268 replies to this topic

[WonderWoman61]

From bad car designs, to team or driver performance that lead to poor results and sanctioning bodies making new regulations that later destroyed a series is the point for this thread.

[flatlandsman]

Mercedes at Le Mans in 99 is a great start!

 

Subaru flat 12 in F1 Porsche V12

Suzuki in WRC just as it imploded!

 

the demise of DTM and the way germans always manage to totally overspend in the pursuit of dominance

 

And the way BTCC somehow allowed Supertouting to get completely out of control

[WonderWoman61]

The Monte Carlo 001-Cosworth

Or the Life L190 of International Formula 3000. In the hands of Fulvio Ballabio, the car's sole outing at Imola in the 1986 F3000 Season saw it not only fail to qualify but it was also bog last of the 36 entrants. Its fastest time? 3 minutes, 4.8 seconds! 1 minute, 25 seconds off the pace of the March of pole-sitter (and eventual Champion) Ivan Capelli, 1 minute, 11.5 seconds off the pace of the Dollop Racing Marches (i.e. a team that only made the F3000 grid once in two years of trying, and on this occasion, were slower than everyone else). The car is said to have suffered from gearbox problems but still, similar things could be said about the Life at the same circuit four years later! Not surprisingly, Ballabio and the Monte Carlo made no further appearances, though it has been said that the team's transporter crashed down a ravine and caught fire on the journey home from Imola, thus ruling out further appearances anyway.

Though having said all of the above, the car's performance (or lack thereof) can be explained by the stories behind it. For one, some stories claim it was originally intended to race in the 1985 F3000 Season so it was already a year old before its appearance at Imola. Also, the car had its origins in the unraced Dywa 010 F1 car, which was originally designed in 1983 (although some stories suggest it was 1980), which in turn, was the successor to the Dywa 008 that pulled out of the only race it ever entered after qualifying (The 1980 Gran Premio Della Lotteria at Monza) after Piercarlo Ghinzani's fastest time was 36.5 seconds off the pace of Emilio de Villota's RAM Racing Williams and nearly 21.5 seconds off the pace of a trio of Formula 2 Chevrons that were the next slowest qualifiers!

All in all, that's what you get for basing your car on a chassis that was already several years out of date but was also based on a car that was described as "a relic from an O-level metalwork class" and put together by a team that "lacked professionalism", according to their driver. After all, this is the same Piercarlo Ghinzani who felt it was better to be in F1 at the tail-end than not in F1 at all! To me, that's even worse than the "interesting flowerpot" that the FIRST F189 was described as before it was reborn as the Life L190!

[chr1s]

The Michelin tyre debacle at the 2005 US Grand Prix, various  track surfaces that disintegrated,  Zolder 73',  Spa 85'  Dallas 84'  Buenos Aires 1980 etc, and as for design cock ups, how about the Lotus type 76, and 80 the Brabham BT55, the Ferrari 312T5 and F93A, the Wolf Willams, i'm sure there are many many more. 

Edited by chr1s, 19 September 2023 - 21:01.

[Bikr7549]

The BRM H-16 engine has to fall into this category. A huge investment, and an interesting idea, but except for one win (in a Lotus chassis) and a handful of finishes it never made it, and only was used for 2 seasons. 

[sabrejet]

Sadly the Aston Martin AMR-One (not to be confused with the utterly awesome AMR-1) has to be included.

 

Lesser miscreants should include Nissan GT-R LM Nismo and Norma M6. I suppose the Max Boxstrom 962 for Schuppan should also be in the pile. Since Max had a hand in the utterly awesome AMR-1 (not to be confused with the awful AMR-One), I'll forgive him that one.

[Dick Dastardly]

Luca Badoer's 2 race performances for Ferrari in 2009, substituting for Massa....

[Jerem]

The McLaren MP4/18. Newey's draft for blown diffuser and one of the very few times he got it really wrong.

[Jackmancer]

MasterCard Lola, and also the BAR from 1999? 

[john aston]

After Lotus' dominance in 1978 with the 78 and especially the lovely 79 , the  Lotus 80 was expected further to exploit ground effect downforce . Under Colin  Chapman's leadership what could go wrong ? What did go wrong was that Patrick Head designed the car the Lotus was expected to have been . 

[WonderWoman61]

Sadly the Aston Martin AMR-One (not to be confused with the utterly awesome AMR-1) has to be included.
 
Lesser miscreants should include Nissan GT-R LM Nismo and Norma M6. I suppose the Max Boxstrom 962 for Schuppan should also be in the pile. Since Max had a hand in the utterly awesome AMR-1 (not to be confused with the awful AMR-One), I'll forgive him that one.

The MGN W12 engine was the real reason for the failure of the Norma M6. The AGS F1 team really dodged a bullet there.

[Brackets]

What is wrong with you people!? This is the Nissan Deltawing thread.

[flatlandsman]

I do not see either Nissan as a failure.

 

Why?  Because in part after years of dissing endurance racing, that era captured my imagination, I loved that LMP1 Nissan it was so bold, so dramatic. yes it did not do as it should but in reality the plug was pulled before it ever really got the chance to show it's true speed.

 

the Deltawing was a fabulous, bold thing, I love stuff like that and would never see them as failures.  Far more of a failure is a generic GP2 or GP3, utterly dull, unimaginative, uninspiring, sounds awful.

 

You cannot call them a failure but you can call them a few things!

[Collombin]

Those Kurtis Indy roadsters with the engine and driveshaft offset to the right.

[Bloggsworth]

The BRM H-16 engine has to fall into this category. A huge investment, and an interesting idea, but except for one win (in a Lotus chassis) and a handful of finishes it never made it, and only was used for 2 seasons. 

What! It was always a b. stupid idea, like an engine concieved duting Bill and Teds's excellent adventure - What distorted imagination ever thought it would be as light a simple V8, or even a V12?

[john aston]

Possibly the same imagination which Renault employed in using an unreliable, largely unproven V6 turbo of half the capacity of the dominant DFV in 1977 ,  Honda applied in creating a V10 in 1989, or Ferrari in designing a paddleshift box the same year  ? Not every step into the unknown is successful . 

[Myhinpaa]

The failed Yamaha 5-valve version of the Cosworth DFV (OX77/88)

 

 

 

https://gprejects.co...zakspeed-killer

 

Cosworth's own attempt at making a turbocharged 1.5 litre version of the BD for F1 didn't go too well either.

But that was stopped very early on, and never went past the test bed stage.

 

"Now I¨ll take it to 11 thousand" , Famous last words.... : https://youtu.be/1LkxGx5WJzA?t=939

 

From the brilliant documentary: Equinox - The Cosworth V6 Turbo for the 1986 F1 Season.

 

 

[WonderWoman61]

What is wrong with you people!? This is the Nissan Deltawing thread.

There's more to this thread than just that.

[jcbc3]

The MGN W12 engine was the real reason for the failure of the Norma M6. The AGS F1 team really dodged a bullet there.

 

Looking after the Norma on the net wiki said that it is currently wall decoration in the Norma Factory. And lo and behold there's even a picture floating around the net:

 

Spoiler

[Charlieman]

The BRM H-16 engine has to fall into this category. A huge investment, and an interesting idea, but except for one win (in a Lotus chassis) and a handful of finishes it never made it, and only was used for 2 seasons. 

The thing about failure is that a team can have a little bit of success and still be driving down a blind alley. The Ferrari 3.0 litre V12 engine was good enough when it was up against other interim engines of that era -- Repco V8, Maserati V12, stretched small capacity racing engines etc. Like the Maserati engine, its heritage was in the 1950s and its lifespan was bound to be brief. Why bother with such a short term measure?

 

The V12's successor was definitely on the right lines and the early 312B cars were worthily successful. And then, with most of the right ingredients in place, Ferrari made everything go wrong for two seasons. Failure comprises many more factors than the most obvious ones.

[D-Type]

Those Kurtis Indy roadsters with the engine and driveshaft offset to the right.

Yes, they only dominated the 500 for about 15 years.

[D-Type]

The Aston Martin DBR4 and DBR5:  too long in development so when it emerged it was overweight and outmoded with front engines when the world had moved to rear engines; fundamental design flaws with the use of metals with different coefficients of expansion overlooked; inadequate budget (Aston Martin weren't the richest of companies).

[10kDA]

Yes, they only dominated the 500 for about 15 years.

Those were the ones with the engine and driveline offset to the left.

[flatlandsman]

That Yamaha V8 was also house in a truly beautiful car the 891 Zakspeed, a car I think one of the prettiest ever made! It has to be said the V12 was not much better from Yamaha. 

[rl1856]

Bugatti revival car with a transverse straight 8 engine

c1959-60 Vanwall

Scarab

Ferguson P99

ATS

Anything Serenisima

Derrington Francis

Anything 4wd (various)

Brabham Alfa (c1971)

Lotus 56

Tecno flat 12

Amon building his own car

Hill GH1

BRM P201

Copersucar

Tyrell P34 c1977

Haas Lola

Lamborghini 

Suburu (I think they were involved in a F1 engine program ?)

 

I am sure I missed a few....

[Charlieman]

I think it is a bit snide to include low budget projects such as Derrington Francis. A failure should be something which ought to have worked, rather than a venture to go racing on a semi-professional basis.

 

Some excellent suggestions for post WWII cars. I'd add the ERA G-type.

 

Pre-war, I nominate the final Bugatti GP cars (Type 51 onwards). The 1926 Delage 1.5 litre was a splendid failure which became a splendid success. The Voisin Laboratoire was bonkers or visionary or a combination of the two.

 

Controversially perhaps, I propose the Multi-Union II. Based on an Alfa Romeo, Multi-Union I was a special; it was an Alfa with a few tweeks. Its successor incorporated enough custom parts to place it beyond a special, and its speed at Brooklands demonstrated that the design was right. It was a failure because it never performed on a road circuit in period. 

[Sterzo]

1934 SEFAC. C'était pour la gloire, but there wasn't any.

[WonderWoman61]

The Aston Martin DBR4 and DBR5:  too long in development so when it emerged it was overweight and outmoded with front engines when the world had moved to rear engines; fundamental design flaws with the use of metals with different coefficients of expansion overlooked; inadequate budget (Aston Martin weren't the richest of companies).

The first Aston Martin F1 team of 1959 and 1960. Their first car, the DBR4 was originally penned in 1956 and tested in 1957 but didn't actually enter until 1959 as the marque prioritised development of the DBR1 sportscar that went on to win the 1959 Le Mans 24 Hours. By that time, the front -engined DBR4 was obsolete and mustered no better than a pair of 6th places from Roy Salvadori at a time when only the top 5 were awarded points, although Salvadori did manage to qualify 2nd at Aintree and came 2nd in the non-championship International Trophy. The team built another front-engined machine for 1960, the DBR5, which proved even less competitive and only appeared at Zandvoort (refusing to start when the race organisers wouldn't pay them) and Silverstone before pulling out for good.

[Charlieman]

1934 SEFAC. C'était pour la gloire, but there wasn't any.

Sterzo went to see the SEFAC

But he got to SEFAC at all

[10kDA]

Everything single-seat and 5 liter made by Lola with intentions to offer improved customer cars over their own "obsolete" T330-based items.

[PCC]

After Lotus' dominance in 1978 with the 78 and especially the lovely 79 , the  Lotus 80 was expected further to exploit ground effect downforce . Under Colin  Chapman's leadership what could go wrong ? What did go wrong was that Patrick Head designed the car the Lotus was expected to have been . 

Not quite as drastic a decline, but the Ferrari 312T5 scored a grand total of 8 points in 1980, finishing behind the likes of Fittipaldi and Arrows. This was the year after its predecessor won 6 races, the drivers' championship (finishing 1-2) and, obviously, the constructors'.

 

Year-after-year domination seemed much harder then. Compare to today, when the last 13 WDCs (14 if you count this year, the result of which is not in doubt) have been won by two teams.

[10kDA]

The Eagle Aviation Flyer, entered at Indianapolis 1982:

 

 

 

[sabrejet]

What is wrong with you people!? This is the Nissan Deltawing thread.

 

The Nissan DeltaWing proved that a small, lower-powered car could easily compete with the LMP2s: with more development it could have achieved more than it did. It also proved the "it won't go round corners" idiots wrong and I'd suggest that in some cases its size was its downfall in races since it was harder to see and/or gauge clearances around.

 

The car in its various iterations deserves to be celebrated too for being a brave attempt at breaking the mould. It failed to win a race: so what? Many other race cars achieve that but are not seen as failures.

[vesy427]

What about the BRM V16 ?

[airbox]

All this talk of Nissan reminds me of the Nissan GT-R LM Nismo from 2015.

 

A front engine LMP-1 car, it had lots of advance publicity (including an ad during the Super Bowl) but the team missed their scheduled first race and the car also failed mandatory crash tests. The team appeared at Le Mans but were at the back of the LMP1 class (and slower than the fastest LMP2 car). Out of the 3 cars entered 1 finished the race but wasn't classified as it had completed less than 70% of the winning car distance.  

 

Never raced again and the program was formally canned in December of that year.

[blackmme]

Surely the Lotus 63 qualifies?
A complete technical dead end.

Regards Mike

[MCS]

Honda RA302 - a terrible, tragic failure.

[427MkIV]

The Dodge Magnum in NASCAR. What a pathetic end to Mopar's stock car run. At least until Evernham partnered with them and brought out the Charger.

[brucemoxon]

Scarab F1? A great concept, but took too long and was obsolete before it debuted. 



BRM

[10kDA]

Lotus 58

[Seppi_0_917PA]

The Nethercutt Mirage:

[Lee Nicolle]

Sadly the Aston Martin AMR-One (not to be confused with the utterly awesome AMR-1) has to be included.

 

Lesser miscreants should include Nissan GT-R LM Nismo and Norma M6. I suppose the Max Boxstrom 962 for Schuppan should also be in the pile. Since Max had a hand in the utterly awesome AMR-1 (not to be confused with the awful AMR-One), I'll forgive him that one.

Lesser?? The 'different' Nissans were simply so wrong and were useless.

[davidbuckden]

After the mediocrity and bland style of the March 701 - though the very act of managing to have five of them on the grid at Kyalami,1970, was remarkable - the following season's 711 was startling in concept and appearance.  The inboard springs and discs and the side mounted rads were - if clearly Lotus 72-inspired - innovative.  The car's nose and elliptical front wing made for a very distinctive look and the aerodynamics were definitely 'experimental.'  And, just to keep up the novelties-count, the car was engineered to run with both the DFV or the Alfa Romeo V8 previously tried by McLaren.  

 

I remember reading on the launch that the 711 chassis was designed around a quest for the 'lowest possible polar moment of inertia' - that sounded very exotic to me at the time.  And if achieved it certainly held out the prospect of some exciting driving, seeing as Ronnie Peterson would be at the wheel!  

 

If you look up the '71 season summary you may wonder why I'm talking about the 711 on this thread because Ron finished as championship runner-up.  However, the car achieved no poles or wins and Ron's accumulation of points was mainly due to four second places. Yes, the 711 was up against JYS in his pomp and in the well-sorted Tyrrell 003, but this rather quirky - and likable - March did not live up to its promise.

Edited by davidbuckden, 21 September 2023 - 17:24.

[flatlandsman]

I do feel people are unjustly horrid about the recent Nissans.

 

On paper it is clear they did not work too well, this is a results business, results are all that matters.

 

Or is it?

 

The publicity Nissan got form that period must have made Porsche, Toyota, Audi wince.  OK it not result in wins, results etc.  But the cars looked amazing, they were well thought out and built, but in reality perhaps a little too creative for their own good.  But for budding designers, engineers, people with a passion for that stuff they were staggering, breathtaking, almost mystical!

 

I know they failed but it depends how you look at failure, clearly NIssan were heavily pulled into the gaming thing, and felt this was the outcome, and the results were poor.

 

But I would imagine there are countless people in the world who look at those cars think not of failure but of inspiration, breaking the mould, design, reinvent the wheel.

 

That for me is not a failure. And let's be fair the LMP1 never really had a chance to even work at it's level, it was pulled before that even happened. 

Edited by flatlandsman, 21 September 2023 - 08:20.

[B Squared]

Lotus 56

I see your point in mentioning the Lotus 56, but it was good enough for USAC to rewrite its rule book. Started Indy 1968 1-2 and was nine laps from victory if Leonard could have withstood B. Unser's late challenge following a yellow flag restart.

 

American Comment August 1968 - Motor Sport Magazine

 

[rl1856]

I see your point in mentioning the Lotus 56, but it was good enough for USAC to rewrite its rule book. Started Indy 1968 1-2 and was nine laps from victory if Leonard could have withstood B. Unser's late challenge following a yellow flag restart.

 

American Comment August 1968 - Motor Sport Magazine

 

 

I should have clarified my point to be use in F1 in 1971.   The 56 was very successful at Indy.

[rl1856]

Bugatti revival car with a transverse straight 8 engine

c1959-60 Vanwall

Scarab

Ferguson P99

ATS

Anything Serenisima

Derrington Francis

Anything 4wd (various)

Brabham Alfa (c1971)

Lotus 56

Tecno flat 12

Amon building his own car

Hill GH1

BRM P201

Copersucar

Tyrell P34 c1977

Haas Lola

Lamborghini 

Suburu (I think they were involved in a F1 engine program ?)

 

I am sure I missed a few....

 

Ferrari 625 Squalo and Super Squalo-   given the dominance of the preceding 500, the relative failure of the 625 series was a bit shocking

Ferrari 1512 c65  Flat 12

 

Lotus 30 / Lotus 40

"Honker"

Chaparal 2H

Original Shadow CanAm

Ferrari 612 CanAm

BRM CanAm

 

[Tom Glowacki]

Any Mickey Thompson Indy car after the original 1962 Buick powered cars.  The 1977 Eagle "side hack".  The Len Terry designed "King Cobra"

Edited by Tom Glowacki, 28 September 2023 - 14:06.

[Sterzo]

Sterzo went to see the SEFAC

But he got to SEFAC at all

I always wondered how WB got that joke past the Lord's Day-observing Mr Tee. Similarly, the story quoting a women's magazine's advice to hang used tennis balls on string in your garage, so you could see where to stop, which he headed: "Old Balls."       

[d j fox]

1981 Le Mans with at least three “ bad ‘uns”
Ardex S80 BMW, Lola Porsche T600 and the dreadful McLaren 6GT bodied Can Am car .. all of which dnq’d