9 replies to this topic

[MattPete]

Does anyone remember what was wrong with the T97/00 that made it such a disaster? I seem to remember hearing stories about miscalibrated wind tunnels, but I can't seem to confirm that story anywhere.

[B Squared]

From Gerald Swan at Lola Heritage, March 2009.

"The T97/00 wasn't one of Lola's more successful Champcars, I don't think there was anything wrong with it, it just wasn't quite as good as the Reynard/Penske/Swift at the beginning of the season.

Several teams started the year with the T97/00 but when they couldn't match the speed of the other cars most of them switched to one of the other marques. However Adrian Fernandez and the Tasman Motorsport team kept using the T97/00, working with Lola to improve the car and by the end of the season at Fontana Fernandez showed there was now nothing wrong with the design when he finished third."

John Oreovicz recently wrote in regards to the Lola T97/00:

"Reynard arrived on the Indy car scene in 1994 and quickly ate into Lola's customer car base. Lola's new 1997 design had immediate problems in testing, prompting several teams to make a panicked switch to Reynard just before the season. By 1998, Lola had just one car on the CART grid, but designer Ben Bowlby made continued improvements and Helio Castroneves was often very competitive on ovals in 1999. Bowlby did a major update in 2000, prompting Ganassi Racing and Newman/Haas Racing to switch to Lola. By 2002, Lola had recaptured 95 percent of the customer car market and Reynard had faded from the scene. The 2002 Lola became the de facto spec car of the Champ Car World Series, serving for five years, and it could directly trace its roots to the unloved T97/00."

Edited by B Squared, 23 January 2012 - 21:00.

[small block]

Racecar Engineering June 1998

"When Lola tested its T97/00 in the Williams wind tunnel towards the end of the 1997 CART season the results were said to have revealed a calibration error in the Cranfield wind tunnel, which had been used by Lola for many years, and which it had assisted in upgrading in 1995. The error was found to be of such magnitude that, far from generating downforce comparable with that of the rival Reynard 97I, the T97 was found to be greatly in arrears.

"Furthermore, the aerodynamic package was found to be unstable, with the centre of pressure able to migrate excessively along the underside of the car under acceleration and braking, but most particularly in cornering. The effect was sufficient to induce a condition in which front and rear end grip became unpredictable."

'[The] rear end instability manifested itself early on in the development of the T97/00. this was initially suspected to be due either to a mechanical problem with the suspension geometry, or an insufficiently stiff rear section of the car. Updates to stiffen the rear end, including new gearbox castings and suspension revisions, were made. But this fundamental handling fault seemed to resist all attempts at a remedy - and almost resulted in Lola's extinction as a CART constructor. By the end of 1997, all its customers had switched to alternative chassis suppliers - a heavy blow for a company which, only five years before, had had the entire customer car market to itself."

Edited by small block, 23 January 2012 - 21:52.

[Amphicar]

The aerodynamic shortcomings of the T97 Indycar had even more dire consequences for the T97/30 Mastercard sponsored F1 car, which was based on it:

"We have the experience, the commitment and the desire to succeed in F1. We have knowledge from our composites shop, our engineers cross over from both programs and the wind tunnel work we have done at Cranfield with the Indycar is directly applicable to F1. We have basically worked at lightening components down to F1 needs. We have taken the best ideas from specialists in the wind tunnel, aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics and the like to produce the final machine." Eric Broadley

Sadly, Broadley's confidence that Lola would score points in their first season and win the World Championship within four years, was woefully misplaced. At their first and only Grand Prix, the T97/30s were 13 seconds off the pace and well outside the 107% cut-off.

[small block]

The aerodynamic shortcomings of the T97 Indycar had even more dire consequences for the T97/30 Mastercard sponsored F1 car, which was based on it.

The Lola CART T97/00 racecar had a ground effect underwing and a low nose so an F1 car could not have been based on it. It's more likely that the T97/30 was derived from Lola's F3000 design as that had a flat bottom and raised nose.

Eric Broadley's decision to go into F1 was a rush job to beat the increase in the F1 entry bond coming in at the start of 1998 and left the design group barely two months to put a car together. This resulted in the F1 car being made almost entirely of existing components and left no time for a wind tunnel test programme prior to build. In fact a wind tunnel model was made after the first car was completed by scaling down the patterns from the full size car and the first tunnel test was done on the Thursday before the Australian Grand Prix!

[FerrariV12]

From Gerald Swan at Lola Heritage, March 2009.

.....

By 2002, Lola had recaptured 95 percent of the customer car market and Reynard had faded from the scene. The 2002 Lola became the de facto spec car of the Champ Car World Series, serving for five years, and it could directly trace its roots to the unloved T97/00."

That's an interesting point actually. With all the fuss over the new Dallara being introduced to the IndyCar series this year, I've found myself missing the days when it was a free market and constructors could bring out new cars every year, with the older car usually not made instantly obsolete (so smaller budget teams could run a one or two year old chassis and still be respectable).

That said, by the sounds of that, was it the same basic chassis (plural) the manufacturers used with aero upgrades and other tweaks? Thinking about it, every Indy/CART/Champ Car Reynard from the 94I to the 02I had the same basic look about it, with the rounded nose cone and narrower roll hoop and so on, although there was a visible evolution in that period.

I do wonder what would have happened if Reynard hadn't gone bust and gave Lola control of the series in 2002. Maybe they'd have still kept up the competition, maybe Panoz wouldn't have been enlisted for the 2007 spec car and remained interested and competitive with Dallara in IRL/IndyCar, and maybe the unified series would have more than one chassis this year... nice to dream anyway.

[willga]

The aerodynamic shortcomings of the T97 Indycar had even more dire consequences for the T97/30 Mastercard sponsored F1 car, which was based on it:

"We have the experience, the commitment and the desire to succeed in F1. We have knowledge from our composites shop, our engineers cross over from both programs and the wind tunnel work we have done at Cranfield with the Indycar is directly applicable to F1. We have basically worked at lightening components down to F1 needs. We have taken the best ideas from specialists in the wind tunnel, aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics and the like to produce the final machine." Eric Broadley

Sadly, Broadley's confidence that Lola would score points in their first season and win the World Championship within four years, was woefully misplaced. At their first and only Grand Prix, the T97/30s were 13 seconds off the pace and well outside the 107% cut-off.

Part of the disaster was Eric Broadley's complete underestimation of what it takes to be competitive in F1.
There are stories from ex-Lola personnel of Eric Broadley altering the CNC-machined bodywork bucks by hand with a sanding block and then asking them to do the same to the other side to match!

[Amphicar]

Part of the disaster was Eric Broadley's complete underestimation of what it takes to be competitive in F1.
There are stories from ex-Lola personnel of Eric Broadley altering the CNC-machined bodywork bucks by hand with a sanding block and then asking them to do the same to the other side to match!

Indeed, in fact Eric Broadley underestimated quite a lot of aspects of putting together a successful F1 team in the late 20th century. He had persuaded Mastercard that F1 participation would lead more people to apply for their credit cards. Unfortunately (for Lola), the sponsorship deal was structured so that, apart from a relatively modest amount of cash upfront, payments to Lola were based on the number of new Mastercard accounts signed up each month. Unfortunately, involvement with Lola proved less effective as a promotional tool than either party had hoped and the flow of cash was meagre.

It also didn't help that Mastercard insisted that Lola take part in the 1997 season - a year earlier than Eric Broadley had planned. Unsurprisingly, the V10 engines Broadley had commissioned Al Melling to design and build weren't ready for the start of the season so the Lola T97/30s turned up for the Australian Grand Prix with underpowered Ford Zetec-R V8s as well as a hopeless chassis.

The lack of money from Mastercard meant that Lola could not pay Melling. He took legal action, which resulted in Lola Cars going into receivership, until it was rescued by Martin Birrane. A sorry story.

[simonlewisbooks]

I don't recall reading about the Melling engine at the time. I do recall TVR saying their engine designer had worked on unspecified F1 engine designs before penning their unusual V12/6/8 unit. So that must be what they meant!
I did talk to the man who had a hand in arranging the sponsorship deal with Mastercard and he was absolutely distraught at what had happened to Lola as a result.
"It might bring the whole company down" he said at the time. "Nahhh, surely not?" I replied....

[f1steveuk]

I don't recall reading about the Melling engine at the time. I do recall TVR saying their engine designer had worked on unspecified F1 engine designs before penning their unusual V12/6/8 unit. So that must be what they meant!
I did talk to the man who had a hand in arranging the sponsorship deal with Mastercard and he was absolutely distraught at what had happened to Lola as a result.
"It might bring the whole company down" he said at the time. "Nahhh, surely not?" I replied....

The Mastercard Lola debacle did give rise ot some good quips though. David Tremayne was asked what lap times it was doing, he said, "it's not, it's setting expiry dates".