http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Glenn
--
----------------------
Remove NOSPAM to reply
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Glenn
--
----------------------
Remove NOSPAM to reply
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Jason
Wayne
>http://www.f1racing.net/launchphotogallery.php3?id=600
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Member
Screamers Racing League
IICC League
GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38
ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77
Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress
N2k3 rank:in progress
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
I suspect they're trying to reduce some understeer by cleaning up the front
wings airflow.... not sure what implications the shorter nose will have for
flow over the rest of the car. I'll wait til I see some lap times...
KK
More pics...
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html
____________
Pete Panaia
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
- Aristotle
<Snip>
--
Richard "ZZ" Busch
Member:
Screamers Racing League
OAO
CORS
MARA TransAm
RASCAR
GPL Rank + 17.415
MoGPL Rank + 318.586
N2002 Rank + 7.695
TransAm Rank ??
So... Maybe this is the new wave of the future....
Then again, I also recall a 6 wheel Tyrell about 25 years ago that only
lasted one season ;-)
and it was TyrRell that came up with the high wing.
Confused ALL the designers of the day coz they all worked on high mount
di-hedral wings not realizing that Ken had been able to change the airflow
to below the nose and split to the sidepods hence able to make them smaller
and THERE was the saving. It was the effects of the wing elsewhere on the
car.
In those days folks had to test things by building them and putting them in
wind-tunnels.
The Tyrrell designers were laughing all the time they saw someone play with
the wing.
'Course once the trick was known everyone realised and changed the body/pod
designs.
Only because Goodyear stopped developing tires, and the FIA eventually
outlawed it. The potential was quite high for that design.
Stephen
> > I remember a decade ago when Benetton came out with the high nose and
> > suspended front wing under it.
> > At the time most thought it was ugly too, but now all F1 cars (except
this
> > new Williams of course) have that style nose/wing.
> > So... Maybe this is the new wave of the future....
> > Then again, I also recall a 6 wheel Tyrell about 25 years ago that only
> > lasted one season ;-)
> Only because Goodyear stopped developing tires, and the FIA eventually
> outlawed it. The potential was quite high for that design.
It was a dead-end, the benefits from the aero of the lower wheels were NOT
delivered.
It was also a nightmare to setup as it was difficult controlling the
interactions BETWEEN the two front wheels on corners and bumps.
( all from the mouth of Tyrrel chief designer who visited our car club at
the time of the di-hedral wing )
It is interesting that there was no benefit to using 6 wheels when
Williams made a car a few years later using the same idea that was so
much faster than the competition in testing that FIA immediately
banned it. Granted the FW08 had 4 wheels in the rear, but the idea of
less drag/less lift/more grip was the same.
Final note, as far as setting up the P34 goes, it seemed to do ok when
Tyrrell had Jody Scheckter onboard. I wouldn't be surprised if its
failure in 77 had as much to do with Peterson's lack of testing/setup
ability as it did with flaws in the design itself. If goodyear had
given them more resources, and they had a skilled test driver like
Lauda or Andretti, I suspect the history of the P34 would be much
different.
Jason
> >It was a dead-end, the benefits from the aero of the lower wheels were
NOT
> >delivered.
> >It was also a nightmare to setup as it was difficult controlling the
> >interactions BETWEEN the two front wheels on corners and bumps.
> >( all from the mouth of Tyrrel chief designer who visited our car club at
> >the time of the di-hedral wing )
> Tyrrell must have been a real fan of dead ends then. I was fairly
> certain by 1972 it had been shown that dihedral wings were useless
> after the absolutely useless Maurice Philippe-designed Superteam
> indycars. Then again indycars had turbo and ground effect for years
> before f1, so maybe it takes awhile for things to catch on over there.
The 4 wheels on the rear was ONLY about tyre footprint, it had nothing to do
with drag.
FIA limited WIDTH and diamter of rear tyres, so Frank's team did the logical
thing to increase rear *** footprint - run 4 wheels.
It was a dead-end because suspension technology of the day was unable to
cope with the dynamics.
As the front wheel hit a bump they had great difficulty on one hand
absorbing it and on the other
positioning the second wheel to maximise grip. So often the rear tyre would
lift when the front hit bumps.
When this happened during cornering the car was a battle to steer. So set-up
WAS critical, but I wouldn't
say it was Ronnie's issue alone.
I woulnd't consider a 1-2 at Anderstorp as the proof of a winning
machine/driver. The following year to the P34 win, Matra managed it in the
Ligier :-)
I think it looks pretty darn cool and should be really interesting to see on
the track..
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com