288 replies to this topic

[Stan Patterson]

As i read through the very interesting Lotus 19 thread, a matter upon which I have pondered for many years again raised its head.

I have always wondered what the actual performance difference between the "big-engined" Lotus 15 and 19 plus the Cooper Monaco, really was - the cars appeared in relatively quick succession and did of course, end the day of the large Lister Jaguar and Aston Martin type sports car in everything but the long distance endurance-type events.

I have observed that in 2 and 2.5 litre form the Lotus 15 was capable of running with and sometimes defeating a Cooper Monaco Mk1 of similar capacity - but it seems the Monaco always had the edge.

Likewise, it seems a well-driven Monaco Mk1 with a 2.5 Climax, was capable of running with and occasionally defeating, a Lotus 19 but, again it seems that the 19 was intrinically a quicker car.

As the cars were all run by private owners with varying resources, preparation and driving skills, substantively in "minor" events, it is difficult to judge the relative performance of the three cars.

By way of example, I recall the British national events in which George Pitt and Doug Graham in 2 litre Monaco and Lotus 15 regularly swapped places and race results.

Similarly in Australia, we had John Martin 2.5 Lotus 15, Bib Stillwell 2.5 Monaco and Frank Matich 2.5 Lotus 19. All three were top flight drivers and all three cars were well prapared, but unforutnately as far as I am aware, all three never appeared together in the same event!

However, the Monaco raced against both, and the relative performance of the cars and the race results, more or less reflect the above.

How much better was the Monaco Mk 1 over the Lotus 15?

How much better was the Lotus 19 over the Mk1 Monaco?

I would love to hear the opinions of others on this issue particularly if some additional information/examples can be provided.

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[T54]

Bump.
Interesting question, someone here should answer. I have only driven Lotus 23's and Brabham BT8's so I can't tell, but your analysis sounds correct except if you remove the "Moss" in the equation...

[Stan Patterson]

yes T54

You are quite correct......maybe i should have said.... "all other things being equal"..and that would automatically exclude Sir Stirling from any equation....

Interestingly, the Stillwell Cooper Monaco we had here, which I mentioned earlier, was in fact the ex-Moss Hoole Engineering car......with coil spring rear suspension.

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[rl1856]

Similar then to the relative performance of of the Lowline Cooper vs. the Lotus 18 then ?

While the cars delivered fairly equal results at the time, I would judge the 18 and 19 to have had a slight edge on their Cooper counterparts.

However, the Zerex Special (a modified F-1 Cooper) was definately quicker than either the Monaco or the Lotus 19 at the time.

IMHO the Monaco began to draw away from the 19 when US V-8 engines were installed, begining in 1962 and 1963. The Monaco could handle the extra weight and power while the handling balance of the 19 was considerably affected. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense.

Chapman designed his vehicles as an exercise in balance between weight, power and handling. Upset 1 parameter and the the others are detrimentally affected. On the other hand, Cooper vehicles tended to be stouter overall and better able to adapt to usage for which they may not have been originally designed.

Best,

Ross

[Stan Patterson]

Interesting Comment Ross,

I am sure you are right, the Lotus was a very delicate beast and did not improve with more power.

Although, didnt the US driver Lollyd Ruby race a Lotus 19 Buick, which went very well?

Certainly no Lotus 15 was ever improved by more power, Dizzy Addicott in UK had a Lotus 15 Buick which was a monster and I am sure there was a Lotus 15 ferrari in USA also, which was a similar fereal vehicle.

However, in the UK in 1963, Salvadori's Mark 2 Monaco with 2.7 Climax was consisently quicker than the 19's in 1963 , although surprisingly, it was beaten by the Zerex Special, whic h, as you say, was essentially, a F1 car with bodywork.

Essentially , IMHO you are correct, the King Cobra's were a nice bit of kit and i often wonder what would have happened if the Cooper's had of listened to Bruce Mclaren and exploited the US sports car market as did Lola and Mclaren .

BTW , I must dispute your appraisal of the Lowline Cooper versus Lotus 18 ..the lowline IMHO is the most underated GP car of all time..it won the Constructors Championship, the World Driver's Championship was hugely successful in Tasman racing..and was beautiful

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by Stan Patterson
Although, didnt the US driver Lollyd Ruby race a Lotus 19 Buick, which went very well?

Certainly no Lotus 15 was ever improved by more power, Dizzy Addicott in UK had a Lotus 15 Buick which was a monster and I am sure there was a Lotus 15 ferrari in USA also, which was a similar fereal vehicle.

Stan, your memory is pretty good. Lloyd Ruby drove a Lotus 19 for J. Frank Harrison in the early 1960s. About 1963 a Ford (not Buick) V-8 was dropped into the chassis which was modified considerably by Jerry Eisert, if I recall correctly. A custom body was put on the car. It went quite well, and Ruby won the pro race at Kent, Washington, in the car.

There was a Lotus-Ferrari, either 11 or 15, running on the west coast in the late 50s, early 60s. It is reported in several other threads around here at one time or another. I recall Chuck Parsons driving it in, say, 1959.
Tom

[Stan Patterson]

Thanks RA,

I am glad you could recognise what I was talking about through all my spelling/typing mistakes!

As i recall, the car was more than a little successful and as a result, I developed an admiration for Lloyd Ruby from afar... I think he was often in among among the newer generation McLarens and Lola T70's on a regular basis.

It seems that installing a larger engine in a car seldom works unless the car is extensivley re-engineered as well - which i think is the point you make.

I must say I love that late 50's to mid 60's era of USA sports car racing ...and i love learnng about it

Tell me moreee...pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee.

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[Huw Jadvantich]

I believe that with Climax engines the Lotus was clearly the faster car, but the fact that the results do not bare this out is down to the way Chapman and Cooper went about building racing cars.
I haven't read many good reports by contemporary drivers about the Monaco, it wasn't a great racing car, flexing even with the smaller motors. However much it flexed though, it more often than not stayed in one piece for a race distance, which the Lotus did not manage with such consistency.
Once people started putting bigger V8 motors in them - particularly the Salvadori maserati car, the flexing became a real issue. The King Cobras were totally stripped rewelded and braced before they ever raced, so they would have been inherently better in that respect.
The Zerex was only better while it was a single seater with a 'pannier' passenger seat. After a few victories and various people cried foul, the car was re-framed within the spirit of the rules, and I remember a quote that 'it had the torsional stiffness of a wet bus ticket'; it was clearly less competitive after it met the rules. I am not sure how much the Lotus cars were beefed up when V8s were put in them, but that could have given these cars the edge had it been done properly, as the torsional stiffness was already there.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
the Monaco....more often than not stayed in one piece for a race distance, which the Lotus did not manage with such consistency

Tell us again what the results were of the sportscar races at the major British meetings of 1961?

[Stan Patterson]

David,

We are talkng about real motor racing Ok?

The UDT Lastalls 19's had an easy and meaningless time in UK national races in 1961and 1962

Doug Graham 2.0. Litre Lotus XV, George Pitt 2.0 Litre Monaco, Jim Diggory 4.2 DBR2, John Beakhert 3.8 Knobbly Lister..were outclassed..Jimmy Blumer from North of the border sometimes got a look in,......Ireland in UDT Laystall 19 ruled ..if Salvo was away..

The Monaco stands on its record

Ask Bib
stan

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Stan Patterson
David,

We are talkng about real motor racing Ok?

The UDT Lastalls 19's had an easy and meaningless time in UK national races in 1961and 1962

Doug Graham 2.0. Litre Lotus XV, George Pitt 2.0 Litre Monaco, Jim Diggory 4.2 DBR2, John Beakhert 3.8 Knobbly Lister..were outclassed..Jimmy Blumer from North of the border sometimes got a look in,......Ireland in UDT Laystall 19 ruled ..if Salvo was away..

The Monaco stands on its record

Ask Bib
stan

How, when he is 6ft under.....????

[Stan Patterson]

My remark was Rhetorical...,not literal

Yours, Mr Cosworth, is offensive

Stan

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Stan Patterson
We are talkng about real motor racing Ok?

You mean Australian events?
In British sprint races, for which all three of these cars were designed, the Monaco rendered the XV pretty much obsolete in 1959, and then in 1960 both were put in their place by the 19

[Stan Patterson]

David,

I think that was pretty much my point..

The XV was special to us aussies cos of Derek Jolly and Frank Matich ..both of which were benchmarks.

I dont believe it was as clearcut as u state?

Stan

[David Shaw]

As with Sir Stirling, comparisons between cars tend to get distorted once Frank Matich is brought into the discussion.

[Ray Bell]

Even so, Matich's was an oddity...

It didn't have the queerbox, but was handicapped by the fitment of an A-series BMC final drive which was (needless to say?) very fragile.

I don't know what happened to that part of the car when the Buick engine was fitted. Or was it an Olds?

[Stan Patterson]

Interesting to note the following lap times of the cars in question at Bathurst over a 4 year period.

In this case we have the same driver, Frank Matich, in the two Lotus cars , which helps the comparison, but counter-acting that I assume, is the fact that the shire would have been making improvements to the road surface over the period in question..one assumes.

And, please, this is meant to be a comparison of the cars, NOT the drivers

October 1960 - Frank Matich 2.5 Lotus 15 Climax - 2m 45.8
Easter 1961 - Frank Matich 2.5 Lotus 15 Climax - 2m 40.1
October 1961 - Bib Stillwell 2.5 Cooper Monaco Climax - 2m 44.9
Easter 1962 - Frank Matich 2.5 Lotus 19 Climax - 2m 33.9
Bib Stillwell 2.5 Cooper Monaco Climax - 2m 32.9
Easter 1964 - Frank Matich 2.5 Lotus 19B Climax - 2m 31.8

One must assume that there were circuit improvements at the end of 1961/start of 1962, given that Stillwell lapped 12 seconds quicker in 1962 than he did a few months earlier, but, nevertheless, I think the figures demonstrate my original point that, sometimes, a well-driven Lotus 15 was as quick as a Monaco and that, sometimes, a well-driven Monaco was as quick as a Lotus 19.

I dont believe that each successive car rendered the previous car obsolete - at least not in any clear-cut way.

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[Ray Bell]

Bearing in mind, Stan, that Matich always reckoned that the Lotus 19B was the more likely of his two cars (alongside the Brabham 2.5) to get outright lap records, I think we should look more carefully at those times...

First, what competition did he have when he did that 1:31.8? I suspect it was something close to zero. So he simply went fast enough to run away from the Lotus 23s and that made his day.

Remember, when looking at Catalina Park and Bathurst results, Matich was always doing his best to win the ARDC Club Championship. Finishing was very important to him at these meetings.

It's a shame that he wasn't at the '65 meeting, nor was Stillwell with the Scarab-engined Monaco, otherwise we might have seen some more realistic times. Probably 1:25s.

[CoulthardD]

Jimmy Blumer from North of the border sometimes got a look in

Just for the record, Jimmy is from the North East of England, not Scotland!

DC

[Stan Patterson]

Well Ray,

I must confess, I never knew what the difference between a 19 and a 19b, actually was.

Note that, in 1962, the Monaco was quicker at Bathurst and beat the 19,,,,

I just wish Matich, Stillwell and Martin had all lined up......I know Martin had a serous crash but i am not sure when...the XV disapeared for many years..

I am not sure that the Scarab-engined Monaco was any quicker than the Climax-engined car..was always a moot poiint..certainly Bib and Gerry Brown would have engineered the car correctly...

hMMMMMMMMMM
Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[Ray Bell]

Johnny Martin? His crash was about 1968, after he bought a Lotus 23B...

The 15 never really 'disappeared'... it was around somewhere, but relegated to non-competing and non-competitive by the time it appeared with the alloy V8.

The difference between the 19 and 19B was substantial in Matich's case. He gradually developed the car, fitting Brabham type suspension to it and increasing the size of the brakes and so on.

But even before that he usually had Stillwell's measure.

You made the point yourself that Bathurst times might well vary greatly according to track condition, and with a year between meetings that was pretty much bound to happen.

What about comparing at another circuit, say Warwick Farm?

[Stan Patterson]

Thank you Mr Coulthard D

I meant abosolutely no offence..as a boy in far off Au , I used to read GG in autosport and WB & DSJ in Motor Sport

I always thought Jimmy Blumer was a Scot

Sorry Old Boy

[seldo]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Johnny Martin? His crash was about 1968, after he bought a Lotus 23B...

The 15 never really 'disappeared'... it was around somewhere, but relegated to non-competing and non-competitive by the time it appeared with the alloy V8.

The difference between the 19 and 19B was substantial in Matich's case. He gradually developed the car, fitting Brabham type suspension to it and increasing the size of the brakes and so on.

But even before that he usually had Stillwell's measure.

You made the point yourself that Bathurst times might well vary greatly according to track condition, and with a year between meetings that was pretty much bound to happen.

What about comparing at another circuit, say Warwick Farm?

I knew Marto well. He had a huge accident in "the Esses" at the 'Farm after a rear shock broke - almost took his life and as far as I recall he never drove again, more's the pity since he was very handy on the tiller...

[Stan Patterson]

To me

Johnny Martin has always been the forgotten man ..he won at Sandown 1962 in the Leaton Motors XV ..admittedly the Stillwell Monaco was mis-firing , but he drove the pants off the XV..and we never saw the 3 cars together...

Maybe he should have bought a Vauxhall and a Marlboro packet and become a LEGEND

Stan
Exceptionally Old Aussie Grump

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by seldo
I knew Marto well. He had a huge accident in "the Esses" at the 'Farm after a rear shock broke - almost took his life and as far as I recall he never drove again, more's the pity since he was very handy on the tiller...

That's right... there's a photo around here somewhere of him in that race, too...

Terrible crash, we all knew it was bad for him. He's still about and quite chipper, but he lost an inch in height in that crash apart from everything else, and he always had to clear his throat to talk afterwards too. Though I think that might have diminished.

A great driver, and no, he didn't drive again. He still gets out with the guys, though. He goes to Stahly's reunions and so on, I think he was at Eastern Creek the other month too. Great guy.

And you're right, Stan, it was a shame if they never got together. But that 15 would have lost out every time because it was so necessary to take it easy off the grid. Once behind, it had no chance of hitting the front.

[Stan Patterson]

Yes Ray,

I wondered too ...if the Stillwell Monaco was not present, then the FM Lotus 19 had it easy and vice versa., .....hence the wildely varying lap times..,..both cars were so far ahead of the opposition it was a joke,


When they met , Bathurst 1962 , Bib won and was clearly faster.

But , Sandown 1963 , I was there. and try as he might, Bib's Monaco led for3 laps, but it was clear the Lotus 19 was a quicker car, amd FM won without much trouble.
,
Longford 1964, Stillwell, leading, tail out, till FM overtook him, it was clear that BS was trying very hard,, while FM was cruising.


Stan Patterson
Who Cares?

[Ray Bell]

And that was the meeting where Frank's crew had deserted him...

I don't think Stillwell ever beat Matich at the Farm in sports cars.

[Stan Patterson]

The Leaton Motors Lotus 15.......

The post-Matich career of the 2.5 Lotus XV has always been a mystery to me - maybe somebody on this forum can clear it up for me.

Johnny Martin drove the car at the opening Sandown meeting in March 1962.......winning and setting an inaugral sports car lap record, (jointly with the Monaco), at 1m 16.1 .

However, to my knowledge and I could be quite wrong , the car was never raced again, certainly not at a significant level and cerainly not in Victoria and from the race reports I ever read, it was never raced anywhere else in the country.

I always thought it just disappeared - which explains why the 3 cars we have talked about never met in the one place at the one time.

Also, I had a vague idea Leaton Motors went bust, that could be wrong too. As a result, mentally, rightly or wrongly, I connected that "fact" to the cars disappearance.


As far as i was concerned, it had vanished without trace and only surfaced again in the 80's
in historic racing.

Can anybody help?

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie grump

[David Shaw]

From Vol 2 of Blanden's book:

Advertised in Sports Car World June 1963 (claiming 35 races for only 1 defeat)

July 1964 - ran at Oran Park for its new owner Mick Crampton. Mick ended up badly damaging the engine.

Sold with damaged engine to John Schroder who ran the Town and Country Garage near Sydney who fitted a V8 Buick. Rarely raced.

Advertised in Australian Autosportsman October 1968 for $1600 with choice of engine.

Purchased by Mike Ryves in 1972 who first drove it at Bathurst in 1973 with 1500 Climax installed.

Raced at All Historic Amaroo meeting in January 1976 with 2.5 Climax, from there to Blanden himself and finally Paul Samuels.

Sports Car Quarterly May/July 1979 apparently has a detailed technical article, written during Ryves' ownership.

[Stan Patterson]

Thank You David,

You have cleared up an issue that had been outstanding for me for 40 years.

Essentially the car went from being one of country's top sports cars to nothing..overnight.

It is very disappointing that a front-line car can virtually disappear in that way and it certainly robbed us of seeing the three cars togeher in one race.


Thanks again.

Stan Patterson

[Ray Bell]

And that's the point Stan...

It was no longer one of the country's top sports cars. Expecially with the coming of the 19B, it was very much an also ran, and without Matich or Martin (or maybe a Chivas?) it was never going to beat even the 23s.

In fact, that's probably the most relevant point... it wasn't quick enough to stay in front of the 23s once the twin cam Ford arrived.

[Stan Patterson]

Well Ray,

Now you have opened a can of worms!

I would need to be convinced of your hypothesis re 2.5 Lotus XV vs Lotus 23.....unfortunately I do not have acces to lap times of the era, but my reasoning is as follows:

The XV set a joint lap record (with an off-colour Monaco) at the opening of Sandown 1962..1m 16.1. Bear in mind Brabham, Surtees and company in 2.7 lowlines were doing about 1m 10 that weekend, so the XV's time was by no means slow.

Secondly, I think we accept the XV was somewhere in the same league as the Monaco performance-wise but, clearly, the Lotus 23 or 23b's, even with Frank Gardner driving Mildren's car or Leo G in his black car, never even looked like worrying Stillwell in the Monaco..certainly not at Sandown or Calder where i saw them race.........would be good to compare laptimes.

I think you have wrtten off the XV too cheaply ....too soon.

I can only repeat my lament...If only we had of seen a front row of Matich Lotus 19, Stillwell Cooper Monaco and Martin Lotus 15..just once!!

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[kaydee]

Derek Jolly’s Lotus XV also did fairly well in Australia –

In ’58, fitted with the original 1475cc engine, his Lotus XV acquitted itself fairly well against the much bigger engined Jaguar C and D types, Maserati 300S and the Aston Martin DB3S

Then in ’59 with a 2,500 cc engine the car (and with Graham Hill at the wheel) was able to hold 7th outright at Le Mans against the 3 litre Astons and Ferraris before Derek took over and missed a gear on the Queerbox resulting in a blown engine.

The car returned to Australia in late ‘59, (fitted with a 1960cc engine) and in 1960 Derek won a sports car race at Orange and the Australian Tourist Trophy at Longford.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly Derek’s XV possibly only competed against Matich’s Lotus XV once and that was at the Warwick Farm International meeting in January ‘61. Matich won and Derek was second. However, Frank was running a 2500 cc engine against Derek’s 1960 cc.
I also think that this may have been Derek’s last outing in the Lotus?

I don’t remember Derek ever competing against Bib’s Monaco – that must have come on the scene a bit later.

[David Shaw]

Stillwell's Monaco debuted in September 1961, at about the time that Jolly was scaling back his
racing due to business pressures, but he retained it until sold to Hoot Gibson for Bevan in 1964.

[Stan Patterson]

Mr Kaydee.,

I always thought Derek Jolly' XV ran as a 2 litre car out here in Ausustralia. Certainy it did in Mk2 form 1960 onwards, but I was fairly certain it ran as a 2 litre car in 1958 also.

The car was severly damaged against a tree at Albert Park in November 1958. As you say, the car had acquited itself well though that year, but it never was able to win against the maestro in the 300S.

The car was sent back to UK for re-building in 1959, hence DJ's appearance at Le Mans in 2.5 litre form and his absence from Aussie events that year. The victory in the ATT at Longford, it has to be said, was courtesy of Whiteford's slipping 300S clutch, but having said that, the car was clearly quicker than the other "old-guard" sports cars.

Derek did run against both Stillwell's 2.5 Monaco and Martin's 2.5 XV at the opening Sandown meeting in March 1962, which I think, was only time all three ever met. Stillwell and Martin recorded 1m16.1 and Jolly set an under 2 litre record at 1m 26 -- a full 10 seconds slower than the 2.5 cars. Admittedly there was very little opposition in that class and also, I am sure DJ would have realised he could not keep up with the bigger-engined cars on that power circuit.

Another of the great "what ifs" of Australian motor racing is "what if Jolly had retruned with the 2.5 engine in 1959?"

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[David Shaw]

Apparently it only had a 1500 when it arrived originally. Jolly had been offered a 2 litre car, but by
the time he responded to Chapman it had been committed elsewhere.
Sandown was not the sort of circuit to be giving rivals a horsepower advantage.

[Stan Patterson]

By Jove,

I think you chaps may be correct.....I have since checked 2 sources and both confirm that, in 1958, the car was 1,475cc.

In 1960 and beyond, there was no doubt the car was 2 litre , in fact I remember reading at the time, and as also suggested by Mr Kaydee in this forum, the car actually had a 2.5 block with a 2 litre crankshaft..how frustrating is that?

At Sandown 1962, of course, the car was 2 litre and even to my teenage eyes, DJ did not look to be trying all that hard, which I imagine confirms, as also previously suggested, he was scaling back by that time.

Stan Patterson
Old Aussie Grump

[David McKinney]

You guys do realise you're talking about two different cars, don't you?
The 1500 was returned to the works after its accident and dismantled.
The Le Mans 2.5 was subsequently given the same number (and a 2-litre engine) and shipped to Oz

[Stan Patterson]

David,

I always thought it was the same car rebuilt and upgraded....I stress thought..not knew

Stan

[kaydee]

Yes, the “original” Derek Jolly Lotus XV was definitely delivered with a 1475 cc engine,

The front anchorage point of a rear radius arm failed during the Melbourne Grand Prix at Albert Park in November ‘58 and the Lotus rear-end steered into a tree. Derek was taken to hospital for facial surgery where the Perspex windscreen impacted on his visor and fractured his cheekbone. I think he also broke or fractured an ankle.

As Stan said, the Lotus was extensively damaged. Derek took photographs of the failed anchorage point and asked Colin Chapman to re build the car free of charge. Chapman only agreed on the condition he could run the XV as a factory entry at Le Mans in ‘59. Derek in turn agreed on the condition he could co-drive at Le Mans and retain the 2.5 litre engine which was to be fitted.

Again, as Stan says, a 2 ½ litre crank could not be found in time for the post Le Mans engine re-build and the car returned with a 2 litre crankshaft in a 2 ½ litre block and therefore raced as a 1960 cc when it returned to Australia.

I was Derek’s race mechanic / pitcrew during most of the time that he had the Lotus XV and I was always under the impression that the car that returned to Australia was a “rebuilt” car not a new one. Of course the car was extensively damaged at Albert Park and it may well have been a new chassis and new panels – I can’t vouch for what was re-built and what was new. (I’ll try and find a photo of the damaged car but this might take some time.)

Derek was under family pressure to retire from racing and spend more time in the family business (Penfold’s Wine). I left Derek after the ’61 Warwick Farm International meeting and therefore didn’t remember the ’62 Sandown meeting.

Kaydee

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Stan Patterson
I always thought it was the same car rebuilt and upgraded

That's what everyone, including Australian Customs, was supposed to think ;)

[David Shaw]

Jolly had paid duty on the car when it was originally brought into the country, and as it was a "repaired" car, and not new, duty did not have to be paid again. But if it was actually a new car...
All sorts of shenanigans occurred around this time to hoodwink Australian Customs, another example being Stillwell's BT4, generally known as chassis IC-3-62 although in period it wore the plate FJ-11-62 that would normally be affixed to a Formula Junior.

[Ray Bell]

Stan... you are going to have to start thinking about circuits which place more store on handling... they are in the majority in Australia...

Most of these cars ran at Warwick Farm at some time or other.

[David Shaw]

Writing up Gold Star race reports for my website, it's amazing how well twin cam cars driven by the better drivers such as Greg Cusack and Leo Geoghegan could cause havoc amongst the full 2.5 litre cars at tracks such as Warwick Farm and Lakeside where their nimble handling could be exploited to the full.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by David Shaw
Writing up Gold Star race reports for my website, it's amazing how well twin cam cars driven by the better drivers such as Greg Cusack and Leo Geoghegan could cause havoc amongst the full 2.5 litre cars at tracks such as Warwick Farm and Lakeside where their nimble handling could be exploited to the full.

Speaking from experience, twin-cam cars certainly could and did create havoc amongst 2.5 litre powered cars, and Leo Geoghegan in my mind was the best........

[Stan Patterson]

Ray,

I mentioned earlier, I dont have access to Wawick Farm records, lap times ..I would be interested to see if any of the twin cams etc were able to worry the Monaco or to compare the lap times with Matich's XV ....

Stan

[David Shaw]

I think that Cusack tended to be a very slightly quicker, but Geoghegan was more likely to get it to the finish line. I haven't gone through all the 1500 races, but on Gold Star results 1965 would be the best year to compare them. Both had comparable machinery, Cusack in the BT10 and Geoghegan in the Lotus 32, both twin cam powered.

Round 1 at Warwick Farm for the Tasman Series, Cusack was fastest of the 1.5 cars in 11th on the grid with a 1:38.2, Geoghegan in 14th with a 1:41.6, but battling pneumonia. In the race Geoghegan pressured Cusack until he spun, and then repeated the effort. Cusack finished a lap down.

They met again in Round 4 at Lakeside, Cusack (58.2) second on the grid to Martin (Stillwell was away) with Geoghegan half a second behind in third. In the race he posted a 57.1 to Martin's best of 57.0 but retired when the throttle linkages disassembled. Geoghegan came second to Martin.

Finally in the Hordern Trophy, Cusack got pole with a 1:35.8 from Stillwell who ended with the same time and retired after 8 laps when his pressure plate fell apart. Geoghegan was fourth on the grid with a 1:36.4 and came second to Stillwell.

John Harvey I would put in with Geoghegan and Cusack as another top 1.5 driver.

[Stan Patterson]

Mr Kaydee,

I was thrilled to read you were part of , if not the entire, Derek Jolly pity crew during the golden era.

I have always considered DJ to be very much a "quiet achiever" about whom not a great deal is known, or for that matter, was ever written.

I would love to hear anything you have to tell us about DJ ..and I am sure the others aussies on this thread would also be greatly interested in the man from Medindie.

Maybe worth its own thread?

Stan Patterson

Old Aussie Grump

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David Shaw
I think that Cusack tended to be a very slightly quicker, but Geoghegan was more likely to get it to the finish line. I haven't gone through all the 1500 races, but on Gold Star results 1965 would be the best year to compare them. Both had comparable machinery, Cusack in the BT10 and Geoghegan in the Lotus 32, both twin cam powered.

Round 1 at Warwick Farm for the Tasman Series, Cusack was fastest of the 1.5 cars in 11th on the grid with a 1:38.2, Geoghegan in 14th with a 1:41.6, but battling pneumonia. In the race Geoghegan pressured Cusack until he spun, and then repeated the effort. Cusack finished a lap down.

They met again in Round 4 at Lakeside, Cusack (58.2) second on the grid to Martin (Stillwell was away) with Geoghegan half a second behind in third. In the race he posted a 57.1 to Martin's best of 57.0 but retired when the throttle linkages disassembled. Geoghegan came second to Martin.

Finally in the Hordern Trophy, Cusack got pole with a 1:35.8 from Stillwell who ended with the same time and retired after 8 laps when his pressure plate fell apart. Geoghegan was fourth on the grid with a 1:36.4 and came second to Stillwell.

John Harvey I would put in with Geoghegan and Cusack as another top 1.5 driver.

A couple of comments...

This leaves out two of Cusack's most stunning performances of 1965... the May Warwick Farm particularly, where he spun early in the ten laps and came back to hound Geoghegan and Stillwell (in his new 1.5) to the line.

The lap record for these cars was something like 1:37.2 at the start of this race, and practice hadn't seen an appreciable improvement on it. But in his comeback, Cusack posted times in the 1:35s.

The next meeting he hounded Spencer Martin throughout, IIRC, with a lap time of 1:35.1... again, IIRC.

In between there were meetings at Catalina Park and Lakeside where he was brilliant. At one of those Harvey made his debut in the ex-Stillwell car, I've previously posted pics of that.

And this same meeting brings us back to the topic in question... the 23s of Cusack and Geoghegan were there for the ATT that day and Geoghegan ran away with the race. No Matich, of course, and Stillwell was out of it, and there was no Lotus 15 (unless Ann Thompson's was there...) to compare, and Gardner blew the Maserati engine to smithereens in the Mildren after getting pole, but the fact is that in late 1965 the Lotus 23 was nigh on dominant in the class and it seemed very natural.

[David Shaw]

Unfortunately, my pre-67 race reports are basically restricted to photo-copies of Gold Star races, so I am missing reports of these great feats.

It's rather ironic to me that the 3 drivers that I regard as the best 1500 pilots of the sixties, Cusack, Geoghegan and Harvey all ended up with little to show for their efforts once they moved up to 2.5 litres. Although the Repco in that form, which they all used, suffered badly as far as reliability went.