34 replies to this topic

[John Miller]

How many companies make this body?

[Greg VanPeenen]

Really nice body.

[Ron Hershman]

As far as I knew... only Dilworth made that body.

Not IRRA™ legal nor approved.

[MG Brown]

Beardog has it in 1/32.

[Noose]

Yes, John Dilworth submitted a couple of samples but it was not approved.

[MantaRay]

Just curious... why was it not approved?

[Noose]

Because the wing is not part of the body (like the Matra and new McLarens on which the original cars has them that way). Thus, the way the wing is done it is not therefore like the real car nor did it make the allowed width rule.

[olderracer]

Joe:

Shame it's not legal. Sure is prettier than the McLarens - no? :-)

--------------Jack

[Noose]

Well, that all depends on one's taste. The mold was never finished by John. Not so sure it would have been as much better looking because the whole rear was out of proportion IMO.

[gascarnut]

Because the wing is not part of the body (like the Matra and new McLarens on which the original cars has them that way). Thus, the way the wing is done it is not therefore like the real car nor did it make the allowed width rule.

Actually, there was at least one version that looked like that:



From what I can find, this was the one and only time Graham Hill drove the car, so this was a test session somewhere.

[Noose]

Yup, I saw that one and did send it to John. He didn't want to continue the project so the version he submitted was not approved based on the one he made it like.

[TSR]

But Joe, this IS the one he made... so I am confused, too. In any case it looks very nice.

[Noose]

Sorry, PdL, if you mean the one in the first picture then look at the rear and tell me if it meets the width rule. Ta-da.

[John Miller]

Is this body legal in SCRRA?

[TSR]

SCRRA has a limit for the F1 bodies of the end of 1968, so it cannot be. The Lotus type 63 came in 1969.

Sorry, PdL, if you mean the one in the first picture then look at the rear and tell me if it meets the width rule. Ta-da.

OK, this explains it.

No problem, thanks for the explanation.

[W. J. Dougherty]

Here are two other examples where Graham Hill drove the car...

[Ron Hershman]

Yep, as you can see... the rear wing was on "struts" which was NOT part of the bodywork... the struts were directly attached to the chassis.

[beardogracing]

And how about Graham with no wing at all. Struggling with the 4-wheel drive Lotus 63 in practice for the 1969 Dutch GP. Hill and Rindt eventually refused to drive the cars and Lotus had to revert to the well-tried 49.

Attached Images

• 

[TSR]

Yep, and like those other 4WD F1s, the MATRA MS84, Costin-Cosworth and the McLaren, they were losers. The constructors quickly reverted to 2WD and have not changed ever since. Interestingly, 4WD was very successful at Indy, in DTM (when that was legal) and of course on rally cars, but never in F1.
I like that Dilworth body a lot... but on the West Coast we would have to run it in a new class!

[Ron Hershman]

The constructors quickly reverted to 2WD and have not changed ever since.

Well not since 1982 when F1 "banned" 4WD

[TSR]

They could have banned it much earlier since no one tried again after 1971!

4WD is also banned in IndyCar, in DTM (where the 4WD Audis had to revert to 2WD, despite that their production cars are mostly 4WD!) and in some rally organizations. Don't come with a Subaru there, they will make you disconnect either end!

[Ron Hershman]

Yea well maybe if Audi had built a 4WD F1 car and had some guy named Hans Stuck drive it.........well maybe it would have worked in F1 too

[Zippity]

Joe:

Shame it's not legal. Sure is prettier than the McLarens - no? :-)

--------------Jack

Prettier than a McLaren? Wash your mouth!!

[TSR]

Prettier than THIS McLaren:

[Zippity]

OK - I'll give you that one