24 replies to this topic

[Guineapiggy]

I have a few questions regarding Formula one cars in the pre-stepped bottom but post-turbo period of 1989 to 1993, though primarily the year of 1991.

1 - I know the basic tyre specs goodyear offered in 1991, (AA, A, B, C, D, Q and R) but I've found no information on the various specifications offered by Pirelli in their short return to the sport.

2 - I've very little insight in to how much of a role the diffuser played on F1 cars of 1991, in, say, an aerodynamically cutting edge car like the FW14, and whether or not this was the norm in all cars. I have a rough idea of the kind of downforce the car as a whole produced but how much was attributed to the wings and how much to the body/diffuser I don't know.

3 - I've been given a top speed figure of about 210mph in qualifying trim at Hockenhiem for the absolute top-end cars, (MP4-6, FW14, Ferrari 642.) It's a rough guide but is this more or less accurate?

4 - The MP4-6 used four different rear wing specifications throughout the season, a low downforce one at circuits like Hockenhien and Spa, one barn-door special for Monaco and Phoenix and a high downforce one for places like Estoril.

In Canada and Mexico however they ran a completely 'other' kind of wing, now these were back to back races and it's very possible that this was the second-to-lowest drag step as it appears to be but I had always thought of Mexico City as quite a twisty circuit that called for high downforce cars. Could it instead be a different wing development that was abandoned not long after first use?

Thanks for your time.

[scarbs]

Originally posted by Guineapiggy
[B]I have a few questions regarding Formula one cars in the pre-stepped bottom but post-turbo period of 1989 to 1993, though primarily the year of 1991.

2 - I've very little insight in to how much of a role the diffuser played on F1 cars of 1991, in, say, an aerodynamically cutting edge car like the FW14, and whether or not this was the norm in all cars. I have a rough idea of the kind of downforce the car as a whole produced but how much was attributed to the wings and how much to the body/diffuser I don't know.

Back then the floor was flat and the tunnels could be taller hence potentially able to create a lot more downforce than today’s stepped floors. The diffuser was influential, but the device was less aggressive and under developed in comparison to today’s diffusers, for example they weren’t as integrated with the upper and lower rear wings. As they were so close to the floor (to the point of stalling the diffuser) they were able to create plenty of downforce, without resort to the complexities of today. Adrian Newey worked out that if you can control the floor with active suspension then you had a major aero advantage. In all my years I’ve only heard the same proportions of downforce created for the F+R wings and diffuser which is effectively a third each.

4 - The MP4-6 used four different rear wing specifications throughout the season, a low downforce one at circuits like Hockenhien and Spa, one barn-door special for Monaco and Phoenix and a high downforce one for places like Estoril.

In Canada and Mexico however they ran a completely 'other' kind of wing, now these were back to back races and it's very possible that this was the second-to-lowest drag step as it appears to be but I had always thought of Mexico City as quite a twisty circuit that called for high downforce cars. Could it instead be a different wing development that was abandoned not long after first use?

With the limited photo archives for those races and without cross checking my Piola Archives, I’d say the CanadaMexico wing was the same as the monza wing, that is a three element upper wing, mated to one or two lower elements (in Mexico Berger seemed to have two lower elements and Senna just one). I recall the Mexican circuit as being a track with a long straight after the peraltada, plus two other long sections. Only the back section having twists, so a lower downforce set up comparable to Canada makes some sense.

[Guineapiggy]

Thanks for the input. I don't think, though I could be wrong, the front wing, diffuser and rear wing each produced 1/3rd of the downforce, but the rest of the information on the area definitely helps, thanks.

[ralt12]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scarbs
[B]
Back then the floor was flat and the tunnels could be taller hence potentially able to create a lot more downforce than today’s stepped floors. The diffuser was influential, but the device was less aggressive and under developed in comparison to today’s diffusers, for example they weren’t as integrated with the upper and lower rear wings. As they were so close to the floor (to the point of stalling the diffuser) they were able to create plenty of downforce, without resort to the complexities of today. Adrian Newey worked out that if you can control the floor with active suspension then you had a major aero advantage. In all my years I’ve only heard the same proportions of downforce created for the F+R wings and diffuser which is effectively a third each.




Following up on Scarbs comments, here's a look at a pair of 1989 floors; one short, the other about 4 inches longer. They differ in 5 or six major ways (and appeared on the same car)--

Short floor, without the strakes attached (for some reason, this pic loads more slowly than others) :

http://nelson-motors...t floor side.JP


Long floor, again with no strakes

http://nelson-motors... floor side.jpg

At least three rear wing configurations.

[Guineapiggy]

I do remember that the cars were prone to grounding before and after active suspension, and that a lot of F1 cars pre-active ride height control were very bouncy at the rear end, but this also suggests that the diffuser wasn't the crucial piece of aero-kit it became later in the 90s back then, or at least, it didn't contribute so much of the car's downforce. Would I be right in this assumption?

[ralt12]

Sorry all, that link to the short floor should be:

http://nelson-motors... floor side.JPG

(left out the little G the end of the link...)

I have not encountered a great deal of grounding, nor bouncing, but that may be the result of only having the high downforce package and running fairly high spring rates (4000 front/1050 rear). While that may sound a little goofy, it was taken from the factory's last Jerez test, and was roughly in line with the car's setup for other tracks.

[Guineapiggy]

Interesting... which car is this? (I'm guessing it's one of the Tyrrells) And is there anywhere I can find out more about things like the settings you're running? I'm particularly interested in aspects like front/rear ride height, the range of the wings, suspension settings and the likes. Hell, any technical information you could give me about the car would be well recieved, or on any similar cars of the period.

[ralt12]

Here are links to setup sheets for the 1988 Tyrrell 017, in February testing at Jerez.

http://nelson-motors...tup sheet 1.jpg

http://nelson-motors...tup sheet 2.jpg

We run slightly stiffer in the rear, and toe is 0; otherwise, as per the sheet.

and what a high downforce car looks like sitting next to a low downforce car:

http://nelson-motors...om/scan0048.jpg

[ralt12]

Oops, that's later in the year than Feb.

[Guineapiggy]

Wow, thanks, you've given me a whole lot to chew on here. Out of curiosity where it says "Anti-roll bar" did it actually run bar based anti-sway instead of spring? How stiff was it and do you know if this was typical of F1 cars of the era or even as far out as 91? Sorry for all the questions, 'tis a mission to gain an understanding, nay, a quest and I've found no other places that can give me this sort of insight.

[ralt12]

Originally posted by Guineapiggy
Wow, thanks, you've given me a whole lot to chew on here. Out of curiosity where it says "Anti-roll bar" did it actually run bar based anti-sway instead of spring? How stiff was it and do you know if this was typical of F1 cars of the era or even as far out as 91? Sorry for all the questions, 'tis a mission to gain an understanding, nay, a quest and I've found no other places that can give me this sort of insight.

Sometimes they used a bar, sometimes they didn't. The bars weren't all the same, either; they varied not in pickup point but diameter. As far as I can tell from our look at the era, this was in force through 1990 and early 1991. This applies only to the rear, haven't seen a mount or any other provision for a bar in the front. That's just for the Tyrrells, and other marques may have used different philosophies. When Trrell went to monoshock suspension in 1989, antiroll features were built into that, and Scarbs has a nice discussion of that on his site. (http://www.scarbsf1.com/Monoshock.html ) They added hydraulic ride height control to their setup later in 1990.

[Guineapiggy]

Thank you, you're a very wonderful and helpful person and I want to hug you for this information. I'm also genuinely surprised to hear of 'modern era' F1 car that used mono-shock suspension.

[ClearViewF1]

Originally posted by Guineapiggy
I have a few questions regarding Formula one cars in the pre-stepped bottom but post-turbo period of 1989 to 1993, though primarily the year of 1991.

4 - The MP4-6 used four different rear wing specifications throughout the season, a low downforce one at circuits like Hockenhien and Spa, one barn-door special for Monaco and Phoenix and a high downforce one for places like Estoril.

In Canada and Mexico however they ran a completely 'other' kind of wing, now these were back to back races and it's very possible that this was the second-to-lowest drag step as it appears to be but I had always thought of Mexico City as quite a twisty circuit that called for high downforce cars. Could it instead be a different wing development that was abandoned not long after first use?

Thanks for your time.

Perhaps there were 4 general configurations of the rear wing on the McLaren MP4/6A in1991. However, there were several major trim differences on just about every race that made a significant difference in the cars performance. For instance, during round 1 (USA), they used their largest endplates with three horizontal elements on the upper tier; the main core was very deep and had a very thick cross section along its leading edge. The 2 uppermost elements were of the larger type but different in size from each other and mounted at different angles from each other. These elements used a center splitter with a base plate and included a Gurney Flap. About midway down the length of the vertical support structure, was a semi-deep - although thin in cross section, single element fitted with a slight amount of angle.

Here are the differences between the round 1 (USA) rear wing and the round 2 (Brazil) rear wing - at least on Senna's car. On race day, the Gurney Flap was removed and replaced with two separate thin trim fixtures that were mounted on the rear side of the upper most element. The length of each of these "trim fixtures" (as I call them) were approximately one quarter to one third the distance of the element itself. Additionally, each of the two most upper elements were approximately the same size as each other but significantly shorter in depth than the upper elements in round 1. Their slope was also much shallower and they were mounted with much less angle. Due to their size they also used a smaller center splitter.

During the season, there were several different thickness’ and depths of the main horizontal core as well as several different shapes, sizes, configurations and mounting angles of the 2 uppermost elements. Lastly, the mid-level horizontal element was largely used as a single item but did appear in dual element form in some races.

I compared round 1 and 2 because they are both high downforce circuits and if you didn't look closely, you would think they were the same setup.

Interestingly, at the front of the car, the vortex generators were much shorter than those used on the later season cars (post round 3 I believe).

I hope this helps you with what you’re looking for.

Thanks,
Andy

[Guineapiggy]

*Nods* Again, you guys are being wonderfully helpful. I'm imagining the car had many different states throughout the year and I do recall a major revision to the MP4-6 before the Hungarian Grandprix. Knowing the basic configurations is all I can really hope for right now. I'm also curious as to if I can find evidence they ran more than one floor.

[Guineapiggy]

In fact I have found this evidence, their Monaco car had a noticeably different floor. This is interesting stuff. Okay, I recently discovered material suggesting that seperate fast and slow damping wasn't introduced to the sport until 1994 when active suspension was done away with. Is this true?

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Guineapiggy
Okay, I recently discovered material suggesting that seperate fast and slow damping wasn't introduced to the sport until 1994 when active suspension was done away with. Is this true?

No. The modern era of damper development basically started in about 1983 when Bob Fox stuck a pressurized gas shock on Roger and Rick Mear's Indycars. I believe that for quite a while the Americans were ahead of the Europeans in this particular area of car development specifically because our tracks are so rough and theirs are so smooth. Koni, Spax and Bilstein have been around forever, but the amount of development on the mid to late 80's F-1 cars wasn't really that great.

It should be noted that the off-road and motocross guy did all the heavy lifting in terms of early damper development. We just learned from them.

[Guineapiggy]

Well I've checked Koni's website and they more or less seem to confirm it...

[ClearViewF1]

Question. What exactly do you mean by “fast and slow damping”? Do you mean a single shock’s ability to adjust different/separate damping settings for “fast” tracks and “slow” tracks? Or possibly a dual damping setting within the same shock? I’m interested, I’ve never heard this term before. Thanks in advance.

From what I’ve been told, Penske was one of the major manufactures’ and suppliers of Formula One shocks in the 90’s. I can’t comment on anything earlier than that because I only discovered F1 in 1990. I was specifically told that they provided shocks for Ferrari’s 639/640 effort which started in 89 as the 640 and ended in 91 as the 643. I can’t be specific beyond 91. I’m curious myself as to how much of the design work was done by Penske engineers. I wonder if Ferrari provided basic parameters and a performance scope to be met or, if Ferrari actually designed them themselves and farmed the manufacturing to Penske. I was also told that Williams was a client of theirs although I was not told what year or years. Penske’s shop where the shocks were made is about 30 minutes from me. I’m not sure if the shop still exists.

Also, the MP4/6A used the same undertray throughout the 1991 season. The only modifications made to it were primarily to the gearbox cradle opening (early season oval, later season rectangle), the shape and size of the diffuser “fins” and, Lastly, they added two wedges on the topside of the very rear of the undertray - 1 each flanking the gearbox. When viewed from behind, it appeared as though they ran a 3 to 4 inch lip or panel atop the trailing edge of the undertray. Their outer side shape conformed and blended into the curvature of the rear suspension body panel and in the center of the car, they were separated by the jack assembly. The 92 MP4/6B used a new but similar tray and a brand new, newly designed raised nose monocoque. Most people think McLaren ran their 91 spec chassis in the early rounds of 92 but they didn’t. The MP4/6B was overall similar looking but significantly different. The way to identify the raised nose is to compare a three-quarter view of the 91 and 92 front wing end plates. While they’re similar in shape, they’re drastically different in height. The 92 spec end plates have much more surface area between the bottom of the wing core and the ground.. I’m not certain, but I think the B-spec car ran in the first or first and second round before they introduced their MP4/7 (what a beautiful car in person!!).

If you have anymore questions on the MP4/6, let me know. I'll try to be of some help. I know the car inside out. I'm publishing a book with Sean Kelly (a member of this forum) on the V-12 McLaren's (91-92) with a focus on the MP4/6. We're presently working on a book on the Ferrari 640 series (89-91). The McLaren book will follow the Ferrari book. Don't ask "when" for either book as I don't have any idea just yet as to when they'll hit the streets.

[Guineapiggy]

Wow. Thanks, that was pretty impressive stuff... so the floor thing wasn't the case huh? Okay, edited to phrase everything slightly better:

1 - What were the main differences between the car that started the season and the car that finished the season, and why were the changes made? (Aero, mechanical, anything that comes to mind.) I remember tell of revisions to suspension and such and as you've mentioned and as is visible the car was in constant evolution.

2 - So far I've received figures that are wildly at odds with each other suggesting that the RA121E produced as much as 780HP and as little as 690. I'm aware the engine received a fairly major overhaul for the last few races, and 730hp @ 13000rpm seems to be the most accurate for the final revision of the engine that I've found so far but from the sounds you'll know much better. What sort of power figures did the engine start the season with, too, and how many modifications were made to the engine throughout the season? I seem to recall hearing about a revision with much more torque at some stage in the year. Also, there was a time mid-season where Mclaren suffered with cars running out of fuel. Was this because the engine particularly fuel hungry or was this just bad luck?

3 - Weight distribution - what sort of front/rear weight split did the car generally run, and did they have enough free ballast to adjust this significantly? Also, how high was the COG from the reference plane say with an empty tank or just qualifying fuel on board?

4 - Did the MP4-6 run a front anti-roll bar at all times? This may sound like an odd one but for all the images of the car I've found I can't work out where the front anti-roll bar is located.

5 - Just how beautiful did that V12 sound? Really, was I imagining it or was that one of the most amazing noises ever to scream around an F1 circuit? And I totally agree with you - the MP4/6 and MP4/7 were some of the most visually and aurally special cars ever produced.

[ClearViewF1]

Because of my work, I can only study one f1 car at a time. It may sound weird but I couldn’t tell you anything about any other F1 car with the exception of the ones I study and research.


I’ll have to get back to you on some dates and specific upgrades as they appeared by during the season. It’s been awhile since I’ve noted much of my research and am now only concentrating on my visual research (images) to help me complete my model of this historical car. The model I’m building will represent Senna’s chassis as it campaigned to victory (albeit crippled) in round 2, Brazil. Senna was quoted as saying that emotionally, his maiden victory on his beloved home soil was only equaled by his win in Japan in 1988 when he clinched his first title.

I’ll give you what I can for now until I can revisit my notes. The two biggest revisions to the Honda engine that comes to mind was the addition of a new fuel injection setup that included carbon fiber, variable intake trumpets (first seen in Belgium) and, while not technically the engine itself - the experimental paddle shift operated semi-automatic gearbox. Again, apart from the engine, specifically, McLaren also changed/refined the MP4/6’s cooling system constantly throughout the season which may or may not have had a major impact on the car’s performance. I don’t know offhand what specific internal upgrades Honda made to their engine without revisiting my notes. One outstanding visual difference in a single race – Monza, the spark banks were completely sealed with a separate black panel with only the few canon plugs visible. As far as “which specific upgrades” were included across the board on the MP4/6A in Hungary, again, I’ll have to pull my notes. I do remember that they ran a dual lower element on the rear wing set up – which was unusual in and of itself. Honda most definitely owned the crown in 91 with the most powerful and thirstiest engine on the grid (not to mention it was heavy, too). I never got final HP figures from McLaren but I don’t think that getting it from them would be a problem. I’ve bothered them before on the eve of a new season and was reminded of it in their response. I know a few folks there that have helped me with my “project”. Also, with the R. Dennis story still being pretty hot, give me until a few rounds into the season before I call them.

“one of the many weak excuses Mansell makes for losing to an inferior car”.

Mansell is famous or should I say infamous for charms like this. It’s the chief reason the entire Williams organization was happy to see him go. After his debacle in Canada and then blaming it on the car, I believe the entire Williams team had voodoo dolls made in Mansell’s likeness. In the end, more than being beat, it’s my belief that Mansell irresponsibly lost the 91 championship in Canada and Japan. Without these two blunders, he still could have clinched it – even after losing a rear wheel in pit lane, effectivly losing his race that weekend. I don’t know if you’re familiar with what truly happened between Mansell and Williams that ended their relationship (even until today).

Anyway, 1991 was definitely a transition year in F1 with the Renault/Williams package dethroning the long running dominant Honda/McLarens, thus moving into the numero uno position. It’s my personal feeling that Honda made their decision (with or without McLaren’s immediate knowledge) early in 91 to withdraw from F1 at the conclusion of the 92 season and, as a result, didn’t have quite the 110% commitment of either money or manpower during their 91 (and definitely their 92) effort. I’ll repeat, this was my observation and conclusion. If you remember in 88 during the middle and perhaps the peak of their resurgence as an engine supplier, they were the sole team to spend the money (to the tune of over $60 million) to develop a brand new engine exclusively for the 88 season when everyone else began shifting their attention and resources to the new naturally aspirated formula. I don’t have to tell you how Honda and Mclaren shined that year!

The front and rear roll bar arrangement on the MP4/6A were basically the same setup with one being upside down from the other. The rear sway bar was conventional for McLaren with a titanium cylinder mounted perpendicular to the gearbox with two triangle brackets hold it in place atop the gearbox. Two short arms with clevis brackets connected to very short vertical links via adjustable rod ends. The opposite end of these links also included adjustable rod ends that mounted to a very small bracket that extended from the rocker/shock assembly.

The front roll bar design actually didn’t include a roll bar until Monte Carlo (I think). The initial setup included a torsion bar mounted perpendicular to the shocks but was mounted to the under surface of the scuttle with two vertical blades protruding from two elongated holes through the top surface of the monocoque. In the beginning of the season, links, similar to the ones used on the rear suspension were connected through a slit through the side of the bottom flat of the bellcranks via adjustable rod ends with the opposite end of the links bolted the the top of the blades coming from underneath of the monococue surface. Later on, to stiffen the front, McLaren included a beautifully milled aluminum (maybe titanium) short “truss” or “sway bar” with both corners (milled flat, top and bottom) so it could bolt to both of the blades arising from the torsion bar. In the center of the rear side of this sway bar, was an elongated “milled relief” large enough to tuck-in both rod ends of the links coming off of the bellcranks. Once inside this relief area, there were two holes through the top of the sway bar to accept hardware to fasten the rod ends to the sway bar assembly.

Again without my notes I can’t be specific as to what race but, McLaren introduced a cockpit controlled ride height adjustment system through a T-handle knob that sat to the left of the drivers forearm. In Belgium, McLaren scrapped this whole front suspension arrangement in favor of two completely different bellcranks that used a single short link joining the bellcranks to each other and therefore bypassing or omitting the need for any additional sway bar or torsion bar components. On a cosmetic note, the Belgium front setup was the only race that included all black rockers and a black link. I guess R. Dennis was fashion conscous and wanted match the black carbon fiber intake stacks. On every other MP4/6A, the rockers were nitrided except during preseason when they were bare titanium.

P.S. I didn't proof read this one. Pardon any blatant grammar and spelling errors.

P.S.S Can we attach images? If so tell me how - and max size. Then I could show you all of this.

[ClearViewF1]

WOW, I missed a few of your questions. Sorry about that. I'll answer them a little later. I haven't gotten any sleep all night and it's
8:30 am already here. I'm going to crash for a few.

Sorry about that

I will tell you that the Honda V-12's were pure music but I still think after all of these years, the 1990 Lola/V-12 Lamborghini was still the best sounding engine I have ever heard - ever! At that time, Honda was running their V-10 and Ferrari was running their V-12. It nay have something to do with the fact that each cylinder on the Lamborghini had 2 exhaust ports (24 ports total). Each port was 2 into 1 and each bank was then either 6 into 2 or 6 into 1. It made the Ferrari's sound like a Chevy "Big Block".

As Ferris Bueller once said: "If you have the means ..... ".

[Guineapiggy]

I'm not sure but I think images have to be attached externally. I usually use imageshack.us for quick uploads or my account at photobucket.com (free and easy setup) for stuff I'm likely to need time and again. And this is all great information, thank you so much for all of this data. I think I follow you with most of it, and I'm not adverse to waiting for such valuable information, thanks.

I'd never heard the full Mansell/Williams fallout story, though think I recall that they'd signed Prost for 93 before the end of the 92 season which says a lot. Sad really, that a man who was albeit not the fastest ever still a great wheel to wheel driver could be so full of excuses and so lacking in any charm.

Edit - Really? I'll have to search out some footage with the Lambo engine in it. Certainly I miss the 3.5l V12s though, they were such monsters. And no worries, I'm in no rush for answers, you've provided more than I could have expected already.

[ClearViewF1]

Hi Guineapiggy

- I didn't setup personal messaging when I joined this site and I don't have any public photo sharing accounts setup.

- If you're comfortable to do so, send me your personal email. At first, send it to my web email address youhoo59@yahoo.com

- This is so I don't have to publicly post my personal email address here.

- When I receive your email, I'll immediately respond to you with my personal email.

- Doing it this way will keep both of our emails private.

- I'm in the U.S. I'm guessing you're in the UK ??

- It'll be easier to help you in greater depth on this project of yours via email.



Hope to hear from you in a positive regard.

Take care
Andy

[Guineapiggy]

Instead of making constant new threads here's another on the same subject:

The Ligier JS35 and JS35B had very noticable 'bumps' where the front pushrods connected to the body:
http://www.lamborghi...ierJS35-5bb.jpg

Now is it the case that, as seems more likely with the Leyton House CG911 they just had to make space for the driver and bulky suspension components because the nose was so narrow or is that some form of active suspension?

[Guineapiggy]

Nobody? Also, on the subject of the Lotus 102B. It appears that Lotus abandoned the active suspension they'd mastered earlier for all I can find but is this actually the case?