Formula One designs that didn't work

[S griffin]

Anyone mention the Arrows A9? After so many teething problems, they finally got it out mid season in 86, before realising there was no point and switched back to the A8

[billy bleach]

Eiffeland March 721 with new bodywork designed by a furniture designer! Air intake infront of driver and a single rearview mirror centrally mounted. Still racing today in Historics!

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Here are a few cars that failed to perform to their teams expectations.


Starting with Lotus 56, 63, 76, 80, and 88. There maybe others as well.
The Brabham Bt46 in its early form with surface cooling and the BT55.
The Arrows A2, Mclaren M28 & MP18, Ferrari F92A & F93A.

You missed the Lotus 93.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

You missed the Lotus 93.

Yes, that was so bad, they needed Duca to build a new car mid season. And that was instantly so much better

[EastonNeston]

Any BRM after 1962!
Although the P153 and P201 would have been competitive cars with a DFV.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

You missed the Lotus 93.

There were so many F1 cars that failed to perform it is a long list. However in a lot of case poor performing cars were the result of limited budgets for small teams.


Speaking of budgets Toyota failed to perform in F1 given the resources they had available.

In their current sportscar program they have been the only well funded factory team, It will be interesting to see how they perform against the other factory teams now entering the WEC.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons that the 6 wheeler did not succeed as the season went on was because the tyre company stopped improving the small tyres that this car used, but kept on improving the standard tyres used by all the other cars.

It was eventually outlawed. Along with the Brabham fan car, not a failure in my book.

The Brabham "Skateboard" may also have been ahead of its time, with its low profile with the driver lying down, it was not a success IIRC.

The Brabham skateboard concept failed not because of the chassis but because it laid the upright 4 cylinder BMW half on its side and therefore created a number of issues with oil circulation and power delivery.

The evolution in principle was in 1988's Mclaren MP4/4 which also had the driver lying down much more. This car concept of course had some influence from Gordon Murray who worked for McLaren at the time.

An earlier Mclaren, the M9A was a failure in concept just like the Lotus 63 and the forgotten Cosworth DFV 4WD. Four-wheel drive failed because of weight and the loss of power through relatively inefficient 4 wheel drive systems of 68-70.
The other reason was the emergence in 1968 of wings which negated wheel spin and increased grip in corners in a much more efficient and lighter way than 4WD and also much simpler and cheaper. The beginning of aero in F1.

[S griffin]

Brabham seemed to past their best then. Just seemed to be less interested in developing the car

McLaren in 88 got lucky that they had the right engine in the back, although Murray did do plenty of good work on the car

McLaren really seemed to lose their way after 76. It's amazing they kept going after those bad times. And the less said about the Cosworth 4WD, the better.

It's amazing looking back in 68-70 how much weaker F1 seemed to be due to circumstances

[Born Racer]

Not strictly-speaking the whole car, but the W12 in the Life in 1990 is worth a mention.

[chillibowl]

Honda RA108 - so many different kinds of useless and ugly all at the same time.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Honda RA108 - so many different kinds of useless and ugly all at the same time.

Including the fanciful "sponsor"!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Brabham seemed to past their best then. Just seemed to be less interested in developing the car

McLaren in 88 got lucky that they had the right engine in the back, although Murray did do plenty of good work on the car

McLaren really seemed to lose their way after 76. It's amazing they kept going after those bad times. And the less said about the Cosworth 4WD, the better.

It's amazing looking back in 68-70 how much weaker F1 seemed to be due to circumstances

The M23 was a beautifully balanced car, long wheelbase, good aero and wing capability but even then there were a few things they learnt about what went on aerodynamically at the back of the chassis in 75-77. The M26 that succeeded it needed a bit of work and then once the Lotus 78-79 became the standard that caught McLaren on the back foot.
The M27 and 29 weren't great cars with a good understanding of aero efficiency and the M28 was an classic example of blind thinking. It basically had a huge plane area assuming the bigger the plane the more downforce you could generate and that was all you needed.
But it didn't work out like that and McLaren struggled in that whole era with aero.
Not until Marlboro got Ron Dennis involved did the team find its footing after Dennis has John Barnard involved and the first MP4 arrived. Then aero balance came back.

The MP4/4 in 1988 wasn't luck. The TAG engine had reached the end of its development with the fuel restrictive rules but getting Senna and Honda on board and having Murray involved in the F1 supercar project meant his input with Steve Nicholls who did most of the work on the MP4/4 created a sublime chassis with laid down driver, so the profile las limited to little more than the size of the engine with radiators along the side meant it was very efficient in a straight line, low centre of gravity, wide track stability and god attacking entry and centralized fuel capacity keep the centre of inertia low. All point's in Murray's mind when he had tried the BT56 'rollerskate'.

Actually very methodical deliberate design. The monocoque was a simpler very effective idea for assembly that Nicholls came up with, different from the originally MP4 series.

[Greem]

I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere on Tenths, but this video about the MP4/4 is fascinating. But that's a bit OT, because clearly that car did work

[greentrumpet]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Including the fanciful "sponsor"!

Especially the dark version they made with all the photos. Less "new earth dream" more "night soil"

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The MP4/4 in 1988 wasn't luck.

I guess, but they did literally take the engines away from their main competitor and 1987 world champions...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I guess, but they did literally take the engines away from their main competitor and 1987 world champions...

Not McLaren who took the engines away from Williams. Honda took the engines away and there would have been a reason for that action. Honda made a business decision and still provided Lotus with engines for Piquet and Nakajima so what was really going on with Williams?

There was a change coming up and they weren't going to supply more engines for a dying formula. And there was obviously some reason to only support one contender with the new naturally aspirated cars. Even Lotus used Judds in 1989.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Not McLaren who took the engines away from Williams. Honda took the engines away and there would have been a reason for that action. Honda made a business decision and still provided Lotus with engines for Piquet and Nakajima so what was really going on with Williams?

Honda were angry about Williams not giving Piquet clear number one status in '86, and also about Williams not replacing Mansell with Nakajima?

Supplying Lotus instead of Williams, certainly did not improve Honda's overall results!

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Honda were angry about Williams not giving Piquet clear number one status in '86, and also about Williams not replacing Mansell with Nakajima?

Supplying Lotus instead of Williams, certainly did not improve Honda's overall results!

I read the Japanese lacked confidence in a team run by a man in a wheelchair - another one of their mad decisions