Jump to content


Photo

Amon AF101 (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#1 ghinzani

ghinzani
  • Member

  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 28 July 2003 - 19:01

OK so I was reading the Autospurt article about the launch of this car last night and it stated that the fuel was all held behind the driver in one central cell as all cars have generally since the start of the ground effect era (with exceptions like the Ligier from 1988). My question is was this the first f1 car so built? If so why did it take so long for someone to do this seeing as it seems such a sensible option (given the fact you can protect it better with deformable structures)? Also was there any advantage in having fuel slung out in sidepod pontoons etc?

Thanks

Advertisement

#2 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,214 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:12

The Amon AF101 didn't work very well and maybe that was one of the reasons for the delay in everyone else putting the fuel in a central location.

As for putting fuel in other locations, that was always a case of "Where else would we put it?"

#3 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,882 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:15

Originally posted by ghinzani
OK so I was reading the Autospurt article about the launch of this car last night and it stated that the fuel was all held behind the driver in one central cell as all cars have generally since the start of the ground effect era (with exceptions like the Ligier from 1988). My question is was this the first f1 car so built? If so why did it take so long for someone to do this seeing as it seems such a sensible option (given the fact you can protect it better with deformable structures)? Also was there any advantage in having fuel slung out in sidepod pontoons etc?

Thanks


I must admit, I can't think of an earlier one...but I'm sure someone here will.

My first thought when the car appeared was that it was a more dangerous configuration because it moved the driver further forward, but F1 cars got a lot worse in that respect a few years later.

An excuse for some more of my grotty old snaps.....

Posted Image

Posted Image

#4 ghinzani

ghinzani
  • Member

  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:19

Originally posted by David Beard




My first thought when the car appeared was that it was a more dangerous configuration because it moved the driver further forward, but F1 cars got a lot worse in that respect a few years later.


Thats a good point - even the supposedly solid Lec of that era couldnt withstand the sort of frontal impact that carbon tubs do these days...

#5 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,214 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:55

David,
Nice shots!!
....and very close up!! You can't do that any longer!!! :(

If you have any more, the Amon thread could use some!! :p

#6 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:56

Originally posted by ghinzani
OK so I was reading the Autospurt article about the launch of this car last night and it stated that the fuel was all held behind the driver in one central cell as all cars have generally since the start of the ground effect era (with exceptions like the Ligier from 1988). My question is was this the first f1 car so built?

I would think that most F1 cars of the fifties had all the fuel in one cell behind the driver!

In the seventies, there was a rule that didn't allow all fuel to be contained in one cell - I believe the maximum for one cell was to be 80 litres!?

#7 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 947 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 28 July 2003 - 21:33

Originally posted by fines

In the seventies, there was a rule that didn't allow all fuel to be contained in one cell - I believe the maximum for one cell was to be 80 litres!?


Correct. Chapman had to persuade the FIA to delete that rule in 1978, otherwise the Lotus 79 would have been illegal.

#8 ghinzani

ghinzani
  • Member

  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 29 July 2003 - 06:55

Originally posted by dolomite


Correct. Chapman had to persuade the FIA to delete that rule in 1978, otherwise the Lotus 79 would have been illegal.


Does that mean the Lotus 77 & 78 from 76 & 77 respectively didnt have all their fuel behind the driver? I thought that as they were the test-car and original respectively of ground effect they would at least have their fuel in one place?

Great info everyone btw, thanks - Good point Fines about the 50's cars - was'nt it slung out in pontoons on the Lancia d50 soemwhat different to all the rest?

#9 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 29 July 2003 - 10:17

With regard to central fuel location, the V16 Auto Union predates anything so far mentioned.

#10 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 947 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 July 2003 - 18:24

Originally posted by ghinzani


Does that mean the Lotus 77 & 78 from 76 & 77 respectively didnt have all their fuel behind the driver? I thought that as they were the test-car and original respectively of ground effect they would at least have their fuel in one place?

Great info everyone btw, thanks - Good point Fines about the 50's cars - was'nt it slung out in pontoons on the Lancia d50 soemwhat different to all the rest?


I'm not sure about the 77, but the 78 certainly had fuel tanks in the side pods.

Here is a quote from Mr Nye's big green book:

"One major objective (of the 79) was to improve airflow through the side panniers, and to achieve this the outboard fuel tanks and rear suspension spring/dampers of the Type 78 were deleted. Formula 1 regulations had set an 80-litre maximum capacity for individual fuel cells, but now Chapman wanted to concentrate his entire fuel load in a single cell buried far from threat, deep in the rear of the tub. Application was made for the 80-litre limit to be waived, and the new 79 accommodated all its fuel in one single rear-tub cell between engine and driver. In an early design scheme, however, two tanks were drawn here."

#11 Cirrus

Cirrus
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 29 July 2003 - 20:30

Siting the fuel tank behind the driver has many technical advantages (minimal disruption to cg as fuel load diminishes etc), but it was also responsible for puhing the driver to the very front of the car, and causing some horrendous injuries in both F1 and Indy, until the "feet behind the front axle line" and foot box crush structure rules were instigated. Contemporary pictures of the '79 and '80 Ferraris sans bodywork are particularly revealing.

Unfortunately a walk around the paddock at certain UK club meetings today shows that some current single seaters also fall well short of sensible safety standards where crash protection is concerned

#12 ghinzani

ghinzani
  • Member

  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 August 2003 - 23:51

Originally posted by Cirrus
Siting the fuel tank behind the driver has many technical advantages (minimal disruption to cg as fuel load diminishes etc), but it was also responsible for puhing the driver to the very front of the car, and causing some horrendous injuries in both F1 and Indy, until the "feet behind the front axle line" and foot box crush structure rules were instigated. Contemporary pictures of the '79 and '80 Ferraris sans bodywork are particularly revealing.

Unfortunately a walk around the paddock at certain UK club meetings today shows that some current single seaters also fall well short of sensible safety standards where crash protection is concerned


I thought the feet behind front axle line rule applied to all single seaters now??

#13 Cirrus

Cirrus
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 04 August 2003 - 07:34

Current Jedis still have the driver well forward, exploiting a loophole where a car derived from an older design does not have to comply with the "behind the axle" rule.

#14 richie

richie
  • Member

  • 412 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 11:38

I saw a thread, can't remember where, asking where the Amon F1 is situated.
I've found a short article captioned 'Formula 1 cars that time forgot'.

As of 1997 the car bearing Amon's name is "languishing is Germany's Nurburgring museum, every bit as static as it was for most of its short F1 career".

4 F1 entries 2 x non qualify Germany and Italy, retirement in Spain, having qualified in 23rd and withdrawn in Monaco because of a hub failure.

#15 MCS

MCS
  • Member

  • 3,530 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 20:45

Unless I'm mistaken, Bob Howlings had it for sale as a rolling chassis many, many years ago...

Bored one afternoon, I even enquired, but couldn't get to speak with anybody who would give me a price...

BUT, were there one or two chassis? Surely only one...

MCS

richie - when are you going to post your F5000 pics?

#16 Jeremy Jackson

Jeremy Jackson
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 15 February 2004 - 21:11

Wasn't it in the museum at the Nürburgring?

It was circa 1996, so I would guess that it still is?

#17 Mohican

Mohican
  • Member

  • 732 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 16 February 2004 - 12:26

But it was a nice baby blue colour !

#18 Michael Oliver

Michael Oliver
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 16 February 2004 - 21:15

Originally posted by Jeremy Jackson
Wasn't it in the museum at the Nürburgring?

It was circa 1996, so I would guess that it still is?


I would be surprised if it is still there, simply because I *hope* that I would have noticed it when I have been round there, which is several times in the past three or four years. That said, I have been know to miss things before :D

#19 Jeremy Jackson

Jeremy Jackson
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 16 February 2004 - 22:23

Michael,

The photo I have of it from 1996 shows Derichs Rennwagen logos on the nose, so maybe it was on loan, and Erwin Derichs owns it?

The photo shows it alongside the Zakspeed-Yamaha.

Advertisement

#20 Michael Oliver

Michael Oliver
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 19 February 2004 - 22:26

Originally posted by Jeremy Jackson
Michael,

The photo I have of it from 1996 shows Derichs Rennwagen logos on the nose, so maybe it was on loan, and Erwin Derichs owns it?

The photo shows it alongside the Zakspeed-Yamaha.


Jeremy

I have a strong recollection of a conversation with someone (why don't I write these things down!) to the effect that the car had come back to the UK and one of the well-known car dealers had bought it (Roger Cowman rings a bell here) but had found it so ugly that he decided to sell it on and that it was now in the US. Of course, this could all just be senility kicking in somewhat earlier than expected - can anybody help me out here?!

Michael

#21 Jeremy Jackson

Jeremy Jackson
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 19 February 2004 - 22:48

Thanks Michael,

My info. was 8 years old anyway... Must admit I didn't think it was that ugly, I quite liked it actually!

Hope it's got a good home!

#22 Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 29 July 2005 - 22:53

I missed the thread on the AMON F1. I rescued the car from a potting shed in Woldingham in 1983. The tub was fine but the front suspension had been left in an open garage under sacking and was all rusty. Some of the back suspension was missing. I put the car back together as there were lots of bits, for John Dalton. I still have two front suspension roll pins. John told me Gordon Fowell retained had all the original drawings.
The front brakes were dreadful, many two bolt straps holding on the disc if I remember. Prone to virbration. The side radiators were huge! Not like the originals.
If they make it run again I hope people will not insist it's to this or that spec just make it run properly.

#23 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 29 July 2005 - 23:17

Looking at what others have done to so-called 'original' cars to make them more competitive, I think you should teer a tight line between originality anf making it run and behave properly.

If, and it is a big IF, you only use technology available in period, i.e. no carbon fibre, etc, then it's OK in my book.

The historic racing world would be the richer for having the Amon racing. Provided it wasn't 'developed' as much as, say, a certain Alvis saloon!

But I am a mere spectator who wouldn't recognise a blatant fake unless it had 'fake' written on it in large letters. :)

#24 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,214 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 24 February 2006 - 15:27

The restored Amon AF101 was supposed to be at the recent Stoneleigh show.

Pics, anyone ?????

#25 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 24 February 2006 - 16:00

So recent it starts today :lol:

#26 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 February 2006 - 19:05

Someone's sure to have taken some. It looks very nice, and is turned out in the conventional narrow nose-plus-fins configuration.

Last night it was wheeled in behind a Matra 670C... :love:

#27 MCS

MCS
  • Member

  • 3,530 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 24 February 2006 - 19:42

Is it just me, but can I sense certain TNFers becoming absolutely fraught with the expectation of seeing pictures of the car? :rotfl:

(Include me amongst them!)

#28 Gary C

Gary C
  • Member

  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 24 February 2006 - 20:22

look out for 'Yesterday's Racers' volume 3, and you'll see some video of it too!

#29 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2006 - 23:16

Posted Image

#30 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:51

Great shot!!!
Just wish you'd asked somebody to move than sign away for a couple of seconds.
Thanks anyway !!

#31 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,659 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 25 February 2006 - 10:40

Originally posted by macoran
Great shot!!!
Just wish you'd asked somebody to move than sign away for a couple of seconds.
Thanks anyway !!


When I visited the stand the sign was behind the left front wheel! It was later moved to where it is in Tim's excellent shot. Unfortunately you couldn't get a shot fron the other side due to other clutter on the stand!

:confused:

#32 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 25 February 2006 - 10:48

Some people (who me ??) move signs around to get a better shot.

#33 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,659 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 25 February 2006 - 13:56

Originally posted by macoran
Some people (who me ??) move signs around to get a better shot.


My only critism of Stoneleigh is that the stands are not very deep. So if you have an unimaginative group of people setting up the stand then the more modern F1 cars are way too long to fit at right angles. As for moving the sign well ....... :yawn:

#34 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,800 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:21

Posted Image

Posted Image

#35 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,800 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:25

Posted Image

Couldn't get the whole car in picture...and I'm not keen on the paintjob, unless anyone can point me to a contemporary source with "AMON" in that size lettering (& the other stickers)...

#36 Ruairidh

Ruairidh
  • Member

  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:37

It is, er, very shiny. Was it really like that when it was new?

#37 Gary C

Gary C
  • Member

  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:39

funnily enough, that's what we said !!!

#38 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,800 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:58

Originally posted by Ruairidh
It is, er, very shiny. Was it really like that when it was new?

Might be the flash...not the greatest shutterbug in the world...

#39 MCS

MCS
  • Member

  • 3,530 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 25 February 2006 - 22:06

Originally posted by Ruairidh
It is, er, very shiny. Was it really like that when it was new?


Certainly have to wonder. The "Amon" bit seems odd in the extreme, to my memory anyway.

Gary and Ensign may have further thoughts, having been and seen as it were...

Advertisement

#40 JSF

JSF
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 25 February 2006 - 22:08

I dont think they have perfected the "new paint with 1970 grime included" process at Sikkens yet. :lol: The Amon looks lovely.

Hope you liked the McLaren M1C oposite. :)

#41 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 25 February 2006 - 23:43

Originally posted by macoran

Some people (who me ??) move signs around to get a better shot.

Most people have the courtesy to ask, and are then obliged...

#42 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 00:26

Didn't see any official looking chaps at the Donington museum to ask !!

#43 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,823 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:41

Having actually seen this rare bird at Monaco in 1974, I think I can be fairly certain when I say that it looks considerably better now than it did then.

Our group remarked along the same lines, but as Ensign says, I am sure the lights have a tendency to do that!

#44 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,188 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:36

:wave:

The name AMON has never been painted across the noise like that, it not the orginal rear wing and it never looked that smart.Colour looks original.

#45 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,823 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:40

There was much discussion regarding those AMON words.... we couldn't think what was in the mind of the man who did it!

#46 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,188 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:42

Originally posted by Tim Murray
Posted Image


Could't they afford a few more$ for the Rear View mirrors after all that plating and polishing.

#47 JSF

JSF
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:24

Maybe they chose not to fit any, because they were out of stock of period mirrors with DS11 brake dust on them. :yawn:

I dont know what some of you expected, but when you race prepare a historic race car, making the bodywork unshiny and as tatty as it ran in period is the last thing on your mind. The car is an Historic race car ready to be used in anger again, not a museum piece that is sat on the same tyres it left the circuit on.

#48 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:29

I don't see the "cutdown" in the back part of the cockpit surround
as original. Every Amon pic i've seen the top cockpit edge runs straight
all the way back.
I am also not satisfied that the radiator cowls are original enough, there
is no rake on the leading edge.

#49 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 February 2006 - 15:35

Here's the place for photos of all the different configurations in 1974:

http://www.webpark.c...logie/amon.html

Paul M

#50 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 16:07

Yes , like I said