|
|
Post by René on Oct 17, 2018 15:13:03 GMT
Wonderful thread and great photos. I loved that period too, probably because you still had a basic understanding how it's being made. Real craftsmanship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 17, 2018 16:07:21 GMT
I loved the aluminium chassis but then I also loved the carbon fibre ones. In fact I loved all the Formula one cars up until 1995 and then they started the high nose cr*p, the stupid grooved tyres, the narrow suspension and all the aero tweaks and my interest in the cars waned a bit. Dont get me wrong an F1 car still stops me in my tracks though. Well said. I think carbon fiber was a brilliant chassis engineering advance but its use as trim throughout interiors of road cars adds nothing.
I didn't mind the high noses, but completely agree about the narrowed suspensions and grooved tyres. Some recent Formula One cars are hideous but do attract my attention like an ugly woman with apparently succulent breasts.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Oct 17, 2018 16:13:53 GMT
Carl, nothing like a succulent pair of - er, ok,
I don't like the high noses either, but then I don't particularly dislike them either, but that stupid idea of grooved tyres - surely one of the more incredibly idiotic ideas to emanate from Max - beggars belief, and ruined a lot of good racing, arghhh
Interesting pictures Lucio, It is good to remind ourselves or myself anyway what a racing driver must have thought before a race or even practice, when you look at that crease
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Oct 19, 2018 15:53:31 GMT
When creating downforce was still simple... and a bit flimsy!   |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Oct 19, 2018 17:04:38 GMT
When creating downforce was still simple... and a bit flimsy! To really appreciate those times, you really needed to live through them René. To those who did not they look flimsy and bizarre, but to a then teenager such as I they were fascinating and exciting. I was at the time forming my model car building skills with slot cars, completely scratch build other than some proprietary body shell which ended up being modified as the year(s) passed. Those tall suspension mounted wings were fabricated out of anything I could lay my hands upon, but to me they looked the business at the time. Interestingly Jack Brabham's BT26 above has the "bunch of bananas" exhaust manifold pipes which came on board in 1968, and very different to the ones used on the '67 series Cosworth DFV's. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Oct 19, 2018 17:20:49 GMT
Yep Charles as you say exciting indeed were those wings. My slot cars sprouted a few made from kodac 126 film negatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Oct 19, 2018 17:36:19 GMT
Scalextric actually made a beautiful rendition of this car a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Oct 19, 2018 18:47:47 GMT
Scalextric actually made a beautiful rendition of this car a few years ago. Great little promo film René, and that first MDF track is superb. Scalextric made several of those high wing cars, although the struts are over scale by necessity the car looks brilliant running around the track. I always liked the Brabham BT26 in all forms, a really smart looking car in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by René on Oct 19, 2018 19:54:31 GMT
Scalextric actually made a beautiful rendition of this car a few years ago. Great little promo film René, and that first MDF track is superb. Scalextric made several of those high wing cars, although the struts are over scale by necessity the car looks brilliant running around the track. I always liked the Brabham BT26 in all forms, a really smart looking car in my opinion. The struts are too bulky but as you say by necessity; they must be able to withstand a crash. But I still plan to rework one of the high wing cars with more realistic struts, should look cool. The MDF track is wonderful, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Oct 20, 2018 11:56:00 GMT
Reflective to see a photo like this; as if the designer had been thinking only about downforce and engine and fuel, and if it occured to him only in the 11th hour that, "Oh! ... I need to fit in the driver too! How could I forget that? ..."
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Oct 20, 2018 12:02:30 GMT
When creating downforce was still simple... and a bit flimsy! Interesting that the rear wing is connected directly to the wheel hubs, that is, it is unsprung (an unsprung mass), wherear the front wing is connected to the chassis and thus, it is sprung (a sprung mass). |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Oct 20, 2018 17:38:19 GMT
Those were indeed amazing times with designers stepping into the unknown, there were no computer simulations or wind tunnel use. It was done purely on intuition and gut feeling, hence so much variation in how they went about things.
Some teams worked on the principle that the wing struts should be mounted to the suspension uprights, this putting the load directly on the hubs and wheels/tyres. Others went down the route of mounting the wings to the chassis, the most prominent being Ferrari and Ken Tyrrell/Matra.
I really didn't like the high wings front & rear, they just seemed to unbalance the look of the car, however the high rear wings looked fantastic, that is until Colin Chapman went completely over the top at the Spanish GP in 1969 with disastrous consequences.
With regard to the Brabham and its twin high wings, I am musing that the front wing struts were mounted to the chassis as opposed to the uprights because it would have had a pronounced effect on the steering.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Oct 20, 2018 20:26:10 GMT
Ferrari wing solution in 1968.  |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Oct 21, 2018 10:57:59 GMT
Ferrari wing solution in 1968. A superb photo of Derek Bell in the most beautiful of Ferrari F1 cars. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Oct 21, 2018 21:19:56 GMT
Attachment DeletedWhat the wings on the 1968 F1 cars would have looked like if Adrian Newey had been around then.
|
|
