Amon AF101 (merged)
#1
Posted 28 July 2003 - 19:01
Thanks
Advertisement
#2
Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:12
As for putting fuel in other locations, that was always a case of "Where else would we put it?"
#3
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.....
#4
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
Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:55
Nice shots!!
....and very close up!! You can't do that any longer!!!
If you have any more, the Amon thread could use some!!
#6
Posted 28 July 2003 - 20:56
I would think that most F1 cars of the fifties had all the fuel in one cell behind the driver!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?
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
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
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
Posted 29 July 2003 - 10:17
#10
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
Posted 29 July 2003 - 20:30
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
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
Posted 04 August 2003 - 07:34
#14
Posted 15 February 2004 - 11:38
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
Posted 15 February 2004 - 20:45
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
Posted 15 February 2004 - 21:11
It was circa 1996, so I would guess that it still is?
#17
Posted 16 February 2004 - 12:26
#18
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
#19
Posted 16 February 2004 - 22:23
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
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
Posted 19 February 2004 - 22:48
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
Posted 29 July 2005 - 22:53
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
Posted 29 July 2005 - 23:17
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
Posted 24 February 2006 - 15:27
Pics, anyone ?????
#25
Posted 24 February 2006 - 16:00
#26
Posted 24 February 2006 - 19:05
Last night it was wheeled in behind a Matra 670C...
#27
Posted 24 February 2006 - 19:42
(Include me amongst them!)
#28
Posted 24 February 2006 - 20:22
#30
Posted 25 February 2006 - 00:51
Just wish you'd asked somebody to move than sign away for a couple of seconds.
Thanks anyway !!
#31
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!
#32
Posted 25 February 2006 - 10:48
#33
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:
#36
Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:37
#37
Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:39
#38
Posted 25 February 2006 - 21:58
Might be the flash...not the greatest shutterbug in the world...Originally posted by Ruairidh
It is, er, very shiny. Was it really like that when it was new?
#39
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
Posted 25 February 2006 - 22:08
Hope you liked the McLaren M1C oposite.
#41
Posted 25 February 2006 - 23:43
Most people have the courtesy to ask, and are then obliged...Originally posted by macoran
Some people (who me ??) move signs around to get a better shot.
#42
Posted 26 February 2006 - 00:26
#43
Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:41
Our group remarked along the same lines, but as Ensign says, I am sure the lights have a tendency to do that!
#44
Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:36
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
Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:40
#47
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:24
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
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:29
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
Posted 26 February 2006 - 15:35
http://www.webpark.c...logie/amon.html
Paul M
#50
Posted 26 February 2006 - 16:07