18 replies to this topic

[Simon Bundi]

I've often heard that paddocks were in the late sixties/early seventies like campgrounds. Does someone have a picture of such a paddock?

Is this really right?

Simon Bundi

[clickhappy]

I think it was really more dependent on the track. Most of the european tracks had 'real' facilities, but I have seen early pictures from Watkins Glen where the cars and mechanics were working in an open field...

[Rob Ryder]

I am glad you said 'most' European tracks

Check out these 2 pictures from Brands Hatch in 1971. I wonder if modern F1 teams could handle all of that open space to work in


 

Edited by Rob Ryder, 11 April 2019 - 15:30.

[oldtimer]

A bit more space at Silverstone than at Brands, but the atmosphere was the same as in the photos. The Goodwood paddock area had a mixture of grass and gravel underfoot in those days, or at least in the 50s.

BTW, are those oil or catch(!) tanks on the rear of those BRMs?

[MPea3]

catch tanks? good lord... i've heard of oil loss, but that would be pretty serious.

;)

since those engines were dry sump engines, wouldn;t they be oil tanks?

[oldtimer]

Having learnt today from Karl Ludvigsen's column that the current BMW engine consumes 3 to 4 litres of oil per race just got me thinking about catch-tanks. Eye-balling, the tanks on the BRMs look about 20-25 litres in capacity, so an oil tank makes sense. But hanging a 20KG weight off the rear of the car?

[MPea3]

Originally posted by oldtimer
Having learnt today from Karl Ludvigsen's column that the current BMW engine consumes 3 to 4 litres of oil per race just got me thinking about catch-tanks. Eye-balling, the tanks on the BRMs look about 20-25 litres in capacity, so an oil tank makes sense. But hanging a 20KG weight off the rear of the car?

on the BRM it might have actually made it easier to drive... slower, but easier to drive!

[Barry Boor]

Definitely an oil TANK! Most F1 cars around that time had their tanks at the back.

Here is a similar set-up on a more obscure car from around that era.

[david_martin]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Here is a similar set-up on a more obscure car from around that era.

Barry, would that be the famous Connew oil tank, per chance?

[Catalina Park]

Barry maybe it would have been a different story if the car had driveshafts:D

[Simon Bundi]

Thanks a lot for these pictures. I think it's one of the last pictures of Seppi Siffert. Is it not?

Simon

[Rob Ryder]

Correct Simon

I took the picture on the morning the Victory Race and a few hours later Seppi was no longer with us.

[BRG]

These were definitely oil tanks - later on, when teams started to design their own transmissions, rather than buying Hewlands off the shelf, designers started to package the oil tank into the bell housing. I am trying to remember who did that first - it may have been Tyrell.

[Rob Ryder]

IIRC the P160 did not use the Hewland gearbox. BRM made their own boxes 'in house' for most of their F1 cars. Alex Stokes was the man responsible I think.

[Barry Boor]

Drive-shafts? Who needed drive-shafts? There were no pistons in the engine, no cogs in the gearbox and no fuel tanks in the chassis! Why on earth would anyone need drive-shafts?

[oldtimer]

So I guess there was no oil in the oil-tank. Out of interest, what was its capacity, and was it normal for a DFV?

[Barry Boor]

Spot-on there, O.T. As for capacity, er, I suppose the best answer I could give is 'enough'. The next time I speak to Peter I'll ask him if he remembers, though I rather doubt he will. As I recall we just made it to fit where we wanted it to fit, not really worrying about capacity as long as there was enough in there.

[MOTORSPORT RESORT]

How did this thread change from "Paddock Images" to Oil Tanks?
I would love to see more photo's of "period" paddock scenes..!
speedy@f1power.com

[oldtimer]

How?? Because this ex-Brit was well educated in the art of drawing 'red herrings' across a discussion. Mind you, this forum has many others who are more than well practiced at the art.