7 replies to this topic

[Megatron]

There are many Lotus machines that devote a lot of intrigue. The 33, 49, 72, 78, and 79, that were ground breaking. Then there are interesting but ultimately failing concepts such as the 56B, 63 and 64 4wd machines, 76 with its electronic clutch, 80 with its underbody totally devoted to ground effect, and the 88 with its double chassis.

But one of my all time favorites is the overlooked Lotus BRM H16 43 that ran in 66 and early 67. OK, it wasn't technically perfect or the most successful of the Lotus line, but it DID manage to do the impossible and take Jim Clark to victory in the 66 USGP at the Glen with BRM's...erm...interesting H16 which was underpowered and overweight.

I find it fasinating because Chapman always tried to make his cars as light and small as possible. But now he had the biggest engine on the grid to work with! It looks like a 49 on steriods but I find it a beautiful machine.

Anyone else like the looks of the Lotus 43?

[Bernd]

No!

And make no mistake it took the driving genius of Jim Clark to take that slug of a car to a victory using an engine that JYS described as being good for one thing........ an anchor.

[Vitesse2]

Have to agree with you there Bernd - the 43 was ugly and ungainly. IIRC Chapman said something along the lines of "We knew we had a weight problem with the engine when it took four mechanics to get it off the lorry" In fact, the engine, transmission and rear suspension together exceeded the minimum weight for the formula.

[Rainer Nyberg]

The '43' lived on spiritually in the '49'. They had much in common and the '49' was a developed '43' with a much improved engine...
The '43' did have the cumbersome BRM H16 while the '49' enjoyed the gem from Cosworth.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Have to agree with you there Bernd - the 43 was ugly and ungainly. IIRC Chapman said something along the lines of "We knew we had a weight problem with the engine when it took four mechanics to get it off the lorry" In fact, the engine, transmission and rear suspension together exceeded the minimum weight for the formula.

I've often wondered what proportion of the total weight those components represent. The monocoque and the front suspension can't have accounted for very much by comparison. Tony Rudd was convinced that the 1968 H16 would have been close to the weight limit. Unfortunately tey never got to build it!

[Megatron]

You mean there was actually a thought of considering a newer H16?

[Don Capps]

THere was a "lightweight" H-16 which never saw the grid....

[Roger Clark]

BRM showed the lightweight H16 to the press in early 1969 when they had already abandoned the project. It weighed 405lbs, 100lbs less than the orginal engine. It had four separate cylinder heads with four valves per cylinder. The inlet ports were between the heads, not between the camshafts of a cylinder bank as on the original engine. They claimed that the new engine had run at up to 12,000rpm for some 20 hours without trouble. I doubt whether it was ever installed in a car.

This was announced at their pre-season press conference. They also said that the new 48-valve V12 was about to be tested and was expected to give 420 bhp: "If it doesn't", said John Surtees, "I'm taking a Ford engine to South Africa as hand luggage".

An interesting twist on another recent thread.