43 replies to this topic

[cannell]

Which Marque was the first to make the switch to rear-engines in the 1950s? I believe it was Cooper, followed by Lotus and Porsche. Is that right?

[RA Historian]

It certainly did not start a trend, but there was the Bugatti 251 at Reims in 1956!

BRM ran their rear engine P-48 prototype in practice at Monza in 1959. Porsche ran Spyders in F-II occasionally before the open wheel car debuted in 1959. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first rear engine Lotus F-1 did not appear until Argentine in Jan., 1960.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 03 March 2010 - 22:42.

[hansfohr]

Which Marque was the first to make the switch to rear-engines in the 1950s? I believe it was Cooper, followed by Lotus and Porsche. Is that right?

If you disregard F2-derived cars (and Bugatti's one-off in 1956) it was Cooper that really started the rearengined trend since entering two T43's in Monaco 1957. Next up was the Lotus 18 (Argentina 1960), Ferrari 246P (Monaco 1960) and Porsche 804 (Zandvoort 1961).

BTW It's debatable if the Porsche 718 and 787 should be regarded as genuine F1 cars.

Edited by hansfohr, 03 March 2010 - 23:26.

[bradbury west]

But do not forget the Guidobaldi, albeit it did not switch to rear engine. It was built in that form. Do we include the Cisitalia?
Roger Lund

[T54]

... and my personal favorite, the fantastic Sacha-Gordine? I would LOVE to find the car and complete it, then race it...

By the way, 2011 will be the 50th anniversary of the Rear-Engine Revolution at Indy...

Edited by T54, 04 March 2010 - 01:54.

[Roger Clark]

If you disregard F2-derived cars (and Bugatti's one-off in 1956) it was Cooper that really started the rearengined trend since entering two T43's in Monaco 1957. Next up was the Lotus 18 (Argentina 1960), Ferrari 246P (Monaco 1960) and Porsche 804 (Zandvoort 1961).

BTW It's debatable if the Porsche 718 and 787 should be regarded as genuine F1 cars.

THe 804 first appeared, of course, in 1962. I'm not sure why it should be mentioned in the context of the rear-engined revolution! I know that the 718 and 787 first raced in the 1.5-litre Formula 2 but I don't see why they shouldn't be seen as genuine Formula 1 cars. You could say the same of a Cooper.

[Rob Miller]

If you disregard F2-derived cars (and Bugatti's one-off in 1956) it was Cooper that really started the rearengined trend since entering two T43's in Monaco 1957. Next up was the Lotus 18 (Argentina 1960), Ferrari 246P (Monaco 1960) and Porsche 804 (Zandvoort 1961).

BTW It's debatable if the Porsche 718 and 787 should be regarded as genuine F1 cars.

Surely the Cooper was an F2-derived car, which was in turn derived from a sports car, as was the Porsche 718 open-wheel single seater.

[ianselva]

If you disregard F2-derived cars (and Bugatti's one-off in 1956) it was Cooper that really started the rearengined trend since entering two T43's in Monaco 1957. Next up was the Lotus 18 (Argentina 1960), Ferrari 246P (Monaco 1960) and Porsche 804 (Zandvoort 1961).

BTW It's debatable if the Porsche 718 and 787 should be regarded as genuine F1 cars.

The question doesn't specify F1 cars just the trend.

[Mansell4PM]

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the pre-war Auto-Unions yet. Surely the first successful rear engined cars at the highest level of contemporary open wheeled motor sport (i.e. the F1 equivalent of the time)?

I know they aren't technically 'rear engined', but neither are current F1 cars. The engine is however behind the driver, which I'm guessing is the mechanical layout this thread is aiming for.

[f1steveuk]

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the pre-war Auto-Unions yet. Surely the first successful rear engined cars at the highest level of contemporary open wheeled motor sport (i.e. the F1 equivalent of the time)?

I know they aren't technically 'rear engined', but neither are current F1 cars. The engine is however behind the driver, which I'm guessing is the mechanical layout this thread is aiming for.

How does that fit into the 1950s then!!??

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by f1steveuk
How does that fit into the 1950s then!!?

Similarly, how can you count Porsches (or Auto Unions, for that matter) in a thread that talks about 'switching' to rear engined?

[Philip Whiteman]

In terms of how the original question was framed, Steve is of course quite right – but it is interesting that by 1938 von Eberhorst had refined the Auto Union's layout to the point that it had, in D Type form, a central driving position and most of the fuel load distributed alongside the driver. In this sense, it was twenty years ahead of its time – even if it did have a simple ladder frame and a non-independent de Dion back end.

[Mansell4PM]

How does that fit into the 1950s then!!??

Well it obviously doesn't - but I was just amazed nobody mentioned how Auto-Union predicted the rear engined revolution over 20 years earlier.

This wasn't an answer to the OP's question as such. So a bit OT really.

[David McKinney]

There is only one answer, and that's Cooper
In spite of Auto Union's successes in the 1930s, they did not start a trend, as everyone else continued to build front-engined cars.
Cooper were first to show that a rear-engined car could be competitive in F1, and after getting the full-sized engine in 1959 left the competition with no option but to follow suit.

Edited by David McKinney, 04 March 2010 - 10:02.

[f1steveuk]

I was going by the actual question, as when I interviewed John Cooper many years ago, he claimed he never even considered the Benz Tropfenwagen, Auto Union's, or any other car when putting the engine behind the driver, it happened because when you cut two Fiat chassis' in half and weld them together to make a racing car chassis, it simply made sense, and the rest of Cooper's philosophy grew from that, although I am sure there was much more to it than that!

Had the question not stated "in the 1950s" I would have proffered the Benz Tropfenwagen (which I think was an early Porsche design anyway?), but I sometimes wonder what Porsche's aims were with the placement of the engine. I sometimes wonder if it just wasn't to lower the driver in the cockpit, and therefore the c of g, rather than pre-empting that which we have today.

If I'd never gone OT, I'd have more room to talk!!!

[hansfohr]

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the pre-war Auto-Unions yet. Surely the first successful rear engined cars at the highest level of contemporary open wheeled motor sport (i.e. the F1 equivalent of the time)?

That was my first thought too! I fully agree that the brutal pre-war GP cars were at least an equivalent to post-war F1. It's no coincidence that both the Auto Union and the post-war Cisitalia 360 were rearengined, courtesy of the brilliant Ferdinand Porsche.

But the Auto Union didn't start a trend, Cooper did.......

Edited by hansfohr, 04 March 2010 - 10:12.

[JimBradshaw]

I don't think there is any doubt that in real, practcial and effective terms, the Cooper Car Company revolutionised the modern era.

Maybe the Sheppards Bush, "Steptoe and Son", image of the Coopers, doesn't sit well with the London Auction Houses and their hired lackeys.

That is in their conscience to get sorted.

Meanwhile, we Aussies rejoice in the fact that Cooper brought customer owned, CURRENT world championship contending cars, to our shores in 1959.

JB

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by f1steveuk
.....it happened because when you cut two Fiat chassis' in half and weld them together to make a racing car chassis, it simply made sense, and the rest of Cooper's philosophy grew from that, although I am sure there was much more to it than that!

That... and the fact that there's precious few places you can run a chain between an engine in the front and a sprocket on the back axle of there's a lump of a driver in between...

Think about it. Or maybe you shouldn't? Ouch!

[hansfohr]

I don't think there is any doubt that in real, practcial and effective terms, the Cooper Car Company revolutionised the modern era.

In terms of shifting the engine to the rear with great succes, yes. But after catching up it was Lotus (particularly since the introduction of the full monocoque '25') which continueously headed the technological innovation in F1.

[Roger Clark]

It may have been obvious to put the engine behind the driver on a 500 but I don't think the same was true of the first Climax engined car which we nowadays call the T39 or Bobtail. Between the two Cooper built a number of front-engined F2 and sportscars. It would have been quite natural for them to build the T39 as an extension of that theme, rather than the F3s. The decision to put the engine behind the driver was one of the most significant in the historty of motor racing and Cooper are not given sufficient credit by frequent statements to the effect that it just evolved.

[JimBradshaw]

In terms of shifting the engine to the rear with great succes, yes. But after catching up it was Lotus (particularly since the introduction of the full monocoque '25') which continueously headed the technological innovation in F1.

Im not sure Hans,

I have always had a nagging feeling, as much as I respect Bruce , he was no Clark or Brabham and Cooper therefore, suffered in comparison.

Cooper didn't have a real Number 1 after JB left and maybe they suffered as a result.

My suspicsion is that a real No 1 would have prolonged Cooper's reign.

JB

[Ray Bell]

Two things about that, Stan...

First, reading somewhat between the lines of a lot of Doug Nye posts, Charles Cooper would be hard to convince in many areas and a driver who wanted to engineer a car would have an uphill battle.

Second, Lotus had already shown themselves well in control of the necessary 'catch up' by the end of 1960, underlining it in 1961.

[HiRich]

Roger Clark makes the most interesting point.
The chain problem led to the mid-engine solution for 500s, and Cooper weren't the only ones to think of it.
By the 1951-2, the benefits were clear. Both the theoretical (moment of inertia, centre of gravity and cross-sectional area), explained at length in Iota magazine, and practical (in 1951, the Moss Kieft "qualified" for the German Grand Prix at the Nurburgring, despite struggling to break 100mph tops). In "Twin" form, they showed exceptional performance.
In retrospect, the decision should have been obvious. But both Cooper and Kieft reverted to front engine for their larger single-seaters.

So what was the thinking behind the Bobtail? Did a 500 driver identify the opportunity? Is there some forgotten sportscar special that turned heads? Did Pa Cooper just turn up in a bad mood one morning and demand the impossible from Owen Maddocks (again)?

[angst]

That was my first thought too! I fully agree that the brutal pre-war GP cars were at least an equivalent to post-war F1. It's no coincidence that both the Auto Union and the post-war Cisitalia 360 were rearengined, courtesy of the brilliant Ferdinand Porsche.

But the Auto Union didn't start a trend, Cooper did.......

Indeed, the Auto-Union didn't start a trend... in fact it could be argued that the earlier Auto-Unions is what put off people from putting the engine behind the driver in a larger engined race car.

Perhaps, had the war come a little later (or not at all) the D-Type and (proposed) E-Type might have begun the revolution.

[JimBradshaw]

What was the thinking behind the Bobtail? Did a 500 driver identify the opportunity? Is there some forgotten sportscar special that turned heads? Did Pa Cooper just turn up in a bad mood one morning and demand the impossible from Owen Maddocks (again)?

I think my Steptoe and Son analogy, not meant unkindly , typfiies Cooper of the era.

Decent, practical, honest approach , suspicious of "radicals", father versus son, ......T53, T55, the Monaco's... all great cars.....and very successful, but the popular press tended to focus on Clark and Lotus to the detriment of Cooper.

I think Cooper deserves a better epitaph than peroxided bimbos driving about in BMW "produced" life-style cars with "works " bonnet stripes and mobile phones to their ears.

Maybe i am just old

JB

[D-Type]

If the 1.5/4.5 litre Formula 1 had continued we might have seen the Ricard-designed Alfa Romeo 512 and the Porsche-designed Cisitalia 360 running, both spiritual successors of the Auto Union. But it didn't happen.

Then in 1956 we had the Colombo-designed Bugatti, again we should consider it a spiritual successor to the Auto Union and maybe the 512 Alfa. It made a solitary appearance and didn't cover itself with glory. Had the funds been available we might have seen it developed into a race winner. But it didn't happen.

Then came Cooper. The story of how it came into being is worth considering separately. for reasons almost totally independent of the Porsche-designed Auto Union they developed a sequence of rear-engined cars - the F3 > Bobtail > F2 > F1 cars. The 1958 regulations change helped. And the rear-engined car started to win races.

BRM, then Lotus, then Ferrari followed what was essentially the precedent set by Cooper.

In parallel with Cooper, Porsche developed their sports cars which became the 718 and 787. These also showed BRM, Lotus and Ferrari that rear-engined was the way to go.

So to answer the original question, it was Cooper who initiated the switch to rear engines.


A supplementary question we need to ask is "Why did they put the engine in the rear of the Bobtail?". As Roger Clark said above, this was the really significant breakthrough.

When the 500 movement started some builders essentially put a motorcycle engine into an Austin 7 or Fiat Topolino chassis. It was Cooper who came up with the concept of a motorcycle engine and drivetrain dropped into the rear of a chassis made of two Topolino front ends joined together. It gave the advantages of less transmission loss, better traction and low frontal area and it was successful. hence it was copied by others.
But, when they produced the Cooper-MG sports car they used a conventional front-engined layout to match the MG drive train. They followed this precedent with the Cooper-Bristol.
But for the Bobtail they went rear-engined. They knew that the rear engine worked in the 500 and I'm sure they were aware of how effective the Porsche sports cars were. The Climax engine was a lot smaller than the Bristol or the MG so it probably appeared more feasible. But with the wisdom of hindsight it was a brilliant decision. I'm posting from work and will have to re-read the relevant chapters of Doug Nye's Cooper bible tonight.

Edited by D-Type, 04 March 2010 - 13:01.

[bradbury west]

...Lotus (particularly since the introduction of the full monocoque '25') ...

O/T but whilst we know what you may mean to say, it might be wise to be careful with terminology
Roger Lund

[David McKinney]

It was Cooper who came up with the concept of a motorcycle engine and drivetrain dropped into the rear of a chassis made of two Topolino front ends joined together

Let's say Cooper was among the first to come up with the rear engine/chain drive concept. But they did it better than their predecessors and, significantly, marketed their product successfully

[Eric Dunsdon]

Whoever was resposible it was a dark day for some of those of us who were raised on the classic front engined racing cars. There I was, a young lad reading about chaps like Fangio, Farina, Ascari and Villoresi etc in Alfa-Romeo's, Ferari's and Maserati's. Then almost before you know it much shorter Grand Prix races are being won by cars and drivers that I associated more with with Brands Hatch and Crystal Palace. Not the same thing at all. Progress isnt always a good thing!.

[angst]

Whoever was resposible it was a dark day for some of those of us who were raised on the classic front engined racing cars. There I was, a young lad reading about chaps like Fangio, Farina, Ascari and Villoresi etc in Alfa-Romeo's, Ferari's and Maserati's. Then almost before you know it much shorter Grand Prix races are being won by cars and drivers that I associated more with with Brands Hatch and Crystal Palace. Not the same thing at all. Progress isnt always a good thing!.

The race shortening business is an interesting aspect. I can't remember where, but somewhere in my distant past I remember reading that the shortening of races assisted the Cooper design.. that without that the Coopers might not have been as competitive, and the front-engined cars may have held sway - at least for a little longer. I'll have to research through some of my books to clarify the point, but wasn't alot of the Cooper's competitiveness as much to do with the lightness of the chassis and such like (I'm preparing myself for being shot down here ), weren't the Ferraris and Vanwalls much more 'robust', designed for the longer races.

[Ray Bell]

Reduced frontal area was probably more of an issue than reduced weight, though both counted...

The availability of the Coventry Climax engine with a reasonable power level and a reasonable size for rear placement also helped.

[Vitesse2]

Reduced frontal area was probably more of an issue than reduced weight, though both counted...

The availability of the Coventry Climax engine with a reasonable power level and a reasonable size for rear placement also helped.

The switch from Avgas didn't help Ferrari and Vanwall either.

The prospect of a 1.5 litre Formula for 1941 presents interesting possibilities though. The Alfa 512 wasn't the car the company had hoped for, although it was perhaps never developed to its full potential as the 158s proved more than adequate until 1950 or so. The E-type Auto Union is a totally unknown quantity, although obviously the Cisitalia owed more than a little to ideas originally developed for Zwickau. However, it should be remembered that Dr Porsche's connections with Auto Union had been severed at the end of 1937 and he was then deeply involved with the KdF (Volkswagen) project, so there is perhaps not as much Auto Union in the Cisitalia as you might think. Even so, Porsche was still involved in racing car design - but for Mercedes Benz. He had submitted a rear-engined design to them for the 1938 Formula, but it was rejected: the T80 LSR car was also rear-engined (although admittedly aero-engined!) I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the W165's successor would have had the engine behind the driver ...

[RStock]

The switch from Avgas didn't help Ferrari and Vanwall either.

But did it really help Cooper , as Ferrari and Vanwall fought for the title that year ? No doubt it helped them win , but it seems they were still outgunned . Adding the 2.5 litre seemed to be what really put them over the top . But no doubt the tools were already there for them to do so .

[RStock]

Let's say Cooper was among the first to come up with the rear engine/chain drive concept. But they did it better than their predecessors and, significantly, marketed their product successfully

I think saying they were amongst the first to come up with the rear engine/chain drive concept is giving them a bit too much credit , as that idea had been around about as long as the automobile . But they certainly were leaders in refining the concept for racing .

[Racer.Demon]

What about Jack Brabham's contribution?

There were quite a few more post-war experiments other than the Cisitalia, Sacha Gordine and Bugatti. I'm thinking of the Mono JK, the Monopol, the Nardi-Lancia, Klodwig's Heck-BMW, the Tatra T607, the Pegaso Z-105 (based on the Alfa 512), the Milano-Franchini, and the two Connaughts, the J5 and the D-type. All of them failed because of being over-engineered and/or underfunded. David hits the nail on the head with his remark that Cooper's production numbers and successful marketing played a significant part as well.

I'm still intrigued by the question whether Connaught would have led the British revolution instead of Cooper if the Godiva had gone ahead.

[bradbury west]

I'm still intrigued by the question whether Connaught would have led the British revolution instead of Cooper if the Godiva had gone ahead.

Especially so if we are still talking about the switch in period from front to rear engined within the same marque, as Rodney Clarke had already, in 1952, drawn up a design for a lightweight spaceframed rear engined single seater powered by 2xJAP 998cc V twins linked together. It did not progress beyond the drawing stage, although, one suspects that it might have proved to have been a very good pilot design for a later car, perhaps powered by Mr Tresilian's engine.. Bear in mind that Clarke was already ahead in his chassis design thinking, having proposed a monocoque design in 1950.
Roger Lund

[David McKinney]

Rodney Clarke had already, in 1952, drawn up a design for a lightweight spaceframed rear engined single seater powered by 2xJAP 998cc V twins linked together
Roger Lund

Didn't Kieft do the same thing, and actually get it running?
It didn't start a trend though...

[hansfohr]

Didn't Kieft do the same thing, and actually get it running?

Yes, in 1952 Kieft built a F2 car with a rearengined aircooled AJB flat four powerplant which was designed by Archie Butterworth. It was a disaster on the circuit, but became very successful in hillclimbing with Michael Christie.

[David McKinney]

Yes, now you mention it, not a motorcycle power unit, but a rear-engined F2 car nevertheless

However, I certainly don't remember Christie being "very successful in hillclimbing" with it

[Roger Clark]

The switch from Avgas didn't help Ferrari and Vanwall either.

Do you mean the switch to Avgas?

In fact it didn't do Ferrari much harm as the Dino was designed from the start to run on petroleum based fuel.

The lower fuel consumption and the shorter race distances did make smaller cars possible. The importance of this can't be over-emphasised. Several of the rear-engined design mentioned on this thread were not much smaller than contemporary front engined cars. The Lotus 12 showed that it was possible to build a front-engiend car as small and light as a rear-engined one.

Another factor was the improvement in tyre technology which made a much more responsive car possible. THe original Lancia and the Ferrari 553/555 showed the difficulty of a responsive car on mid-50's tyres.

[David McKinney]

The Lotus 12 showed that it was possible to build a front-engiend car as small and light as a rear-engined one.

As small and light, yes, but with inferior traction (and possibly handling)

[angst]

As small and light, yes, but with inferior traction (and possibly handling)

Wasn't the Lotus 16 quite a fast car...? I thought that its major problem was, simply, that it kept on breaking.

[angst]

Do you mean the switch to Avgas?

In fact it didn't do Ferrari much harm as the Dino was designed from the start to run on petroleum based fuel.

The lower fuel consumption and the shorter race distances did make smaller cars possible. The importance of this can't be over-emphasised. Several of the rear-engined design mentioned on this thread were not much smaller than contemporary front engined cars. The Lotus 12 showed that it was possible to build a front-engiend car as small and light as a rear-engined one.

Another factor was the improvement in tyre technology which made a much more responsive car possible. THe original Lancia and the Ferrari 553/555 showed the difficulty of a responsive car on mid-50's tyres.

Yes, this is pretty much what I remembered. The change to Avgas, combined with the shorter distances allowed much smaller cars, and much lighter cars as well. There was much in common between the front engined Grand Prix cars up to this time and the sportscars of the day - because the Grand Prix cars had to be built to withstand a three hour plus race, generally.

I wonder how much longer the rear-rngined revolution would have taken were it not for those changes? Anyway, I'm going to fetch out those books and go through them again - if for no other reason that to look upon those beautiful front-engined cars anew...

Edited by angst, 05 March 2010 - 19:16.

[venator]

I was going by the actual question, as when I interviewed John Cooper many years ago, he claimed he never even considered the Benz Tropfenwagen, Auto Union's, or any other car when putting the engine behind the driver, it happened because when you cut two Fiat chassis' in half and weld them together to make a racing car chassis, it simply made sense, and the rest of Cooper's philosophy grew from that, although I am sure there was much more to it than that!

Had the question not stated "in the 1950s" I would have proffered the Benz Tropfenwagen (which I think was an early Porsche design anyway?), but I sometimes wonder what Porsche's aims were with the placement of the engine. I sometimes wonder if it just wasn't to lower the driver in the cockpit, and therefore the c of g, rather than pre-empting that which we have today.

If I'd never gone OT, I'd have more room to talk!!!

The Benz Tropfenwagen was not a Porsche design, Porsche never having worked for Benz. It was based on the Rumpler Tropfenauto (passenger car) design.