Alfa P3
#51
Posted 18 July 2002 - 12:28
Just for interest's sake, here's a pic of that car (again)...
If you'd like to scan that pic, Richard, I'd be happy to post it.
Advertisement
#52
Posted 18 July 2002 - 12:47
Originally posted by Vitesse2
That of course was the race where de Paolo's 4-wd Miller blew up so spectacularly ....
...and almost took out Adolf Hitler - despite the fact he was on the other side of the city at the time...
#53
Posted 18 July 2002 - 12:50
I add for those possibly interested in the "P3 transmission" issue that Doug Nye gave TNF his own conclusions, but in another thread, some not everybody has noticed it ( I did only recently )
http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=37444
Down page 1 .
#54
Posted 18 July 2002 - 12:50
Originally posted by Barry Lake
...and almost took out Adolf Hitler - despite the fact he was on the other side of the city at the time...
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story Barry!!
I wondered who'd be the first to pick up on that.;)
#55
Posted 18 July 2002 - 13:30
Originally posted by Vitesse2
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story Barry!!;)
I know I don't like to hear that sentence...
And I think Barry would have got sick of it too?
#56
Posted 18 July 2002 - 16:03
I would also think that the additional weight of 2 sets of ring and pinions rather than one would pretty much cancel out any benificial effect.
Although I agree IN GENERAL that lowering the seat by using 2 ring and pinions rather than 1 wouldn't have much effect, it would have SOME effect on the CG of the car, especially with the driver aboard.
Jano came up all the time with unusual designs to attempt to solve problems that appeared. The outboard petrol tanks on the Lancia D50...the Bugatti T251 GP car with it's "unusual" cross-tiebar (I don't really know what this oddball setup should be called) suspension...etc...
Stu
#57
Posted 18 July 2002 - 16:12
This is effectively a copy of that rear end... but without what I believe was the beneficial component... contra-rotating driveshafts that cancel out the torque reaction of each other.
I still don't think the driver's seat height was reduced.
#58
Posted 18 July 2002 - 17:20
Are you sure the driveshafts wern't contra-rotating on a Tipo B (P3)?
Looking at from the car from the rear, maybe the right shaft rotated anti-clockwise and the left shaft rotated clockwise (or vice-versa)..
Did the teeth of the crown gears face outward (toward the wheels) or inward (toward each other)?
Stu
#59
Posted 18 July 2002 - 17:31
Someone sent me diagrams of the differential layout and they were set up to spin in the same direction... seems to me that it was one of the great missed opportunities of all time.
Advertisement
#60
Posted 18 July 2002 - 22:13
Originally posted by Vitesse2
In the race, Stuck sped away in the wet, building up a 1 minute lead by the end of lap 1,
Is this right - after one five-minute lap?
#61
Posted 18 July 2002 - 23:02
Fastest lap was set by Momberger in 5min12.0sec - I'd guess Stuck's opening lap was substantially longer than that!
#62
Posted 19 July 2002 - 19:23
Sheldon gives Moll's race time over 15 laps as 1hr 26min 03 secs. This corresponds to an average lap time of 5min 44.2sec, so Stuck's opening lap can't have been very much slower.
#63
Posted 20 July 2002 - 14:01
I'm sure that the swing axle set up was at least on the drawing board by 1934, and it works better anyway..
I also think that if Alfa had more money, the 12c 36s, 12c37s and 3 liter 312s would have been rather sucessful, and Jano would not have been booted out....but that is probibly a subject for another thread...
Stu
#64
Posted 20 July 2002 - 21:47
I won't buy into the merits of the swing axle...
#65
Posted 20 July 2002 - 22:16
Such a worthy subject too: the beautiful Tipo B ("P3").
I know from the first posting, that my point will be a little off-topic, but I am interested in the persistent rumour that lowering the seated height of the driver was either a) one of the objectives of the design or b) a fortuitous result (or not depending upon who you read!).
Last week at Goodwood I was studying the jewel-like 1927 straight-eight 1.5-litre Delage.
Now the driver sits very low in the Delage - much lower than in the Tipo B and although the Dealge's handling characteristics have been criticised, it does seem to have been a formidable achievement (especially as early as 1927) to arrange matters thus in a Grand Prix car (of course I am aware of how low Reid Railton's Rileys were at about the same time).
How was it done? no twin prop-shafts there!
VAR1016
#66
Posted 20 July 2002 - 22:54
a. offset the driveshaft.
b. offset the driver... or both
c. lower the driveline by some means, including by putting reduction gears below the differential input shaft (look at a Halibrand quickchange some day).
d. give the driver a rougher ride... one way or the other!
That Delage hasn't been modified, has it?
#67
Posted 21 July 2002 - 08:26
Originally posted by Ray Bell
Typical answers to this question were always along the lines:
a. offset the driveshaft.
b. offset the driver... or both
c. lower the driveline by some means, including by putting reduction gears below the differential input shaft (look at a Halibrand quickchange some day).
d. give the driver a rougher ride... one way or the other!
That Delage hasn't been modified, has it?
Thanks for the reply. The Delage looked very standard - and it was pouring with rain so too miserable to go crawling on the floor!
I have a period photograph of Earl Howe sitting in his own Delage and it can be seen just how amazingly low it was.
VAR1016
#68
Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:46
Originally posted by Todd on 09-Dec-99 at 10:03
The twist of the differential is pressing on the left rear wheel under acceleration.
Why?
#69
Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:34
That's the effect of the torque reaction between the pinion and crownwheel.
#70
Posted 10 June 2005 - 09:19
#71
Posted 10 June 2005 - 09:50
#72
Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:30
Or transverse engines.Originally posted by Ray Bell
...which is a part of the case in favour of worm drive rear axles.
#73
Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:44
#74
Posted 10 June 2005 - 11:01
Which is another problem with worm drives.Originally posted by Ray Bell
....animal clearance is totally negated...
#75
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:16
in amongst my readings on these alfas a reason I've seen cited was traction on rough ground/hillclimbs.
While the side by side bimotore didn't do especially well at racing, it was noticed that it had better traction in hill climb events compared to a live axle. Supposedly it led to the development of fully independent suspension.
Apologies for bringing a dead thread back up. I have always liked the 2900B racers and the 1938 Mille Miglia car
#76
Posted 05 September 2015 - 10:02
in amongst my readings on these alfas a reason I've seen cited was traction on rough ground/hillclimbs.
While the side by side bimotore didn't do especially well at racing, it was noticed that it had better traction in hill climb events compared to a live axle. Supposedly it led to the development of fully independent suspension.
Apologies for bringing a dead thread back up. I have always liked the 2900B racers and the 1938 Mille Miglia car
We are quite happy with resurrections, in fact we are nostalgic about them!
#77
Posted 05 September 2015 - 21:16
#78
Posted 05 September 2015 - 22:36
Now, that's nostalgia!
#79
Posted 11 December 2019 - 08:52
An interesting look at this car from a New Zealander who worked on one in the fifties:
http://ralphwatson.s...net/alfap3.html
Advertisement
#80
Posted 11 December 2019 - 10:30
Very interesting article. Presumably the engine had been changed after the car's Scuderia Ferrari career as surely it would have been a 3.2 litre rather than a 2.9 at the time of Nuvolari's heroic German GP win?
#81
Posted 11 December 2019 - 11:18
And, congratulations to Ray for achieving a milestone I'm due for next year... oh, dear! Twenty years pass so fast!!
#82
Posted 11 December 2019 - 16:06
And, to mark 20 years since my first post appeared in this thread...
And, congratulations to Ray for achieving a milestone I'm due for next year... oh, dear! Twenty years pass so fast!!
Cue Mary Hopkin and, "Those Were the Days"....
#83
Posted 13 December 2019 - 22:24
Cue Mary Hopkin and, "Those Were the Days"....
... the song being a mere 51 years old.