# Talk:Brabham BT46

Think I carried out the merge correctly - although sadly the process doesn't seem to carry any of the previous history across. Just to say anyway that although I missed the fact that there was already a 'Brabham fancar' article when I started on the BT46B article, I have actually used pretty much everything that was in that article before merging the two. Thanks to all those who had contributed to it. 4u1e 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Two elements I'm not quite sure about:

The sequence of banning, withdrawal etc. I think it goes: 1. Ecclestone withdraws the car. 2. FIA investigate legality of its win. 3. FIA allow Brabham to keep win, but ban concept in future.
When and where the ban on 'moveable aerodynamic devices' came into effect. I thought it referred to the ban on the more fiendish devices introduced in F1 around 1969, which wouldn't have had the fan effect in mind - but there may have been a more general ban put in place after the Chaparral 2J came out. 4u1e 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Another:

"The two converted chassis were returned to standard BT46 configuration for the next race.[18] The BT46B competed once again in 1979". If only two cars got built, and both were converted back, here did that 1979 car come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.34.130 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Can't recall if the source says, but if the two 46Bs were converted from standard cars and then converted back again, I guess one was simply re-converted. Or it could have been another chassis converted for the first time. Similarly, there was one in B spec at the 2001 Goodwood Festival of Speed. I don't know whether that one was one of the two originals or not, but it would probably be more valuable in that specification. 4u1e (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that the material on the base BT46 is getting quite long. It may be better to split off the BT46 and the BT46C into articles of their own to prevent this one getting too long. Alternatively I could work it up into a longer single article on BT46 and variants (which would require renaming). 4u1e

OK, so proposed structure would be:
Lead
BT46
Concept
Racing History
BT46B
Concept
Racing History
Aftermath (or something less dramatic, but nothing comes to mind at present)
BT46C
Concept
Racing History
4u1e 28 June 2006
I ended up renaming the article to BT46 and rearranging the old material with a few new bits to fit the structure above. I've fixed all the pages linking here as well - some of them were already redirecting from 'Fancar'
4u1e

Nothing to get too excited about - I picked the original set of cars (Penske-Indy500 (pushrod engine), Lotus 88 (twin chassis), Mazda 787B (rotary engine) and Chapparal 2J (fan generated downforce)) as examples of cars that had used unusual technology successfully and then been banned.
The Tyrrell P34 meets the first criterion - using unusual technology successfully, but not the second one because it wasn't banned (well not at the time anyway - six-wheelers were banned in the early 1980s I think, after March and Williams had both investigated the idea of four rear wheels). The idea was abandoned because Goodyear couldn't/wouldn't support it any more.
I should perhaps have made that clearer on the page itself. I'm inclined to remove the P34 from this section - but am I being too picky about this? 4u1e

I've removed most of these now. I'll try and work the Lotus 88 and Penske-Mercedes back into the text at some point. 4u1e 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It just need one minor adjustment, the first image doesn't give its fair use rationales. Every thing else is good. Maybe working on the criticisms, reception of the monocoques and those kind of things would make the article better. Lincher 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that "Alfa Romeo" is deliberately linked to the redirect Alfa Romeo (Formula One) rather than to  Alfa Romeo in motorsport#Formula One. The idea is that Alfa Romeo (Formula One) is a single place to which to link all F1-related instances of "Alfa Romeo", so that if the place where Alfa Romeo's F1 involvement is described ever changes, we just need to update a single redirect, rather than updating all the individual links (of which there are many). -- DH85868993 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Having just read a superb interview with Gordon Murray it is interesting to note that his explanation of the technical aftermath resultant from their Anderstorp performance is somewhat different to that presented on the page here. Specifically, he states: "after the race the FIA sealed the car in the truck ... and then came to the factory with an anemometer. They got us to run the engine, and measured the flow of air through the fan and through the radiator. They found that 60 percent of the air was for cooling, and 40 percent for downforce ... So the FIA wrote to us and said, 'The car is legal, but it's using a loophole in the regulations ... you can use it for the rest of the season'." I realise that this contradicts the usually excellent 8W, and not having a copy of Alan Henry's book to hand I can't say what he wrote, but does anybody else have anything "fron the horse's mouth", that gives an indication one way or t'other? Pyrope 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "from the horse's mouth", but page 186 of Henry's book says "Lotus and Tyrrell immediately protested the BT46B after its win, but the race stewards decided not to adjudicate on the matter and the whole affair was eventually referred to the CSI via the Swedish national club. Meanwhile, the Formula 1 Constructors' Association came up with a remarkable contra-deal whereby Ecclestone's team could use the fan car until August 1 - i.e. through the French, British and German Grands Prix - and then had to discard the idea. However, the CSI's special commission, which met on June 23, decided to reject this "consensus" approach and decreed that fans were banned from Formula 1 henceforth." DH85868993 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, more contradiction. Hmm. I wonder if GM's memory is playing him false? As the CSI meeting was apparantly only six days after the GP, their decision would preclude Murray's recollection that the car was initially passed as legal. According to GM the cars were transported back to the UK, in a sealed container, and then run-up at the Brabham factory under supervision of the FIA. Allowing for a day or so to transport, and then a day for testing, a day to write the letter, and then three-four days to post that from France to the UK, it is possible that the FIA scrutineers acted before the CSI council. But I can't believe that they would have said anything like "you can use it for the rest of the season" without getting approval from on high, and that would have also take time. Case unsolved. Darn. Pyrope 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote the line on that article...
In 1970 the Chaparral 2J “sucker car” had dominated the American sportscar scene.
The problem with this bit is that it does contradict with the Chaparral 2J article which states...
The 2J competed in the Can-Am series and often qualified at least a couple of seconds quicker than the next fastest car, but was not a success because it was plagued with mechanical problems.
I think this bit is worth rectifying as it is very inaccurate. Donnie Park (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I had overinterpreted what was written at 8W. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Brabham BT46/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


### GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

Can the free image be placed in the infobox?
The first paragraph of the "Concept" section as well as the "Racing history" section are unsourced.
There are two dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.
This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be - but I don't think there's any GA rule that says it has to be. I'd rather use the team badge for the infobox for consistency with other articles where we don't have a pic of the car. Not sure this one is actionable.
Fair point, will fix.
Fair point, will fix.
Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue against this, as the image isn't of the original car - the caption states that it is a "fan car".
Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Not the original configuration, or the one most commonly used, certainly. On the other hand, probably the best known variant. 4u1e (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Progress report: two broken refs removed, some progress made in adding refs - not done yet. Happy to leave for longer? 4u1e (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So put we the image to box or logo? the page seems quite "orphan" without any image at the upper part of the page --Typ932 T·C 12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, personally I'd prefer the logo. But I doubt that really accords with Wiki rules - logos aren't free use images and are arguably being used for decoration. So I guess the pic of the car should go in the infobox. I just don't think it looks great like that. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, currently visiting family with slower internet. As some progress has been made, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. The image doesn't have to be added to the infobox, I just figured it would be better to have something for the readers to see when they first look at the article. The caption could mention it is a fan car if that's the issue. The main issue is addressing the unsourced areas, so once that's taken care of I can pass the review. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I'm happy for the image to go in the infobox, but for some reason (sleep deprivation most likely!) I can't seem to make it work. Probably does need a caption to point out that it's the B version with the fan. If anyone whose brain is in better shape can sort it out, that'd be great. 4u1e (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Typ932 for fixing that. Concept section revised and ref'd. 4u1e (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


### GA Sweeps: Kept
Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your patience over addressing the issues here. As always, there's loads more that could be done to improve the article... 4u1e (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a pretty good pic of Lauda at LBGP driving the #1 car before it pooped out with ignition problems.  It seems pics of the regular BT46, not the fan car, are a bit hard to come by.  I took the pic myself from above in '78.  Shows goodyear sponsor, parmalet sponsor, and alfa romeo written on the side to indicate the flat 12 engine.  I am new to WP and do not really know the process to add a pic, nor do I know if a picture would be welcome.  Long beach was the 4th race that year, and the "fan-car" only raced once that season in the 12th race in Sweden.  Lauda finished 4th overall that year in the regular 46 (except Sweden) despite having to retire from mechanical failures from 9 races, and completely missing the first two races.  So anyone want me to add the pic of the Brabham BT46/Alfa Romeo #1 with Lauda driving around a corner close to a guard-rail that I took myself?  If so, I'd appreciate any tips to as to how to add it, or where to look to find that info.  Also, what is a good size to use on WP for pics?  I have a 72, 150 and 300 dpi resolution, also BMP OR JPEG to choose from that I have scanned so far. thanks- Raisinpie (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)-
And, this regular car does actually look quite a bit different from that fan-car.  And I am not just talking about the back view.  The shape of the entire rear wing assembly, for instance is totally different, different paint scheme and other body differences evident from the pic I could add from slightly above and to side.Raisinpie (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The photo has been deleted from Commons. DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The photo was deleted for what reason?  Thousands of people had the opportunity to take a picture of the non-fan car.  Who wants to see the fan car?  I have a pic of Niki Lauda driving the regular (non fan-car) BT46 but what's the point if anyone can delete it because they feel like it?  nuts to that Invitedviking (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Invitedviking: The image was deleted because insufficient evidence had been provided that the image copyright holder had given permission for the image to be uploaded - refer to the deletion log. If you are the image copyright holder (e.g. if you took the photo yourself) and you're willing to upload the photo, I will try to help you to provide the necessary evidence/permission so that the image won't be deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Now than a pic of an actual BT46 has been add3d that is the non fan car used for most all the season, NikiLauda at that (who finished overall in 4th in 1978 in that car) I think the main pic should be the currently smallerpic down below of Lauda in the #1 car/BT46 and the fan car,which this article is really not about, should be the smallpic. At the very least, the #1 Laudapic should be at least the same size.I noticed is you find it on the Wikimedia site and blow itup to huge, you can readNiki Lauda on the helmet--and from1978, so a film pic originally.  Plus, who wantsto see the fan carpic where the car is not even moving?128.218.163.66 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)  {{help}}

I tend to agree. Even though the BT46 photo isn't as crisp as the BT46B photo, it's a better shot of the car as a whole. I've moved the BT46 photo to the infobox (and made it larger) and moved the BT46B photo down to the BT46B section. DH85868993 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The BT46 photo has been deleted from Commons, so I've put the BT46B photo back in the infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
the fan car was ruled illegal.  why was the regular BT 46 deleted from the commons, perhaps lost forever.  Who is the baby who just wanted his crappy fan car pic and no other? Than non fan car was quite famous, and, Campaigned by Niki Lauda71.198.246.173 (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The picture of the regular BT46 was deleted from Commons because insufficient evidence had been provided that the copyright holder had given permission for the image to be uploaded. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And speaking as the one who did the hard work to produce the version of the fan car pic used in this article, I certainly agree that it would be great to have a pic of the original BT46 in the article. Get out there on the various photo sharing websites, see if you can find one and see if you can persuade the owner to release it under the relevant conditions. Or locate a BT46 and take your own picture. 4u1e (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brabham BT46. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420051028/http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/audio-podcast-with-gordon-murray/ to http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/audio-podcast-with-gordon-murray/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)