why the intro of 1.5 l in 50-whatever?

[djb]

Was the change to 1.5l simply a speed reducing idea, or were there any other political reasons for this-ie. to bring more competition into the game? I always forget the year it began and the year it ended. I recall that when it went back to 3 litres, the Cooper folks had to use a bored out 1.5 or 2, to 2.5 I believe. Wasn't it only the next year when a proper 3 litre was developed that Brabham got the title ('61?)

I figure that I am asking at the right place to get any answers, any would be appreciated. DJB

[Marshal]

The F1 rules changed for 1961, to go from 2500cc to 1500cc maximum capacity. I've never discovered any real reason why, it was just that the governing body decided it was time for a change. The British teams were upset about this as they didn't have a suitable engine, whereas Ferrari had a very competetive 1500cc V6 that ran in F2 events in 1960. The british team wanted to change the formula to 3000cc (the so called Intercontinental Formula - which was the regulations the Tasman Cup was run to in the early '60s) but the CSI (FIA of the day) refused.

Because of this the british teams were under prepared and had to rely on old and under powered climax 4 cylinder engines for all of '61, leaving Ferrari a clear run at the title, only interupted by Moss' brilliance at Monaco and the Nurburgring. By '62 both BRM and Climax had produced 1500cc V8's and dominated the formula till its end in 1965 (though Ferrari did win the title in '64).

The formula was then changed again for the '66 season, to 3000cc and 1500cc supercharged. Ironically, the majority of the british teams were again unprepared for the change, and Brabham with the low tech but reliable Repco V8's cleaned up, against oppostion using a variety of motors including old climax 2500cc 4's from 1960 bored out to 2700cc and the hideously over complicated H16 BRM.

Hope that helps!

[KC]

From what I have read, the rule change was made to satisfy Enzo Ferrari. They were obviously ready for a rule change when no one else was.

[djb]

Thanks Marshall and KC for the info and comments.

The "shuffling of the deck" aspect of rule changes hasn't really changed has is not? So 2.5 to 1.5, 1.5 to 3.0, DFV et al vs. 1.5 turbos, active suspension then no active suspension, slicks to treads and narrow track, to "definately everyone on a level playing field" of traction control....when you think about it, for right or for wrong, it does shake things about and makes for no moss to grow on a rolling stone. (whether it makes for better racing, that's a whole other can of worms to open....)

ps. almost forgot, so the BRM 16's were supercharged 1.5's. I thought they were from the 1.5 naturally aspirated time.
Also, weren't the BRM's of the early 60's the ones with a sort of ovalesque-looking backend?

[Peter Mallett]

I believe it was as KC said. Enzo was getting nowhere with his heavy rear engined cars aganst the Coopers and the only engine suitable for a lightweight racing car was the Dino which had a 2 litre engine. They ran this as the 156 in the Sharknose of 1961.

[Marshal]

Originally posted by djb
ps. almost forgot, so the BRM 16's were supercharged 1.5's. I thought they were from the 1.5 naturally aspirated time.

I think you're getting confused between two 16 cylinder BRM disasters! The H16 mentioned above was a 3l normally aspirated engine (sort of being two of their 1.5l V8's back to back). An earlier BRM disaster was the V16 of 1950-4 which was a 1.5l supercharged engine, which also dodn't work.

Originally posted by djb
Also, weren't the BRM's of the early 60's the ones with a sort of ovalesque-looking backend?

I think you are talking about a BRM P261, which was oval section when viewed from behind. These were the '64, '65 and early '66 cars (In '66 they ran 2.1l bored out engines whilst the ill fated H16 was completed).

[djb]

Thanks Marshall for the info on the two 16 cyl. projects. I had only heard of the 50's engine; I take it that your choice of word "disaster" to describe them was because of reliability problems? In any case, when I have some spare time, I shall try to find some reading material to get my BRM history straightened out.
DJB

[Michael M]

The rumour that Ferrari had been behind the CSI’s decision of 1958 about the new F1 formula arose immediately after this decision had been made public in the late evening of 29 October 1958 at a ceremony and formal dinner hosted by the Royal Automobile Club at its Pall Mall headquarters in London. In reality, Ferrari was just as displeased as the British were! The vote by the CSI Committee was 5 - 2 in favor of the French proposal. The two dissenting votes were cast by Great Britain and Italy. That Italy was also a dissenting member of the CSI Committee was largely overlooked by the British then and later. 2 weeks later the “rebel” Inter-Continental series was announced, with the backing of Great Britain, the USA, and – Italy! With 2 ½ years there was sufficient time to develop competitive racing machinery, but only in mid-1960, a sense that just perhaps they might want to start taking a look at the new formula started to crawl over the British teams.

And in fact, nobody was really prepared for the 1966 3 litre formula. 1.5 litre F1 racing started to get unattractive to the spectators, with sports cars going much faster than “the crown of motor racing”. So the teams opted for bigger engines, 2 litres was the figure more or less everybody had in mind. But knowing that the FIA / CSI never gives what they are asked for, a “bazar trade” was agreed. “Let’s ask the CSI for 3 litres, they will refuse this and offer 2 litres, and everybody is happy”. Okay, we all know what happened!

[djb]

Michael, excuse the ignorance, but what does CSI stand for?

[Michael M]

CSI = Commission Sportif Internationale (my French is not the best, may include spelling faults), the body of the FIA in charge for motorsport in those days.

[Ray Bell]

'Sportive' in fact... but let's overlook that.

The situation with the British when the decision was made was less clear than might be thought. Lotus were fledglings with the spindly cars not performing very honorably, Cooper had two wins to their credit, but both could be considered minor miracles. BRM had yet to win a race, though Caen had shown some promise.

Vanwall were the British vanguard (should I put 'Vanguard'?) at that time, and they were to falter shortly afterwards anyway. The sudden introduction of the new fuel regulations was enough of a problem for them. Aston Martin, of course, were in the wings, but they were not likely to look at anything under 2.5 litres, were they?

So the British, with some Ferrari backing, expected to have the decision overturned, not really knowing where their strengths lay.

They held the future of F1 in the palms of their hands and didn't know it!

Then again, they were busy enough (particularly the engine building people involved - Coventry Climax and BRM) getting onto the pace needed to win in those two remaining years without considering the future and change.

Now, to correct a couple of minor mis-statements:

The Tasman Formula, introduced in 1964 and current to 1969, was for racing engines of 2.5 litres running on Avgas. Prior to that, there was a total Formula Libre situation, no 3-litre formula ever applied.

Cooper were, in fact, one of the few British teams ready for the 3-litre Formula, using the V12 Maserati engine. I don't think they every used anything less than that, going over to BRM V12s very late in the day.

The BRM H16 was two V8s with their banks laid flat to make flat 8s, one atop the other, with a geared drive to a central shaft between each crank.