8 replies to this topic

[Graham Clayton]

According to David Hodges in "A-Z of Formula Racing Cars", the WR7 made its World Championship debut at the Argentinian Grand Prix, and featured clutch-driven impeller blades which were used to draw air through the oil cooler. The system was declared a "movable aerodynamic device".

Did other teams protest to the FIA about the system, and then the FIA made a ruling that the system was illegal? Did the car compete in the Argentinian Grand Prix with the system removed? Was the point of the blades to keep the temperature of the oil down?

[Tim Murray]

Here’s what Jeff Hutchinson wrote in his race report in Autosport:

A deputation of other FOCA designers deemed that the clutch-driven impellor (sic) blades, used to draw air through the oil cooler, counted as a moving aerodynamic device, and therefore fell outside the rules. These were only written a few weeks before the race, and state that any device which may have an aerodynamic effect on the car must remain motionless. Walter Wolf’s team changed the direction from which the air was inducted and vented, which satisfied the constructors that there was now no aerodynamic advantage to be gained - however slight this might have been in the first place. Everybody was now happy - except the Wolf team, that is, which was forced to mount a secondary oil cooler behind the water radiator.

At the next race in Brazil Jeff reported that:

Between Argentina and Brazil, ‘Doc’ Postlethwaite had been burning the midnight oil redesigning the car’s side pods, both aerodynamically and to take the repositioned oil radiators, having done away with the impellor system frowned upon by the team’s fellow constructors.

So it would appear that the FIA were never officially involved, with Wolf agreeing to change their car after unofficial representations from fellow constructors.

[Duc-Man]

Does anybody have a photo of the assembly in question? The interweb does not show any results.

 

Now the quote from Jeff Hutchinson confuses me:

"These were only written a few weeks before the race, and state that any device which may have an aerodynamic effect on the car must remain motionless."

Movable aerodynamic devices were banned since the end of the 1969 racing season. We're talking about a 1979 car, right?

 

I asked the question before in the Can-Am topic: is a cooling fan a movable aerodynamic devise? Reading this it appears so.

[Tom Glowacki]

Does anybody have a photo of the assembly in question? The interweb does not show any results.

 

Now the quote from Jeff Hutchinson confuses me:

"These were only written a few weeks before the race, and state that any device which may have an aerodynamic effect on the car must remain motionless."

Movable aerodynamic devices were banned since the end of the 1969 racing season. We're talking about a 1979 car, right?

 

I asked the question before in the Can-Am topic: is a cooling fan a movable aerodynamic devise? Reading this it appears so.

See:  Brabham BT-46, "Fan car" , its a "movable aerodynamic devise" if the tech inspectors say it is, and get backed up by the powers that be.

[uffen]

Does it move? Does it disrupt/alter the air? If yes to both, then it is a moveable aerodynamic device.

[Duc-Man]

See:  Brabham BT-46, "Fan car" , its a "movable aerodynamic devise" if the tech inspectors say it is, and get backed up by the powers that be.

 

The BT46B was considered perfectly legal by the tech inspectors when it raced in Sweden and therefore it kept the points it recieved. The aftermath is a different story that has IMO more with big egos and their power games to do than with the actual sport and its rules. The FIA as governing, rulemaking body wasn't involved there at all. The CSI later declared they won't allow any fan cars to compete in further races.

 

Does it move? Does it disrupt/alter the air? If yes to both, then it is a moveable aerodynamic device.

 

By your definition was the Lotus 72 illegal then since it had ventilated, inboard brake rotors with the waste air exiting to the top of the car.

And you can say the same about the cooling fans of all cars, specially with coolers in the front and huge air exit ramps in the front bonnet.

 

 

From the FIA Appendix J from 1976 on:

 

Article 252 k)

"Use of aerodynamic devices on cars of Groups 6 and international
racing formulae : in interpreting Art. 252 K), shall definitely be considered
as coachwork all external parts of the car which extend above the highest point
of the wheels equipped with tyres with the exception of the roll-over bar and of
components definitely associated with the functioning of the engine or transmission.

Any specific part of the car which has an aerodynamic influence on the
stability of the vehicle must be mounted on the entirely sprung part of the car and
shall be firmly fixed whilst the car is in motion."

 

Depending on how you read the rule, that could mean:

a) that components 'definitely associated with the functioning of the engine or transmission' are excluded from the 'movable aerodynamic device' rule.

or b) a competition car can not have any kind of cooling fan.

And anything inbetween.

Edited by Duc-Man, 14 December 2018 - 09:18.

[2F-001]

I don’t recall reading about this Wolf incident at the time, but I assume the objections related to where the fan was located and from where, and to where, it drew and expelled air. Presumably it was considered to be capable of enhancing aerodynamic downforce (or some other desirable effect).

Somewhat like the 46B, it might be possible to “prove” on paper that the majority of the effect is providing cooling - but that isn’t why they did it. And how the effects are measured and compared could be contentious.

The “moveable” part of the definition of aerodynamic devices (instituted mid-way through the Monaco GP meeting in ’69) was really to do with devices whose effect could be varied whilst in use - (in the case of an aerofoil, by altering its shape or angle of incidence).

Do we know whether the Wolf device was driven by the clutch (i.e. the one between engine and gearbox) or a clutch?  Either way, the implication is that its speed could vary while the car is in motion (unlike, say, on the Chaparral 2J). It the device was co-incidentally or otherwise, enhancing an aerodynamic device then that variation of speed might be considered analogous to altering the angle of a wing whist in use…

[Duc-Man]

I've just spend some time looking through the Appendixes J from various years and the formulation is very similar through the years since 1970 to the last one available on the FIA website to what I quoted from '76.

 

 

The “moveable” part of the definition of aerodynamic devices (instituted mid-way through the Monaco GP meeting in ’69) was really to do with devices whose effect could be varied whilst in use - (in the case of an aerofoil, by altering its shape or angle of incidence).
 

 

Like with the Chaparral 2E/F/G or the first version of the Ferrari 612 Can-Am.

 

The problem is the generalising formulation that was writen down and published instead of formulating what they had in mind. To my knowledge and understanding it was about the suspention mounted high wings that were manipulatable and operated by the driver. Nobody thought about fan-cars or cooling fans at the time.

 

 

Do we know whether the Wolf device was driven by the clutch (i.e. the one between engine and gearbox) or a clutch?  Either way, the implication is that its speed could vary while the car is in motion (unlike, say, on the Chaparral 2J). It the device was co-incidentally or otherwise, enhancing an aerodynamic device then that variation of speed might be considered analogous to altering the angle of a wing whist in use…

 

Quoting from Motorsport issue 2/1979:

 

"Someone noticed that there were vanes on the clutch assembly that sucked air from under the car through the oil radiator. Recent legislation demands that any components that may have an aerodynamic effect on the car must remain motionless, so there was a bit of a stir in the ranks of the Constructors Association when they saw the Wolf. It was subsequently examined by Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray and Teddy Meyer and it was decided that the device would be acceptable if the ducting was modified to draw air from above rather than below the car. This was done on Saturday night."

 

According to Prüller's Grand Prix Story 79 there was a 'fan for cooling the oil and the rear brakes'.

[2F-001]

Thanks for that excerpt from MotorSport, Duc-Man; that whole Wolf ‘episode’ passed me by at the time.

From what I recall, the big change brought in during Monaco ’69 (essentially for ‘wings’) had three parts: banning wings from being mounted on the unsprung parts of the car (which, to my mind, is logically where they belong - if you’re going to have them); a restriction on their size and position; and a ban on them being adjustable whilst the car is in use (the ‘moveable’ clause).

As you say, the rules only embraced that which was known or imagined at the time. They did seem to overlook the issue of cooling fans though - or maybe it was thought enough that everyone ‘knew what they meant’…! More fool the rule-makers!