Brabham BT46B

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Even in a year dominated by the Lotus 79, Gordon Murray’s fan car stood out as outrageously inventive solution to a specific Brabham problem. But it couldn’t last

What impressed me about Gordon Murray’s Brabham fan car was the sheer bravery of it. The year before, Lotus had the 78 which rather bowled everybody over and people were slow to copy it, though everybody made some sort of effort. I was at Lotus then, and we had developed the 79. But Brabham had this flat-12 Alfa Romeo engine which was very unsuitable for a ground-effect car as its cylinder heads were just where you wanted the venturi.

So Murray was searching for another way of generating the same sort of effect. The big thing was that it generated downforce at all speeds, being dependent on engine speed, not car velocity. Off the startline, through slow corners, everywhere. As soon as it was unveiled, everyone else was hard at work scrutinising the rules to see why it wasn’t legal. But it was, as far as anyone could see. They tried claiming that it would throw out oil and stones in the drivers’ faces, then that the fan counted as a moveable aerodynamic device, which was already banned, though Gordon claimed it was merely to cool the engine. I think the drivers were rather relaxed about it they knew it would be banned. And the fan car wasn’t on pole for that first race, anyway; Mario Andretti was on pole in the 79.

But then, looking at the map of Anderstorp, it was ideally suited to a ground-effect car, with plenty of medium to fast corners, and not many slow ones where the fan-car would shine. The snag is power absorption that fan must have soaked up 30-40hp, a disadvantage on a power circuit unless there’s enough slow comers for your extra grip to count. Chaparral used a snowmobile engine on the 2J fan car to avoid this, but that adds weight and bulk.

So it wasn’t an automatic race-winning idea, and we didn’t leap into trying to design our own version. I heard Mario Andretti saying to Chapman: “Colin, you’ve got to get rid of it. It throws rocks at you.” So the pressure was on. Anyway, Chapman already had the car which was winning all the races, and the 80 was being tunnel-tested and was obviously going to wipe the floor with everyone next year, so why scrap either to follow a new line? Mind you, it took a long time before even Lotus realised how much downforce you could generate. The 78 was quite crude really and, even with the 79, there was a lot of blockage around the rear suspension. We made huge gains cleaning up the venturi on the 80WI remember rightly, we had almost twice the downforce of the 79 but the problem was keeping a seal with a sliding skirt which went around an s-bend inside the rear wheel. A huge amount of effort went into solving that there were teams of people working on it. But in the end, if you hit a kerb the skirt would stick and you lost some of your downforce. And without wings it became very unbalanced. So we added wings, which made it more consistent but spoiled its very low drag figures.

Not a great design.

The irony was that the 79 really wasn’t very well developed, but Chapman said, “Don’t worry, my boy, we’ve got this great new idea coming along”. In fact we’d have done better developing the 79, as Williams showed with their very successful W07, which was an improved 79. Chapman was not very interested in development. He would find the current situation totally boring. It was new ideas which kept him going, trying to stay ahead. When the Brabham was finally banned, well, one always has mixed emotions in such a situation. It was a real threat to us; it would have taken away the big advantage we had with the Lotus 79, though Team Lotus would have fought very hard to become the pacesetter.

But standing back and looking at it now, it was a shame. The way the modem regulations have gone, it has taken away 90 per cent of the interest. The only way you can make a difference now is through adjusting minute details. The days of an exciting new concept, such as the Lotus 88, have gone. No opportunity for lateral thought; you can’t even have a 12-cylinder engine now. I suppose that’s to try to keep things level by reducing the number of alternatives you can try, but it makes things dull for a designer. Mind you, I never actually thought the 88 was as promising as all that, though I wasn’t involved with it.

After the 80,1 became involved with Lola, which led me into ChampCars and then on to Penske. Champ-Cars give the designer more flexibility than F1; there are more options open and the aerodynamic constraints are different. You have to cope with the speedways, one-mile ovals and the road circuits. And there are financial restrictions too, more so in IRL [Indy Racing League], where the rules are designed to keep costs down without spoiling the racing. There’s a huge difference between what an IRL team costs per season and a top ChampCar team. But in Fl, the teams simply spend whatever the sponsors bring. The technology absorbs whatever cash is available. I think it’s going the wrong way; there’s less and less relevance to the real world. I’d rather have an ‘open box’ formula where the car simply has to fit within certain dimensions.

F1 engines are now so sophisticated they need a team to start them up and require a rebuild every race, and ChampCars are going the same way, with rebuilds every few hundred miles. That’s where IRL is so sensible: it is limited on revs, and you can take an engine to 7-800 miles and it doesn’t make a scrap of difference to the spectator. You don’t need high technology to provide good racing.

I still do some consultancy work for G-Force who build IRL cars, but recently I’ve designed a motor boat which has just been unveiled at the Boat Show. There’s no scrutineering and no rule book. It’s a wonderful feeling of freedom. The Brabham was a fine bit of lateral thinking to get round a design problem. It was a very brave action on Gordon Murray’s part; I guess working with Bernie Ecclestone gave him the courage to do it.

Nigel Bennett was talking to Gordon Cruickshank

Related articles

Related products