18 replies to this topic

[aisiai]

Hi all,
I got FIA '87 and '88 season reviews and was wondering about these turbos and normally aspirated engines competing together.(f1 fan since '92)

What is the history behind all that?
Was it a voluntary decision for the teams, or just the poorer ones had been forced to use normally aspirated engines?

In the mid 87 review the commentary said there would be reduced turbo pressure(not exact quote) for the next 88 season, i.e. making them less competitive. And then Ron Dennis had spoken that it would be a tough decision which type of engine to use. I havent watched the 88 season yet to see what happens.

OK, after all to get the whole picture, I'll appreciate some tips for the engines in that era - when the turbos entered, what were the restrictions, first win, when had been banned...

Thanks

[Vrba]

FIA, that once strongly advocated switch to turbo engines, find themselves in the blind alley with not enough competitive turbo engine manufacturers available and also with spiralling costs of development (sounds familiar?). Therefore, an equity formula was created between "turbos" and "atmos" for 1987, although without real intention of atmo cars competing for the wins. Therefore, there were two separate drivers' and constructors' championships in 1987 (although hardly anyone remembers the atmospheric one) : Jonathan Palmer won the drivers' atmo class (Jim Clark Trophy) and Tyrrell won the constructors' class (Colin Chapman Trophy or something like that). Previously unlimited, the turbo boost pressure was limited to 4 bars in 1987 and atmo cars had capacity limit of 3.5 litres (turbos were of 1.5 litres capacity).
Now, the rules were defined for 1989 with turbos definitively banned and atmospheric engines' capacity remained set at 3.5 litres. 1988 was ment to be a transitional year with heavy restrictions on turbos intended to equalize two classes. Turbo cars shoudn't use more than 150 litres of fuel (previously 195, while atmos had an unlimited amount) and boost pressure was further reduced to 2.5 bars (I think there was a different weight limit between the two classes as well). Honda, WCC winner for the past 2 years with Williams, switched teams and joined forces with McLaren. World Champion Piquet also deserted Williams (or better, they deserted him) and joined Lotus (also with Honda engines) while Senna moved from Lotus, that he helped stagnate, to McLaren. Now, all those changes resulted in the single most meaningless season in modern Formula 1, as the rulemakers again failed to judge the things properly (Ron Dennis might have spoken about the doubt what engine to use in 1988 but he knew very well that only turbo engine had a realistic chance and, in fact, threw a dummy to his competitors). Ferrari used last year's car, Williams was left with customer atmo engine by Judd, Lotus had bad chassis, questionable engine (whether it was the same as McLaren's, I wanted to say - John Barnard and many doubted it), Benetton had atmo engine like most of the grid, Honda's turbo enginie had 100 bhp more on average than the best atmo engines (that were all customer units by Judd, Ford, etc.) and all that in fact put McLaren in unique place: they had 2 of the best 4 drivers, the best engine, they built a completely new chassis (totally new one, after lingering for 7 years with the same Barnard concept, a very successful one but that had reached its development limit), they had the best race team and winning habits, so to say. The result? McLaren won 15 out of 16 races and only lost one, mostly due to their star driver making a mistake. As Doug Nye said, any resemblance between the 1988 season and real motor racing was largely accidental. Well, at least in 1989 the things started to change to the better slightly.

Or at least that's how I saw and remembered it all ;)

Hrvoje

[aisiai]

Originally posted by Vrba
FIA, that once strongly advocated switch to turbo engines, find themselves in the blind alley with not enough competitive turbo engine manufacturers available and also with spiralling costs of development (sounds familiar?). Therefore, an equity formula was created between "turbos" and "atmos" for 1987, although without real intention of atmo cars competing for the wins. Therefore, there were two separate drivers' and constructors' championships in 1987 (although hardly anyone remembers the atmospheric one) : Jonathan Palmer won the drivers' atmo class (Jim Clark Trophy) and Tyrrell won the constructors' class (Colin Chapman Trophy or something like that). Previously unlimited, the turbo boost pressure was limited to 4 bars in 1987 and atmo cars had capacity limit of 3.5 litres (turbos were of 1.5 litres capacity).
Now, the rules were defined for 1989 with turbos definitively banned and atmospheric engines' capacity remained set at 3.5 litres. 1988 was ment to be a transitional year with heavy restrictions on turbos intended to equalize two classes. Turbo cars shoudn't use more than 150 litres of fuel (previously 195, while atmos had an unlimited amount) and boost pressure was further reduced to 2.5 bars (I think there was a different weight limit between the two classes as well). Honda, WCC winner for the past 2 years with Williams, switched teams and joined forces with McLaren. World Champion Piquet also deserted Williams (or better, they deserted him) and joined Lotus (also with Honda engines) while Senna moved from Lotus, that he helped stagnate, to McLaren. Now, all those changes resulted in the single most meaningless season in modern Formula 1, as the rulemakers again failed to judge the things properly (Ron Dennis might have spoken about the doubt what engine to use in 1988 but he knew very well that only turbo engine had a realistic chance and, in fact, threw a dummy to his competitors). Ferrari used last year's car, Williams was left with customer atmo engine by Judd, Lotus had bad chassis, questionable engine (whether it was the same as McLaren's, I wanted to say - John Barnard and many doubted it), Benetton had atmo engine like most of the grid, Honda's turbo enginie had 100 bhp more on average than the best atmo engines (that were all customer units by Judd, Ford, etc.) and all that in fact put McLaren in unique place: they had 2 of the best 4 drivers, the best engine, they built a completely new chassis (totally new one, after lingering for 7 years with the same Barnard concept, a very successful one but that had reached its development limit), they had the best race team and winning habits, so to say. The result? McLaren won 15 out of 16 races and only lost one, mostly due to their star driver making a mistake. As Doug Nye said, any resemblance between the 1988 season and real motor racing was largely accidental. Well, at least in 1989 the things started to change to the better slightly.

Or at least that's how I saw and remembered it all ;)

Hrvoje

Thanks for the info, Vrba

It's nice to see you in the light of something different than pissing HSJ off ;)

You said FIA once advocated the switch to turbo engines!? Can you tell why and when?

And why did they call the normally aspirated championships Jim Clark Trophy and Colin Chapman Trophy ? Anything else than honoring the names?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by aisiai

You said FIA once advocated the switch to turbo engines!? Can you tell why and when?

It was a natural consequence of the rules, which had an equivalency formula where they could be half the size of normally aspirated engines (from 1966 onwards). Compare the early F1 formulae where supercharged engines were to be a third of the size. And for some reason turbos were considered equivalent to supercharged - I always thought they were illegal cos they were strictly speaking 2 engines...

Originally posted by aisiai

And why did they call the normally aspirated championships Jim Clark Trophy and Colin Chapman Trophy ? Anything else than honoring the names?

Just for the honour and for something for the poorer teams to fight for.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by aisiai



Thanks for the info, Vrba

It's nice to see you in the light of something different than pissing HSJ off ;)

You said FIA once advocated the switch to turbo engines!? Can you tell why and when?

And why did they call the normally aspirated championships Jim Clark Trophy and Colin Chapman Trophy ? Anything else than honoring the names?

Hehe, thanks!

A provision for turbo was in fact integrated in the new Formula 1 rules for 1966 for different reasons than it would have been used for later. As the engine capacity for 1966 doubled from 1.5 l to 3.0 l, CSI (later fo become FISA) wanted to enable teams to continue using their old 1.5 l engines fitted with a supercharger (there are still debates whether the rules permitted turbos at all, or just mechanical superchargers. My personal opinion is that turbos were legal but that's another matter). However, noone took up that option in 1966, everybody prefered 3.0 atmo engines or bore out their old 1.5 l engines to 2 or more litres, whatever the engine design permitted. And the supercharged option was forgotten, until Renault, who had experience with 2 l turbo engines for Le Mans spotted the loophole. After several years of development, it became clear that equivalence Formula (2:1) was especially unfortunately chosen, as 1.5 l turbos more than doubled the atmo power figures. Soon, the only way to be competitive was to employ a turbo engine. Even Tyrrell, that fought hard against turbos, succumbed in the second half of 1985. FISA declared turbo engines mandatory for 1986 in a vain attempt to equalize the playing field. Consequently, 1986 was the only completely turbo year (a single year Formula). But during that year, although racing was basically good and the outcome unexpected (Prost winning title in what was not the best car, to say the least), the problems surfaced: not enough competitive engines and high costs (I don't doubt there were some more reasons but I cannot remember them now). Besides, FISA had problems with group B rally cars (and some fatal accidents there and at Le Mans) and every move to slower, more safe and cheaper series would be welcomed. So, the move was made to re-create the supposedly wonderful Cosworth vs. Ferrari years (1970s) when racing was perceived to be cheap and when everyone could have bought Cosworth engine and Hewland gearbox off the shelf, cobble-up a special and go racing. Initially, after two transitional years (1987-1988), the move looked to have achieved its goal with more than 40 cars entering the 1989 season (the first full-atmo one). However, the times changed beyond repair, as the future packed with big manufacturers and works engines would prove.

Or at least, that's what I remember.

Hrvoje

[aisiai]

geeez
Now I know that I know nothing about F1

Kinda puts todays state of F1 in some perspective, doesn't it :

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by aisiai



Thanks for the info, Vrba

It's nice to see you in the light of something different than pissing HSJ off ;)

You said FIA once advocated the switch to turbo engines!? Can you tell why and when?

And why did they call the normally aspirated championships Jim Clark Trophy and Colin Chapman Trophy ? Anything else than honoring the names?

The '86 season started with only 1.5 liter turbo's eligible no atmo's permitted any longer, shortly therafter the change of heart.
As Vrba told, there was indeed a difference in weight as well: the turbos were 540 kg minimum, the atmo's were 500 kg minimum. The intention had been to give the atmo's the upperhand agaisnt the heavily penalized turbo's but it went a little bit different.....

For the names: I think they got inspired because of Chapman building the car in which Jim Clark won the first ever race for the Cosworth DFV. An that was about the only engine available/suitable in 3.5 liter trim for that newly created atmo class. I can't remember anymore if there was any other kind of atmo engine used other that 3.5 l DFV's in '87. The Judd appeared in '88 as far as I remember.
Other than that I can't come up with any reason why at that time give the trophies these names

Henri Greuter

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Other than that I can't come up with any reason why at that time give the trophies these names

Henri Greuter

Also, Chapman, together with Ken Tyrrell, was strongly against the turbo engines. Chapman's Lotus 86/88 concept was, amongst the other reasons, conceived to compensate for the lack of turbo power. However, when Chapman realized that the battle was lost, he proverbially joined them and arranged Renault turbo engines to be used in Lotuses for 1983. And then he died, before seeing his turbo cars racing. Therefore, Chapman fulfilled all the criteria for an atmo constructors trophy to bear his name: he was a constructor, he advocated the use of atmo engines and he deceased when he lost that battle. Probably the last reason and connection with Chapman played a part in choosing Clark's name as well. I also agree with you, Henri, that their connection with Cosworth engine played the part too.

Hrvoje

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Vrba
A provision for turbo was in fact integrated in the new Formula 1 rules for 1966 for different reasons than it would have been used for later. As the engine capacity for 1966 doubled from 1.5 l to 3.0 l, CSI (later fo become FISA) wanted to enable teams to continue using their old 1.5 l engines fitted with a supercharger (there are still debates whether the rules permitted turbos at all, or just mechanical superchargers. My personal opinion is that turbos were legal but that's another matter). However, noone took up that option in 1966, everybody prefered 3.0 atmo engines or bore out their old 1.5 l engines to 2 or more litres, whatever the engine design permitted.


Hrvoje

at the time, the 2:1 equivalency wasn't that poor at all. Sure, there had been a 3:1 equivalency in the past (46-51, 1.5with, 4.5without blower) but that was when the use of alcohol based fuels was still permitted. And those old supercharged engines consumed staggering amounts of fuel to produce more power than an 4.5 could. But cars were heavey and needed much refuelling.
On th mandatory pump gas however, supercharged engines were nowhere as efficient in producing power, I think that a Rootsblown Climax on gasoline couldn't produce twice as much power as in atmo trim reliable enough to stand a chance. So it was an option but a real no-hoper.
The more while to power take-off to drive a blower is quite something, and all of that is power that's lost for the clutch and gearbox...
Once the turbo was discovered, well then it became a different matter. But still, the 2:1 option wasn't that bad in reality. Had a factory effort being put behind it, it may well have worked eventually. But for the kitcar/"garagisti" era that was about to begin by then, it was no serious option. It was there and that was is.

Henri Greuter

[mikedeering]

In defence of the FIA, if you exclude McLaren from the equation in 1988 the remaining turbo and atmo cars were reasonably well matched. On more than one occasion it was Benetton or Williams that provided the main competition to McLaren rather than Ferrari. And towards the end of the season Capelli began to shine in the Newey designed March - even leading for a good 100 metres in Japan! The problem in 1988 is that no one really bothered trying too hard except Honda and McLaren, so a whitewash was inevitable, particularly with their driver lineup.

Was a trophy actually awarded for the Chapman/Clark Cups? Tyrrell, being the only ones to run 2 cars for much of the season rather walked it IIRC? I have fond memories of Pascal Fabre trundling round at the back of the field in the AGS. The team finally replaced Fabre with Roberto Moreno and the guy scores a point on his debut!

And why was it not used in 1988 - presumably because the FIA felt there was no need for a separate class since in their mind a level playing field had been created? I loved the period back then - some of the gaps in qualifying were ridiculous (and somewhat scary when you consider the speed differences involved). A quick look at forix tells you that Mansell's Williams Honda qualified 12.381s faster than Fabre's AGS at Hockenheim!

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by mikedeering

And why was it not used in 1988 - presumably because the FIA felt there was no need for a separate class since in their mind a level playing field had been created? I loved the period back then - some of the gaps in qualifying were ridiculous (and somewhat scary when you consider the speed differences involved). A quick look at forix tells you that Mansell's Williams Honda qualified 12.381s faster than Fabre's AGS at Hockenheim!

"In 1988.... no chance for the turbos".

One of Balestre's less accurate predictions. He reckoned that cutting the boost (2.5 bar) and the fuel allowance (150 litres) would strangle the turbos to the extent that a 'new breed' car would win races.

[aisiai]

Nah you guys made me look for 1986 and 1989 reviews

I've watched some videos of that years and have seen the mansell's blown tyre and prost-senna 'incident' but now I want to see the whole thing with the new info in mind

[mikedeering]

Probably my memory failing (or at least only recalling the good bits) but both the 1986 and 1989 seasons were excellent, especially 1986. 1989 is worth a look if only for Mansell's sublime win in Hungary.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Probably my memory failing (or at least only recalling the good bits) but both the 1986 and 1989 seasons were excellent, especially 1986. 1989 is worth a look if only for Mansell's sublime win in Hungary.

83-93 were all pretty good seasons, with the exception of '88. It all started coming very unstitched in '94 and I really started losing interest in single seaters then.

'89 is one of my favourite seasons ever; the sheer variety of teams, cars, engines etc. made it fascinating, and it was a bit of a shake-up as some teams got used to atmo power again and others had a brief day in the sun...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Probably my memory failing (or at least only recalling the good bits) but both the 1986 and 1989 seasons were excellent, especially 1986. 1989 is worth a look if only for Mansell's sublime win in Hungary.

Yes, the 1986 season exceeded all expectations (except my expectation that Piquet would the title), with 4 drivers from 3 teams fighting for the title for most of the year, with absolute stunner of the deciding race, with unexpected WDC driver, and with good supporting cast (Ligier).
1989 was, for me, only as good as the slow recuperation of shock that was the 1988 season - McLaren only won 10 instead of 15 races and it looked like a positive trend to me.

Hrvoje

[John B]

1989 was refreshing after 1988 (which at least had a compelling title fight, though marred by the 11-16 rule where Prost scored more but lost the title) because there was more unpredicatibilty and controversy. The Prost-Senna fued finally boiled over in public, huge controveries at Estoril and Suzuka, Arnoux blocking the field at Monaco, Prost tossing the winner trophy to the Monza crowd, Boutsen's two surprise wins (first for Williams-Renault) in the rain, etc - lots of good dirt for race reports. Mansell's surprise win in Brazil kind of set the tone for the season.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by John B
1989 was refreshing after 1988 (which at least had a compelling title fight, though marred by the 11-16 rule where Prost scored more but lost the title) because there was more unpredicatibilty and controversy. The Prost-Senna fued finally boiled over in public, huge controveries at Estoril and Suzuka, Arnoux blocking the field at Monaco, Prost tossing the winner trophy to the Monza crowd, Boutsen's two surprise wins (first for Williams-Renault) in the rain, etc - lots of good dirt for race reports. Mansell's surprise win in Brazil kind of set the tone for the season.

89 for me was more interesting for what was going on just behind the "establishment" of McLaren/Ferrari/Williams. There was a real midfield that you could entertain theories about and watch great scraps between; Benetton continued their rise; even Arrows looked very quick on occasion, the Lola-Lambos and Dallaras showed a fair bit of promise, and Onyx showed that what was wrong there wasn't with the drivers, the car, or the engineering staff, but the interventionist backer. Even the revived Brabhams had a day in the sun at Monaco where they were the most convincing *team* behind McLaren. The only black spots for me were Lotus' appalling season and March's failure to capitalise on their excellent '87-'88.

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by mikedeering
In defence of the FIA, if you exclude McLaren from the equation in 1988 the remaining turbo and atmo cars were reasonably well matched.

I agree. Here following a brief list of results(of course I don't consider McLaren as turbo!) :

• Brazil: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best turbo: 2. Berger (Ferrari) - best atmo: 7. Boutsen (Benetton)
• San Marino: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best turbo: 3. Piquet (Lotus) - best atmo: 4. Boutsen (Benetton)
• Monaco: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best turbo: 2. Berger (Ferrari) - best atmo: 5. Palmer (Tyrrell)
• Mexico: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best turbo: 3. Berger (Ferrari) - best atmo: 7. Nannini (Benetton)
• Canada: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 3. Boutsen (Benetton) - best turbo: 4. Piquet (Lotus)
• USA (Detroit) : 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 3. Boutsen (Benetton) - no turbos ended the race
• France: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best turbo: 3. Alboreto (Ferrari) - best atmo: 6. Nannini (Benetton)
• Great Britain: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 2. Mansell (Williams) - best turbo: 5. Piquet (Lotus)
• Germany: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best turbo: 3. Berger (Ferrari) - best atmo: 5. Capelli (March)
• Hungary: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 3. Boutsen (Benetton) - best turbo: 4. Berger (Ferrari)
• Belgium: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 3. Capelli (March) - best turbo: 4. Piquet (Lotus)
• Italy: 1. Berger (Ferrari) - best atmo: 5. Capelli (March) - best McLaren: 10. Senna (McLaren)
• Portugal: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best atmo: 2. Capelli (March) - best turbo: 4. Warwick (Arrows)
• Spain: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best atmo: 2. Mansell (Williams) - best turbo: 6. Berger (Ferrari)
• Japan: 1. Senna (McLaren) - best atmo: 3. Boutsen (Benetton) - best turbo: 4. Berger (Ferrari)
• Australia: 1. Prost (McLaren) - best turbo: 3. Piquet (Lotus) - best atmo: 4. Patrese (Williams)

List of "human winner" :

• 5 Berger
• 4 Boutsen
• 2 Capelli, Mansell, Piquet
• 1 Alboreto
  
• 6 Ferrari turbo
• 4 Benetton Ford
• 2 March Judd, Williams Judd, Lotus Honda turbo

Of course this is a very quick analisy, but you can see how atmo cars improved GP after GP. For sure, if the could have raced for the title it would be a very interesting season!

Ciao,
Guido

[Burd]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Was a trophy actually awarded for the Chapman/Clark Cups?

I have often wondered the same thing. I personally believe that the greatest piece of F1 memorabilia would be the Jim Clark Cup. Talk about a unique item! Does anyone know Jonathan Palmer's phone number?