Why so few different F1 engines in the '70s?

Originally posted by kayemod
Possibly any suggestion that BRM were fobbing their customers off with poor engines is a little unfair, back then most teams had difficulty fielding two of their own cars that were of the same standard, engines varied in the same way, and naturally they'd keep the best ones for themselves.....

The initial mention of 'different spec' for BRM engines was in relation to 1962...

The customer V8s were sold with carburettors while the works cars had injection. With the newness of the injection systems, their costs and the need for specialised maintenance, I would think this would have suited the customers. They would have paid less money for them, too, I'd imagine.

The initial mention of 'different spec' for BRM engines was in relation to 1962...

The customer V8s were sold with carburettors while the works cars had injection. With the newness of the injection systems, their costs and the need for specialised maintenance, I would think this would have suited the customers. They would have paid less money for them, too, I'd imagine.

Whilst what you say about V8s is true, the original mention said "The engines that BRM sold from 1962 onwards" and was taken to mean what is said.

Possibly any suggestion that BRM were fobbing their customers off with poor engines is a little unfair, back then most teams had difficulty fielding two of their own cars that were of the same standard, engines varied in the same way, and naturally they'd keep the best ones for themselves. There ware good and less good twin-cams at Lotus, and the exact reasons were often a mystery to those building them, racing engines would have varied in the same way, for often inexplicable reasons.

I was chatting to a Formula Ford owner at the week-end who has had his engines rebuilt by the same company for many years. every so often a really belting engine is produced and even the engine builder doesn't know why that particular engine was better than the others. The chap I was talking too would always have a spare engine in case of emergency and when he sold his current car he always kept the good engine.

Which is why the only race an H-16 BRM engine won was when it was mounted in a Lotus?

Lotus blew their engine up in qualifying. The BRM team supplied a spare which was used for the race.

I was chatting to a Formula Ford owner at the week-end who has had his engines rebuilt by the same company for many years. every so often a really belting engine is produced and even the engine builder doesn't know why that particular engine was better than the others. The chap I was talking too would always have a spare engine in case of emergency and when he sold his current car he always kept the good engine.

'twas ever thus..

'twas ever thus..

The famously good F.Ford motor was called 'Patch', was it not?

Whilst what you say about V8s is true, the original mention said "The engines that BRM sold from 1962 onwards" and was taken to mean what is said.

Yes, sorry, I was talking about the 1962 V8s that were sold to privateers. Jackie Lewis wasn't impressed and returned his to the factory. Tony Marsh was unhappy too and Keith Greene commented that the V8 that found its way into the Gilby wasn't much better than the 4 cylinder Coventry Climax it replaced.

Which is why the only race an H-16 BRM engine won was when it was mounted in a Lotus?

It may have something to do with a better Lotus chassis.

The famously good F.Ford motor was called 'Patch', was it not?

Yes it was. (Had a repaired, 'patched' crankcase) I believe it was retained by Minister & loaned or leased to the top drivers until it finally exploded on day. That caused a cheer in FF1600 circles!

Yes it was. (Had a repaired, 'patched' crankcase) I believe it was retained by Minister & loaned or leased to the top drivers until it finally exploded on day. That caused a cheer in FF1600 circles!

I believe Roberto Moreno still has 'patch'.

Yes, sorry, I was talking about the 1962 V8s that were sold to privateers. Jackie Lewis wasn't impressed and returned his to the factory. Tony Marsh was unhappy too and Keith Greene commented that the V8 that found its way into the Gilby wasn't much better than the 4 cylinder Coventry Climax it replaced.

The late Ian Burgess, speaking in relation to the engines used by Scirocco in 1963, said the problem at Bourne was that “there was no structure to service customer engines. They didn’t seem to care about any but their own team’s engines.”

Well, the number of wins between 1970 - 79 by engines not made by Ford was:

37 x Ferrari (Ferrari won every year but 1973)

4 x BRM (BRM '70, '71, '72)

2 x Alfa Romeo (Brabham '78)

1 x Matra (Ligier '77)

... and 1 x Renault (Renault '79)

... and 1 x Renault (Renault '79)

I always miss one.

Enzo Ferrari could never understand how selling engines to his competitors would help him win races.

And I wonder whether Grand Prix victories for Cooper-Ferraris, Lotus-Ferraris or Williams-Ferraris would have benefitted Enzo in terms of production car sales either.
This interesting thread had me thinking about the arrival in Formula 1, from time to time, of road car manufacturers and their reasons for becoming involved. Despite engine development being so expensive, and so crucial to racing success, I would think most spectators identify the constructor before the engine supplier.
I can just about remember each of the teams who compete in Grand Prix today, but struggle to remember some of the chassis/engine combinations. I wonder what marketing / image / car sales benefit Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault achieve from the limited success of their engine customers, for example, Sauber (F), Force India (M) and Caterham ( R ) Are engine sales profitable per se, or has Bernie leaned on the big boys to spread their wares around and keep grids topped up?
If there is direct benefit in terms of image and car sales for those car manufacturers who make, or badge, Grand Prix engines, I wonder whether Mercedes, for example, are desperate for Mercedes-Mercedes success, or are nearly as delighted to see Mclaren-Mercedes and Force India-Mercedes on the podium.
Sorry for drifting OT and modern, but I was thinking about why a car manufacturer might become involved in expensive GP engine design, especially those who choose not to design a chassis or run a team: Honda, Porsche, Renault in the late 1980s for example, or Renault now.

Edited by john winfield, 13 December 2012 - 13:49.

I've seen Mercedes advertising bumff claiming credit for the McLaren wins. And a Renault advert showing Mansell's Williams-Renault

I do wonder why the car manufacturers don't lean on Bernie to give them more TV exposure. The on-screen graphics only ever say the driver apart from the Manufacturers' Championship standings.

To return to nostalgia, I always understood that Ferrari sold road cars to fund his racing, Maserati sold racing cars and road cars and only ran a works team when they felt they had to, while Daimler-Benz, Ford, etc raced to sell more road cars - "Win on Sunday - sell on Monday".

I think that Maserati ran a works team whenever they had sufficient money.

Honda, I believe, we're in racing partly to train engineers. Porsche, in their pre-Piech days, were in racing to develop their road cars. Both were also doing it to sell cars, of course.

What about BRM in 1965 ? Factory cars used a center exhaust engine while customers used the old side exhaust engines.

Even though public statements were made to the contrary, both Coventry Climax in the 60's and Cosworth in the 70's-80's had preferred customers who received better engines.

Best,

Ross

I think it was because he was afraid of being beaten by a customer team...

Well, he was already being beaten by the 'garagistes' with their off-the-shelf Cosworths, so imagine what would happen if they'd have Enzo's 'superior' powerplants?

Well, he was already being beaten by the 'garagistes' with their off-the-shelf Cosworths, so imagine what would happen if they'd have Enzo's 'superior' powerplants?

Such a beating might have inspired him to `step up` in the chassis dept. as well much earlier than he eventually did.

Since you write so many `Imagine if` stories already, here's one thought.
Imagine Ferrari having much more advanced and efficient chassis technology avaialble in the late 70's already and then they debut their new turbocharged engine in 1981.
We have seen what that engine could do in the by far worst chassis of the season.....


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 25 December 2012 - 09:41.