132 replies to this topic

[Rainer Nyberg]

I don't know the expert either, but I am not sure that it was Chapman who hired the expert, it is more likely that he was one of the members in the FISA Appeal Hearing committee.

[xbgs351]

I have been reading a suspension book written by Allan Staniforth that refers to the Lotus Twin chassis that I undestand to be the 88. Is there any information on this car in the Nostalgia Forum? If not what can you tell me about the car?
(The search funtion refuses to look at '88'.)

[macoran]

I can scan in a set op drawings which shows how the 88 is put together.

PM me your e-mail and I'll send m off to you

[macoran]

There are also these pics:.....

http://www.club-lotu...ndex.php?id=555

[dolomite]

Do a search for 'Lotus T88'

[zakeriath]

Old racing cars show the car to be in the UK, who owns it now and is it on display anywhere?

[xbgs351]

http://forums.autosp...light=lotus t88

So it's like the Chaparral Sports Prototype, but feeding into both the front and rear uprights.

[macoran]

This tells all

http://images.google...ttp...6lr=&sa=N

[2F-001]

Originally posted by xbgs351
So it's like the Chaparral Sports Prototype, but feeding into both the front and rear uprights.

In the sense that the downforce is applied to the unsprung parts of the car (where it belongs), yes. But the chief difference with the Lotus is that that downforce was venturi ("ground effects") induced which infers a benefit in less drag and less subsceptibility to turbulent air. Plus, of course, the controversy of the downforce-inducing elements being nominally sprung themselves as a supposed separate chassis.

The 86 ans 88 are interesting and historically important cars, since their inability to race the 88 pitched Lotus into their 'Plan B' - reactive/active/predictive ride (or however one chooses to describe those technologies) and all that that entailed and all that ensued from it. (And the 88 also has its place in the history of carbon-composite cars).

Isn't one running example still maintained by Classic Team Lotus?

[canon1753]

Would the 88 been the next in line of great Lotii, like the 18, 25, 33, 49, 72 and 78-9? Or would it have been a dead end?

[Der Pate]

Many thanks for that thread !!!

After many years I understand the T88 at last...

[elansprint72]

Just found this revived thread, have not read all the posts (!) the photo was taken on 7th Feb 2006 at Chevron Racing where Vin Malkie's guys had been doing some work on the car to get it ready to run- I don't know if it has because, as I said I've not read this thread!

I was surprised how little effort it took to make the body sit down onto the stops and start doing its job; two fingers would push it down at the front, by standing at the side of the cockpit the whole thing was very easily compressed using both hands; Vin reckoned the air pressure would be sufficient by about 40 miles/hour. Clever, eh?

[cpbell]

Regarding the Chapman press statement, in his authorised Chapman biography, Gerard "Jabby" Crombac admits that he wrote that statement, which got him into trouble as he was an FIA technical advisor and therefore penning an anti-FIA statement on behalf of ACBC was not a politically good move. Apparently, he was found-out because (having French as hids first language) he had an unusual way of using English (he himself called it "Crombac-speak" or somesuch), so the FIA knew it hadn't been written by Colin, but only on his behalf.

[F1matt]

I was looking at some pictures of the 88 with the body work off, the ( secondary) chassis looks like it is made from carbon fibre? If this is correct how come the MP4 is credited with the introduction of carbon fibre constructed chassis when both cars were introduced in 1981?

[Doug Nye]

Lotus and McLaren employed carbon composite materials in their chassis in different ways. Lotus in effect took a large flat sheet of composite, scored straight lines through its surface and folded-up the outboard sides to form a 'Kellogs Packet' chassis nacelle.  McLaren commissioned US aerospace composite specialists Hercules to mould a nacelle for them around sections of internal tooling which could be dismantled and removed from the finished integrated moulding through the cockpit opening. This later form of construction, or variations of it, were quickly adopted by other constructors, leading to a mainstream form of 'conventional' carbon monocoque manufacture.  McLaren are generally credited with successful introduction of the carbon composite genre - Lotus were a co-pioneer, but with less success.  I think that's right, from memory, here at 7.30 on Singapore GP Sunday...

 

DCN

[Bloggsworth]

Did not Chapman earlier attempt a semi-composite tub when he skinned the F3 Lotus 27 with glass fibre, thereby producing a monocoque with all the torsional rigidity of wet spaghetti - IIRC one of the the two was driven by Ray Parsons. I was about to say "I'm available for correction" before realising that the creation of Carry On style double-entendre are not the thing for a Sunday morning...

[2F-001]

I thought the accolade was given to the McLaren for being the first carbon-composite chassis to actually race?

(I've heard that carbon-kevlar-honeycomb panel used by Lotus referred to - due to its appearance - as 'Chapman Tartan'.)

[Peter Morley]

Did not Chapman earlier attempt a semi-composite tub when he skinned the F3 Lotus 27 with glass fibre, thereby producing a monocoque with all the torsional rigidity of wet spaghetti - IIRC one of the the two was driven by Ray Parsons. I was about to say "I'm available for correction" before realising that the creation of Carry On style double-entendre are not the thing for a Sunday morning...

 

Yes, in an attempt to lower cost the first Lotus 27 Juniors used glass fibre side skins.

Initially they were ok but with use the rivet holes open up etc. and it becomes rather less unitary in its construction.

Someone who's driven both reckoned the difference wasn't that big and would only really be noticed by top flight drivers.

 

McLaren M2 used Mallite which was a composite of balsa and aluminium.

 

Presumably the thread really means carbon (or kevlar) fibre when talking about composites, in much the same way as people seem to accept that Carbon means Carbon dioxide these days.

[Peter Morley]

A couple of pictures of the 88 windtunnel model that was taken to the FIA tribunal, which currently lives with me.

 

 

[Gary C]

Can I have that when you're finished with it?

[Peter Morley]

Can I have that when you're finished with it?

 

Yes, it's available in exchange for a large envelope stuffed with used fivers....

[F1matt]

Thanks for the answers,a clearer picture has been painted for me now, the photo of the model was particularly helpful!

[Doug Nye]

Hmmmm - in effect there was a decisive body of opinion which dismissed Colin Chapman's 'twin-chassis' protestations on behalf of the 88 and viewed the car this way.  

 

In effect he had merged the front and rear wings together, enlarged them to envelop the entire car, including its vertical sides, and had then mounted the resultant 'shaped one-piece, full-length, full-width surface panel' upon tiny springs coupled to the suspension.  The regulations clearly outlawed moveable aerodynamic devices.  In the case of the 88 its entire trackside-visible envelope was a 'moveable aerodynamic device' since it was capable of movement independent of the chassis nacelle upon which the suspension members were mounted.  Sorry ACBC - it was a semantic bridge too far...  Rather like Gordon Murray's Brabham Fan-Car, which got rather further before its creators abandoned the fight.

 

DCN

[Roger Clark]

This thread was started in December 1999, one month after TNF started!

[Peter Morley]

Hmmmm - in effect there was a decisive body of opinion which dismissed Colin Chapman's 'twin-chassis' protestations on behalf of the 88 and viewed the car this way.  

 

In effect he had merged the front and rear wings together, enlarged them to envelop the entire car, including its vertical sides, and had then mounted the resultant 'shaped one-piece, full-length, full-width surface panel' upon tiny springs coupled to the suspension.  The regulations clearly outlawed moveable aerodynamic devices.  In the case of the 88 its entire trackside-visible envelope was a 'moveable aerodynamic device' since it was capable of movement independent of the chassis nacelle upon which the suspension members were mounted.  Sorry ACBC - it was a semantic bridge too far...  Rather like Gordon Murray's Brabham Fan-Car, which got rather further before its creators abandoned the fight.

 

DCN

 

When it was running it presumably produced so much downforce that the body would have been stuck to the track and incapable of moving!!

Given his initial experience of connecting aero devices to the suspension you'd have thought that Chapman of all people would have been aware that it would be frowned upon.

[TennisUK]

Hmmmm - in effect there was a decisive body of opinion which dismissed Colin Chapman's 'twin-chassis' protestations on behalf of the 88 and viewed the car this way.

In effect he had merged the front and rear wings together, enlarged them to envelop the entire car, including its vertical sides, and had then mounted the resultant 'shaped one-piece, full-length, full-width surface panel' upon tiny springs coupled to the suspension. The regulations clearly outlawed moveable aerodynamic devices. In the case of the 88 its entire trackside-visible envelope was a 'moveable aerodynamic device' since it was capable of movement independent of the chassis nacelle upon which the suspension members were mounted. Sorry ACBC - it was a semantic bridge too far... Rather like Gordon Murray's Brabham Fan-Car, which got rather further before its creators abandoned the fight.

DCN

I would tend to agree with the view that it was a movable aerodynamic device rather than a true second chassis. It was certainly far less tenuous than the ridiculous judgment handed down by Mosley to Renault in the mid 90s for their ‘mass dampers’.

But one thing... am I correct that ‘sliding skirts’ were not banned until the end of 1982? If so surely they were even more unambiguously movable aerodynamic devices?

[Charlieman]

A couple of pictures of the 88 windtunnel model that was taken to the FIA tribunal, which currently lives with me.

 

A fascinating piece of history but one might perceive it as an attempt to misdirect the tribunal by Colin Chapman.

 

The primary chassis looks like a naked Lotus 79, comprising a driver tube/fuel tank/engine and inboard suspension. The secondary aero chassis is connected to the primary chassis only by the outboard springs acting on the wheel uprights.

 

Sadly, older links to outline drawings of the Lotus 88 above are broken. Here is a more recent link which might help.

https://i.pinimg.com...eb24e112b81.jpg

[Charlieman]

I would tend to agree with the view that it was a movable aerodynamic device rather than a true second chassis. It was certainly far less tenuous than the ridiculous judgment handed down by Mosley to Renault in the mid 90s for their ‘mass dampers’.

But one thing... am I correct that ‘sliding skirts’ were not banned until the end of 1982? If so surely they were even more unambiguously movable aerodynamic devices?

Brabham Fan Car: The fan was an active element in creating downforce.

 

Lotus 88 et al: The secondary chassis created downforce on the wheel uprights which was unimposed on the driver, using aerodynamic elements which moved independently of the primary chassis.

 

A sliding skirt, in itself, does not create aerodynamic effects. Put a sliding skirt on a March 701 (random example) and test how the car works. A sliding skirt only works if the car has a venturi or wing or draught pulling air through/under the car. A sliding skirt is not an aerodynamic device on its own.

[Pat Clarke]

A sliding skirt, in itself, does not create aerodynamic effects. Put a sliding skirt on a March 701 (random example) and test how the car works. A sliding skirt only works if the car has a venturi or wing or draught pulling air through/under the car. A sliding skirt is not an aerodynamic device on its own.

 

I always thought the March 701 was 'So near, so far' from  being a ground effect car. 

The aero shaped sidepods would have been far more effective if end fences and sliding skirts were fitted!

 

Pat

[2F-001]

Doesn't that wind tunnel model look a little more 86 than 88?

[blackmme]

Doesn't that wind tunnel model look a little more 86 than 88?

 

Definitely 86 (based on the pictures in Doug Nye's Theme Lotus 2nd Edition).

 

Regards Mike

Edited by blackmme, 19 September 2018 - 12:29.

[Peter Morley]

Doesn't that wind tunnel model look a little more 86 than 88?

 

You're right but it's easier to describe it as an 88 because people know what that is!

In those days they didn't do as much testing or make as many models so all the models seem to differ significantly from the final design.

Similarly the 78 wind tunnel models (apparently they made 3; one with adjustable front wing, one adjustable rear wing and the other adjustable sidepods) had many 77 features.

[pierrre]

sorry to bother..im looking for a picture if there is one...of a lotus 88's outer chassis only