80 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Why had Renault never won the F1 title?

They had more experience with the turbo engine, but after Prost lost the title in 1983 Renault was falling back the grid.

 

Why?

Were the drivers not that good?

Didn't they have the money?

 

What was the matter?

[taran]

Why had Renault never won the F1 title?

They had more experience with the turbo engine, but after Prost lost the title in 1983 Renault was falling back the grid.

 

Why?

Were the drivers not that good?

Didn't they have the money?

 

What was the matter?

 

Why didn't Renault ever win the title? Just bad luck and a bit of cheating by BMW....

They pioneered turbo technology in F1 and it was pretty unreliable for all engine builders at first.

 

They had a genuine shot at the title in 1981, 1982 and 1983 and failed because of unreliability, not a lack of speed. Arnoux and Prost were both top drawer drivers who could easily have become champions.

 

In 1983, Prost had perhaps his best chance but managed to shoot himself in the foot in typical Gallic fashion by sleeping with his boss' wife and getting caught.....

At the same time, BMW was fuelling its engine with illegal rocket fuel and Piquet nabbed the title.

 

For 1984, it was all change on the driver front with Tambay and Warwick. Both were well regarded at the time but in hindsight not really aces. The biggest problem was the new fuel efficiency regulations however. Renault and the other teams/engine makers built pretty good cars that year but TAG-Porsche trumped them all. Porsche had extensive experience in fuel efficiency because of its endurance racing programme and was ahead of the others in that regard.

 

After challenging for the title in the past seasons, 1984 was considered a big failure and the Renault chief designer (Michel Tetu) was made the scapegoat and sacked. Which compromised the design of the 1985 Renault. This proved to be a bad car (their first poor chassis ever) even if the engine had improved considerably. After the 1985 car proved a dog, Renault lost interest during the season. Their customer teams were doing well, Renault was facing labour troubles and the works team became increasingly difficult to justify. And thus Renault withdrew.

[lustigson]

So, one could argue that Renault DID win the title in 1983, since any illegal competitors should've been disqualified. Like the FISA did with Tyrrell in 1984.  

[Catalina Park]

The old illegal rocket fuel myth comes back again.

So what was it and why was it illegal?

[Charlieman]

I think that you need to rewind a few years to get a better perspective.

 

In the 1970s, Renault made conventional family cars and had not been circuit racing for 60 years. Somebody thought the company needed an image refresh so a modest racing programme began. Renault had a 6 cylinder production engine which would make the basis for F2 and a 2.1 litre turbo Group 6 cars. These efforts were increasingly successful and the company decided to make an F1 car, although winning Le Mans was the main target initially.

 

When putting together the F1 plan, Renault made all of the "wrong" decisions: an inexperienced F1 driver, a turbo engine, Michelin radial tyres. "Very brave" was a popular description of the project. It couldn't go well and 1977 was a challenging first year. 1977 was also one of those years when almost everyone made decent F1 cars. One of the things the team got right, and which would not have been obvious to fans, was to earn technical support from wider French industry. When Renault won in Dijon in 1979 (a race more famous for the second and third place battle), critics quietly muttered that they thought the turbo idea was right all along. Hindsight is a wonderful thing... 

 

I think that non-technical factors led to failure to win a world championship. TV audiences were growing and F1 was attracting new sponsors and participants. The FISA/FOCA war had changed team funding. Independent constructors had raised their game and Ferrari was reinventing itself. Ironically, Renault's competitiveness made everyone else come up with new ideas and go faster.

 

taran makes a good point about French politics. In theory, state ownership of Renault meant unlimited funding, but it also provided 50 odd million critics who were paying for the team.

 

Regarding the turbo engine, being first with a technology often creates a short term advantage. A few years later, some design flaws are obvious but too much has been invested to fix them. When creating the specification for the TAG-Porsche engine, John Barnard had the advantage of a clean sheet of paper. The engine was designed to his requirements but F1 aerodynamic rules were changed. By the time Porsche built the engine, Barnard would have asked for something different. If you ask me, Renault did a good job.

 

Renault got it right as an engine supplier to Lotus and Williams. The cars were always called Lotus-Renault or Williams-Renault, generating huge publicity in the English-speaking world. Shortly afterwards, Peugeot decided to get involved in circuit racing.

 

Renault may not have won a world championship on their own, but they succeeded in other ways. And they did it the hard way by making F1 cars that were different. 

[Tim Murray]

The old illegal rocket fuel myth comes back again.

So what was it and why was it illegal?

The fuel was legal under the regulations of the time, and had no connection with any Nazi rocket fuel. We debunked this myth many years ago:

BMW's exotic fuel in the Brabham in 1983 - is this story true?

See especially the posts from Michael Müller, who was working in the industry at the time.

Edited by Tim Murray, 30 September 2015 - 10:59.

[Charlieman]

The old illegal rocket fuel myth comes back again.

So what was it and why was it illegal?

In current F1, fuel is specified (and homologated!) with agreed components. It is claimed that Mercedes-Benz work with Petronas to create a fuel which is resistant to pre-ignition. This is legal under F1 rules. We can assume that Ferrari and Shell have achieved the same thing.

 

Under the rules in the 1.5 litre turbo era, cars were required to run "petrol pump fuel". As we know from the 1950s when this rule was first suggested, petrol pump fuel is a variable thing. Thus it was possible for BMW to work with a fuel supplier to make something which met petrol pump fuel definitions but which allowed engine designers to use aggressive settings. And as Michael Müller tells us in the link from Tim Murray, the fuel had a higher calorific value.

[taran]

The fuel was legal under the regulations of the time, and had no connection with any Nazi rocket fuel. We debunked this myth many years ago:

BMW's exotic fuel in the Brabham in 1983 - is this story true?

See especially the posts from Michael Müller, who was working in the industry at the time.

 

I am not sure how you can say they were legal. It was hardly regular pump fuel even if the FIA wasn't checking it for conformity.

A normal car couldn´t run on the fuel if Brabham mechanics filled it up, right?

 

Was Brabham cheating with its hydraulic suspension?

Was Honda cheating with its pop off valve overboost?

Was Red Bull cheating with their flexi wings?

 

I'd say the answer was yes....

Edited by taran, 30 September 2015 - 11:25.

[Tim Murray]

Was Brabham cheating with its hydraulic suspension?
Was Honda cheating with its pop off valve overboost?
Was Red Bull cheating with their flexi wings?

In my view the cases you quote are different to the BMW fuel case, as they enabled the cars concerned to run illegally at times when this illegality couldn't be measured. The BMW fuel was legal at all times, according to the rules then in force.

[Charlieman]

A normal car couldn´t run on the fuel if Brabham mechanics filled it up, right?

 

Was Brabham cheating with its hydraulic suspension?

Was Honda cheating with its pop off valve overboost?

Was Red Bull cheating with their flexi wings?

It would be like putting Super Unleaded in a family saloon. Or putting Four Star into a 1960s petrol engine van. The vehicle doesn't go any faster and it might stutter at idling speeds, but it would work. Fuel consumption would increase and you might clog up the catalyst/exhaust with filth. BMW's fuel was toxic to handle and the fumes were vile, which is why we don't want to see it again. Note that the Brabham-BMW turbo cars now run at demonstration events (a Bernie/BMW collaboration?) on more conventional fuel.

 

Gordon Murray's Brabham design, the suspension which lowered the car at speed, was legitimate. Some teams who tried to copy it made cars which required driver intervention to change ride height, and these should have been disqualified. Murray's car went up and down on its own.

 

Red Bull didn't cheat with their flexi wings. Nobody found a scrutineer who would ride on the nose at high speed with a measuring tape. More seriously, the flexi wings met the regulations in the pit lane and that was the only way to measure them. Perhaps the scrutineers should have asked themselves how they were applying points of pressure.

 

Honda pop off valve controversy in F1? I don't recall it. Are you thinking of Toyota's blatant cheat in world rallying?

[HistoryFan]

Why didn't Renault ever win the title? Just bad luck and a bit of cheating by BMW....

They pioneered turbo technology in F1 and it was pretty unreliable for all engine builders at first.

 

They had a genuine shot at the title in 1981, 1982 and 1983 and failed because of unreliability, not a lack of speed. Arnoux and Prost were both top drawer drivers who could easily have become champions.

 

In 1983, Prost had perhaps his best chance but managed to shoot himself in the foot in typical Gallic fashion by sleeping with his boss' wife and getting caught.....

At the same time, BMW was fuelling its engine with illegal rocket fuel and Piquet nabbed the title.

 

For 1984, it was all change on the driver front with Tambay and Warwick. Both were well regarded at the time but in hindsight not really aces. The biggest problem was the new fuel efficiency regulations however. Renault and the other teams/engine makers built pretty good cars that year but TAG-Porsche trumped them all. Porsche had extensive experience in fuel efficiency because of its endurance racing programme and was ahead of the others in that regard.

 

After challenging for the title in the past seasons, 1984 was considered a big failure and the Renault chief designer (Michel Tetu) was made the scapegoat and sacked. Which compromised the design of the 1985 Renault. This proved to be a bad car (their first poor chassis ever) even if the engine had improved considerably. After the 1985 car proved a dog, Renault lost interest during the season. Their customer teams were doing well, Renault was facing labour troubles and the works team became increasingly difficult to justify. And thus Renault withdrew.

 

Interesting post! Thank you!

[BoschKurve]

Why didn't Renault ever win the title? Just bad luck and a bit of cheating by BMW....

They pioneered turbo technology in F1 and it was pretty unreliable for all engine builders at first.

 

They had a genuine shot at the title in 1981, 1982 and 1983 and failed because of unreliability, not a lack of speed. Arnoux and Prost were both top drawer drivers who could easily have become champions.

 

In 1983, Prost had perhaps his best chance but managed to shoot himself in the foot in typical Gallic fashion by sleeping with his boss' wife and getting caught.....

At the same time, BMW was fuelling its engine with illegal rocket fuel and Piquet nabbed the title.

 

For 1984, it was all change on the driver front with Tambay and Warwick. Both were well regarded at the time but in hindsight not really aces. The biggest problem was the new fuel efficiency regulations however. Renault and the other teams/engine makers built pretty good cars that year but TAG-Porsche trumped them all. Porsche had extensive experience in fuel efficiency because of its endurance racing programme and was ahead of the others in that regard.

 

After challenging for the title in the past seasons, 1984 was considered a big failure and the Renault chief designer (Michel Tetu) was made the scapegoat and sacked. Which compromised the design of the 1985 Renault. This proved to be a bad car (their first poor chassis ever) even if the engine had improved considerably. After the 1985 car proved a dog, Renault lost interest during the season. Their customer teams were doing well, Renault was facing labour troubles and the works team became increasingly difficult to justify. And thus Renault withdrew.

 

I thought the bit about Prost sleeping with the boss's wife was nothing more than an unconfirmed rumor?

[Richard Jenkins]

2010-Bernard-Dudot-1.pdf
https://drive.google...sp=docslist_api

Here's an interview by Bernard Dudot on GP numbers and facts website where he says losing out in 1983 was down to the fact that they had no more money to develop the car for most of the season.

Edited by Richard Jenkins, 30 September 2015 - 13:18.

[Charlieman]

Many thanks, Richard.

 

There are so many great quotes from that interview.

 

 

Interviewer: What were the road car benefits derived from Renault's motorsport department?

 

Dudot: Oh that old cliche that motorsport brings some benefits to the road car industry...forget it. We had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[PeterElleray]

It would be like putting Super Unleaded in a family saloon. Or putting Four Star into a 1960s petrol engine van. The vehicle doesn't go any faster and it might stutter at idling speeds, but it would work.

 

BMW Rocket Fuel - Yes, it did work, some of the Arrows team members were offered a 'fill up' from a drum of the stuff that came back to Milton keynes after a race. BMW didnt want it back... (Wonder why?)

 

Unfortunately it only worked for about the first 20 odd miles. By that time the valves were all knackered  and the cylinder head warped.

 

Peter

Edited by PeterElleray, 30 September 2015 - 14:50.

[Roger Clark]

 

 

In the 1970s, Renault made conventional family cars and had not been circuit racing for 60 years. Somebody thought the company needed an image refresh so a modest racing programme began. Renault had a 6 cylinder production engine which would make the basis for F2 and a 2.1 litre turbo Group 6 cars. These efforts were increasingly successful and the company decided to make an F1 car, although winning Le Mans was the main target initially.

 

 

I didn't think the Renault engine was based on a production engine.  They did have a 90º V6 (a joint development with Peugeot and Volvo) but there was no connection with the racing engine that I know of.

[Charlieman]

BMW Rocket Fuel - Yes, it did work, some of the Arrows team members were offered a 'fill up' from a drum of the stuff that came back to Milton keynes after a race. BMW didnt want it back... (Wonder why?)

I think we can file this one with rocket fuel anecdotes.

 

The fuel, as described in Tim Murray's link, would have been hydrocarbon heavy. It might have clogged valve seats with left over deposits. The fuel was too heavy for a conventional petrol engine to burn efficiently, and when the fuel did burn it is unlikely that high temperatures arose at the bottom of the combustion chamber.

 

BMW's fuel wasn't cheap either. Fuel degrades over time so if BMW had a left over barrel, they'd have put it (and more fresh fuel) into the car in a long distance test pretty quickly.

 

It seems more likely to me that jokers put regular petrol, with doses of diesel and paraffin, into the Arrow team's tank. When the fuels separate, a petrol engine is stuffed.

[Peter Morley]

Whether things like special fuel or ride height adjusters are legal depends on how the rules are written.

If the rules say that something has to pass a specific set of tests (e.g. it must clear these blocks in the pitlane or have x% of chemical Y) then such cars are legal.

If the rules say the car has to have a minimum ride height at all times but we can only measure it in the pitlane, then devices to lower ride height when moving are illegal but hard to prove (not so difficult these days with all the onboard monitoring).

 

There was a period when the FIA said it was the spirit of the rules that counted e.g. fuel that matches the quoted specs. for pump fuel but has other unspecified components that increase power would be illegal if the rules specified pump fuel.

 

Given that experimenting with fuels in F1 probably has some benefit for production car fuels then it is quite likely that the petrol companies would lose interest in F1 if they were told that they could only supply the same fuel as at the service station outside the circuit, so I suspect that what is acceptable as a pump fuel is pretty flexible.

[Roger Clark]

 

 

Under the rules in the 1.5 litre turbo era, cars were required to run "petrol pump fuel". As we know from the 1950s when this rule was first suggested, petrol pump fuel is a variable thing. Thus it was possible for BMW to work with a fuel supplier to make something which met petrol pump fuel definitions but which allowed engine designers to use aggressive settings. And as Michael Müller tells us in the link from Tim Murray, the fuel had a higher calorific value.

According to Ian Bamsey "The 1000BHP Grand Prix Cars", the Formula One regulations of the early eighties restricted fuel to: "petrol having the following characteristics - maximum 102 octane, maximum 2% oxygen and 1% hydrogen by weight, the remaining 97% comprising exclusively of hydrocarbons and not containing any alcohols, nitrocompounds or other power boosting additives".  nothing about petrol pump fuel.

[Charlieman]

I didn't think the Renault engine was based on a production engine.  They did have a 90º V6 (a joint development with Peugeot and Volvo) but there was no connection with the racing engine that I know of.

I don't know and I do not profess to know, Roger. It's muddied further because the F2 regulations were changed to allow raw racing engines. A guess is that the "production engine" might have appeared in a Gordini or Alpine. Renault made nifty ralliers.

[Charlieman]

According to Ian Bamsey "The 1000BHP Grand Prix Cars", the Formula One regulations of the early eighties restricted fuel to: "petrol having the following characteristics - maximum 102 octane, maximum 2% oxygen and 1% hydrogen by weight, the remaining 97% comprising exclusively of hydrocarbons and not containing any alcohols, nitrocompounds or other power boosting additives".  nothing about petrol pump fuel.

It's an awkward definition for petrol which you might buy in Buenos Aries, Bolton or Bologna. The rule makers ended up describing petrol pump petrol so that smart people showed that they were smarter. What else is to be done? Homologation?

 

If you lived in Italy in the 1950s and bought a Jaguar, Jaguar sent you a car with a low compression engine. It wasn't as fast as other Jaguars, but it didn't ping because Jaguar protected drivers from Croatian pump petrol.

 

F1 teams, in the 1980s, had different interpretations about fuel. Shock horror, but I think that regulators need a lesson about the real world.

[ensign14]

So, one could argue that Renault DID win the title in 1983, since any illegal competitors should've been disqualified. Like the FISA did with Tyrrell in 1984.  

 

Tyrrell - and occasionally Arrows and Spirit - had the only legal cars in 1984.

[Charlieman]

2010-Bernard-Dudot-1.pdf
https://drive.google...sp=docslist_api

Here's an interview by Bernard Dudot on GP numbers and facts website where he says losing out in 1983 was down to the fact that they had no more money to develop the car for most of the season.

 

Interviewer: What were the road car benefits derived from Renault's motorsport department?

 

Dudot: Oh that old cliche that motorsport brings some benefits to the road car industry...forget it. We had absolutely nothing to do with it.

---

Peter Morley (not having a personal dig): Given that experimenting with fuels in F1 probably has some benefit for production car fuels...

 

It is bloody hard to accept that science is worked out in a lab nowadays. F1 is a useful lab but it often delivers lousy results.

[Roger Clark]

I'm sure everybody is familiar with the story of 1958 when the CSI tried to impose pump fuel only, causing Tony Vandervell to ask "What pump, an english one or a Moroccan one?" this lead to the adoption of aviation fuel or AvGas for the remainder of the 2.5 litre formula.  From 1961, AvGas was banned but Vandervell's question remained.  I suspect that the regulations attempted to define the composition of the fuel, in the same way as they did in the 80s, rather than attempt to require "pump fuel"  

 

The fuel companies in those days were keen to advertise "Grand Prix won on the fuel you can buy".. There were not the budgets to develop special fuels.

[Roger Clark]

There are two potential reasons for Renault falling towards the back of the grid that I don't think have been mentioned.

 

First, they were slow to develop an electronic engine management system and therefore suffered when fuel volume restrictions were introduced in 1984.  They attempted to develop a system in-house.  Porsche, working with Bosch were much faster to develop their system.

 

Second, Renault introduced significant changes to the organisation of the racing team in 1983 and again in 1984.  It is possible that the people brought in in 84 were not as good as those moved out.

[stuartbrs]

I could be wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that by 1985 the Renault Team was not so much a factory team anymore, that it was being run by another entity under the Renault name? 

[BoschKurve]

Tyrrell - and occasionally Arrows and Spirit - had the only legal cars in 1984.

 

Oh....?

 

Elaborate please.

[ensign14]

It's the old question as to the definitions in the regulations.  They allowed for a supercharged engine.  Renault basically persuaded FISA that a turbocharged engine was the same thing.  Technically though, on one reading of the regs, a turbo was actually a second engine, therefore banned.

[taran]

I could be wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that by 1985 the Renault Team was not so much a factory team anymore, that it was being run by another entity under the Renault name? 

 

You are probably thinking of Alfa Romeo. They closed down their Autodelta factory team (in late 1981 I believe) and handed everything over to Euroracing which went racing under the Alfa Romeo banner. Renault always operated a factory team.

[PeterElleray]

I think we can file this one with rocket fuel anecdotes.

 

The fuel, as described in Tim Murray's link, would have been hydrocarbon heavy. It might have clogged valve seats with left over deposits. The fuel was too heavy for a conventional petrol engine to burn efficiently, and when the fuel did burn it is unlikely that high temperatures arose at the bottom of the combustion chamber.

 

BMW's fuel wasn't cheap either. Fuel degrades over time so if BMW had a left over barrel, they'd have put it (and more fresh fuel) into the car in a long distance test pretty quickly.

 

It seems more likely to me that jokers put regular petrol, with doses of diesel and paraffin, into the Arrow team's tank. When the fuels separate, a petrol engine is stuffed.

No - we can file it under 'i was there the day it happened' - i was offered a tank of the stuff aswell, but my 1st generation Peugeot 205 was well capable of stuffing itself without any additional help.

 

Peter (Arrows Engineer 1984-1987)

[Allan Lupton]

It's the old question as to the definitions in the regulations.  They allowed for a supercharged engine.  Renault basically persuaded FISA that a turbocharged engine was the same thing.  Technically though, on one reading of the regs, a turbo was actually a second engine, therefore banned.

Supercharging merely means that the engine is provided with its charge at more than atmospheric pressure. Quite correctly, as there was no restriction on how the supercharger was driven, a turbo-supercharger was as valid as mechanically-driven supercharger.

There is no way it is a "second engine" as no energy is added - both types of supercharger use energy from the engine to drive a compressor, whether it be by a mechanical connection to the crankshaft or recovery of the exhaust energy.

[kayemod]

Supercharging merely means that the engine is provided with its charge at more than atmospheric pressure. Quite correctly, as there was no restriction on how the supercharger was driven, a turbo-supercharger was as valid as mechanically-driven supercharger.

There is no way it is a "second engine" as no energy is added - both types of supercharger use energy from the engine to drive a compressor, whether it be by a mechanical connection to the crankshaft or recovery of the exhaust energy.

 

Hard to disagree with any of that, but Ken Tyrrell was apparently serious in his campaign against turbos, what did he base his arguments on?

[Michael Ferner]

It's the old question as to the definitions in the regulations.  They allowed for a supercharged engine.  Renault basically persuaded FISA that a turbocharged engine was the same thing.  Technically though, on one reading of the regs, a turbo was actually a second engine, therefore banned.

Technically? Methinks anything to do with Technik (read: engineering) is black magic to you. If a turbocharger is "actually a second engine", then pray tell me how does this engine transmit its power to the wheels (or anything else, for that matter)?

[Roger Clark]

Keith Duckworth, quoted in Graham Robson's book said:

 

"In a supercharged engine you can affect the weight of the charge getting into the cylinder, albeit at the cost of taking work off the engine to drive the compressor.  Then you only have the stroke of the pistons do expansion work which brings its own limits.  On the other hand, a turbocharger is an air compressor driven by a turbine - and the turbine itself is an expansion motor.. Therefore a turbocharger not only allows you t "fiddle the books" on the weight of charge, but it allows you unlimited expansion capacity as well - and that can be a viruous or a vicious circle.  It means that the effective capacity of a turbocharged engine has an entirely different meaning from that of a supercharged engine.

 

"You could also say, as another approach to it, that a turbocharger is a gas turbine which shares its combustion chamber with a piston engine,  That means that you have two engines, which is illegal, and by the way the rules also specifically state that gas turbines are forbidden."

 

Keith Duckworth did know a little about engineering.

[Michael Ferner]

But he had a vested interest, didn't he? It's still stark nonsense to me, I'm afraid...

[PeterElleray]

i suppose the answer to Duckworth's argument would be 'yes - we agree, thats why you can only run a 1.5 litre engine...'...

 

Well thats what i thought at the time.  Anyway, it seemed like the end game was not to get a ban on turbo's but to get that equivalency altered more favourably for the DFV. I think a figure of 1.3 litres was mentioned..

 

I expect that would have helped in conjunction with a fuel limit, although qualifying would then have seen even crazier levels of boost being used. So then you need a pop off valve.

 

Eventually, of course, we got both.

 

Peter

Edited by PeterElleray, 01 October 2015 - 16:23.

[taran]

Hard to disagree with any of that, but Ken Tyrrell was apparently serious in his campaign against turbos, what did he base his arguments on?

 

Propably wishful thinking.....

 

Tyrrell loved the Cosworth engine (to the extent that he divorced Matra over them) and when Renault first took its turbo baby steps, he was perhaps their harshest critic. Until Renault showed the concept worked and Ferrari and Brabham got turbo engines. This added a new layer of complexity to teams and pushed up running costs which was tough for Team Tyrrell which had little in the way of sponsorship in 1981-1982. The writing was on the wall for all willing to see and indeed by 1983, all leading teams had a turbo or were close to getting one (e.g. McLaren, Lotus, Williams).

 

But Tyrrell was still tilting at windmills and pissing off everyone on both sides of the turbo rivalry in an attempt to get them either banned or hobbled yet undermining the FOCA when they tried to make a stand.

[jcbc3]

They may not have been too competitive, but damn, they were beautiful:

[jcbc3]

Gotta share this link: Many nice photos

[stuartbrs]

I agree, the 84 and 85 Renault's were handsome cars.. although I think the colour scheme hid some of the fat rolls... I remember as a kid I especially loved the digital font of the numbers on the 85 cars.. and yet these days I am a very traditional black on white number fan.. 

 

But wow, fat tyred mid 80`s F1 cars look awesome.. pity they sounded so horrifyingly awful. I remember the Renaults going past us on the main straight at Adelaide in 85 and the crowd groaning as it felt like someone pressing a drill into your inner ear... not a pleasant sound.

[Catalina Park]

But he had a vested interest, didn't he? It's still stark nonsense to me, I'm afraid...

And yet you can turn an automotive turbo into a gas turbine just be adding a fuel system.

[Allan Lupton]

And yet you can turn an automotive turbo into a gas turbine just by adding a fuel system.

but to get useful output you would have to add a power offtake and reduction gearbox - unless jet thrust is what you want of course.

 

To really understand the use of exhaust-driven turbines as direct contributors of shaft horsepower study a Wright Turbo-Compound

 

[there's supposed to be a photo of it here but it won't keep it]

 

or a Napier Nomad II

Edited by Allan Lupton, 02 October 2015 - 13:25.

[AJCee]

Mmmm, Napier aero engines, never knowingly under-engineered.  Fascinating things.

[Catalina Park]

but to get useful output you would have to add a power offtake and reduction gearbox - unless jet thrust is what you want of course.

You simply add a 1.5 litre engine into the loop to get useful output.

[john aston]

I agree, the 84 and 85 Renault's were handsome cars.. although I think the colour scheme hid some of the fat rolls... I remember as a kid I especially loved the digital font of the numbers on the 85 cars.. and yet these days I am a very traditional black on white number fan.. 

 

But wow, fat tyred mid 80`s F1 cars look awesome.. pity they sounded so horrifyingly awful. I remember the Renaults going past us on the main straight at Adelaide in 85 and the crowd groaning as it felt like someone pressing a drill into your inner ear... not a pleasant sound.

 Actually I found some of the V6 turbos sounded just terrific- the Renaults (especially in the Ligiers for some reason ) and Hondas sounded very loud and very impressive. Whereas the 1200bhp (or whatever it was ) BMW four was just white noise and black smoke    

[Charlieman]

No - we can file it under 'i was there the day it happened' - i was offered a tank of the stuff aswell, but my 1st generation Peugeot 205 was well capable of stuffing itself without any additional help.

BMW and their fuel supplier conned the FIA to believe that a blend which looked like petrol pump fuel was something that people could buy at a filling station. I think that point is agreed. We do not know how BMW's blend might work in family motorcars.

 

Why not consider that your mate was conned when he put "BMW Special Brew" into his tank. Was it delivered from a sealed barrel? 

[Charlieman]

Keith Duckworth, quoted in Graham Robson's book said:

 

"You could also say, as another approach to it, that a turbocharger is a gas turbine which shares its combustion chamber with a piston engine,  That means that you have two engines, which is illegal, and by the way the rules also specifically state that gas turbines are forbidden."

When F1 first adopted turbines in 1977, Duckworth was wrong. The turbo was abstracted from the bloke pressing the accelerator pedal. The turbo relied on puff/go exhaust delivery. That's why Ferrari involved themselves with a Swiss company with a different supercharger system, to find something better.

 

When Porsche 935s blew exhaust flames, Duckworth was right. The turbine was used to generate energy to deliver more air to the engine. Spin the turbo faster so that we have more air induction pressure when leaving the corner.

 

Duckworth was right, I reckon. Too late. 

[PeterElleray]

BMW and their fuel supplier conned the FIA to believe that a blend which looked like petrol pump fuel was something that people could buy at a filling station. I think that point is agreed. We do not know how BMW's blend might work in family motorcars.

 

Why not consider that your mate was conned when he put "BMW Special Brew" into his tank. Was it delivered from a sealed barrel? 

 

 

This was  posted as an anecodote of an incident that happened over 30 years ago, and  i wish i hadn't  bothered. 

 

When the cars returned from a GP, occassionally a small amount of BMW's 'brew' would return in a barrel in the truck instead of going back to Munich in the BMW truck. This was so that the cars could be run up between races but for whatever reason, the remains of this drum were not deemed appropriate for the start up by some of the BMW engine guys who were also at the factory , which was unusual, and i think it was they who indicated that it wasnt worth arranging for it to be shipped back to Munich.  I doubt if we had a proper carnet to carry the stuff in our transporter (which we still needed in those days), and therefore it wasnt going back out via that route and our friends from BMW certainly werent taking it back (!) and inevitably it was suggested, perhaps with Teutonic tongue in cheek, that we could try it in our road cars at our peril if we wanted.. It was regarded as a big joke actually. Most of us said 'No thanks', but i believe it was 2 or maybe 3 of the mechanics - who invariably rode around in old bangers that were barely roadworthy - decided they could save a few bob at the next refil... Nobody, including them, was at all surprised at the outcome that i have already posted.

 

So i guess we do know what would have happened if the special brew was used in an old banger with an SU carb and a set of points.

 

We dont need to consider if anybody was conned, it happened as described - are you  happy to accept that?

 

'Was it delivered in a sealed barrel?' - give me a break...

[FLB]

Hard to disagree with any of that, but Ken Tyrrell was apparently serious in his campaign against turbos, what did he base his arguments on?

I've always thought Tyrrell's biggest issue and fear with Renault was they were going to cost him his relationship with Elf... which is exactly what François Guiter told him at Monza in 1978. Elf's Tyrrell money went to fund the second Renault for 1979.

 

HistoryFan, if you're interested, there was a very good book published in 2008 about Renault's turbo years, by Roy P. Smith:

 

http://www.velocetod...r-1968-to-1979/

Edited by FLB, 04 October 2015 - 01:49.

[Michael Ferner]

And yet you can turn an automotive turbo into a gas turbine just be adding a fuel system.

But that would be a turbine that drives nothing but hot air, wouldn't it? It's a hot air argument.