167 replies to this topic

[kapow]

I've just been watching highlights of the 1982 German Grand Prix and noticed that Ferrari used front wings whereas most of the other teams didn't.

Does anyone know the reasons for this? I know this was in the age of skirts but why would there be a difference of opinion on running front wings?

Another thing I noticed is how soft the cars were, very bouncy over the bumps?

[byrkus]

Ferrari 126C2 was designed without any front wings on their mind, they only added them after two or three races.

 

Some would say that running without front wings would be beneficial only on high speed tracks, like Monze, Silverstone, or Österreichring. But then again, Riccardo Patrese won the Monaco GP without front wings. Those sidepods created just unbeliveable amounts of downforce...

 

And besides, those cars were some of the stiffest EVER. Pretty much 650 HP go-karts.

[D-Type]

At Imola Pironi's Ferrari had front wings whilst Villeneuve's did not.  So at that stage they were still undecided about how effective they were.

[PayasYouRace]

If you look at Pironi's wing at Imola you'll see that it was very skinny anyway. With a ground effect car the front wing is even more of a balance tool than with a flat bottomed car, due to the naturally forward centre of lift of the chassis. It would have just been a case of running them to taste, if you felt you needed that extra bit of bite at the front, you'd run them. Naturally it would be more effective on high speed tracks.

[Rob G]

Ideally, you wouldn't have them if you didn't need them, because your car would not be subjected to loss of front downforce when closely following another car and thus would handle more predictably and consistently.

[Wirra]

I remember this from the time but I've only watched a few minute now and you can see quite a mix of cars with and without front wings.

 

Gentlemen, lift your skirts. https://www.youtube....h?v=9KeulWo9JSQ

 

[Henri Greuter]

One of the first cars that ran without frount wings most of the time muct have been the catastrophic Brabham-Alfa BT48 of 1979. I recall Heinz Prúller writing in his Grand Prix Story '79 that on one occasion Lauda had lost a front wing and noticed that the car ran better without it but the team had in mind to try running without wings anyway.

 

Imagine the current cars without front wings.....

 

 

 

Henri

[Duc-Man]

 

Imagine the current cars without front wings.....

 

 

 

Henri

 

It would definitely look even more ridiclous.

Would they actually be driveable at speed?

 

The FIA should put pictures of some early- to mid-seventies cars in their rulebook and have a caption with a § saying that the F-1 cars have to look similar to the given examples.

[D28]

Ferrari 126C2 was designed without any front wings on their mind, they only added them after two or three races.

 

 

And besides, those cars were some of the stiffest EVER. Pretty much 650 HP go-karts.

 

Fast, but extremely treacherous, the 126C2 ended the life of Villeneuve and the career of Pironi and still delivered the Constructors title to Ferrari in 1982. One of Ferrari's least loved models, the 82 title could not have been a very happy occasion for the team.

[kayemod]

Fast, but extremely treacherous, the 126C2 ended the life of Villeneuve and the career of Pironi...

 

 

Really don't see how the car could be blamed for either of those two incidents, death and serious injury would have been almost inevitable no matter what Gilles & Didier had been sitting in.

[PCC]

Really don't see how the car could be blamed for either of those two incidents, death and serious injury would have been almost inevitable no matter what Gilles & Didier had been sitting in.

Agreed. There were some who blamed the complete lack of suspension movement for the altitude Gilles reached and the consequently brutal impact, but that was hardly unique to the Ferrari.

[Marc Sproule]

arrows tried no front wings on their a2 in '79. it was not a successful design.

 

https://www.flickr.c...@N03/5452254091

 

https://www.flickr.c...@N03/5452867112

[D28]

Really don't see how the car could be blamed for either of those two incidents, death and serious injury would have been almost inevitable no matter what Gilles & Didier had been sitting in.

 Partly true I guess. Both could have slowed down, or refused the drive. Still Villeneuve remarked that the car was so stiff it was difficult seeing at speed such a beating one's body took from the vibration. Not a well remembered Ferrari, is all I mean to say.

[kapow]

Not soft then, so stiff they bounced?

[superden]

Perhaps not well remembered generally, but aesthetically it's still one of the three cars I'd choose if you asked me to draw an F1 car.

 

Up with the MP4/4 and the Lotus 98T.

Edited by superden, 19 July 2014 - 18:29.

[kayemod]

 Partly true I guess. Both could have slowed down, or refused the drive.

 

At that time, I'd say that retirement would have been his only real alternative. All the cars were stiff and bouncy that year, it was mostly driver error to a large extent with both Gilles and Didier.

[mfd]

"one of Ferrari's least loved models" perhaps you meant to say unluckiest?

 

All the turbo cars were beasts but to my eye the C2 was the best looking.

[arttidesco]

As I recall much of the bouncyness was from the way the downforce came into play from the side pods, the cars had to have very stiff springs to cope with the downforce which was not particularly consistent and led to 'aerodynamic  porpoising' which may be misunderstood as bouncyness caused by soft springs.

 

For my money despite the fate of my hero Gilles and his nemesis Didier the 126C2 is still one of best looking Ferrari's of all time.

[D28]

"one of Ferrari's least loved models" perhaps you meant to say unluckiest?

 

All the turbo cars were beasts but to my eye the C2 was the best looking.

No I posted twice. I just never liked the car, even if it was quick enough to win the constructors title, I much prefer the 312T4 for looks, the model Scheckter used to win both 79 titles. Perhaps others do not share my opinion of the 126C2. I suspect drivers do not remember it fondly, someone might ask Patrick Tambay or Mario about it. Perhaps they have commented on it sometime?

[mfd]

I see now, you said Ferrari's least loved...but you meant one of your least loved...

[kapow]

Talking of the Ferrari, what was the deal with the split rear wing?

[Collombin]

I get the impression it was almost a tongue in cheek thing about rule interpretation.

[Marc Sproule]

rule was that rear wings had square footage limit. ferrari's interpretation was to split it into two wings. rulemakers didn't see it that way.

 

https://www.flickr.c...@N03/5454787405

[Rob G]

rule was that rear wings had square footage limit. ferrari's interpretation was to split it into two wings. rulemakers didn't see it that way.

 

https://www.flickr.c...@N03/5454787405

 

Technically, it was a way to circumvent the rule that bodywork behind the rear wheels was limited to 110 cm in width. Ferrari tried to claim that each part of the rear wing was its own individual entity, and since each one -- each individual piece of bodywork -- measured less than 110 cm wide they'd be allowed.

[Michael Ferner]

Loophole engineering... trying to test the rulemakers and make sure they word everything to perfection. A bit of a retort to the watertank FIAsco in Brazil, and various related problems like hydraulic suspension lifters etc. Those were the times , when the rule book transitioned from a leaflet to a multi-volume tome...

 

Btw, no square footage limits for (rear) wings, just maximum width and depth. It took a while, but Ferrari ultimately came up with a much cleverer version!

[Henri Greuter]

No I posted twice. I just never liked the car, even if it was quick enough to win the constructors title, I much prefer the 312T4 for looks, the model Scheckter used to win both 79 titles. Perhaps others do not share my opinion of the 126C2. I suspect drivers do not remember it fondly, someone might ask Patrick Tambay or Mario about it. Perhaps they have commented on it sometime?

 

Eh.... since the constructors title of 1979 was won with Gilles also winning three races, i think it is fair to credit that title to both drivers and not Scheckter alone.....

 

But I do share your opinion about the 312T4 being a beautiful car, I liked it too.

But I also liked the looks of the 126C2 very much. I feel sad when I see it but still, I like the car from an astetical point of view over every post 2000 contraption. With hindsight it was of course a dangerous design with the driver so far ahead in the car. But that made it look a bit like a jet fighter to me. The current longwheelbased narrow winged bananas with penile exentions  almost anny me compared with the mid eightties cars. The 1985 Ferrari was also a beauty in proportions.

 

 

I hsve spoken Mario Andretti very briefly once about his exploits in the '82 Ferrari and he told me that the history of the car up till the moment he stepped into it didn't scare him. Once he got aquinted with it he felt it to be a very good and nice car to drive and he was very proud of winning the pole with it at Monza.

 

I can add to this that I spoke Mario about this in 1989 on the gallery in front of his room at the Speedway motel. It was pooring rain, the wind blew the rain onto us, he didn't invite me to come in to remain dry. But it was obvious to see that he enjoyed talking with me about those races and a bunch other events in Europe that were all but forgotten by his American fans at that time  (1989 remember) and even that we got wet because of the rain didn't stop him remeniscing about those events. He obviously enjoyed talking about these events

 

Henri

[D28]

Eh.... since the constructors title of 1979 was won with Gilles also winning three races, i think it is fair to credit that title to both drivers and not Scheckter alone.....

 

But I do share your opinion about the 312T4 being a beautiful car, I liked it too.

But I also liked the looks of the 126C2 very much. I feel sad when I see it but still, I like the car from an astetical point of view over every post 2000 contraption. With hindsight it was of course a dangerous design with the driver so far ahead in the car. But that made it look a bit like a jet fighter to me. The current longwheelbased narrow winged bananas with penile exentions  almost anny me compared with the mid eightties cars. The 1985 Ferrari was also a beauty in proportions.

 

 

I hsve spoken Mario Andretti very briefly once about his exploits in the '82 Ferrari and he told me that the history of the car up till the moment he stepped into it didn't scare him. Once he got aquinted with it he felt it to be a very good and nice car to drive and he was very proud of winning the pole with it at Monza.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your insights, and I am the last person anywhere to downgrade G. Villeneuve's contributions at Ferrari. Andretti's comments are interesting. He finished an illustrious F1 career in the 126C2, his podium at Monza was his last and his next to last race.

As you say the car was a dangerous design, with few if any crash safety aides. The horrific photos of the car disintegrating in Villeneuve's crash are very hard to view. Perhaps nothing could have saved him that day, but the current designs point to how far construction standards have come since 1982.

[kayemod]

 

As you say the car was a dangerous design, with few if any crash safety aides.

 

Come off it, that car was no more 'dangerous' than anything else from the same era, and probably safer than some. Much is made of the driver's position in relation to the front wheels, but while this looks dramatic to us today, it's totally irrelevant. Wheels contributed nothing at all to crash safety, all that matters as far as survivability in a frontal crash is concerned is the strength of the structure surrounding the driver. The Ferrari was pretty poor in this respect, as were all the cars it was racing against, just some folded aluminium. It was only with the coming of properly thought out composite structures with the McLaren MP4 that drivers started hobbling away from crashes that would surely have been fatal in the Villeneuve/Pironi era. It's just silly to blame the Ferrari 126 for their fatal and almost fatal injuries, as I said, it was no worse than anything else from that time.

[D28]

Come off it, that car was no more 'dangerous' than anything else from the same era, and probably safer than some. Much is made of the driver's position in relation to the front wheels, but while this looks dramatic to us today, it's totally irrelevant. Wheels contributed nothing at all to crash safety, all that matters as far as survivability in a frontal crash is concerned is the strength of the structure surrounding the driver. The Ferrari was pretty poor in this respect, as were all the cars it was racing against, just some folded aluminium. It was only with the coming of properly thought out composite structures with the McLaren MP4 that drivers started hobbling away from crashes that would surely have been fatal in the Villeneuve/Pironi era. It's just silly to blame the Ferrari 126 for their fatal and almost fatal injuries, as I said, it was no worse than anything else from that time.

I was not blaming the car for Villeneuve's death and my comments are far from silly. The photos played at the time were truly sickening, among the worst I have ever viewed, This is a simple personal comment, surely I don't have to defend it here? And it was Mr. Greuter who said it was dangerous, I was merely agreeing. I was also applauding advances made in safety design, not a controversial comment.

Edited by D28, 20 July 2014 - 15:37.

[Michael Ferner]

To be fair, there was a lot of comment at the time about the Ferrari's structural integrity, and not a lot of it was complimentary. I recall some especially harsh point of views expressed regarding the fixing of the safety belts, which was apparently looked into tout suite post-Zolder...

[Hank the Deuce]

Regarding front wings, they'd been put on and taken off any number of other cars during the preceding ground-effect years.  The Williams FW07 ran with and without, the Lotus 80 was designed without them IIRC.  From what I've read, they were more useful for the fine trimming of the car than actual downforce (figures, as they were skinny little things!).

 

The suspension was rock-hard to maintain skirt contact, once sliding skirts were banned (reference Gentlmen, Raise Your Skirts)… I loved Frank Williams' suggestion to AJ to sit on his wallet to damp the suspension somewhat.  The Lotus 88 was Chapman's idea for addressing the need to make fixed skirts work without his drivers' skeletons dissolving under the shock loading.

[Henri Greuter]

I was not blaming the car for Villeneuve's death and my comments are far from silly. The photos played at the time were truly sickening, among the worst I have ever viewed, This is a simple personal comment, surely I don't have to defend it here? And it was Mr. Greuter who said it was dangerous, I was merely agreeing. I was also applauding advances made in safety design, not a controversial comment.

 

 

I said that with hindsight it was a dangerous design.

But if I declare that about the 126C2, then I must say that, with hindsight, just about every F1 car of that time was a dangerous design with respect to the foot in front of the front axles.

But at the time, nobody really cared about all of that since it was what we were used to since the introduction of ground effects cars.

I recall there had been investigation about the ferrari monocoque of 1982 and it was declared that for the time being and the technology used it was as safe as it could be. But a freak accident like that of Gilles, with the nose digging into the ground was something for which at the time there was nothing able to stand such impacts.

 

More desing features of the past were seen as accecptable and normal. But after the first accidents then the feature appeared to be: with hindsight: dangerous.

Think about the suspension mounted wings of 1969, or the group B rally cars with fiel tanks in the cockpit area.

 

 

Henri

[PeterElleray]

To be fair, there was a lot of comment at the time about the Ferrari's structural integrity, and not a lot of it was complimentary. I recall some especially harsh point of views expressed regarding the fixing of the safety belts, which was apparently looked into tout suite post-Zolder...

From memory the 126C2 was one of those bonded honeycomb tubs, so you have very thin skins, structural adhesives and aluminium doublers holding it all together... Always worried me, my structures lecturer used to say that in an accident you would ultimately end up with the same set of parts that you started out with before you glued it all together.. That's not far from what happened. The key was to stop this disintegration in to constituent parts  rather than deformation on impact. One of the big changes post Zolder was a carbon horseshoe around the cockpit rim to hold the vulnerable cockpit section together - and stiffen the whole structure.

 

there were a number of chassis of this type at that time, some looked a little more substantial and some less, but the Ferrari was very much 'of its era'. That type of tub was soon supereceded, at the top level , and in 

Europe anyway, by full Carbon..

 

Feet infront of axles is a Red Herring. Its the amount of structure infront of the feet and how it deforms that matters, as 'Kayemod' has correctly stated above.

 

Peter 

[small block]

I found this interesting comment from Frank Dernie in a magazine article on the aero development of the Williams FW07:

"... it just so happened that by putting the nose fins in line with the lower front wishbones, the horrid turbulence generated by the wishbones was in the wake of the nose fins so we ended up with less drag and more downforce if we ran the nose fins at neutral rather than taking them off the car. When we ran with sliding skirts we ran the nose fins flat quite a lot of the time. The 07 could have run without them - it was aerodynamically balanced without them - but it wasn’t as good as it was with them in place."

[chunder27]

The cars of that time were truly hideous to drive

 

I recall comments from guys like Watson, Prost, Sheckter, Gilles and many others that they were stupidly stiff for most tracks, very difficult to drive on the limit and notoriously susceptible to skirt issues.

 

Only really Brabham, Williams and to some extent Liguer managed to build cars that were decent, and when you consider what was going on, in that N/A cars could happily keep up with turbo's who had at times well over 580hp when a DFV back then was maybe 480 max, it shows yu utterly impoartant the skirts were.

 

I guess chasis design in honeycomb was at its peak, Carbon was just on the horizon.

 

People here tlaking abotu Gilles shouold only remmebr two things, Mass's minor error of judgement and Gilles state of mind.

 

They were th main areas of cause and effect behind that crash. not the car, which Harvey desigend and at that time was pretty much the class of the field in Gille snad Pironi's hands.

 

It's clear to see no wing meant more air into the sharks mouth for the underneath, but maybe some guys wanted that little bit of bite. some felt they didnt need it. Most teams ran with or without wings, Tyrrell, Renault, Ligier/Talbot, Even smaller teams like March and Oseall, Theodore

[ReWind]

@chunder27: Have you read your own post?

If not: Please try to.

[Nemo1965]

Really don't see how the car could be blamed for either of those two incidents, death and serious injury would have been almost inevitable no matter what Gilles & Didier had been sitting in.

 

Except perhaps the McLaren-Ford Mp4...

[PeterElleray]

Except perhaps the McLaren-Ford Mp4...

Did one ever go in hard, forwards? I remember Watson's big one at Monza, where it went in backwards and the engine mounts broke off, i dont recall a really heavy frontal impact in one of those early tubs. It was probably a much better piece of engineering than the early carbon tubs that  i was involved with, some of you would have been better off in sheet ally or a stout tube frame..

[Nemo1965]

Did one ever go in hard, forwards? I remember Watson's big one at Monza, where it went in backwards and the engine mounts broke off, i dont recall a really heavy frontal impact in one of those early tubs. It was probably a much better piece of engineering than the early carbon tubs that  i was involved with, some of you would have been better off in sheet ally or a stout tube frame..

 

I know very little about structural engineering, but from what I heard (both what I read in articles and heard from two or three engineers that worked in F1) the Ferrari 126 C2 was only partly kevlar/carbon fibre and for the rest the classic alloy construction. I've read an interview with Harvey Postlewaith, and what I read between the lines was that the car was not his ideal or a real 'new car'. I don't want to call it a bad job, but it was more of a hybrid of new and old than a new car.

 

Some things I've read and heard was that exactly the combination of kevlar/karbon fibre and classic tube frames caused the massive desintegration of the car during the Villeneuve's and Pironi's crashes. This has been disputed by Dr. Postlewaith himself, who stated that the forces of the Villeneuve crash would have disintegrated any car.

 

Still, if I read how the car was developed, and how it was basically was the 1981 car with some extra kevlar and better aero... it is a wonder it was the best car of the 1982 season...

[PeterElleray]

I know very little about structural engineering, but from what I heard (both what I read in articles and heard from two or three engineers that worked in F1) the Ferrari 126 C2 was only partly kevlar/carbon fibre and for the rest the classic alloy construction. I've read an interview with Harvey Postlewaith, and what I read between the lines was that the car was not his ideal or a real 'new car'. I don't want to call it a bad job, but it was more of a hybrid of new and old than a new car.

 

Some things I've read and heard was that exactly the combination of kevlar/karbon fibre and classic tube frames caused the massive desintegration of the car during the Villeneuve's and Pironi's crashes. This has been disputed by Dr. Postlewaith himself, who stated that the forces of the Villeneuve crash would have disintegrated any car.

 

Still, if I read how the car was developed, and how it was basically was the 1981 car with some extra kevlar and better aero... it is a wonder it was the best car of the 1982 season...

Wrong year and wrong car  i think.

 

The 1982 126c2 was constructed from aluminium honeycomb panels, folded and bonded around bulkheads of the same material with some internal reinforcement and some aluminium sheet aswell. There was no carbon or kevlar in the original chassis outer panels at all, and no classic tube frame pinning it all together. As mentioned above a carbon hoop was added around the cockpit after the Villeneuve accident and the Pironi Hockenheim car was fitted with this. It may have helped Pironi from receiving even worse injuries.

 

But whereas the 1982 was a new car,  the 1981 car  was tube frame with aluminium panels riveted on. The 82 car was not a development of that car with some kevlar added. and better aero, it was a complete redesign. You wouldnt add kevlar to a chassis in isolation, its not very stiff on its own. It was used in the early days when there were concerns about Carbon's impact resistance.

 

Harvey's ideal new car was introduced the following year, 1983 as the c3. That had a carbon tub as we would understand it today, in the interview i read he was very forthcoming about that.

 

Personally i am not surprised at all that the 126c2 was one of the best cars of the season in performance terms. It had all the right ingredients.

[Nemo1965]

Wrong year and wrong car  i think.

 

The 1982 126c2 was constructed from aluminium honeycomb panels, folded and bonded around bulkheads of the same material with some internal reinforcement and some aluminium sheet aswell. There was no carbon or kevlar in the original chassis outer panels at all, and no classic tube frame pinning it all together. As mentioned above a carbon hoop was added around the cockpit after the Villeneuve accident and the Pironi Hockenheim car was fitted with this. It may have helped Pironi from receiving even worse injuries.

 

But whereas the 1982 was a new car,  the 1981 car  was tube frame with aluminium panels riveted on. The 82 car was not a development of that car with some kevlar added. and better aero, it was a complete redesign. You wouldnt add kevlar to a chassis in isolation, its not very stiff on its own. It was used in the early days when there were concerns about Carbon's impact resistance.

 

Harvey's ideal new car was introduced the following year, 1983 as the c3. That had a carbon tub as we would understand it today, in the interview i read he was very forthcoming about that.

 

Personally i am not surprised at all that the 126c2 was one of the best cars of the season in performance terms. It had all the right ingredients.

 

It sounds like you are absolutely right! I was quoting from memory and with my limited understanding of engineering.

 

Never the less, this I found on the Formula 1.com website just before you posted:

 

Frame monocoque, Hexcel carbon-fibre and aluminium honeycomb composite structure.

 

While Wiki writes:

 

and a complete overhaul of the car in time for the 1982 season, things looked better. The turbo engine was further developed and reliability found, while the chassis was completely redesigned, featuring Ferrari's first genuine full monocoque chassis featuring honeycomb aluminum panels for the structure

 

I don't want to be stubborn (though usually I am), but doesn't the name 1981 126 C to 1982 C2 mean a certain overlap in design?

 

Regards!

 

 See more at: http://formula1.ferr...h.aQwzATQn.dpuf

Edited by Nemo1965, 21 July 2014 - 16:51.

[PeterElleray]

Nemo - 126 is the generic Ferrari type number for its early series of turbocharged 1 1/2 litre cars, C denoting .compressor. The only overlap of significance you will find between the 126C and 126C2 is in the powertrain (engine and gearbox).

 

In the same way 312 was the generic type for the 3 litre 12 cylinder cars - but look at a 1974 312T and a 1980 312T5 and you will again see that the only carry over is in the powertrain.

 

there was a reason for it being 126, which eludes me at this distance, the later cars were type 156's , ie 1.5 litres, 6 cylinders, which made more sense.

 

I think you will find the F1 website is confusing the later C3 with the C2 in its reference to carbon, either that or they are referring to the cockpit collar that i described. 'Frame monocque' is a generic term , it doesn't imply there was a tubular frame in the chassis.

 

Peter

[kayemod]

 

there was a reason for it being 126, which eludes me at this distance, the later cars were type 156's , ie 1.5 litres, 6 cylinders, which made more sense.

 

 

 

Peter

 

 

A little tenuous, but could 126 be a reference to the engine, a 120° V6?

[Henri Greuter]

Nemo - 126 is the generic Ferrari type number for its early series of turbocharged 1 1/2 litre cars, C denoting .compressor. The only overlap of significance you will find between the 126C and 126C2 is in the powertrain (engine and gearbox).

 

In the same way 312 was the generic type for the 3 litre 12 cylinder cars - but look at a 1974 312T and a 1980 312T5 and you will again see that the only carry over is in the powertrain.

 

there was a reason for it being 126, which eludes me at this distance, the later cars were type 156's , ie 1.5 litres, 6 cylinders, which made more sense.

 

I think you will find the F1 website is confusing the later C3 with the C2 in its reference to carbon, either that or they are referring to the cockpit collar that i described. 'Frame monocque' is a generic term , it doesn't imply there was a tubular frame in the chassis.

 

Peter

 

Peter,

 

the 126 namegiving was derived from the fact that the vee angle of this engine was 120 degreed and it had 6 cylinders, together 126.

 

Which, coincidently also came off fine in the continuation of numbering the blown 1.5 liter F1 Ferrari engines. The previous 1.5 liter supercharged F1 car was the tipo 125 engine of the late 40's.

 

The next blown 1.5 liter engine thus could be named 126 with some creative thinking......

 

Purist details. When Ferrari also considered working with the Comprex type of supercharger for 1981, the 1981 car was known for two different type registrations

 

126CX was the comprex blown version, which appeared only in practice for the Long Beach GP and was never raced

126CK was the twinturbcharged (KKK blowers) version.

 

And indeed, the construction of the monocoques of the 1981 126CK/X and the 1982 C2 was entirely different. 126CK was probably the worst of all chassis entered that season and only its engine and the fact that someone forgot to trll Gilles how bad the car was saved the day on occasion in 1981. How Gilles could win two races (with a bit of luck due to retirements ahead of him) and finished third in Cannda in pooring rain, without a front wing once it was blown away is still beyond me.

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 July 2014 - 17:58.

[PeterElleray]

It was said at the time that removing the front wing put less bending load into the chassis and so it deflected less..

 

No, not really.

 

Yes i just found the reference to the reason for 126 in Autocar from June 1980, the 126C announcement. Thanks .

 

Peter

[Nemo1965]

It was said at the time that removing the front wing put less bending load into the chassis and so it deflected less..

 

No, not really.

 

Yes i just found the reference to the reason for 126 in Autocar from June 1980, the 126C announcement. Thanks .

 

Peter

 

Now that's nice!

[MODE]

Just to illustrate Peter's comments about the 126C2 :

 

http://www.gurneyfla...es/JUL39202.jpg

http://www.gurneyfla...es/JUL39226.jpg

 

Photos from a restored car, the carbon hoop looks new.

Peter, still working at Caterham F1 team ? 

[ensign14]

Except perhaps the McLaren-Ford Mp4...

 

I saw Gilles' accident on video once.  I don't think the car has been built that would have enabled the driver to survive.  It was like a plane crash in terms of impact.

[Nemo1965]

I saw Gilles' accident on video once.  I don't think the car has been built that would have enabled the driver to survive.  It was like a plane crash in terms of impact.

 

On the one hand I agree... But when I saw Kubica's accident in Canada I was convinced he was dead... comparable G-forces I think.

 

But lets not get into a discussion about Gilles' accident. It was horrible, it was fatal and it was 1982. Nuff said. Furthermore, I think the ground-effect or front wing did not attribute much to the accident. Villeneuve had a similiar accident in Japan in 1977 but there the nose of his car did not wedge itself in the ground (probably because the car bounced on tarmac first). So, yeah, a plane-crash in both the literal and figurative sense...

[PeterElleray]

Just to illustrate Peter's comments about the 126C2 :

 

http://www.gurneyfla...es/JUL39202.jpg

http://www.gurneyfla...es/JUL39226.jpg

 

Photos from a restored car, the carbon hoop looks new.

Peter, still working at Caterham F1 team ? 

Thanks for the interest, but not since 2011, I left before they moved from Norfolk...

 

I'm sure i know why you're asking, what we read in recent reports is rather disturbing, but i'm afraid i can't provide any insight, 

 

Having been marooned several times  down the years i would like to think i've finally worked out when NOT to move for the job...

 

Peter