This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brabham BT46 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Brabham BT46 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

WikiProject Motorsport	(Rated GA-Class, Mid-importance)	MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Motorsport portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Formula One	(Rated GA-Class, High-importance)	Formula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles
Formula One portal v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula One  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Automobiles	(Rated GA-Class, Low-importance)	AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Cars portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Brabham BT46:
Do inline references throughout. 4u1e 06:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Diagram of how the fan car worked would be good. Table of results Infobox or similar giving chassis information 4u1e 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Can it be improved on though? See template:Racing car if you have any ideas. 4u1e 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Brabham BT46 is a selected article in Portal:Cars.

Brabham BT46 appeared on Portal:Formula One as F1 Selected Article for 8 July.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Uncertain elements 3 BT46 4 See Alsos 5 GA passed 6 Alfa Romeo links 7 Legality of the "fan car"... again 8 Factual accuracy about the 2J 9 GA Reassessment 9.1 GA Sweeps: On hold 9.2 GA Sweeps: Kept

[edit] Merge

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)

[edit] Uncertain elements

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)

[edit] BT46

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

[edit] See Alsos

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)

[edit] GA passed

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)

[edit] Alfa Romeo links

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)

[edit] Legality of the "fan car"... again

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)

[edit] Factual accuracy about the 2J

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)

[edit] GA Reassessment

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

[edit] 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.

1. Can the free image be placed in the infobox?
2. The first paragraph of the "Concept" section as well as the "Racing history" section are unsourced.
3. 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)

1. 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.
2. Fair point, will fix.
3. Fair point, will fix.

Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 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)

[edit] 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)