Engineered rule bending
Discussion
The last of the line V10 F1 engines were always amusing to look at due to their brass sumps......
(supertrick magnesium, titanium and Carbon fibre engine, with a socking great solid brass sump. All in the name of meeting the minimum weight limit but with the lowest possible CofG for the engine ;-)
(supertrick magnesium, titanium and Carbon fibre engine, with a socking great solid brass sump. All in the name of meeting the minimum weight limit but with the lowest possible CofG for the engine ;-)
IIRC, the Chaparral 2J "fan car" had its downforce enhancing fans powered by a two-stroke snowmobile engine operating at all times. Following complaints from other Can-Am teams, a ruling was introduced whereby "no engines were permitted to be installed in a car that does not directly power the wheels".
Personally, I'd have outlawed the car on purely aesthetic grounds.
Personally, I'd have outlawed the car on purely aesthetic grounds.
ISTR that the Tyrell thing was related to 'metal contamination' of the brake cooling water tanks. In other words they were full of lead shot...
The Lotus where the rear wing was too high for the regulations. The crew had instructions to discretely fold the uprights inwards with their knees when required for scrutineering.
Then there were the special 'heavy seats' solely for scrutineering purposes. Unfortunately if the car broke down on the circuit in qualy, you would see mechanics struggling to get to the car with the heavy seat and change them over before the car got back to the pits.
Probably the best piece of rule bending/lateral thinking was the twin floor Lotus.
The Lotus where the rear wing was too high for the regulations. The crew had instructions to discretely fold the uprights inwards with their knees when required for scrutineering.
Then there were the special 'heavy seats' solely for scrutineering purposes. Unfortunately if the car broke down on the circuit in qualy, you would see mechanics struggling to get to the car with the heavy seat and change them over before the car got back to the pits.
Probably the best piece of rule bending/lateral thinking was the twin floor Lotus.
Silent1 said:
Thaw that drag car las year that got brought up in the ph drag forums for having a repeatable misfire in the first 60' (IIRC) which it was accused of being traction control,I'll try and find the thread
http://www.insidetopalcohol.com/showthread.php?338...Have a look at there results this year
Le TVR said:
mrmr96 said:
Le TVR said:
Probably the best piece of rule bending/lateral thinking was the twin floor Lotus.
Any more info on that?Wiki said:
By 1981 the ground effects cars were so efficient and so fast that the drivers were suffering from the tremendous g-forces involved in cornering and braking. The FIA banned the moveable skirts fitted to the bottom of the cars' sidepods that were vital for achieving consistent ground effect and regulated a mandatory ground clearance of 6 cm, in the interests of driver safety. The Brabham team were the first to circumvent the rules using hydropneumatic suspension systems which compressed under aerodynamic loading and lowered the Brabham BT49 onto the track. This had the side effect of rendering the car without any sort of suspension, causing the driver to be buffeted even more than before. However, the performance gains were such that other teams were soon following suit - although most had difficulty in replicating the Brabham system and used a simple switch to lower the car. Chapman had other ideas.
The earlier Lotus 86 had been designed at the time when skirts were still legal, in the same layout as the 88 but only one prototype had been built. The performance gains were relatively small but significant over conventional ground effects cars. When the skirts were banned, Wright studied the car and its performance without skirts. The loss in performance was largely negligible, so the 88 was quickly designed as a re-engineered 86. The 88 used an ingenious system of having a twin chassis, one inside the other. The inner chassis would hold the cockpit and would be independently sprung from the outer one, which was designed to take the pressures of the ground effects. The outer chassis did not have discernible wings, and was in effect one huge ground effect system, beginning just behind the nose of the car and extending all the way inside the rear wheels, thereby producing massive amounts of downforce. The car was powered by the Ford Cosworth DFV engine. Lotus drivers Nigel Mansell and Elio de Angelis reported the car was pleasing to drive and responsive. To make the aerodynamic loads as manageable as possible, the car was constructed extensively in carbon fibre, making it along with the McLaren MP4/1 the first car to use the material in large quantity.
Other teams were outraged at this exploitation of the regulations and protests were lodged with the FIA, on the grounds that the twin chassis tub breached the rules in terms of moveable aerodynamic devices. The FIA upheld the protests and consequently banned the car from competing. Chapman was adamant the car was legal and challenged the other teams and the FIA at every turn, but the decision stood. Chapman was forced to update two of his Lotus 87 chassis as replacements for his thwarted brainchild. The Lotus 88 therefore remains a curiosity from a bygone age of F1. Some of the 88's aerodynamics and layout were worked into the successful Lotus 91 which followed in 1982.
(I appreciate the stories, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the thread would make a better read if people either typed up or even copy/pasted the stories they're referring too rather than making the reader of the thread Google them.)The earlier Lotus 86 had been designed at the time when skirts were still legal, in the same layout as the 88 but only one prototype had been built. The performance gains were relatively small but significant over conventional ground effects cars. When the skirts were banned, Wright studied the car and its performance without skirts. The loss in performance was largely negligible, so the 88 was quickly designed as a re-engineered 86. The 88 used an ingenious system of having a twin chassis, one inside the other. The inner chassis would hold the cockpit and would be independently sprung from the outer one, which was designed to take the pressures of the ground effects. The outer chassis did not have discernible wings, and was in effect one huge ground effect system, beginning just behind the nose of the car and extending all the way inside the rear wheels, thereby producing massive amounts of downforce. The car was powered by the Ford Cosworth DFV engine. Lotus drivers Nigel Mansell and Elio de Angelis reported the car was pleasing to drive and responsive. To make the aerodynamic loads as manageable as possible, the car was constructed extensively in carbon fibre, making it along with the McLaren MP4/1 the first car to use the material in large quantity.
Other teams were outraged at this exploitation of the regulations and protests were lodged with the FIA, on the grounds that the twin chassis tub breached the rules in terms of moveable aerodynamic devices. The FIA upheld the protests and consequently banned the car from competing. Chapman was adamant the car was legal and challenged the other teams and the FIA at every turn, but the decision stood. Chapman was forced to update two of his Lotus 87 chassis as replacements for his thwarted brainchild. The Lotus 88 therefore remains a curiosity from a bygone age of F1. Some of the 88's aerodynamics and layout were worked into the successful Lotus 91 which followed in 1982.
Flying Toilet said:
I would with the link I posted but its 6 pages of opinions and input from various racers.
No need to copy/paste the whole thing of course, if it's easier to write a brief summary that would be even better in most cases. I was just referring to people with really interesting stories but only hint at them so I have to Google it. I know I'm just being a bit lazy, but I still think posting a summary is better for the readers of this really cool thread. 
mrmr96 said:
Le TVR said:
mrmr96 said:
Le TVR said:
Probably the best piece of rule bending/lateral thinking was the twin floor Lotus.
Any more info on that?Wiki said:
By 1981 the ground effects cars were so efficient and so fast that the drivers were suffering from the tremendous g-forces involved in cornering and braking. The FIA banned the moveable skirts fitted to the bottom of the cars' sidepods that were vital for achieving consistent ground effect and regulated a mandatory ground clearance of 6 cm, in the interests of driver safety. The Brabham team were the first to circumvent the rules using hydropneumatic suspension systems which compressed under aerodynamic loading and lowered the Brabham BT49 onto the track. This had the side effect of rendering the car without any sort of suspension, causing the driver to be buffeted even more than before. However, the performance gains were such that other teams were soon following suit - although most had difficulty in replicating the Brabham system and used a simple switch to lower the car. Chapman had other ideas.
The earlier Lotus 86 had been designed at the time when skirts were still legal, in the same layout as the 88 but only one prototype had been built. The performance gains were relatively small but significant over conventional ground effects cars. When the skirts were banned, Wright studied the car and its performance without skirts. The loss in performance was largely negligible, so the 88 was quickly designed as a re-engineered 86. The 88 used an ingenious system of having a twin chassis, one inside the other. The inner chassis would hold the cockpit and would be independently sprung from the outer one, which was designed to take the pressures of the ground effects. The outer chassis did not have discernible wings, and was in effect one huge ground effect system, beginning just behind the nose of the car and extending all the way inside the rear wheels, thereby producing massive amounts of downforce. The car was powered by the Ford Cosworth DFV engine. Lotus drivers Nigel Mansell and Elio de Angelis reported the car was pleasing to drive and responsive. To make the aerodynamic loads as manageable as possible, the car was constructed extensively in carbon fibre, making it along with the McLaren MP4/1 the first car to use the material in large quantity.
Other teams were outraged at this exploitation of the regulations and protests were lodged with the FIA, on the grounds that the twin chassis tub breached the rules in terms of moveable aerodynamic devices. The FIA upheld the protests and consequently banned the car from competing. Chapman was adamant the car was legal and challenged the other teams and the FIA at every turn, but the decision stood. Chapman was forced to update two of his Lotus 87 chassis as replacements for his thwarted brainchild. The Lotus 88 therefore remains a curiosity from a bygone age of F1. Some of the 88's aerodynamics and layout were worked into the successful Lotus 91 which followed in 1982.
(I appreciate the stories, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the thread would make a better read if people either typed up or even copy/pasted the stories they're referring too rather than making the reader of the thread Google them.)The earlier Lotus 86 had been designed at the time when skirts were still legal, in the same layout as the 88 but only one prototype had been built. The performance gains were relatively small but significant over conventional ground effects cars. When the skirts were banned, Wright studied the car and its performance without skirts. The loss in performance was largely negligible, so the 88 was quickly designed as a re-engineered 86. The 88 used an ingenious system of having a twin chassis, one inside the other. The inner chassis would hold the cockpit and would be independently sprung from the outer one, which was designed to take the pressures of the ground effects. The outer chassis did not have discernible wings, and was in effect one huge ground effect system, beginning just behind the nose of the car and extending all the way inside the rear wheels, thereby producing massive amounts of downforce. The car was powered by the Ford Cosworth DFV engine. Lotus drivers Nigel Mansell and Elio de Angelis reported the car was pleasing to drive and responsive. To make the aerodynamic loads as manageable as possible, the car was constructed extensively in carbon fibre, making it along with the McLaren MP4/1 the first car to use the material in large quantity.
Other teams were outraged at this exploitation of the regulations and protests were lodged with the FIA, on the grounds that the twin chassis tub breached the rules in terms of moveable aerodynamic devices. The FIA upheld the protests and consequently banned the car from competing. Chapman was adamant the car was legal and challenged the other teams and the FIA at every turn, but the decision stood. Chapman was forced to update two of his Lotus 87 chassis as replacements for his thwarted brainchild. The Lotus 88 therefore remains a curiosity from a bygone age of F1. Some of the 88's aerodynamics and layout were worked into the successful Lotus 91 which followed in 1982.
Back in the mid 80's I bought an ex Louise Aitken-Walker RS1600i toplay at tarmac rallying.
The suspension pick up points were so far removed from standard it was ridiculous. It went quite well though.
A thing we used to do on night rallies tget through noise check was to insert an extra baffle in the tail pipe.
Used to drill 2 small holes through the tail pipe about 3 inches apart. We then used to put a split pin in the inboard one and then pop a battery (such as a u2 torch battery) down the pipe and secure it with another split pin.
The car would wheeze its way through noise check, after which we would remove the outer split pin. A quick rev of the engine would fire a very hot battery onto the floor and off we would go.
My dad bought a lovely Championship winning MK2 escort 1600 that turned out to be 1760cc.... Being an honest sort of chap he changed the block for a legal one.
For a couple of years I did a National one make race/rally championship run by Ford - RS2000 series.
My favourite lateral thinking moment was one year when I entered the Promenade stages in my road going golf GTI mk1. (was a long time ago!)
The scrutineer wouldn't pass the car as it had a glass sunroof as they had just been outlawed. I pointed out that if I did the event in a lotus Elan for instance, I would have no roof at all, so a roof was not a requirement. I just took the glass panel out and as there was no glass sunroof fitted off we went.
I have a picture of us on the stage start with a brolly poking out of the roof as it had started to rain. We chucked it out at ten seconds.
He missed the home made scaffold tube rollcage as well. (I only wanted to do this one event in the car, so there was no way I was putting a proper cage in.)
Happy days.
The suspension pick up points were so far removed from standard it was ridiculous. It went quite well though.
A thing we used to do on night rallies tget through noise check was to insert an extra baffle in the tail pipe.
Used to drill 2 small holes through the tail pipe about 3 inches apart. We then used to put a split pin in the inboard one and then pop a battery (such as a u2 torch battery) down the pipe and secure it with another split pin.
The car would wheeze its way through noise check, after which we would remove the outer split pin. A quick rev of the engine would fire a very hot battery onto the floor and off we would go.
My dad bought a lovely Championship winning MK2 escort 1600 that turned out to be 1760cc.... Being an honest sort of chap he changed the block for a legal one.
For a couple of years I did a National one make race/rally championship run by Ford - RS2000 series.
My favourite lateral thinking moment was one year when I entered the Promenade stages in my road going golf GTI mk1. (was a long time ago!)
The scrutineer wouldn't pass the car as it had a glass sunroof as they had just been outlawed. I pointed out that if I did the event in a lotus Elan for instance, I would have no roof at all, so a roof was not a requirement. I just took the glass panel out and as there was no glass sunroof fitted off we went.
I have a picture of us on the stage start with a brolly poking out of the roof as it had started to rain. We chucked it out at ten seconds.
He missed the home made scaffold tube rollcage as well. (I only wanted to do this one event in the car, so there was no way I was putting a proper cage in.)
Happy days.
55allgold said:
Use Psychology said:
i thought the renault thing was sensors in the front wing that detected the sensors in the grid, which detect a jump start, turning off.
I remember reading Jackie Stewart's autobiography. Mr Fairplay personified, surely, you'd think?He used to do the low-tech equivalent of this in the days when the tracks had a red light to hold, switching to a separate green light to start. He said he would ignore the green light and only watch the red and go as soon as it dimmed. He reasoned that his reaction time would never be faster than the time between red-off and green-on, so he wouldn't ever actually jump the start.
ISTR, he was surprised that few other drivers did it. I even nicked the idea for the karting I was doing in the '90s, and it does work.
(and now back to engineered trickery...)
I've certainly done it in every kart race where lights have been used.
mrmr96 said:
Flying Toilet said:
I would with the link I posted but its 6 pages of opinions and input from various racers.
No need to copy/paste the whole thing of course, if it's easier to write a brief summary that would be even better in most cases. I was just referring to people with really interesting stories but only hint at them so I have to Google it. I know I'm just being a bit lazy, but I still think posting a summary is better for the readers of this really cool thread. What makes it interesting is the apparent "outing" of a so called "friend".. Strangely enough it descends into argument pretty quickly..
mrmr96 said:
Any more info on that?
As I alluded to earlier in the thread.The FIA rules are written in French. In that language, the plural of "chassis" is "chassis". Colin Chapman reasoned that there was nothing to stop him building a car with an aero platform chassis and a chassis to hold the powertrain and the driver. The aero chassis was mounted on the suspension uprights to minimise losses in downforce.
Unfortunately the FIA (FISA) didn't share Chapman's outlook and the car was blackflagged in practice sessions and eventually banned.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff