21 replies to this topic

[indigoid]

as per subject... Everywhere I read I see references to it being ghastly and unreliable, as well as horrendously complicated and "an exercise in labour intensity". Nick Mason's comments in Into The Red (which TBH is what sparked my curiosity) were hardly kind at all -- comparing the cost per yard travelled to that of laying some ridiculously expensive carpet!

Nowhere, though, have I seen any real comments on what the actual problems were. Nick says that they couldn't get it to go beyond 9000rpm or so - it would just cut out, and you can hear this in the CD audio tracks supplied with the book. They didn't seem able to ascertain the real cause of the problem. Have been searching the tech forum archive, and will continue to do so.

For some reason I find myself listening to tracks 4 (the ERA B-type) and 5 (BRM) on that CD over and over again. Loud. Spine-tingling, both of them...

[shaun979]

In Karl Ludvigsen's "Classic Racing Engines" book it states that the engine's wet liners would move under enough pressure, allowing water in from the top of the cylinder. I don't know about cut outs though.

[SCO]

Although the audio on the CD is pretty good it is nothing like hearing the real thing - if you keep a eye out they still do demonstrations here and there - last one I saw was at Shelsley last year at the centenary.

As for the reliability - the liner problem was sorted with closer tolerences and a different joint ring, I think Nick's problems were more likely a set-up issue as in original mk2 form the cars were relatively reliable and would run cleanly to 12000rpm and beyond.

For more info Tony Rudd's book 'It was fun' is very readable and for me somewhat life changing, for all the detail you cant beat Doug Nye's BRM series of books - vol 3 which covers the H16 (also worth a listen) must be due soon.

SCO.

[NRoshier]

BRM loved their machine tools. I inspected a BRM formula Junior engine being reconstructed. It was a DOHC engine, each cam being made from a different grade steel (why do this?) and gear driven. The cam was supported by 5 needle roller bearings (non cage type), each one increasing in size from the rear to the drive end of the cam. The cam ran onto inverted buckets (no shim) which had a small pad inside that matched the valve end. Thus to dummy build the head you had to insert each camshaft and build each of the different size needle roller bearings and then heat the head to 90deg and measure clearances, then disassemble and machine pads to the desired amount and reassemble...
Perhaps the H16 was even worse?

[cosworth bdg]

Yes ,the BRM H16 was a lot of very difficult assembly work. The one thing that must be kept in mind is that the parent company, Rubery Owen Holdings thrived on very difficult designs and the machining there of...

[NRoshier]

well Don Halpin was doing the BRM FJ engine and he did not like it! (I noticed your sig)
ROH did not do that much previously with engines?

[Ray Bell]

BRM never did FJr engines...

And Rubery Owen, though they had a stake at the time, weren't the 'parent company' until well after the V16 was completed and running.

[Pat Clarke]

Ray, I think Niel might be referring to the BRM 1 litre Formula 2 engine of the mid Sixties. I always imagined this engine was simply half the 1500 V8 overbored, and was the origin of the later Tasman and F1 2 litre V8s
Pat

edit..spelling

[NRoshier]

The engine I saw was a very small compact inline 4 cyl with gear driven DOHC. I assumed it was FJ because of the size, so Pat is probably correct. I could always contact Don and ask I suppose. I have some pics of it somewhere.
Thanks for the clarification on ROH

[Pat Clarke]

Neil, there is a small picture of the engine here.
http://www.qv500.com/oc 1000sp p1 c.jpg
Oddly enough, it's fitted to a DeTomaso Vallelunga sportscar.
Pat

Edit, the link is not pasting properly. Highlight the entire link and paste into your browser

Another Edit.
I remembered a technical paper released by the IMECHE in the UK from when I was a judge at Formula Student earlier this year. It is in Adobe PDF format and has a cutaway drawing of the BRM F2 engine as well as other interesting stuff. It is Alec Osborne's presidential address talking about his time in the industry, including BRM where he designed the F2 engine and was deeply involved in other BRM projects. Lots of interesting pictures. Please enjoy

http://presidentscho..._121_001_01.pdf
Pat

[McGuire]

Overly-complicated race cars fail for the same reason as overly-complicated military weapons. Thirty minute practice sessions are no time for R&D.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by McGuire
Overly-complicated race cars fail for the same reason as overly-complicated military weapons. Thirty minute practice sessions are no time for R&D.

Very very true with what you have said............

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by McGuire
Overly-complicated race cars fail for the same reason as overly-complicated military weapons. Thirty minute practice sessions are no time for R&D.

100% true. Racers in general must either be hopeless optimists or masochists. I'm glad they built the thing, though, if just for the sound files that you can get off the net. I've got one and it sounds great even though it's misfiring like hell.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by NRoshier
The engine I saw was a very small compact inline 4 cyl with gear driven DOHC. I assumed it was FJ because of the size, so Pat is probably correct. I could always contact Don and ask I suppose. I have some pics of it somewhere.
Thanks for the clarification on ROH

Pat is correct... and on both counts...

It was a Formula 2 engine and it did have some input into the Tasman V8s.

FJr ended in 1963, IIRC, and was replaced by a new F3 which was production based engines with a single choke restrictor (from memory). Remembering that there'd been no F2 since 1960, with F1 coming down to the F2 size of 1500cc for 1961, it was necessary for the minor formulae to be small.

FJr was out of bounds to GP drivers, but F2 hadn't been, so the top drivers were missing out on potential drives (except that the new F1 got a lot of runs outside of the Championship events) until the new F2 came in. FJr had been open slather with production engines up to 1100cc, so the new F3 was really throttling them back with 1000cc and a restricted inlet.

The BRM engine had very limited success in the F2 events, Honda was very successful and the Ford block with a single cam head built by Cosworth had some wins. IIRC.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
BRM never did FJr engines...

And Rubery Owen, though they had a stake at the time, weren't the 'parent company' until well after the V16 was completed and running.

Ray, i think you will find BRM was set up by Sir Alfred Owen, Raymond Mays & Peter Berthon, Owen money and industry contacts , in other words ,Rubery Owen......................

[Ray Bell]

Certainly there was a lot of Owen in it from the beginning, just as there was Rolls-Royce and Lucas and Lockheed and many others...

But it was independent of any such total ownership until Alfred Owen bought it out a few years down the track.

The very insecurity of their finances was a part of the V16's failure, I'm sure.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


The very insecurity of their finances was a part of the V16's failure, I'm sure.

Ray ,i am very sure in what you say is very correct , Cheers PN .......

[indigoid]

wow, thanks guys :-) for all of your most insightful replies. I guess I will have to try to track down these books now...

[Ray Bell]

You might also check out this one:

BRM by Raymond Mays & Peter Roberts, Cassell & Co., 1962 & Pan Books, 1964.

Full of one-eyed views of things, but informative all the same. To balance things, perhaps look at the chapter on this car in The Design and Behaviour of the Racing Car by Stirling Moss and Laurence Pomeroy.

[bigmuz]

G'day fellas.

I am sure I read that they discovered the fundamental problem with the engine was with the carburetors. They used constand depression SUs (iirc) and the needles that they had selected would pull all the way out of the jet and allow fuel to babble out under high load/ high rpm conditions.

We used to race a hillclimb car and we had the same problem, and it was by recalling this anectdote that led us to the same realisation- sometimes mixing and matching needles and carburettors leads to this situation. The flow rate of the jet is affected badly if the needle withdraws all the way, rather than leaving a small amount inside.

It is very obvious on the soundtrack, and sounds like a right royal pain to drive around.

Other than that it is surely the most exciting sounding engine ever run?

Cheers

Muz

PS Long time reader, first time poster.
PPS Edited for spelling, also I took the liberty of inventing a new word, namely babble. Cheers

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by shaun979
In Karl Ludvigsen's "Classic Racing Engines" book it states that the engine's wet liners would move under enough pressure, allowing water in from the top of the cylinder. I don't know about cut outs though.

If I remember correctly, one of BRM's engineers said something about that on early engines they had trouble with the sealing to the head. This resulted in a water leak into the cylinder and cracked liners. But I believe this was solved.

There were also issues with the boost control I believe, which caused driveability problems. But I think that also that was solved later.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


If I remember correctly, one of BRM's engineers said something about that on early engines they had trouble with the sealing to the head. This resulted in a water leak into the cylinder and cracked liners. But I believe this was solved.

There were also issues with the boost control I believe, which caused driveability problems. But I think that also that was solved later.

Not an uncomon problem on wet sleeved engines, a trap easy to get caught on...........