Jump to content


Photo

Why didn't Lotus win a race in 1979?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 HopkinsonF1

HopkinsonF1
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 October 2010 - 17:07

With it looking likely that Mercedes née Brawn will finish their season as reigning constructors' champions without a single victory, I'm researching for a blog article about other teams that failed to win a race in the year following their title. The statistics are pretty interesting - around 25% of seasons in which the reigning champions competed (so excluding 1959 or 1970), that team failed to win a race.

There are good reasons for most of these slumps: either another team struck on a dominant formula (as in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1987), key personnel left (1996, 1998, 2007), or other circumstances worked against them. Obviously, there'll be more detail in the blog!

What I can't pin down is why Lotus won no races in 1979. No other team dominated, they had a strong driver pairing, Chapman was still alive and well. So why no victories?

Any help answering that question, or anything else people might like to contribute to the "boom and bust" of title winning constructors, I'd be more than grateful!

Advertisement

#2 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,151 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 23 October 2010 - 17:17

Simple answer: the Lotus 79 wasn't that good, it just was a quantum leap because of its ground effect characteristics. Once the other teams jumped on that particular band wagon, it was downhill for Team Lotus. And the Lotus 80 that was supposed to be another quantum leap was just a lemon, period.

#3 Chezrome

Chezrome
  • Member

  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 23 October 2010 - 17:24

Simple answer: the Lotus 79 wasn't that good, it just was a quantum leap because of its ground effect characteristics. Once the other teams jumped on that particular band wagon, it was downhill for Team Lotus. And the Lotus 80 that was supposed to be another quantum leap was just a lemon, period.


I think... lazyness. The Lotus team had pulled off an enormous coup with the 78 (which was already a groundeffect car, but the competition just did not catch on) and the 79, and the team thought: Well, we'll go one better and again crush the competition. It seems the Lotus team forgot they worked on the concept of the ground effect car since 1975 (!), and that they would not get a same, spectacular result half way the season.

Why was the Ligier that good that year? Because Gulpin (as I believe the designer of Ligier was called) realised how stiff ground effect cars actually had to be. Would Chapman have understood that (and he should have!) he would have reinforced the sidepods of the 79 and it would still have been a very, very good car... even in 1979...



#4 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 October 2010 - 17:27

There are good reasons for most of these slumps: either another team struck on a dominant formula (as in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1987),

I'm assuming you meant 1988 and not 1987 :wave:

#5 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 October 2010 - 17:35

I think... lazyness. The Lotus team had pulled off an enormous coup with the 78 (which was already a groundeffect car, but the competition just did not catch on) and the 79, and the team thought: Well, we'll go one better and again crush the competition. It seems the Lotus team forgot they worked on the concept of the ground effect car since 1975 (!), and that they would not get a same, spectacular result half way the season.

Why was the Ligier that good that year? Because Gulpin (as I believe the designer of Ligier was called) realised how stiff ground effect cars actually had to be. Would Chapman have understood that (and he should have!) he would have reinforced the sidepods of the 79 and it would still have been a very, very good car... even in 1979...

I remember a story from somewhere of Andretti using a jack and a piece of string to demonstrate to Chapman how much the 79's chassis twisted, and Chapman's attitude was basically, "it's winning, so who cares?"

#6 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 23 October 2010 - 18:59

I remember a story from somewhere of Andretti using a jack and a piece of string to demonstrate to Chapman how much the 79's chassis twisted, and Chapman's attitude was basically, "it's winning, so who cares?"


I find Colin Chapman's reported response there rather hard to believe, he knew all about the importance of chassis stiffness, and there was no-one cleverer at engineering it into an F1 chassis. I wasn't there in the late 70s, but I remember seeing him using a long scaffolding pole to compare chassis stiffness on a 72 with some earlier car, probably a 49. I suspect that the main reason for Lotus lack of competitiveness in 1979, was that some of the opposition understood aerodynamics rather better than Chapman did. He thought they had an unassailable lead, but whilst he was very clever indeed in most respects, he got complacent and failed to credit the abilities of some of the other teams. The original ground effect concept as applied to the 78 and 79 was about 90% ACBC (in my opinion of course), Peter Wright helped to refine some of the technical aspects, but the relative failures of the 79 and 80 showed that the Lotus grasp of some of the fundamental principles involved, wasn't as good as that of late-comers like Patrick Head and a few others. Tony Rudd always said, when safely out of earshot of course, that Chapman wasn't a genius, because he made too many fundamental mistakes, he only got away with it because most of the teams he was up against made far more. I once heard him say that he aimed to be right about 51% of the time, which was at least 2% more than anyone else managed.


#7 HopkinsonF1

HopkinsonF1
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 October 2010 - 19:06

I'm assuming you meant 1988 and not 1987 :wave:


Whoops, silly mistake. I read the year Williams won, rather than the year McLaren dominated. I've got a file here with details of
every constructors' championship since the first one in 1958, and frankly my mind's a bit muddled!

Cheers for the feedback so far, all good stuff!

#8 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 23 October 2010 - 19:27

Whoops, silly mistake.


That must be catching, when I wrote of the relative failure of the 79 & 80, I was of course referring to the 1979 and 80 seasons, not the Lotus championship year. As I said, complacency, lack of development and a failure to understand some aspects of the ground effect concept as well as a few of the late starters.


#9 Formula Once

Formula Once
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 23 October 2010 - 22:56

Interestingly, the Lotus 79's domination really only lasted for a few months, the car debuting in the 1978 WC at Zolder (if we forget Monaco practice) and winning its last race at Zandvoort. Ferrari/Michelin were quite on par from Monza onwards, winning the final two races of the year, although the 79 remained very competitive till the end of the year. As for the car's 1979 performance, it was all just relative of course. By the start 1979, Ligier, now using a DFV rather than a wide Matra, had simply built a better ground effect car (although it would later fade as their car's venturi's proved to be too flexible under stress) and then Williams came up with what essentially was a better/stiffer 79. The fact that either team dominated only parts of the season allowed Ferrari to win it with its more consistent, proven 312 T-concept, despite the T4 not being a proper wing car due to its flat 12 engine. The T4, though, proved unbeatble on tracks were Michelins were better than Goodyears, ground effect did not really matter and/or others failed. Its consistency and the rather funny point system that year, helped Ferrari win the title, although Williams built the best car of the year. Lotus of course never properly developed the 79, as it had built the 80 which, like the Brabham BT48 and Arrows A2, simply took things too far and never really funtioned. Some stories suggest that by then Chapman had started to lose interest in his F1-team. I don't know. What I do know is that ground effect was really not his idea originally. He just allowed/spurred on his team to make it happen once it became a topic and obviously he then played his role in the whole process, but Peter Wright should be credited for bringing the whole concept into F1: he tried to introduce it at BRM in 69, then accidently stumbled across it again when working for the company that made the side pods (which were only there to carry extra fuel) for the 1970 March 701, before being hired in 1974 by Lotus by his BRM-pal Tony Rudd to design, with Ralph Bellamy, the next generation Lotus. It was Peter and Ralph who endlessy worked on the model - that would become the 78 - in the windtunnel at Imperial College (where they could use the moving floor they thought they needed) and who fitted it with paper skirts, a breakthrough experiment.

Edited by Formula Once, 23 October 2010 - 22:59.


#10 midgrid

midgrid
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,132 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 October 2010 - 23:23

The fact that either team dominated only parts of the season allowed Ferrari to win it with its more consistent, proven 312 T-concept, despite the T4 not being a proper wing car due to its flat 12 engine. The T4, though, proved unbeatble on tracks were Michelins were better than Goodyears, ground effect did not really matter and/or others failed. Its consistency and the rather funny point system that year, helped Ferrari win the title, although Williams built the best car of the year.


And then, of course, Ferrari suffered a reigning champions' slump in 1980 even greater than Lotus in 1979!


#11 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 24 October 2010 - 12:37

Peter Wright should be credited for bringing the whole concept into F1: he tried to introduce it at BRM in 69, then accidently stumbled across it again when working for the company that made the side pods (which were only there to carry extra fuel) for the 1970 March 701, before being hired in 1974 by Lotus by his BRM-pal Tony Rudd to design, with Ralph Bellamy, the next generation Lotus. It was Peter and Ralph who endlessy worked on the model - that would become the 78 - in the windtunnel at Imperial College (where they could use the moving floor they thought they needed) and who fitted it with paper skirts, a breakthrough experiment.


Clearly we aren't going to agree on this, but having worked with both men, I'm still coming down firmly on the side of Colin Chapman. I worked with Peter Wright at Specialised Mouldings, in a fairly junior capacity certainly, but first on the SM wind tunnel construction, and then on making almost all of the models that went into the tunnel. It was calibrated using the BRM wing car model, which I modified according to Peter's instructions, and then various Lolas, none of them very successful, and most of them too bizarre to ever see the light of day. We chatted a lot, and Peter was only really concerned with higher speed through reduced drag, it was Chapman who started him down the road of downforce, the 78 was actually quite slow in a straight line. At Lotus I was slightly less junior, but in almost daily contact with Chapman, though mainly working on boats and road car production techniques. 'Uncle Tony' may not have considered him a genius, but there's no doubt at all in my mind. It's often said, unfairly in my opinion, that he used the ideas of others, but the truth of this is that he could often understand the ideas of others' better than they did themselves, see where they were going wrong, and make concepts work better than the originators thought possible. As an inspirational and brilliantly intuitive engineer, I've never come across anyone quite like him, and knowing both men and the way they thought and operated, I'd still give Colin Chapman most of the credit for ground effects as employed on the 78 and 79. I'm not denying that Peter Wright made a massive contribution through interpreting Chapman's ideas and getting them to work as effectively as they did, but there's no doubt at all in my mind that none of this would have happened without Chapman's thinking and impetus. My understanding of Peter's hiring by Lotus is that he came to work on advanced production processes for moulding car bodies and boat hulls, the very thing that had occupied most of my time with the Company, involvement with race car aerodynamics came after that, largely inspired initially by Tony Rudd.


#12 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,709 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 October 2010 - 12:58

By the start 1979, Ligier, now using a DFV rather than a wide Matra.


DFV 90 degree V8

Matra 60 degree V12

I think you mean long Matra :wave:

The way I remember it the Lotus 79 was only a stop gap car in the 1979 season until the introduction of the Lotus 80 which has already been noted was a lemon. After that had been established Lotus were always going to be on the back foot since everyone else has cottoned onto and further developed the ground effect principles of aerodynamics. I'd say Lotus not winning anything in 1979 was a combination of others catching up and a wrong turn on the development front, a shame since I loved the way the Lotus 80 and Arrows A2 looked.

#13 Formula Once

Formula Once
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 24 October 2010 - 15:42

there's no doubt at all in my mind that none of this would have happened without Chapman's thinking and impetus. .


I fully agree

#14 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,833 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 24 October 2010 - 17:48

I agree with Art. The 79 was meant to be a car for just one year. When it immediately became apparent that it was a winner, Chapman and Lotus set about building the 80. Consequently, development of the 79 was terminated, one could argue well before the car may have reached its ultimate potential. As history shows, the 80 did not work. Perhaps too much of a good thing, as the sliding skirts were extended from the nose to the tail, not just on the sidepods. Not only that, but with curves in them. Way too easy to get hung up and not work as intended. I believe that as a result, the 80 porpoised like the dickens. When this became apparent, the 79s were dusted off, but the parade had already passed them by.

Plus the cars that were built and came out in 1979 were stiffer than the rather flexible 79. But in '78 that flexibility was masked simply because the car was so much better than the others. The next year, however, the stiffer opposition moved ahead of the 79.

On top of all that, I have read that Chapman was an impatient man. That is, his restless mind was always so much on the go that he would never fully finish a project, but rather would start on the next.

Add all this up, and the 79, while a magnificent car both in appearance and performance, was a one year wonder.

Tom

#15 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 24 October 2010 - 18:17

As history shows, the 80 did not work. Perhaps too much of a good thing, as the sliding skirts were extended from the nose to the tail, not just on the sidepods. Not only that, but with curves in them. Way too easy to get hung up and not work as intended. I believe that as a result, the 80 porpoised like the dickens. When this became apparent, the 79s were dusted off, but the parade had already passed them by.


All true of course. Lotus thought they knew what was good about the 79 and tried to go one better, working on the old theory that if some is good, more must be better, and too much should be just enough. History shows of course, that they didn't really understand what they were doing, with the results described by RA Historian, which reinforces my earlier point about Messrs Chapman and Wright not having that good an understanding of some important aerodynamic principles, not all that different from some of the mistakes that McLaren made with the M28/29/30. With the benefit of hindsight, the 80 was never going to work, for what now seems like fairly obvious reasons, so maybe 'Uncle Tony' was more right about The Great Man than I was giving him credit for, but he was still a genius as far as I'm concerned. Even some of Leonardo da Vinci's bright ideas seem a bit silly to us now, though again with the benefit of hindsight of course.


#16 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,592 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 October 2010 - 18:44

In the first half of 1979 the Lotus 79 was still quite competitive. Both drivers usually qualified well up; Reutemann took four podium finishes and after Monaco was joint third in the championship with Villeneuve and Depailler. It was only then that things really went pear-shaped, with both drivers only occasionally making it into the top half of the grid and between them scoring just two more points.

#17 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 October 2010 - 19:49

By the start 1979, Ligier, now using a DFV rather than a wide Matra, had simply built a better ground effect car (although it would later fade as their car's venturi's proved to be too flexible under stress) and then Williams came up with what essentially was a better/stiffer 79.


I recall those first two races in 1979 (as a TV spectator) where the Ligiers just looked perfect and I remember them three or four races later acting like porpoises. But I don't recall ever reading a definitive explanation for that transformation. Was it a floppy chassis, ill balanced suspension rates or a mistaken aerodynamic tweak? Ligier certainly didn't know at the time.

Regarding the Williams FW07, I agree that it was a better/stiffer 79. In this thread, it has been suggested that Colin Chapman could look at something that worked and understand how to improve it more than the originator. Which is what Patrick Head achieved with FW07 (ditto FW06 and Wolf WR1).


#18 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 October 2010 - 19:59

I recall those first two races in 1979 (as a TV spectator) where the Ligiers just looked perfect and I remember them three or four races later acting like porpoises. But I don't recall ever reading a definitive explanation for that transformation. Was it a floppy chassis, ill balanced suspension rates or a mistaken aerodynamic tweak? Ligier certainly didn't know at the time.


From memory - sorry, I can't provide a link or a quote - I remember reading somewhere that Ligier eventually traced their later problems in 1979 to flexing front uprights...



#19 Formula Once

Formula Once
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 24 October 2010 - 21:23

I recall those first two races in 1979 (as a TV spectator) where the Ligiers just looked perfect and I remember them three or four races later acting like porpoises. But I don't recall ever reading a definitive explanation for that transformation. Was it a floppy chassis, ill balanced suspension rates or a mistaken aerodynamic tweak? Ligier certainly didn't know at the time.


Laffite told me that the problem was the material of which the wing shaped floors of the venturi were made, was flexing without them knowing for a long time.

Advertisement

#20 roger.daltrey

roger.daltrey
  • Member

  • 52 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 25 October 2010 - 17:40

I read that Ligier basically stumbled upon a great chassis, then Guy Ligier had a hissy fit and stamped all over the front wing area.

This rendered it undriveable, and they couldnt repeat the form again !!



#21 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,833 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:31

I read that Ligier basically stumbled upon a great chassis, then Guy Ligier had a hissy fit and stamped all over the front wing area.

This rendered it undriveable, and they couldnt repeat the form again !!

I have read a version of this story also. Don't know how much truth there is in it, but the version I heard said much the same thing. The early season Ligier was bypassed by the Williams FW-7 et al, and when their aerodynamacists came up with an improved underwing, Guy Ligier went berserk and destroyed it; refused to let it on his car. May not be true, but an interesting story!
Tom

#22 Cirrus

Cirrus
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 October 2010 - 09:59

I'd heard that story in relation to Gunther Schmidt at ATS.

#23 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,869 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:16

I read that Ligier basically stumbled upon a great chassis, then Guy Ligier had a hissy fit and stamped all over the front wing area.

This rendered it undriveable, and they couldnt repeat the form again !!




I have heard something like that (bening a front wing) about Gunther Schmidt too

What I recall about the Ligier dropping off is that initially the car was fantastic and that Ducarouge had the setup written on the backside of a pack of cigarettes and then lost it and with it the decent seup of the car.

I dare to believe that this story is a bit exaggerated and brought up in relationship with the sponsor of Ligier (Gitanes cigarettes.....) but if true, when you talk about a world championship being thrown away ....
Or going up in smoke.....

Henri


#24 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,592 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:38

In his History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85 DCN attributes the Ligier problems to too-flexible sidepod underbodies, problems with their chassis jig and other setting-up instruments, and their mid-season change of wind tunnel from SERA to the French government's facility at St Cyr, which meant they couldn't use the earlier test results as a baseline for results obtained in the new wind tunnel.

Like Cirrus and Henri, I associate the wing-stamping story with Gunther Schmid, not Guy Ligier.

#25 SEdward

SEdward
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:08

Wasn't there an article in Motor Sport a few years back about precisely this question? Why the Ligiers were so dominant early in the season and then slid down the grid. But I'm damned if I can remember the issue...

Edward

#26 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 5,641 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:36

Wasn't there an article in Motor Sport a few years back about precisely this question? Why the Ligiers were so dominant early in the season and then slid down the grid. But I'm damned if I can remember the issue...

Edward


Edward, it's the January 2004 edition. Apparently Guy Ligier became convinced that the mid-season deterioration in results was down to the sidepod design. Ducarouge disagreed but Guy smashed up all the existing sidepock stock anyway. It took them until the end of the season to sort things out, by which time other teams had caught up. GL sounds a bit scary to me, looking every bit the ex-rugby player; I wouldn't have argued!


#27 Formula Once

Formula Once
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:25

As said, Laffite told me they did find out about the flexing problem later on. He also said it only occured on track, where the forces on the car were greater than the windtunnel, which is why they never saw it happening in the windtunnel.

As for the front wing saga, this was Schmid and it happened in Argentina, 1981.

What Guy Ligier did do, was damaging one of his cars by banging on it in anger with an empty on board fire extinguisher, after de Cesaris' qualyfing times were scrapped because of the thing being empty. This happened at Dijon in 1984 if I remember correctly. When Saturday was wet, Andrea wasn't even able to qualify but then team mate Hesnault gave up his place for de Cesaris.

Back on topic; I also understand that the tires Goodyear developed throughout 1980 more and more suited much stiffer, more downforce generating cars, causing the Lotus 79 to fade away even stronger as the season progressed.

#28 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,503 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 October 2010 - 09:13

The shortcomings of the Lotus 80 are well known and have been recorded above, but I think there is another reason for their lack of success in 1979. One of Chapman's was his ability was his ability to sort out (or drive his team to sort out) deficiencies in the original design. The development of the 72 and the 79 demonstrate this. Their appears to have been no attempt to develop (or redesign) the 79 and 80 in 1979.

It has always seemed to me that the rise and fall in Team Lotus' fortunes depended mainly on the amount of time Colin Chapman was able to devote to it. When he was occupied with Group Lotus, Team suffered. 1979 must have been a busy time with the beginning of the ill-fated Delorean collaboration. Could that have been a factor?

#29 Formula Once

Formula Once
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 27 October 2010 - 11:36

When he was occupied with Group Lotus, Team suffered. 1979 must have been a busy time with the beginning of the ill-fated Delorean collaboration. Could that have been a factor?


It has often been said (whether or not it is then true is a different matter) that Delorean and David Thieme introduced Chapman to a nw, very different kind of life which he liked and which distracted him.

#30 WHITE

WHITE
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 27 September 2015 - 17:18

" It has often been said (whether or not it is then true is a different matter) that Delorean and David Thieme introduced Chapman to a nw, very different kind of life which he liked and which distracted him. "

 

This is what I have read too.  However, I would like to ask a question :

 

Did DeLorean and Thieme know each other before getting involved with Chapman ?

 

 

thank you.



#31 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 September 2015 - 18:39

A quick query about the Lotus 78 and 79. Didn't Lotus request a regulation change to allow them to use a single fuel tank between the driver and engine? Wouldn't this have been a clue to other teams that Lotus was brewing up something to worry about? 



#32 Tarvoke

Tarvoke
  • Member

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 28 September 2015 - 16:23

In his History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85 DCN attributes the Ligier problems to too-flexible sidepod underbodies, problems with their chassis jig and other setting-up instruments, and their mid-season change of wind tunnel from SERA to the French government's facility at St Cyr, which meant they couldn't use the earlier test results as a baseline for results obtained in the new wind tunnel.

:) There goes the legend that the downturn in Ligier's form after its flying start to the 1979 was the result of losing the set-up data - written on the back of a cigarette packet by designer Gerard Ducarouge.(Heinz Prüller: "Grand Prix Story '79; Frenchmen, Arabs, Ferrari, Lauda) :)



#33 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 September 2015 - 17:04

There goes the legend that the downturn in Ligier's form after its flying start to the 1979 was the result of losing the set-up data - written on the back of a cigarette packet by designer Gerard Ducarouge.

The legend has elements of truth. DCN's book -- which covers 20 years of the big teams -- is not going to be right all of the time. 

 

And Ligier, the intellectual property owners and the blokes who turned spanners... It will be hard to find to find the story, but it would make a good read.



#34 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,151 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 28 September 2015 - 21:59

I never believed the cigarette pack story, it's just too convenient a way to not admit that you're lost. And besides, just how much set-up data can you write on the back of a cigarette packet? More than can be found by trial and error on a single afternoon???

#35 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 2,806 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 29 September 2015 - 01:51

I never believed the cigarette pack story, it's just too convenient a way to not admit that you're lost. And besides, just how much set-up data can you write on the back of a cigarette packet? More than can be found by trial and error on a single afternoon???

+1



#36 Obster

Obster
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 October 2015 - 00:08

I read somewhere-cannot remember where- the change in Ligier's form was due to an opening in the sidepods or floor that they were made to close.
...but I love that cigarette pack story...



#37 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 01 October 2015 - 16:02

i wonder if part of the short life of the 79 was simply that  the chassis fell to bits under the huge loads of ground effects. Certainly the chassis had known weaknesses due to its slim lines to get maximum venturi width.

 

It's always said that the Wilimias was a properly designed and built 79, ie strong enough but I think Lotus had a habit of using chassis a long time and with the Lotus 80 due why build new 79's?

 

So may be they fatigued and became unresponsive to chassis set up.

 

PS Ive revealed myself as Lotus 88 fan by using chassis in the singular and plural per Chapman's famous argument.



#38 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 October 2015 - 15:00

And besides, just how much set-up data can you write on the back of a cigarette packet? More than can be found by trial and error on a single afternoon???

As we say in England, a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Perhaps Ducarouge measured a distance on a cigarette packet?

 

I want to know what the workers at Ligier were doing. I am unaware of any Ligier history. 



#39 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 7,324 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 October 2015 - 21:55

A couple of shots of the cars at Watkins Glen that I took in 1979 and first posted about seven years ago.

photos: B²
WatkinsReutemann79.jpg
Reutemann started sixth and was up to third when he left the track on lap 7.

AndrettiWatkins79.jpg
Andretti started 17th and dropped out on lap 16 with gearbox trouble still 17th.

Advertisement

#40 Mohican

Mohican
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 05 October 2015 - 08:17

Is that a Ronnie Peterson polar bear next to the Valvoline branding ?

The Williams still carries the Senna "S", i believe.



#41 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • RC Forum Host

  • 12,883 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 05 October 2015 - 09:22

Could be.

1359313015.png

Maybe they had a sponsorship agreement with Lotus in addition to Ronnie's personal one?