37 replies to this topic

[TerryS]

I was very surprised, and indeed astounded, to see that the ex Frank Matich Lotus 19 is supposedly “alive’ and being raced by an Aussie in the UK.
I thought this car was dead and buried over 50 years ago.
It was one of my favorite cars when I first became interested in racing.

I was reading through the June newsletter of the Historic Racing Car Club of Queensland when I came across at the top of page 11 that the ex Stirling Moss/ Frank Matich Lotus 19 was being raced
by Aussie Nic Daunt in this year’s Silverstone Historic Festival.
See here (scroll down to page 11):

http://www.hsrca.com...c_june_2017.pdf

It says the car has a “proven race pedigree” and that this was Daunt’s first drive.
Further down there is a photo of the car in current format.

The Lotus 19 was introduced in 1960, and most were built with the Climax 2.5L FPF engine.
Apparently officially 17 were built and these were chassis numbers 950 to 966. There appear however to be well more than 17 in existence now.
This is a bit like the Falcon GTHO Ph 3 where only 300 were built. Now there are only 700 left on the road.

The first car chassis #950 was bought by British Racing Partnership who was sponsored by UDT/Laystall. Moss raced it three times in the UK in 1961 and then in the US/Canada for many races later
in that year.
In late 1961/early 1962 Frank Matich bought the car personally and shipped it to Australia. When it arrived it had a very high windscreen in accordance with Le Mans regulations.
See attached photo. This was soon reduced to normal height.

http://aussieroadrac...rcSchagen2.html

There was a big dispute with BRP because Matich claimed the car was not in the condition as inspected in the UK. That is another story.

Matich soon mastered the car and won many races. Disaster struck in 1964 when the car spun backwards into the pit fence at Warwick Farm when driven by mechanic Bruce Richardson in private
practice bedding in brakes. The car was a write-off. Only engine and gearbox and some suspension components were saved. The chassis was cut up and buried under a house, for some reason.

Matich imported a new chassis and body from Lotus, which was the very last they had in stock. It does not appear to have a serial number as not recorded on any register.
The car was developed very successfully by Matich and gradually included more Brabham style suspension, so that it became in effect a Lotus-Brabham
Matich described this car as a Lotus 19B. However there was only one 19B produced by the factory, and this was chassis #966 for a US customer and fitted with a 289 Ford V8. Matich’s 19B designation must have been his own doing.

In July 1965 in practice for a Lakeside meeting he suffered a jammed throttle. He crashed very heavily into the fence and it ruptured the fuel tank and ignited. The chassis and body were completely wrecked and written off. A few suspension parts only survived and were used in Matich’s first big banger sports car, the Traco Olds built by Elfin’s Garrie Cooper.

I must say I liked the first car in its UDT/Laystall unusual green colouring. I did not like the latter car painted white with Total stripes down the side. It just didn’t suit it. Have a look at the great John Ellacott photos in post # 36 of the attached thread the 4th photo down is the 19 and the 8th is the19B.

http://forums.autosp...-2015/?hl=frank matich

I will leave it to you make your own call.

So if both chassis were written off and scrapped, where did this car of Daunt come from?
And why has it been 50 years for it to re-emerge?

Something does not seem right.

[Lola5000]

Always thought it had gone to God ,in every mag/book I've ever read.

[Tim Murray]

Bonham's were trying to sell a car claiming the identity of the Matich car in 2009:

https://www.bonhams..../17327/lot/298/

[john medley]

You will find, if you hunt here , that I mentioned this several years ago, courtesy of my friend Greg Smith, Dribbling Enthusiast, sometime preparer of some of Nic's cars, and Dreadful Reciter of " I say, Mrs Featherstonhaugh...." ( no, I am NOT Going To!)

 

But I must say there is something quite special about Grant Gibson being Nic's Silverstone co-driver

[TerryS]

Bonham's were trying to sell a car claiming the identity of the Matich car in 2009:https://www.bonhams..../17327/lot/298/

One gets the impression that Bonhams were not perhaps completely convinced about the veracity of the background story. It is as if they were simply putting in what the client said.

Normally Bonhams are much more effusive about their descriptions. Here they are less convincing

[Roger Clark]

David McKinney's notes have a second '950' (his quotes) with Terry Buffum in California from 1972, Richard Austin in the UK from 1997 and Robert Brookes from 2001. He also lists Matich's 19B with no number as "new chassis etc, some parts from old car".

David always emphasised that these note were work in progress and not to be regarded as definitive.

[D28]

I am as removed as possible from any expertise on this, but I did see the UDT Lotus 19s in action in 1961. The car pictured bears such little resemblance, that I would never associate it with the original. Perhaps a nose badge might be original but is anything else?

There are dozens of photos of the apple green Lotus 19 in period on the net; HSCC would know this obviously and have access to much more information on the car in question. Presumably they sanctioned it; the original story mentions gaining an invitation for an entry in the Guards Trophy. So I am baffled as to what is going on and how this car can be presented and accepted as claimed. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Bloggsworth]

I suggest that you check in the fiction shelves of your local library...

[Kenzclass]

Bonham's were trying to sell a car claiming the identity of the Matich car in 2009:

https://www.bonhams..../17327/lot/298/

Thanks for posting that Bonham's link, Tim.

One of the best "claimer/disclaimer" ads seen out for a long time.

I guess now "we understand" that this particular car is "Granddad's old axe revisited" or at least it's "believed to be"...

[TerryS]

You will find, if you hunt here , that I mentioned this several years ago, courtesy of my friend Greg Smith, Dribbling Enthusiast, sometime preparer of some of Nic's cars, and Dreadful Reciter of " I say, Mrs Featherstonhaugh...." ( no, I am NOT Going To!)

John, after a long and laborious search through TNF posts, the only apparently rlevant post from you is a year ago (June 2016):

"The 19 is the mystery car I alluded to about a year ago, whichever iteration it is now. Bought by Nic Daunt, with plans to run it in Europe"

Is this what you were referring to?

Edited by TerryS, 27 June 2017 - 00:30.

[john medley]

Correct

[TerryS]

Correct

I'm sorry but I don't get your point

[Concreteconrods]

At Silverstone on 6th May 1961 there were three light green UDT Laystall (BRP) Lotus 19's racing in the sports car event. Moss won in a 2.5 litre Climax powered car, Cliff Allison 3rd in another 2.5 litre car (behind Salvadori's Cooper) and Henry Taylor was in a 1.5 litre Climax engined 19 aiming for a class win! The team sold two cars later that year and retained one for Innes Ireland to drive in 1962.

[kayemod]

Sir Stirling has said that the 19 was the best Lotus he ever drove.

[D-Type]

Well, he wouldn't say the 18/21 would he!  That leaves the Eleven, 18 and 21.

[TerryS]

Where is Ray Bell when needed.?

[Ray Bell]

Do you need me for something, Terry?

I thought John did a good job of telling you what you needed to know.

And you probably don't want me to point this out:

Originally posted by TerryS
.....Disaster struck in 1964 when the car spun backwards into the pit fence at Warwick Farm when driven by mechanic Bruce Richardson in private
practice bedding in brakes. The car was a write-off. Only engine and gearbox and some suspension components were saved. The chassis was cut up and buried under a house, for some reason.

Matich imported a new chassis and body from Lotus, which was the very last they had in stock.....

Seeing as the 19B made its debut at Catalina Park on November 10, 1963, I really don't think this is right.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that there's a lengthy thread about these cars on this forum somewhere. Did you find that?

[TerryS]

Do you need me for something, Terry?

I thought John did a good job of telling you what you needed to know.

And you probably don't want me to point this out:


Seeing as the 19B made its debut at Catalina Park on November 10, 1963, I really don't think this is right.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that there's a lengthy thread about these cars on this forum somewhere. Did you find that?

Ray, I do genuinely want your help on this topic of Matich's Lotus 19.
The questions I asked in the first post were where did Daunt's car come from, and why did it rake over 50 years to re-emerge?

For such an iconic car as this I am really surprised, and indeed disappointed, that there has been buggar al input from Aussies on this thread. Surely other people must have knowledge of this.

The posts from John Medley in posts#4, 10 and 11 added nothing.

You have previously advised you were going to be Matich's biographer, knew the Matich family well and knew his chief mechanics well. I assumed on this basis you might have been able to add to this thread.

I did have the wrong date for the first crash, it was 1963 and not 1964.I was relying on memory. I have just looked up Australian Motor Racing Annual No1 and it says "early 1963". Then says he was out of action for 8 months which would tie in with your November date.

Re other threads, I am only interested in this 19. What I have found with searching on this forum is you get every thread that mentions a date in the last century ie 1901 to 1999, rather tedious to look through.

Please note this topic fascinates me and I simply only want more info. That is my only aim.

[Ray Bell]

Terry, the guru for Lotus in Australia is Marc Schagen...

He's convinced that the chassis was buried under a house or garage. But there may be more knowledge somewhere.

One thing's for sure, it was not sold on in damaged condition and it wasn't repaired. Any car claiming to be this one is undoubtedly relying on the mystery to sneak in under the radar.

The thread to which I referred is definitely about this car - and it's stablemates:

http://forums.autosp...19-monte-carlo/

Enjoy the read...

[opplock]

Nick Daunt's car appeared today at Brands Hatch in practice for tomorrow's Guards Trophy race. Listed in programme as Lotus 19, 2500cc, 1960, Green. It ran in class INV "For period specification cars accepted at the discretion of the Championship Organisers". I couldn't hear commentary from my flag point so unsure how the car was described by commentators.

[TerryS]

Terry, the guru for Lotus in Australia is Marc Schagen...He's convinced that the chassis was buried under a house or garage. But there may be more knowledge somewhere.One thing's for sure, it was not sold on in damaged condition and it wasn't repaired. Any car claiming to be this one is undoubtedly relying on the mystery to sneak in under the radar.The thread to which I referred is definitely about this car - and it's stablemates:http://forums.autosp...19-monte-carlo/Enjoy the read...

Thanks Ray, much appreciated

[Lee Nicolle]

Terry, the guru for Lotus in Australia is Marc Schagen...

He's convinced that the chassis was buried under a house or garage. But there may be more knowledge somewhere.

One thing's for sure, it was not sold on in damaged condition and it wasn't repaired. Any car claiming to be this one is undoubtedly relying on the mystery to sneak in under the radar.

The thread to which I referred is definitely about this car - and it's stablemates:

http://forums.autosp...19-monte-carlo/

Enjoy the read...

Ray, is it posible the replacement chassis ended up with the original chassis plate?

It sure has happened on a lot of other cars.

And no I have no idea about these cars.

[Ray Bell]

If that were the case I'd suggest that anyone trying to resurrect it would be using Brabham suspension and wheels to build a quicker car.

[TerryS]

Terry, the guru for Lotus in Australia is Marc Schagen...He's convinced that the chassis was buried under a house or garage. But there may be more knowledge somewhere.One thing's for sure, it was not sold on in damaged condition and it wasn't repaired. Any car claiming to be this one is undoubtedly relying on the mystery to sneak in under the radar.The thread to which I referred is definitely about this car - and it's stablemates:http://forums.autosp...19-monte-carlo/Enjoy the read...

Enjoy the read he says... only 935 posts over8 years.

You know how to destroy a guys Sunday..... one poster said it took him 10 hours to go through the whole thread.

But I did learn a lot, especially about all the "dubious" Lotus 19's running around, and that Matich's 19 chassis is under cement under a house in Peakhurst (a southern Sydney suburb)

[TerryS]

It has been assumed that Daunt's car is that auctioned by Bonhams in 2002.

As Daunt's Silverstone outing was his first in the car, where did it get to in meantime? Where did Daunt get it from?

This car is obviously a REPLICA. Apparently allowed under FIA appendix K rules.

I don't think it would be eligible to race in OZ, unless FIA rules override CAMS rules which are much more strict.

As this is a replica of an iconic Aussie car, I think it could be laughed off the track if they attempted to run in OZ.

Edited by TerryS, 10 July 2017 - 02:41.

[MarkBisset]

Guys,

 

Article which pulls together, hopefully faithfully!, the research you all did/shared

 

https://primotipo.co...tich-lotus-19s/

 

m

[Ray Bell]

I have been howled down before on this point...

 

The mystique of the Matich Lotus 19 (and subsequent 19B) includes the question of the size of the Coventry-Climax FPF engine fitted.

 

I have always remembered it as being fitted with a 2.6-litre engine, but many have assured me that it was a 2.5. Now I've done some roaming through race programmes etc and have found that the earliest entries were usually as a 2.5. This began with Catalina Park in January, 1962, where on debut it broke its crankshaft. The programme for this meeting does not include a listing of the Sports Racing cars so there is no mention of its capacity.

 

At Warwick Farm in February, however, there were no problems and it was listed as 2,492cc. April's Bathurst, May's Catalina and June's Warwick Farm were the same, then in August it was listed at Catalina with an engine of 2,596cc and at the Farm with 2,600cc, Bathurst in 1963 with 2,590cc. Intermittently it reverted to 2,492, 2,495 or 2,500 (Catalina Jan. '63, May, '63 and Nov. '63; Warwick Farm, October '62), otherwise it is always shown as being 2,600cc - with the exception of Warwick Farm in February and June, 1964 when it was listed with 2.700cc and December when the listing was 2,690cc. All other 1964 and 1965 Bathurst, Catalina and Warwick Farm programmes show it as being 2,600cc.

 

After that disaster at its debut meeting, the car was incredibly reliable and so its hard to understand why the engine might have been swapped around. Another mystery. I will talk to Richo about this.

[GreenMachine]

Could just be something secretarial, whoever is doing it looks back at 'what we said last time', and copies it, but it wasn't last time, or just reproduces an incorrect number.  If the car was not on a capacity limit, the numbers may have had little significance at the time and even if noticed it might not have been corrected as it was no big deal (eg running in a 3.0l or over 2l class.

Edited by GreenMachine, 16 September 2023 - 02:47.

[Ray Bell]

Agreed, it could be...

 

But there is a definite distinction there between the 2.5 and 2.6 sizes. The base information, however, had to come from entry forms, so we have the transcription from them to the programmes as well.

 

The odd man out is the 2,700cc listing on each of the Warwick Farm programmes in the first half of 1964, then the jump to 2,690cc for their December meeting with a 2,600cc listing in the midst of them. The Catalina Park entries through this whole period showed 2,600cc.

 

The significance was small, of course, as it was a 2-litre to 3-litre class.

 

Anyway, at last I've got some evidence to put to people who tell me it was always a 2.5-litre car.

[Doug Nye]

Re-reading this thread what really comes through to me is what seems to be the particularly modern-Australian note of triumph when it comes to "dismissing" all replica cars...as opposed to those with some decent reason to be regarded as "genuine", or "correct".

 

Of course it is absolutely right and proper to try try to keep tabs upon what's real from period, and what's fake or reproduction, or "tribute".

 

But lines one reads such as these: "This car is obviously a REPLICA. Apparently allowed under FIA appendix K rules...don't think it would be eligible to race in OZ, unless FIA rules override CAMS rules which are much more strict...As this is a replica of an iconic Aussie car, I think it could be laughed off the track if they attempted to run in OZ..." really jar with me.

 

it seems to reflect the attitude that "my right leg itched a bit for five minutes, so of course I had it amputated".  And then the righteous amputee will probably be amazed to find he keeps falling over...

 

In other words this punitive attitude is surely the way towards ever-diminishing race entries, and the inevitable demise of historic-category motor sport - certainly at any well-subscribed level.

 

Whereupon, presumably, the righteous critic could claim victory, "...there you go - at last we've stamped out ALL the replacements and racing replicas - whoopee nurdle, a win for US". 

 

Totally justified, of course, in some minds - but an utterly Pyrrhic victory, surely?      

 

DCN

[Ray Bell]

When it comes to 'replicas' and 'fakes,' Doug, this is how I see it...

 

I would love to see them running. And hear them running in many cases. Cars that I never saw in their heyday, cars that never raced in Australia in my time, too.

 

It is only the effort to pass them off as the 'real thing' which irks, as they simply aren't. Paul Hamilton would know a lot more about their eligibility to race in Australia on an FIA-issued passport, I think they can in fact. As to Terry's attitude and them being 'laughed off the track,' I don't think that's a general view here.

[Porsche718]

I think Doug's comments are spot on.

 

When we know a car is a replica, fine. But I think it's wonderful to see even a replica on the track and being driven the way it was meant to be, and the way an original in period would have been.

 

This is highlighted by seeing the "continuation" BRM P15 racing, not being demonstrated", in the Goodwood Trophy at the most recent meeting.

 

What a joy to hear that noise! To see it dicing with the ERA's and Alta 61IS was mouthwatering.

 

But also as joyful is a pack of Climax FPF's or FWMV's racing in a pack, even if some are in the back of a replica, or a tribute or the like.

 

As long as all involved are up front about the status of any given car.

 

Steve W

Edited by Porsche718, 16 September 2023 - 11:43.

[lyntonh]

Perhaps Doug's remarks are a reaction to the use of unwarranted strident hyperbole.

[Doug Nye]

Excuse me if I digress for a moment.  This attitude of triumph despite achievement of your objective in fact shooting yourself in the groin reminds me vividly of my old photographer mate Geoff Goddard.  Old 'Irascible of Camberley' as he was known to many magazine staff within the UK absolutely, unreasoningly, detested marketing men and advertising agencies.

 

Towards the end of his active career we were seeking a buyer for his life's work, to provide him with some funding for old age.  I found one and not unreasonably he asked for some detail about how much income the collection generated over a year. Geoff candidly explained that in past years he'd earned quite a lot from ad agencies, but he never liked working with those "pink-shirted nits".  In fact he transposed the first two letters of the latter two words, because the result described his feelings more accurately...  But - he added triumphantly "...in recent years every time someone phones up and then tells me they're from an ad agency wanting photos, I just tell 'em straight away to get stuffed.  That's stopped them bothering me...".  But Geoff - how has that affected your turnover?  "Oh, of course it's gone right down!".

 

He was such a persuasive old git.  Yet wonderful.  As wonderful as seeing a replica BRM V16 driven really hard, by a well wired-up driver, on a circuit so well-matched, for so many reasons.  A sight - and sound - we could all so easily have been denied.

 

DCN

[Porsche718]

 As wonderful as seeing a replica BRM V16 driven really hard, by a well wired-up driver, on a circuit so well-matched, for so many reasons.  A sight - and sound - we could all so easily have been denied.

 

DCN

 

And we all said, Amen

[TerryS]

Re-reading this thread what really comes through to me is what seems to be the particularly modern-Australian note of triumph when it comes to "dismissing" all replica cars...as opposed to those with some decent reason to be regarded as "genuine", or "correct".

 

Of course it is absolutely right and proper to try try to keep tabs upon what's real from period, and what's fake or reproduction, or "tribute".

 

But lines one reads such as these: "This car is obviously a REPLICA. Apparently allowed under FIA appendix K rules...don't think it would be eligible to race in OZ, unless FIA rules override CAMS rules which are much more strict...As this is a replica of an iconic Aussie car, I think it could be laughed off the track if they attempted to run in OZ..." really jar with me.

 

it seems to reflect the attitude that "my right leg itched a bit for five minutes, so of course I had it amputated".  And then the righteous amputee will probably be amazed to find he keeps falling over...

 

In other words this punitive attitude is surely the way towards ever-diminishing race entries, and the inevitable demise of historic-category motor sport - certainly at any well-subscribed level.

 

Whereupon, presumably, the righteous critic could claim victory, "...there you go - at last we've stamped out ALL the replacements and racing replicas - whoopee nurdle, a win for US". 

 

Totally justified, of course, in some minds - but an utterly Pyrrhic victory, surely?      

 

DCN

 

If the MONA LISA painting got severally damaged, do your words imply it would be OK to paint another?

[Alan Lewis]

If the MONA LISA painting got severally damaged, do your words imply it would be OK to paint another?

Many Mona Lisas have already been painted. Some possibly by Leonardo himself, some definitely by his students at the time, many over the subsequent centuries for all sorts of reasons; homage, parody, forgery,...

https://en.wikipedia...interpretations

The analogies with different aspects of the replica car debate are many and obvious and certainly give the lie to the "replicas are always bad" contention.

Edited by Alan Lewis, 17 September 2023 - 09:58.

[rl1856]

Well executed replicas allow one to enjoy 90% of the real thing without worrying about destruction of the real thing.   They have their place; cf BRM P15....would a 70yr old vehicle, using 70yr old parts be safe to drive with as much verve and enthusiasm as was recently demonstrated ?   

 

The P15 is a "continuation".

 

The problem is when a replica is aggressively described as the pur sang original.   My observation is that the more money that is involved, the more likely it becomes that something may be misrepresented.    

 

There is something intangible about being in close proximity to the "original".  You get goosebumps (well I do...) and you think about the history of the vehicle, races, drivers and so.  You realize that everyone who touched that car, particularly in period, left a bit of their dna behind.  Quite a legacy.

 

I saw this car at Amelia Island c2012, and have many pictures.  Seeing this one up close is spine tingling:

 

https://sportscardig...uail-best-show/

 

A replica of this car would look pretty and could be thrashed around a circuit, but it would not be the same.  That is what the replica crowd fails to understand.