65 replies to this topic

[nmansellfan]

I've often wondered what the answer to this might be - just what would be the quickest racing car ever built, that had no intentional downforce generating elements fitted to it?  My first thought would be the Lotus 49 (pre B version, or even pre-Spa '67 that had the front air deflectors fitted) but would there be anything else out there that would have been quicker over a lap?

 

There are probably multiple answers, as something like a GT40 mk1 (did it have a swept up rear tail to try and generate some downforce?) would have been probably quicker at Le Mans than the 49, and vice versa at Silverstone, for example.  Or a Lotus 72 with no wings fitted, assuming the tub / body shape wasn't designed with any intention other than to be as slippery as possible.

 

What do others think?  Have I missed a late 60's / early 70's mechanical grip-only machine out there somewhere?

[cpbell]

Ford P68, perhaps?

[D-Type]

Didn't Honda run last year's car in low drag, ie low downforce, configuration at Bonneville one year?  Maybe 1995 when the engine size changed?

[Glengavel]

Original long-tailed Porsche 917? I know they were fitted with suspension-linked flaps, but the effect was negligible and in fact the whole body developed lift.

[2F-001]

P68 and 917 came to mind for me too…

But are so many imponderables here - and some (fairly vague) definitions to be decided upon:

Quickest? Presumably around a track rather than in a straight line - but which track?

What constitutes a downforce generating device? Would something that is designed to reduce lift be included in that? That is, would you measure the intent, the discrete effect or net gain/loss? I think even the earlier (pre-K version) of the 917 had trimmable winglets on the tail; where they for stabilising or negating tail lift, is that downforce?
What about the tail lip spoiler (such as on something like an Aston Project car)?

If you were to admit a Lotus 72 (without wings) as you pondered, then I’d offer the Lotus 56 - same sort of shape, no wings and a pole lap average in excess of 171mph?

Quite a can of worms! But an interesting one.

Edited by 2F-001, 07 November 2017 - 13:48.

[2F-001]

Mercedes or Auto Union streamliners at Avus?

[Tim Murray]

I’d put my money on a turbo-Offy-powered Indy car from 1968-69, before they started fitting wings to them. Heavier than an F1, but bags more horsepower.

I’d rule out the Lotuses 56 and 72, as their wedge-shaped bodies were designed to produce downforce.

[cpbell]

I'd agree with Tony regarding the nebulous definition of "non-downforce" given that, supposedly, the D-type body was designed to maintain high-speed stability given that its shape in profile was essentially that of an inverted aerofoil.

[7MGTEsup]

I’d put my money on a turbo-Offy-powered Indy car from 1968-69, before they started fitting wings to them. Heavier than an F1, but bags more horsepower.

I’d rule out the Lotuses 56 and 72, as their wedge-shaped bodies were designed to produce downforce.

 

This^^^^^

 

I would think they would have been doing the double tonn before braking for the turns at Indy.

[2F-001]

But if we talk about just top-end speed, how relevant is downforce?

Aren't the Indy cars' high laps speeds as much about the nature of the circuits as the cars?
(Yet more imponderables.)

[cpbell]

Above a certain speed, most low-drag designs will demonstrate dangerous levels of aerodynamic lift.  I'm reminded of references to the closed body Costin designed for Maserati in 1957 to be used on their 450S prototypes at Le Mans which he supposedly said would be stable on the straight at the calculated maximum speed, but which he warned would be liable to lift ether the front or rear axle (I'm not sure which) at just over 200 mph.  As a result, most high-speed designs which weigh less than around a tonne need trim tabs and lip spoilers, as did most of the mid-engine prototypes of the late 1960s in order to stay safely on the ground at speeds around or over 200 mph.

[Doug Nye]

Do you mean quickest in a straight line - or quickest around a lap?

 

And the term "non-downforce" in this context also demands definition.

 

That's the trouble with such perfectly reasonable innocent questions.  Under examination, nothing's simple.

 

DCN

[nmansellfan]

Some good points raised here. I meant quickest over a lap rather than in a straight line - the answer to that would have just been a pre-wing dragster I guess. Doug and many others are right, go too deep into the question and it loses its simplicity.

[Ray Bell]

I thought you had the definitions nailed pretty well...

"No intentional downforce generating elements fitted to it" seems straightforward enough to me.

[Collombin]

Some good points raised here. I meant quickest over a lap rather than in a straight line - the answer to that would have just been a pre-wing dragster I guess. Doug and many others are right, go too deep into the question and it loses its simplicity.

To throw some numbers out there then, Mario and Bobby U qualified at over 183 mph at Michigan in 1968.

[2F-001]

To throw some numbers out there then, Mario and Bobby U qualified at over 183 mph at Michigan in 1968.

Was Andretti's car the same as he used at the Indy 500? I thought that one had wings?

[Collombin]

You are possibly thinking of 1969?

It should also be noted that the roadsters' visits to Monza and Daytona the previous decade produced speeds not far short of it. And there were tests at the Chrsyler proving grounds in 1954 at which Sam Hanks topped 182 mph (albeit with an oversized engine for the AAA limits of the day IIRC).

[Cavalier53]

Mr. Data asks: define track.
 
At Le Mans 1969 the original 917 (that did have some flaps but likely not providing any downforce, just reduced lift) achieved 238.37 kmh in qualifying (378 kmh on the straight). 148.8 mph resp. 236 mph for those used to foreign units.
 
Numbers thrown in using Wikipedia as a source, so "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources".
 
More about the 917 development in Primotipo's page on the 917: 1969 the first season
 
If we'd use the Targa Florio as a measure, I'd bet on an Alfa Romeo 33 or Porsche 908 around that time - very different vehicles than above cited Oval Track racers.
 
So....

 

PS: so if we want to compare F1 with sports cars, somebody to volunteer to compare Spa data as a benchmark for high velocity closed non-oval circuits.

Edited by Cavalier53, 07 November 2017 - 22:40.

[GazChed]

Comparing fastest race laps over Monza's 5.75 km circuit , the last Italian Grand Prix using cars without aerofoils in 1967 , saw Jim Clark set fastest lap of 1:28.5 while in the 1971 Monza 1000 km race Pedro Rodriguez in a Porsche 917 K set fastest lap of 1:24.0 . By this stage of it's career the 917 K had sprouted large fins but not a full aerofoil on it's tail . The previous year's Monza 1000 km race also saw a 917 K set fastest lap with a time of 1:24.8 without the benefit of tail fins . Although a very limited comparison I feel it does point to the fact that the 917 K of 1971 was quicker than the quickest of the last non aerodynamically assisted Grand Prix cars of 1967 . ( Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but there aren't that many direct comparisons to use)

[Ray Bell]

I doubt that any sports car or GT car could lay claim to any of this...

They were sprouting spoilers and lips designed to give downforce (even if the terms used were to 'reduce lift') from earlier than 1963 and anything really quick had something by 1965.

F1 cars, Formula Tasman cars and Indianapolis cars are the ones without any aerodynamic aids right up to 1967 and even beyond that for some.

[DogEarred]

All cars have some intrinsic down force or lift, even if it isn't designed into them.

[RS250]

Can I nominate the 1999 Mercedes CLR?
They were very quick and appeared to lack downforce.
I reckon Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck would agree

[wolf sun]

Can I nominate the 1999 Mercedes CLR?
They were very quick and appeared to lack downforce.
I reckon Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck would agree

 

Gosh, they were really flying, weren't they!

(I'll get me coat)

[Glengavel]

Gosh, they were really flying, weren't they!

(I'll get me coat)

 

I think Dumbreck's flight lasted longer than the Wright Brothers' first attempt. Amazing that it took THREE incidents before the team said "okay, okay, we have problems..."

[chunder27]

Blue Flame, Budweiser Rocket, all vehicles that could do 6 or 700mph plus without really using much in the way of downforce,

 

I would think Thrust 2 a bit, and SSC used downforce and wings to keep them on the ground a little, especially SSC, but even with that LSR car there was no clear downforce other than the rear tailplane and wing, the front relied on weight and the aero design to stop it lifting.

 

I think if you are pursuing speed there is a clear balance.  If you look at older LSR cars, the Green Monster used a rudimentary wing over the front axle, but Breedloves cars were both sleek and aerodynamic really, even his last car was far more of an arrow shape than a brute force shape like SSC.

 

And the scary thing is, in the Thrust book they found out later on from data that the front wheels in SSC were going considerably slower than the rears!!  So the thing was almost floating, so efficient was its aero work and the barrier lifting the front of the car.  What fabulous engineering and design.

[blackmme]

I think Dumbreck's flight lasted longer than the Wright Brothers' first attempt. Amazing that it took THREE incidents before the team said "okay, okay, we have problems..."

And apparently (I recall this from an interview and discussion on this forum but cannot quote either so please take with a pinch of salt) there was a call between Norbert and Newey (who was in Canada) who said ‘withdraw the cars’
The chapter in Mark Webber’s autobiography is really interesting on this subject.

Regards Mike

[Lee Nicolle]

Dare I say the most obvious, the Landspeed record cars. Campbell did 400+ mph at Lake Eyre in what 62? And others went faster and did any use wings? Aerodynamic bodies ofcourse, but so did racecars in about 1900!

As for F1, Indy cars were faster, Dragsters were faster and I suspect LeMans cars were as well.

So what is the question?

F1 for all its hype over the decades has seldom been in front for anything technically or safety wise. They had rear engines early but not first, they had seatbelts in what 69? Wheras Indy cars, drag racing and even dirt ovals had been using them for a long time. Turbos they were a decade late, hybrid cars ditto, wings ditto, slick tyres ditto etc etc.

All F1 has done is maybe improve other categories ideas. And at times were still slower. F5000 was faster on many tracks in the 70s than F1.With a 'prehistoric' pushrod motor. Top speed LeMans cars have been consistently faster for 40 years.

As were CanAm sports cars as well.

F1 is usually an imitator and just spend truckloads more money. Look at turbos, Indy cars had turbo engines running reliably for 500 miles long before F1 could get them to run reliably for half the distance.

[Ray Bell]

'68 for belts in F1 generally, Lee, though some had them in '67...

Seeing as Richie Ginther put the first spoiler on a Ferrari in 1961, by the time the Can-Am came about there were no (as in zero) cars of that ilk without 'downforce generating elements' they all had upturned lips at the rear if nothing else.

I would agree that F5000s, if they were running the engines they have today, would have been quicker than most F1s on some tracks, but 'faster on many tracks in the '70s' would be drawing a very long bow.

[Lee Nicolle]

Reports of the time had the 5000s faster at several tracks, on occasion the same meeting. The chassis in some cases were similar and a 500hp Chev had more power and torque than a Cosworth.

 

All race cars have had some sort of aero of some sort, the 'bodies' being ofcourse major contributors. A few tilted tails etc really are not aerodynamics, just a way to tidy up the airflow generally for less drag. Prewar cars had devices of some sort, in fact really preWW1!

I take wings and floors as aero. not slightly aero bodywork.

In that Bluebird had aero, just that big tail to stabilise it. Plus ofcourse the bodywork which these days was probably unaerodynamic, though still with less drag.

 

As for belts when were they mandatory? I feel it was 69 or even later.

[Tim Murray]

In the early 1970s F1 and F5000 cars regularly raced against each other in the non-championship F1 races in the UK (Brands Hatch, Silverstone, Oulton Park) and also in the 1971 Questor GP at Ontario. The leading F5000s were generally competitive with the slower end of the F1 field but were never, ever, as quick as the leading F1 cars.

[bill p]

In the early 1970s F1 and F5000 cars regularly raced against each other in the non-championship F1 races in the UK (Brands Hatch, Silverstone, Oulton Park) and also in the 1971 Questor GP at Ontario. The leading F5000s were generally competitive with the slower end of the F1 field but were never, ever, as quick as the leading F1 cars.

Still O/T!
I think the only time an F5000 won from an F1 was the 1973 Race of the Champions at Brands Hatch when Peter Gethin in a Chevron B24 Chevrolet defeated Denny Hulme in a McLaren M23. There were a lot of F1 retirements and Gethin qualified 8th behind the first seven F1 cars

[Ray Bell]

Didn't Andretti win a race in America? Ontario?

It was an outstanding event, mainly because F5000s never beat F1.

Even when old F1s came to Australia they beat the lastest F5000s at some circuits.

[Tim Murray]

Andretti did indeed win the 1971 Questor GP at Ontario, thus winning his first two F1 races for Ferrari.

As Bill P pointed out above, an F5000 did once beat the F1s, but only because all except the very slowest F1 cars ran into trouble.

[Glengavel]

F1 turbo development lagged behind because of the regulations rather than a reluctance to adopt new technology. What's the point of knocking your pan out trying to get 400+ bhp out of a 1.5 litre engine when you can buy a Cosworth DFV off the shelf? Unless of course you're a large corporation with time and money to spend.

 

Similarly, Le Mans cars were faster than F1 cars because they had bigger engines and enclosed streamlined bodywork.

[chunder27]

I think the fastest wheel driven LSR cars are way beyond Donald Campbell.

 

The Summers boys went 409 I think in the beautiful Goldenrod.  Al Teague went pretty quick in his car was it Spirit of 76? And Don Vesco pushed it up near 500mph in the Turbinator.

 

None of them would have used anything remotely linked to downforce.

[2F-001]

I think we've now strayed somewhat from the Thrust (pun intended) of the original question...

re. the aforementioned Questor GP... but for a very minor mechanical/prep failure, Mark Donohue would quite likely have beaten the majority of the F1s - but that was one race and says more about Donohue and Penske, and the unreliability on that day of some of those F1s, than it does about the relative performance-in-general of the two formulae.

I've been at particular races where the very best F5000s qualified quicker than many of the F1s but I don't regard those instances as a body of evidence to prove the notion that F5000s were often quicker than F1s - even on circuit that might have suited them.

There has, also, always been much talk of Can Am cars being quicker than F1s... but, in part, due to the few shared venues I don't think there's is much hard evidence to prove this - just some gut feeling and extrapolation. I did pore through some stats on this some while a go, I forget the details now, but whilst the very front of a Can Am grid (up to '74 I mean) might be ahead of a big chunk, if not all, of an F1 grid, I think the bulk of it wasn't. Even back then, when the spread of times front-to-back in GPs could be quite large.

[2F-001]

None of them would have used anything remotely linked to downforce.

But they would certainly have designed (or at least tweaked) their vehicles to minimise (potentially disastrous) levels of lift. That might, quite justly, be regarded as applying downforce - even if the net result is neutrality.

If we are going to define features aimed at producing aerodynamic effect - be it 'downforce' or anything else - as appendages applied to an otherwise smooth, homogenous shape (ie, wings, fins, tabs or dams or some non-continuous surface) - then that is really an arbitrary, and primarily aesthetic, judgement. As interesting a topic as this is, we do have to recognize it can never be anything other than speculative.

[chunder27]

It depends on what you are trying to achieve of course.  Wheel driven cars would be all about speed and less drag.

 

Whereas jet or rocket cars would need to be efficient aswell as sleek.

 

As for nor al race cars.

 

I have always though Pro Stock drag cars are pretty low drag.  But going back through the eras, I would think most stuff pre mid 60's was designed with not much thought to aerodynamics.  Maybe a nod and a wink but not much else.

[7MGTEsup]

 

F1 is usually an imitator and just spend truckloads more money. Look at turbos, Indy cars had turbo engines running reliably for 500 miles long before F1 could get them to run reliably for half the distance.

 

F1 turbo engines were much more highly stressed to produce the power

 

1500 cc (91cu in) V 2610cc (159cu in) that's an 1100cc capacity increase or 74% also methanol is a much colder burning fuel so much easier to keep det in check. 

[MCS]

... I've been at particular races where the very best F5000s qualified quicker than many of the F1s but I don't regard those instances as a body of evidence to prove the notion that F5000s were often quicker than F1s - even on circuit that might have suited them ...

 

Fair point, Tony.  But when the likes of Gethin, Redman, Gardner, McRae and so on were sometimes in F5000 machinery...then not too surprising, given the "strength" of some of the Formula One driver/car combinations.

 

Irrespective, fascinating.

[GazChed]

Talking of the Race of Champions etc do I remember John Watson being trapped in his Brabham for most of the 1973 race ?

[Mallory Dan]

Broke his leg in that race, debit of the BT42 wasn't it? I wonder if the best teams and drivers had run a 5000, they'd have been quicker than an Eff Wun? When they ran together the best drivers were always in F1s, run by the better teams, with most resources, so its difficult to make direct comparisons I'd say

[rl1856]

RE: F5000 vs F1

 

The 2 series did not run on the same tracks very often.  One constant was Watkins Glen; long time home of the US Grand Prix, and a fixture in the US F5000  championship.

 

Taking 1 year as a sample....1974    F5000 Mario Andretti qualified on the pole at 1:40.515.   F1 Carlos Reutemann qualified on pole at 1:39.938.   A difference of .423 sec.

 

Andretti was at or close to the top of his form, and he was driving for a top team.

 

RE: original topic.  

 

I recall that several F1 cars ran sans wings in the 1971 Italian GP.   I suspect many of the top cars were capable of 200 mph flat out, while retaining excellent handling characteristics.   

 

Chris Amon qualified on pole at 1:22.40    The Porsche 917 did not run on the Monza track in 1971 as the 1000km event was not held that year.  It was held in 1970 however, and Jo Siffert qualified on pole at 1:25.21.    1yr and 2.41 sec slower.

[2F-001]

The Porsche 917 did not run on the Monza track in 1971 as the 1000km event was not held that year.

Really? I thought the JW 917s scored a 1-2.

[2F-001]

RE: F5000 vs F1
 The 2 series did not run on the same tracks very often.

Silverstone's International Trophy meeting would be the 'standard' UK example for comparison, where they shared the same grid, and on occasion had their own race as well. It is, of course, still a very small sample, but at least allows for more-or-less equal track conditions. Although, at some of those events, one might contend that not all of the best drivers there were aboard F1s...

Edited by 2F-001, 10 November 2017 - 07:34.

[Charlieman]

Another way to examine the downforce question is to look at the history of streamlined racing cars. Designers of the earliest speed record and track cars understood that cars needed minimum frontal area. Jenatzy's 1902 La Jamais Contente demonstrated low frontal area and an attempt at streamlining which was good enough for 60mph. I'll make a jump to post WWI when aviation science was better understood and was applied to banked track cars at Brooklands, Europe and the USA. Cars were slipperier than before but maximum speeds weren't close enough to the point when aerodynamic lift became a problem. Bumpy tracks and unreliable tyres were more dangerous.

 

I think the 1923 Voisin GP car was the first design which brought aviation and motoring science together. It was bizarre in some ways -- it's a Voisin -- and practical in others. The rear wheel design is significant. The wheels are fitted with aerodynamic discs but the arch is left open. Voisin had determined by theory or experiment that a fully enclosed rear would generate lift. He gave a free lesson to all future designers of streamlined racers. It's not an example of downforce but a realisation that gravity is not enough to keep the wheels on the track. And it's easier to change wheels.

 

I wouldn't argue that every streamliner designer after 1923 understood Voisin, although they may have learned things the hard way. But every streamliner which *worked* was designed for minimum lift and ideally minimum change of centre of pressure (although designers would have used different terminology). 

 

The quickest non-downforce racing or LSR car has to be one created in complete ignorance or disregard of the 1923 Voisin GP design.

[Henri Greuter]

I don't thing LSR cars need to be mentioed here since they didn't race another in a straight fight, car&driver against another.

Hust my humble opinion on what is a race and what is a race car.....

 

 

Henri

[sabrejet]

Well in that case we can exclude rally, time attack, sprint, hill climb and so on. So no - LSR should be included.

[Henri Greuter]

Well in that case we can exclude rally, time attack, sprint, hill climb and so on. So no - LSR should be included.

 

 

The cars you list well, OK, they compete in one and the same event on the same day or time frame in generally the same conditions, sudden changes of weather etc not withstanding.

 

LSR contests were on different times, locations and rarely did two or more contenders compete on the same day and same venue. Any LSR specialist here who can name an event in which the LSA was attacked on the same day, same venue by more than one contender?

I can only think about a possibility for such being done for certain categories (engine capacity in particular).

 

So No. LSR's need not to be included.

 

 

Henri

[DogEarred]

Bonneville Speed Week