TAG/Porsche, questions about the engine.
#1
Posted 24 December 1999 - 07:49
1. Why were there NO Porsche decals on the car. I know that it was an expensive engine and TAG (I think I have this right) paid for it, but even still, why did Porsche not put their name on the car. The only place I have found the Porsche name anywhere during the project was on the turbo, and that was very small.
2. I know that it won 3 drivers and 2 constructors titles, but was it really that good of an engine? McLaren had the best chassis and the best drivers at the time, so what was the scope on the engine (I am talking specifically about 1984-1986, I know that Prost talked a lot during 1987 about how it was down on power).
3. I watched a story on McLaren and on the show, Ron Dennis stated that Porsche did have plans to build a N/A engine for 1989, but then when McLaren dumped Porsche for Honda, Porsche quit all together. Why did Porsche not pursue another team?
Also, I would like to have any information on the aborted 1991 attemp with Footwork. Why did Porsche bail so soon?
Any help for a Porsche fan would be greatly appericated.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 24 December 1999 - 10:47
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
[This message has been edited by Dennis David (edited 12-24-1999).]
#3
Posted 24 December 1999 - 10:58
The Honda was developed in the Williams so that by '86 it was clearly superior. The McLaren advantage was twofold: Prost and team orders. The Wiliams duo of Piquet and Mansell engaged in a fratricidal team rivalry which saw them robbing points from each other. Prost was joined by Rosberg who was left in Alain's wake.......
A great season. We don't see that anymore.
------------------
"The strategy of a Formula One race is very simple. It's flat out from the minute the flag drops." Mario Andretti 1976
#4
Posted 24 December 1999 - 12:51
One of the reasons for its success was that the design parameters were specified by John Barnard so that the engine design was totally integrated with the chassis from the beginning. This resulted in the overall package being very good. Once the Bosch fuel injection had been sorted, it was at least as powerful as its opposition. having Prost and lauda to drive was hardly a disadvantage either.
#5
Posted 24 December 1999 - 08:34
Another funny thing is that they concentrated mainly, almost entirely, on race performance and ignored developing a qualifying version, as most others did at the time. Even though they were down on power in qualifying, they were still very quick, and were of course able to pass and make their way to the front during the race - back when passing happened.
The car and engine also benefited front the Michelin radials, which had better wear qualities than the Good-Years, as well they also benefited from the BMW's fixation on blowing up!
#6
Posted 24 December 1999 - 21:19
Wash your mouth out with soap. Its people like you spreading these evil tales that are making people expect passing in todays GPs. Now Unle Max has told us that pit stops are much more exciting, so atop these scurrilous rumours!
#7
Posted 24 December 1999 - 22:42
#8
Posted 03 January 2000 - 19:57
#9
Posted 03 May 2009 - 23:14
I have always been a big Porsche fan, so I have some questions about Porsche's span in Formula One in the 1980's.
1. Why were there NO Porsche decals on the car. I know that it was an expensive engine and TAG (I think I have this right) paid for it, but even still, why did Porsche not put their name on the car. The only place I have found the Porsche name anywhere during the project was on the turbo, and that was very small.
2. I know that it won 3 drivers and 2 constructors titles, but was it really that good of an engine? McLaren had the best chassis and the best drivers at the time, so what was the scope on the engine (I am talking specifically about 1984-1986, I know that Prost talked a lot during 1987 about how it was down on power).
3. I watched a story on McLaren and on the show, Ron Dennis stated that Porsche did have plans to build a N/A engine for 1989, but then when McLaren dumped Porsche for Honda, Porsche quit all together. Why did Porsche not pursue another team?
Also, I would like to have any information on the aborted 1991 attemp with Footwork. Why did Porsche bail so soon?
Any help for a Porsche fan would be greatly appericated.
Megatron:
I suspect that no Porsche decals appeared on the cars because: 1) TAG paid Porsche for the project, hence they got the credit, and 2) Porsche knew from experience that if the project was a disaster, they could easily distance themselves from it, and if it succeeded, they would get credit, at least among the people who really counted (other possible customers).
McLaren stopped using the engine because they cost a lot of money, and Honda began offering them engines for free!
The Footwork saga was sad. First, Porsche miscalculated that a V12 was the way to go instead of the better (shorter, lighter, less internal friction) V10, then Footworks' Alan Jenkins designed a weak transmission. Porsche's contract called for a certain weight and power output, but they couldn't meet either requirement. Both parties were frustrated because they couldn't integrate successfully on lubrication, cooling, structural, drive systems, controls, etc. Neither party was responsible for the entire car, so problems turned into a "blame" situation; there was no "team" approach, so solutions didn't appear easily, if at all.
Frank
#10
Posted 04 May 2009 - 00:31
Porsche did get some resulting good P/R about it, but if it had been like the Footwork situation, Porsche would have been insulated to a degree since it was a customer project.
McLaren made a great car in 1984 which carried them through 1986. Having Lauda, and Prost (at his absolute prime) and Rosberg be the drivers was a great line up. But the engine was powerful enough and very drivable. Ergo a winner.
#11
Posted 04 May 2009 - 06:34
I have always been a big Porsche fan, so I have some questions about Porsche's span in Formula One in the 1980's.
1. Why were there NO Porsche decals on the car. I know that it was an expensive engine and TAG (I think I have this right) paid for it, but even still, why did Porsche not put their name on the car. The only place I have found the Porsche name anywhere during the project was on the turbo, and that was very small.
...
Am i the only one, that finds your name and first sentence somewhat at odds?
Aside from that I seem to remember that the turbos were manufactured by KKK? Surely, they wouldn't cast Porsche on them?
#12
Posted 04 May 2009 - 07:37
Why not? Porsche probably designed them. You know, like the early McLaren carbon chassis were manufactured by Hercules, but still carried the McLaren name, of course.Aside from that I seem to remember that the turbos were manufactured by KKK? Surely, they wouldn't cast Porsche on them?
#13
Posted 04 May 2009 - 09:22
Why not? Porsche probably designed them. You know, like the early McLaren carbon chassis were manufactured by Hercules, but still carried the McLaren name, of course.
hmmm, weren't they off-the-shelf units? (I don't give in easily )
Let's see the pics and let it be settled thus.
#14
Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:46
They were not prepared to go into F1 on their own but if someone was willing to pay, they accepted the job.
Thee were plans to use the engine for other purposes too: small helicopters. never
That it was so good was primirily because it was the first of the second generation bespoked design turbocharged F1 engines. Just about all other F1 engines that mattered were bvased on existing engines. The Renault, BMW and Honda were derived from F2 engines, the Hart was pretty much newly designed (monobloc versions) but also based on an existing Ford block.
The Ferrari V6 was bespoke design, yet originated from the late '70's.
On top of that, Porsche pretty much got a free hand of diong what they wanted for auxilliary equipment and they cooperated closely and intensly with Bosch for engine electronic and management systems.
#15
Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:53
They were not prepared to go into F1 on their own but if someone was willing to pay, they accepted the job.
Thee were plans to use the engine for other purposes too: small helicopters. never `came off the ground` so to speak.
That it was so good was (I think) primarily because it was the first of the second generation bespoked design turbocharged F1 engines. Just about all other F1 engines that mattered were bvased on existing engines. The Renault, BMW and Honda were derived from F2 engines, the Hart was pretty much newly designed (monobloc versions) but also based on an existing Ford block. The Alfa V8 was doomed once fuel consumption became an issue.
The Ferrari V6 was bespoke design, yet originated from the late '70's. it began to age rapidly from late 1984 on.
On top of that, Porsche pretty much got a free hand of diong what they wanted for auxilliary equipment and they cooperated closely and intensly with Bosch for engine electronic and management systems. Don't be surprised if the lessons learned in Gp C with the 956 in a fuel consumpion formula were of some help when F1 became such too from 1984 on.
With McLaren on top of the hill thanks to John Barnard in the chassis dept, and getting Lauda and Prost as drivers, success was there for the take. the more once the engine was fully sorted out and reliability no problem anymore.
Late '83 and during the winter of '83/'84, reliability was still a major problem but once the season started ....
Henri
#16
Posted 04 May 2009 - 18:35
Edited by jgm, 04 May 2009 - 18:37.