10 replies to this topic

[Megatron]

Is it true that the Le Mans organizers DQ'd the Lotus 23B of Chapman in 1962 for having different lug nuts on the front and rear tires?

Was this some vendetta against Lotus or something? Why would they do such a thing?

I know Chapman never went back, though there was talk of taking some turbine powered Lotus sports cars back in the early 80s, but nothing came of it.

[Kpy]

My very hazy memory is that Chapman increased the number of wheel-retaining bolts between the practice weekend in May and scrutineering in race week in June (no changes allowed under the rules). Chapman had the cars changed back to the old spec and presented them to the scrutineers, whereupon he was told something like "sorry old chap, you must have increased the number of bolts for safety reasons, so the car can't be safe".
There used to be a prize for something called (??) "Index of Thermal Efficiency" which was a complicated formula meant to favour French cars. The Lotus threatened that bias .......... ergo ....
Chapman never went back.

[Roger Clark]

I think that the problem was that the rules required you carry a spare wheel. Clearly the spare couldn't fit both 4- and 6-bolt wheels, so the car was turned down. When Lotus converted it to 4-bolt fixing at the rear, it was turned down on safety grounds, as Kpy says. All this happend during scutineering for the race itself.

There were two handicaps at Le Mans in those days. THe Index of Performance related speed to engine capacity, the Index of Thermal Efficiency took account of fuel consumption. THe Lotus 23 (not a 23B) had a 997cc Lotus twin-cam engine and was to be driven by Jim Clark and Trevor Taylor so would have been a contender in both categories.

Chapman said that Team Lotus would never return to Le Mans and nor would any driver contracted to him. For me, one of life's mysteries has always been why Jim Clark never drove a works Ford at Le Mans in 1964-67 and this may (or may not) have been the reason.

[Vitesse2]

According to Graham Gauld's Jim Clark Remembered Jimmy vowed never to go back after the Lotus 23 incident. Gauld also says Chapman told him that he (Colin) had tried in vain to change Jimmy's mind.

[Kpy]

Knew you'd have a less cloudy memory than mine, Roger. It certainly only became an issue at scrutineering in race week itself. And I think it must have been Chapman who kept Clark away from Le Mans 64 to 67. Shame.

Come to think of it Chapman and Clark have something odd in common - they were both arrested for "assaulting police officers" - Chapman in Italy and Clark in Holland.

Or am I wrong again ??

[Gary Davies]

Megatron, You may be interested to see the folllowing posting I made on another thread (http://www.atlasf1.c...1575#post581575) on October 26:

"quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Don Capps
... such as leading the Nurburgring 1000k's in a twiddler Lotus 23 and smokin' off into the distance -- leading by 27 seconds on lap the 1st lap, 47 seconds on the second -- before it dried out and Chunky's under-engineering did him in: the exhaust pipe broke and fumes seeped into the cockpit and a sickened Clark lost it and went into a ditch. Despite all that, he was gaining on the leader cutting the lead by 12 seconds on his last lap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Something I love about TNF is how it causes one to relive the time. I remember a sense of amazement at learning, through Motoring News, of Jimmy's wonderful but abortive drive in the 23 at the Ring.

That memory, of course, led me to recall the saga of Team Lotus at Le Mans in 1962 and I suspect that it was the Nürburgring display by the Lotus 23 that galvanised the Le Mans organisers into action.

A little of Jenks (from Motor Sport August 1962) in high feistiness: "... All these Experimental Prototypes were very exciting and great fun, and the organisers were happy until Colin Chapman arrived with his Experimental Prototype. This was a Lotus 23 rear-engined sports car with a 997cc version of the twin o.h.c. Ford engine that had run at Nürburgring when Clark had led the race for eleven laps, to everyone's consternation. It was not obvious at the time but the consternation was deeper than imagined, for without question of doubt, the twin o.h.c. Lotus 23 was excluded from Le Mans in the minds of many officials before it even appeared for scrutineering. The shilly-shallying that went on was terrible and wasted everyone's time, and the excuses for excluding the car were futile and even after complying with certain requests Team Lotus were still refused on other grounds. Had the Lotus not gone so fast at Nürburgring it would have competed at Le Mans, but it was a dead certainty for winning the Index of Performance, and probably the Index of Thermal Efficiency, providing it held together for 24 hours, and that was a chance certain people were not prepared to take."

Later in the piece, Jenks makes a link with the Panhard, which was la belle France's Great Hope for both indexes.

In his autobiography, Jim Clark recounts that the Le Mans scrutineers pinged them on oversize fuel tanks, insufficient ground clearance, too great a turning circle and the fact that the rear wheels had six studs whereas the front wheels had four studs. They changed the rears to four studs and finally the organisers declared the cars unsafe, which led to Chapman swearing never to enter a Lotus at Le Mans again.

I was about to chortle at the prospect of a Lotus lasting vingt-quatre heures anyway but of course, two Lotus Elites came first and second in the Index of Energy that year, beating out the Panhard and one of them, the Hobbs/Gardner car finished a splendid 8th outright.

To finish off even more off-topic, I noticed in Clark's book that the reason the 23 had six stud rear hubs was because Chapman had planned to put the BRM V-8 Formula One engine in it! Now that would have caused some right royal consternation!"

Vanwall.

[Bernd]

From all my research I've concluded that Chapman changed his mind about Le Mans and wanted to try again but try as he might he could not persuade Clark to have another go. Clark was mighty pissed about the debacle with the 23 and he detested fast circuits like Sarthe anyway. Being a Scot and typically stubborn, Jim simply refused to drive there again.

Damn shame imagine a Clark/Gurney GT40 combination Awesome!

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally posted by Kpy

Come to think of it Chapman and Clark have something odd in common - they were both arrested for "assaulting police officers" - Chapman in Italy and Clark in Holland.

Or am I wrong again ?? [/B]

Chapman and Clark both had well publicized incidents with the politie at Zandvoort - Clark in '63 and Chapman in '65. I'm very hazy on what happened in the incident with Jim Clark in '63 but at the Dutch GP in '65 Chapman was attempting to cross the track while the cars were on the pre-grid to have a final word with Clark. He was intercepted by an overzealous policeman and in the melee Chapman was knocked to the ground. He got up and further blows were exchanged and the policeman went down. Chapman went back to his pit but after the race was over (Clark won!) the police arrived in the Lotus pit in force. Chapman was informed that he was being taken to police headquarters to make a statement. He refused and strong arm tactics ensued. Hazel Chapman was struck when she attempted to intervene and the mechanics came to Chapman's defense. In the end he was taken in and held overnight, fingerprinted and photographed. Louis Stanley was able to negotiate on Chapman's behalf and as a result he did not spend the night in a cell but in an adjacent room in police headquarters. He was ultimately fined 25 pounds sterling. As for an incident in Italy - I'm sure you're right - I seem to recall something - I just can't recall the year or any details.

[Bernd]

The Clark incident was a misunderstanding he went down to (Bosuit Corner from memory) to have a look at the other competitors during practice and didn't carry his pass. He couldn't convince the Police he was a driver!!!! and was nearly ejected from the circuit. I have some photos of the chain of events and Clark looks quite bemused to be honest as he led away with a policeman on each arm.

[Roger Clark]

THre's another story about the Le Mans scrutineers. I've no evidence thatit's true, but I like it anyway.

Scrutineer: "You've got 30minutes to make the Rodriguex csr legal, or it's disqulified"

Ferrari team manager: "You've got 30 seconds to declare the Rodriguez car legel, or the Ferrari team goes home"

[Kpy]

Roger - nice story -