Jump to content


Photo

Moveable Wing


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 FordPrefect

FordPrefect
  • Member

  • 12,948 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 September 2000 - 20:38

I was watching qualifying at Indy today and I had a thought that a moveable wing with two settings would be a real benefit there. That got me wondering if such a thing would be legal, If it is illegal what logic did F1 use to make that decision?

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 :).

FP

Advertisement

#2 rainern

rainern
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 September 2000 - 21:07

Moving wings are banned since many years.
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)

Rainer

#3 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 23 September 2000 - 22:12

FP. Here's a thread from Technical Forum, contents of which might interest you:

http://www.atlasf1.c...p?threadid=9403

#4 FordPrefect

FordPrefect
  • Member

  • 12,948 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 September 2000 - 23:14

thanks Wolf, that was interesting.
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.

FP

#5 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 23 September 2000 - 23:43

I'd say the compromises turn them on!;) I guess they think compromises add to excitement (if you compromise there's a chance of scr*wing up!). The same can be said of active suspencion &c.

#6 Huw Jenjin

Huw Jenjin
  • Member

  • 427 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 25 September 2000 - 13:48

I think that the main reason that moveable aerodynamic devices were banned is that they nearly destroyed Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt in the 1969 Spanish GP.
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.

#7 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
  • Member

  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 16:27

I want to add a thing to the discussion.

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.



#8 John Cross

John Cross
  • Member

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 18:20

Jim Hall was certainly the first to use movable wings - one of my heroes. There are quite a few links here:

http://www.eng.vt.ed.../msc/auto_c.htm

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.

#9 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:00

Here are pictures of the winged cars as well as some book dust jackets of some items of interest...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

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!


#10 Mike Argetsinger

Mike Argetsinger
  • Member

  • 948 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:20

Don, I'm glad to see you got that lap with Peter at Watkins Glen last weekend. Regarding the use of wings - moveable or otherwise - I recall at the Belgian GP at Spa in 1968 seeing both the Ferraris and the Brabhams for the first time with wings. This is all from memory (although I have seen it documented in various places since) but I believe that the wing on the Ferrari could be adjusted from the cockpit - I recall that it had three settings. I don't remember if the one on the Brabhams was adjustable or not. But they both had them. And both teams were on Goodyears and I think that was a significant link. I believe this was really the beginning of the wing technology in formula one although, as has been noted here, GM had been using them for some time on the Chapparals in Group 7 racing.

#11 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 25 September 2000 - 20:36

Mike,

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. :o

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!

#12 Mike Argetsinger

Mike Argetsinger
  • Member

  • 948 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 21:24

My comment on the attendance numbers at the Nurburgring were prompted by all the statements (on TV, in today's newspapers and in AtlasF1 on the Readers Comments forum) that the attendance at this year's USGP was the largest ever in Formula one history. While the race at Indianapolis was a huge success there is no need for unnecessary hyperbole in order to illustrate what a wonderful event it was. The fact is that the Ring had many Grands Prix with crowds exceeeding the attendance of yesterday's race. John Cross has an excellent post on the Nurburgring thread (the one regarding the number of corners, etc) - that very specifically illustrates the point. I know it's not the most important issue out there - I only find it fascinating how these things start (where I have no idea) and then take on the force of fact by sheer repetition.

#13 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,034 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 23:04

We have lived for many years in a world where the media think that Grand Prix racing started in 1950 with the world drivers championship. We now seem to be moving into a new era where year zero was about ten years ago with the increase in commercialisation and television coverage. Many people connected with racing have no knowledge of, nor interest in, anything that happened before that.

#14 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 25 September 2000 - 23:08

Roger, because of your last remark, I'm putting here a detour sign, pointing towards 'Forgotten Years' thread!;)

#15 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,140 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 26 September 2000 - 06:55

Back in the days of the DTM/ITC, the Opel Calibra had a movable rear wing which they used on the Nurburgring Nordschleife. In particular, they would flatten the wing for the long three km straight, and have it raised for the rest of the track. I believe it was allowed for that race so that Opel would stand a chance of competing with Mercedes and Alfa Romeo, but it wasn't allowed for the next year.

#16 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,008 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 26 September 2000 - 07:30

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that McLaren ever used a movable wing on their Can-Am cars and thus I don't think that such a thing could be blamed for Bruce's untimely death while testing at Goodwood.

#17 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 26 September 2000 - 16:00

1) The wing on the M8 that crashed at Goodwood was not moveable. The bodywork blew off and that was that, and poor Bruce was left as a passenger in an unguided missile. I still rank it as one of the saddest days in racing.

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.

#18 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,034 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 September 2000 - 20:09

The first moveable wing that I am aware of was built by the Swiss May cousins on a sports Porsche that they entered at the Nurburgring and Monza in 1956. Unfortunately the authorities didn't undestand what they were trying to do and didn't allow them to race. It was said to increase speed round a given corner by as much as 500rpm. According to DSJ "it was acceptable to the scrutineers, but turned down by the non-technical members of te race organisation on the grooounds of danger to other competitors and the public, for they imagined it might part company with the car. Rather like an aeroplane being accepted for the King's cup Air Race and then told it could start provided the aerilons and rudder were removed!"

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.

#19 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 01 October 2000 - 11:16

Come, Don, enlighten (or remind!) us... who was the first victim?
I well remember Lakeside in 1969... both Lotuses out with wings collapsed, yet Chaparall engineering was good enough that this never happened to them...

Advertisement

#20 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 01 October 2000 - 22:35

I wonder why nobody (or, at least, nobody has mentioned it so far) has tried to get around that rule using flaps or something similar; that way wing would be fixed, but with flaps in it would have small drag and downforce, and with flaps out car would have better grip.
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?

#21 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,008 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 October 2000 - 06:21

There is a regulation forbidding "moveable aerodynamic devices."

#22 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 October 2000 - 10:46

I don't think Lotus ever had front and rear wings... only Brabham (works cars plus Courage in the Williams car), maybe Matra... hell, I'm not sure now...
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.

#23 Barry Lake

Barry Lake
  • Member

  • 2,169 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 October 2000 - 14:01

Leif
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...

#24 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 October 2000 - 15:21

At Rouen, Chapman rolled out the 49 with the strutted high wing on the rear feeding directly into the suspension like the Chaparral. Jackie Oliver had the wing fail at an inopportune moment and had a Serious Shunt: Jackie was very fortunate to get away in one piece -- the same of which could not be said for the 49....

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 Image

#25 RaymondMays

RaymondMays
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 October 2000 - 17:39

Does anybody know what the idea behind this wing (if it can be called a wing), that from what I can tell, BRM were using in the latter part of '69?
Posted Image

#26 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 October 2000 - 17:51

After Rindt rolled his 49 into a big ball when the wing unloaded & collapsed in the resulting spin and Hill smacked into it with his 49, the FIA banned wings after the first session of practice at Monaco. The "wings" now had to be part of the bodywork, hence the rather agricultural looking wing on the BRM for FJ. At South Africa & Spain, a number of the cars had strutted wings fore & aft, an approach which a few had looked at the previous season.

#27 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,034 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 October 2000 - 21:37

Barry,

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)

#28 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 02 October 2000 - 22:30

Ray, I'll have photo scanned and send it to you (and everybody else interested, since I can't post it). Don't think that anyone shall be able to put the dog-tag on it (just a Lotus-even the number is not visible, and a bit of track). But with all the 8W players around- nothing is impossible!

#29 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 03 October 2000 - 14:57

The thing that I find interesting about early wings has stricken me whilst looking at this photo. The concept was, as I see it, attaching wings to suspension, rather than to chasis, to avoid unneccessary chasis stresses. This was good side. But here can be clearly seen that, due to that configuration, roll ange of the wings was such (opposed to the roll angle of the car) that downforce produced by the wing, to certain extent, aided the centrifugal force. With wing attached to the chasis, which is the case in latter types (to a greater degree due to regulation rather than in light of this problem- I wonder if it should be of relevance, or was it overlooked like Moss' remarks on Merc brake), downforce in fact reduced lateral force.
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.

#30 PDA

PDA
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 03 October 2000 - 16:49

Wolf, while the wheels are in contact with the ground, no matter what the roll angle, the wing will be parrallel to the ground.

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.

#31 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 October 2000 - 22:11

Quite importantly, the spring rates didn't have to go up, and they didn't have to be increased to a point that they were useless at low speeds because of the wings' effectiveness at high speeds.
The latching of wings onto the chassis is the reason for the development of progressive rate springs and geometries.

#32 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 03 October 2000 - 23:32

Ray, I've sent you pic again (first time it was rejected by your mail server).

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]

#33 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 October 2000 - 06:13

Wolf... it seems it's arriving now.. when I get on tomorrow night I'll have time to get it onto the website..

#34 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 05 October 2000 - 23:49

By clawing myslelf through Crosswinds.net, I found a photo (not sure if it will show, and if it doesn't I'll add the link to the page) that shows Lotus with both front and rear wings, on South African GP in '69. I doubt the shots were taken on same day; the wings are different colours.

Posted Image

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.

http://www.crosswind...gp69/69za01.htm

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.

#35 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 October 2000 - 01:18

Here's Wolf's pic... a bi-high-winged Lotus 49 with two red wings...

Posted Image

#36 PDA

PDA
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 06 October 2000 - 03:55

Wolf, I can't see your photo.
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

#37 PDA

PDA
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 06 October 2000 - 03:56

If the pisture is the one above, then the apparent skewing of the various wings relative to each other is caused by parallax effects and is an illusion.

#38 Barry Lake

Barry Lake
  • Member

  • 2,169 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 October 2000 - 16:19

Roger
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.

#39 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 08 October 2000 - 09:45

Stirling always kept a diary, and his books show how much he relied on it to give detail about the events he described.

Advertisement

#40 Barry Lake

Barry Lake
  • Member

  • 2,169 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 October 2000 - 14:10

There is a tragedy associated with Stirling's diaries, too.
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.

#41 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,992 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 08 October 2000 - 20:13

...like remembering the lines to a poem... know the feeling well.