Talk:Brabham BT19/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1. It is well written.. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; Pass

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Good overall but a few concerns lead me to a Minor fail

I think a few terms like United Kingdom and Australia and South Africa and Ferrari and Maserati could use wikilinking.

- Done. I have linked to the (currently non-existant) 1966 South African Grand Prix instead of South Africa, as that's the more relevant link (it's just no-one's written the article yet!)4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

V8

is linked twice but not on its first usage.

- Done.4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

V12 does not seem to be linked.

- Done 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also (optional) , I would like to see a metric/English conversion on the size of at least one engine (currnetly in liters, convert to CC). And why is this in liters when the weight of the car is in pounds?

Engine sizes for Formula One, and indeed for all other European racing series, are never, ever, given in Imperial units, even in contemporary reports from the 1960s and earlier. (Edit: Litres is standard in racing usage, cc is rarely used: This period is usually known as the '3 litre formula'). I don't know why litres are the standard, but I suspect it's because the world governing body for motorsport is based in France. Weights in the original sources are given in lbs, though, even though I imagine the weight limit would have been defined in kg. Go figure! I can add non-metric equivalents for engine size, but that raises another question: What units to use? Should it should be British Imperial units (to match with the weights), but for which I can't recall ever seeing anything other than litres used in this country? Should it be American units (for a wider audience)? If the latter, what's the normal usage? Cubic inches? Advice gratefully received. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

3 litres = 183 cubic inches, by the way. 4u1e 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked over at

WP:MOTOR and the consensus seems to be that, illogical as it may seem, in the UK engine capacity has always been measured in litres, so although at first glance inconsistent, this approach reflects the subject. I've put 183 cubic inches in as a second figure. 4u1e

23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean that "The suspension was outboard all round," and why was that a "conservative decision"?

- It means the springs and dampers were mounted in the open airstream between the wheels and the bodywork. Lotus had pioneered the technique of hiding them under the bodywork of the car, reducing drag, but at the expense of an arrangeent that was much more difficult to work with. Tauranac's decision was 'conservative' in that it did not follow the latest trend, but based on wind tunnel data and an engineering trade off that the benefit was small and not worth the inconvenience involved. I'll try and work some of that in! 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, if you are happy that it's clear now. 4u1e 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean that "The rear suspension consisted of a single top link..." - what is a "single top link"?

-Doesn't have it's own article, I'll try and find a relevant part of another article or create at least a stub for it. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not quite sure where to put it, it's often used in a racing context, but seems to be such a basic concept that no-one ever bothers to define it. I've left a note at Multi-link suspension, which looks to me like the most natural home for it. 4u1e 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pole position - not linked, why is it important?

- Fastest qualifier for the race and an advantage for the race. Linked and expanded upon. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used; Pass - I don't have easy access to the sources, so I will take your word that they back up the text.

(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; Hold - One question

In the second paragraph, there is a direct quote "I might as well get on with my main line business, which was selling production cars". There is no footnote immediately after this. Is it supported by Henry (1985) p.55?

- It is, but I'll copy the footnote to their as well, so that there is no doubt. 4u1e 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. 4u1e 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(c) contains no original research. - Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic Fail for now because of some concerns/questions

I don't understand the race results table. I think the key should be placed into this article instead of wikilinked. Also, what are the numbers across the top - are those individual races? How do the points work?

- Interesting point, because that style of table is standard across the Formula One wikiproject. Numbers across the top are just for convenience in seeing what round of the series has been reached, the actual races are identified by name, linked by abbreviated form in each row. Points at this period went 9-6-4-3-2-1 for first to sixth place. I can make changes to cover these points, but would prefer to discuss them at

WP:F1 first, as if agreed they should be reflected across the project. 4u1e

11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did he call the car "Old Nail"?

- Because it was old and reliable. You possibly have to be Australian to think that makes sense, but I'll have a stab at explaining it. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, with a quote from Ron Tauranac. 4u1e 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The car completed 19 races and won 6. I'm guessing that is a lot? Could some information be added to help the reader put this into perspective?

- Winning a third of its races is probably unusual for a given chassis at that time, rather than for a type. It probably could use some perspective, because in the current sport, the figures aren't all that impressive. I'll add something. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Optional) Any chance for a picture? If an image of the exact car can't be found, possible a related car or drawing of one of the race tracks or something?

- Can't find any free use pictures of the car itself. A related car would, I think, be misleading. While remembering that images are not a requirement for GA, there are some pictures of it available on Flickr, but with unsuitable licensing. I will try my luck at persuading people to change their licensing to one I can use. Wish me luck! 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with that. As you say, it is not a requirement, so this will not hold up the GA. If you point me to a non-free flickr photo, maybe I could make a drawing of it for you. The trick would be whether I can make it different enough not to infringe upon the photo copyright yet similar enough that it is factual and not original research. Another option would be a picture to illustrate some part, like the suspension style or something. Johntex\^talk 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No response yet from Flickr users. Some pics can be seen here and here, which would give both an overview of the car and a closeup of the suspension. Someone has added a fair use picture of BT19, but I think that will have to go: the car still exists and people are still taking photos of it, so in principle it's possible to get a free use picture. If you are able to do pictures, that would be fantastic, but it also sounds like a lot of work, so don't worry if not! 4u1e 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details - Pass

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. - Pass

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. - Pass

Overall, it is a very nice article. Thanks for contributing it. Just a few little things and it should pass GA. I'm putting it on hold for now. I've watchlisted this page so I will be back. Johntex\^talk 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time (or is it just revenge! ;-)) 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is just my way of saying thanks for your helping me - and also a chance to take a break from my

current time-consuming project. You are almost there! I'll be back... Johntex\^talk

14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I still consider to be a major issue is that table of race results. I really think it needs some more explanation. I appreciate that this needs discussion with the Formula One wikiproject. At a bare minimum, I believe the key should be transcluded into the article instead of forcing the reader to go out and open a second page. When this issue is addressed I believe the article will be GA quality. Johntex\^talk 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will raise that at WP:F1 - are you happy to accept the consensus there? I wouldn't want this article to get too out of kilter with the rest of the project (it already differs from the 'standard' in some minor points). I would have got on with it a little quicker but we had another round of the eternal 'Are Scottish drivers British/Are British drivers Scottish' debate last night which took up rather a lot of time :( 4u1e 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Yes, I will go along with what ever the project decides on that. Johntex\^talk 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here and done a dummy of what it might look like here. Feel free to comment. About the points, unfortunately the actual points per race varied fairly regularly from 1950 to around 1960 and a couple more times since 1990. The number of races which counted towards a championship total varied a lot up to around 1990. Between those two factors, I'm not sure it's possible to have a standard points table - it would probably be OK for this article, which only covers two years, but for most drivers and teams there would be at least one change of scoring system to account for over their career, which is too much to put in one article. 4u1e 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: What we've agreed is that we'll have a collapsible table, but we're a bit stuck on the technicalities of getting that to work properly. Will report back when it's functioning - hopefully we can extend the 'on-hold' to account for this! 4u1e 3 May 2007, 11:22

Further update: Still not quite happy with the hide/show key, which can be seen at the discussion link above. Have put in the full key for now. I don't want to stretch the rules any further ;-) , so probably better to either pass or fail in its current state. 4u1e 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since all the requirements seem to have passed, and the table is pretty much a minor concern, I've passed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanuab (talk • contribs) 20:02, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

Just my thoughts, but I would put the picture of actual car upper part of page, that you could see it straight away when opening page and move Jack Brabham pic to the racing history section...--— Typ932^{T | C}  08:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect you're right, but in fact that picture will probably have to go. It's on a fair use rationale, which is tricky to uphold when the subject still exists. There are in fact several pictures of it on Flickr (search for Brabham BT19), but none currently have the correct licensing. :( 4u1e 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Make comments here! Davnel03 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article is in the present tense. The whole way through reading it that had me thinking why? That question is not answered until the "Demonstrations" section - where it is explained that the car has been restored and is demonstrated at events. Perhaps a brief mention of this in the lead?
  • Good point, will do. Does the present tense thing work apart from that? It started off with a discussion a while ago about whether car articles should start with 'X is an F1 racing car' or 'X was an F1 racing car'. As far as I remember, we (WPF1) agreed that if the car was still in existence, then it should be 'is'. The rest follows logically from that, and is similar to the approach taken with literary articles, where the work is still in existence. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, as long as it's made clear the car still actually exists, present tense is perfectly logical.Mark83 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Several instances of "world championship." Should these not be World Championship?
  • I'll check on that. I had a good reason for thinking that it shouldn't, but I can't remember it off the top of my head! 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Check out [1] - just a random F1 news article, championship capitalised.Mark83 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• The lead has metric first, imperial second. The article is imperial first, metric second. I think a common standard would be good.
  • It's not quite what it looks like. Engine capacity is always (even in period) given in metric - presumably something to do with the FIA being based in France. Other dimensions and capacities (even of liquids), are always given in period in Imperial measurements. Since no imperial equivalent for engine capacity exists (other than the decidedly American cubic inches) there are only two options: Have a mixed economy matching what is used in the sources, or put it all in metric. Since doing the latter would mean converting the figures used in the sources (and thus losing accuracy), I opted for the former. It would also not truly be written in UK English, because mpg for example, still seems to be the 'standard' (in the loose sense) fuel efficiency figure in the UK. It looks odd, but is actually consistent. Convinced? ;-) 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Absolutley convinced.Mark83 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body." seems like a randomly placed statement? If the reader wants to know more about F1 it is well linked. -- I'm easy on this one, just throwing it in here for consideration.
  • You're not the only one to comment on it. It's there to give context, particularly in terms of notability: It's a one-off racing car, so what? My only remaining reservation about deleting it as both AlexJ and yourself have suggested, is whether it is of use to a reader totally unfamiliar with F1, or motor racing. I'll consult some other editors. Thanks for raising it. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's gone. 4u1e 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• "the first example was delivered to the team's headquarters in the United Kingdom in late 1965." -- More specific location in UK?
  • Um, I'll check. I think they moved around then. I was also trying to avoid getting into the fact that MRD and BRO were based at different sites, and I don't know which company the engine was delivered to! May not be easily fixable, but I'll have a look. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, if it over-complicates I wouldn't worry.Mark83 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• "The engine block, originally designed without cylinder liners, is fitted with cast iron cylinder liners by Repco." -- I know the basic mechanics of an engine, however I don't know what the attributes of a cylinder liner are. It seems important that the engine was modified in this way, but it begs the question why? (We don't have an article on cylinder liners).
  • And I probably know little more than you. Given your interest in various engineering related subjects you'll be aware that choice of material for mechanical compenents is always a compromise. As far as I know the use of cylinder liners is just a way to reduce the compromises that have to be made. The cylinder is lined with a different material to the block, allowing the materials used for the block and the cylinder liner to be better suited to their respective tasks (i.e. stiffness and lightness for the block and I guess frictional characteristics for the liner). Nikasil was used to coat the bores of some of the turbo era engines for a similar purpose. The failure to produce a lighter? linerless design was I think a large part of the failure of the Oldsmobile engine project that produced the original engine blocks. I'll see if that can be explained without wandering too far from the point! 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've expanded on this a bit - and tried to link to more relevant articles. I think I will have to either write a
      cylinder liner article or expand one of the other engine articles to provide a suitable link. 4u1e
      20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• "The engine was light for its time, weighing around 340 lb, compared to 500 lb" -- unlike other data, no metric comparison.
  • Ah, caught me out. I think I just got bored of calculating comparisons for each case. Unless 500lb already appears earlier? 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Conversions added. 4u1e 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• "The engine had one further advantage: parts were cheap. For example, the engine blocks were available for £11 each and the connecting rods cost £7 each." -- Why where they cheap? Where they off-the-shelf parts in comparsion to custom made parts in competitor engines? Maybe the ref. covers this?
  • The Repco engine was very much an 80% solution, produced at very short notice and on a low budget: It's quicker and probably cheaper for such a short production run as this to use what you can get. It also used Alfa Romeo cam followers! The idea was very much to get a 3 litre engine that worked, not to try to produce anything like an optimised design. (The desire to strive for the 'best' solution led to monstrosities like the BRM H-16. <shudder>) It's competitors were all purpose designed racing engines, whether new for the 3 litre formula (Ferrari, Honda, BRM), increased capacity versions of older engines (Coventry Climax, BRM, Maserati) or a decreased capacity 4.2 litre Ford Indycar engine (Step forward Mr B McLaren, what were you thinking?!) I couldn't say for definite that none of these used off the shelf parts - most of the manufacturers built engines for other purposes, after all, but I think the Repco was the only one to be anything like such a parts bin special.4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• "The 740 series unit used in the three races for which the car was entered in 1967..." -- I think it's correct to say this is the first time the number of races is alluded to. Understandable, given the racing history section is to follow. However a mention of GPs competed in would be good in intro.
  • OK. Will do. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding "This design was marginal for the more powerful 3 litre engines" -- The point being made that the pairing was less than ideal? I think it could be worded better - also "gentle starts"? Maybe a comparison to its competitors? Were they very poor starts? Did it make the car vulnerable to being overtaken off the grid?
  • Not strong enough to take the amount of power being put through it, so he didn't floor it right at the start. At the start you're trying to break (just) the traction of the rear tyres. My engineering's a little rusty, but the actual loads in the gearbox will be at their highest at this point, they'll be much lower running flat out at full power. I was trying to stay fairly close to what the sources said, so as to avoid interpretation, but I think you're right - it needs stating more clearly. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Just to double check: "The HD was later replaced with the sturdier DG (Different Gearbox) design" -- not differential gearbox?
  • No. It seems to be a Hewland in-joke. The existing gearbox was already the 'Heavy Duty', so they couldn't use the most obvious name for a beefed up design. Popular legend says it came from someone peering over the draftsmans shoulder and asking 'What's this then, a different gearbox?'. An even more dubious story is that Dan Gurney thought it was named after him. Is it worth explaining any of that? Or am I wandering the paths of trivia again? 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Again just to double check: "Although regarded by its designer as a "lash-up"," -- meaning 'cobbled together'? Just think again if it needs explanation (I'm not saying there's anything wrong, maybe it doesn't)
  • Meaning exactly that. This was a year old car designed for a different (much lighter) engine. Conversion probably more or less consisted of sawing the back end off and welding on a different rear frame to hold the bigger 3 litre engine. I could expand on that. 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• "He used it once more to take pole position and victory at the non-championship Oulton Park Gold Cup before taking over a BT20 for the final two races" -- Should that not be "switching to" or the equivalent? Also why? Was it becoming uncompetitive? Or was it just the new car wasn't quite ready up to then?
  • My use of 'taking over' probably sprang from the fact that Denny Hulme had been driving a BT20 since mid-season, but the impression is probably not entirely accurate, unless they had a third driver that year, I'll check and change it if not.
    • You're right, the impression given was wrong: Brabham used the first BT20 chassis for the last two races of the year, but no-one else had raced it before then. I've amended the words. 4u1e 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect he was just used to it. The two BT20s, which were ready much earlier in the season, were really only tidied up versions of BT19 with a longer wheelbase (according to most sources). The pace of development then was nothing like it is now, so it is unlikely there was much handicap in sticking to the tried and tested 'Old nail' 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Checked and clarified in text. 4u1e 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the Tasman Series - Why did they use a 2.5 litre? Mark83 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That was the engine capacity limit in Tasman, I think it was run to the old (pre 1961) F1 rules. I may clarify that they weren't deliberately handicapping themselves! 4u1e 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, because that's how I read it. I thought why would they run an engine, which by their own admission was a retrograde step? Mark83 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarified, I hope. 4u1e 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Some images have their px sizes set - something that would get mentioned in a FAC. Mark83 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a copyedit for the smaller stuff. A few more esoteric comments here then. Please bear in mind that these are general points, which may or may not have other examples within the text.

Firstly, precision. The change in engine capacity didn't "require a completely new design"; you could have run with whatever engine you liked, so long as it met the regulations. This needs expanding on. For instance, some teams chose to go back to a bored-out FPF! Others, and I'm thinking of Cooper, developed engines based on much older designs. In theory there was nothing to prevent teams actually using a forced-induction pre-war unit! You can say that there was no way to adapt the FWMV to 3L capacity, but you need to keep a handle on cause and effect links.

Secondly, following on, just a quick point about saying what you mean. In the last sentence of the second paragraph of "Concept" you stated that there was "no time" to develop a new car. Again, this isn't technically true. Some teams have been known to knock out a new car in just a few short weeks, so four months is quite a while. There was some time, just not very much. Sounds pedantic, I know, but it's the details that make a difference.

Third, the engineering jargon, such as "triangulated fully" and "beam loads", needs explaining or linking.

Fourth, I'm not sure about this, so this is more by way of a question, but I see the BT19 referred to as a Repco Brabham quite frequently. What's the official line on this? You use Brabham-Repco here and there so it might be worth checking whether this is how it was referred to in period.

Fifth, I personally don't like the future conditional being used as a form of past tense. It's got a sub-Discovery Channel, cumbersome inelegance to it, especially in an encyclopedic text where a more formal tone is better. In a narrative section, such as describing a sequence of events in a race, you can just about get away with it, but dumping "would appear" in the middle of a sentence where "appeared" would do just as well is a little awkward.

Sixth, you should use the article subject name at the start of every paragraph, not simply it or the car. Again this is a stylistic thing, but it helps to focus each paragraph. After the intial use, once you have established what the paragraph is about, you can start using pronouns.

(As an aside, I saw the commented out section which went something along the lines of "what on Earth is that explanation of the Old Nail moniker all about?" Can you double check that you have the explanation quote verbatim, from a reliable source? The sections about it being two years old and great to drive makes perfect sense (its an old car by F1 standards, and you drive nails into wood with ease, after all), but the final comment about lacking vices seems more like elaboration than explanation. In fact, I reckon that deleting " and had no vices" would tighten that sentence up nicely.)

Seventh, how can a car's lightweight chassis allow it to start with less fuel? You have already mentioned the fuel efficiency, and presumably the chassis weight contributes to this, but a light chassis would actually allow greater fuel loads for equivalent accelerative performance. I'm probably missing something here, but I think you are arguing the same point twice.

Eighth, the World Champion(ship) is a title, a proper noun, which needs capitalisation when you refer to the specific title or competition.

That's it for me. Some of the points are personal things, some general, but all in all it's a great article. I'd prefer a little more about the racing history, in particular its string of four wins, but the design and engineering seems very well handled. Good work all! Pyrope 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Re: Bigger engines. Ah, true. I was thinking of the 'modern' 1.5 litre units, which I think it is true to say simply could not be expanded to 3 litres (witness various versions around 2 litres of BRM and Climax units - which I assume would have been stretched further if possible). You're right of course about the older Maserati and FPF units, although the latter (already massively stretched from its origins) only went to 2.7 litres. I suppose what I mean is that front running engines from 1965 could not be extended to the full 3 litre capacity for 1966, and therefore could not be fully competitive that year (Jim Clark notwithstanding). I will work on the wording there to expand slightly and make clearer. I'd been thinking anyway that it might be useful to give more on the solutions used by Brabham's competitors. Will also check cause and effect throughout.
   1. Done, I believe. 4u1e 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Fair point re time, although they didn't have four months: the RSA GP was on 1 January! OK, so it wasn't a world championship round, but start money was a much more important factor in those days and some testing was required. Nonetheless, your point stands - I imagine it was the easiest way ahead rather than the only possible route. Will also check that I am saying what I mean - some of this comes from anxiety to make it clear why particular things are notable.
   1. Done, I believe. 4u1e 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Engineering terms. OK, but triangulation may require quite a large digression. I couldn't find a relevant wikilink, unfortunately. Dive planes probably also needs an explanation - it's a very loose use of a term normally associated with submarines!
   1. Covered triangulated and beam loads, by removing them and giving a longer explanation. I'm a bit worried that I've gone down a rabbithole here, though. It's really quite a minor point, all F1 cars have to be stiffened in this way: It just happens that RT had some oval tubing at the time, an unusual solution, and that it's one way of differentiaing BT19 from the two BT20s, which means it tends to get mentioned. 4u1e 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's reason enough to mention it. As for links, try polygon triangulation for that, and Beam (structure) would give a nice, gentle introduction on the beam loads topic. Pyrope 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

After further thinking I decided triangulation was beside the point: I suspect it's more about torsional stiffess than beam loads - name me a designer who's not (at heart) more concerned about making the suspension work than side impact resistance. If that's the case then precisely the same problem exists for monocoques as for spaceframes - the fact that it's the trinagulating parts that are missing from the spaceframe but a section of the skin of the monocoque isn't really relevant.

1. Re Repco Brabham: You're right, the early cars were often known as 'Repco Brabhams'. JB was rather commercially aware for his time. Repco had supplied him with various bits and bobs since at least his Cooper days and also provided Brabham's first team base in their London depot. In return, even before the engine deal, the early cars in all formulas were known as 'Repco Brabhams'. I haven't checked, but I assume this deal ended after 1968 when Brabham started using DFVs. At least one source says that therefore the 66-68 cars were strictly 'Repco Brabham-Repcos'. If you consider that the new subsidiary of Repco that built the engines was 'Repco-Brabham engines Pty Ltd', you could even argue they should be Repco Brabham-Repco Brabhams! A quick leaf through period reports shows both Repco Brabham and Brabham-Repco were used, the former being slightly more popular based on the limited selection I have. Nonetheless I have opted for the latter because it looks consistent with more recent practice and in fact gives the correct impression: chassis by Brabham, engine by Repco. Using Repco Brabham, while emphasising the unusually close relationship between chassis supplier and engine manufacturer, might demand an explanation for a modern audience. I think this might be going too much into minutiae, what do you think? I could footnote the alternative usage, for example.

A footnote at least, although the explanation which you have given above could be edited slightly and filleted into the main page as a reasonable succinct explanation of the period official name. Drawing a modern parallel, we don't refer to BMW Sauber - BMW, do we? Pyrope 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see how it can be worked in. I try to maintain consistent terminology where absolute precision is not strictly required for the topic in hand, to make the readers life easier.4u1e 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnoted. 4u1e 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Future conditional. Oh dear, sub-Discovery Channel! :-) Guilty as charged - I think there was only the one occurrence of 'would be' (dive planes), which I agree was completely misplaced. There are circumstances where you need the distinction as a form of past tense, but that wasn't one of them! I will check for other instances.
   1. Done. Some woulds remain, but these don't fall into the same category. 4u1e 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Agreed - Probably down to paras growing and getting split. Or possibly sheer carelessness on my part. ;-) (Aside - yes, the quote is verbatim and correct. The source is most likely a vanity publication however. I wouldn't normally use it, but have done here for four reasons: a) Much of the content is either directly quoted or paraphrased from interviews with Frank Hallam and others involved in the Brabham Repco project. I'm not using the author's direct opinions. b) Where the book overlaps with reliable sources it matches, which gives me more faith in those areas where it doesn't overlap. c) It has a foreword from Jack Brabham, which increases the likelihood of it being fairly legit. d) It's the only source which gives an explanation for the d@*! thing. The last one may not be a very good reason! The meaning of 'old nail' is crystal clear to me, but it's obviously not clear to everyone and I can't explain it myself without resorting to original research. Grrr.)
   1. Further to this: Since the quote is a direct answer to a direct question, I'm not sure I should 'trim' it either - that would be our interpretation of what RT meant.4u1e 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pyrope 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Lightweight chassis: Hmm, it's all tied in together, isn't it? Mpg is actually a measure of 'vehicle efficiency', not engine efficiency. Engine efficiency, light weight and other factors will contribute to vehicle efficiency. I've rewritten the section to include the lightweight chassis as a contributor to the good vehicle efficiency - does that address your concern? You may be concerned that the implication now is that the engine was only fuel efficient in the lightweight chassis, but since no-one else in F1 ever got their hands on Repco engines (Chapman tried!), that's all we know!

Yes, that's fine. As previously written it made the chassis weight the sole governing factor. Pyrope 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Capitalisation: Agreed. Mark83 raised it above as well.

Racing History is deliberately kept very short as strictly it should be (but isn't yet!) covered by the season and race articles. Most of the F1 car articles seem to focus on a) sponsorship and b) racing history, rapidly degenerating into why Kubica whups Heidfeld's ass and Kimi roolz! I could perhaps expand a little further without trespassing on areas that properly belong in other articles, though.

Sorry that's rather a long response - I find it helpful to 'think out loud'. Thanks for such a thorough review, as well as for the copyedit. 4u1e 09:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that, in terms of understanding a car's impact and place in the grand scheme of things, racing history is quite important. If written carefully you can also expound on the intangiables of a racing car, such as its reliability, power delivery, handling, etc. Personally speaking, I find the concern with sponsorship in the modern articles completely spurious. Pyrope 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. But's very easy to list all the team sponsors! You're probably right about race history - I'll beef it up a tad. 4u1e 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Extended. Possibly too much. 4u1e 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At4u1e's request, I have read through this article again. I know absolutely nothing about racing or cars, so I am a good test for the layest and most ignorant of readers.

• I gather there is some disagreement over the following sentence: Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body. - The statement seemed a little broad in the context of the article. The rest of the paragraph is much more specific. It did not really help me understand Formula One racing either, since I wasn't sure what "highest form" meant.
  talk
  20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Climax abandoned the flat-16 unit's development before the end of the year: 1965 was the last season run under regulations limiting engine capacity to 1.5 litres (92 cu in) and Climax's existing FWMV V8 engines, although less powerful than the 16 cylinder motor, proved good enough to propel Jim Clark's Lotus 33 to seven wins and the drivers' championship. - I found this sentence a little unwieldly and difficult to parse. Perhaps it could be broken up into two? There are a few other sentences like this, but I think they may have seemed wordy to me because I am not familiar with racing terminology or car parts.

I think that the lay reader can get the general idea of this article without any problem; the editor(s) do a nice of explaining the concepts they introduce. Moreover, no article can perfectly cater to the uninformed and informed. :)

Thanks again for your help Awadewit. I think I have addressed both your points, although I'll keep an eye out for excessively complicated sentences. It's a failing of mine, I'm afraid! 4u1e 11:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)