New Centrale article: Porsche's Epic 1991 F1 Fail

[eytl]

Hi everyone,

For our second new article in one day, here is the next Centrale article we promised - the story of Porsche's last involvement in Formula One when they thought that supplying an overweight, underpowered, outdated and unreliable engine to a team that had never previously won a Grand Prix would be a recipe for success. What were they thinking? But was it entirely their fault?

It was a salient lesson in how a self-respecting manufacturer should not go about tackling F1, and is it any surprise that Porsche has never been interested in coming back since?

http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/footworkporsche/index.html

Hope you enjoy the read!

Cheers,
Enoch

[Barbazza]

A very good read. I saw one of the engines last year in the Hamburg museum (I think I posted a picture of it somewhere on the forum) and it was surprising that they allowed it to be seen.

I know next to nothing about engines but even to my eyes, the thing looked hideously bulky and inefficent.

[FantometteBR]

I thought first this association went further for more races and Footwork used only Fords for the last rounds.

Anyway, a nice reading and a quite interesting story

[mario]

Hi everyone,

For our second new article in one day, here is the next Centrale article we promised - the story of Porsche's last involvement in Formula One when they thought that supplying an overweight, underpowered, outdated and unreliable engine to a team that had never previously won a Grand Prix would be a recipe for success. What were they thinking? But was it entirely their fault?

It was a salient lesson in how a self-respecting manufacturer should not go about tackling F1, and is it any surprise that Porsche has never been interested in coming back since?

http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/footworkporsche/index.html

Hope you enjoy the read!

Cheers,
Enoch

Whilst this article, and the other one on Kimi, came out of the blue, they were both very interesting to read indeed. Like your last article on Mansell and his time at McLaren, again you've put together a very well balanced article (as you say, whilst the Porsche engine had numerous flaws, Footwork's chassis and transmission did much to accentuate them) and it was worth waiting for.

[dr-baker]

Thanks for the history lesson. This happened just a year or two before I became an F1 fan, so this proved to be a facinating read.

[ibsey]

Really interesting article Enoch. However I just had a couple of queries;

Firstly is it true that the 3512 engine was in fact ’2 combined TAG engines used by McLaren from 1983 to 1987 minus the turbochargers’, as is claimed on this Wikipedia page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_in ... ormula_One

Admittedly a citation is needed for that Wikipedia claim, but I had heard this same claim somewhere before? (Hence why I did further research into Wikipedia). Although I can’t remember exactly where it was I did hear that claim before? (I have a feeling it is something Murray Walker said once possibly in a race commentary or a documentary).

If this is indeed true, then any ideas why Porsche thought that using a two 1987 engines bolted together, would work in F1? As presumably they must have had some idea how overweight & underpowered their engine was likely to be in comparison to their competitors? (even if their info on engines weights & BHP figures for their rivals like Honda & Ferrari were say from 1990 or 1989).

Within you superb article there is that telling quote from Jantke stating;”I think we were all too hopeful from the beginning and the program was too rushed.”

But considering Porsche’s rich history in sports cars (and their successes in F1 in the 1980’s). Surely they must have known better than most, that F1 engine technology moves on a fair bit in four years. I’m no technical expert but surely, even in their wildest hopes they couldn’t have expected such an outdated engine (which was originally designed for use with a turbo) to be even remotely competitive?

Also any idea why the engine was rushed to make the 1991 season, rather than Porsche holding fire for 1992 and building a much more competitive new 3512 engine (rather the seemly quick fix of just bolting two 1987 engines together). One wonders how things might have turned out had this been the case?

I hope I'm not asking too many questions, just find it all fascinating stuff.

[AndreaModa]

Firstly is it true that the 3512 engine was in fact ’2 combined TAG engines used by McLaren from 1983 to 1987 minus the turbochargers’, as is claimed on this Wikipedia page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_in ... ormula_One

Admittedly a citation is needed for that Wikipedia claim

I know there are very good contributors on Wikipedia, and I'm one of them, but equally, it is full of complete rubbish for the majority of the time, this being a prime example. When there are so many websites out there like F1 Rejects that put out excellent content that is just forgotten about when Wikipedia tops every search result, it is easy to miss the good quality sources and instead utilise dubious or downright incorrect information upon which to form an argument.

You have made some excellent arguments on many different subjects ibsey, for which I and I'm sure everyone else on here are very grateful for, but in my eyes at least, by sourcing Wikipedia as the basis for many of your opinions, it makes me less inclined to accept your viewpoint because you are basing your thoughts on information that could have been written by anyone, and be completely fabricated. It is better to spend more time and take information from sources that are less likely to be incorrect, and by and large you do that, but as a word of advice, I'd definitely take anything on Wikipedia that hasn't been referenced with a nice big bag of salt!

[ibsey]

Firstly is it true that the 3512 engine was in fact ’2 combined TAG engines used by McLaren from 1983 to 1987 minus the turbochargers’, as is claimed on this Wikipedia page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_in ... ormula_One

Admittedly a citation is needed for that Wikipedia claim

I know there are very good contributors on Wikipedia, and I'm one of them, but equally, it is full of complete rubbish for the majority of the time, this being a prime example. When there are so many websites out there like F1 Rejects that put out excellent content that is just forgotten about when Wikipedia tops every search result, it is easy to miss the good quality sources and instead utilise dubious or downright incorrect information upon which to form an argument.

Here is more possible evidence which seems to support that Wikipedia claim;

The 'new' Porsche V12 was in fact two of the old TAG engine blocks bolted together. (At least according to Cimarosti's 'Complete History of Motor Racing'.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 1+footwork
(see post #26)

Autosport attributed the failure to Teutonic arrogance and a total failure to grasp how F1 had progressed since the TAG Porsche days.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... work&st=40
(See post #51)

Due to the false start caused by the Moneytron concern, much of the initial design work on the V12 was already in place. As a result, the engine (known internally as the Type 3512) was up and running in a remarkably short time, its four overhead camshafts driven from the centre of the crank as per the earlier multi-cylinder racing engines from Porsche. With Hans Mezger in charge, it was always going to draw on earlier technology developed in Stuttgart.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RQze ... 12&f=false


The fact that the engine was “was up and running in a remarkably short time” and that “much of the initial design work was already in place” even after the false start of Moneytron, makes me question how brand new was the 3512? But perhaps someone who is more technically gifted than me might be able to draw some better conclusions from the above statement & the photo of the engine contained within the above link? (which to my untrained eye does look like two V6’s bolted together)

Wasn't the Footwork engine supposed to be, effectively, a doubled up version of the TAG V6? One of the reasons that the V12 was so big and heavy is that Porsche put the cam drives up through the centre of the engine thus ensuring that the cylinder blocks were always going to be very long and heavy.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 1+footwork

(See post #16). Again I don’t know enough about engines to understand what that final sentence means? But there seems to be enough people (all of whom seem to know about engines) have asked the same question as me. Yes I understand people asking questions is not evidence in itself. However, a source somewhere must have prompted them to ask whether or not the 3512 is essentially two TAG V6’s. So in the absence of definitive proof against them can we completely disregard it as “complete rubbish”?

You have made some excellent arguments on many different subjects ibsey, for which I and I'm sure everyone else on here are very grateful for, but in my eyes at least, by sourcing Wikipedia as the basis for many of your opinions, it makes me less inclined to accept your viewpoint because you are basing your thoughts on information that could have been written by anyone, and be completely fabricated. It is better to spend more time and take information from sources that are less likely to be incorrect, and by and large you do that, but as a word of advice, I'd definitely take anything on Wikipedia that hasn't been referenced with a nice big bag of salt!

I still can’t remember the initial source which prompted me to make my previous post & refer to that Wikipedia article (with the caveat that a citation was needed for the claim in Wikipedia that the 1991 Porsche V12 was essentially two TAG V6’s bolted together). Hoping after a good night sleep, which I well & truly need now, it may come to me. But I know there was defiantly something else. IIRC a fairly creditable source as well, that backed up that Wikipedia claim. This of course is in addition to the possible evidence I have just provided above, which seems to further back up that particular Wikipedia claim.

So the Wikipedia article confirmed something I vaguely recall hearing about ages ago. FYI my opinion's are rarely formed solely from Wikipedia...but sometimes it helps to confirm things from other sources. Otherwise I wouldn't have known to researching Wikipedia about the supposed claim regarding Porsche in the 1st place. Nevertheless thank you for the kind compliment AndreaModa & the word of advice (which I was trying to do anyway but in light of your comments, I will doubly make sure I do so).

[mario]

IIRC, one of the other reasons why some wondered if the 3512 engine was built from two of the TAG-Porsche blocks was the fact that some aspects of the 3512 did seem similar to that of the TAG-Porsche engine - for example, the two engines shared the same cylinder bank angle (80º) and the geometry of the air intake and exhaust outlets looked visually similar on both engines.

One of the other reasons given is the sheer weight of the engine - given that the engine blocks of the turbo engines tended to be quite robust due to the need to withstand high boost pressures, the idea that Porsche had stuck two of those blocks together gained some traction as a way of explaining why the engine might have been so overweight compared to its rivals.
Finally, there is the fact that there is what looks like a visible connection halfway down the cylinder block - something that is absent on the other V12's of the era and something that does indeed make it look as if the engine was built from two V6's that were hastily joined end to end.


All in all, the idea that Porsche might have tried to cut a few corners and stuck together two bored out V6's together to make the V12 has floated around for a while and drawn on some aspects of the engine that would lend credence to the idea.

[ibsey]

Yet further possible evidence to suggest that the 3512 engine was built from two of the TAG-Porsche blocks;

‘…Alan Jenkins was design chief by this stage and had enjoyed successful days at Mclaren when the team swept the board with the Porsche built TAG turbo engines. Any hopes of a repeat were quickly dispelled when the first 12-cylinder engine (effectively two sixes joined together) arrived.’…

Source: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Formula One; Bruce Jones (Editor of Autosport Magazine). Page 76.

[AndreaModa]

Very interesting, I find it hard to believe from a company like Porsche if I'm honest, but thanks for the additional sources ibsey. It certainly seems like a far more creditable story now than just the snippet on Wikipedia. I could have sworn that I'd read somewhere that the theory about the 3512 being two V6's bolted together was disproved, but I couldn't tell you where I'd seen it, it was a fair while ago. What's clear is this story definitely has some weight behind it, thanks for making me aware of the extra information.

[Ferrarist]

Nice to see Manfred Jantke receiving a cameo as well. While Ulrich Bez ended up becoming Aston Martin's CEO (IIRC), Jantke ended up commentating IndyCar and F1 races on Eurosport. In fact, he provided the German commentary for the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. And it was...dull. He turned out to be a good expert, but he couldn't really commentate on his own.

Other than that, nice article that outlined the reasons of failure in a understandable way.

[takagi_for_the_win]

Brilliant article as always!

and is it any surprise that Porsche has never been interested in coming back since?

Actually, in 2000, Sauber actually came mighty close to doing a deal with Porsche to supply engines from 2003 on, but Ferdinand Piech put the kibosh on the idea. Porsche were up for it though

[dr-baker]

Nice to see Manfred Jantke... In fact, he provided the German commentary for the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. And it was...dull.

Really? That race could have a dull commentary? OK, so Murray Walker always and passion and emotion in his voice (so it was easy to spot a change in emotion), but it defintely conveyed a very different tone that day. I suppose that it was hard to detect a difference in Jonathan Palmer's tone of voice that day, but still... Dull? A very special talent to sound dull on that day...

[Ferrarist]

Really? That race could have a dull commentary? OK, so Murray Walker always and passion and emotion in his voice (so it was easy to spot a change in emotion), but it defintely conveyed a very different tone that day. I suppose that it was hard to detect a difference in Jonathan Palmer's tone of voice that day, but still... Dull? A very special talent to sound dull on that day...

I can't provide footage of that, but here's Jeff Krosnoff's fatal crash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9O6H0p4I2M
In my opinion, it's called in a similar manner to Senna's.

P.S.: I don't want to turn it into a debate about how fatal accidents should be called. Thank you .

[midgrid]

I've been trawling my sources, searching for further evidence on the gestation of the 3152, and found this nugget, which although not strictly relevant, deserves repeating (from Autocourse):

In an effort to get the message [that the 3512 was overweight] across to Porsche Chief of Engine Design Hans Mezger, Footwork were reduced to borrowing a Cosworth DFR engine from Brian Hart during the winter and transporting it to Paul Ricard, where it was weighed in direct comparison with the Porsche V12 in front of the disbelieving German technicians.

Also, Alboreto on his Imola shunt:

The direct Italian translation of stitches is punti - the same word as points. On that basis, I think I am second in the World Championship - with 15 points!

Finally, the Autosport in-house season review refers to the plural form of Footwork as "Feetwork".

[ibsey]

Finally, there is the fact that there is what looks like a visible connection halfway down the cylinder block - something that is absent on the other V12's of the era and something that does indeed make it look as if the engine was built from two V6's that were hastily joined end to end.

Thanks for posting that better quality photo of the engine Mario, and for providing your expert thoughts on the matter . Like confirming the visible connection halfway down the cylinder block of the 3512 was indeed different from other V12’s of that era. Just in case there is anyone out there, who is unsure of what we are referring to, here is a photo of the (brilliantly sounding) 1991 Lambo V12 to compare it with…

http://barchetta.mediacenter.studioline ... fd=1966631

Very interesting, I find it hard to believe from a company like Porsche if I'm honest, but thanks for the additional sources ibsey. It certainly seems like a far more creditable story now than just the snippet on Wikipedia. I could have sworn that I'd read somewhere that the theory about the 3512 being two V6's bolted together was disproved, but I couldn't tell you where I'd seen it, it was a fair while ago. What's clear is this story definitely has some weight behind it, thanks for making me aware of the extra information.

No worries AndreaModa, it was a pleasure. I always enjoy engaging in a detailed discussion with a fellow F1 fan (when time permits). It’s a great way to uncover some really interesting stuff like this.

And happy to consider any evidence or sources you may be able to remember which might disprove any of the above. As I also find the story about the 3512 essentially being two TAG V6’s, very hard to believe myself since it involves Porsche (what with all of their rich history in sportscars). Especially since Porsche appeared so concerned in protecting their image in F1 during the 1980’s. This is why I asked the questions I did in my 1st post here.

Like how on earth did they expect to be competitive with such an old engine? ‘Tentonic arrogance’ seems to be the answer to that one (as Autosport apparently attributed the failures down to).

Also why didn’t they just wait until 1992 and develop a brand new (purpose built) engine for the normally aspirated era of F1? Perhaps Porsche thought they were being smart and saving time & money, (apparently at a time when regular car sales were already hard to come by in the showrooms). But my god did it backfire on them .

All of this therefore makes you wonder just how competent were the Porsche engineers who worked on the 1991 F1 project?

I mean according to Enoch brilliant article Porsche miscalculated that a V12 was the way to go instead of the better (shorter, lighter, less internal friction) V10. Then they had designed it like their flat 12 of the 917 sports car back in 1970-71 which made the engine quite long and heavy. Then as the telling comment from Manfred Jantke stated:

"…while as we learned with McLaren, the only way to build a successful engine package is to build the engine in conjunction with the car designer as John Barnard did with Hans Mezger…”

So if they had learned that lesson with Mclaren in the 1980’s, then why hadn’t they applied it when they worked with Footwork in 1991?

Especially as Enoch excellent article seems to suggest a “a grave lack of communication between the team and the engine-maker during the development of the 3512”. Obviously Footwork’s transmission & the FA12 chassis had their part to play in the 1991 failure. But let’s not forget that Arrows had never won a Grand Prix, prior to that year. Whereas Porsche had won 26 GP’s previously. So really should have known what sort of collaboration between team & engine supplier was required to win within F1. And I might even be so bold as to suggest Porsche, therefore should have taken then initiative within the partnership.

Furthermore lets also remember that Alan Jenkins worked with Porsche at Mclaren. So he must have known more than most people how capable Porsche were when they gave F1 their full attention. The fact that Jenkins wanted to get rid of Porsche after only a few races in 1991, IMO speaks volumes of Porsche’s incompetency & general attitude to F1 at that time. As normally an F1 team (particularly a midfield one like Arrows) is probably willing to go through a new engine partners teething troubles at least for a bit (Mclaren & Peugeot).

I've been trawling my sources, searching for further evidence on the gestation of the 3152, and found this nugget, which although not strictly relevant, deserves repeating (from Autocourse):

Alan Henry wrote:
In an effort to get the message [that the 3512 was overweight] across to Porsche Chief of Engine Design Hans Mezger, Footwork were reduced to borrowing a Cosworth DFR engine from Brian Hart during the winter and transporting it to Paul Ricard, where it was weighed in direct comparison with the Porsche V12 in front of the disbelieving German technicians.

Thanks for posting that wonderful gem of a story midgrid . That story perfectly illustrates what I am trying to get at in my above waffle. How competent / capable was Hans Mezger & his team of engineers, in the 3512 project? (Not very by the sounds of things).

And might they have been capable of building a successful engine, had they delayed coming into F1 until say 1992, with a completely new purpose built engine?

[AndreaModa]

Judging by the amount of evidence we have building up, I strongly suspect that the team working on the 3512 bore no resemblance to the one on the V6 TAG turbos. There may have been some senior management on both projects, but the fundamental engineers and designers working on the 3512 engine must have been woefully out of their depth, and had no personal experience with the TAG engines at all. Otherwise something would have been done. As we've already pointed out, the whole thing smacked of mis-management at the highest level, hence why the top brass got the bullet in the years that followed. They assumed that based on the success of the TAG engines, Porsche could produce another top class engine, regardless of who worked on the project, and so failed to put in place a decent team to create the engines, and ultimately paid the price.

[mario]

Well, to be fair to Porsche in one sense, there was some logic in their decision to go for a V12 at the time and quite a few manufacturers went with V12's in 1991 (Ferrari, Honda, Yamaha and Lamborghini also ran V12's).
Indeed, V12's took a while to die out in F1 - Ferrari persisted with their V12 until 1995, although it has to be said that it was becoming less competitive, and in the late 1990's Toyota, when they tried to enter F1, originally wanted to use a V12 engine (the TF101 was originally designed around a V12 engine until the FIA mandated V10 engines in 2000, forcing a rather hasty redesign by Toyota). BMW also revealed that they also carried out research into a possible V12 when they began their engine program for Williams in the late 1990's (they did also consider a V8 as well), so even in more recent years V12's were still considered potentially viable alternatives to a V10.

As Enoch rights points out in his article, it is true that a V10 did have the potential to be lighter than a V12 (although that wasn't entirely clear cut - Ferrari's V12 is indicated as weighing 141kg against 137kg for the Renault V10 in 1991, so the weight advantage in that instance would have been marginal), plus the more compact nature would have been beneficial for the weight distribution, packaging and reduced internal friction due to fewer components. That latter point, in an era when refuelling was banned, was very important - the Honda V12 was powerful but on the thirsty side because of that, which meant that Senna ran out of fuel twice (in the British and German GP's) as a result.
On the other hand, there are some advantages of using a V12, one of the major advantages being superior mechanical balance (so some of the weight problems can be offset by being able to make some parts lighter and thinner due to reduced stresses). In a formula where being able to rev higher offered a potential power output, that would have been one potential attraction for going for a V12.

[Onxy Wrecked]

I would say the worst flaw was the unreliable part as the transmission seem to have failed before half way when the Footwork cars made it into the field.

[ibsey]

Well, to be fair to Porsche in one sense, there was some logic in their decision to go for a V12 at the time and quite a few manufacturers went with V12's in 1991 (Ferrari, Honda, Yamaha and Lamborghini also ran V12's).
Indeed, V12's took a while to die out in F1 - Ferrari persisted with their V12 until 1995, although it has to be said that it was becoming less competitive,

I think you have raised a very interesting point there Mario. How clear was it at the time that V10’s were going to be the engine of the future within F1?

Whilst it is true that a few manufacturers went with V12’s in 1991. Perhaps other factors may have influence these decisions. For instance;

Ferrari – Historically they have favored 12-cylinder engines. Even when results might suggest the alternatives were in fact the better option. For instance Ferrari used a V12 from 1966 to 1969 & then a Flat 12 up until 1981. At a time when a V8 mostly in the form of the Cosworth DFV appeared to be, all things considered, a more successful engine package.

Then as we had previously discussed in the ‘What If’ thread back on 5 January 2013. Enzo Ferrari used the 637 project (Ferrari’s Program to leave F1 for IndyCar in the mid 1980’s) as a negotiating tool, in return for V12 engines being permitted once turbos were to be phased out of F1. So with this in mind, it does not seem like Ferrari gave too much consideration to making a V8 or a V10 for 1989? Obviously I acknowledge your comments previously in that “it was a useful benefit of the program, but probably not its sole aim”.

Then as you correctly pointed out; “Ferrari persisted with their V12 until the end of 1995, although it has to be said that it was becoming less competitive”. This was some two years after the last V12 engine supplier fellow Italian supercar maker, Lamborghini had left F1. And three years after the last non Italian V12 engine supplier (Honda and Yamaha) had left. So well after everyone else had given up on V12’s in F1.

My point being, perhaps Ferrari were always going to go down the V12 route in 1991 given their history, tradition & expertise in that area. Obviously in 1989 & 1990 Ferrari’s two biggest rivals (Honda whom won the championship in both years & Renault who's competitiveness was steady increasing in those two years) had gone down the V10 route. Yet did Ferrari seriously consider a V10 engine for 1991?

In the grand scheme of things perhaps it was understandable why Ferrari wanted to persist with a V12 in 1991 and beyond. Since choosing that route brought marketing benefits particularly useful to sell Ferrari road cars. For instance IIRC a key marketing ploy of the F50, was the fact it used a V12 engine which was originally derived from a 1989 Ferrari F1 car. And Ferrari is in F1 to sell road cars, after all.

Lamborghini – Same as the point made about Ferrari above. IIRC when Top Gear’s Richard Hammond reviewed the Lamborghini Reventón which has a V12 engine, (IIRC something unusual in modern day supercars) a few years ago. He mentioned Lamborghini as a company were renowned for their V12 engines, hence why they still put a V12 in the Reventón. So going into F1 with anything other than a V12 in 1991, would have been difficult from a marketing point of view.

Also given Lamborghini & Ferrari both have a rich history and tradition of V12’s. One would expect them therefore to have acquired great expertise on them. So other engine manufactures that were new to V12’s (perhaps like Porsche, whom I believed used Flat 12’s in their 917’s but not sure about their previous use of V12’s?), maybe should have realized that they would struggle to extract as much performance out of a V12 as either Ferrari or Lamborghini were capable of doing. At least in those early years IMO.

Yamaha – Again perhaps a major reason why they choose the V12 route in 1991, was because of marketing reasons. Interestingly I found these articles…

Yamaha began competing in Formula One in 1989, and using the experience it had gained during that time it wanted to build a price-no-object car based on actual Formula One technology. Even though the Formula One team was doing poorly in competition, by 1991 the team had just produced a new engine, the OX99, and approached a German company to design an initial version of the car…

…Other notable specs were the same carbon fiber chassis and OX99 engine as the F1 car, essentially providing the closest experience of a pure racing car to the consumer market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_OX99-11

Well, Yamaha also had a factory effort focused on the design and construction of, not a race car exactly, but an exotic supercar using a detuned version of Yamaha's then Formula One V12 engine and built to the highest levels of automotive engineering and sophistication, the car was known as the OX99-11.

http://thekneeslider.com/ox99-11-the-yamaha-supercar/

IMO it is preferable to have a V12 rather than a V10 within a “price-no-object” super car. Which perhaps explains why Yamaha went down the V12 route in F1 in 1991?

Also IIRC no other team wanted the Yamaha V12 after 1991. The only reason Jordan took it on, was because they were in severe financially difficulty, and had little alternative other than to accept the free supply of Yamaha V12’s. When Yamaha seemed to realise that…

it was becoming clear that the V10 was a better choice than the V12…

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00231.html

They went down the V10 route for 1993 onwards. Off the top of my head, I don’t believe Yamaha have had the same long standing association with 12-cylinder engines in the past as either Ferrari or Lamborghini appear to have. Hence why Yamaha were quicker to ditch V12’s in F1 than those two Italian supercar manufactures.


Honda – I find it curious to say the least why they switched over from a V10 in 1990 to a V12 (at least with Mclaren) for 1991?

Having done some research into the matter (not as much as I would have liked because of time reasons), I can’t seem to find any obvious reason for this switch. However there might have been a number of factors which influenced this decision.

Firstly the Honda NSX had just come out in 1990, so maybe Honda wanted to promote their credentials as an super car manufacture (as appose to just merely another car company) by completing directly against the other exotic supercars makers like Ferrari & Lamborghini in their field of expertise, a V12 engine. Honda had been hugely successful as an engine manufacture in the years prior to 1991 (both with V6 turbo’s & V10’s). So one might be forgiven for thinking that Honda had the confidence, resources & made enough financial profit from F1 by that stage, to try the riskier V12 option for 1991?

Also maybe Honda saw the increasing threat coming from Renault V10’s during 1990. And knew they wouldn't be able to compete directly with them. Especially since from my research I have seen it suggested that Honda never had the lightest V10 engines. So perhaps Honda made a decision to play to their strengths for 1991 by going for the increased power advantage that a V12 might offer over a V10. Since Honda have always been good at making powerful yet relatively fuel efficient engines, rather than the lightest engines.

Certainly the feeling towards the mid / end of 1990 was that the Williams Renault V10 package was as competitive as anything else on the grid. Just the drivers had been letting the side down up until that point. As evidenced by the start of James Hunt’s commentary in the 1990 Portuguese Grand Prix here…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ntlBJERME

Worth also bearing in mind Honda’s spies would have undoubtedly made it their business to recognize the Renault V10 threat well before James Hunt made his comments. Thus giving Honda enough time to prepare a V12 for 1991. Am I correct in thinking that Honda had used a V12 in F1 during their time in the 1960’s. So like Ferrari & Lamborghini maybe there was also an element of history, tradition & expertise in V12 for Honda as well. Furthermore, it would have done their image & marketing for the NSX no harm at all, to choose the better sounding V12 over a V10 all things being equal.

Then there is this story that only emerges after the following few comments are added together…

It was the first McLaren to be powered by a Honda V12 engine. The car was tested by Gerhard Berger in the off-season, but he was unimpressed with the new engine, feeling it was underpowered for what it was, especially compared to Honda's V10 engine in the previous year's car. When Ayrton Senna returned for pre-season testing, he knuckled down to try to solve the engine's problems. McLaren's domination in the early part of the year was mainly due to the lack of reliability of the Williams FW14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/6
(This story is also confirmed in the commentary on the FIA 1991 season review video about 4 minutes into the video).

So far I've received figures that are wildly at odds with each other suggesting that the RA121E produced as much as 780HP and as little as 690. I'm aware the engine received a fairly major overhaul for the last few races, and 730hp @ 13000rpm seems to be the most accurate for the final revision of the engine that I've found so far but from the sounds you'll know much better.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 1991+honda
(post #19)

Anyway, 1991 was definitely a transition year in F1 with the Renault/Williams package dethroning the long running dominant Honda/McLarens, thus moving into the numero uno position. It’s my personal feeling that Honda made their decision (with or without McLaren’s immediate knowledge) early in 91 to withdraw from F1 at the conclusion of the 92 season and, as a result, didn’t have quite the 110% commitment of either money or manpower during their 91 (and definitely their 92) effort. I’ll repeat, this was my observation and conclusion. If you remember in 88 during the middle and perhaps the peak of their resurgence as an engine supplier, they were the sole team to spend the money (to the tune of over $60 million) to develop a brand new engine exclusively for the 88 season when everyone else began shifting their attention and resources to the new naturally aspirated formula. I don’t have to tell you how Honda and Mclaren shined that year!

(post #20)


The impression therefore seems (to me at least) is that the V12 Honda engine only became competitive in 1991 largely due to quite the amount of time & money (which Honda could afford after their previous successes in F1). And no doubt pressure from Senna throughout 1991. However maybe once Honda realized they had made a bit of a mistake going down the V12 route for 1991, then they “made their decision (with or without McLaren’s immediate knowledge) early in 91 to withdraw from F1 at the conclusion of the 92 season”.

However to avoid undoing all of their good reputation they had built up from F1 during the 1980’s & 1990’s (particularly important when considering the importance to market the NSX at the time). They had to make the V12 at least competitive at all costs for 1991 & 1992. Obviously Honda realized they were fighting a losing battle with the V12, hence why they left F1 in 1992. This is just my observation of how events seem to play out & I would welcome any alternative points of view.

So what I am trying to get at with all the above, is if Porsche had identified all of the above points when making their decision on whether to run a V10 or V12 in 1991. Perhaps it would have been clearer to them that a V10’s was going to be the engine of the future? Admittedly I don’t know how much of the above information, might have been available to Porsche at the time.

However given that the NSX was in production by 1990. And that Yamaha had conceived the OX99-11 several years earlier than 1991 & was in F1 to promote it. And given Ferrari’s & Lamborghini’s long relationship with V12’s. I can only assume there enough evidence was available at the time, to identify the ‘marketing pressures’ as why those manufactures selected a V12 in F1 in 1991. Yes Porsche were ultimately in F1 to promote, their own road going super cars, like all those other V12 users in 1991.

However off the top of my head Porsche don’t tend to put V12 in their production supercars, unlike Ferrari or Lamborghini. Nor did the Porsche brand need to promote their credentials as super car manufacture (as appose to just merely another car/engine company like Honda or Yamaha) by completing directly against Ferrari & Lamborghini in their field of expertise, a V12 engine. Porsche were already considered a supercar giant before 1991.

So IMO the logical thing for Porsche who (as far as I am aware) were unfamiliar with V12’s prior to 1991, would have been to choose the option which involved the least amount of risk i.e. the V10 option in 1991. At least initially. Since a prescient had been set for other manufactures like Honda & Renault, whom had little experience of V10’s (again as far as I am aware) before using them in 1989. Yet Honda & Renault both managed to make a success of V10’s in 1989 & in early/mid 1990. So essentially that's what I mean when I say the evidence was there.

Whereas in 1989 or 1990 no prescient had been set for a engine manufacture who was completely new to a V12, yet still managed to make a success (excluding the pre 1977 turbo years, as that was a different era). Yes Lamborghini who IIRC where new to F1 in 1989, and Ferrari made completely new engines for the new normally aspirated era. But as I have said above both those supercar markers have a long standing history, tradition & expertise of V12 on which to have drawn upon. Porsche & Yamaha (as far as I am aware) did not prior to 1991. Honda was somewhere in the middle with their V12’s from F1 in the 1960’s.

Perhaps this point is further underlined by the fact that all those engine manufactures that had no intentions to use F1 to promote their own exotic supercars. Manufactures like Judd (raced by Scuderia Italia in 1991) or Ilmor (raced by Leyton House Racing in 1991). And arguably Renualt who, didn’t really have any exotic supercar to promote in 1991 (as far as I am aware). All of these manufactures when down the V10 route in 1991. Perhaps because performance was their sole concern. So they were not hindered by any ‘marketing pressures’. Again perhaps proving the evidence was there at the time that V10's were the future of F1.

Also I think it is correct to say that 1991 was the last year any manufacturer actually came into F1 with a V12 engine. I know you mentioned the example of Toyota in 2000, which I will come to later. But IMO this is yet another reason why Porsche should have waited until 1992 to make their F1 entry. To see how things would have panned out in respect to V10’s & V12. Rather than the seemly rushed job of bolting two TAG V6’s together and rushing into F1 in 1991. Easy to say all of the above in hindsight however.

However I just can’t help but feel there was enough evidence available prior to 1991, to show that V10’s were the future of F1 engines. That is of course assuming an engine manufacture like Porsche was not either too arrogant or incompetence to therefore fail to notice these signs. Given the evidence that has emerged within this thread alone. Well I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.

and in the late 1990's Toyota, when they tried to enter F1, originally wanted to use a V12 engine (the TF101 was originally designed around a V12 engine until the FIA mandated V10 engines in 2000, forcing a rather hasty redesign by Toyota). BMW also revealed that they also carried out research into a possible V12 when they began their engine program for Williams in the late 1990's (they did also consider a V8 as well), so even in more recent years V12's were still considered potentially viable alternatives to a V10.

Just quickly in regards to the above. Not sure why Toyota considered a V12 for 2000? But we now know from their time in F1 they weren't the most effective team when it came to things like decision making. For instance just look at the type of drivers they tended to hired (Salo, Panis or Trulli as their ‘star’ driver?). Nor were they the sort of team who seemed to maximized their budget or performance. For instance remember the strange strategic calls made in Barain 2009, when IIRC they started 1st & 2nd on the grid. Also maybe because Toyota had been competing in Le Mans both in the Group C days & the years just prior to entering F1. So they had undertaking some assessment of V12 racing engines for that. Hence like Porsche, perhaps they wanted to save some time & money and carry that V12 knowledge over into F1?

With BMW. I’m willing to bet a big part of why they considered a V12, was because they won Le Mans in 1999 using a V12 engine (IIRC when Williams were partners in helping them design their LMP1 chassis). So considering a V12 for F1 seemed always to be on the cards for 2000. As you say they also considered a V8, so it only seems as if they were weighing up all the options (understandable really). The fact is they did choose a V10 even after weighing up the V8 and V12 possibilities.

[mario]

Well, to be fair to Porsche in one sense, there was some logic in their decision to go for a V12 at the time and quite a few manufacturers went with V12's in 1991 (Ferrari, Honda, Yamaha and Lamborghini also ran V12's).
Indeed, V12's took a while to die out in F1 - Ferrari persisted with their V12 until 1995, although it has to be said that it was becoming less competitive,

I think you have raised a very interesting point there Mario. How clear was it at the time that V10’s were going to be the engine of the future within F1?

Whilst it is true that a few manufacturers went with V12’s in 1991. Perhaps other factors may have influence these decisions. For instance;

Ferrari – Historically they have favored 12-cylinder engines. Even when results might suggest the alternatives were in fact the better option. For instance Ferrari used a V12 from 1966 to 1969 & then a Flat 12 up until 1981. At a time when a V8 mostly in the form of the Cosworth DFV appeared to be, all things considered, a more successful engine package.

Then as we had previously discussed in the ‘What If’ thread back on 5 January 2013. Enzo Ferrari used the 637 project (Ferrari’s Program to leave F1 for IndyCar in the mid 1980’s) as a negotiating tool, in return for V12 engines being permitted once turbos were to be phased out of F1. So with this in mind, it does not seem like Ferrari gave too much consideration to making a V8 or a V10 for 1989? Obviously I acknowledge your comments previously in that “it was a useful benefit of the program, but probably not its sole aim”.

Then as you correctly pointed out; “Ferrari persisted with their V12 until the end of 1995, although it has to be said that it was becoming less competitive”. This was some two years after the last V12 engine supplier fellow Italian supercar maker, Lamborghini had left F1. And three years after the last non Italian V12 engine supplier (Honda and Yamaha) had left. So well after everyone else had given up on V12’s in F1.

My point being, perhaps Ferrari were always going to go down the V12 route in 1991 given their history, tradition & expertise in that area. Obviously in 1989 & 1990 Ferrari’s two biggest rivals (Honda whom won the championship in both years & Renault who's competitiveness was steady increasing in those two years) had gone down the V10 route. Yet did Ferrari seriously consider a V10 engine for 1991?

Now that I've got a bit of time to consider this, I can address some of these points (and you raise some very good ones it must be said). Now, it is true that Ferrari was, and still is, wedded to the idea of V12's in their flagship cars (their latest project, the LaFerrari, utilises a V12), so the use of that engine configuration because of its associations with power and performance in the broader automotive world cannot be denied, and Ferrari probably would have gone down that route anyway. Admittedly, some of their uses of 12 cylinder engines in the past were not always driven just by prestige - in the case of their V12 from 1966 to 1969, that was partially down to the fact that Ferrari was using an existing V12 design from their sports car division because they lacked the resources to build a new engine from scratch.

To a certain extent, the fact that Ferrari would, like Matra, transfer engine technology between their sports cars and F1 cars, and often the entire engine, did also influence their design to a certain extent - in sports car racing, a number of manufacturers moved towards 12 cylinder engines (Porsche, Alfa Romeo and Ferrari all used flat 12 engines), with one of the driving factors being vibrational problems as the manufacturers sought to raise their rev limits higher and higher in a quest for more power (the DFV suffered from severe problems with vibration until 1970, and even in much later years there were still problems - Andretti supposedly claimed that, although the rev limit of the DFV was about 10,700-10,800rpm, depending on specification, in 1978, he kept within 10,250rpm if possible and never beyond 10,500rpm because of mechanical problems at high rpm).

Anyway, that is a little transgression - as to the 1990's, I do agree that, in 1991, Ferrari probably weren't looking at a V10, or at least not on a major scale, for F1 (the earliest reference I have seen to Ferrari definitely considering a V10 would be in late 1993, although it is possible that they might have started research earlier than that).
As for Lamborghini, that is slightly more interesting because, although they have an association with V12 engines for their flagship cars, their smaller models from the early 1970's through to the late 1980's were actually V8 engined cars, so they had a fair amount of experience in that sector as well. Also, in contrast to Ferrari, Lamborghini had something of an aversion to using motorsport as a way of promoting themselves - it wasn't until Chrysler came along that they really entered into motorsport at all. To a certain extent, it might also be that Lamborghini were influenced by Ferrari's use of a V12 in more ways than one given that Forghieri, the lead designer, was a former Ferrari employee and most noted for his work on Ferrari's V12 engines, so perhaps he would have instinctively gone for that rather than a V10 anyway.
As for Yamaha, to a certain extent their decision to switch to a V10 from their V12 was driven by Judd - Yamaha's OX10A was, essentially, a rebadged Judd GV series engine, and was to a certain extent driven by the fact that Judd, who were leading the program, had a lot more experience with V10's than V12's and had been working on that engine for a number of years.

As another aside, on the point of Toyota and their F1 V12 engine - they never fully explained why they thought a V12 was the optimal solution, although it seems that the decision wasn't influenced by their sports car racing program (the TS010 from their Group C days used a V10 engine, whilst their earlier and later sports car entries used turbocharged V8's - in fact, I think that their plans for an F1 spec V12 would have been the first time they used a V12 engine in a racing car).
I do agree that, in a number of ways, the decisions to use V12's by some manufacturers (Honda, for example) might have owed something to the element of prestige of the design rather than its strengths, so it's possible that Toyota wanted to use it for prestige marketing and hence went down that route.

[eytl]

Well well well ...

On Autosport tonight, in the wake of McLaren's deal with Honda for 2015, there's a story (for subscribers only) on the 1988 MP4/4. At the end there's also this addendum:

Imagine how different the history of Formula 1 might be had McLaren not landed Honda engines for 1988. Then imagine how things would have turned out if the team had ended up with the Porsche V12.

McLaren had already had one bid for Honda engines and the services of Ayrton Senna rebuffed for 1987 and TAG, which funded the Porsche turbo V6, was desperate to call time on the project.

The void could have been filled by the disastrous Porsche V12 that eventually ended up with Footwork (nee Arrows) for '91.

"The Porsche engineers came along with their proposal and one of them pulled out a single drawing," remembers McLaren chief designer Steve Nichols. "He started unfolding and unfolding and unfolding. It eventually filled the whole table.

"It was this V12 thing, which was essentially two of the turbo engines stuck together with a shaft [the power take-off] coming out through the vee.

"It was hugely long and quite tall. It looked like something that should be in the back of a Leyland bus."

In my research on the Porsche 3512 engine, I had come across the suggestion that it was in fact two V6 TAGs stuck together, but I didn't include it in the article because it wasn't confirmed and was only speculation. This confirms that there was in fact a design for two V6s to be joined together to form a V12. It's very curious though - it's not at all clear when Porsche presented this design to Nichols. It might have been late in 1989, just before Nichols went to Ferrari, at the same time as Porsche were hawking their non-turbo engine to Onyx and Arrows. But I find it surprising that Porsche were trying to re-partner with McLaren at a time when McLaren would have been completely entrenched with Honda. If it was earlier, say in 1987 or 1988, then it indicates that Porsche were actually thinking about a non-turbo V12 earlier than I realised.

What this also still doesn't confirm is that the 3512 was ultimately this same "two V6s stuck together" design.

[go_Rubens]

Very interesting read for me. I wanted to know why Footwork and Porsche simply couldn't go well. An epic fail? Yeah...