85 replies to this topic

[TennisUK]

Does anyone know anything about this car? Apparantly wind tunnel and track tested. It looks to be a much more optimised ground effects car than the somewhat agricultural looking T4 and T5. As well as a much more Lotus 79-like nose it also has a very ahead-of-it's time diffuser arrangement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I assume it was tested in '79. I doubt it could have been much worse than the T5.

 

Does anyone here know anything about it?

 

 

[Bill Becketts]

Never made it to second base because of that 12 Cylinder Aero Brick bolted to the back of the car....if it really existed...is it a photoshop??

[TennisUK]

There are quite a few photos of it both in the wind tunnel and at Fiorano, so I'm pretty sure it existed.

 

As you say a flat 12 was always going to mitigate against having optimal venturi tunnels, but I wonder if the fairly extreme (for the time) diffuser was an attempt to over come that.

 

 

 

[Michael Ferner]

These are clearly two different cars. The "nose job" must be 1979, maybe even in-season testing. The radical diffuser was copied from the (unsuccessful) Kauhsen, so no wonder it didn't work. Probably very late '79 or '80.

The T4 was always a very strange car, as I recall. True, the engine prevented proper venturi tunnels, but it was obviously so superior to the Cosworth and Alfa that it didn't matter much. Only when the other teams started to really understand ground effects did the defects of the T4/T5 series show. At the time, I quite liked its looks. Now I think it was ugly.

[TennisUK]

Looking at the profile of the sidepods I can see you are correct, this is two cars. I think 'diffuser one' is the more interesting of the two.

I'm not sure there is a specific similarity to the Kaushen other than it being weird?

[proviz]

That last photo in post #1 was included in Jonathan Thompson's 1981 book "Boxer", which focused on flat-12 Ferrari racing cars. The caption says: "Scheckter tested several types of rear bodywork designed to improve downforce, at Fiorano; note upswept fairings and skirts between rear tires."

[arttidesco]

 The radical diffuser was copied from the (unsuccessful) Kauhsen, so no wonder it didn't work. Probably very late '79 or '80.

The T4 was always a very strange car, as I recall. True, the engine prevented proper venturi tunnels, but it was obviously so superior to the Cosworth and Alfa that it didn't matter much. Only when the other teams started to really understand ground effects did the defects of the T4/T5 series show. At the time, I quite liked its looks. Now I think it was ugly.

 

I know there were many variants of the Kauhsen WK but I don't remember any with a rear diffuser ?

 

As lash ups go, making the best of what is available rather than optimal, I still think of the T4 and T5 quite attractive   

 

IIRC part of the problem with the T5 apart from the engine configuration was the Michelin's it was on were being built to accommodate the needs of increasingly competitive turbo Renault RS10.

[Michael Ferner]

Hmm, seems I "mis-remembered" the Kauhsen design. Thanks, Ralph, for putting me straight.

[arttidesco]

Alles klar, Herr Ferner

[Henri Greuter]

These are clearly two different cars. The "nose job" must be 1979, maybe even in-season testing. The radical diffuser was copied from the (unsuccessful) Kauhsen, so no wonder it didn't work. Probably very late '79 or '80.

The T4 was always a very strange car, as I recall. True, the engine prevented proper venturi tunnels, but it was obviously so superior to the Cosworth and Alfa that it didn't matter much. Only when the other teams started to really understand ground effects did the defects of the T4/T5 series show. At the time, I quite liked its looks. Now I think it was ugly.

 

 

To me: the 312T4 was `only` succesfull because all other cars that were better than the T4:

- Lost their initial superiority of the early season (Ligier JS11)

- Arrived too late in the season and found their superiority too late (Renault RS10 and Williams FW07)

- Did not match the superior reliability of the 312T4 [Jody Scheckter only one single retirement all season long!, Gilles also had a single retirement due to mechanical failurer but was also more unlucky (Belgium retiring from 3rd place out of fuel) or overdrove the car (Zandvoort) ] Nowadays we are so used to the kind of reliability Ferrari had in '79 but at that time it was almost unreal.

 

I also have the feeling that, as you rightly suggest, the kitcar constructors had yet to understand ground effects entirely and extract all the potential of it. Meanwhile, the T4 still had a marginally lower GC that the Vee-engined cars which was something of an asset for their handling for the time being.

 

I'm confident that the Flat-12 was already on the road to the history books due to the arrival of turbocharging. Without the introduction of ground effects however, I suppose that it still would have been a useful engine for another 2 ('80  & '81), maybe 3"(+ 82) years before having to give in to turbocharged engines. Ground effects was however the true undoing of the `Boxer` ans hastened its demise before the turbos could do it like they did with the Alfa and Matra V12.

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 March 2017 - 13:17.

[Charlieman]

Observations on the second set of photos from TennisUK.

 

The construction at the back of the car isn't ground effects or venturi principle downforce. It is far too steeply angled. Perhaps an attempt at creating a swirl extractor -- there appear to be exhausts (gearbox cooler?) between the wing strut and construction.

 

Behind where the cockpit surround comes down, there are two small cut outs in the middle of the car. And two much bigger vents covering half of the side. Any ideas?

 

The flat back shown in TennisUK's first photo set sort of makes sense for rear wing efficiency. 

 

It seems that there are side pods which kink inwards under/beside the driver's bottom.

 

The experimental car looks as rough as the hairs on a badger's bottom, so any wind tunnel results would be almost meaningless. If Ferrari had taken the design seriously, they'd have built it properly. Or maybe the company was so lost at the time?

[Michael Ferner]

I think they were all pretty lost at the time. Aerodynamics weren't really taken serious back then, the designer drew somthing that looked pretty, and maybe it worked maybe it didn't. Exhibit A: the Ligier JS11.

[Charlieman]

Meanwhile, the T4 still had a marginally lower GC that the Vee-engined cars which was something of an asset for their handling for the time being.

The Centre of Gravity (CoG) argument -- benefit of Flat 12 (and a clever transverse gearbox) versus V8 and Hewland -- was addressed by making everything else light. Like ditching the Lucas starter motor (commonly found in 1960s BMC light cars) and replacing it with a compressed air starter (which worked for half a breath).

[Henri Greuter]

These are clearly two different cars. The "nose job" must be 1979, maybe even in-season testing. The radical diffuser was copied from the (unsuccessful) Kauhsen, so no wonder it didn't work. Probably very late '79 or '80.

 

 

 

Michael,

 

I think by now that the second car with the diffuser behind the rear wheels should have rung a bell to both of us, both being interested in Indycars.

Maybe the car I think of is already too modern for you.

But looking at this Ferrari another time, the rear end reminds me about the 1980 and 1981 John Ward designed CART Eagles, the most famous one of them the one that Mike Mosley put on the front row at Indy in 1981. They were the so called BLAT eagles that did not rely on an air stream under the car to generate downforce but instead they tried to create a vacuum under and behind the rear axle to generate downforce. Given the near impossibility to use a wing car style underfloor on the flat-12 engined Ferrari's this BLAT technology could have been tried as a useful alternative.

 

I know that this particular Eagle had much smaller side pods ahead of the rear wheels but the part behind the rear wheels has some simularities with the end part of the Eagle. 

I have my own pictures of such an Eagle that show the simularities but I can't post them within this message.

 

But google on 1981 eagle mosley and some pictures will come up to see what I mean.

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 08 March 2017 - 14:13.

[arttidesco]

More on the BLAT Eagle here

[f1steveuk]

The top two pictures show a standard car. What was being tested is the shroud covering the centre portion in an attempt to part the air around the cockpit toward the rear wing

Edited by f1steveuk, 08 March 2017 - 14:57.

[Arjan de Roos]

My comments on these pictures are:

-1- Ferrari did quite a bit of testing in the summer of 1979. They had learned from previous years that is was necessary to test more, even when winning. But Ferrari wanted to secure the title. It later did not work out good for 1980 but the Turbo car project was a reason for that;

-2- Ferrari himself disliked the T4 looks when he first saw it. Possibly the nose job was an attempt to satisfy the old boss (by Forghieri and/or others) with a more conventional nose (Brab. Alfa);

-3- Also Forghieri did like to experiment away and not only the test track, but also the Pininfarina wind tunnel was used by then for racing activities (hence the Pf badge on the side of the car). As also the 512 BB/LM was extensively tested there.

He and his team must have worked frantically to get better results and find extras in aerodynamics as all "Garagisti" had a Cossie to funnel around and at times passed the proven but wide Flat 312. Like Lotus, Ferrari also struggled with the subject.

Due to limited knowledge present then, possibly, but with the first Turbo a beauty was build around it.

[Michael Ferner]

The top two pictures show a standard car. What was being tested is the shroud covering the centre portion in an attempt to part the air around the cockpit toward the rear wing

You are quite right, but I think the front wing has also been moved forward. Certainly not a big deal, this mod.

[Michael Ferner]

Absolutely, Henri, the Eagle 81 is another example. And it didn't work either, despite all those people who suddenly seem to have become aerodynmicists and keep marvelling about that wonderful and beatiful BLAT principle. That was just smokescreen. "It was so successful that it was banned"? I don't remember that at all. In fact, all that was being redressed was the capacity advantage for stock block engines, and that was a good thing, because otherwise Indycar racing would have simply turned into Formula 5000.

[Henri Greuter]

My comments on these pictures are:

-1- Ferrari did quite a bit of testing in the summer of 1979. They had learned from previous years that is was necessary to test more, even when winning. But Ferrari wanted to secure the title. It later did not work out good for 1980 but the Turbo car project was a reason for that;

-2- Ferrari himself disliked the T4 looks when he first saw it. Possibly the nose job was an attempt to satisfy the old boss (by Forghieri and/or others) with a more conventional nose (Brab. Alfa);

-3- Also Forghieri did like to experiment away and not only the test track, but also the Pininfarina wind tunnel was used by then for racing activities (hence the Pf badge on the side of the car). As also the 512 BB/LM was extensively tested there.

He and his team must have worked frantically to get better results and find extras in aerodynamics as all "Garagisti" had a Cossie to funnel around and at times passed the proven but wide Flat 312. Like Lotus, Ferrari also struggled with the subject.

Due to limited knowledge present then, possibly, but with the first Turbo a beauty was build around it.

 

 

Arjan,

 

are you aware of any pictures existing of the test hack Ferrari built to do the first tests with the Turbo in late 1979?

 

Henri

[arttidesco]

Arjan,

 

are you aware of any pictures existing of the test hack Ferrari built to do the first tests with the Turbo in late 1979?

 

Henri

 

Not sure when this one was but show's Jody in a 126C so before 1981.

[arttidesco]

Also another side view of the T4A with Jody at the wheel.

[TennisUK]

The top two pictures show a standard car. What was being tested is the shroud covering the centre portion in an attempt to part the air around the cockpit toward the rear wing

 
I like the fact they still used the standard wing - complete with Michelin stickers cut in half by the nose section! I very much doubt that would happen these days even for a private test!
 

More on the BLAT Eagle here

 
The angle of the diffuser on the 312 T4A is much steeper than the BLAT which would I assume compromise obtaining a particularly stable level of downforce which is not ideal.

A mentioned above, it's amazing how crude the wind tunnel was - it reminds me of a Tamiya 312T3 I built aged 10 or so....

[Arjan de Roos]

Arjan,

 

are you aware of any pictures existing of the test hack Ferrari built to do the first tests with the Turbo in late 1979?

 

Henri

No, never seen. I think Scheckter testing in 1980 might have been the first proper tests. The Turbo project was initiated end of 1977. It was of course not only a power issue, but gained momentum when they recognized wing car concept advantages and thus the need for a slimmer engine. Forghieri, Rochhi and Savarini had started to look at existing engines, even the Dino was considered.

By 1979 the engine was on the dyno. In June 1980 the 126C was shown to the press. Yet Autosprint had printed striking similar drawings by Paolo d'Alessio on its late January 1980 magazine.

[Parkesi]

Dear TNF friends,

two days ago I collected all your questions and remarks and sent them to Mauro Forghieri.

Let`s keep our fingers crossed that there will be an answer.

He should know all about it!! Andreas

[Henri Greuter]

 
I like the fact they still used the standard wing - complete with Michelin stickers cut in half by the nose section! I very much doubt that would happen these days even for a private test!
 
 
The angle of the diffuser on the 312 T4A is much steeper than the BLAT which would I assume compromise obtaining a particularly stable level of downforce which is not ideal.

A mentioned above, it's amazing how crude the wind tunnel was - it reminds me of a Tamiya 312T3 I built aged 10 or so....

 

 

 

I have seen BLAT Eagles in real and believe me, I am utterly surprised about how much downforce was lost on these cars. Only that underside of the bodywork, no sideplates in order to minimize leaking of air into the vacuum area.....  It looks so primitive....

I almost tend to believe that they were fast at Indy because of running with less downforce that the contemporary full ground effects cars of that era which in fact may have had too much downforce (at least for Indy) and had too much resistance that slowed them down.

 

Those early indy ground effect cars had tunnels beyond belief and it reall makes you wonder how the did not dig themselves into the asphalt on the straights....

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 09 March 2017 - 12:06.

[TennisUK]

Dear TNF friends,

two days ago I collected all your questions and remarks and sent them to Mauro Forghieri.

Let`s keep our fingers crossed that there will be an answer.

He should know all about it!! Andreas

Fantastic!

[Henri Greuter]

No, never seen. I think Scheckter testing in 1980 might have been the first proper tests. The Turbo project was initiated end of 1977. It was of course not only a power issue, but gained momentum when they recognized wing car concept advantages and thus the need for a slimmer engine. Forghieri, Rochhi and Savarini had started to look at existing engines, even the Dino was considered.

By 1979 the engine was on the dyno. In June 1980 the 126C was shown to the press. Yet Autosprint had printed striking similar drawings by Paolo d'Alessio on its late January 1980 magazine.

 

 

 

Arjan,

 

I asked this because in late 1979 the now defund Dutch magazine Autorensport reported about a test of Jan Lammers who was considered to drive for Lotus and testing with Lotus. But the writer also mentioned about Gilles Villeneuve testing with a turbocharged Ferrari that had troubles. No description about what kind of chassis was used.

I lnow about the early version of the turbo Ferrari being introduced in the first half of the 1980 season. But if that was already the car tested by Villeneuve? To my knowledge, most of the T4 chassis were converted into T5's but right now I can't look up if all of them were converted T4's or that new chassis were built. I do remember however that the first of the turbo Ferrraris had a chassis number that was among the T4-T5 chassis, the first Turbo was followed by one more T- chassis and then the 1981 CK chassis followed.

 

So I have always wondered which car ran in late '79 at that test. That aerticle had some photos of Jan, regrettably nothing about that testhack of Ferrari. And I don't know where I got it from and/or if it is fantasy but I remember something about a T3 being used for tests with the V6 first.

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 09 March 2017 - 12:14.

[TennisUK]

I'm sure I've seen a black and white photo of a 312 of some kind with body work similar to the 1980/81 126, which may be the car you are referring to.

[Arjan de Roos]

Arjan,

 

I asked this because in late 1979 the now defund Dutch magazine Autorensport reported about a test of Jan Lammers who was considered to drive for Lotus and testing with Lotus. But the writer also mentioned about Gilles Villeneuve testing with a turbocharged Ferrari that had troubles. No description about what kind of chassis was used.

I lnow about the early version of the turbo Ferrari being introduced in the first half of the 1980 season. But if that was already the car tested by Villeneuve? To my knowledge, most of the T4 chassis were converted into T5's but right now I can't look up if all of them were converted T4's or that new chassis were built. I do remember however that the first of the turbo Ferrraris had a chassis number that was among the T4-T5 chassis, the first Turbo was followed by one more T- chassis and then the 1981 CK chassis followed.

 

So I have always wondered which car ran in late '79 at that test. That aerticle had some photos of Jan, regrettably nothing about that testhack of Ferrari. And I don't know where I got it from and/or if it is fantasy but I remember something about a T3 being used for tests with the V6 first.

 

 

Henri

Henri,

 

The 126C that was shown at Imola in practice was 047. Stated to be the prototype. And indeed after 047 came one last T5 (in numbering sequence). If a T5 with turbo was tested, I think not. Seeing D'Alessio's drawing on January 1980 Autosprint cover makes me think they were quick with realizing the body shape.

Autorensport also mentioned in their January 1980 number that a Turbo car T6 was to be raced even before South Africa 1980 (!). Note that for the Turbo the engineering team had also thought out cambio automatico, they recognized it would be a bridge too far.

[TennisUK]

Good photo of the 126 at Imola, showing some aerodynamic similarities with the T5 (also below) and T4 I'd not picked up on before. The extended leading edges above the front wishbones which later disappeared on the 126 are particularly familar.

 

 

[Parkesi]

Here is a reply of Mauro Forghieri: The car in your photos was a final experiment of tests to find an improvement of the down force.

As you know, many people believed that our engine 312 flat did not permit us to have the best down force.

So we did many test to understand any possibility. Even with the complete closed floor the tests told us that the engine did not have blame.

The wind tunnel confirmed the results. I hope to have been of some help. My best to you all. Mauro Forghieri

 

[guiporsche]

Incredible @Parkesi, many thanks!

 

This is very interesting because while the British journos - Alan Henry comes to mind - always insisted that the Flat-12 prevented Ferrari from making a proper ground-effect car, Forghieri in his biography (and I believe in other statements like this) has always insisted that there was no correlation between the two variables.

 

Might Ferrari's problem had actually to do with an incapability to understand and making the skirts work (particularly finding the kind of material that would make them durable and flexible)? I remember Doug Nye in another thread telling stories (probably coming from Postlethwaite) about how Forghieri hated ground effects (he still does, finding them an immoral form of engineering).

Or was it rather a question that the Ferrari type of monocoque was proving too flexible to sustain the downforce generated by ground effects - a point I believe Forghieri would adamantly deny. 

 

Also, and most importantly, Forghieri mentions testing in a wind tunnel, but I recall reading somewhere that the problem of the wind tunnel used by Ferrari (Turin probably?) was that it did not have a rolling floor - unlike the Imperial College one used by Peter Wright et alii. I'm no aero expert, but if this is the case, then it surely must have played a role in preventing Forghieri to understand how ground effects could work in the T4? 

Edited by guiporsche, 13 March 2017 - 14:24.

[arttidesco]

Incredible @Parkesi, many thanks!

 

Indeed

 

Also, and most importantly, Forghieri mentions testing in a wind tunnel, but I recall reading somewhere that the problem of the wind tunnel used by Ferrari (Turin probably?) was that it did not have a rolling floor - unlike the Imperial College one used by Peter Wright et alii. I'm no aero expert, but if this is the case, then it surely must have played a role in preventing Forghieri to understand how ground effects could work in the T4? 

 

The issue of wind tunnels is probably further complicated by the fact that, while as shown in the photographs the tunnel used by Ferrari does not appear to have a rolling floor, I am not sure the ones at Imperial or Southampton were full size at that time meaning they, Peter Wright et al, were only working with scale models.

Edited by arttidesco, 14 March 2017 - 07:31.

[PeterElleray]

25% scale at Imperial in the early 80's. We had to move out of the Campbell tunnel when we went to 33%, into the Honda tunnel there.

 

"And if you tell you people of today that...."

 

btw I think i need to go to Italy and learn English whilst I'm there - maybe  i'll be able to understand what Mauro is trying to tell us then...

[Arjan de Roos]

"Incredible @Parkesi, many thanks!

 

.....

 

Also, and most importantly, Forghieri mentions testing in a wind tunnel, but I recall reading somewhere that the problem of the wind tunnel used by Ferrari (Turin probably?) was that it did not have a rolling floor - ...."

 

 

 

Indeed incredible to learn directly from him! I think there is a misunderstanding. The flat 12 not fully blocked the wing concept, it merely hindered. 

In the seventies Forghieri and his team tried out so many aerodynamic tests on/off track.

The formula 1 Ferraris from 1969ish onward always carried decals of suppliers/contributors on the technical side. With the beautiful 312 T the Pininfarina badge appeared. Torino, for sure.

[Charlieman]

btw I think i need to go to Italy and learn English whilst I'm there - maybe  i'll be able to understand what Mauro is trying to tell us then...

Allow a little for bad memory and give credit to Mauro Forghieri for replying to a fan query without saying anything.

 

There is a tool in every British workshop known as a Bastard File. And the car in TennisUK's second set of photos shows sign of its use. That car might have been the first experiment, but certainly not the last.

[guiporsche]

Sorry guys, but am I missing some technical detail? What's not clear with Forghieri's English?

 

As a side note, and with bad memory or not, thankfully he remains quite sprightly.

This was aired in his last birthday, an interview on the 2017 regulations. His comments are a bit basic, but he has been away from the game for a long time in any case.

 

http://www.raisport....e72f8e2478.html

[Parkesi]

Full marks to the last replies. I was very happy to receive any kind of answer at all.
Ingegnere Forghieri is in his eighties, still very busy (obituary Surtees, 70 years celebration Ferrari etc etc).
I always found him a modest and charming gentleman, very helpful and he kindly wrote the foreword for my Mike Parkes biography.
Maybe his explanations would have been more detailed in his native language but for sure his English is better than our Italian.
Saluti, Andreas

[PeterElleray]

Mauro was a brilliant designer, one of my hero's and the cars he created during the 1970's were inspirational for me and made me want to design racing cars myself.

 

Many years later i realised how clever the aerodynamics were on those cars, so this is not about a lack of understanding of race car aerodynamics 

 

Great that he is grounded and gracious enough to reply to a fan's enquiry.

 

Having said that, guiporsche,  if you want to know " What's not clear with Forghieri's english?" , I have no clue what this bit means:

 

"Even with the complete closed floor the tests told us that the engine did not have blame."

 

Anyone who actually knows what it refers to i would be interested to hear - the rest of you, please don't guess, i can do that myself.

 

Is it actually Mauro's english? I tried to read his book, the english in that was.. unusual. I figured it was the result of a bad translation by someone who was not used to speaking English in England to the English! The reply quoted sounds like it came from the same source.

 

None of that will have any bearing on my admiration for his work as a race car and race engine designer.

 

Unfortunately, neither will it help me to understand what the hell he is trying to say.

[Charlieman]

Peter: Do you think that the tunnels/backside showed in the early photos could have worked alongside a Williams?

[PeterElleray]

Good question!

 

At the time i might have been tempted to say yes, but that would have been based on a very simplistic two dimensional idea of  what ground effect was supposed to be about, based purely on bernoulli. In 1979 that was all i knew.

 

With the 20 -20 vision of hindsight, having seen the problems that Lotus, Brabham and Arrows ran into with similar ideas, and using those experiences to try and understand more about what was actually going on under the car, then no.

 

I thought the cleverst idea on the T4 was the way in which the upper body was shaped to try and get air out of the tunnels BEFORE it had to navigate past the engine cylinder heads, and the bit that caught my eye here was the  3/4 rear shot (b&w) in post 1 where there appear to be enlarged 'chimney's  infront of the rear tyres that are trying to achieve more of that effect.

 

Everything i see in these pictures tells me that Forghieri knew a great deal about aerodynamics and knew what the limiting factor was in his own package.

 

That's why i find his reply so confusing.

[guiporsche]

I went back to Forghieri's bio to compare it with his statement. Having read it some time ago, I had forgotten some of the details and found a few answers to my own queries.

As the English translation is indeed apalling, and I have the original Italian edition (which is mostly quite readable btw), I've made a few 

translations on the parts concerning the T4 and aero testing. Maybe they will be of some help to the forum's members. Although I'm afraid the book does not answer Peter's question. Often Forghieri's comments lack detail, which rather than an issue of bad memory, I presume was an editorial choice.

 

This is roughly from pages 188-191 of the Italian book. Keep in mind that there's substantial discussion of the 126C2's skirts afterwards.

 

"We had copied Lotus by creating skirts made of resin and ceramics; and by using springs to fix them to the ground. Honestly speaking,

they did not work well on bumpy tracks. On flat surfaces, though, they worked perfectly: Jody and Gilles were very fast. 

But on bumpy ones, like Silverstone - our "black beast" - the skirts got slightly inclined and the air leaked (usciva all'esterno), creating serious stability problems.

[...]

Despite the skirts' issues [which they had been facing since the T3], the T4 was the outcome of a whole new project - the last evolution of the T series.

This was a car totally born in the wind tunnel, and based on the researches made by the engineer Gianfranco Poncini - an exceptional lad, hard worker and with great character and personality.

Poncini had carried out the first aero tests on the skirts at the Pininfarina wind tunnel. But then there was a fastidious internal conflict within Ferrari, caused by a certain kind of provincial attitude that often surfaced at the factory. The idea was: the Pininfarina tunnel was alright, but the English had specialised galleries that worked much better.

On this topic, I regretted the conflict that for fifteen years I had had with the engineer Bussi, who had disappeared in October 78 after being absurdly and savagely kidnapped in Sardinia.

 

On what concerned the wind tunnel debate, I did not react, but nonetheless concocted a radical plan. I asked [Enzo] Ferrari if I could make a 1:5 scale model and test it on all the wind tunnel galleries used by the English teams. The result: five galleries, five different results! Then I asked my interlocutors which path we should take, but no one answered me. I was not surprised, because we would have needed sufficient coefficients to compare [coefficienti comparativi], which we did not have at all.

In any case, this was a useless polemic, because Pininfarina's gallery, where we took the 1:1 scale car, was more than good enough - at least in those times.

[...]

Based on Poncini's calculations, I had designed the large cantilevered front wing; while the side pontoons were kept "under pressure" (mantenuti "in pressione") - so the air did not leak in any situation. [Here he says l'aria non si staccava. Staccava means 'separate']. The pontoons' design resulted from a mathematical formula.

 

There has always been discussions over the fact that the flat-12 engine, because of its width, did not allow the air to vent rearwards ("sfogare posteriormente") to create good ground effects. Thus, differing from the narrower DFV, used by most teams.

Yet, the results proved us right. In fact, there is no real theoretical explanation for that theory [flat12 width=bad ground effects], which was actually made popular by the same individuals that left Ferrari carrying drawings of a flat-12 - that was then made by another team [which one, Alfa?]."

Edited by guiporsche, 15 March 2017 - 22:43.

[PeterElleray]

Good of you to post all that thanks. If the day job ever gets a bit dull you could do try getting a  job translating into english for Mauro, you do a better job  than his publishers managed...

 

If the other flat 12 is indeed the Alfa, it dated back to 1973 and had been in design at least for a couple of years before that, so its an odd reference to make in 1979. When you look at the two engines side by side they both have 12 cylinders, and they're both flat (ish). After that it gets harder to spot the similarites. The other one i thought of was the Tecno, always rummoured to be a back door job from Ferrari, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in 1979 either.

 

It troubles me that he is so defensive of the flat 12, one of the great racing engines of all time. If it was too wide to accomodate the style of tunnel used on the dreaded english cars then so what? It was designed in 1969, hardly a disgraceful oversight.

 

And if it didn't have at least some limitations when it came to laying out a ground effect car then i am struggling hard to understand why Alfa made the v12, Cosworth redesigned the pumps on the DFV to make them narrower and so on. Odd too that he doesn't recognise any theoretical explanation for it.

 

I know from my own experiences that putting a large lump in a region of the diffuser where the rear tunnels are trying to expand and the airflow is trying to slow down is counterproductive. If, on the other hand, the airflow is already detached and  turbulent then you might not see much of an effect. But then your tunnels wouldn't have been working properly in the first place.

 

Interesting that they got 5 sets of results from 5 different tunnels. I thought it was just me that used to happpen to...

[racinggeek]

I have seen BLAT Eagles in real and believe me, I am utterly surprised about how much downforce was lost on these cars. Only that underside of the bodywork, no sideplates in order to minimize leaking of air into the vacuum area.....  It looks so primitive....

I almost tend to believe that they were fast at Indy because of running with less downforce that the contemporary full ground effects cars of that era which in fact may have had too much downforce (at least for Indy) and had too much resistance that slowed them down.

 

Those early indy ground effect cars had tunnels beyond belief and it reall makes you wonder how the did not dig themselves into the asphalt on the straights....

 

Henri

 

Hmm -- don't think the BLAT Eagles could've been that short of downforce since they were dominantly fast in 1981 on a short oval (Milwaukee, Mosley's famed last-to-first drive) and road courses (Rocky Moran, Watkins Glen, and Geoff Brabham, Riverside) as well.

[guiporsche]

Glad that translation was useful. As a recently unemployed PhD I could well use the money, but the problem with Forghieri's publisher is that motorsports' books are even more of a niche in Italy than in England. And with scarce financial resources they must have used too much google translator for the English version. 

 

In any case, I read a bit more and found something at once interesting and intriguing. In one of the comments accompanying a picture of the T5, page 201, the following is said:

 

"Work on the [wind tunnel] gallery had concerned the wings and the airflow on the sidepods in order to increase downforce. All this work was conditioned by the

[scarce] efficiency of the skirts, which Ferrari had not managed to solve because of uncertainty regarding the rules. [The idea being that Enzo (and Forghieri too btw) thought the skirts were illegal and the Old Man always respected the book like a good black letter lawyer].

Always with an aim at increasing airflow on the sidepods, the centre section of the chassis was narrowed; and even the engine was smaller/less of an obstruction [the original word used is 'ingombro' = encumbrance], thanks to new cylinder heads ['testate'] that allowed to narrow it a few centimeters.

This solution spurred discussions within the team, but it was abandoned after the Monaco GP beause it had decreased the reliability of the well known flat-12 design. 

At the time, though, both Enzo Ferrari (who in any case had approved the further development of the T4 [into the T5]), and Forghieri and all the engineers were instead focused on the new Turbo engined car [...]."

 

What I take from this, is that Forghieri was most probably against the modifications made in the flat-12, against another faction inside the team, which was supported by Enzo. Might be completely wrong, of course. And still does not solve the mystery.

On other pages of the book, he blames the T5's bad performance on the Michelin tires; and particularly, on the fact that the engines had been lightened, thus becoming more fragile. At the same time, he says the skirts worked even worse than in the T4 because of the chassis' lightness; or in Forghieri's lingo (or of his ghost-writer), "the excessive lightness of the superior part of the chassis". I can't translate any better than this. 

 

In good Italian style, one must read Forghieri's book with as much attention to what is said, as to what is left unsaid. My own interpretation is that some Ferrari employees had gone to Alfa years before, and eventually employed Gordon Murray's arguments underpinning the V12 requirement to attack Ferrari and Forghieri's technical choices. This is pure conjecture, of course.

Edited by guiporsche, 15 March 2017 - 23:59.

[PeterElleray]

Yes you are probably right about the Brabham influence on the Alfa people.

 

The T5 engine mods were on record at the time and they beg the question - if the wide engine is not a limiting factor on underbody efficiency, why narrow the heads?

 

I think Forghieri was probably right though, any gains made were probably more than offset by  the loss of reliability (and power?).

 

Strange that the lighter T5 resulted in the skirts not working as well. Maybe somebody should have told Gordon Murray that he should watch out for that when the Brabham 'Qualifying Car' was being prepeared for action..

[Michael Ferner]

If it's "the excessive lightness of the superior part of the chassis" I'd interprete it as the lightness of the bodywork, which then could make sense, in that it perhaps flexed too much, reducing effectiveness of the skirts. I agree about the engine mods, though, why make new heads when the engine was not the problem - reliabilty certainly suffered, as the T4 was almost "bullet proof", while Scheckter's T5 lunched its engine in the first race already.

[PeterElleray]

Michael , you are obviously better than i am at interpreting Mauro's interpreter (I've never heard him speak english like this, either on TV or in person) - but what you say makes sense - probably the skirt boxes. I'll remember that next time i am doing a car;

 

"What comes next?"  "Ah, next i will turn my attention to the superior part of the chassis"

 

That should get the job done...

Edited by PeterElleray, 16 March 2017 - 14:05.

[Michael Ferner]

Perhaps it helps not being a native English speaker myself...