[quote name='Roger Clark' date='Jul 17 2010, 17:38' post='4482236']
I hadn't heard that the G-type was conceived as an F1 car. May i ask the source of that information?
This story comes from the detailed Wikipedia page on Leslie Johnson "Johnson’s ambitious and technically advanced E-Type successor, the G-Type ERA, was designed to race in both Grands Prix and Formula 2." (http://en.wikipedia..../Leslie_Johnson
). Of course Grands Prix were run for Formula 2 in 1952 and 1953 but prior to that had been two seperate categories.
I have always believed that the G type was conceived in early 1951 or even earlier because throughout the 1950 season Johnson had been repeadly stymied by the mechanical unreliability of the E type and needed a replacement. He certainly intended to continue racing himself in F1 despite worsening health. He was scheduled to test the V16 BRM prior to the Italian GP at Monza in 1951 perhaps because the G type ERA was late and he had no funds to finish it. In the event he never made it to the circuit in time and nothing further came of the BRM connection.
The article linked by artidesco doesn't cite any evidence so I think that question remains open. Apparently Leslie Johnson had been leaking titbits about the G type to the motor racing press for months before the 1952 season started. If anybody has the references for the resulting articles they might shed more light on the matter.
As for Eberan von Eberhorst's role Fuzzi's comments are interesting. I had previously understood that he was still employed by ERA until he returned to Germany in 1953 and merely subcontracted to Jowett, Aston Martin and others. Apparently this is correct in the case of Jowett "I was loaned out, first of all to Jowett." However Fuzzi writes that subsequently, "Eberhorst managed to extract himself from his contract with Johnson and went to work at Aston Martin where he designed the DB3," If that is correct then the exact date of the initial design of the G type becomes crucial.
As to the possible role of Bristol in building the Magnesium and Zirconium chassis frame, if that was true why did they then discard it and replace it with conventional materials after buying the car? Incidentally why did Bristol buy the G type project anyway? Anthony Crook knew enough about racing to know that the car had been a failure.
Perhaps they wanted a good look at the engine? This was a Bristol but had been dry sumped to lower what was a nortoriously tall unit. Does anybody know if this affected its power and reliability? Did any of the other Bristol engined specials of the period go the same route technically?