Hi,

In a recent BRM V16 thread it was mentioned that there have been cars that were supposed to be all dominant yet in reality were hoodoo wagons because of having gone that one (or more steps...) too far.

I could think about a few cars that went too far ahead in employing certain technology features and failed miserably because of that. Though in later years either the reworked car or new cars based on similar principles worked well after all in some occasions.
I listed a few here,
Who can add some more?


BRM V16:
Way too complicated for a 1.5 liter, way too much power and near undrivable engine characteristics for the chassis.

FWD Novi V8
Too much power for a frontdrive car, in addition the surplus of power being generated very inefficient, causing other handicaps to cope with.

Ford GT40, (first version of 1964)
Aerodynamic disaster focused on topspeed without realizing that car had to remain on the ground.

Porsche 917 (first version of 1969)
Way too powerful for a `low drag` concept to remain on the road.

Lotus 80, Brabham-Alfa Romeo BT48, Arrows A2 (all of 1979)
One or more steps too far ahead in employing ground effects technology

1986 Brabham-BMW BT55
Gave the Lowline Low GC concept a false start.


Henri

Lotus was all about pushing the envelope, and a few times may have gone too far.

The specifications of the Lotus 12 promised much but it was too cutting-edge for the real world.

http://www.lotuseleven.org/DarkAges3/Mk%2012/lotus_12.htm

The Lotus 17 could fit here too, and designer Len Terry claimed to have told Chapman that in advance.

http://www.lotuseleven.org/Race%20Success/postscript.htm

There are many more recent examples.

Renault turbo engine? Hm. If not that, then the DB/Giaur were prophets well before their time...

Lotus' active suspension - spooked Mansell, so he never really trusted it when Williams adopted it a few years later.

How about the March 701? A very early attempt at aerodynamic side pods. Didn't really work, the air between the wheels was too messed up, but their mistake was applying the principles to the side rather than the underneath. Which BRM nearly did a couple of years before...

There was that McLaren, five or so years ago, that was meant to be very sophisticated, but never made it through the mandatory crash test.

What a beautiful segue-from the sublime to the ridiculous!

The front-drive Miller - although it won a few races on the board tracks, it was awful at Indy where it counted most, especially in 1.5-litre form. And the 1928 model was supposed to be the overkill, but was especially bad.

The 50 CV Darracq from 1900 - not sure it ever raced! And while we're at it, the 100 CV Darracq from 1904 I believe it was, was built in three or four different "national" versions to compete for the Gordon Bennett Cup, but failed to complete a single lap between some six or seven cars!

Bugatti T251.
Roger Lund

Tommy Ivo's "Showboat"??!!?? Is it just me or does the center bank of stub exhausts blow right into the driver's face?



Best,
Tom

The Cisitalia built by Porsche should be mentioned here. Mid engine and four wheel drive in 1947.

Can't see it being a serious attempt at ground-effect, I think the sidepods were mainly thought of as reducing drag! (But wasn't Peter Wright involved with the abandoned BRM wing-car in '69?)

Herd himself reckons the 701 was 'a good 1969 car', and that he would've done something more like the 711 if he'd had the time (i.e. gone with Bernie and Rindt instead of the customer-oriented March programme that really happened) - ref Mike Lawrence's March book. I don't think it was ever going to set the world on fire.

McLaren were being very odd there, with their designations. MP4/17 turned into 4/17D, which Ron claimed was '80% new', but it didn't get a new model number. Then 4/18 didn't race and gave rise to 4/19, which was really quite a minor derivative of the unraced '18... I sense Marketing B*ll*cks at play here.

Trebron! It was going to have a redesigned Judd engine, a novel cooling system and suspension, and I think they were talking about very elaborate aero and some kind of trick transmission.

Ah, vapourware!

How about the original AVS Shadow Can-Am car. Kind of the biggest engine in the smallest package taken to the extreme.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

Surely the ill-fated 1968 Formula One Honda RA302 must be considered.

Forty years on...

I remember reading about this bold project in Road & Track back in the day. It looked great in the magazine, but awful in reality.

On a much less awful note, I think that one of the cars I truly like, the Lotus 56, also overdid it. Too advanced, too far-fetched, too brilliant, too innovative, too cool, too awesome, and too unsuitable to road racing, although it worked fine on ovals.

How about the Lotus 40...described by Ginther as a "Lotus 30 with 10 more mistakes!". I'd imagine big V8's and increasingly larger and stickier tires worked against Lotus' penchant for building a light, verging on frail, chassis. Pretty cars though...

Best,
Tom

Speaking of the dragster varity.

How about Art Afrons monster riding on Goodyear Bias Plys picked up at the corner garage.

Henry

Some of those mentioned just needed development.........as well as the aero problem, the Porsche 917 had narrow wheels to start with because "der compooder" said they were adequate; the Brabham BT48 turned out OK once the aero was made more conventional; and the Brabham BT55 was cursed by its engine while Murray used basically the same chassis for the all-conquering 1988 McLaren.

The BRM H16 is one that meets the criteria for me - aiming for 400 lbs weight and 600 bhp but getting the numbers the wrong way round, and provision for 4-w-d, and then even going to 64 valves.

Paul M

Spot-on re Porsche 917's original spindly wheels and Dunlop bicycle tyres - I was about to mention that when I saw Macca's post above.

The Lotus 17 in original form was also a pretty spectacular turkey. Whenever Colin Chapman set out specifically to turn over Eric Broadley he came unstuck - a la Lotus-Climax 17 in response to Lola Mark I and Lotus-Ford 30 to show Ford the error of their ways in going to Lola for the Ford GT project...

The BRM H16 was of course a magnificent woulda-shoulda - as have been the Toyota Le Mans cars (followed by their Formula 1 programme). Ooh yes - and what about Jaguar's 'The Cat is Back' projects???? Serial offender? Wouldn't it now be just great to see the Indians get it right...where the Cowboys failed...

DCN

Which reminds me of the Ford -what's the name- F3L P68....

How about the 88 Ligier JS31 looked great but was a huge disaster. The other cars that spring to mind are the 91 arrows and brabham which looked completely different and the 95 mclaren which a lot of cars seem to resemble now.

The Scarab F1 car?

Too little too late would be more to the point I think.

The Alfa Romeo Bimotore of 1935 was a monster, going through tires at an alarming rate.

It was interesting hearing Ron Tauranac give a discourse once about the beginnings of the 3-litre/1.5 blown F1 era...

He said that they were really working in the dark on some things, in particular he mentioned brakes. Recall the strange way that Lotus front uprights (on the 49) were made to get the discs into the wind? And there was a similar thing with some Cooper Maseratis as I recall.

Ron's answer was to have a special tyre made by Goodyear, who were willing initially to go along with the idea. He would use 15" rim diameter on the inside, 13" on the outside to give a more supple outer wall which would assist in cornering traction.

So when you look at the things people did in that time, remembering that there was a shortage of money for most teams (which had been built up on relatively affordable BRM and Climax V8s) to get an appropriate engine together.

McLaren, it must be remembered, used something like seven different engines in that first few years. The coming of the DFV was a real salvation, along with big sponsorships.

But in the interim, the efforts went along many diverse routes as teams tried to get a foothold on success, and this often led to 'excesses' and strange bedfellows. One almost wonders what might have come from Alessandro de Tomaso had he decided to have a go at it then instead of in the earlier years.

Tyrrell P34

Chaparral 2H

And what about the Twin Porsche powered Fageol...

Each engine had a Supercharger, and I believe the power of the Main Engines was controled by changing the RPM of the Pony Motors that drove the Blowers...

How differently this car might have been viewed had they "found" (by Chuck Daigh IIRC) the extra 40 or so bhp discovered later due to injection/timing/valve inconsistencies, and had they developed the cars using Dunlops other than as a trial at Monaco
Roger Lund

Then there was the Schnorcedes which was so finely balanced that the driver had to conduct it while adopting a hurdling position and had to "Blasen der Nase" while in the pits because the drivers' overalls in the Schnorcedes team did not have a centrally positioned pocket for the handkerchief!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsphoto/2671437443/

This was a real, actual Can-Am car

"Overdoing it" started a long way back ... limited bore formula Peugeot voiturette. 280mm stroke twin.

And there was a De Dion single of 300mm stroke!

That also featured a tight street circuit where you couldn't overtake.

I'd beg to differ with you on Toyota's F1 cars being "woulda-shoulda" - at best they've been derivative, at worst they've been downright plagiaristic. Copying someone else's old car that closely never works - eg FW07 was structurally 'son of' Lotus, 009 was a copy ;)

On the other hand they would've richly deserved a Le Mans win.

Re Jag, I've worked a lot with Tata in the past. I can imagine the 2010 Le Mans cars turning up in mid-2012 with three wheels, half an engine and the doors welded up. ;(

...and put the engine at the end that the successful cars had it at. I'm sure it and the Astons could've competed for world's tallest dwarf front-engined honours ;)

Indy Ford, Serenissima, 2.0 BRM V8, BRM V12, DFV, Alfa (even though it came after the DFV) - it is quite a roll-call yes!

I've never been sure how serious Alfa were with the V8s, it all seemed a bit 'toe in the water' with both March and McLaren, and certainly somewhat chaotic Given that it wasn't ever a particularly successful sports car engine I'm not sure what the logic was of trying to run it in F1 against the Ferrari and Matra lumps that were beating them like a ginger-haired stepchild with the wheels covered, and the DFV, BRM etc.

This was at the Classic Motor Show last year. I assumed it was some sort of Edwardian curiosity!

What about the Ford GT70 rally concept? I can't remember what was wrong with it, but it was the wrong moment for it and only prototypes were ever made.

Given the fact that e car never was raced in anger I tend to give that car the benefit of the doubt. It never got a decent chance to show how much a failure it was, or revolutionize racing.

Henri

No-one has mentioned either the SEFAC or the CTA-Arsenal yet.
Pretty good contenders, I'd say.
At least that Lion-Peugeot raced on several occasions (and I think it may have won, but haven't time to look it up).

Keep in mind that that car was designed with only oval racing in mind to begin with.
As much as I respect Chapman's genious in design, I can't be a fan of him and/or Lotus given the manner how some of those idea's were built and the tragedies they got involved in, some of them I feel were avoidable. But having said that, the one Lotus that is dear to me and wished it had got the success it deserved: that is the 56. It still takes my breath away when I look at the Carousell1 model I have of it.
If I have to nominate a top 10 of most innovative and impressive racing cars ever built then the 56 would be in the top 3, if not on top. This despite being a Lotus....

henri

Speaking of Lotus...

Ignoring the fact that the car's technicalities and idiosyncrasies terrified the driver in its one? test session, i think we should also consider our old friend the Guidobaldi
Roger Lund

I think they underdid it. The SEFAC was state of the art for 1929.

Anson SA3?

Same here.

Do you have NGH's or Leonard's car?

There seems to two aspects to this under discussion here.
Henri opend the thread with cars which essentially (or in their initial guise at least) failed to deliver because their concept, technology or excecution was over ambitious, flawed or too overly-complex too be practically exploited.

I don't think the Lotus 56 fits into that category - it was actually quike unlucky not to win, surely?
However, machines such as the 56, Chaparral 2J, Lotus 88 and Williams six-wheeler went "too far" in that their evident potential, if not results, was considerd "too much" and were either banned or brought about subsequent rule amendments to put the reins on those avenues of development.

What do you think?

Yes, probably overall, since the flashes of thought that were advanced for 1934 were usually offset by aspects from long before, e.g. six-shoe self-wrapping brakes, but cable operated; desmodromic cam followers operating spring-closed valves.

The Lotus 88 was not banned, it was not legal. It's time to put that nonsense to rest!

About the Lion-Peugeot, it was second in the Coupe de l'Auto, the most important race for its kind, and a winner in minor events. Not overdone.

More to the point, wasn't the Lotus 88 rubbish? Just didn't work as a concept?

Although ahead of its time was the Indianapolis Cornelian - a sort of 25 for the 1920s. Perhaps the Ford specials from 1934(ish)? They were competitive even after the war, once the design flaw of boiling away the steering thingy had been sorted. But it put Ford off for years.

Not sure - I believe with development, it could have worked.

The Cornelian is a good call , a car largely forgotten because its originators lost interest in the business. Although, actually it also 'underdid', because it was way too small in capacity. It did VERY well for its size, but against competitors with engines almost three times as big, it was simply overlooked!

The 1935 Miller-Fords were very nice and stylish cars, but they were never going to win anything because of their stock engines. I don't think they were ever competitive, except for the one they stuffed the Winfield aka Novi V8 in. And the steering problem was solved as soon as the original lump of engine was substituted by a proper one... it was the position of a u-joint close to the Ford's exhaust, which melted the grease out, thereby locking the column - not nice at 130 mph!

Speaking of Miller, the 1938 rear-engined Miller could be seen as 'overdone', with all-wheel drive, laydown engine position, pannier tanks... I will have to read this one up again, but there were a lot of novel features! Didn't work, however, perhaps mostly due to low quality fuel, which again was down to a sponsor! Sod's Law...

In what way was it not legal?
In any case it made a lot more sense than the tricks some people were playing at the time. Remember those suspension systems that jacked up the cars' ride height as they came into the pits?

The concept was just right. You got back to a car with suspension movement.