11 replies to this topic

[Graham Clayton]

Came across this video of the Tyrell 014 - what was the design rational behind the 'hump' in front of the cockpit?

 

Edited by Graham Clayton, 06 December 2024 - 08:26.

[bartez1000]

One thing to remember is that according to regulations, a line made from roll-bar to front roll-over structure must be over the driver's helmet (or maybe even over by some distance, which was surely the case later). The hump contains the front roll-over structure. The question is then why the nose of the car has this distinctive concave shape. That was a bit in vogue in 80s. Gustav Brunner's RAM 03 and Ferrari Indycar 637 also had this shape. I guess that this shape disappeared when coil over shocks got moved onto the top of the tub - filling the space in front of the front rollover structure, and the driver's position got lowered - lowering the front rollover structure.

[funformula]

The hump seems to be a reasonable solution regarding aerodynamics.

Quite a few cars that were built for high speed purposes had a similar solution around the cockpit although even a bit more radical. For example look at the Mike Costin designed Protos F2 and Crossle FF1600

[bartez1000]

Or maybe simply this Tyrrell just wasn't that well aerodynamically optimized - it even lacks a rear diffuser. Gains from nicer nose shape could be miniscule when compared to other areas of development.

[funformula]

Or maybe simply this Tyrrell just wasn't that well aerodynamically optimized - it even lacks a rear diffuser. Gains from nicer nose shape could be miniscule when compared to other areas of development.

 

You had to judge that with the knowledge of 1985, given that the Tyrrell appears to be one of the nicer/elegant ones.

Take a look at the F1 cars of that year and you will find only a few models with diffuser (Lotus,...?). Probably because the designers didn´t expect to gain much downforce from a flat bottom.

[funformula]

The Costin designed Crossle

 

[bartez1000]

You had to judge that with the knowledge of 1985, given that the Tyrrell appears to be one of the nicer/elegant ones.

Take a look at the F1 cars of that year and you will find only a few models with diffuser (Lotus,...?). Probably because the designers didn´t expect to gain much downforce from a flat bottom.

While this may be true in 1983, in 1985 one should expect a diffuser on every F1 car. 

The 1983 interim tyrrell 011 had a small diffuser! 

http://www.gurneyfla...es/DSC_0662.jpg

By 1985 the Tyrrell, with its underpowered Cosworth, should use all availible efficient downforce to lessen the deficit to turbo cars

Edited by bartez1000, 06 December 2024 - 20:38.

[chr1s]

The first car I remember seeing with a diffuser was the 1983 Renault RE40. 

[PayasYouRace]

Most cars from that era had that shape. The tub was built as low and small as possible. The dampers and springs were often installed vertically alongside the drivers feet, and the drivers tended to sit in a very upright position. So the hump was a fairly tidy solution to the problem of creating an aerodynamics envelope around the driver, his steering wheel and instrument panel, and the front rollover bar.

The first Tyrrell to completely dispose of the hump was the 1987 DG016. This was around the time that many constructors started the following trends. They started reclining the driver more, to lower the overall size of the car and reduce drag and blockage to the rear wing. To those that it applies the turbos began to be moved to the sidepods to lower the engine cover. Dampers and springs began to be mounted on the top of the tub with pushrod actuation. The introduction of female moulding for carbon composite tubs meant smoother external shapes could be built with the rigidity and strength required.

You see that basic shape going right back to cars like the Brabham BT44 and McLaren M23. The Arrows A1 is a particularly extreme example. Some of the last cars to win in that shape are these Tyrrells and the Williams FW10.

In aerodynamics sometimes it’s better to have a slim body with a lump on it than a much wider if smoother body. Aerodynamics always need to be considered in three dimensions, and what seems good to the eye isn’t necessary the best performing design. The Lola T97/30 looked clean, but the stopwatch reveals that it never saw the inside of a wind tunnel.

[69seven]

The hump seems to be a reasonable solution regarding aerodynamics.

Quite a few cars that were built for high speed purposes had a similar solution around the cockpit although even a bit more radical. For example look at the Mike Costin designed Protos F2 and Crossle FF1600

I think it the Protos and Crossle F2 were Frank Costin designs, not Mike Costin.

[funformula]

I think it the Protos and Crossle F2 were Frank Costin designs, not Mike Costin.

 

Correct, I mixed the brothers up. Mike Costin was the engine builder while Frank was in aerodynamics

[Alan Lewis]

Correct, I mixed the brothers up. Mike Costin was the engine builder while Frank was in aerodynamics

"Mike Cosworth/Frank Marcos" is how I've always told them apart in my mind.