History of the current F1 teams
Discussion
![](https://thumbsnap.com/sc/cEoGJZQC.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/eb3wFEnO" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eb3wFEnO.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/eb3wFEnO" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eb3wFEnO.jpg)
The low airboxes were mandated early in the 1976 season.
By 1978, they had more or less disappeared.
During the turbo-era, they weren't really neded.
When normally aspirated engines started began to reappear in 1987, airboxes made a comeback. By the late 80s they were pretty much the norm and this time they were tall again, although not as tall as they had got by 1975.
The most extreme was probably this - the Ligier of 1976.
By 1978, they had more or less disappeared.
During the turbo-era, they weren't really neded.
When normally aspirated engines started began to reappear in 1987, airboxes made a comeback. By the late 80s they were pretty much the norm and this time they were tall again, although not as tall as they had got by 1975.
The most extreme was probably this - the Ligier of 1976.
coppice said:
I am not sure that was the reason they went faster but so what , in most years , F1 is faster than it was the year before . And when we had the 312T and Ligier Flying Teapot then , frankly , my dear I don't give a damn 
Ive run them back to back testing, the tall airboxes added tons of drag and destroyed the rear wing performance. A 520 bhp dfv doesn't need ram effect either, which is why the ground effect dfv cars had none, just open grills above the trumpets.By the time the turbo era ended, the teams understood aero much better, so the new inlets didn't create much drag and didnt ruin rear wing performance.
jsf said:
coppice said:
I am not sure that was the reason they went faster but so what , in most years , F1 is faster than it was the year before . And when we had the 312T and Ligier Flying Teapot then , frankly , my dear I don't give a damn
Ive run them back to back testing, the tall airboxes added tons of drag and destroyed the rear wing performance. A 520 bhp dfv doesn't need ram effect either, which is why the ground effect dfv cars had none, just open grills above the trumpets.By the time the turbo era ended, the teams understood aero much better, so the new inlets didn't create much drag and didnt ruin rear wing performance.
jsf said:
Eric Mc said:
Who has access to wind tunnels before 1976. Lotus?
Everyone. They used university wind tunnels.
Tony southgate was the first to make a moving floor tunnel work when developing the Shadow F1 car.
Halmyre said:
IIRC Tyrrell was a bit pissed off with BAR for reneging on certain parts of the deal.
Ken Tyrrell had many skills, one in particular was an uncanny ability to choose the best drivers.
After the Company sale to BAR, there was to be one final season competing as Tyrrell.
BAR chose drivers who Tyrrell did not think were good enough (turned out to be right again). As a result, Ken and his son resigned from the team before the season began.
I'm pretty sure many weren't. In most cases, the tunnels were designed for aerospace use so often provided misleading information in a road vehicle context. However, even these wind tunnels provided some useful data.
Jaguar were using wind tunnels in the mid 1950s so the idea wasn't new. What people often forget is that F1 teams until the early/mid 1980s were fairly small affairs with limited available funds and few personnel. There just wasn't the funding or expertise available to do extensive wind tunnel testing. It was still more of a sport than a commercial operation in those days.
Jaguar were using wind tunnels in the mid 1950s so the idea wasn't new. What people often forget is that F1 teams until the early/mid 1980s were fairly small affairs with limited available funds and few personnel. There just wasn't the funding or expertise available to do extensive wind tunnel testing. It was still more of a sport than a commercial operation in those days.
Jon39 said:
Ken Tyrrell had many skills, one in particular was an uncanny ability to choose the best drivers.
and - sometimes for budget reasons - he also ran so -so drivers like Henton , Katayama . Daly , Modena et al
Eric Mc said:
I'm pretty sure many weren't. In most cases, the tunnels were designed for aerospace use so often provided misleading information in a road vehicle context. However, even these wind tunnels provided some useful data.
Thats why Tony developed the rolling floor. He was doing that in 75 whilst designing the Shadow DN5. If you look at the DN5 and DN8 you will see it has bigger front wings than most 76/77 F1 cars as he sussed out the centre of pressure change that occured with airflow under the car.Even when not using tunnels, the teams still did aero testing via full scale tests and filming of wool tufts etc., McLaren were doing that in the mid 60's
Eric Mc said:
I'm pretty sure many weren't. In most cases, the tunnels were designed for aerospace use so often provided misleading information in a road vehicle context. However, even these wind tunnels provided some useful data.
Jaguar were using wind tunnels in the mid 1950s so the idea wasn't new. What people often forget is that F1 teams until the early/mid 1980s were fairly small affairs with limited available funds and few personnel. There just wasn't the funding or expertise available to do extensive wind tunnel testing. It was still more of a sport than a commercial operation in those days.
The wind tunnel that Red Bull use today is an old aerospace affair....complete with mahogany blades!Jaguar were using wind tunnels in the mid 1950s so the idea wasn't new. What people often forget is that F1 teams until the early/mid 1980s were fairly small affairs with limited available funds and few personnel. There just wasn't the funding or expertise available to do extensive wind tunnel testing. It was still more of a sport than a commercial operation in those days.
jsf said:
Thats why Tony developed the rolling floor. He was doing that in 75 whilst designing the Shadow DN5. If you look at the DN5 and DN8 you will see it has bigger front wings than most 76/77 F1 cars as he sussed out the centre of pressure change that occured with airflow under the car.
Even when not using tunnels, the teams still did aero testing via full scale tests and filming of wool tufts etc., McLaren were doing that in the mid 60's
At that time they were looking at reducing drag as much as anything else. It was the sports car boys that first started looking at downforce - especially in the Can Am series.Even when not using tunnels, the teams still did aero testing via full scale tests and filming of wool tufts etc., McLaren were doing that in the mid 60's
jsf said:
Nope, they both targeted downforce at the same time.
Downforce began to be explored as far back as the 1920s. The May brothers entered a wing fitted car into the 1956 Le Mans race (although the scrutineers would not let it race).The Ferrari 250 GTO and the Daytona Cobras that ran at Le Mans in the early 1960s had downforce inducing shaped rear bodyworks.
Can Am cars started sporting air dams and other downforce generating devices from about 1965 and the Chaparrals had fully fledged aerofoils in 1966.
The first Formula 1 cars to feature wings were in 1968.
Have you got pictures of F1 cars featuring downforce prior to 1968? I'd love to see them if you have as it would be really interesting to see their early efforts.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff