44 replies to this topic

[Rainer Nyberg]

The turbo thread got me thinking...

I think it is quite surprising that it took until '77 before Renault brought turbos into the 3-litre formula introduced in '66.

Especially knowing that many teams struggled to find a proper engine in '66. I mean they ran 2-litre BRM's. Would it not have maked sence to install a turbo on the 1.5 BRM V8 instead of boring it out to merely 2.0 litres? Maserati even brought out a 10 year old engine from the mid 50s.

Also all the Climax engines, both fours and V8's could well have been developed to run with a blower? And why not the Ferraris ?

After all, turbocharging was not a new technology during the mid 1960s. The F1 engine development was surprisingly conservative until the Renault arrived on the scene in '77. Seems like the Cosworth dynasty was keeping everyone happy and it was not until the manufacturers took some serious interest, the development gathered some pace.

[ensign14]

I know sweet FA about engines, but didn't the regulations refer to supercharged 1.5 litre engines? And there is an argument that a turbo is not a supercharger, but may be an auxiliary engine and therefore illegal, so no-one bothered to try until Renault - not an existing team - came along? Or is this FOCA propaganda?

BTW, how come the regs allowed 1.5 litre super vs 4.5 litre unsupercharged, 0.75 litre super vs 2.5 litre unsuper etc (i.e. supers having roughly 33% capacity of unsupers), but then changed to 50% capacity in 1966? Had the original 33% ratio been kept (1 litre turbos!) would they ever have come into F1?

[Excell]

Methinks that the Ford DFV seemed to everybody the way to go. Proven, not that expensive, ubiquitous. Somebody (Renault) had to make that first step. It worked out (unlike say the 4WD concepts) and it was adopted by all F1 teams within 5-6 years.

[Ray Bell]

In short, Ensign 14, the naturally aspirated technology had moved miles since 1954. So the parity was altered... note that there were no serious attempts at a 750 engine, a bit of variety that was largely included in the formula because BRM might have a go at a little V8.

Other reasons for the lack of interest were, in the beginning, a total lack of knowledge of the subject. Turbos were just gaining some rare column inches in the odd magazine at the time, not much knowledge existed about them (away from diesels) at all.

Then, when they did come in, lag was a huge issue. Not so much a problem for Le Mans cars, but darty little F1 cars were not expected to put up with it.

As for the potential for BRM or Climax to put a supercharger on a 1.5 V8, that would have meant they had to overcome the memories of the V16 BRM and all of that... turbos would not, as mentioned above, been considered. Ferrari might have done this too, don't forget.

The issue of whether or not a turbocharger might not be allowed was never considered at the beginning, nor when Renault came in, IIRC. That was, from memory, a Tyrrell/Cosworth issue when they were starting to take root.

[Bernd]

It has always stumped me why it took the Automotive industry so long to catch onto the benefits of forced induction. At the time they were so far behind Aviation technology it was amazing.
Aircraft manufacturers were getting amazing outputs out of small capacity supercharged & turbocharged engines even before WWII. It took Formula 1 40 years or so to adapt the monocoque and also took 40 years or so for forced induction.

[Ray Bell]

Thing is, Bernd, that the one serious adoption of aircraft style supercharging to F1 was such an abject failure that it frightened everyone off for all time... and that was the BRM V16.

It was very difficult to drive because the power came on at high revs with such a bang... and there were no turbochargers in aircraft back in those times, I'm sure.

Then again, there was on the Nomad...

http://www.atlasf1.c...s=&postid=25672

But as you'll see, it was a slightly different case... not a turbo to drive the induction system, but to drive the aircraft.

[ray b]

aircraft turbos were used in WW2 in addition to superC
and by the 60's even GM used turbos in road cars
buick/olds 215 alloy v-8 had a turbo in 61-62, that was the same block black jack used
in his 66-67 wcc/wdc cars with repco heads
why nobody tried a turbo on exesting 1.5 motors is a good question
even INDY beat F-1 to useing turbos

[ehagar]

Just a thought...

Aircraft engines run at relatively constant rpm compared to racing cars. Hence the state of the art in the aircraft industry might not be directly applicable.

As for chassis construction, F-1 was about 30 years behind. I think there were some sports cars out there using better construction techniques.

[GunStar]

One thing to remember about equivilancy rates is they were just plucked from the sky. Until the boost was limited, a turbo could do so much more.

In the 60's, they read it as only superchargers, and saw HP used to get just a few more. Maybe not a good deal back then. In the late 70's, rally turbo experience, a lawyer asking a question about superchargers, and a no care attitude due to the initial results, nobody gave them a second thought even then.

Once it all clicked though....

[Frank de Jong]

I think turbocharging took so long since there were not that many works teams with large resources at the time, apart from Ferrari, who's problem was not the engine. The turbocharging used by then was either on a big engine, and/or at a relatively low pressure, so throttle lag was probably not such a problem - I've never heard that the 1969 BMW 2002 TIK with its 280 HP from 2 litres had such a problem. It was unreliable, yes.

Turbocharging was becoming an alternative when the wastegate was added (IIRC Porsche's 917/10 was the first); high-pressure turbocharging smaller racing engines was started by Porsche (2-valve 2.14 engine in 1974), and Renault with its 4-valve 2-litre sportscar (1975). Even then, the power output wasn't much more than a contemporary 3-litre F1 engine, so the step towards a 1.5 turbocharged engine was a big one even in 1976/1977.
Take a look at Schnitzer, engine wizards, who managed "only" 380 HP from a 1.4 turbo BMW engine in 1977. We all know what that engine was capable of only a few years later.

So the step to turbocharging wasn't so obvious perhaps.

[BRG]

I don’t recall even hearing any rumours about turbocharging in F1 prior to the Renault announcement. Usually, there are vague stories that go about telling of radical new projects that then generally come to nothing, but there never any about turbocharging. Even after Porsche and others had proven the concept in various different motorsport applications, there still didn’t seem to be anyone who considered that a 1500cc T/C unit could ever compete with a 3000cc N/A engine. And with the reliable and cheap DFV readily available, and more than capable of beating the best that Ferrari, Matra, etc were able to produce at the time, why would anyone go down the difficult and probably highly expensive route of developing a small turbocharged F1 engine?

Renault in fact probably arrived at the idea by chance more than by design. Their V6 was first produced in n/a from for sportscars where it was hugely successful as it also was in F2. Being French and being in sports-car racing, Renault then had to win Le Mans, which they did by turbocharging the engine. With their F2 success, and a proven turbo charged engine, the step to building a F1 turbo car was not such a big one.

Had Renault started from scratch to design an F1 car, with no other motorsports programmes to draw upon, I very much doubt that they would have attempted the turbo route. And if they had not blazed the trail, I wonder who, if anyone, would have been the turbo pioneers?

[Frank de Jong]

After the initial (and let's not forget, succesfull) Schnitzer 1.4 turbo, others followed, like Zakspeed and Lancia (as well as BMW motorsport - but that one was a prototype for the F1 adventure). Around 1980, competitive HP figures were reached; together with the 4-cilinder shape which was beneficial for a ground-effect car, I think the first turbocar would have reached the track in 1980-1981. A 4-cilinder Ferrari-Lancia, for instance - their 180 V12 was pretty useless by 1980.

[bobbo]

I'm just a bit late getting into this thread, but I would think that the 1.5 litre Climax and BRM engines (and the Ferrari ones, too!) were already pretty well stressed to their maximum and that any added stress from turbos or superchargers would have destroyed them pretty quickly. So, in my uneducated, non-engineer opinion, adding forced induction of the 1.5 litre old F1 engines was pretty well a moot point.

Bobbo

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Other reasons for the lack of interest were, in the beginning, a total lack of knowledge of the subject. Turbos were just gaining some rare column inches in the odd magazine at the time, not much knowledge existed about them (away from diesels) at all.

Dumb... dumb... dumb!

I have forgotten the Corvair completely!

As well as the less well-known Buick/Olds V8... or was it Pontiac?

But these were low-pressure applications, and the Indy usage was more appropriate for the same reasons as in sports cars. Lag was not an issue.

[Rainer Nyberg]

The flat-six turbo of the Corvair Corsa.

[Jhope]

Does anyone have the actual press release from Renault announcing their introduction of a turbocharged engine?

[Vitesse2]

The history of equivalency formulae is odd, to say the least:

1938-9 4.5 litres U/S, 3.0 litres S/C

1947-53 4.5 litres U/S, 1.5 litres S/C

1954-60 2.5 litres U/S, 0.75 litres S/C

1961-65 1.5 litres U/S only

1966 on 3.0 litres U/S, 1.5 litres S/C

I've seen evidence that the 1947 formula was originally proposed as 3.0 litres U/S, 1.5 litres S/C but I'd venture that even the early reappearances of the Alfettas convinced the legislators this was a wrong guess! They could have worked that out if they'd just studied the winning speeds at Tripoli between 1937 and 1940 - in 1937 Lang's winning speed in a 5.66 litre U/S Mercedes W125 was 132.440mph. That dropped to 127.840mph in 1938 in the 3.0 litre S/C W154, but by 1940 Farina had brought it back up to 128.611mph in a car with only half that capacity! The W154 was a better car aerodynamically than the W125, but I don't think you could say that of the Alfetta.

And regarding the US experience in the late 60s: I dare say European manufacturers looked at the fact that the 2.65 litre turbos were not really blowing away the 4.2 litre Offy and figured that the balance of power had changed even more!

[Frank de Jong]

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
The flat-six turbo of the Corvair Corsa.

Great picture. 182 SAE HP at 4000 rpm from 2684 cc, I discovered - hardly an inspiration for an F1 engine...

[Rainer Nyberg]

Quite low boost I presume, but then again it didn´t have any waste-gate.

But still an interesting motor, when compared to other conventional powerplants from the States at this time.

[bobbo]

Rainer:

Thanks for the photos of the Corvair engine. Brings back a few memories for me!

I dated a young lady who had one of these (a 1966, IIRC) and it was great as long as you flogged it pretty hard, but that led to fan belts flying off, overheating, blown heads, burned valves and a host of other nasty and expensive repairs. But it WAS fun to drive. Handled pretty well, too.

Oh, yeah. We also had quite a bit of fun in the back seat, too

Bobbo

[Rainer Nyberg]

Nader did his best to discredit the handling of the car, but I guess the handling got much better with the multi-linked rear end.

The backseat must have been very intimate, not beeing a 'fullsize' car...

[Frank de Jong]

Originally posted by bobbo

Oh, yeah. We also had quite a bit of fun in the back seat, too
Bobbo

Lucky b*. All my girlfriends only had a bicycle

[Doug Nye]

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
Especially knowing that many teams struggled to find a proper engine in '66. I mean they ran 2-litre BRM's. Would it not have maked sence to install a turbo on the 1.5 BRM V8 instead of boring it out to merely 2.0 litres?

Rainer - BRM ran an investigation on a possible 1.5-litre supercharged V8 for the 3-litre Formula - half of the original V16 engine tidied up with more sensible crankshaft arrangements - but no way could they make the calculations look as promising as a true 3-litre naturally-aspirated unit. Seeking maximum revs to burn maximum fuel/air mixture, they adopted the 16-cylinder idea and packaging considerations led Tony Rudd (fatally) down the coupled-crankshaft H-layout route. A straightforward blown version of the small P56 V8 was a non-starter due to head seal (against internal pressures) and other considerations, and a supercharged engine was always going to be less fuel efficient and probably less drivable...they thought.

DCN

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Vitesse2


I've seen evidence that the 1947 formula was originally proposed as 3.0 litres U/S, 1.5 litres S/C but I'd venture that even the early reappearances of the Alfettas convinced the legislators this was a wrong guess! They could have worked that out if they'd just studied the winning speeds at Tripoli between 1937 and 1940 - in 1937 Lang's winning speed in a 5.66 litre U/S Mercedes W125 was 132.440mph. That dropped to 127.840mph in 1938 in the 3.0 litre S/C W154, but by 1940 Farina had brought it back up to 128.611mph in a car with only half that capacity! The W154 was a better car aerodynamically than the W125, but I don't think you could say that of the Alfetta.

I'm not sure that I would draw the same conclusions from those figures. If you compare fastest lap speed with average race speed you get:

• 1937 142mph (Stuck), 134mph (Lang)
• 1938: 136mph, 127 mph (Both Lang)
• 1939: 130mph, 122mph (both Lang)
• 1940 132 mph, 128 mph (both Farina)

THe conclusions I would draw are that the bigger engined cars were substantially faster than the smaller ones, and that Farina was pushing very much harder than Lang in any of his wins.

I think that, as was often the case in those days, equivalence formulae were et on the basis of the engines that people happend to have available.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Doug Nye


Rainer - BRM ran an investigation on a possible 1.5-litre supercharged V8 for the 3-litre Formula - half of the original V16 engine tidied up with more sensible crankshaft arrangements - but no way could they make the calculations look as promising as a true 3-litre naturally-aspirated unit. Seeking maximum revs to burn maximum fuel/air mixture, they adopted the 16-cylinder idea and packaging considerations led Tony Rudd (fatally) down the coupled-crankshaft H-layout route. A straightforward blown version of the small P56 V8 was a non-starter due to head seal (against internal pressures) and other considerations, and a supercharged engine was always going to be less fuel efficient and probably less drivable...they thought.

DCN

Would they have come to the same conclusion of they'd known that 300bhp would be enough for 1966? I suppose location of a supercharger in those cars would have been a problem.

[RDV]

BRG has the best explanation.
Cosworth DFV`s were availiable , and in that era of unrestrained chassi development engine power was not achievable cheaply, it needed a manufacturer to spot the equivalency cockup and profit from it.
That said it took Renault a fair amount of time to make it reliable, most teams were aware of its possibilities but the throtle lag and lack of reliability was a deciding issue. We all used to observe the teakettle with interest.

Blown engines had been around for quite some time in Indy cars and endurance sport cars. Also Ferrari had the most powerful engine at the time and wasnt making much progress, so power was not seen to be the overweening factor in performance.

[bobbo]

Originally posted by Frank de Jong


Lucky b*. All my girlfriends only had a bicycle

But you gotta remember that MY car was a Renault R8 Gordini. Even LESS room in the back seat! No manouvering room . . .

Bobbo

[Frank de Jong]

Have you ever been on the backseat of an Autobianchi A112 That was my car...

[jarama]

When young, one manages to achieve incredible things... I remember myself and my girlfriend in a tiny little Mini...

[Wuzak]

Hi guys, sorry for ressurecting such an old thread!

I was reading some of the entries from Classic Racing Engines by Karl Ludvigsen the other day and was wondering why there wasn't more effort to make a supercharged engine for 1966. I don't think turbocharging would have been particularly practical at that stage, but the 1.5l supercharged Alfa 159s in 1951 were already making as much power as the DFV would make on it debut in 1967.

My thought was specifically for the BRM situation - as they had a supercharger which was capable of supporting as much as 600hp, in an era when 400hp was a lot. Doug Nye answered that.

Was the fuel specification something that limited the usefulness of a supercharged engine? Did the early '50 supercharged F1 cars run on particularly exotic fuel?

[David McKinney]

The atrocious fuel economy of the blown 1500s would have meant either massive (and heavy) fuel loads or time-consuming refuelling stops. Furthermore, by the end of 1951 the unsupercharged 4.5s had been on a par with the blown 1.5s in terms of performance, but since that time there had been massive advances in the design of normally aspirated engines. The serious unblown 3.0s of 1966 all produced more than the 350bhp attributed to the Ferrari 375 in 1951, and would therefore have been perceived as a better bet than a blown 1500 even without the fuel-economy quesion

[Wuzak]

Wouldn't the improvements to the unblown engines also apply to the blown engines?

[Frank de Jong]

Hi guys, sorry for ressurecting such an old thread!

I was reading some of the entries from Classic Racing Engines by Karl Ludvigsen the other day and was wondering why there wasn't more effort to make a supercharged engine for 1966. I don't think turbocharging would have been particularly practical at that stage, but the 1.5l supercharged Alfa 159s in 1951 were already making as much power as the DFV would make on it debut in 1967.

My thought was specifically for the BRM situation - as they had a supercharger which was capable of supporting as much as 600hp, in an era when 400hp was a lot. Doug Nye answered that.

Was the fuel specification something that limited the usefulness of a supercharged engine? Did the early '50 supercharged F1 cars run on particularly exotic fuel?

Yes they did, and from 1958 on the fuel regulations were more strict, so you can't compare 1951 to 1966.

[Chezrome]

Another explanation is, I think, the sheer stubborness of the F1 teams to think outside the/their box. Remember Enzo's famous quote: 'Aerodynamics is for people who can't build good engines.' A teams wins a certain amount of races, titles, and then that seems for them 'the right way' to do stuff. If they can copy the competition they will do so, but only if the other teams 'work' in the same way.

If you read Mark Donohue's The Unfair Advantage, about the cooperation between Penske and factoryteams like GM, Ferrari and Porsche, you get suprised how incredibly stubborn those teams were that THEIR way of working was the best... even if the facts pointed in the other direction.

Another 'strange' example of 'why did it take so long...' is actually the wingcar. Lotus had the best car of 1977, every other car acknowledged that... they also saw that there was something strange about this car with the broad sidepods... Niki Lauda writes in Protocol that 'we let ourselves made nervous by the broad sides of the Lotus and developped in the wrong direction'.

But they never bothered to find out (is my impression) what Lotus was doing. Untill 1978 came along and the evolved 79 came along and blasted away the competition.

[David McKinney]

Wouldn't the improvements to the unblown engines also apply to the blown engines?

In the interim period I mentioned - 1951 to 1966 - all the engine development in F1 was concentrated on unsupercharged engines. No-one did much with supercharged engines

[RCH]

There have been posts on this thread questioning the equivalency used between normally aspirated and supercharged engines. The post-war 4.5/1.5 formula was chosen because pre-war voiturettes (Alfettas, ERA etc) were as fast as the 4.5 unsupercharged Talbots so it promised a good mix of existing cars. The 750cc option in 1954 was a possible lifeline offered to BRM and the 1.5 litre option in 1966 was, presumably, seen as a way that teams could continue with existing engines.

[Henri Greuter]

There have been posts on this thread questioning the equivalency used between normally aspirated and supercharged engines. The post-war 4.5/1.5 formula was chosen because pre-war voiturettes (Alfettas, ERA etc) were as fast as the 4.5 unsupercharged Talbots so it promised a good mix of existing cars. The 750cc option in 1954 was a possible lifeline offered to BRM and the 1.5 litre option in 1966 was, presumably, seen as a way that teams could continue with existing engines.

That was indeed the idea behind it. But what killed off the use of blowers in 1966 on the 1.5 liters was that gasoline fuel was still mandatory. And supercharged engines required alcohol fuels to produce power and remain cool. And at that time it was not possble yet to get comparable amounts of power from a 1.5 liter.

As for the early postwas years, about the only 3 liter GP cars were the Germa cars and most of those were unaccessable. besides that, not many, if anybody, within racing wanted to see german domination again so short after the war...
But a number of 1.5 liter cars were readily available and, as it turned out, fairly comparable with the available 4.5 liter cars in performance. So that was why the 1.5 / 4.5 formula was used. But at that time all those exotic fuels to keep the highly boosted 1.5's alive was still permitted. On gasoline fuel they would not have stand a chance.

By the late 1960's, Superchargers/turbochargers in other FASA sacntioned formulas were on a 1.4 ratio. thus 2.1 liter engines ws 3 liter atmos. Porsche was about the first to make such an engine competitive against the 3 liters and they had learned a lot from the CanAm 917 engine that worked well on the 2.1 Carrera RSR Turbo in 1974. I think that the 2.1 Carrera RSR Turbo, despite the ungainy chassis it was used in, was in many ways the key engine that showed the others what smaller capacity engines were able of and in that was the stepping stone to the turbochared F1 engines.

Once the turbo technology had kleared how to cope with turbo lag etc. then came the time that it was possible to get more out of a 1.5 engine and get close to the outputs of the 3 liters. But 1966 and the first years thearfter it was simply way too early, the knowledge had to be learned first..

What is likely to be the worlds first ever turbocharged racing car was the Cummins Diesel of 1952 at Indy (Who is that moaning about diesels out there???). Freddi Agabashian drove that thing and he told me that they simply had put on the largest blower in order to provide the most air to the engine. Nobody did think yet about smaller ones that provided boost earlier at lower RPM's and make the car more drivable. Accoridng Freddie, he had to cope with turbo lags of anything between 5 to 10 seconds !
Makes it quite a challenge to drive that car fast as he did.

THey've come a long way since 1952. I wonder wat freddie would think had he been told that eventually turbocharged Diesels were the way to go at Le Mans as well.


henri

[Henri Greuter]

Thing is, Bernd, that the one serious adoption of aircraft style supercharging to F1 was such an abject failure that it frightened everyone off for all time... and that was the BRM V16.

It was very difficult to drive because the power came on at high revs with such a bang... and there were no turbochargers in aircraft back in those times, I'm sure.

Then again, there was on the Nomad...

http://www.atlasf1.c...s=&postid=25672

But as you'll see, it was a slightly different case... not a turbo to drive the induction system, but to drive the aircraft.

Herb Porter, the father (creator) or the turbocharged Offy got his inspiration from working with the engines on B29 Bombers during WW2.
The B29 had turbocharged radial engines....


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 15 June 2009 - 15:30.

[D-Type]

Immediately postwar there were 3 litre Maserati and Alfa Romeo cars around but not in the same numbers as the 1.5 litre vouturettes. Hence the 1.5 litre voiturette/ 4.5 litre Talbot and Delahayes offered more of a chance of full grids.

The centrifugal supercharger worked at Indianapolis (Miller and Novi) and in aircraft as they are both relatively constant speed applications but didn't work in the road racing BRM because power is required over a range of engine speeds.

The story with turbocharging is similar - turbo lag is only a problem when accelerating. Aircraft don't accelarate. Indianapolis cars tended towards being driven flat out all the way so again although a problem, lag was not a show stopper. It took a while for the engineers to get to grips with the issue in rally cars, sports cars, GP cars and even road cars. Clearly the bigger the turbo, the greater the inertia and the worse the lag. The vee engines lend themselves more readily to twin (smaller) turbos than the in line fours.

The issue of gasoline vs alcohol, nitro and other super brews is applicable equally to supercharging and turbocharging in 1966. To a limited degree it was also applicable to normally aspirated engines - witness the difficulties Vanwall, BRM and Maserati privateers had in 1958 with the switch to avgas.

Which all goes to underline how courageous Renault were to introduce the turbocharger to Formula 1 and they got their reward at Dijon in 1979

[Wuzak]

The centrifugal supercharger worked at Indianapolis (Miller and Novi) and in aircraft as they are both relatively constant speed applications but didn't work in the road racing BRM because power is required over a range of engine speeds.

I understand from Karl Ludvigsen's book on the BRM V16 that Rolls Royce suggest two or three ways to make more boost at lower rpm, and even engineered one such system but it was never used on the cars.

[Wuzak]

Yes they did, and from 1958 on the fuel regulations were more strict, so you can't compare 1951 to 1966.

Thankyou.

I guess the fuel regs loosened again in the early '80s?

And it explains why the BRM was able to have such high levels of boost.

[ray b]

yes BUT the can-am cars used turbo's on road raceing tracks and not just the 917
in the early 70's

as far as the 1.5 normal F-1 motors being over stressed
that didnot stop them from being bumped up to two L or more [2.2 for BRM]

intercoolers were the missing bit to make real power with a turbo
but that was old teck too used in 1920's on supercharged indy cars

[ray b]

Thankyou.

I guess the fuel regs loosened again in the early '80s?

And it explains why the BRM was able to have such high levels of boost.

I think that was a work/cheat around more then a change in the rules
the teams had custom made ''GAS'' that was both high cost and nothing like pump gas
but still sorta fit the gas only rules

[Lee Nicolle]

I think that was a work/cheat around more then a change in the rules
the teams had custom made ''GAS'' that was both high cost and nothing like pump gas
but still sorta fit the gas only rules

Yes, the trick to good reliable big turbo power is tricky fuel. Modern turbo road/rally, race cars dont really make huge power increases on premium road fuel [which is formulated with those engines in mind] and have more than the occasional melt down. Evidently E85 is good for those engines. Really apart from the rallycar types of Subaru and Mitsubishi [which are both quite succesfull cars ofcourse] there is not really trick turbo engines in road cars these days, normally aspirated are stronger, nicer to drive and use less fuel. And are easier to get clean emmisions from too.
Indy type cars run on methanol, Lemans type cars are on trick fuel or diesel!. And turbo F1 cars were on jungle juice.And turbo Touring cars were on very trick, supposedly road fuel which believe me burnt your skin when you got it on you.

[ghinzani]

30 years since Renault won their first GP... amazing, those cars were beautiful. Dijon 79 was a perfect race, a perfect podium.