Jump to content


Photo

1984 - Ferrari 4-Cylinder Turbo - What was its role in Forghieri's resignation?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 guiporsche

guiporsche
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 17

Posted 13 January 2017 - 17:06

Hello everyone.

 

In a previous thread dedicated to a Ligier-Alfa mule, the question was posed of a 4 cyl slant Turbo alla BMW that Ferrari built in 1984.

A week ago I've made the same question at the gpx.it forum. Particularly, of the engine's origins, and of whether its failure had any role in prompting Forghieri to quit the Reparto Corse.

 

Gpx.it is an italian forum dedicated to motorsport history, and more importantly, an (alleged, given he never revealed his name) ex-Ferrari designer from 78 to 89 regularly posts there. His nickname is 'Powerslide', and unfortunately he did not give much detail, besides stating that for what he could recall, that engine was never much more than a mock-up, and that obviously work on it stopped after Forghieri's resignation.

 

Now the question is that British authors like Alan Henry and Pritchard basically correlated the failure of that Turbo engine with Forghieri's resignation. At the same time, in his biography Forghieri does not make any reference to that engine (understandably, if it proved to be a major failure). Moreover, in the recent biography of Enzo Ferrari written by Luca Dal Monte there's no mention to this episode either.

 

My own conclusion is that the British journalists exaggerated the importance of the engine in Ferrari's development programme (Postlethwaite used to say that it was usual for Ferrari engineers to try lots of solutions). Yet, it definitely played a role in further politically isolating Forghieri (as Henri Greuter asserted in the Ligier-Alfa thread).

It is telling of how opaque for outsiders were Ferrari's internal politics that neither Henry nor Pritchard make any allusions to Forghieri's rift with Piccinini and other members of the Reparto Corse (who, though?) - which Forghieri himself admitted inhis biography. Or maybe Henry and Pritchard simply preferred to remain silent as many of those individuals were still active... 

In any case, once we delve into matters of detail, Forghieri has always been tight lipped about who was with him or against him, and there's little testimonies available from other key engineers of the time. So we'll probably never know the whole truth.

 

My hope is that some of the forum's members could perhaps add a bit more info on the engine's history, and its role in prompting Forghieri's resignation.

Below is the thread on the topic I created at gpx.it, complete with pics of the 4cyl Turbo (which can be found at http://www.gurneyfla...ariengines.html), and excerpts in english from Henry's and Pritchard's books on the whole issue.

 

http://www.gpx.it/fo....php?f=2&t=5837

 

P.S.1

 

And for those that can read Italian, Carlo Marinconvich's 1980s articles for La Reppublica give a good idea of the turbulent politics involving Ferrari at the time, and of course, of how Italian journalists further contributed to worsen them:

 

http://ricerca.repub...-colpevole.html

 

 

P.S.2

 

Does anyone know if Bamsey's book '1000 BHP Grand Prix Cars' contain any information on the engine?

By the way, I'm undecided on buying it as apparently it is very, very heavy on technical detail, and my experience with the last book of that kind I've read (namely Paul Frère's bible on the 911) was dismal.

At the same time, Henry's books on the Turbo cars seem to be a bit light on detail compared to Bamsey's, so I would like to ask if '1000BHP' is readable for someone only familiar with basic engineering and mechanical concepts. Or is it for uber-techies only?

Mind you, I've no problems reading and understanding works by Doug Nye per instance - I'm only afraid of splashing quite some euros on something that reads like a auto manual (with all due respect to Frère).


Edited by guiporsche, 13 January 2017 - 17:35.


Advertisement

#2 guiporsche

guiporsche
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 17

Posted 13 January 2017 - 17:22

To save time, I'm adding the excerpts I took from Henry's and Pritchard's books:

 

HENRY, Ferrari - The Grand Prix Cars (second edition, 1989), p.315-6:
 
"[After the Zandvoort GP]" [p.315]
By this time the Italian press was in full flow. Who, they asked, was responsible for this dreadful season? What was the future for Forghieri? For Postlethwaite? What was to be done? Patiently, shrewdly, 86-year-old Enzo Ferrari let it be known that he retained complete faith in his technical staff and would not be replacing any key personnel.
 
None the less, Forghieri decided to stay away from the Italian Grand Prix at Monza - an almost unheard-ofdevelopment - while Harvey opted for a timely holiday in England. He had no intention of embarassing his fellow engineer by turning up alone in that pressure-cooker of a gossip. Moreover, notwithstanding Ferrari's apparent assertion of confidence, Forghieri was to be moved sideways by the end of the season into the Reparto URSA - UFFICIO RICHERCHE STUDI AVANZATI - which dealt with long-term engineering projects for the whole group, leaving Postlethwaite in overall charge of the Grand Prix programme.
 
Forghieri's fall from (p.316) grace was caused by his insistence that a four-cylinder turbochargedengine was required following BMW's success with such a configuration during 1983. Spurred on by hints from FISA that the maximum engine capacity would be reduced from 1500 to 1200 in 1988, Forghieri embarked on this project with enormous enthusiasm during 1984. The Ferrari four-cylinder turbo proved to be a total disaster, however, blowing apart regularly on the test bed. In fact, it never ran long enough to achieve a single power curve and Enzo - always an engine man, first and foremost - never quite forgave Forghieri for the abortive project."
 
PRITCHARD, Ferrari Turbo - The Grand Prix Cars 1981-88, p.77:
 
"Mauro Forghieri had been conspicously absent from the late Grands Prix during the 1984 season, although Harvey Postlethwaite had attended certain races. The reason for Forghieri's absence was his concentration on a new design for 1985, an in-line 4-cylinder slant engine (in some ways aping the BMW), but events were to prove that apart from compelling a high mounting for the turbocharger, it was not really up to scratch under power tests on the dynamometer. By this time Forghieri had been removed from the Formula 1 team and now was responsible for long-term projects."


#3 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 13,644 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 January 2017 - 18:28

guiporsche,

 

"The 1000 hp GP cars" has no info on the Ferrari I4, only on the two V6's, being the first original 126C (120 degree) and the later 90degree V6.The book only deals with engines that were actually built and appeared at the track, thus including the helpless things like the MotoriModerni.

Despite the lack of dealing with the I4 Ferrari, I felt it to be a good book. Maybe a bit outdated due to being over 25 years old by now and more cecent info missing because of being such an early publication but still, it was a good read then and still nowadays too.

 

Henri



#4 StanBarrett2

StanBarrett2
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 13 January 2017 - 18:32

 

Hello everyone.

 

 

Does anyone know if Bamsey's book '1000 BHP Grand Prix Cars' contain any information on the engine?

 

 

I've just leafed through Bamsey's book again............Nothing on the Ferrari 4 in it.

 

macoran



#5 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,935 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 13 January 2017 - 20:02

Forghieri's demise at Ferrari is - of course with Ferrari - a complex matter, the culmination of an entire accumulation of perceived errors, slights, irritations, involving many members of staff, both senior-to and junior-to Forghieri himself. At the time Ferrari had become an even higher-pressure cooker than had been the case for many years. Many staff members proved to be highly political animals (and it grieves me to recall the belief that Harvey P himself, who I was proud to count as a friend, was also pretty active politically there).  Amongst all the manoeuvrings, many recalled Forghieri's absolute insistence that ground-effect aerodynamics were being publicised by the British-led garagistes more as a smokescreen to camouflage final-drive advances than as promotion of a genuinely advantageous technology. The team mechanics referred to ground-effect tunnel flows as "l'effeto Bolognese" which is an amusingly off-colour reference to a legendary (and possibly mythical) particular speciality of cooperative girls from Bologna...which for the Saturday-night needy is only 20 minutes or so down the road from Modena...

 

The increasingly vocal anti-Forghieri faction ultimately began to ignore, and then deride the long-time chief engineer's every pronouncement and action.  It got so bad, I believe, that when an arty-farty canopy was added over one of the entrances to the Fiorano F1 building - and it was composed of large-diameter tubes, welded together - it became a standing joke that this was Forghieri's latest design...

 

Mauro might, in reality, have indeed passed his productive sell-by date - but he most certainly deserved far better respect than was accorded him in that rather distasteful twilight period. The problem is - surely - that when you put a couple of hundred of the engineering world's most competitive people into a pressure-cooker, yet despite all their joint commitment and effort they still - every other weekend - very publicly FAIL, then that pressure is going to seek an escape valve.  

 

In 1961 Mauro Forghieri had benefited from that effect. In 1987 he became its victim.

 

DCN

 



#6 guiporsche

guiporsche
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 17

Posted 13 January 2017 - 20:42

Dear Doug - thank you very much for your insightful comments - that kind of juicy detail is unfortunately absent from most of the printed word on Ferrari's history out there.

It's a shame that Harvey Postlethwaite never had the time to write his memoirs. Incidentally, I have a gut feeling that all those details about Forghieri's obsession with a 4-cyl Turbo and its failure must have come from Postlethwaite himself. Of course, I might be totally wrong - I was not alive by then and I knew/know none of those historical actors :)

 

Forghieri, though, never really said a bad word about Harvey, either on his bio, or on the testimonial he left at: http://harveypostlet...t_forghieri.php.

There seems to be a correlation between Enzo's decreasing health, Fiat's administration attempts to increase their control on the Reparto Corse, and the increasing power battles inside the team - Forghieri finally paid the price of being the symbol of the old regime (which also included his hybrid chassis, ergo canopies).

 

Regarding ground effects, after reading Forghieri's bio and other comments he has made through the time (he regularly writes here http://www.formulapa...auro-forghieri/), I'm not surprised by that example of his distaste for what he always deemed a violation of the rules. Although I'm quite sure you're the first to reveal Mauro's belief that ground effects were merely a "smokescreen to camouflage final-drive advances"!

As for the "effetto bolognese", it reminds me of my trips to Bologna when I lived in nearby Florence, and of my surprise at seeing how the former's streets became quite 'lively' after the sun went down...

 

Also, thank you Henri and Stan very much for the info regarding Bamsey's book: basing on Henri's description of it remains a valuable source of info, I guess I'll have to find a copy for myself  :)


Edited by guiporsche, 13 January 2017 - 21:27.


#7 guiporsche

guiporsche
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 17

Posted 13 January 2017 - 21:25

I've only realized now that today is actually 'Furia's' birthday - the 82nd, so auguri to him!



#8 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 13,644 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 January 2017 - 21:34


Regarding ground effects, after reading Forghieri's bio and other comments he has made through the time (he regularly writes here http://www.formulapa...auro-forghieri/), I'm not surprised by that example of his distaste for what he always deemed a violation of the rules. Although I'm quite sure you're the first to reveal Mauro's belief that ground effects were merely a "smokescreen to camouflage final-drive advances"!

 

I can add a bit to the story you mention here.

Austrian writer and F1 journalist Heinz PrĂ¼ller writes and annual about the F1 seasons since 1972, that the earliest one I have seen.

In his 1977 annual he  describes how the opposition is baffled about the corner speeds of the Lotus 78 and assumes that it has something to do with all kind of chassis tricks Mario Andretti brought over from the USAC championship, Then there was a rumour about the Lotus possibly having a very special differential. PrĂ¼ller then described that Hans Stuck had a connection with the company that built the Lotus gearbox components and he then found out that there was indeed a special differential involved. Mind you, this all happened in the last Lauda&Ferrari title year with Forghieri's 312T2.

 

Now, I don't recall anomore where I have read the following. Maybe it was also in the '77 PrĂ¼ller or parhaps it Doug's book "Team Lotus" about the different cars built in the Chapman era of the one and only true Lotus F1 team.

However, Lotus was kind of letting this news escape as well and overrating the influence of this differential massively in order to wrongfoot the opposition for at least one more year so that they did not search too much into the potential of ground effects of which the '77 Lotus Type 78 was of course the pioneer, even if many rate the 79 as the first genuine ground effects car.

Maybe Doug can fill us in on details I put down incorrect or have missed on?

 

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 January 2017 - 21:35.


#9 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,744 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 January 2017 - 22:14

I've only realized now that today is actually 'Furia's' birthday - the 82nd, so auguri to him!

 

02_IMG_4725sc.jpg

 

Happy Birthday Mr Forghieri, I know the fan club for the ‘Spazzaneve’ is small but I have been fascinated by it ever since I first saw it in the mags in 1972 and to date, thanks to another TNFer, it is the only F1 Ferrari I have had the pleasure of sitting in, or rather on.



#10 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,738 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 January 2017 - 22:47

I can add a bit to the story you mention here.

Austrian writer and F1 journalist Heinz PrĂ¼ller writes and annual about the F1 seasons since 1972, that the earliest one I have seen.

In his 1977 annual he  describes how the opposition is baffled about the corner speeds of the Lotus 78 and assumes that it has something to do with all kind of chassis tricks Mario Andretti brought over from the USAC championship, Then there was a rumour about the Lotus possibly having a very special differential. PrĂ¼ller then described that Hans Stuck had a connection with the company that built the Lotus gearbox components and he then found out that there was indeed a special differential involved. Mind you, this all happened in the last Lauda&Ferrari title year with Forghieri's 312T2.

 

Now, I don't recall anomore where I have read the following. Maybe it was also in the '77 PrĂ¼ller or parhaps it Doug's book "Team Lotus" about the different cars built in the Chapman era of the one and only true Lotus F1 team.

However, Lotus was kind of letting this news escape as well and overrating the influence of this differential massively in order to wrongfoot the opposition for at least one more year so that they did not search too much into the potential of ground effects of which the '77 Lotus Type 78 was of course the pioneer, even if many rate the 79 as the first genuine ground effects car.

Maybe Doug can fill us in on details I put down incorrect or have missed on?

 

 

Henri

 

It is interesting to read in Niki Lauda's autobiography from 1977 Ferrari (and the other teams) had no bloody idea why the Lotus was so fast... The McLaren-engineers had a suspicion, because they once tested plastic skirts in that season, it did not work obviously because the car still had no venturi's...



#11 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,935 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 13 January 2017 - 23:40

Pretty much as Henri recalls... Andretti brought the notion of a racing car being drivable on a road course even with a locked or zero-slip diff, so long as the rest of the system was set up in the right way. It contributed a small percentage lap time saving, and once "the Mosquito wing sections" began to fly thanks to adequate peripheral sealing, the ground-effect contributed far more.  Bob Dance, I believe, recalls being instructed by ACBC to cover the gearbox whenever it was removed from the car, as part of a theatrical act to focus attention upon it as being crucial to the Lotus 'secret', and thereby to divert attention from those underwing venturi tunnels.  Under the regulations as they then stood, Formula 1 could still be an entertaining game - steely-eyed, yet with a twinkle....  Does one detect a twinkle today?  Frankly, I am not sure of the answer.   :cool:

 

DCN


Edited by Doug Nye, 13 January 2017 - 23:40.


#12 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 13,644 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 January 2017 - 09:00

Pretty much as Henri recalls... Andretti brought the notion of a racing car being drivable on a road course even with a locked or zero-slip diff, so long as the rest of the system was set up in the right way. It contributed a small percentage lap time saving, and once "the Mosquito wing sections" began to fly thanks to adequate peripheral sealing, the ground-effect contributed far more.  Bob Dance, I believe, recalls being instructed by ACBC to cover the gearbox whenever it was removed from the car, as part of a theatrical act to focus attention upon it as being crucial to the Lotus 'secret', and thereby to divert attention from those underwing venturi tunnels.  Under the regulations as they then stood, Formula 1 could still be an entertaining game - steely-eyed, yet with a twinkle....  Does one detect a twinkle today?  Frankly, I am not sure of the answer.   :cool:

 

DCN

 

 

OMG.....

 

I've managed to derail the Ligier-Alfa thread with a simple reminder about even Ferrari actually building a turbocharged fourcylinder F1 engine.....

A new thread is started about that particular engine and I manage to derail that thread as well by bringing up something about the secretive behaviour at Lotus about the ground effects secrets remaining a secret.

Wonder what I will achieve if a new thread on that Lotus subject is opened.....    ;)

 

Anyway, thanks Doug for filling in on this story, much appreciated.

A little detail I also recall from the PrĂ¼ller, the opposition was thinking about a defferential related reason because the Lotus was said to have a tremendous acceleration on which moments the nose raised slightly but noticable.

 

Guiporsche, sorry for derailing this thread. But I hope that you won't mind too much about it because it might explain a bit more about the trap Mauro Forghieri appears to have fallen in an caused some of his doings and nondoings....

 

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 14 January 2017 - 09:01.


#13 guiporsche

guiporsche
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: January 17

Posted 14 January 2017 - 14:43

No worries at all Henri! Reading threads like these is tantamount to spending an afternoon in a well-stacked library. You never know what you'll find, but for sure you'll learn a lot  :clap:

 

Regarding the Forghieri debacle, I went back to his bio, and actually (how did I miss that), he blames both Piccinini AND Postlethwaite for not standing by him. Regarding the latter, he clearly admired his skills and thought him to be a good bloke, but also felt somewhat aggrieved and betrayed after supporting his coming to Ferrari and work there:

 

'Alcuni tra i miei uomini, quelli che avevano vinto con me e che io avevo portato a certe posizioni, purtroppo non mi difendevano. Tra questi Harvey Postlethwaite, che rispettavo e che io stesso avevo voluto nel 1981 per la sua competenza in campo chimico. Ma sopratutto Marco Piccinini [...]. Thtat's p.223 of Forghieri's bio, in the original Italian edition of course.

 

I'm quite glad to have opened this thread, as it astonishes me that such a major figure of F1 and Ferrari history like Forghieri is basically ignored these days. More attention is given to rubbish F1 gossip than to the man that designed pretty much all of 1961-84 Ferrari racing cars. Even Motor Sport and Autosprint failed to mention his birthday in their websites. In any case, at least Formula Passion published a nice tribute, and it seems they're organizing a commemorative lunch with him today. I wouldn't mind being there to ask him a few questions :)

 

http://www.formulapa...a-del-successo/


Edited by guiporsche, 14 January 2017 - 15:11.


#14 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 14 January 2017 - 16:31

 

Regarding the Forghieri debacle, I went back to his bio, and actually (how did I miss that), he blames both Piccinini AND Postlethwaite for not standing by him. Regarding the latter, he clearly admired his skills and thought him to be a good bloke, but also felt somewhat aggrieved and betrayed after supporting his coming to Ferrari and work there:

 

Thtat's p.223 of Forghieri's bio, in the original Italian edition of course.

 

I'm quite glad to have opened this thread, as it astonishes me that such a major figure of F1 and Ferrari history like Forghieri is basically ignored these days. More attention is given to rubbish F1 gossip than to the man that designed pretty much all of 1961-84 Ferrari racing cars. Even Motor Sport and Autosprint failed to mention his birthday in their websites. In any case, at least Formula Passion published a nice tribute, and it seems they're organizing a commemorative lunch with him today. I wouldn't mind being there to ask him a few questions :)

 

http://www.formulapa...a-del-successo/

I agree with that. I just re-read the bio in English, and found it a subjective yet extremely interesting  account of Forghieri's years at Ferrari. Regarding his transfer from the racing department he claims second guessing on his designs by a number of engineers and individuals appointed by him, or by FIAT and a decline into complete chaos as the 1984 season progressed, caused his departure. A sick and dispirited Enzo Ferrari no longer retained the will and determination to support his Racing Director against such intrigues. He says he offered his resignation and in a stormy meeting with Ferrari a switch to the Engineering Dept was agreed to; this Forghierir states only as a show of respect for the man he had worked with for so long.

I see no mention of a 4 cy car under design in this personal account, perhaps he simply left it out.

 

I agree that a figure such as Forghieri cannot be ignored; he is often singled out as the last designer capable of doing a complete F1 car; he deserves much better treatment.



#15 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,591 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 January 2017 - 16:39

It is interesting to read in Niki Lauda's autobiography from 1977 Ferrari (and the other teams) had no bloody idea why the Lotus was so fast... The McLaren-engineers had a suspicion, because they once tested plastic skirts in that season, it did not work obviously because the car still had no venturi's...

Under car downforce does not rely solely on venturi... I recall that DCN describes use of lateral skirts by Brabham and McLaren in 1976 on flat bottomed cars.

 

My wish for the New Year is to put a Lotus 78 in a modern wind tunnel with a few experts measuring how it works. Possibly with a few experts explaining how it worked even better on the track than in a wind tunnel.



#16 PeterElleray

PeterElleray
  • Member

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 January 2017 - 20:39

Yes, I'd be up for that, if someone has a budget for it...

 

I think it actually worked better in the tunnel than on the track, but that's another story ..



#17 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,591 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 January 2017 - 20:50

Do you know anything about skirts on pre-ground effect cars, Peter?



#18 PeterElleray

PeterElleray
  • Member

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 January 2017 - 21:19

Yes, a little - more than one way of using them though, which cars are you thinking of?



#19 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,591 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 January 2017 - 21:46

McLaren and Brabham allegedly used lateral skirts before the ground effects Lotus 78. Skirts trailing behind the front wheel axis.

 

You might use skirts to flip up air through radiators or to move air over the body. Maybe Gordon Murray used tricks to push down Brabhams in 1975/76/77.



Advertisement

#20 PeterElleray

PeterElleray
  • Member

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 January 2017 - 21:57

Those skirts were used to stop air passing under the car. There was sometimes  a hidden v shaped element under the footbox.

 

Downforce results from the negative pressure under the car . There is no diffuser as such.

 

The rear wake helps, as it influences the pressure forwards of it.

 

The car usually has to be run with quite a bit of rake to make this work.

 

Making the skirts last was not easy

 

I would have thought this was quite pitch and ride height sensitive - Chapman had the better idea, but i'm not sure that the 78 made the most of it - or the 79 come to that....



#21 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,591 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 January 2017 - 22:22

Making the skirts last was not easy

Any idea who made the first working skirt? Lotus tried brushes so it was not a trivial problem.



#22 PeterElleray

PeterElleray
  • Member

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 January 2017 - 23:34

Do you mean the flexible skirts that preceeded the sliding skirts?

 

Well, ignoring the work of Jim Hall and GM in the late 1960's/1970, and just looking at their adoption in F1 in the 1970's:

 

As you say earlier, both McLaten and Brabham appear to have been the first to use the flexible skirts, during 1974, and  both claiming the credit for that (!) but i don't think anyone ever overcame the wear issue fully (you probably can't) , although both teams continued to use them through 1978, until they came out with sliding skirt designs on the BT48 and M28 respectively in 1979. So i guess those skirts 'worked', at least well enough to retain them. Others copied to varying degres through 76/77/78.

 

The Lotus 78 ran with pivoting, flexible skirts in its later races, those seemed to work quite well.

 

Sliding skirts are another story. I don't believe Lotus were the first to use them, i have read varying reports that it was either Fittipaldi (F5A) or Wolf (Mk.2) although Lotus were first to apply them to a ground effect, or tunnel car. Annoyingly I have not been able to confirm the Wolf - Fittipaldi  connection, I think that makes a good excuse to delve into the contemporary reports in the next few days...,

 

It might not be an exageration to say that nobody got those working well until 1979, when Williams, Ligier and Brabham, seemed to have the best handle on them