27 replies to this topic

[DOHC]

Enzo Ferrari had an admiration for Colin Chapman. Chapman died much too soon, and this thread is about pure, contrafactual speculation:

What if Chapman had lived to Enzo's high age?

Would that have made the Lotus marque reach the "mythical" status Ferrari now has? Could England have had a similar success and tradition? Would "Team Lotus" still be in existence and what might their track record have been? Would the 80-year old Chapman still be there at trackside, and on occasion greet his cars coming home in P1 by throwing his cap?

How important were Enzo and Chunky in their respective roles?

[Ruairidh]

Interesting question.

Any answer would need to address not just

(a) whether Colin would have continued to be able to conjure up/inspire ground breaking innovations in F1 but also
(b) underlying business issues - what would the impact of the DeLorean story have been on Colin; IIRC Lotus was still a London Stock Exchange listed company when he died - what would have happened? Business was not great - would he have found backing/been taken over? Ferrari and Lotus both benefitted from the ability to cross-utilize resources and ideas from the Production and Competition sides of their business - would that have continued if ACBC ceased to have de facto control? and
© F1 politics - I don't think that Colin "got over" the Lotus 88 shenanigans - would he have? and
(d) Would his interest in F1 have been re-ignited? - would the spark have been Senna? Let's not forget the first F1 Lotus revealed only weeks after his death was, possibly, the most uninspired F1 Lotus ever - would he, like in 1975-6, have bounced back or would that have further distanced him.

I guess the issue I'm driving at is that Colin was so darned integral to the success of Lotus in F1 and that, by 1982, he was like a juggler of many parts trying to keep so many balls in the air - (none of which looked particularly easy to keep in the air) that it is hard for me to really guess what could have happened unless he had decided that being focused on F1 was the way to go.

Contrast this with Enzo Ferrari whose role always struck me as was the inspiring, manipulating chairman. Financially insulated from the mid-60's by FIAT, not as involved in engineering. In short, more part of an organization (and one he deserves full credit for creating) but also therefore more replaceable.

Now if the Chunkster had decided that F1 was where he was going to focus his attention....that raises a number of interesting issues: (i) would he have adapted to the evolving sponsorship world? (ii) politically, how would he have played it? (iii) how would he have dealt with the engine suppliers? In short all questions Colin had answered before, but would his approach have evolved?

And what would his next break-through have been?

[dretceterini]

Chapman didn't have the kind of political and financial connections that Ferrari did at the beginning; Ferrari was involved in the industry for years before he created his own cars. He was already well known, due his connection with Alfa Romeo. Lotus wasn't racing in the upper displacment catagories, so their early high placings and wins, and coverage of the results didn't receive the kind of notice in the press that Ferrari did early on. When Lotus entered GP racing, a lot of the publictity went to Hill and Clark, and not to Chapman or the team itself, so it took much longer for "Team Lotus" to become a known quantity than it did for Ferrari. It wan't really until the late 60s and early 70s, when Lotus started to dominate, that they became "important". Another "problem" is that Lotus was always far more of a racing team than a business, whereas there always has been a fairly strong business aspect to Ferrari's ventures. Ferrari, for most of it's existance, has been involved in both sports car and GP racing; not the case for Lotus. When Ferrari wasn't winning or doing all that well at one form of racing, they generally were succeeding at the other; again, not the case for Lotus. As to what it would have taken to keep Lotus going; a stonger business model, and much stronger connections to the political and financial community. They had as much talent and brains (both on the track and behind the scenes) as anyone..

[Jordi #99]

If Colin Chapman had lived, he would be bored at rules... It seems that there is little room now for F1-world-turning innovations like the ones he created with the ground-effect and so on...

Everything is so controlled now that an "untrained" eye would not be able to differentiate current F1 cars if they were all painted black...

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by DOHC
Enzo Ferrari had an admiration for Colin Chapman. Chapman died much too soon, and this thread is about pure, contrafactual speculation:

What if Chapman had lived to Enzo's high age?

Would that have made the Lotus marque reach the "mythical" status Ferrari now has? Could England have had a similar success and tradition? Would "Team Lotus" still be in existence and what might their track record have been? Would the 80-year old Chapman still be there at trackside, and on occasion greet his cars coming home in P1 by throwing his cap?

How important were Enzo and Chunky in their respective roles?

For me Lotus has at least the mythical status of Ferrari!

I don't think Chunky would've been around at the top of F1 for much longer though.
(1) He lost a lot of interest after the twin-chassis concept was banned. That was about the point that he got seriously into microlights...
(2) He'd acquired a serious taste for the high life from David Thieme and John DeLorean - doesn't necessarily fit with spending every imaginable hour at the circuits or in the office.
(3) It seems increasingly obvious that money was being channeled around a number of dubious routes within and without the Lotus empire. I suspect that even if Chapman didn't end up inside because of the De Lorean affair - and let's be blunt here, the judge said he would've gone down and gone down for a LONG time! - the shady deals might eventually have got too complex and messy and landed him in a bad mess anyway.
(4) A raft of younger designers - Barnard, Newey, Brawn, Byrne - were making the breakthroughs...

However.... it would be nice to imagine Senna in a Chapman-inspired (if not actually designed) Coca-Cola sponsored Lotus (ISTR that they wanted to sponsor Team at one point) with that turbo V6 that Lotus were scheming in the mid-80s - badged Toyota, maybe, as they were playing around with Lotus at that sort of time...? Might've kept them competitive until Chunky's retirement from active technical involvement and attracted a star designer to Team to replace him...

I don't know what would've happened to Team if Chapman was sent down whilst still at the head of it - can't see it being good for sponsorship!

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Ruairidh
would he have adapted to the evolving sponsorship world?

Invented it, didn't he

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by David Beard



Invented it, didn't he

Yes he did, but what happens in business is often that the "inventor" gets left behind as others come in and evolve his/her concept while the inventor is wedded too much to the old way of doing things.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by dretceterini
.....It wan't really until the late 60s and early 70s, when Lotus started to dominate, that they became "important".....

I would think you'd have to consider them 'important' from the moment an 18 took the lead from Brabham in a race... and 'dominant' from the day Clark ran away with the British GP in 1962.

'Late 60s...' is far too late. By then they had swung a major deal with Ford (in concert with Duckworth) and were already breaking parts of the production business away from the F1 team.

[dretceterini]

Ray:

Perhaps your'e right...but Lotus was one of a few teams that had a chance in the early and mid 60s. To my mind they weren't dominant until the Type 49 came along..

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by dretceterini
Ray:

Perhaps your'e right...but Lotus was one of a few teams that had a chance in the early and mid 60s. To my mind they weren't dominant until the Type 49 came along..

25? 33?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by dretceterini
Ray:

Perhaps your'e right...but Lotus was one of a few teams that had a chance in the early and mid 60s. To my mind they weren't dominant until the Type 49 came along..

There was nothing special about the Lotus 49. ( Nothing more than already exhibited in the 25 and 33 anyway).

There was lots special about the Cosworth DFV, though.

[Bernd]

Originally posted by Vitesse2


25? 33?

That was driver more than car. The BRM had the measure of the 25/33 in most regards and was superior to it in some.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Bernd


That was driver more than car. The BRM had the measure of the 25/33 in most regards and was superior to it in some.

Agreed. I was trying to make the same point as David, just more succinctly. The 49 was a natural evolution from the 25/33 line. As was the less successful 43, which was handicapped by the choice of engine - after all, if the H16 had arrived earlier, been lighter and held together more often, we might speak of the 43 in the same terms as the 49!

The one that broke the mould was the 72, after the blind alley that was the 63.

[dretceterini]

I agree that the 25 and 33 were very good cars, but the BRM was better. Lotus was certainly successful by the early/mid 1960s, but to my mind, not really dominant until the 49, and later, the 72...just my perception of events...

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Bernd
That was driver more than car. The BRM had the measure of the 25/33 in most regards and was superior to it in some.

Now let me see...

What were their relative positions at Rouen in 1964?

[Roger Clark]

It has always seemed to me that by 1964, the performance of the Lotus, BRM, Ferrari and Brabham cars were pretty much equal. The suspension geometries were the same and the engineers knew enough about tuning suspensions to ensure that the performance at specific circuits didn't vary much. The frontal areas were all pretty identical. Aerodynamics didn't count for much in those days. THe Brabham may have been a little less rigid than the monocoques, but Tauranac knew that this didn't pose a great handicap. ("Must be our inboard front sprigs and monocoque chassis paying off on this fast circuit" Brabham at Spa 1964).

The biggest difference would be in the engines. I believe that the BRM and Ferrari V8s had an advantage in top end power over the Climax, but this was balanced lower in the rev range. This may have been reveresed in 1965 when the 32-valve version of the Climax engine was working properly. Later in 1965, the 12-cylinder Ferrari and (for short spells) Honda had an advantage over all the V8s.

I suggest that this is born out by the performance of the cars, if not by the race results.

[Viss1]

Originally posted by Ruairidh
(b) underlying business issues - what would the impact of the DeLorean story have been on Colin;

I think this could have tarnished Chapman's image; if not for any real wrongdoing, at least for being associated with it.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by Viss1

I think this could have tarnished Chapman's image; if not for any real wrongdoing, at least for being associated with it.

Thinking about this thread last night, I was struck by the thought that as much as I would have liked to think of Colin living to be 80, of Lotus still in F1 and of two or three further breakthroughs from his fertile mind, the reality is that had he lived the DeLorean scandal:
- likely would have distracted him;
- likely would have seen him step down from the Lotus PLC board (or Lotus PLC going under) and with that breach Team Lotus would have lost an important cross-resourcing ability and
- likely affected Team Lotus' ability to attract sponsorship

And all of this would have happened before the trial and there does seem to have been every possibility he would have been convicted and imprisoned.

There was Sunday tabloid speculation in, I think 1983, that Colin had not died and instead had done a bunk to some extradition-free zone. While having the same believability as sightings of Elvis, at least part of me hoped it might be true.....

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Ruairidh

There was Sunday tabloid speculation in, I think 1983, that Colin had not died and instead had done a bunk to some extradition-free zone. While having the same believability as sightings of Elvis, at least part of me hoped it might be true.....

Try Mike Lawrence's Colin Chapman: Wayward Genius and Tony Rudd's It Was Fun! for some debunking of the Chapman/Elvis mythos.

pete

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Try Mike Lawrence's Colin Chapman: Wayward Genius and Tony Rudd's It Was Fun! for some debunking of the Chapman/Elvis mythos.

pete

As Atlas has re-fired my love of Motor-Racing, both are on my xmas wish list! I'm still happily wading through The Lotus Book!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
The biggest difference would be in the engines. I believe that the BRM and Ferrari V8s had an advantage in top end power over the Climax, but this was balanced lower in the rev range. This may have been reveresed in 1965 when the 32-valve version of the Climax engine was working properly.

I don't agree with you Roger...

I think C-C's determination that mid-range torque was very important still shone through. Also, BRM were still wringing more out of their little V8 all the while, and I think it may have been a stronger engine overall.

I would have liked a bit of this stuff to have come out on the thread I started about these "Little Jewels" many months ago, but I don't recall anything tangible...

And this is the case... what I have just written is my feeling or instinct rather than established fact.

Didn't BRM also produce a 32-valver?

As far as the chassis go, I think BRM went backwards with their initial step into the monocoque, but caught up quickly... Ferrari, of course, had FJ working to their advantage.

[Roger Clark]

I think you are quite right to disagree with me Ray.

The 32-valve Climax engines developed 212/213 bhp. There were two built and of different designs. this compares withabout 200 for the 16-valve engines. The torque of the 32-valve engines was virtually the same as the 16s, although the engine supplied to Brabham developed its maximum torque over a wider rev range.

By comparison, the best 1.5-litre BRM produced 220 BHP; this was the engine Hill used for most of 1965. BRM did build a 32-valve engine, or rather Weslake built it for them, but it developed less power than the 16-valve engine and was never raced.

The real point of my post was to assert that engines were a greater differentiator than chassis in 1964/65 (and drivers of course). Although Surtees undoubtedly made a huge contribution at Ferrari, most of the teams had drivers who could provide engineering input. Graham hill certainly did, and MRD had a driver who was fairly clued up about that sort of thing. Lotus were possibly the one team who didn't, but maybe their driver made up for it in other ways.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Try Mike Lawrence's Colin Chapman: Wayward Genius and Tony Rudd's It Was Fun! for some debunking of the Chapman/Elvis mythos.

pete

I have only read Jabby Crombac's biography, but maybe the two books you mention add a lot to the picture? In particular the first, I suppose. How's that book in relation to Crombac's?


To the rest of you: Thanks for all your interesting replies so far, keep them coming!

[masterhit]

Unfortunately, and it saddens me to say it because he left such a legacy and was a genius whatever his faults - the impressions one gets is that Colin was losing the plot with uppers/downers and his heart was not with his mechanics anymore following Ronnie's death, the impression being that he felt personally betrayed and upset with them for not having another up to date, stronger chassis ready for Ronnie that weekend.

Equally his partner in crime in the whole Grand Prix Drivers offshore scam got jailed - the judge said if Colin had been at the dock, he would have got ten years. Sad. He was a genius though and his designs and achievements something to marvel at - and the Lotus road cars still something to bring joy.

I definitely intend to buy the books mentioned on him.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by masterhit


Equally his partner in crime in the whole Grand Prix Drivers offshore scam got jailed - the judge said if Colin had been at the dock, he would have got ten years. Sad. He was a genius though and his designs and achievements something to marvel at - and the Lotus road cars still something to bring joy.

this is something that has been repeated many times. The judge at Fred Bushell's trial is alleged to have said that on the evidence he had heard, Chapman would have gone to prison for 10 years. Can anybody confirm that the judge really said it? The first part of the statement is important; the evidence did not include a defence by Chapman (because he had not been accused). Is it common for a judge to pass comment on someone who has not been accused?

this is not intended as any comment on Chapman's activities during his involvement with Delorean.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


this is something that has been repeated many times. The judge at Fred Bushell's trial is alleged to have said that on the evidence he had heard, Chapman would have gone to prison for 10 years. Can anybody confirm that the judge really said it? The first part of the statement is important; the evidence did not include a defence by Chapman (because he had not been accused). Is it common for a judge to pass comment on someone who has not been accused?

I too have seen this oft-repeated. Grandprix.com states "Chapman died and Bushell was eventually arrested and found guilty of receiving $600,000 of the money. He was jailed for three years at the Belfast Crown Court and the judge said that if Chapman and De Lorean had been there they would have each received 10 year sentences for "an outrageous and massive fraud"

While I cannot find on the web exactly what Lord Justice Murray said there is a Parliamentary question from 1992 that somewhat supports this:

De Lorean Cars
Mr. Shersby : To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the remarks of Lord Justice Murray at Belfast Crown Court last week in relation to Fred Bushell, the late Colin Chapman and John de Lorean ; what obstacles stand in the way of extraditing Mr. De Lorean from the United States of America to face charges in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General : My attention has been drawn to the remarks of Lord Justice Murray in the course of sentencing Federick Bushell at the conclusion of his trial. These followed a joint investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Serious Fraud Office. Frederick Bushell resided and was arrested in the United Kingdom. Although the Royal Ulster Constabulary holds a warrant for the arrest of Mr. De Lorean for conspiracy to defraud, I am advised that the laws of the United States provide a limitation period after which extradition is not normally possible. Although the period varies depending on the offence alleged, the period in this case expired before the Serious Fraud Office was created. It was the Serious Fraud Office investigation which produced the evidence justifying the obtaining of the warrant against Mr. De Lorean.

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Roger Clark

this is something that has been repeated many times. The judge at Fred Bushell's trial is alleged to have said that on the evidence he had heard, Chapman would have gone to prison for 10 years. Can anybody confirm that the judge really said it? The first part of the statement is important; the evidence did not include a defence by Chapman (because he had not been accused). Is it common for a judge to pass comment on someone who has not been accused?

this is not intended as any comment on Chapman's activities during his involvement with Delorean.

The source was "Secret Lives", a series shown on Channel 4 in the UK. A search for secret lives will find other people's opinions on the show - it certainly focussed on the seedy side.

Found the same article. Can't find the Belfast Crown Court case details so far either.

[DOHC]

No matter how much I admired Chapman and his abilities to get both a car and a team together in the late 60s and through the 70s (with the approprite aid of designers), I have a feeling that Chapman might not have had the right business experience to grow the company's activities into the fairly large-scale concern that Ferrari eventually became. It has been suggested earlier in the thread that Ferrari was sufficientky well establised politically to be able to let his company grow in a stable fashion.

My impression of Chapman, although I haven't read enough about him, is that he was more of a small-scale operator, who wanted to know what was going on in all of the company, or at least in the engineering department. My impression of Ferrari is otherwise, however. When Forghieri was there, I can't imagine that Enzo was much involved in the everyday technical matters, only in political things (which may, of course, have included let's say driver policies).