Motorsport moments of "what could have been"

JRS

JRS

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2004
Posts
19,729
Location
Burton-on-Trent
Something we were talking about in the F1 2014 thread reminded me about this story. Someone was saying how they'd like to see Ron retake control of the McLaren team because Martin Whitmarsh was making too many bad decisions. Well, here's a real peach of a bad decision from Ron's era.

In 1993, McLaren had lost their supply of Honda engines due to the Japanese manufacturer pulling out (they were still sort-of represented by Mugen, but only with the Footwork team). Unable to secure a supply of the all-conquering Renault engines in the end - Ron's promise that they would get them was allegedly the only reason Michael Andretti signed with them! - they had to go with a Ford engine. Unfortunately, it was initially a customer-spec engine instead of the more powerful 'works' motors in the Benettons, and it took all of Senna's considerable talent to keep it at the pointy end of the grid.

Later in the year, an interesting option appeared. Bob Lutz of Chrysler came calling, wondering if McLaren would be interested in testing the Lamborghini V12 engine (Chrysler owned Lamborghini at the time). The Lambo V12 had been around for several years, and Chrysler were interested in seeing if it could do more in a better chassis and with Aryton and Mika at the wheel. A modified MP4/8B design was prepared, longer than the Ford-powered car to accommodate the V12.

Following initial testing at Silverstone and a more public test at Estoril in October, Senna was encouraged by the performance of the car. Back at Silverstone, Mika took the car around the track 1.4 seconds faster than the Ford powered McLaren had gone. Senna suggested that McLaren take the Lambo McLaren to race in the Japanese GP, but Ron was quick to deny that they would.

Instead, Ron decided to run Peugeot engines in 1994. He figured that a French manufacturer would want to throw everything at beating the Renault engines supplied to Williams and Ligier. Chrysler were so disappointed that they pulled the plug on the F1 project, and not long after sold Lamborghini. Senna was unimpressed by the move, and wasn't persuaded to stay at McLaren.

How different could 1994 have been for McLaren if they'd gone with the Chrysler-Lamborghini project? Chrysler had promised to dedicate a team to liaise with McLaren and TAG, and the 1993 engine had proved to be powerful and drivable. The Peugeot engine in the end turned out be both unreliable and hardly the last word in power, and McLaren suffered their first winless year for quite some time.

And the real kicker - what if that powerful V12 engine had persuaded Senna to stay?
 
*That* was the reason McLaren went Peugeot in '94? Hahahaha.

Sadly there won't be any engine variety with the current rules for F1.
 
*That* was the reason McLaren went Peugeot in '94? Hahahaha.

Sadly there won't be any engine variety with the current rules for F1.

Because there's one manufacturer to rule them all?

I'm all in favour of open rules for Engine types in F1. Unfortunately the Engine manufacturers are not. I'd actually Squee out loud if they would go to an open formula, or one with some limitations (Normally aspirated, capacity limit and stock fuel pump to limit maximum fuel flow) but rules like those would quickly mean spiralling costs many times higher than now and you wouldn't see Honda (or anyone else) coming back into the sport for example. It would also be very difficult to justify High revving NA technology to the Board and CEO who can plainly see that small capacity turbo charged engines with energy recovery technology are the future yet the F1 program, costing $500 million a year has absolutely nothing to do with said future of car engines. A shame but I can see why they've done it. The thought of one particular engine being developed that gives 50HP more than the next one and then 80HP more than the third engine manufacturer fills me with dread. You'd get a similar situation as 1988 where one team could win every race except one, maybe one engine manufacturer winning them all in the case of, say, Renault who supply two top teams.
 
I'm all in favour of open rules for Engine types in F1. Unfortunately the Engine manufacturers are not. I'd actually Squee out loud if they would go to an open formula, or one with some limitations (Normally aspirated, capacity limit and stock fuel pump to limit maximum fuel flow) but rules like those would quickly mean spiralling costs many times higher than now and you wouldn't see Honda (or anyone else) coming back into the sport for example. It would also be very difficult to justify High revving NA technology to the Board and CEO who can plainly see that small capacity turbo charged engines with energy recovery technology are the future yet the F1 program, costing $500 million a year has absolutely nothing to do with said future of car engines. A shame but I can see why they've done it. The thought of one particular engine being developed that gives 50HP more than the next one and then 80HP more than the third engine manufacturer fills me with dread. You'd get a similar situation as 1988 where one team could win every race except one, maybe one engine manufacturer winning them all in the case of, say, Renault who supply two top teams.

As far as I'm aware, engine makers are relatively free to develop their engines this year (though still limited in number to how many engines can be used in race-weekend sessions over the year), with increasingly restrictive measures in place over the coming seasons, so if a team does have a vastly more powerful engine, it's unlikely to remain that way.

50HP doesn't mean much anyway - you'd rather have it than not of course, but the Renault winning championships was reckoned to be more than 50HP down on Ferrari and Mercedes, but it made up for it in drivability and fuel efficiency.
 
Last edited:
I'm all in favour of open rules for Engine types in F1. Unfortunately the Engine manufacturers are not. I'd actually Squee out loud if they would go to an open formula, or one with some limitations (Normally aspirated, capacity limit and stock fuel pump to limit maximum fuel flow)

I'd be quite happy if the engine regs were something along the lines of "There's your bucket of fuel. Use it how you like..." with the fuel allowance gradually being reduced over the years to encourage efficiency (and therefore road relevance) and to keep speeds within safe limits but then I've always been more interested in the technological arms race than I have the "personality" side of F1.
 
@JRS we will never know but I think he would have stayed. The Lambo engine did blow up in epic style once but I think it would have been a winner.

About Senna well at least McLaren check their cars before a race.
 
I remember that Lamborghini engine in the back of the Lotus 102. It was great, when it worked. Which wasn't that often.

It got better, but it was massively heavy and used as much oil as it did fuel.
 
I'd be quite happy if the engine regs were something along the lines of "There's your bucket of fuel. Use it how you like..." with the fuel allowance gradually being reduced over the years to encourage efficiency (and therefore road relevance) and to keep speeds within safe limits but then I've always been more interested in the technological arms race than I have the "personality" side of F1.

Yeah, but we can't have anything that costs money in F1.

Apart from diffusers, of course.

I remember that Lamborghini engine in the back of the Lotus 102. It was great, when it worked. Which wasn't that often.

It got better, but it was massively heavy and used as much oil as it did fuel.

It was heavy, but it was very powerful and it's easier to make a powerful engine reliable than it is to go the other way! Chrysler promised that they'd make a real go of it, and it would at least have been better than that awful Peugeot motor that they saddled themselves with.
 
Last edited:
They have that Lambo car in the MTC at the moment, pure white, no livery, Never seen anything like it. couldnt put a price on it

EDIT

Turns out it is the engine that they where deciding to use between Lambo and Honda, They built it, Senna drove it once, said it was crap and they went with Honda...
 
Someone please correct me here but by '96 all teams agreed to run V10s only. So it would have last only 2 seasons before they had to change the engine anyway. Also, ask Ferrari just how reliable V12s are!
Interesting point, mind, because Senna could have been persuaded to keep going @ Mclaren and *maybe* still be alive to challenge Shumacher. A massive 'if only'
 
As far as I'm aware, engine makers are relatively free to develop their engines this year (though still limited in number to how many engines can be used in race-weekend sessions over the year), with increasingly restrictive measures in place over the coming seasons, so if a team does have a vastly more powerful engine, it's unlikely to remain that way.

50HP doesn't mean much anyway - you'd rather have it than not of course, but the Renault winning championships was reckoned to be more than 50HP down on Ferrari and Mercedes, but it made up for it in drivability and fuel efficiency.

Though the Renault was down on power initially with the engine freeze they were allowed to increase the power of the engine to give parity with the others.

If anything, Renault benefited from the rules. They were allowed to increase the power of theirs but the other teams weren't allowed to change things to reduce the cooling requirement or help with the packaging.

I'd be quite happy if the engine regs were something along the lines of "There's your bucket of fuel. Use it how you like..." with the fuel allowance gradually being reduced over the years to encourage efficiency (and therefore road relevance) and to keep speeds within safe limits but then I've always been more interested in the technological arms race than I have the "personality" side of F1.

That sounds like the WEC.
 
Back
Top Bottom