23 replies to this topic

[IrishMariner]

http://www.allinspor...tant-notoriety/


Instant Notoriety
Posted by Samantha Collins

"It had been a pretty intense introduction into the world of Formula One for my father. Colin Chapman was a perfectionist and a hard taskmaster to say the least. And emotions were high as Lotus were having a particularly bad season.

After a lot of struggles with the Lotus 80 at the start of the 1979 season, Chapman had resorted to running the 1978 Championship winning Lotus 79, which despite being prone to technical problems, had been a very successful car the previous year. However in 1979 plagued with further reliability and design issues, it now no longer had the performance advantage of the year before, when it was the only car with fully developed ground effect. With five consecutive retirements for Mario Andretti, Chapman was eager to figure out why the Williams FW07 was such a competitive car.

At the 1979 Austrian Grand Prix Lotus engineer Nigel Bennett, who was leaving to join Mo Nunn’s Ensign Team, was told by Nunn that Williams were running much stiffer springs than commonly used. Spurred on by Andretti, Chapman was insistent that they needed to know what the rear rocker ratio was on the Williams, to allow him to calculate the significance of that spring rate. He instructed my father to go to get the Williams rocker measurements...."

Follow the link above to read the rest.

[DanTra2858]

What a great story, I used to have a 3 inch ruler on my key ring with my car keys, they happened to find themself in many photos of underneath of cars or just happened to be placed on car tyres while taking photos, having a known measurment the rest was easy.

[GMACKIE]

Rules were only made to be broken, Dan... not carried around in your pocket !

[Catalina Park]

My brother used to sit a cigarette packet on things before taking a photo for the same reason.

[Lee Nicolle]

My brother used to sit a cigarette packet on things before taking a photo for the same reason.

But did he actually smoke,,, or just use the packet as a ruler.

[Catalina Park]

But did he actually smoke,,, or just use the packet as a ruler.

Both.

[275 GTB-4]

I know that if you give some people an inch...they think they are a ruler

[Jimisgod]

The punchline to the story is gold. Jones seems like a great larrikin.

[essjay]

http://www.allinspor...tant-notoriety/


Instant Notoriety
Posted by Samantha Collins

"It had been a pretty intense introduction into the world of Formula One for my father. Colin Chapman was a perfectionist and a hard taskmaster to say the least. And emotions were high as Lotus were having a particularly bad season.

After a lot of struggles with the Lotus 80 at the start of the 1979 season, Chapman had resorted to running the 1978 Championship winning Lotus 79, which despite being prone to technical problems, had been a very successful car the previous year. However in 1979 plagued with further reliability and design issues, it now no longer had the performance advantage of the year before, when it was the only car with fully developed ground effect. With five consecutive retirements for Mario Andretti, Chapman was eager to figure out why the Williams FW07 was such a competitive car.

At the 1979 Austrian Grand Prix Lotus engineer Nigel Bennett, who was leaving to join Mo Nunn’s Ensign Team, was told by Nunn that Williams were running much stiffer springs than commonly used. Spurred on by Andretti, Chapman was insistent that they needed to know what the rear rocker ratio was on the Williams, to allow him to calculate the significance of that spring rate. He instructed my father to go to get the Williams rocker measurements...."

Follow the link above to read the rest.

Thanks for posting my blog   
Lots more historic posts to come soon from Lotus, Williams and Benetton! 

[Nemo1965]

The strange thing is... that Mario Andretti said in several interviews, according to me DURING the 1978 season and later that the problem of the Lotus 79 was that it flexed too much... Chapman always pooh-poohed it, perhaps because - as mrs. Collins described - in his head he was already busy drawing the next, revolutionary Lotus so why would he be bother improved yesterday's car?

 

So I find it amusing that apparently Chapman need the measurements of the Willams FW07's rockers. I am under the impression that an improved 79 - stiffer, stronger - could have been very good still in 1979...

[PeterElleray]

I dont think he 'pooh-poohed' the drivers comments about chassis stiffness because the '80' was in design.

 

You could argue that the 79 was stiff enough in 1978 to support the aero loading that it was generating. The 80 was intended to generate similar loading with reduced drag by deleting the conventional wings.

 

Perhaps what Chapman had failed to realise was that this was only the tip of the iceburg in terms of what could be generated. Nigel Bennett's recent bio is particularly detailed in this area, and he was there at the time. 

 

When the Williams (and Ligier, and then Brabham) came along and were able to harvest this with their stiffer structures (and better skirt systems) the 80 was already running (poorly, and in trouble with its curved skirts).

 

My take on this is that Chapman was then asking exactly the right question - as usual...

 

If the Williams was indeed running much higher WHEEL RATES to control the aero underbody, then a vital part of the equation , in addition to the actual SPRING RATES, would be the front and rear rocker ratios - exactly as the blog says.

 

Standard stuff for any engineer in the pitlane then or now.

 

If and when he had convinced himself that the Williams , which clearly was generating signifcantly higher downforce, was running indeed also stiffer, then he would either need to go down that route himself - which would mean a stiffer (and heavier) structure to support the stiffer suspension - or he would need to separate the aero loads from the conventional chassis and its suspension.

 

In the event, he did both within 18 months, and got around the weight issue by making the new chassis in composites, in house, and with minimal tooling.

 

Nothing strange about any of that.

 

Peter

[essjay]

@Nemo1965 The 79 was indeed flexing too much - in 1979 Lotus were attempting to run stiffer springs on the rear than they had in 1978 but the aluminium monocoque wasn't strong enough to support this.

 

I'm sure the "Old Man" probably was already thinking ahead to the next car, and the rationale behind the Lotus 88 will be covered in my next blog (just putting the finishing touches on it) which also talks about the first in-house carbon fibre monocoque as mentioned by @PeterElleray.

Edited by essjay, 28 June 2015 - 11:20.

[Nemo1965]

I dont think he 'pooh-poohed' the drivers comments about chassis stiffness because the '80' was in design.

 

You could argue that the 79 was stiff enough in 1978 to support the aero loading that it was generating. The 80 was intended to generate similar loading with reduced drag by deleting the conventional wings.

 

Perhaps what Chapman had failed to realise was that this was only the tip of the iceburg in terms of what could be generated. Nigel Bennett's recent bio is particularly detailed in this area, and he was there at the time. 

 

When the Williams (and Ligier, and then Brabham) came along and were able to harvest this with their stiffer structures (and better skirt systems) the 80 was already running (poorly, and in trouble with its curved skirts).

 

My take on this is that Chapman was then asking exactly the right question - as usual...

 

If the Williams was indeed running much higher WHEEL RATES to control the aero underbody, then a vital part of the equation , in addition to the actual SPRING RATES, would be the front and rear rocker ratios - exactly as the blog says.

 

Standard stuff for any engineer in the pitlane then or now.

 

If and when he had convinced himself that the Williams , which clearly was generating signifcantly higher downforce, was running indeed also stiffer, then he would either need to go down that route himself - which would mean a stiffer (and heavier) structure to support the stiffer suspension - or he would need to separate the aero loads from the conventional chassis and its suspension.

 

In the event, he did both within 18 months, and got around the weight issue by making the new chassis in composites, in house, and with minimal tooling.

 

Nothing strange about any of that.

 

Peter

 

Thanks. I should have written: 'I find strange...' Or: 'It amazes ME...'

 

Obviously I did not mean that for better informed people it should be as strange...

[PeterElleray]

I think the best way of summing this up is to say that the 79 was stiff enough to support the level of aero load generated in 1978 to make it the class of the field, but not stiff enough (by some margin) to be able to support any significant increase over that level into 1979.

 

The Ligier, Williams, and Brabham were, and not only in their chassis. Those cars had stiffer sidepods, and more effective skirt systems (stiffer, better articulation and less prone to jam).

 

Looking forwards to the blog on the 88, will we be getting one on the 80/81 also?

 

Peter

[essjay]

I think the best way of summing this up is to say that the 79 was stiff enough to support the level of aero load generated in 1978 to make it the class of the field, but not stiff enough (by some margin) to be able to support any significant increase over that level into 1979.

The Ligier, Williams, and Brabham were, and not only in their chassis. Those cars had stiffer sidepods, and more effective skirt systems (stiffer, better articulation and less prone to jam).

Looking forwards to the blog on the 88, will we be getting one on the 80/81 also?

Peter

Probably not. My intent with the blog was really to pick eventful moments in my father's career and document them. The next blog is probably the most technical one I will write, but the story is really to highlight a very exciting and innovative time in F1 that my father was able to be part of.
I'm nervous now to think you'll be reading it! 😳

[PeterElleray]

Will be interested to read this, as i dont think i have ever seen Peter's  take on the 88 saga.

 

Peter

[Nemo1965]

Will be interested to read this, as i dont think i have ever seen Peter's  take on the 88 saga.

 

Peter

 

Second that. I remember once seeing a video of Goodwood, where a ex-Lotus mechanic eyed a beautifully restored 88 and grumbled: 'Same effort with a 91 and you have a proper running car.' I always wondered if with some more time and money the 88 (and the Ligier JS 19 for that matter) could have run with more success... The Lotus 88 is still my favourite F1 car all of time (and it got some stiff opposition).

[PeterElleray]

but not stiff suspension...

[Nemo1965]

but not stiff suspension...

 

Of course I was aware of the possible pun when I wrote 'some stiff opposition'.

[RStock]

Great story. I recall one from Dr Postelthwaite from around the same time about sneaking into Williams garage one night to take measuments of the Williams. The German Gp I believe.

[essjay]

It's only taken two months for me to encourage (well badger) my father to check the technical facts!  It's now been turned into 2 posts, with the next one due out next week!  Hope you enjoy it

 

The first carbon fibre monocoque in F1 - http://www.allinspor...ght-innovation/

[kayemod]

The first carbon fibre monocoque in F1 - http://www.allinspor...ght-innovation/

 

Not aware of any connection between the two companies, but the first McLaren MP4 moulded carbon monocoque was produced for them by Hercules Aerospace not Lockheed.

[essjay]

Not aware of any connection between the two companies, but the first McLaren MP4 moulded carbon monocoque was produced for them by Hercules Aerospace not Lockheed.

 

I was told that they were the same company, as I had also read the name Hercules in my research.  I will keep checking :)a

[essjay]

Will be interested to read this, as i dont think i have ever seen Peter's  take on the 88 saga.

 

Peter

 

 

Second that. I remember once seeing a video of Goodwood, where a ex-Lotus mechanic eyed a beautifully restored 88 and grumbled: 'Same effort with a 91 and you have a proper running car.' I always wondered if with some more time and money the 88 (and the Ligier JS 19 for that matter) could have run with more success... The Lotus 88 is still my favourite F1 car all of time (and it got some stiff opposition).

 

 

Part 2 of Foresight & Innovation is now up.  Hope you enjoy it  http://www.allinspor...story/part-two/