Jump to content


Photo

Alboreto and Tyrrell - Las Vegas '82


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 27 September 2014 - 17:04

Whilst reading about the Tyrrell affair at Detroit '84, I came across a piece in 'Grand Prix International' which mentioned some lingering rumours about Michele Alboreto's win in Las Vegas a couple of years earlier. This is the only time I've ever heard mention of this, and wondered if anyone knows any more detail? 



Advertisement

#2 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,581 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 27 September 2014 - 17:19

I think you need to give us some idea about what the rumours related to. :)



#3 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 27 September 2014 - 17:32

I have no idea! - quote as follows: "... we understand that SCCA scrutineer John Timanus was particularly anxious to examine the car (Brundle's 2nd placed car). There have been rumours ever since Tyrrell's 1982 Las Vegas victory (where Timanus was also officiating) of possible irregularities on Michele Alboreto's winning car."

 

That's all it says, so its a mystery to me.



#4 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 27 September 2014 - 17:33

Well, if the rumours imply that the Tyrrell of Alboreto was underweight, I am sceptical. I always thought it to be a typical 1982 win: the faster turbo cars could not not use their huge advantage of extra HP because of the layout of the track (slow, 90 degree turns), ran into trouble in the race (the Renaults qualified 1st and 2nd but of course had problems again), and some other runners (Cheever) had other troubles.

 

On top of that: Alboreto had a very consistent string of results that year:

 

4 3 Ret 10 Ret Ret 7 Ret 6 4 Ret 7 5

 

In my mind, that year, it was just waiting for the right cars to drop out in front of him to hand him his first win.


Edited by Nemo1965, 27 September 2014 - 17:45.


#5 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 27 September 2014 - 18:23

Well, if the rumours imply that the Tyrrell of Alboreto was underweight, I am sceptical. I always thought it to be a typical 1982 win: the faster turbo cars could not not use their huge advantage of extra HP because of the layout of the track (slow, 90 degree turns), ran into trouble in the race (the Renaults qualified 1st and 2nd but of course had problems again), and some other runners (Cheever) had other troubles.

 

On top of that: Alboreto had a very consistent string of results that year:

 

4 3 Ret 10 Ret Ret 7 Ret 6 4 Ret 7 5

 

In my mind, that year, it was just waiting for the right cars to drop out in front of him to hand him his first win.

 

This was mainly why it caught my eye. I had no inkling that there was anything iffy about the win. The Tyrrell was reasonably competitive, and street tracks tended to throw up some unusual results anyway. As you say, the Renaults didn't last, Tambay was absent through injury, and Rosberg was preoccupied with the World Championship, so Alboreto running near the front wasn't exactly unexpected. Cheever's speed in the Ligier was perhaps more surprising, given that the JS19 had been a bit of a handful previously. There had been some rumours of Henton's sister Tyrrell being a completely different kettle of fish to Alboreto's (weight-wise), but no indication of anything underhand.



#6 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 28 September 2014 - 11:04

The words "Ken Tyrrell" and "underhand" or "iffy" in the same sentance, not in my book!



#7 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 September 2014 - 13:36

The words "Ken Tyrrell" and "underhand" or "iffy" in the same sentance, not in my book!

 

Much as that may be, Tyrrell was excluded from the 1984 championship and disqualified from all the races.

 

:cool:



#8 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 September 2014 - 14:12

Much as that may be, Tyrrell was excluded from the 1984 championship and disqualified from all the races.

 

:cool:

 

And we all know why.  It was so Balestre could force through a rule change to help the turbos, which Tyrrell was vetoing.  Couldn't veto if he wasn't in the championship.

 

Bad as it was under Mosley, it was nothing to Balestre.



#9 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 28 September 2014 - 14:19

Indeed, Ken always played with a straight bat, the exclusion was an absolute travisty!



#10 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 28 September 2014 - 15:17

Indeed, Ken always played with a straight bat, the exclusion was an absolute travisty!

 

Which still begs the question: does anyone know what the Las Vegas '82 issue was (if there was indeed an issue)?



#11 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 September 2014 - 16:31

And we all know why.  It was so Balestre could force through a rule change to help the turbos, which Tyrrell was vetoing.  Couldn't veto if he wasn't in the championship.

 

Bad as it was under Mosley, it was nothing to Balestre.

 

No we do not all know why, we all know that as is happening for all controversial and many non-controversial matters in F1 those who dislike the outcome build elaborate theories of how and why 'justice' was not meeted the 'proper' way.

 

I can see in the official results for the 1984 season that Tyrrell and the Tyrell drivers do not feature THAT is what we all know.

 

:cool:



#12 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 28 September 2014 - 16:33

Was this the race where Tyrrell had the new, short stroke DFV derivitive (DFR?). I recall a couple of people questioned this engine, but can't remember why.

 

As for "we don't know what happened", yes, we do, it was suspected at the time, and has since been substatiated. I have never met anyone, inside or outside of F1 who didn't then, and who don't now consider the whole episode as gross misuse of power.


Edited by f1steveuk, 28 September 2014 - 16:41.


#13 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 28 September 2014 - 17:39

The DFV derivative was the DFY.



#14 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 September 2014 - 18:33

No we do not all know why, we all know that as is happening for all controversial and many non-controversial matters in F1 those who dislike the outcome build elaborate theories of how and why 'justice' was not meeted the 'proper' way.

 

I can see in the official results for the 1984 season that Tyrrell and the Tyrell drivers do not feature THAT is what we all know.

 

:cool:

A typical report of events is given in the chapter titled "10 Biggest Scandals" in the Autocar F1 special "100 Grand Prix Greats". 
 

During the summer of 1984, there was a witch-hunt surrounding the Tyrrell team after routine samples from the 'water injection reservoir' were taken following Martin Brundle's second place finishin the Detroit Grand Prix.

A quantity of lead balls was found in the Tyrrell's water tank which was quite clearly intended to ballast the car.  However, when Ken Tyrrell was called before the governing body he was told that the water sample contained 17.5% aromatics.

He found himself facing charges of breaching the fuel regulations on four counts: refuelling during the race; using fuel which did not comply with the rules; equippiong the car with fuel lines which did not conform to the correct specification; and using lead ballast not fixed firmly to the car in the properly prescribed manner.

Subsequent enquiries reveakled  that there was, in fact, less than one per cant hydrocarbon in the water.  This suggested that the FIA had wrongly interpreted its own rules, but Tyrrell was nevertheless convicted and suspended for the balance of the 1984 title chase.

Nobody rushed to Tyrrell's aid.  Some felt that he was now paying the price of being the only FOCA-aligned team to break ranks and attend the boycotted 1982 San Marino Grand Prix.  But there was more to it than that.

Tyrrell was the only dissenter in the move to retain the 220-litre minimum fuel limit, rather than reducing it , as planned, to 195 litres in 1985.  Tyrell's non-turbo cars would have benefited from a a lower fuel capacity,but in order to reverse this rule change, the unanimous agreement of the team owners was required.

With Tyrrell out of the picture for the rest of the season, the unanimous agreement was secured.  It was a shameful episode.

Although Autocar is/was a British magazine and Tyrrell are a British team, there must be some element of truth behind the report.

 

This is a summary of events.  Others have described what happened in greater detail.  The general consensus is that the objective was to discredit Tyrrell at all costs so their veto could not be applied



#15 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 28 September 2014 - 20:55

Which still begs the question: does anyone know what the Las Vegas '82 issue was (if there was indeed an issue)?

 

Pluto, I can only give you the answer that according to Nemo1965, not an authoritative source by any means, there was never concrete evidence that the Tyrrell of Las Vegas 1982 did not follow the rules of the FIA at that time. 1982 is one of the championships I followed very closely, not only during the year, but also in the years there-after. Between 1982 and 1988 I was at the Zandvoort track a lot, and had the chance to meet many people who worked in F1 in that year. Of course I took any opportunity to pick their minds about Niki Lauda (my favourite driver) and the season of 1982 (that rekindled my passion for F1).

 

The few F1 drivers I met (Jan Lammers, Geoff Lees, Brian Henton, Derek Daly) who can spew anecdotes about about that season until your ears bleed, have never mentioned in any conversation I had with them something was fishy about that car. Henton has muttered darkly about his car being inferior to that of Michele (when I asked him good Alboreto was), but he is someone who has never believed that anyone on this earth was better than him, so that figures.

 

If someone like Twin Window can't shed some new light on this, I fear this rumour is just what it is.

 

Regarding the Tyrrell-history with the refueling or not refueling: whatever story I've read on these Fora, none has never done credit to the complexity of that year.


Edited by Nemo1965, 29 September 2014 - 07:45.


#16 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 00:11

A typical report of events is given in the chapter titled "10 Biggest Scandals" in the Autocar F1 special "100 Grand Prix Greats". 
 

Although Autocar is/was a British magazine and Tyrrell are a British team, there must be some element of truth behind the report.

 

This is a summary of events.  Others have described what happened in greater detail.  The general consensus is that the objective was to discredit Tyrrell at all costs so their veto could not be applied

 

I hold Ken Tyrrell and the Tyrrell team in high regard, I would have liked Bellof to show himself as the true driver I thought he was, however Tyrrell were the last of many teams employing a tatic of running underweight, only way that an atmospheric car could be even remotely competitive was running light, which is what Tyrrell continued doing after all others stopped.

 

It obviously mean something coming from a British publication, I remember it as if Nigel Roebuck were equally adamant that a huge dis-service had been served. Which is neither here nor there, Tyrrell were caught, investigated and penalized. No 'everybody knows' can change the facts, regardless of ones feelings for or against Tyrrell.

 

:cool:
 



#17 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 29 September 2014 - 05:57

I hold Ken Tyrrell and the Tyrrell team in high regard, I would have liked Bellof to show himself as the true driver I thought he was, however Tyrrell were the last of many teams employing a tatic of running underweight, only way that an atmospheric car could be even remotely competitive was running light, which is what Tyrrell continued doing after all others stopped.

 

There are two basic answers to that.

 

1. Monaco.  On any argument Tyrrell could not have been running light.  And look what Bellof did there.

 

2. 1985.  The Tyrrell 012 was almost as competitive as it was in 1984 - despite everyone else having upgrades.  They were on for 3rd and 5th at Detroit for example until Alliot got involved.

 

And as for the British publication bit...it was British teams that sat by and watched Tyrrell get screwed over, in revenge for Tyrrell running at San Marino in 1982. 



#18 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:56

There are two basic answers to that.

 

1. Monaco.  On any argument Tyrrell could not have been running light.  And look what Bellof did there.

 

2. 1985.  The Tyrrell 012 was almost as competitive as it was in 1984 - despite everyone else having upgrades.  They were on for 3rd and 5th at Detroit for example until Alliot got involved.

 

And as for the British publication bit...it was British teams that sat by and watched Tyrrell get screwed over, in revenge for Tyrrell running at San Marino in 1982. 

 

It will just denigrate into a he said, he said if we continue. Tyrrell was caught, tried and convicted it grates at many possibly with cause, possibly not. I for time being relate to the fact that they were.

 

And in matter of the actual question in the thread, until this thread I had never heard about anything ill-toward with Alboreto's win in Las Vegas. If there had been anything of even remote truth in that, we would surely have heard about it in much more details over the years.

 

:cool:



#19 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 29 September 2014 - 12:47

I thought Tyrrell were actually 'disqualified' for having holes in the undertray, which was deemed to be in breach of the flat floor regulations (and as with the rest of the case they probably weren't the only ones).

But that wasn't what they were being tried for, so they were convicted of a different 'crime' - which is not allowable in real law (of course the FIA is a private club and can do whatever it wants, but if they want to do so they should not pretend to be anything other than a self elected private organisation).

 

Chances are the 'rumours' about their previous years performance only started after the kangaroo court?

 

Anyone who remembers Balestre would hardly expect anyone other than his favoured teams to have been treated fairly.



Advertisement

#20 plutoman

plutoman
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 September 2014 - 12:48

And in matter of the actual question in the thread, until this thread I had never heard about anything ill-toward with Alboreto's win in Las Vegas. If there had been anything of even remote truth in that, we would surely have heard about it in much more details over the years.

 

:cool:

 

Which is precisely why I raised the question. If there wasn't anything to report, how did it come to be published - ie. where did the story originate? The implication of the piece was that it was a long-standing rumour, but it doesn't seem to appear anywhere else.



#21 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 September 2014 - 14:48

Henton has muttered darkly about his car being inferior to that of Michele (when I asked him good Alboreto was), but he is someone who has never believed that anyone on this earth was better than him, so that figures.

 

 

The Sunday Times magazine published a feature on Brian Henton in 1983. In this he stated that Alboreto's car was significantly lighter than his one due to the use of expensive lightweight components. Henton also said that Ken Tyrrell had offered him a car of similar spec if he could pay the £50,000 cost. At the time Alboreto looked like a future champion and the team relied on Italian sponsorship so it would have been logical to concentrate resources on him. 

 

I had always thought that self belief was a prerequisite for being a Grand Prix driver. Anyone sitting on a grid thinking "these guys are better than me" will never be competitive. I first heard of Henton in a Motoring News report on a UK race meeting (1971?). The Formula Vee race winner had announced that he would one day race in F1. I decided to memorise that comedian's name - Brian Henton.   



#22 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 29 September 2014 - 15:31

The Sunday Times magazine published a feature on Brian Henton in 1983. In this he stated that Alboreto's car was significantly lighter than his one due to the use of expensive lightweight components. Henton also said that Ken Tyrrell had offered him a car of similar spec if he could pay the £50,000 cost. At the time Alboreto looked like a future champion and the team relied on Italian sponsorship so it would have been logical to concentrate resources on him. 

 

I had always thought that self belief was a prerequisite for being a Grand Prix driver. Anyone sitting on a grid thinking "these guys are better than me" will never be competitive. I first heard of Henton in a Motoring News report on a UK race meeting (1971?). The Formula Vee race winner had announced that he would one day race in F1. I decided to memorise that comedian's name - Brian Henton.   

 

Superhen was never one to undersell himself, he spent most of his driving career telling anyone who'd listen that he'd be F1 champion one say, but he did achieve a great deal. Maybe he was nearing the limits of his driving talents by the time he arrived in F1, but after his 71 Formula Vee championship success, he won both the1974 British F3 and 1980 European Formula 2 titles, so a long way from being a no-hoper. Given a more competitive car than a number 2 Tyrrell, I'm sure that he'd have made more of an impression than he did.


Edited by kayemod, 29 September 2014 - 15:32.


#23 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 September 2014 - 15:33

The Sunday Times magazine published a feature on Brian Henton in 1983. In this he stated that Alboreto's car was significantly lighter than his one due to the use of expensive lightweight components. Henton also said that Ken Tyrrell had offered him a car of similar spec if he could pay the £50,000 cost. At the time Alboreto looked like a future champion and the team relied on Italian sponsorship so it would have been logical to concentrate resources on him. 

 

I had always thought that self belief was a prerequisite for being a Grand Prix driver. Anyone sitting on a grid thinking "these guys are better than me" will never be competitive. I first heard of Henton in a Motoring News report on a UK race meeting (1971?). The Formula Vee race winner had announced that he would one day race in F1. I decided to memorise that comedian's name - Brian Henton.   

 

I sounded perhaps harsh about Henton, and I believe that self-belief for F1 drivers is very important... it is just that most drivers I met can mention AT LEAST one driver who they thought was better than them, or about whom they could talk with admiration. Perhaps I caught him at a wrong day. Not all of us can be humble, especially if you just have lost your seat in F1...

 

OT, anyway. What I wanted to convey is that several F1 drivers and technicians I met that worked in 1982 without provoking told numerous story's about little tricks of constructors, so called 'very secret advantages'. The underweight-Tyrrell did not float to the surface, but of course I never asked anyone specifically about it. Because I did not know that 30 years later there would be a discussion about it on something called The Inter Net! :lol:



#24 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 September 2014 - 16:05

The underweight-Tyrrell did not float to the surface

I do not have a copy of the article but I'm sure that Henton did not claim that Alboreto's car was underweight, only that it was lighter than his one. There have subsequently been numerous stories about ruses cooked up by teams to compensate for the DFV's power disadvantage including dumping the contents of water tanks on the grid and the infamous Brabham rear wing that needed several mechanics to carry it. I think it safe to assume that most DFV powered cars raced below the official minimum weight in 82 and 83. By 84 Tyrrell was the only serious team without a turbo and the FIA were able to disqualify the team without having to explain why no action was taken against other teams doing the same thing. 



#25 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 September 2014 - 16:44

I do not have a copy of the article but I'm sure that Henton did not claim that Alboreto's car was underweight, only that it was lighter than his one. There have subsequently been numerous stories about ruses cooked up by teams to compensate for the DFV's power disadvantage including dumping the contents of water tanks on the grid and the infamous Brabham rear wing that needed several mechanics to carry it. I think it safe to assume that most DFV powered cars raced below the official minimum weight in 82 and 83. By 84 Tyrrell was the only serious team without a turbo and the FIA were able to disqualify the team without having to explain why no action was taken against other teams doing the same thing

 

I don't want to bring up a whole new discussion, and not to rehash something that has been debated to death in an old, existing thread, but I am pretty sure the DQ for the year pro jure was because of illegal refuelling, the FIA found microscopic traces of 'fuel' in the watertanks of the Tyrrells. De facto of course it was about the tanking of generous amounts of water during pit-stops, of which all the millions watching TV could easily witness. As I said in one of my first post in this thread: the 1984-Tyrrel-saga is so complex, no post I've ever read here has done it justice.

 

And as you say: I am also pretty sure that most DFV powered cars of 82-83 were not the weight during the race that was measured during scrutiny after the race.



#26 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 17:26

I don't want to bring up a whole new discussion, and not to rehash something that has been debated to death in an old, existing thread, but I am pretty sure the DQ for the year pro jure was because of illegal refuelling, the FIA found microscopic traces of 'fuel' in the watertanks of the Tyrrells. De facto of course it was about the tanking of generous amounts of water during pit-stops, of which all the millions watching TV could easily witness. As I said in one of my first post in this thread: the 1984-Tyrrel-saga is so complex, no post I've ever read here has done it justice.

 

And as you say: I am also pretty sure that most DFV powered cars of 82-83 were not the weight during the race that was measured during scrutiny after the race.

 

Were they not allowed to re-fill the water-tanks for the 'water cooled brakes'?

 

:cool:



#27 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 September 2014 - 17:59

Were they not allowed to re-fill the water-tanks for the 'water cooled brakes'?

 

:cool:

 

You know, that has never been clear to me... or to anyone, is my assumption.

 

I know that Rosberg and Piquet were DQ'ed from Brazil, because of the water-tanks for 'the water-cooled' brakes, not after the race but months after. (Or were it just weeks? I am too lazy to look it up. Comfy chair. Whole day of work.)

 

AFAIK, the FIA - after the race with 12 cars in Imola - agreed with the FOCA a kind of 'non-agression-pact'. That was rumoured to have happened, at least. At least suddenly the watertanks appeared not to have been an issue anymore, nobody talked about it anymore, no journalist wrote that, as far as he could see, all the DFV-powered teams were still lugging gallons of water to the cars in parc fermé. At the time, I always assumed that the Cosworth-teams had given up the ploy... But later, years after that season, several sources confirmed to me: the watertanks were there ALL year... 'It was just decided it was not a problem anymore.' Who decided? Shrug of shoulders. But then why were the results of the race in Brazil not reinstated? How odd...

 

Then in 1984, especially British journalists starting taking the mickey out of Ken Tyrrell, because of his 'water-injection' system (a simple spraycan above the inlet- trumpets of the engine!). In GPI there was even a series of articles, called: 'Diary of a cheat', if memory serves me right... So whatever political backstabbing the eventual banning of Tyrrell had, even in the British press one was sort of enjoying the view of Uncle Ken sticking two fingers to the FIA.... and hence, they acknowledged that the Tyrrells were not within the rules...

 

So coming back to 1982 and Las Vegas, I see two possibilities:

 

1. All the Cosworth-teams had watertanks, so if the Tyrrell of Alboreto was underweight he was one of many. So... why would there a controversy or rumour be started?

2. None of the Cosworth-teams had watertanks anymore, but Tyrrell 'decided' to do a one-off-race with the water-tanks again...

 

Theses number 2 seems really, really unlikely to me... I imagine that Chapman (still alive) or Frank Williams would have screamed bloody murder...


Edited by Nemo1965, 29 September 2014 - 18:04.


#28 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 29 September 2014 - 18:40

Were they not allowed to re-fill the water-tanks for the 'water cooled brakes'?

 

:cool:

 

The rules used to say that you could top up essential fluids post-race before the cars were weighed.  Brake fluid for instance.  So the DFV boys just developed brakes that needed masses of cooling.  Brazil 1982 they DQ'd the first two Cosworth cars because for that race the scrutes questioned whether cars really needed that much water-cooling.  There were appeals but they were dismissed. 

 

One ironic consequence of that was it cost Manfred Winkelhock a point at San Marino.  His genuine brake fluid had boiled away, the ATS was a kilo underweight, but the rules had been changed in the intervening, so...

 

Only fair, given every single turbo engine was illegal.
 



#29 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 29 September 2014 - 19:12

Only fair, given every single turbo engine was illegal.
 

 

That was certainly the view of Max Mosley, back then. I remember a hilarious account of a meeting between the FOCA guys (headed by Mosley) and the turbo-teams (Ferrari, Renault), in which Mosley just fooled Marco Piccinini of Ferrari into admitting that the turbo was actually another engine added to an existing engine. Which meant of course, that Piccinini unwittingly confirmed that a F1 turbo engine was not allowed 1500 cc but 750 cc... :rotfl:

 

The strange thing: after this deadly putdown the turbo's never were threatened to have to reduce their capacity nor were the FOCA-teams forced to stop using idiotic watertanks. How convenient...

 

So, in that respect, rumours about an underweighted Tyrrell in Las Vegas 1982 are really odd...



#30 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 21:25

Ehhhh.... were the 1.5 liter turbo not written into the regulations from about 1966, how could that suddenly mean a turbo was two engines?

 

:cool:



#31 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 29 September 2014 - 21:31

The 1.5l option was for supercharged engines, not turbocharged...



#32 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 21:52

Put simplisticaly, the 'two engine argument' was that if you switched off the ignition but put a spark plug in the exhaust to ignite the unburnt fuel, the turbine would run which would create air pressure which would move the piston which would move the car.  So the turbocharger could be considered a second engine.  With a mechanically driven supercharger this can't happen.



#33 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 September 2014 - 21:57

Put simplisticaly, the 'two engine argument' was that if you switched off the ignition but put a spark plug in the exhaust to ignite the unburnt fuel, the turbine would run which would create air pressure which would move the piston which would move the car.  So the turbocharger could be considered a second engine.  With a mechanically driven supercharger this can't happen.

 

I do recall a or some articles in Autosport at the time, do not recall the argument being the engine had to be cut down to 750cc, memory insist on 1.3 or 1.1. In any event is the definition of a Supercharger and a Turbosupercharger then that the 'Turbo' is in fact two engines if one are not in F1?

 

:cool:



#34 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 September 2014 - 06:19

I do recall a or some articles in Autosport at the time, do not recall the argument being the engine had to be cut down to 750cc, memory insist on 1.3 or 1.1. In any event is the definition of a Supercharger and a Turbosupercharger then that the 'Turbo' is in fact two engines if one are not in F1?

 

:cool:

 

The funny thing about the story - apart from how Mosley tricked the turbo-guys with words - is that, with it, the FOCA-guys actually showed a trump-card they never had to use in official negotiations with the FISA. As far as I recall, the conversation took place directly after Imola (and before Imola), and it was meant as a friendly (haha!) exchanging of idea's.

 

I don't think there was ever a official proposal for 750 cc engines. In my mind it was a threat veiled under the disguise of hypothetical question. 'If you think that a turbo is an extra engine, then...'



#35 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:56

I cannot recall seeing any mention of any proposal for 750cc engines prior to this thread - but I am not nearly as familiar with the era as some here so it may have been mentioned in discussions.



#36 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:03

Wasn't Keith Duckworth the first one to make objections to turbo power being a second engine?

 

Anyway I think those protests only came after Renault was already there for quite some time when those turbos suddenly became very competitive.



#37 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:14

I cannot recall seeing any mention of any proposal for 750cc engines prior to this thread - but I am not nearly as familiar with the era as some here so it may have been mentioned in discussions.

 

No, no, no, it was not a proposal of any kind, like I tried to explain. I was told this story by Kenneth Dahlson (Dalsson? Dallson?) who was a lawyer present at that discussion, and he told it with great amusement. He said at the time that he did not know Chapman, Picicini or any of the other F1-guys (he was not into F1 at all) but he did know Mosley, and that it was fascinating to see how a multi-million dollar business was arranged so haphazardly. And that one smart guy who was good with words and argumentation could run circles around the others present...

 

Anyway I think those protests only came after Renault was already there for quite some time when those turbos suddenly became very competitive.

 

That was of course the rub. Did any team make an objecton against the Lotus 56b? Noooo. Because it didn't win... (almost in the rain at Zandvoort, but...)



#38 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:17

Put simplisticaly, the 'two engine argument' was that if you switched off the ignition but put a spark plug in the exhaust to ignite the unburnt fuel, the turbine would run which would create air pressure which would move the piston which would move the car.  So the turbocharger could be considered a second engine.  With a mechanically driven supercharger this can't happen.

But there IS no spark plug in the exhaust, so where is the engine?

 

I can see no really basic difference between a classic supercharger and a turbocharger other than a different mean of "drive" for the charger (exhaust pressure instead of a drive shaft). So a completely passive system, the turbocharger needs an external power source (the exhausts of the engine) to run, where in contrast a classic engine is always converting chemical (or electric) energy into mechanic work..



#39 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 September 2014 - 10:58

But there IS no spark plug in the exhaust, so where is the engine?

 

I can see no really basic difference between a classic supercharger and a turbocharger other than a different mean of "drive" for the charger (exhaust pressure instead of a drive shaft). So a completely passive system, the turbocharger needs an external power source (the exhausts of the engine) to run, where in contrast a classic engine is always converting chemical (or electric) energy into mechanic work..

 

Of course you are right, but how many times in F1 has logic REALLY been used to allow or prohibit technologies? The whole underweight-but-with-ten-gallons-of-water-Cosworth-cars, the skirts, the turbo's, the hydraulic systems... every decision in 1982 was not about who was RIGHT but who got his way...



Advertisement

#40 thiscocks

thiscocks
  • Member

  • 1,489 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 30 September 2014 - 11:52

Superhen was never one to undersell himself, he spent most of his driving career telling anyone who'd listen that he'd be F1 champion one say, but he did achieve a great deal. Maybe he was nearing the limits of his driving talents by the time he arrived in F1, but after his 71 Formula Vee championship success, he won both the1974 British F3 and 1980 European Formula 2 titles, so a long way from being a no-hoper. Given a more competitive car than a number 2 Tyrrell, I'm sure that he'd have made more of an impression than he did.

Derek Warwick would also tell you Henton was a very tough team mate. Henton was generally the faster in their Toleman days.



#41 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:19

Re Brian Henton. Nice bloke, excellent driver, just one of many who didn't get the machinery to prove it after F2. And yes, very confident in his abilities, but as has been said, something you need to have in motorsport.

 

The argument against turbos was 1] That the equivilence was for supercharged not turbos, and then 2] that some teams were igniting unburnt fuel in the hot wheel housing to keep the turbos up to speed, in an effort to negate lag, and Keith Duckworth argued that if the turbo didn't have pistons, ut did have a moving part, rotated by igniting fuel, it wasn't the primary engine, but it was being "powered".  Some water tanks were for brakes, some for water injection, which raised the the Ron of the fuel while also cooling the mixture, (I think), and Tyrrell were accused of adding further to the Ron of the fuel, by having lead in the water tank. That the taank wasn't even connected to the fuel system was ignored completely, but as has been said, a whole different thread!


Edited by f1steveuk, 30 September 2014 - 14:41.


#42 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 30 September 2014 - 13:36

Because it didn't win... (almost in the rain at Zandvoort, but...)


I'd call getting 1 correct number in the national lottery more of an "almost win" personally.


PS. Is a turbocharger not considered to be a type of supercharger any more? Are the terms now mutually exclusive?

Edited by E.B., 30 September 2014 - 13:45.


#43 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 30 September 2014 - 14:47

I'd call getting 1 correct number in the national lottery more of an "almost win" personally.


PS. Is a turbocharger not considered to be a type of supercharger any more? Are the terms now mutually exclusive?

Yes, I have a few lottery near misses like that, none of them chaanged me.

 

I suppose it's down to symantics. Supercharger, mecanically driven, which increases power, but at the expense of some loss due to mechanical drag and resistance. Turbo, same effect, but the cold wheel (compressor) powered by the hot wheel, spun by exhaust gases, so "free" power, but suffers from lag, so I suppose different terms for differing systems. Then there was Ferrari's Comprex!!!



#44 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 September 2014 - 15:11

Yes, I have a few lottery near misses like that, none of them chaanged me.

 

I suppose it's down to symantics. Supercharger, mecanically driven, which increases power, but at the expense of some loss due to mechanical drag and resistance. Turbo, same effect, but the cold wheel (compressor) powered by the hot wheel, spun by exhaust gases, so "free" power, but suffers from lag, so I suppose different terms for differing systems. Then there was Ferrari's Comprex!!!

 

TANSTAAFL!!1

 

:cool:



#45 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 30 September 2014 - 15:20

Well "free" in the terms of mechanical drag etc, financially is a whole different matter!!



#46 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,709 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 September 2014 - 18:19

But there IS no spark plug in the exhaust, so where is the engine?

 

 

 

Actually no spark plug was needed at all to transform their turbochargers into a secondary motors, as Ferrari found out when they injected fuel into the exhaust pipe down stream from the turbochargers.



#47 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:43

So it is wrong to inject fuel into the exhaust, but this would still not mean that turbochargers are generally illegal.



#48 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,709 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:51

So it is wrong to inject fuel into the exhaust, but this would still not mean that turbochargers are generally illegal.

 

No, but to Keith Duckworth's way of thinking they were still effectively a gas-turbine coupled to an internal combustion engine.

 

I am not aware he ever expected to win that argument   ;) 



#49 Claudio Navonne

Claudio Navonne
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 02 October 2014 - 08:35

f1steveuk wrote: "some for water injection, which raised the the Ron of the fuel while also cooling the mixture, (I think)," but with all due respect, I think water injection was to increase compression. Water can not be compressed, so when injected into the combustion chamber instantly increased compression. During World War II fighter pilots used on some aircraft this device to instantly increase the power in combat situations. But use it with care because it decreased engine reliability.


Edited by Claudio Navonne, 02 October 2014 - 21:19.


#50 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 October 2014 - 08:50

As I read it, water in with the fuel raised the hydrocarbons, as well as preventing predenonation (knocking) as well as cooling certain parts, also to cure predenonation.


Edited by f1steveuk, 02 October 2014 - 08:53.