Talk:British Racing Motors V16

Fair use rationale for Image:Brm v16motor.jpg

Image:Brm v16motor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video on BRM V16

There's a useful video presentation on YouTube about the BRM V16 presented by Karl Ludvigsen here: [1] for anyone how wants to add to the article page.

Dubious article

This article is littered with source material that is complete bulls**t. I cannot believe Fangio said that this car was "The best Formula One car ever made". Drivers in those days referred to F1 as Grand Prix racing, not Formula One (even that was what GP racing was known as in the 1950's). And the car was notoriously unsuccessful and BRM's failure in those days was a well-reported humiliation. --72.81.255.157 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I partly agree with you. But the common sense in Wikipedia community is "It's so much easier to criticise" and everyone is urged to edit the parts you disagree. It is tougher to let that results stand the scrutiny by fellow editors. Please go ahead, change "Formula One" to "Grand Prix" and edit the rest. It is better if you back up your claims like 'notorious', 'unsuccessful' and 'failure' with references to published sources. Yiba (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The quote from Fangio (including the term "Formula One") appears in numerous places, including Karl Ludvigsen's BRM V16, which would definitely be considered as a reliable source. DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Fangio was a Gentleman, and felt it was not his place to criticise the car, or even tell the engineers what improvements he thought might be made. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In the 1950s and 1960s Formula 2 was a significant formula as well (some cars ran in both, with modifications). Consequently, drivers and others would often need to distinguish just which formula they meant, even though they might also use "Grand Prix" very widely as the general term. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not only that, we also need to remember that Grand Prixs were run to F2 regs in 1952 and 1953. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Stirling Moss said that it was without doubt the worst of the 80 or so cars he ever raced in his career. If Moss, a historically patriotic driver who preferred to drive British cars above all others said that about a British car, then clearly, it was as bad as he said it was. [video is proof.]

Ludvigsen either was clearly joking or he thinks blatantly lying to all victims of that garbage is funny. I have never seen a more false statement written by anyone in my life- really, I haven't. Or maybe, coming from Argentina driving self prepared 1930's American saloons seemed to Fangio poor quality compared to a very sophisicated European car. In that article, Nino Farina said the engine was "fantastic"- now that, I believe. People used to throw pennies at it and boo at the car.

Any article about the first BRM, the one in discussion, the Type 25 V16- will associate those words 'notorious' 'unsuccessful' and 'failure' (definitely the last two) with this car.--166.200.172.88 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the V16 engine, not the car. And the car is not Type 25 but Type 15. You can see how much I agree with your opinion that the car sucked in the talk page on it. We can enjoy this discussion for a long time, but this is a space for how to 'improve' the engine article. Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But then, why does this article have false source material about the car, not the engine? --207.251.100.66 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here you go then Mr 'experts', a video of Karl Ludvigsen giving a talk to the Royal Automobile Club on the BRM V-16 and the Type 15 car: [2] - the other parts are at the right.

BTW, I wrote the majority of the two articles on the engine and car a few years back, when none of you could even be arsed to contribute to either, and I also used the linked video as my source, so unless you want to argue with Mr Ludvigsen, who is an acknowledged expert on the subject, whereas I suspect none of you are, I suggest you shut the f**k up.

One of the reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia was because of "drive-by 'experts'" who contribute nothing other than slagging-off articles on the talk page while usually displaying a laughable standard of both ignorance and education along with an unwarranted regard for their own self-importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Error

< The unit was tested by being mounted on the front of a Merlin engine >

This is not correct.

Both Nye (in Volume 1 of 'B.R.M.') and the I.Mech.E. paper by Wilde and Allen about the V16's supercharger make it clear that the supercharger was tested on a dedicated compressor test rig, described by Nye (page 55) as 'R-R's No. 1 300 hp Test Plant'.

86.162.138.143 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the 'R-R's No. 1 300 hp Test Plant' was in fact powered by a Merlin engine, so the text if slightly inaccurate, is basically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

'You think I'll find': where do you think I'll find this?: aka [citation needed] 185.56.40.46 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, wasn't it powered by a Kestrel, rather than a Merlin? (at least the original rig). Ludvigsen's book is very good (Ludvigsen is an exceptionally skilled writer in general). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, Hooker, on page 29 of 'Not Much of an Engineer' has, describing his start in Derby in 1938 and quoting Frank Allen, 'Well, we have a rig back there in the test area, driven by two electric motors each of 250 horsepower, on which we can drive a test supercharger . . .' with more on page 35 86.141.61.196 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge most of the content from British Racing Motors V16 (the engine) into BRM Type 15 (the car that used the engine).

The majority of the V16 article refers to the car's performance in racing, quotes from drivers referring to the entire car and not the engine specifically, all of which is duplicated by the Type 15 article. The Type 15 article is better structured and better known, and generally each section is better addressed by the car article. However, this car's engine is notable and it is common to have articles about notable engines even if they are primarily associated with one car, so I propose to keep this article (and cross-reference it with the Type 15 article) but scoped only to the engine.

Proposal

• In Development, merge content about the chassis's design into the Type 15 Design section, cross link to that section and cross-reference.
• Merge any non-duplicate, cited content about race performance of the car/chassis from Races section into the Type 15 Racing section (possibly making the style of the Type 15 article more factual and less narrative). Reduce this content to changes made to the engine while racing, the engine's performance, and problems with the engine.
• Merge the Results section into Races, removing all content related to chassis performance.
• Delete the Conclusion section. It is entirely duplicative of the the Type 15 Change of regulations 1952 and Type 15 Survivors.

This is a fairly involved pair of edits, so I will try to merge without editing for other reasons, though the articles have other issues.

The majority of this article was contributed by 86.112.73.124 on 17 Feb 2011. Since then most edits have been pretty minor.

--Killermonkeys (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest going the other way and make the V16 article the target. The cars are most commonly known as the BRM V16 (in Mk.I and Mk.II form), and only very rarely by their Type numbers. That way you have a broad article that covers both chassis types and the engine. Otherwise everything you suggest looks good. Pyrope 13:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)