42 replies to this topic

[David Beard]

Many teams must have been dismayed that Coventry Climax left racing with the 1 1/2 litre formula (discounting the odd slightly stretched FWMV V8)

They could have built a new V8...the Godiva, but more compact?
A forced induction verison of one of their 1 1/2 litre units, V8 or flat 16?
Or even.....followed BRM's lead (?) and stuck two flat 16s together to make an H32!

With maintained momentum, perhaps they could have come up with something to match the DFV?

[Cirrus]

Personally, I doubt it. The 1.5 litre FWMV was a beautiful little engine, and represented the mid-sixties state of the art. Without a doubt, Coventry Climax (what a wonderful name!) could have produced a multi-cylinder engine based around their hard-earned small cylinder research, and I am sure that it would have produced some tantalising bhp figures.

The mid sixties also led to the realisation that an incremental improvement in lap time was achievable much more cheaply through good chassis and suspension design.

The late sixties (ie 1967 onwards) added the further refinement that, if the engine was integrated with the chassis, one would have a total homogeneous racing car, with everything working together for ultimate performance.

Whatever your views of the Ford Motor Company, Colin Chapman, Keith Duckworth etc, they gave us the backbone of F1 as we know it today. McLaren and Williams, two of the big three in F1, would not still be in existance without the DFV, and the fact that an adaptable, competitive engine was available at a reasonable price sustained F1 at a time of economic uncertainty. If only there was a similar shaft of gold to cling to now!

To return the matter in hand, Coventry Climax and BRM produced great engines, but it took the vision of Colin Chapman and Walter Hayes to take things to the next level.

[petefenelon]

If someone had forced them in, why not a simple V12 based on the stretched 2l V8s (just like BRM eventually decided they needed to do!)

Keep It Simple!

[David Beard]

Originally posted by petefenelon
If someone had forced them in, why not a simple V12 based on the stretched 2l V8s (just like BRM eventually decided they needed to do!)

Keep It Simple!

What a good point. Would have served Cooper somewhat better than that old Maser V12?

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Cirrus
Personally, I doubt it. The 1.5 litre FWMV was a beautiful little engine, and represented the mid-sixties state of the art. Without a doubt, Coventry Climax (what a wonderful name!) could have produced a multi-cylinder engine based around their hard-earned small cylinder research, and I am sure that it would have produced some tantalising bhp figures.

The mid sixties also led to the realisation that an incremental improvement in lap time was achievable much more cheaply through good chassis and suspension design.....

While I see your point of view, I can't altogether agree. Coventry Climax made a good engine for their day, and I truly love those little V8s... the 16 would have been my favourite had it ever appeared. But they were locked into forties technology to a large degree. Just look at the extremes of the differences between their engines and what came with the DFV, and to an extent the head design of the Weslake.

And while suspension and chassis were shown to be more important from about 1959, you still needed a decent horsepower figure and good reliability.

.....Ford Motor Company, Colin Chapman, Keith Duckworth etc... gave us the backbone of F1 as we know it today. McLaren and Williams, two of the big three in F1, would not still be in existance without the DFV, and the fact that an adaptable, competitive engine was available at a reasonable price sustained F1 at a time of economic uncertainty. If only there was a similar shaft of gold to cling to now!.....

Let's look at what might have happened in F1 had the Cosworth not appeared... stepping around the paddocks looking at the cars that didn't have a Cosworth.

Most promising of all were the Weslake and BRM V12s. Lovely engines, and without Eagle and Cosworth it might have been that Weslake could and would have carried on supplying, say, McLaren. BRM were seemingly capable of keeping half a dozen cars in engines, maybe more. The Matra V12 was there too, but maybe not beyond four cars (Matra's own and Tyrrell's).

Without the Cosworth (and with a lower level of politicking within the organisation, and maybe a commitment to continue the Tasman formula (or for NZ and Australia to swing to F1), Repco could have become a major player.

They weren't immune to supplying engines all over the world. There were hillclimb cars in the UK, Guy Ligier had a Brabham so equipped and so on. Repco's lovely quadvalve engine with the oiling problems cured (Phil Irving knew how to handle this, though it's also true that it only ever significantly happened to the engines in Europe, so the type of oil used may have been an issue) were pretty much on a par with the Cosworth. Repco had the facilities to supply and maintain several of these. Let's say six cars in the field.

Maserati was a dead duck, Serenissima too, But Ferrari were going strong, and there was the odd entry from others with things like the Godiva V8. Which could have provided the foundation, perhaps, for a nicer head arrangment and an engine to power a few more cars.

No, I don't think F1 would have lost all that much had the Cosworth not come into being.

.....To return the matter in hand, Coventry Climax and BRM produced great engines, but it took the vision of Colin Chapman and Walter Hayes to take things to the next level.

You give Ford far too much credit here. Who is to say that Cosworth wouldn't have found another backer? Or that they wouldn't have gone it alone?

After all, posturing to say 'we need a hundred thousand pounds and we'll keep Lotus going' could well have been a charade. They no doubt already had drawings, possibly patterns for the FVA heads. Cosworth were already a growing concern with a large customer base. I don't think the Ford money was all that important. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they sold out too cheaply...

And returning to this point...

.....the fact that an adaptable, competitive engine was available at a reasonable price sustained F1 at a time of economic uncertainty. If only there was a similar shaft of gold to cling to now!.....

Today?

I suggest to you that perhaps the ills of today stem from the Cosworth as much as they might be solved by a Cosworth.

Variety was a greater thing pre-69, and it returned post-82, but at a huge cost. That cost was the loss of the BRMs, the Weslakes, the Repcos and the ones that never saw birth.

Such was the dominance of the Cosworth that few were prepared to try. Cosworth grew to become a power in themselves, having facilities that could only be matched by a major manufacturer, so to beat them would take a major manufacturer.

In fact, they did to the rest (Ferrari excluded) what Ferrari and Maserati did to Climax in the beginning. They made it look like it wasn't worth trying...



Now, to address the main question... it may have been forgotten in the mists of time, but C-C's departure from the scene was also a result of Jaguar's recent takeover of ownership and the ills of the British motor industry of the time.

In short, it was a boardroom decision above the heads of Coventry Climax...

[Paul Newby]

Interesting stuff.

This is pretty OT, but when I was an underling at Accountants Binder Hamlyn & Co (the Aussie office of the Englsih firm) it was my duty to look after the bank accounts of several English subsidiaries that were effectively dormant in Australia.

One of these companies was Coventry Climax Australia - of course I had heard of the company but never did find out what (if anything) they were doing out here. This was 1983.

[Roger Clark]

I love the idea of an H32; from FPF to that in 10 years is a big step! I'd also love to have seen a 3-litre flat 16. THe 1.5-litre 16 was a beuatiful little engine, hardly any bigger than the V8. It was an essentially simple design and should have suffered none of the problems of the BRM H16. I seem to remember that Wally Hassan favoured a 3-bank, broad arrow 12, that might have been interesting too.

If Climax had continued, then surely Lotus and Brabham would have stayed with them. Cosworth would have found there way into F1 sooner or later, but would we have seen Repco at all?

I'm not at all sure what Ray means when he says that Climax wee locked into 40s technology.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
.....If Climax had continued, then surely Lotus and Brabham would have stayed with them. Cosworth would have found there way into F1 sooner or later, but would we have seen Repco at all?

I'm not at all sure what Ray means when he says that Climax wee locked into 40s technology.

I'm sure that Jack was courting Repco as soon as the formula was announced...

What you have to remember, once again, is that Climax had been favouring Lotus. Jack knew about being 'favoured' by the Coventry firm because he was once the recipient of that favour. He wanted to make a break.

Notice something else... Repco were ready before anyone else except the ancient Maserati and Ferrari.

Something else that Jack had been through once before (and seen twice before!) was British unpreparedness at the start of a new formula. He would be ready and he would have something approximating an exclusive arrangement with Repco.

No, I don't think any announcement by Coventry-Climax would have altered the entry of Repco.

Now, my quip about 'forties technology'... wide valve angles and separate camboxes were de rigeur at C-C, and they would hamstring development of the kind that was to come with Cosworth's innovations. But note that the Weslake also had the smaller valve angles too?

The men behind C-C designs were men who put together the XK Jaguar engine during the war, and while they made a good fist of taking their engines to a couple of titles during the 1.5-litre formula is a credit to them.

But they were behind BRM, they were behind Honda and they were behind Ferrari by the end of that formula. They were, in fact, relying on Lotus packaging and Brabham handling to get their results. Sure, they got them, but they had also had to introduce the 4-valve heads along the way, and they were, after all, looking to the flat 16 for the final year. And reliability.

Follow that reasoning?

[Cirrus]

Without the Cosworth (and with a lower level of politicking within the organisation, and maybe a commitment to continue the Tasman formula (or for NZ and Australia to swing to F1), Repco could have become a major player.

Whilst we clearly have different views on the merits of Ford's involvement with F1, I do agree that Repco could have sustained F1 in a way that Coventry Climax probably could not. Had Repco not suffered a disastrous 1968, the 4 cam V8 could have been developed into a competitive engine, at a purchase price that would probably have been considerably less than DFV.

If the Tasman series had gone F1 at that time, it would probably have given us a World Championship round in Australia in the early seventies, and a number of Australian F1 cars.

[Ray Bell]

We were within an ace of having the final round (I think it would have been the last...) of the 1970 season...

That's why the Australian Grand Prix wasn't a part of the Tasman Cup Series that year.

Maybe, had Repco still been in it, this would have tipped the scales. An Australian engine in the field might have given that extra public appeal that would have enabled it to happen.

The move to F1 might well have followed, as Repco wouldn't be making any F5000 engines and they would have been able to supply F1 engines to local runners. This would have been apparent before the July, 1969 decision to go F5000/2-litres.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
I seem to remember that Wally Hassan favoured a 3-bank, broad arrow 12, that might have been interesting too.

Now that's interesting. Take three blocks/heads from a stretched FWMV, put them on a common crankcase and there y'go! - very intelligent reuse of technology! With the valve angles etc on the FWMV I wonder if this would have to be an engine with 90 degrees between the banks.. effectively a flat-8 with another 4 sticking right up!


Agree strongly with all the people who say that the best thing about Repco was that they were ready on time. Black Jack knew that his engines may not have had much grunt, but he was there with a light, reliable engine and a light, reliable car right from the off! It was only when Repco started trying to get clever with the 8-series that it went pear shaped!

[Ray Bell]

As already mentioned (many times...)...

The Repco 4-valver problem was a lubrication problem that never showed up in hundreds of hours of dyno testing.

The oil used in Europe, however, was a different oil to that used in Australia.

And if you want some real news on this, Phil Irving would have given the valvegear a separate oiling system, their own pump and oil supply!

[ensign14]

In those days of pioneer 4 wheel drives, perhaps a Climax Bimotore with 1.5l engines fore and aft...

[Macca]

Firstly, at the FIA meeting where the British constructors wanted a 2 litre limit but tried to be too clever and asked for 3 litres expecting it to be cut down, when the FIA confirmed 3 litres Leonard Lee turned to Tony Rudd and said "That's done it; I don't think I can get the money for a new engine".

The Climax flat-16 was no more powerful than the 32-valve V8 in 1965, but if the new formula had been 2 litres they would probably have persisted with an enlarged version, and BRM might have tried 4 valves per cylinder again.

I always understood that Repco originally developed the V8 of their own accord for Tasman racing, and Black Jack got to hear about it and persuaded them to do a 3 litre as well. They did a big Group 7/Indy engine as well which might have been eligible for F5000 later.

One of the main problems with a W-12, or an H-32, or even a 4 with Apfelbeck (sp?) head for that matter, is where to put the intakes and exhausts without raising the engine height or increasing the frontal area. Many engine builders have disregarded installation, let alone integration, when devising en engine concept, but I don't believe C-C would have fallen into that trap, so a W-12 must have been low on the list if they had built a 3-litre.

The other engine nobody has mentioned is Ted Martin's V8 which was a single OHC not unlike the Repco but even lighter, based on two Formula Junior heads and which started as a 2 litre and then became a 3 litre; it could have served whichever new formula was adopted.

Oddly enough, in a kids motor racing book that I got for Xmas in 1967, there was a piece of fiction about a Grand Prix where one of the main rivals used a very simple light V6 3-litre: and the other an H32!

Paul Mackness

[Roger Clark]

Another problem with a W (and H) configuration is the weight of the extra exhausts, camshafts, camshaft drives, intakes and cooling. It doesn't sound a very Climax like solution.

The flat-16 was only tested briefly before it was abandoned. There is every reason to expect that it would have given the expected power if development had continued.

I can't agree with Ray:

But they were behind BRM, they were behind Honda and they were behind Ferrari by the end of that formula. They were, in fact, relying on Lotus packaging and Brabham handling to get their results. Sure, they got them, but they had also had to introduce the 4-valve heads along the way, and they were, after all, looking to the flat 16 for the final year. And reliability.

The 32-valve FWMV was the equal of any 8-cylinder engine and better than the 12s until right at the end of 1965. Ferrari and BRM both tried 4-valve heads but failed. THe fact that Climax succeeded demonstrates that they were not lagging behind. I may be wrong, but I think that both the 32-valve FWMV and the 16 had narrower valve angles than earlier engines.

Would Brabham really have accepted the logistical problems of an engine built in Australia if one form Coventry had been available? I've no evidence, but it doesn't seem very likely.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
As already mentioned (many times...)...

The oil used in Europe, however, was a different oil to that used in Australia.

Even our railway system hasn't thought of that excuse....

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Cirrus


Had Repco not suffered a disastrous 1968, the 4 cam V8 could have been developed into a competitive engine, at a purchase price that would probably have been considerably less than DFV.

Why would the Repco have been cheaper, do you think? And just how long would it have taken to make the 4 cam Repco hold together. Did it get close?

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
The 32-valve FWMV was the equal of any 8-cylinder engine and better than the 12s until right at the end of 1965. Ferrari and BRM both tried 4-valve heads but failed. THe fact that Climax succeeded demonstrates that they were not lagging behind. I may be wrong, but I think that both the 32-valve FWMV and the 16 had narrower valve angles than earlier engines.

Who designed the Lotus head in 1962? He was certainly aware of the narrow angle approach.

PdeRL

[karlcars]

Interesting thoughts...

The advocate of the three-bank W-12 for the 3-liter formula was not Wally Hassan but rather his close colleague Harry Mundy, who had one on his drawing board at home. I agree with the points about access for manifolds etc. but Harry had taken this into account and drawn quite a nice engine.

It's fair to say I think that Jack Brabham was the power behind the Repco V-8. Jack originally approached Repco to make spares for the 2.5-liter Climaxes that were running in the Tasman Series. From that he developed the idea of a Repco-built V-8 for both Tasman and Formula 1 use. So as not to scare Repco too much he had the idea of starting out with a stock aluminum block. Later, of course, Repco made the blocks as well.

Speaking of those Tasman Climaxes, the best bet for Climax in the 3-liter Formula 1 would surely have been to take the FPF four out to a full 3 liters. They'd already taken it to 2.7 to race at Indy, and of course Dan Gurney used such engines until his V-12 was ready. Dan's were delivering 255 bhp, which wasn't too bad, and with a new 4-valve head the Climax four could have been a useful lump for the Formula's early years.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by karlcars

Speaking of those Tasman Climaxes, the best bet for Climax in the 3-liter Formula 1 would surely have been to take the FPF four out to a full 3 liters. They'd already taken it to 2.7 to race at Indy, and of course Dan Gurney used such engines until his V-12 was ready. Dan's were delivering 255 bhp, which wasn't too bad, and with a new 4-valve head the Climax four could have been a useful lump for the Formula's early years.

Interesting thought.... but was there enough meat on the FPF to go to a full three litres? - a 3.0l FPF with a new block and new heads is almost a new engine completely ;)

And I'm given to believe that it was a lumpy old thing even at 2.7, how much harsher on the car would a full three-litre FPF have been? (sans luxuries such as balancer shafts...)

The idea of a three-litre 16v FPF competing in GPs is very appealing, though more the sort of thing I could imagine Paul Emery coming up with than the works.... which I guess brings us back to his Godiva hack ;)

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Macca
.....I always understood that Repco originally developed the V8 of their own accord for Tasman racing, and Black Jack got to hear about it and persuaded them to do a 3 litre as well. They did a big Group 7/Indy engine as well which might have been eligible for F5000 later......

They did announce the 2.5 engine first, it's true... but I believe that was a smokescreen. As has been mentioned by Karl, Brabham went to Repco to develop the FPF further. Ultimately Repco bought the patterns from Coventry-Climax and were casting blocks and all. That the patterns were later thrown out is another story altogether...

Regarding the V8, I think it's probable that Jack had looked at it closely, but Repco's leading men were quite capable of making these decisions as well. It was a little strange that they chose a big fat plate below the crankcase to give the block rigidity, but it worked. And it always worked better as a 3-litre than it did as a 2.5!

Sure, there was a 4.4-litre sports car engine with the Olds block, and later they did an Indy engine and a 5-litre sports car engine with the 4-valve heads. These were tremendously reliable, by the way.

But the Olds would never make a F5000 engine. It was too small (though Traco did take them out to 5-litres eventually) and the original heads too restrictive to compete with the Chevys.

.....The other engine nobody has mentioned is Ted Martin's V8 which was a single OHC not unlike the Repco but even lighter, based on two Formula Junior heads and which started as a 2 litre and then became a 3 litre; it could have served whichever new formula was adopted.....

What kind of Junior heads? Are you sure they weren't MAE heads from the F3 engine?

.....Oddly enough, in a kids motor racing book that I got for Xmas in 1967, there was a piece of fiction about a Grand Prix where one of the main rivals used a very simple light V6 3-litre: and the other an H32!

Often I look at some of the modern road engines that can be had, and there are V6s out there that would definitely have made winners in the 2.5-litre formula. Today they're powering utilities!

[Tim Murray]

Originally posted by ensign14
In those days of pioneer 4 wheel drives, perhaps a Climax Bimotore with 1.5l engines fore and aft...

In an article in Motor magazine (8 May 1965) Alec Issigonis was discussing (with Motor's Technical Editor Charles Bulmer) designs for the new formula. He came up with just such a concept - with a four cylinder 1.5 litre Climax at each end, each driving one pair of wheels (like his twin-engined Mini Moke).

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Tim Murray

In an article in Motor magazine (8 May 1965) Alec Issigonis was discussing (with Motor's Technical Editor Charles Bulmer) designs for the new formula. He came up with just such a concept - with a four cylinder 1.5 litre Climax at each end, each driving one pair of wheels (like his twin-engined Mini Moke).

Pity he didn't give it a go...he showed himself to be a very capable racing car designer with the lovely Lightweight Special.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by petefenelon


And I'm given to believe that it was a lumpy old thing even at 2.7, how much harsher on the car would a full three-litre FPF have been? (sans luxuries such as balancer shafts...)

You were never an Offenhauser fan then, Pete?

[fines]

Originally posted by David Beard


You were never an Offenhauser fan then, Pete?

The Offy certainly wasn't an F1 fan!

[VAR1016]

I would think that even had Coventry-Climax managed to make a 3-litre version of the four-cylinder, it would probably have been very limited on revs and therefore horsepower.

Can anyone tell me what maximum revs on the 2.7 were? I expect that the vibration must have been very severe - Vanwall's 2.5 certainly shook. One of Ferrari's great achievements was to persuade the 860 Monza engine to stay together.

And interesting though the sixteen-cylinder one and a half would have been, I would think that frictional losses would most likely have sunk it.

I know that Porsche made an experimental flat-sixteen sports-car engine, did this one every run?

PdeRL

[dmj]

To my knowledge it never ran. Twelwes were just enough to gain them a slight advantage over anything else in Can-Am (including lighter aircrafts in surrounding areas probably) so no need for using 16 and creating Hyperpanzerwagen...

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by VAR1016
I would think that even had Coventry-Climax managed to make a 3-litre version of the four-cylinder, it would probably have been very limited on revs and therefore horsepower.

Can anyone tell me what maximum revs on the 2.7 were? I expect that the vibration must have been very severe - Vanwall's 2.5 certainly shook. One of Ferrari's great achievements was to persuade the 860 Monza engine to stay together.....

Not only that, it would have structurally weakened it taking it out that much further, I suspect.

A redesign on the block might have proved useful, but why would you do it in an era where the 1.5s had 8s and 12s running and doing so well?

I think we had a discussion here where it was said that Gurney's crew got an FPF out to 2850, but remember that it took Climax about three years to go from 1.5 to 2752cc, and that the block was based on the FPE, and therefore originally created to contain 1250cc.

That said (and here again is another example of C-C being very outdated IMO), there was room to move and they kept on increasing the size until 1961. Along the way they learned to cross-bolt main bearing caps and O-ring heads and all sorts of goodies to keep them alive.

As for the revs, I think 6,500 to 7,200 was about it, though I think Dan'l might have taken his a little further early in '66.

There were other engines in this league, particularly the Maserati that went out to 3-litres in 1960/61. Funny that nobody ever considered that one... it was out to the limit already and a relatively proven performer. A privateer like Bob Anderson would perhaps have been better off with one of these than a Climax...

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Not only that, it would have structurally weakened it taking it out that much further, I suspect.

A redesign on the block might have proved useful, but why would you do it in an era where the 1.5s had 8s and 12s running and doing so well?

I think we had a discussion here where it was said that Gurney's crew got an FPF out to 2850, but remember that it took Climax about three years to go from 1.5 to 2752cc, and that the block was based on the FPE, and therefore originally created to contain 1250cc.

That said (and here again is another example of C-C being very outdated IMO), there was room to move and they kept on increasing the size until 1961. Along the way they learned to cross-bolt main bearing caps and O-ring heads and all sorts of goodies to keep them alive.

As for the revs, I think 6,500 to 7,200 was about it, though I think Dan'l might have taken his a little further early in '66.

There were other engines in this league, particularly the Maserati that went out to 3-litres in 1960/61. Funny that nobody ever considered that one... it was out to the limit already and a relatively proven performer. A privateer like Bob Anderson would perhaps have been better off with one of these than a Climax...

Thanks Ray.

One wonders if the four-cylinder Maserati might not have been better than the re-cycled V-12 that Rob Walker installed in the Cooper.

Another idea for that transitional period: Ferrari obviously had no problem producing a 3-litre V-12, but I wonder if he considered the very powerful 3-litre V-6 that was installed in a sports car a few years before? With a little development, I am sure that 350HP would have been available reliably, and I understand that this engine did give prodigious torque - always a welcome feature!

And - I had almost forgotten - he had produced some V-8s early in the 1960s, but I presume that these were not much good?

To meander back to topic, regarding the remarks about Climax being out-of-date, surely attempting to resurrect the Godiva (of course this was not Climax I realise) must have been a very desperate measure? It was 12 years old after all.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Low budget rather than drastic...

And it was done at a time when the Cossies weren't exactly available to just anyone. Remember that they were restricted to Lotus the first year and then the availability increased to include McLaren etc the second year. The only privateer to have one at the time was Rob Walker, and that was in a Lotus anyway.

I think Ferrari had read the scene fairly well when he decided to go V12. It had plenty of everything, losing out only a little on compactness, and as the Cosworth was yet to be seen this is an understandable oversight. His willingness to compromise with wheelbase was also seen with the use of Mike Parkes in F1.

All the same, he brought out a Tasman-style V6 for a few races, notably Monaco. Development of this for the 1969 Tasman (new heads with more valvoles) shows that maybe it was being considered as an option in 3-litre form?

It certainly showed itself fairly capable against the 2.5 DFV, but it was in a lighter car.

By the way, Rob Walker bought the Cooper-Maserati complete. That was Cooper's decision on how to enter the new formula, and they were among the few to have things in place to go 3-litre right from the beginning.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Ray Bell

There were other engines in this league, particularly the Maserati that went out to 3-litres in 1960/61. Funny that nobody ever considered that one... it was out to the limit already and a relatively proven performer. A privateer like Bob Anderson would perhaps have been better off with one of these than a Climax...

If you're thinking about the 4-cylinder Maserati engine, it was a sports car engine and not remotely competitive in Grand Prix racing in 1960, so why it should be any better six years later, I don't know.

As regards the Issigonis concept of a twin engined Grand Prix car, Laurence Pomeroy proposed something similar. The basic problems are the extra weight and what to do with the driver's legs.

[Ray Bell]

You might well be right about the Maser, Roger. I was forgetting that Mildren's powerful example was running on more potent fuel.

And it was only up against 2.5s at best.

But at least it was the right size to start with...

[D-Type]

Originally posted by petefenelon
If someone had forced them in, why not a simple V12 based on the stretched 2l V8s (just like BRM eventually decided they needed to do!)

With the 100% wisdom of hindsight, as we are now in the post-Cosworth era of the V-10, should we suggest stretching the basic engine a bit more and only adding 2 cylinders?

If I remember my Theory of Machines correctly, a V6 or V12 is naturally balanced at 60 or 120 degrees and a V8 at 90 degrees. So would a V10 need to be 72 degrees needing a completely gedesigned block?

[Ray Bell]

The computer capacity to work out the balances wouldn't have been sufficiently widely available at the time...

That's the difference between then and now that you can't overcome.

[Catalina Park]

Originally posted by Paul Newby
Interesting stuff.

This is pretty OT, but when I was an underling at Accountants Binder Hamlyn & Co (the Aussie office of the Englsih firm) it was my duty to look after the bank accounts of several English subsidiaries that were effectively dormant in Australia.

One of these companies was Coventry Climax Australia - of course I had heard of the company but never did find out what (if anything) they were doing out here. This was 1983.

Coventry Climax engines and pumps were used by fire brigades all over Australia and their forklifts sold well in the 80's

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by D-Type


With the 100% wisdom of hindsight, as we are now in the post-Cosworth era of the V-10, should we suggest stretching the basic engine a bit more and only adding 2 cylinders?

If I remember my Theory of Machines correctly, a V6 or V12 is naturally balanced at 60 or 120 degrees and a V8 at 90 degrees. So would a V10 need to be 72 degrees needing a completely gedesigned block?

Yes Marion Anderson has written elswhere that 72 degrees is the optimum for a V-10. However as Rudd reports in his book, BRM had enough trouble balancing their V-8 crankshafts!!

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

I would imagine there's a lot more to balancing them than simply calculating the firing order and spacing and determining the vee angle...

Henry Ford built a 5-cyl prototype engine many years ago that gave great power, but they simply couldn't balance it.

The availability of computer power today is the only reason, I'm sure you'll find, that we can have fives and tens today.

And while on that subject, how would a broadarrow 9 have gone? Simple three-throw crank, plenty of avaliable vee angles... worth considering.

[Macca]

Ray Bell wrote:

"I think Ferrari had read the scene fairly well when he decided to go V12. It had plenty of everything, losing out only a little on compactness, and as the Cosworth was yet to be seen this is an understandable oversight. His willingness to compromise with wheelbase was also seen with the use of Mike Parkes in F1.

All the same, he brought out a Tasman-style V6 for a few races, notably Monaco. Development of this for the 1969 Tasman (new heads with more valvoles) shows that maybe it was being considered as an option in 3-litre form?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Surtees says that Ferrari initially wanted to do an all-new V12 engine for the new formula but were short of money and did a short-stroke version of the 275P2 sports car engine instead; also they were concentrating on Le Mans in early 1966 which might explain why they had the first new car more or less ready before Xmas 1965 but the second arrived at Monaco without having turned a wheel, so they had to use the V6 Tasman car out of necessity. It is a mystery why they didn't give the second car to Bandini for Spa, especially since they had found a little more power, but perhaps the Le Mans preparations prevented testing; ironically, at the next GP they produced the third car, the special long-wheelbase chassis for Parkes.

Perhaps Dragoni's spiel to Surtees about selling V12 road cars as the excuse why the lead driver had to use the V12 at Monaco when the V6 was quicker backfired on him, so that they had to continue with the developed V12 right through to 1969 to avoid losing any more face; or perhaps they were over-confident about how soon they could introduce the 36-valve heads and how effective they would be.


Paul Mackness

[stuartbrs]

This is quite a vague recollection which probably has no place in TNF, but I remember reading an article a few years back on the development of the Audi 5 cyl in the 70`s. They had a lot of vibration problems initially, which took quite some time to cure, it wasnt just one thing, ie the crank, but a whole range of little problems that had to be solved, which resulted in that quite smooth 5cyl engine...

[fines]

Benz had a five-cylinder as well in the late seventies - or was that the same as the Audi???

[Ray Bell]

No, it wasn't the same as Audi... and yes, you're right, M-Benz were selling a 5-cylinder...

Was it in the late seventies? I recall it being a prize on Sale of the Century in '82 or so... and wasn't it only diesel?

[fines]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
... and wasn't it only diesel?

Yea, I believe you're right there.

[Kaha]

Lancia did build 5-cylinder diesels for trucks in the late '30s.
I don't think that they invented the engine type.