34 replies to this topic

[SJ Lambert]

 

Do any of these bad boys survive in the wild?
 

[Tim Murray]

I came across a very scruffy, unloved example many years ago (late '70s or early '80s) in the Coventry Transport Museum here in the UK. It didn't seem to be an exhibit, just apparently abandoned behind a desk covered in dust. I never saw it again in subsequent visits to that museum, although I always looked.

I've just googled to see if there was any info about this particular engine, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the museum's website. What I did find was this Christie's auction blurb on something they sold in 1993:

http://www.christies...bjectID=2999048

It's obviously full of errors (H-16!) so possibly not to be trusted, but it says there were two display engines - the one they were selling and the one at the Coventry museum - plus one of the actual test engines, owned at that time by Climax Engine Services.

Edited by Tim Murray, 14 January 2015 - 15:23.

[bradbury west]

I have always understood that a well known historic racer has a block in his London flat, fitted with a glass top and pedestal legs, using it as a coffee table.

Roger Lund

[Peter Morley]

IIRC Chris Perkins had the FPF from the museum years ago and possibly the H-16.

 

I heard that a Flat-16 is doing coffee table service with a well known Belgian Aston Martin (+ other makes) enthusiast, but no idea which of the two (Coventry or Christies) it is.

[Roger Clark]

It's a great pity that those engines never raced.  The 3-litre formula of 1966 was unquestionably a good thing, but the prospect of Clark in a 16-cylinder Lotus, Surtees in a sorted flat-12 Ferrari and (more fancifully perhaps) Gurney in a Brabham-Honda V12 does make the mouth water.

[Doug Nye]

Installing a flat-16 in a worthwhile chassis high enough to house the exhaust manifolding beneath it, yet low enough to maintain a sensible CoG height, was always going to be a challenge to the teams. Lotus and Brabham were both relieved that Climax's '16' never became available in time for the 1965 season.

 

DCN

[harbee]

It's a great pity that those engines never raced.  The 3-litre formula of 1966 was unquestionably a good thing, but the prospect of Clark in a 16-cylinder Lotus, Surtees in a sorted flat-12 Ferrari and (more fancifully perhaps) Gurney in a Brabham-Honda V12 does make the mouth water.

 

And just imagine the sound compared to today's two-stroke single type drone.

[SJ Lambert]

Did the Climax 16 ever get bolted onto the back of the Lotus?

[D-Type]

It's a great pity that those engines never raced.  The 3-litre formula of 1966 was unquestionably a good thing, but the prospect of Clark in a 16-cylinder Lotus, Surtees in a sorted flat-12 Ferrari and (more fancifully perhaps) Gurney in a Brabham-Honda V12 does make the mouth water.

The racing would have been interestingly close but unfortunately not too spectacular.  Because of the low power the cars had to be driven extremely tidily with no power consuming tail out cornering.  I find the race for these cars at Goodwood the least interesting on the programme so I try to get my charity collecting sessions to coincide with them.

[Tim Murray]

Did the Climax 16 ever get bolted onto the back of the Lotus?

My understanding is that none of the chassis originally designed for the Flat-16 (Lotus 39, Brabham BT19 and Cooper T80) was ever fitted with an engine.

[Roger Clark]

My understanding is that none of the chassis originally designed for the Flat-16 (Lotus 39, Brabham BT19 and Cooper T80) was ever fitted with an engine.

Not with a Flat-16, of course!

[Roger Clark]

It was said at the time that Climax intended to produce four Flat-16s: one each for Lotus, Brabham and Cooper and one to be retained for development.  Des Hammill's book on Climax engines says that three complete sets of parts were ordered but only one engine was ever assembled.  Three pairs of engined cases were machined but only two sets of cylinder heads.  It was, he says, envisaged that the third set would be four valves per cylinder (!).

[Roger Clark]

Installing a flat-16 in a worthwhile chassis high enough to house the exhaust manifolding beneath it, yet low enough to maintain a sensible CoG height, was always going to be a challenge to the teams. Lotus and Brabham were both relieved that Climax's '16' never became available in time for the 1965 season.

 

DCN

I can believe that the teams weren't too disappointed not to get the flat-16, especially as they were only going to get one each.  It would have significantly increased their costs, as they would need a spare V8 in case of failure, quite apart from the additional cost of the flat-16 engine.  However, reports at the time said that Climax went to great lengths to consider the installation of their new engine before settling on a flat-16, and a low CoG was one of the key advantages over the alternatives considered which included a 60º V12, a 135º V16 and a "drooped wing" 16

[Peter Morley]

Installing a flat-16 in a worthwhile chassis high enough to house the exhaust manifolding beneath it, yet low enough to maintain a sensible CoG height, was always going to be a challenge to the teams. Lotus and Brabham were both relieved that Climax's '16' never became available in time for the 1965 season.
 
DCN

Apparently much easier these days, current F1 exhaust technology apparently allows a Lightweight E-type to run at the desired ride height while maintaining sufficient ground clearance!

 

Back to the old days, you would have thought that the problems of this little H-16 would have set enough alarm bells ringing before anyone thought making a 3 litre H-16 was sensible?

[Tim Murray]

Not with a Flat-16, of course!

Whoops! 

[Doug Nye]

Apparently much easier these days, current F1 exhaust technology apparently allows a Lightweight E-type to run at the desired ride height while maintaining sufficient ground clearance!

 

Back to the old days, you would have thought that the problems of this little H-16 would have set enough alarm bells ringing before anyone thought making a 3 litre H-16 was sensible?

 

 

Aah, but BRM's finest were convinced they were far better development engineers than Coventry Climax's...

 

DCN

[Paul Hamilton]

My understanding is that none of the chassis originally designed for the Flat-16 (Lotus 39, Brabham BT19 and Cooper T80) was ever fitted with an engine.

 

The Lotus 39 was ultimately fitted with a 2.5 litre Climax FPF for Clark's use in the 1966 Tasman series and the BT19, equipped with a 3 litre Repco V8, was Brabham's 1966 championship winning car.   Both were one offs. The 39 has been Australian owned ever since it came down under for the Tasman races, and until relatively recently, saw regular use in historic racing events.  The BT19 was in Repco's hands in Australia for many years and is now a museum piece in Melbourne.  I have no idea what happened to the Cooper. 

[Tim Murray]

I have no idea what happened to the Cooper.

It became the test hack for the Maserati V12 engine. It was raced once by Jo Siffert in the 1966 International Trophy at Silverstone, after his T81 had engine problems in practice. Its fate after that is unclear - see the discussion in this earlier thread:

http://forums.autosp...cooper-f1-cars/

[RCH]

The question that continues to intrigue me is why?

What was the point for just one season? I had always thought that maybe they were looking to supercharge it for 1966 but, as has been discussed here before, that was not feasible. Why would a company whose racing career had been based on sound straightforward principles and which was likely to continue to be there or thereabouts in 1965 have such a flight of fancy?

[SJ Lambert]

One of the Antipodean garagistas of the period reckoned they were in the "what if" ( we try this & it works) business!

[Roger Clark]

By the end of 1964, the V8 was probably reaching its limit of development in 2-valve form, and Climax were in great difficulties with the 4-valve versions.  They may also have been concerned about the potential of the 12-cylinder Ferrari and Honda.   In 1965 they did make significant progress with the 4-valve FWMV and Jim Clark showed on several occasions that the 2-valve engine was still a winner.

 

Nevertheless, it's difficult to think that Climax could have recovered their development costs on the 16 if only three were to be released to customers.

[Ray Bell]

It must also be remembered that the development would have been commenced before the announcement of the 3-litre formula for 1966...

And it's unlikely that, had it been successful, only three would have been built.

[Robin Fairservice]

You should read "Climax in Coventry" by Walter Hassan, because he has a chapter devoted to the Flat 16.  They decided to make a Flat 16 because they thought that they had got to the limit with the V8 and a Flat 16 was their only option. for the 1965 season.  They only built one engine, and that blew up on their test bed when being demonstrated to the Duke of Edinburgh.  They were planning for four as discussed, but the book doesn't discuss building any after the prototype failed.  They just wrapped it up s it was and put it away.  When Leonard Lee retired he took the remains with him with the remaining spares.

[Roger Clark]

According to Des Hammill, Phil's visit took place on 21st June 1966, long after development had been abandoned.  Leonard Lee asked that the Flat-16 be got out of storage for the occasion.  Hammell doesn't mention a blow-up, in fact he says that they were unable to start the engine in the Royal Presence.  They demonstrated an FPF instead.

Edited by Roger Clark, 19 January 2015 - 09:53.

[Roger Clark]

It must also be remembered that the development would have been commenced before the announcement of the 3-litre formula for 1966...

And it's unlikely that, had it been successful, only three would have been built.

 

The 3-litre formula was announced towards the end of 1964.  Design work on the flat-16 had already started but it's unlikely that they had spent serious money on it.  Once Climax had ordered the necessary parts, most of the costs would have been their own employees' labour.  Is it possible, that with V8 development coming to an end, Climax decided that flat-16 development would be a better solution than redundancies?  They were a comparatively benign employer, I believe.

Edited by Roger Clark, 19 January 2015 - 10:02.

[Glengavel]

The question that continues to intrigue me is why?

What was the point for just one season? I had always thought that maybe they were looking to supercharge it for 1966 but, as has been discussed here before, that was not feasible. Why would a company whose racing career had been based on sound straightforward principles and which was likely to continue to be there or thereabouts in 1965 have such a flight of fancy?

 

As someone pointed out elsewhere in TNF, if it had been succesful the logical progression for 1966 would have been an H32.

[Ray Bell]

Roger, what parts did they make themselves?

I guess the crank and rods were bought in, but castings, perhaps not sleeves, lots of things they'd make themselves.

And again, what if it had been a success and the formula had been extended?

[Tim Murray]

The 3-litre formula was announced towards the end of 1964.

Was it not 1963? The consensus in this earlier thread was that the CSI meeting took place in late November 1963, with the official announcement in early December:

http://forums.autosp...-liter-meeting/

This earlier thread on the Flat 16 may be of interest:

http://forums.autosp...climax-flat-16/

[D-Type]

As engine makers, Coventry Climax would not have considered the F1 racing community their only market - sports cars, boats, aircraft and even fire pumps immediately come to mind.

[Roger Clark]

Was it not 1963? The consensus in this earlier thread was that the CSI meeting took place in late November 1963, with the official announcement in early December:

http://forums.autosp...-liter-meeting/

This earlier thread on the Flat 16 may be of interest:

http://forums.autosp...climax-flat-16/

Yes, of course.  I just happened to have Tony Rudd's book by my side when I posted!  It means, of course, that Climax would have done even less work on the flat-16 when the announcement was made.

[Roger Clark]

Roger, what parts did they make themselves?

I guess the crank and rods were bought in, but castings, perhaps not sleeves, lots of things they'd make themselves.

And again, what if it had been a success and the formula had been extended?

According to Des Hammill, Climax had a very well-equipped toolroom and about 20 first-class machinists:

 

"The machines that formed the basis of this workshop were three jig borers, three horizontal borers, a horizontal and vertical milling machine, two shaping machines, a vertical slotting machine, internal and external grinding machines, a camshaft grinder, a gear cutting machine, four lathes, and the usual range of complementary machine tools and equipment found in a well-equipped toolroom"

[David Beard]

I think they should have carried on into the 3 litre formula with an H32.   

[SJ Lambert]

I'm looking forward to receiving a copy of Autocar magazine with an article featuring the engine, it'll be a nice addition to the JRD Shuntmaster article that the opening photo's from.

[SJ Lambert]

 

The question that continues to intrigue me is why?

What was the point for just one season? I had always thought that maybe they were looking to supercharge it for 1966 but, as has been discussed here before, that was not feasible. Why would a company whose racing career had been based on sound straightforward principles and which was likely to continue to be there or thereabouts in 1965 have such a flight of fancy?

 

 

Edward Eves, in an article published in Autocar in February 1965  asked the same question and reckoned that over and above not wanting to be overshadowed by the 12 cylinder Ferrari and Honda motors in the last year of a formula that'd been dominated by Climax engines, two considerations helped Leonard Lee to give the go ahead for the new complex unit.  One was that there was not the problem of forming a design unit and construction shop - the team was already there and raring to go.  They were also ready and anxious for a new engine to play with. Eves also reckoned that of the batch of 20 or so V-8s they'd been racing since 1962 had done a great job, but were in urgent need of replacement, their reliability had been pretty good, with only one of those units having been scraped despite theblow-ups and mishaps endemic to racing - I presume they figured they'd get the FWMW 1.5 going well enough - apparently Monaco was the target debut date.....

[Doug Nye]

Nice contemporary photo-set on the FWMW here..and adjoining...

 

https://revslib.stan...log/jw746jj3385

 

DCN