21 replies to this topic

[Graham Clayton]

I was watching some footage of the 1970 Italian Grand Prix and noticed that several drivers (Stewart, Cevert & Brabham) ran in the race without any front or rear wings, in an attempt to maximise their speed in order to be competitive against the teams with 12-cylinder engines (Ferrari, Matra & BRM).

 

Have there been any other examples where teams have run cars without both rear wings and front aerofoils in Formula 1 Grand Prix races since the 1970 Italian Grand Prix?

[Michael Ferner]

Jo Bonnier 1971 Monza, from memory...

[Charlieman]

This is discussed in an earlier thread about early ground effects F1:

http://forums.autosp...rs-front-wings/

[kayemod]

I suspect that the most important thing removal of fins and wings at Monza 1970 tells us, is that most of these aerodynamic appendages were so ineptly and amateurishly designed that their effect was minimal. By removing them, there was a small improvement in performance, but there was certainly no sudden jump in lap times. I've never forgotten seeing some kind of elaborate "aerodynamic" engine cover with all kind of added fences etc on the scrap heap out the back on McLaren's place in Colnbrook back then. Someone, I suspect Alastair Caldwell, had written on it in bold felt-tip, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". That sums up much of  F1's1970s aerodynamic expertise.

[Rob G]

The Lotus 56B turbine car ran without wings at Monza in 1971.

[f1steveuk]

1971 and Monza would be my guess, I know Ronnie went wingless in the March 711

[Tim Murray]

Ronnie's March  (along with the other 711s)  ran without a front wing at Monza in 1971, but did have a (fairly vestigial) rear aerofoil .

[jj2728]

From memory (which fades after time), I can only think of 1970/71 as the only 2 years in which wings were removed.

[PCC]

I suspect that the most important thing removal of fins and wings at Monza 1970 tells us, is that most of these aerodynamic appendages were so ineptly and amateurishly designed that their effect was minimal. By removing them, there was a small improvement in performance, but there was certainly no sudden jump in lap times. I've never forgotten seeing some kind of elaborate "aerodynamic" engine cover with all kind of added fences etc on the scrap heap out the back on McLaren's place in Colnbrook back then. Someone, I suspect Alastair Caldwell, had written on it in bold felt-tip, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". That sums up much of  F1's1970s aerodynamic expertise.

And that's one of the reasons why I found the sport more interesting then than I do today. Nobody had any final answers and everybody came up with different solutions. Some worked, some didn't, some looked great and others just weird. But you could see the evidence of the human ingenuity and effort right in front of your eyes. Every car looked different because nobody knew the right answer.

 

The effort and ingenuity are still there, arguably more than ever. But everyone is so much closer to the optimum that the differences in designs are too subtle to be either apparent or interesting to a lot of people. Including me.

[kayemod]

And that's one of the reasons why I found the sport more interesting then than I do today. Nobody had any final answers and everybody came up with different solutions. Some worked, some didn't, some looked great and others just weird. But you could see the evidence of the human ingenuity and effort right in front of your eyes. Every car looked different because nobody knew the right answer.

 

The effort and ingenuity are still there, arguably more than ever. But everyone is so much closer to the optimum that the differences in designs are too subtle to be either apparent or interesting to a lot of people. Including me.

 

How true, wind tunnels have a great deal to answer for. Now we have a grid full of hideously ugly cars that even their designers would have trouble telling apart if they were all sprayed a uniform white.

[f1steveuk]

Ronnie's March  (along with the other 711s)  ran without a front wing at Monza in 1971, but did have a (fairly vestigial) rear aerofoil .

Indeed, though they tried it in practise without either, couldn't remember the race!

[David Wright]

I suspect that the most important thing removal of fins and wings at Monza 1970 tells us, is that most of these aerodynamic appendages were so ineptly and amateurishly designed that their effect was minimal. By removing them, there was a small improvement in performance, but there was certainly no sudden jump in lap times.

 

Its not that the appendages were ineffective, but like all wings they produced both downforce and drag.  Getting the best laptime at a particular circuit involves a trade-off between drag and downforce.  At Monza the trade-off favours low drag over downforce, especially in its chicane-less configuration used up to 1971.  In 1972 they introduced chicanes at Monza tipping the balance more towards downforce, and why I would suggest we no longer saw wingless cars.  But at Monza today, even with all the chicanes they've added, and even with the state of the art understanding of aerodynamics, F1 teams still adopt a low downforce low drag configuration.  

Edited by David Wright, 26 September 2015 - 16:37.

[kayemod]

Its not that the appendages were ineffective.

 

In many cases, I'd say that's exactly what they were, some designers didn't have a clue about aerodynamics. I remember talking to one back then who thought that all aerofoil sections worked the same, and he didn't really understand that with too great an angle of incidence, any wing will stall and produce nothing useful at all. All my aerodynamic knowledge in those days came from years of designing and flying model aircraft, which in that kind of company, must have made me "an expert".

[jj2728]

During practice for the '67 GP 'Blackie' tried a bubble canopy, but he deemed it too much of a distraction.

[kayemod]

During practice for the '67 GP 'Blackie' tried a bubble canopy, but he deemed it too much of a distraction.

 

As I recall, the reasons he gave for abandoning the idea were noise and reflections, no idea if it made the car faster. The same idea has been tried by others hasn't it?

[Roger Clark]

As I recall, the reasons he gave for abandoning the idea were noise and reflections, no idea if it made the car faster. The same idea has been tried by others hasn't it?

Vanwall, ten years earlier.

[David Wright]

In many cases, I'd say that's exactly what they were, some designers didn't have a clue about aerodynamics. I remember talking to one back then who thought that all aerofoil sections worked the same, and he didn't really understand that with too great an angle of incidence, any wing will stall and produce nothing useful at all. All my aerodynamic knowledge in those days came from years of designing and flying model aircraft, which in that kind of company, must have made me "an expert".

 

We may be at cross purposes.  I would certainly agree the wings of the time were not very efficient and aerodynamics were not well understood.  Indeed many rear wings were probably just acting as spoilers rather than wings.  But that doesn't mean they were ineffective i.e. had no effect.  Drivers who drove in this period certainly felt the wings had a noticeable effect on grip.

Edited by David Wright, 27 September 2015 - 08:11.

[Vitesse2]

I've always felt that the early lack of understanding of how wings worked is pretty much typified by this table, showing the practice times at Monaco in 1969, when the high wings were banned after the Thursday session had ended:

 

 

Only Hill - who could probably have driven Monaco in his sleep and proceeded to win anyway - and Ickx failed to improve. And I don't think you could accuse either of them of not trying on Thursday, given that they were second and third fastest behind Stewart.

[David Wright]

Monaco has primarily slow corners where wings give the least advantage.  The other issue is the track surface.  To quote Jackie Stewart in his book "World Champion" p105 about that race.

 

"We had no axe to grind on the wing controversy.  We were fastest with them and fastest without them, but the times we achieved on the first day were nothing like those which would have been achieved by the end of the weekend because the track was new.  Every year at Monte Carlo it takes a day or so to scrub the track in, because in some parts it is quite dusty and has no bite to it."

 

To quote Jackie Oliver (p106 of Lotus 49 by Michael Oliver) 

 

"the high wing just transformed the car completely.  You had aerodynamic grip on the car you couldn't imagine .."

Edited by David Wright, 27 September 2015 - 11:55.

[PeterElleray]

Good sources David.

 

My own take on this is that the original, strut mounted aerofoils , operating in clean air and transfering their download directly (in most cases)  onto the upright should have been very efficient indeed and there is no reason to question the two Jackie's comments.

 

The 'wings' which followed after the Monaco ban are a different story. Some of  the initial solutions - seen from Zandvoort onwards -  would have produced downforce with marginally better efficiency than a flat plate at incidence - some of them were effectively flat or slightly curved plates at incidence. Those fitted to the Lotus 49, Matra MS80, Brabham BT26 and the Ferrari looked pretty sensible and by the end of 1969 most of the major teams had followed suit.

 

But I think it took some time for the designers to get a handle on how to optimise them - insome cases into 1972 and even 1973 although as early as 1970 there are some decent looking installations .This chiefly by cleaning up the aeroflow onto and under them, and then by moving them back behind the tail of the gearbox.

 

In 1974 the rulebook was rewritten to limit the rear overhang to 1 metre and again in 1976 to 800mm.

 

Peter

[Vitesse2]

Probably didn't make myself clear: high wings were of course pretty useless at Monaco, but they used them anyway - an indication that while Jackie Oliver's impression was correct on fast circuits nobody seems to have understood that the same thing didn't necessarily apply everywhere. And JYS (or rather Eric Dimmock) was of course writing with the benefit of hindsight.

 

And this was also the same season that Lotus, Matra and McLaren spent large amounts of time and money developing 4WD while BRM, who had done the same five years before and rejected it as useless, sat back and watched.

 

1969 was a season full of ideas. But they weren't necessarily good ones!

[PeterElleray]

i think you're selling the designers a bit short there!

Those high wings would have had less of an effect at Monaco, as they would have added a lower percentage of vertical load to the tyres, but certainly not useless.

Its the opposite tradeoff to Monza (where we came in). If the logic used there was that the extra downforce was of less importance than the added drag, then at Monaco it was (and always has been ever since) that you add as much downforce as you can achieve and dont worry about the drag.

And that almost always is the fastest way around there.

So if the Monza balance favoured removing wings, Monaco favoured leaving them on.

An interesting aside to the relative importance of drag there  is that it was probably the only circuit used in 1969 where a flat plate might have worked tolerably well, and as well as some of the wings used from Zandvoort onwards, although still not as effective as the strutted wings, low average speed not withstanding.(except perhaps Montjuich Parkor St Jovite, although both race averages were between 15mph -20mph faster than Hills approx 80mph at Monaco?).

I think thats what we saw, and Stewarts remarks about the grip coming in on a street circuit are as relevant today as they were in 1969.

If the ban had comeone one race later  at Zandvoort i think it would have been a serious Teddy out of Pram situation.

(And whilst appreciating that BRM were by then running the v12, didnt the H16 have provision for a longitudinal driveshaft in the crankcase, incase 4WD was indeed required with 3 litres?)

 

Peter