Jump to content


Photo

Lotus 43 powered by a BRM H16


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#51 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 18 February 2004 - 18:49

Originally posted by Don Capps
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....


I agree, and the poor old P83/115 and Type 43 were not exactly alone in their lack of success during 1966/7. The Maserati V12, in spite of a brief period in the sun with Surtees in 1966, wasn't really a success story, and neither was the 1966/7 Honda V12. The F1 AAR Eagle had even worse reliability than the BRM, but perhaps because of its looks, history seems to have been kinder to it.

Advertisement

#52 WDH74

WDH74
  • Member

  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 00:52

"The F1 AAR Eagle had even worse reliability than the BRM, but perhaps because of its looks, history seems to have been kinder to it. "

I've always figured that the BRM and Lotus were criticized for their lack of success because they were cars designed and built by established, race and championship winning manufacturers. I read similar things about Honda's unsuccessful first stab at Grand Prix racing, even though their earlier successes came in the world of motorcycling, not cars. AAR was-is-probably treated better because it was a completely new endeavor, and one mostly brought about because of one guy's desire to do it. The bigger they are.....

-William

#53 Dennis Hockenbury

Dennis Hockenbury
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 03:22

It is ironic that the genesis of the V-12 Eagle-Westlake and the BRM H-16 both began within the Rubery Owen group. Westlake & Co., during the period when the decision for the 3 litre design was before the BRM-Weslake Committee, was a part of the vast Rubery Owen empire. Peter Berthon was working with Harry Westlake having been seconded there by AGBO after his banishment from Bourne.

With the two groups, Westlake/Berthon versus Rudd, each proposing very different designs, Sir Alfred sagely decided that each would build their own concepts and the best resulting engine would be selected for use beginning in 1966.

Before the engines were completed, Westlake purchased the Rubery Owen interest in his company with the 4 valve V-12 first proposed in 1964 forming the basis of the later Eagle-Westlake V-12.

#54 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 10:29

This link is a very interesting read: on the H-16 BRM engine....


Posted Image


http://members.madas...n/brm-e-H16.htm

#55 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 12:23

Road and Track published the scrutineered weights at the 1966 Italian GP:

Brabham-Repco 1219 lb
Eagle-Weslake 1309
Cooper-Maserati 1353
Ferrari 1364
BRM P83 1529
Lotus-BRM 43 1540
Honda 1635


Interesting if accurate - BRMs tended to be bullet-proof, so how come it's lighter than the Lotus?


At the 1967 Italian GP we had:

Brabham BT24s 1144 & 1188
Ferrari 1155
Eagles 1177 & 1261
Lotus 49s 1199, 1254 & 1254
Coopers 1243 & 1265
McLaren M5 1298
private Cooper 1309
Hondola 1309
BRMs 1485, 1573 & 1584


So BRM had got heavier............and 1573lbs was for Stewart's car, presumably the "slimline"(!) P115. I suspect both the works Coopers were the older cars, not the T86 which Rindt raced.


Paul

#56 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 19 February 2004 - 14:03

Originally posted by Macca
Road and Track published the scrutineered weights at the 1966 Italian GP:

Brabham-Repco 1219 lb
Eagle-Weslake 1309
Cooper-Maserati 1353
Ferrari 1364
BRM P83 1529
Lotus-BRM 43 1540
Honda 1635


Interesting if accurate - BRMs tended to be bullet-proof, so how come it's lighter than the Lotus?


I think BRM has the new lighter crank for the H16 at Monza - Lotus possibly didn't. Still it is a bit surprising. The problem with weights during this period is they didn't drain the cars of fuel, so they are all a bit unreliable.

Originally posted by Macca
At the 1967 Italian GP we had:

Brabham BT24s 1144 & 1188
Ferrari 1155
Eagles 1177 & 1261
Lotus 49s 1199, 1254 & 1254
Coopers 1243 & 1265
McLaren M5 1298
private Cooper 1309
Hondola 1309
BRMs 1485, 1573 & 1584


So BRM had got heavier............and 1573lbs was for Stewart's car, presumably the "slimline"(!) P115. I suspect both the works Coopers were the older cars, not the T86 which Rindt raced.
Paul



Motor magazine quotes the drivers for each weight. As you say, Stewart's name is allocated the heavy car. The cars were weighed before Friday afternoon's practice, and Stewart did drive the P83 during practice, perhaps the weights have got mixed up. I would have thought it unlikely that Stewart would drive the heaviest car and leave Irwin with the lightest!

The Cooper weights do relate to the works cars. The T86 seems to weigh 10kg more than the T81B. The T86 was claimed to be lighter than the T81, but I'm not sure how it compated to the T81B which was also lighter than the T81. Both are lighter than Bonnier's older 66 car. Doug Nye in Cooper Cars writes that they added 30lbs of lead to the T86 to stop the nose lifting, then added a nose spoiler at Monza. Its not clear from the wording whether the lead was removed when the spoiler was fitted.

#57 Dennis Hockenbury

Dennis Hockenbury
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 14:20

Originally posted by Racers Edge
This link is a very interesting read: on the H-16 BRM engine....

Thanks for the link. The provided information on the H-16 explains the linkage to the Westlake V-12 far better than I.

#58 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,346 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 February 2004 - 14:22

Please - there was no 'T' in Harry Weslake's name, nor that of his company, nor that of his V12 AAR-Eagle engine - 'Weslake' NOT 'WesTlake'.... :)

DCN

#59 Dennis Hockenbury

Dennis Hockenbury
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 14:49

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Please - there was no 'T' in Harry Weslake's name, nor that of his company, nor that of his V12 AAR-Eagle engine - 'Weslake' NOT 'WesTlake'

Oops. I stand corrected and humbled.

Advertisement

#60 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 17:00

I've just found out that while Jock Russell's F5000 Lotus 43 looked as though it was in GLTL livery, the 'red' bit was actually blue...........so presumably it was painted thus to be in Scots colours.


Paul

#61 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,346 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 February 2004 - 17:07

Originally posted by Dennis Hockenbury
Oops. I stand corrected and humbled.


Corrected, maybe - but I sincerely hope never humbled.... :)

#62 Dennis Hockenbury

Dennis Hockenbury
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 18:24

Thanks Doug.

I have always wanted to know more about the history of Weslake & Co. IIRC, at the point in which their V-12 four valve design was in competition against the H-16, Weslake had on staff Peter Berthon and Aubrey Woods each with long prior tenures with BRM.

I am unclear to what extent PB was involved with the V-12 but I believe that he was not a major contributor to the design. I recall that he was somewhat marginalised within Weslake & Co. at this time.

Karl Ludvigsen's books on the Eagles and Gurney largely attribute the design of the V-12 to Woods and Weslake's stepson, Michael Daniel. The bottom end of the V-12 was adapted by Woods from the highly successful BRM V-8, which extends the BRM DNA to the Eagle-Weslake.

I would think that Tony Rudd's negative experience with Weslake & Co. regarding the flat plane crank and four-valve heads for the preceding 1.5 litre V-8 contributed to his unease regarding Weslake's capabilities in delivering a world-class power unit to BRM for the forthcoming 3-litre formula.

Unfortunately, Rudd was so overloaded with projects imposed upon him by Rubery Owen after their success in 1962, he most likely did not have the available time to execute the H-16 design to the required standard.

#63 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 951 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 February 2004 - 00:03

I took this photo at the Autosport show in 1995 - I believe it is the 4-valve head engine from the Donington museum, identifiable from the standard engine by the different cam covers and more closely spaced inlet trumpets.

Posted Image

Tony Rudd's 1968 IMechE paper states that when design studies were carried out into an engine for the 3-litre formula, the H-16 was selected on the basis of an estimated 380lb weight and 24" length for 500bhp output whereas the corresponding estimates for a V12 were 360lb weight and 30" length for 475bhp output. The lower weight of the V12 was considered to be offset by the greater difficulty of packaging it into a chassis due to its length - fuel tanks extending alongside the engine would be required which would prevent its employment as a stressed member. In reality, the H-16 never achieved more than about 420bhp and the weight grew to over 500lb.

A 3-litre V8 was also considered early on but ruled out as "by 1970, to remain competitive it would have to run beyond 10,000 rev/min-the mechanical problems involved would have been considerable;", ironic in hindsight considering both the subsequent career of the Cosworth DFV and the fact that as it turned out the H-16 was abandoned long before 1970.

#64 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,032 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 20 February 2004 - 00:24

Originally posted by dolomite
The lower weight of the V12 was considered to be offset by the greater difficulty of packaging it into a chassis due to its length - fuel tanks extending alongside the engine would be required which would prevent its employment as a stressed member.

That seems a strangely perverse arguement. Surely it was the width of the H16 that prevented the use of fuel tanks alongside the engine and forced it to be used as a stressed member?

One thing has recently ocurred to me about Ferrari and engines as the main chassis unit. When he got the D50 LAncia, one of the first things he did was to put a spaceframe around it. He then reintroduced the concept in 1964/65. He abandoned it again in 1966 (understandable, perhaps because the V12s were based onsportscar engines and were not designed to be fully stressed. The strange thing is te original Flat 12. By that time Cosworth had shown the advantages of a fully stressed engine, and th Flat 12 was wholly new and could have been designed that way. Ferrari could not have been accused of copying the garagistes. Instead the engine was hung from a sort of backbone extension of the monocoque. the only other car I know of tht used this idea was the Honda RA302. It does seem that te Ferrari engineers couldn't make up their minds whether stressed engines were a good idea or not - or were they being different for te sake of it?

#65 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 951 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 February 2004 - 00:50

Originally posted by Roger Clark

That seems a strangely perverse arguement. Surely it was the width of the H16 that prevented the use of fuel tanks alongside the engine and forced it to be used as a stressed member?


Yes but it was considered that the fact that it was shorter than the V12 would allow more space to fit all the fuel into the main chassis in front of the engine.

...the H layout gave a very compact engine, a low centre of gravity, with an elliptical silhouette, which would fit well into the car's hull. The cylinder head joint faces would be large planes running vertically fore and aft; these could be used as part of the car structure. The concept of using the engine to carry the rear suspension and form part of the car was thus born.......The length of the V-12 would force the car designer to carry fuel alongside the engine's crankcase; this would prevent the use of the engine as part of the car structure, as was intended with the H-16. This would nullify some of the weight advantages of the V-12 engine.



#66 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 20 February 2004 - 01:23

Originally posted by Don Capps
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....


Maybe so, Don, but I believe my 'aversion' of H-16 and similar things is absurd complexity for one thing, and obsession with raw power as second. I mean, would B.R.M. lapped the circuit faster than Cooper if it had something like 450BHP? Or, would it need +500BHP to be faster than Brabham with 'weakest' engine in the field? In some respects, old KISS principle seems to wor allright. :)

#67 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 21 February 2004 - 16:42

Quote from: http://www.is-it-a-l...e/lotus/100.htm

TYPE 43 1966 - 1967
Chapman truncated the monocoque chassis, ending Formula 1
it abruptly behind the driver. The engine was BRM H16 2996cc
mounted to the rear bulkhead and the entire BRM 6 speed
rear suspension was mounted to the engine and Stressed Monocoque
transaxle. Other teams declared that the car Weight: 1105 lbs
would fold in half at the first corner. Today
EVERY Formula One, Indy Car and World Endurance
Cup car has a truncated monocoque chassis with
its engine and transaxle carrying the rear
suspension, it is now accepted as the "only"
way to build a fast race car.Posted Image

#68 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,962 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 February 2004 - 23:31

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.


If you'd driven one of these tractors to Collingrove Hillclimb in the very early fifties you might have seen Harold Clisby's Douglas-powered car... in which the backbone chassis bolted to the engine, with suspension hanging off the other end.

It was from this car that the Eclipse Zephyr (1955) fundamental design ideals came about...

And Racers Edge... the Eclipse suffered from the same derisive comment... until Eldred Norman jacked the back of a truck off the ground using a jack on the backbone of the car.

#69 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 24 February 2004 - 10:50

Posted Image

Here is a interesting shot of the Lotus 43, look at the size of those huge rear uprights, built to hold alot of stress, but as I understand, the 43 F-5000 of Jock Russell, one rear upright broke sending him into the bridge at Brands during a race. (maybe not big enough, or should have been made using a stronger material?) :confused:

Also note: the suspension is not totally supported by the engine, the upper and lower trailing links are mounted to the rear of the tub... #20 ??....I wonder what race this photo is from, is that Clark?

#70 DOHC

DOHC
  • Member

  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:34

That certainly looks like Clark, and it looks like the shot is from the Parabolica. Lotus ran numbers in the 20s in Italy for several years. But Clark's number was 20 both in 1966 and 1967. Could it be taken in practice?

#71 Dave Wright

Dave Wright
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 24 February 2004 - 12:01

Photos seem to show Clark in a Type 43 using both #20 and #22 at Monza in 66. I think he used #1 at Watkins Glen, #1 at Mexico, and #7 at Kyalami in 67.

One of the other "interesting facts" about the Type 43 is the second chassis 43/2 only being used for one GP.

#72 DOHC

DOHC
  • Member

  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 February 2004 - 14:03

Sorry, I meant he used #22 in 1966 and #20 in 1967. Dave is right. But #20 was used by a (third?) Lotus driver in 1966. That's why I suggested a practice shot.

#73 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 24 February 2004 - 17:22

Well, that is certainly Jim Clark and that is certainly a Type 43 with a P75 stuffed in the back of it and that photo was in at least one contemporary magazine as being taken at Monza in 1966. As to whether it is in practice or not, off the top of my head I can't say.


However, here is something that might help support that notion: http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr148.html

#74 DOHC

DOHC
  • Member

  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:57

Yes, it seems that it is a practice shot then. My guess is that the picture is taken at the same spot as the Cahier picture in the link Don provided.

But isn't it strange that the only 43 used at Monza in 1966 would have used different numbers for practice and for the race? If Team Lotus had numbers 20-22-24 for their cars and ran only one type 43, why would they change the number on it?

#75 GIGLEUX

GIGLEUX
  • Member

  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 25 February 2004 - 20:23

DOHC: in French it is l'intelligence me POURSUIT and not pursuit.
About Monza: original entry list 20 Clark Lotus 43 BRM H16; 22 "Geki" Lotus 33 Climax V8 2000; 24
Arundell Lotus 33 BRM V8 2000.
As Clark was not confident with the 43, during first practice session Geki's car was reserved for Clark and Geki didn't turn so the Lotus Climax received number 20 which was allocated to Clark. As the two cars used by Clark were rather different the Lotus 43 received the number 22 and and kept it for the race. Motor Sport Oct 1966: "For race Clark and "Geki" changed numbers".

#76 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,032 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 February 2004 - 23:08

Originally posted by GIGLEUX
DOHC: in French it is l'intelligence me POURSUIT and not pursuit.
About Monza: original entry list 20 Clark Lotus 43 BRM H16; 22 "Geki" Lotus 33 Climax V8 2000; 24
Arundell Lotus 33 BRM V8 2000.
As Clark was not confident with the 43, during first practice session Geki's car was reserved for Clark and Geki didn't turn so the Lotus Climax received number 20 which was allocated to Clark. As the two cars used by Clark were rather different the Lotus 43 received the number 22 and and kept it for the race. Motor Sport Oct 1966: "For race Clark and "Geki" changed numbers".

This, and the full Motor Sport report, doesn't really say why the numbers were changed. As this was 1966 I can only speculate that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer were involved.

#77 marat

marat
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 February 2004 - 06:12

During the first day of practice, Jim Clark had to choice between both cars, THe H16 bearing
number 20 , and the Climax car number 22.
During the second day of practice, Russo practiced the Climax car still with number 22.
At the end of the second day practice Clark had problems with his car and switched again to
the Lotus 33, this being noticed by the timekeepers, Lotus was asked to swap the numbers.
Story in Tipler's Lotus 25&33 book.

#78 DOHC

DOHC
  • Member

  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 26 February 2004 - 09:30

Gigleux: Oops,... :blush:

#79 Racers Edge

Racers Edge
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 03 March 2004 - 16:39

The photo says it all.....

Posted Image

Advertisement

#80 aldo

aldo
  • Member

  • 135 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 03 March 2004 - 22:31

About Monza 1966. Clark qualified the BRM-engined racer in the third spot of the front line (1'31"8). The car had no. 20 during the race. I'll check my photos of practice and race to see if the number swap finds some confirmation.

#81 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 29 October 2004 - 20:31

Originally posted by Danny Skehan

Is the car still around in F5000 configration?

I'm not certain about this, but I think that the only T43 chassis to be converted to F5000 spec was Jock Russell's chassis #1. As mentioned earlier by Racers Edge, he bent it rather comprehensively at Brands in May 1969...

Posted Image

#82 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,962 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 29 October 2004 - 23:20

That's certainly badly bent...

Panel beating wouldn't have fixed it... easier to get an M10 tub and suspension.

#83 Megatron

Megatron
  • Member

  • 3,688 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 30 October 2004 - 00:30

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the 43 the first Lotus to use an engine as a stressed member of the chassis and not the 49? Maybe that is wrong, as I can't see such a design being all that friendly as an active part of the car, but I heard that a while back.

It had to be a shock when they switched from the BRM H16 to the light and compact (for the day) Cosworth V8 without a huge loss of a BHP to add.

I liked the looks of the car myself.

#84 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,962 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 30 October 2004 - 03:39

Possibly the same or even a few more bhp...

Yes, there's a post on this thread about that very fact. Or is it on a thread that's linked by a post on this thread?

#85 Pullman99

Pullman99
  • Member

  • 747 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 June 2010 - 19:54

AS there is a separate thread on the Lotus 43, I thought that I would posts some pics of 43/1 - the ex-Jock Russell car - at the Lotus Festival at Snetterton on Sunday 20th June. Now well on the way to completion and awaiting the H16 engine from Hall & Hall. A credit to owner Andy Middlehurst and all who have been involved in the rebuild. :up: I recall seeing this car on TV at the first round of the F5000 Championship in 1969. It had a tartan livery then and I thought at the time how nice it would be back in Team Lotus colours one day. Forty one years on and it's almost there. Andy told me that the second chassis exists in a very sorry state - he described it as a wheelbarrow case - but at least the US GP winner from 1966 should be up and running by the end of this year. Highlight of my weekend!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

And this is where the loud bit should go! :)

Posted Image

Edited by Pullman99, 24 June 2010 - 06:37.


#86 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 June 2010 - 22:17

I recall a conversation with Bob Sparshott ref the H16 engine; he said that if you could get it over 3000 revs without breaking it, it was all-right. The problem, as I recall, was the single timing chain for all 8 camshafts, the slightest bit of backlash was magnified as it went round the 4 cylinder heads, on top of that you had the problem of torque reversals on the output shaft if the two crankshafts got the slightest bit out of syncronisation. Reminds me of the problem Ron Marchant head with his 6 Aerial Twins coupled to the one output shaft.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 19 October 2013 - 14:54.


#87 JtP1

JtP1
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 24 June 2010 - 17:47

I recall a conversation with Bob Sparshott ref the H12 engine; he said that if you could get it over 3000 revs without breaking it, it was all-right. The problem, as I recall, was the single timing chain for all 8 camshafts, the slightest bit of backlash was magnified as it went round the 4 cylinder heads, on top of that you had the problem of torque reversals on the output shaft if the two carankshafts got the slightest bit out of syncronisation. Reminds me of the problem Ron Marchant head with his 6 Aerial Twins coupled to the one output shaft.


The other problem was an imbalance inside the engine which was controlled by bolted on counter balance weights on the crankshaft. Unfortunately the bolts had a life of around 300 miles and Clark's Watkins Glen engine failed early in practice at the next race (Mexico). It appears the only reason the engine finished at Watkins Glen was the fact it was not used in anger before the start of the US race.


#88 JtP1

JtP1
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 24 June 2010 - 17:58

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.


To add to its other claims, the Napier Sabre was a sleeve valve and the engine alone cost more than a complete Spitfire and that at the later price of £10,000. After its initial problems in Typhoons, where at least one aircraft from each sqd sortie didn't come back due to mechanical failure, some engine and some airframe. By 1944 the engine was performing reliably in Typhoons doing ground attack and in Tempests chasing V1s.

Fabulous piece of engineering though. A sectioned one can be found in the RAF museum at Hendon.


#89 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,422 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 24 June 2010 - 18:02

I recall a conversation with Bob Sparshott ref the H12 engine; he said that if you could get it over 3000 revs without breaking it, it was all-right. The problem, as I recall, was the single timing chain for all 8 camshafts, the slightest bit of backlash was magnified as it went round the 4 cylinder heads, on top of that you had the problem of torque reversals on the output shaft if the two carankshafts got the slightest bit out of syncronisation. Reminds me of the problem Ron Marchant head with his 6 Aerial Twins coupled to the one output shaft.

Not to mention the problem of the missing four cylinders... :|
Tom

#90 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 24 June 2010 - 20:01

Not to mention the problem of the missing four cylinders... :|
Tom


Sorry - typnig error...

#91 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 24 June 2010 - 20:06

I was always puzzled why a) each flat 8 didn't have independent cam chains and, b) why one of the two banks wasn't connected to the output shaft by a sprung coupling, something along the lines of the circumferencial springs used on clutch plates, in order to absorb shock loads. This sort of device was later used in the Cosworth DFV, when quill shafts were introduced to stop the rash of broken camshafts.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 24 June 2010 - 20:09.


#92 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:17

Lotus 43 powered by 302 Ford!!

Thought I'd better add these photos of examples of the 43 converted to F5000 spec that I posted on the "Greatest ever gathering of Team Lotus F1 cars" thread - photos Copyright W Patterson

Jock Russell 1968 Phoenix Park, Dublin
Posted Image

Robs Lamplough 1969 F5000 Dublin Grand Prix, Mondello Park, Ireland
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited by bill p, 25 June 2010 - 08:18.


#93 Pullman99

Pullman99
  • Member

  • 747 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 October 2013 - 20:56

I'm not certain about this, but I think that the only T43 chassis to be converted to F5000 spec was Jock Russell's chassis #1. As mentioned earlier by Racers Edge, he bent it rather comprehensively at Brands in May 1969...

RussellLotus43-1BRANDS5thMay69lowres.jpg

 

Just looking again at the Lotus 43 details in this Forum.    Andy Middlehurst's restoration of 43/1 has been nominated for Restoration of the Year in the Octane sponsored  International Historic motoring Awards being held at St Pancras on 14th November.   Your pic of this car following Jock Russell's accident at Brands has disappeared from view.   I wondered if there was any chance of re-posting it?



#94 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 37 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 20 October 2013 - 18:38

Just came across this topic. I remember that Lotus had a new F1 monocoque lined up in 1965 to take the stillborn Coventry Climax flat 16 1.5 litre swansong engine. That engine got at least as far as running on the test bench, though I don't know if it ever powered any car. It was developed as a challenge to the potential new F1 upstart from the east - Honda. In the event the 4 valve Coventry Climax V8 engine Clark got that year was fast and reliable enough for him to take the championship.

 

Anyway, I seem to remember back in the day that this spare new Lotus chassis was subsequently used to take the BRM H16 F1 engine. Can anyone confirm this? The timing is right, and the Type 43 designation is also about right.

 

I guess the flat 16 CC engine would have been a lot lighter and smaller than the BRM H16. As such, did Lotus remove some parts of the chassis behind the cockpit to allow fitting of the semi-stressed mounting for the H16 and suspension, etc? Can't imagine that they were going to use the Coventry Climax flat 16 engine as a testbed for a stressed engine-as-chassis design.



#95 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,398 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 October 2013 - 19:00

The chassis designed by Lotus to take the flat-16 Climax engine was the Type 39. When the flat-16 engine failed to materialise, the chassis was fitted with a 2.5 litre Climax FPF and used by Jim Clark in the 1966 Tasman Championship. It seems unlikely to me that it would ever have been used as a test chassis for the BRM H16, but maybe somebody knows more.



#96 RogerFrench

RogerFrench
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 20 October 2013 - 19:03

Just came across this topic. I remember that Lotus had a new F1 monocoque lined up in 1965 to take the stillborn Coventry Climax flat 16 1.5 litre swansong engine.


I think you're writing about the Lotus Type 39, which was a 33-descendant, intended for the flat 16 but modified to take a 4-cylinder FPF Climax engine. Jim Clark drove it in the '66 Tasman races. The car survives today.


Tim, you have faster fingers!

Edited by RogerFrench, 20 October 2013 - 19:04.


#97 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,398 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 October 2013 - 19:08

Sorry Roger, I know how frustrating that is.



#98 mfd

mfd
  • Member

  • 2,885 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:41

Earlier on in the thread there's a reference to Clark racing the Lotus 43 on four occasions. Italy, USA Mexico & South Africa. I have just checked ORC & can see no reference but I've certainly seen photos of Clark driving the 43 at Oulton, I imagine in 1966. Was it a DNS & therefore not count?



#99 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,398 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 February 2014 - 20:17

Clark practised in 43/1 but had a problem with it so took over R14 from Arundell, leaving Peter without a drive.

Advertisement

#100 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 February 2014 - 22:26

And here he is in practice with the 43

http://www.brianwats...rmulaOne/66/#58

There is also a great Nick Loudon photo of Jimmy in the car rounding Esso which was posted on the Nick Loudon thread by Andrew Kitson some time ago but it has now disappeared