Showing posts with label MartiniRacing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MartiniRacing. Show all posts

Sunday, December 14, 2025

One One Five Twelve: Would that be Pounds or Kilograms? The Flat 12 Brabhams.

 

Brabham-Alfa Romeo BT45 #001

It’s well known that Bernie Ecclestone showed a flair for deal making while still a teenager, initially trading in motorcycle parts and accessories. Thus, when he started racing cars in 1950, his focus was as much on how this hobby could reward him financially as it was on competitiveness on-track. The scale of his ‘wheeling and dealing’ had snowballed sufficiently by the time he was in his thirties that he was entering cars in Grands Prix and managing a driver as prominent as the future (posthumous) ’70 World Champion, Jochen Rindt. His activities in and around the F1 scene allowed him knowledge and understanding of everything that was going on in terms of the sport’s financial and organisational aspects. Of the great many friends/acquaintances he cultivated, one of the most significant proved to be Andrea de Adamich, a well respected, intelligent Italian, good enough to drive in F1 (and World Championship sportscars) if not quite with the talent to be a title contender. He did, however, possess a good understanding of the engineering and team management elements of motorsport which he later put to good use in a second career as a journalist. Enjoying a reputation for credibility, de Adamich was able to discuss matters with a wide range of the involved personalities, including the sport’s governance executives, team owners and managers, becoming at times privy to information not circulating in the public domain.

De Adamich, seen below in conversation with Ecclestone*, was racing Alfa Romeo saloon cars in the early Sixties when he was in his early twenties. He did well enough to graduate to single seaters, and, in ’65, take the Italian F3 championship. That was an achievement which impressed Carlo Chiti, in charge at Autodelta, Alfa Romeo’s sporting arm, to the extent that de Adamich was inducted into Alfa’s touring car team. So he became a high profile driver who could and did score victories at major international events. In ’66 and ’67 he was European Touring Car Champion and before the end of the decade he had seen success at World Sportscar Championship races, run very competitively in F5000 and played a significant role in the development of the Alfa Romeo Tipo 33, culminating in the ’75 flat 12 version’s World Championship for Makes triumph. Meanwhile, from ’68 to ’73, he raced in 34 Grands Prix, with a best result, 4th in ’72 and ‘73 in Spain and Belgium, respectively. That ’73 season was his last in F1, with five outings in Brabhams. * At Balocco, 1976. Courtesy Ettore Colombo


While de Adamich was circulating on-track in F1, Ecclestone was also getting around the Grand Prix scene, keen to find new opportunities. Coming to his attention was the situation at Motor Racing Developments (Brabham), where things were unsettled after Jack Brabham’s retirement in ’70 and sale of his 50% of the business to co-owner, Ron Tauranac. Bernie had been acquainted with Tauranac in his time as Rindt’s manager when he was a Brabham driver in ’68, and would have been aware that although Ron had worked well with Jack, his heart had not been in the purchase of Jack’s shares since he saw himself as an engineer, not a corporate proprietor. Whatever was said in public to preserve a good perception of MRD’s prospects and commercial viability, de Adamich was quietly able to clue Ecclestone in further to what was actually going on. De Adamich himself liked the idea of Ecclestone getting involved at MRD and encouraged Bernie to make an offer to buy Tauranac out. In fact, there already was momentum towards that - perhaps initially at the Monaco Grand Prix, Tauranac had sounded Bernie out on the notion. It has been reported that Ecclestone offered £130,000 and this was acceptable to Tauranac. However, in October ’71, with Ron settled in his mind to move on, Ecclestone played a ‘gozunder’ on the point of signing the contract, reducing the ’price’ to £100,000. Bernie, being Bernie, deployed his ‘charm,’ with the result that Ron apparently took it on the chin and considered their friendship would be ongoing.

’72 was a difficult year for the ‘new’ MRD. The Ford Cosworth V8 DFV-engined BT33, BT34 and BT37 cars scored a mere 7 points in the International Cup for F1 Manufacturers, good enough only for a season finish in joint 9th, (last) place. Ecclestone formed the view that his team would not be able to achieve a rapid improvement in competitiveness as long as it continued to use the near-ubiquitous Cosworth DFV engine. The Ford-badged V8 at that point was typically delivering 450 bhp. He believed that the team needed a 500-plus bhp engine in a V12 configuration. The two 12 cylinders already disputing the championship were Ferrari’s Tipo 001 flat 12, giving 480 bhp and BRM’s P142 V12, rated at 440 bhp. But just beyond the realm of Formula One, another 3 litre V12 racing engine was under development – down in a quiet seaside location in Sussex. This was Harry Weslake’s Weslake Engineering works, within which a new power unit was being made for Ford/John Wyer Automotive/Gulf Racing for endurance sportscar applications. Pursuing his desire for a 500 bhp engine, when Ecclestone heard about the Weslake, he was keen to give it a try. So Brabham’s designer, Gordon Murray, was pressed into a project to modify a F2 BT38 to accommodate the engine, creating a ‘BT39,’ and Graham Hill was cajoled into driving it in a test at Silverstone. While this did not have an immediately positive outcome, the very fact that he’d seen something other than a DFV in a Brabham encouraged Ecclestone to step up his quest to find an engine that would fill the bill.

Brabham BT39-Ford Weslake V12  Courtesy OldRacingCars.com

Next stop on the search was at Weissach where Porsche could show Ecclestone a race calibre V12 yet to be assigned to a specific application. Gordon Murray recalls, ‘ . . . Porsche said, “Right, this is how much we are going to charge you for the engines,” and Bernie said, “No, no, no, no. You give us the engines and we will make them win.” Porsche said no. So that was the end of that.’
 
Ecclestone had presided over a season in which there was little success on the track but still cost him £80,000. So his focus much of the time had to be on finding sponsorship. There were talks with Aleardo Buzzi and John Hogan representing, Philip Morris. Ecclestone had become aware that the cigarette manufacturer was keen to switch its Marlboro brand sponsorship from BRM after the ’73 season. Talks seemed to be going well and the acquisition of a substantial budget was anticipated. But however good had been Ecclestone’s portrayal of the benefits Philip Morris would enjoy from the Brabham cars being seen in Marlboro livery, those same cars had received only modest levels of public attention given their absence from the head of the F1 field – the team had finished 4th in the Manufacturer’s Standings, with just two 3rd place finishes as best individual race results. With over double the number of Championship points and 3 Grands Prix victories, McLaren was able to present a good case to Buzzi and Hogan. Thus, to Bernie’s dismay, he learned that the Marlboro logo would be seen on the M23s, not his BT42s/43s in ’74.

Mostly, Carlos Reutemann and Carlos Pace were the drivers who carried Ecclestone’s hopes through the ‘74 season, though John Watson, Richard Robarts, Rikky von Opel, Wilson Fittipaldi, Gérard Larrousse, Teddy Pilette and Lella Lombardi all also had outings in F1 Brabhams. The MRD-entered cars ran in white, with little in the way of sponsorship decals, but the prospects for that shortcoming being rectified the following season were greatly boosted by Reutemann’s three Grand Prix victories, in South Africa, Austria and the U.S. – and the Watkins Glen outcome was further illustrious as Carlos Pace delivered on the promise he had been showing by making it a Brabham 1-2. Ecclestone’s morale was much boosted by that result, and his confidence was buoyed as he sought to capitalise on it by pitching for sponsorship from the Italian drinks manufacturer, Martini & Rossi. The company had based much of its marketing activity on brand exposure in motorsport since the early 60s when it began by establishing a ’Martini & Rossi Racing Team’ and helping fund the running of Alfa Romeos in sportscar racing. A higher profile development came in ’68 with a change of name to ‘Martini Racing’ and intended participation in both the sportscar and Formula 1 World Championships. It was soon closely associated with Porsche, leading to a Le Mans victory in ’71, while the team made a start in F1 with the Tecno cars of the Pederzani brothers. This venture had stemmed from the activities of Martini Racing’s advisor, David Yorke. Yorke had made his name and good reputation by his roles at Aston Martin and subsequently at JW Automotive Racing, with high achievements as team manager, including victory at Le Mans in ’68 and ’69 and with the Gulf 917s in ‘70/’71. Amongst his friends in the motorsport sphere was one Bernie Ecclestone. Unsurprisingly, in ’71, aware of Bernie’s interest in getting involved at MRD, Yorke had lobbied Martini to put its name on the Brabham cars. But, unexpectedly, the sponsorship deal was awarded to Tecno. Given that it was soon obvious that Formula 1 was something of a stretch for the Tecno cars and organisation, it is not surprising that Yorke was quick to recommend that the arrangement was terminated and funding transferred to MRD. It took time, though and it was not until the latter part of ’74 that Martini committed to a Brabham budget for the following season.

All this had, with full justification, been commanding Bernie’s attention, as incremental income was vital if there was to be any ongoing improvement in on-track competitiveness. But that objective was also affected of course by what the other teams were up to. And foremost amongst these, Ferrari’s situation would have regularly been figuring in Ecclestone’s thoughts. SpA Società Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili e Corse (SEFAC) had experienced a saga of difficulties with its flat 12 engine since its introduction for the ’70 season. However, ’74 had seen a significant improvement in the unit’s fulfilment of its power potential and reliability. Between them, drivers Nikki Lauda and Clay Regazzoni took three Grands Prix wins and eight podiums (2nd/3rd), earning the team second place in the Constructors’ Championship. There was a good deal of speculation that ’75 would see SEFAC go one place better. So, Ecclestone’s thoughts turned once again to the desirability of a 12 cylinder engine for his Brabham chassis.
If Ferrari was on the brink of a resurgence in Formula 1, its spiritual parent, Alfa Romeo, was continuing to see its glory years of ’50 and ’51 fade further into history. Within the company’s management, a division was growing between those who longed to repeat the two consecutive World Championships with the Alfettas, and others– typically younger, less time-served – who were uncomfortable with any ideas of renewed Grand Prix contention. The latter view stemmed from politically-based sentiment that as a ‘state-owned,’ (via the IRI holding company), enterprise, it should not be seen by the public as a lavish spender on a non-essential sporting activity. Surely, some reasoned, it was bad enough that large sums had been used through the subsidiary Autodelta business to develop and race the Tipo 33 prototypes – all without much success since its launch in ’67. But Autodelta boss, Carlo Chiti, was protected to some extent from the political manoeuvres as the premises were a few miles ‘off-site’ at Settimo Milanese. There, in the specialised milieu he had created, Chiti was able to operate with considerable freedom allowing him the scope to contemplate and plan for an Alfa Romeo F1 future. As he did so, he shared his aspirations with team members and associates, one of whom was Andrea de Adamich. In turn, de Adamich was keen to keep Bernie informed about developments and so, when Chiti began to talk about the possibility of modifying the 33’s Tipo 115-12 3.0 litre flat 12 engine for Formula 1 utilisation, Bernie was soon aware. The unit had been introduced in ’73 and powered the 33 to the World Championship two years later, albeit in a field of meagre competitors. For endurance racing, the engine was set up to produce 470-500 bhp. As would be proven for the ’77 sportscar season, a further 20 bhp was feasible and with such an output, a Formula 1 competitive advantage could be achieved, except . . . these levels of horsepower were generated at the cost of a relatively a heavy (178 Kg) engine and one that consumed fuel at a furious rate. However, that didn’t stop de Adamich extolling its virtues and reiterating Chiti’s confidence that with a range of modifications, such characteristics could be addressed and a Grand Prix-winning motor created.

Alfa Romeo Tipo 115-12 engine at the Nurburgring 1000 Kms, 73  Courtesy Rainer Schlegelmilch


So, early in ’75, Ecclestone was in talks with Chiti, and, buoyed by what de Adamich had told him regarding the technical considerations, was more concerned about costs rather than technicalities.  The last thing Bernie wanted to contemplate at that time was how much he would have to pay on an ongoing basis for supply of the engines.  And yet there was an answer he would like, stemming from a shift in the relative strengths of the pro/anti positions within the top management team at Arese disputing the future form of Alfa Romeo’s motorsport involvement.  Appointed to the role in the early Sixties, Giuseppe Luraghi proved to be a great strategic thinking President of the company.  One of his strongest traits was to be in favour of sporting activity both to preserve Alfa Romeo’s reputation for innovation and engineering excellence and to support the marketing of its road car production models.  But, by the early Seventies, his outlook was vigorously contested by some of his management colleagues – notably, his eventual successor, Ettore Massacesi - and the IRI, their aim being to see a significant cutting of costs.  As his period of being in charge drew towards its conclusion, he was perhaps keen to reinforce a future corporate pro-motorsport outlook.  Thus, an ambition to see Alfa Romeos once again battling for F1 World Championship points figured in the forward planning activities conducted in the Arese offices.  In broad terms, the aspiration was for there to be an Alfa Romeo Grand Prix car by the end of the decade.  In order to contain costs and streamline the development process, it was decided that an initial step should be the supply of engines to an existing competitor so that the optimisation of specification, installation issues and establishment of reliability could be achieved other than at Alfa Romeo’s expense.  Thus, it would be worthwhile for the engines to be supplied on a free of charge basis.

Consequently, to his (well concealed) surprise, when Ecclestone put it to Chiti that he’d be prepared to give the flat 12 a go in his race-winning Brabhams, but only if they didn’t cost him anything, Carlo, with a show of reluctance and of being indignant, agreed.  The negotiations had been taxing, but there was then no scope for Chiti to relax – he needed to implement a number of changes to the engine, whilst at the same time managing the further development process for the Tipo 33 application, which included the small matter of a twin turbo variant for the ’77 season.  For the Formula 1 version, there was the need for generalised weight saving, a reduction – from seven to four - in the number of main bearings, bigger valves and a raised compression ratio.  Meanwhile, back in England, Gordon Murray began designing the first Alfa-powered Brabham.  And on the commercial front, there was development too – perhaps partially stemming from the added Italian element in terms of the Brabhams’ new engine maker, Martini & Rossi, which had committed to another year as the main MRD sponsor and with it, an increased budget at that.

The Tipo 115-12 engine in F1 form.  Courtesy Ian Gordon Murray/Philip Porter

Murray’s BT 45 went from drawing board to track with considerable rapidity.  The prototype was shipped to Italy in early October ’75 and was run at Balocco at a press launch.  It was then returned to England and subjected to testing at Silverstone.  It was to some extent an evolution of the BT 44B mechanically – suspension and radiator location, for instance – but the chassis was markedly different since it had to accommodate the sheer size – especially the width – of the engine, the much larger necessary fuel capacity and the fact that the flat 12 could not be used as an integral part of the chassis, as was the case with the DFV.  This latter point, required the rearward extension from the tub of two outriggers for support, either side, of the engine crankcase, and was just one of several chassis features which added to its weight.  Indeed, the car weighed in at 620-630 Kg, whereas the 44 was said to be in the range 550-610 Kg.  And Murray expressed his particular dismay at having to incorporate no less than 4 dispersed fuel tanks to cope with the 215 litres likely to be burnt over the course of a Grand Prix!  This requirement precluded Murray from drawing a ‘triangular’ section body/chassis, which had become his signature style since the BT 42.  Adding to his concern about the engine, Murray has recalled that, ‘It had Italian fuel injection, too, which was quite crude and broke down a lot.’  But the BT 45 still looked good in its white paint finish and Martini Racing livery.

Complex fuel system required for four tanks.  Courtesy Ian Gordon Murray/Philip Porter

Brabham, along with the other eleven crack teams running the DFV, had enjoyed not only its performance characteristics, but also the quality and consistency of its engineering. Murray did not find quite the same qualities in the freight he was now receiving from Settimo Milanese: ‘One of the massive problems I had with the 45 series of cars is that when Alfa first gave us the drawings for the engine, I obviously designed the car for that. With the DFV you had a tight tolerance on the engine mountings. Every engine arrived and just slotted on the back. Rip one out, put another on. We were testing down at Balocco with the 45 and the engine blew up, which happened quite a lot. We got the next engine out and the difference on the mountings was millimetres so it just wouldn’t fit. So for the 45s generally, I had to design cams and eccentrics, and packers and spacers on all the engine mountings so that every time we changed the engine, you could adjust the car to fit the engine, which I never had to do before. So during this time there were all these sort of ‘Italian problems,’ if you like.’ Frustrating as these sort of issues were, the even more fundamental issue of the engine’s weight was beyond any one type of countermeasure. It was equipped with a titanium exhaust system, which was marginally helpful, but at the same time introduced a further negative factor in reliability terms as the material proved repeatedly liable to cracking. But the biggest concern at the outset was the inadequate specification of the lubrication system. There had not been a particular difficulty in this respect with the engine as deployed in the Tipo 33s, but with much less room in and around the body of the Formula 1 car, accommodating a generous quantity of oil – and such that its weight did not cause balance problems – was a yet another challenge for Murray. Against the 30 litres of oil which could be comfortably carried in a Tipo 33, the BT 45’s capability was a mere 8 litres. Even at the very first on-track test of the BT 45 at Silverstone, there was concern for a potential engine failure stemming from intermittent oil starvation because of surging, with related loss of pressure. There was evidently a scavenging weakness despite Chiti’s apparent care in designing the lubrication system, incorporating two cylinder head scavenge pumps and three front mounted, gear principle main oil pumps, drawing from six mesh protected drain points.

Brabham BT45  Courtesy Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo


The problems were especially disappointing, as it might have been expected that with the original engine specification being biased towards the endurance form of racing, reliability would be assured even if there was work to do to extract the level of power that was essential for the short form event that constitutes a Grand Prix. But, this too provoked further diffidence as Reutemann’s feedback during the initial Silverstone test was to the effect that drivability was poor with power not delivered in a manageable, linear manner – urge was lacking at lower/medium engine speeds until as the rev limit was approached, the full surge of grunt was abruptly transmitted to the wheels. Possibly, Reutemann had a prejudice against the engine. I say this because, with the compression ratio further upped to 11:1 the output peak was in the order of 520 bhp@12000 rpm, with at least 400 bhp available from 9000 rpm.

BT45 First Test at Silverstone, October ’75  Courtesy David Phipps


The BT45-Alfa’s best result in the ’76 season was Pace’s 3rd at the French Grand Prix in July at Paul Ricard.  He also managed a 4th place finish, at the Nurburgring in August, Reutemann achieving the same placing in Spain in May.  Pace finished 14th in the Championship, Reutemann, 16th.  Brabham was placed 9th in the International Cup for F1 Manufacturers.  There were seven engine/engine-related DNF failures over the sixteen Grands Prix.

’76 BT45 engine installation in Carlos Pace’s car


For ’77 Murray designed a B specification version of the BT 45. However, this would not be ready until March for the 3rd race of the season at Kyalami. In the meantime, Pace qualified and raced to 2nd place at the opening event in Buenos Aires. Further optimism broke out at Brabham when John Watson took the new ‘B’ to 3rd place at the non-Championship Race of Champions at Brands Hatch. He went one better at July’s French Grand Prix, finishing a close second to Mario Andretti in his season-dominating Lotus 78 after leading all but the race’s final lap. Otherwise, the only other really notable results were a pair of 3rd places in Germany and Austria with Hans Stuck at the wheel. Much more had been expected, especially because the engine’s weight (175 Kg) had been reduced while the power output was increased – to 525 bhp – as a result of winter development work, at Autodelta, including the adoption of Lucas fuel injection.

Carlo Chiti beside a BT45B.  Gordon Murray is just visible in the top right.  Courtesy Ian Gordon Murray/Philip Porter


The performance of the Lotus, with four victories in ’77, was salutary and signalled the death knell of the Tipo 115-12.  Chapman’s latest machine pioneered the ground effects concept which was to revolutionise F1 design and soon become an essential characteristic if a car was to be at all competitive.  In simple terms, the high downforce feature was created by careful management/acceleration of airflow around, over/under and through the chassis/body, largely through enclosed longitudinal tunnels.  To provide for these within the relatively narrow chassis of a single seater racing car, it was necessary for the engine in turn to be as narrow as possible.  While the dimensions of the Cosworth V8 (680 mm) fitted the bill, the markedly substantial width of the Tipo 115-12 (1000 mm) certainly did not.  The engine’s width was considerably conditioned by its relatively long stroke of 53.6 mm, compounded by the use of cam followers which stood proud above the valve springs.  Furthermore, since the widest part of a flat engine, (measured laterally from cam cover to cam cover), is lower than as found on V configuration unit, accommodation compromises are inevitable with any chassis elements low in the structure and located along its outer edges – exactly where the ground effects-vital venturi tunnels need to run.

Murray, however, was not yet ready in ’77 to revise his design ‘philosophy’ to embrace Lotus-style ground effects principles.  He was nevertheless continuing to feel hamstrung by the Alfa engine’s dimensions, weight and fuel consumption.  These factors were denying the team the competitiveness they might have expected given 525 bhp on tap.  There wasn’t really anything he could do about the engine’s size, but he could chase Chiti vigorously for modifications which would improve fuel efficiency and there had to be scope for weight saving.  And now Murray’s creativity and lateral thinking came to the fore.  He determined  to circumvent the problems that had prevented him from drawing a ‘triangular,’ inherently weight-reducing, chassis, partly by eschewing the use of (bulky) conventional heat-exchanging units – radiators – and using the exposed body surfaces to fulfil this function.  This was achieved primarily by integrating four heat exchanging panels – two for coolant, two for oil – into the chassis, such that their outer surfaces, which were partially finned - ran in the ambient air flow.  This system – along with several innovations around the car’s instrumentation and on-board self-height adjustment mechanism – made the BT46 intriguingly distinctive in comparison with the other new-for-’78 cars.

Brabham BT46

But . . . even in the ambient temperatures encountered in winter testing at Silverstone, the BT46’s coolant got far too hot, albeit the oil cooling was adequate. There was no immediate fundamental solution and so the start of the ’78 season saw Brabham fielding a further revised BT45 – with ‘C’ designation – at the Argentine Grand Prix in mid-January. This was Nikki Lauda’s debut with the team and he marked it very well by finishing 2nd to Mario Andretti’s Lotus.

The BT46 had been considerably reworked while the 45C was filling in at the South American races. It appeared for its first race at Kyalami in March, equipped with conventional front coolant radiators. They were working well enough during practice and Lauda beat Andretti to the pole. He ran strongly in the race and looked assured of at least a podium finish, but the engine blew up after 52 laps. While both Lauda and Watson were able to run very competitively at the early season’s venues, rumour had it that the new Lotus 79 would have a huge effect on the comparative performance status of the entire field. If other teams/designers were overwhelmed by the quantum leap that the Lotus seemed likely to represent, Murray reacted by once again getting daring and innovative. His response was not to try and replicate the chassis/body concepts Lotus was known to be finalising, but to revive/refine the means by which the Can-Am Chaparral 2J had glued itself to the track . . . a gearbox-driven fan was mounted vertically to the rear of the BT46B, its purpose being to create a low pressure area underneath the chassis. The coolant radiator was relocated to a mounting above the engine – this was of particular importance as its positioning would enable Murray to assert that the fan’s main purpose was not for aerodynamic effect, but to boost the heat exchanging properties of the radiator. Whatever the realities of this contention, ‘tuning’ the system to optimise the degree of ‘vacuum’ generated beneath car’s floor was problematic and precluded a presentation of the BT46B at the Monaco race in early May. At the following Grand Prix in Belgium, the 79, employing optimal ground effects capability, won its first race with ease and seemed a shoe-in to be nominated as the season’s class of the field machine. But the Brabham was race-ready the following month and care was taken by Murray in talking about it to emphasise that for the most part the fan was a cooling device. However one wants to evaluate that notion, the simple fact is that the BT46B’s cornering performance was such that at the Swedish Grand Prix on 17th June, Lauda was able to defeat Andretti. With the other teams miffed that they had not thought of an effective answer to the Lotus 79, there was much controversy and Ecclestone dodged a protracted political wrangle by deciding not to enter the car for any more of the season’s Grands Prix.

Brabham BT46B – the ‘Fan Car’

The ’78 season concluded with Lauda fourth in the Championship thanks to the win in Sweden and another in Italy, and five other podium finishes.  Watson was sixth, having stood on the podium three times.  The team ranked third in the International Cup for F1 Constrictors.  So, a strong showing, much improved on the previous season.  The BT46 had been fast and dependable, with and without the fan.  The Tipo 115-12, too, had proven very competitive and relatively reliable, just seven DNFs being caused by engine failure.  Nonetheless, in looking ahead to ’79, Murray was convinced that ‘proper’ ground effects would be absolutely essential for any car seeking to compete with the Lotus.  And, by then, he was equally sure that this would not be feasible if his next design was powered by the cumbersome Alfa flat 12.  He said as much to Chiti, whose unexpected immediate response of ‘Hai ragione,’ would have been based on his own conclusion as soon as he saw Chapman’s Type 79.  That Chiti’s view coincided with Murray’s was confirmed by the speed at which he then set to work, resulting in a new F1 engine, this time in 60° V12 format, being presented before the end of the year.  Designated Tipo 1260, though not more powerful than the Tipo 115-12, it was able to be used as a stressed chassis component, simplifying Murray’s task in creating a new car.  Thus, the result – BT 48 – was complete and ready to run by mid-December ’78.  And at that point, a flat 12-engined Brabham decidedly became a thing of the past!

Thursday, March 16, 2023

Anytime, Any Place - Montecarlo for Instance

In 1969, as Fiat looked forward to a new decade, there was a desire to reflect that milestone with a new, stylish coupe to appeal to younger customers.  Design was commissioned from Pininfarina, where Paolo Martin took charge of the job. Designated as project X1/8, initial 128 platform-based proposals featured a low, ‘sharp’ bonnet line and a variety of rear roof/boot profiles:


By mid-1970 a first prototype had been rendered, as below:


Followed at the beginning of the subsequent new year by this:


Further detail development resulted in the form as seen in July 1972, and renamed as X1/20:


As may be apparent from the illustrations above, there was difficulty in this design with resolving the rear of the car.  A harmonious whole-form profile was largely realised with the X1/20, but achieving a balance of aesthetic appeal with the practical issue of visibility for the driver continued to exercise the stylists, as evidenced by these studio sketches:


In the meantime, another interpretation of Fiat’s new model aspiration had been under development at rival carrozzeria, Bertone.  There, led by Marcello Gandini, the styling team came up with the form that reached production as the Fiat X1/9.  The process had begun with a front wheel drive layout, Fiat having decided that this was to be the format of choice for small cars of the future.  However, Gandini’s 1969 proposal was deemed unsuccessful, especially in regard to a high bonnet line, dictated by the front powertrain location.  Bertone, on its own initiative sought to resolve the problem by adopting a mid engine form template.  Fiat management was resistant to the idea, but Gianni Agnelli himself was completely taken with the concept on his first viewing of the render.  With the boss’s blessing, the car’s progression through to production was swift, and the X1/9 was launched in November 1972. 

With the X1/9 in place, Fiat’s reviews of Pininfarina’s X1/20 from 1973 were conducted on a challenging basis: was there any future for this car/should the project be terminated?  Significant investment had been made in this car and there was considerable appreciation of its more traditionally elegant lines as compared with the staccato angularity of the X1/9.  Once again, according to an anecdote, Agnelli intervened, directing that the car could and should wear the Lancia marque badge.  Finalisation of the design in Spring 1974 was then unimpeded and enabled unveiling as the Lancia Beta Scorpion/Montecarlo  at the Geneva show in March 1975.  Fiat targeted the U.S. as the primary export market and ‘Scorpion’ was the name chosen to market the car there in its spider form.  This was not, however, a conventional drophead – the car simply featured a Pininfarina-patented, large aperture, fabric sunroof, affording targa-style functionality.


As built for Europe, the Montecarlo retained the platform on which the prototypes had been developed rather than being engineered as a Beta variant in the technical sense.  It did, however, feature the Beta’s 118 bhp 2.0 twin cam 4 cylinder engine.  Most significantly for Pininfarina, Fiat sanctioned production of the car as a totality at the Carrozzeria’s factory in the Grugliasco district of Turin, as seen below:




Montecarlos began to appear in motorsport the following year, for instance with two Group 4 cars entered for the 1976 Giro d’Italia.  Both finished, but near the back of the field.  In Group 3 form, a car was driven the following season by Giorgio Airoldi and Aurelio Gorla, finishing 28th, as seen below:


Co-opting Gianpaolo Dallara into the process, the Montecarlo body/chassis was drastically revised to create a Group 5-compliant endurance racing car.  This was much lighter (at around 770 kgs) than the production model, with fibreglass and aluminium panels substituted for the central cell, combined with spaceframe structures to carry the front end running gear and the rear-located components and aerodynamic appendages.  The overall effect, and performance potential was similar to that which Porsche developed with the 934/935 models.  In total, 11 pure racing examples of the Montecarlo were constructed. 

As to motive power, the standard ‘Lampredi’ 1995 cc engine lacked potential for output-uprating in normally aspirated form.  Lancia sought to compete in the up-to-2.0 class, for which turbocharged engines were permitted with an equivalency factor-calculated lower cubic capacity.  Abarth’s special expertise with high performance small engines was called in to collaborate, resulting in a 1425 cc version of the engine, boosted with a single KKK turbo.  On modest boost, this was capable of over 350 bhp and could be run, (but not for too long!), at 23 psi for 415-420 bhp.  The car was unveiled at Pininfarina in December 1978, but it was not until the following Spring that the turbocharged engine was ready for installation.  Race debut in the hands of Ricardo Patrese and Walter Röhrl was at the Six Hours event at Silverstone in May, as seen below, (Courtesy of Motorsport Images):

Though the car’s initial results were problematic, at its third outing – Pergusa – Riccardo Patrese and Walter Röhrl came in 2nd, 1st in the sub-2000 cc class.  Although the campaign had been flawed by missing the first three Championship rounds because of the delayed availability of the turbo engine, competition in the smaller capacity class was not especially strong, allowing the Montecarlo to take the 1979 class title after a further win at Brands Hatch.  The points tally was 50, with BMW second, on 38 points and Ford third with 30.  Porsche was supreme in the over 2000 cc class, victorious in all 9 rounds.  Such domination was however to be replicated by Lancia in the following season. 

The opening round of the 1980 World Championship for Makes season saw a maximum class points score courtesy of Jolly Club – its drivers, Carlo Facetti and Martino Finotto, finished 10th overall, but well ahead of several Porsche 935s/K3s, including, for example, the Brumos Porsche 935 of Peter Gregg, Hurley Haywood and Bruce Leven.  Although the factory team – Lancia Corse – took over the front running for the rest of the season, Montecarlos finished 1-2-3 at four rounds, the Jolly Club entry filling the 3rd place with a strong performance in each instance.  The Lancia Corse winning driver pairings were:
 

Race

Drivers

Brands Hatch Six Hours

Riccardo Patrese/Walter Röhrl

Mugello Six Hours

Riccardo Patrese/Eddie Cheever

Monza 1000 Kms

Riccardo Patrese/Walter Röhrl

Silverstone Six Hours

Walter Röhrl/Michele Alboreto

Nurburgring 1000 Kms

Riccardo Patrese/Hans Heyer

Watkins Glen Six Hours

Riccardo Patrese/Hans Heyer

Mosport Six Hours

Walter Röhrl/Hans Heyer

Vallelunga Six Hours

Riccardo Patrese/Eddie Cheever


Missing from that list is the Le Mans 24 Hours – this being the event in which Jolly Club once again flew the flag for the Lancia Marque – winning the class, whereas the two Lancia Corse entries both retired early with oil pump failures.  However, Lancia Corse did have the satisfaction of defeating Porsche for overall victory at the Mugello and Vallelunga rounds.  For these events the Lancia Corse cars were equipped with a slightly over-bored 1429 cc version of the engine, taking it just above the lower class capacity limit.  In the over-2000 cc class, the final top of the table read: 

Porsche         160 points
Lancia             40 points
Ferrari            12 points
For the sub-2000 cc class: 
Lancia           160 points
BMW               59 points
Porsche           15 points
 

Thus, Lancia was once again the World Champion constructor.

Top row, left to right: Patrese at Brands Hatch (Courtesy of Riccardo Patrese Website); Patrese/Cheever at Mugello (Courtesy of Carlo Rovatti); Patrese/Heyer in the pits, Watkins Glen (Courtesy of Fred R Palmer); Rohl/Heyer at Mosport (Courtesy of Ron Kiebiski)  Bottom row, left to right: Rohl/Alboreto at Silverstone (Courtesy of R J Colmar); Patrese/Cheever at Vallelunga (Courtesy of Motorsport Images); Patrese/Heyer at Nurburgring (Courtesy of Lothar Spurzem)

Class win for Jolly Club by Martino Finotto/Carlo Facetti at Le Mans (Courtesy Motorsport Images)
 
In addition, Hans Heyer clinched the German DRM (Deutsche Rennsport Meisterschaft ) Championship (sub-2000 cc class) for Lancia.  Despite having to miss one round following destruction of the car at Norisring, Heyer outpointed Hans-Joachim Stuck 156 to 145, with Klaus Ludwig not far behind with 143 points.

Hans Heyer, Lancia Montecarlo, 1st DRM, Hockenheim, April 1980. (Courtesy Thomas Dirk Heere)

The car was prepared and run by GS Tuning, founded by Gerhard Schneider as an extension to his BMW dealership business.  Located in Freiberg, GS Tuning became a successful motorsport team, especially with the BMW 2002, during the 1970s.  Considerable turbocharging expertise was accrued, particularly with the 320 in 1978/9.  When Hans Heyer became involved with the team, he encouraged a collaboration with Lancia whereby GS effectively ran the DRM Group 5 Montecarlo on Lancia Corse’s behalf. 

Lancia interest in the Italian National Championship remained focused on the Stratos for much of the season.  However, at the Magione round in October, Carlo Facetti scored a win for a Montecarlo, ahead of a pair of Stratos and 935s.  He then managed 2nd overall and 1st in class at Vallelunga the following month. 

An engine development programme provided increased performance potential for the 1981 season.  425 bhp became readily available, increased to 440 bhp using twin turbochargers with the 1429 cc version.  Also introduced was a 1775 cc, twin turbocharged unit, putting out 490 bhp. 

For Round 1 of the Championship – now named the World Endurance Championship of Makes - the 24 Hrs of Daytona, Lancia Corse in the name Martini Lancia Racing, entered two cars, in a new livery of the drinks-maker, with three-driver teams of, Riccardo Patrese/Hans Heyer/Henri Pescarolo, and Michele Alboreto/Beppe Gabbiano/Piercarlo Ghinzani.  A third Montecarlo was once again present, entered by Jolly Club and driven by Carlo Facetti/Martino Finotto/Emanuele Pirro.

Montecarlo of Patrese/Heyer/Pescarolo at Dayton, February 1981. (Courtesy Mike Heselton)

5th overall and 1st in class for Jolly Club’s Facetti/Finotto/Pirro. (Courtesy Fred Lewis)

The Jolly Club car finished an excellent 5th overall, 1st in class, whereas both Martini cars suffered engine troubles, resulting in a lowly placing and a retirement. 

At the Mugello round, Martini ran a single car, for Patrese/Ghinzani, but this was disqualified as a result of a gearbox failure.  Still in Italy, the next round, at Monza, saw four Montecarlos competing.  The lead Martini car, driven by Patrese and Cheever, was an early retirement, attributed to engine trouble.  The second car, now crewed by Ghinzani and Andrea de Cesaris, also suffered a failure (fuel pump), but having run 129 laps and held the lead, it was classified 13th, 2nd in class.  Better than that was the outcome for the private entry, 1979-built car of Germano Nataloni/Gianfranco Ricci, 7th overall and class winner.  Jolly Club’s entry for Giorgio Pianta/Beppe Gabbiano/Giorgio Schön retired with transmission trouble just short of half distance.

Nataloni/Ricci winning sub-2000 cc class at Monza (Courtesy Girardo)

Next up was Silverstone and disappointment was the theme for the Martini cars.  Ghinzani/de Cesaris were out very early with an accident and Patrese/Cheever followed suit in the latter stages.  As at Daytona, a third car came to the rescue, this time run by Lubrifilk Racing/Jolly Club, driven by Giorgio Pianta/Beppe Gabbiano/Giorgio Schön, finishing 7th and 1st in class. 

Schön enjoyed considerable success as a ‘Gentleman Driver,’ and retains a particular affection for the Lancia racing cars he drove in the original era.  His collection of the cars and recollections of the racing are featured in this Classic Driver post.  It includes Giorgio’s comments: 

The Beta Montecarlo was fast, light and easy to drive, but it wasn’t particularly pleasant because the power only arrived in the final 1,000 revs. . . . It was also tough racing in the same team as six Formula 1 drivers (we were all good friends and treated the same, the only difference was in our lap times!) and under the direction of the stern team principal, Cesare Fiorio. But I’m proud that we brought home points in the Silverstone Six Hours and contributed towards Lancia’s title win that year.
 
His collection includes one of the 1981 campaign Montecarlos, seen third from the left below:

Courtesy Classic Driver

The 1000 kms at Nurburgring was marred by the tragic death of Herbert Muller.  De Cesaris/Henri Pescarolo did however win the sub-2000 cc class, whilst Ghinzani/Heyer were 4th overall, 2nd in the 2000 cc+ class.

There were three Martini and one Jolly Club Montecarlos at Le Mans for the 24 Hours.  The Martini car of Cheever/Alboreto/Facetti ran well to 8th overall, winning the sub-2000 cc class, whilst the Jolly Club entry of Pianta/ Schön/Finotto, though 30 laps in arrears, managed 14th,2nd in class.  So, a successful Le Mans for the second year running, despite retirements for Patrese/Heyer/Ghinzani (engine) and Pirro/Gabbiano (accident).

Alboreto winning the sub-2000 cc class at Le Mans

Championship points were awarded in 1981 for just 6 rounds, the last being at Watkins Glen.  Lancia was represented at this event by just three cars, all in the Martini livery.  Patrese/Alboreto took overall and class victory, two laps clear of the similar car of de Cesaris/Pescarolo in second place.  Thus, the Martini team finished in style, being designated World Champions once again.  Though Porsche had accumulated the same points score – 100 – Lancia took the title on the basis of six class wins to Porsche’s five.

The Martini Racing Montecarlos at Watkins Glen

The 1981 Le Mans-winning Montecarlo was sold by Bonhams in 2007 for €225,000 - see www.bonhams.com/auctions/15487/lot/169/ 

Hans Heyer once again contested the DRM Group 5 series.  The Ford Capris and Porsche 935s were especially strong in 1981, and though the Championship was close-fought, Heyer was unable to take the title for a second successive season, finishing 4th in the final points table.  He had scored two victories, five second places and four 3rds, so he had demonstrated that the Montecarlo remained a fully competitive car in Group 5 racing.
 
The Martini Racing success at the Glen was especially fitting, as Lancia’s fortunes were set for radical change in 1982.  The Championship would be notably different, with the technical regulations, which had been so successfully exploited with the Montecarlo Group 5 cars, being revised to accommodate Group C and Group B machines.  Group C was a development of the previous Group 6 Prototype format, but allowing fairly free rein in regard to engine capacity, performance being mainly governed by a 800 kgs minimum weight and a maximum fuel tanks capacity of 100 litres.  Group B encompassed GTs and was secondary in terms of the Championship and generally perceived status.

Lancia responded with a brand new Group 6-compliant spider, the LC1.  This was a ground-up racing car – no production car basis – featuring a Dallara chassis.  However the design and initial manufacturing process was undertaken before it became clear that the manufacturers’ Championship would be decided exclusively on the results achieved by Group C runners.  The LC1 was thus a compromised project from the start and it would be replaced within two years by the Group C LC2.  However, a strength of the LC1 in the interim was the engine, since it was the Montecarlo-proven 1425 cc turbocharged 4 cylinder.  With reliability developed over three seasons of running, this engine was highly instrumental in helping the LC1 record wins at Silverstone, Nurburgring, and Mugello.  Riccardo Patrese was beaten to the Driver’s Championship by only 8 points, finishing second to Jack Ickx, who had had the Porsche 956 at his disposal.

The Montecarlo lived on in 1982’s top line Group 5 racing, with two of the Martini Racing cars passing onto the ownership of Scuderia Sivama di Galliate.  Run by Vesuvio Racing, the drivers mainly involved were Joe Castellano, Gianni Giudici, Guido Dacco, Aldo Bertuzzi and Mark Thatcher.  The team achieved two 2nd in class finishes, but no significant points placings in the final driver’s table.  At Le Mans, however, Castellano, Max Cohen-Olivar and Jean-Marie Lemerle in a Montecarlo entered by Lemerle finished 12th overall and 2nd in class.

Top row, left: Lemarle-entered #66 at Le Mans, ©Bob Harmeyer; right: Vesuvio #49 of Giudici/Thatcher at Silverstone, ©Anthony Fosh. Lower row, left: Vesuvio #82 of Giudici/Dacco/Thatcher at Monza. Courtesy Girardo; right: Vesuvio #38 of Castellano/Bertuzzi alongside Teo Fabi in the LC1 at Brands Hatch, ©Martin Lee.

The three seasons of Montecarlo participation firmly established the Lancia marque’s place in the World Championship and predisposition to continue on an ongoing basis.  The LC2 took over for 1983, specified to be fully competitive in Group C and now powered by the Ferrari 268 turbocharged V8 engine.  This was however a season in which Porsche was dominant, the 956 being class of the field.  The top four places in the Drivers’ Championship were filled by the Rothmans Porsche team members, Jacky Ickx, Derek Bell, Jochen Mass and Stefan Bellof.  Highest placing for a driver with points earnt driving a Lancia was 18th for Riccardo Patrese.

The Porsche supremacy continued in 1984, though Martini Racing’s pairing of Alessandro Nanini and Patrese won the Kyalami round for Lancia.  Paolo Barilla was the highest ranked driver from the team, placed 14th in the driver’s table.  A victory at Spa was the high point for Martini/Lancia the following season, but the team’s tally in the final Championship table of 58 points looked meagre compared with Porsche’s winning 107.  Martini’s involvement then diminished and was concluded in 1986.  By that time, Lancia’s focus was firmly established on rally competition.  The 037, with its echoes of the Montecarlo had already seen success and its replacement, the Delta S4, only narrowly lost the 1986 World Championship to Peugeot.  Subsequently, the Delta HF4WD and Integrale models achieved results which bolstered the claims of Lancia supporters that the Marque had produced the finest rally cars in history. 

In 1978, after three years in production and 5,638 cars built, the line was stopped and focus was directed to refining improvement developments already under study.  Reception of the car’s functionalities and driving behaviour had been disappointing.  Flexibility of the engine was not well-rated and braking was judged problematic.  ‘Feel’ at the pedal was considered flawed, tending to make it difficult for the driver to apply the brakes progressively.  With an ‘all or nothing’ characteristic, the braking system seemed to be very prone to front axle locking.  At that time Mercedes Benz was just beginning to introduce Bosch ABS on its passenger cars.  The system, which subsequently became ubiquitous, was not an answer for Lancia just then, so a very simple solution was adopted – the servo was deleted.  Whatever the effect this measure might have for driver convenience, Lancia sought to ensure that retardation capability would be assured by uprating the discs and calipers.  This prompted the need for bigger wheels to accommodate the larger diameter discs. 

The engine was reworked to improve the torque characteristics and therefore enhance drivability.  This, together with the modified brakes and some cosmetic tweaks, most notably replacing the solid C pillar extensions with glazed ‘buttresses,’ and deletion of the central Lancia shield in the front grille, resulted in a model different enough to be designated, ‘Second Series,’ and no longer badged as a Beta variant.  Cars to this specification began to be delivered in 1980.  However, the market response was relatively subdued, sales failing to boom.  Consequently, the model was dropped the following year, with less than 2,000 cars built, (1,123 coupes and 817 spiders).  Though the Delta, in its various, progressively developed forms, was a considerable success for the Marque, Lancia has not since offered an overtly sporting car with elegant styling since the Montecarlo, and it is today a ‘classic’ much appreciated for its rarity, performance and good looks, as seen in the photograph of a Series 2, below: