The car that totally dominated 1984, the Mclaren MP4/2

A double title-winner that set the perfectionist template for Ron Dennis-era Mclaren

Mclaren’s 1981 MP4 – later renamed the MP4/1 – is one of a handful of cars which can legitimately be claimed to have changed the face of Formula 1. Its sequel was naturally less revolutionary – but ultimately proved to be far more successful as visionary designer John Barnard rigorously eliminated the shortcomings of the original. With the MP4/1, Barnard not only made full carbonfibre construction de rigueur if you wanted to be competitive in F1, he also definitively swept aside a number of cherished garage traditions. For years Barnard had been vexed that mechanics were responsible for fabricating various elements of the car, such as wing brackets and so on; it was craftsmanship, yes, but it was also impinging on an area Barnard considered to be the designer’s bailiwick. The MP4/1 was a turning point on the road to the supremacy of the design office, a state of affairs in which no element of the car is not the subject of dozens of carefully optimised CAD prescriptions.

And yet this carbonfibre vision of the future was carrying historical baggage in its engine bay: the Ford-cosworth DFV, the architecture of which dated back to the 1960s. The Cosworth V8 had democratised F1, enabling independent teams to access affordable, durable power, but by its very ubiquity it eliminated an element of competitive variation. Barnard’s MP4/1 concept had offered a comprehensive answer

“IT WAS A COSTLY, RISKY ENTERPRISE – BARNARD ENVISAGED MP4/2 AS THE ULTIMATE GROUND-EFFECT CAR”

to that puzzle of how to unlock the ‘unfair advantage’, given engine parity: make a lighter, stiffer car. Now, though, turbo powertrains were nudging the Cosworth towards obsolescence. In his quest to build the perfect car, Barnard envisioned something suitably bespoke for the MP4/2.

These were times of rapid change for Mclaren itself as title sponsor Marlboro engineered a shotgun marriage in 1980 between the struggling Mclaren organisation and Project Four Racing, an ambitious outfit run by mechanic-turnedentrepreneur Ron Dennis. It’s fair to say that Dennis held his new partners in low regard and set about remodelling the team in his own perfectionist image, hiring the like-minded Barnard to execute what Ron would no doubt call a “paradigm shift” in F1 design. And even before Barnard’s MP4/1 hit the track, the two men were turning their attention to the next major hurdle: what turbocharged powertrain could they put in the MP4/2?

While Mclaren’s old guard, represented by long-time Bruce Mclaren lieutenants Teddy Mayer and Tyler Alexander, pushed for an existing powertrain, Dennis and Barnard pushed back. Ferrari’s V6 turbo was obviously off the table. Barnard rejected the Renault V6 and BMW’S inline-4 on account of their inherent compromise – one originally built for sportscars, the other derived from a road-car unit, and neither designed to act as a fully stressed element of the chassis.

Porsche had no interest in returning to Formula 1, but had considerable expertise in turbocharged powertrains from sportscar racing – and had a customer engineering facility it was keen to develop as a profit centre. By mid-1981 Dennis had concluded an agreement for Porsche to design a new F1 engine to Barnard’s specifications, provided Mclaren underwrote the costs. Ron’s next task was to find the money, since Marlboro’s coffers were not bottomless. Fortunately, Dennis was able to enthuse Williams sponsor Mansour Ojjeh to come aboard as a partner and add the name of his Techniques d’avant Garde investment vehicle to the finished engine.

It was a costly, risky enterprise, and the development process was fraught. Barnard envisaged the MP4/2 as the ultimate ground-effect car, and to that end he prescribed a short, narrow engine with ultra-tidy cooling and turbo plumbing so that the chassis could accommodate long, straight and deep underbody venturi. He mandated the crank height should be the same as the DFV’S, and he policed Porsche’s interpretations of his scrupulously laid out dimensions ruthlessly and often rebarbatively.

Veteran Porsche engineer Hans Mezger’s team finally managed to satisfy Barnard with the finished product, an 80-degree V6 boosted by twin KKK turbochargers and fed by a sophisticated new Bosch fuel injection system. Dyno testing began in late 1982, as Dennis bought Mayer and Alexander

out to take full control, but F1 politics would generate another obstacle for Barnard’s ambition: the elimination of ground effects thanks to a new rule for 1983 mandating every car had to have a flat bottom. Mclaren contested 1983 with a revised version of the MP4/1, powered by the new Cosworth DFY, as work progressed on MP4/2 and the engine that would propel it.

This would not come soon enough for one of Mclaren’s drivers. Dennis had lured double world champion Niki Lauda out of retirement for 1982. The money was good, but Lauda was sold on the Tag-porsche concept. By mid-1983 he was beginning to chafe impatiently for the new engine as turbocharged cars ran rampant, and Renault’s Alain Prost and Brabham’s Nelson Piquet carved up the wins between them – reliability permitting. Having failed to lobby Dennis and Barnard to introduce the V6 early – in effect shoehorning it into the D-spec MP4/1 – Lauda went over their heads, applying pressure via Marlboro, which threatened to pull funding if Lauda’s demands weren’t met.

“Barnard said the team wasn’t going to race the turbo car before 1984 because he wanted to make the perfect car,” Lauda later recalled. “But I went to see Ron and told him that Ferrari would win everything in 1984 if we didn’t get on and start developing the TAG turbo. But John still wouldn’t agree – so I had to eventually go behind their backs to Marlboro. Barnard was furious – he hated me for that!”

Furious or not, Barnard and his team turned around a Tagpowered prototype, MP4/1E, for Lauda to drive at the Dutch Grand Prix. A second car was ready for John Watson at the next round, and Barnard’s disgruntlement was eased somewhat as testing under race conditions helped flush out teething troubles relating to the electrics, fuel system and valve timing.

Circumstances might have militated against Barnard’s quest for perfection but the completed MP4/2 was a beauty, its neatly packaged TAG powertrain standing in stark contrast to the tangled engine bays of the Ferrari, Renault and the Hondapowered Williams. Where the various iterations of MP4/1 had been based on the same tubs, built by Hercules Corporation in the USA, the MP4/2 used a new monocoque fabricated in a redesigned mould to suit both the footprint of the V6 engine and a new rule dictating a maximum fuel tank size of 220 litres. Externally, the MP4/2 bore a family resemblance to its predecessor but with neatened aerodynamics (honed in the windtunnel at the National Physical Laboratory, opposite GP Racing’s old offices in Teddington) and shorter, squarer sidepods optimised for the cooling demands of the new engine.

As with all turbo cars in the flat-bottom era, aero priorities dictated a substantial rear wing to assist with traction. Barnard went further, packaging the mechanicals as tightly as possible and shrouding them with bodywork which met the curved rear of the sidepods. The rear suspension was redesigned to offer minimal air resistance in this area, creating an unobstructed flow over the ramp of the diffuser: the lower wishbones were below the ramp, while the upper rocker arms actuated springs and dampers mounted above the transmission.

Perhaps the only sub-optimal element was the gearbox, a hybrid of Hewland and Mclaren internals with a bespoke casing. A carry-over from MP4/1, it now had to transmit peak power loads in the region of 200bhp greater than before, as well as enduring higher temperatures thanks to Barnard’s new layout, which routed the exhausts alongside it to vent into the diffuser. An all-new design was required to cure its fragility.

For the new car’s debut in 1984 Lauda was joined by Prost,

“CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT HAVE MILITATED AGAINST BARNARD’S QUEST FOR PERFECTION BUT THE COMPLETED MP4/2 WAS A BEAUTY ”

summarily fired by Renault after a string of car failures derailed his title challenge the previous season. History records 1984 as something of a walkover for Mclaren: Lauda (driving MP4/2-1, the car photographed here) eventually prevailed over Prost by half a point, and indeed they won 12 of the 16 races and finished with more than double the points of third-placed Elio de Angelis. But while the TAG engine and its sophisticated fuel injection system essayed a more useful compromise between power and frugality than its more brutal, thirsty and fragile rivals, it was not without problems. Several results went begging as a consequence of water losses, ancillary component failures and misfires. This was a season marked by brutal attrition – in Detroit, for instance, only six cars finished.

Michelin’s withdrawal entailed a swap to Goodyear rubber for 1985, along with various detail changes to improve performance and counter rule changes which sought to reduce downforce. One detail change within the body enabled Barnard to satisfy his need for neatness as well as finding extra speed: mirror-image turbochargers achieved both design symmetry and a better exhaust layout. In a more tightly contested season, Prost won five races aboard the MP4/2B while Lauda suffered the majority of the reliability problems and won only once, retiring at season’s end. Ferrari’s Michele Alboreto ran Prost close until the 156/85’s reliability deserted it during the run-in, enabling Prost to claim his first drivers’ championship.

Prost would win again in 1986 with the C-spec of the MP4/2, but by now the Mclaren-tag partnership was outgunned by Williams-honda. Prost took the title through a combination of consistency and the Williams drivers poaching wins from one another. As Barnard took his leave and accepted a lucrative offer to join Ferrari, this was truly the end of an era…