Good Cars Hampered For Some Reason Or Another

ElizabethSterling · Post by **ElizabethSterling** » 02 Feb 2011, 02:41

I actually sat in the P34's cockpit once which was an experience and it was an impressive beast. The concept wasn't perect, of course, with the P34 was that goodyear wasn't willing to develop special tyres just for Tyrrell (with good reason) and so their front-tyre compounds fell behind quickly and it meant complications for brakes and suspension arrangements. The P34 really shone in the wet as the front tyres cleared away so much water that the pair trailing them could actually be fitted with slicks.

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 02 Feb 2011, 06:46

The Soopah Aguri SA07 AKA Honda RA106

Hampered because the people at Honda were, frankly, selfish idiots. If SA were able to design and manufacture their own parts, and if they had a steady flow of income, the car certainly would have been more competitive over the course of 2007, IMO.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 02 Feb 2011, 06:50

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:The Soopah Aguri SA07 AKA Honda RA106

Hampered because the people at Honda were, frankly, selfish idiots. If SA were able to design and manufacture their own parts, and if they had a steady flow of income, the car certainly would have been more competitive over the course of 2007, IMO.

God damn you, SS United.

Reverie Planetarian · Post by **Reverie Planetarian** » 02 Feb 2011, 15:45

ElizabethSterling wrote:I actually sat in the P34's cockpit once which was an experience and it was an impressive beast. The concept wasn't perect, of course, with the P34 was that goodyear wasn't willing to develop special tyres just for Tyrrell (with good reason) and so their front-tyre compounds fell behind quickly and it meant complications for brakes and suspension arrangements. The P34 really shone in the wet as the front tyres cleared away so much water that the pair trailing them could actually be fitted with slicks.

Damn, really? That's impressive.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 02 Feb 2011, 17:26

Both the Lotus 97T and 98T - Renault. They were amongst the quickest cars in the field in 1985 and 1986, and only mediocre reliability prevented them from becoming serious championship contenders. Plus, having Johnny Dumfries driving the second car in 1986 didn't help, too.

I'd mention the Brabham BT56 - BMW from 1987 too. It was well designed and very fast, but too damn unreliable. The fact BMW only supplied them the previous year engine - which was specifically designed for the BT55 and its special needs was a hinderance as well.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 02 Feb 2011, 22:01

Simtek S951, hampered by lack of funds and luck.

Post by **mario** » 03 Feb 2011, 14:22

I'm surprised that the Eagle Weslake T1G, as raced by Anglo American Racers in 1966 and 1967. It was designed by Lee Terry, a former Team Lotus engineer, and featured a quite clever suspension arrangement that meant that they could mount most of the suspension components much lower to the ground.
Although the original car was mostly made from aluminium, later versions used much more exotic materials (and here I owe you forumers an apology - I wrongly identified Team Lotus and Ensign as being the first to introduce titanium to Formula 1, but it seems that in fact it was Anglo American Racers, as the last chassis, No. 104, used a titanium chassis and magnesium alloy body panels).

In both 1966 and 1967, the car was quite competitive, as Dan Gurney and Bruce Mclaren qualified regularly within the top six; Gurney eventually won the 1967 Belgian GP using chassis 104, averaging 146mph (a record for the time), with a fastest lap averaging nearly 149 mph and a victory margin of over a minute. The car is often cited as being one of the most beautiful of all time too:

However, the car only ever won one race, despite being very competitive, and the team scored only four points in 1966 and thirteen in 1967, and they finished 7th in the WCC in both years. So, what went wrong?

The answer is to do with Weslake, and the 3.0L V12 that they produced for the car. It was a very intricate design, and when it worked, the engine was extremely powerful, and a match for any other engine on the grid (starting at ~360bhp at the first race, steadily increasing to 410-420bhp in 1967 and possibly as much as 440bhp by early 1968). Unfortunately, the design of the engine was too ambitious, and Weslake simply couldn't produce the parts to the required precision and material properties on a regular basis. As a result, the engine was hopelessly unreliable and overheated very easily, and blew up in virtually every race that it was used in in 1967, apart from the Belgian and Canadian GP's.

It is very much a case of what might have been, though - with a much more reliable engine, Dan Gurney could have easily scored points on a regular basis (the car was fast enough when it worked), podium finishes and perhaps even wins.

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 08 Mar 2011, 19:28

mario wrote:
David AGS wrote:A few cars come to mind:

2002 Arrows A22?

Had heaps of potential, i mean heaps. With no testing (money issues), they were confortably mid-field, when they developed it a little, they scored points: Monaco and Spain. Could have been on the podium for a race, cant remember which 1, and yes, Frentzen scored the points and did well, Bernoldi did well, and normally qualified in the middle/rear. Also had the twin suspension mounts, (twin keel), and high nose copied by Rinland from Sauber. Briefly tested by Minardi in 2003, then used by HondaSato team.

McLaren 2002: Another 2002 car, the first 1 on Michelin. The chassis was a gem, but the Merc was down on power at the start. When reliability and power were found, it beat the Williams fair and square, and had a few nibbles at Ferrari.

Tyrrell 020: 1991 car that was said to do very well. The chassis was meant to do very well, with the 'concorde beak', a Honda V-10 engine, and Pirelli tyres, but the engine was too heavy, the tyres weren't the best, and Harvey Postlewaite left mid-season.

Fondmetal GR02 (1992)/Forti FG03, 1996. Check the website!

Ah yes, the A22. The race that you happen to be thinking of is the 2002 British Grand Prix, where Bernoldi started in 18th place. The race started off wet, and at the time the Bridgestone intermediate and wet tyres were far superior to the Michelin equivalents. As a result, Bernoldi made up six places on the opening lap alone, and had climbed into 6th place by lap 25 before his driveshaft gave him problems, and eventually failed altogether three laps later.
Now, I don't know if a podium was possible that day, since the track did start to dry out towards the end of the race, which would have hurt Bernoldi's chances. On top of that, the drivers directly in front of Bernoldi were Villeneuve and Montoya, in that order - both with more competitive cars (and Villeneuve was on the same Bridgestone tyres), and both drivers would have fought hard to keep their positions. However, a good points finish was definitely achievable - I think that Bernoldi could have finished in at least 5th place, and potentially better, if his driveshaft hadn't failed.

However, Bernoldi's success was mainly due to the fact that over half the grid were using the inferior Michelin intermediates, so it was more of a case of being on the right tyres at the right time. Still, the A22 was probably more competitive than you'd have thought, given the problems Arrows were facing, but reliability problems did have a habit of kicking in at just the wrong time.

My beloved car. That race was an emotional rollercoaster for me. As you pointed out, Bernoldi was doing incredibly well and HHF was ridiculously fast on wets. HH was the first to change to wets, if I remember correctly, and was making up loads of time. That race could have changed the future of Arrows. I am absolutely convinced that we could have had both cars in the points.

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 08 Mar 2011, 19:40

mario wrote:
David AGS wrote:A few cars come to mind:

2002 Arrows A22?

Had heaps of potential, i mean heaps. With no testing (money issues), they were confortably mid-field, when they developed it a little, they scored points: Monaco and Spain. Could have been on the podium for a race, cant remember which 1, and yes, Frentzen scored the points and did well, Bernoldi did well, and normally qualified in the middle/rear. Also had the twin suspension mounts, (twin keel), and high nose copied by Rinland from Sauber. Briefly tested by Minardi in 2003, then used by HondaSato team.

McLaren 2002: Another 2002 car, the first 1 on Michelin. The chassis was a gem, but the Merc was down on power at the start. When reliability and power were found, it beat the Williams fair and square, and had a few nibbles at Ferrari.

Tyrrell 020: 1991 car that was said to do very well. The chassis was meant to do very well, with the 'concorde beak', a Honda V-10 engine, and Pirelli tyres, but the engine was too heavy, the tyres weren't the best, and Harvey Postlewaite left mid-season.

Fondmetal GR02 (1992)/Forti FG03, 1996. Check the website!

As for the 2002 Mclaren, the main problem there was that the FIA had banned the use of beryllium in 2001. Now, at the time, Ilmor-Mercedes had developed beryllium engine parts, as beryllium has excellent flexural strength and a very high modulus of elasticity. That, coupled with its low density, made it an ideal material for strong but lightweight pistons. So, the Ilmor Mercedes engine had a much longer stroke than the Ferrari V10, say, giving it much better low range torque, but could rev at least as high, if not higher, than it's rivals.

Somehow, though, the secret came to the attention of the FIA, which was bad news for Ilmor-Mercedes (supposedly through Ferrari, who had used acoustic analysis to gain an insight into the properties of the Ilmor-Mercedes V10).
Whilst it has good material properties, beryllium dust is highly toxic and carcinogenic, which means that it is hazardous to machine and handle. After hearing about that, the FIA promptly banned the use of beryllium on health ground. It also had the effect of costing the Ilmor-Mercedes engine a noticeable amount of top end power, since they could no longer rev as high as their rivals - which in part explains the drop in performance of Mclaren Mercedes in 2002.

By the way, beryllium is a bastard to machine because it heats up ridiculously when the cutting tool is in contact. The dust issue is not too bad, as long as you are cutting using coolant, because the dust ends up in the coolant, which can be syphoned off and disposed of properly. We machine it at work all the time, but we take due care with it. The oil and gas industry uses it a lot.
I heard that Ilmor was messing around with beryllium alloy engine blocks, which would have cost ridiculous amounts of money.
The consequences of inhaling beryllium are very similar to coal miner's pneumoconiosis (not sure I spelled that right).

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 08 Mar 2011, 19:46

ElizabethSterling wrote:I actually sat in the P34's cockpit once which was an experience and it was an impressive beast. The concept wasn't perect, of course, with the P34 was that goodyear wasn't willing to develop special tyres just for Tyrrell (with good reason) and so their front-tyre compounds fell behind quickly and it meant complications for brakes and suspension arrangements. The P34 really shone in the wet as the front tyres cleared away so much water that the pair trailing them could actually be fitted with slicks.

I did the 2001 Thoroughbred Grand Prix season as unpaid slave labour with Martin Stretton and the P34. Great fun and an incredible car. It's really bizarre when you sit in the car, because you can barely see the front wheels!

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 08 Mar 2011, 20:09

Faustus wrote:My beloved car. That race was an emotional rollercoaster for me. As you pointed out, Bernoldi was doing incredibly well and HHF was ridiculously fast on wets. HH was the first to change to wets, if I remember correctly, and was making up loads of time. That race could have changed the future of Arrows. I am absolutely convinced that we could have had both cars in the points.

He and Massa were the first men to pit, indeed.

dj_vicious · Post by **dj_vicious** » 21 Mar 2011, 03:39

Hows about the BAR 01 (or 001?) You know, the half blue 555, half white/red lucky strike car.They had tons of money from BAT and commissioned Reynard to design the chassis. It was speculated to win its first race. Didn't have access to the sports channel and was in the process of moving from Saskatchewan to Ontario, so I missed the opening round of 1999. Villeneuve was running well until his rear wing fell off and he spun out. I think Zonta had a mechanical failure. Well, that was the teams story of '99, the car was pretty quick but it kept bloody well breaking down on them. I remember Jacques running third, ahead of Schumi at Barcelona before it failed once again. I always thought it was a sexy machine, just a shame it was an epic fail for reliability. Also the engines were Supertecs, which were basically '97 Renaults.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 22 Mar 2011, 12:04

dj_vicious wrote:Hows about the BAR 01 (or 001?) You know, the half blue 555, half white/red lucky strike car.They had tons of money from BAT and commissioned Reynard to design the chassis. It was speculated to win its first race. Didn't have access to the sports channel and was in the process of moving from Saskatchewan to Ontario, so I missed the opening round of 1999. Villeneuve was running well until his rear wing fell off and he spun out. I think Zonta had a mechanical failure. Well, that was the teams story of '99, the car was pretty quick but it kept bloody well breaking down on them. I remember Jacques running third, ahead of Schumi at Barcelona before it failed once again. I always thought it was a sexy machine, just a shame it was an epic fail for reliability. Also the engines were Supertecs, which were basically '97 Renaults.

The BAR 01 was basically flawed in pretty much everything except the engine. It wasn't even that quick.

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 22 Mar 2011, 12:28

Phoenix wrote:
dj_vicious wrote:Hows about the BAR 01 (or 001?) You know, the half blue 555, half white/red lucky strike car.They had tons of money from BAT and commissioned Reynard to design the chassis. It was speculated to win its first race. Didn't have access to the sports channel and was in the process of moving from Saskatchewan to Ontario, so I missed the opening round of 1999. Villeneuve was running well until his rear wing fell off and he spun out. I think Zonta had a mechanical failure. Well, that was the teams story of '99, the car was pretty quick but it kept bloody well breaking down on them. I remember Jacques running third, ahead of Schumi at Barcelona before it failed once again. I always thought it was a sexy machine, just a shame it was an epic fail for reliability. Also the engines were Supertecs, which were basically '97 Renaults.

The BAR 01 was basically flawed in pretty much everything except the engine. It wasn't even that quick.

I still don't understand how someone with the budget of BAR, and the technical prowess of Reynard, could possibly be so, rejectful...

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 22 Mar 2011, 12:48

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:
Phoenix wrote:
dj_vicious wrote:Hows about the BAR 01 (or 001?) You know, the half blue 555, half white/red lucky strike car.They had tons of money from BAT and commissioned Reynard to design the chassis. It was speculated to win its first race. Didn't have access to the sports channel and was in the process of moving from Saskatchewan to Ontario, so I missed the opening round of 1999. Villeneuve was running well until his rear wing fell off and he spun out. I think Zonta had a mechanical failure. Well, that was the teams story of '99, the car was pretty quick but it kept bloody well breaking down on them. I remember Jacques running third, ahead of Schumi at Barcelona before it failed once again. I always thought it was a sexy machine, just a shame it was an epic fail for reliability. Also the engines were Supertecs, which were basically '97 Renaults.

The BAR 01 was basically flawed in pretty much everything except the engine. It wasn't even that quick.

I still don't understand how someone with the budget of BAR, and the technical prowess of Reynard, could possibly be so, rejectful...

They had Craig Pollock. And to a lesser extent, Jacques Villeneuve.

Post by **Londoner** » 22 Mar 2011, 16:45

I actually remember watching the 01 race back in 1999, and I liked it because of it's livery. I still do like the livery 12 years later. Am I right in saying the car was so crap Villenueve had a 12 race streak in which he failed to finish. I also believe Villenueve was running behind Badoer in the 1999 European Grand Prix and predictably conked out just before the awful memory of Badoer's gearbox packing up.

They also had Zonta. Not the best of choices IMHO for a second driver.

I also wonder if I'm the only person who likes the split livery?

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 22 Mar 2011, 22:15

East Londoner wrote:I also wonder if I'm the only person who likes the split livery?

Nope, I like it as well!

David AGS · Post by **David AGS** » 22 Mar 2011, 22:54

I liked the livery as well.

I thought it was really quick, but fragile.

There were a few rear wing failures as well

WeirdKerr · Post by **WeirdKerr** » 22 Mar 2011, 23:02

i preffered the blue and yellow part of the livery 555
I just wish they got their way and ran 2 different cars, does anyone remember whether Villeneuve was gonna drive the Lucky strike or the 555?

Post by **Londoner** » 22 Mar 2011, 23:12

Zonta was to drive the 555 car, and Villenueve was to drive the Lucky Strike car, from what I remember from a book about the 1999 season. I wonder if anyone has any images of the cars in their seperate liveries before the adoption of the split livery?

dj_vicious · Post by **dj_vicious** » 23 Mar 2011, 02:17

East Londoner wrote:Zonta was to drive the 555 car, and Villenueve was to drive the Lucky Strike car, from what I remember from a book about the 1999 season. I wonder if anyone has any images of the cars in their seperate liveries before the adoption of the split livery?

All available pictures are so low res. It's my all time fav livery and I was obsessed with it back in '99. I don't remember it being horribly slow as a car, albeit I was 10 at the time, but I remember it wasn't until Spa that Villeneuve finished. What a career ender just as I was getting into the sport

Aerospeed · Post by **Aerospeed** » 23 Mar 2011, 02:28

Hah! Been looking for that for quite some time. Those cars would have been awesome! However, the Ferrari International Assistance said "x-nay on the iveries-lay" and it turned into the mishmash we now know as the BAR 001.

How sad.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 23 Mar 2011, 04:06

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 23 Mar 2011, 10:15

^For whatever reason the 555 liveries look neat there, IMO.

Aerond · Post by **Aerond** » 23 Mar 2011, 10:22

Both liveries look incredibly good. Why didn´t they run half of the season with one and the second half with the other???

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 23 Mar 2011, 11:10

Aerond wrote:Both liveries look incredibly good. Why didn´t they run half of the season with one and the second half with the other???

They weren't even allowed I think. One team can only change liveries if it asks permission to the FIA. FIA only allows if it is one time exception.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 24 Mar 2011, 00:27

That sucks if HRT suddently get "yellow pages" as a main sponsor...

dj_vicious · Post by **dj_vicious** » 24 Mar 2011, 00:32

I guess it would have been nice if they opted for the 555 logo, or at least kept the awesome winged pattern for 2000. I Imagine the Honda involvement meant the red+white stays. Apparently the Japanese like red and white cars for some reason... I wonder...

The 555 logo always made some kind of comeback for the Chinese races because those cigarettes are popular there. I frankly have never seen a pack in my life and even Luckies are impossible to come by. I live in Canada nonetheless.

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 24 Mar 2011, 01:21

this.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 24 Mar 2011, 07:08

JeremyMcClean wrote:

For some reason, the 555 livery reminds me of an IRL car.

Post by **tommykl** » 24 Mar 2011, 07:12

Why, FIA, why didn't you let BAR run its two sseparate liveries? :cry:

Bleu · Post by **Bleu** » 24 Mar 2011, 09:31

There was no ruling about colours in driving suits so Villeneuve had Lucky Strike while Zonta and Salo had 555 overalls.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 24 Mar 2011, 09:39

Bleu wrote:

I find it quite humourous that THIS was the best picture you could find of his overalls. :lol:

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 24 Mar 2011, 21:40

I like the individual designs, but the split just looks ridiculous.

midgrid · Post by **midgrid** » 24 Mar 2011, 23:46

Interesting that the front wing was split, but the rear wing was devoted solely to 555.

The mechanics were also "segregated":

Bleu · Post by **Bleu** » 25 Mar 2011, 09:31

midgrid wrote:Interesting that the front wing was split, but the rear wing was devoted solely to 555.

Front of the rear wing was 555 and rear was Lucky Strike.

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 25 Mar 2011, 10:24

I'm disappointed that BAR didn't use the 'winged' livery when they decided to just use Lucky Strike. Beautiful livery...

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 25 Mar 2011, 10:52

dj_vicious wrote:I guess it would have been nice if they opted for the 555 logo, or at least kept the awesome winged pattern for 2000. I Imagine the Honda involvement meant the red+white stays. Apparently the Japanese like red and white cars for some reason... I wonder...

The 555 logo always made some kind of comeback for the Chinese races because those cigarettes are popular there. I frankly have never seen a pack in my life and even Luckies are impossible to come by. I live in Canada nonetheless.

Ah yeah...

EDIT: Can we please be on-topic and stop BAR livery rants?

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 25 Mar 2011, 11:02

FMecha wrote:EDIT: Can we please be on-topic and stop BAR livery rants?

But first...

I think BAR should have 'rotated' liveries. So they could have used 555 in 2000, Lucky Strike in 2001 or the other way round, and so on.

and

midgrid · Post by **midgrid** » 25 Mar 2011, 17:15

Bleu wrote:
midgrid wrote:Interesting that the front wing was split, but the rear wing was devoted solely to 555.

Front of the rear wing was 555 and rear was Lucky Strike.

D'oh! I should have remembered the non-tobacco "Run Free" livery on the back of the wing. :oops: