Fellw NF members,
The 1979 Arrows A2 F1 car is unsual in that it featured no front wings attached to the nose cone.
AFAIK, is this the only F1 car of the last 30 or so years not to feature front wings?
Did the designers of the A2 (Wass & Southwell) ever give any reasons why they decided to nor feature front wings on the A2? What were the perceived "advantages" of having no front wings?
1979 Arrows A2 query
Started by
Graham Clayton
, Jan 06 2005 08:13
22 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Maldwyn
-
- 1,488 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 08:36
IIRC the Lotus 80 of 1979 initially appeared with no front wings and a very low rear wing. I haven't seen any comments about the lack of front wings on the Arrows A2 but the following may be of interest:
Riccardo Patrese
"One problem with the A2 was not having a rear wing. This gave a problem under braking because although the wing provides downforce it also provides stability. The A2 was very unstable and, because it was reliant on downforce being created under the car, if the airflow was not consistent the car was even more unstable.
There were many problems with the car. The engine and gearbox were at an angle and this meant there was a high centre of gravity at the back and this meant that the car did not behave correctly.
All these things were difficult to overcome and in the end Arrows made a more conventional car. The team tried something radical once but it didn't work, and to try again for another season would have cost too much money. The Arrows A2 was a very advanced concept, the idea was good if there had been more money to develop it."
Jochen Mass
"The concept of the Arrows A2 was clever, courageous even. I remember that it sat very low. The driving position was much more inclined than I was used to. You were almost lying down. That wasn't the problem, however. You soon adapted to that. What I never got used to was the appalling handling. The car had lots of downforce - but wasn't sprung hard enough, which meant that it would 'porpoise' on the straights and was totally unbalanced in the corners. The spring rates needed to be around 10 times stiffer than we had them. I talked to the Lotus team, who were also running a full wing car (the 80). Their springs were seven or eight times stiffer than ours.
I still managed to score two sixth places with the A2. One was at Zandvoort and the other was in my home race at Hockenheim, where the long straights made up for the poor handling. The car was so bad that Riccardo chose to run the old A1 in Canada. I didn't - and failed to qualify. Arrows didn't allow enough time to develop the A2. You know what it's like in F1. It's such a fast moving sport. If it doesn't work immediately, throw it away and start again. The team began work on the A3 almost straight after the A2's debut at Dijon. It was more conventional and much easier to drive."
Alan Rees
"The A2 was a great idea. The engine and gearbox were tilted giving an aerodynamic advantage, but the centre of gravity / roll centre were too high. Also the weight at the rear of the car was too high. Porpoising was certainly a problem but it was not the main issue, and a stiffened chassis and harder springs would not have been the solution."
Jackie Oliver
"Tony Southgate, our designer, had come from Lotus - where he had been working on the concept of a full wing car under Colin Chapman. The A2 was an extension of what he had learned there. Tony made a quarter-scale model early in 1979 and tested it in the wind tunnel at Imperial College, London. The results were spectacular. The car produced three to four times more downforce than we had been able to achieve before. And still Tony wasn't satisfied. He inclined the engine and gearbox, so that they sat lower. This improved the airflow under the car and created even more downforce. Unfortunately there was now so much downforce that we had to reinforce the monocoque to cope with it. That added unnecessarily to the weight and affected the centre of gravity, so that we now had a heavy and unbalanced car. The mechanics hated it because the all-enveloping bodywork restricted access and took an age to remove, so even simple jobs became more difficult. You can't be a slave to aerodynamics alone. You sacrifice the rest of the package at your peril.
You can usually tell pretty quickly whether a car is going to work or not. After the first two days of testing, I realised the A2 was going nowhere and ordered a halt to production. Only two were built, the one pictured [in the article] and one that I own myself. It was a pity. We had two good drivers in Jochen Mass and Riccardo Patrese. For the following season we played safe. The A3 was a copy of Williams' successful FW07 and it was much more competitive."
Riccardo Patrese
"One problem with the A2 was not having a rear wing. This gave a problem under braking because although the wing provides downforce it also provides stability. The A2 was very unstable and, because it was reliant on downforce being created under the car, if the airflow was not consistent the car was even more unstable.
There were many problems with the car. The engine and gearbox were at an angle and this meant there was a high centre of gravity at the back and this meant that the car did not behave correctly.
All these things were difficult to overcome and in the end Arrows made a more conventional car. The team tried something radical once but it didn't work, and to try again for another season would have cost too much money. The Arrows A2 was a very advanced concept, the idea was good if there had been more money to develop it."
Jochen Mass
"The concept of the Arrows A2 was clever, courageous even. I remember that it sat very low. The driving position was much more inclined than I was used to. You were almost lying down. That wasn't the problem, however. You soon adapted to that. What I never got used to was the appalling handling. The car had lots of downforce - but wasn't sprung hard enough, which meant that it would 'porpoise' on the straights and was totally unbalanced in the corners. The spring rates needed to be around 10 times stiffer than we had them. I talked to the Lotus team, who were also running a full wing car (the 80). Their springs were seven or eight times stiffer than ours.
I still managed to score two sixth places with the A2. One was at Zandvoort and the other was in my home race at Hockenheim, where the long straights made up for the poor handling. The car was so bad that Riccardo chose to run the old A1 in Canada. I didn't - and failed to qualify. Arrows didn't allow enough time to develop the A2. You know what it's like in F1. It's such a fast moving sport. If it doesn't work immediately, throw it away and start again. The team began work on the A3 almost straight after the A2's debut at Dijon. It was more conventional and much easier to drive."
Alan Rees
"The A2 was a great idea. The engine and gearbox were tilted giving an aerodynamic advantage, but the centre of gravity / roll centre were too high. Also the weight at the rear of the car was too high. Porpoising was certainly a problem but it was not the main issue, and a stiffened chassis and harder springs would not have been the solution."
Jackie Oliver
"Tony Southgate, our designer, had come from Lotus - where he had been working on the concept of a full wing car under Colin Chapman. The A2 was an extension of what he had learned there. Tony made a quarter-scale model early in 1979 and tested it in the wind tunnel at Imperial College, London. The results were spectacular. The car produced three to four times more downforce than we had been able to achieve before. And still Tony wasn't satisfied. He inclined the engine and gearbox, so that they sat lower. This improved the airflow under the car and created even more downforce. Unfortunately there was now so much downforce that we had to reinforce the monocoque to cope with it. That added unnecessarily to the weight and affected the centre of gravity, so that we now had a heavy and unbalanced car. The mechanics hated it because the all-enveloping bodywork restricted access and took an age to remove, so even simple jobs became more difficult. You can't be a slave to aerodynamics alone. You sacrifice the rest of the package at your peril.
You can usually tell pretty quickly whether a car is going to work or not. After the first two days of testing, I realised the A2 was going nowhere and ordered a halt to production. Only two were built, the one pictured [in the article] and one that I own myself. It was a pity. We had two good drivers in Jochen Mass and Riccardo Patrese. For the following season we played safe. The A3 was a copy of Williams' successful FW07 and it was much more competitive."
#3
Geza Sury
-
- 942 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 09:08
In the heydays of the wing car-era (around 1981/82) most of the cars didn't feature a front wing at least on quick circuits.Originally posted by Graham Clayton
The 1979 Arrows A2 F1 car is unsual in that it featured no front wings attached to the nose cone.
AFAIK, is this the only F1 car of the last 30 or so years not to feature front wings?
#4
Bonde
-
- 1,072 posts
- Joined: December 04
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 10:18
IIRC, the Brabham BT48 didn't have front wings when it was initially launched - it certainly raced without them at some circuits, as did other cars 1979-82.
#5
armchair expert
-
- 1,936 posts
- Joined: October 99
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 10:41
And I think they all looked much better because of it! I thought the Arrows was a great looking car.
#6
Huw Jadvantich
-
- 602 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 12:58
That was a great period! the Williams ran without front wings, as did Lotus, and certainly the Brabham was initially shown without them.
I am of the opinion that if they were banned tomorrow, F1 would be much better for it, without all this cobblers about not being able to overtake into corners because of dirty air, and cornering speed being something provided by a good chassis and a balsy driver, rather than the most extravagant wind tunnel resources.
I am of the opinion that if they were banned tomorrow, F1 would be much better for it, without all this cobblers about not being able to overtake into corners because of dirty air, and cornering speed being something provided by a good chassis and a balsy driver, rather than the most extravagant wind tunnel resources.
#7
Geza Sury
-
- 942 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 13:54
Excellent post Maldwyn, thanks a lot!
Accoring to Allen Brown's website there was a third - although unused - chassis (Arrows A2/3).Originally posted by Maldwyn
You can usually tell pretty quickly whether a car is going to work or not. After the first two days of testing, I realised the A2 was going nowhere and ordered a halt to production. Only two were built, the one pictured [in the article] and one that I own myself.
#8
Ruairidh
-
- 1,074 posts
- Joined: November 02
Member
Posted 06 January 2005 - 14:29
Originally posted by Maldwyn
IIRC the Lotus 80 of 1979 initially appeared with no front wings and a very low rear wing.
Yes it did. In fact the rear wing was so low as to look like a continuation of the rear bodywork.
Also the Lotus T86 appeared first with no front wings either.
#9
fattogatto
-
- 85 posts
- Joined: September 02
Member
Posted 07 January 2005 - 00:54
Apparently, from watching the 1980 GP season recap, Renault sometimes qualified without front wings then showed up on the grid with the wings installed.
#10
bluestar77
-
- 2 posts
- Joined: January 05
New Member
Posted 07 January 2005 - 19:39
Graham, if you check out:
1980 Gallery1981 Gallery
1982 Gallery
Most teams at one point ran without front wings during the ground-effect era. I'm not sure by any means, but I assume the disruption in the airflow caused by the wing had an effect on the consistancy of the air running under the car, and thus the predicability of the ground-effect downforce was lessened to some degree.
The hole in my theory is that by looking at the galleries posted above, there didn't seem to be certain circuits which suited the removal of the wings, as some teams ran with them, some without.
Is it possible, as mentioned by fattogatto, that teams ran without wings during qualifying? I would think the increase in underbody downforce required far stiffer springs to avoid bottoming the car out - maybe the drivers could only handle the rough ride over a short period?
Just a guess... :
edit: I'm currently working on a 3D model of the A2, but progress has been greatly hampered by lack of reference photos of the rear end - engine, gearbox, suspension assembly, etc. If anyone has any photos I could leech, they would be much appreciated
1980 Gallery1981 Gallery
1982 Gallery
Most teams at one point ran without front wings during the ground-effect era. I'm not sure by any means, but I assume the disruption in the airflow caused by the wing had an effect on the consistancy of the air running under the car, and thus the predicability of the ground-effect downforce was lessened to some degree.
The hole in my theory is that by looking at the galleries posted above, there didn't seem to be certain circuits which suited the removal of the wings, as some teams ran with them, some without.
Is it possible, as mentioned by fattogatto, that teams ran without wings during qualifying? I would think the increase in underbody downforce required far stiffer springs to avoid bottoming the car out - maybe the drivers could only handle the rough ride over a short period?
Just a guess... :
edit: I'm currently working on a 3D model of the A2, but progress has been greatly hampered by lack of reference photos of the rear end - engine, gearbox, suspension assembly, etc. If anyone has any photos I could leech, they would be much appreciated
#11
Thundersports
-
- 622 posts
- Joined: July 06
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 15:38
If you are in the south of the UK H-engineering in Tunbridge Wells have an A2 they are restoring, can't remember the Chassis number but it is one of the 3 that raced.
#12
MODE
-
- 306 posts
- Joined: February 04
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 19:45
Originally posted by Thundersport
If you are in the south of the UK H-engineering in Tunbridge Wells have an A2 they are restoring, can't remember the Chassis number but it is one of the 3 that raced.
Is there any chance to see it on track one day ?
#13
Thundersports
-
- 622 posts
- Joined: July 06
Member
Posted 17 October 2007 - 07:43
Sorry should say one of two that raced.
The intention is to put it back on the track.
The intention is to put it back on the track.
#14
Jerome
-
- 2,088 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 17 October 2007 - 10:27
Originally posted by bluestar77
Is it possible, as mentioned by fattogatto, that teams ran without wings during qualifying? I would think the increase in underbody downforce required far stiffer springs to avoid bottoming the car out - maybe the drivers could only handle the rough ride over a short period?
I think there's a misunderstanding here. There are two kinds of wing cars without a front wing: one like the Williams FW08 who could run races (yes!) without front wing, or cars that were designed to have no front wing at all (Lotus 80 and Ligier JS 19). Lets call them the Super Venturi Cars.
I am not sure about the Arrows A2 but what the Lotus and the Ligier had in common that the entire bodywork of the car - untill past the rear whiles - were designed to operate as one combination of two venturi channels. The Williams Fw08 (Worldchampions Car 1982) the venturi stopped shortly in front of the rear wheels.
That is a significant difference. In the Lotus and Ligier design the housing of the rearwheels were enveloped in the venturi effect, with the 'normal' wingcar the wheels were not. That meant that the rear wheels more and less still operated under the same mechanical and aerodynamic conditions as the front wheels.
That was NOT the case with the Superventuri cars like the Lotus and the Ligier. The downforce on the rearwheels were both mechanically and aerodynamically very different beasts indeed than the front wheels.
Both teams had a terrible time getting the cars to work, and were swung hence and forth between terrific results in the windtunnel (great downforce!) and horrendous setup problems at the track.
I am not an aerodynamic engineer, but I am pretty convinced that the above explains why neither Ligier or Lotus (or Arrows, it seems) ever got the Super Venturi Car to work.
#15
dretceterini
-
- 2,991 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 17 October 2007 - 15:14
Link to a photo of the A2, for those unfamiliar with what it looked like:
http://www.interq.or...u/arrows-a2.jpg
It is my favorite looking car of that period....maybe just because it is so weird....
In a way it DOES have front wings....the "covers" for the upper front suspension that extend outward, almost to the wheels
The A2/2 wasn't totally unsucessful; Mass took 6th twice with it....
http://www.interq.or...u/arrows-a2.jpg
It is my favorite looking car of that period....maybe just because it is so weird....
In a way it DOES have front wings....the "covers" for the upper front suspension that extend outward, almost to the wheels
The A2/2 wasn't totally unsucessful; Mass took 6th twice with it....
#16
Maldwyn
-
- 1,488 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 17 October 2007 - 15:36
This was my own first sight of the car at the British GP:
I always liked it, even though the concept never worked. Its' look was helped by those Warsteiner colours It would be great to see it on-track once again.
I always liked it, even though the concept never worked. Its' look was helped by those Warsteiner colours
It would be great to see it on-track once again.
#17
Jerome
-
- 2,088 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 17 October 2007 - 17:57
Originally posted by dretceterini
Link to a photo of the A2, for those unfamiliar with what it looked like:
http://www.interq.or...u/arrows-a2.jpg
It is my favorite looking car of that period....maybe just because it is so weird....
In a way it DOES have front wings....the "covers" for the upper front suspension that extend outward, almost to the wheels
The A2/2 wasn't totally unsucessful; Mass took 6th twice with it....
Absolutely a stunning car... but two 6th places with such generous backing, in those days of high atrocity in races is not something to be proud about.
I can see from the pic placed by Maldwyn (how do you do that!) that the Arrows A2 was not of the same type as the Lotus 80 and the Ligier 19. One can see that the venturis end in front of the rear wheels.
#18
dretceterini
-
- 2,991 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 18 October 2007 - 02:13
For those into miniatures, Tenariv/AMR did a white-metal kit of the car in 1/43rd scale. It is a very nice model properly built, but rather difficult to find today.
Just searched, and there IS one for sale on dutch e-bay, item # 150110829817 The kit was only 130 Frf or so when it came out, circa 1980, and now has become so collectable that the e-bay price is 130 Euros!!! No connection top the seller, except I know him.
As to the Warsteiner paint job, I personally prefer the black and gold version, as used on the Arrows A1...
Just searched, and there IS one for sale on dutch e-bay, item # 150110829817 The kit was only 130 Frf or so when it came out, circa 1980, and now has become so collectable that the e-bay price is 130 Euros!!! No connection top the seller, except I know him.
As to the Warsteiner paint job, I personally prefer the black and gold version, as used on the Arrows A1...
#19
dretceterini
-
- 2,991 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 18 October 2007 - 02:25
Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
[B]
Absolutely a stunning car... but two 6th places with such generous backing, in those days of high atrocity in races is not something to be proud about.
Not THAT bad with a car that was basically a good looking pig...
Advertisement
#20
TecnoRacing
-
- 1,866 posts
- Joined: September 01
Member
Posted 18 October 2007 - 07:09
Absolutely a stunning car
Im amazed people can like the looks of the A2!...for me it has to very close atop, or possibly #1, in the running for ugliest grand prix cars ever...
Tony Southgate designed alot of lovely racecars though...
#21
Jerome
-
- 2,088 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 18 October 2007 - 08:14
Originally posted by fer312t
Im amazed people can like the looks of the A2!...for me it has to very close atop, or possibly #1, in the running for ugliest grand prix cars ever...
Tony Southgate designed alot of lovely racecars though...
Hey man, I loved the Lotus 88. Which was described by some as 'A hobbit dressed in metal'.
#22
tobbe j
-
- 90 posts
- Joined: July 05
Member
Posted 18 January 2008 - 13:23
Originally posted by dretceterini
Link to a photo of the A2, for those unfamiliar with what it looked like:
http://www.interq.or...u/arrows-a2.jpg
Is ther any that know wher this image is taken from? I mean which museum, exhibition?
It's the P34 that I look for.
#23
Arjan de Roos
-
- 2,598 posts
- Joined: July 02
Member
Posted 18 January 2008 - 15:36
Originally posted by dretceterini
For those into miniatures, Tenariv/AMR did a white-metal kit of the car in 1/43rd scale. It is a very nice model properly built, but rather difficult to find today.
Provence Moulage also did one in 1/43rd. Japanese company Studio27 has one out now in 1/24th scale.
