9 replies to this topic

[ry6]

The 1962 Lotus 24 thread set me thinking...

Was the Lotus 24 a "good" car or a "bad" car.

Some that that if the 25 was one of the best cars Lotus built then the 24 was one of the worst!

Some say that the 25 was a "monocoque" version of the (spaceframe) 24.

Looking at results the 24 did not achieve much and it seems to have been a tricky/difficult car to drive. Was the chassis too "flexible" for the V8 perhaps?

Was it just an unlucky car?

A number of 24's were destroyed in racing crashes and Ricardo Rodriguez (Mexico) and Gary Hocking (practice 1962 Natal GP) both died as a result.

Syd van der Vyver (1962 Natal GP) and Paddy Driver (Seidel car? - practice 1963 SAGP) rolled their
cars and there was BIG damage. I am sure that Trevor Taylor also had the odd big accident in a 24.

I never saw a 24 go really well and the most bizarre 24 creation was David Prophet's 2.8 liter Maserati twin-plug engined one.

[Roger Clark]

Jim Clark won two early season non-championship races in the 24 against good quality opposition. Ireland, Gregory and Brabham all won with it later in the season, perhaps not against really top opposition. I've always believed that if Clark or Moss had driven it all season it wouldn't have been a bad car.

[Ray Bell]

I've never seen one, but I'm inclined to believe that Chapman was making real progress in this period with his spaceframes as well as the monocoque. Remember, this was the car Clark was to drive if the mono didn't work out!

The Lotus 22, for instance, was a much better car than the 20... if you can see the relationship... the 24 would have been a street or two ahead of the 21, I'd imagine.

[Doug Nye]

Any assertion that the 24 was 'a bad car' is largely nonsense - some were run by less than adequate entrants, mechanics, drivers - and the introduction of the moncoque Type 25 simply raised the standards in one hit. If the 24 had been Chapman's No 1 priority 1962-64 - Brabham-Climax spaceframe style - this question would not be asked. But I fully understand why you should be asking it.

DCN

[ry6]

I have just received a January 2002 issue of MotorSport.

Under the book review section is a review of the book "LOTUS 25 &33".

The review tells how monococques made spaceframers redundant overnite.

It also indicates that the "24" was designed after the "25" as a safe "fall-back".

Any comments?

[rolando]

I just received my Lotus 25/33 book by John Tipler yesterday, and in the beginning of it, it is said that there is evidence that Colin Chapman designed first the Lotus 25 than the 24, many costumers who bought the recently released 24 were angry at him when the 25 model were presented by the works Lotus Team, but Colin responded that he couldn't provide some unproven machinery to his costumers, it seems to me that the 24 was a great racing car, but the 25 was in the top of the class, not very bad for a car that was first drawn in a table napkin!!!

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by ry6
IThe review tells how monococques made spaceframers redundant overnite.

Any comments?

Redundant eh? Like the Brabham BT4, BT11, BT19, BT20, BT24 ... (a lesson I learned from Mike Argetsinger a while back - thanks Mike! )

[William Hunt]

Originally posted by ry6
The 1962 Lotus 24 thread set me thinking...
I am sure that Trevor Taylor also had the odd big accident in a 24.

Trevor Taylor destroyed quite a lot Lotus 24's. He was lucky never to lose his life or sustain serious injury. I guess Trevor had seven lives.

[Doug Nye]

Jimmy Clark demonstrating that the Lotus 24 was a perfectly adequate Formula 1 car - Snetterton -1962:



DCN

[Mac Lark]

Had the 25 not come along until, say '64 - would Clark have been the threat he was in 1962?

Could a Lotus 24 with JC have won the '63 title?

By the way, the Lotus 78 wasn't a bad car - it's just that the 79 was a step up. In fact, Andretti may still have been champion in '78 with a 78 had the 79 been delayed until '79.

Was it much the same with 24/25?