which were not provided, and that some of the money was received by Bushell. The judge suggested that Chapman, then deceased, was another recipient. GPD was one of many companies under the Lotus/Chapman umbrella. Maybe Bushell and Chapman thought that when DMC collapsed, almost an inevitablity, that their fiddle would escape scrutiny or that there would be bigger fish to fry.

---

Players cut their Lotus sponsorship in the late 1970s. Pound for pound, the JPS deal in 1978 has to be one of the best cigarette promotions. Lotus employed an expert team to develop the Lotus 77/78/79/80 and Team Lotus needed new sponsors. Martini and Olympus Cameras filled in for 1979, and found Essex Petroleum for 1980. David Thieme (still extant so let's not exaggerate our criticism) was another flamboyant man, the wrong person to hang out with if you need your brain working 100%.

[sstiel]

David Thieme keeps a low profile now. Believed to be living in Paris.

[BRG]

Charlieman, on 05 May 2020 - 12:06, said:

 David Thieme (still extant so let's not exaggerate our criticism) was another flamboyant man, the wrong person to hang out with if you need your brain working 100%.

 

sstiel, on 05 May 2020 - 12:29, said:

David Thieme keeps a low profile now. Believed to be living in Paris.

He may have been a bit shady, but there was never any question about Essex coughing up the agreed sponsorship cash, was there?  Not like the recent Rich Energy fiasco.

[kayemod]

Charlieman, on 05 May 2020 - 12:06, said:

 

Lots of European manufacturers had struggled in the USA market in the 1970s. Buyers liked the image, liked the cars, but didn't like the reliability of MGs, Fiats, Alfas.

Hey!! Steady on there!!

 

More seriously, John DeL's reputation wasn't so bad in the US, he'd done a lot of good for GM with some real successes like the Pontiac GTO. He undoubtedly had some talent, though more should have seen through his somewhat wide boy character much sooner in the sorry saga. I was surprised that the blessed Margaret seemed to be taken in by him, she wasn't easily fooled.

[ensign14]

 

One of the prototypes, you can see the differences in e.g. wheels, windows.