Understanding the Lotus 77/78/79/80

I took Artti's question to mean "all engineering is still engineering and of a similar mindset if not workflow."

To parallel, in my field(s) of art, whether using a camera, a brush, a computer, a technical pen, or a keyboard, to me it's all the same -- regardless of specific discipline.

I also know if I'd limited my thinking to just one discipline, that's all I'd have ever been able to do.

When you're dealing with as high a level as F1, you're unlikely to move outside of your specialisation much as the knowledge level is particularly high.

Even when you specialize in an engineering discipline, you will have had a common general engineering introduction.

So every qualified engineer has knowledge of the basics. Specialization comes later.

True, but you'll specialise as you enter work and from then on it becomes a major effort to change. Not impossible, but you'd have to stand out particularly well to show you have a grasp of the other field. For example in my work our technicians are either mechanical or avionics traded, and it's rare for any to make a swap, but there's usual enough variety of work to keep either interested.

My experience learned from post graduate students and those who teach at universities suggests that young engineers have not changed much. The core of engineering education is constant and it is possible to move between the major classifications -- with effort. We know much more and hence there are more specialisms, but anyone with a quick mind can become a generalist engineer. Chief designers are all great generalists with a useful specialism.

 

The problem with specialisation is typecasting. Bob the Gearbox is probably proud of his nickname but may be frustrated that s/he is expected to work in a limited field.

---

In the 1970s it was possible for a designer to take a long winter (northern hemisphere) holiday and read all of the relevant research papers about the next idea. I think that is a significant change.

 

 

The Adrian Newey book explains how his design teams have to juggle the requirements of suspension geometry in order to accommodate an aerodynamic element. The final design is a compromise and I would expect the aero team to express their opinions as openly as the suspension team.

 

As for "aerodynamics before I was born", Voision's Laboratoire raced in 1923 so unless there are many 97+ year olds contributing to TNF it is reasonable to say that the field has been recognised for all of our lifetimes.

Working with the specialists in other fields is standard in any complex engineering work. You'd have to have an appreciation for those fields you interact with of course.

I don't necessarily disagree with the last statement, but my objection was to Michael's specific claim that aero wasn't real engineering, which is nonsense.

When you're dealing with as high a level as F1, you're unlikely to move outside of your specialisation much as the knowledge level is particularly high.

How long before F1 runs out of designers because everyone is a specialist?

It seems you're presuming others haven't worked in "as high a level as F1," and wouldn't be capable of being equally successful in many fields.

Both are a bit of limited thinking, by definition. With diligence, we're all capable of nearly anything.

I'm not doing anything of the sort.

How long before F1 runs out of designers because everyone is a specialist?

Never. Specialists work with each other.

But to be honest, I think you're both talking at cross purposes with me so I'll leave it.

Perhaps your RC approach wasn't the best way to create a productive dialog in TNF.

Maybe because you’re attacking my professional specialisation from a position of ignorance. Might have something to do with it.

Relax, all. This has nothing to do with "RC approach" or anything of that ilk. From my perspective, it all started with my puzzlement about how anyone posting here could be so ignorant of engineering history (after all, this is a history forum) as to not know about the seminal Peugeot engines, and my (over) reaction to his posting about side pods and wings which, in the context of the Peugeot, are so far away in the future as to be virtually irrelevant. I didn't know that PYR works in the field of aerodynamics, so his reaction to my oversimplification was more than justified. I don't think I need to apologize for anything I said, but sometimes we need to stop digging in our heels. Let's just shake hands, and move on.

When you're dealing with as high a level as F1, you're unlikely to move outside of your specialisation much as the knowledge level is particularly high.

 

 

True, but you'll specialise as you enter work and from then on it becomes a major effort to change. Not impossible, but you'd have to stand out particularly well to show you have a grasp of the other field. For example in my work our technicians are either mechanical or avionics traded, and it's rare for any to make a swap, but there's usual enough variety of work to keep either interested.

 

 

 

 

Whilst not decrying anybody's wish to stick with their preferred specialisation, others, such as myself, prefer to get more variation (admittedly at the possible expense of a 'vertical' career.)

e.g. - in the F1 part of my career, I have worked in aerodynamics, suspension, chassis, bodywork, engine installation, R&D, pit gear & even a bit of gearbox work.

I draw the line at electrical & electronics though - that's the work of the devil... 

Relax, all. This has nothing to do with "RC approach" or anything of that ilk. From my perspective, it all started with my puzzlement about how anyone posting here could be so ignorant of engineering history (after all, this is a history forum) as to not know about the seminal Peugeot engines, and my (over) reaction to his posting about side pods and wings which, in the context of the Peugeot, are so far away in the future as to be virtually irrelevant. I didn't know that PYR works in the field of aerodynamics, so his reaction to my oversimplification was more than justified. I don't think I need to apologize for anything I said, but sometimes we need to stop digging in our heels. Let's just shake hands, and move on.

Whilst not decrying anybody's wish to stick with their preferred specialisation, others, such as myself, prefer to get more variation (admittedly at the possible expense of a 'vertical' career.)

 

e.g. - in the F1 part of my career, I have worked in aerodynamics, suspension, chassis, bodywork, engine installation, R&D, pit gear & even a bit of gearbox work.

 

I draw the line at electrical & electronics though - that's the work of the devil... 

A long time back at work the experiments we were running were all manually controlled, data taken by computers but the operations were manual. A decision was made at higher levels to automate the process so a software engineer was brought in to do this, with the result of constant 'computer glitches' that made running tests very difficult. This went on for a while with the unexpected result that the formerly arch rival mechanical engineers and electrical engineers became allies against the new common threat. Eventually a new software engineer was brought in and in an amazing turn of events all the glitches were not only fixed almost immediately but whenever a new problem with the equipment came up he would often say "I can fix that in software', and he did! The evil software often saved us much time and money, it was great. I even had a button made up for our group with that saying on it. Goes to show that the wrong person is worse than no one, and that the right person is worth their weight in gold, or some such materiel. There is a new common enemy now, the systems engineer-less said the better...

PS-I was initially so unimpressed by our original software person that I decided to take a look at programming myself, and learned to program micro controllers, at a low 'hobbyish' level. Despite my initial prejudices I learned that this was in fact real engineering, and that if done in a way that was straight forward and logical (that was what was missing with the first programmer) was pretty cool and even fun. 

Edited by Bikr7549, 15 January 2020 - 15:41.

A long time back at work the experiments we were running were all manually controlled, data taken by computers but the operations were manual. A decision was made at higher levels to automate the process so a software engineer was brought in to do this, with the result of constant 'computer glitches' that made running tests very difficult. This went on for a while with the unexpected result that the formerly arch rival mechanical engineers and electrical engineers became allies against the new common threat. Eventually a new software engineer was brought in and in an amazing turn of events all the glitches were not only fixed almost immediately but whenever a new problem with the equipment came up he would often say "I can fix that in software', and he did! The evil software often saved us much time and money, it was great. I even had a button made up for our group with that saying on it. Goes to show that the wrong person is worse than no one, and that the right person is worth their weight in gold, or some such materiel. There is a new common enemy now, the systems engineer-less said the better...

Oi !!! 

Glad we at least all agree that tech is the root of all evil. ;-)

Actually - it's HR.....

Glad we at least all agree that tech is the root of all evil. ;-)

Says the man who drives a decades old VW.  

Even when you specialize in an engineering discipline, you will have had a common general engineering introduction.

So every qualified engineer has knowledge of the basics. Specialization comes later.

Chapman himself was actually a qualified a civil engineer, not mechanical.....

I guess my question about engineers came about thinking about Peter Connew, gave up his job designing record players to go on holiday to Italy saw the GP at Monza came home and landed a job doing design work for Surtees F1 projects was only in the job for a couple of months before he decided he could do it all better himself. Granted his car only started one Grand Prix but was wondering how many engineers are there designing the third tier of a front wing who would be capable of designing a whole car ? But I digress here is a photo of Mario in the 80 at the Race of Champions soon after it's launch Mario only drove it in qualifying but elected to drive the 79 he put on pole in the race, finished 3rd.

I am not exactly designing third tiers of any front wing, ...er..., but I am still capable to do the whole lot. I would be able to give it a stab at an aspirated engine too: architecture, thermodynamics, main dimensions, etc.

The issue is that by not being an insider, beside x-years of close experience missing obviously, I wouldn't know for example the latest alloy available to make the crankshaft, say, or perhaps (although I think I could find out) the fibres used in the chassis and suspension arms, and so on. I suppose I wouldn't be able to solve on paper the aerodynamic interference (nobody can, on paper, without past experience and a database/archive of test results), but still can make a reasonable layout with full 3D mechanical and aero balance on a spreadsheet or math sheet. Then, we go testing... I wouldn't expect to qualify, obviously, but it would run. In the Seventies it would have been much easier to do than now, provided backing etc was available, because the technology wasn't as sophisticated. I digress too...

As for "aerodynamics before I was born", Voision's Laboratoire raced in 1923 so unless there are many 97+ year olds contributing to TNF it is reasonable to say that the field has been recognised for all of our lifetimes.

To reinforce the point, didn't Fiat's aeronautical designers help to shape the 1922 Grand Prix cars, with particular emphasis on the undershield?

The issue is that by not being an insider, beside x-years of close experience missing obviously, I wouldn't know for example the latest alloy available to make the crankshaft, say, or perhaps (although I think I could find out) the fibres used in the chassis and suspension arms, and so on. 

John Barnard created a 'spec book' for his teams, listing preferred materials, bearings, unions, fasteners etc. Many others have copied this practice.

In Design and Behaviour of the Racing Car (1963), Pomeroy described how racing car manufacturers had come to rely increasingly on outside suppliers: “so whereas the classic racing cars of the past, Alfa Romeo, Auto Union, Bugatti and Mercedes-Benz, have been the products of concentrated and concerted effort within one factory the cars of today evolve through coordinated work with outside suppliers”. 
 

He continued: “we may also conclude that the day of the authoritarian designer has gone. Although Bugatti, Columbo, Jane, Lampredi, Pomeroy senior and Porsche did not calculate and draw every part of the racing cars with which they were concerned, at least some of them could have done so, and all of them subjected the work of their juniors to the closest scrutiny and a veritable barrage of suggestions. Today we live in a world of specialists, and although Cooper and Lotus, for example, choose Girling disc brakes, and BRM and Ferrari Dunlop’s, neither have the resources to design and develop their own systems, nor would they contemplate recruiting them when all that is needed is to sign a contract and duly receive cut metal in wooden boxes”.   He didn’t need to say that the above applied to engines and gearboxes for most manufacturers. 
 

Full circle or plus ça change?

Actually - it's HR.....

Different disciplines have different enemies. Software engineers have never known the pain of getting a storesman to yield up a packet of screws. Hardware engineers have never known the pain of getting IT to fix a faulty computer monitor.

I guess my question about engineers came about thinking about Peter Connew, gave up his job designing record players to go on holiday to Italy saw the GP at Monza came home and landed a job doing design work for Surtees F1 projects was only in the job for a couple of months before he decided he could do it all better himself. Granted his car only started one Grand Prix but was wondering how many engineers are there designing the third tier of a front wing who would be capable of designing a whole car ? But I digress here is a photo of Mario in the 80 at the Race of Champions soon after it's launch Mario only drove it in qualifying but elected to drive the 79 he put on pole in the race, finished 3rd.

 

Really interesting photo thank you for sharing. 

Clearly from the 80's very first run in anger(ish) it was not running in its anticipated design configuration as the front wings attest.

I thought at the time as a 9 year old that it looked absolutely terrific with the original low line rear wing and no nose wings.

Regards Mike

Chapman himself was actually a qualified a civil engineer, not mechanical.....

That's true, but it was a borderline pass, obtained after a second attempt, he failed the first time. He also had a certificate of some kind that told of his competence in something like "sanitation hygiene", presumable a connection of some kind with his degree. He was never impressed by paper qualifications, I think he regarded them as slightly suspect, an attitude that seemed to run through Lotus generally. When they took me on, everything was taken on trust, I never had to produce any documentary evidence. On specialisation, Colin Chapman, and the Company's thinking seemed to be that any competent engineer should be able to turn his hand to most aspects, learning what was needed on the job. That worked OK back in the 70s both in the road cars and motor racing fields, though with IT etc, that kind of thinking wouldn't work so well today, but Chapman was a man of his time. He was an intuitive engineer the like of which I've never encountered either before or since, he could look at a drawing or component and almost instantly size it up, understanding most of the pluses and minuses, and he was rarely wrong. Faults? Yes of course, but those were mostly on a personal level, I don't think you'd ever have heard real criticism expressed by contemporaries who knew what they were talking about.

I guess my question about engineers came about thinking about Peter Connew, gave up his job designing record players to go on holiday to Italy saw the GP at Monza came home and landed a job doing design work for Surtees F1 projects was only in the job for a couple of months before he decided he could do it all better himself. Granted his car only started one Grand Prix but was wondering how many engineers are there designing the third tier of a front wing who would be capable of designing a whole car ? But I digress here is a photo of Mario in the 80 at the Race of Champions soon after it's launch Mario only drove it in qualifying but elected to drive the 79 he put on pole in the race, finished 3rd.

On reading this, Derek Gardner came immediately to mind. For what I know about him, he was working as transmission engineer with Ferguson and the 001 was the first car he designed. He must have had a keen interest to the point to have thought long and hard about the technical issues of designing a race car and attempting it from scratch. Presumably, it was sharing this interest with Tyrrell while working on the Matra that led Ken to entrust him with the design of the 001.

I think Duckworth designing on his own the DFV and Forghieri (promoted to top dog at, what, 28?) also come into this category. You have to have a very good basis of engineering, a genuine interest and an inquisitive mind to think in depth about the design problem and tackle it with confidence. Sounds familiar (in my humble little garden).
 

I made a lot of money for a lot of people through solving engineering problems and for the most part, it was career misery. But I have an intuitive approach, which, as stated here, sometimes gets results when a formalized approach does not. The Manager of Engineering at one of my miserable places of employment was a MFA - no engineering degree, yet he was very effective in a high-stress, highly challenging situation. I have a learning disability which (so far) has kept me from getting an engineering degree, but it has not kept me from learning enough aero engineering that I've been able to make that my profession. The career misery stuff fizzled away to nothingness in the process. I encourage anyone reading these posts to keep their eyes and ears open, as we often need to make changes for personal reasons. Sometimes we may be viewed as "failures" when we leave one discipline for another, by the ones who stay in the misery.

This is the Lotus 76.

In a previous post I put it on the account of Bellamy, who did part of the detailing, as he did on the 78, but this is unfair: can't give to Chapman the winners and to his collaborators the lemons. This too is a Chapman's car.

Chapman built his reputation of ("F1") race car designer mainly on five original concepts -  the 18, 25, 49, 72 and 78/79, the latters being two different developments of the same concept - at a time when a good part of the engineering was still guesswork and it paid off to have and develop original ideas to gain the holy grail of the unfair advantage. Their story is well-know to repeat, they had one or more key novel concepts, packaged within the same design philosophy or previously-exploited concepts, each making the car original with respect to the previous one.

The 76 appears on the surface as an evolution of the 72, seemingly with an increased weight bias towards the rear, the nose-cone copied from the M23, and some attempt at innovation inside the car (e.g., the clutch). That aero tail assembly might look nice aestethically, almost a poetic licence, but a bit too gothic in its redundance to be effective. A mishmash of half-baked ideas which couldn't quite deliver the sought-after souffle'. The car did not have a strong idea or concept, or not well-enough developed and integrated, to make a further leap ahead for Chapman and Lotus.

The next evolution, the 77, hardly made further steps onwards. It was made decent through a full season's hard development. In the end it became a "normal" car which could compete and won in the final race of the season in peculiar circumstances. The lesson here is that Chapman didn't make "normal" or "average" cars: either they were two leaps ahead of everybody else or they didn't work.

The 76 and 77 represented the limits of the assemblatori's off the shelf concept (monocoque, DFV, Hewland) for Chapman: seemingly he had hit the ceiling to make the car competitive against the ascendant red opposition. His reflections on the memo of August '75 effectively acknowledged it and, to his further credit, plotted the next steps to rediscover the winning ways - and change race car design for ever in the process.

The apogee of the assemblatori, or garagistes, was the M23, its design touched the sweet spot and developed to be competitive for four years, although to be fair without Lauda's accident it would have won only one championship and this before Ferrari's T-series debuted.

Most others teams, partly Lotus too on the 76 as discussed above, tried to copy the M23, but couldn't hit the sweet spot. Some took other avenues to move forward (e.g., six wheels) and try to compete with Ferrari who on the other hand with the T-series had found the recipe to bring out competive cars year in, year out: a unique design philosophy, rooted in mechanical automotive engineering, with a sorted chassis built around an engine which never all through ten years ran to its full potential, limited by the in-period available technology of the fuel-injection system.

The impasse - in fact, Ferrari's supremacy - was broken by the introduction of ground effect and turbo engines. Ground effect extended the competitive life of the DFV by few years, although Ferrari still could claim a final successful season as late as 1979 (further proof of the quality of Forghieri's "template"), until turbo technology came finally good and ground effect as initially developed by Lotus banned at the end of 1982.

My favourite Lotus has always been the 78. Not refined and smooth as the 79, but rightly mean and purposeful-looking to my eyes.

The 72, especially the one driven by Fittipaldi, I could look at it all day like I would look at a work of art, and would never tire.

Chapman himself was actually a qualified a civil engineer, not mechanical.....

Chapman had a degree in civil, or structural, engineering but he never proceeded to become a chartered engineer.
Given Cooper's "blacksmith" reputation it is ironic that Owen Maddock was better qualified than Chapman.  He was a chartered mechanical engineer having qualified the "hard" way - by evening classes and part time study.

But, having said that, Chapman did have a real "engineering flair" - He had the ability to develop concepts, whether his own or those of others, into a reality that worked.

Edited by D-Type, 16 February 2020 - 16:21.

I understand the M26 wasn't too popular at McLaren.....

That looks the M28 chassis, but, yes, they couldn't get rid of it quick enough.

Still, had I been around Colnbrook at the time, I would have happily scavenge and take it home... LOL

Yes, apologies, that's an M28 chassis.

The McLaren team was already measuring negative pressure under the floor in the CanAm cars back with the M6. They knew about using the under body for downforce, that's why they tried things like the wide tub M7B in 1969. 
They also knew how to spin a yarn to give people the wrong idea about why they did things.
They kept their aero work a big secret.

Jim Hall at Chaparral was aware of underbody pressure by 1964.  The 2c of 1965 incorporated a carefully designed nose to both equalize pressure and guide airflow from under the body and up through vents in the top of the nose.  Hall was a CalTech trained engineer, had contacts deep within GM and access to GM aerodynamic work.  His cars dominated pre CanAM G7 racing in the US, including an outright win at Sebring in 1965.

Does anyone have a picture of the launch/presentation version of Lotus 78?

Does anyone have a picture of the launch/presentation version of Lotus 78?

A Google image search throws up a few pictures from the launch at the Royal Garden Hotel but unfortunately not from the side.  I would also like to see a side view.

Interestingly the model company True Scale Miniatures (TSM) made a few versions of the 78 in 1/18 about 10 years ago (I have their Tyrrell P34 and it's a super model, sadly I couldn't afford the 78 at the time which given the price they go for now is doubly unfortunate) that model shows a much lower line 'eared' air box and the brush skirts. 

I learned from Doug's Motorsport article that the car at the launch was actually the second chassis JPS/16. The first 78 (JPS/15) had been testing since early august and the two differed quite considerably in chassis detail.

Regards Mike