82 replies to this topic

[cheesy poofs]

I'm just curious to know why did Team Lotus get it all wrong in its last years. After Chapman's passing in 1982, the team pulled itself together to win more GP'S with Ayrton Senna and then...it was all downhill from then on.

What went wrong and was the defining moment the led to one of britain's most succesful grand-prix teams downfall ?

[911]

I'd be interested to know, too. You are correct w/ Senna's last years there. I wonder if the "decline" started during the '87 season. I remember seeing Senna in a post-race interview in '87. Even though he was leading the championship after Detroit, he said Lotus didn't have a chance to win the WDC that year due to technical reasons. IMHO, I think a lot of their success in the mid-80s was because of Senna.

The Piquet & Nakajima years were so-so in 1988, and sometimes embarrassing in '89. Didn't both cars fail to qualify at Spa? Well, at least Naka-san scored the fastest lap of the race in Adelaide.

Btw, one of my favorite Lotus cars was the 1990 Camel car (favorite was the '86 JPS). I loved the sound of the Lambo V-12!

911

[Geza Sury]

Originally posted by 911
Didn't both cars fail to qualify at Spa?

That was exactly the case. It's interesting to note, that Nakajima was faster than Piquet.

IMHO it was a miracle the Lotus survived in the 1990s. Peter Collins and Horst Schübel made a brilliant job rebuilding Lotus from its ruins in 1991. The following year's car, the Lotus 107 was a neat little one, aerodinamically efficient and powered by the reliable Ford HB engine. This car was intended to be the Leyton House CG 921, but after the Japanese team's difficulties, the designers had left and one of them, Chris Murphy had joined Lotus. IIRC Andrian Newey also worked on the design. In 1992 Lotus was constantly immediately behind the top teams, it a real shame everything went wrong shortly after that.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Two reasons - the death of Chapman and the departure of Senna.

How many F1 teams survive the withdrawl through death or otherwise of their founder or other influential characters. Brabham could not keep going once Bernie sold up. Lotus would have gone earlier if Senna had not arrived on the scene. McLaren survived because his lieutenants maintained the same enthusiasm and commitment (for a while) but may have been on the way out if Ron Dennis had not stepped in when he did. I think the only real exception is Ferrari. Ferrari were the first "corporate" (in modern terms) F1 team. Even before Enzo's death the team was kept going by FIAT money which helped it survive numerous financial crises. After 1989/90 the team hit a very bad patch but again it was corporate money and board decisions that provided the answers and laid the bedrock for their current success.

I think the smaller style "garagiste" teams were always far more vulnerable to extinction when key characters left. Maybe the situation is changing with multi-national involvement, although that brings other uncertainties.

[Bfef]

Doesn't Johnny Herbert deserve some credit for prolonging Team Lotus' life...?

He qualified 4th at Spa 1994 in their dying days, very promising until a certain EE punted him off.

[Mohican]

I remeber that conventional wisdom - not so long ago (say late 80's/early 90's) - was that Ferrari was the real "garagiste" (and I know that the Commendatore coined the term in derision of the DFV-/Hewland-teams) as it was "still" undertaking doing everything in house. On the contrary, the CW at the time held that the only way to success was teaming up with a committed and resourceful engine supplier (who could also supply funds and management, should need be; i.e. not the likes of Mugen, Judd or Lamborghini).

Ferrari was expected to go the way of BRM, Alfa Romeo and the in-house Renault team.

So what happened ? Here we are with Ferrari, Renault, Jaguar and Toyota; to which could be added Mercedes-Benz (McLaren) and BMW (Williams). The "garagiste" is on the verge of extinction - which may or may not be a good thing.

What is certain is that this leaves F1 dependent on hard-headed corporate decision-making far from the track, rather than yesterday's "racing is all that matters" approach.

Coming back to Lotus, I personally think that the rot set in much, much earlier. in fact, the decisive period was when Chapman's attention was drawn away from racing by his difficulties elsewhere (the road cars, DeLorean, etc). He was always a far better racing engineer than he was a businessman. The Lotus team lead a hand-to-mouth existence for far longer than most may realise, which lead them to slipping behind in terms of design, engineering capacity, manufacturing capacity, staffing, etc. They managed to attract Renault as an engine supplier, which underlines that Renault management did not see this either. But had it not been for the presence of marketable drivers such as De Angelis and Senna, both JPS and Renault would have left Lotus much earlier than they did. The Camel sponsorship must have been due to Senna's presence only.

But Ayrton saw the writing on the wall, whereas Piquet (already a triple world champion by then, and quite a lot less motivated than Ayrton) wanted his own cosy little team, the way Brabham had been in the early 80's. the difference from the Brabham years being that he was rather better paid by camel (interesting comparision to the Villeneuve/BAR situation; particularly when you consider that both Villeneuve and Piquet left Williams, supposedly in reaction to Williams losing their works engine deal. As opposed to some, Frank & Patrick always come back; a lesson people would do well to remember).

The final years, first with the Lamborghini-powered car and then with various Peter Collins specials really were hardly Lotuses at all. i ahve a lot of respect for Collins, but he really should have called the cars something else. I was unaware that the final design was really intended to be a Leyton House, but that says it all.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Lotus had business relations with Renault going back to the early 70s. It says a lot for Chapman's smooth talking capabilities that he was still able to convince Renault to provide him with F1 engines for the 1983 season onwards.

[Mohican]

By the way, it was at Monza where Herbert was fourth in qualifying - with all respect to Johnny, the Autosport report at the time said that this may have been due to a new engine first raced there. But I well remember Irvine pushing him off at the first chicane, 10 secs after the start.

I also think that this was Herbert's last race for Lotus; Collins was forced to sell his contract to Ligier (a certain T. Walkinshaw, I think) for the final races - and from there he was traded to Benetton for 1995. Although presumably the Monza qualifying performance enhance his market value.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
Two reasons - the death of Chapman and the departure of Senna. ....

First reason is undoubtedly the most important one. During Senna years Lotus stagnated. It wasn't making a real progress but, on the other side, wasn't yet on the slump.

Hrvoje

[da Silva]

Originally posted by Vrba


First reason is undoubtedly the most important one. During Senna years Lotus stagnated. It wasn't making a real progress but, on the other side, wasn't yet on the slump.

Hrvoje

Only two things are infinite; universe and Vrba Senna hatred; and I am not sure about the former
-da Silva-

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by Mohican

Coming back to Lotus, I personally think that the rot set in much, much earlier. in fact, the decisive period was when Chapman's attention was drawn away from racing by his difficulties elsewhere (the road cars, DeLorean, etc). He was always a far better racing engineer than he was a businessman.

This is a very interesting point.

Why on earth did he get so distracted in the first place ? I'm quite sure that some of his "dealings" played a large part in the team's downfall.

Another point - was the outlawing of his Lotus 88 another reason to get him dischanted with the sport ?

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs


This is a very interesting point.

Why on earth did he get so distracted in the first place ? I'm quite sure that some of his "dealings" played a large part in the team's downfall.

Another point - was the outlawing of his Lotus 88 another reason to get him dischanted with the sport ?

There seem to be a number of causes of Chunky's disaffection with F1.

A lot of fairly negative stuff happened in a fairly small space of time -- the death of Ronnie in the third fatal accident involving an F1 Lotus at Monza, the failure of the 80, the banning of the 88, the FISA/FOCA war, his involvement with the so-called WFMS...

Chapman was getting older too - Lotus were never quite the same after '78, the year he turned 50. Maybe he was just slowing down?

David Thieme's influence was fairly obvious too - Chapman developed a taste for the high life during his association with the oil man. That's not consistent with spending 16 hours a day in the pits puzzling over racing problems... (a sign of Thieme's influence over Chapman is that he managed to convince Chapman to do a design study for a works Essex-Lotus Le Mans car, about 20 years after Chapman swore he'd never go back to Le Mans ever again - and hadn't).

The Elite and Eclat/Excel weren't doing too well either, and it took a long time for the Esprit to become popular. And the car that became the new Elan had a hideously long gestation period that started while Chapman was still around, IIRC.

Then of course there's the GPD/De Lorean affair....

All in all, it doesn't look like Chapman had much time or energy for racing after Mario's championship.
Lotus were decidedly lacklustre for the last few years of Chapman's life. The fact that Warr and the Duke managed to get the team back on the right track for a few years is something of a miracle - and the '92-3 re-revival even more so. Now, had the Coca-Cola Lotus-Toyota thing happened... well, Senna in that could've been mindblowing and they would've had a lot of money...

[David Beard]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Chapman was getting older too - Lotus were never quite the same after '78, the year he turned 50. Maybe he was just slowing down?

Brilliant post, Pete.
But what's all this about people over 50?....... :

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by petefenelon

Now, had the Coca-Cola Lotus-Toyota thing happened... well, Senna in that could've been mindblowing and they would've had a lot of money...

Thanks pete.
Can you or anyone else elaborate on the Coca-Cola / Toyota thing ?

[Vrba]

Originally posted by da Silva


Only two things are infinite; universe and Vrba Senna hatred; and I am not sure about the former
-da Silva-

Senna hatred? No, really no, believe me.. Disliking, yes.
But take a look:
1985: 3 victories
1986: 2 victories
1987: 2 victories
Similar placings in WCC (3rd).
What's that if it wasn't stagnation?
After Senna a slump started, but with Senna it was a stagnation.

Hrvoje

[mp4]

Originally posted by Vrba






Senna hatred? No, really no, believe me.. Disliking, yes.
But take a look:
1985: 3 victories
1986: 2 victories
1987: 2 victories
Similar placings in WCC (3rd).
What's that if it wasn't stagnation?
After Senna a slump started, but with Senna it was a stagnation.

Hrvoje

If memory serves, I think Ayrton won six races with Lotus -i.e.- two in 1985... Portugal and Belgium.
As to what contributed to the rot set that set in once Chunky died, well, I have no idea. My therory invoves Colin being a meglomaniac who had no idea how to groom his underlings into taking over.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Vrba


Senna hatred? No, really no, believe me.. Disliking, yes.
But take a look:
1985: 3 victories
1986: 2 victories
1987: 2 victories
Similar placings in WCC (3rd).
What's that if it wasn't stagnation?
After Senna a slump started, but with Senna it was a stagnation.

Hrvoje

How convenient that you chose to ommit Lotus' results before Senna joined them if lotus were stagnated while Senna was there, it was at a higher level than they were before and after.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs


Thanks pete.
Can you or anyone else elaborate on the Coca-Cola / Toyota thing ?

Toyota had a stake in Lotus in the mid-80s. Lotus had a very interesting design for a V6 with very innovative forced-induction equipment (it's documented in Tony Rudd's It Was Fun but that's in the living room and I'm in bed) - the hope was that they'd badge this and finance its use as an F1 engine. Coca-Cola were apparently interested in sponsoring Lotus (and as an aside, later, apparently also in sponsoring a third Benetton - ISTR for an American driver - Little Al comes to mind).

So it's really piecing together bits of various rumours from the 85/6-ish period.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Simioni


How convenient that you chose to ommit Lotus' results before Senna joined them if lotus were stagnated while Senna was there, it was at a higher level than they were before and after.

Lotus reached its 1985-87 level back in 1984 when Mansell and de Angelis both took poles and lead races and were only prevented from winning a race or races by the sheer domination of McLaren Porsches who won 12 out of 16 races. De Angelis took 3rd in WDC and Lotus took 3rd in WCC and de Angelis was one of the most consistent drivers of the season. In 1985-87 there was no team dominating in such a way and therefore Lotuses could have taken some wins.
But the fact remains that 1984-87 Lotus remained on the same level of performance and results.
In fact, even in 1988 the results weren't as bad taking into account that McLaren took 15 out of 16 wins - Lotus at least achieved some podiums and finished the season 4th on points. Real downfall begins with the departure of Honda.

Hrvoje

[Haddock]

I've heard it said that Guy Edwards was somewhat key to the team's final downfall. He was hired to find sponsorship for the team in the early nineties, but from what I heard, pretty much all the money he did find (and it was nowhere near what was promised) ended up in his own pocket.

I also wonder if a big part of their downfall was that they had actually been 'punching above their weight' for some time. Even in 1985, when Lotus at least appeared to the casual observer to be a major player, Senna was heard to doubt that the team really had the resources to win the world chmpionship. And by the late eighties, when they were still running the team out of Ketteringham Hal while such as McLaren and Williams had expensive, purpose designed factories, they were clearly behind the times.

Perhaps had they managed to hire more motivated No 1 in 1988 than Piquet, they would have done just enough to prevent the subsequent meltdown - say, for instance that they did enough to get Honda V10s into 1989 - then they might have survived.

Peter Collins did an admirable job in rescuing the team from oblivion, but by 1991, there was no foubting that they were a small, back of the grid equipe, not substantially better resourced really thn say AGS or Minardi really.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Haddock
I've heard it said that Guy Edwards was somewhat key to the team's final downfall. He was hired to find sponsorship for the team in the early nineties, but from what I heard, pretty much all the money he did find (and it was nowhere near what was promised) ended up in his own pocket.
....

Is he the same person as Guy Edwards that raced in Formula 1 in mid-1970s?

Hrvoje

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Vrba


Is he the same person as Guy Edwards that raced in Formula 1 in mid-1970s?

Hrvoje

Yes. Guy was famous on the British racing scene for being able to attract sponsors who previously hadn't been in racing and persuade them to part with large sums of money to back his fairly middling performances.

He later wrote the most expensive driver autobiography I've ever seen - called "Sponsorship and the World of Motor Racing". Actually, most of it was about... well, see above - a lot of it was a treatise on how sponsorship worked.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Yes. Guy was famous on the British racing scene for being able to attract sponsors who previously hadn't been in racing and persuade them to part with large sums of money to back his fairly middling performances.

He later wrote the most expensive driver autobiography I've ever seen - called "Sponsorship and the World of Motor Racing". Actually, most of it was about... well, see above - a lot of it was a treatise on how sponsorship worked.

In this light I found it peculiar how Autosport published a very affirmative article about him back in 1998....stating how he is respected and loved.

Hrvoje

[eigar]

.
I guess that it is same Guy Edwards that pulled Niki Lauda out of the burning car at Nurburgring in 1976.

Who was the the owner of Lotus in the 80's after Chapman's death?

Chapman was running Lotus as his private company, even after he went public with it in late 70's. Lotus was a public company when Chapman was dealing with DeLorean. This was the reason for Chapman risking prison sentence, but he died of heart attack before the case exploded. The Lotus's Financial Director had to spend 3 years in prison beause of the DeLorean deal. According to a TV documentary "The secret life of Colin Chapman", the judge that sentenced the Financial Director had stated in the court that if Chapman had been alive he would have got 10 years.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by eigar
.

Chapman was running Lotus as his private company, even after he went public with it in late 70's. Lotus was a public company when Chapman was dealing with DeLorean. This was the reason for Chapman risking prison sentence, but he died of heart attack before the case exploded. The Lotus's Financial Director had to spend 3 years in prison beause of the DeLorean deal. According to a TV documentary "The secret life of Colin Chapman", the judge that sentenced the Financial Director had stated in the court that if Chapman had been alive he would have got 10 years.

Team Lotus was owned by the Chapman family for a long time, it was felt that a racing team wasn't consistent with eing part of a PLC.

[cheesy poofs]

I remember hearing about a chap called Fred Bushell ( spelling ?? ) some time ago.
How did he fit in all of this ?

[Vrba]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs
I remember hearing about a chap called Fred Bushell ( spelling ?? ) some time ago.
How did he fit in all of this ?

I know he was Team Lotus chairman in 1987, since when I don't know. Also, he was a co-owner of Team Lotus together with Hazel Chapman, Colin's widow. That's also correct for 1987.

Hrvoje

[Haddock]

I remember hearing about a chap called Fred Bushell ( spelling ?? ) some time ago.

He was involved in the Lotus team up until 1987, I think. He was found guilty of fraud for his part of the De Lorean affari, shortly before the German Grand Prix in 1989.

[LittleChris]

Did Porridge ( Served time in prison )!!

[deangelis86]

I'm quite surprised that nobody has thus far mentioned Peter Warr's contribution in this thread.

I personally feel that his insistance on building the Team around a Brazilian superstar ultimately led to it's decline. Senna left Warr and Lotus high and dry during the 1987 season by announcing his intention to drive for McLaren in 1988. In this respect, Warr was highly naive to expect loyalty from Senna, and was furious having moulded the last 2 seasons around one sole driver.

Senna always maintained that Lotus would never be able to deliver him the WDC as long as they continued to run 2 competitive cars. I felt that this too was in incorrect assumption, as I don't think Senna would have finished any higher in 1986 and 1987 even if Lotus had been running a competitive number 2.

IMHO I feel that the nail in the Lotus coffin was hammered in during the latter months of 1984 when Mansell left and Senna signed. It bought to the fore a marriage of two rather selfish men - Peter Warr and Ayrton Senna, both of whom would stop at nothing to bring success at the expense of others.

[TODave2]

Or was that good planning by Warr? He had good engines (Renault), a good chassis (Ducurouge (sp?)), but one of the best drivers. Why not maximise the chances of winning by arranging the team around it's best asset? When you look at what Schu did with Benetton, it could be said that this thinking was 10 years ahead of it's time... (although no doubt some other TNF-ites can provide similar situations from further back).

Personally I think they were a mid field team dragged nearer the front by Senna. The car never really seemed to develop across seasons (the 1985, 86 and 87 cars look outwardly very similar), and while I can accept that it was an evolutionary process, it's interesting that when Piquet arrived in 1988 they redid the design... and didn't really do anything (although again other factors contributed: Piquet's lack of interest and the all-conquering McLarens played their part).

I think Warr just basically thought they had a good (ie, slightly above average) car engine and chassis wise and by building it all around Senna they could move it up the grid a bit.

I can't remember who wrote it, but I remember reading at the time it was announced Senna had signed for Lotus a sentence that stuck in my brainbox to this day: "With Lotus he'll win races, but will he win a championship?". Even with the arrival of Senna you never really felt that Lotus were going to be dominant...

The 1985 car is perhaps my favourite of all F1 cars though

[Vrba]

Originally posted by TODave2
Or was that good planning by Warr? He had good engines (Renault), a good chassis (Ducurouge (sp?)), but one of the best drivers. Why not maximise the chances of winning by arranging the team around it's best asset? When you look at what Schu did with Benetton, it could be said that this thinking was 10 years ahead of it's time... (although no doubt some other TNF-ites can provide similar situations from further back).

Personally I think they were a mid field team dragged nearer the front by Senna. The car never really seemed to develop across seasons (the 1985, 86 and 87 cars look outwardly very similar), and while I can accept that it was an evolutionary process, it's interesting that when Piquet arrived in 1988 they redid the design... and didn't really do anything (although again other factors contributed: Piquet's lack of interest and the all-conquering McLarens played their part).
....

I know what will the reactions be now but my opinion is that Senna simply wasn't the right man for the job. He never proved capable of what Schumacher did in Benetton or Ferrari, i.e. lifting a merely good team to championship status.
Senna wasn't interested in developing the car or the team, he simply wanted to place himself into the best drive.
As I repeated many times before, Lotus reached a certain level in 1984 and remained there until the end of 1987. Without Senna (but with another good driver), it would have been the same, except probably for the smaller number of pole positions. In fact, I'm pretty sure that had de Angelis and Mansell stayed with Lotus, Lotus would have enjoyed better success 1985-87.

Hrvoje

[TODave2]

Maybe, but how many drivers could do what Schu has done? It's a pretty special talent.

I'm not sure that Senna wasn't interested in developing the car - wouldn't the active Lotus have required a comprehensive development program? Also, the fact that the car was competitive throughout the season suggests that there was plenty of development carried out throughout the year....?

[Alan Lewis]

Originally posted by TODave2
Maybe, but how many drivers could do what Schu has done? It's a pretty special talent.

I agree, it is.

And the answer to your question is Niki Lauda.

APL

[Megatron]

Losing free Hondas were a really big blow to the team, paying for unreliable, underpowered Judds in 1989 didn't help. A swtich to Lambo and scoring enough points to count on one hand had Camel headed to Benetton and that REALLY excellerated the decline, the almost didn't make it to 1991. Work stopped on a new car and a hurried 102 was put into action modified using Judd power. A hoped works Isuzu engine in a 102 D didn't pane out either.

1992 and 1993 were not disastiorous, but Castrol and Toshbia were not enough money to keep it going. A lot of hope was pinned on the 109, it was new with a Mugen Honda engine that Footwork had scored points with. However, the car was difficult and no points were scored, and that was the end of the Lotus with mounting debts and little sponsorship.

[deangelis86]

Some good food for thought here - keep it up people.

TODave2 - Interesting point of view about Warr and Senna, and I suppose that's the exact 'reverse logic' of my initial post. I pretty much agree with everything you say, though maybe you should give Lotus a little more credit for being a fully fledged front running team in 1984/85 (I agree about Lotus not quite being at the forefront in 1986, 87 and 88).

In 1984 it was universally acknowledged that Duca had produced the best handling chassis in the 95T, and were it not for Goodyear tyres and some unreliability from Renault, de Angelis could well have walked off with the 1984 WDC and Mansell would have won some races.

Given this fact, much was expected in 1985 from Team Lotus with the arrival of Senna, and again the new 97T which was based around the 95T was probably the best handling chassis (with the possible exception being the Toleman TG185). One must also take into consideration at the beginning of 1985 the team that would dominate the next 3 years in F1, Williams, had not yet come to the fore. So I don't think it was unrealistic for Team Lotus to have had one eye firmly on the WDC for one of it's drivers that year.

Vrba - I personally don't agree at all with the opinion that Ayrton Senna was not interested in developing the 97T, because it is a totally incorrect statement. Indeed, from June onwards virtually the whole of the 97T development was undertaken by Senna while Elio de Angelis was left out in the cold (whilst leading the WDC at the time). Many times I have read Gerard Ducarouge's observations on Senna being the best test and development driver he has ever worked with.

I can recall one extract in particular where he said that Senna was the only driver who could split a corner into something like 6 different stages, and provide in-depth analysis and feedback on every single stage. Ducarouge was delighted at his capacity for technical feedback.

Unfortunately for Ducarouge, when you design something as good as the 94T chassis, you find it hard to improve. I think this is what happened to Ducarouge, as basically bit by bit the others caught up the ground over the 86 and 87 seasons - until he was forced into a new chassis for the '88 season. Unfortunately, it was just too much like the old one!!

[stuartbrs]

Was there a 96T?? And if not , why?

The 95T and 97T I think are very beautiful racing cars. Ive just finished reading the Nigel Roebuck books on the 85 and 86 seasons, and Senna was very much in for a chance at the WDC had it not been for unreliability. Was that what people meant about Lotus in those years?, not that the car wasnt fast enough, for it most definately was, but that it wasn`t reliable enough??
Dumfies suffered terribly at being a number 2 at lotus, far more than say Barrichello or any of Schumies teammates for that matter. The car was obviously inferior to the number 1 Lotus in so many respects, and obviously DeAngelies had much better treatment, but the reliability of Senna`s Lotus in `86 was hardly any better....

[Slyder]

You know, come to think of it, the Delorean scandal may have had a little play in Lotus's downfall.

Don't you guys think?

[David Hyland]

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Was there a 96T?? And if not , why?

IIRC, Lotus Type 96 was a (still-born) Indy project

David.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by deangelis86
....
Vrba - I personally don't agree at all with the opinion that Ayrton Senna was not interested in developing the 97T, because it is a totally incorrect statement. Indeed, from June onwards virtually the whole of the 97T development was undertaken by Senna while Elio de Angelis was left out in the cold (whilst leading the WDC at the time). Many times I have read Gerard Ducarouge's observations on Senna being the best test and development driver he has ever worked with.....

I see is misexpressed myself. I agree totally with what you wrote. But I didn't speak about everyday car development - I was speaking about global developing the car and the team and lifting it to another level in the course of as many years as needed to accomplish the project.
I wanted to say that looking from 1987 back, Lotus would have probably profited more had they remained with de Angelis and Mansell or some other top driver of the era. Don't forget that Lotus made real progress 1981-84 and then made a mistake with hiring Senna who was bound to leave them as soon as a prospect of better drive appeared.

Hrvoje

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by deangelis86
I'm quite surprised that nobody has thus far mentioned Peter Warr's contribution in this thread.

I personally feel that his insistance on building the Team around a Brazilian superstar ultimately led to it's decline. Senna left Warr and Lotus high and dry during the 1987 season by announcing his intention to drive for McLaren in 1988. In this respect, Warr was highly naive to expect loyalty from Senna, and was furious having moulded the last 2 seasons around one sole driver.

and then Collins had a similar experience when Hakkinen went to McLaren in 1993. It's a lot easier to keep everyone committed to the team if you have one of the top driving talents.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by David Hyland

IIRC, Lotus Type 96 was a (still-born) Indy project

David.

Exactly:



Hrvoje

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Jacaré
and then Collins had a similar experience when Hakkinen went to McLaren in 1993. It's a lot easier to keep everyone committed to the team if you have one of the top driving talents.

Don't forget that Collins cemented his position with the team by crawling under the tent flaps and getting a look at the Williams...

How can he expect loyalty if that's his standard?

[Mohican]

In retrospect, it would appear that the early 80's really were watershed years; in that what had worked before (DFV-powered alloy-chassis cars fielded by "garagiste" teams like Lotus and Tyrrell, not to mention many lesser lights) was overtaken by a combination of chassis technology moving to carbonfibre, flat-floor aerodynamics putting far more emphasis on minute development reqúiring wind tunnels etc - and, above all, turbo engines.

All this required big budgets and, crucially, more design capacity. not only the chassis per se, but also aerodynamics, engine installations etc. All these developments left the smaller teams behind, and even made them resort to cheating (the Tyrrell water tanks etc). Among the British teams, only McLaren and Williams really made the transformation required in a planned manner - Toleman/Benetton stumbled into the New World order, whereas teams like Lotus, Tyrrell and Brabham never were able to develop strength in depth and remained too dependent on single individuals. And had it not been for Ron Dennis, we would have lost McLaren too.

Look at the British teams today; only McLaren and Williams have survived from the 70's. Essentially from having team principals who have been excellent business managers as well as successful racers. Frank Williams and Ron Dennis would have been successful outside motor racing as well.

[coyoteBR]

Well, sorry but I don't agree with the view of 88.
Piquet was more than motivate that year. He was free of the presence of Nigel Mansell, and the team seemed to have everything to win. But, as he said on a interview, about the Lotus projetist:

"Doucarrouge, that cheater frenchman, made a bomb instead a car."

Even one of the best car developers could not do much in those conditions. I remember other time, when he qualyfied the car well, the reporters asked him if Lotus had finally found the patch. He answered it was just a malfunction on the Turbo limiting equipment.

Had Piquet accepted McLaren's offer in 88, Senna would remain on Lotus and get the same weak results - maybe, he would do even worst, since was not as good as Piquet when it comes to setting a car

With a bad chassis that does not delievers results, there's no way to mantein a good engine. and so, a vicious circle starts.

I remember the post-Camel time. One year,m the car, green and red, presented at a castle. It seemed so tiny, so inimpressive... a annouce of the end.

Then, the sad years. In no way that white with green details things remembered the glorious Lotus. The sponsor on the back wing seemed to try to convince people it's the same car: "Lotus Cars - USA".
No, no, no, it's not a Lotus. Where's the car with an engine so good no brake would stop it? The car that Mansell pushed to the finish line on North-American lands only to faint due to the heat?

Were's the cars of Colin Chapman?

[mat1]

Originally posted by Mohican
In retrospect, it would appear that the early 80's really were watershed years; in that what had worked before (DFV-powered alloy-chassis cars fielded by "garagiste" teams like Lotus and Tyrrell, not to mention many lesser lights) was overtaken by a combination of chassis technology moving to carbonfibre, flat-floor aerodynamics putting far more emphasis on minute development reqúiring wind tunnels etc - and, above all, turbo engines.

Yes, I think that's right, Mohican. The turbo engines where the most important part of it, especially if you take in the packaging problems resulting from them.

But I think the time of the garagistes was already shifting in the mid-seventies. It became then clear Ferrari was able to bring a winning combination, by combining the flatV12 with a proper chassis, etc.

The garagistes became nervous, and brabham went for the Alfa V12. Of course, the garagistes got a new lease of life as a result of the ground effect revolution, but the writing was an the wall.

GP cars are expensive to develop. I think in retrospect the normal situation is something like today: domination by al couple of teams with huge resources etc etc.

The period between 1966 and, say, 1974 (the time of the garagistes) was the exception. For a couple of reasons, the "big" teams like Ferrari and BRM were not able to field competetive cars, and there was a very good customer engine available (the DFV). The DFV was rather cheap, and could remain so, because there was no real competition. (imagine what would have happened if another DFV-like cutomer engine had been available).

mat1

[stuartbrs]

Why did Lotus get it so wrong in `88?

Was it the effort they put into the active suspension on the 99T? Senna`s victory at Monaco in 87 was attributed to the active advantage, but for most of the season they struggled with an overly complicated system which added a lot of weight to the car. Did Williams run their system in `87, or was that late `86? Thinking about it , it must have been `87. Was Ducourage the man responsible for the Lotus system or was that bought in from something the roadcar division had under development? I remember reading that Senna worked very hard to develop the active suspension, did the `88 car run it?
I also remember reading when JPS ceased their sponsorship one of the team members ( cant remember if it was Warr ) said that now at least they could spend money on the car and not the hospitality at the track. Williams also had trouble with the active suspension, most famously in `88 when they rebuilt an active car to a passive one overnight at Silverstone that year. I`d really like to know more about that `88 Lotus, the team were still reasonably well funded, had a great engine and a good driver, although I cant remember if Piquet had his eye problem before or after `88.

And as for Mansell staying at Lotus in `85, no chance whatsoever of that happening, both parties were obviously very happy to be rid of one another.

[peetbee]

I think there was a combination of things that lead to Colin taking his 'eye off the ball' in the last couple of years leading up to his death that contributed to the team's decline. Several of these have been mentioned above: FISA/FOCA war, the type 88, De Lorean, the decline in the road car business, not to mention Colin's new business interests in both boats and light aircraft that were taking much of his time. The deaths of Team Lotus drivers over the years has also been said to have contributed to his waning enthusiasm for the sport.
The friction between Peter Warr and Nigel Mansell may also have affected his enthusiasm, but it would have been unlikely to have been allowed to happen in previous years, as he was more of a hands on person.

I would say that Team Lotus's performance was already on the decline but that Senna's arrival prolonged their existence, Piquet's subsequent arrival likewise (on a lower level). After that I was surprised that they lasted into the 90's for as long as they did.

There are several precendents for the decline however, look at Tyrell, Cooper, BRM, Brabham etc. Some of these teams managed to decline with the original team owners/managers still in charge.

[peetbee]

Active Suspension - IIRC Team Lotus experimented with this on an Esprit before an F1 car and that was before Chapman's death. I also recall Mansell stating that he initially didn't trust the Williams system due to his experiences with Lotus.

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Senna`s victory at Monaco in 87 was attributed to the active advantage

Street circuits gives Senna a driver advantage. He was always competitive there. The two race wins in 1987 were on street circuits.