The most famous Grand Prix cars that never made the starting grid

This sounds like a challenge to me...

"The most famous grand prix cars that never made the starting grid. Have we missed any?"

https://www.motorspo...r-raced-108261/

Also:

 

This sounds like a challenge to me...

 

"The most famous grand prix cars that never made the starting grid. Have we missed any?"

 

 

Lots! Not every car in this list made it into the metal, but quite a lot did.

http://www.forix.com...neverraced.html

Most obvious omissions from recent times are the Alpine A350 and the Hill GH2, both of which have been seen at the Festival of Speed.

The Toutou!

The USF1 toaster.

Some from G-wood:

^ Life L190

^ Serenissima M1AF

^ Alpine A500

^ Lotus 86 prototype, which led to...

...the 88B (Super Dario up)

"The most famous grand prix cars that never made the starting grid. Have we missed any?"

Err, most of them... GP cars existed before 1982 so we have lots to choose from which never raced in period

* Kieft GP -- abandoned before completion because Coventry Climax mistakenly did not believe the engine to be sufficiently powerful.

* Cosworth 4WD -- a design which turned into metal just as F1 racing discovered wings.

* BRM P67 -- a successful hill climber but BRM wished they had spent their money and development time more wisely.

* Surtees TS21 -- John Surtees had a mysterious F1 car under wraps in his collection.

I wonder whether the link provided by Vitesse includes all of the Japanese Cosworth/Hewland kit cars of the mid 1970s. A few of them turned up to race -- by 1976 they looked promising -- but there must have been others.

And there was a binge of building 4WD cars...

Cosworth among them.

And there was a binge of building 4WD cars...

My understanding is that Tony Rudd was pretty vocal about the limitations of the BRM P67 4WD for circuit racing. The Ferguson P99 had demonstrated that 4WD -- as it existed at the time -- was brilliant for a limited set of circumstances and hopeless most of the time.

When Audi conceived the Quattro (late 1970s), they understood the limitations of 4WD and expected the Quattro to win the Swedish Rally and the like with snow or mud, to be competitive at the Monte Carlo Rally if weather favoured the car. They expected the car to be rubbish on tarmac and gravel; and for the first few years, those assumptions were correct. It took a lot of money and talent to make the Quattro a winner on all surfaces.

4WD required new technology to be invented -- variable split differentials, computer control systems and instrumentation -- for it to become a realistic option. About 20 years time difference between stuttering attempts at 4WD in F1 and success in rallying.

But its contemporaries in the 4WD brigade all made the grid; the Matra even scored a point, didn't it?

Allegedly with the 4WD disconnected ...

I believe that the Serenissima is actually a modified BRP - in which guise it did make the grid.

Edited by Ray Bell, 20 April 2018 - 11:45.

Allegedly with the 4WD disconnected ...

How would that work? 

So you take out the drive shaft to the front wheels from the transfer box. You plug the holes created by the missing shaft, maybe pull a few twirly bits from the front differential whilst the drive shafts to the wheels are rotating on free air and bearings? Or do you leave the shaft from the transfer box in place and partially disassemble the front differential?

The transfer box is designed to split torque and power between the front and rear wheels. The transfer box works on the principle that the front or rear end will lose drive occasionally. It isn't designed for zero drive for 200 miles.

My understanding is that Tony Rudd was pretty vocal about the limitations of the BRM P67 4WD for circuit racing. The Ferguson P99 had demonstrated that 4WD -- as it existed at the time -- was brilliant for a limited set of circumstances and hopeless most of the time.

 

Surely it wasn't all that bad?

I watched Sir Stirling race the car at Aintree after taking over from Jack Fairman, and I was there when he won the Oulton Gold Cup on a slightly damp but rapidly drying track. Stirling wasn't outclassed in the few laps he was allowed at a wet Aintree, and he demolished all opposition in the Oulton race. While pointing out the undeveloped nature of the P99 in both races, and the inevitable weight penalty of its 4wd system, he was quite complimentary about the Ferguson in his semi-autobigraphy My Cars, my Career. He says that the car and the concept clearly had great potential, and that he'd have loved to try it again, but as far as I know he never did. The speed and stability of the SCM/P99 combination at Oulton was something to behold, and the spectacle made a lasting impression on me. As maybe the most multi-talented driver ever, Stirling could make almost any car look good, but the Ferguson was a project that deserved to be taken seriously, limited possibilities certainly, but a long way from being labelled "hopeless".

As maybe the most multi-talented driver ever, Stirling could make almost any car look good, but the Ferguson was a project that deserved to be taken seriously, limited possibilities certainly, but a long way from being labelled "hopeless".

The Ferguson project wasn't entirely hopeless but Tony Rolt was an old man before big firms like Audi, Subari et al created the technology to make 4WD work -- I hope that he enjoyed their achievements. The hopelessness which I failed to define is that 4WD doesn't work with the models and reality of vehicle dynamics which evolved from the 1930s to the 1980s. 4WD -- at speed on a track or closed public road -- needs technology to vary torque/power between ends of the car. Non-existence of that technology meant that the Ferguson and BRM P67 worked well in limited circumstances but were a dead-end development. There weren't enough slippy, greasy races to justify 4WD.

The Oulton Park win was an impressive display of 4WD possibilities -- on a particular day with a particular driver. BRM picked up the concept to develop the P67 -- and BRM were justifiably confident and able at the time -- but they perceived more benefits from chassis and tyre development. They were right because wings came along.

Wasn't outclassed?  He set fastest lap. 

Did the 1962 de Tomaso race?

I don't think it made the grid...

Nor Honda's straight-8 transverse air cooled 1.5-litre car.




.

The de Tomaso started the 1963 Rome Grand Prix.  It was very slow and completed 1 lap.

I haven't heard of a straight-8 Honda, but there was a rumoured Ferrari of that configuration in 1962.  I don't think a car was built but, being Ferrari, they may well have built an engine.

One car that I don't think has been mentioned anywhere is the 1955 2-cylinder Ferrari, intended for circuit like Monaco.

The Ferguson was raced by Hill and Ireland in New Zealand and Australia early in 1963.  Hill was sufficiently impressed to support Tony Rudd in building the P67 BRM.  The H16 engine had provision for a drive shaft to be taken through the cylinder block, showing that BRM hadn't given up on 4WD.

The Ferguson was raced by Hill and Ireland in New Zealand and Australia early in 1963.  Hill was sufficiently impressed to support Tony Rudd in building the P67 BRM.  The H16 engine had provision for a drive shaft to be taken through the cylinder block, showing that BRM hadn't given up on 4WD.

One should assume that a hole in the block of the H16 for a propellor shaft was recognised as a bonkers concept by the engineer who had dismissed F1 4WD years previously.

If there was a hole in the block, it was present to fool idiots and to entertain speculators.

One car that I don't think has been mentioned anywhere is the 1955 2-cylinder Ferrari, intended for circuit like Monaco.

I don't think the engine made it beyond a single cylinder test bed. And it would have been dumped into an ancient oval tube ladder chassis.

Wasn't outclassed?  He set fastest lap. 

You sure about that? A quite young me was there, and I thought that remarkably, fastest race lap, a whole second faster than pole, was set by Tony Brooks in a BRM P57 Climax.

I would dispute the Alpine A500. It was only ever intended to be a test hack, so it wasn't ever going to get on to a grid

One should assume that a hole in the block of the H16 for a propellor shaft was recognised as a bonkers concept by the engineer who had dismissed F1 4WD years previously.

 

If there was a hole in the block, it was present to fool idiots and to entertain speculators.

You are probably right about Tony Rudd's views on 4WD - the P67 concept was forced on him by Peter Spear and he assigned the design to a raw recruit named Mike Pilbeam.  The H16 did have those holes; from It Was Fun: "We had designed two large holes from front to rear of the engine in case we ever needed to pass a shaft through for 4-wheel-drive".  In the event, the holes were useful when they changed from cable- to rod-operated gear-change.

I don't think the engine made it beyond a single cylinder test bed. And it would have been dumped into an ancient oval tube ladder chassis.

There are photographs of the 2-cylinder engine in Ferrari by Tanner and Nye (6th edition).  They said that it was extensively tested, giving 175bhp.  It had two inlet and two exhaust ports to each cylinder, leading many to think that it was a four.  It may have been "dumped into an ancient oval tube ladder chassis" but weren't all Ferrari engines?

There are photographs of the 2-cylinder engine in Ferrari by Tanner and Nye (6th edition). 

Ta, Roger, I'll have a look at my book.

If you are building a special car and engine for short tracks at high prize GPs, the two cylinder Ferrari looks daft. 

There is some material in Autosports issues 23rd and 30th January 1975 on the 2cyl Ferrari , if anybody is interested PM me

macoran

A 4 wheel drive, H16 BRM--wouldn't that have been a wonderful device to behold!

A 4 wheel drive, H16 BRM--wouldn't that have been a wonderful device to behold!

Even better, with 4 turbo chargers and with Mickey Thompson's four wheel steering for Indianapolis.

One should assume that a hole in the block of the H16 for a propellor shaft was recognised as a bonkers concept by the engineer who had dismissed F1 4WD years previously.

 

If there was a hole in the block, it was present to fool idiots and to entertain speculators.

Or a desperate attempt to add lightness.

A 4 wheel drive, H16 BRM--wouldn't that have been a wonderful device to behold!

It took years for BRM to get the V12 engine together in the right chassis. Do not assume that it is easy.

Was the Alpine A500 not the initial "mule" for the first Renault Turbo F1 car?    Maybe wrong.

And, weirdly, just reading old 1969 Autosports - but how the hell did the Cosworth 4WD car ever get built so ugly?  Look at the people involved - what?!!

Not famous, but the Chevron B41 never got near Grand Prix racing, but appeared as a lash-up in something called Aurora after it's initial designer very sadly literally fell by the wayside forty years ago.  A terrible happening. I hope others remember Derek Bennett's passing.  It very possibly changed the face of British motor racing at that time.  I doubt seriously that certain other manufacturers would have been as successful as they were...

*Edited for spelling mistakes / more spelling mistakes (sorry)

Edited by MCS, 20 April 2018 - 20:47.

Brabham BT46 as originally conceived.

Edited by 2F-001, 21 April 2018 - 07:00.

Brabham BT46 as originally conceived.

I can't have Sophie's original video get to work here, but some interesting thoughts here!

What I miss is the 1968 Alpine A350.

This car had a mysterious suspension setup where it seems that all details about the fundamental underlying principle have been lost with the car itself.... This includes books on Alpine history I have.

Unless one of you found a source where this mystery is resolved - curious...

I can't have Sophie's original video get to work here, but some interesting thoughts here!

 

What I miss is the 1968 Alpine A350.

This car had a mysterious suspension setup where it seems that all details about the fundamental underlying principle have been lost with the car itself.... This includes books on Alpine history I have.

 

Unless one of you found a source where this mystery is resolved - curious...

Google Alpine Renault A350

The second from last is an e-book which has quite some pages on the A350

macoran

Would the Honda R & D cars be elligible here ?

1991 RC1.0X

1992 RC1.5X

1996 RC2.0X

Not official Honda F1 cars but R & D projects, some of which were actually tested on track.

macoran

What about the Brabham BT51, which was abandoned when the rules about sliding skirts were changed for 1983? There would have been a few others too.

Cisitalia 360?
(Though I think I've read that it did make a grid somewhere, sometime, but not a GP grid.)

It made its way to Argentina and was re-christened the Autoar, and it set a couple of national speed records.  Clemar Bucci gave it a demo run before one of the Temporada races in 1954. 

 

The Ferguson was raced by Hill and Ireland in New Zealand and Australia early in 1963. Hill was sufficiently impressed to support Tony Rudd in building the P67 BRM. The H16 engine had provision for a drive shaft to be taken through the cylinder block, showing that BRM hadn't given up on 4WD.

Edited by Kenzclass, 24 April 2018 - 05:03.

Google Alpine Renault A350

The second from last is an e-book which has quite some pages on the A350

macoran

https://books.google...lt a350&f=false

See pages 24-33.  Lots of detail about the car.  Unfortunately, it was scrapped.

Nor Honda's straight-8 transverse air cooled 1.5-litre car.
.

I always missed the Honda V16 the most 

macoran

Edited by StanBarrett2, 24 April 2018 - 12:00.

Mercedes-Benz had a scheme for the W196 to feature 4-wheel drive 1954-55. And forget the notion that the Ferguson P99 was a failure. It succeeded quite brilliantly in achieving its design objectives. The big difference between 4WD F1 in 1960-61 and 4WD F1 come 1969 was in the tyre sizes and contact patch area available. The Fergie on its narrow tread skinny tyres demonstrated a marked advantage over its 2WD peers.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 24 April 2018 - 16:55.

Mercedes-Benz had a scheme for the W196 to feature 4-wheel drive 1954-55. And forget the notion that the Ferguson P99 was a failure. It succeeded quite brilliantly in achieving its design objectives. The big difference between 4WD F1 in 1960-61 and 4WD F1 come 1969 was in the tyre sizes and contact patch area available. The Fergie on its narrow tread skinny tyres demonstrated a marked advantage over its 2WD peers.

 

DCN

Doug, aren't you also interested in what Bill Munro has to write about P99 in his upcoming Ferguson book?

Henri