55 replies to this topic

[Nev]

On BBC Radio 4 next week Jonathan Glancey tells the story of one of the most talented but little known British designers, Malcolm Sayer. The 28-minute programme will be first aired at 9pm on Wednesday 5th June.

There is more info here Malcolm Sayer - Aerodynamic Wizard - BBC Radio 4

[john aston]

Thanks- will be intrigued to hear how they address the issue of the ultra slippery looking E Type actaully having relatively poor cd of .45- compared to the Elite's .29. Allegedly....

[Bloggsworth]

Thanks- will be intrigued to hear how they address the issue of the ultra slippery looking E Type actaully having relatively poor cd of .45- compared to the Elite's .29. Allegedly....

What do you mean by "Allegedly", allegedly the Elite, or vice versa, and which of the 4 styles of E Type? The Elite was always quoted at 0.29, I never saw a figure for the E Type at the time. Sayer was grossly over-rated as an aerodynamicist, he understood nothing about car/ground interaction - Mind you, nether did anyone else, even Costin, they were all designing fuselages with 4 wheels, the Costin Maserati was a joke, as were various iterations of the Marcos breed.

[RCH]

What do you mean by "Allegedly", allegedly the Elite, or vice versa, and which of the 4 styles of E Type? The Elite was always quoted at 0.29, I never saw a figure for the E Type at the time. Sayer was grossly over-rated as an aerodynamicist, he understood nothing about car/ground interaction - Mind you, nether did anyone else, even Costin, they were all designing fuselages with 4 wheels, the Costin Maserati was a joke, as were various iterations of the Marcos breed.

Hmmm... seems a bit unfair to criticise the man for knowing nothing about something of which his contemporaries were equally ignorant...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the befinned D Type Jaguar was capable of a "rock steady" 175 or so on the Mulsanne, also that it "allegedly" had a Cd of 4.5. Seems that maybe as well as having a bit of an ability to design a slippery car Sayer was not so dusty when it came to car/ground interaction?

[Allan Lupton]

Continuing this digression let me point out that the non-dimensional drag coefficient (Cd) is only part of the story, as it has to be related to the reference area which in the case of cars, missiles and other wingless devices is the projected frontal area.
The better measure of the drag of a vehicle is the product of Cd and Area and, at about the same time as the Elan+2, I remember Audi were making interestingly low Cd claims for a car which would have had quite high drag as it had a large reference area.

ETA before the concentration on drag reduction, cross-wind stability was researched and more or less understood, and the D-type benefitted from that - very important if you were going to motor that fast on the Mulsanne Straight!

Edited by Allan Lupton, 30 May 2013 - 07:43.

[Nev]

Hmmm... seems a bit unfair to criticise the man for knowing nothing about something of which his contemporaries were equally ignorant...

Nicely put Rod. We can all be wise in hindsight.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the befinned D Type Jaguar was capable of a "rock steady" 175 or so on the Mulsanne, also that it "allegedly" had a Cd of 4.5. Seems that maybe as well as having a bit of an ability to design a slippery car Sayer was not so dusty when it came to car/ground interaction?

Sayer was certainly a man who knew his onions when it came to the practical application of aerodynamics to race car design. He was aware of ground effects on his designs. The C-Types & D-Types weren't the most powerful cars on Le Mans grids in the 1950s but often achieved the highest top speeds on the Mulsanne straight. His XJ13 was also aerodynamically stable "out of the box" - even at speeds in excess of 180mph. Not one of the detailed testing reports makes mention of problems in this area by David Hobbs (the XJ13's main development driver), Norman Dewis or Richard Attwood. It of course held the unofficial UK closed circuit record in the hands of Hobbs until beaten in recent times by the McLaren F1 road car.

There was an acceleration in understanding during the late 60s / early 70s and I suspect the sprouting of wings etc in the very early days made up for shortfalls in proper aerodynamic design as applied by Sayer and his contemporaries. Of course we know much more about aerodynamics nowadays and have stepped up many gears since then. It would be fascinating to hear views on Sayer's designs from someone such as Adrian Newey.

[Nev]

Continuing this digression let me point out that the non-dimensional drag coefficient (Cd) is only part of the story, as it has to be related to the reference area which in the case of cars, missiles and other wingless devices is the projected frontal area.
The better measure of the drag of a vehicle is the product of Cd and Area and, at about the same time as the Elan+2, I remember Audi were making interestingly low Cd claims for a car which would have had quite high drag as it had a large reference area.

Interesting point Alan.

I don't pretend to know the first thing about drag coefficients/aerodynamics but your point above helps me understand why there are so many references to frontal area calculations in the various Sayer reports I have seen. Particularly those where he is trying to improve the shape of the E-Type for racing. He often compares the frontal areas of his designs to those of competitors' cars.

[Bloggsworth]

Hmmm... seems a bit unfair to criticise the man for knowing nothing about something of which his contemporaries were equally ignorant...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the befinned D Type Jaguar was capable of a "rock steady" 175 or so on the Mulsanne, also that it "allegedly" had a Cd of 4.5. Seems that maybe as well as having a bit of an ability to design a slippery car Sayer was not so dusty when it came to car/ground interaction?

Did you miss the "Mind you, neither did anyone else..."

[Bloggsworth]

Hmmm... seems a bit unfair to criticise the man for knowing nothing about something of which his contemporaries were equally ignorant...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the befinned D Type Jaguar was capable of a "rock steady" 175 or so on the Mulsanne, also that it "allegedly" had a Cd of 4.5. Seems that maybe as well as having a bit of an ability to design a slippery car Sayer was not so dusty when it came to car/ground interaction?

As the fin was on the top...

[Nev]

As the fin was on the top...

Wouldn't the car have a tendency to go straight on at corners if the fin was underneath?

(might not do the road surface much good either)

Edited by Nev, 30 May 2013 - 14:34.

[Bloggsworth]

Wouldn't the car have a tendency to go straight on at corners if the fin was underneath?

(might not do the road surface much good either)

Depends whether you were tacking or gybing...

[kayemod]

It would be fascinating to hear views on Sayer's designs from someone such as Adrian Newey.

Yes, especially in the light of improvements that Adrian has made to Malcolm's original work on the E-Type, I suspect there's more to it than a slightly raised boot lid.

[Allan Lupton]

Fortunately I was out at the time it was broadcast, so I listened to it on a recording and was able to fast-forward the rock "music" that filled the first few minutes.

Some of the rest was excellent and amusingly they played a bit of the soundtrack of the film of Mike Hawthorn lapping the Le Mans circuit - you really do need the pictures for that.

You also need pictures to get anything from the tales of Sayer's aerodynamic calculations which were described to us by people who'd seen them, but who didn't necessarily understand what they saw.
Interesting contribution by "Nev" whose thread this is, but again you need pictures.

[Sharman]

I attended a talk by Norman Dewis 10 or 12 days ago and Norman stated that Sayer was brilliant because he attached woollen strands to study airflow and could calculate the theoretical top speed, he also said that the "fin" on the D was offset to the right by 4 degrees and that this too was calculated using the woollen thread method. I least I think that is what he said because the woman sitting on my left (not my ever present help in time of trouble on my right, who listened rapt throughout) kept interjecting loud WOWs! rather like a television interviewer. She departed before the end.

[Paul Parker]

Yes, especially in the light of improvements that Adrian has made to Malcolm's original work on the E-Type, I suspect there's more to it than a slightly raised boot lid.

This particular mod was merely a crib from the Coombs 4 WPD as raced by Graham Hill in 1962, albeit slightly more raised.

[kayemod]

This particular mod was merely a crib from the Coombs 4 WPD as raced by Graham Hill in 1962, albeit slightly more raised.

Of course, but given what else he's done to his car, I'd be surprised if Adrian stopped at that.

[Paul Parker]

Of course, but given what else he's done to his car, I'd be surprised if Adrian stopped at that.

I would be surprised if anything more effective could be done to it, at least aerodynamically or suspension wise.

Any further speed would have to come from the venerable XK motor, which I have been told by some can be made to produce 400 bhp now and rev to 7,000 rpm although think of the piston speed this would occasion in an engine with a 87 x 106 mm bore and stroke.

[Nev]

You also need pictures to get anything from the tales of Sayer's aerodynamic calculations which were described to us by people who'd seen them, but who didn't necessarily understand what they saw.
Interesting contribution by "Nev" whose thread this is, but again you need pictures.

Before the programme I did wonder how the BBC would be able to convey the "visual" and technical nature of the subject on the radio. I can easily picture Brian Aldridge getting up to mischief in The Archers and we all know what Sir Stirling and an E-Type looks like but, for me, some supporting images would have been helpful in a subject such as this. Does anyone know what Kate Sayer actually looks like for example? I have spent a little time adding some images to accompany the soundtrack which includes, at the very least, pictures of those interviewed.

You can view it on YouTube here

Please excuse my feeble amateurish attempt but it at least gives you something to look at while you listen to Jonathan Glancey's commentary.

As far as Sayer's methods are concerned, I don't pretend to have the first inkling of how he mathematically defined his curves. What I do know is that, having defined his surfaces, he translated his designs into 3D data which could be used by those less knowledgeable to produce things like bucks/formers etc. This 3D data was simply pages and pages of data containing nothing more than "x", "y" and "z" points in 3D space. "x" being the distance from a "zero" line on a base-board; "y" the distance from the centreline and "z" was the distance upwards. He produced masses and masses of data such as this to completely define a car. In the same way, critical suspension and monocoque locations were defined in terms of "x, y and z". Simples.

Here is a picture taken from Peter Wilson's "Cat Out of the Bag". It attempts to explain the basic principle Sayer used to mathematically define curves. Over my head I am afraid but perhaps someone here could make some sense of it explain what may have been going on?



You won't be surprised to know that I am not about to publish any of Sayer's 3D data here for the XJ13 - took too long for me to track it down to just give it away! However, here is some actual original data for the windscreen used in the XJ13:



I found that Pilkingtons had kept the original 1965 windscreen former and I had them make one for me using it. I was then able to digitally scan it and carry out a statistical analysis comparing the two sets of data. In short, there was a remarkable match between the two sets of data. The following image shows the results of the analysis:



Statistical summary:



A pretty close match eh? This level of accuracy gave me the confidence I needed to turn the remaining data I had uncovered into the real thing. Where there were gaps I managed to fill them by reference to photographs and known dimensions of components such as the engine etc.

[Garsted]

As far as Sayer's methods are concerned, I don't pretend to have the first inkling of how he mathematically defined his curves. What I do know is that, having defined his surfaces, he translated his designs into 3D data which could be used by those less knowledgeable to produce things like bucks/formers etc. This 3D data was simply pages and pages of data containing nothing more than "x", "y" and "z" points in 3D space. "x" being the distance from a "zero" line on a base-board; "y" the distance from the centreline and "z" was the distance upwards. He produced masses and masses of data such as this to completely define a car. In the same way, critical suspension and monocoque locations were defined in terms of "x, y and z". Simples.

Here is a picture taken from Peter Wilson's "Cat Out of the Bag". It attempts to explain the basic principle Sayer used to mathematically define curves. Over my head I am afraid but perhaps someone here could make some sense of it explain what may have been going on?



My take on what the sketch shows is that the curve is what Sayer wanted as a result of his calculations, but the kind of person whose job it was to cut plywood into body bucks would not have appreciated being given a detailed matrix of measurements every 2.5 inches (as in the data for the screen) or a polynomial equation to describe the shape, so what he came up with was to draw tangents to the curve (which he already had drawn out on the wall, as described in the programme) and then take perpendicular measurements to describe the ends of these straight lines, which, when a curve was drawn tangent to them reproduced the desired shape. The tangent curve could be drawn by a couple of pairs of hands holding a piece of spring steel or piano wire in place while someone drew round it (anyone remember the "flexicurve" from college days?). So, I don't think its how Sayer defined the curves, it is, rather, a quick and simple way of transferring what was required to the craftsmen.
This procedure gives the curve for one flat element of a "egg crate" type buck (as also shown on Neville's you tube video of making the body). The same routine would be followed for other planes to create a 3D shape which is what the second sketch is about.

Steve

[Sharman]

Of course, but given what else he's done to his car, I'd be surprised if Adrian stopped at that.

Wasn't it mainly to get some air over the inboard discs? This problem reared it's head when E141 became a Modsports car circa 1969/70, Bill de Selincourt's son-in-law fabricated a "schnorkel" which fed cold air to the brakes

[Bill Becketts]

From an Aero point of view, I always thought the E Type was thought to suffer from the "Long Bonnet/Upright Windscreen" point of view. ie bad aerodynamics!

The XJ13 transformed both the Aerodynamics and (Dare I say it?) the sheer beauty of the Beast.

I love the lines of the XJ13......How goes the project Nev

[Allan Lupton]

The upright windscreen is not necessarily a mistake.
Most low speed (by aircraft standards) aerofoil sections and streamline shapes have the classic teardrop shape with thick leading edges. A lot of modern road cars have, in my view, needlessly raked windscreens which put the glass out of reach for wiping off condensation and introduce a blind spot by having the A post several feet ahead of where it was traditionally.

By the way, thanks for the illustrations Nev

[Tony Matthews]

The tangent curve could be drawn by a couple of pairs of hands holding a piece of spring steel or piano wire in place while someone drew round it (anyone remember the "flexicurve" from college days?).

Steve

Piano wire or similar would work but I don't think a flexicurve would be much use. The piano wire - or similar spring medium - would automatically adopt a curve between two points and restricted by one or two more, the flexicurve has to formed to fit, so there would be several options, I have a couple but they are of limited use.

[kayemod]

Piano wire or similar would work but I don't think a flexicurve would be much use. The piano wire - or similar spring medium - would automatically adopt a curve between two points and restricted by one or two more, the flexicurve has to formed to fit, so there would be several options, I have a couple but they are of limited use.

Tony's right, a Flexicurve would be quite useless for this, except for pencilling quite short lengths. I have to do this kind of thing a lot, and my preferred bendy ruler is a metre length of wood, I use straight grained spruce measuring about 6 x 3mm, a quarter by an eighth in old money. Full-size naval architects do much the same thing, though being more organised, they have lead weights that they can position at several points along the strip, so it can curve either or both ways if needed, though they'd also have a set of ship's curves, unless they'd converted fully to CAD. Some of the best designers and draughtsmen still do it the old-fashioned way using a drawing board and pencil, which they can lick when inspiration is needed. Red Bull's Adrian Newey is one such, and on a less exalted level, so am I.

[Cirrus]

In the aerospace industry we used perspex or wooden strips known as splines. These were bent to pass through the defined points and held down with weights. The resultant curve was the shape formed by the least strain consistent with passing through the points. Occasionally these splines were tapered if it was necessary to increase the curvature significantly at certain points.

When the Numerical Master Geometry surface modelling system was introduced the physical splines were simulated using continuous second derivative bicubic splines. The whole system was purely numerical - the only time graphics were involved was when surface intersections and cross-sections were plotted on a giant Gerber Draughting machine (controlled by punched tape).

In recent years bicubic splines have been replaced by Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS) in surface modelling, allowing design changes to be made and analysed much more quickly.

[Tony Matthews]

In the aerospace industry we used perspex or wooden strips known as splines. These were bent to pass through the defined points and held down with weights. The resultant curve was the shape formed by the least strain consistent with passing through the points. Occasionally these splines were tapered if it was necessary to increase the curvature significantly at certain points.

I remember seeing Perspex ™ strips, smaller than Rob's 6x3mm, on sale in polybags, next to flexicurves in Grapic Supply outlets. I may have even bought one. Sometimes when you have a specific problem and no obvious solution you grab at straws! The tapering makes a lot of sense - the thicker sections woulg give you gentle curves without 'flopping' but be too rigid for tighter curves. I'm thinking of something like an aerfoil section, approaching the leading edge. I used my flexicurve to add very long, thin and tapering 'speed lines' on some Penske artwork. The lines tapered towards the front, so the same curve could be used for top and bottom of two stripes, it just had to be carefully 'fanned' from the front. Otherwise it's always been French curves. I seem to remember that the only car body I designed was all freehand! The formers were drawn to 1:8 scale then photocopied to full size(!) It is possible to be very accurate freehand - I puzzled a Maths teacher by giving correct answers to two decimal places from a graph. The only time I ever impressed a Maths teacher in a positive manner.

[kayemod]

I seem to remember that the only car body I designed was all freehand! The formers were drawn to 1:8 scale then photocopied to full size(!)

Have we seen yet it in 'The ugliest road car of all time' thread?

[Tony Matthews]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Any road up, it wasn't exactly a road car...

[David Birchall]

It would be fascinating to hear views on Sayer's designs from someone such as Adrian Newey.

Nev, you can get Adrian Newey's opinions of Sayers work from that excellent book "Ultimate E-Type-The Competition Cars" by Philip Porter. Much other info on Sayer's work in the book-I highly recommend it.

[David Birchall]

I strongly recommend getting the book but for the sake of discussion here is Adrian Newey's input:

[David Birchall]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[David Birchall]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[David Birchall]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Hopefully this doesn't piss anybody off.
As I said, I strongly recommend buying the book, it really is worthwhile.

[Nev]

Hopefully this doesn't piss anybody off.
As I said, I strongly recommend buying the book, it really is worthwhile.

Hi David - I will be very surprised if this would upset Philip Porter unduly and it does add to the discussion. Philip's excellent book can be purchased from here.

I hadn't read Newey's comments and it certainly makes interesting reading. Thanks for taking the trouble to scan & post. Whilst it is always dangerous to look back with the wisdom of hindsight and knowledge gained after a good 50 years or so, Newey does make some interesting comparisons against cars that were current at the time. His point that Sayer seems to have concentrated on drag to the exclusion of other factors such as downforce/lift in the case of the E-Type was well-made. However he does say that "people weren't really thinking very much at the time was minimising the lift of the cars" so Sayer is unlikely to have been alone in this at the time.

It seems that the designers at Lola, when designing the GT40, seem to have also been blissfully ignorant of the effects of lift. The GT40 in 1965, in Newey's own words, "was an absolute pig and scared its drivers witless" because the car generated a lot of lift. It was perhaps a little unfair of Newey to suggest that Sayer doggedly pursued drag and what was going on around him at the time escaped his notice. When the E-Type was being developed in 1959/1960 it is likely the NOBODY in the racing-car world was aware of the importance of lift/downforce as well as drag. A case of being wise in hindsight.

Newey does say that lift/downforce may not have been as important at Le Mans as drag. By 1965 Sayer would likely have been aware of lift/downforce on his designs but he may have concentrated on drag instead for this reason. As it happened, the XJ13 was areodynamically stable "out of the box" and there are no documented reports pointing to problems in this area. Indeed, the car quickly went on to achieve the UK closed circuit record at MIRA which wasn't broken until quite recently by the McLaren road car. This fact alone should point towards Sayer's understanding of ground effects in 1964/65 when the car was being designed/built.

[Tony Matthews]

It seems that the designers at Lola, when designing the GT40, seem to have also been blissfully ignorant of the effects of lift.

As I remember, Roy Lunn was responsible for the overall aerodynamics of the first GT40 (which was not exactly a Lola design anyway) and claimed that it would not need front or rear spoilers to keep it on the ground. There was, of course, a rapid redesign of both ends, producing a car that not only worked but, to my eyes, looked much better.

[mariner]

One thing that is sometimes overlooked is the simple question of weight per square foot of plan area. Cars like the D type are actually very small by modern standards. short and narrow. The D type wasnt that heavy given its massive engine weight but if you divide the weight by plan area and compare it to a modern racer its very high.

So lift instabilty is less of an issue - yes there is a lift co-efficient but on a small area so its not always a big problem . As sports cars got wider and longer the lift to weight ratio increases fro the same co - efficient so they get less stable - like the famous Mercedes Le Mans flip.

Im not sure if I explained that very well but I think lift was less of a real world problem back then

[D-Type]

It's always difficult to decide what was known at the time. Sometimes a 'suck it and see' empirical approach worked long before the 'reason why' was fully understood. the 1961 Ferrari Dino had a rear spoiler after someone (Richie Ginther?) noticed that the gar had a nose-down attitude at high speed showing they were getting rear end lift. They tried the spoiler and it worked! But did they really understand why?
The story of the 'Gurney flap' is similar. Dan suggested it, they tried it, and it worked.

I've just seen Mariner's post. The plan area of the car is significant - witness the lift problems experienced by the Cunningham C5R which by the standards of the day was huge.

[RCH]

One thing that is sometimes overlooked is the simple question of weight per square foot of plan area. Cars like the D type are actually very small by modern standards. short and narrow. The D type wasnt that heavy given its massive engine weight but if you divide the weight by plan area and compare it to a modern racer its very high.

So lift instabilty is less of an issue - yes there is a lift co-efficient but on a small area so its not always a big problem . As sports cars got wider and longer the lift to weight ratio increases fro the same co - efficient so they get less stable - like the famous Mercedes Le Mans flip.

Im not sure if I explained that very well but I think lift was less of a real world problem back then

Which rather begs the question, why did sports cars get longer and wider if lift instability was less of an issue on smaller cars?

[kayemod]

Which rather begs the question, why did sports cars get longer and wider if lift instability was less of an issue on smaller cars?

A reasonable point, but increases in track & wheelbase together with much wider tyres raise cornering speeds and therefore lap times. The cars had to get longer and wider to cover the wheels, imagine how well something like an Audi R8 would perform on narrow crossplies.

[David Birchall]

It is interesting (and long known) that Jaguar/Sayers were unaware of the reason for the spoiler that was tacked onto the back of the GTO-they seem to have concluded that it was to prevent exhaust fumes from entering the car. Ferrari added the spoiler while trying to solve rear end instability at high speed according to Anthony Pritchard's excellent 250 GTO history.

[RCH]

It is interesting (and long known) that Jaguar/Sayers were unaware of the reason for the spoiler that was tacked onto the back of the GTO-they seem to have concluded that it was to prevent exhaust fumes from entering the car. Ferrari added the spoiler while trying to solve rear end instability at high speed according to Anthony Pritchard's excellent 250 GTO history.

ISTR that Ferari claimed that the spoiler was to deflect spilt petrol from falling onto hot exhausts. I cannot believe that Sayer would not have been aware of the effect that Ferrari were creating, it would surely have been obvious to such a talented aerodynamicist? A spoiler never appeared on the "low drag" E types or XJ13 so maybe he believed that with proper aerodynamics it was unecessary?

[RCH]

A reasonable point, but increases in track & wheelbase together with much wider tyres raise cornering speeds and therefore lap times. The cars had to get longer and wider to cover the wheels, imagine how well something like an Audi R8 would perform on narrow crossplies.

Well my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek but the prospect of an Audi R8 on narrow crossplies would be wonderful....

[Pullman99]

Interesting contribution by "Nev" whose thread this is, but again you need pictures.

Finally managed to catch up with this programme on i-Player. Excellent piece all round but, as Allan has commented, really needs pictures. Wonder if an extended version could be made for television? The recent theme of Innovation that ran through a variety of programmes at the BBC would surely have been an appropriate place to present this subject. Enjoyed it overall, however, and well done to Mr Glancey for putting it all together. What a truly intriguing story that deserves to be expanded. Especially on Malcolm Sayer's family background and his time at The Bristol Aeroplane Company as well as Jaguar and I greatly enjoyed the contribution from Nev on the XJ13 recreation. Now that merits a programme on its own!

[kayemod]

Well my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek...

I rather guessed that, but anyone know how many tyres a well driven D Type would have consumed over the course of 24 hours?

[RCH]

I rather guessed that, but anyone know how many tyres a well driven D Type would have consumed over the course of 24 hours?

Well let me see driven out from Coventry; practice; 24 hours of racing; driven back to Coventry... say 6 to allow for punctures?

[David Birchall]

ISTR that Ferari claimed that the spoiler was to deflect spilt petrol from falling onto hot exhausts. I cannot believe that Sayer would not have been aware of the effect that Ferrari were creating, it would surely have been obvious to such a talented aerodynamicist? A spoiler never appeared on the "low drag" E types or XJ13 so maybe he believed that with proper aerodynamics it was unecessary?

Since Sayer had the Coombes GTO in the windtunnel and still failed to realise the reason for the spoiler it would appear you are incorrect in assuming that
What appears obvious to us now was very new back then...

[RCH]

Since Sayer had the Coombes GTO in the windtunnel and still failed to realise the reason for the spoiler it would appear you are incorrect in assuming that
What appears obvious to us now was very new back then...

I must be missing something here. You say it was long known that Sayer was unaware of the reason for the spoiler on the GTO, yet I have never heard it before. But surely what was well known was that the spoiler was an aerodynamic device despite various purported reasons for its presence. If as a 13 year old schoolboy I knew what it was for then I cannot possibly believe that Malcolm Sayer didn't.

[David Birchall]

From "Ultimate E-Type" by Philip Porter


I draw your attention to the caption. In Philip Porter's book, published about 1990 "E-Type, The Definitive History" he published copies of Sayer's notes and drawings, including the one above with the comment that the conclusion at the time was that the spoiler was to prevent fumes from coming forward into the car.

Edit: Try to think of a GT car with a spoiler lip on the back prior to the GTO. I cannot come up with one.

Edited by David Birchall, 09 June 2013 - 23:50.

[Macca]

The GTO came out in 1962 but Ferrari had used the lip spoiler in 1961 on the 246 Dino mid-engine sports-prototype, and surely nobody could have imagined that was to prevent the ingress of exhaust fumes...........on an open car!

So it seems there was some blinkered thinking in the UK (or perhaps gullibility, if people believed something Ferrari said).

Paul M

[RCH]

Oh dear, I must open the vault, unchain my copy of Ultimate E Type (my most cherished possession) don the white gloves etc and check it out. I still maintain that it was more a case of Sayer believing that it was unecessary on his designs. Maybe a "not invented here" attitude or a genuine belief that it would not achieve anything. Thinking about it the spoiler was suggested to Ferrari by Richie Ginther who suggested it to Aston Martin after racing P212 and the suggestion was acted upon. Given that his BRM team mate was Graham Hill it seems difficult to believe that the information didn't feed back that way.