Who was the greatest? Forty years after his death, legend of F1 great Jim Clark lives

[CNR]

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0804_jim_clark_formula_1/

Forty years ago, on April 7 1968, Jim Clark was killed when his Formula 2 Lotus (http://www.motortrend.com/new_cars/01/lotus/index.html) crashed off the road at the Hockenheim circuit in Germany.


If Michael Schumacher won that same F1 title seven times, you might logically ask, how does Clark -- with just two -- qualify for first place in the drivers' pantheon?
The question, though interesting, is impossible to answer. Modern F1 racing cars, and the tracks on which they compete, are so much safer now than they were in Clark's day that today's racers can afford to drive flat-out from start to finish. Nevertheless, one race which stands above all others in the Scot's glittering panoply is the 1963 Belgian Grand Prix (http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2008/pontiac/grand_prix/index.html). On the old-fashioned Spa-Francorchamps road circuit, nine hazardous miles of houses, walls and unfenced ditches, Clark lapped the entire field before lifting off near the end and allowing the second-placed Cooper (http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2008/mini/cooper/index.html) of Bruce McLaren to re-pass.

[Tazio]

UMMMHH I forget!!! :p :

[Valve Bounce]

UMMMHH I forget!!! :p :

Me too!! :(

[markabilly]

Best racer and a gentleman, something that can never be said about Senna,
Prost or MS.

And how many races did he participate where he clearly or even allegedly chopped another driver to keep that driver from passing?
None.

And how much did he rely on data telementary totell his engineers how he was doing and how to set up the car?
None.

And I still think the most spectcular race was Monza..........

[Valve Bounce]

Bernd Rosemeyer in that Auto Union monster at the "Ring" wasn't too bad.

[markabilly]

i can only speak for what I saw, and anything before 1963 was a bit too early for me, but as to about 1966 and on, I saw them all race, and the best in a time when mistakes were fatal, remains Clark.

Clark had only one real tragic incident in his career, when following Von Trips down the straight into a corner at Monza, the rear wheel of Von trip touched the front wheel of Clark when Trips moved over. Trips car spun and ended up in the grandstands, killing 14 spectators and himself.

Took real courage to drive back then

[futuretiger9]

From 1962 to early 1968, Clark was the undoubted benchmark in Grand Prix racing, the one man who every other driver measured himself again.

I just regret that we never got to see Jimmy race against Stirling Moss or Jackie Stewart in equal machinery.

[markabilly]

We would had seen it more with JYS If Clark lived. And most of his races, he either won or broke (as Lotus was famous for doing so)

But I remain convinced while Stewart did and would have challenged him, Clark was still faster, and would have remained so.

"equal machinery" did not matter that much back then, as one could clearly see drivers challenging in cars of unequal ability. JYS did race him hard on occaision, but the only driver who seemed to be his equal at some tracks was Dan Gurney (who if he had remained with Brabham, without question probably would have been wdc in 1967), esp. at Spa and Germany. Funny how after and during 1968, Gurney never seemed the same in F1 as he did from the time he started his carreer through 1967.

At the time, driver skill in car set up and feedback was also a premium, as that was all there was, except for a hand held stop watch.

Not sure how he would have done in 1990-2008, because there is little need for set up skill, as that is done by engineers, and he was very much a gentlemean, and not likely at all to play bumper cars.
Plus his real skill was spped in high speed corners that requires a very sensitive touch in the absence of wings. Now, the faster the corner, the more downforce, eliminates much of the need to be able to feel the very slight loss of traction to max the speed out of the corner.

And then there was the four wheel drift, where every car was drifting through the corners, that Clark excelled at. Wings and sticky tires have done away with that......

Another race was Indy in 1966, when he had a massive spin coming out of a corner right where he should hae gone into the wall. Common wisdom was that such a spin always resulted in a crash into the wall or a stall out. So he was not scored for that lap correctly at all.

truth was he saved it, and barely lost any time as he caught it just right and went roaring down the straight, never coming close to stopping. If correctly scored, he would have been the winner, as demonstrated by films of the race. And the spin is defnetly worth watching!!!

[futuretiger9]

I too have often wondered how Jimmy would have fared with the advent of wings, slick tyres, and more emphasis on downforce. These technologies all emerged in earnest shortly after his death. His talent was based on delicacy of touch, particularly in cornering.

He may well have adapted, as great drivers do, to changing circumstances and challenges.

There was also a fascinating psychological element to the rivalry between Clark and Stewart. Did JYS feel a little intimidated by Clark's presence, regarding him as a mentor? After Jimmy died, Stewart flourished in his role as the unofficial leader amongst the drivers. On reflection, Stewart was maturing anyway as a driver and as a person, and remember in 1968 he also linked up with Ken Tyrrell in F1 and acquired the Matra, and Ford's support.

[Garry Walker]

And how many races did he participate where he clearly or even allegedly chopped another driver to keep that driver from passing?
None.



Niki Lauda had something interesting to say about that.

[GJD]

From 1962 to early 1968, Clark was the undoubted benchmark in Grand Prix racing, the one man who every other driver measured himself again.

I just regret that we never got to see Jimmy race against Stirling Moss or Jackie Stewart in equal machinery.

Yes, what duels those would have been. With the deal he'd struck with Ferrari for the 1962 season and beyond, Moss was on the verge of leaving behind his period of faffing about with assorted tatty, compromised and/or old Loti and Coopers. Ferrari provided Surtees with some quite decent cars (or was it the other way round?) in the period 1963 to 1966 and Moss in a blue Ferrari with a white hoop around the nose would have been something quite formidable. Stirl in a 312 in 1967... what a fabulous thought! He would only have been 38. What a shame April 23 1962 happened.

I did once have the chance to ask a contemporary (F1 driver) of theirs who would have emerged on top had Moss and Clark raced against each other into the 60's. He said Clark, but there was a very long pause before he plumped for that choice.

As to Clark vs. Stewart... my view is that whilst Jackie was a huge talent, both Moss and Clark had that something extra in comparison.

[markabilly]

Yes, what duels those would have been. With the deal he'd struck with Ferrari for the 1962 season and beyond, Moss was on the verge of leaving behind his period of faffing about with assorted tatty, compromised and/or old Loti and Coopers. Ferrari provided Surtees with some quite decent cars (or was it the other way round?) in the period 1963 to 1966 and Moss in a blue Ferrari with a white hoop around the nose would have been something quite formidable. Stirl in a 312 in 1967... what a fabulous thought! He would only have been 38. What a shame April 23 1962 happened.

I did once have the chance to ask a contemporary (F1 driver) of theirs who would have emerged on top had Moss and Clark raced against each other into the 60's. He said Clark, but there was a very long pause before he plumped for that choice.

As to Clark vs. Stewart... my view is that whilst Jackie was a huge talent, both Moss and Clark had that something extra in comparison.

Moss always struck me as having been cut from the same cloth as Dan Gurney as drivers. Both were extremely fast and both could win. Yet both always seem to always have bad luck with mechanical failures at the most inappropriate moments.

Was it just bad luck or were they too hard on the cars, or a combination, I do not know. Clark on the other hand would win three grand prix races on the very same set of tires......As it was, Clark had an ability to go slow and still be faster than anyone else.....

Gurney compared to Hulme and Brabham, Gurney was clearly way above both in terms of speed, but who won championships while at Brabham??

Same might have been true for Surtess and Moss teamed as Ferrari racers. Moss faster but Surtees was the one who had the championship ability to put together points.

I remember reading some comment from some reporter at Spa in 1967 about a very fast corner (I can not remember which corner--) that Clark and Gurney were coming through at almost 140 mph in the race and in practice and each were hitting the same little odd mark of about an inch in the pavement each and every time, whereas everyone else was all over the the corner.

In Clark's time, I do not think that JYS would have challenged him consistently, because Clark was just faster than all. The only driver to come close was Gurney in terms of speed and in 1968, he seemed to have more interest in building cars rather than driving on the edge--perhaps because of Clark's death and other things.

Much like Mario, who would take the pole position at Waktins in 1968, and was as fast as anyone, when Ronnie was killed, the fire for F1 seemed to have gone out. If mario had moved straight into F1 in 68 and stayed there, he probably would have had more than one wdc to his name, for sure, and maybe taken Clark's place as the "top dog" rather than JYS.

I dunno as it is all specualtion, but that left open the "top dog" seat and JYS filled it quite well. He was also a much better driver than given credit, but he, like Prost, did not die in a car, so the other legends seem to dominate memories of people...

[AAReagles]

I remember reading some comment from some reporter at Spa in 1967 about a very fast corner (I can not remember which corner--) that Clark and Gurney were coming through at almost 140 mph in the race and in practice and each were hitting the same little odd mark of about an inch in the pavement each and every time, whereas everyone else was all over the the corner....

Interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of before, thanks. :up:





In Clark's time... Clark was just faster than all. The only driver to come close was Gurney in terms of speed and in 1968, he seemed to have more interest in building cars rather than driving on the edge--perhaps because of Clark's death and other things....

Gurney, along with Carroll Shelby and at that time, supposively with solid financial backing from Goodyear Tire Corp., gave birth to the idea of starting All American Racing (AAR) in 1964.

His Eagles didn't take flight in GP racing until 1966, the same year the marque attended double-duty efforts in the stateside open wheel series, sanctioned by USAC (United States Auto Club) - most notably the Indianapolis 500 and Riverside 300 (Rex Mays Memorial) races.

Depending on the casual observer's view, Gurney had accomplished substantial success in the GP arena with his eagles, considering that he really only had two full seasons to engage in not only the global competition, but the stateside front as well.

During late 1967/early 68', in the interests of marketing reasons directed towards stateside exposure, Goodyear made it clear that the AAR organization was going to have to forgo the GP efforts, and concentrate solely on competing in the North American region (namely US soil). From all the sources I've read, current and yester-years, Gurney has maintained a modest expression about what transpired.

Oddly enough, Goofyear, for whatever reason, re-entered the GP series, sometime during the early 1970's (1972 from what I can gather at the moment). :down:

Gurney's GP driving career got off to a late start, biologically speaking. He was near the end of his prime when he debuted in 1959. And by the time Clark was killed at age 32, Gurney was less than a week away from turning 37.
With all things considered at the time; financial forces dictating the direction of the team and some mention of marital problems with his wife, the death of Clark, who was regarded not only as a competitor but a friend as well, probably gave further inclination for Gurney to consider retiring in the near future and focus more on his All-American Racers.

Though he did compete in most of 1968, in Eagles, Brabhams & McLarens. And finally retiring after the 1970 British Grand Prix at Brands Hatch.

In almost any set of photos ever taken of the sport, there is one particular set of prints I admire, and that would be the sequence of shots taken of Gurney and Clark after both of their cars became disabled at about the same location on the Spa circuit during the closing stages of the 1964 Belgian GP. Both are scene casually chatting during a quite moment, until it was apparently announced over the PA system, to Clark's surprise, that the Lotus driver had actually won the race, though he ran out of fuel on what he apparently thought was the last lap (since he wasn't signaled the 'white flag').

Their affable expressions are timeless in the sense that both men were not only friends, but drivers(competitors) at the top of their game, merely enjoying the humorous moment during such an unusual occassion... during a more favorable era that has long since been gone.

[ArrowsFA1]

In Clark's time, I do not think that JYS would have challenged him consistently, because Clark was just faster than all. The only driver to come close was Gurney in terms of speed and in 1968...
A very interesting read in Motor Sport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) this month about F2 in the 1960's when, the view seems to be, that Jochen Rindt had the measure of everyone including Jim Clark.

[ShiftingGears]

A very interesting read in Motor Sport (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) this month about F2 in the 1960's when, the view seems to be, that Jochen Rindt had the measure of everyone including Jim Clark.

I find this somewhat hard to believe. Were they teammates at any time in F2 or was Rindt always at Brabham?

[ArrowsFA1]

Were they teammates at any time in F2 or was Rindt always at Brabham?
Clark was, of course, at Lotus and Rindt raced Brabhams mainly for Roy Winkelmann Racing so there may be the usual question of which was the better car, but Rindt's team-mate Alan Rees certainly rates the Austrian very highly.

[AAReagles]

Without performing the hazardous duty of fumbling thru old Road & Track mags and books, I decided to Google the "Rindt, 'King of F2", as I remembered him being referred that way from books/mags produced during that era.

Sure enough, there were plenty of links provided.

Rindt may have participated in more F2 events than Clark, whereas Clark of course took care of the TASMAN series most of the time. In any event, Rindt surely was no slouch.

[trumperZ06]

;) Jim Clark was surely one of the very best who has driven in Formula One. He was the best driver during his racing years... but it's hard to judge, given car development, who is the absolute best driver over the past 60 years.

During his era... cars wore skinny tires, not much safety equipment, some without belts... thinking it was safer to be thrown out of the car in an accident, and many tracks were extremely dangerous.

On one occasion... Clark DNF'ed...

walked back to the pits and told Colin Chapman...

"You nearly Killed me that time".

Lotus was known for building very light chassis's, pushing the weight down to where the car was designed to only last the race.

[DezinerPaul]

Than can only be one answer. The best GP racer of all time Tazio Nuvolari.
Jim Clark (my favorite) would be no better than joint 5th.

[ShiftingGears]

Jim Clark (my favorite) would be no better than joint 5th.

Why? Simply because he didnt drive before the war?

[DezinerPaul]

Why? Simply because he didnt drive before the war?

No, he simply did not have longevity on his side, same can be said for Ascari. Fact is, if one is honest, Clark and Ascari would be tied and ahead of Senna.
If they had raced GP longer, either one of them had what it takes to have been the best ever. For those that say that Moss is the best ever, I would like a pint of whatever they are drinking, the guy does not make the top 10 of all time by quite some distance. Being close, may work in horse shoes and hand grenades, but in racing, it makes one an also ran!

[ShiftingGears]

No, he simply did not have longevity on his side, same can be said for Ascari.

Ascari's problem is his lack of longevity, yes, but I don't think that applies to Clark. If there was a straight first between Ascari and Fangio that would make matters a little easier. There was no situation where he had to fight his way back from a deficit of over one minute, like Fangio had to. Having said that, he lapped his world champion teammates frequently, so he was obviously bloody good.



Fact is, if one is honest, Clark and Ascari would be tied and ahead of Senna.
If they had raced GP longer, either one of them had what it takes to have been the best ever. For those that say that Moss is the best ever, I would like a pint of whatever they are drinking, the guy does not make the top 10 of all time by quite some distance. Being close, may work in horse shoes and hand grenades, but in racing, it makes one an also ran!

Clark was the best pretty much the whole way through his career. Led races when his engine had a litre less than his rivals, beat drivers by 8 miles, could adapt to any car in a lap, impossibly smooth, made up a lap on everyone at Monza 1967, blindingly quick in sportscars, rally cars, Indy Cars, touring cars...

It was pretty obvious that Clark was in a different league to everyone else. The 1960's was the Jim Clark Lotus era. On top of that, he held the record for most wins and pole positions at the time of his death. How you could argue that he isnt in the top 3, or top 2, even, is beyond me.


Now...to Moss. Also blindingly quick in everything, however Fangio clearly had the better of him as Mercedes teammates. It would have been great to see Clark battling Moss throughout the 60's, as since the mid-engined F1 era began, Moss was clearly the best driver on the grid. (see Monaco and Nurburgring 1961) Also lapped the whole field in one of his last F1 grands prix at a wet Ardmore circuit (non-championship). The greatest driver never to win the championship.

[DezinerPaul]

Lets be honest, the car Clark drove was miles faster than anything else 62-65
With only 65 races run, there are not enough races to against quality equipment to judges him as being the best. His stats are great but very slanted towards a dominant car, he has only seven podiums besides his wins, those are not numbers that demonstrate and kind of parity. Love the guy, he is one of my favorites, just not enough evidence to support him being number 1, same goes for Ascari, even though he did have a great driver pressing him.

[ShiftingGears]

Lets be honest, the car Clark drove was miles faster than anything else 62-65

Some cars he drove were dominant, but not all were miles faster. Anyone who thought that Clark was fast only because of the 1.5L cars suiting his style were in for a rude shock when the 3L cars also equally suited his style.


With only 65 races run, there are not enough races to against quality equipment to judges him as being the best. His stats are great but very slanted towards a dominant car, he has only seven podiums besides his wins, those are not numbers that demonstrate and kind of parity. Love the guy, he is one of my favorites, just not enough evidence to support him being number 1, same goes for Ascari, even though he did have a great driver pressing him.

Who do you think is in the top 5, ahead of Clark then?

You don't need 200 races to know that Clark was obviously a mercurial driver, who was bloody quick in everything. Graham Hill couldn't come close to Clark, because come race day he was slower, and still wore his brakes and tyres more than Clark did.

[markabilly]

Lets be honest, the car Clark drove was miles faster than anything else 62-65
With only 65 races run, there are not enough races to against quality equipment to judges him as being the best. His stats are great but very slanted towards a dominant car, he has only seven podiums besides his wins, those are not numbers that demonstrate and kind of parity. Love the guy, he is one of my favorites, just not enough evidence to support him being number 1, same goes for Ascari, even though he did have a great driver pressing him.
Does the word "troll" mean anything? :D

Only seven podiums besides his wins, says that except when his car broke (far too often thanks to frail nature of the Lotus), he won.

Please do not tell me that JYS, Rindt, Gurney, Graham Hill, John Surtees, Brabham, Hulme, et al, were not tough as tough as any in racing during any era, nor that the cars they drove, were miles slower.

[DezinerPaul]

Rudolf Caracciola, Tazio Nuvolari, Michael Schumacher, Juan-Manuel Fangio. Tazio being the best ever by a very large margin, followed by the other three.
Then I would have Ascari and Clark, joint 5th or take your pick who is the better.
Then Prost, Senna,Rosemeyer
10th would be a toss-up between a lot of drivers, none of whom would be Moss.
The likes of Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell, would all be in the hunt

[DezinerPaul]

Does the word "troll" mean anything? :D

Only seven podiums besides his wins, says that except when his car broke (far too often thanks to frail nature of the Lotus), he won.

Please do not tell me that JYS, Rindt, Gurney, Graham Hill, John Surtees, Brabham, Hulme, et al, were not tough as tough as any in racing during any era, nor that the cars they drove, were miles slower.\

All of the guys you mentioned (with the possible exception of Rindt) made their claim to fame, because of the dominant car thy drove, although I am not sure why Hulmes name is in there as he was nothing special. Jack and Graham were for the best part a little better than average drivers, clearly not at the same level as Clark. Rindt, was taken way to soon to know how good he really was.

[ShiftingGears]

Rudolf Caracciola, Tazio Nuvolari, Michael Schumacher, Juan-Manuel Fangio. Tazio being the best ever by a very large margin, followed by the other three.
Then I would have Ascari and Clark, joint 5th or take your pick who is the better.
Then Prost, Senna,Rosemeyer

You pick Fangio, who had the best car on the grid more often than Clark. He only had 51 starts, less than Clark. So thats a bit of contradictory logic there ;)

It is very hard to argue against your other choices. They are all excellent drivers, but IMO Clark would've won championships in the 1930's, and have been instantly competitive against those guys if they all were in the same era. Because natural talent shows in any era, and Clark had bucketloads.

[DezinerPaul]

You pick Fangio, who had the best car on the grid more often than Clark. He only had 51 starts, less than Clark. So thats a bit of contradictory logic there ;)

It is very hard to argue against your other choices. They are all excellent drivers, but IMO Clark would've won championships in the 1930's, and have been instantly competitive against those guys if they all were in the same era. Because natural talent shows in any era, and Clark had bucketloads.
Fangio (I am not a fan of his) had longevity, in terms of time. Remember they did not drive as often back then. Do I think that Fangio was gifted at least two of his titles, yes of course, however he did prove himself over a long period of time. Am huge Jimmy C fan, I feel he could have been the best ever, problem is, he never got the chance to Prove it. Modern era, there is nobody else within a country mile of Michael. He proved his greatness over a long time and against better equipment, most of the time.
My guess is that the ultimate matchup would have been the racer, Jimmy C against the driver Michael.

[ShiftingGears]

Fangio (I am not a fan of his) had longevity, in terms of time. Remember they did not drive as often back then. Do I think that Fangio was gifted at least two of his titles, yes of course, however he did prove himself over a long period of time. Am huge Jimmy C fan, I feel he could have been the best ever, problem is, he never got the chance to Prove it.

Of course Clark did. He was the most versatile driver out there, fastest in anything, grand prix car or not. He proved himself over the same period that Fangio did. Fangio proved himself as one of the greats in less than a decade, and so did Clark. You have some skewed logic there.

[DezinerPaul]

Not so, Fangio was 37 when he first drove GP. and although he raced less in GP's than Clark, he won more and a lot more at that. The statistics between the two a very much in Fangio's favor, the guy raced until he was almost 50.
Clark had 16 races out of the points (excluding mechanical)
Fangio had 8.
Fangio finished out of the top 4 three times.
Clark had 11.
Fangio even missed one year because of the car, or his stats would have been even greater.
Fangio proved over 8 years that he was the man.
Clark was dominant for 4 years, two years he he had just three podiums and no wins!

[ShiftingGears]

Not so, Fangio was 37 when he first drove GP. and although he raced less in GP's than Clark, he won more and a lot more at that.

No. Jim Clark 25 wins
Juan Manuel Fangio 24 wins.

Did you actually think when you posted that?

[DezinerPaul]

No. Jim Clark 25 wins
Juan Manuel Fangio 24 wins.

Did you actually think when you posted that?

So how many world championships did Clark win?

All races
Jim Clark .................................................. .......................................Juan Manuel Fangio
74................................................ ......Races .........................................57
25 ....33% .........................................Victory ........................................42%....24
32.....43% ..........................................Pole.... ........................................49%....28
32.....43%........................................ ..Podium.........................................6 1%....35
28......37%....................................... Fastest Laps...................................40%.....23
40......54%....................................... Finish In Points................................75%.....43

[ShiftingGears]

So how many world championships did Clark win?



You said Fangio had more wins, and he clearly didn't. So articulate what you are arguing next time.


Considering the unreliability of his Lotus, Clark's two championships could've easily been four.

Engine blew up on last lap of Mexico 1964, denying him the championship. In 1962 he was well ahead of Hill before his car broke.

1966 saw the Brabhams as clearly the best car.

1967 saw unreliability preventing the sheer brilliance of the DFV being translated into championship victory.

[DezinerPaul]

You need to read the stats I just sent!

[ShiftingGears]

You need to read the stats I just sent!

None of which support your ludicrous claim that Fangio has more "longevity" in his driving career.

Jim Clark competed in more seasons of F1 than Fangio.
Competed in more races than Fangio.


= MORE CAREER LONGEVITY!

[DezinerPaul]

None of which support your ludicrous claim that Fangio has more "longevity" in his driving career.

Jim Clark competed in more seasons of F1 than Fangio.
Competed in more races than Fangio.


= MORE CAREER LONGEVITY!
Not so, you fail to understand what I am saying and you totally ignored the stats. Fangio, had a 8 years of being at the top, that is longevity. Jim had 2 of domination, in a 7 year 6 month career.

[ShiftingGears]

Lets be honest, the car Clark drove was miles faster than anything else 62-65


Jim had 2 of domination.

Make your mind up!

Count me out of this thread.

[DezinerPaul]

Make your mind up!

Count me out of this thread.
The car was the fastest for a number of years, it was not however always reliable!

[AAReagles]

Does the word "troll" mean anything? :D


First thing I thought as well. :D

[DezinerPaul]

First thing I thought as well. :D


Why because I do not agree with you?
If I had made the statement "that Senna was the best" most of you would not have a problem, because that is what many of you think. So, anybody that makes a statement, that goes against the grain is trolling.

[gravity]

I don't think your opinion of the driver is the issue here. It's the way you push a view which makes it difficult for us to follow. It makes debating any of your points... well... like aiming at moving goalposts. Have a look at what we are dealing with...

eg...

Am huge Jimmy C fan, I feel he could have been the best ever, problem is, he never got the chance to Prove it....does this mean he had a short career? Or perhaps that he didn't have the equipment to prove himself? Can't be the former, cause...

Fangio was 37 when he first drove GP. and although he raced less in GP's than Clark...

Fangio (I am not a fan of his) had longevity
and it can't be the latter, cause...

Lets be honest, the car Clark drove was miles faster than anything else
Now, I'm sure each of those comments were to push some point in that specific post, but as soon as another point is raised, other comments pop up which seem contradictory.

[D-Type]

Well:
Clark's peers definitely considered him the man to beat
Nobody who knew him has ever criticised him as a man
He was versatile, being competitive in all types of car: - sports cars, Indianapolis, the Lotus Cortina (including the RAC Rally), a NASCAR stock car, and even a pre-war ERA with preselector gearbox which he tried out and immediately lapped 2 seconds faster than its regular driver who knew the car backwards and was as fast a driver as any in historics at that time.
2 World Championships that could so easily have been 5.

[DezinerPaul]

Well:
Clark's peers definitely considered him the man to beat
Nobody who knew him has ever criticised him as a man
He was versatile, being competitive in all types of car: - sports cars, Indianapolis, the Lotus Cortina (including the RAC Rally), a NASCAR stock car, and even a pre-war ERA with preselector gearbox which he tried out and immediately lapped 2 seconds faster than its regular driver who knew the car backwards and was as fast a driver as any in historics at that time.
2 World Championships that could so easily have been 5.


The big two words that come to mind when thinking about what he could have done "what if?"
The problem is he never got that chance and can only be measured of what he did, that was at days end only 2 world championships.

[D28]

\

Jack and Graham were for the best part a little better than average drivers, clearly not at the same level as Clark. Rindt, was taken way to soon to know how good he really was.


I certainly agree that Brabham annd Hill were not at Clark's level, but rhen only a handful of drivers ever were. I feel that both however, were far more than just above average.

Graham Hill must be consistenly the most underated driver ever, just going by the record book. "Mr. Motorsport" won in every possible category, sedans, GTs, Sportscars, F1, F2 and Indycars. 5 Monaco wins, Indy500, LeMans, 2 World Championships, the list is impressive. He may have been unfortunate enough to compete in an era of exceptional talent_ Moss, Clark, Gurney, Surtees, Stewart. His triple crown record looks likely to last forever, unless J. Villeneuve can manage a LeMans win soon with Peugeot. With the demise of IRL, I don't forsee anyone other than Villeneuve challenging this record.

Jack Brabham won 14 GPs (same as Hill), and 3 WC in 2 different makes. This could easily have been 4, had he pursued a more selfish personal approach in 1967. He would not have been so sucessful for so long had he been just a good driver. His record of achievment in his own cars will surely stand forever, I do not see any current driver capable of managing a F1 team. Times indeed have changed.

[555-04Q2]

Best racer and a gentleman, something that can never be said about Senna,
Prost or MS.

And how many races did he participate where he clearly or even allegedly chopped another driver to keep that driver from passing?
None.

And how much did he rely on data telementary totell his engineers how he was doing and how to set up the car?
None.

And I still think the most spectcular race was Monza..........

F1 is about winning and results. Being mister nice guy counts for nothing in the sport.

[ArrowsFA1]

F1 is about winning and results. Being mister nice guy counts for nothing in the sport.
It used to. Reading Dan Gurney's tribute to Jim Clark - here (http://www.jimclarkfilmfestival.com/DanGurney.htm) - it's clear that the Scot was mister nice guy, as well as being the best out there.

It's 42yrs today since Clark was killed at Hockenheim.

RIP

[markabilly]

My father's got some pretty cool candid shots of Clark sat in his car, back in the days when fans could walk around the pits without the need for expensive passes. It'll make my father feel old if I remind him its 42 years since Clark's death. He was certainly one of the true greats.. :)
Reminds me of the good ole days..Waktins Glen and Riverside in 1967..

The last major world wide series you could do that was World Superbike Racing, but when Motogp came to Seca, it was clear those days have gone there too.

Now getting special permission and paying $5k only gets you a little closer than the average fan but not much. And 5k was the price a few years ago, it has probably gone up since then.

[jerryb]

Interesting reading everyone's comments. However, I don't see anyone who was around back then weighing in, so I will.

Background on me: racing fan since 1959, saw just about every race in the western US during the 60's and beyond. Lived in Europe from 64-66 and attended all the European GPs.

In short, the best I ever saw was Moss. Moss has said many times that Fangio was the man when they raced together. That was at a time while Moss was still maturing as a driver. I met Gurney and have a wall of autographed photos of him in my home office. He and Clark would have had memorable battles given the same machinery. However, I will never forget seeing Moss and Gurney competing at Riverside, Gurney's home track, in identical Lotus 19s. Moss almost lapped Gurney. Enough said of that.

The one thing I noted of Clark was his smoothness. He seemed smoother the faster he went. There was no desperation of movement when he was trying to get a pole. Those laps looked slower simply because he was smoother and more relaxed. The one failing I believe Clark possessed was his sometime inability to come from behind. I seem to recall some of the experts of the day also making comments to that effect. His passing ability wasn't at the highest level. If I were ranking drivers, Clark would be 4th on my list directly behind Moss.

To the guy who wants to equate wins with being the best, all I can say is that I didn't care if a driver won a GP. I appreciated his effort. And watching Moss in an outdated car beat the latest machinery using sheer talent was the epitome of racing. Was he a car breaker? No. He was a man before his time. If he were racing today, with the cars we have now that are designed to go flat out for 90 minutes, he would be the fastest and most successful driver out there. So would Fangio and Clark. And they would have embarrassed Schumi, without any need to run him off the road.

As for the guy who says that winning is all that counts. You are the loser for thinking that way. You also are insulting many great drivers who lost their lives making racing such a great sport.

[D28]

What impresses most is Clark's versatility, he was competitive any any vehicle with 4 wheels and a steering wheel. Consider his Indy record a win and 2 seconds from 5 attempts. But for the casual nature of USAC officiating, 1963 and 66 could also have been victories. In 66 some lap charts had Graham Hill a lap behind Clark. He also won at tricky Milwaukie, the first USAC win for a mid-engined car. I was about to discount his endurance record, as Lotuses were not known for durability, so I looked at the record. !960 LeMans 3rd place JIm Clark/ Roy Salvadori Aston Martin DBR1. With Clark it is always wise to consult the record book, it seems no motoring event could faze him.

[markabilly]

I never saw enough of Clark, Gurney and others as I became a fan in 1966...went to Riverside and the glen in 1967 as a youngster, who was shocked when so many of the guys who had been a foot or two away while they got ready to practice and race at those events, were killed in a very few of the following years, beginning with Clark.......and television coverage was a month old few minutes on Wide World of Sports...sometimes....and sometimes a newspaper report.

[Garry Walker]

. And they would have embarrassed Schumi, without any need to run him off the road.


It is a shame that you felt the need to say that, as it makes your otherwise good post look like nostalgia-tard fanboy drivel.

[D-Type]

At Rouen in 1962 they had a historic race. One of the entries was Patrick Lindsay in his ERA, which he knew backwards. During practice, Jim Clark asked if he could have a go and within a few laps he was 1 sec under Lindsay's time. And he had never driven a car with a preselector gearbox before.

And he could catch up from behind if he had to - remember Monza 1967!

It was a sad day 42 years ago.

[Saint Devote]

Why Clark?

Based on his ability to maintain momentum at a high rate, he was more successful than Schumacher. His percentage of wins, poles and fastest laps to grands prix raced is higher. Senna, Prost and Schumacher did not match him in those measures and he raced during a period similar to the last few years where the competition from other drivers is high.

He was a pioneering driver who essentially began the relationship between engineer-designer-driver that is so common today and was implemented so effectively by Schumacher.

Colin Chapman, the greatest innovator in racing saw in Clark an equal mind and ability in terms of a driver - it was a rare combination and worked. And the team was, LOTUS. A name equal in racing terms to Ferrari and Mclaren. The great names.

Clark, drove during a period where top drivers could race in any formula and he won or made cars perform above expectations.

He was also a driver that would never resort to dirty tactics either off the track or on - he did not have to.

Racing driving is dangerous and for anyone to declare that previous days are more dangerous has no idea of physics. The reason drivers survive is because of technology.

The drivers of today require just as much courage and passion to drive as at any time. The speeds are significantly higher and track times are too.

[Mintexmemory]

Racing driving is dangerous and for anyone to declare that previous days are more dangerous has no idea of physics. The reason drivers survive is because of technology.

The drivers of today require just as much courage and passion to drive as at any time. The speeds are significantly higher and track times are too.

Anyone with a knowledge of materials science will also tell you that fatigue failure of components is almost entirely unknown in F1 now, unlike 68 when Brian Redman almost lost an arm as it scraped along the armco when a suspension element collapsed on his Cooper-BRM under stress and the car swerved into an impact. Brilliant engineer though he was, Colin Chapman still had a reputation for building cars that were 'fragile' i.e. designed to be so light that many components were on the limit of durability. Clark would often be beating the opposition by a mile when the machinery let him down, that he won so often is huge testament to how miraculous his mechanical sympathy allied with outright speed was.
Sorry, previous days on any risk assessment basis were far more dangerous. The likelihood of accident-provoking mechanical failure was much higher, the cars more likely to hit a tree or earth bank and then all the impact force would be absorbed by the car, and often the driver, disintegrating. This meant that accidents at lower speeds than say Kubayashi's would be fatal. I recommend Jackie Stewart's autobiography if you want to learn what it was like for a driver having to compete while knowing his circle of friends (because opponents often were) was being whittled away every year.
The first race I actually attended was the Race of Champions at Brands Hatch in March 1968. Of the drivers that competed the 68 season, 3 died that year: Clark, Spence and Sclesser. A further 8 of the 68 season competitors had died by 1973: McLaren, Rodriguez, Siffert, Rindt, Scarfiotti, Bianchi, Courage and Bonnier. If that isn't a whole lot more dangerous than modern F1 then someone has no understanding of statistics! The only confounding fact is that only 4 of the fatalities occurred in F1, these guys raced anything and everything including Gp4/6 sports cars and F2.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jim Clark was probably one of the two or three great talents of all time. To say he was better than Rosemeyer and Nuvolari, Moss or Fangio, or into the modern era, Senna and Schumi is an argument with no winner in many ways, but lets just examine a few salient facts.

Unlike the modern F1 driver, Clark raced in all sorts of cars, and won easily and often right away in ALL of them. Unlike the drivers in era's before him, the mid to late 60's era cars were SO much more fragile in many ways, and yet Jim won anyhow. Jim was always fast, and he was always smooth. The respect Chapman had for Clark as a technical wizard says more about him than anything else. None of the other greats had the talent as a engineer like Jim Clark. All were good at setting up a car I am sure, but Clark was seen by Chapman as an equal. No other driver in the list of greats gets that sort of respect.

Considering the nature of racing in his era, his ability to win and be fastest more often than not, and the variety of cars he won with, says to me if he isn't the greatest driver of all time, it would take one heck of a case to be made to beat him. I say maybe Moss...MAYBE....but it is so hard to justify that when you look at the political landscape of how racing has so radically changed, and how there are more opportunities for drivers to run up the stats. Clark won 25 races in about 7 years when there was only 10 or 11 races a year. The modern GP driver has a lot more attempts, and if he gets in a winning car, a lot less equal competition. Clark's Lotus may not have been the best car on a lot of weekends, and wasn't ever a dominating car....

I vote Clark....and god rest his soul. I was 3 when he died, so I cant say what hearing that news was like, but I did tear up when I heard on the radio one day in May that the world lost Gilles Villeneuve, so I can guess.

[GJD]

I vote Clark....and god rest his soul. I was 3 when he died, so I cant say what hearing that news was like, but I did tear up when I heard on the radio one day in May that the world lost Gilles Villeneuve, so I can guess.

Just one perspective. Motor Sport couldn't bring themselves to print an obituary in the edition following Jim's death. They simply ran a photograph of him with a broad black border.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just one perspective. Motor Sport couldn't bring themselves to print an obituary in the edition following Jim's death. They simply ran a photograph of him with a broad black border.

What needed to be said? Jim Clark was the greatest of his era, and likely of any era. Jackie Stewart, who is NO slouch always said Clark was way ahead of him.....

[GJD]

Indeed, Mark... what more. Roebuck is close to Amon and he quotes Chris thus (in 'Grand Prix Greats'): "As well as the grief, there was another dimension altogether, if it could happen to him what chance did the rest of us have? I think we all felt that. It seemed that we'd lost our leader..."

The bleakness of those words still resonates with me 42 years on. I was a teenager then and I recall I took my copy of Jim Clark at the wheel off the shelf, ruled a broad black border around the frontispiece and wrote a few private words. The book is in my bookcase behind me as I type.

I have always felt that one major indicator that a particular driver has that something very special is when he is so clearly revered by his peers. These people are generally so confident of their ability that to acknowledge that one of then is a cut above really means something.

In that vein, Masten Gregory once said, referring to practice at any motor race: "It's only a slow day because Moss and Brooks haven't arrived yet."

Two more candidates....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Indeed, Mark... what more. Roebuck is close to Amon and he quotes Chris thus (in 'Grand Prix Greats'): "As well as the grief, there was another dimension altogether, if it could happen to him what chance did the rest of us have? I think we all felt that. It seemed that we'd lost our leader..."

The bleakness of those words still resonates with me 42 years on. I was a teenager then and I recall I took my copy of Jim Clark at the wheel off the shelf, ruled a broad black border around the frontispiece and wrote a few private words. The book is in my bookcase behind me as I type.

I have always felt that one major indicator that a particular driver has that something very special is when he is so clearly revered by his peers. These people are generally so confident of their ability that to acknowledge that one of then is a cut above really means something.

In that vein, Masten Gregory once said, referring to practice at any motor race: "It's only a slow day because Moss and Brooks haven't arrived yet."

Two more candidates....


Two more? Brooks was good..but Moss...well Moss was out of this world wasn't he? The problem with comparing era's tho is that things have changed so much in every decade, that the sport is almost a new sport after 10 years. You look at guys from the 50's, and the GP's they raced in and the cars they had were NOT anything like the 60's, or the 70's. Those era's are not like the turbo era of the 80's, or the 90's.

It is hard to say who is the greatest. That said, you look at who dominates his era, and how, and Jim Clark still stands on a very high shelf....

[GJD]

The problem with comparing eras tho is that things have changed so much in every decade, that the sport is almost a new sport after 10 years.

Never a truer word spoken! I'm very anti-list for just that reason. In fact, it seems to me that 'Best ever' lists tell us more about the demographic profile of those putting up their lists than anything else.

Perhaps Mike Lawrence said it best when he wrote that 'Best ever' lists are at their most entertaining over a couple of pints at the local!

[ArrowsFA1]

JJDkZYhJR1E

[ShiftingGears]

JJDkZYhJR1E

It never ceases to amaze me how fantastically smooth his driving style was. It is accentuated so much more by the lack of aerodynamic aids.

[markabilly]

Two more? Brooks was good..but Moss...well Moss was out of this world wasn't he? The problem with comparing era's tho is that things have changed so much in every decade, that the sport is almost a new sport after 10 years. You look at guys from the 50's, and the GP's they raced in and the cars they had were NOT anything like the 60's, or the 70's. Those era's are not like the turbo era of the 80's, or the 90's.

It is hard to say who is the greatest. That said, you look at who dominates his era, and how, and Jim Clark still stands on a very high shelf....
I remember a show about Silverstone, where Rahl senior drove a 1964 1.5 liter f1 car on the track (which now had several chicans to keep the speed down) in an event with other cars in one of those historic races.

He said it was not very physically demanding compared to the current cars, but he was stunned at the absolute mental concentration required to drive the car, the need to use your fingers on the wheel to mazimize feedback (rather than just grabbing and aiming), the quickness of the response and how as the corner speeds got higher, how much more difficult it was to do it well.

Little mistakes in corners that you can get away with in the modern cars-indeed probably not even noticeable, would be massive bad news in the 1.5

[markabilly]

It never ceases to amaze me how fantastically smooth his driving style was. It is accentuated so much more by the lack of aerodynamic aids.

I remember a show about Silverstone, where Rahl senior drove a 1964 1.5 liter f1 car on the track (which now had several chicans to keep the speed down) in an event with other cars in one of those historic races.

He said it was not very physically demanding compared to the current cars, but he was stunned at the absolute mental concentration required to drive the car, the need to use your fingers on the wheel to mazimize feedback (rather than just grabbing and aiming), the quickness of the response and how as the corner speeds got higher, how much more difficult it was to do it well.

Little mistakes in corners that you can get away with in the modern cars-indeed probably not even noticeable, would be massive bad news in the 1.5

My thought is with the proper physical conditioning, the drivers of the sixties (such as proven by Mario Andretti) would do just fine in the modern areo cars, but many of these current kids would llack the feel and skill necessary to even qualify in the sixties---or live long enough to come close to a WDC, given their frequent "bumps"

[AndyL]

JJDkZYhJR1E

What a glorious noise those Coventry Climax V8s made.

After watching British Superbikes at Outlon Park at the weekend it seems scarcely believable that they used to race Grand Prix cars there. And no doubt the circuit was a lot more dangerous then than it is now!

[AAReagles]

... no doubt the circuit was a lot more dangerous then than it is now!

That's the first thing I was thinking once the bird's-eye-view of the driver/car combo was shown, blazing past trees and berms.

:up: Good show ArrowsFA1!

[Don Capps]

Another race was Indy in 1966, when he had a massive spin coming out of a corner right where he should hae gone into the wall. Common wisdom was that such a spin always resulted in a crash into the wall or a stall out. So he was not scored for that lap correctly at all.

truth was he saved it, and barely lost any time as he caught it just right and went roaring down the straight, never coming close to stopping. If correctly scored, he would have been the winner, as demonstrated by films of the race. And the spin is defnetly worth watching!!!

Although I once thought that Jim Clark was the "rightful" winner of the 1966 International 500 Mile Sweepstakes event for many years, once I actually sat down and did the research in an effort to "prove" that Clark was the winner, it turned out that the final result was correct, Graham Hill was indeed the winner. The lap in question, the second spin, apprently was correctly scored, but Clark also ended up being credited at one point with a lap that should have been credited to his teammate. And, contrary to what is stated, it was the films that made a difference in sorting out the mess.

I ate some large quantity of crow as a result of this, given that I thought I was correct, but it was simply another lesson in being careful what you say in such matters. So, for whatever little it matters, I am fully convinced that Clark was second and Hill was the winner, which is easy to write now, but not so easy at the time.

As for Clark himself, I had only several occasions to chat with him, the longest, ironically, was on the stipulation that the discussion NOT include anything related to racing, so we talked about farming and those sorts of things, which he truly seemed to enjoy talking about. Basically, I threw a question or cmment out and he would run with it. On the other hand, I witnessed attempts by various journalists to get Clark to talk and it was often short and polite answers that resulted. One of the few journalists that Clark was comfortable with, it seems, was Graham Gauld. In my discussions with Graham, who also knows Stewart quite well, of course, Clark's talent was evident from the very beginning, but it simply took time and circumstances for it to finally manifest itself. Credit the failure of the Aston Martin GP effort for allowing Chapman to acquire Clark's services.