The Williams FW06

Ok, as threatened, but a few days late, a thread on Patrick Head's first Williams..

So what have we got?

Conventinonal but very neat aluminium tub, Ferrari style front suspension, one of the first and certainly most ambitious early oil tank/bellhousing/suspension supports, beam mounted rear wing and a rather unusual front wing/oil cooler arrangement.

Patrick spent 1976 and early 1977 understudying Harvey Postlethwaite at Wolf (nee Wolf Williams) and is quoted as saying that he learnt a lot from the 308C/FW05 debacle. As i understand it the first Wolf', the 1977 car was a Harvey P concept then detailed by Patrick - although some reports credit him with the back end of the car, if you see what i mean.. Anyway, more than a resemblance between the FW06 rear and Wolf - although they are not identical - and come to that, the late 1976 version of the 308C uprights.

Theres a lot more to say on this one, and especially about the embryonic Williams team (mk2) and Alan Jones emergence as a front runner..

So what do we think?

Peter

Mr. Elleray, I thought the "technoids" would be salivating all over this subject, based on earlier design discussions at this forum. Probably not what you are looking for in the way of an intellectual discourse, but here goes. I remember watching the USGP from Long Beach, the race in which I first saw the true potential of this car and team. A rather ordinary start to the 1978 season started to come right in South Africa with a fourth. At Long Beach, Jones ran a very close second to Reutemann's Ferrari. For a while, it looked as though a win might be in the cards, but then the front wing structure began to fail. Jones looked like he could hang on to that position until a, I believe, fuel starvation misfire sent him down the order to finish outside the points in seventh quite late in the race. Was the front wing failure structural and corrected, or did Jones get into something or someone? I also saw this team finish a fine second at Watkins Glen after a crash in either practice or qualifying. That happened right in front of me in the downhill left hander heading down to the toe of the boot. I shot about 4-6 pictures of this off. The teams race day result showed their fighting spirit. Many great things started for Williams with this fine car & driver combination. Thank you for your insight & contributions.

Brian

Brian - the full story of the wing collapse is in Doug Nye's great book on the early days of Willy gp, 'racers'. as related there the wing fitted accidentally at longbeach was a prototype that had first seen service on williams march 761 and had a different offset to the internal ribs through which it was mounted to the nose frame, as a result of this, when fitted to fw06 the aero loads were fed through unsupported skins, with the not unexpected result that the lower skin buckled in compression.

i remember reading somewhere that Jones was not really aware of this at the time, which is interesting...

Peter

Alan Jones told me not so long ago that he had total faith in Patrick Head. "I once tested all sorts of wings at Ricard, even a wooden one, as there had not been enough time to make a proper one. I didn't mind, as longa s Patrick was behind it."

Of the 1978 crash at the Glen he said: "In a real quick left hander a stub axle broke. I spun and crashed, got out and a marshall gave me a piece of that stub axle. I took the thing back to the pits and showed it to Patrick who turned rather pale! He then told Charlie [Chrichton-Stuart] to find a company in the area that could strengthen our stub axles. The next day I did the race with them and finished second, our best result of the year. It was a good day anyway, 'cause in England my son was born."

An anoraxic, salivating technoid reporting for duty!

I didn't sign in 'till now just before me bedtime, so I'll leave more for tomorrow.

However...much of that sagging front wing got closer to the ground, so that may have increased its effectiveness, or at least balanced the loss near the tips. IIRC, the tips were grinding away on the tarmac, so here was an impromptu 'skirt', perhaps restricting lateral flow into the 'tunnel'.

I still find it incredible that Williams were still so strapped for cash at that point that they would use a left-over component of that nature for the totally new FW06.

Now I'll just have to get hold of 'Racers'...(in my book, anything written by Doug is good...)

Anders - good point about the wing, i will have to rewatch the race to see what sort of effect might be noticeable - i suspect this was one track where man triumphed over machine though.. i'll never forget that Martin Brundle lapped the Bentley about 4 seconds faster than previously in the dying minutes of the 2001 lm test day, to the rapturous applause of the entire city of lemans, only for us to find out after that the front anti roll bar was broken in half and that the front diffuser was about to fall off, actually martin discovered the last bit for himself on the next lap, which would have been ... "much faster", when it did

and ofcourse , when we then ran the car without a front bar next time out - as logic might suggest we should, it was.... "undriveable"...

back to fw06, i think willys was pretty tiny in those days, i will have to check Racers for numbers, im sure there must be somebody looking in here who was either there or would know more..

david (i think..) - you know that you have truely arrived as a designer when the driver gives you his unconditional trust and loyalty even as the car continues to disassemble itself back into its constituent components about him as he conducts it around the track...


peter

Quote: I still find it incredible that Williams were still so strapped for cash at that point that they would use a left-over component of that nature for the totally new FW06.

Well, the team did the early races "on Frank's credit card", as Jones put it, as the Saudia deal was actually only concluded quite some time after the season had started.

I must embarrasingly admit that I've never studied the FW06 in much detail for three reasons, which is why I can't contribute much here:

1) I don't have very many close-up photos of FW06 laid bare
2) There were/are so many other interesting cars of the period stealing the limelight
3) The FW06 is, to me, somehow aesthetically remarkably inconspicuous - this should be regarded as a compliment to Head, and I think it's quite typical of his cars: No-nonsense, highly competent less-is-more types of design - I think these features are also often attributed to the great man himself.

Having worked a bit with his late 1970s Delta FF2000 cars it's the same theme there: Clever, no-nonsense, less-is-more - and I especially like the way he virtually managed to turn that chassis into a stressed-skin structure, in spite of the rules mandating 6" between fasteners, a feature which actually reduced the parts-count of that structure compared to more conventional spaceframes of the period. A bit off-topic, but Head's Delta FF2000 series are true classics in my book (and for me it has a special place being the first racing car I ever tried driving myself). Any design that runs at the top with only minor changes for 5 or 6 seasons is simply brilliant.

I've sometimes wondered what that nose-mounted oil cooler on FW06 did thermally to the front dampers and to the driver's feet - it seems to be awfully close to both. It is, IMO, the only feature on that car which has the appearance of an afterthought (the technoid says to himself while he imagines the appearance of FW06B without that oil cooler there, instead using perhaps ever so slightly larger water radiators and a water/oil heat exhanger located somewhere out of sight - too bad we couldn't use the rear wing cross tube for such a thing by 1978). I'm sure the front oilcooler installation wasn't an afterthought, but IMO it just somehow spoils the otherwise very homogenous appearance of the whole.

FW06 appears remarkably small, simple and compact relative to its contemporaries, and as Head's first full clean-sheet-of paper F1 design it is a masterpiece. FW06 is one of those cars - perhaps more than any other- that would have really shone big time had ground effects not intervened. Of course, it only took Head's next design to put that in order...

It's funny how great designer's first designs in a given category sometimes are one of their very best - it seems to me to happen a lot in classical music too, where many a great composer's first symphony is also one of his very best (I smell a new thread threatening to appear - if we haven't already had one about Brilliant First Efforts.)

Anyway, I'll go study my FW06 photos now in order to feed the anoraxia...

Im sure I read somewhere that Williams tested a rear diffuser on the FW06.. Although there is a part of me that says it was an FW07..
The reason I think it was an FW06 though was because obviously FW07 was generating massive downforce anyway, and it was Alan Jones that describes the test. I remember reading that they lashed a rear diffuser onto the car with ropes and octupus straps and got huge grip out of it but it fell off after a lap and so they put it in the garage and never really went back to it whilst AJ was there, knowing that FW07 was on the way..

Scalextric made an FW06... quite rare

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a Scalextric FW06. Noticed that Minichamps have just brought out a 1/43 model though

http://www.minichamp...400780027_n.jpg

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Im sure I read somewhere that Williams tested a rear diffuser on the FW06.. Although there is a part of me that says it was an FW07..
The reason I think it was an FW06 though was because obviously FW07 was generating massive downforce anyway, and it was Alan Jones that describes the test. I remember reading that they lashed a rear diffuser onto the car with ropes and octupus straps and got huge grip out of it but it fell off after a lap and so they put it in the garage and never really went back to it whilst AJ was there, knowing that FW07 was on the way..

I'm fairly certain your right. A FW06, flexible skirts at the front of the monocoque, a V section skirt underneath, and a "kick up" panel between the rear wheels, made of ali'?

Was there any carbon on the FW06? However small!

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Im sure I read somewhere that Williams tested a rear diffuser on the FW06.. Although there is a part of me that says it was an FW07..
The reason I think it was an FW06 though was because obviously FW07 was generating massive downforce anyway, and it was Alan Jones that describes the test. I remember reading that they lashed a rear diffuser onto the car with ropes and octupus straps and got huge grip out of it but it fell off after a lap and so they put it in the garage and never really went back to it whilst AJ was there, knowing that FW07 was on the way..

Scalextric made an FW06... quite rare

Williams tested some form of side skirts on the March 761 they ran in 1977 - 761/7 still has the captive nuts along the bottom of the tub where they bolted the skirt material on.

They also tried a full width front wing on the 761 - sometime ago I was shown photos of them testing it at Zandvoort.
Presumably that is the wing that collapsed when they fitted it on FW06.

As a former Scalextric collector (over 2000 different cars) I don't recall them making an FW06 - UK Scalextric made FW07 to go with Brabham BT49, and FW11 to go with Lotus turbo car.
Nearest to an FW06 I can think of was their Lotus 77 or two blobby things called Dart & Scaletti Arrow which weren't based on anything.

I know it's only a drawing but it does show the forward mounted skirts

Happy that Peter.E is back here even if I would prefer to know him working on a new stunning LMP car, photos on the FW06, the good looking Ferrari front suspension M.Forghieri design ?) and the unusual oil tank : http://www.gurneyfla...lliamsfw06.html

"An anoraxic, salivating technoid reporting for duty! "

Mr. Bonde, Please know that I certainly meant no disrespect with my remark. I'm trying to soak in the knowledge on these technical matters, that you & the others have in voluminous amounts! Thanks for the informal education.

Brian

The car appears to have a central fuel tank. Were they already mandatory at the time?

Williams FW06


The Williams FW06 was a very elegant car and was much admired at the time. Its performances were somewhat blighted by continuous problems with the fuel system. This was particularly evident at hot events and it took a long time to establish the fault and design a cure.

I think also one should not miss the problems of building competitive F1 car in the 1970s. All of the teams were underfunded for what they were trying to achieve. It was almost impossible to build a reliable F1 car to meet the weight limit. Nearly all the cars were considerably overweight.

These days all of the FI cars carry ballast to meet the weight.

This factor alone should not be ignored when judging these efforts.

The Williams was probably the nearest to the weight limit of the cars of 77. The Lotus 78 by contrast was nowhere near this much sought goal.

Do not forget these facts when evaluating the cars of this era.

On another note I thought this comment by Peter was very interesting.

>>>

Anders - good point about the wing, i will have to rewatch the race to see what sort of effect might be noticeable - i suspect this was one track where man triumphed over machine though.. i'll never forget that Martin Brundle lapped the Bentley about 4 seconds faster than previously in the dying minutes of the 2001 lm test day, to the rapturous applause of the entire city of lemans, only for us to find out after that the front anti roll bar was broken in half and that the front diffuser was about to fall off, actually martin discovered the last bit for himself on the next lap, which would have been ... "much faster", when it did

and ofcourse , when we then ran the car without a front bar next time out - as logic might suggest we should, it was.... "undriveable"...


>>>>


I started a thread about this subject some time ago. Please have a look.

http://forums.autosp...Control Shaping




Also do not forget Alan Jones was a very no-nonsense driver and would not have let things like less than optimal cars get in the way of a good performance.






Charlie

StuartBRS - Yes correct. From memory we tested some rear diffuser changes at Donnington late 1978. Very cold and was raining early in the day , so visited the Museum. I think on the same day we may have run it in a wind tunnel up that way and then at Paul Ricard. The team car was a Fiat 1500 , again from memory , and so we put some miles on it that day at the circuit. Trying to dig up some FW06 photos. Will post when I can get them downloaded. All still in albums somewhere. Cannot even remember if Alan or Clay tested that day.

Brian (B Squared),

No offense taken at all!

I'm sorry if my response gave the impression that I was offended - that was certainly not my intention; I thought I'd just pick up the ball and run with it.

I should perhaps have added a smiley or wink emoticon to my remark - I hoped I had shown it was all taken in good spirit by adding "anoraxic" about myself!

Bedtime for me now!

Originally posted by Paolo
The car appears to have a central fuel tank. Were they already mandatory at the time?

No, i dont think so - all the fuel is concenrated in the centre of the wheel base, but not all behind the driver. there are side tanks which extend some way down the pontoons, how far i am not sure but perhaps Don can help.

Central tanks certainly werent mandatory at this time or for a good few years to come, although by 1979 just about every car except for the ensign N179 (from memory) had one. Infact when the 'feet behind the front axle rule' came out in 1988 one or two cars pushed some fuel back into this area but on extensions of the main central cell, rather than in separate 70's style side tanks. sometime after that the rules were tightened up.

peter

Originally posted by Charles E Taylor
Williams FW06


The Williams FW06 was a very elegant car and was much admired at the time. Its performances were somewhat blighted by continuous problems with the fuel system. This was particularly evident at hot events and it took a long time to establish the fault and design a cure.

I think also one should not miss the problems of building competitive F1 car in the 1970s. All of the teams were underfunded for what they were trying to achieve. It was almost impossible to build a reliable F1 car to meet the weight limit. Nearly all the cars were considerably overweight.

These days all of the FI cars carry ballast to meet the weight.

This factor alone should not be ignored when judging these efforts.

The Williams was probably the nearest to the weight limit of the cars of 77. The Lotus 78 by contrast was nowhere near this much sought goal.

Do not forget these facts when evaluating the cars of this era.

On another note I thought this comment by Peter was very interesting.

>>>

Anders - good point about the wing, i will have to rewatch the race to see what sort of effect might be noticeable - i suspect this was one track where man triumphed over machine though.. i'll never forget that Martin Brundle lapped the Bentley about 4 seconds faster than previously in the dying minutes of the 2001 lm test day, to the rapturous applause of the entire city of lemans, only for us to find out after that the front anti roll bar was broken in half and that the front diffuser was about to fall off, actually martin discovered the last bit for himself on the next lap, which would have been ... "much faster", when it did

and ofcourse , when we then ran the car without a front bar next time out - as logic might suggest we should, it was.... "undriveable"...


>>>>


I started a thread about this subject some time ago. Please have a look.

http://forums.autosp...Control Shaping




Also do not forget Alan Jones was a very no-nonsense driver and would not have let things like less than optimal cars get in the way of a good performance.






Charlie

Martin and Alan are two peas out of the same pod in that regard... Martin was just terrific and got hold of the car by the scruff of its neck.. i spent about 3 days when we got back and found it trying to work our how best to explain it to him... needless to say by the end of the phone call he and I had the repaired car on pole ...

read the thread - rather fierce over there arent they...

Originally posted by MODE
Happy that Peter.E is back here even if I would prefer to know him working on a new stunning LMP car, photos on the FW06, the good looking Ferrari front suspension M.Forghieri design ?) and the unusual oil tank : http://www.gurneyfla...lliamsfw06.html

Thanks for the kind words - not much chance of that in the near future i dont think - they'll be lucky to have full grids next year...

I am sure the FW06 had side tanks. Memory is real bad. I am nearly 60 now. I can remember when the side pod was repaired after South Africa and am sure we needed to remove/move a tank. Fuel cooling was a problem in Argentina and Brazil , again from a hazy memory.

FWIW, here are two shots of the FW06 in period from Long Beach,


1978


1979

Cheers,
Kurt O.

StuartBRS - Yes correct. From memory we tested some rear diffuser changes at Donnington late 1978. Very cold and was raining early in the day , so visited the Museum. I think on the same day we may have run it in a wind tunnel up that way and then at Paul Ricard. The team car was a Fiat 1500 , again from memory , and so we put some miles on it that day at the circuit. Trying to dig up some FW06 photos. Will post when I can get them downloaded. All still in albums somewhere. Cannot even remember if Alan or Clay tested that day.

Hi Don, awesome to speak to a Williams Mechanic!

I`m sure it was Alan Jones that tested the diffuser, and I would go look for the article somewhere but its in a pile of magazines and well, its friday night. I do remember him saying it lasted a lap or so before it fell off and it was then just hung up on the wall in the pits.

Originally posted by donharper
I am sure the FW06 had side tanks. Memory is real bad. I am nearly 60 now. I can remember when the side pod was repaired after South Africa and am sure we needed to remove/move a tank. Fuel cooling was a problem in Argentina and Brazil , again from a hazy memory.

Don, you must have known Allan Burrows, Doug Beeb etc?

Originally posted by Peter Elleray:

Central tanks certainly werent mandatory at this time or for a good few years to come, although by 1979 just about every car except for the ensign N179 (from memory) had one. Infact when the 'feet behind the front axle rule' came out in 1988 one or two cars pushed some fuel back into this area but on extensions of the main central cell, rather than in separate 70's style side tanks. sometime after that the rules were tightened up.

Among others, the 1989 Ferrari (640 I think it was called at the time) had lateral extensions to the tank volume, which went about half-way forward up the side of the coskpit. It was one of these that was torn open in Berger's huge Imola shunt, leaving Gerhard's torso basically exposed on the right hand side - most of the tub was torn away in that area. Berger was very lucky to survive that impact against the Tamburello wall - the car really was devastated - and thankfully the marshalls' response was sublime on that occasion. I remeber watching the accident live on TV with disbelief - by 89 most of us thought fires were a thing of the past, and for a few scary minutes I thought we'd lost Gerhard.

IIRC, the severe structural damage in that shunt was attributed to the radiator striking the wall at the wost possible angle, so that the load was exactly in the axis of the tubes in the core, the direction in which a radiator is actually quite stiff and strong, which basically caused the radiator to guillotine off the box-shaped tank extension and puncturing the fuel bag. I think this precipitated a rule change, but I must admit I haven't kept up much with the F1 rule book since then.

Back to FW06: I don't know whether it is an optical illusion due to the car's compact nature, but the driver appears to sit very upright, M26 being another example. It seems to me there was an early-to-mid seventies trend that sat the driver more upright again, compared with the sixties trend instigated by such as Lotus on the T24 and T25. I've often wondered what was the reason for raising the driver again; I can only think of two really good reasons (barring a requirement in the rules for minimum roll hoop height and width) : 1) For some drivers it makes it physically easier to drive the car, especially with accuracy, when not too reclined 2) It enables making the car shorter, hence lighter, stiffer and more agile. Think of how common it is with a very upright driving position in bespoke hill-climb cars. The raised driving position also on some designs allowed the driver's elbows to clear the tub, making the tub shape cleaner without having to make it even shallower than they often were already in those days. The disadvantages, as I see them, of an upright driving position are a higher centre of gravity, larger frontal area and more obstruction of the airflow to the rear wing. Were there any exceptions to the 'upright' driving position in the late seventies, early eighties until the trend was broken again with BT55, FW11 and MP4/4?

Originally posted by Bonde


I don't know whether it is an optical illusion due to the car's compact nature, but the driver appears to sit very upright, M26 being another example. It seems to me there was an early-to-mid seventies trend that sat the driver more upright again, compared with the sixties trend instigated by such as Lotus on the T24 and T25. I've often wondered what was the reason for raising the driver again; I can only think of two really good reasons (barring a requirement in the rules for minimum roll hoop height and width) : 1) For some drivers it makes it physically easier to drive the car, especially with accuracy, when not too reclined 2) It enables making the car shorter, hence lighter, stiffer and more agile.

Anders

i think it was more a function of putting a higher proportion of fuel between the driver and the engine - the seat tank got considerably longer. The driver did tend to shuffle forwards as a result, but before the Lotus 79 not that far ,feet were edging forwards of the front wheel axis but not the 11"-12" that became the norm later. Wheelbases actually got longer in this period , often with a bellhousing spacer of between 5" and 7" depth between DFV and FG400 - early dfv cars usually had a spacer of between 1 1/2" - 2" in this area, just enough to clear the clutch fork.

the bellhousing spacer was usually fitted to shift weight forwards to match tyre development. Somewhere in the middle of that lot the driver sat up more to gain back some of the extra length.

when the 79 came along with its very long seat tank the driver may have sat up some more, i ll have to check that. certainly by 1982, with full fixed skirt ground effects, and no power steering, sitting up to get better leverage on the wheel was no bad thing. i think we first had second thoughts about it in the mid 80's. The Brabham was the first car out, but the FW11 Williams was also quite reclined in 1986, as was the AGS that fell out of the back of the Renault truck..

Peter

Was there ever a more neat front suspension layout...





The rear seems rather less imagainative to me, but the elegant oil tank mentioned earlier is evident...

"Of the 1978 crash at the Glen he said: "In a real quick left hander a stub axle broke. I spun and crashed, got out and a marshall gave me a piece of that stub axle. I took the thing back to the pits"


photos: B2 Design

Jones following Jarier in the Lotus at Watkins Glen. This is early in the session. I'm close to the exit of the above mentioned corner at this time.



I'd moved closer to the outside corner entrance by this time, up the hill. Shortly after the impact. In magnifying the original, I'm confident that the broken stub is in the foreground. It shows the wheel nut still intact.



As the FW06 goes by on the hook, the evidence is clear.

Great detail photos David.

Brian

Peter,

I think your analysis as to driver 'uprigthing' is as correct as it is comprehensive - just goes to show I hadn't thought enough about it, especially the central tankage contribution and the forward migration of the engine. This would also explain why the 'uprighting' seems to coincide with growth in grip (aero, tyres) from the early seventies, via central tankage to keep length and weight distribution within reason whilst limiting centre of gravity migration. It has always impressed me that the drivers of the ground effects/turbo monsters managed without power steering - did they have fairly high steering rack ratios compared with today?

Neither the T78 nor the T79 appear to me to have the driver more upright than others of the period, even with the disparity in height between Mario and Ronnie. Both cars were long in wheelbase for the period, and the driver's feet were further forward than typical of the period, so even with increased length of the central tankage chapman didn't appear to raise the driver much, if any, from the T77. However, I get the impression that the driver sat lower than in T72, or at least equally low, in T76, perhaps the car of the period with the driver reclining the most. Once front tyre sizes grew and rear tyre sizes shrunk, it may have given the impression that the driver didn't sit more upright than previously.

David,

Not only is the FW06 front suspension layout neat - the detail execution is superb. The arrangement was not new though, Ferrari had it from the 312T and it was even used by Rory Byrne on the seminal Royale RP24 first shown at the 1976 Formula Ford Festival. However, there are a couple of front suspensions that I find even neater: Murray's pullrods from BT44 on and the elegant rocker of the Lotus T25 (everything about that car is neat and elegant!). Of course, when everything later went inboard and rod-operated, whatever was left in the airstream was merely slender tubes (since moulded CRP). Those beautifully crafted top rockers on FW06 were long due to the car's narrow nose and, being loaded in bending, thus needed to be tall - they had to move quite a lot of air out of their way.

I agree that the oil tank-cum bellhousing is indeed neat, especially the way it supports the upper link, damper and ARB trunnion.

It seems such an obvious thing to use the wing cross-tube as the oil breather tank, yet I don't think all who had the then-popular cross-tube wing support arrangement used it thus...

Peter - yes worked with AB. I heard he is back in Christchurch nowadays. He used to train out from London each day to Didcot. Frank and Patrick had a number of people then who have really kicked on. Ross Brawn and also Dave Stubbs to TM at Stewart GP. From a hazy memory we took 3 cars to South Africa and about 10 people. Plus Giacomo Agostini and his entourage as he was buying them (FW06s) for the Aurora series and the FW07 was not ready at the time. John Jackson , Derrick Jones and Harvey Spencer mechanics then as well. Ian Anderson was Chief Mechanic. Great Fabricators and Machinists there.

David - great photos. The front sway bar was a difficult job to change. No adjusting by driver then. Looks like an electric start now ? Was an air starter originally. There was an onboard bottle inside the right hand side of the tub , with a lever on the inside of the tub for the driver which was at the top and from memory  there was a couple of inches at about 45 degrees for the lever and throttle cable etc.
Chassis number of this one ? I thought Frank had bought all of his old cars back.I have found a photo of yours on the net and it shows number 28 so would have been one of Clay's cars ?

Originally posted by Bonde

Not only is the FW06 front suspension layout neat - the detail execution is superb. The arrangement was not new though, Ferrari had it from the 312T and it was even used by Rory Byrne on the seminal Royale RP24 first shown at the 1976 Formula Ford Festival.

I was surprised to see the same suspension arrangement on an old FFord, didn't know it was a R.Byrne design.

Ferrari 312T. And the anti-roll bar is a lot easier to get at!

Tony - i assume the 312T phots were taken for your cutaway that appeared in MN and MSport at the time? Your photo archive must be quite interesting...

What i like about the 'long rocker' is the way that it feeds the biggest loads - those at the rocker pivot - into a very solid top corner on the chassis, and that that it avoids most of the cutouts in the structure that we see on the alternate approach, like Tyrrell 008 or the Wolf etc. What i'm less convinced about are the spring loads that look like they are levering the lower structure off the bottom of the front bulkhead.. both the 312T and Williams have a stay from the rocker pivot down to this stucture, but...

Don - yes AB is back in NZ, we worked together at Tom's in the 90's. Good fabricator.

Peter

Yes Peter, taken for the cutaway. As to loads, as a non-engineer it looks to me as though the load on the rocker pivot and the lower mounting of the spring/damper unit would be similar. How wrong am I?

All this is a lot easier to view than a few years later, with everything tucked inside the tub, it took a (short) while to find a way of photographing the hidden systems.

As to the FW06, I never had the chance to draw it, but always hoped to, even as a 'Historic', the first Williams I did was the 07. Did do a painting of 06, though, and the chassis I saw to prepare the artwork from was in a sorry state in store at Didcot, before John Cadd had the chance to make as good, if not better, than new.

As an aside, I worked for Tom's for about three years, '86 - '89, as a weekend-warrior on the Toyota Corolla (?)FX, Still got my made-to-measure overalls, now besmirched with building adhesives!

Originally posted by Tony Matthews
Yes Peter, taken for the cutaway. As to loads, as a non-engineer it looks to me as though the load on the rocker pivot and the lower mounting of the spring/damper unit would be similar. How wrong am I?

All this is a lot easier to view than a few years later, with everything tucked inside the tub, it took a (short) while to find a way of photographing the hidden systems.

As to the FW06, I never had the chance to draw it, but always hoped to, even as a 'Historic', the first Williams I did was the 07. Did do a painting of 06, though, and the chassis I saw to prepare the artwork from was in a sorry state in store at Didcot, before John Cadd had the chance to make as good, if not better, than new.

As an aside, I worked for Tom's for about three years, '86 - '89, as a weekend-warrior on the Toyota Corolla (?)FX, Still got my made-to-measure overalls, now besmirched with building adhesives!

If the rocker ratio (ratio of length between outer section and inner section) is 1:1 (ie if the wishbone section is 9" long and the overhung, damper operating section is also 9" long), then the load at the pivot will be twice that at the bottom of the damper, which will be the same as the load at the wheel. If the ratio is 2:1, ie the wishbone section is 10" long and the rocking lever is 5" long, then the load at the damper will be 2 x load at the wheel (and the movement half) and that at the pivot will be 3 x load at the wheel, ie 1.5 x load at the damper...

One of the reasons to move away from rocker arms to pullrods in about 1981/82 (unless you were Gordon Murray), was the high loads on relatively flimsy structure hung off the chassis. on the fw06 the top rocker pivot is well suppported, right in the meat of the tub. the ratio looks to be nearer to 1:1 than 2:1 so the load at the bottom of the damper will be closer to wheel load, which is good.its well thought out.

the long rocker also gives a relatively long topwishbone, which means you can run a longer lower wishbone, which can, depending on your priorities and tyre characteristics, give geometry advantages.

i think.

peter

Thanks for joining the fray, Tony!

Remi,

Yes - that's the lovely Royale RP24 Formula Ford 1600 (with bigger Pinto lump, slicks and wings and you get RP25 FF2000).


Peter,

Yes, I'd say you're correct (then again who am I to judge?) that long suspension links provide more freedom in suspension geometry design (wheel kinematics), simply because all angles involved for a given wheel movement are reduced - I think the proliferation of long links is one of the reasons suspension geometry doesn't appear to be such a big topic as it was in The Good Old Days.

The front geometries of FW06, 312T and RP24 look quite similar. Having analyzed front geometries as best as I could on cars of similar periods and on identical tyres, I've come to the (as ever provisional) conclusion that there was quite a lot of scope for variety in that department, much of it driven by installation constraints. As ever, striking the best compromise is what it's all about.

When dealing with cantilever (rocker) arm suspension one is forced into a compromise between wheel kinematics and spring/damper caracteristics (and structures and aerodynamics, but I'll leave that out of it for now). For instance, by locating the front spring/damper units in front of the front bulkhead, a reasonable leverage ratio can be achieved, which is important for minimizing local loads, for minimizing ill effects of play and deflection, and for allowing the damper a useful working stroke and velocity, while keeping the pivot point near the corner of the tub. In the installations shown here, a reasonable spring stroke is also important if one is to achieve the desired progressive rate (provided by the acute angle between the rocker and the spring). Adequate camber recovery in roll is maintained by bringing the lower wishbone pivots well inboard.

If the springs/dampers have to sit far from the car centreline, for instance because the driver's legs and feet get in the way as masses are moved forward, as in FW07, then the rocker pivot is forced to poke far outboard in order to maintain a reasonable lever ratio. However, as the outboard end of the rocker must remain near the same place (driven by wheel, brake installation and steering geometry as it is), the lower wishbones need to move outboard as well in order not to get too much camber change in heave. Thus, the narrow-tubbed (to clear the tunnels), driver-forward cars with rocker arms inevitably ended up with something poking well out of the tub proper on which to articulate the rocker, and this someting is subjected to significant loads in all three axes, and lower wishbone pivots on or near the tub sides.

This is why I can't understand why everyone, except Murray were so slow to devise other ways to achieve the desired spring/damper caracteristics independently of the wheel kinematics - not only does the pullrod arrangement enable an installation without big members in bending, as well as avoiding the aerodynamic intrusion of the rocker and its pivot fairing, it also largely separates wheel kinematics and spring/damper caracteristics.

I suspect FW07 has both more camber change in heave and possibly the same or more camber recovery in roll than FW06, but probably gets away with it because already by FW07 wheel rates were so much higher that the kinematics (geometry) became less important, simply because by now the wheels moved less. BT42-BT46 appear to have quite a lot of camber recovery in roll (and change in heave), whereas BT48/BT49/BT50 appears to have less recovery in roll but also less camber change in heave. All of the above cars appear to have static instaneous (now there's a contradiction) centres ('roll centre') about an inch or so above ground level, but rather different equivalent swing axle lengths.

Being a person born somewhere between 20 and 100 years too late, I can't really get my head around some of the current F1 car front supension geometries. Although I admittedly haven't studied any of them in any great detail, some appear to have very high roll centres, and hence must have significant jacking, negligible or zero camber recovery in roll, and possibly [negative] camber loss in bump. I suppose the very high levels of downforce drown the jacking effects and the massive static negative camber gets squared up under braking and cornering, leaving the tyre to run on its inner shoulder on the straights, thus minimizing roll resistance, and on its full tread under braking and cornering. Or perhaps I'm just imagining things (of course one can also do fun things with steering geometry when the steering is powered), and perhaps modern front suspension geometry is relatively unimportant (aero rules) with the tiny suspension movement at the front these days...

Of course Peter already knows all this, I just thought I'd share it with the slightly less anoraxic...sorry about the long rave...I hope some of it is correct and that some of it is useful...

Bedtime.

Anders - thanks! actually i havent taken a close look at the fw06/07 geometry differences, but i will now that you've opened the debate. everything you say about rockers and pullrods is correct. its even more true with a pushrod where you get the loads cancelling in the wishbones due to reacting the compressive force - i know you mentioned this recently in another thread. the 'hidden' stiffness of a pushrod installation infact.. intersting that Maurice , who more or less pioneered the pullrod on the lotus 72 went to rockers on 009 and stayed with them on 010 (copy the lotus 79 please...). he was however the first to return to them (Murray aside) on 011 (ok, well if that didnt work do what you think is best..) ( i think - i will have to check if anyone else did so at the same time). Williams themselves of course went down this route with FW08 in 1982.

Returning to FW06 - which car do you reckon has the stiffer front suspension installation - fw06 or fw07...?

i think you may have a point with your earlier remark about fw06's nose oil cooler being a bit of an afterthought - i wonder? anyone out there (apart from PH) who knows the answer? i think there might well be but i dont know if he is going to 'come out' and post here! you know who you are...

Peter

To end this topic a video of the FW06, walking around the car at Spa last week :

http://www.vimeo.com/4474632

T.Southgate was there, scrutineering for the FIA F1 Historic organisation, I'd love to read a book by the man who designed cars which won at Le mans, F1 and Indy 500 (which one ?), it was nice to see him having a look at the Jaguar XJR8.

To end this topic a video of the FW06, walking around the car at Spa last week :

http://www.vimeo.com/4474632

T.Southgate was there, scrutineering for the FIA F1 Historic organisation, I'd love to read a book by the man who designed cars which won at Le mans, F1 and Indy 500 (which one ?), it was nice to see him having a look at the Jaguar XJR8.

he's writ it, but i havent seen it yet..

peter

and what about you Peter ? you must have many interesting stories to tell.

I also saw this team finish a fine second at Watkins Glen after a crash in either practice or qualifying. That happened right in front of me in the downhill left hander heading down to the toe of the boot. I shot about 4-6 pictures of this off. The teams race day result showed their fighting spirit. Many great things started for Williams with this fine car & driver combination. Thank you for your insight & contributions.

Brian

I'd like to see those photos as I was a mechanic on that car.
Thanks

The car appears to have a central fuel tank. Were they already mandatory at the time?

No, it had two side tanks and a small central tank.

StuartBRS - Yes correct. From memory we tested some rear diffuser changes at Donnington late 1978. Very cold and was raining early in the day , so visited the Museum. I think on the same day we may have run it in a wind tunnel up that way and then at Paul Ricard. The team car was a Fiat 1500 , again from memory , and so we put some miles on it that day at the circuit. Trying to dig up some FW06 photos. Will post when I can get them downloaded. All still in albums somewhere. Cannot even remember if Alan or Clay tested that day.

Hi, Don, This is JJ. I remember the test at Ricard, Derek Jones's car had the diffuser under the rear, caused overheating if I remember right. My car with Harvey was standard. I remember Jeff Hazel and Jan Lammers crashing in their hire cars trying to dry the track out!

In Jarama/Spain 1979 the new Williams FW07 was introduced and raced. From Monaco 1979 on there was also a spare FW07.

I have the following question: did in 1979 in Spain or Belgium (Zolder) Williams take a FW06 with them as a spare car and did either Jones or Regazzoni practice in it in Jarama or Zolder. I vaguely remember once seen a pic of it. According to Grand Prix International, issues Spain and Belgium, Williams only had two cars with them, and no spare-car. Somehow I think it is hard to believe they didn't have a spare car, even in those days.

And if they did use a FW06 at Jarama or Zolder, a pic would be very welcome!

Im sure I read somewhere that Williams tested a rear diffuser on the FW06.. Although there is a part of me that says it was an FW07..
The reason I think it was an FW06 though was because obviously FW07 was generating massive downforce anyway, and it was Alan Jones that describes the test. I remember reading that they lashed a rear diffuser onto the car with ropes and octupus straps and got huge grip out of it but it fell off after a lap and so they put it in the garage and never really went back to it whilst AJ was there, knowing that FW07 was on the way..

Scalextric made an FW06... quite rare

I bought a lot of Scalextric in that era, but I can never remember a FW06. I wouldn't of thought it was high profile enough at the time. They did do an excellent FW07, together with a Brabham BT49, which used to beat everything in sight!!!

I bought a lot of Scalextric in that era, but I can never remember a FW06. I wouldn't of thought it was high profile enough at the time. They did do an excellent FW07, together with a Brabham BT49, which used to beat everything in sight!!!

I have a vague recollection of an FW06 as well, mind you, that means nothing! Best car I ever had was a Wolf WR5, I made it go quite quick by cutting the coil spring from a retractable biro in half, and fitting them between the axle and the suspension arms, then decided I was trying to hard!!