103 replies to this topic

[Peter Perfect]

I'm currently playing Grand Prix Legends on my computer and have been fiddling around with the setups to improve my times. This got me thinking about how the drivers of the day developed their setups. Does anyone know anything about the developments of setup thinking?

[karlth]

Originally posted by Peter Perfect
I'm currently playing Grand Prix Legends on my computer and have been fiddling around with the setups to improve my times. This got me thinking about how the drivers of the day developed their setups. Does anyone know anything about the developments of setup thinking?

Cooper(Coventry ) was asked this question by a group of GPL fans some time ago and if I remember correctly then he said they normally only changed the gearing ratios between races.

[bergwerk]

Gear ratios, shock absorber valving, springs and the usual tinkering with roll bars. You refered to the previous year's settings for a given track and used them as your baseline during practice except for Zandvoort which required new settings every time.

[karlth]

Found the interview and as usual my memory was spot on, in the wrong direction

Q: When arriving at a Grand Prix, how would you go about setting up
the cars? For example could you take us through the way you would set
up the car for a particular track, say Monza or Silverstone?

A: They would turn up at the circuit and start with the settings from
last year's race if possible. The drivers would then go out and the
mechanics would adjust the setup to their liking.

Basically, the driver's opinion was the most important thing when
setting up the car. It was definitely not a case of dropping the
driver into the car and telling them to get on with it.

The team apparently only took FOUR mechanics to the races. That was
for both cars.

Q: What static ride heights did you use? How were they determined?

A: Initially he said 2-3 inches, but on a mement's reflection he
changed his mind to 3-4. I think the new minimum of 2.5" is probably a
realistic minimum.

Q: Were changes (springs, roll bars, dampers) made on race weekends,
or was the car driven "as delivered" to the track?

A: The team would adjust anything the driver wanted. He mentioned
Springs, Dampers, Roll Bars, Ride Height and several other things I
didn't have time to write down.

Q: How much did you test compared with today?

A: Not as much. They would test a bit at Goodwood and Silverstone but
not often.

Q: Did the set-ups differ between the drivers?

A: Yes.

[Peter Perfect]

Thanks.

Do you know of anywhere where I can get an insight into setup techniques. I heard that in Sennas book he talks about the routine he went through to refine his settings.

[fines]

You start with gear ratios: first top gear, then 1st gear, then the others.

Nowadays there's aerodynamics which comes next, first rear, then front. And, of course, ride height.

The next is suspensions: springs, dampers, buffers and so forth on each corner of the car, order depends on track. Also anti-roll bars, stagger etc.

The last main thing is the tyres, and today the fuel amount. Additionally, every change may require to go back in this order, e.g. less rear wing => faster gearing.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I actually go the other way. Tires first, then aero balance, then suspension. After thats allll finished, onboard adjustors. Or at least that's how id go about doing it, if i had a chance to work on it.

[Wolf]

Which car was the first that set-up differently for different tracks? I have a reliable source which says that: It may well be that Kieft '500' was the first racing car in which the need for varied suspension settings on differing circuits was appreciated and provided for. Were there any previous instances of that kind of things?

[Doug Nye]

Just a sample - taken from the set-up sheets for the BRM P578 spaceframe V8 cars prepared for the 1963 Oulton Park Gold Cup non-Championship Formula 1 race.

The two cars were to be driven by Graham Hill and Richie Ginther. Interesting to see how Graham preferred the far harder, stiffer setting, with more nose-down rake in the car as well.

Quote:

"Suspension settings for the race were :-

Graham Hill. Spring 76lb/in front – 64lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ¾-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.730-inch front – 0.437-inch rear

Richie Ginther. Spring 54lb/in front – 57lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ½-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.620-inch front – 0.375-inch rear"

Any interest???

DCN

[Bladrian]

Peter Perfect: I also enjoy a trundle in GPL, and you can do a lot worse than referring to this link for some GPL setup ideas - http://website.lineone.net/~richardn/

Doug: I am SO pleased to see some other settings for a non-aero F1 car, and I find those settings are pretty indicative of the two drivers' different driving styles (and temperaments, possibly?)

Hills settings would indicate that he preferred the car to understeer, (with the rear suspension so soft, relatively speaking) which would allow a driver to be more aggressive with throttle and brake. (Funny about the rake, though - that would have the effect of stiffening the rear again. No doubt those settings were arrived at empirically, the way most were ... the seat of the pants being the most sensitive measuring equipment available to the drivers. heh.)

Ginther's settings would indicate that the driver preferred the car to 'turn in' well, which is how the 'sensitive' (I'm sorry, I can't think of a better phrase just now) driver prefers the car to react. It allows more 'feel' for what the car is doing into, through, and out of the corners. Does that mean Ginther had a less robust id than Hill? I never had the pleasure of meeting either of the two gentlemen, so perhaps, Doug, you could illuminate the subject further, please. BIG please.

[Dave Wright]

Just a sample .... Any interest???

Yes I'm very intersted! Thanks for posting the information, Doug.

Any more information on setups would be very welcome, e.g. ride height, camber, toe, gear ratios, differential ramp settings - anything!. I'm particularly interested in 1967 because of GPL, but earlier set-ups are still very useful.

I presume the spring rates you quote are wheel rates?

[Arturo Pereira]

Originally posted by Bladrian
Peter Perfect: I also enjoy a trundle in GPL, and you can do a lot worse than referring to this link for some GPL setup ideas - http://website.lineone.net/~richardn/

Doug: I am SO pleased to see some other settings for a non-aero F1 car, and I find those settings are pretty indicative of the two drivers' different driving styles (and temperaments, possibly?)

Hills settings would indicate that he preferred the car to understeer, (with the rear suspension so soft, relatively speaking) which would allow a driver to be more aggressive with throttle and brake. (Funny about the rake, though - that would have the effect of stiffening the rear again. No doubt those settings were arrived at empirically, the way most were ... the seat of the pants being the most sensitive measuring equipment available to the drivers. heh.)

Ginther's settings would indicate that the driver preferred the car to 'turn in' well, which is how the 'sensitive' (I'm sorry, I can't think of a better phrase just now) driver prefers the car to react. It allows more 'feel' for what the car is doing into, through, and out of the corners. Does that mean Ginther had a less robust id than Hill? I never had the pleasure of meeting either of the two gentlemen, so perhaps, Doug, you could illuminate the subject further, please. BIG please.

yesssssss

[Arturo Pereira]

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Quote:

"Suspension settings for the race were :-

Graham Hill. Spring 76lb/in front – 64lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ¾-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.730-inch front – 0.437-inch rear

Richie Ginther. Spring 54lb/in front – 57lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ½-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.620-inch front – 0.375-inch rear"

Any interest???

DCN

Any refference of which settings some cars used in the mid 50s ???

Thanks in advance Doug

[Doug Nye]

Here's some Vanwall and BRM gen which might be of interest?

Car 'VW5' prepared for the 1958 Monaco GP:-

Engine had run 2hrs 57mins since last rebuild (serial 'V1'). It had been bench tested at 264bhp from 7,400-7,500rpm, at 5,500 it developed 199bhp - at 6,000 232 - at 6,500 250 - at 7,000 258 - at 7,200 260bhp.

Gearbox ratio was 15-21 - final drive ratio 13-51.

Only rear spring details are record (sadly) - free length 11.75ins rating 111-111 - preload 2 3/4-inches

Brake balance bar was set at a 45-55 bias front/rear - 1-inch master cylinders were fitted.

In practice the 5.50x16 front tyres (Dunlop R5s) were inflated to 32lbs psi, 2lbs reduction after 12 laps. Car was driven by Moss and Lewis-Evans - max revs 7,300rpm in 5th gear.

For the BELGIAN GP at Spa

'VW5' ran on 5.50x16 Dunlop R5s at front - 7.00x16 ditto at rear.

Front pressure was 37lbs psi - rear 42lbs psi.

Brake balance set at 45 front/55 rear

Gearbox ratio was 15:16 - final-drive ratio 14:50

Car driven by Brooks - 1st - "Gearbox seized on last lap. Oil pressure 55-60lbs at half distance, then dropped to 30lbs on corners. During last two laps pressure dropped to 10lbs."

For the Championship-deciding Moroccan GP a Casablanca 'VW5' was prepared with engine 'V1' which had run 1hr 30mins since rebuild - offered 187bhp at 5K - 201 5.5K - 231 6K - 249 6.5K - 258 7K - 261 7.2K - 263 7.4K -"Very flexible engine, occasional popping but this does clear when engine is warm...".

Gearbox ratio was 15:16 - final-drive ratio 13:51

Front springs were by Salters - 8.25inch free length - rating 250lbs and 251lbs
Rear springs were by Salters - 11.75inch free length - rating "not known" !
Preload 2 3/4-inch

Brake balance was 45:55.

For the race, driven by Moss, 'VW5' ran on 5.50x16 Dunlop R5 front and 7.00x16 rear tyres, pressured to 35lbs/38lbs - running time for the race was 2hrs 19mins - completed 53 laps - total mileage 244 - max. revs used 7,700 in 5th gear - coolant temp 70C - oil temp 88C - oil pressure 65-70lbs psi - fuel pressure 18lbs - gearbox temp 180degsC....etc

1961 BRM SET-UPS

For Easter Monday Goodwood:

1 1/2-litre BRM P57-Climax cars:

Front suspension: 0.580inch anti-roll bar - green/blue code springs (hah - can't find the guide code which would give us the rates) - Aeon 5356 rubber (shut down in press before fitting) - bottom wishbone 45deg neg. camber (that's what it actually says) - top wishbone 5deg camber - 12:1 steering ratio -

Rear suspension: 0.500inch anti-roll bar - red coded springs A5038 Aeon rubbers - 0.4inch toe-in at static - 2deg rear negative camber -

Gearbox 5-speed with 22 drives, 24 input

Weber carburettors: - 35mm chokes - 140 main jets - 170 air bleeds - 50 slow running (45 to try) - 45 pump jets (40 to try)

Brakes 50/50 balance bar Mintex 875 linings (pads) - 1.75inch front, 1.437inch rear, 5/8inch bore master cylinders
--------------------------------

2 1/2-litre P48 Mark II InterContinental Formula car:

Chassis '487' - Front suspension: 0.620inch anti-roll bar A5351 yellow/red springs
Chassis '484' - 0.620inch anti-roll bar, yellow/white springs

Both cars 45deg neg camber at static, 5deg castor

Rear suspension 0.5inch anti-roll bar, red/green springs - 0.4inch toe-in at static, 2degs neg camber...

Etc etc etc...

If you like this kind of material, enjoy, if not - there are far more digestible threads elsewhere - sorry!

DCN

PS - re difference between Graham Hill and Richie Ginther in driving approach - Graham liked a car as stiff as a kart - and would muscle it round the circuit. Richie liked a more traditional supple car and would flow it round a circuit. Id? Nobody had a bigger Id, or brandished it more energetically, than N. G.Hill.

[Dave Wright]

Thanks Doug.

I presume you have nothing from 1967? One question recently raised was whether GPLs wheel rate range of 50-100 lbs/in front and 70-120 lbs/in rear was accurate. Ron Tauranac quoted the BT24s wheel rates as 65-75 lbs front and a little stiffer at the rear. The setup data you provided from 1963 for a car about 10% lighter than the Brabham indicates the Brabham's settings were not untypical and GPLs rate ranges are probably accurate. It would also seem to indicate that rear anti-roll bars were softer than the front and wheel rates were not strictly in proportion to weight distribution. Hill's set-up may not be typical but even Ginther's rear springs are only a bit stiffer than the front.

Hill's preference for stiff springs was commented on by Tony Rudd in his book "It was fun" - Jackie Stewart used springs and bars four steps in the range softer. From the 1963 figures I was trying to estimate the "gaps" between steps. There is a 7lb difference in rear wheel rate and a 22lb difference at the front - so perhaps 7lb or 3.5lb increments. I have read that coil springs were supplied in 5lb increments, but the suspension geometry would reduce the wheel rate compared to the spring rate.

[Arturo Pereira]

Thank you very much Doug !!!

[Doug Nye]

Possiply OTP (like the catchy abbrev.?) but here are the set-up details listed for the BRM P160s in the 1973 German GP at Nurburgring (verbatim - it makes GREAT reading, ha, ha):

Regazzoni's P160-09:

Ground clearance with driver and 10 gallons of fuel = 3.5 inches

Castor angle - 4.5degs

Static camber - 1/4deg positive

Static wheel toe - 20minutes in

Damper settings - all max 10mm on bump - droop 1-off tops

Spring - 220

Bump rubbers - 1 5/8inch MS + 3/8

Anti-roll bar - 5/8inch x 16gauge No 2 (Beltoise preferred 9/16inch No 1 bar on his P160-07 and Lauda in P160-08 the same as Regazzoni)

Wing setting - 1inch = 3/8inch for Regazzoni, +5/8inch for Beltoise and Lauda

Tyre pressures - 0.82 (ata presumably???) Beltoise ditto - Lauda .90

Rear suspension: Ground clearance with driver and 10 galls fuel = 5inches for Regazzoni, 4 7/8inches for Beltoise and Lauda

Castor angle 2degs

Static camber - 1/4deg positive

Static wheel toe - 40minutes in

Damper setting bump max, drop max for Regazzoni, 1 click off max on drop for Beltoise and 1 click off both bump and droop for Lauda.

Sparings 400/500 for Regazzoni and Lauda, 400s for Beltoise

Bump rubbers - 7/16inch ring all three

Anti-roll bar - 7/8inch 17 gauge x 4 1/2 for Regazzoni - 7/8inch 13 gauge x 4inches for Beltoise and 7/8inch 13 gauge by 4 1/4inches for Lauda

Wing - min with flip in all three cases

Tyre pressures unrecorded

Max rpm in top gear were 10,700 for Regazzoni and Lauda and 10,800rpm for Beltoise.

DCN

[Bladrian]

Terrific stuff, Doug. I know I speak for any number of forum rats when I say - keep 'em coming! Please!

Regarding the moustachioed one - I suspected Mr Hill might have a pretty robust ego - nice to have it confirmed.

[Arturo Pereira]

Originally posted by Bladrian


Terrific stuff, Doug. I know I speak for any number of forum rats when I say - keep 'em coming! Please!

Regarding the moustachioed one - I suspected Mr Hill might have a pretty robust ego - nice to have it confirmed.

Yesssssssssss Sir !!!!

[Doug Nye]

Please permit me - in my abiding ignorance of GPL or whatever it's called - what is the great attraction of this kind of material......

DCN

[Ian McKean]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Just a sample - taken from the set-up sheets for the BRM P578 spaceframe V8 cars prepared for the 1963 Oulton Park Gold Cup non-Championship Formula 1 race.

The two cars were to be driven by Graham Hill and Richie Ginther. Interesting to see how Graham preferred the far harder, stiffer setting, with more nose-down rake in the car as well.

Quote:

"Suspension settings for the race were :-

Graham Hill. Spring 76lb/in front – 64lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ¾-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.730-inch front – 0.437-inch rear

Richie Ginther. Spring 54lb/in front – 57lb/in rear
Packing ¼-inch front – ½-inch rear
Anti-roll bar 0.620-inch front – 0.375-inch rear"

Any interest???

DCN

I thought I knew a fair bit about chassis design but obviously not! What do you mean by "packing"? Thanks in advance!

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Please permit me - in my abiding ignorance of GPL or whatever it's called - what is the great attraction of this kind of material......

DCN

There is an ongoing debate as to what settings allowed in the game are realistic, and what settings take advantage of imperfections in physics modelling. One of such settings is toe in, since GPL doesn't model drag caused by excessive toe in, a lot of people use the max settings for tuning handling, 1/2 inch toe in/out maximum. Another setting is ride height, almost everyone uses 2.5 inch ride heights while few nutjobs like Bladrian use 3.75 inches, claiming it's more realistic. It's possible probably because bumps are poorly modeled on the tracks, except for Nurburgring, where bumps can easily knock the car from under you. I'm also curious about tire pressures, I'm seeing figures in mid 30 PSI range, yet it's almost assumed that you have to inflate your tires to 20 or so PSI cold in GPL.

[Dave Wright]

Please permit me - in my abiding ignorance of GPL or whatever it's called - what is the great attraction of this kind of material......

I can only speak for myself of course but the attraction lies in its applicability to a PC simulation of 1967 F1 racing - GPL or Grand Prix Legends. Part of the simulation includes setting up the car including wheel rate, ride height, anti-roll bar stiffness, toe, camber, tyre pressure etc. I believe the set-up ranges allowed by the sim are basically historically correct; Ron Tauranac was consulted during production of the sim, as was Jack Brabham, Tony Rudd, Herbie Blash ( mechanic at Rob Walkers Racing Team from 1965 and mechanic at Lotus to Graham Hill from 1968), and Robs Lamplough (F-2 driver in 1967). However, the allowed ranges are quite wide. Some of us would like to set-up the cars in a similar manner to the real cars, but data on the real set-ups is very difficult to obtain. This is why your posts are useful to me, even if they involve a little "extrapolation" because they are not from the 1967 season.

Hope this makes it a little clearer.

[ray b]

Originally posted by Ian McKean


I thought I knew a fair bit about chassis design but obviously not! What do you mean by "packing"? Thanks in advance!

I think it is the bump rubber hight EDIT BUT LOOKS LIKE I AM WRONG!!
I and I am sure many others would love any info on range of adjustments realy used in 67
the only real # I can add is 18 lbs air pressure on clarks lotus with firestone tyres in its first race with the cossie-ford v-8 as per HNM in R&T race report that must be a cold # I guess.

DID all use koni shocks and did koni allso make the bump rubbers and or springs for [the coilovers]for the F-1 cars in 67??
anyone know who to ask if koni still has records of what they supplied to the teams in 67????

[Bladrian]

In my day we used to refer to 'packing' as the spacers we used under the springs to raise them (and somewhat pre-load them).

[Dave Wright]

I would also guess that packing was used to adjust the ride height and not another term for the rubber bump stops.

According to Autosport, Lotus and Brabham used Armstrong dampers. I don't know what the other teams used - I will try to find out.

[Dave Wright]

Just checked my source on dampers (Autosport) -

Brabham, Lotus, AAR, Cooper and Honda all used Armstrong dampers. Ferrari used Koni dampers.

[ray b]

thanks dave
did armstrong allso supply the springs and bump rubbers?????
or sub them out???
are they still in biz??
any idea who to ask at armstrong about what was used in 67 F-1???

on to the packing, how much increase in spring rates to how much packing thickness???

how many sets of springs were used per car???

[Dave Wright]

did armstrong allso supply the springs and bump rubbers?????
or sub them out???
are they still in biz??
any idea who to ask at armstrong about what was used in 67 F-1???

I'm sorry Ray - all I have is some 1967 editions of Autosport which list the suppliers of major items on the car such as tyres, brakes, fuel injection etc. I'd be surprised if Armstrong also manufactured springs. If bump rubbers were part of the damper, it would be logical for Armstong to supply them but I would guess they were subcontracted.

I did a Google search on Armstrong dampers and didn't get the company in the first few pages.

on to the packing, how much increase in spring rates to how much packing thickness???

No idea!!

how many sets of springs were used per car???

As to the number of springs, all I have is the following:-

A contemporary description of the BRM P261 (the predecessor of the P83) states that "A large collection of alternative springs travels with the car, the dampers are adjustable, there are seven different front anti-roll bars, two rear anti-roll bars each having each having seven different positions ... . There are even four different rack and pinions giving steering reduction ratios between 10:1 (Monaco) and 15:1 for the fastest circuits.

As posted above, Tony Rudd says Graham Hill used springs and bars four steps in the range stiffer than Jackie Stewart. So the range was clearly bigger than four! I would guess 8 or 10 but this is only a guess!

Also as posted above, I have read that coil springs were supplied in 5 lbs/in spring rate increments. Because of the suspension geometry, the effective spring rate at the wheel (wheel rate) will be lower than the spring rate.

[Dave Wright]

I'm currently playing Grand Prix Legends on my computer and have been fiddling around with the setups to improve my times. This got me thinking about how the drivers of the day developed their setups. Does anyone know anything about the developments of setup thinking?

To digress from dampers etc, one area I have found information on is tyre temperatures. I used to play Papy's Indycar Racing, predecessor to GPL, which unusually for the time, included tyre temperatures. When GPL incorporated the same feature, I did wonder if they really did this back in the sixties, but the film "Nine Days in Summer" included a shot of tyre temperatures being taken. There is also this account of practice for the 1968 South African GP which will sound familiar to any GPLer who has struggled to get even tyre temperatures.

Clark continued to improve his time to 1min. 23.0 sec., then he asked to try the new Dunlop tyres. These were fitted and in three laps he recorded 1min. 22.9 sec., complaining of understeer. With 6 lb. more pressure in the front tyres to get the profile higher (the centre was running cooler than the edges), he went out again and got down into the 22 sec. immediately, finishing with a time of 1min. 22.4 sec. The car was still not set up properly for Dunlop tyres and the inner left-hand tread was running at up to 120' C, which, in the old days, would have been fatal, but the new soft compounds are designed to run hot.

This is taken from MotorSport.

[Ian McKean]

I am still confused by "packing". If it is the spacers between the spring and the sping seat then it would affect the ride height, but not, I think the spring rate.

But surely they had adjustable spring seats on concentric coil spring/damper units even in the early 1960s so why did they need packing? If not, when adjustable spring seats come in?

[ray b]

on most modern coilovers used on street cars
only top part adjusts the bottom stop is fixed
so if you tighten the top lower, the rate goes up but the car comes down
spacers are then used to bring the ride-hight back up to desired hight

did 60's f-1 coilovers work the sameway?????

[Dave Wright]

Well I visited my favourite second hand book shop today and came across an article on Koni dampers written in a January 1967 issue of Autosport!

It would seem that Koni's innovation at the time was to have bump and rebound settings separately adjustable. The damper incorporates a rubber bump stop, and the spring seat is threaded and therefore presumably adjustable.

Sorry Ray, I'm not familiar with the term coilover.

[Dave Wright]

Got a book today - Graham Hill Grand Prix Racing Book - published in 1966, just before the 3 litre era. He confirms that ride height was adjusted by screwing the bottom spring support up and down on the body of the shock absorber (damper).

This does leave us with the question of what the packing referred to in the BRM 1963 set-ups was, unless the P57 did not have the adjustable spring supports.

[Doug Nye]

I thought I'd responded to this. It was a solid steel or aluminium packer used to raise the effective spring platform before threaded adjustment was provided or beyond the available range of thread adjustment. Literally a packing piece.

DCN

[Dave Wright]

Doug - thanks for clearing this up.

[Doug Nye]

I haven't quite, packers were also used to alter effective length of wishbone or radius rod or lateral link suspension components. I can't yet find a formal set-up sheet for the 1966 to '67 period in which you seem primarily interested, but can you deduce anything useful from the following Tyre Test report with the BRM H16?? Excuse format errors:

SECOND SERIES DUNLOP TYRE TESTS, KYALAMI CIRCUIT -27th & 28th February, & 1st March,1967.


For these tests car No. 8303 (J. Stewart’s usual car) was airfreighted to Kyalami. This car had the production version of the wishbone rear suspension, Girling Ford C.T.40 front brakes, a .425” front roll bar, .15-inch packings under the top front wishbone bolts. The engine had 11.8 timings and compression ratio; and fuel was fed through a Mark II Lucas fuel pump, with non-return valve to an engine driven Cosworth pump, but with non—return valve. The gearbox fitted had an aluminium centre clutch. The water system was of the shunt type, with external top pipes, and the Imperial College nose was used.

The driver throughout was Mike Spence. 27—lbs tyre pressure was used throughout. Testing commenced Monday, 27th February, but was delayed by heavy rain; when running finally began the track was still wet—-with air temperature of 220 C. Tyres used were R.7s in 184 compound. Fuel used Shell No. 1.

I lap Driver complained engine cuts out at Clubhouse. 12 gallons of Shell No. 1 added.

1 lap Still cutting out, jumps out of 3rd gear. Gear change readjusted. 12 gallons more Shell No. 1 added.

1 lap : Cutting out cured; oil pressure has dropped from 60 to

30—lbs suddenly. Foreign matter under relief valve.

2 laps: Has again lost oil pressure, and brakes are permanently on.

More foreign matter was found under the relief valve. The brakes had insufficient pad clearance for thermal expansion. .020” shims were added between the cylinders and stirrups.

As further rain fell, washing soil across the track, testing was abandoned for the day.

3 — 4 selector fork was reversed to permit 3rd to get deeper into mesh, and the oil system cleaned out, and oil changed. The seat fuel tank was found to have split; long pipes were fitted to run to the back of the tank in case the cutting out was due to surge.

TUESDAY. 28th February :

Testing commenced at 7 a.m. under bright sunny conditions on R.7 — 184s.

6 laps : Best I min.30.O. Oil pressure only 45, temperature 95, water 110. Engine sluggish, picks up badly and only runs to 10,000 r.p.m. Understeers in slow corners, oversteers in fast (wrong way round). Rear toe-in was found to be excessive at .350” (suspension had been dismantled to airfreight). Reduced to .150”; the rear castor was also reduced 3 turns.

5 laps : Best 1 min.29.9. Now oversteers everywhere, but is consistent. Brakes solid, responsive, pedal effort excessive——too much on rear. Oil pressure only 40, still cuts out. 8 gallons of Aronax added, rear roll bar set fully soft to cura oversteer--much foreign matter, probably steel, found in oil relief valve. Air temperature now 27deg C. R.7. 006 compound fitted all round.

5 laps : Best 1 min.29.3. Oil pressure was 50, dropped suddenly to 40. Tyres good, have much more grip—— better under braking and traction. More metal found under relief valve. Car now tends to understeer too much on these tyres, was in balance on 184’s though. Front tyres R.7. 006 but with 1” wider tread fitted to cure understeer.

5 laps : Best 1 min.29.5. Driver reports these tyres worse for understeer, steering heavy. Radiator found to have split front edge left hand top tank, — taken to Johannesburg for repair. Air temperature now 280 C. Engine still cutting out, pick—up poor; engine still sluggish, not pulling more than 10,000 r.p.m. — costing at least half second per lap.

While waiting for the radiator, softer (1 blue) front springs fitted, front Camber increased one turn. Front braking increased 2%, and the fuel system was rearranged to feed the relief valve spill into the filter.

Testing re—commenced at 3.30 p.m. Air temperature 26deg C. 4 laps : Best 1 min.29.l. using standard R.7 .006; understeer much improved, braking better.

Tyres replaced with R.7s in 030 compound (.006 with different curing technique).

2 laps : Jumping out of third gear, tyres not very nice——slides as if track is oily. Dunlops found that the tyres had softened from 62 to 55 shore in two laps, indicating some processing fault. It was then decided to change the gearbox, as this would deal with the jumping out of gear problem—-and we wished to use the other box which had a steel reinforced magnesium centre.

Total day’s running 27 laps.

Wednesday. 1st March :

. Testing commenced 7.0 a.m. Dull, threat of rain. Difficulty was experienced starting the engine, symptoms of low fuel pressure——non return valve in Mark II pump stuck.

Running began on Tuesday’s R.7. 030 tyres.

4 laos : Best 1 min.31.2. understeers horribly, cutting out occasionally, fuel level raised to 35 gallons. 25%

Aronox mixture. R.7. 030 front tyres in D.l5 construction
fitted;R.7 — 030 standard on rear.

1 lap : Tremendous improvement. Car now has fantastic oversteer.
R.7 .030 — D.l5 rears fitted to match.

3 laps : Best 1 min.30.6. Very bad understeer; tyres feel harsh, let go suddenly and are very unpleasant. Rubber had softened again, obviously fault in 030 compound processing. Agreed that D.l5 construction showed promise, but was probably too stiff—-suggested 5 plys instead of 6 to Dunlop, even though it means ‘handed’ tyres. (Odd number of plys means change in characteristics with direction of rotation). C.R.79 tyres in 030 compound fitted; these tyres are smaller and increase r.p.m. by about 250. Air temperature now 27 degsC.

6 laps Best 1 min.29.3. Hold on longer——break away quicker and viciously; feel harsher and have less traction; pulling 10,300, may be 10,400; engine feels very nice above 10,000. Rubber had softened in characteristic 030 manner.

Agreed with Dunlop we would set car up to give best handling on R.7 — 006. and then re—test C.R.79 and D.25’s. Front camber increased 1/2deg to combat understeer. R.7 — 006 refitted.

5 laps : Best 1 min.28.0. Driver reports very good, slight oversteer, car responds to slightest adjustment, less kick—back in steering——only pulling 10,000 r.p.m. Rear camber increased 1/3deg

2 laps : Car has more oversteer, rear camber reduced 1/3deg.
R.7 — 030 D.l5 fitted all round.

4 laps : Best 1 min.29.3. feels much harsher — twitchy but is in balance; no noticeable change in braking conditions. Engine cuts as it warms up, fuel temperature 135deg F. Fuel relief valve spill re—routed into seat tank. Oil pressure dropped suddenly; more foreign matter under valve. CR.79 in 030 re—fitted.

4 laps : Best 1 min.29.2. Some gain in r.p.m. loss of traction and sudden breakaway. Oil pressure again dropped suddenly, relief valve removed and lapped in. New tyres in experimental compound R.7 — 038. fitted.

5 laps : Best 1 min.30.0. Spun on one lap, oversteers and much wheel spin out of corners——tyres not nice at all. Gearchange suddenly stiff and difficult to change down. Query clutch freeing properly, checked——no fault found. R.7 — 006 tyres fitted as control, as there was a line of rubber right round the circuit as the .030 compound was wearing fast.

4 laps : Best I min.28.9 — track is definitely more slippery. One softer front and two softer rear springs were fitted, and the gearbox dismantled——no faults were found.
4 laps : Best I min.29.3. Car feels very nice to drive. Soft and responsive like a Lotus, but perhaps slower*. (subsequent photographs show car to be rolling 2 ¾-degs about twice as much as it should)——probably rolling off camber. Firestone 125’s fitted.
4 laps : Best 1 min.34.2. Feels terrible——car did 1 min.29.5. on these during practice for South African Grand Prix, and is handling better now. Must be rolling off camber as wide square Firestones are very sensitive to this. Decided not to re—set car to get best out of them in view of shortage of time.


R.7 — 006 spiked tyres fitted all round. These tyres had many little cuts in the tread pattern to make it more flexible.

6 laps : Best 1 min.30.0. Car feels very unstable, breakaway gentler, but very soon. Tyres replaced by R.7 — 006 controls for check.

6 laps : Best 1 min.28.8. Driver commented they are best tyres; track has definitely become more slippery. Heavy rain then fell putting an end to further tests.

59 laps had been covered——with 27 on Tuesday.
__At driver de—briefing it was agreed that —


1) Engine was down on performance for some reason——not fuel starvation, costing at least .5 second per lap.

2) Rear suspension was greatly improved, but not as much as 1.3 seconds per lap apparent improvement, although with further roadside adjustment could be improved.

3) Steering is much improved, less fatiguing and less kickback.

4) Brakes are better, but still require too much pedal effort.

5) Gear change is worse, slow, heavy and kicks back.

6) Although fuel system is greatly improved, i.e., 15 lbs lighter, battery stays charged, far less components,

further work is required to prevent fuel overheating and

surging to cure cutting out.
TYRES :
1) .006 is an improvement.
2) .030 compound suffered from processing fault; tests to be repeated.
3) C.R.79 is only suitable for ultra high speed circuits, such as Monza and Rheims.
4) D.l5 construction shows much promise, but is too stiff; halfway construction between standard and D.l5 is required.
5) 038 compound and ‘spiking’ unsuccessful.
16th March 1967.

(* - I gather Mike Spence actually reported "Driving this car compared to driving the Lotus 33s is like the difference between driving a Rolls-Royce and a Ford. The problem is that the Ford was faster...")

DCN



































—-F

[fines]

Wonderful!

[Dave Wright]

Well as something of a P83 fan I did find it very interesting! Thanks.

As for set-up information it is a little sparse. The rear toe figure of 0.150" is interesting - it confirms that the figures typically used in GPL are historically correct, and that a figure of 0.350" is excessive. The size of the changes made to front and rear camber settings could be useful.

It's possible Dunlop recommend higher tyre pressures than say Firestone. 27lbs is quite high. Ray b reports 18 psi for the Firestone, and my post above records Lotus had to add 6 psi to the Dunlop tyres.

Thanks once again for your time and effort.

[Christopher Snow]

Doug--

As Dimitriy mentioned, we have an ongoing debate (about this...and about so many other things too...in GPL).

Several things do leap out immediately when perusing this info: Tire pressures were generally higher than those we run in GPL. The use of packers (which I first saw in a much more modern F1 sim, GP2) is unavailable to us in GPL per se--we simply change the "ride height." It's probably similar in overall effect, even if not identical in method (and in potential tradeoffs). Roll bars seem to have been sorted by diameter, rather than by "pounds" as is done in GPL--it IS done by diameter, however, in Papyrus's later Nascar sims....

There are other things too, of course. Certain setups of brake balance, in particular, seem to have been workable in the real cars in a way they really aren't in the sim. You'd need to add a LOT of throttle while braking to make a 55% rear bias even driveable, let alone competitive--bit of a mystery how that could be done while braking with just the right foot (Uh oh...here we go again.... ).

And as to what the interest might be...

....well, all I can say, Doug, is that there IS an interest and you've done quite a bit to feed it. Thank you, yet again!

----

I'd also like to ask if you have any particular information at hand on setup of the '66-'67 Brabhams. I'm thinking here of your authoring of "Car's in Profile, #3" [about those same cars]. Perhaps something interesting is buried in a box somewhere in your attic.

Last, if you or anyone else could offer a lead on where a copy of that particular publication might be foundpurchased, it would help too--my local library had a compilation of the "CiP" series years ago, but it's been gone from the catalog for quite some time now.

Thanks again.


Christopher Snow

[Arturo Pereira]

Thank you very much Doug !!! That kind of information is pure gold for the GPLers and for those who want more realistic setups

[ray b]

THANK YOU DOUG
GLPers are fans in the true fanatic form
a post about any data will be loved

Originally posted by Dave Wright
Well I visited my favourite second hand book shop today and came across an article on Koni dampers written in a January 1967 issue of Autosport!

It would seem that Koni's innovation at the time was to have bump and rebound settings separately adjustable. The damper incorporates a rubber bump stop, and the spring seat is threaded and therefore presumably adjustable.

Sorry Ray, I'm not familiar with the term coilover.

a coilover is just a spring around the shock
adjustable coilovers are threaded on one or both ends
so spring can be tighted or loosened raising or lower car
and some what the spring rate???

I am guessing that IF packing/spacer was used only one end was threaded
allso asking if shock Co. allso made the springs for them??? to find out range used
supplyed bump rubbers TOO???? biggest to avg to minimum size of bump rubbers???

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Reading those tire test notes, I would not want to be a mechanic servicing that H16.

[Bladrian]

Wonderful, wonderful reading, Doug. Thank you so much. It was fascinating to get an insight as to the way a factory team in the sixties went about setting up the car - and the fact that having a test driver that was consistent, rather than erratically fast, was as important then as it is now. (Of course, it helps if you have a Michael Schumacher testing for you - then you get fast AND consistent .... heh.) For us privateers racing during that era, all we basically did was set the car up to track straight, and then we'd generally just live with any handling problems there were.
Highly interesting about the H-16 motor - it was apparently manufactured and shipped in a great hurry, or it was sloppily manufactured. So much swarf in a new engine does not speak well of their quality control. And that gearbox wasn't all that great, either - it appears not to have been able to satisfactorily handle the output of that elephant engine too well.

But again, thank you very much for going to the trouble to dig out the details - it is highly appreciated all round.

[Dave Wright]

so spring can be tighted or loosened raising or lower car and some what the spring rate???

The purpose of adjusting the spring seats was to change ride height. To adjust spring rate you fitted different springs.

supplyed bump rubbers TOO???? biggest to avg to minimum size of bump rubbers???

It would be logical for the damper manufacturer to supply the bump rubbers, and certainly Koni do. I visited their website and the damper introduced in 1967 is still available! They do not supply a range of bump stops though - only one. For dampers with a stroke of less than 120mm the bump rubber is 40mm (1.57") long. For dampers with a stroke greater than 120mm, the bump rubber is 55mm (2.17") long.

Before you ask I don't know the stroke of the dampers used on the F1 cars in 1967! The P57 had a total suspension travel of 9" (228mm). This was probably longer than average at the time, but I dont know the suspension travel for any 1967 car. Also the stroke of the damper will be less than the suspension travel because of the suspension geometry. For the cantilever type front suspension typical in 1967 the ratio of suspension travel to spring/damper travel must have been approaching 3:1. So I would guess the front damper stroke would be under 120mm.

[Doug Nye]

Do you do only single-saters, or are Porsche 917s, GT40s and CanAm cars of interest???? If so, don't get over-excited, certainly don't hold your breath, but somewhere on the shelves or in the stacks around here there's gen available for them....

DCN

PS - Talk of 'stuff in the attic' - my beloved wife decided the time had come to gather up the cuddly toys, teddy bears, etc, accumulated over donkey's years, put them in plastic bags and consign them to the attic. Before doing so - I found her carefully stabbing holes in the bags. "Why are you doing that???" - "I can't bear the thought of them not being able to breath..."

[Dave Wright]

Highly interesting about the H-16 motor - it was apparently manufactured and shipped in a great hurry, or it was sloppily manufactured. So much swarf in a new engine does not speak well of their quality control. And that gearbox wasn't all that great, either - it appears not to have been able to satisfactorily handle the output of that elephant engine too well.

From what I have read, the problem was with repaired engines (the H16s didn't last long), rather than failure to remove swarf from a new engine. Debris was trapped in the oil cooler where it could not be effectively cleaned, and moved down-stream to jam the oil relief valve. They re-arrranged the system to place the relief valve down-stream of the oil filter and this was a significant improvement.

On the gearbox, Tony Rudd said they were putting 160lb ft of torque through a gearbox designed for 125.

[karlcars]

Slightly OT, but this thread reminds me of Paul Frere's experience with the Ferrari Supersqualo at Monaco in 1955, I think. He found the car understeered (plowed) terribly and asked the mechanics to disconnect the front anti-roll bar. Paul, being an engineer, knew this might help. He was told in no uncertain terms that the bar was an engineered part of the car and was not to be disconnected!

My recollection is that Jack Brabham deserves credit for being one of the first, as a driver-engineer, to optimize his chassis settings to get the best from his Coopers. Bruce McLaren was an apt pupil, of course, and became justly famous for his setting-up skills. Bruce would set up the cars and Denny would just get in and drive them -- pretty darn well!

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Do you do only single-saters, or are Porsche 917s ...... of interest???? If so, don't get over-excited, certainly don't hold your breath, but somewhere on the shelves or in the stacks around here there's gen available for them....

DCN

Cue cjpani ....

[Dave Wright]

Do you do only single-saters, or are Porsche 917s, GT40s and CanAm cars of interest???? If so, don't get over-excited, certainly don't hold your breath, but somewhere on the shelves or in the stacks around here there's gen available for them....

Purely speaking for myself - single seater set-ups from 1967 or as close as possible are the main interest. As you said earlier in the thread - set-up data is not very interesting in itself, but if you are trying to set-up a simulated 1967 F-1 car, they are useful. Taking toe setting as an example - GPL allows settings of +- 0.500". The default rear toe settings supplied with the game are typically in the range 0.100 to 0.200". Your data on the P83 tyre tests indicates this is historically correct.