41 replies to this topic

[Amphicar]

There was a surge of interest in four wheel drive in F1 in the late 1960s, with Lotus, McLaren, Matra and Cosworth all producing cars - but they were all unsuccessful in terms of race results. All of these cars seem to have suffered from severe understeer and the drivers who sampled them were generally less than complimentary: Graham Hill reputedly described the Lotus 63 as "a death trap"; Johnny Servoz-Gavin said the Matra MS84 was "undriveable"; Bruce McLaren likened driving his own M9A to "trying to write your signature with someone constantly jogging your elbow"; and Jackie Stewart who briefly drove the Cosworth commented that "the car's so heavy on the front, you turn into a corner and whole thing starts driving you".

By contrast, the earlier Ferguson P99 was quite successful - Stirling Moss won the Gold Cup at Oulton Park in 1961 in it and in the 1963 Tasman races, Graham Hill drove the P99 to 6th place in the Australian GP and 2nd place in the Lakeside International. Moss was apparently so taken with the Ferguson that in a 1997 interview for MotorSport, he nominated the P99 as his favourite F1 car.

My question is, what accounts for the striking difference between the relative success of the P99 and the failure of the "class of '69"? Surely not the drivers - even if they were not Moss's equals, Hill, McLaren and Stewart were all Grand Prix winners and Servoz-Gavin was a former F2 and F3 champion - and of course Hill had himself driven the P99 with some success. One obvious difference between the Ferguson and the four 1969 cars is that it was front engined while they were mid-engined - but wouldn't a front engined car be more prone to understeer? The other big change between 1961 and 1969 was in the size of the tyres and the amount of grip they provided. Could this be the explanation of why the Lotus, Cosworth, McLaren & Matra were such a handful? Would power steering have improved matters?

[arttidesco]

Great question probably best answered by one of the boffins on the technical forum. Like you I am curious to know the answer.

[Vitesse2]

Graham Hill had also tested the BRM P67, which was never raced, although it became a successful hillclimb car. Funnily enough, BRM didn't build a 4WD in 1969 ...;)

[jatwarks]

Moss preferred the P99 in the wet only, due to better grip and traction at the lower speeds required.

The best description I read of the disadvantage of 4 wheel drive (can't remember who said it) was that it felt like someone was jogging your elbow as you steered round corners; every input to the steering prompted the need for further inputs.

2 wheel drive was better in most conditions.

We'll never know if 4 wheel drive could be developed into the better option as all such innovation is banned in F1.

[Ray Bell]

Unfortunately his assessment of the 63 was correct...

Though it didn't prove itself for another three decades and more.

[Doug Nye]

Tyre size and relative grip...

DCN

[Vitesse2]

Just dug out Alan Henry's book on the subject. He suggests that the 1969 4WDs were a "me too" reaction to Keith Duckworth announcing that Cosworth were building one. The chapter is entitled "The Four-Wheel-Drive Blind Alley".

[Amphicar]

Graham Hill had also tested the BRM P67, which was never raced, although it became a successful hillclimb car. Funnily enough, BRM didn't build a 4WD in 1969 ...;)

Indeed - in fact according to the unofficial BRM website (http://members.madas...son/brm-P67.htm) it was Hill who suggested to Tony Rudd that BRM build a 4WD car.

[Amphicar]

The best description I read of the disadvantage of 4 wheel drive (can't remember who said it) was that it felt like someone was jogging your elbow as you steered round corners; every input to the steering prompted the need for further inputs.

The quote was by Bruce McLaren - see my original post

[Tim Murray]

In My Cars, My Career Stirling Moss spoke of having to consciously adapt his driving technique to cope with the power understeer of the four-wheel drive system.

I therefore realised that one had consciously to steer this car, not merely use the steering wheel to set it up before the corner as one would with conventional rear-wheel drive to present the car in a certain attitude on a certain line.. Oh no, the Ferguson demanded to be consciously steered, and one had to continuously balance its power very directly against steering reaction.

The car fascinated me ...

In Life at the Limit Graham Hill is fairly complimentary about the Ferguson, and not too dismissive of the Lotus 63, describing it as very nice to drive in the wet. I think that the much wider tyres of 1969 meant that, in the dry, the task of 'balancing the power directly against steering reaction' was very much more difficult than in the Ferguson.

[bradbury west]

Tyre size and relative grip... DCN

And probably not helped by the "unknown" ideal split fore and aft. The problems with ever-wider tyres had already been perhaps a bigger issue than we realise with the Lotus 25 into 33 and the 49 a year or few earlier. In Chapman, the Innovator, Karl Ludvigson covers this is some depth and in full detail via Chapman's words, on pags 134/135. The problems resulted in the full redesign of the 49's suspension to become much softer as the 49B, the whole thing complicated by NGH's usual desire to go harder and harder to avoid camber change, which was the one thing which was alien to these wider tyres.
I am assuming that the DFV did not still have quite such a "light-switch" throttle action by this time

Reading in KL's book the changes needed due to tyre size changes on such icons as the 25 and 49, with so many different dynamics to address with a 4WD layout perhaps any direction of development brought its own problems all of which compounded other difficulties. Maybe the 4WDs were a bit like the Bugatti T251, some good ideas individually, but, untested and put together, unworkable.
Roger Lund

[Vitesse2]

In Life at the Limit Graham Hill is fairly complimentary about the Ferguson, and not too dismissive of the Lotus 63, describing it as very nice to drive in the wet. I think that the much wider tyres of 1969 meant that, in the dry, the task of 'balancing the power directly against steering reaction' was very much more difficult than in the Ferguson.

I think Graham was perhaps being a bit diplomatic there. Henry's book mirrors my own memory that "neither Graham Hill nor Jochen Rindt was unduly excited about the project": Jochen of course refused point-blank to drive the 63 at Silverstone and it ended up being lent to Bonnier.

[Doug Nye]

Bruce McLaren told Tony Rudd of BRM - who had unique 4WD experience outside Ferguson Research, who doubtless were keen not to turn away any potential customers and so would sing another song - that he was building a research vehicle to match Cosbodge, and asked Tony what 4WD was like? Tony asked him if he thought it was a good idea to detune his engine by 15-20 per cent, strap a hundredweight sack of cement across the car, and to introduce an unpredictable force which would intermittently grab the steering as he progressed through a corner. Bruce said no, he did not think any of those approaches would be a good idea, whereupon Tony recommended he should save his money, because that is what 4WD was like on a racing car. Bruce was too far advanced to take Tony's advice. I am sure that had 4WD been tried by, say, Colin Chapman, in 1964 and rejected...none of the 1969 crop of 4WD F1 cars would have come about. Since it was BRM who had tried it and rejected the idea, the bright young things ignored their conclusion. It cost them.

DCN

[Stephen W]

Tyre size and relative grip...

DCN

As Doug says it was the relative lack of advancement in tyre technology in 1961 compared to 1969 that made the Ferguson so much better. 4-W-D had its day in hillclimbing with both the aforementioned Ferguson, BRM P67 & Tony Marsh's own special proving the pick of the bunch but as tyre technology advanced so the 4-W-D cars became less competitive and the normal 2 wheel drive cars came into their own once again.

Of the 1969 batch of 4-W-D cars the MS84 seemed to be the best of the bunch but it would have been interesting if the offerings from lotus, Matra, McLaren and Cosworth had found their way onto the hills in 1970!

[Jean L]

In 1968 there was a lot of Grand Prix under the rain and not in 1969.It explain why they build 4WD and the lack of success.

[Vitesse2]

In 1968 there was a lot of Grand Prix under the rain and not in 1969.It explain why they build 4WD and the lack of success.

Just coincidence, Jean. Costin had decided to build the Cosworth in 1967. It's possible he may have been impressed by what Jim Clark achieved in testing with Peter Westbury's Felday-BRM in 1966: perhaps Jimmy, with his unique abilities, could have got the best out of 4WD F1 cars, but even he found the Felday difficult at first.

[Amphicar]

Of the 1969 batch of 4-W-D cars the MS84 seemed to be the best of the bunch but it would have been interesting if the offerings from lotus, Matra, McLaren and Cosworth had found their way onto the hills in 1970!

Well, I suppose it depends on how you define success! It is true that the Matra was the only one to score a World Championship point - Johnny Servoz-Gavin's 6th place in the 1969 Canadian GP - but he finished 6 laps behind the winner. Furthermore, the MS84 that raced in Canada, the USA and Mexico wasn't really 4WD as the front diff was disconnected after the British GP and for the rest of the season it was in effect an overweight MS80.

Edited by Amphicar, 21 January 2011 - 16:21.

[Allan Lupton]

The obvious problem, touched on already, is what front/rear split to use.
Road cars developed with Ferguson research input such as the Sierra XR4×4 (and Jaguar X-type) used 40/60 on a front-engined car so it doesn't take much engineering thought to suggest even less front for a mid-rear-engined Formula 1 car.
The decision would really be based on the dry-track acceleration case and in those days (without high downforce front wings) under full power the front wheels must have got very light: it follows that a front/rear split of (say) 5/95 could have given the front wheels as much power as they could handle so not much return for the extra complexity and weight.
In the dry, once the cars had developed so that the rear tyres could transmit all the power there was there was no point. In the wet it would still have been useful and perhaps that 40/60 would have been the right ratio but that would have been lethal in the dry with the front wheels overpowered so breaking their grip and wasting power that should have been sent to the back wheels. You need either separate wet and dry cars or a way of varying the front/rear split to take the conditions into account.

[Tim Murray]

Furthermore, the MS84 that raced in Canada, the USA and Mexico wasn't really 4WD as the front diff was disconnected after the British GP and for the rest of the season it was in effect an overweight MS80.

As I understand it from reading the race reports in Autosport, it was only at the last race of the season in Mexico that the drive to the front wheels was completely disconnected, but the torque split to the front wheels had been reducing from race to race.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
.....I am sure that had 4WD been tried by, say, Colin Chapman, in 1964 and rejected...none of the 1969 crop of 4WD F1 cars would have come about. Since it was BRM who had tried it and rejected the idea, the bright young things ignored their conclusion. It cost them.

Best assessment of the thread...

[roger.daltrey]

I seem to remember reading that the Costworth 4WD was originally designed for Jim Clark and his 'move' from Team Lotus.

He also did some NASCAR stuff in the states, making comments to the good ol' boys about leaving Lotus.

Before Hockenheim of course....

[D-Type]

If Chapman hadn't had a ready-made 4WD transmission available from the turbine cars, would he have ever produced the 63?

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

On a separate note, the Audi Quattro revolutionised rallying in the '80s but there they didn't have the tyre width and mechanical grip of a F1 car nor could a road car use aerofoils as effectively.

[Vitesse2]

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

Harry Miller was serious about it in the 30s. The results were - shall we say - somewhat less than successful.

[D-Type]

Harry Miller was serious about it in the 30s. The results were - shall we say - somewhat less than successful.

Well yes, but I meant contemporary with the Formula 1 efforts.

[arttidesco]

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

I gather from the Mark Donohue & Lotus threads 4WD was certainly used at Indy in non turbine powered vehicles but that it was banned before it became successful at the start of the 1970 season.

[jonnylayze]

Just coincidence, Jean. Costin had decided to build the Cosworth in 1967. It's possible he may have been impressed by what Jim Clark achieved in testing with Peter Westbury's Felday-BRM in 1966: perhaps Jimmy, with his unique abilities, could have got the best out of 4WD F1 cars, but even he found the Felday difficult at first.

The fact that the 4wd Cosworth was planned from '67 possibly had as much to do with the massive hike in power between the 1 1/2 litre era and the 'return to power' of the 3 litre formula from '66 onwards. Given the hike in power after '66, I think the fact that the BRM experience with the P67 was not heeded is understandable. with 1 1/2 litres and maybe something around 200bhp the F1 cars of 1963/64 had neither enough power to overwhelm their chassis' to any great degree nor to withstand the addition of significant additional wwight (driveshafts, differentials etc.) The Cosworth DFV moved the game significantly in power terms and taming that power was a potential problem. In fact, tyre technology and tyre sizes solved this problem in part, as did the advances in developing traction out of faster corners using aerodynamic grip/downforce. In '67 there was little, if any, experimentation with the wings which became the norm from '68 onwards. Surely the fact that 4wd made no impact may have as much to do with the fact that wings gave another method (without the weight/weight distribution penalties and mechanical complications of 4wd) of getting the significantly increased power onto the road.

[Amphicar]

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

You'll have to decide if it was a serious attempt - but Californian midget car champion Albert H. Stein entered a 4WD car for the 1966 Indy 500. It featured two Porsche 911 flat-sixes, one in front of the driver powering the front wheels and one behind powering the rear wheels. The chassis was built by Joe Huffaker and Indy veteran Bill Cheesbourg drove the car. Sadly, despite several valiant attempts Cheesebourg couldn't get it up (to qualifying speed). His best lap of 149 mph was 10 mph too slow so Stein packed up and went back to California and the "Brickyard Porsche" never returned.

[elansprint72]

Tyre size and relative grip...

DCN

If I could venture to add "and available technology".
At the time in question all (I think) the solutions were mechanical and there lies the problem. Mech-tech takes seconds to respond to changing inputs/requirements and is, at best, crude; whereas electro-tech takes millionths of a second.
If racing regs were to be totally "free" today, no one in their right mind would be using 2-wheel drive; just as everyone uses 4-wheel brakes, since that technology became available (and complied with the dictats of blokes in polyester blazers).

Edited by elansprint72, 21 January 2011 - 23:45.

[Amphicar]

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

The "Brickyard Porsche" wasn't the first attempt to conquer the Indy 500 with a double-engined 4WD car. In 1946 Lou Fageol's "Fageol Twin Coach Special" was based on an 11 year old Harry Miller car but with the single Ford engine replaced by two Roots supercharged 1.47 litre Offenhauser engines, one at the front and one at the back. Despite weighing more than its competitors the car was fast and very stable - Paul Russo qualified on the front row of the grid, with an average of 126.183mph. The car was less successful in the race. Russo ran towards the front early on but on lap 16 he skidded on oil and went into the wall, suffering a broken leg. The Fageol Twin Coach Special wasn't seen at the Brickyard again.

[Roger Clark]

If Chapman hadn't had a ready-made 4WD transmission available from the turbine cars, would he have ever produced the 63?

Can someone refresh my memory? Apart from the Ferguson-Novi and the turbine cars, did anybody seriously try 4WD in Indycar racing?

On a separate note, the Audi Quattro revolutionised rallying in the '80s but there they didn't have the tyre width and mechanical grip of a F1 car nor could a road car use aerofoils as effectively.

Didn't Lola build some successful 4WD Indycar racers in the late 60s?

[arttidesco]

Didn't Lola build some successful 4WD Indycar racers in the late 60s?

Built yes successful not to my knowledge but I'll take a second opinion :-)

[elansprint72]

Sir SM, Oulton Park 2010.

[Vitesse2]

Built yes successful not to my knowledge but I'll take a second opinion :-)

Al Unser qualified a T150-Offy 6th for the 500 in 1968, but spun out in the race. In 1969, Bobby Unser's T152-Offy qualified 3rd, Mark Donohue's T152-Offy 4th with Bud Tingelstad's T150-Offy on the 6th row. Unser finished 3rd, Donohue 7th and Tingelstad retired. Donohue also had another T152, fitted with a stock-block Chevy but chose to use the Offy-engined car.

These may have been used elsewhere, but it's a bit late to start trawling Phil Harms' data

USAC banned 4WD after the 1969 season.

[Roger Clark]

Al Unser qualified a T150-Offy 6th for the 500 in 1968, but spun out in the race. In 1969, Bobby Unser's T152-Offy qualified 3rd, Mark Donohue's T152-Offy 4th with Bud Tingelstad's T150-Offy on the 6th row. Unser finished 3rd, Donohue 7th and Tingelstad retired. Donohue also had another T152, fitted with a stock-block Chevy but chose to use the Offy-engined car.

These may have been used elsewhere, but it's a bit late to start trawling Phil Harms' data

USAC banned 4WD after the 1969 season.

Did al Unser win at Hoosier and Langhorne in 1968 with a 4WD Lola?

[Roger Clark]

Several people have said that weight was one of the problems with the 1969 4WD cars. Autocourse gave the following for "Formula weight":

BT26A 1,240lbs
P138 1,163lbs
P139 1,200lbs
312/69 1,162lbs
49B 1,160lbs
63 1,246lbs
MS80 1,232 lbs
MS84 1,342lbs
M7A 1,230lbs
M9A 1,250lbs

The formula minimum was 500kgs, close to 1,100lbs. The success of the Matra and the Brabham suggests that weight wasn't the Lotus 63's greatest problem.

[Amphicar]

Several people have said that weight was one of the problems with the 1969 4WD cars. Autocourse gave the following for "Formula weight":

BT26A 1,240lbs
P138 1,163lbs
P139 1,200lbs
312/69 1,162lbs
49B 1,160lbs
63 1,246lbs
MS80 1,232 lbs
MS84 1,342lbs
M7A 1,230lbs
M9A 1,250lbs

The formula minimum was 500kgs, close to 1,100lbs. The success of the Matra and the Brabham suggests that weight wasn't the Lotus 63's greatest problem.

The success (in qualifying at least) of the Fageol Twin Coach Special (see post #29) suggests that, in the right circumstances, the extra weight of 4WD need not be a problem. Prevalent understeer and inconsistent handling seem to have been much more serious constraints in the 1969 F1 examples.

[jgm]

I remember many years ago going to a talk given by Mike Hewland. The subject of 4WD came up. 'I told 'em' he said, 'Don't do it. Did they listen? Did they 'eck.' In passing he did a bit of teeth sucking about the Lotus 56 turbine car which had a transversely mounted chain-drive power take-off from the turbine just behind the driver. 'If that chain had broken it would have decapitated the driver.' I often wondered what Derek Gardner, the transmission designer, would have said about that. Sadly we'll never know.

[john aston]

No mention yet of David Hepworth and his home brewed 4WD hillclimb car.Ok. not GP racing but a very succesful car driven by a guy who I think was more engineer than driver.I recall watching it many times as a start line marshal and its acceleration was astonishng compared to rival F1 and F5000 cars.

[rory57]

Mike Hewland. 'If that chain had broken it would have decapitated the driver.' I often wondered what Derek Gardner, the transmission designer, would have said about that. Sadly we'll never know.

My guess is he would have dismissed it as the prejudices of a gear man. The chain, a 3" wide Hy-Vo, was probably the least likely to fail part of the whole car.

My own question about the Lotus 56: was there a centre differential? Contemporary drawings that I have seen are ambiguous. Sure, road cars have to have them to be practical, but Indy 500 conditions are different....

[Michael Ferner]

Did al Unser win at Hoosier and Langhorne in 1968 with a 4WD Lola?

He won the Hoosier GP at IRP in a T150, but at Langhorne he had a T92.

[Michael Ferner]

Harry Miller was serious about it in the 30s. The results were - shall we say - somewhat less than successful.

I beg to differ! Not as successful as some of his earlier cars, but better than everything that wasn't built by Miller. The biggest problem of the 4wd Miller was that the company went bankrupt before the car was fully developed.

[Amphicar]

No mention yet of David Hepworth and his home brewed 4WD hillclimb car.Ok. not GP racing but a very succesful car driven by a guy who I think was more engineer than driver.I recall watching it many times as a start line marshal and its acceleration was astonishng compared to rival F1 and F5000 cars.

Indeed, hillclimbs have often proved more fertile ground for 4WD than circuits. I failed to mention in my original post that the Ferguson P99 won the British Hill Climb Championship in 1964, driven by Peter Westbury. Westbury went on to build the Felday 4 BRM, a very pretty 4WD sports racer driven with some success by Peter himself, Mac Daghorn and on one occasion, by Jim Clark. 4WD cars have also dominated the Pike's Peak hillclimb in Colorado, from Michele Mouton's Audi Sport Quattro S1 in 1985 to current hill record holder Nobuhiro "Monster" Tajima's 910 bhp Suzuki Special.