Jump to content


Photo

BRM P115


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Newtown

Newtown
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 24 January 2003 - 08:28

Hello, I'm not sure if I should ask this here or in the technical forum, but I'm sure someone will let me know...

I'm interested in learning about the '67 BRM, the P115. I know this car had an extra gear over the other challengers that season due to the useless torque curve of the engine, but could anyone tell me how it was used?? Was G1 used to get the car going from a standing start and the other 5 gears treated 'as normal'; as in a first gear corner in any other car was taken in second in the Beast?

What kind of diff ratio would be used in this car where I've heard that the Lotus 49, for example, used a 45 power and 85 coast with a minimum of clutches?

To keep this thread in TNF, does anyone have links or stories to the drivers talking about thier experiences driving the car, and why in the world did it look like all the pieces of the engine were pulled from a scrap heap and thrown together?? :rotfl:

Advertisement

#2 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,422 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 January 2003 - 22:40

It wasn't all that illogical at the time...

Ill-advised, maybe, but it wasn't that bad. The engine did win a Grand Epreuve, after all...

#3 Newtown

Newtown
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 24 January 2003 - 22:47

The idea of slapping 2 1.5liter engines together isn't a bad idea but I've read that they couldn't get the throttle system to work the way they had planned. The design was flawed though, it's as if they failed to realize that having the crank shaft located at the top of the engine would seriously raise the center of gravity. In any case the thing that let them down the most that season was the reliability.

Which race did they manage to win, BTW?? Spa was a second place that would have been a win if not for the afformentioned reliablility problem...

#4 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 24 January 2003 - 23:15

BRM V16 engine won 1966 US GP, Jim Clark drove Lotus 43 - BRM V16. :)

#5 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 24 January 2003 - 23:16

Newton- the race was Watkins Glen in '66. Note that Ray said the engine and it was installed in Jimmy's Lotus 43...

Brykus apparently beat me to it ( :blush: ), but he missed it- V16 instead of H16... :p

#6 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 24 January 2003 - 23:23

Well, H-16, right... :blush: As usual, my fingers were faster than my brain. :p

#7 Aubwi

Aubwi
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 24 January 2003 - 23:33

Newtown, the torque curve would have been about the same as one 1.5L V8 alone, only doubled. So it might be more accurate to say they needed the extra gear for the extra power and extra top speed rather than a poor torque curve. For what it's worth, I think it's a safe bet to say it had no more trouble to "get going" than the old 1.5L F1 cars.

#8 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 25 January 2003 - 00:09

Originally posted by Aubwi
Newtown, the torque curve would have been about the same as one 1.5L V8 alone, only doubled. So it might be more accurate to say they needed the extra gear for the extra power and extra top speed rather than a poor torque curve. For what it's worth, I think it's a safe bet to say it had no more trouble to "get going" than the old 1.5L F1 cars.


Aubwi, if people who made Grand Prix Legends are to be be?lieved BRM was indeed quite peaky... Here are representations of engine characteristics in GPL:

http://eaglewoman.si...help/tables.htm

Brykus- You're telling me?!? I've lost count of times I've put a foot in my mouth... :blush:

#9 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 25 January 2003 - 08:52

With real experts like Doug Nye sometimes on the forum, I have held off replying, but here goes.

Six speed gearboxes were not new to BRM with the P83/115. They used them for the 1.5 litre cars too. I doubt first was a starter special. I would have thought like any six speed gearbox, the ratios would be evenly spread. It's probably more important not to have too big a gap between fifth and sixth than a very low first gear.

On the Centre of gravity thing - Tony Rudd, the engine's designer wrote that the centre of gravity was lower than on their V8. I think the problem was the engine was VERY heavy.

Looking back the idea of an H16 seems crazy when with hindsight the V-8 was the solution. But when the decision to go ahead was made, 1.5 litre engines were V-8s or V/flat 12's and coventry climax had a flat 16 1.5 litre in development. The idea of a 3 litre 16 cylinder was not so outlandish.

#10 Pedro 917

Pedro 917
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 25 January 2003 - 09:59

Hello Newtown,

Collecting Rodriguez stuff for so many years, I found a copy of a symposium on "Transport engines of exceptionally high specific output" written by A.C. (Tony) Rudd and dated 17-18 September 1968. It's about the development of the BRM H-16 F1 racing engine. Although Pedro never raced the car nor the engine, I've kept it as I thought it was an interesting engine. The symposium is very technical with diagrams and some pictures, certainly not my cup of tea.......
I'll give you his conclusions :

CONCLUSIONS

The engine has so far failed to reach its prime objective, which is to power a car to win the Formula 1 Constructors' Championship. The main reasons were that it was too heavy, and although now fairly reliable, still destructive to transmissions.
The reasons for the excessive weight have been given: modifications to the cylinder heads to overcome casting problems, and redundant strengthening to control vibration problems subsequently eliminated.
The paper has shown how most of the problems arose from excessive caution in the design; making the pairs of heads from one casting to avoid water leaks; isolating the output gears from the crankshafts and carrying them in their own bearings. The more advanced features, such as using the engine as part of the car structure, gave no troubles.
Development of the engine with a simplified crankcase carcase and four-valve heads is continuing.

If you're interested in the whole symposium, I can always scan it for you (9 pages). Just send me your e-mail address.

Here's a very rare picture of Pedro in a BRM H-16 (in Yardley colours!) doing some PR for Yardley in a Brussels Shopping Centre just 4 days prior to his victory at Spa 1970.

Posted Image

#11 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,422 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 January 2003 - 10:28

Rare photo?

One of the rarest posted on this forum so far, I'd venture to say. Are there more?

Reason the c of g was low was because the heads sat lower, all four of them, and that overcame the weight of that one crank. They included, of course, eight camshafts...

#12 Pedro 917

Pedro 917
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 25 January 2003 - 15:17

Hello Ray,

The picture where Pedro is sitting in the BRM H-16 is the only one I have. I have other pictures of this Yardley PR session but these are only portraits.
I have a cover of Motoring News from July 15th 1971 where key personalities of BRM are posing beside a variety of famous Bourne cars. Here you can see the BRM H-16 in Yardley colours.

Posted Image

Comment : Raymond Mays is alongside the original supercharged 1.5-litre V16, gearbox engineer Alec Stokes accompanies the four-cylinder 2.5-litre car in which Bonnier won BRM's first Grand Prix, engine-designer Aubrey Woods is paired with Graham Hill's championship-winning 1.5-litre V8, current team manager Tim Parnell grins from behind a regrettably unauthentic Yardley liveried H16 while chassis designer Tony Southgate views his latest creation, the P160.

#13 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,081 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 January 2003 - 19:22

Originally posted by Pedro 917
I have a cover of Motoring News from July 15th 1971 where key personalities of BRM are posing beside a variety of famous Bourne cars.


Not a week for BRM to be celebrating very much.

#14 marion5drsn

marion5drsn
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 January 2003 - 22:14

Curiosity forces me to ask, of all the B.R.M. engines, which was, dollar for dollar or Pound for Pound, the most successful engine? Yours, M.L. Anderson

#15 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,484 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 January 2003 - 23:44

Twin-cam Lotus-Ford 4-cyl :cool:

#16 BS Levy

BS Levy
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 January 2003 - 16:47

Almost all of them won races. Just not that many and not all GPs, right? The V-16 won it's first race (a minor national meet) with Reg Parnell, the highly oversquare 2.5 four-banger won the GP at Zandvoort with Bonnier, the 1.5-litre V-8 won G. Hill a championship and the various 3-liter jobs all scored a few top points. That's what makes BRM so intriguing, isn't it? The occasional teasing, flickering promise of success and that stubborn, quixotic (a little Sinatra music, please) "I did it my way" methodology.

#17 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,484 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 January 2003 - 18:01

The V16 certainly won its first race with Reg Parnell, in the sense that he drove in the first race that it won - at Goodwood, 1950 - but the car had actually failed dismally (through no fault of the engine itself) in its maiden race, at Silverstone in 1950, with Raymond Sommer driving. BRM built race- and rally-spec Lotus-Ford twin-cam competition engines as sub-contractors to Lotus and by proxy to Ford, and these engines powered the ETC Alan Mann Lotus-Cortinas and many other successful competition cars.

#18 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 79 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 January 2003 - 18:55

It always amused me at the time that the P115 was supposed to be "the new lightweight car"! Around the end of 1968 an H-16 appeared at a racing car show with a a strut mounted wing on the back. As "Autosport" commented at the time "never saw one race in that trim, and we thought this was the one car which didn't need extra weight pressing on the rear wheels".

#19 marion5drsn

marion5drsn
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 22:00

marion5drsn asks; 25-Jan-03 21:14 14

Curiosity forces me to ask, of all the B.R.M. engines, which was, dollar for dollar or Pound for Pound, the most successful engine? Yours, M.L. Anderson

Doug Nye answers: 25-Jan-03 22:44 15

Twin-cam Lotus-Ford 4-cyl.

Funny, but it is the truth! Yours, M.L. Anderson



Advertisement

#20 Mike Argetsinger

Mike Argetsinger
  • Member

  • 948 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 22:05

Alan Baker's post reminded me that a year or so ago we were having a similar TNF discussion and the question came up about how much the engine actually weighed. I looked in Tony Rudd's book and here is what I posted at the time.

Originally (1966) 555 lbs. (252 kg) plus 118 lb. (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch according to Tony Rudd (who ought to know!) - In his book "It Was Fun -My Fifty Years of High Performance". By 1967 he quotes 508 lbs. (231 kg). Ultimately they developed a 64 valve light weight engine with magnesium crankcase castings sandwiching five titanium blocks that came in at 398 lbs. (180.5 kg) - this development however never produced the targeted power.

#21 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,484 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 January 2003 - 22:06

THE Alan Baker????? Welcome to TNF regardless!

DCN

#22 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 22:52

From what I've read, H16 engine with gearbox and suspension attached was over minimum weight for GP car? What were those wishbones made of, lead? :p

#23 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,081 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 23:04

Originally posted by Pedro 917
Collecting Rodriguez stuff for so many years, I found a copy of a symposium on "Transport engines of exceptionally high specific output" written by A.C. (Tony) Rudd and dated 17-18 September 1968. It's about the development of the BRM H-16 F1 racing engine. Although Pedro never raced the car nor the engine, I've kept it as I thought it was an interesting engine. The symposium is very technical with diagrams and some pictures, certainly not my cup of tea.......


Pedro 917 has sent me a copy of this paper. I'd like to thank him for that; it really is most interesting to anyone with an interest in racing engines and most of it is comprehensible even to the likes of me.

#24 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 23:09

Do 917 otr You mind posting it here fot the benefit of community (I thought 'for me', but 'benefit of community' sounds much nicer ;)). Thanks in advance. :)

#25 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,081 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 January 2003 - 23:23

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
Alan Baker's post reminded me that a year or so ago we were having a similar TNF discussion and the question came up about how much the engine actually weighed. I looked in Tony Rudd's book and here is what I posted at the time.

Originally (1966) 555 lbs. (252 kg) plus 118 lb. (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch according to Tony Rudd (who ought to know!) - In his book "It Was Fun -My Fifty Years of High Performance". By 1967 he quotes 508 lbs. (231 kg). Ultimately they developed a 64 valve light weight engine with magnesium crankcase castings sandwiching five titanium blocks that came in at 398 lbs. (180.5 kg) - this development however never produced the targeted power.


The Tony Rudd paper sent to me by Pedro 917 quotes a design target weight of 380lbs. It also gives the reasons for the increase, as already quoted by Pedro 917:

The reasons for the excessive weight have been given: modifications to the cylinder heads to overcome casting problems, and redundant strengthening to control vibration problems subsequently eliminated.



#26 Pedro 917

Pedro 917
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 27 January 2003 - 21:59

Originally posted by Wolf

Do 917 or You mind posting it here for the benefit of community (I thought 'for me', but 'benefit of community' sounds much nicer ). Thanks in advance.


I would love to but I'm afraid it would take too much time as I'll have to scan all 9 pages again and use the Optical Character Recognition, re-read everything to correct the usual errors than adding the pictures and diagrams.......
If you want a copy, just send me an e-mail and I'll be glad to forward it to you!

#27 Pedro 917

Pedro 917
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 27 January 2003 - 22:04

Originally posted by Wolf

Do 917 or You mind posting it here for the benefit of community (I thought 'for me', but 'benefit of community' sounds much nicer ). Thanks in advance.


I would love to but I'm afraid it would take too much time as I'll have to scan all 9 pages again and use the Optical Character Recognition, re-read everything to correct the usual errors than adding the pictures and diagrams.......
If you want a copy, just send me an e-mail and I'll be glad to forward it to you!

#28 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 79 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 January 2003 - 01:27

Originally posted by Doug Nye
THE Alan Baker????? Welcome to TNF regardless!

DCN


Could be the one played by Frank Sinatra in Come Blow Your Horn (Paramount, 1963)!

#29 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,422 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:58

Just stop clowning around and post on the New Introductions thread at the top of the page...

In other words, welcome home. Don't bother about bringing ol' Blue Eyes in here...