Hy,
Does anyone possess pictures of The 1986's Arrows A9.
If I was right, this car never entered in grand-prix, but Thierry BOUTSEN and Christian DANNER drove it during the practise of the German 86's grand prix.
Unfortunatly, I never seen it in picture.
Thanks.
Arrows A9 - 1986
Started by
Théodore33
, Mar 04 2004 17:42
50 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Teapot
-
- 345 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 18:21
According to David Hodges' book the A9 actually was raced in the 1986 German Grand Prix and in three more events...but I have recordings only for the former: Boutsen started 21st and retired on lap 13 (turbo failure).
Also on the net a bit of discordance seems to remain: someone records three entries, while others witness only one (this seems to be the most reliable opinion).
Look here for a picture.
Also on the net a bit of discordance seems to remain: someone records three entries, while others witness only one (this seems to be the most reliable opinion).
Look here for a picture.
#3
aerogi
-
- 103 posts
- Joined: March 04
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 18:26
Here's a pic of Boutsen in the A9: I remember very well how the A9 would have been the ultimate weapon for Boutsen in 1986. It was allready talked about this car at the beginning of 1986, but was postponed all the time! And when it eventually was finished it turned out to be a difficult to handle car. I like very much the nose of this car. The Arrows of 1987 had this kind of nose too, one of my favourite F1-noses! 
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
#4
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 18:34
My records show 3 starts for the Arrows A9-01, the only chassis of this type, appearantly.
Germany 1986 - Hockenheim - Thierry Boutsen - Q:21 - Retired lap 13 - Turbo
Hungary 1986 - Hungaroring - Christian Danner - Q:21 - Retired lap 7 - Rear suspension
Austria 1986 - Österreichring - Thierry Boutsen - Q:18 - Retired lap 17 - Engine
I also have that Thierry Boutsen used the A9 in practice at Hungaroring.
Germany 1986 - Hockenheim - Thierry Boutsen - Q:21 - Retired lap 13 - Turbo
Hungary 1986 - Hungaroring - Christian Danner - Q:21 - Retired lap 7 - Rear suspension
Austria 1986 - Österreichring - Thierry Boutsen - Q:18 - Retired lap 17 - Engine
I also have that Thierry Boutsen used the A9 in practice at Hungaroring.
#5
Rainer Nyberg
-
- 1,768 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 19:13
Thierry Boutsen at Österreichring with the unloved A9.
The failure of the A9 was the soft chassis...Boutsen (?) said it had a chassis stiffness like "well-cooked spaghetti"...
#6
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 20:47
I wondered how long it would be before the past caught up with me..
I was a race engineer at Arrows in 1985/86, and had the pleasure of engineering TB at Hockenheim when the A9 made its debut..
The reasons for its failure were not so simple as a soft chassis (and TB is right, it had a very soft chassis, and more besides...), poor aerodynamics or any other single problem. It had a rich and varied selection of serious problems as we were to discover over the course of the next three GP's, symptematic of the need for a complete rethink on the technical front (which ofcourse arrived a few months later with Ross).
By Monza we were back to running A8's, although the car did run in practice in Estoril, where it again disgraced itself. I think after that we packed it away for good..
Cars like the A9 can be very useful at an early stage in a designers career, although only if he isn't actually responsible for it... I think i learnt more of what not to do on that one than any other car i have either been involved in or designed myself .
I could go on...
One small nugget - after Hockenheim we rechristened it K9, think about it...
I was a race engineer at Arrows in 1985/86, and had the pleasure of engineering TB at Hockenheim when the A9 made its debut..
The reasons for its failure were not so simple as a soft chassis (and TB is right, it had a very soft chassis, and more besides...), poor aerodynamics or any other single problem. It had a rich and varied selection of serious problems as we were to discover over the course of the next three GP's, symptematic of the need for a complete rethink on the technical front (which ofcourse arrived a few months later with Ross).
By Monza we were back to running A8's, although the car did run in practice in Estoril, where it again disgraced itself. I think after that we packed it away for good..
Cars like the A9 can be very useful at an early stage in a designers career, although only if he isn't actually responsible for it... I think i learnt more of what not to do on that one than any other car i have either been involved in or designed myself .
I could go on...
One small nugget - after Hockenheim we rechristened it K9, think about it...
#7
aerogi
-
- 103 posts
- Joined: March 04
Member
Posted 04 March 2004 - 20:52
Peterelleray,
thanks for this interesting story! However I still like the nose
thanks for this interesting story! However I still like the nose
#8
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 06:34
This is interesting, Mr. Elleray. None of my sources, primarily Autosport and Sheldon, mentions this. Do you remember who was the sacrifical lamb on that occasion, or was the pain distributed evenly amongst Boutsen and Danner?Originally posted by PeterElleray
By Monza we were back to running A8's, although the car did run in practice in Estoril, where it again disgraced itself. I think after that we packed it away for good..
#9
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:50
From memory it was Christian, and it was only a handful of laps - whoever it was went over a kerb, something which shouldn't have been an issue, and the front suspension ran out of travel. The track rod ran just below the rear leg of the front top wishbone, and it bent itself around it, so the car came back in with the left (?) front about 4" off the ground. And never ran again...
We had been trying to increase the stiffness of the chassis by boxing the cockpit internally, but that wasn't really the answer - it needed thicker skins and a stiffer cockpit rim. The car had a machined aluminium front bulkhead that fitted over the open end of the carbon chassis like a cap. The lower wishbone was mounted to a clevis machined into this. About this time one of the mechanics asked me to have a look what happened when he put his foot on the brake pedal - what happened was that the bulkhead bowed out visibly, and so the wishbone mounting moved back at the same time, and we are not talking of thou here... Must have been confidence inspiring when braking at the end of the straight.
We had been trying to increase the stiffness of the chassis by boxing the cockpit internally, but that wasn't really the answer - it needed thicker skins and a stiffer cockpit rim. The car had a machined aluminium front bulkhead that fitted over the open end of the carbon chassis like a cap. The lower wishbone was mounted to a clevis machined into this. About this time one of the mechanics asked me to have a look what happened when he put his foot on the brake pedal - what happened was that the bulkhead bowed out visibly, and so the wishbone mounting moved back at the same time, and we are not talking of thou here... Must have been confidence inspiring when braking at the end of the straight.
#10
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:17
Thank you, Mr. Elleray, for that interesting piece of information. 
#11
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 13:07
K9 = kay nine = canine = it's a dogOriginally posted by PeterElleray
One small nugget - after Hockenheim we rechristened it K9, think about it...
#13
dolomite
-
- 1,201 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 14:55
Peter, this is the car whose chassis was built by British Aerospace, is it not? Do you know how much input they had into the design, if any?
#14
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 15:48
Hi dolomite,
Rather too much would be the answer..
This was in the days before there was reliable f.e analysis avaliable for carbon structures, or reliable data aquisition on the cars..
So, first question they have after signing the contract with Jackie O (which is another fine story) is what sort of loads is this thing going to encounter, because that's exactly how you would start off with an aeroplane. And of course we haven't got a clue..
Instantly then , its 'how do you expect us to design this if you can't tell us what load cases to stress it to?', which is a fair point, but all we know is how much carbon went into the A8's the year before, how stiff they were, and how they stood up to impact damage etc etc. But since the whole point of going to BAe is because the carbon technology in these cars is regarded as 'low tech' and there were quality control issues then we can't just replicate that...
So, BAe go off down their own path to work out how much carbon there should be in the tub, and we go off in parallel with a consultant of our own...
Unfortunately neither party covers themselves with much credibility in the exercise and the end result is less stiff (but also a lot lighter) than the older cars. However, that is not much use. Ross got it right when he arrived a few months later - "I believe in light bodywork and a stiff chassis".
It gets worse. In the early summer of 1986 the BAe plant at which the first chassis is being manufactured goes on strike, and the semi completed A9 is locked away inside it. In desperation Jackie O. manages to 'obtain' the tooling, and spirits it up to Advanced Composites in Derbyshire, who must have loved this because they manufactured the A8's , the 'quality control' of which prompted the move to BAe, and here we are cap inhand asking them to dig us out of a very large hole. To their everlasting credit they did so, and infact i have worked with them several times since then. Good company. The first car is built up around the tub they produce.
Eventually (and i mean eventually..) the first BAe tub arrives, and the fabricators descend on it to drill off the suspension and engine mounting inserts..... which appear still to be on the shelf at BAe's composite facility... No inserts. And one of the reasons for going there was to benefit from improved quality control..
So anyway, that's a scrapper and off we go to Hockenheim with the one chassis and the rest we know...
Rather too much would be the answer..
This was in the days before there was reliable f.e analysis avaliable for carbon structures, or reliable data aquisition on the cars..
So, first question they have after signing the contract with Jackie O (which is another fine story) is what sort of loads is this thing going to encounter, because that's exactly how you would start off with an aeroplane. And of course we haven't got a clue..
Instantly then , its 'how do you expect us to design this if you can't tell us what load cases to stress it to?', which is a fair point, but all we know is how much carbon went into the A8's the year before, how stiff they were, and how they stood up to impact damage etc etc. But since the whole point of going to BAe is because the carbon technology in these cars is regarded as 'low tech' and there were quality control issues then we can't just replicate that...
So, BAe go off down their own path to work out how much carbon there should be in the tub, and we go off in parallel with a consultant of our own...
Unfortunately neither party covers themselves with much credibility in the exercise and the end result is less stiff (but also a lot lighter) than the older cars. However, that is not much use. Ross got it right when he arrived a few months later - "I believe in light bodywork and a stiff chassis".
It gets worse. In the early summer of 1986 the BAe plant at which the first chassis is being manufactured goes on strike, and the semi completed A9 is locked away inside it. In desperation Jackie O. manages to 'obtain' the tooling, and spirits it up to Advanced Composites in Derbyshire, who must have loved this because they manufactured the A8's , the 'quality control' of which prompted the move to BAe, and here we are cap inhand asking them to dig us out of a very large hole. To their everlasting credit they did so, and infact i have worked with them several times since then. Good company. The first car is built up around the tub they produce.
Eventually (and i mean eventually..) the first BAe tub arrives, and the fabricators descend on it to drill off the suspension and engine mounting inserts..... which appear still to be on the shelf at BAe's composite facility... No inserts. And one of the reasons for going there was to benefit from improved quality control..
So anyway, that's a scrapper and off we go to Hockenheim with the one chassis and the rest we know...
#15
the moon monkey
-
- 27 posts
- Joined: February 03
New Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 22:14
Sounds like "interesting times" at Arrows in '86 then!
Peter - I see you say you were an engineer at Arrows between 85-86 - I take it you just missed out on the Warwick/Cheever era then?
Also, I know this may seem like a pointless question but did you have any inkling as to just how successful that Ross Brawn would be later on in F1 with Benetton and Ferrari and do you think that Arrows would have had any real success if he stayed with the team for a longer period of time?
Many thanks.
Peter - I see you say you were an engineer at Arrows between 85-86 - I take it you just missed out on the Warwick/Cheever era then?
Also, I know this may seem like a pointless question but did you have any inkling as to just how successful that Ross Brawn would be later on in F1 with Benetton and Ferrari and do you think that Arrows would have had any real success if he stayed with the team for a longer period of time?
Many thanks.
#16
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 05 March 2004 - 22:52
Hello moon monkey...
I'm not sure its for me to pass comment, but Ross certainly knew what he wanted and it was obvious that he had absorbed a great deal from his Williams days. In the Arrows period he was working as Chief Designer, which is not what he does these days, so it would be difficult to say that it was possible to see what would come. In any case i was pretty new to racing myself in those days and i probably wouldn't have known what to look for..
Perhaps it would be fair to say that nothing I have seen since then has surprised me in the light of what i saw at the time.
As to what might have happened, who can say.. Would he have stayed to work with the Porsche engine? Probably not. Might it ever have got in the car if he had? Who knows...
I'm not sure its for me to pass comment, but Ross certainly knew what he wanted and it was obvious that he had absorbed a great deal from his Williams days. In the Arrows period he was working as Chief Designer, which is not what he does these days, so it would be difficult to say that it was possible to see what would come. In any case i was pretty new to racing myself in those days and i probably wouldn't have known what to look for..
Perhaps it would be fair to say that nothing I have seen since then has surprised me in the light of what i saw at the time.
As to what might have happened, who can say.. Would he have stayed to work with the Porsche engine? Probably not. Might it ever have got in the car if he had? Who knows...
#17
dolomite
-
- 1,201 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 06 March 2004 - 19:24
Originally posted by PeterElleray
Hi dolomite,
Rather too much would be the answer..
Thanks Peter, I've never heard an explanation before as to why that relationship went wrong so quickly!
#18
gdecarli
-
- 1,038 posts
- Joined: June 03
Member
Posted 08 March 2004 - 01:31
According to Autosprint reports, both at Monza and at Estoril an A9 was entried as T-car, while Boutsen and Danner raced with old A8. I couldn't find any info about any single lap done by A9 neither at Monza or at Estoril.Originally posted by PeterElleray
By Monza we were back to running A8's, although the car did run in practice in Estoril, where it again disgraced itself. I think after that we packed it away for good..
At Mexico City and Adelaide all three cars were old A8.
Ciao,
Guido
#19
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 08 March 2004 - 09:19
Guido,
The car ran at Estoril as the Tcar as described above for a few laps .
Trust me, i was there!
Peter
The car ran at Estoril as the Tcar as described above for a few laps .
Trust me, i was there!
Peter
Advertisement
#20
gdecarli
-
- 1,038 posts
- Joined: June 03
Member
Posted 08 March 2004 - 12:12
Peter,Originally posted by PeterElleray
The car ran at Estoril as the Tcar as described above for a few laps .
Trust me, i was there!
I know you were there and of course you know much better than me if A9 run or not at Monza, Estoril or anywhere else. And of course thank you for your post, very interesting even if I'm not sure I could understand everything (because of language).
I post my message very late and English is not my mother tongue, so I didn't explain exactly what I was thinking. I try now: let's go back to Conjohn message:
Many of you use Autosport as source of your info. As I'm Italian, I use Autosprint and of course possibly (I speak generally, non only about this question) I have info or pics that you miss and you have something I miss.Originally posted by Conjohn
This is interesting, Mr. Elleray. None of my sources, primarily Autosport and Sheldon, mentions this. Do you remember who was the sacrifical lamb on that occasion, or was the pain distributed evenly amongst Boutsen and Danner?
I trued to look for info about A9 at Estoril: who drove it, how many laps, in what session, best time and so on, but even Autosprint (like Autosport) didn't report anything.
Of course this doesn't mean it didn't happen: I know magazines reports many thing, but not all!
Thanks again
Ciao,
Guido
#21
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 08 March 2004 - 14:43
Hi Guido,
Pretty sure that the track record is as follows:
Germany - TB drove.
Hungary - TB started the meeting in the car, but we switched drivers after the first day and Christian practiced and raced it.
Austria - TB back in again, with Gordon Coppuck joining the team to help try and sort the car out.
Italy - definately ran 2 A8's there, and they went quite well (TB 7th?) with the A9 as an unused spare.
Portugal -I wish i still had a copy of the run sheet from Estoril, unfortunately i don't. I reckon the car only ran for a lap or two at most, maybe not even quick enough to post a proper time - or maybe even an in/out lap, that could explain why there was no contemporary report. I don't remember any serious intention of running it, i think one of the A8's had an engine problem. I just remember seeing it coming back down the pit lane with the front wheel up in the air and going straight into the garage. We had a quick look over it, it was obvious what had happened and that there was no easy fix and indeed, that it was a fundamental problem of the track rod being too close to the leg of the wishbone on full travel, and i remember thinking "We won't see that running again", and of course it never did!
Mexico - built up a third A8 as spare car, A9 stayed at factory. Although it didn't run in Italy and only the (single?) lap in Estoril, i recall that we didn't officially give up on it till now - by the time the team left for Mexico Ross was onboard and designing the A10 for 1987.
Australia - same three cars as Mexico.
All A9 starts would be A9/1. A9/2 was never built up into a car whilst I was there - this was the tub we tried to stiffen up with internal box sections under Gordon's guidance.
Peter
Pretty sure that the track record is as follows:
Germany - TB drove.
Hungary - TB started the meeting in the car, but we switched drivers after the first day and Christian practiced and raced it.
Austria - TB back in again, with Gordon Coppuck joining the team to help try and sort the car out.
Italy - definately ran 2 A8's there, and they went quite well (TB 7th?) with the A9 as an unused spare.
Portugal -I wish i still had a copy of the run sheet from Estoril, unfortunately i don't. I reckon the car only ran for a lap or two at most, maybe not even quick enough to post a proper time - or maybe even an in/out lap, that could explain why there was no contemporary report. I don't remember any serious intention of running it, i think one of the A8's had an engine problem. I just remember seeing it coming back down the pit lane with the front wheel up in the air and going straight into the garage. We had a quick look over it, it was obvious what had happened and that there was no easy fix and indeed, that it was a fundamental problem of the track rod being too close to the leg of the wishbone on full travel, and i remember thinking "We won't see that running again", and of course it never did!
Mexico - built up a third A8 as spare car, A9 stayed at factory. Although it didn't run in Italy and only the (single?) lap in Estoril, i recall that we didn't officially give up on it till now - by the time the team left for Mexico Ross was onboard and designing the A10 for 1987.
Australia - same three cars as Mexico.
All A9 starts would be A9/1. A9/2 was never built up into a car whilst I was there - this was the tub we tried to stiffen up with internal box sections under Gordon's guidance.
Peter
#22
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 09 March 2004 - 20:44
If it helps to jog your memory, I can supply the times for Thierry and Christian in Portugal - unfortunately only for the qualifying sessions:Originally posted by PeterElleray
Portugal -I wish i still had a copy of the run sheet from Estoril, unfortunately i don't. I reckon the car only ran for a lap or two at most, maybe not even quick enough to post a proper time - or maybe even an in/out lap, that could explain why there was no contemporary report. I don't remember any serious intention of running it, i think one of the A8's had an engine problem. I just remember seeing it coming back down the pit lane with the front wheel up in the air and going straight into the garage. We had a quick look over it, it was obvious what had happened and that there was no easy fix and indeed, that it was a fundamental problem of the track rod being too close to the leg of the wishbone on full travel, and i remember thinking "We won't see that running again", and of course it never did!
[FONT=courier new]Timed practice 1 - Friday September 19 - 13.00-14.00 17 - Christian Danner Barclay Arrows-BMW 1 =1:00'06.2 2 = 1'25.454 3 =16'15.894 4 = 1'24.665 5 = 8'08.923 18 - Thierry Boutsen Barclay Arrows-BMW 1 =1:05'00.1 2 = 1'47.372 3 =11'41.733 4 = 1'24.126 5 = 5'03.460 6 = 1'23.412 Timed practice 2 - Saturday September 20 - 13.00-14.00 17 - Christian Danner Barclay Arrows-BMW 1 =16'34.206 2 = 1'27.924 3 = 1'27.994 4 = 1'23.534 5 = 1'24.384 6 = 1'26.241 7 = 1'23.225 8 =21'31.762 9 = 1'22.274 10 = 6'32.048 11 = 1'23.287 18 - Thierry Boutsen Barclay Arrows-BMW 1 = 8'43.899 2 = 1'44.920 3 =26'55.590 4 =12'20.114 5 = 1'22.068 6 = 6'07.584 7 = 1'22.469[/FONT]The Friday times looked strange at first, both cars idle for over an hour, but then I found that the session was stopped for half an hour when the oil from Palmer's Zakspeed was removed from the track...
Times from the 1986 Olivetti - Longines book.
Autosport and Sheldon have this as A8-01, the Berger car from early '85. As the two race cars were, I think, 05 and 06, replacing 02 and 04 that were involved in the accident at the start of the British Grand Prix, what had happened to 03? The last trace I have of it is as Boutsen's T-car in Brazil.Mexico - built up a third A8 as spare car
If you can't remember, I'll understand... I can hardly remember what I did last week... but chassis histories interest me... and serveral others in this forum, I think...
#23
Rainer Nyberg
-
- 1,768 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 09 March 2004 - 21:43
Thierry Boutsen in the A9 at Hockenheim '86.
#24
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 09 March 2004 - 23:52
Well – your in luck, because it just so happens that I have in front of me the chassis records that I kept at the time, ie 1985-1986.
What follows won’t agree with all the published sources, but this is IT! Carnet fiddling, etc, all taken out of the equation:
1985
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Ricard Test TB
Donnington Test TB
Rio Test TB
Imola Test TB/GB
BRAZIL TB GBp GBr
PORTUGAL Tcar GB TB
IMOLA Tcar GB TB
MONACO Tcar GB TB
Ricard Test TB/GB
SPA I Tcar GB TB
Silv test TB/GB
CANADA TB GB Tcar
DETROIT Tcar GB TB
FRANCE Tcar GB TB
Nurb Test TB/GB
BRITISH Tcar GB TB
GERMAN Tcar GB TB
AUSTRIA GBp TB GBr
DUTCH Tcar GB TB
Brands Test GB/TB GB
ITALIAN Tcar GB TB
SPAagain Tcar TB GB
EUROPE GBr TB GBp
SAFRICA Tcar GB TB
AUSTRALIA Tcar GBr/TBp TB
1986
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Rio Test CD/MS
BRAZIL MS TB Tcar
SPAIN MS TB Tcar
IMOLA MSp TB MSr
MONACO MS TB Tcar
SPA MS TB Tcar
MONTREAL Tcar TB Tcar
DETROIT CD TB Tcar
RICARD CDp TB CDr
BRITISH CDr1 TBr1 TBr2
Silv Test TB
GERMAN CD Tcar TB
HUNGARY CDp TBr TBp/CDr
AUSTRIA CD Tcar TB
ITALY CD TB Tcar
ESTORIL CD TB Tcar
MEXICO Tcar CD TB
AUSTRALIA Tcar CD TB
Donnington test CD/JN
A8-1 survived
A8-2 was deemed uneconomic to repair after Brands 86
A8-3 was badly damaged Austria startline ’85, never rebuilt in period
A8-4 was demolished in Brands ’86 startline, TB raced back to pits and ejected CD from A8-6, into which he had just belted up after also writing off -2.!
A8-5 survived
A8-6 survived
-1,-2,-3 were essentially the same. -4 had a different chassis construction from the same moulds. -5,-6 were ‘b’ spec with higher cockpit rims and box section around cockpit.
Now, who wants to know what roll bars we ran in Detroit ’85…..
What follows won’t agree with all the published sources, but this is IT! Carnet fiddling, etc, all taken out of the equation:
1985
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Ricard Test TB
Donnington Test TB
Rio Test TB
Imola Test TB/GB
BRAZIL TB GBp GBr
PORTUGAL Tcar GB TB
IMOLA Tcar GB TB
MONACO Tcar GB TB
Ricard Test TB/GB
SPA I Tcar GB TB
Silv test TB/GB
CANADA TB GB Tcar
DETROIT Tcar GB TB
FRANCE Tcar GB TB
Nurb Test TB/GB
BRITISH Tcar GB TB
GERMAN Tcar GB TB
AUSTRIA GBp TB GBr
DUTCH Tcar GB TB
Brands Test GB/TB GB
ITALIAN Tcar GB TB
SPAagain Tcar TB GB
EUROPE GBr TB GBp
SAFRICA Tcar GB TB
AUSTRALIA Tcar GBr/TBp TB
1986
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Rio Test CD/MS
BRAZIL MS TB Tcar
SPAIN MS TB Tcar
IMOLA MSp TB MSr
MONACO MS TB Tcar
SPA MS TB Tcar
MONTREAL Tcar TB Tcar
DETROIT CD TB Tcar
RICARD CDp TB CDr
BRITISH CDr1 TBr1 TBr2
Silv Test TB
GERMAN CD Tcar TB
HUNGARY CDp TBr TBp/CDr
AUSTRIA CD Tcar TB
ITALY CD TB Tcar
ESTORIL CD TB Tcar
MEXICO Tcar CD TB
AUSTRALIA Tcar CD TB
Donnington test CD/JN
A8-1 survived
A8-2 was deemed uneconomic to repair after Brands 86
A8-3 was badly damaged Austria startline ’85, never rebuilt in period
A8-4 was demolished in Brands ’86 startline, TB raced back to pits and ejected CD from A8-6, into which he had just belted up after also writing off -2.!
A8-5 survived
A8-6 survived
-1,-2,-3 were essentially the same. -4 had a different chassis construction from the same moulds. -5,-6 were ‘b’ spec with higher cockpit rims and box section around cockpit.
Now, who wants to know what roll bars we ran in Detroit ’85…..
#25
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 09 March 2004 - 23:53
OK, the formatting didnt work, give me a minute...
#26
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 00:06
Well – your in luck, because it just so happens that I have in front of me the chassis records that I kept at the time, ie 1985-1986.
What follows won’t agree with all the published sources, but this is IT! Carnet fiddling, etc, all taken out of the equation:
1985
Ricard Test TB A8-1
Donnington Test TB A8-1
Rio Test TB A8-1
Imola Test TB/GB A8-2
BRAZIL TB A8-1 GBp A8-2 GBr A8-3
PORTUGAL Tcar A8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
IMOLA TcarA8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
MONACO TcarA8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Ricard Test TB/GB A8-1
SPA I Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Silv test TB/GB A8-2
CANADA TB A8-2 GB A8-3 Tcar A8-4
DETROIT Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
FRANCE Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Nurb Test TB/GB A8-2
BRITISH Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
GERMAN Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
AUSTRIA GBp A8-3 TB A8-4 GBr A8-5
DUTCH Tcar A8-2 GB A8-4 TB A8-5
Brands Test GB/TB A8-4 GB A8-5
ITALIAN Tcar A8-2 GB A8-4 TB A8-5
SPAagain Tcar A8-1 TB A8-4 GB A8-5
EUROPE GBr A8-2 TB A8-4 GBp A8-5
SAFRICA Tcar A8-1 GB A8-2 TB A8-4
AUSTRALIA Tcar A8-1 GBr/TBp A8-2 TB A8-4
1986
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Rio Test CD/MS A8-4
BRAZIL MS A8-2 TB A8-4 TcarA8-6
SPAIN MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
IMOLA MSp A8-2 TB A8-4 MSr A8-6
MONACO MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
SPA MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
MONTREAL Tcar A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
DETROIT CD A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
RICARD CDp A8-2 TB A8-4 CDr A8-6
BRITISH CDr1 A8-2 TBr1 A8-4 TBr2 A8-6
Silv Test TB A9-1
GERMAN CD A8-5 Tcar A8-6 TB A9-1
HUNGARY CDp A8-5 TBr A8-6 TBp/CDr A9-1
AUSTRIA CD A8-5 Tcar A8-6 TB A9-1
ITALY CD A8-5 TB A8-6 Tcar A9-1
ESTORIL CD A8-5 TB A8-6 Tcar A9-1
MEXICO Tcar A8-1 CD A8-5 TB A8-6
AUSTRALIA Tcar A8-1 CD A8-5 TB A8-6
Donnington test CD/JN A8-6
A8-1 survived
A8-2 was deemed uneconomic to repair after Brands 86
A8-3 was badly damaged Austria startline ’85, never rebuilt in period
A8-4 was demolished in Brands ’86 startline, TB raced back to pits and ejected CD from A8-6, into which he had just belted up after also writing off -2.!
A8-5 survived
A8-6 survived
-1,-2,-3 were essentially the same. -4 had a different chassis construction from the same moulds. -5,-6 were ‘b’ spec with higher cockpit rims and box section around cockpit.
Now, who wants to know what roll bars we ran in Detroit ’85…..
What follows won’t agree with all the published sources, but this is IT! Carnet fiddling, etc, all taken out of the equation:
1985
Ricard Test TB A8-1
Donnington Test TB A8-1
Rio Test TB A8-1
Imola Test TB/GB A8-2
BRAZIL TB A8-1 GBp A8-2 GBr A8-3
PORTUGAL Tcar A8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
IMOLA TcarA8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
MONACO TcarA8-1 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Ricard Test TB/GB A8-1
SPA I Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Silv test TB/GB A8-2
CANADA TB A8-2 GB A8-3 Tcar A8-4
DETROIT Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
FRANCE Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
Nurb Test TB/GB A8-2
BRITISH Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
GERMAN Tcar A8-2 GB A8-3 TB A8-4
AUSTRIA GBp A8-3 TB A8-4 GBr A8-5
DUTCH Tcar A8-2 GB A8-4 TB A8-5
Brands Test GB/TB A8-4 GB A8-5
ITALIAN Tcar A8-2 GB A8-4 TB A8-5
SPAagain Tcar A8-1 TB A8-4 GB A8-5
EUROPE GBr A8-2 TB A8-4 GBp A8-5
SAFRICA Tcar A8-1 GB A8-2 TB A8-4
AUSTRALIA Tcar A8-1 GBr/TBp A8-2 TB A8-4
1986
A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1
Rio Test CD/MS A8-4
BRAZIL MS A8-2 TB A8-4 TcarA8-6
SPAIN MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
IMOLA MSp A8-2 TB A8-4 MSr A8-6
MONACO MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
SPA MS A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
MONTREAL Tcar A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
DETROIT CD A8-2 TB A8-4 Tcar A8-6
RICARD CDp A8-2 TB A8-4 CDr A8-6
BRITISH CDr1 A8-2 TBr1 A8-4 TBr2 A8-6
Silv Test TB A9-1
GERMAN CD A8-5 Tcar A8-6 TB A9-1
HUNGARY CDp A8-5 TBr A8-6 TBp/CDr A9-1
AUSTRIA CD A8-5 Tcar A8-6 TB A9-1
ITALY CD A8-5 TB A8-6 Tcar A9-1
ESTORIL CD A8-5 TB A8-6 Tcar A9-1
MEXICO Tcar A8-1 CD A8-5 TB A8-6
AUSTRALIA Tcar A8-1 CD A8-5 TB A8-6
Donnington test CD/JN A8-6
A8-1 survived
A8-2 was deemed uneconomic to repair after Brands 86
A8-3 was badly damaged Austria startline ’85, never rebuilt in period
A8-4 was demolished in Brands ’86 startline, TB raced back to pits and ejected CD from A8-6, into which he had just belted up after also writing off -2.!
A8-5 survived
A8-6 survived
-1,-2,-3 were essentially the same. -4 had a different chassis construction from the same moulds. -5,-6 were ‘b’ spec with higher cockpit rims and box section around cockpit.
Now, who wants to know what roll bars we ran in Detroit ’85…..
#27
Paul Newby
-
- 532 posts
- Joined: December 02
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 06:42
Peter
This is all fascinating "original source" information and its terrific that you are sharing this on TNF!
My dim recollection of the A9 was that the transmission was positioned in front of the differential a bit like the March 721X (and was it the Alfa Tipo 33?) What was the reason for this? Weight distribution? Better traction? Did this idea work and if it did why did we not see it on the A10?
What about the drivers at that time: Surer, Boutsen, Danner and Berger? How did you rate them from a technical perspective?
This is all fascinating "original source" information and its terrific that you are sharing this on TNF!
My dim recollection of the A9 was that the transmission was positioned in front of the differential a bit like the March 721X (and was it the Alfa Tipo 33?) What was the reason for this? Weight distribution? Better traction? Did this idea work and if it did why did we not see it on the A10?
What about the drivers at that time: Surer, Boutsen, Danner and Berger? How did you rate them from a technical perspective?
#28
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 08:20
Peter.
Thank you!
(take your pick...)
Thank you!
(take your pick...)
#29
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 11:46
Just for the fun of it, I have put together what Peter, Autosport and Sheldon have on the Arrows' in 1985-86.
Not that many glaring differences - it would seem that A8-3 survived longer on the carnet than in physical form...
By the way, who was the second driver (JN) at the Donington test in late '86? Probably totally obvious, but I just can't remember who it could have been...
scnu = spare car not used in Sheldonese
Now, for those roll bars in Detroit.....
Not that many glaring differences - it would seem that A8-3 survived longer on the carnet than in physical form...
By the way, who was the second driver (JN) at the Donington test in late '86? Probably totally obvious, but I just can't remember who it could have been...
scnu = spare car not used in Sheldonese
[FONT=courier new]1985 A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 BR Ellery TB GBp GBr Autosport TB GBp GBr Sheldon GB TB scnu P Ellery T GB TB Autosport GB TB Sheldon GB TB scnu RSM Ellery T GB TB Autosport GB TB Sheldon scnu GB TB MC Ellery T GB TB Autosport GB TB Sheldon scnu GB TB CDN Ellery TB GB T Autosport TBr GB TBp Sheldon TBr GB TBp US Ellery T GB TB Autosport GB TB TBp (no s/n) Sheldon scnu GB TB F Ellery T GB TB Autosport T TB GB Sheldon T TB GB GB Ellery T GB TB Autosport T TB GB Sheldon T TB GB D Ellery T GB TB Autosport T TB GB Sheldon T TB GB A Ellery GBp TB GBr Autosport T TB GB Sheldon GBr1 TB GB NL Ellery T GB TB Autosport TB GB Sheldon TB GB T I Ellery T GB TB Autosport T TB GB Sheldon T TB GB B Ellery T TB GB Autosport TB GB TBp (no s/n) Sheldon TB GB T EUR Ellery GBr TB GBp Autosport T TB GB Sheldon T TB GB ZA Ellery T GB TB Autosport GB TB T Sheldon GB TB T AUS Ellery T GBr/TBp TB Autosport GBr/TBp TB T Sheldon GB TB T 1986 A8-1 A8-2 A8-3 A8-4 A8-5 A8-6 A9-1 BR Ellery MS TB T Autosport MS MSp/TBp TB Sheldon MS T TB E Ellery MS TB T Autosport MS TB Sheldon MS TB scnu RSM Ellery MSp TB MSr Autosport MS TB Sheldon MS TB T MC Ellery MS TB T Autosport MS TB Sheldon MS TB T B Ellery MS TB T Autosport MS TB Sheldon MS TB scnu CDN Ellery T TB T Autosport TB Sheldon TB US Ellery CD TB T Autosport CD TB Sheldon CD TB F Ellery CDp TB CDr Autosport CD TB Sheldon CD TB scnu GB Ellery CDr1 TBr1 TBr2 Autosport CD TBr1 TBr2 Sheldon CD TB T D Ellery CD T TB Autosport CD TB Sheldon CD scnu TB HUN Ellery CDp TBr TBp/CDr Autosport CDp/TBr TBp/CDr TBp/CDp (no s/n) Sheldon CDp/TBr TBp/CDr A Ellery CD T TB Autosport CD CDp/TBp TB Sheldon CD TB I Ellery CD TB T Autosport CD TB T Sheldon CD TB P Ellery CD TB T Autosport CD TB Sheldon CD TB MEX Ellery T CD TB Autosport T CD TB Sheldon T CD TB AUS Ellery T CD TB Autosport CD TB Sheldon T CD TB [/FONT]
Now, for those roll bars in Detroit.....
#30
petefenelon
-
- 4,815 posts
- Joined: August 02
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 13:14
Originally posted by conjohn
By the way, who was the second driver (JN) at the Donington test in late '86? Probably totally obvious, but I just can't remember who it could have been...
John Nielsen, I think.
pete
#31
Rob Ryder
-
- 2,658 posts
- Joined: June 00
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 16:19
Originally posted by conjohn
By the way, who was the second driver (JN) at the Donington test in late '86? Probably totally obvious, but I just can't remember who it could have been...
Jari Nurminen ;)
Originally posted by Felix Muelas in thread : http://forums.atlasf...hlight=nurminen
#32
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 17:12
Superb info, thanks Peter!
#33
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 20:01
Hi - glad that the chassis information was well received. Its funny, as i look at it now some of my information looks less logical than what was presented in the press at the time! However, i was written down pretty much as it happened and so i guess i have to stand by it. I was particularly bemused that i recorded TB in A8/4 at Estoril in 1985. The reason being that i remembered the cars being airfreighted straight from Rio, without returning to the UK, passing Go, or collecting £200. That would make it more likely that TB used his Brazil chassis. Also, the cars were painted blue along the side pods and across the nose in Brazil, and also in estoril. This was changed in Imola because of pressure from Barclay. Don't remember A8-4 ever getting a respray but it might have.. So i was starting to think that A8-4 never made it to estoril. Then i found the relevant issue of Grand Prix International, and sure enough, it records TB as having a new chassis, no.4 So there you go. It must have gone down in the truck. Still, it doesn't quite ring true, and i will have a dig around to see if it is right or wrong. As regards the rest of it, yeah, i think what i have is right. The differences we see are Carnet related. Its easy to spot n5 by the way, the cockpit rim is much higher.
Now, gearboxes.....
Infact we were slightly ahead of the game in specifying an inboard box, a couple of years later there were quite a few around (some of them drawing quite heavily on the A9's box. Literally.)
However, the car was origionally drawn with a conventional DG based box with gears behind the diff. At a relatively late stage it was decided in a rather circuitous and not totally design led manner that the new car needed to be more cutting edge and that we needed to take another look. Brabham were known to be doing the laydown car with its inboard Wiseman box and it was felt that we should look at this too.That's when the idea of the inboard box materialised. It may have been 'in the ether' at Arrows anyway, as we had Pete Kerr on development and Pete had been a part of March when the 721X appeared with its Alfa inboard box. I certainly remember having conversations with him about it and then, oddly, we're doing one aswell?...
The problems that the car had on its rollout were not directly related to the power transmission side of the gearbox, which actually worked rather well, rather the rear geometry that was built into it was 'fixed' and proved to be a bit extreme. The late change had also put quite alot of weight on the front by contemporary standards and this may have been wrong in a turbocharged car. There are some nice shots of TB exiting the corner before the straight at Hockenheim with about 45 deg of oversteer in a slide if you can find them! There were also issues with the engine oil tank that was cast into the bellhousing and infact the box became the villain and by the Hungaroring race the car was fitted with the complete back end from the A8. By Monza it was fitted with the chassis and front end aswell i suppose...
When you look back on it nearly twenty years on, it actually sounds like all of this might have surfaced because the car lacked a sufficient level of downforce to mask it. There was a wind tunnel programme at Imperial, but by the standards of today, or even the programmes i have run myself in recent years during the design of the Bentley GTP, it was extremely primitive. I think this had a lot to do with it. That and the lack of structural stiffness. These other issues were on level 2 I think .
Drivers:
TB: Quiet, not a dominant personality who would get the team behind him. Often very fast though. Lost heart in 1986, and who could blame him. Showed what he could do at Benetton and Williams and i think the generally aired view is pretty fair.
GB:Got on well with GB. He was new, i was new, we both had a lot to learn at that time but we had a good working relationship in 1985. It was clear that he was off to bigger things and i was intrigued to be told by him, at the end of 1986, just after he had won in Mexico that the Benetton was very similar in many respects to the A8 but had a much better engine.... (And, i think, aero).
MS:I think Marc was already thinking of quitting F1 when he returned to Arrows in 1986, and it took a little while for him to come to terms with the customer engines and A8 chassis after a period in the Brabham. We were just getting the working relationship into gear when he went off rallying...
CD: Top bloke. Turned up to the Austrian GP in a Wermacht uniform. Very good to work with, and to engineer. We got him on a roll after the F3000 championship but with the equipment avaliable we may have done him more damage than good! Stayed in touch for a few years and then lost touch. Saw him again at Monaco in 1995. CD "You used to be my engineer at Arrows! PE "You used to be Christian Danner!"
Now, gearboxes.....
Infact we were slightly ahead of the game in specifying an inboard box, a couple of years later there were quite a few around (some of them drawing quite heavily on the A9's box. Literally.)
However, the car was origionally drawn with a conventional DG based box with gears behind the diff. At a relatively late stage it was decided in a rather circuitous and not totally design led manner that the new car needed to be more cutting edge and that we needed to take another look. Brabham were known to be doing the laydown car with its inboard Wiseman box and it was felt that we should look at this too.That's when the idea of the inboard box materialised. It may have been 'in the ether' at Arrows anyway, as we had Pete Kerr on development and Pete had been a part of March when the 721X appeared with its Alfa inboard box. I certainly remember having conversations with him about it and then, oddly, we're doing one aswell?...
The problems that the car had on its rollout were not directly related to the power transmission side of the gearbox, which actually worked rather well, rather the rear geometry that was built into it was 'fixed' and proved to be a bit extreme. The late change had also put quite alot of weight on the front by contemporary standards and this may have been wrong in a turbocharged car. There are some nice shots of TB exiting the corner before the straight at Hockenheim with about 45 deg of oversteer in a slide if you can find them! There were also issues with the engine oil tank that was cast into the bellhousing and infact the box became the villain and by the Hungaroring race the car was fitted with the complete back end from the A8. By Monza it was fitted with the chassis and front end aswell i suppose...
When you look back on it nearly twenty years on, it actually sounds like all of this might have surfaced because the car lacked a sufficient level of downforce to mask it. There was a wind tunnel programme at Imperial, but by the standards of today, or even the programmes i have run myself in recent years during the design of the Bentley GTP, it was extremely primitive. I think this had a lot to do with it. That and the lack of structural stiffness. These other issues were on level 2 I think .
Drivers:
TB: Quiet, not a dominant personality who would get the team behind him. Often very fast though. Lost heart in 1986, and who could blame him. Showed what he could do at Benetton and Williams and i think the generally aired view is pretty fair.
GB:Got on well with GB. He was new, i was new, we both had a lot to learn at that time but we had a good working relationship in 1985. It was clear that he was off to bigger things and i was intrigued to be told by him, at the end of 1986, just after he had won in Mexico that the Benetton was very similar in many respects to the A8 but had a much better engine.... (And, i think, aero).
MS:I think Marc was already thinking of quitting F1 when he returned to Arrows in 1986, and it took a little while for him to come to terms with the customer engines and A8 chassis after a period in the Brabham. We were just getting the working relationship into gear when he went off rallying...
CD: Top bloke. Turned up to the Austrian GP in a Wermacht uniform. Very good to work with, and to engineer. We got him on a roll after the F3000 championship but with the equipment avaliable we may have done him more damage than good! Stayed in touch for a few years and then lost touch. Saw him again at Monaco in 1995. CD "You used to be my engineer at Arrows! PE "You used to be Christian Danner!"
#34
fullcourseyellow
-
- 835 posts
- Joined: April 02
Member
Posted 10 March 2004 - 20:24
The shape of the nose of the IRL Dallara is just like that of the A9!
#35
Cirrus
-
- 1,759 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 19 March 2004 - 19:21
I've just noticed this for sale - complete with period BAe sticker! Is it an A10 as the advert claims?
http://www.racecarsd...?id=10777&cat=0
http://www.racecarsd...?id=10777&cat=0
#36
dolomite
-
- 1,201 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 19 March 2004 - 20:01
Originally posted by Cirrus
I've just noticed this for sale - complete with period BAe sticker! Is it an A10 as the advert claims?
http://www.racecarsd...?id=10777&cat=0
Looks like A9. I suspect this is the notorious BAe built tub - "...some final drilling will be required....". I expect Peter can tell us!
#37
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 20 March 2004 - 19:53
Well well well ....
I suspect that this is actually the fourth 'tub'. If i remember there were two useable BAe 'shells'. The first of those was completed as a chassis and that was the one that we spent happy hours riveting aluminium box sections inside in an attempt to stiffen it up.
But... This looks like the trimmed carbon chassis moulding prior to having the carbon floor bonded on. The floor is actually shown roughly in place on the last shot and looks like its never been bonded in place (very difficult to remove without some damage occuring)
No evidence either of ally box sections inside or having been removed . Difficult to say if there was ever a floor on, suspect not as there are no flanges on the bottom of the dash or seat back bulkheads and there would have been if the floor had been on.
I think the story is :
chassis 1 (Advanced Composites) - a9/1 the race car
chassis 2 (BAe) OOps, what are all those inserts doing on the shelf....
chassis 3 (BAe) Fabricated into a chassis with floor , front bulkhead etc, and then had ally panels added
chassis 4 delivered after the event and thrown into a corner under a dustsheet without any work being carried out on it.
So, this one is probably OK inasmuch as it has inserts inside. If i were asked to use it now the first thing i would do is bond 1/16" carbon cloth all over the outer skin, and box the cockpit rim in. So best get going with the paint stripper.. I think there's also the matter of a front bulkhead missing, but if you reread the thread you will see that it might actually be a good idea to get one designed anew..
I suspect that this is actually the fourth 'tub'. If i remember there were two useable BAe 'shells'. The first of those was completed as a chassis and that was the one that we spent happy hours riveting aluminium box sections inside in an attempt to stiffen it up.
But... This looks like the trimmed carbon chassis moulding prior to having the carbon floor bonded on. The floor is actually shown roughly in place on the last shot and looks like its never been bonded in place (very difficult to remove without some damage occuring)
No evidence either of ally box sections inside or having been removed . Difficult to say if there was ever a floor on, suspect not as there are no flanges on the bottom of the dash or seat back bulkheads and there would have been if the floor had been on.
I think the story is :
chassis 1 (Advanced Composites) - a9/1 the race car
chassis 2 (BAe) OOps, what are all those inserts doing on the shelf....
chassis 3 (BAe) Fabricated into a chassis with floor , front bulkhead etc, and then had ally panels added
chassis 4 delivered after the event and thrown into a corner under a dustsheet without any work being carried out on it.
So, this one is probably OK inasmuch as it has inserts inside. If i were asked to use it now the first thing i would do is bond 1/16" carbon cloth all over the outer skin, and box the cockpit rim in. So best get going with the paint stripper.. I think there's also the matter of a front bulkhead missing, but if you reread the thread you will see that it might actually be a good idea to get one designed anew..
#38
Paul Newby
-
- 532 posts
- Joined: December 02
Member
Posted 22 March 2004 - 02:08
Peter
One last question on the A9 disaster.
I recall that designer Dave Wass had to carry the can for this lemon and went on to work on the TWR Jaguar Sports Prototypes (is this right?) What were your impressions of him and his role in the design of the A9? Should he have walked, or was the whole affair out of his control and as a result he was made the scapegoat?
One last question on the A9 disaster.
I recall that designer Dave Wass had to carry the can for this lemon and went on to work on the TWR Jaguar Sports Prototypes (is this right?) What were your impressions of him and his role in the design of the A9? Should he have walked, or was the whole affair out of his control and as a result he was made the scapegoat?
Advertisement
#40
Megatron
-
- 3,688 posts
- Joined: January 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2004 - 06:46
You had a heck of a name on the engine cover during the later part of 1986 through 1988.
#41
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 22 March 2004 - 09:42
Hallo Paul - 'Wassy' gave me my first full time job in Formula One' for which i will always be grateful to him. He moved on to Benetton after Arrows, not TWR, and apart from a short spell in 1990 when JB moved his team in , has been there ever since. Not bad in this business!
Obviously when you have a debacle like the A9 then everyone involved in the Design side is implicated, and that has to include the Chief Designer, but it's seldom as simple or as clear cut as being one man's blunder. There were a lot of different reasons for the A9's failure, and ofcourse its failure is not unique . Sometimes the Chief Designer survives an event like that, sometimes he doesn't. That's usually down to the unique circumstances surrounding him in the team at the time, his status in that team, etc etc . Actually the whole scenario of what goes on inside a race team at those sort of moments would make a good book!
Obviously when you have a debacle like the A9 then everyone involved in the Design side is implicated, and that has to include the Chief Designer, but it's seldom as simple or as clear cut as being one man's blunder. There were a lot of different reasons for the A9's failure, and ofcourse its failure is not unique . Sometimes the Chief Designer survives an event like that, sometimes he doesn't. That's usually down to the unique circumstances surrounding him in the team at the time, his status in that team, etc etc . Actually the whole scenario of what goes on inside a race team at those sort of moments would make a good book!
#42
Paul Newby
-
- 532 posts
- Joined: December 02
Member
Posted 24 March 2004 - 11:59
Thanks Peter, now just one more question - promise!
With all the talk in F1 of testing and more testing, where test drivers can cover more kilometres than the race drivers do at all the Grand Prixs before the season even starts , what was it like with Arrows back in 85 and 86. How much private testing did Arrows do back in 1985 and 86? Of course there were no test drivers or test teams in those days. Was there any increase in the testing schedule whilst trying to bring the A9 on board?
With all the talk in F1 of testing and more testing, where test drivers can cover more kilometres than the race drivers do at all the Grand Prixs before the season even starts , what was it like with Arrows back in 85 and 86. How much private testing did Arrows do back in 1985 and 86? Of course there were no test drivers or test teams in those days. Was there any increase in the testing schedule whilst trying to bring the A9 on board?
#43
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 24 March 2004 - 16:10
Hi Paul,
If i can refer you back to the chassis numbers post a little earlier in the thread, i've included the testing there. And as you can see, in 1985 we had a reasonable testing schedule, although biased to the first half of the year. In 1986, all the resources appear to have gone into the A9 design and manufacture. There was one pre season test, in Rio, and one roll out test for the A9 at Silverstone just before Hockenheim. And that was it! The Donnington test in Nov 86 was a Barclay PR day out.
Not ideal but i have to admit that i don't think any more would have made any significant difference to the on track performance that year. The problems were rather more fundamental than finding a 'good setup'...
If i can refer you back to the chassis numbers post a little earlier in the thread, i've included the testing there. And as you can see, in 1985 we had a reasonable testing schedule, although biased to the first half of the year. In 1986, all the resources appear to have gone into the A9 design and manufacture. There was one pre season test, in Rio, and one roll out test for the A9 at Silverstone just before Hockenheim. And that was it! The Donnington test in Nov 86 was a Barclay PR day out.
Not ideal but i have to admit that i don't think any more would have made any significant difference to the on track performance that year. The problems were rather more fundamental than finding a 'good setup'...
#44
dolomite
-
- 1,201 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 24 March 2004 - 20:50
Peter, can you tell us anything about the Porsche V12 saga?
#45
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 24 March 2004 - 23:27
dolomite - i was gone early 1987, so afraid not. Don't think i could have survived the A9 AND the Porsche v12 in the space of 5 years...
#46
Ruairidh
-
- 1,074 posts
- Joined: November 02
Member
Posted 24 March 2004 - 23:51
Originally posted by dolomite
Peter, can you tell us anything about the Porsche V12 saga?
Have you read Karl L's chapter on this in the new Porsche Excellence Was Expected?
#47
dolomite
-
- 1,201 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 25 March 2004 - 19:41
OK, I wasn't sure whether you were still around at that time or not.Originally posted by PeterElleray
dolomite - i was gone early 1987, so afraid not. Don't think i could have survived the A9 AND the Porsche v12 in the space of 5 years...
No. I've spent far too much money on motor racing books lately, and I certainly can't afford to buy that one as well at the moment!Originally posted by Ruairidh
Have you read Karl L's chapter on this in the new Porsche Excellence Was Expected?
#48
funformula
-
- 552 posts
- Joined: March 08
Member
Posted 08 December 2015 - 19:45
Well well well ....
I suspect that this is actually the fourth 'tub'. If i remember there were two useable BAe 'shells'. The first of those was completed as a chassis and that was the one that we spent happy hours riveting aluminium box sections inside in an attempt to stiffen it up.
But... This looks like the trimmed carbon chassis moulding prior to having the carbon floor bonded on. The floor is actually shown roughly in place on the last shot and looks like its never been bonded in place (very difficult to remove without some damage occuring)
No evidence either of ally box sections inside or having been removed . Difficult to say if there was ever a floor on, suspect not as there are no flanges on the bottom of the dash or seat back bulkheads and there would have been if the floor had been on.
I think the story is :
chassis 1 (Advanced Composites) - a9/1 the race car
chassis 2 (BAe) OOps, what are all those inserts doing on the shelf....
chassis 3 (BAe) Fabricated into a chassis with floor , front bulkhead etc, and then had ally panels added
chassis 4 delivered after the event and thrown into a corner under a dustsheet without any work being carried out on it.
So, this one is probably OK inasmuch as it has inserts inside. If i were asked to use it now the first thing i would do is bond 1/16" carbon cloth all over the outer skin, and box the cockpit rim in. So best get going with the paint stripper.. I think there's also the matter of a front bulkhead missing, but if you reread the thread you will see that it might actually be a good idea to get one designed anew..
Seems that chassis 4 is for sale now. Or is it probably chassis 2 ???
https://racecarsdire...carbonfibre-tub
#49
PeterElleray
-
- 1,162 posts
- Joined: January 04
Member
Posted 08 December 2015 - 21:41
I have visited 1 and 3 in the last couple of years and was able to identify them from various unique contemporary features. 1 was a running car - not a term that could really have been used in period - and amazed me by running all the way up the hill at Goodwood without something breaking or falling off.
This looks like either 2 (if there are no inserts) or 4, as its never been glued together by the look of it.
Anyone thinking of bidding would do well to re read this thread from the start - something the vendor also apppears to have done, although the bit in the advert about the car mainly flexing at the back is nonsense. It primarily flexed far too much all through the cockpit area.
Peter
Edited by PeterElleray, 08 December 2015 - 21:44.
#50
Charlieman
-
- 2,592 posts
- Joined: October 09
Member
Posted 12 December 2015 - 14:57
Fascinating stuff, Peter. I missed the first appearance of this thread.
For previous generations of (mostly metal) chassis, it was common for cars to be pulled back to the workshop for new bulkheads and skins to be fitted. How much of the A9 design could have been corrected internally at Arrows? Would it be realistic to reinforce a carbon fibre monocoque with more layup 18 years or so after it was made?
