Jump to content


Photo

Lotus 43 powered by a BRM H16


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#1 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 13 February 2004 - 20:58

Lotus 43 powered by a BRM H16

What do we know about this interesting racer?

Posted Image


Posted Image

Advertisement

#2 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 13 February 2004 - 22:04

:rolleyes: over weight
over complex
broke with amazing regularty
even Jimmy only won once at the glen with it
worst 60's lotus by far

#3 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,217 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 13 February 2004 - 22:48

Originally posted by ray b
:rolleyes: over weight
over complex
broke with amazing regularty
even Jimmy only won once at the glen with it
worst 60's lotus by far

__________________________________________

Colin always wanted his cars to break when they crossed the finish LINE but this one broke down going over the pit line :rotfl: QUOTE The only good thing about it was the sound (when it went)those words told to me by Bob Dance.

#4 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 February 2004 - 23:09

Originally posted by ray b
:rolleyes: over weight
over complex
broke with amazing regularty
even Jimmy only won once at the glen with it
worst 60's lotus by far


Jim Clark raced the 43 on four occassions: the 1966 Grands Prix of Italy, USA and Mexico and the 1967 South African. He qualified three times on the front row, and once on the second, scored one win and was competitive in the others. Noone would claim that it was one of the great F1 Lotus, but the record isn't as bad as we sometimes remember. Interestingly, it did generally better than the P83 BRM at that time. I've often wondered why that was.

I think the 63 must be a strong contender for worst 60's Lotus. I assume we're restricting ourselves to Formula 1 cars here.

#5 Coogar

Coogar
  • Member

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 00:29

Didn't Robs Lamplough run a 43 with Ford V8 power in F5000 subsequently ? I think he occasionally drops in here. Perhaps some comments ?

#6 WDH74

WDH74
  • Member

  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 03:18

The best description of the 43 I have is in The Lotus Book. The car was designed by Maurice Phillippe (sp?), and seems to follow some of the design cues of the 33 as well as the forthcoming 49, at least in the design of its monocoque, with the engine forming a stressed member of the car, and radius rods bolting to the tub in a suspiciously 49-like way. Front suspension was heavily based on 33 practice. The BRM motor is quoted as making 405 ponies in the book, which I question in light of the fact that BRM themselves usually got twenty horses less. Reliability of the engine was poor-in fact, Clark used the BRM works team's spare mill to win at Watkins Glen, after Lotus' failed! Both 43s were sold off, one to Jock Russell and one to Robs Lamplough, and special tubular frames made to hold 289 Fords.
-William

#7 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 09:41

Posted Image

The mighty BRM H-16 engine, first built in 1966. This strange, complex, engine consists of two 1.5 liter 16 valve 180 degree V8's, placed on top of each other, forming the unique 'H-16' shape. It produced some 405 horsepower at 10500 revs, but it was terribly over-weight, and very unreliable. To top it all off, it was very difficult to drive, due to a lack of torque. Jackie Stewart is believed to have said "This piece of metal is better used as a ship's anchor, than as a power plant".

[img]http://home.swipnet....1967/BRMH16.jpg

#8 jph

jph
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 10:21

Just a bit overweight - didn't the engine, gearbox and rear suspension alone weigh more than the F1 minimum weight limit?

#9 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 11:50

Posted Image

I wonder if the massive BRM 6 speed gearbox has anything to do with the fact the car was too heavy?

#10 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,886 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 11:56

I like the 43. I have always thought it be a most handsome beast, but it never comes up in anyone's "Best Looking F1 car" list. And of course it pre-dated the 49 in using the engine as a lump of chassis.

The H16 BRM engine has always fascinated me too. It always seemed a logical thing to do. It's a pity we don't see any whacky engineering these days. All we get to talk about is ugly noses.

I suppose I must be odd. :

#11 MWiklund

MWiklund
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 13:07

Always one of my favorites as I was there on that October day in '66. It did sound glorious and it was a thrill for an 18yo to see his hero win. After the race we stood in the paddock/pit area with the mechanics and the car while JC was off getting his trophy. They erected a small fence to keep the riffraff out while photogs took their shots but somehow my friend and I got to stay with the mechanics. It was at the time too good to be true. Not wishing to be found out we quietly slipped put of the fence after a few minutes and drove back to Cornell with enough memories for a lifetime.

#12 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 13:50

Originally posted by jph
Just a bit overweight - didn't the engine, gearbox and rear suspension alone weigh more than the F1 minimum weight limit?


Now we are getting a bit silly :)

The engine weighed 252 kg, and the gearbox 53.5 kg, according to Tony Rudd.

#13 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 13:54

Originally posted by Racers Edge
Posted Image

I wonder if the massive BRM 6 speed gearbox has anything to do with the fact the car was too heavy?


The BRM gearbox weighed 53.5 kg. Hewland quote the 5 speed DG300 at 53 kg so it doesn't seem too bad.

#14 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,327 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 16:32

Theoretical target weight and reality truly differed somewhat... The original quote I recall about the engine and gearbox combined representing the minimum Formula 1 weight limit came from Maurice Phillippe of Team Lotus, to me... Tony was rightly indignant at much of the criticism attracted by his H16, but even his objectivity tended to wobble occasionally in recalling it all... The 'massive gearbox' visible in the photograph, by the way, is the outboard clutch housing, not the gearbox itself.

DCN

#15 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 February 2004 - 17:30

Karl Ludvigsen, in "Classic Racing Engines" gives the weight of the H16 as 236kg. He also says the P56 (1.5 litre V8) was 115kg. This seems about the right ratio as the 16 was essentially two 8s. I know you have to be careful about engine weights and which ancilliaries are included, but I find it difficult to see what could have brought the H16 engine and gearbox weight to over 500kg.

#16 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 17:36

Tony quotes the theoretical target weight of the H16 as 173 kgs (380 lbs) at the start of development. He wasn't proud of the 252 kg (555lbs) weight. He says "We delivered an engine and gearbox to Lotus which nearly destroyed the small van they sent to fetch it. They were absolutely thunderstruck by its weight. With all the modifications the engine weighed 555 lbs (252 kg) plus 118 lb (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch." (It Was Fun page 246). This is very heavy; the Cosworth was well under 400 lbs for example. But for Maurice Phillippe to be right the H16 would have had to weigh over 450 kg (986 lbs).

The later 2 pin crank H16 7506 is quoted at 508 lbs or 231 kg.

#17 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 17:53

Yes, it was also said (by Karl Ludvigsen I think) that the engine was intended to weigh 300lbs and make 500 HP, but that in reality these figures had to be reversed!

PdeRL

#18 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,327 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 18:28

Oooh you are a literal lot.... Maurice's remark was a jocular throw away and should be taken in this manner, the significant factor being the absolutely genuine sense of dismay it recalled.... :rolleyes:

DCN

#19 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 February 2004 - 19:11

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Oooh you are a literal lot.... Maurice's remark was a jocular throw away and should be taken in this manner, the significant factor being the absolutely genuine sense of dismay it recalled.... :rolleyes:

DCN


I thought as much but there is plenty of evidence that others didn't. Tales like that have a habit of gaining credibility without thought if they come from a reliable source. :)

Advertisement

#20 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,327 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 20:36

Roger - you are quite correct. Perhaps one should take more care....

DCN

#21 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 14 February 2004 - 21:10

It didnt do a lot better as aF5000 car either !!!!

#22 Vicuna

Vicuna
  • Member

  • 1,588 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 21:28

Originally posted by ray b
worst 60's lotus by far


Ah, do you remember a thing that drove each wheel?

#23 Aanderson

Aanderson
  • Member

  • 126 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 22:59

Originally posted by David Beard
I like the 43. I have always thought it be a most handsome beast, but it never comes up in anyone's "Best Looking F1 car" list. And of course it pre-dated the 49 in using the engine as a lump of chassis.

The H16 BRM engine has always fascinated me too. It always seemed a logical thing to do. It's a pity we don't see any whacky engineering these days. All we get to talk about is ugly noses.

I suppose I must be odd. :


Well,

In 1966, the BRM H-16 wasn't exactly cutting edge! Napier built an H-16 Aero engine during WW-II, which powered both the Hawker Typhoon and the Hawker Tempest. Awesome engine, and awesome fighter aircraft.

Art Anderson


#24 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,045 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 February 2004 - 23:36

Everything is relative.

Although it was less successful than its predecessor, the 33, or its successor, the 49, remember that the Lotus 43 won more grands prix than Arrows ever did. And what other realistic choices did Chapman have in 1966?

We should also not be too hard on BRM for producing the H16. Given the success of the BRM V8, the H16 was a logical development even if it proved unsuccessful for a variety of reasons.

#25 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 February 2004 - 23:51

Originally posted by Aanderson


Well,

In 1966, the BRM H-16 wasn't exactly cutting edge! Napier built an H-16 Aero engine during WW-II, which powered both the Hawker Typhoon and the Hawker Tempest. Awesome engine, and awesome fighter aircraft.

Art Anderson


True, it was very impressive, and I believe the first aero engine to achieve over 100bhp per litre.
And the Tempest was always a favourite of mine.

However the Sabre engine was a servicing nightmare for the RAF.

PdeRL

#26 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 00:40

Heh...D-type....finally, ... someone got it ! .... YOUR RIGHT ON TRACK....Great , thanks! Type 43 BRM Probably one of the best Lotus racers ever made, and equal, or better to any team in the new 3 liter formula, it only took the 49 to change the rules for the other designers, but the 43 BRM H-16 never had a chance, like alot of these cars, to bad...

Posted Image

G0 Jimmy GO!...........

#27 Ruairidh

Ruairidh
  • Member

  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 15 February 2004 - 01:18

Originally posted by Racers Edge
Probably one of the best Lotus racers ever made


A little overstated perhaps?

I'm sorry but I see no criteria by which the 43 can be judged one of the best Lotus racers ever made?

Sure it ended up with a more successful record than, say, the 63 or the T76. But, by Lotus terms, especially those of the 1960s, I think it proved a poor combination, born of necessity and one which Lotus chose to move away from on a "run, don't walk away" basis.

#28 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 01:23

Originally posted by VAR1016


True, it was very impressive, and I believe the first aero engine to achieve over 100bhp per litre.
And the Tempest was always a favourite of mine.

However the Sabre engine was a servicing nightmare for the RAF.

PdeRL


In fact, the Napier Sabre was an H24, not a 16. It was really no more successful in it's sphere than the BRM H-16.

As for the Lotus 43, it had nothing in common with the 33, was more closely related to the Indy type 38 (being a "full" monocoque rather than a "bathtub") and the 49 was really just a scaled down version of it.

#29 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 February 2004 - 02:58

Originally posted by David Beard
I like the 43. I have always thought it be a most handsome beast, but it never comes up in anyone's "Best Looking F1 car" list. And of course it pre-dated the 49 in using the engine as a lump of chassis.

The H16 BRM engine has always fascinated me too. It always seemed a logical thing to do. It's a pity we don't see any whacky engineering these days. All we get to talk about is ugly noses.

I suppose I must be odd. :


david.....then i might be a bit odd also as i always liked the looks of the car.....wish i could have been at the glen in 66....i could have seen bandini leading the race too.....67 was my first year....anyone know where i can find some pics of the 66 USGP?.....i plan on building clark's lotus and bandini's ferrari.....john

#30 WDH74

WDH74
  • Member

  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 04:00

I've always been kinda fascinated with the H-16 engine, despite its failings. The design, as I understand it, seems like a complex solution to the problem of coming up with a 3 liter engine on the fly. I'm not surprised, however, to learn that the proposed Indy spec version never got used. Like I said, seems a bit complicated.
Are any of these cars (the Lotus or BRM's car using the same engine) still in use? I've always wondered what they sound like, and have a tough time imagining it.
-William

#31 Mike Argetsinger

Mike Argetsinger
  • Member

  • 948 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 15 February 2004 - 04:43

Originally posted by jj2728


.....wish i could have been at the glen in 66....anyone know where i can find some pics of the 66 USGP?.....john


try here

http://www.glenspeed...ent/cinema.html

#32 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 February 2004 - 10:33

Originally posted by WDH74
.
Are any of these cars (the Lotus or BRM's car using the same engine) still in use? I've always wondered what they sound like, and have a tough time imagining it.
-William



A H-16 B.R.M. has appeared a few times at the Festival of Speed. It did produce quite an interesting noise but not in the same class as that of its V-16 ancestor.

PdeRL

#33 David Force

David Force
  • Member

  • 287 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 14:26

One of the H16s certainly does run at some events, we organised a test of it quite recently at Rockingham. This may have been appropriate as I recall one of the possible schemes was to run these complex engines at Indianapolis where the weight may not have been so much of a problem. Although making it last for 500 miles could have !

I recall having the BRM H16 on our stand at the Autosport Show a few years back. Keith Duckworth wandered along, stood looking down on it for some time then uttered 'Tony Rudd's greatest folly' and moved on. If you compare the complexity and weight of the H16 rear end with the whole Lotus 49 you get an understanding of his view.

Jock Russell still owns his Lotus 43 and keeps threatening to restore it with a Ford 289 V8, a little cheaper than an H16.

#34 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 17 February 2004 - 14:19

David, can you ask Jock why he had it painted in Gold Leaf Team Lotus colours at some point (there's a picture on another forum, at Oulton IIRC, with enormous oil coolers over the engine).

There was a track-test in Autosport by Simon Taylor of one of the cars with a Ford V8, after Robs Lamplough had them converted but before he sold one to Jock. One of the Indy 42's was also converted for Robs and is said to survive in the USA, but I think all the 4.2L H16s must have died of the 'mumps' (Tony Rudd's term for an internal breakage so major that it bulged the crankcase).

And didn't Jock race an earlier space-frame Lotus of some sort with a Ford V8 in Libre, possibly a 21?

I was lucky enough to see Mike Spence in the Parnell H16 at the 1967 Race of Champions at Brands, and I thought it sounded rough then; the lightweight car that has been at the FoS a couple of times sounds the same, a sort of discordant bellow rather like a big radial-engine in a WW2 fighter.

Paul

#35 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 17 February 2004 - 16:20

When Hall & Fowler started the H-16 in the lightweight BRM some years ago it rattled so much they turned it off immediately.

It was only after one of their employees, who had worked on the H-16s originally, confirmed that they always sounded like that when they were cold, that they dared start it again.

The lighweight BRM has run without problem all the times it has been used recently - but that is probably helped by the short length of historic races, and the much longer preperation time available these days.

The Lotus 43 has a pretty impressive success rate - it won 1 out of 6 races, a lot of teams (and drivers) would be very happy with that kind of record.

It was also the first car to hang the rear suspension off the engine/gearbox rather than the chassis, which must rate as yet another Lotus innovation.

#36 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 949 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 February 2004 - 18:15

One of the ex-H16 engined BRM P83s was also converted to Ford V8 power and raced in F5000 in 1968/69, driven by Terry Sanger.

Originally posted by Peter Morley
It was also the first car to hang the rear suspension off the engine/gearbox rather than the chassis, which must rate as yet another Lotus innovation.

I think you'll find that was dictated by the design of the engine, hence the concept originates from Tony Rudd/BRM rather than from Lotus!

#37 IanDalziel

IanDalziel
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 17 February 2004 - 19:23

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Macca

And didn't Jock race an earlier space-frame Lotus of some sort with a Ford V8 in Libre, possibly a 21?

He was a mainstay of the early Ingliston Libre races with the Russell-Ford - I thought it was an Indy tub with 30 suspension - why I should think that is lost in the mists of antiquity, though. :|

#38 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,327 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 17 February 2004 - 19:30

Originally posted by Peter Morley
...It was also the first car to hang the rear suspension off the engine/gearbox rather than the chassis, which must rate as yet another Lotus innovation.


I would commend you to the 1 1/2-litre Ferrari 158 V8 and the 1512 flat-12 of 1964-65 which also accepted structural and suspension loads...as indeed (in structural terms) did the Lancia D50 V8 of 1954-55.

DCN

#39 Danny Skehan

Danny Skehan
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 17 February 2004 - 19:34

Is the car still around in F5000 configration?

Advertisement

#40 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 17 February 2004 - 20:16

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IanDalziel
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Macca

And didn't Jock race an earlier space-frame Lotus of some sort with a Ford V8 in Libre, possibly a 21?

He was a mainstay of the early Ingliston Libre races with the Russell-Ford - I thought it was an Indy tub with 30 suspension - why I should think that is lost in the mists of antiquity, though. :|
[/QUOTE]

Yep he raced a Lotus 18/21, ex-UDT Laystall car, with a Ford V8 in the back.
Chassis no. 918

#41 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 17 February 2004 - 20:19

Originally posted by Doug Nye


I would commend you to the 1 1/2-litre Ferrari 158 V8 and the 1512 flat-12 of 1964-65 which also accepted structural loads...as indeed (to a somewhat lesser degree) did the Lancia D50 of 1954-55.

DCN


I bow to the great master.........

I wondered about those cars, and was wondering if there was anything else that might have also qualified - usually some obscure pre-war car turns out to have passed un-noticed by the other constructors.

Peter
p.s. any chance of some scans please?

#42 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 February 2004 - 20:38

Originally posted by Doug Nye


I would commend you to the 1 1/2-litre Ferrari 158 V8 and the 1512 flat-12 of 1964-65 which also accepted structural and suspension loads...as indeed (in structural terms) did the Lancia D50 V8 of 1954-55.

DCN

:confused:

I thought that the 158 had the rear suspension attached to a fabricated bulhead which was joined to the monocoque by longerons running under the engine. The top of te bulkhead was fixedto the engine. The 1512, I thought, had the engine as the only structural member behind the monocoque in the Lotus 49 fashion.

#43 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 17 February 2004 - 21:26

Posted Image

H-16 BRM...where are the engines now?....how many were made? I guess Rick Hall has patterns to build some of the components, but not complete engines, but surely, a engine or two, must exist under a mechanics bench somewhere....

Anyone?

Posted Image

#44 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 17 February 2004 - 21:37

Posted Image

The GPL people seem to like it too....I wonder how the 43 is in competition, in the GPL simulator against the Lotus 49?... true test? ha....

#45 peterf1

peterf1
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 17 February 2004 - 22:03

forgive a newby for mixing threads, but is this the first Lotus F1 with . . . an airbox? And along the same lines. . . weren't those trumpets prone to picking up a lot of dust, dirt and small stones being so close to the ground?

#46 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 243 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:20

That the Lancia D50/BRMP61/Ferarri158/1512/Lotus 43/49 "invented" the use of the engine as a structural member was always accepted by me as gospel until a few years ago when I was at an antique farm tractor show and I saw several 1930's vintage farm tractors that used the engine/transmission/final drive unit as the entire chassis. The front axle bolts to a flange on the front of the engine and the driver sits over the 'diff. Sorry, but there were some tractor designers in the Midwest in the 1930's that beat Colin Chapman et al to the punch by a few decades.

#47 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:50

Originally posted by Tom Glowacki
That the Lancia D50/BRMP61/Ferarri158/1512/Lotus 43/49 "invented" the use of the engine as a structural member was always accepted by me as gospel until a few years ago when I was at an antique farm tractor show and I saw several 1930's vintage farm tractors that used the engine/transmission/final drive unit as the entire chassis. The front axle bolts to a flange on the front of the engine and the driver sits over the 'diff. Sorry, but there were some tractor designers in the Midwest in the 1930's that beat Colin Chapman et al to the punch by a few decades.


Well, the Type 35 Bugatti (amongst others Bugattis) had its engine bolted directly to the chassis via six mounting points, so I imagine that this was a stressed member.

PdeRL

#48 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,327 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 February 2004 - 14:04

Originally posted by Roger Clark
I thought that the 158 had the rear suspension attached to a fabricated bulhead which was joined to the monocoque by longerons running under the engine. The top of te bulkhead was fixedto the engine. The 1512, I thought, had the engine as the only structural member behind the monocoque in the Lotus 49 fashion.


Roger's quite right - over-simplification on my part - but the V8 installation was an important progressive step towards the fully-stressed 1512 flat-12.

Ferrari's original 158 V8 design in 1963 called for a fully-stressed engine doubling as the rearward structural member to unite rear suspension and the 3/4-length 'Aero' monocoque nacelle. When it became obvious that this V8 engine would not be ready in time for its planned Italian GP debut that year, the old 120-degree V6 was adapted - with considerable difficulty - to mount on the back of the prototype 'Aero' frames with additional longeron support as described.

The V8 was then introduced in the 1964 Syracuse GP, in effect 'semi-stressed' with the longerons - like the V6 'Aero' adaptation above - that Roger describes extending beneath the power unit to pick up a rear cross-frame, the engine assembly itself then bracing these longerons and cross-frame against the back of the monocoque, and accepting a high degree of bending and torsional load in the process.

Where the 1963 Monza V6 cars had carried the rear suspension and rear spring abutments on the cast bell-housing between engine and gearbox, the 158 V8 early in 1964 carried these elements on a fabricated rear bulkhead frame encircling the bell-housing/clutch assembly. This provided more convenient adaptability to differing suspension geometries as might have been demanded by that season's change to wider wheels for the latest 'doughnut' Dunlop tyres. As that season progressed ever-greater load was accepted by progressive V8 development. When the new flat-12 was introduced this transition became complete. I screwed this up in one place in 'The GP Car 1945-1965' - saying that the trasnition was complete by the time of the 1964 Syracuse GP - while getting it quite right in another. BF!

DCN

#49 ianm1808

ianm1808
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 18 February 2004 - 15:44

Originally posted by Racers Edge
The GPL people seem to like it too....I wonder how the 43 is in competition, in the GPL simulator against the Lotus 49?... true test? ha....


Have you not seen the new GPLEA rendition?

Posted Image

Posted Image

In GPL , the car uses the 49 physics and engine though so it would basically be a 49 with a 43's shape. Though with GEM+ , you can change the engine to suit.

#50 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 18 February 2004 - 16:38

I have often thought some very conflicting thoughts about the BRM P75 H-16 and its mounts, the P83 and P115 and the Type 43. My feelings are that life would have been duller without it. It was a idea that seemed worth trying. That the Clark, Lotus, and BRM combination actually won an event in 1966 is proof positive that life is indeed quite mysterious and worth the effort to play the game, regardless of the odds.

I think that many of the harsh comments concerning the Type 43 and the P75 stem from our current cultural fixation that only success matters. Even though "successful," the Type 43 and the P75 were scarcely a success, but they did add a certain texture to the proceedings....