
Monaco 1971?
#1
Posted 08 September 2003 - 01:30
Advertisement
#2
Posted 08 September 2003 - 02:00
Now Fittipaldi ran the 56B at Monza that year... and I don't think it ever ran in JPS colours, did it?'
So I'd say that the JPS colours didn't come in until the following year... they certainly ran them in 1972.
#3
Posted 08 September 2003 - 02:58
There is a picture of Emmo in GLTL colors i(captioned as 72D/5 - which I think is correct) rounding the station hairpin at Monaco in 1971 on page 53 of John Tipler's book "Lotus Racing Cars - 1968-2000"
The 56B turbine was run in GLTL colors at Zandvoort and Silverstone. At Monza, and I think this is connected to the litigation after Jochen's death in 1970, Emmo drove a 56B in a mainly gold but with black nose and rear wing peculiar color scheme as a Lotus entered by Worldwide Racing. William Taylor's Lotus Book has some good shots of this well, interesting, color combo.
#4
Posted 08 September 2003 - 03:45
#5
Posted 08 September 2003 - 06:40
#6
Posted 08 September 2003 - 07:03

At Monza in 1971, Team Lotus wasn't the entrant due to legal problems after Rindt's death the year before. A 56B for Fittipaldi was enterd by World Wide Racing (whatever it may be....) and the car was black and gold but not very similar to later JPS cars....
This is Fittipaldi in Monza:

1971 Monaco Grand Prix saw the debut (on Fittipaldi's chassis R5) of the "D" spec - parallel links instead of lower wishbone and twin radius rods, all on rear suspension, were the main differences.
Hrvoje
#7
Posted 08 September 2003 - 07:14
#8
Posted 08 September 2003 - 07:16
For instance, the 1969 Tasman Cup entries of Rindt and Hill were under that name.
#9
Posted 08 September 2003 - 07:37
I hadn't noticed that (or had forgotten)Originally posted by Ray Bell
"Worldwide Racing" was obviously a part of the Chapman empire... used when it seemed appropriate, apparently.
For instance, the 1969 Tasman Cup entries of Rindt and Hill were under that name.
1969 NZ race programme entrant listings:
Pukekohe: Team Lotus
Levin: entrants not listed
Wigram: Team Lotus
Teretonga: World Wide Racing
#10
Posted 08 September 2003 - 07:53
I don't, unfortunately, have the programmes (Bernd does, I believe...), but the Racing Car News results panels have this entrant's name listed. They were usually pretty particular about that sort of thing.
#11
Posted 08 September 2003 - 08:16
Originally posted by Ray Bell
"Worldwide Racing" was obviously a part of the Chapman empire... used when it seemed appropriate, apparently.
For instance, the 1969 Tasman Cup entries of Rindt and Hill were under that name.
Actually the "fiction" that Team Lotus cars were not entered into Italian GPs by Team Lotus but by Worldwide Racing continued into 1972. Although by then Lotus was able to keep the normal JPS livery.
Interestingly only one Lotus started Monza '72 (and won - those were good days!) Emmo won in the same 72D/5 that he'd raced in Monaco in '71 which prompted this thread. Now what I don't have the time to check is why only one entrant for the '72 Italian GP? Where was Walker? Was it a continuance of the "low profile/different legal entrant" approach? or did it have something to do with the crash of the Lotus transporter en route to the circuit? Two weeks later Wisell had moved back from BRM to the #2 Lotus (Canadian GP - eh) and in the final race of the year (US GP) Lotus ran both Wisell and Walker as well as Emmo .... If only I had Michael Olivers new book to see what he has to say!!!!
Oddly enough my memory was that the Worldwide Racing fiction had continued past 1972 and into the later 1970's. Based on a real cursory search, I cannot substantiate that.
The more I think on this, the more I am certain that no Lotus single seater appeared in the familiar black with gold JPS colors until 1972 when both the F1 and the F3 (type 73) teams debuted (whatever did happen to Bernard Vermilio?)
#12
Posted 08 September 2003 - 08:28
Let's not have that fact escape us.
Chapman may have used it many times. I wonder if it's possible to find out just how far back it went? Perhaps to Monza 1962, after the von Trips accident the year before?
And who was the entrant at Monza in 1970?
#13
Posted 08 September 2003 - 08:46
I think the crash of the transporter is the main reason: it was carrying chassis R6 an R7 and both were damaged. I think they hastily shipped R5 after the accident and no other cars were ready, therefore Fittipaldi was the only Lotus driver to start the race.Originally posted by Ruairidh
Actually the "fiction" that Team Lotus cars were not entered into Italian GPs by Team Lotus but by Worldwide Racing continued into 1972. Although by then Lotus was able to keep the normal JPS livery.
Interestingly only one Lotus started Monza '72 (and won - those were good days!) Emmo won in the same 72D/5 that he'd raced in Monaco in '71 which prompted this thread. Now what I don't have the time to check is why only one entrant for the '72 Italian GP? Where was Walker? Was it a continuance of the "low profile/different legal entrant" approach? or did it have something to do with the crash of the Lotus transporter en route to the circuit? Two weeks later Wisell had moved back from BRM to the #2 Lotus (Canadian GP - eh) and in the final race of the year (US GP) Lotus ran both Wisell and Walker as well as Emmo .... If only I had Michael Olivers new book to see what he has to say!!!!
The more I think on this, the more I am certain that no Lotus single seater appeared in the familiar black with gold JPS colors until 1972 when both the F1 and the F3 (type 73) teams debuted (whatever did happen to Bernard Vermilio?)
JPS colours definitely didn't appear until 1972.
Hrvoje
#14
Posted 08 September 2003 - 08:48
Originally posted by Ray Bell
And Worldwide Racing existed before Rindt's accident...
Let's not have that fact escape us.
Chapman may have used it many times. I wonder if it's possible to find out just how far back it went? Perhaps to Monza 1962, after the von Trips accident the year before?
And who was the entrant at Monza in 1970?
Team Lotus for the 1970 Monza GP
According to Bruce Grant-Braham's book Worldwide entered Soler-Roig in France in '70 in 49C/R6 - the car Jochen won Monaco in that year. I can see no other World Championship entry for Worldwide. Not sure what the story is there - the Soler-Roig entry was before my interest began - wasn't he the Spanish son of a doctor who Chunky wanted to help in return for an earlier favor? But he also DNQ'd 49B in Spain for Garvey Team Lotus and 72/2 for GLTL in Belgium. Way off the pace each time.
#15
Posted 08 September 2003 - 08:48
Team Lotus and Rob Walker also had a type 72.Originally posted by Ray Bell
....
And who was the entrant at Monza in 1970?
http://8w.forix.com/72stats.html
I quoted World Wide Racing as Soler-Roing's entrant for 1970 Belgian Grand Prix, Michael Oliver's book will put this straight, I suppose.
Hrvoje
#16
Posted 08 September 2003 - 17:48
Originally posted by Vrba
I think the crash of the transporter is the main reason: it was carrying chassis R6 an R7 and both were damaged. I think they hastily shipped R5 after the accident and no other cars were ready, therefore Fittipaldi was the only Lotus driver to start the race.
Hrvoje
Interesting. Am I right in reading that only two cars were on the transporter when it crashed? Does that imply that, even before the crash, Lotus only intended entering one driver?
#17
Posted 08 September 2003 - 18:07
Originally posted by Ruairidh
Interesting. Am I right in reading that only two cars were on the transporter when it crashed? Does that imply that, even before the crash, Lotus only intended entering one driver?
Yes indeed. According to Ulrich Schwab in his season review Lotus send a minimum of people and gear to the Italian GP because of the legal problems. A handfull of mechanics, Chapman, Fittipaldi and just one car in the transporter: D7. The D5 was kept ready at the French/Italian border in case of emergency. And the emergency accurred: a tyre of the transporter blew up and it fell over, injuring a mechanic and destroying D7. Hence D5 was brought into the country and raced by Emmo to all to well known effect.
#18
Posted 08 September 2003 - 18:17
Thanks for the clarificaton. Somehow I had in my memory that both R7 and R6 were in the transporter but it was obviously wrong.Originally posted by Marcel Visbeen
Yes indeed. According to Ulrich Schwab in his season review Lotus send a minimum of people and gear to the Italian GP because of the legal problems. A handfull of mechanics, Chapman, Fittipaldi and just one car in the transporter: D7. The D5 was kept ready at the French/Italian border in case of emergency. And the emergency accurred: a tyre of the transporter blew up and it fell over, injuring a mechanic and destroying D7. Hence D5 was brought into the country and raced by Emmo to all to well known effect.
I remember (from the video "If you're not winning, you're not trying") Peter Warr talking to Chapman at some race preceding the 1973 Italian Grand Prix something like "they promised to drop all charges. They didn't say they wouldn't bring on new charges but they promised to drop the pending ones."....so only by the summer of 1973 did the things settle....
Hrvoje
#19
Posted 08 September 2003 - 18:26
Advertisement
#20
Posted 08 September 2003 - 20:31
#21
Posted 08 September 2003 - 20:56
Originally posted by fines
The turbine livery was a try-out for the JPS livery the following year
I agree with Michael. No way it was just a co-incidence that the car was black and gold, JPS and Gold Leaf both being bands run by John Player.
And just for the record: Woldwide Racing was registered in the Bahamas!
#22
Posted 08 September 2003 - 21:01
Originally posted by fines
The turbine livery was a try-out for the JPS livery the following year - I stand by my point: Team Lotus (aka World Wide Racing aka Chunky's Mystery Team) did run JPS colours in '71!
How is a predominantly gold car with black accenting - the same colors as a predominantly black car with gold lettering and pinstriping? I don't see it.
That said I wonder who chose those colors and why? In particular did Players ask Lotus to run in those colors?
I gotta say I think it highly unlikely that it was a try out for the JPS livery the following year. Why? (a) because those colors (gold and black) were the colors of the packaging of one of Players' key competitors - Benson & Hedges (b) by that time of the year in 1971 I'd have expected the JPS plans for 1972 to be in place and the concept of the Lotus mimicking the box design of the JPS cigarette to have been pretty close to settled. But that bundle of assumptions still leaves unanswered the question who chose that color scheme for Monza 1971.
#23
Posted 08 September 2003 - 21:08
Originally posted by Ruairidh
How is a predominantly gold car with black accenting - the same colors as a predominantly black car with gold lettering and pinstriping? I don't see it.
That said I wonder who chose those colors and why? In particular did Players ask Lotus to run in those colors?
I gotta say I think it highly unlikely that it was a try out for the JPS livery the following year. Why? (a) because those colors (gold and black) were the colors of the packaging of one of Players' key competitors - Benson & Hedges (b) by that time of the year in 1971 I'd have expected the JPS plans for 1972 to be in place and the concept of the Lotus mimicking the box design of the JPS cigarette to have been pretty close to settled. But that bundle of assumptions still leaves unanswered the question who chose that color scheme for Monza 1971.
And once again Ulrich Schwab to the rescue:
in his 1971 season-review he states that the black and gold was chosen because it was the colourscheme of another Player-brand.
And remember: Schwab wrote this before there had ever been a Lotus in JPS colours!!!
#24
Posted 08 September 2003 - 21:14
Originally posted by Marcel Visbeen
.....And just for the record: Woldwide Racing was registered in the Bahamas!
No doubt imparting some protection or other...
Anyone know what that protection might have been?
And what factors would have come into play to influence its use? Maybe some kind of income protection?
#25
Posted 08 September 2003 - 21:31
Originally posted by Ray Bell
No doubt imparting some protection or other...
Anyone know what that protection might have been?
And what factors would have come into play to influence its use? Maybe some kind of income protection?
IIRC the Bahamas had a very business friendly corporate/tax regime allowing ownership to be obfuscated; little tax to be paid and accounts not to be published - that kind of thing.
#26
Posted 09 September 2003 - 00:09
Cheers!