Air cooled F1

Dear Sirs and Madams:
It seems to me that Honda's first entry into the '60s 3 litre F1 was an air-cooled V8. IIRC it only ran once or twice and then vanished. Was it THAT bad? Do any examples still exist? Were there any other air-cooled F1 cars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Anton

Ah, the RA273. Any car that can run second at Monza can't be all that bad - Ginther got it up that high before crashing in 1966. Unfortunately, mainly due to the engine, it was overweight (740kg when the minimum was 500kg) and the power was no more than adequate at 412bhp or so in early 1967. The DFV started out at that sort of level, but was substantially lighter ....

Without checking, I'm pretty sure it's probably in the Honda Museum - all their other F1 cars seem to be. There were two at Goodwood this year - looked like they were just out of the box!

Air-cooled F1 cars? Porsche of course in the 1.5 litre years.

Honda ran a 12-cyl Type 272 which won the last race of the 1961-65 1.5L formula on 3 Oct 65 in Mexico City. Richie Ginther was driving: his first, and last, F1 win. I thought that car was water-cooled, but I could be wrong.

But the 4-cyl Type 718 and 787 1.5L Porsches of 1961 were air-cooled, as were the Type 804 8-cylnder Porsches of 1962. I watched Dan Gurney win at Rouen in one of the latter.

THe RA271 and 272 were both, of course, water cooled V12s. THe V8 air cooled car was the RA302 of 1968 which appeared only twice: at rouen, where Jo Schlessser crashed to his death and Monza where it only ran in practice.

Opps - brain fade .... long day etc etc ....

An interesting point, seeing as weight has been mentioned...

Many an air-cooled engine,with all its attendant finning etc, might seem heavy. But, of course, bare engines are weighed without fluids.

While it's normal for additional oil to be used in air cooled engines, there isn't much extra weight in a litre or so of oil and a slightly bigger oil cooler.

But the weight of a radiator and a number of litres of coolant (usually water-based) could be substantial. And in the cars of those days, there might have been a litre or two in each line leading forward to the radiator and back to the engine as well. The water lines are usually bigger, of course, than the oil lines.

Other air-cooled F1 cars?

We had a discussion once before about the projected Gilera-influenced Ferrari... a straight eight... did anyone ever supercharge a JAP or some other motorcycle engine in a Cooper to run in an F1 race?

"Other air-cooled F1 cars?

We had a discussion once before about the projected Gilera-influenced Ferrari... a straight eight... did anyone ever supercharge a JAP or some other motorcycle engine in a Cooper to run in an F1 race?"

I seem to remember one or more JAP 1000cc and Vincent twin powered Coopers running hillclimbs in the early '50s but F1.....?
Of course the were the Porsches and I know Tatra built a 2 1/2 litre single seater but I don't think it ever appeared in international competition.
So what happened to the Honda RA301? Are they so ashamed of it that they pretend it never existed?
Was it really THAT bad?
Honda had some success with the 1 1/2 litre sidewinder 12 so they weren't complete beginners in F1 and it's always puzzled me that they just quit after 2 events.
Is there anyone on this forum who saw and heard it run?
Anton

Honda had a 3-litre water-cooled V12 they ran before and after the RA302's Rouen disaster...

Maybe you're not aware that this car killed its driver in a horrible feiry crash that fateful day... and that the car's handling/chassis stiffness was very much under suspicion?

Their main thrust then, continued with the big and relatively heavy V12, which had a new chassis built for it by Eric Broadley and was thus dubbed the 'Hondola'... it won at Monza before Honda pulled out to await better seasons and circumstances.

I'm not sure if the Tatra has rated a mention here previously, but I think sat has brought it up... and that there are photos somewhere about of it.

not quite a f1 car but didn't our old pal leon duray build an indy car with a gaggle of air cooled two stroke engines all linked together to skirt some regulation regarding supercharging of 4 stroke engines????does this sound familiar to anyone????

Well Anton,

This BB has a search facility! There are lots of threads about the RA302 e.g.:
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...ght=Honda RA302
http://www.atlasf1.c...light=Schlesser

Two quotes from one of those earlier threads:

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Quite what the reasoning behind the development of the V8 was seems obscure. I think the "politics" to which JS was referring was probably the fact that a lot of research and development time was diverted from the existing V12 to the V8.
If you go back to the first 1.5 litre Hondas they were always very light (but fragile) - they allegedly even employed small drivers (Bucknum and Ginther) in order to save weight!
The big V12s must have offended a few Oriental sensibilities and sparked a quest for a smaller lighter engine and a smaller lighter car - the original 302 was noticeably smaller and significantly lighter than most of its contemporaries, especially its big brother the 301 and the lumbering Coopers.
The 302 was full of innovations and therein lay its downfall - it was hardly tested at all before it ran in France: Honda politics again. Honda France wanted it to run in front of the boss, Soichiro Honda, who was in France at the time on a trade mission, despite the fact that Surtees had tested it at Silverstone and reported it unready to race and in need of a lot more development. Nevertheless, he was overruled and the car ran anyway, with tragic consequences for poor Jo Schlesser: the ensuing fire can only have been made worse by the magnesium-skinned body.
The 302 was reworked with a new aluminium body at Surtees@ own works in Slough and a second chassis appeared in practice only at Monza in the hands of David Hobbs. It was sent back to Japan with what Doug Nye calls "a long job-list" but events overtook it when Honda withdrew from F1 and it never raced again.

Originally posted by MN
I don't think it was "Honda politics" but Soichro Honda's ego if you are talking about the 3-liter 120 degree DOHC V8 forced-air-cooled engine.
That was Mr.Honda's order. He insisted Air-cooled engine.
All Honda engineers argued with Mr.Honda and told him it's not going to work but they could not convince him.
Guess air-cooled V12 was bit too much thus V8.

Originally posted by antonvrs
"Other air-cooled F1 cars?

. . .
Honda had some success with the 1 1/2 litre sidewinder 12 so they weren't complete beginners in F1 and it's always puzzled me that they just quit after 2 events.
Is there anyone on this forum who saw and heard it run?
Anton

Anton:

If you mean the Honda 1.5 liter V12, I heard it in 1965 at Watkins Glen and that sound (SOUND!) was absolutely incredible! Not just sensual, not just sexy, it was downright erotic! It's what turned me on to F1!

Someone told me the Ferrari flat 12 sounded like ripping canvas, but I simply can't describe the shriek of that Honda.

37 years later, I can still hear it n my mind . . .

Bobbo

Might I commend you all to a recent issue of 'Classic Cars' magazine in which John Surtees expounded briefly upon the true reasons for the air-cooled Honda V8's brief career and speedy demise?

DCN

Not F1...but a good effort, eh?

Who knows what it is?

They look like Suzuki 250 heads...

So it's about 1500cc? Or up to 2-litres?

I'd say it's an aircraft application... 2-stroke, of course.

Stand back and plug your ear'oles - that's the Rotorvic surely....

Ray and Doug...
I'm not sure what it's called, but it's in the Donington museum and is made of a multitude of Ariel Arrow 2 stroke engines. Love it to bits. I can't recall all of the info on the display board, but I think it said it was once installed in a Lotus 23?

For real? That must have been one mean Lotus 23!

What size was it, Doug? You can see a bit of the 'R' and all of the 'VIC' in the pic, so I guess you'd have to be spot on there... apart from which I've no doubt you've seen it all before...

I've never heard of it at all... more's the pity, I love that sort of thing. Crazy multicylinder stuff... as long as the execution is better than the boys at Bourne managed in '66...

Ray ..the Rotovic is 250 X 6 = 1500cc

Another Ariel Arrow based concoction (only 2 of them in this case) was tried in a sidecar outfit by one of the Boddice clan, I think.

Also in the Donington museum is the Archie Butterworth swing valve flat 4...which should remind us that he used to compete with a fearsome air cooled Steyr V8 Jeep chassised contraption. One F1 race at Silverstone?

Originally posted by David Beard

Also in the Donington museum is the Archie Butterworth swing valve flat 4...which should remind us that he used to compete with a fearsome air cooled Steyr V8 Jeep chassised contraption. One F1 race at Silverstone?

Well, one lap at Silverstone to be more precise

Originally posted by Vitesse2


Well, one lap at Silverstone to be more precise

It's the thought that counts...all the most interesting cars have failed ;)

Originally posted by David Beard
Ray ..the Rotovic is 250 X 6 = 1500cc

Another Ariel Arrow based concoction (only 2 of them in this case) was tried in a sidecar outfit by one of the Boddice clan, I think.

Also in the Donington museum is the Archie Butterworth swing valve flat 4...which should remind us that he used to compete with a fearsome air cooled Steyr V8 Jeep chassised contraption. One F1 race at Silverstone?

But it had a 4wd transmission that owed rather more to Archie's own
ideas than to the old Jeep one didn't it? (synchronicity - a couple of
posts about the AJB special turned up on rec.autos.sport.f1 the other
day!)

pete

Originally posted by David Beard
It's the thought that counts...all the most interesting cars have failed ;)

There's a positive side to that too...

They get more time in the pits for us to look them over...

Originally posted by Ray Bell
For real? That must have been one mean Lotus 23!

I saw the chassis a few years ago.
The engine compartment was stretched to take the engine.
Apparently the historians would not accept a lotus 23 with a stretched chassis so it was going to be restored back to 'original' specifications.

Even if it still had the engine installed, chances are they would not have let anyone race the car historically, with that wonderful engine, since it did not originally compete in an international race (and is therefore not worthy of historic racing).

Surely it is more 'historic' with such an unusual engine (and a unique one, of course) than it would be with a tin can Ford?

International race? What a load of garbage... good enough if it existed.

Surely it is more 'historic' with such an unusual engine (and a unique one, of course) than it would be with a tin can Ford?

That is what most people would think.
But of course those who only own the cars, and spend their money restoring them, aren't as important as the people who invest so much in making and implementing the rules.

International race? What a load of garbage... good enough if it existed.

Again the layman's (e.g. normal person's) point of view....................
Unless a car raced internationally in period it is not eligible for historic races (presumably something to do with our self imposed governing body).

I recently spent some time looking into the history of the ex-Chris Meek Ginetta G4, that was a very sucessful/well known car in period.

In order to race that car the owner has to prove that it took part in an international race, fortunately Chris Meek took part in a race at Montlhery - however he arrived late (due to bad weather in the channel) and did not practice, so started from the back of the grid.

The eligibility people created a story that he started from the back of the grid because the car was not eligible, and they just let him run so that he had not had a completely wasted trip.

Now; the organisers were French so what chance they cared about an Englishman wasting his time??
And it was a race for sport prototypes, so anything was eligible anyway.

It is amazing how people (including those in authority) twist history - prototypes meant exactly that, it could have been a one off and only had to meet limited rules on bodywork & various dimensions & capacities.

But these are the same people who call a 1.5 litre V8 F1 car running an oversized engine a Tasman car, despite the fact that Tasman rules at the time forbade 8 cylinder engines, and these cars didn't exist until 1966 when they ran as 3 litre F1 cars (but with undersize engines since that was the best they had).

Well, there was a small number of cars that had V8 engines enlarged to about 2-litres that I think you could call Tasman cars...

The Tasman formula never forbade 8-cyl engines at all. Stewart won the series with a V8 in 1966, Clark with another in 1967 with Stewart second and Brabham third with a Repco V8. In 1968 there were some BRM V12s, but again it was a V8 (Clark) winning the series, Amon taking it in 1969 with a V6.

I agree, they (almost) didn't exist until 1966 The Mildren Brabham-Maserati V12 was running at the end of 65, and seeing as the first NZ race was always the first week of January the other cars must have been built in late 1965 as well.

But the truth is that there was only ever three or four individual cars with enlarged 1.5 V8s actually ran in the Tasman Cup series.

The Tasman formula never forbade 8-cyl engines at all.

Prior to 1966 the rules certainly discouraged the use of V8 engines. (Not sure of the exact wording off hand, but they certainly weren't welcome - I would have thought they were effectively forbidden).

Initially this was because they were worried about people using large American V8s, and later the expensive 1.5 litre V8 F1 engines.

All the F1 teams ran cars with 4 cylinder FPF engines - such as the Brabham BT11A or Clark's Lotus 32 (?), that was later sold to Leo Geogehagen - prior to the end of 1965.

At the end of 1.5 litre F1 the Tasman rules were changed to be similar to the new 3 litre F1.

So at the end of 1965 some F1 teams ran the stretched 1.5 litre V8 cars that they would run as 3 litre F1 cars during 1966 - but these were actually 3 litre F1 cars rather than Tasman cars - that years Tasman series was effectively a winter test for the new F1 formula.

Anyway, my point was that the cars with big FPFs are pre-66 Tasman cars (and built as such) but those with oversized 1.5 litre V8s were always 3 litre F1 cars (post-65) that happend to run in Tasman races.

In fact weren't the Tasman cars restricted to 2.5 (maybe 2.7 litres), since Lotus had 2.5 litre DFVs (called DFW?) engines in the 49's in 1967 - so the rules still discouraged full F1 spec. engines.

The rules were unchanged from 1964 to 1970...

There was never any suggestion of any multi-cylinder engines being kept out... in fact, we were supposed to see the Ferrari V6 in 1965.

I'm afraid you have a few erroneous ideas. The stretched V8s of the BRM team were stretched for the Tasman... they had the H16 under development in England and expected it to be ready for the F1 season.

Clark never ran the Climax V8 here until 1967, so I guess you could say that it was a 3-litre F1 car pressed into service, but it was clear that it was needed to beat the BRMS anyway.

By the way, Geoghegan bought the Lotus 39, the car intended to have the flat 16 CLimax... the 32B went to Jim Palmer in NZ at the end of the 1965 season and then to Greg Cusack at the same time as Geoghegan took on the 39... at the end of the 1966 series.

There was never any suggestion of any multi-cylinder engines being kept out... in fact, we were supposed to see the Ferrari V6 in 1965.

From Sergent.com.au

The introduction of what was to become known as the Tasman Formula was greeted with some misgivings. In the first place it precluded the use of the lightweight American V8 engines which, in recent times, had proven extremely raceworthy when properly prepared. Thus a number of highly skilled American drivers had been excluded from the New Zealand racing scene.

Sorry, but that gave me the impression V8s weren't welcome.
A Ferrari V6 could still have been acceptable even if a V8 wasn't.

The result of the discussions between the association and international race promoters was the introduction of regulations limiting engine capacities of competing cars to a maximum of 2.5 litres, the banning of superchargers, and a requirement that all competing cars should run on 93 octane motor spirit, exactly the same as that offered motorists at their service stations. Previously international races had been conducted under Formula Libre conditions.

This intrigued me since most of the current FPF powered Tasman class cars run 2.7 litre Climaxes, which would have been illegal under the post 63 Tasman rules.

I'm afraid you have a few erroneous ideas. The stretched V8s of the BRM team were stretched for the Tasman... they had the H16 under development in England and expected it to be ready for the F1 season.

My uderstanding with the stretched engines is they were built for a variety of purposes: sports cars being one (Matra in particular wanting them), private use in 3 litre F1, possible Tasman use and to cover themselves in case the H-16 didn't work or wasn't ready.

Certainly Coventry Climax had no option but to stretch their 1.5 litre engines since they had given up on building a 3 litre engine - but this was done for 3 litre F1 and their use in Tasman was a bonus.

The real point is I don't understand why everyone doesn't run a proper 1.5 litre BRM V8 these days since mine is a 1.5 litre and there was no problem keeping it at that capacity.

Far be it from me to upset an owner of one of those lovely little things... but...

When Sergent speaks of excluding 'lightweight American V8 engines' he is reflecting on those like the BOP alloy V8 that had run in the Scarab and Glass' BRM and the many Corvette engines that had been used in local racing.

As for the elimination of the 2.7s, yes, this did cause a slight problem for the owners of them, but the thought was that the 2.5s were more reliable and there was even more of them about. Additionally, we are talking about a decision taken just three years after the conclusion of the 2.5-litre F1, and there were more such engines around than the Climax.

You may well be right about the multiple end use projections for the 1.9 and 2.1-litre BRMs, but Rubery Owen did put a lot of effort into the Tasman once they made the commitment to compete. Among other things, they were creating publicity for local investments like ROH Wheels in Adelaide. I think you'll find that Tasman participation was prime use, other uses (British Hillclimbs and sports cars) were spinoffs. Maybe Doug can confirm this?

Having these engines to fall back on in F1 was certainly a spinoff.

As for your current situation, I agree totally with you. If cars that were only ever 1.5s are now running bigger engines, the owners should take lessons in integrity... those allowing it should take lessons in history...

I'm not sure exactly how many BRMs came here, but there was only ever two at a time. I suspect that it was the same two each year, but I may be wrong. Lotus only ever sent one 33, and I'm sure I read somewhere here in the past few weeks that Climax only ever stretched one of their V8s.

To test the honesty of these people, perhaps they should be offered an early V12 BRM that ran out here. Then they should be given a Tasman engine for it... a V12 2.5... see if they like that idea!

Peter, you have my commendation for keeping yours at 1.5... it must give you much pleasure.

There is so much tosh written about what was allowed, what was not allowed, what should be allowed now...

In my considered opinion, for what it's worth, Peter is quite right in his inference that the Historic racing regulations makers and elgibility advisors are too often nuts or ignorant or partial or in some cases that I know of - sadly - just plain corrupt.

The background to the '2-litre' versus 1.5-litre BRM V8 situation is that owners of P261 BRMs found their cars packing '2-litre' engines. Rather than convert them back to 1.5-litres when the 1 1/2-litre Formula 1 Historic class began they left them as they were with the tacit acceptance that "P261s ran in Tasman events in this form" and in order to bolster '1 1/2-litre' Formula starting grids such '2-litre Tasman' cars were accepted. This was certainly the situation when we launched the Goodwood Revival Meeting and we specifically admitted Tasman Formula cars in order to put P261s on our starting grid against Lotus 25s and 33s, to present a scene as at Goodwood in 1964 and 1965.

But the adoption of '2-litre' BRM V8 engines was not confined to the BRM P261 chassis alone, and several other BRM-engined cars were fitted with 2-litre units ... in stark terms, just to compete. When a specialist set out to launch a production run of Climax FWMV V8 engines to support this class, he naturally decided to build them in 2-litre form - to confront the '2-litre' BRMs. Since only two 2-litre Climax V8s were built in period - to compete in 1966 3-litre Formula 1 and Tasman racing - the powers that be quite properly said 'no way', if you build Climax V8 engines for that Historic class they must be of 1.5-litres capacity max. The Climax brigade then, quite properly, began to tick and cluck and point furiously at the 2-litre BRM-propelled opposition.

The truth slowly dawned on them all - the first '2-litre' BRM V8 engine in a road racing single-seater (as opposed to the BRM 4WD experimental car) ran at Kyalami in November - I believe - 1965, Nov or Dec anyway, I'm not looking it up right now - while the works '2-litre' Tasman cars were en route to New Zealand for the start of their campaign in January 1966.

The rough end of the stick has been suffered by those who bought cars equipped with '2-litre' BRM V8 engines in good faith - believing them to be eligible for '1 1/2-litre' Historic Formula 1 events...only to have retospective rule tightening applied after their good-faith purchase. This has left them facing a bill of many thousands of Pounds to convert their '2-litre' V8s back to 1.5-litres, or with a devalued car which they have great difficulty to sell....except to the US if they can find a buyer there. Peter's 'unspoiled' 1.5-litre V8 engine is to be applauded, but until this year it was a pretty rare animal, and an uncompetitive one at that against '2-litre' opposition. Incidentally '2-litre' BRM V8 sizes actually range from 1880cc to 2070cc and while that larger size is said to be the absolute limit of potential bore and stroke one hears stories of at least one block mod having been specially cast to extend the true capacity still further - which is the pits as far as I am concerned.

Oh, and by the way, only three of the P261 chassis became 2-litre 'Tasman' cars in period...of which only two 'originals' survive.

DCN

Originally posted by Doug Nye
.....In my considered opinion, for what it's worth, Peter is quite right in his inference that the Historic racing regulations makers and elgibility advisors are too often nuts or ignorant or partial or in some cases that I know of - sadly - just plain corrupt.....

This is how it seemed to me, too, Doug... it was almost sad to wake this morning to read Peter's post, particularly that last paragraph...

As I've said many times before, I'm a real devotee of the tiny cylinder. The concept appeals to me... how I'd love to put together a modern 1100cc inline six and let it echo the screams of the K3 engine of years ago...

And I recall being told (at the time... one of the factors in my determination to ensure that the facts remain factual here being that "I was there!") that the first time the 2-litre (or 1.9, really) BRM was fired up they shut it down right away... they thought something was wrong because it sounded so different to the 1.5.

Now, I don't know how true that is, but I'll just bet it did sound at least a little different... and I have yet to hear a 1.5 V8 at all... so someone somewhere had better keep one of them running until I get that opportunity!

Originally posted by Doug Nye
In my considered opinion, for what it's worth, Peter is quite right in his inference that the Historic racing regulations makers and elgibility advisors are too often nuts or ignorant or partial or in some cases that I know of - sadly - just plain corrupt.

Doug thanks for the support, I guess you already knew that I have similar feelings about the authorities - but you are bigger than me and can get away with saying it like it is!

Of course I have a major eligibility dispute with Goodwood - why aren't my jeans & jumper acceptable, given that the people running my car wore similar when it raced at Goodwood?!!
(Cyril Linstone was even told the jumper he had worn as a mechanic at the first ever race at Goodwood was totally un-acceptable, and not because of the smell!!)...........

The rough end of the stick has been suffered by those who bought cars equipped with '2-litre' BRM V8 engines in good faith - believing them to be eligible for '1 1/2-litre' Historic Formula 1 events...

There is also at least one poor sod who bought what he was told was a 1.5 litre engine only to discover that it was over-size - despite what the (well known) driver selling the engine said (even when his wife raced with that engine)!

One thing that intrigues me is that a BT11 was built so tightly around the engine it isn't possible to fit a bigger engine (the blocks are taller and the heads would foul the top chassis rails), since I believe there is at least one BT11 running in over-sized V8 'Tasman' form how did they manage to fit the engine into an original car......................

Originally posted by Ray Bell

This is how it seemed to me, too, Doug... it was almost sad to wake this morning to read Peter's post, particularly that last paragraph...

In the end that was my main point (and one that has taken us some way from air-cooled engines!).

A lot of original cars have to be messed around because of the rules as they are now.

And then you get some messes that are accepted as original cars because they have a continuous history that 'proves' they are original (but fails to mention the point at which a previous owner modified it out of all recognition)!

Now, I don't know how true that is, but I'll just bet it did sound at least a little different... and I have yet to hear a 1.5 V8 at all... so someone somewhere had better keep one of them running until I get that opportunity!

There are enough around now that it should be possible for someone to inflict the 1.5 litre pain on your ears - I was more worried by the huge cloud of smoke that poured out as it was started, but have since been reassured that is perfectly normal!!

But it does remind me of the story about when they started up the 3 litre ex-Stewart H-16 after having just rebuilt it, apparently it sounded so rough (far worse than a bag of nails) that they switched it off immediately fearing a major assembly cock-up.
They only dared run it again after an ex-BRM employee confirmed that is what they always sounded like when they were cold!!

Originally posted by Peter Morley
.....One thing that intrigues me is that a BT11 was built so tightly around the engine it isn't possible to fit a bigger engine (the blocks are taller and the heads would foul the top chassis rails), since I believe there is at least one BT11 running in over-sized V8 'Tasman' form how did they manage to fit the engine into an original car.

Now that one is intriguing... and corrupt!

No Brabham was ever entered in either F1 or the Tasman Cup with an oversize FWMV... not ever!

For the Lotus 23 that had the Rotorvic engine to be hacked about because people play to these rules is simply ridiculous!

No Brabham was ever entered in either F1 or the Tasman Cup with an oversize FWMV... not ever!

I was thinking of one with a BRM V8 in it - it seems that most the Climaxes are still 1.5 litres, since they weren't enlarged at the time.

For the Lotus 23 that had the Rotorvic engine to be hacked about because people play to these rules is simply ridiculous!

Yep distorting history to fit someones definition of originality.

Thanks to all for your responses to my inquiry about the Honda RA302. I learned a lot about a car that has always fascinated me- and a lot about lots of other stuff as well!
I hadn't known that it was not fan-cooled. I would have thought that even at the relatively low output levels of the period ducted fan cooling would have been necessary. Did they use the exhaust gases to draw cooling air through the ducting(Coanda effect?) or? It must rate as one of the most interesting failures of post-war motor racing history.
Along those lines, does anyone on this forum know anything about a circa 1966-67 CanAm car called the "Macs-it Special"? All-wheel drive with 4 snowmobile 2-stroke engines- I remember seeing it go down through the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca, slowly and very noisily, never to be seen again. I believe the late Jerry Titus was the driver.
Usually,
Anton

Photos of the Mac's IT Special appear on site Photoessayist.net/canam/.

The Rotorvic 23 and anything similiar that raced years ago should be allowed to race as they were built.

Allowed to be damned!

They should be required to!

That's how it works here... the car has to be shown to be identical to how it was in the particular period. If, perchance, it ran with another engine at another time, then it would be allowed to run in that form in races for cars of that period, but everything would have to be as it ran in that period.

That's how it works here... the car has to be shown to be identical to how it was in the particular period. If, perchance, it ran with another engine at another time, then it would be allowed to run in that form in races for cars of that period, but everything would have to be as it ran in that period.

I wish it was that simple here.

In period, if you turned up with a car it was accepted as what it was - something looking like a Lotus 23 was a Lotus 23, whether it was made by Lotus in England or someone in Canada (for example - apparently some were), or a Cooper F2 car was a Cooper F2 whether it was made by Coopers or by the team running the car, or a Lotus 18/21 or 24 was still called a Lotus even though it might have been built by Parnell.

Historic races should apply the same rules - if it looks like a Lotus 23 it is a Lotus 23.
Then if it has a history even better (and so it is worth more money), if it doesn't look like a lotus 23 but was based on one, you should just have to prove why it is different (e.g. the Rotorvic car has a longer engine bay because it had this engine, unfortunately the engine is locked away in a museum, so the car now has a different engine but the casssis stays the same).

Nowadays they want you to produce continuous history, since that 'proves a car is original'.
When the car was raced originally no one cared about where it came from, all it had to do was meet the rules for that formula (and that was the authorities job to check its eligibility, not its history).

These days even if your car never had a chassis plate you are obliged to fit one - purchase tax at the time meant that a lot of manufacturers were loathe to supply a chassis plate with the car (especially if you took it out the back door) so a lot of cars never had a chassis plate (or they had one from a different car).

It would be great to go back to the run what you brung days, but it seems that we are so far up this creek that it is unlikely that reality will return.

Is there any more information on the Taglioni designed air-cooled F1 engine shown at:
http://httpd.chello....MaseratiV8.html
Allegedly it sat at the dealership of the link thru the late 90's

Regards
Yorgos

Originally posted by Yorgos
Is there any more information on the Taglioni designed air-cooled F1 engine shown at:
http://httpd.chello....MaseratiV8.html
Allegedly it sat at the dealership of the link thru the late 90's

Regards
Yorgos

Interesting...could have been the third desmo engine to enter F1?