55 replies to this topic

[Louis Mr. F1]

I was 'playing' with my Exoto Tyrrell 6 wheelers last night and one thing i noticed was the windows on both side of the cockpit splitted the 'First Nation City Travellers Check' decal. This led to my question, why was there a window in the first place? surely the sponsor wouldn't like to see their name being splitted up.

was there any explanation back then?

thnx!
Louis

[Rainer Nyberg]

They were there simply so that the driver would be able to see the position of the front wheels, because they were not visible above the bodywork like in a 'normal' 4-wheeler.

[Louis Mr. F1]

ohhh, now that you mentioned it, I faintly remember I've read something about it long/long time ago but just didn't recall it.

I always thought it's there to enable people to see the drivers changing gears, but then my next question was "well, then it only need to have the window on the right hand side?"

thnx alot! surely i'll remember it this time.
Louis

[ian senior]

I thought that I remembered Uncle Ken saying that they were there so that spectators could see the driver doing some work. Oh yeah.

[DOHC]

I think there were several versions of it. The windows were there in 1976, and part of '77, but IIRC in '77 Ronnie Peterson didn't like the windows and had special cut-outs of the cockpit sidewalls instead.

That car was really odd. I remember being disappointed seeing it win from the grandstands, at the single race it won. Nowadays, of course, the memory is much more fun, and of some historical significance, but in the heat of the battle, I was hoping that Mario Andretti would be able to win. After half the race, however, he retired and Scheckter and Depailler inherited the race.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by DOHC
I think there were several versions of it. The windows were there in 1976, and part of '77, but IIRC in '77 Ronnie Peterson didn't like the windows and had special cut-outs of the cockpit sidewalls instead.

That car was really odd. I remember being disappointed seeing it win from the grandstands, at the single race it won. Nowadays, of course, the memory is much more fun, and of some historical significance, but in the heat of the battle, I was hoping that Mario Andretti would be able to win. After half the race, however, he retired and Scheckter and Depallier inherited the race.

The first time I saw a P34 "in the flesh" (many years later - Simon Bull's car as driven brilliantly by Martin Stretton) I was stunned by just how small the front end of the thing was. It really did look like a half-scale model of a racing car. I can only begin to imagine how spooky the handling must've been if brakes locked up at different times, but by 'eck it was a breakthrough and a beautiful one! Nice to see Derek Gardner still looks after the beast, too!

pete

[oldtimer]

Somewhere, I thought I read the the purpose of the window was for the driver to monitor the condition of the front tyres. There was some concern about wear on the little critters.

[David McKinney]

I always thought the windows were a sop to the spectators so they could, after many years' deprivation, see the drivers at work. I was very disappointed, and not a little embarrassed, when DG told me many years later that, indeed, the windows were so the drivers could monitor tyre wear

[DOHC]

I thought it wasn't tyre wear but seeing tyre position on the road.

A bit similar to why the Mercedes W196 Streamliner wasn't so popular with Fangio: he couldn't see where he put his wheels.

[RedFever]

if I recall correctly, it was GY's failure to develop smaller tires any further that led to Tyrrell abandoning the concept. So, it might as well be that the drivers needed to check the conditions of the tires. However, it also makes sense that they would want to know where the hell the wheel is as they are approaching a turn. Maybe the windows served in fact both purposes

[David M. Kane]

To fully appreciate the six-wheeler you had to see the in-car footage of Depailler driving it in the rain in documentary, "Lap of The Gods". I also
saw him in the rain at Watkins Glen in that year's Grand Prix. Talk about
driving a car on the trottle! It was a very controlled power slide IN the rain...most impressive.

I have not seen Martin Stretton drive the car, but apparently he makes it
go like stink! Just look at his record in the six-wheeler!

I would like to see how Dayton Duncan could do in that car if he was given
the opportunity?

[DOHC]

Originally posted by David M. Kane
To fully appreciate the six-wheeler you had to see the in-car footage of Depailler driving it in the rain in documentary, "Lap of The Gods".

Is that available on the web?

[2F-001]

There was a story (I cannot vouch for its truth) that in testing one of the drivers pitted with a P34 to report that it wasn't handling right and thought that maybe one of the front tyres had a slow puncture. The team gestured the driver to get out of the car to take a look... the whole wheel was missing... (maybe the tyre flat and coming off the rim is marginally more believable though). That was before the windows were installed.

David (Kane) mentioned ''Lap of the Gods'' - for me Patrick Depailler is the real star of those tapes... his laps of Montreal in the wet (wheelspinning everywhere and there's one moment when he's getting really close to the barrier on the exit to a corner but has to apply a dose of opposite lock - steering towards the barrier yet more) and Long Beach are really spectacular bits of footage.

[David M. Kane]

Depending on whether you live in the States or in Europe, I would check out
the following websites:

-Duke (England)
-EWA (New Jersey, USA)
-Classic Motorsports (USA)

Trust me, you will enjoy this video, Lap of The Gods II is ok, but not
nearly as exciting in my opinion.

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by DOHC
I think there were several versions of it. The windows were there in 1976, and part of '77, but IIRC in '77 Ronnie Peterson didn't like the windows and had special cut-outs of the cockpit sidewalls instead.

That car was really odd. I remember being disappointed seeing it win from the grandstands, at the single race it won. Nowadays, of course, the memory is much more fun, and of some historical significance, but in the heat of the battle, I was hoping that Mario Andretti would be able to win. After half the race, however, he retired and Scheckter and Depallier inherited the race.

I love this version (1976) :



As mentioned before - stopping to develop the front tires killed the p34. Martin Stretton was very happy in ex-Ronnie Peterson's P34-6 using Michelin tyres btw (in the Thoroughbred Grand Prix Car championship)

Lutz

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Lutz G
Martin Stretton was very happy in ex-Ronnie Peterson's P34-6 using Michelin tyres btw (in the Thoroughbred Grand Prix Car championship)

I don't think Avon Tyres would agree with that

[Henri Greuter]

From what I have understood why the 6-wheeler eventually had to be abandoned was the fact that goodyear didn't put enough efforts in developing the small size wheels. Other than that, the concept aimed to achieve a smaller frontal area, which could be achieved by hidding the front wheels behind the bluff nosecone. However, when it became obvious that handling of F1 cars could improve with widening the front track, the wheels became exposed (1977) and any aerodynamic benefit was gone.

There is by the way the story about Scheckter once discovering that he had lost a front wheel and then decided to paly a joke and continue his lap to find out of the crew within the pit noticed the fact that the weel was missing.
He still went pretty fast according the story.....


Henri Greuter

[Spamula One]

INCREDILBE pic Lutz G!

The way I see it, I bet the leaders of Renault and Elf wished for those windows to remain. They were keen to shoot footage of their tyres working in action, as well as witnessing Depailler's crisp work on the controls in Monte Carlo. Lap of the Gods ruled.
O/T Murray Walker rules.

originally posted by oldtimer
Somewhere, I thought I read the the purpose of the window was for the driver to monitor the condition of the front tyres. There was some concern about wear on the little critters.

That could also be why.

Exoto did an amazing job with this car, especially in the stainless steel P34 rendition they did, and I hope enough of the real ones survive to see them in a tribute to Tyrell at Goodwood in a few years!

[DOHC]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
However, when it became obvious that handling of F1 cars could improve with widening the front track, the wheels became exposed (1977) and any aerodynamic benefit was gone.

On at least one occasion (Monza 1977?), they ran the two P34 cars with different front tracks: one as originally designed, the other with the wide front track that exposed the front wheels. (Peterson ran narrow front track, Depailler wide.)

[DOHC]

Originally posted by 2F-001
David (Kane) mentioned ''Lap of the Gods'' - for me Patrick Depailler is the real star of those tapes... his laps of Montreal in the wet (wheelspinning everywhere and there's one moment when he's getting really close to the barrier on the exit to a corner but has to apply a dose of opposite lock - steering towards the barrier yet more) and Long Beach are really spectacular bits of footage.

I have a clip of Depailler at Montreal, but I believe it's in the 1978 Tyrrell 008. At least it has only two front wheels...

[Marzocchi]

Here´s a videoclip showing the 6-wheeler in Monaco and Anderstorp

Hope it will work

http://medlem.spray....rrel6wheels.asf

[2F-001]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the Montreal footage was of the 6-wheeler... I was just following the off-topic diversion!

[David Beard]

Originally posted by 2F-001
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the Montreal footage was of the 6-wheeler... I was just following the off-topic diversion!

I thought you meant 4 wheeler...you would have said "a dose of opposite locks " for the 6 wheeler?;)

[DOHC]

Originally posted by Marzocchi
Here´s a videoclip showing the 6-wheeler in Monaco and Anderstorp

Hope it will work

http://medlem.spray....rrel6wheels.asf

Can't get it to work, unfortunately. Would be great to see it though as I was there at Anderstorp.

[Marzocchi]

Try again in some minutes

[2F-001]

Originally posted by David Beard


I thought you meant 4 wheeler...you would have said "a dose of opposite locks " for the 6 wheeler?;)

Indeed...

I do like tell the tale of having seen Martin Stretton in a 6-wheel drift through Dingle Dell.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by Marzocchi
Try again in some minutes

Still can't get it to work... :

[Frank de Jong]

Plays fine with Windows Media Player, even on a Macintosh... fascinating movie.
I've seen the Tyrrell in Zandvoort and Hockenheim in its days - I must say I was then not very impressed by it, don't know why. More a 12-cylinder fan, I suppose.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
From what I have understood why the 6-wheeler eventually had to be abandoned was the fact that goodyear didn't put enough efforts in developing the small size wheels. Other than that, the concept aimed to achieve a smaller frontal area, which could be achieved by hidding the front wheels behind the bluff nosecone. However, when it became obvious that handling of F1 cars could improve with widening the front track, the wheels became exposed (1977) and any aerodynamic benefit was gone.

Surely the size of the front wheels are the width of the front track wouldn't affect the frontal area - not with those massive rear tyres.

[DOHC]

It's true that frontal area A wasn't increased, but letting the wheels stick out outside the bluff nose increased Cw. And as drag is proportional to Cw * A, you lost the aerodynamic advantage.

Gardner's idea was to have a low Cw, not to have a small A, as the latter was pretty much determined by the rear wheel size, the wing, overall body width, cockpit height etc. So he got a low Cw by using small front wheels completely hidden behind the bluff nose: that was a more "slippery" front end of the car.

Then widen the front track so that the wheels stick out, and up goes the Cw. It could have been partly remedied by widening the bluff nose. This would have lowered Cw again, but not back to the original.

In addition, IIRC, the car had several different designs for putting radiators (oil coolers?) in the bluff nose, which of course also affected Cw.

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by David McKinney

I don't think Avon Tyres would agree with that

Oops! Avon, anyway...

Lutz

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by DOHC


Gardner's idea was to have a low Cw, not to have a small A, as the latter was pretty much determined by the rear wheel size, the wing, overall body width, cockpit height etc. So he got a low Cw by using small front wheels completely hidden behind the bluff nose: that was a more "slippery" front end of the car.

Then widen the front track so that the wheels stick out, and up goes the Cw. It could have been partly remedied by widening the bluff nose. This would have lowered Cw again, but not back to the original.

In addition, IIRC, the car had several different designs for putting radiators (oil coolers?) in the bluff nose, which of course also affected Cw.

I didn't think the advantage was in drag coefficient either, not directly at least. THe principal gain, as I understand it, was in rducing front end lift, which is generated by the rotating front tyres of any open wheeler. By keeping the front wheels covered, Gardner avoided this effect. As a result he could use less front wing. There must also be an advantage if you can have a narrow track and retain the same level of grip. A narrow track effectively means you've got a wider road. Lastly, the total brake disk area must have been larger with four small wheels.

One thing I never have understood waqs the regulations applied to bodywork in those days. I thought that the bodywork worok could only cover half the width of the front tyres, as seen on the earlier Tyrrells and the Matras etc. If this was so, how did it apply to the P34?

[DOHC]

I'm not sure how front wheel rotation would incur lift. As the top of the wheel moves forward, with twice the car's speed, air slows down there, increasing pressure on the top. So the Magnus effect (which I assume you are referring to) works the other way.

A second thing is that the P34 didn't have any front wing, at best some spoiler tabs which couldn't have had much adjustable effect on the downforce from the car's front end.

About the track and the width of the bodywork, maybe the answer is that the bodywork could have a width equal to the maximum track (which was the rear track) plus one (rear) rim width, implying that the bodywork was wide enough to cover half the rear wheels. In those days it was quite common to have a front track that was smaller than the rear track, and many cars had bodywork covering a large portion of the front wheels' width.

Another question is that it's not so easy to know what "track" means. After all, there's camber and toe-in, and both are adjustable, so what is the canonical way to measure front track?

[fines]

I believe track is measured from the center of the wheels, i.e. longitudinally, vertically and horizontally. And bodywork width in front of the forward axle was 150 cm, with no reference to the track, iirc.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by fines
I believe track is measured from the center of the wheels, i.e. longitudinally, vertically and horizontally.

But then track might depend on the type of rim used.

From both the point of view of regulations and measurements, it's far easier to define maximum total width and maximum rim width. (Like they do today.) The constructor can then play around as he pleases with rim designs, camber and caster settings, letting it affect track or whatever, and adjust the car as long as it's within those maximum measurements. Maybe that's the approach they took?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by DOHC
I'm not sure how front wheel rotation would incur lift. As the top of the wheel moves forward, with twice the car's speed, air slows down there, increasing pressure on the top. So the Magnus effect (which I assume you are referring to) works the other way.

A second thing is that the P34 didn't have any front wing, at best some spoiler tabs which couldn't have had much adjustable effect on the downforce from the car's front end.

Derek Gardner, quoted by Doug Nye in "History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-91":

(The idea) was to minimise induced drag by reducing lift at the front and to turn that small gain into the ability to enter and leave corners faster. It was a metter of trading downforce for cornering poer and it seemed to work.

Tyres stuck out in the airstream geenrate lift so one has to counteract that by adding downforce. If everyone else does more or less the same you all end up with very similar performance given that we all used the same engine and more or less the same tyres.

If you can reduce lift it gives you extra effective downforce to play with and more downforce translates into more cornering speed.

Doug goes on to say:

A rotating cylinder - such as that presented by a racing car wheel and tyre - introduced into a moving airstream will generate a force at right angles to the cylindrical axis, the magnitude of te force being related to the cylinder's radius. In the case of a rotating racing car wheel and tyre this force is exerted in an upward direction as lift.


... by reducing the front wheel size in te P34 this lift was instantly reduced, enhancing cornering and braking forces, the actual reduction in overall diameter being from 21 to 16 inches.

[DOHC]

Well, the thing about the rotating cylinder is not correct. In physics it's called the Magnus effect (since c. 1835). The case of a rolling wheel corresponds to topspin, which generates downforce, as is well-known in golf and baseball. (See second graph from top in the link.)

Of course, there could be lift in case of a car's wheel, but then it's a matter of the wheel rolling on the ground, thereby preventing air from passing underneath the wheel. This is an entirely different matter (the rotating cylinder argument doesn't apply there, and if it had applied, it would have generated downforce).

The bluff nose could however break that effect too, exactly by hiding the wheels behind it. The wheel's top curvature wouldn't meet the oncoming air, making for a straight airflow which would avoid creating lift. But that's not a matter of rotating cylinders.

[Roger Clark]

That explains why the P34 ultimately failed, if the designer misunderstood the physics so badly.

Is a cylinder aerodynamically the same as a sphere?

[DOHC]

Cylinder or sphere really doesn't matter for the Magnus effect -- you just get a bit more of it on a cylinder than on a sphere.

My guess is that Gardner knew what he did and why. (And although it wasn't one of the greatest cars of its time, the P34 did reasonably well for a while.) The rotating cylinder explanation is most likely a later misunderstanding of the reasons for Gardner's unusual approach. The same goes for the frontal area discussion we had above.

[Roger Clark]

Returning to the original question, in November 1975 Motor Sport contained a description of the P34 on its initial presentation to the press. Patrick Depaillier had been testing it:

Questioned about the effect of not being able to see the front wheels from the cockpit, due to their small size and narrow track, he admitted that in the conventional 007 Tyrrell he couldn't see the front wheels anyway, so there was no difference.

[dart]

While I am new the the bulletin board I have been following F1 since 1974 and been loyal to Atlas for 5 years... Yes the windows are there to see the position of the front tyres, especially during turn-in, so the drivers (Jody Scheckter and Patrick Depailler) would miss their marks but also to check tyre-wear in case they might be blistering. (Check out F1 Magazine from about 6-8 months ago as they did a in-depth study including engineering issues, very interesting reading).

Hope I shed some insight.

[mikedeering]

I just thought it was an early attempt by Bill Gates to takeover the world using motorsport as a platform. When this failed he focused on getting Windows installed on PCs instead.

[Louis Mr. F1]

Dart,

thnx for your sharing and welcome to the board!

Louis

[dolomite]

Looking at Martin Stretton's car at the NEC yesterday, it seems to have an extended front end with the whole nose cowling shifted forward 6 inches or so compared to the original 1977 incarnation (note the large gap between the front wheels and the rear edge of the nose cowling). Can anybody shed light on this mod?

[Gary C]

'Looking at Martin Stretton's car at the NEC yesterday....'
Can I put something right here for my friend Simon Bull??? He actually owns P34 xchassis 6 (as in the above photo), he pays Martin to both look after AND race the car for him. As with all of Martin's drives, he doesn't actually own any if the cars. It's Simon that has stumped up a small fortune to restore both Tyrrell 005 and P34/6, I do feel he should be given SOME credit!!!

[dolomite]

Originally posted by Gary C
'Looking at Martin Stretton's car at the NEC yesterday....'
Can I put something right here for my friend Simon Bull??? He actually owns P34 xchassis 6 (as in the above photo), he pays Martin to both look after AND race the car for him. As with all of Martin's drives, he doesn't actually own any if the cars. It's Simon that has stumped up a small fortune to restore both Tyrrell 005 and P34/6, I do feel he should be given SOME credit!!!

Sorry mate, didn't mean any offence! All I meant was 'the car that Martin Stretton drives', in the same way that one might refer to 'Michael Schumacher's Ferrari', without inferring that he is the actual owner. All credit to Simon Bull for getting this fantastic machine back on the track, and I look forward hopefully to being able to see it in action one day soon.

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by Gary C
It's Simon that has stumped up a small fortune to restore both Tyrrell 005 and P34/6, I do feel he should be given SOME credit!!!

I watched Stretton in that 005 at the Nuerburgring a few years ago. What a beauty! If my memory serves me well, Stretton won that race btw.

Lutz

[David Beard]

Originally posted by dolomite
Looking at Martin Stretton's car at the NEC yesterday, it seems to have an extended front end with the whole nose cowling shifted forward 6 inches or so compared to the original 1977 incarnation (note the large gap between the front wheels and the rear edge of the nose cowling). Can anybody shed light on this mod?

I had a quick scoot around the net for period pics (no luck)..I agree the front looks strange. I recall the last outings of the P34 when it had a more normal, wider front track, but it didn't seem to help. But Derek Gardner is still involved with the car....the original narrow track is used...has he found the secret to renewing it's pace?

My pic from NEC

[Gary C]

the car is as original, Derek certainly HASN'T been playing around with it!!! (would have cost Simon even more money!!!).

[dolomite]

Here's one to compare with:

http://members.atlas..._boor/sixer.jpg