Doug Nye: The 1963 meeting that decided F1’s future

As this year’s Formula 1 subsides into silence we are into a few months when the engineering pace accelerates to produce next year’s cars. This winter sees the first significant change in regulation set since 2021-22.

Fuss has been made about how much thought and painstaking research has been invested in the change. The FIA, bless them, understandably waffle on about the new rules having been made to make the sport “more agile, competitive, safer and more sustainable”. The 2026 F1 cars will certainly be lighter and smaller, thank heavens – they could hardly be any larger and still fit the ever-problematic ‘jewel-in-the-crown’ Monte Carlo streets…

Thirty kilogrammes is to be cut from each car’s minimum weight limit, ‘down to only’ 768kg, and they are to be shorter by 200mm, and narrower by 100mm. Wheel size remains 18in diameter but the front tyres will be 25mm narrower and the rears 30mm narrower.

The wing-opening drag reduction system (DRS), introduced as long ago as 2011, is to be replaced by two separate power-boost modes. The so-called ‘Z-mode’ will open elements on the front and rear wings to increase downforce and speed through corners, while ‘X-mode’ reduces drag to maximise straight-line speed. It will be interesting to see what acronyms are adopted for them, and which alternative proves more popular with drivers.

Meanwhile, power units – we mustn’t refer to them any more as ‘engines’ – will remain restricted to 1.6-litres turbocharged, but should deliver almost 300% increase in electric energy, with an even split between internal combustion engine and electric power, giving the cars “three times more” electric braking.

Mandatory fuel is commendably 100% sustainable, meaning no new fossil carbon will be burned, its carbon content deriving instead from “non-food sources, general waste or from carbon captured from the atmosphere”.

“On the aircraft we were teaching John Cooper to play liar dice”

Five engine suppliers are finalising their designs – Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford/Red Bull, Audi and Honda. Only three were, in essence, around in 1966 when the then new 3-litre F1 was introduced, replacing the 1½-litre F1 of 1961-65. They were Ford – represented by the developing Cosworth DFV not confidently expected to make its debut until ’67 – Honda and Ferrari, which was searching its redundant parts stores to fudge up a sports-car derived V12. Another British contender was BRM of Bourne. Under its chief engineer/racing manager Tony Rudd, BRM was then set to introduce its second 16-cylinder F1 contender, the ingenious, complex BRM P75 H16 power unit, the first prototype of which would cough into raucous life in January 1966.

Tony Rudd recalled the project’s early background in an anecdote brilliantly packed with insight into his contemporary team principals’ personalities: “In December 1963 the FIA finally recognised the growing force of British teams in F1 and we were asked to go to a meeting in Paris to discuss regulations for a new Formula with the governing CSI… The original plan was for us to fly in Jack Brabham’s aeroplane from Redhill but I declined on the basis it’s quite a drive from Bourne and more convenient to drive to Heathrow. John Cooper declined on the reasonable grounds that if he accompanied a party of us and it developed into a wild evening he’d end up in trouble back home. So he opted to fly scheduled. Then Chapman and Brabham – having said their piece about chicken-livered rival team representatives – also went commercial. I was first on the plane, followed by Jack. Chapman arrived as they were about to remove the steps, and John Cooper missed it entirely.

“We lunched at Le Bourget and discussed tactics. We felt at BRM that we could get a 2-litre Formula by the CSI, no trouble, which would avoid the expense of planning and tooling a new engine. So we agreed that we wanted something like a 2-litre Formula, but suspected if that was what we suggested initially then the FIA would say it wasn’t much different from 1½-litres so, wishing to keep speeds down, and to avoid vast investment on behalf of race promoters in making their circuits safer, that whatever we might propose they would water down. Therefore we decided to ask for 3-litres on the grounds that they would reduce that. They’d already run 2½-litres 1954-60, so they would obviously go for 2-litres this time round.

“We were convinced that the FIA would react this way so we pussyfooted around, talking about 4.2-litres – the Indy limit – to get the Americans involved. There were heated exchanges. So we then put our 3-litre case, and to our astonishment – and a small degree of dismay – there was no argument…

“The return trip saw us all, needless to say, surprised. On the aircraft we were seated towards the back teaching Cooper – who had arrived in Paris late – to play liar dice. Chapman won. I think at one stage the stakes were the Cooper factory. But Heathrow was closed by fog, and the flight diverted to Manchester. We then hired a car to drive to London. We stopped at Newport Pagnell services, only to find the local motor club finishing a dinner/dance. They couldn’t believe it when someone spotted Brabham, and then the four main protagonists in Formula 1 with him all in a row drinking coffee. Then we trooped out into the hired Consul and zoomed off into the fog…”.

Today sustainable fuels are playing their part in more ways than merely reducing the incidence of fog. Aaah progress…