61 replies to this topic

[chr1s]

I know this sort of thing occasionally happens in club racing, but does anyone know of any instances of the FIA or other premier  motor sport governing bodies actually stripping down an engine during or after a race meeting to measure its capacity?  

 

[Vitesse2]

The engine of Dick Seaman's Delage was officially sealed during the 1935 season after accusations that it was over-sized. IIRC it went three races without ever being stripped down; when it was examined by the AIACR it was found to be legal.

 

I've also seen pre-war official AIACR notifications of speed records which included capacities measured to tenths of a cubic centimetre. For example, here: http://forums.autosp...3/#entry7311714

[Roger Clark]

After the 1956 Italian Grand Prix, the Maserati, Ferrari and Connaught engines were all stripped down and measured by ACI engineers. The Connaught was measured at the circuit, the others were sealed and measured at the factory.

[Michael Ferner]

Cliff Woodbury protested the size of Frank Lockhart's engine at Detroit in 1926, but the capacity was checked and found to conform to the rules.

[JtP2]

Stewart's Tyrell engine was stripped after the 71 British GP after a Ferrari protest. As the engine was going to Cosworth the following day, it was sealed and stripped and checked in the Cosworth factory on the Monday. When the checked bank was found to be correct, The Ferrari observer then complained that it was the other bank that was oversize.

 

Clark's SCA was checked after winning the first F2 race at Pau in 64. These are 2 that have been documented in print, but I am sure there are others.

 

Nascar is a law unto itself.

Edited by JtP2, 22 October 2015 - 21:40.

[63Corvette]

No need to "strip" today, as the P&G pump has been used (remove sparkplug and plug in the pump) since (at least) the 1970s to confirm/verify the CID displacement of engines.

[Tom Glowacki]

No need to "strip" today, as the P&G pump has been used (remove sparkplug and plug in the pump) since (at least) the 1970s to confirm/verify the CID displacement of engines.

Then again, Bud Moore once supposedly once said something about testing displacement short of a strip down, to the effect of "Tell me what it's supposed to be, tell me how they'll measure it, tell me what you want it to be, and I can pretty much give you what you want."

[bradbury west]

Of course, the classic case was the Lotus vs Richard von Frankenberg case with Peter Arundell and his Lotus 22 at Monza in December 1962. A search under Frankenberg will bring up the relevant threads with more than enough details.
Roger Lund

[Sharman]

Jenks and Gordini in the 50s

[bradbury west]

Well remembered, John. 2500cc for 2000cc F2 IIRC. I have not checked, but did he call for it to be measured, or was it just conjecture and logical conclusion?. The performance gave it away.  Not the first one to be caught, or suspected  that way, I am sure. I knew a chap years ago who told me he was running a 6.4 Chev in historic CanAm when the limit was  6  litres. He pointed out that as he never troubled the prizegivers it just meant he raced a bit farther up the field and had fun.

BTW are you both settling OK?

Roger Lund

[Roger Clark]

DSJ wrote that Maurice Trintignant visited the Gordon factory a few weeks after the Reims race.  He spotted a row of pistons, visibly bigger than those of the 2-litre cars.  When he asked about them, he was quickly ushered away.  

[Sharman]

Well remembered, John. 2500cc for 2000cc F2 IIRC. I have not checked, but did he call for it to be measured, or was it just conjecture and logical conclusion?. The performance gave it away.  Not the first one to be caught, or suspected  that way, I am sure. I knew a chap years ago who told me he was running a 6.4 Chev in historic CanAm when the limit was  6  litres. He pointed out that as he never troubled the prizegivers it just meant he raced a bit farther up the field and had fun.

BTW are you both settling OK?

Roger Lund

Roger,

If memory serves wasn't it 3 litres which was later run in Sports cars?

The only answer I can give to your questions is taken from Henry V. Kill all the lawyers!!

John

[Roger Clark]

I think the 3-litre Gordini was an eight cylinder. Gordini had a 2.3-litre 6 which had appeared in a sports car before Reims. It's first race was Monaco. It could, of course, have been the pistons from that sports car that Trintingant saw. The 2.3 had larger bore but the same stroke as the 2.0. The 2.5 had longer stroke.

[Nick Wa]

Although surprised at the time this school boy still wants to think Behra won on merit at Rheims in '52. I see from various old posts that Farina was 2nd and Ascari 3rd in a shared drive.

My premise is that Ferrari were overstretched in their commitments. How many Tipo 500s were they running 3,4 or even six? They are racing virtually every weekend. In 1952  it would have been near impossible to return the cars to Modena between races. If they had two sets of cars my theory folds but if they had only one set or just  four cars then it is possible that when faced with 5 races in consecutive weekends following after Le Mans at both Rheims and Sables d'Olonne the cars were being gentler treated and saved for the world championship races the following week. Ok Spa, Rhiems, Rouen are not big hikes, Sables d'Olonne a bit further but then back to Silverstone with one less day as it was a Saturday race. So I see little servicing time between 20th June and 22nd July.

I see Ascari made fastest lap at Rhiems. Was it assumed that he would run away from the field as he was wont to do but after his demise Farina's car did not have long enough gears to run done Behra?

[Nick Wa]

And back on topic the R.A.C. in '69 wanted to pull my Escort to pieces to prove it was a legal group 2 1100cc car. Thankfully RS2000 and his mates were on hand with some tools to prove it was. And put it together again in perfect order.

[Emery0323]

I know this sort of thing occasionally happens in club racing, but does anyone know of any instances of the FIA or other premier  motor sport governing bodies actually stripping down an engine during or after a race meeting to measure its capacity?  

Not the FIA, but NASCAR had a particularly well-publicized incident with its winningest driver, Richard Petty, in 1983:

http://www.popularsp...eating-scandal/

 

Here's background on more recent incidents:

http://www.enginelab...-or-spec-rules/

[JacnGille]

Then again, Bud Moore once supposedly once said something about testing displacement short of a strip down, to the effect of "Tell me what it's supposed to be, tell me how they'll measure it, tell me what you want it to be, and I can pretty much give you what you want."

I seem to remember another NASCAR engine builder saying everyone knew two ways to cheat a P&G meter and he knew a third.

[Ray Bell]

Back in 1961 or 1962 the Hillman Minx engine of Paul Bolton was pulled down...

Measuring just over the 1600cc limit, Peter Molloy (the mechanic) asked that they let the engine cool down and measure it again. It came in under 1600 that time.

Formula Fords here went through a long period of constant checking due to some rule bending. Most of it was related to piston crown stuff, but I have no doubt capacities were checked.

During the latter days of the Tasman Cup it was often implied that various runners had 350s. I don't know of any having been pulled down, however.

[Lee Nicolle]

No need to "strip" today, as the P&G pump has been used (remove sparkplug and plug in the pump) since (at least) the 1970s to confirm/verify the CID displacement of engines.

That has always been less than satisfactory.

In speedway people have been 'pinged'  for fat engines when not,, and got away with fat engines too. People with legal engines then have to prove they are legal. And stripping an engine at the track is never ideal with all the dirt.

[Lee Nicolle]

Well remembered, John. 2500cc for 2000cc F2 IIRC. I have not checked, but did he call for it to be measured, or was it just conjecture and logical conclusion?. The performance gave it away.  Not the first one to be caught, or suspected  that way, I am sure. I knew a chap years ago who told me he was running a 6.4 Chev in historic CanAm when the limit was  6  litres. He pointed out that as he never troubled the prizegivers it just meant he raced a bit farther up the field and had fun.

BTW are you both settling OK?

Roger Lund

I know numerous instances of that. A low buck 400 that was supposed to be a 283! Made a midfield runner. Or a 350 Sports Sedan when the limit was 5 litre. IF you spent plenty on the correct engine they would go quicker but money dictates the cheat.

I have heard [unconfirmed]  instances of 350ci 5000s too.  Just moved them up the field a little.

[Lee Nicolle]

Not the FIA, but NASCAR had a particularly well-publicized incident with its winningest driver, Richard Petty, in 1983:

http://www.popularsp...eating-scandal/

 

Here's background on more recent incidents:

http://www.enginelab...-or-spec-rules/

Those articles are interesting. Petty should have been DQed for a blatantly fat engine and probably given a holiday too.

The other article in relation to a 362ci engine by mistake,,,, ,yeah right. They cheated. 10 or 20 though of crank can alter the dynamics of the engine. And after all the whole reciprocating mass is a balanced assembly.

Toyota infraction of a rod 3 grams light though was a mistake. In fact it does not say a lot for their quality control.

 

Spec engines, even control engines can cause grief and really I am never a fan.

I have been an engine sealer for a control engine class. And more than a few hassles, a car on pole at a big event with an illegal head and dopey here had to sit in on a stewards meeting about it. Worse the scrutineer [big time and supposedly experienced] could not see the problem.

That was the beginning of the end for me in that job.

[Pat Clarke]

What about 3 litre F1 engines running in the Tasman Cup? 

 

Pat

[E1pix]

I have heard [unconfirmed]  instances of 350ci 5000s too.  Just moved them up the field a little.

Please tell me we don't have to launch a Formula 5700 thread. 

[Glengavel]

What about 3 litre F1 engines running in the Tasman Cup? 

 

Pat

 

I was wondering about the DFW just recently, why go to all the effort just for a handful of engines? Or would it be easy enough to make the necessary crankshaft and conrods?

[AAGR]

Engine capacity measuring used to happen frequently in the 'Super Touring' British Touring Car Championship of the 1990s. I once saw a Cosworth/Ford  V6-engined Mondeo (in which Paul Radisich had just won a big event), have its heads lifted in the pit garage at Donington afterwards. The scrutineer was using an ancient wooden ruler to take measurements .... the Cosworth engineer was not amused .... 

[Peter Morley]

Reminds me of the story of the person who wanted Classiche documentation for his Ferrari F1 car which was refused because the engine was oversized.

Of course it was the original engine...

[Vitesse2]

Reminds me of the story of the person who wanted Classiche documentation for his Ferrari F1 car which was refused because the engine was oversized.

Of course it was the original engine...

... last raced in anger at Monza?

[bradbury west]

Off topic a bit, but there was the NASCAR story about a driver who went long laps between refuelling in a 500 miler, possibly Smokey Yunick,  whose car was impounded and the fuel tank,  required to be a certain measured gallonage,  was removed, and he then drove the car off to his workshops..... there was a further fuel capacity in very oversized fuel lines, like an extra 5 gallons or more in very large bore pipes . Perhaps someone recalls the story and/or the driver

Roger Lund

[Tim Murray]

Perhaps someone recalls the story and/or the driver

Different versions of the story have been posted here many times, some more believable than others. This one strikes me as the most accurate-sounding:
 

William Dale mentioned the story about Smokey Yunick and the detachable fuel tank.

The incident happened at the 1968 Daytona 500, when Yunick entered a Chevrolet Chevelle for Gordy Johncock. NASCAR technical director Bill Gazaway went over the car with a fine tooth comb. He found 9 major cheats:

1) frames "unlike other Chevelles"
2) rocker panels cut away for exhaust pipe clearance
3) raised floor allowing higher driveshaft tunnel (sitting car lower on track)
4) improperly located A-frames
5) improperly located fule cell vent line
6) non-standard doorhandles (reducing drag)
7) screw jacks allowing weight adjustments to be made in pit stops without opening the boot lid
8) improper front track
9) non-removable doors

The fuel tank had been removed and drained, when Yunick said "Better make that 10", and drove off.

The regulations said that fuel tube could be no more than 11 foot long. There was nothing said about its bore size. So the fuel tube was a 2 inch wide bore pipe, and the fuel line alone held 6 gallons.

[Allan Lupton]

A tube 11 foot long and 2" bore is not anywhere near 6 gallons, even the light sort used in the USofA. More like 2 I'd say.

[Collombin]

I believe Yunick denied that the incident took place, FWIW.

[RS2000]

I've seen Yunick tell that story on film/TV, along with that about the moonshiners paying him more than the revenuers for mods to their cars so getting better parts fitted. So was he a "fabricator" in more than one sense?

[Lee Nicolle]

Off topic a bit, but there was the NASCAR story about a driver who went long laps between refuelling in a 500 miler, possibly Smokey Yunick,  whose car was impounded and the fuel tank,  required to be a certain measured gallonage,  was removed, and he then drove the car off to his workshops..... there was a further fuel capacity in very oversized fuel lines, like an extra 5 gallons or more in very large bore pipes . Perhaps someone recalls the story and/or the driver

Roger Lund

Those stories are attributed to Smokey. The tank was legal size, just big fuel lines. Though many others have done similar in many catergories over the decades. More like half a gallon though.

A carby engine will actually go a fair way on what is in the bowls. I once 'ran out' in the tank on the last lap. No fuel pressure but managed the slow down lap  [over 2km] carefully on what was in the bowls.

[Lee Nicolle]

Please tell me we don't have to launch a Formula 5700 thread. 

Naah, 6 litre!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Pat Clarke
What about 3 litre F1 engines running in the Tasman Cup?

Good question, let's analyse...

The first suggestions I heard of this sort of thing were from BRM mechanics referring to Jack and Denny in their Repco V8-powered cars in 1967.

The 'power circuits' where one would expect the most advantage from an oversize engine were Sandown and Longford. Brabham had pole there with a 1:05.7, but Stewart was only two tenths slower and quicker than Hulme's 1:06.6 and Clark with 1:07.7. Engines for Stewart and Clark were both 1.5-litre V8s stretched, Steweart's at 2.15-litres as I recall, Clark's at 2-litres.

To my way of thinking, those times would be exactly what I'd expect of those engines, so what about race day? On the tenth lap Stewart passed Brabham for the lead and had fastest lap of the race so far at 1:06.9. Brabham then had a wire fall off the ignition pickup on the flywheel, located this out on the circuit and pitted to fix it properly. Hulme, meanwhile, did a bit of to-and-fro stuff with Clark before retiring. Though Clark passed him coming onto the main straight, Hulme had to use Clark's tow to repass the Lotus up the back straight.

And Jack? He came back to do another 18 laps or so, his only result from this (apart from flying the Repco flag in front of the Company's directors) would be to get fastest lap and/or the lap record. His best, however, merely equalled Steweart.

Longford saw Jack take a win, but again the times were close. Brabham and Stewart, in fact, equal fastest on 2:13.4. Grid postions, however rested on lap times in the Examiner Trophy race over eight laps and another eight-lapper, pole went to Brabham and 2:14.5, Hulme 2:14.8, Clark 2:15.0, Stewart 2:15.2. Do we question Clark's climax's capacity with that? In the race it seems Jack was doing it fairly easily, Stewart got down to 2:13.9 in his pursuit and Jack did a 2:13.3.

You could say Jack was playing with them there, but two things go against that thought. First, he and Denny went out together in practice, undoubtedly to help each other with some slipstreaming, and still Jack did only the same time as Stewart - and remember that there was a hundred bottles of bubbly riding on this. Second, it was not until the second eight-lapper that he was fast enough to get pole for the main race.

So we go on to 1968 when the Brabham mechanics were complaining about the DFVs...

At Sandown Jack had pole with 1:06.7 to Clark's 1:06.9 with Amon's Ferrari in the middle on with 1:06.8. There would be no doubt about Geoghegan's 2.5-litre integrity, he was fourth fastest on 1:07.0 in the old Lotus 39 ahead of Hill's 49 on 1:07.3.

Race day saw that storming race from Amon and Clark where they diced throughout and Clark only just managed a win. Amon got fastest lap with 1:07.0 to Clark's 1:07.2.

The little Dino V6 was definitely not 3-litres or anything near it. It was stretched from 1.5 or 1.6 or something and it was scratching to be 2.46-litres because of the need to move head studs to places where they were in the way of the valve springs!

At Longford Clark was clearly quicker with 2:13.0, Hill on 2:13.1 and Amon on 2:13.7. Not a huge advantage on a circuit like Longford where the Cosworths were fully expected to dominate.

Further to that, the next year Amon was able to beat Rindt regularly.

As for the BRMs, which are the other cars which could have gone with 3-litres with their V12s in 1968 and 1969, I'm sure Doug has fuller information.

Edited by Ray Bell, 29 October 2015 - 14:29.

[Pat Clarke]

Ray, consider the issue of getting the Lotus cars from South Africa to New Zealand in just a few days in 1968. And some of this was consumed painting the cars in the GLTL colours.

When were the engines rebuilt with short cranks and long rods? When were they tested and set up? They are not going to just run without having at least the F/I cams and ignition timing optimised. And what happened to them afterwards? Surely, redundant 2,5 'DFWs' would have found a market in the Southern hemisphere for the national series.

The usual story is they were 'converted back to 3 litres for F1', but when inspected with the magnifying glass of common sense the whole thing seems very unlikely. I once asked a senior Cosworth official, who was there at the time, about this and he snapped 'Don't be silly!' That response could be interpreted in several ways, but I certainly understood his meaning at the time :-)

 

As for the BRMs. Weren't they in a situation where no two engines were the same, so whipping up a quick conversion to 2.5 litres was highly unlikely?

 

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter except to the rivet counters. The Tasman series brought contemporary F1 drivers and cars to the Antipodes for the enthusiasts to see and if that involved a little 'wink wink, nudge nudge' on engine capacity, so what?

 

Pat

Edited by Pat Clarke, 28 October 2015 - 03:34.

[Paul Hamilton]

Ray, consider the issue of getting the Lotus cars from South Africa to New Zealand in just a few days in 1968. And some of this was consumed painting the cars in the GLTL colours.

When were the engines rebuilt with short cranks and long rods? When were they tested and set up? They are not going to just run without having at least the F/I cams and ignition timing optimised. And what happened to them afterwards? Surely, redundant 2,5 'DFWs' would have found a market in the Southern hemisphere for the national series.

The usual story is they were 'converted back to 3 litres for F1', but when inspected with the magnifying glass of common sense the whole thing seems very unlikely. I once asked a senior Cosworth official, who was there at the time, about this and he snapped 'Don't be silly!' That response could be interpreted in several ways, but I certainly understood his meaning at the time :-)

 

As for the BRMs. Weren't they in a situation where no two engines were the same, so whipping up a quick conversion to 2.5 litres was highly unlikely?

 

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter except to the rivet counters. The Tasman series brought contemporary F1 drivers and cars to the Antipodes for the enthusiasts to see and if that involved a little 'wink wink, nudge nudge' on engine capacity, so what?

 

Pat

 

Pat,

 

The cars used by Lotus in the '68 Tasman series were R1 and R2 which had not seen action since the previous October/November at the Spanish and Mexican GPs  and  I doubt that R1 ever went to NZ.   Although Jimmy ran R2 in the full Tasman series in both countries, Hill did not contest the NZ Tasman races in 1968 and ran only in Australia with R1.    There would have been plenty of time to change the engines subsequent to their last 1967 GP use and ship both cars down under in time for their opening Tasman events.

 

In 1969 the cars used by Rindt and Hill were R8, R9 and R10 which were all newly constructed for the Tasman series and thus there was certainly, again, no time barrier to their legal preparation with 2.5 litre DFW engines.

 

The DFV had been demonstrably quicker than other 3 litre F1 engines throughout 1967 but, as Ray has pointed out, there was very little to pick between Clark's 49 and Amon's Dino Ferrari down Sandown's long straights during the 1968 Tasman race.  If Jimmy had been using the 3 litre DFV with the same power as he had during 1967 he would have surely been significantly quicker than the Ferrari.  

[Ray Bell]

...and the painting in Gold Leaf Team Lotus colours happened between races in New Zealand.

They ran the green and yellow at Pukekohe and Levin.

[Catalina Park]

Didn't Jack run a 3 litre at Surfers in 66?

[Nick Wa]

At the Thursday practice for the May Silverstone meeting Harry Schell was fastest with Moss close behind in the Vanwalls. Watching from the outside of Woodcote Moss was his usual smooth self whilst Schell absolutely on the limit fighting understeer. I was a bit disappointed that Scott- Brown did not repeat his Goodwood form in the Connaught.

I had cadged a lift back to Cambridge with Archie and during the journey I sought his opinion on the Vanwalls' chances. His reply was "They are not legal". He could not be drawn any further.

I couldn't believe that the engines were oversize and since I wonder if this extra speed came not from not ccs but nitromethane. It had been banned for formula 3 and a Vanwall engine was 4 Norton 500s. Perhaps fuel fiddling could have explained Behra's speed at Rheims in '52 and quite a few other odd performances since. We all know what goes on human powered sports and genuine horse powered ones. It must be considerably easier and cheaper than having special rods and cranks.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Didn't Jack run a 3 litre at Surfers in 66?

Sure did...

But he ran it openly as a 3-litre and wasn't contesting a Gold Star or Tasman Cup race. It was just a race to celebrate his title win, the car having come straight from the German GP. He only finished one and a half laps, but in practice he'd done a 1:12.1 compared to Bartlett's 1:12.8, which was the best 2.5-litre lap of the weekend.

[Roger Clark]

At the Thursday practice for the May Silverstone meeting Harry Schell was fastest with Moss close behind in the Vanwalls. Watching from the outside of Woodcote Moss was his usual smooth self whilst Schell absolutely on the limit fighting understeer. I was a bit disappointed that Scott- Brown did not repeat his Goodwood form in the Connaught.

I had cadged a lift back to Cambridge with Archie and during the journey I sought his opinion on the Vanwalls' chances. His reply was "They are not legal". He could not be drawn any further.

I couldn't believe that the engines were oversize and since I wonder if this extra speed came not from not ccs but nitromethane. It had been banned for formula 3 and a Vanwall engine was 4 Norton 500s. Perhaps fuel fiddling could have explained Behra's speed at Rheims in '52 and quite a few other odd performances since. We all know what goes on human powered sports and genuine horse powered ones. It must be considerably easier and cheaper than having special rods and cranks.

As far as I am aware, there was no regulation against nitromethane in 1956.  

[Nick Wa]

Thanks Roger, another theory out the window. So nitro only banned for specific British Formula III events. So what caused ASB to be so adamant about the illegality of the Vanwalls, Avgas was still 2 years in the future.

[Roger Clark]

The rule book in the 50s was quite slim and it's difficult to think what ASB could have been referring to unless it was engine capacity.  There were rules relating to safety (e.g. the need for a fire wall between engine and driver) but that wouldn't have affected performance.  The production of a deliberately oversized engine does not seem consistent with what i know of Tony Vandervell's character.

 

At Goodwood, of course, Moss was driving a not very satisfactory 250F which might explain the Connaught's apparent lack of performance at Silverstone.

[Lee Nicolle]

Thanks Roger, another theory out the window. So nitro only banned for specific British Formula III events. So what caused ASB to be so adamant about the illegality of the Vanwalls, Avgas was still 2 years in the future.

Avgas was available in the 50s. I have no idea of the legality or not for motorsport in that time.

Has nitro ever been legal for circuit racing?  Even in small doses engines do not fare well on it. I have seen the evidence of about 30% with methanol on a speedway solo engine. It was not well! Though had won. That is when random fuel checks started happening.

[Robin Fairservice]

In the mid 1950's there were no rules about fuel.  The faster Formula 3 (500 cc) cars were running nitro-methane in their fuel, and one could smell it.  I don't know when it was banned, but in 1958 Petrol (Gasoline) was prescribed for F 1.

[JtP2]

What is the problem with nitromethane? It effectively works as liquid nitrous oxide. Great for decoking engines. in case you're wondering, it not illegal for hot hatch days btw. Lots of problems with tetra nitro methane though, but effectively not in use in the engine unless you get carried away. Of course that is likely if you are not careful while using it, unfortunately probably on a stretcher.

 

I was under the impression one of the reasons for Vanwall's withdrawal was the fuel restrictions that came into force in 59.

[RS2000]

Has it ever been established exactly what mix Leslie Hawthorn used in Mike's Cooper Bristol to make his mark?

 

As mentioned earlier, F1 change to Avgas was for 1958. I'm grateful I was just old enough to smell the previous fuel at the re-scheduled Daily Express Silverstone in Sept 57.

[D-Type]

What is the problem with nitromethane? It effectively works as liquid nitrous oxide. Great for decoking engines. in case you're wondering, it not illegal for hot hatch days btw. Lots of problems with tetra nitro methane though, but effectively not in use in the engine unless you get carried away. Of course that is likely if you are not careful while using it, unfortunately probably on a stretcher.

 

I was under the impression one of the reasons for Vanwall's withdrawal was the fuel restrictions that came into force in 59.

The Formula 1 fuel change came in 1958.  Under pressure from the fuel companies who wanted wanted to move to 'pump' petrol for advertising purposes - "the same as you can buy" principle -  the CSI banned alcohol, nitromethane, benzene and other witch's brews.  This was when Tony Vandervall reportedly asked the CSI whether they meant petrol from a British pump or a Moroccan one.  As it was the only petrol made to an internationally recognised standard, the CSI opted for 100-130 octane aviation fuel, Avgas.

 

There were several reasons for Vanwall's withdrawal.  The stated reason that Vanwall withdrew was because of Tony Vandervall's ill-health (heart problems).  He also felt that he had achieved what he had set out to do - to produce a competitive grand prix car and he was also upset by the death of Stuart Lewis Evans.   

[chr1s]

I know I started this topic, but I thought some here may be interested in what i found in the June 1976 issue of Motorsport. Jenks Spanish GP report, (Reflections  page 30),   The Matra, an Alfa Romeo and a selection of Cosworth engines were checked for bore and stroke and found to be exactly as specified and within the maximum limit...