Ideas for more Reject Centrale articles

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 22 Jan 2013, 18:14

So, with Enoch planning to add a lament for Nigel Mansell's ill-fated foray into McLaren in 1995 and analyse why it went wrong, I thought I'd open a thread to post ideas on other articles that any of us might want to submit, that don't fit into the standard Reject Profiles section.

I've just been re-reading the Mastercard Lola profile, and thought... what about a Centrale article on how Lola managed to get it so wrong on their previous foray into F1? How did they manage to take Scuderia Italia down from being a usually-not-quite-points-scoring-but-nearly team to dead last and oblivion in the space of one season, and why didn't they learn from this mistake four years later? An obvious title for the article would be "We're dead!" - which was Michele Alboreto's reaction the first time he drive the car in testing.

There was one I'd been planning to write myself for most of the 2012 season - but I had to wait until the end to see if Those Three At The Back actually managed to score. They didn't, and I had my ideas as to why - only thing is, I didn't, because I knew as soon as I did, Mario and/or Ibsey would jump up and point out all the technical errors that would surely render everything I'd said utterly invalid; I've never been into the technical side of things anywhere near as much as I'd need to be to write the article and get my facts right to a level I'd expect, so it's best run past either of those two first, or both, or anyone else who reads Racecar Engineering, before I even attempt the first sentence.

Richard's F1 interviewed Piercarlo Ghinzani recently - some of you will have seen it on the JDD forum - and allowed Piercarlo to show why he'd made a decision to drive for Osella three times in his career when he must have known the second and third times that it was a shocking move. Someone I'd be interested to hear a similar story from is Roberto Moreno - starting with the likes of AGS, Coloni and EuroBrun, finishing with Andrea Moda and Forti, as we all know... but in between those, he escaped rejectdom with that brief drive for Benetton, so is ineligible for a full profile here. However, what about a Centrale article investigating what possessed him to move back to the blunt end of the grid after the 1991 debacle when he'd taken the chance to show he was worth more?

And... any further ideas?

Post by **mario** » 23 Jan 2013, 17:25

Your ideas do sound quite interesting, and I am sure that there would be quite a lot of interest from those wanting to hear more about things such as the Lola T93/30.
Admittedly, the Wiki article on the car is actually fairly decent, as a starting point - it has a quote from one of the senior engineers at the team that suggests that Eric Broadley's influence on the development team had been harmful (he headed up the design team, but unfortunately it seems that he hadn't kept up to date with current developments in F1 and delivered a car with poor aerodynamics and inconsistent handling). Added to that, it seems that there were budgetary problems too - Scuderia Italia were beginning to struggle for money, it seems, whilst Lola Cars were losing a lot of customers in F3000 - one of their main sources of income at the time - after it became apparent that Reynard's designs were considerably better than Lola's latest offerings (Lola went from five F3000 customers in 1991 to no customers at all in 1993).
Mind you, it seems that there were other problems elsewhere - the thirst, weight and lack of mid range torque of Ferrari's engine (it's worth noting that Ferrari were struggling for competitiveness too, in part because of their engine, and that they launched a fairly substantially revised version of their V12 late in the year) and a lack of electronic aids hurt the team too.

As for your plans to write a commentary on the performance of the three newest teams in 2012, I would say that your theories may well have as much validity as those of other observers. Although I cannot promise that I can help as much as I'd like - my lab reports will not write themselves - I'd nevertheless like to offer help and advice where I can, and it may well be that you have come across possible factors that I or any of the other posters here haven't come across before.

midgrid · Post by **midgrid** » 23 Jan 2013, 22:46

mario wrote:Admittedly, the Wiki article on the car is actually fairly decent, as a starting point

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 23 Jan 2013, 23:30

midgrid wrote:
mario wrote:Admittedly, the Wiki article on the car is actually fairly decent, as a starting point

Can I infer from this reaction that you had some substantial input into the making of the article?

UncreativeUsername37 · Post by **UncreativeUsername37** » 23 Jan 2013, 23:50

Phoenix wrote:
midgrid wrote:
mario wrote:Admittedly, the Wiki article on the car is actually fairly decent, as a starting point

Can I infer from this reaction that you had some substantial input into the making of the article?

Assuming the Midgrid on Wikipedia is the midgrid here, then the history says yes.

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 24 Jan 2013, 03:34

mario wrote:As for your plans to write a commentary on the performance of the three newest teams in 2012, I would say that your theories may well have as much validity as those of other observers. Although I cannot promise that I can help as much as I'd like - my lab reports will not write themselves - I'd nevertheless like to offer help and advice where I can, and it may well be that you have come across possible factors that I or any of the other posters here haven't come across before.

What I'll do is drop you a quick email outlining what I was going to write, so you can see if I've got a good idea. Shouldn't take me a minute.

Post by **mario** » 24 Jan 2013, 08:31

Phoenix wrote:
midgrid wrote:
mario wrote:Admittedly, the Wiki article on the car is actually fairly decent, as a starting point

Can I infer from this reaction that you had some substantial input into the making of the article?

If so, then may I say that you've done a good job on that article.

dinizintheoven wrote:
mario wrote:As for your plans to write a commentary on the performance of the three newest teams in 2012, I would say that your theories may well have as much validity as those of other observers. Although I cannot promise that I can help as much as I'd like - my lab reports will not write themselves - I'd nevertheless like to offer help and advice where I can, and it may well be that you have come across possible factors that I or any of the other posters here haven't come across before.

What I'll do is drop you a quick email outlining what I was going to write, so you can see if I've got a good idea. Shouldn't take me a minute.

Sounds good to me - I'll reply when I can and see what advice I can give you.

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 25 Jan 2013, 14:58

I have just finished writing an article on why the 1992 season of formula one deserves reject status. If anyone wants to have a look at it and give some sugesstions on to improve it I would be grateful

Post by **Londoner** » 25 Jan 2013, 23:47

rachel1990 wrote:I have just finished writing an article on why the 1992 season of formula one deserves reject status. If anyone wants to have a look at it and give some sugesstions on to improve it I would be grateful

I wouldn't mind having a look at it - the 1992 season definitely has a good case for Reject status IMO.

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:04

East Londoner wrote:
rachel1990 wrote:I have just finished writing an article on why the 1992 season of formula one deserves reject status. If anyone wants to have a look at it and give some sugesstions on to improve it I would be grateful

I wouldn't mind having a look at it - the 1992 season definitely has a good case for Reject status IMO.

Do you want me to post it on here or email to you

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:08

rachel1990 wrote:
East Londoner wrote:
rachel1990 wrote:I have just finished writing an article on why the 1992 season of formula one deserves reject status. If anyone wants to have a look at it and give some sugesstions on to improve it I would be grateful

I wouldn't mind having a look at it - the 1992 season definitely has a good case for Reject status IMO.

Do you want me to post it on here or email to you

If it's not too much hassle, I'd like it posted here as well. I'd quite like to have a look at this article as well.

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:21

Can't get the sodding pictures on!

1992 Formula one season-Reject year.
Before I start I would like to point out that I am English. And I think Nigel Mansell deserved the 1986 world championship ahead of Alain Prost. But 1992 was about the car not the driver.
Looking at the 2011 and 2004 seasons which could be seen as boring as well 1992 in my opinion is the worst of the lot. But in Britain for some strange reason that is beyond me it is seen as the greatest year ever in Formula 1 (note my sarcastic tones).
But the championship battle was over by the Brazilian GP. In April. When Williams scored their third 1-2 of the year (in a row as well) the writing was really on the wall for the rest of the season. Mansell and Patrese were romping clear of the rest of the field.
Now I am not taking anything away from Williams. They had created one of the best cars in history. The 1992 FW14B was a stunning car the electronics were amazing as well as the speed. Renault had given Williams as well a beautiful engine and with Adrian Newey designing it well what more can you say.

(picture of 1992 FW14B)
The class of the field the FW14B
However the biggest flaws in the car were the drivers. Frank Williams and Patrick Head had gone with two drivers that to be perfectly honest to both were past their best. Mansell as I said before would be 40 in 1993 and Patrase was about to become the longest serving driver ever at the time. Both in my opinion wasted the Williams so to speak especially Patrese who only won one race that year. Mansell had the luck with the car and lack of competition plenty of times and only did one drive that was worthy of a champion in my opinion which was Hungary. However both men still finished first and second in the drivers’ championship so it couldn't have been that bad.
The main issue I have with 1992 is with the competition as I mentioned above. Or to be more accurate the lack of. The third placed driver was Michael Schumacher of Benetton. Michael in his first full season managed some great podiums that year as well as his first win in Belgium. However it was almost too much to ask him to go for the title. Anyway Benetton were nowhere near Williams in terms of engine or technology performance. Martin Brundle in the second Benetton showed that he just wasn't a top team driver and had never recovered from his accident in 1984. Brundle in the end cost Benetton 2nd place in the drivers championship and was swiftly dumped at the end of the season.
(Picture the 1992 Benetton with Michael Schumacher)
The underrated at the time Michael Schumacher

While Benetton did perform well in 1992 McLaren who were the current holders of both titles went into free-fall. Honda’s engines had reached their peak in 1991 and in 1992 McLaren were nowhere. It was almost that Williams and McLaren had the opposite problems. Williams had an incredible car with not great drivers and McLaren had a dog of a car with one genies driver and one good driver. Senna and Berger flattered the car to be honest and managed to scrape five wins, three for Senna and two for Berger. Senna in particular had some great races like Monaco and Hungary where he outperformed the car to a biscuit. Can anyone actually say that Mansell did that in 1992?
(a picture of the 1992 McLaren)
McLaren’s worst car in a decade

The only other teams of note were Ferrari and Lotus this year. Ferrari’s 1992 car is worth a reject article by itself. But to save time let me put it this way. It was a dud. How Jean Alesi managed to get 3 podiums is beyond me. The car was slow and unreliable. Plus Ivan Capelli sadly proved that he wasn't good enough for the first 4 rows of the grid. Jean Alesi on the other hand had the best season of his career. If he finished he scored. Fact. And because only the first 6 drivers scored points… In my opinion he was just behind Schumacher for driver of the year.
Lotus had an Indian summer in 1992. They had found a gem in Mika Hakkinen who proved to be the best of the rest this year. His rise to be a future world champion in the lotus was one of the success stories of 1992. Johnny Herbert this year proved to be quite useful too this year and picked up a few points as well.

(picture of the 107 Lotus)
The final success of the classic Lotus team- The 107
However for the rest of the grid they were ALL worthy of reject status. Looking down at the results for 1992 the words RET seems to pop up more and more. What had happened to Brabham? And Tyrell. And Mirnadi for goodness sake. With Ferrari have one of the worst drivers in their car ever they could have picked up points but no. It was almost as if they were giving up. Well Brabham did in particular. 1992 was there final season and they didn't go out in a blaze of glory. Even their car colour deserves a reject award
(picture of the 1992 Brabham)
Either go all pink or all blue. Don’t mix them together.
So overall why 1992 does deserves a reject award. Well maybe because the lack of competition killed off the season and many minor teams just died out as well. Could be worse though. If Senna had been in that Williams in 1992…

Hope this will go down well

Post by **Londoner** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:43

Not a single mention of Andrea Moda?

There's definitely some good stuff there.

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:48

East Londoner wrote:Not a single mention of Andrea Moda?

There's definitely some good stuff there.

I could tweak it to add them too it. To be fair they were like Brabham in my opinion and since Brabham had reached such a decline I thought it was only fair that they get the credit for rejects

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:56

rachel1990 wrote:
East Londoner wrote:Not a single mention of Andrea Moda?

There's definitely some good stuff there.

I could tweak it to add them too it. To be fair they were like Brabham in my opinion and since Brabham had reached such a decline I thought it was only fair that they get the credit for rejects

Like Brabham? I know Brabham in their decline were pretty incompetent, but even they were no match for Andrea Moda in that field :lol:

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 26 Jan 2013, 00:59

Okay Okay I get the message. Moda is being added

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 26 Jan 2013, 01:14

Still Can't get the sodding pictures on!
now with Andrea Moda added

1992 Formula one season-Reject year.
Before I start I would like to point out that I am English. And I think Nigel Mansell deserved the 1986 world championship ahead of Alain Prost. But 1992 was about the car not the driver.
Looking at the 2011 and 2004 seasons which could be seen as boring as well 1992 in my opinion is the worst of the lot. But in Britain for some strange reason that is beyond me it is seen as the greatest year ever in Formula 1 (note my sarcastic tones).
But the championship battle was over by the Brazilian GP. In April. When Williams scored their third 1-2 of the year (in a row as well) the writing was really on the wall for the rest of the season. Mansell and Patrese were romping clear of the rest of the field.
Now I am not taking anything away from Williams. They had created one of the best cars in history. The 1992 FW14B was a stunning car the electronics were amazing as well as the speed. Renault had given Williams as well a beautiful engine and with Adrian Newey designing it well what more can you say.

(picture of 1992 FW14B)
The class of the field the FW14B
However the biggest flaws in the car were the drivers. Frank Williams and Patrick Head had gone with two drivers that to be perfectly honest to both were past their best. Mansell as I said before would be 40 in 1993 and Patrase was about to become the longest serving driver ever at the time. Both in my opinion wasted the Williams so to speak especially Patrese who only won one race that year. Mansell had the luck with the car and lack of competition plenty of times and only did one drive that was worthy of a champion in my opinion which was Hungary. However both men still finished first and second in the drivers’ championship so it couldn't have been that bad.
The main issue I have with 1992 is with the competition as I mentioned above. Or to be more accurate the lack of. The third placed driver was Michael Schumacher of Benetton. Michael in his first full season managed some great podiums that year as well as his first win in Belgium. However it was almost too much to ask him to go for the title. Anyway Benetton were nowhere near Williams in terms of engine or technology performance. Martin Brundle in the second Benetton showed that he just wasn't a top team driver and had never recovered from his accident in 1984. Brundle in the end cost Benetton 2nd place in the drivers championship and was swiftly dumped at the end of the season.
(Picture the 1992 Benetton with Michael Schumacher)
The underrated at the time Michael Schumacher

While Benetton did perform well in 1992 McLaren who were the current holders of both titles went into free-fall. Honda’s engines had reached their peak in 1991 and in 1992 McLaren were nowhere. It was almost that Williams and McLaren had the opposite problems. Williams had an incredible car with not great drivers and McLaren had a dog of a car with one genies driver and one good driver. Senna and Berger flattered the car to be honest and managed to scrape five wins, three for Senna and two for Berger. Senna in particular had some great races like Monaco and Hungary where he outperformed the car to a biscuit. Can anyone actually say that Mansell did that in 1992?
(a picture of the 1992 McLaren)
McLaren’s worst car in a decade

The only other teams of note were Ferrari and Lotus this year. Ferrari’s 1992 car is worth a reject article by itself. But to save time let me put it this way. It was a dud. How Jean Alesi managed to get 3 podiums is beyond me. The car was slow and unreliable. Plus Ivan Capelli sadly proved that he wasn't good enough for the first 4 rows of the grid. Jean Alesi on the other hand had the best season of his career. If he finished he scored. Fact. And because only the first 6 drivers scored points… In my opinion he was just behind Schumacher for driver of the year.
Lotus had an Indian summer in 1992. They had found a gem in Mika Hakkinen who proved to be the best of the rest this year. His rise to be a future world champion in the lotus was one of the success stories of 1992. Johnny Herbert this year proved to be quite useful too this year and picked up a few points as well.

(picture of the 107 Lotus)
The final success of the classic Lotus team- The 107
However for the rest of the grid they were ALL worthy of reject status. Looking down at the results for 1992 the words RET seems to pop up more and more. What had happened to Brabham? And Tyrell. And Mirnadi for goodness sake. With Ferrari have one of the worst drivers in their car ever they could have picked up points but no. It was almost as if they were giving up. Well Brabham did in particular. 1992 was there final season and they didn't go out in a blaze of glory. Even their car colour deserves a reject award
(picture of the 1992 Brabham)
Either go all pink or all blue. Don’t mix them together.

However the Reject of the rejects has to go to Andrea Moda and their S921. Now I know optimism is required sometimes when entering a car into formula 1. Zakspeed anyone? But there is a difference between that and blind hope. How they ever thought they could come to formula 1 with a car that was built for 2 years ago. Since then Williams engine performance had come through so fast that Minardi was sometimes failing to qualify. The car only got through pre-qualifying once in Monaco (where engine performance wasn’t such a crucial instrument) in last place and then Roberto Moreno couldn't even finish the race! (Moreno must have hated Schumacher at this point. Schumi took his Benetton seat.) I would have thought that the extra time they were given at the start of the season (they didn’t bother turning up at South Africa and Mexico) could have sorted out the engine issues. Anyway it was all for nought. In spa team boss Andrea Sassetti was arrested for financial issues and the team was banned from Monza onwards. And was never seen again .

So overall why 1992 does deserves a reject award. Well maybe because the lack of competition killed off the season and many minor teams just died out as well. Could be worse though. If Senna had been in that Williams in 1992…

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 28 Jan 2013, 12:37

Nice article rachel1990.

Personally I would like to see a detailed article about why Team Haas Lola/Beatrice did not succeed in F1 in 1985 / 1986. As wikipedia states:

The Haas-Beatrice-Lola F1 programme was extremely promising, funded by a large American industrial conglomerate and run by the highly experienced Teddy Mayer, with the promise of works Ford power, but it flattered to deceive. The handsome car, designed mostly by Neil Oatley, was barely a Lola; the name was used largely because Haas was Lola's US concessionaire although Broadley had some involvement with the car. Alan Jones was tempted out of retirement to drive it in F1 races towards the end of the 1985 season, with Patrick Tambay joining in a second car for 1986. A works Ford-Cosworth turbocharged engine was promised, but this did not materialise until 1986

With all this it is still somewhat of a mystery to me, that they did achieve more in their time in F1?

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 28 Jan 2013, 13:00

rachel1990 wrote:Zakspeed anyone?

Good call. I for one would also like to see an article about Zakspeed aswell. In particular this Wikipedia line has wetted my appetite for learning more about them;

Zakspeed were notable for building their own chassis and engine, something only Ferrari did at that time, but with no competitive showings in five years,

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 28 Jan 2013, 17:30

ibsey wrote:
rachel1990 wrote:Zakspeed anyone?

Good call. I for one would also like to see an article about Zakspeed aswell. In particular this Wikipedia line has wetted my appetite for learning more about them;

Zakspeed were notable for building their own chassis and engine, something only Ferrari did at that time, but with no competitive showings in five years,

as I recall they only built their own engine in 1988.in 1989 they went with Yamaha engines (which were no better)

Actually Yamaha deserves a reject article as well. Hmmm...

Post by **mario** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:06

ibsey wrote:Nice article rachel1990.

Personally I would like to see a detailed article about why Team Haas Lola/Beatrice did not succeed in F1 in 1985 / 1986. As wikipedia states:

The Haas-Beatrice-Lola F1 programme was extremely promising, funded by a large American industrial conglomerate and run by the highly experienced Teddy Mayer, with the promise of works Ford power, but it flattered to deceive. The handsome car, designed mostly by Neil Oatley, was barely a Lola; the name was used largely because Haas was Lola's US concessionaire although Broadley had some involvement with the car. Alan Jones was tempted out of retirement to drive it in F1 races towards the end of the 1985 season, with Patrick Tambay joining in a second car for 1986. A works Ford-Cosworth turbocharged engine was promised, but this did not materialise until 1986

With all this it is still somewhat of a mystery to me, that they did achieve more in their time in F1?

For 1986 at least, when they used the Ford Cosworth turbo engine, one reason that has been raised in the past was that Cosworth went for a somewhat conservative design (some have suggested that this may have been due to pressure from Ford), leaving the team lagging behind in terms of power and fuel efficiency (it appears that the handling was fairly good - Oatley is a pretty skilled designer - but the rest of the package was rather lacking by comparison).

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:14

rachel1990 wrote:
ibsey wrote:
rachel1990 wrote:Zakspeed anyone?

Good call. I for one would also like to see an article about Zakspeed aswell. In particular this Wikipedia line has wetted my appetite for learning more about them;

Zakspeed were notable for building their own chassis and engine, something only Ferrari did at that time, but with no competitive showings in five years,

as I recall they only built their own engine in 1988.in 1989 they went with Yamaha engines (which were no better)

Actually Yamaha deserves a reject article as well. Hmmm...

Until 1988, rachel.

About Yamaha, Ukyo Katayama and Damon Hill would like a word with you. (Then again, engine manufacturers can't have a reject profile

)

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:22

Until 1988, rachel.

About Yamaha, Ukyo Katayama and Damon Hill would like a word with you. (Then again, engine manufacturers can't have a reject profile

)[/quote]

sorry my mistake about 1988. I thought they joined in 1988 not 1985.

I think Damon and Ukyo would agree that Yamaha didn't give F1 there full attention and so the engine performances (as well as the reliability) is not there at all. unlike moto gp.

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:29

rachel1990 wrote:sorry my mistake about 1988. I thought they joined in 1988 not 1985.

I think Damon and Ukyo would agree that Yamaha didn't give F1 there full attention and so the engine performances (as well as the reliability) is not there at all. unlike moto gp.

Zakspeed joined in 1985 and made their own engine until 1988. That is what I mean to say.

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:46

mario wrote:
ibsey wrote:Nice article rachel1990.

Personally I would like to see a detailed article about why Team Haas Lola/Beatrice did not succeed in F1 in 1985 / 1986. As wikipedia states:

The Haas-Beatrice-Lola F1 programme was extremely promising, funded by a large American industrial conglomerate and run by the highly experienced Teddy Mayer, with the promise of works Ford power, but it flattered to deceive. The handsome car, designed mostly by Neil Oatley, was barely a Lola; the name was used largely because Haas was Lola's US concessionaire although Broadley had some involvement with the car. Alan Jones was tempted out of retirement to drive it in F1 races towards the end of the 1985 season, with Patrick Tambay joining in a second car for 1986. A works Ford-Cosworth turbocharged engine was promised, but this did not materialise until 1986

With all this it is still somewhat of a mystery to me, that they did achieve more in their time in F1?

For 1986 at least, when they used the Ford Cosworth turbo engine, one reason that has been raised in the past was that Cosworth went for a somewhat conservative design (some have suggested that this may have been due to pressure from Ford), leaving the team lagging behind in terms of power and fuel efficiency (it appears that the handling was fairly good - Oatley is a pretty skilled designer - but the rest of the package was rather lacking by comparison).

Thanks for that great insight Mario.

One can't helped but wonder what they might also have achieved without two aging stars in Jones & Tambay. Both of whom had retired from F1 before joining Haas Beatrice. IMO Shame really.

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 28 Jan 2013, 18:57

rachel1990 wrote:Until 1988, rachel.

About Yamaha, Ukyo Katayama and Damon Hill would like a word with you. (Then again, engine manufacturers can't have a reject profile )

sorry my mistake about 1988. I thought they joined in 1988 not 1985.

I think Damon and Ukyo would agree that Yamaha didn't give F1 there full attention and so the engine performances (as well as the reliability) is not there at all. unlike moto gp.[/quote]

I think the Yamaha engines weren't too shoddy in 1994. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that Ukyo qualified 5th & Blundell 7th for the 1994 German GP at the 'old' Hockenhiem track (a 'power' circuit). Without checking up on it IIRC the tyrell Yamaha's also showed up well at other high speed tracks like Canada, Sliverstone etc. Unfortunately for Yamaha, 1994 was the last year of the 3.5 litre engines & it was all change for 1995.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 29 Jan 2013, 00:01

FMecha wrote:Until 1988, rachel.

About Yamaha, Ukyo Katayama and Damon Hill would like a word with you. (Then again, engine manufacturers can't have a reject profile )

Nah, the Yamaha in the back of the Arrows was still a crock of shite. It's just that when the Bridgestones were in the zone, they more than counteracted anything that was wrong with the engine

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 29 Jan 2013, 20:44

ibsey wrote:
mario wrote:For 1986 at least, when they used the Ford Cosworth turbo engine, one reason that has been raised in the past was that Cosworth went for a somewhat conservative design (some have suggested that this may have been due to pressure from Ford), leaving the team lagging behind in terms of power and fuel efficiency (it appears that the handling was fairly good - Oatley is a pretty skilled designer - but the rest of the package was rather lacking by comparison).

Thanks for that great insight Mario. One can't helped but wonder what they might also have achieved without two aging stars in Jones & Tambay. Both of whom had retired from F1 before joining Haas Beatrice. IMO Shame really.

There is another reason for that. Cosworth was working on a compound turbo engine that was ruled illegal quite late in the development process, forcing Cosworth to redesign the engine in a short time, hence why the engine was conversative. Keith Duckworth was mightily pissed off with the FIA, because the initial concept of the engine was deemed legal by the FIA.

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 30 Jan 2013, 00:07

rachel1990 wrote:Zakspeed anyone?

rachel1990 wrote:Actually Yamaha deserves a reject article as well. Hmmm...

FYI, mario has submitted to me an article about the Yamaha engine in the 1989 Zakspeed. I've been discussing with him about expanding that into an article on Yamaha engines in F1 generally, to cover the Brabham, Jordan, Tyrrell and Arrows periods. Either that, or I will do a Zakspeed profile at some point. However I'm afraid you'll all have to be patient. Given the other articles in the works, plus all of our other commitments, a profile on Zakspeed or a Centrale article on Yamaha is unlikely to be completed until the second half of this year.

DOSBoot · Post by **DOSBoot** » 30 Jan 2013, 03:51

An idea I had was possibly been writing about the fall of BRM. In the mid 1960s, they were one of the best teams in the field. A decade later, they were a back of the grid no-hoper, before quietly dissapearing in 1977. What went wrong for the team in those later years? It would be quite a hefty job, and would require a lot of research. But if I, or someone else could try and do something like that, it would be a very interesting article.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 30 Jan 2013, 08:33

DOSBoot wrote:An idea I had was possibly been writing about the fall of BRM. In the mid 1960s, they were one of the best teams in the field. A decade later, they were a back of the grid no-hoper, before quietly dissapearing in 1977. What went wrong for the team in those later years? It would be quite a hefty job, and would require a lot of research. But if I, or someone else could try and do something like that, it would be a very interesting article.

I'd imagine similar reasons to the decline of likes of Lotus and Brabham. It's funny because I'd never placed BRM in a similar position as those teams, but I guess that's just the fact I have less knowledge of the earlier period than more recent times. It would be interesting to see if it was for the same reasons that saw the big names come to an end in the 90s, because that would point to a more common, almost cyclical process for teams within the sport, that they'll enjoy periods of success, before ultimately hitting a slow decline and eventually going out of business all together.

simonracer · Post by **simonracer** » 30 Jan 2013, 10:10

What started BRM's downfall was the arrival of the 3-litre formula in '66. They ended up with the H16 engine, which did nothing spectacular other then break down. They started to make a serious comeback once they got the V12 engine sorted out and they won four times in 70-72, but they were badly affected by the death of their two leading drivers Jo Siffert & Pedro Rodriguez, both in the one season. In 73 they weren't too bad a team, but not one of the leaders. 74 started off alright but by the end of the season they were really struggling and from that point on the team was at the point of no return. In 75 & 76 they didn't score a single point. Teddy Pilette came to Monza in '77 in his third start for the team. After Larry Perkins had left two races into '77, both their previous drivers Conny Andersson & Guy Edwards had failed to qualify (or, in Edwards case, pre qualify) in their races, and Pilette had also failed to qualify in both of his previous starts. Monza '77 was no different, and that was the last ever start for British Racing Motors.

That's a quick, basic round up, thanks to that spectacularly reliable source Wikipedia. Also note that their earliest cars in the early 50's were renowned for being catastrophic failures. But they were incredibly good sounding. Quite possibly the best ever, in fact.

Post by **mario** » 30 Jan 2013, 13:12

simonracer wrote:What started BRM's downfall was the arrival of the 3-litre formula in '66. They ended up with the H16 engine, which did nothing spectacular other then break down. They started to make a serious comeback once they got the V12 engine sorted out and they won four times in 70-72, but they were badly affected by the death of their two leading drivers Jo Siffert & Pedro Rodriguez, both in the one season. In 73 they weren't too bad a team, but not one of the leaders. 74 started off alright but by the end of the season they were really struggling and from that point on the team was at the point of no return. In 75 & 76 they didn't score a single point. Teddy Pilette came to Monza in '77 in his third start for the team. After Larry Perkins had left two races into '77, both their previous drivers Conny Andersson & Guy Edwards had failed to qualify (or, in Edwards case, pre qualify) in their races, and Pilette had also failed to qualify in both of his previous starts. Monza '77 was no different, and that was the last ever start for British Racing Motors.

That's a quick, basic round up, thanks to that spectacularly reliable source Wikipedia. Also note that their earliest cars in the early 50's were renowned for being catastrophic failures. But they were incredibly good sounding. Quite possibly the best ever, in fact.

Considering that the V12 engine wasn't really intended for use in F1, it performed fairly well once they were able to adapt it for use in F1, much as Matra did with their V12 too (IIRC, it came off the back of BRM's collaboration with Matra before Matra were pressurised by the French government, who were providing funding, to cut their ties with BRM as they didn't want state funds to be diverted to a non French outfit). Mind you, a shortage of funds to really push development of their engine steadily hurt them more and more as time went on - their V12 was heavier, thirstier and eventually less powerful than the Cosworth DFV, and the disparity only grew with time (given that Cosworth was getting funding from engine sales to most of the grid, not to mention from Ford, whereas BRM had to rely on what funds it could generate itself).
Added to that, the loss of their lead designer, Tony Southgate, to Shadow Racing at the end of the 1972 season probably helped accelerate their demise too - their more successful cars of that era, the P153 and P160, were both designed by him.

rachel1990 · Post by **rachel1990** » 31 Jan 2013, 15:36

eytl wrote:
rachel1990 wrote:Zakspeed anyone?

rachel1990 wrote:Actually Yamaha deserves a reject article as well. Hmmm...

FYI, mario has submitted to me an article about the Yamaha engine in the 1989 Zakspeed. I've been discussing with him about expanding that into an article on Yamaha engines in F1 generally, to cover the Brabham, Jordan, Tyrrell and Arrows periods. Either that, or I will do a Zakspeed profile at some point. However I'm afraid you'll all have to be patient. Given the other articles in the works, plus all of our other commitments, a profile on Zakspeed or a Centrale article on Yamaha is unlikely to be completed until the second half of this year.

eytl I put a quick article up above if you want to put it on the site you can or i can email the version with pictures

Revelo · Post by **Revelo** » 20 Feb 2013, 18:48

I'd love to see one about Williams' 1988 season with the Judd Engines personally, after how amazing the Williams Honda's had been that was a huge shock, especially with McLaren essentially dominating every race bar one (and even then they were dead certain to win it, thank you Monsieur Schlesser)

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 21 Feb 2013, 11:13

Revelo wrote:I'd love to see one about Williams' 1988 season with the Judd Engines personally, after how amazing the Williams Honda's had been that was a huge shock, especially with McLaren essentially dominating every race bar one (and even then they were dead certain to win it, thank you Monsieur Schlesser)

That would be a good idea. Or even how shocking bad Ferrari were in 1980, after winning both titles in 1979.

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 22 Feb 2013, 06:39

ibsey wrote:
Revelo wrote:I'd love to see one about Williams' 1988 season with the Judd Engines personally, after how amazing the Williams Honda's had been that was a huge shock, especially with McLaren essentially dominating every race bar one (and even then they were dead certain to win it, thank you Monsieur Schlesser)

That would be a good idea. Or even how shocking bad Ferrari were in 1980, after winning both titles in 1979.

It is covered in Monza to Suzuka article over the Centrale, ibsey.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 22 Feb 2013, 06:55

FMecha wrote:
ibsey wrote:
Revelo wrote:I'd love to see one about Williams' 1988 season with the Judd Engines personally, after how amazing the Williams Honda's had been that was a huge shock, especially with McLaren essentially dominating every race bar one (and even then they were dead certain to win it, thank you Monsieur Schlesser)

That would be a good idea. Or even how shocking bad Ferrari were in 1980, after winning both titles in 1979.

It is covered in Monza to Suzuka article over the Centrale, ibsey.

That's like only a paragraph though.

ibsey · Post by **ibsey** » 22 Feb 2013, 09:26

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
FMecha wrote:
It is covered in Monza to Suzuka article over the Centrale, ibsey.

That's like only a paragraph though.

Indeed. Considering it was such a humbling season for Ferrari (the reigning world champions in 1980), what with all their muscle & fame in F1. I for one feel their 1980 season deserves slightly more detail analysis, in classic F1 rejects style. For instance that Centrale article only really states that... "The problem was an inability to master ground-effects". However would love to know why that problem came about, particularly as Lotus showed what ground effects could do two years earlier.

Was it Enzo Ferrari still insisting that "Aerodynamics were for teams who couldn't build proper engines"? Or did Ferrari try a ground effect concept by failed miserably? Or could they not incorporate ground effects in 1980, due to their flat V12 engine...if so why didn't they sort it out in 1978? Or was it down to poor feedback from the drivers / engineers or even internal politics at Ferrari etc?

Post by **Londoner** » 22 Feb 2013, 09:53

ibsey wrote:Was it Enzo Ferrari still insisting that "Aerodynamics were for teams who couldn't build proper engines"? Or did Ferrari try a ground effect concept by failed miserably? Or could they not incorporate ground effects in 1980, due to their flat V12 engine...if so why didn't they sort it out in 1978? Or was it down to poor Bathplug from the drivers / engineers or even internal politics at Ferrari etc?

It's the return of the haywire word filter!

I'm pretty sure that the Cosworth DFV played a large role in this upheaval, as the engine was vee-shaped, it meant there was plenty of space at the rear of the car for teams like Lotus and Ligier to take full advantage of ground effects. The flat-12 engine, whilst being significantly more powerful, wasn't vee-shaped, I believe, which meant ground effects would be compromised.