Posted 23 September 2000 - 20:38
I then had a flashback to the CanAm series, I believe that Jim Halls's Chaparral had such as wing. Can anyone here confirm that? Was it sound engineering or just a gimmic?
btw this is my first post in this venerable forum .
Posted 23 September 2000 - 21:07
I remember Porsche used such wings at Le Mans some 30 years ago, where a moving wing was also beneficial, with the ultra long straight.
The logic in banning them?
Well, the most used logic for most technical advances is that ultimately everyone will copy the gimmick and then the benefit will be gone.
(The Brabham fan-car is one example)
Posted 23 September 2000 - 23:14
I still believe it could be done today and it could be done safely. It would really make a lot of sense for tracks like Indy. I would have thought that this would have been th etype of technology that F1 would embrace, no longer would wing setups have to be a compromise.
Posted 23 September 2000 - 23:43
Posted 25 September 2000 - 13:48
In those days the wings were mounted unsprung on the suspension and took all the loads that the road put through the tyres. The wings were also on very tall spindly legs with the aspect ratio of a flamingo.
The fact that they could be moved was perceived as potentially calamitous, and I tend to agree, that even today, if it was possible to re trim wings on the move, the tragic results would resemble the accidents that killed Bruce McLaren and Roland Ratzenberger.
Posted 25 September 2000 - 16:27
Mercedes-Benz used a movable aerodynamic device as early as in 1955. It wasn't exactly a wing but a huge airbrake similar to the ones seen in modern fighter planes. It was used on the 300SLR at the Swedish GP and at Le Mans.
Posted 25 September 2000 - 18:20
His 2A had a variable spoiler at the back, so when he used a wing on the 2E it was only natural that it should be movable as well.
Movable wings would certainly give an advantage to today's racing cars - Hockenheim and the new Indy circuit provide the classic dilemma with both high speed straights and twiddly bits.
Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:00
Take a look at the site John points out -- I haven't looked at it in awhile and was impressed by what is there. Still a sports car racer guy at heart, I guess. Oh, got to do a lap in a Porsche Carrera S/4 this weekend as the passenger in the pace car at Watkins Glen...I was impressed. Pete Argetsinger -- Mike of the Forum's brother -- did me the favor and I really enjoyed it!
Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:20
Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:36
As far as I know, you are correct. I still have my issue of Autosport showing the wings on the Ferrari and the Brabham. This was also the race where Brian Redman crashed and there was a scary picture in Autosport showing the moment the suspension collapsed...
And, yes, it was a great ride Peter gave me around the track. And I got to tell him that his Mom said hello, as well. She dropped by the library while was there. She said she loved the article.
I saw your comment on the attendance numbers for Indy: I thought there were far more than that at any German GP held at the Nurburgring since they built the thing -- I was sick and missed the 1954 race (which was to have been my first GP), but my Dad said they announced the attendance as about 350,000 which he did not doubt for a moment!
Posted 25 September 2000 - 21:24
Posted 25 September 2000 - 23:04
Posted 25 September 2000 - 23:08
Posted 26 September 2000 - 06:55
Posted 26 September 2000 - 07:30
Posted 26 September 2000 - 16:00
2) The 1969 M8's did have the high wing and there was -- at least initially -- some movement capability designed into it.
3) Also, remember the first GP/F1 "victim" of a wing collapsing?
4) Anyone remember the picture of Vic Elford playing WWI aviator with his wing? I think it was in Autosport, but I can't recall for sure, I will remember to check this evening.
Posted 26 September 2000 - 20:09
It was very much on the Chaparral principal, accept that it acted through the cetre of gravity of the car, rather than directly on the wheels.
Posted 01 October 2000 - 11:16
I well remember Lakeside in 1969... both Lotuses out with wings collapsed, yet Chaparall engineering was good enough that this never happened to them...
Posted 01 October 2000 - 22:35
Talking of wings (in this case not moveable), I remembered seeing a picture of G. Hill driving a Lotus 49B (1968., I belive) with front and rear wings (front wing being as high as rear). Can someone enlighten me on that matter?
Posted 02 October 2000 - 06:21
Posted 02 October 2000 - 10:46
One of the brabham developments which was interesting was to split the rear wing, with a central mount to the chassis and outer mounts to the uprights... quite smart.
Posted 02 October 2000 - 14:01
Interesting that you raise the subject of the Mercedes-Benz air brake. I remember reading somewhere a quote from Stirling Moss that he had found the car was more stable and therefore quicker through the bend under the Dunlop Bridge at Le Mans with the air brake flap raised just slightly.
There was a clue to engineers about the potential for wings and spoilers, but it appears to have escaped the notice of most.
I think these air brakes were banned soon afterwards, as was Michael May's wing on the Porsche (as Roger Clark has reminded us elsewhere), which was probably what steered people away from experiments in these areas for some time.
Writing this has reminded me that I once met and had a reasonably long conversation with Michael May when he came to Australia to promote a combustion chamber design of his in the 1980s. He wasn't too keen to be sidetracked from the job at hand but I did ask him about his racing and the banning of the wing, his work with the F1 Ferraris (1961 I think). Some day I will find that particular notebook...
Posted 02 October 2000 - 15:21
Thanks to the good folks at Motor Racing Retro http://www.crosswind...retro5/home.htm, here is what Jackie looked like at the following race, Brands Hatch:
Posted 02 October 2000 - 17:39
Posted 02 October 2000 - 17:51
Posted 02 October 2000 - 21:37
The Mercedes air brake was intended for use at the end of the Mulsanne straight. Uhlenhaut was aware of its potential for use elsewhere and was delighted that Moss discovered this for himself. This was one area that Moss differed from Fangio, he took much more interest in the technicalities of the car, he was always trying to find an advantage, whereas Fangio just got in and drove. Sometimes it worked to Moss' advantage, sometimes not.
Was thecombustion chamber design that Michael May was promoting the one that was used in the Jaguar V12 road engines? THey certainly used a May design in the so-called "HE" (high efficiency) series. They improved fuel consumption considerably (a relative term of course)
Posted 02 October 2000 - 22:30
Posted 03 October 2000 - 14:57
There's a certain similarity of this matter to the point I discussed in 'Suspension rethinking' thread on TF; you might as well look it up- your opinions are very welcome.
Posted 03 October 2000 - 16:49
Hall and then others, put the downforce directly into the wheels becasue that is where it would do most good. the suspension could continue to just provide bump and roll resistance.
Posted 03 October 2000 - 22:11
The latching of wings onto the chassis is the reason for the development of progressive rate springs and geometries.
Posted 03 October 2000 - 23:32
And again. I've sent it to your Eisa e-mail address (check it there). Sorry for inconvinience.[p][Edited by Wolf on 10-04-2000]
Posted 04 October 2000 - 06:13
Posted 05 October 2000 - 23:49
Anyway, on my photo it can be clearly seen that in turns wings are not parallel (due to the suspension), and since their lift is perpendicular to them, one of them (perchance both) contributes to the centrifugal force, as I have previously stated.
P.S. Does any of you expirience problem of 'connection reset by peer' on Crosswinds.net? It can get quite irritating, having to execute same operation over and over.
Posted 06 October 2000 - 01:18
Posted 06 October 2000 - 03:55
If the wing is on a fixed length strut, and is attached symmetrically on the hubs on either side of the car, the wing must always be parrallel to the ground. If the ground is uneven, then the ront and rear wings need not be parrallel to each other
Posted 06 October 2000 - 03:56
Posted 06 October 2000 - 16:19
Sorry, I had somehow overlooked your comments to me above, until now.
Yes the combustion chamber May was promoting here was closely related to the one he did for Jaguar. I think it had a pre-chamber with stoichiometric mixture for easy igniting, so that a much leaner mixture could be employed in the main combustion chamber.
Peugeot-Citroen (and probably others) now manage to do this without a pre-chamber by running the inlet port straight down through the top of the head and using carefully managed air flow to create a rich mixture where the spark plug is and a progressively lean mixture from there down to the piston. This is in conjunction with direct (into the combustion chamber) fuel injection with a carefully calibrated spray pattern.
Efficient detergent fuels are necessary to keep the injectors clean and working as they should and also keeping carbon deposits from the back of the inlet valves to maintain the flow properties of the incoming air.
Speaking of Stirling Moss, it is interesting that Moss was quite technical in his racing days. I have come to know him well in the past 15 or so years and he doesn't seem to be now. As one example, in the 1990 GP Rally (Melbourne to Adelaide for the Australian GP) I co-drove with Denny Hulme in a Mercedes-Benz 500 SL. Moss, in an E-Type Jaguar, was one of our team mates.
We came on him out in the semi-desert country stopped at an old, small service station with a water hose in his hand and the Jag quietly steaming away beside him. We rushed in to the driveway yelling, "No, Stirling, don't put cold water in it!"
He said, "Oh? Why not?" and looked puzzled when we explained it could crack the head.
I also have asked him questions about his racing career, cars etc and he has never remembered anything I have asked him about. He told me, laughing, "Suzy says I have Alzheimer's disease, I never remember anything, but I think it's just old age."
But I think he just doesn't remember much of what happened before his crash, certainly not in any great detail - which makes me wonder how Doug Nye did that book about Stirling remembering all the cars he raced.
Perhaps he does remember things if prompted correctly and is in an environment where he is not distracted but that hasn't been my experience.
He has a non-stop sense of fun, a great sense of humour, and unbounded energy, however. He also is extremely fit and would run into the ground men less than half his age if they tried to keep pace with him. And he still drives flat out all the time; I don't think he knows any other pace.
Jack Brabham is quite the opposite - he only drives as fast as he has to, when he has to, just as he did in his racing career. But when he has to, he is very quick, I can assure you, and ultra-smooth.
Posted 08 October 2000 - 09:45
Posted 08 October 2000 - 14:10
Remember the first biography, written by Robert Raymond and published in 1953?
Stirling loaned all of his diaries to that date for the writing of the book and they never were returned.
Like the lost scrapbook of Jack Brabham.
There is another interesting story. Jack originally told me his father had done the scrapbook, but when I saw him recently he said that someone from the Australian Racing Drivers Club had put it together and loaned it to his father. It was lost (or otherwise disappeared) while in his father's possession.
This has happened to me before, not just with Jack, but also with other people remembering things that happened a long time ago and about which they haven't thought for many years.
First time you ask them, they tell you the story one way. Then they go away and, having raked up the memory, it rolls around in their head and they put together all the pieces of the puzzle. Next time it comes up, the story is different - but usually more accurate.
Posted 08 October 2000 - 20:13