359 replies to this topic

[f1steveuk]

I've been going through a box of 1970's piccies, all F1, and all curiously profile shots, there are some enormous air boxes to be seen, The first Ligier, the Hill Lola T370, the Lyncar (that seems to be following me at the moment). Now the Hill one is very tall, but very flat, and hence has a slot of an intake. The Lyncar is tall fat and has a triangular intake, whereas the Ligier "tea pot" is just plane huge, with a silly little intake.

So who actually made the biggest air box, and which one actually delivered the most air to it's engine. To my mind the best solution was Gordon Murray's approach on the BT44 or the Kojima approach. Your opinions please!!

[philippe7]

It might have looked silly, but the airbox of the first Ligier JS5 was notoriously extremely efficient in terms of improving the engine performance ( and the airflow to the rear wing, too...) , it was designed with the help of aerodynamicists, wind-tunnel and all at a time when it wasn't so common to use them . The fact that it had to be dropped after a few early races of the 1976 season due to the enforcement of new rules was generally blamed in the french press for the sudden drop of performance the car suddenly seemed to suffer . There was even some strong criticism expressed as to why the designers had spent so much energy in designing an airbox that they knew was only going to last a few months, instead of working from the start on an efficient long-term solution ( the way the airbox was shortened to compell with the rules did not indeed look like a very professional job...from an aesthetic point of view it was a disaster, and what is ugly often turns out to be inefficient .....)

[MCS]

I would be very surprised if the Ligier "flying teapot" isn't the biggest.

But maybe we could consider the original air box on the F5000 Lola T400 - so large, heavy and cumbersome that it was originally strapped on (as well as screwed on!) by VDS before they started to use just the black air box "insert" and, often, no air box at all.

I'm sure I can also remember a F5000 Eagle at about the same time having a Ligier-like contraption - think it was when Jorgensen Steel were sponsors.

[Teapot]

I think many of the Can-Am single-seaters could compete for the prize...

Anyway..., back to F1, what about THIS later example (AGS JH 22, 1987)? Maybe not the biggest, for sure one of the weirdest!

You can have a look to F1 Rejects' page about Pascal Fabre, too : http://f1rejects.com...ture-index.html

[Rainer Nyberg]

Yes, the 1987 AGS JH22 didn't win any beauty contests...

But with a much neater air-intake, looks improved considerably...!


From F1-rejects.com

[Twin Window]

The biggest, as in tallest, surely must be a tie between the Lola T370 and the Finotto-entered BT42 (also from the 1974 season) as driven by Gerard Larrousse and Carlo Facetti...





...although it's fair to say that at least the Lola's appeared *integrated*!

Well, sort of.

[f1steveuk]

the BT42 one should have put a bit of air down the trumpets!!!!! litres of the stuff!!

[philippe charuest]

most f5000 of the same period 74-76 were using big airbox too and many were very ugly

[Barry Boor]

Excuse me but were not ALL airboxes ugly?

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Excuse me but were not ALL airboxes ugly?

No - I think some of the '72-4 cars with airboxes looked rather good. I'm thinking BRM P160/180/201, works BT42/44 (not the Larrousse monstrosity above!), Shadow DN1, Tyrrell 006, Ferrari 312T, Hesketh 308... but that's about it ;)

I must admit that the '76 regs made the cars look somewhat better, or at least got rid of some of the excesses.

Airboxes were wrong in some formulae, mind. Two-litre F2, where on four-cylinder cars they stuck out asymmetrically, and I've always loathed the air-restrictor in F3... and for that matter the piddly little periscopes that FF2000 cars often used to spout - a bit like the "ugly" version of the AGS in fact!)

[bill moffat]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Excuse me but were not ALL airboxes ugly?

March 721, probably the closest to an attractive airbox ?

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

...and on the other side of the coin...

My friends and I were impressed by the small airbox in the debut of the Vel's/Parnelli car driven by Mario A. in the '74 Canadian GP at Mosport. While all other entries had towering boxes, the low intake on the VP made the entire car look positively minute by comparison.

[Rainer Nyberg]

Talking about airboxes, I was thinking about how much "boost" they actually provide?
What boost levels are possible? Surely only tenths of a bar?

Does anyone have such information?

[biercemountain]

I was first introduced to F1 during the heyday of the big airbox and therefore have a certain positive nostalgia about them. I was frankly a bit disappointed when they were banned. In particular, I thought the Ferrari 312T was a stunning piece of machinery.

[simonlewisbooks]

Originally posted by philippe charuest
most f5000 of the same period 74-76 were using big airbox too and many were very ugly

True and as a indication of their questionable value as a performance enhancer in the days pre wind-tunnel. It seems half the grid ran with them and the other half without!
In some cases (VDS and Shellsport 208 for instance) the same car would appear with a monster airbox one weekend and none the next!

Add the Lotus 72 to the list of good looking airboxes. A piece of art with that JPS gold piping.

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

[Huw Jadvantich]

In tests with and without I am told that they certainly proved effective.
What is really interesting in terms of their effectiveness is not the physical size or exterior shape, but the interior surfaces and their shape.
Clearly Ligier had worked on the exterior size and shape and made a good job of it -but who knows what they did to the inside of it?
Both Lotus and March air boxs actually slimmed considerably before they met the inlet trupmpets, as did a number of the F5000 examples. There is something in this, but I am not entirely sure that biggest is best, the Hill Lolas for example, and that rather interesting device on the Finotto car.
Improving the flow by ram effect certainly has an advanage up to a point, but its what you do with the ram I believe was where the science started and the 'suck it and see' (if you will excuse the pun) showed up. Subsequent cars with low air boxes could not hope to control the inlet air in a more efficient manner, given the space constraints. I have no idea why they were banned other than they offended the aesthetic tastes of some individuals, (In which case all F1 cars should be banned today) can't see a sensible reason for it at all, they made great billboards and an excellent way for spectators to identify cars. It also prevented a harmless technical evolution.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks
Add the Lotus 72 to the list of good looking airboxes. A piece of art with that JPS gold piping.

Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

Thank you for that accolade Simon, I can take some of the credit there, and it was known in-house at the time as 'the anvil'. Much of the reason that 1972 JPS Lotus 72 box looked so good was the upward slope to the rear. Can't remember whose idea that was, but if I claim it was mine, I don't think there's anyone left alive to contradict me. They changed the regs on wings & airboxes from the 76 Spanish GP, and some of the hastily contrived low-line replacements looked most ungainly, they were no longer big, but some of them sure were ugly, and if they slowed the cars at all, it was probably only as a result of impaired airflow to rear wings. Ugliest of the lot for me was the strange periscope device on the Tyrrell P34. We'd get more mileage out of this thread if we change it to 'world's ugliest airbox'.

[RTH]

http://img456.images.../5057/723rc.jpg[/IMG]

[Mohican]

The best-looking airbox of all was surely the twin set-up of the original Brabham-Alfa Romeo BT45 in early 1976.

Having said that, I personally thought the ban on airboxes higher than the rollover bar produced both prettier cars (Ferrari 312 T3, Wolf WR1) and uglier ones (Tyrrell P34, McLaren M23 & M26).

In my opnion it is a pity that they were reintroduced. I appreciate that they give more advertising space, but it is still a pity. But then I find high noses and kick-ups ugly as well.

[Twin Window]

This dreadful pic just about shows the Lotus 72 airbox I used to own.



The difference in quality between tha various bits was quite an eye-opener; the Lotus airbox was really well made and had sculptured 'innerds' and a foam-lined orifice for each of the eight trumpets. In contrast, the March 721X one was tinny and 'bare' inside with no channeling for the incoming air.

It was the same with the nosecones too; the Tyrrell on was rigid and full of internal bracing, but the BRM P160D one was floppy and empty.

[philippe charuest]

[philippe charuest]

thats the inside part of the ligier airbox, like phillipe7 already mention the ligier airbox was the produce of an extensive wind tunnel testing done by Choulet and not only for the outside . the objective to obtain with the airbox is not to create a boost but a non-turbulent area for the intake. and at the same time to not create turbulence that will reduce the efficiency of the back wing. and yes some were pretty some ugly but most were completely innefective

[Twin Window]

I forget who posted this a while back, but it just ain't the same is it?

[f1steveuk]

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
Talking about airboxes, I was thinking about how much "boost" they actually provide?
What boost levels are possible? Surely only tenths of a bar?

Does anyone have such information?

Well when Lole's BT44 air box decided to split in two (Argentina??) in 1974, Brabham said that's what cost him the race, I recall the magazines of the time said it was a drop of 5hp (.5 at most I would have thought) but it's hardly supercharger boast is it?

[philippe charuest]

exactly if the air "tranquiliser" box was working properly it just meant that they were able to have about the same power then on the dyno (at the same altitude) ,meaning no lost of power cause of the turbulences in the intake area

[Pablo Vignone]

Lole Reutemann did not lost the 1974 Argentine Grand Prix because of the airbox trouble. The real cause was the mechanics forget to fill the last gasoline tin into the tank, so the car run with 18 gallons less than it could.
That was because the car has a problem with a rear tyre after the warm up, and the team had to change the whole suspension including the tyre. In the mess-up, they simply forgot... The airbox trouble, in fact, contributed to the car lasting until the last lap.

[RTH]

Originally posted by Twin Window

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by RTH

David Render?

[Twin Window]

Ex-David McLaughlin, I think.

[f1steveuk]

Originally posted by Pablo Vignone
Lole Reutemann did not lost the 1974 Argentine Grand Prix because of the airbox trouble. The real cause was the mechanics forget to fill the last gasoline tin into the tank, so the car run with 18 gallons less than it could.
That was because the car has a problem with a rear tyre after the warm up, and the team had to change the whole suspension including the tyre. In the mess-up, they simply forgot... The airbox trouble, in fact, contributed to the car lasting until the last lap.

I stand corrected, thanks!

Strangely I am lead to believe by a chum that works in MOTO GP, that the induction pipes on the bikes feed an air box, thus feeding the engine "still" air, which apperently is more effective, rather than a ram effect.

Best looking air boxes, I'd go for Tyrrell 006/2 (with the tail piece removed), Ferrari 312T, Shadow DN1,
March 731 (the STP one) BRM P201, .................................oh I'll have to get a book out and look!

[Teapot]

I think the Williams Fw13 's airbox could be considered the last in the line of old style 'boxes... back in 1990 I loved its individualistic shape (well, I was only 11...it was the biggest airbox I had ever seen!), although the car itself wasn't really a beauty...

[simonlewisbooks]

Originally posted by f1steveuk


Best looking air boxes, .... Shadow DN1

Definately. The whole car, especially in the black UOP colours, was the very pinacle of sleek, swoopy, elegant 1970s F1 style. The whole look of the car really works a treat - much better than the chassis ever seemed to , unfortunately...




Simon Lewis
Transport Books
www.simonlewis.com

[WHITE]

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks


Definately. The whole car, especially in the black UOP colours, was the very pinacle of sleek, swoopy, elegant 1970s F1 style. www.simonlewis.com

I also liked the Fittipaldi FD02 / O3 airbox

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks


Definately. The whole car, especially in the black UOP colours, was the very pinacle of sleek, swoopy, elegant 1970s F1 style. The whole look of the car really works a treat - much better than the chassis ever seemed to , unfortunately...

Tony Southgate rarely produced gurners. The problem was (apparently) that he underestimated just how fierce the vibration from a DFV was... pity the Shadow-Matra linkup was so fleeting.

[Keir]

I used an airbox of sorts on my Vee in the 80's. It was a stainless steel pipe from the filling line of a mayonaise factory !!! It did work !!!

[philippe charuest]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Tony Southgate rarely produced gurners. The problem was (apparently) that he underestimated just how fierce the vibration from a DFV was... pity the Shadow-Matra linkup was so fleeting.

the dn1 was in some way of the same school then the last BRM he did in 72 with the radiator at the back and a maximum of weight on the rear wheel . im pretty sure that the rear wing wasnt working so well. the matra flirt came later in 75 and like you said it wasnt very serious specially on the shadow side

[f1steveuk]

Originally posted by Twin Window
This dreadful pic just about shows the Lotus 72 airbox I used to own.



The difference in quality between tha various bits was quite an eye-opener; the Lotus airbox was really well made and had sculptured 'innerds' and a foam-lined orifice for each of the eight trumpets. In contrast, the March 721X one was tinny and 'bare' inside with no channeling for the incoming air.

It was the same with the nosecones too; the Tyrrell on was rigid and full of internal bracing, but the BRM P160D one was floppy and empty.

Why torture yourself Stuart. If I were you, that picture would be way down at the bottom of the box, I wouldn't be able to look at it. You have my sympathy

[Ninja2b]

Originally posted by f1steveuk

Strangely I am lead to believe by a chum that works in MOTO GP, that the induction pipes on the bikes feed an air box, thus feeding the engine "still" air, which apperently is more effective, rather than a ram effect.

I am currently doing my PhD in the optimisation of automotive airboxes, and can confirm that this is one of the most frequently misundersttod aspects of airbox performance. Many believe that the airbox should speed the air up, to 'ram' it into the cylinders more quickly, but as your friend pointed out, this is not true.



The airbox tries to slow the air down to as low a velocity as possible. This results in the air having a higher pressure, increasing the pressure difference between inlet and cylinder and so pushes more air into the cylinder. Apologies to those who know all this, but I am just chuffed that my studies are actually relevant to a discussion!

One of the other main difficulties with airbox design is to try to ensure that all the cylinders get the same airflow into them. If you look at the Lola T370 and The lotus 72 with the horribly ugly airbox, you can see that for the air to flow in the inlet and fill the 'front' cylinder pair it would have to change direction very quickly... this probably didn't happen and so the front cylinders probably ran rich because they didn't get enough air.

The ligier airbox posted by philippe charuest looks like a much better design - the air changes direction relatviely gradually and then feeds a plenum at the bottom of the duct. Although this would probably still cause the front and back cylinder pairs to run rich, the problem wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the other two I mentioned.

[RTH]

Very interesting, that makes good sense.

Now it would be good to see them outlawed completely the reduce even slightly the massively excessive horse power and remove something which has been aesthically hideous in what ever form right from day one. The purity of the original Lotus 49 in this area is visually vastly more pleasing.

[WGD706]

"Airboxes first made an appearance in about 1974 as Formula One cars started to evolve into the shape we know today, but by 1978 they were gone. The ground effects cars of the late 70's made certain aerodynamic demands on the cars, but none that should have precluded the use of over head airboxes. In truth, early airboxes were used for engine cooling. By the late 70's Formula One cars were achieving the same effect by having the tops of the engines protruding from the chassis.

What the airbox achieves in modern Grand Prix cars is a mild supercharging effect - the tunnel from the intake rams air into the engine at a greater pressure than would otherwise be achieved. But the effect is not great - enough only to make it necessary to have it. In 1995 the FIA thought that 'puncturing' the air box would have a significant effect on engine power in the constant quest to reduce speeds. Before the season finished they tossed the idea aside - the difference wasn't enough to be worthwhile. Plus it would rob teams of revenue as the airbox is a highly visible part of the car. Not to mention that, without the airbox, where would the FIA mount the TV camera? "
http://atlasf1.autos...review/faq.html

[philippe charuest]

air boxes have start in 70-71 ,but they change the rule about them in 1976(spanish GP) they were not forbiden its just that from now on the maximum height was 85cm from the bottom of ther car ,and that rule still exist now ,its one of the rare rule who didnt change in the last 30 years

[f1steveuk]

Originally posted by WGD706
"Airboxes first made an appearance in about 1974 as Formula One cars started to evolve into the shape we know today, but by 1978 they were gone. The ground effects cars of the late 70's made certain aerodynamic demands on the cars, but none that should have precluded the use of over head airboxes. In truth, early airboxes were used for engine cooling. By the late 70's Formula One cars were achieving the same effect by having the tops of the engines protruding from the chassis.

What the airbox achieves in modern Grand Prix cars is a mild supercharging effect - the tunnel from the intake rams air into the engine at a greater pressure than would otherwise be achieved. But the effect is not great - enough only to make it necessary to have it. In 1995 the FIA thought that 'puncturing' the air box would have a significant effect on engine power in the constant quest to reduce speeds. Before the season finished they tossed the idea aside - the difference wasn't enough to be worthwhile. Plus it would rob teams of revenue as the airbox is a highly visible part of the car. Not to mention that, without the airbox, where would the FIA mount the TV camera? "
http://atlasf1.autos...review/faq.html

Where did that quote come from?? Air boxes, Lotus 72, 1970, and I'm sure before that by some months. Cooling? then surely they wouldn't have be tailored so closely to the injection trumpets?, reduced in height by regulation in 1976, so not gone, but I agree they have a lot to do with advertising space!!

The current use for the airbox is secondary to their primary use as part of the anti roll over hoops (or was). OBC cameras, are fitted to anything that doesn't vibrate too much!!!

[Barry Boor]

Airboxes first made an appearance in about 1974

Definitely before that.

Here's one I made earlier.....

[WGD706]

Just quoting what Mark Alan Jones of Australia wrote back in the 1999 Atlas Formula One Journal of FAQ.

[f1steveuk]

Originally posted by WGD706
Just quoting what Mark Alan Jones of Australia wrote back in the 1999 Atlas Formula One Journal of FAQ.

Didn't research that much did he!!!? Mind you I keep going from memory and shouldn't!

Barry, what age is your air box?

[Twin Window]

I first came across this photo in Autosprint a couple of years ago, and have just re-found it.



At first glance I thought it was a prototype for the 'tall airbox-ban' 1976 car. I suppose it is; except that this photo was shot in late-August 1974 - it's a 312B3...!

That makes this test approximately 20 months prior to Ferrari's first use of a similar configuration of ram-air induction on their race cars; and that was on the T2 - their second version of the 312B3's replacement!

[f1steveuk]

It took me two glances, then I saw the side pods! Interesting. I remember a head on shot of "Regga" with a huge full width intake in much the same postion, but that was a T2 I think (?) but this? Looks like an attempt to get air to that big cord concave rear wing that Ferrari made so well.

Fab picture, just look at those rear tyres!! And as an aside, one of those helmets is on Ebay for £99!!

[Twin Window]

Originally posted by f1steveuk

And as an aside, one of those helmets is on Ebay for £99!!

Erm, yeah... except that's a motorcycle helmet, Steve.

Jeb's made a very nice Regga look-alike which, amongst other major differences, didn't feature the Swiss cross - the one you're referring to has had that added, plus a [completely unnecessary] pinstripe round the visor.

One of our fellow members (who shall remain nameless ;) ) 'won' the last Regga replica on eBay... at GBP 535! When it was pointed out to him that it wasn't really a 1978 as-used-by-Regazzoni-in-races lid (as it was described as being), he managed to get out of the deal...

[f1steveuk]

I consider myself educated, I didn't know they did a bike version. Ebay needs to be looked at very very carefully!

[FerrariV12]

As an aside, does anyone think airboxes have gotten uglier since around 1996-97? The trend of "sticky out" airboxes started by Williams and Jordan in 1997 looks much uglier than earlier solutions that were more integrated into the roll hoop, IMO.