90 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

I think Williams was quite often referred as BMW Williams in Finland. Usually when they mentioned the engine name, they said it in that order. And I think they spoke more often about BMW Williams than e.g. McLaren-Mercedes or BAR-Honda.

 

Well I think you're right actually. Probably has to do with me having to watch F1 in German round that time and also BMW taking up title sponsorship too. They were never Compaq Williams or HP Williams.

[midgrid]

The official name of the team during this period was "BMW WilliamsF1 Team" or similar, always with the BMW part first. Of course, it was referred to as Williams-BMW for the purposes of the WCC.

[Gorma]

The name of the team was BMW Williams F1 Team

[Collombin]

Just to add one that reminds me how F1 cars used to be innovative, even if this one wasn't particularly successful... 

 

Lotus-Pratt & Whitney

 

Innovative? Meh, it was just a 3 year old Indycar.

 

Lotus Cosworth or Brabham BMW would be my fave.

[PayasYouRace]

The official name of the team during this period was "BMW WilliamsF1 Team" or similar, always with the BMW part first. Of course, it was referred to as Williams-BMW for the purposes of the WCC.

 

The name of the team was BMW Williams F1 Team

 

Exactly. Title sponsorship position.

[DampMongoose]

Innovative? Meh, it was just a 3 year old Indycar.

 

Lotus Cosworth or Brabham BMW would be my fave.

 

Given that it was the first time a gas turbine was combined with 4WD in an F1 car it was an innovation in F1.  When Tyrell introduced the 6 wheeler to F1, most people would suggest it was innovative (based on the definition) despite a 6 wheeler being run at Indy in the 40's.

[Collombin]

Given that it was the first time a gas turbine was combined with 4WD in an F1 car it was an innovation in F1.

 

I must admit I was just being facetious, sorry. I'd have done an appropriate smiley if the downgrade hadn't apparently wiped them off the face of the earth.

 

I can understand attempting 4WD in F1, despite its flaws becoming apparent fairly quickly, but why Chapman ever thought a turbine engine would be suitable for F1 tracks is beyond me.

Edited by E.B., 19 November 2013 - 15:11.

[DampMongoose]

Ah an answer to a question that's been bugging me... no smilies for you either? I thought I'd done something to my profile or something... (I would have inserted the drunk one here)

 

As for the gas turbine, I suppose a couple of hundred horsepower more and the significantly lower weight than the usual engines would probably have been high in Chapmans thinking, plus not having irritating things like a clutch or gearbox to break would help, given how fragile his cars were known to be. 

[Collombin]

Certainly they had good points as you mentioned, but my understanding is they did not have a very wide power band and were very dependent on ambient temperatures, suffering massive reductions in horsepower the hotter the day got. I'm no engineer though.

 

They were OK on the Indycar road courses, but not nearly as competitive as they were at Indy, a track almost made for them.

[Amphicar]

Ah an answer to a question that's been bugging me... no smilies for you either? I thought I'd done something to my profile or something... (I would have inserted the drunk one here)

 

As for the gas turbine, I suppose a couple of hundred horsepower more and the significantly lower weight than the usual engines would probably have been high in Chapmans thinking, plus not having irritating things like a clutch or gearbox to break would help, given how fragile his cars were known to be. 

The engine may have been lighter but the 75 gallons of fuel the car had to carry to complete a Grand Prix race distance (no refuelling back then) more than made up for it. As Peter Warr said, the 56B in F1 trim was "so heavy you couldn't have spun it if you tried".

[tifosi]

I'm not including Ferrari or any other manufacturer for obvious reasons, but here's my top 10:

 

1. Williams Renault

2. McLaren Honda

3. McLaren Mercedes

4. Lotus Climax

5. Williams Ford

6. McLaren TAG

7. Lotus Ford

8. Brabham Repco

9. Tyrrell Ford

10. Brabham BMW

1 - Renault - Manufacturer

2 - Honda - Manufacturer

3 - Mercedes - Manufacturer

4 - Lotus - Manufacturer

5 - Ford - Manufacturer

7 - Lotus and Ford - Manufacturers

9 - Ford - Manufacturer

10 - BMW - Manufacturer

[DampMongoose]

The engine may have been lighter but the 75 gallons of fuel the car had to carry to complete a Grand Prix race distance (no refuelling back then) more than made up for it. As Peter Warr said, the 56B in F1 trim was "so heavy you couldn't have spun it if you tried".

 

So why were they competitive at Indy?  Were they so fast they could afford to stop more often to refuel or were the USAC regulars just as thirsty? 

[DampMongoose]

1 - Renault - Manufacturer

2 - Honda - Manufacturer

3 - Mercedes - Manufacturer

4 - Lotus - Manufacturer

5 - Ford - Manufacturer

7 - Lotus and Ford - Manufacturers

9 - Ford - Manufacturer

10 - BMW - Manufacturer

 

I think you missed the point... he hasn't included any manufacturers running their own engines as this is NOT a combination.  Therefore, No Ferrari-Ferrari, BRM-BRM, Matra-Matra, Renault-Renault, Honda-Honda etc... he's asking for the tie in of constructor and engine supplier.

[Collombin]

So why were they competitive at Indy?  Were they so fast they could afford to stop more often to refuel or were the USAC regulars just as thirsty? 

 

I believe they were underweight for Indy and actually ran with lead weights (ballast not allowed, officially!).

[Amphicar]

So why were they competitive at Indy?  Were they so fast they could afford to stop more often to refuel or were the USAC regulars just as thirsty? 

The turbine engine was inherently more suited to the Indy oval than F1 road courses (no hard braking, no hard acceleration out of corners) and having refuelling allowed the Lotus 56 to take advantage of the light weight of the engine. The turbine cars were faster than their conventionally engined rivals - but not by a huge amount. Joe Leonard and Graham Hill qualified first and second at just over 171 mph, whilst third spot went to Bobby Unser's Eagle-Offy at 169.5 mph.

[DampMongoose]

I believe they were underweight for Indy and actually ran with lead weights (ballast not allowed, officially!).

 

Right, so I presume they must have a minimum weight limit with full tanks?  Otherwise if they were ballasted to the weight and then they required far more fuel to run the turbine than the USAC runners, what made it so competitive?

[Amphicar]

Right, so I presume they must have a minimum weight limit with full tanks?  Otherwise if they were ballasted to the weight and then they required far more fuel to run the turbine than the USAC runners, what made it so competitive?

I'm not sure that the Lotus 56 in Indy car guise required far more fuel than its rivals. It was trying to use it for F1 that caused the problems. A turbine runs most efficiently at constant revs, which was possible at Indy but road courses involve lots of braking and accelerating.  Not only did the P&W turbine suffer from lag when accelerating, it also completely lacked engine braking into corners. Adapting the turbine for Grands Prix, to allow it to spool up (and down) more quickly made it less fuel efficient, hence the need for all that fuel, which had to be carried on-board.

[Afterburner]

Red Bull Racing - Renault
McLaren - Mercedes
Sauber - Ferrari
Benetton - Ford
Anything - Honda (seriously)

[Henri Greuter]

As of why the Lotus turbines were competitive at Indy. The cars were indeed right up to the weight limit, an achievement in itself given the fact there was a 4WD driveline involved.

Another major advantage of the car was that it was one of the first at Indy that generated aerodynamic downforce so apart from improved roadholding in the corners due to 4WD, it also benefitted from high corner speeds due to aerodynamics

On race day the cars were underpowered compared to the piston engines due to weatehr conditions and the setup the turbines had to use in race condition.

As for the fuel consumption figures, the opponents primarily used turbocharged 2.8 liter engines of some 600 hp and Atmo engines of some 575 hp and since they ran on methanol fuel, their fuel consumption figures were way up on that of the 3 liter F1 engines of that day. So their figures were closer to that of the turbines than within F1 in 1971.

 

Make no mistake about the Lotus 56: in many ways it is one of the most revolutionary and innovative race cars ever built.

 

 

Henri

[DampMongoose]

Thanks Henri and everyone for the info... Not looked into turbines much aside from the Graham Hill Rover Brm from LeMans that came to my home town for the BRM championship anniversary. With the lack of engine braking I can see why it was better suited to Indy.

[Amphicar]

Thanks Henri and everyone for the info... Not looked into turbines much aside from the Graham Hill Rover Brm from LeMans that came to my home town for the BRM championship anniversary. With the lack of engine braking I can see why it was better suited to Indy.

Incidentally, the turbines used in the Lotus 56B came from Pratt & Whitney's Quebec factory - making it the only Canadian F1 engine.

[IamFasterthanU]

I'd like to see Minardi with BMW/Ferrari/Merc/Renault engine. They supposedly designed decent cars (some seasons- e.g. 1998, 2002) but lost mainly due to under powered engine. Always wondered what Minardi could have achieved with Renault/BMW/Merc/Ferrari engines.

[Kingshark]

I think you missed the point... he hasn't included any manufacturers running their own engines as this is NOT a combination.  Therefore, No Ferrari-Ferrari, BRM-BRM, Matra-Matra, Renault-Renault, Honda-Honda etc... he's asking for the tie in of constructor and engine supplier.

 

Bingo, thanks for pointing that out.

[DanardiF1]

I'd like to see Minardi with BMW/Ferrari/Merc/Renault engine. They supposedly designed decent cars (some seasons- e.g. 1998, 2002) but lost mainly due to under powered engine. Always wondered what Minardi could have achieved with Renault/BMW/Merc/Ferrari engines.

 

They were due to run Mugen-Honda engines in their neat 1995 car, but Flav pinched them for the Ligier (which he part-owned at the time), so they were stuck with the customer Ford engine again.

[Amphicar]

I think you missed the point... he hasn't included any manufacturers running their own engines as this is NOT a combination.  Therefore, No Ferrari-Ferrari, BRM-BRM, Matra-Matra, Renault-Renault, Honda-Honda etc... he's asking for the tie in of constructor and engine supplier.

But you could have BRP-BRM (British Racing Partnership-British Racing Motors) or even Behra-Porsche-Porsche (Behra-Porsche was an independent F1 constructor founded by Jean Behra, which competed during the 1959 and 1960 seasons and which used Porsche engines).

[andrewr]

Tyrrell-Cosworth

Lotus-Cosworth

Ferrari-Ferrari

Edited by andrewr, 20 November 2013 - 10:22.

[Vepe1995]

I think you missed the point... he hasn't included any manufacturers running their own engines as this is NOT a combination.  Therefore, No Ferrari-Ferrari, BRM-BRM, Matra-Matra, Renault-Renault, Honda-Honda etc... he's asking for the tie in of constructor and engine supplier.

Every car there is a combination of a chassis and an engine.

 

Ferrari-Ferrari is a combination just like Williams-Renault or McLaren-Mercerdes...

 

I get your point, but I personally think that manufacturers running their own engines should be included.

[Collombin]

 The turbine cars were faster than their conventionally engined rivals - but not by a huge amount. Joe Leonard and Graham Hill qualified first and second at just over 171 mph, whilst third spot went to Bobby Unser's Eagle-Offy at 169.5 mph.

 

I think USAC had some headaches in finding a suitable equivalence formula for engine sizes. The inlet limit for turbines was greatly reduced for 1968 following Silent Sam's domination the previous year, but I think they got it just about right for 1968 - the turbines were competitive but not dominant. However, I don't think the idea of these silent futuristic missiles went down too well with a racing culture that still mourned the passing of the Offy roadsters, and the turbines were effectively strangled out of existence by a further reduction in inlet size the following year.

[DampMongoose]

Every car there is a combination of a chassis and an engine.

 

Ferrari-Ferrari is a combination just like Williams-Renault or McLaren-Mercerdes...

 

I get your point, but I personally think that manufacturers running their own engines should be included.

 

I don't know whether the opening poster wanted it one way or the other, nor does it matter... all I was pointing out was Tifosi was deliberately being antagonistic and having a go at Kingsharks post for use of the word manufacturer.  Works cars running works engines does not suggest a combination of two separate entities to create a car in my mind. 

Edited by DampMongoose, 20 November 2013 - 12:50.

[Amphicar]

I don't know whether the opening poster wanted it one way or the other, nor does it matter... all I was pointing out was Tifosi was deliberately being antagonistic and having a go at Kingsharks post for use of the word manufacturer.  Works cars running works engines does not suggest a combination of two separate entities to create a car in my mind. 

But think about the Brawn BGP 001 in 2009 and the Mercedes MGP W01 in 2010. Both cars were designed and built in the same factory in Brackley, Northamptonshire using engines designed and built in a different factory in Northamptonshire but one qualifies as two separate entities but the other one (presumably) doesn't - despite the fact that in 2010 Mercedes owned less than 50% of the equity in the F1 team.

[DampMongoose]

I'm sorry I've gone cross eyed... personally I don't know how the equity was split at Mercedes in 2010 but there are companies that have a controlling interest despite having less than 50% of the shareholding becuase of 2/3 voting requirements.  Ford for example previously held the controlling interest in one arm of Mazda with less than 35% equity. 

[Collombin]

Indeed. If A owns 51% of B, and B owns 51% of C, then A is effectively in full control of C despite owning only 26% of its equity.

[Amphicar]

Actually the ownership split wasn't my main point - but for completeness, in 2010 Mercedes owned 45.1%, Aabar Investments owned 30% and the remaining 24.9% was owned by Ross Brawn and Nick Fry.

 

My real point was that there wasn't really much practical difference between the Brawn GP position (vis-a-vis the engine supplier) and the Mercedes GP position. Same factory in Brackley, same Team Principal same staff (albeit different drivers) and both were different companies to Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (albeit Daimler-Benz AG owned M-B HPE and a chunk of MGP). 

 

So, what I think I was driving at was, just as in 1959-60 there was a Behra-Porsche-Porsche, in 2010 we could say there was a Mercedes-Mercedes.

[August]

Actually the ownership split wasn't my main point - but for completeness, in 2010 Mercedes owned 45.1%, Aabar Investments owned 30% and the remaining 24.9% was owned by Ross Brawn and Nick Fry.

 

My real point was that there wasn't really much practical difference between the Brawn GP position (vis-a-vis the engine supplier) and the Mercedes GP position. Same factory in Brackley, same Team Principal same staff (albeit different drivers) and both were different companies to Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (albeit Daimler-Benz AG owned M-B HPE and a chunk of MGP). 

 

So, what I think I was driving at was, just as in 1959-60 there was a Behra-Porsche-Porsche, in 2010 we could say there was a Mercedes-Mercedes.

 

And Aabar owned about 10% of Daimler.

 

And as we're talking about similarly named chassis and engines manufactured by different conpanies, let's not forget 2011 Renault-Renault. The Renault chassis was manufactured by Genii-owned Lotus Renault GP and the Renault engine was manufactured by Renault-owned Renault Sport F1.

[DampMongoose]

Indeed. If A owns 51% of B, and B owns 51% of C, then A is effectively in full control of C despite owning only 26% of its equity.

 

Yes but i wasn't talking about a group.  If a company has a voting rule that states there must be 2/3 agreement, a seperate entity not a subsidiary can be minority controlled.

[DampMongoose]

Actually the ownership split wasn't my main point - but for completeness, in 2010 Mercedes owned 45.1%, Aabar Investments owned 30% and the remaining 24.9% was owned by Ross Brawn and Nick Fry.

 

My real point was that there wasn't really much practical difference between the Brawn GP position (vis-a-vis the engine supplier) and the Mercedes GP position. Same factory in Brackley, same Team Principal same staff (albeit different drivers) and both were different companies to Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (albeit Daimler-Benz AG owned M-B HPE and a chunk of MGP). 

 

So, what I think I was driving at was, just as in 1959-60 there was a Behra-Porsche-Porsche, in 2010 we could say there was a Mercedes-Mercedes.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it was your last line about the equity that had me thinking you were suggesting something else.  I totally agree with you.

[Mc_Silver]

[pathogen]

BRM-BRM

Anything with Ford Cosworth V8 (March Ford was a real option as a privateer option for a bunch of drivers)

McLaren TAG

 

I remember that in 1978 or 1979 (at the begining of the Turbo Era), McLaren -Project Four- talks about a deal to run with BMW and Ronnie Peterson as a driver. Then Ronnie dies and things changed. Can anyone remember this?

[midgrid]

Peterson certainly had a deal to be McLaren's number one driver for 1979, but I don't know about a BMW deal.

[pathogen]

Cooper-Maserati

… and Rodríguez behind the wheel 

[pathogen]

Oh!… I forgot: Shadow-Matra 1975 and Spirit- Honda 1983