World Champion DRIVER

[Armco Bender]

Ahhhhh....the '70s....when F1 was at its best..

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

The first use of skirts that I ever saw, was testing the Lotus Type 78 in early 1977.
It was running brushes that touched the track to try and stop air getting under the car.

I can remember seeing pictures of Lotus 77 with brushes for the same purpose on the side pods prior to the introduction of the Lotus 78.

checkeredpastracing.com quotes Andretti as confirming that the innovation introduced on testing on the 77/3 chassis led to the development of the ground effects on the Lotus 78 the following year...which means that they were experimenting with the ideas during 1976...


"Lotus 77/3, along with the other two Lotus 77s constructed and raced by Team Lotus during the 1976 season, were used for testing chassis configurations and aerodynamic innovations, including side pod design. That testing and innovation is credited by Andretti as leading to Lotus' development of ground effects in the Lotus 78 the following year."

It wasn't perfect by any means but they had trial brushes and a bottom tray from the pods to the rear axle in development trials

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Do you remember the Indycar drivers suffering from tunnel vision and blackouts due to the g forces they were pulling in the early 80s?

That was at Texas World Speedway and was a result of the banking more than the ground effect. CART rules called for reduced tunnels at the superspeedways to reduce downforce, and still it was plenty and they ran those minimalist wings that were really just for fine-tuning the front/rear downforce balance.

CART did it right. The basic formula led to a car that got most of its downforce from underneath, but was generally friendly to drive. Not completely friendly though. Minimizing pitch sensitivity was always a big part of developing a new car.

At the same time, IMSA GTP's had massive under-body downforce. To this day they were the cars with the greatest downforce. And yet, a following car didn't get sent off into the weeds if it was close to another car and they were able to pass each other, because they didn't rely too much on the wings, and the under-body downforce is disturbed less by the car in front.

Done right, cars which get most of their downforce from under the car can produce good racing. The key is rules which require larger ground clearance so a one millimeter change in ride height doesn't make much difference.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

In answer to your question above BJ, I think the racing in the ground effect was more a result of the variety of the cars on offer and the fragility of the ground effect components and the unreliable results they caused.
Teratinga is right that the braking distances got smaller and the speed differential between the straights and the corners smaller, o there was less opportunity to overtake.

Once a car got off line and the airflow under the car became disturbed control was lost, not like a conventional car that slows as soon as it goes sideways.

Gordon Smiley's accident, was I believe directly attributed to the car losing ground effect.

This Depallier accident at Zolder in 1979 is typical of a driver just driving off the circuit when the skirts failed! No skirts no grip!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIvkD5WWMdU

Do you remember the Indycar drivers suffering from tunnel vision and blackouts due to the g forces they were pulling in the early 80s?
Blurred vision and crushed discs from the rock hard suspensions?

I think Indycar reduced ground effects in 84? The new racer is really ground effect light, and it is one make so nobody can get stupid?

I'm not disagreeing with Teratonga that braking distances got smaller and the speed differential between the straights and the corners got smaller, they did but the ground effect era did produce some good racing, particularly compared with today. There were accidents like the Depailler one posted but I don't remember a series of catastrophic failures that led to ground effect being banned in F1. I always thought a lot of the pressure for banning ground effect came from the Grandee Contructors in opposition to the Cosworth based Garagistas, who were more succesful, which in turn was a facet of the FISA/FOCA war.

In the early '80s CART banned skirts like F1 did but didn't ban ground effect outright and much of the work in developing ground effect post skirts in CART was done by March and their very successful 8*C series of cars. The man who designed those cars was none other than Adrian Newey. I don't remember blackouts in the esrly '80s but I do remmber drivers blacking out at TMS in 2001, which led to the race being cancelled and CART facing a massive law suit.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The Lotus 77 didn't have tunnels but was the beginning of Colin Chapman's genesis to the 78. They experimented with skirts around the side pods and diffusers to get the air out from under the car and clean up flow under the rear wing.
No tunnels but they were experimenting with air flow and 'passive suction'.

What I remember the Lotus 77 for was the development in suspension using rocker arms, which enabled the ride height and suspension to be adjusted, depending on which track it was racing on, obviously a necessary development if you are going to design a ground effect car because of ground clearance and sealing the track with skirts, though the Lotus '78 originally used brushes.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I can remember seeing pictures of Lotus 77 with brushes for the same purpose on the side pods prior to the introduction of the Lotus 78.

checkeredpastracing.com quotes Andretti as confirming that the innovation introduced on testing on the 77/3 chassis led to the development of the ground effects on the Lotus 78 the following year...which means that they were experimenting with the ideas during 1976...


"Lotus 77/3, along with the other two Lotus 77s constructed and raced by Team Lotus during the 1976 season, were used for testing chassis configurations and aerodynamic innovations, including side pod design. That testing and innovation is credited by Andretti as leading to Lotus' development of ground effects in the Lotus 78 the following year."

It wasn't perfect by any means but they had trial brushes and a bottom tray from the pods to the rear axle in development trials

I'd love to see some photos of the Lotus 77 with brushes, if you have any.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'd love to see some photos of the Lotus 77 with brushes, if you have any.

Nothing in the collection but then I wasn't collecting things back in 1976.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Nothing in the collection but then I wasn't collecting things back in 1976.

I'll scour the internet and see what I can find.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'll scour the internet and see what I can find.

A note from a page called trackthoughts.com about the Lotus 77 during 1976 has this to say:
"During mid-season testing at Hockenheim Andretti noticed that when driving through the Bosch curves the car had a slight roll and the steering became heavier. Due to the roll the left side of the car was closer to the ground causing it to stick more to the road. Andretti reported his findings to Chapman who had the mechanics fit strips of plastic to the side pods to close the gap. The trapping of the air produced minimum downforce, but it was a start. On his first lap Andretti broke the lap record. Unfortunately as the plastic wore down the grip was lost. The next step was to try using brushes to seal the gap. The brushes didn’t wear out like the plastic, but wasn’t as effective as the plastic"

I knew what the story was and have seen (in period) pictures of the 77 late in the season with what looked like plastic or brushes along the edges of the radiator pods. I know it happened.
The '78 was ready to run before the end of the season but Chapman said no because he wanted to keep his advantage with the '78 a secret and didn't want it copied...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'll scour the internet and see what I can find.

trackthoughts.com
"For the Canadian race the 77s appeared with the nylon brush skirts to seal the side pods to the track. Both cars crashed during practice."

So if looking for pics that is where to start and may explain Andretti's progress forward in qualifying which resulted in his pole at Fuji...

[Teretonga]

http://trackthoughts.com/wp-content/...6-USGP-001.jpg

I'm repeating (I am like a dog with a bone) but this picture was on trackthoughts.com. Gunnar Nilsson at Watkins Glen (retired with engine failure)

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm not disagreeing with Teratonga that braking distances got smaller and the speed differential between the straights and the corners got smaller, they did but the ground effect era did produce some good racing, particularly compared with today. There were accidents like the Depailler one posted but I don't remember a series of catastrophic failures that led to ground effect being banned in F1. I always thought a lot of the pressure for banning ground effect came from the Grandee Contructors in opposition to the Cosworth based Garagistas, who were more succesful, which in turn was a facet of the FISA/FOCA war.

In the early '80s CART banned skirts like F1 did but didn't ban ground effect outright and much of the work in developing ground effect post skirts in CART was done by March and their very successful 8*C series of cars. The man who designed those cars was none other than Adrian Newey. I don't remember blackouts in the esrly '80s but I do remmber drivers blacking out at TMS in 2001, which led to the race being cancelled and CART facing a massive law suit.

I think a lot of the racing that you are referring to was as a result of the unreliability of the cars during the early 80s combined with the unpredictability of the ground effects which lead to drivers falling off the circuits, not good close racing as such.

The IMSA and Group C cars Formula Porsche 962 was certainly good racing BJ, but they had some huge accidents when the cars lost grip and air got under them, often as a result of tyres letting go, touching one another or just spinning. Usually the large under floor area gets blamed; true; however going from 1500 lbs of downforce to 0 in a fraction of a second is going to ensure a big big accident.
If you google Group C and GTP accidents there are dozens of cars taking off - 1999 Lemans Merc GTRs 3 flips with massive air time as the ground effect is broken by a bump in the track surface, and up and over she goes.


This Wiki article - skip to the end "Porpoising" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(cars)

"These characteristics, combined with a rock-hard suspension resulted in the cars giving an extremely unpleasant ride, so much so that Formula One world champion drivers Mario Andretti and Alan Jones left Formula One because of it."

This was why Chapman designed the twin chassis Lotus, so that he could run the outer chassis close to the ground and suspend the second chassis to protect the driver. Banned before it could race.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

http://trackthoughts.com/wp-content/...6-USGP-001.jpg

I'm repeating (I am like a dog with a bone) but this picture was on trackthoughts.com. Gunnar Nilsson at Watkins Glen (retired with engine failure)

Well done thanks T, learned something here!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

trackthoughts.com
"For the Canadian race the 77s appeared with the nylon brush skirts to seal the side pods to the track. Both cars crashed during practice."

So if looking for pics that is where to start and may explain Andretti's progress forward in qualifying which resulted in his pole at Fuji...

Thanks,

[Teretonga]

To facilitate Old Tony's 'World Champion' you could allow a series of select F1 races double points and include a specific list of races that required drivers pursuing a 'World championship contributing event.

Drivers would then have to compete in say four of eight nominated events outside F1 to be considered for 'The World Drivers Championship... Points accrued from those four events would be added to the nominated F1 events to provide a more rounded drivers title...Different from the 'F1 Drivers Championship'...

[Oldtony]

Good Idea.
They should preferably be events of some status and that would mean that they are probably part of championship series.
Maybe hard fitting the extra driver into a multi driver event and it would need the cooperation of teams. Great PR having an F1 bloke in the seat but it could put some regulars nose out of joint.
Perhaps that limits them to single driver sprint type events.

GPs Monaco, Silverstone, Suzuka, Sao Paulo
Open wheelers would probably be restricted to an Indy event.
A couple of 3 hr LMP events. Spa and one other
a couple of 3 hour GT events. Road America, Macau
A Nascar road event, maybe Watkins Glen?
A V8SC event, say Clipsal Adelaide.
And a tarmac Rally. Monte?

A fantasy maybe but the Title would be well earned

[MarkG]

As good as it would be to see F1 drivers competing in other categories, it is just a forum fancy in reality.

Isn't the simpler answer to make F1 cars and GP racing such that everyone, experts and casual spectators alike, agree that only the top drivers can be successful in?
Cars with more power than grip and difficult to drive, have some races of much longer duration, have some races as 2 flat-out sprints, even have a race or two on circuits that properly penalise mistakes, and most importantly of all, it must be obvious to absolutely everyone, that the driver is making the difference.
If F1 wasn't just for fitness fanatics capable of withstanding the g-forces from silly downforce, then the category could then, possibly, attract stars from other race series' and who, dare I say it, may be a bit older. In this "new" F1 world championship, there would be no place then for the driver with more money than hope.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by MarkG

As good as it would be to see F1 drivers competing in other categories, it is just a forum fancy in reality.

Isn't the simpler answer to make F1 cars and GP racing such that everyone, experts and casual spectators alike, agree that only the top drivers can be successful in?
Cars with more power than grip and difficult to drive, have some races of much longer duration, have some races as 2 flat-out sprints, even have a race or two on circuits that properly penalise mistakes, and most importantly of all, it must be obvious to absolutely everyone, that the driver is making the difference.
If F1 wasn't just for fitness fanatics capable of withstanding the g-forces from silly downforce, then the category could then, possibly, attract stars from other race series' and who, dare I say it, may be a bit older. In this "new" F1 world championship, there would be no place then for the driver with more money than hope.

Absolutely Mark. But then we have already discussed what we feel is wrong with the present F1 on other threads. This one was for dealing with the title or championship and how it could be different. Both ways are fantasy given the light of the present mind set and management.

I was reading a Motor Sport article recently from Gordon Murray where he talked and showed his drawings of the ultimate car. In a follow up interview available on line he talked about his reasoning and about current F1. Murray has no desire to come back to F1. He has "been there and done that" but his thinking about what the cars and rules need is not far from what many of the people on these forums have talked about.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Isn't the simpler answer to make F1 cars and GP racing such that everyone, experts and casual spectators alike, agree that only the top drivers can be successful in?
Cars with more power than grip and difficult to drive, have some races of much longer duration, have some races as 2 flat-out sprints, even have a race or two on circuits that properly penalise mistakes, and most importantly of all, it must be obvious to absolutely everyone, that the driver is making the difference.

Mark,
Getting F1 drivers into other car types may be a forum fantasy but given the difficulty of changing F1 regulations to do as you say it is probably more feasible than changing F1.
The only item that has to change is the drivers involvement and surely the opportunity to be "WORLD CHAMPION DRIVER" would encourage the best, brightest and bravest to participate.
By the way on reflection, maybe the NASCAR and Indy events on my list should be on ovals.

[MarkG]

I do get it Oldtony, I share the fantasy
If the Race of Champions was expanded in scope, and used some proper tracks, not a silly little mickey-mouse thing, it may just work. Even the ROC as it is now does show some high skills and the winners are certainly top drawer drivers, there are no fluke winners.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MarkG

I do get it Oldtony, I share the fantasy
If the Race of Champions was expanded in scope, and used some proper tracks, not a silly little mickey-mouse thing, it may just work. Even the ROC as it is now does show some high skills and the winners are certainly top drawer drivers, there are no fluke winners.

The biggest problem is at least 50% of the drivers on the current grid are not that special and don't really deserve to be there in the first place, and they will be shown up by some of the lower formulae drivers.

Make them race in F3!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Make them race in F3!