24 replies to this topic

[Megatron]

I was thumbing through FORIX the other day and I realized that Cooper were terrible in 61 after back to back titles in 59 and 60.

Brabham only scored a 6th and a 4th and while McLaren did a little better, it was not great.

And it only got worse until a brief run in 66 and 67. In 68 they were bad with BRM V12s and in 69 Efford entered one in Monaco with a Maserati V12 and that was it.

What caused such success to go away so quickly?

[Vitesse2]

Quite simply, I'd put it down to the departure of Brabham and then McLaren. Both were very good car developers and Jack especially was a significant factor in the rise of the F1 Cooper.

Although they later attracted John Surtees to drive for them, he was essentially a Ferrari "refugee" and left quickly for Honda.

Additionally the 1959-60 Coopers were really ahead of their contemporaries- once better-funded teams like Ferrari, Lotus and BRM got to grips with rear-engined layouts Cooper were left behind and by the end of the 1.5 litre formula they were no longer considered a top-line team: new Climax developments went first to Lotus and Brabham, not Cooper. In addition they stuck with spaceframes when everyone else was building monocoques.

When the 3-litre formula arrived there were hopes of a Cooper revival with the Maserati engine, but it was too old, too unreliable and too heavy to compete with the Brabham-Repco combination. They also tried to spread their resources too thin, running both works cars and servicing privateers.

They struggled through 1966-67, picking up the odd result when better cars failed, but lack of results meant they would never be in the running for Ford engines in 1968. So, they ended up with the all-new BRM V12, which was still in the early stages of development: the best results for the engine came in works BRMs (two second places).

Cooper withdrew at the end of 1968 due to funding problems: hero to zero in nine years.

[Keir]

But they did have Rindt, Rodriguez, Surtees, Siffert and briefly Amon. But it wasn't lack of drivers, it was lack of money. John Cooper was a revolutionary, but when he looked around, the revolution had passed him by.

[Vitesse2]

But they did have Rindt, Rodriguez, Surtees, Siffert and briefly Amon.

Jochen was without doubt Cooper's most successful driver over the whole of 1966 and, had he been luckier he might have won a GP or two that year. But even his most ardent fans wouldn't claim Jochen was a car developer, which is what the Cooper needed in 1966. Surtees took a 1st, 2nd and 3rd and could perhaps have developed the car but jumped ship to Honda ...

Pedro took a lucky win in South Africa, when everything else blew up, but it should be remembered that he almost certainly wouldn't have won if John Love's old Cooper hadn't stopped for fuel - the 1967 Cooper was slow, but reliable.

Siffert's RRCW car was even less competitive than the works cars and I'm sure Rob heaved a mighty sigh of relief when the Lotus 49 rolled into his garage in 1968!

And very briefly Amon ... I'd actually forgotten Chris had driven the Cooper, but I suppose we can rely on you to remind us about all things Amon, Keir: at least he had a car to drive, which is more than Bruce could provide at the time. I suspect the effort of running three cars was too much for Cooper, but for some reason they kept on doing it .... starting money perhaps?

John Cooper was a revolutionary, but when he looked around, the revolution had passed him by.

And the revolution was monocoques ....

[david_martin]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
In addition they stuck with spaceframes when everyone else was building monocoques.

I don't think that is entirely true. Ron Tauranac was one of the last to convert from space frame to monocoque construction, famously reported as saying that the fastest thing about the Lotus monocoque was Jim Clark. I am pretty sure that the BT19/20 and BT24's that Brabham and Hulme won the 1966 and 1967 WDC with were still using space frame construction.

[Vitesse2]

"You will write out one hundred times:

I will not post without checking my facts."

Oops!! The BT19, 20 & 24 were indeed spaceframes and the BT26 was a composite spaceframe/monocoque ...

[oldtimer]

Some engineers would not call the tubular chassis of the Coopers true space frames because of the curved tubes in them.

Me, I wondered what had happened to F1 car design in 1959, when the Constructers Championship was won by a car that seemed to corner mostly on 3 wheels. Coopers were first out of the blocks with the rear- engined designs for the new, shorter GPs, but maybe they got overtaken by a less homespun approach to engineering.

But,they were first out of the blocks...

[Don Capps]

Like most successes, it was a happy marriage of many separate items that went together well. In 1959, the combination of engine and chassis and driver and team all came together. However, keep in mind that it was a near run thing -- Tony Brooks was still in the hunt until the end.

In 1960, Cooper really mopped the floor with a superb team effort. However, like most of the Brit teams, they misjudged the CSI and got caught out when the Inter-Continental Formula fizzled.

In 1962, Cooper weren't bad. They won at Monte Carlo and Reims and were in the hunt most of the season. However, from 1963 to 1965 they seemed to keep missing the mark, often by the smallest of margins.

The hopes for the Maserati Tipo 9 were seriously misplaced in my opinion, but engine options were fairly limited to the team and with the new owners the distributors for Maserati....

I think that had the BRM V-12 customer engine been available a season or so earlier, things could have been a bit different. The folks on the team were generally great people and tried very hard. However, the commercial side of the sport did them in. Perhaps a Cooper DFV might have been a good bet in 1969 since the grids were a trifle, er, thin.

Plus, a bit went out the team when John had his really bad auto accident (...in what 1962?) and then when The Old Man (Charles) died in October 1964. John sold out in early 1965 to the Chipstead Group.

All that said, I still have a soft spot for the team.

[Carlos Jalife]

Well certainly the loss of Brabham and Mclaren was part of it but also the group being sold to Chipstead which imported Maseratis to GB and therefore they had to use the reworked and rebored old Maserati 2.5 engine which carried Fangio to his 1957 championship.
And the aerodynamic work didn't help either, having the fuel pump in odd places like behind the left shoulder of the driver. And all those experiments with multiplug per cylinder engines, and the lack of a great designer at the helm. And then the BRM V12 wasn't that great either but their sponsors left them at the end of the 1968 year and that was it. Or maybe it ws apeter's principle, a good F3 constructor who lucked out in being first with decent rear engined cars, and then just unable to mantain that level.

And Vitesse, about pedro's lucky win. First, Love knew he had to stop so he raced at 10/10 all day long because it didn't matter anyway. Second, the only one who blew up who was really important was Hulme but didn't he stop for brake fluid too when he had about a lap on everyone else? (trying to hard?) and didn't he have to run through the boxes and stop next time around because they weren't even expecting him? Pedro had the measure of everyone else, called Brabham or Surtees or whatever, before he lost second gear shortly before lap 20 and he was then passed by three or four cars and adjusted his driving. He qualified 4th remeber, ahead of much heralded Rindt who had driven for the team since 1965. Pedro was in his ninth race and won thanks to adjusting his driving and to -maybe- bad luck in Hulme's case, although Hulme might have been pressing too fast without any reason and that could have been the cause of his bad luck. But saying Pedro was lucky is stretching it a bit too far. He was a driver who knew how to run around any trouble and never surrender. If nothing had happened. pedro should have finished second to Hulme. That the only one who is definitely faster than you withdraws with trouble is not great luck, it's just racing. You call it luck, I call it good driving. (Bad) Luck is what happened to Mika at Spain.

[Vitesse2]

Carlos: I don't think Love was running at 10/10ths all day, but my reference to Pedro being lucky was more a reference to Love's bad luck than Pedro's good fortune. As John knew he hadn't enough fuel to last the race he would surely have tried to delay his pit stop as late as possible in order to give the crowd a run for their money. Ironically, had he run an early stop fuel strategy, he would have been more likely to win!!!

And I have to disagree with you about front-runners blowing up - Stewart, Clark, Bonnier, Rindt and Siffert all retired with engine trouble and the two Brabhams were both in trouble but finished. Hill retired with accident damage, Spence had an oil pipe let go, Courage a fuel leak and Gurney went out with suspension failure. Tingle was the only one to crash - but that looks like five "blow ups" and another two potential ones to me!!!

[Mike Argetsinger]

Although I won't quibble with much of what has been said above I must respectfully disagree with Vitesse2 on three statements he has made.

Regarding the team's performance in 1966-67 - it is not correct to say that they picked up the odd result as a result of other people falling out. This did increasingly become the case in 1967 but it was most definitely not true in 1966 - a year in which they were a very formidable competitor, admittedly at certain circuits more than others.

I also don't understand your statement regarding Cooper running three cars and the suggestion that it was for the starting money - I take it you are referring to 1966. It was only at Reims for the French GP that three cars were run and that was to accomodate Chris Amon who had been promised the drive. Between Spa and Reims (I have recently provided more detail on this in my post in the T81 thread) Surtees came unexpectedly in to the picture and Roy Salvadori (team manager) felt honor bound to at least provide Chris a car for Reims. It clearly strained the resources of the team and it was never contemplated to run a third car beyond that race. The only other Grand Prix that year where they ran a third car was in Mexico for Moises Solana (a deal, by the way, arranged for Solana by my father). They were not running starting money specials that year. So I am not at all clear on what you are referring to here.

Finally, the 1966 T81 was a monocoque - the first from Cooper but by no means the last of the teams to adopt the chassis design. It was designed by Derrick White (Tony Robinson was also on the design team) and was actually not a bad handling car.

Cooper had a great and noble history. They had/have nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for.

[Megatron]

Was the Maserati the same thing that they had pulled out of the 250F a decade earlier?

[ehagar]

I vaguely remember in an interview with John Cooper by Paul Thurston about GPL....

Found the link.

http://website.lineo...n/Thurston.html

On the issue about getting a Ford engine:

How much was the Cooper down on power in 1967 compared to the others? Was it's weakness not handling, but power?
Basically, yes. He recalled the Maserati engine produced around 350HP which was around 70HP less than the front of the grid. He commented that when the Ford engine became available they would have used it, but for the fact that Cooper were heavily involved with BMC at the time who didn't want a Cooper/Ford on the grid.


RIP John Cooper

[Mike Argetsinger]

Yes. The V-12 from 1957 was resurrected and Ing. Giulio Alfieri updated it to 3-Litres. He broadened the torque curve with different ports and revised cam profiles. The engine revved to 10,000 RPM. Maserati claimed 360 BHP (and more) on their dyno but none of the drivers (or the Cooper mechanics) ever believed it. At one time the best engine was run on the Climax dyno and only 330 BHP was seen. However, the engines were constantly being developed and Maserati really put their heart and soul in to it. I once (between the Dutch and German GP's) accompanied team mechanic Ernie Symonds when we took four engines (three works and one for Rob Walker) to Modena in a small Team Cooper van. I spent the whole week in Modena mostly hanging out at the Maserati factory and I saw the engines on the dyno, etc. I met the whole cast of characters Guerrino Bertocchi and Heinz Mader among others. Modena was an exquisite town and this was my first time in Italy. It was great. I was shown around by Peter Coltrin who was living there at the time. A terrific guy. Again I would make the point that Cooper (at least in '66) was not the hopeless team that many people now seem to make them out to be. They were very much in the hunt and were chasing it hard. They had some great races (and some disappointing ones too) but ultimately did win the final Grand Prix of the season. And of course they had incredible drivers in Surtees and Rindt (not to forget Richie Ginther early in the season and briefly Chris Amon) who were also warm and fascinating human beings. In fact I would say that with Roy Salvadori, John Cooper, Jonathan Sieff, Ron Dennis, Denis Davis, Jim Potten, Derrick White and others - it was an extremely colorful group!

[Vitesse2]

Mike: you were there and I wasn't, so I'm relying on reports and stats ...

I think you'll agree that the Brabhams were the class of the field in 66 - not a great car or engine, but a reliable engine in a sorted car. When they held together, they generally won, at least mid-season. The Coopers could be described in the same way, but I'm not sure they can be described as fully competitive, except perhaps Surtees in Mexico, when the V12 engine might have had some advantage over the V8 at altitude.

As I said before, I think Jochen was unlucky not to win in 66 - to come second behind Clark in the only race where an H16 BRM engine lasted long enough to win has to to be considered very unlucky!! But even then, Jochen was more than a lap behind. He'd been 40 seconds behind Surtees' Ferrari at Spa and Big John was almost 45 seconds behind Brabham at Nurburgring - Jochen was nearly two minutes further back. Jochen was fourth and lapped at Monza and fourth and lapped twice at Reims. Essentially I think that proves the theory that they were a bit slow but reliable.

I withdraw the start money statement unreservedly. Lack of research again .....

And finally, I never said the T81 wasn't a monocoque, but had Cooper perhaps adopted monocoque construction in 1963 or 1964 they might have had more success in producing a car that could run with the Lotus 25 and 33 and BRM P261. That's not to ignore Brabham, but Ron Tauranac was probably the second-best designer of the time after Chapman - if anyone could extract the best from spaceframe designs it was Ron.

[Mike Argetsinger]

While not wishing to enter into a polemic on this, I must again respectfully disagree with your characterization of the general level of competitiveness of Cooper in the 1966 season. Statistics can mislead.

You use the phrase "fully competitive." Really that year noone was "fully competitive" all the time - but it was Brabham who got it right when it counted. Various teams had their moment in what was an interesting year from a technical standpoint as people were going in different directions in an attempt to come to terms with the new formula. But I wish to make the case that Cooper was more competitive than you are representing them.

You mention that Jochen finished 40 seconds behind Surtees in the Ferrari at Spa. But he dramatically led the race to near the end when a serious handling problem developed as the track dried and he fell back. Also, in the dry he had qualified an honorable 2nd to Surtees - the Ferrari was the best car at that point in the season (in fact it may have proved to be the best car all season if Surtees had not left). So I would make the case that you are wrong about Spa.

Yes, Jochen was lapped twice at Reims. He was also in the pits having fuel vaporization problems dealt with. This plagued all the Cooper-Maseratis that day. So being 2-laps down does not reflect an uncompetitive car per se. Remember that Surtees and Jochen qualified 2nd and 5th respectively for this race. So they had some speed.

Jochen 4th and lapped at Monza? Well yes, but I remember him finishing the race with a punctured tire that was off the rim. Big John was very fast that weekend and running a strong 3rd as late as the 32nd lap when he was forced to retire because a fuel tank was seeping and the tub was awash in petrol.

At Watkins Glen they were 2nd and 3rd. Jochen ran out of petrol on the last lap which is the reason he appears to have been so far off Clark's pace. Surtees had a prolonged stop after being put off in the esses while lapping Peter Arundell. He came back to repeatedly break the lap record - multiple times - and made a remarkable drive through the field to finish 3rd.

The Nurburgring? I think most people would say that finishing 2nd and 3rd was a more than respectable - and even somewhat "competitive" - result.

I am sorry you are apparently unimpressed with Surtees win in Mexico - but win it he did!

I would never maintain that Cooper had the best car that year - or even the 2nd best car - but they were competitive and did not gain their results simply through endurance as you maintain. At certain tracks they had real speed.

Your quote is "Essentially that proves the theory that they were a bit slow but reliable." I don't think you have proven anything of the sort. That's just not the way it was.

Despite our differing point of view on this I remain respectful of your insights and always enjoy your posts.

[Don Capps]

If I could, allow me a few lines:

One of the problems with statistics and history is that there is often much lost in the translation, so to speak. As Mike correctly states, Cooper were in the hunt that 1966 season. They were on that razor's edge on more than one occasion, but then Surtees did win the Mexican race fair and square for a fitting finale to the season.

Although most roll their eyes when I embark on my mystical, magical mystery tours of various seasons, it that missing element of the human dramas and the politics and the close calls, and the "howdidthathappen?"s and "canyoubelievethat?"s or "whahthehellwasthat?"s and so forth that make it something other than what you see in the stats.

In racing, we often get so infatuated with the stats that we miss the stories behind the numbers.

As I said, I will always have a soft spot for Cooper. They were racers at heart.

[Vitesse2]

Despite our differing point of view on this I remain respectful of your insights and always enjoy your posts

Blimey Mike, you sure know how to embarrass a guy!!

However, I must confess to leading you up the garden path a little ... here's a quote from my entry in the Roll Call and Introductions thread:

Also recently discovered this and other forums - as already mentioned elsewhere I have a rather warped sense of humour, so if my postings sometimes seem facetious please accept apologies in advance! It's a trait I've apparently inherited from my grandfather, who would throw in outrageous comments just to get conversations going. My main aim is to provoke thoughts and memories!!

Had you going there for a while!!! Nothing like a good argument ro get the memories stirring ....

[Roger Clark]

1966 sa a revival in Cooper's fortunes which had been declining throughout the years of the 1.5-litre formula. It is often said that this decline was due to the more scientific approach of Chapman and others overtaking te "blacksmith" methods employed by the Coopers.

Yet I believe that the real reason was the loss of Jack Brabham. apart from his skill as a driver he had been a core element of the team, in many respects the technical driving force. Bruce McLaren never quite filled this role. And yet he showed, when he formed his own team, that he was more than capable of doing so. I believe that the reason for this was that the Coopers, particularly Charles, felt that tey had been betrayed by Brabham, in leaving "after they had taught him all he knew". As a result, they didn't allow Bruce to develop the same role.

Of cours, it was their loss in the end.

[Vitesse2]

I think this is where I came in ....

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
I think this is where I came in ....

Vitesse2,

If you're referring to your first post on this thread, then the point I tried to make was slightly different from the one I think you were making.

I suggested that a large factor in Cooper's decline was their refusal to allow McLaren to play the same role in the team as Brabham had done. I have only cicumstantial evidence for this, although I may have seen it mentioned before, possibly in Doug Nye's Cooper book.

[Vitesse2]

Roger: I had intended to develop some thoughts on Bruce, but I got distracted a bit ...

I'm in agreement with you as regards Bruce and I think your recollection of Doug Nye's book is probably correct. I read it some years ago, but don't own a copy.

What I do have is Eoin Young's book and this quote from it, referring to the end of 1963, probably sums up both our opinions quite neatly:

Bruce was hiding his growing frustration with the lack of development at Coopers and his own lack of success. People were beginning to comment on the dimming of the McLaren star, and there were those who blamed Bruce for the Cooper lack of success. This was a particularly difficult time for him. He felt he knew what had to be done, but it was becoming increasingly difficult for him to have his suggestions acted upon.

There is a possible suggestion of conflict with Ken Tyrrell and Charles Cooper in the previous paragraph, but that may just be me reading too much into the text. Whatever, I hope you feel that's more than circumstantial.

Young then goes on to describe the building of the Tasman Coopers, describing them thus:

The Coopers became more McLarens as the building program progressed.

Nevertheless, Bruce was still careful not to offend Coopers too much and the first McLaren, the rebuilt Zerex Special, actually first raced as a Cooper-Oldsmobile.

[Roger Clark]

Yes, that's precisely what I ws trying to say.

[Don Capps]

Bruce McLaren walked a very fine line for several years with Cooper. The Taman project was really an indication of what McLaren was trying to do, but things were not what they were.

Overlooked in all this is the departure of Owen Maddock in addition to that of Jack Brabham. The team lost its design & development team in short order and it took a bit to recover.

1966 was a very good for them, they did a very good job and whenever I get my trilogy of the 66/67/68 seasons back on track, I give them credit for being there and giving a real go.

[kazan]

1966: Charles Cooper had died and John had been desperate to find a proper budget to face the 3000cc inflation. The sale of Cooper Car and its removal from Surbiton to Byfleet was the termination of a genial and courageous family undertaking.
Since 1964, the Cooper frame chassis had been rigidified by being welded to a steel pan. The 1966-67 chassis, T81, was the first true "monocoque" design. Not only was the old Maserati engine too heavy and lacking power, but its oversize resulted in a rather bulky chassis which was much overweight; moreover, its tendency to overheating damaged even further the car aerodynamics. Yet, the old Maserati was no oddity, by comparison to the BRM H16, fit on works BRMs and Lotuses.
With the three works cars adding to Rob Walker's car, driven by Jo Siffert, and privateers such as Jo Bonnier and Guy Ligier, Cooper was quite well represented in the F1 bunch. Talented drivers like Jochen Rindt and John Surtees (2nd half of season, after his 1966 post-Spa quarrelling with Enzo Ferrari) performed quite decently, thanks to the reliability of the car. Also occasional drivers on works cars were Richie Ginther (1st half of season), Chris Amon, and Moises Solana (one race each).
1967: Jochen Rindt was joined by Pedro Rodriguez, who gave Cooper its last victory at Kyalami, ahead of privateer John Love on an upgraded older Cooper chassis. For the British GP, a lighter chassis, T86, was introduced alongside T81. An occasional driver on a works car, Jacky Ickx won his F1 initial championship point. Other occasional drivers were Dick Attwood and Alan Rees.
That chassis was adapted to accommodate the BRM V12 for the 1968 season, Ludovico Scarfiotti, Lucien Bianchi, and Vic Elford then scoring the last championship points for Cooper... I saw Elford placing it a consistent 7th at Monaco, under the premonitory label of Antique Automobiles, as my friend Piers Courage was achieving a brilliant 2nd on Frank Williams-entered Brabham. Another era was on the move.