18 replies to this topic

[Barry Boor]

I believe that the accepted wisdom states that the car von Trips drove at Solitude and Monza was the same chassis that ran in the Monaco Grand Prix with a 2.5 litre engine.

I'm wondering if there is any definite information with regards to the fuel tanks. These were quite fat at Monaco but I'm wondering if the Scuderia used smaller ones once the car was fitted with the F.2 engine, thus making the car somewhat slimmer.

[D-Type]

Wasn't this chassis the one loaned by Ferrari to Scuderia Sant Ambroeus / FISA in 1961 and driven by Baghetti (and others?)

[Roger Clark]

DSJ said in the Solitude report that it was the same car but with significant modifications: new wishbones, revised gearbox with clutch at the rear and chassis modifications to allow this. He didn't mention the fuel tanks but it would be reasonable to assume that the 156 engine used less fuel than the 246. The car did still carry enough for a full GP distance; it ran in the Italian GP without refuelling.

DSJ also said, in the Monza report, that Ferrari tested a rear engined :F1 car a week before the Grand Prix but decided not to race it. I don't know whether it was the same car with a different engine or a second rear engined car. The former seems more likely.

[robjohn]

A description of the 1960 156 on 8W.forix says that at Monza it was fitted with an auxiliary fuel tank.
See http://8w.forix.com/246p.html
In a graphic at http://formula1.ferr...com/cars/156-f2 there may be a tank along the left.
Roger mentioned the 2.5-litre car tested before Monza. It probably was the same chassis as the one that raced. In Ferrari: The Grand Prix Cars, Alan Henry wrote that "it had originally been planned to run the central-engined car in the Italian Grand Prix equipped with a full 246 engine [so it was probably tested that way – RB], but the absence of the British teams allowed the Ferrari team some scope for experimentation... Thus von Trips was entered in the car with 156 power again..."
There's a good Monza photo, from above, in Paul Parker's Formula 1 In Camera 1960-69, though it shows something of the right side and not the left.
Another book gives the impression that the F2 car at Solitude (and thus Monza) was a different one from the F1 246 Monaco prototype, but it's probably just flawed wording. DSJ would have noticed.

Rob B

[cooper997]

I take it this is for modelling purposes Barry.

 

From Sept 60 Sporting Motorist.Edward Eves Solitude report. There's also another on track front view.

 

upload pic

 

The Italian GP programme definitely lists von Trips as a Ferrari F2 and the Oct 60 Sporting Motorist report shows 2 small photos of von Trips slipstreaming the front engined 246s.

 

That report also states the following "As part of the general Ferrari plan the formula two rear-engined car had been entered in the name of von Trips. This machine was exactly as we had seen it at Solitude except that the starter motor, for which provision had been made on the original design, was now fitted for the first time; the chassis frame had also been cleaned up, and the extra brackets used experimentally for the rear suspension had been taken off."

 

Stephen

Edited by cooper997, 11 August 2014 - 03:37.

[rudi]

Out of engine, suspension and body changes:

Fuel tank Monaco 1960: 152 Liters, Fuel tank Solitude 1960: 105 Liters.

Rear tyres Monaco 1960: 6.50 - 15, Rear tyres Solitude 1960: 6.00 - 15.

[arttidesco]

You may have seen these :-

 

Unnumbered Monza 1960 ?

 

#22 Monza Paddock 1960

 

#22 Monza Pits 1960

 

#22 Monza Banking 1960

 

#24 Modina 1960

[Barry Boor]

I think it's clear that they fitted slimmer tanks to the car for its F.2 race but as I was making that version from the buck I produced for the Monaco car, I'm afraid mine is going to be a bit on the fat side but otherwise it isn't too bad.

It looks awfully large next to a Lotus 18 though!

[arttidesco]

It looks awfully large next to a Lotus 18 though!

 

That'll be Chapmans added lightness

[Macca]

Looking at photos of the car at Monaco and at Modena/Solitude/Monza, matching the rivet patterns and finding similar frontal-aspect views to compare the 'bulginess'...............the tanks look the same. The revised bodywork makes a huge difference to the overall look of the car.

 

The sharknose just was a big car compared to any British 1961 car, even the boxy Lotus 18 without the 18/21 body.

 

Paul M

[Michael Ferner]

It looks awfully large next to a Lotus 18 though!

It was!! That's the main reason why I cannot see any beauty or even elegance in the Sharknose; it was just a bloody big lorry compared to the British cars.

[Roger Clark]

I thought at first that 105 litres (quoted by Rudi above for Solitude) wouldn't be enough for 500 kilometres of the Monza road and track circuit (it corresponds to 21l/100km or 13.4mpg) and that they must have fitted extra tanks for the Grand Prix.  However, Doug Nye quotes 26 gallons (117 litres) as the tank capacity of a Lotus 25 (Theme Lotus) and the same for a BRM P578 (Vol 2) so it may not be far off.

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

 

That'll be Chapmans added lightness

 

Ha!  Never come across the 'added lightness' bit before.  Good one, Art!

[PeterElleray]

That'll be Chapmans added lightness

No that would be a lack of excess weight...

[arttidesco]

 

The sharknose just was a big car compared to any British 1961 car, even the boxy Lotus 18 without the 18/21 body.

 

Paul M

 

As I fell asleep last night I was wondering if this was down to Ferrari having no experience building Formula Junior cars, or if Ferrari was hedging his bets against the Intercontinental stock block formula taking off ?

[Roger Clark]

I don't think Ferrari was ever seriously interested in the Intercontinental Formula although he may have hedged his bets in case it too off.  In fact, the 1961 British cars could all take a 2.5-litre engine without modification.

 

In fact, the wheelbase and track of the Sharknose were within an inch or two of the contemporary British cars. The greater bulk came from the bodywork, possibly because Ferrari wanted to give the drivers more room, more likely because he didn't appreciate (or accept) the value of low frontal area.  Aerodynamics is for those who can't build decent engines.  The Sharknose also looked bulkier because of the large steering wheel and the way the driver's seat was more upright than was becoming fashionable.  Phil Hill always preferred a more upright position; look at the way he sat in the 1964 Cooper compared with McLaren.

[Barry Boor]

There certainly was a lot of room in the cockpit, Roger, although getting out wasn't that easy!

[Roger Clark]

With respect Barry, might I suggest that PH, WvT and RG were somewhat more agile in 1961 than you are now?

[Barry Boor]

Probably!