75 replies to this topic

[BRG]

MotorSport magazine has announced the Lotus 49 as their "Race Car of the Century".

 

For non-readers of the mag, the "Century" relates to the magazine's 100 year anniversary.  They selected a key car from each decade of this period and have now whittled it down to the Lotus 49 being the most significant and important racing car of the last 100 years.

 

Now I like the 49, and indeed it is the only F1 car that I have ever sat in (being a tall chap, I didn't fit in most of them) although I must shamefacedly admit to crack the screen as I struggled to get out.  It was certainly something of a game changer, but surely that was more about the Cosworth DFV motor than about the chassis itself?

 

It was a monocoque 'toothpaste tube' style chassis with conventional suspension and there were others very similar at the time.  It did use the DFV as a stressed member which was a new(ish) departure.  While it might be a good choice as the most important for its decade (the 1960s) and was very successful,  it was surely not innovative or revolutionary enough to set it above every other race car of the last 200 years.  Even in its decade, wasn't its ancestor, the Lotus 25, more significant with its fully stressed monocoque?  And over the whole 100 year period, cars like the Lotus 78 and 79 (ground effect) and the McLaren MP4/1 (carbon fibre chassis) or the Porsche 917/30 with its planet shattering turbo power were perhaps more of a step forward than the 49 achieved.

 

The current MotorSport issue talks up the 49 hugely and it was apparently a readers' poll that selected it, but I do not find it a convincing case at all.

[blackmme]

I completely agree with you BRG, it isn’t even in the top 3 most significant Lotus, 25, 72 and 79 (probably 78 as well) all more significant!

The significance of the 49 was the DFV and arguably by the end of 68 the 49B wasn’t the fastest car with a DFV.

I also love the 49, but no way is it the most significant car of the century and likewise I’m not convinced by Motorsport.  

 

i wonder what Doug thinks?

 

Regards Mike

[kayemod]

I'd agree with all that, and for me the Lotus 72 would have been a much more appropriate winner, with the 25 close behind. However, when Motor Sport asked a selection of drivers, by far the most popular choice was the McLaren MP4, which also happens to have been the car I voted for.

 

And what's that Subaru doing in the lineup?

Edited by kayemod, 14 July 2024 - 17:55.

[BRG]

And what's that Subaru dong in the lineup?

No reason why a rally car shouldn't feature, but I would personally have opted for the Lancia Stratos as the most charismatic and distinctive of successful rally contenders. 

 

But the Subaru Impreza has become somewhat - dare I say it - iconic, because of the connection with Colin McRae that took it way beyond us rally anoraks into the global mainstream consciousness, partly through the video game connections and turned Subaru from a maker of cheap and sturdy pick-ups for farmers and builders into a leading performance car marque.  Something that arguably none of the other cars in the list managed..

[garoidb]

I completely agree with you BRG, it isn’t even in the top 3 most significant Lotus, 25, 72 and 79 (probably 78 as well) all more significant!

The significance of the 49 was the DFV and arguably by the end of 68 the 49B wasn’t the fastest car with a DFV.

I also love the 49, but no way is it the most significant car of the century and likewise I’m not convinced by Motorsport.  

 

i wonder what Doug thinks?

 

Regards Mike

 

Perhaps the voters considered the engine to be part of the car, and the significance of its introduction to be part of the overall impact of the car.

[dolomite]

I voted in the readers poll. You had to choose one out of 10 cars that they had already selected. I would have preferred the Lotus 25 or 72, but these were not included so I went for the 49 as the next best option available.

[Nigel Beresford]

I too was surprised at the selection of the 49, which was notable but not exceptional for the reasons given by BRG. It may have moved the goalposts by a bit, but the 72 moved them by a mile for all of the many reasons already well known by members of TNF. The 72 (like the M23 which somewhat resembled it but was structurally very different) provided such a good basis for development over such a long period that even the people who created it struggled to better it. Suddenly racing car designers had to deal with far more emphasis on aerodynamics as an integral part of the car concept (rather than bolting wings on to some variant of the cigar tube concept). There’s always a thread running through the history of racing car design, as one development leads to problems or potential that the next generation of car fixes or exploits, but the 72 represented such a step change that I personally struggle to understand why it is not universally considered to be the most significant racing car of the last 100 years.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 14 July 2024 - 10:12.

[lyntonh]

In Internet terminology, this sort of readers poll is simple 'clickbait'.

 

(Quickly people, think of a way to sell more magazines.)

 

The survey, having been 'prequalified' to a shortlist, has been skewed towards the publisher's preferences.

 

Like most opinion polls it generates more question than it answers.

 

And in the long run, as we regularly see on this forum when such lists are put together,

comparing eras has no real conclusive value.

[Bloggsworth]

No.

[Claudio Navonne]

Didn't the Lancia D50 already use the engine (a V8 by the way) as part of the structure?

Edited by Claudio Navonne, 14 July 2024 - 10:53.

[GreenMachine]

Lotus 78? 

[2F-001]

Didn't the Lancia D50 already use the engine (a V8 by the way) as part of the structure?

 

As did the Lotus 43, I believe - and that had already won a GP for Lotus (before the 49, I mean).

 

The Voisin 'Laboratoire' C6 used aluminium monocoque construction four decades before Lotus, but uses that have high-profile success (and lots of it) really make people take notice and follow up on the ideas.

Edited by 2F-001, 14 July 2024 - 12:45.

[ensign14]

Most significant racing car ever?  Cooper Mk II.

 

Rear-engined, light, and engineered for the brand-new era of racetrack - the ex-airfield with smooth(ish) surfaces and decent run-off areas.

 

And the small specialist engineer model was the way GP and Champcar racing was to go for decades.

[Henri Greuter]

In answer on the OP

 

No

[petere]

I think this 'poll' tells us a lot more about what MotorSport has become than  what was was the most important or significant racing car of the century.

[sabrejet]

On the basis that most significant developments began either in SCCA, Can-Am or/and with Jim Hall, I'd suggest it would be a Chaparral of some sort. But which one?*

 

Or the Bugatti 35. Or something a little left-field: Radical?

 

*2E then.

Edited by sabrejet, 14 July 2024 - 19:06.

[LittleChris]

Is someone currently selling a 49 via MS ? A few years ago it seemed to be quite common for them to test a car and at the end of the article mention it was being auctioned soon

[blackmme]

I must be getting cynical in my old age but I wondered exactly the same thing.
I can’t see it being the car featured heavily in the article(s) and photos though. That is R10 of Classic Team Lotus I can’t see them parting with that.

Regards Mike

Edited by blackmme, 14 July 2024 - 20:00.

[Nathan]

I thought the 962 should have won it.

[sabrejet]

I think if the term 'significant' means anything in this context (likely not), then I'd interpret it as "the car which changed motorsport significantly". 

 

So if anything, it was the Porsche 956 which ushered in the era of privateers with a chance of overall victory and should be considered more 'significant' than the 962.

 

My suggestion of the Radical series was based on it now being the ubiquitous club sports racer worldwide; it has certainly changed motorsport in a significant manner.

 

Chaparral; wings, side-mounted radiators etc. Definitely influenced everything thereafter from 2E and 2F.

 

Bugatti 35; most successful race car of all time? Probably not now (possibly Radical again?). 

 

But it depends on what you mean by 'significant'. But the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward the Radical. 

 

And yes, lots of magazines road-test cars which are for sale. It smacks of lazy journalism: rather than seek a story, you wait for a dealer to contact you and then write a story once you've done a test drive. Just leaf through the latest Octane magazine and you'll find most articles end with "this car is for sale".

[10kDA]

I don't see the Lotus 49 as more significant than the 72. As Nigel Beresford states - even the people who created it struggled to better it. And not just them; everybody else as well. At the top level of competition the 72 was still winning four years after its introduction, and of Lotus' seven constructors' championships, three were won by the 72. Great drivers combined with almost incredible farsightedness on the parts of Chapman, Phillippe, and Rudd resulted in an exceptional record of success. I would bet the designers would never have guessed the 72 could have stayed at the top for so long.

[Nathan]

 

But it depends on what you mean by 'significant'. 

 

The word doesn't belong as it has its own definition that doesn't align with what the magazine was searching for.

[ensign14]

So if anything, it was the Porsche 956 which ushered in the era of privateers with a chance of overall victory and should be considered more 'significant' than the 962.

 

Surely that era had started decades before?  Even in F1 you had comparative mass production of things like the 250F, and the 956 wasn't even the first private Porsche to win Le Mans.

[MarkBisset]

The August issue of MotorSport is still on the Titanic en-route to The Colonies so I've not read the rationale for their selection of the Lotus 49 as 'The Greatest Racer of the Century' yet, but the cynical may see it as a Lotus 43 with a decent engine, what an engine of course...

 

My 'greatest car of the last 100 years' would be skewed in the direction of successful cars that had enduring technical merit, set standards that others followed, or still follow.

 

Using MotorSport's decade by decade approach:

 

1910s

Peugeot's 1912-14 L76 et al twin-cam, four-valve powered GP cars courtesy of Ernest Henry and Les Charlatans. Engines, sorry, Power Units, still have these features

 

1920s

Fiat 805 2-litre, twin-cam, two-valve, supercharged straight eights 'set the GP template' (exceptions duly noted) until the dawn of the 1950s

Fiat engineering diaspora influenced racing for decades to come

 

1930s

Good old Adolf and his Take Over Der World thingy. Take your pick of the Silver Arrows, maybe the 1938-39 W154/W154-163 for me.

The point to be taken is bottomless-pit budgets soundly spent

 

1940s

Nothing springs to mind

 

1950s

John and Charlie Cooper tipped the world upside down with budgets to make Der Deutschlanders piss themselves with laughter as they downed another Shöfferhofer Hefeweizen (my favourite brew). Hard to pick one Cooper but lets say the T45/51 Climax FPF's of varying capacity. Coopers changed the racing car paradigm forever

 

Honorable mentions to the Mercedes Benz W196/W196S duo, Jaguar D-Type and Lancia D50, with the latter the ultimate expression of the front-engined GP car? V8 used as a structural stressed element, butch spaceframe, low, squat, short with low polar-moment, it only lacked IRS. That Jano chap was ex-Fiat of course.

 

1960s

It has to be Chapman's monocoque Lotus 25/33/39. Every monocoque racing car is related thereto.

 

The 1970 Lotus 72 is related to the 1968 Lotus 56: wedge side-rad aero, 4-WD, inboard brakes, P&W gas turbine et al, the 56 gets an hon mention from me. So too do Jim Hall's - and Chevrolet R&D's - Chaparrals and their deployment of wings years before the GP-Johnnies caught up. Arguably wings provided The Biggest 1960s Performance Gain.

 

Monocoques were generally faster and safer than spaceframes, Porsche wins so equipped in the 1970s duly noted.

 

1970s

Chapman - and Peter Wright and others - again. The Lotus 78/79 'started' the ground effect and related aero era we all enjoy (sic) today. Epochal cars with continuing enduring influence.

 

1980s

The ballsy carbon-fibre monocoque Ron Dennis/John Barnard McLaren MP4/1 Ford. Every elite level single-seater and sportscar has been so-equipped since, Porsche 956/962 duly noted. Barnard achieved greater speed and driver safety.

 

1990s

It gets hard as the rule makers f@cked around on an annual basis, but I'll go for the 1992 Williams FW14/14B Renault 3.5 V10: semi-auto tranny (well done Barnard/Ferrari), active suspension (Lotus as pioneers), and ABS, courtesy of Messrs Newey and Dernie.

 

2000-2020

I'll leave these eras to others.

As the F1 rules became homogenised, standardised and pasteurised this removed most of the technical interest for me. Then the Barnum & Bailey gizmos introduced to spice up the 1.6-litre Eunuch Show finished me off. These days I watch reruns of World Championship Wrestling, gotta love Skull Murphy, Killer Kowalski and Mario Milano...

 

Cock-on-the-block time.  

I think for me it's John and Charlie Cooper's enterprise in sticking the engine behind the driver. So the Cooper T45/51. It's in the middle of our period, the 1950s, and certainly Cooper changed racing forever. They weren't the first to do the mid-engined thing of course, but made it work rather well. Lotus 25 in second place, and Lotus 78/79 third...So, a fundamental design layout paradigm change in first place, an enduring chassis innovation in second and an enduring aero innovation in third.  

 

Thoughts folks? 

 

m

Edited by MarkBisset, 15 July 2024 - 07:06.

[john aston]

All such lists are just vanity and folly and their legacy is people on the internet arguing in support of their favourite . Same with music , and Rolling Stones' daft list of 250 (count 'em) guitarists probably still has Clapton fans weeping into their real ale .   . 

 

It reflects a deeper malaise which is the fact that many of the relatively few people who still buy magazines have short attention spans .You'll struggle to find many pieces much over 1000 words now and every article is dominated by pictures . It's understandable why GOAT lists appeal - lots of pictures and only bite size factoids to read . I'm in a minority which much prefers a 3-5000 word piece largely uninterrupted by pictures.  

[lyntonh]

All such lists are just vanity and folly and their legacy is people on the internet arguing in support of their favourite . Same with music , and Rolling Stones' daft list of 250 (count 'em) guitarists probably still has Clapton fans weeping into their real ale .   . 

 

It reflects a deeper malaise which is the fact that many of the relatively few people who still buy magazines have short attention spans .You'll struggle to find many pieces much over 1000 words now and every article is dominated by pictures . It's understandable why GOAT lists appeal - lots of pictures and only bite size factoids to read . I'm in a minority which much prefers a 3-5000 word piece largely uninterrupted by pictures.  

Spot on, John.

 

I refuse to enter into such discussions for the reason that you expound, because I will not give people, whoever they are, any skerrick of encouragement to continue offering such pointless exercises.

 

The laziness of people not wanting to bother with well-researched detail to expand knowledge and make informed decisions, has pervaded all parts of life, both important and trivial.

 

We live in a dumb 'short-hand', 'sticky-note' world.

Edited by lyntonh, 15 July 2024 - 09:19.

[Glengavel]

I voted in the readers poll. You had to choose one out of 10 cars that they had already selected. I would have preferred the Lotus 25 or 72, but these were not included so I went for the 49 as the next best option available.

 

That beggars belief..

Edited by Glengavel, 15 July 2024 - 07:44.

[BRG]

I think if the term 'significant' means anything in this context (likely not), then I'd interpret it as "the car which changed motorsport significantly". 

 

The word doesn't belong as it has its own definition that doesn't align with what the magazine was searching for.

To be fair, it was me that used the word "significant", rather than MotorSport.

 

Some of the later posts here have somewhat missed the point that it was a readers' poll that chose the 49, from the list of 10 cars chosen per decade by MotorSport staff.  So it was not clickbait, nor an attempt to bolster someone's car sale value.  Whether that makes it any more credible, or indeed creditable, is another question.

[ensign14]

That beggars belief..

It was one per decade. 

[rl1856]

GOAT or most significant would have to be the Cooper T45/54 series.  It changed the paradigm of design, execution and participation in ways that are relevant today.

 

The Cooper proved that putting the engine in the rear was superior.  It changed GP racing, Indy Car racing, Sports Car racing.

 

The Cooper proved that simple could be better than complex.

 

The Cooper ushered in the era of kit cars and garage-istas that lasted into the 80's....build a chassis then buy an engine...go racing.

 

The Cooper enabled the true privateers to not only enter but also to be successful.  Note that Moss's 1st victories in a rear engined car were taken in a Cooper purchased by Rob Walker, and it was Walker's private ownership that achieved the first 2 GP victories for Cooper.  Again the ability of a privateer to purchase a chassis and engine and win races lasted well into the 60's.

 

Honorable mention:

 

Auto Union    much success achieved using a REAR ENGINED car, that had less horsepower and from a company with fewer resources than its main competitor.   Rear engined at the time was viewed as very complex and it took another 15yrs before others began to see the light.

 

Maserati 250F   A 250F started every GP of the 2.5L formula....from 1954-57 when deployed by the factory, and in significant numbers by privateers, and from 1958-60 exclusively by privateers.  One could purchase a complete car, and go racing- with a reasonable chance of success.   

 

Mercedes W196 and Lancia D50 showed that technology was as important as execution and for the mentally perceptive showed the way forward in chassis design.

 

Vanwall represented almost the last gasp of the front engined car, but also pointed the way forward: advanced space frame chassis and the importance of aerodynamics.

 

Lotus 25 was another paradigm shifter, but not as significant (IMHO) as the Cooper, but in many ways more important than the 49.  The 25 irrevocably changed chassis design such that within a few years just about all chassis were of monocoque construction.

 

Lotus 49, and 72 were both significant but for different reasons, but again not as significant in overall impact as the Cooper.    The 49 again proved that simple combined with efficiency can defeat complex and powerful.  The 72 demonstrated what careful integration of all aspects of design can achieve.  The aerodynamic package dictated the appearance and layout, but concentrating major masses at the middle of the chassis created a cleaner and more integrated platform that influenced chassis design for many years.  

[NCB619]

The August issue of MotorSport is still on the Titanic en-route to The Colonies so I've not read the rationale for their selection of the Lotus 49 as 'The Greatest Racer of the Century' yet, but the cynical may see it as a Lotus 43 with a decent engine, what an engine of course...

 

My 'greatest car of the last 100 years' would be skewed in the direction of successful cars that had enduring technical merit, set standards that others followed, or still follow.

 

Using MotorSport's decade by decade approach:

 

1910s

Peugeot's 1912-14 L76 et al twin-cam, four-valve powered GP cars courtesy of Ernest Henry and Les Charlatans. Engines, sorry, Power Units, still have these features

 

1920s

Fiat 805 2-litre, twin-cam, two-valve, supercharged straight eights 'set the GP template' (exceptions duly noted) until the dawn of the 1950s

Fiat engineering diaspora influenced racing for decades to come

 

1930s

Good old Adolf and his Take Over Der World thingy. Take your pick of the Silver Arrows, maybe the 1938-39 W154/W154-163 for me.

The point to be taken is bottomless-pit budgets soundly spent

 

1940s

Nothing springs to mind

 

1950s

John and Charlie Cooper tipped the world upside down with budgets to make Der Deutschlanders piss themselves with laughter as they downed another Shöfferhofer Hefeweizen (my favourite brew). Hard to pick one Cooper but lets say the T45/51 Climax FPF's of varying capacity. Coopers changed the racing car paradigm forever

 

Honorable mentions to the Mercedes Benz W196/W196S duo, Jaguar D-Type and Lancia D50, with the latter the ultimate expression of the front-engined GP car? V8 used as a structural stressed element, butch spaceframe, low, squat, short with low polar-moment, it only lacked IRS. That Jano chap was ex-Fiat of course.

 

1960s

It has to be Chapman's monocoque Lotus 25/33/39. Every monocoque racing car is related thereto.

 

The 1970 Lotus 72 is related to the 1968 Lotus 56: wedge side-rad aero, 4-WD, inboard brakes, P&W gas turbine et al, the 56 gets an hon mention from me. So too do Jim Hall's - and Chevrolet R&D's - Chaparrals and their deployment of wings years before the GP-Johnnies caught up. Arguably wings provided The Biggest 1960s Performance Gain.

 

Monocoques were generally faster and safer than spaceframes, Porsche wins so equipped in the 1970s duly noted.

 

1970s

Chapman - and Peter Wright and others - again. The Lotus 78/79 'started' the ground effect and related aero era we all enjoy (sic) today. Epochal cars with continuing enduring influence.

 

1980s

The ballsy carbon-fibre monocoque Ron Dennis/John Barnard McLaren MP4/1 Ford. Every elite level single-seater and sportscar has been so-equipped since, Porsche 956/962 duly noted. Barnard achieved greater speed and driver safety.

 

1990s

It gets hard as the rule makers f@cked around on an annual basis, but I'll go for the 1992 Williams FW14/14B Renault 3.5 V10: semi-auto tranny (well done Barnard/Ferrari), active suspension (Lotus as pioneers), and ABS, courtesy of Messrs Newey and Dernie.

 

2000-2020

I'll leave these eras to others.

As the F1 rules became homogenised, standardised and pasteurised this removed most of the technical interest for me. Then the Barnum & Bailey gizmos introduced to spice up the 1.6-litre Eunuch Show finished me off. These days I watch reruns of World Championship Wrestling, gotta love Skull Murphy, Killer Kowalski and Mario Milano...

 

Cock-on-the-block time.  

I think for me it's John and Charlie Cooper's enterprise in sticking the engine behind the driver. So the Cooper T45/51. It's in the middle of our period, the 1950s, and certainly Cooper changed racing forever. They weren't the first to do the mid-engined thing of course, but made it work rather well. Lotus 25 in second place, and Lotus 78/79 third...So, a fundamental design layout paradigm change in first place, an enduring chassis innovation in second and an enduring aero innovation in third.  

 

Thoughts folks? 

 

m

My only thought is where are you getting re-runs of World Championship Wrestling with Mario Milano because I most certainly would enjoy

[garoidb]

To be fair, it was me that used the word "significant", rather than MotorSport.

 

Some of the later posts here have somewhat missed the point that it was a readers' poll that chose the 49, from the list of 10 cars chosen per decade by MotorSport staff.  So it was not clickbait, nor an attempt to bolster someone's car sale value.  Whether that makes it any more credible, or indeed creditable, is another question.

 

Thanks for this and to others for other clarifications on the general format of the poll, the restriction of one nominee per decade and the options available. So, notwithstanding that everyone seems to disagree with the result, can anyone guess as to why enough people voted for it? Was it a preference for the 60s era, with no similar option being made available? The ground effect and later cars do have a different aesthetic. Anyway, it seems the more interesting debates would have been between cars in particularly innovative eras, rather than across decades.

[blackmme]

Thanks for this and to others for other clarifications on the general format of the poll, the restriction of one nominee per decade and the options available. So, notwithstanding that everyone seems to disagree with the result, can anyone guess as to why enough people voted for it? Was it a preference for the 60s era, with no similar option being made available? The ground effect and later cars do have a different aesthetic. Anyway, it seems the more interesting debates would have been between cars in particularly innovative eras, rather than across decades.

 

British publication (nothing wrong with that of course) so definitely some national bias, the 49 was/is a great racing car (just not the greatest) and the strong association with Clark and Hill.

 

Regards Mike

[BRG]

..can anyone guess as to why enough people voted for it? Was it a preference for the 60s era, with no similar option being made available? 

It may reflect the demographic of the readership who may well be of a certain age and mainly British? 

[Glengavel]

 

Maserati 250F   A 250F started every GP of the 2.5L formula....from 1954-57 when deployed by the factory, and in significant numbers by privateers, and from 1958-60 exclusively by privateers.  One could purchase a complete car, and go racing- with a reasonable chance of success.   

 

 

The 250F is always regarded as the iconic 1950s F1 car, but it is it perhaps over-hyped? It won only 8 out of 28 World Championship races in the period 1954-1957. (OK, it did win a couple of dozen non-WC races but still...).

 

On that note of heresy I shall go and hide for a while.

[Charlieman]

GOAT or most significant would have to be the Cooper T45/54 series.  It changed the paradigm of design, execution and participation in ways that are relevant today.

Following this logic, for each period or decade there is a right way to build a racing car. The 1979 F1 season was notable for the Lotus 79 clones (Tyrrell 009, Rebaque HR100, McLaren M28 etc) but the car which could only be built the wrong way (Ferrari 312T4) won the championship.

 

The most significant racing car of all time has to be the Mallock U2 because it was built the wrong way (steel spaceframe, front engine, live or de Dion rear axle) yet embarrassed designers doing it the right way.

[7MGTEsup]

Following this logic, for each period or decade there is a right way to build a racing car. The 1979 F1 season was notable for the Lotus 79 clones (Tyrrell 009, Rebaque HR100, McLaren M28 etc) but the car which could only be built the wrong way (Ferrari 312T4) won the championship.

 

I think the Ferrari was just more reliable in 1979. Scheckter had 2 DNF's, Villeneuve had 3 DNF's, Everyone else had between 5 and 8.

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 15 July 2024 - 15:53.

[ensign14]

The 250F is always regarded as the iconic 1950s F1 car, but it is it perhaps over-hyped? It won only 8 out of 28 World Championship races in the period 1954-1957. (OK, it did win a couple of dozen non-WC races but still...).

 

On that note of heresy I shall go and hide for a while.

You want heresy?  Bugatti were flat-track bullies.  As soon as literally anyone else had a serious go, they were March 761.

[sabrejet]

As soon as literally anyone else had a serious go, they were March 761.

 

I'm sure this makes sense if you put the words in the right order. Or one for the NEWSPEAK thread?

[blackmme]

I'm sure this makes sense if you put the words in the right order. Or one for the NEWSPEAK thread?

I’ll have a crack for you, they weren’t very good and the supposedly new cars might not have been quite as new as the advertising to potential purchasers might suggest (lovely depth to the paintwork, lots and lots of coats).

Regards Mike

[Bikr7549]

The 250F is always regarded as the iconic 1950s F1 car, but it is it perhaps over-hyped? It won only 8 out of 28 World Championship races in the period 1954-1957. (OK, it did win a couple of dozen non-WC races but still...).

 

On that note of heresy I shall go and hide for a while.

It did have longevity on its side, in modified form over those years. Also, it wonderful appearance has helped keep it a perpetual favorite.

[B Squared]

Regarding Nigel's referencing the Lotus 72, this comes from Rob Walker's write-up in Road & Track magazine of the 1975 United States Grand Prix, a race I attended:

"Three laps from the end Jochen (Mass) began to run into brake trouble and slow. Ronnie sensed a chance of grabbing third place and pressed on as hard as possible. He overdid it and locked up the left front tire, putting a flat spot in it, on braking. This made it very difficult to get through turn one and consequently slowed him through the chicane and up the hill. On the last lap Hunt was one second behind Ronnie. We did not think he could possibly catch him. We were thrilled and staggered when it was Our Hero in the white car who came through for fourth spot. Jody told me even he had a try to get Ronnie but he got broadside in the chicane and messed it all up so had to be satisfied with sixth. It was bad luck on Ronnie dropping a place but still a magnificent drive to bring the old 72 into 5th place on what really must be its last appearance after 6 years of racing."

[FastReader]

Don't Motorsport love a list? For me this is jounalism at its laziest so I have no intention of wading into the debate here of what is or isn't the "Race Car of the Century". But I thought you might also like to know that they even did a poll of "Motorsport's Cover of the Century"(!) and the winner has just been announced. I can't believe that people actually vote for this nonsense.

[68targa]

The fact that Motor Sport  is celebrating 100 years means it has to adapt to this kind of feature to cater for modern reading habits.  "Race Car of the Century" is an eye catching headline which might stand out among all the other magazines on the shelves (and social media) and just might entice a casual reader to part with £6.49.   I take these lists to be a tongue-in-cheek poke to get a reaction.  It's all about selling copies.

Greatest of all Time lists are largely pointless with too many variances at play.   I do have a soft spot for the Lotus 49 and own two of them  - those Tamiya kits are brilliant.

[Sterzo]

The voting is irrelevant really. There were pictures and descriptions of old racing cars, a track test and an interview with a former driver. Read it all. Didn't spoil my breakfast.

[sabrejet]

Don't Motorsport love a list? For me this is jounalism at its laziest so I have no intention of wading into the debate here of what is or isn't the "Race Car of the Century". 

 

Exactly this: road tests of 'for sale' cars can be included too. It doesn't take much effort and I dare say the 'historical' part of each road test is taken from the vendor's brochure. It's akin to Channel 5's 'Greatest Sitcom' (other garbage is available at regular intervals) compilations.#

 

In fact I think that road tests should be deleted in toto from motoring magazines: they descend into the same hackneyed expressions and don't tell you anything you couldn't work out for yourself. Just recently I saw a road test of the new Aston Martin Valour headlined with "The angriest Aston Martin ever" (or similar). Angriest? Are these people imbeciles or do they think we are?

[Roger Clark]

The August issue of MotorSport is still on the Titanic en-route to The Colonies so I've not read the rationale for their selection of the Lotus 49 as 'The Greatest Racer of the Century' yet, but the cynical may see it as a Lotus 43 with a decent engine, what an engine of course...

 

My 'greatest car of the last 100 years' would be skewed in the direction of successful cars that had enduring technical merit, set standards that others followed, or still follow.

 

Using MotorSport's decade by decade approach:

 

1910s

Peugeot's 1912-14 L76 et al twin-cam, four-valve powered GP cars courtesy of Ernest Henry and Les Charlatans. Engines, sorry, Power Units, still have these features

 

 

 

Thoughts folks? 

 

m

A contender for most over-rated? The Henry concepts were very successful and widely copied before and immediately after the Great War but, with two exceptions, the 4-valve concept disappeared from successful European racing cars until the 1960s.  On track, the 1912 Grand Prix was a two-heat race with the winer decided on aggregate.  Fiats won both heats but Peugeot won on aggregate.  THe 1913 race has a poor entry by the standards of the time and could have been won by a Delage but for the unfortunate accident that delayed Guyot.  In 1914, they were comprehensively beaten by Mercedes.  It was probably Boillot's driving that cemented the Peugeot legend.

[jtremlett]

...And yes, lots of magazines road-test cars which are for sale. It smacks of lazy journalism: rather than seek a story, you wait for a dealer to contact you and then write a story once you've done a test drive. Just leaf through the latest Octane magazine and you'll find most articles end with "this car is for sale".

 

I have no inside knowledge on these things but I think it may be a little unfair in that probably a lot of these cars are only available to test because they are for sale.  

 

...It reflects a deeper malaise which is the fact that many of the relatively few people who still buy magazines have short attention spans...  

 

Is that the chicken or the egg?  How many people are not buying the magazines precisely because they aim low?

 

On the subject of reader polls, I do hate that someone has to limit the options before you start.  I suppose that's to stop you getting together with a few mates down the pub and all voting for the Andrea Moda but MotorSport had managed to exclude anything I might have voted for before I even start.

[BRG]

 MotorSport had managed to exclude anything I might have voted for before I even start.

Really?  I felt that some of their choices for certain decades were pretty solid.  The Bentley, the D-Type and the Porsches seemed strong contenders for their respective decades, although still open for debate. 

[blackmme]

Just another input from me, given that I made the comment about the association with Clark and Hill possibly colouring peoples opinion of the 49. 

 

I've just re-read the quotes and comments attributed to Clark about the 49 in Eric Dymocks wonderful biography of Clark. None of the comments would suggest that (when the car was at the point of having its greatest margin over its competitors) it would have been his 'Racing Car of the Century'.

 

Regards Mike