1978 Brabham with... ?

[ASCII Man]

It's a pic from Niki Lauda in the Brabham at the Swedish GP 1978, but whats with the cars ass? :confused:

[ASCII Man]

??

[JonesF1]

It was a cheat. They said it was to cool the radiator or something like that. Really it sucked the car to the ground and gave them a 2 sec per lap advantage at the only GP in which it raced.

[EERO]

It was the same idea used by Jim Hall on the Chaparrel 2J in the 1970 Can-Am and it was banned at the end of the season. How Gordan Murray and Bernie ever managed to convince the FIA to let them run a clearly illegal movable aerodynamic device, I'll never know. But Lauda got his win and redeemed the failed experiment of the BT49 and its surface mounted radiators.

[racer69]

They were just trying something innovative to match Lotus who had been dominating with their 'round effect' cars.

I have read that Lauda said that he drove the car so easily that day, he didn't want to win by so much because he was sure someone would arc up over it even more, and he still won the thing relatively easily.

[josvandeperre]

Its not a movable aerodynamic device - its a snowmobile engine - this is the early days of ground effect and there was no rule banning engines that were not used to drive the car so they used a small extra engine to suck the car to the ground - it appeared in Sweden won and was banned

[Adam43]

It wasn't actually illegal. The days of innovation! The Brabham's flat 12 Alfa engine didn't lend itself to having a ground effect underbody, so they had to come up with that idea.

However, it was best that it never appeared again. It did tend to kick up stones into other cars!

My favourite bit is that when in the pits they covered it up with a dustbid lid!

[Morris 1100]

The Brabham did not have a second engine to drive the fan, it drove from the gearbox.
The fan drew air from through the radiator inlet on the top of the body (and also from under the car) and without the fan the car would have overheated (well that is what they said to the scruitineers)

[Peter Mallett]

Morris is correct. The Chaparall had the separate engine.

It wasn't banned either. Bernie E owned Brabham at the time and decided to pull it on the grounds of safety. (Before a ban could be imposed). Following drivers complained that gravel was being sucked up through the fan and being thrown into their faces.

That it wasn't a moveable aerodynamic device is a mute point because anybody standing near it when the engine was revved could observe the car lowering itself to the ground and then coming back up on to its springs as the revs dropped.

It only ran the one time at Anderstoorp.

BTW. Just look at those loverley big fat slicks and tiny wings.

[ASCII Man]

Especially the rear ones look tasty...

[ASCII Man]

looks just like the tyres of a top fuel dragster!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
looks just like the tyres of a top fuel dragster!

Hmmm.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by EERO
It was the same idea used by Jim Hall on the Chaparrel 2J in the 1970 Can-...

Here's the 2J.


More Chaparral photos at http://www.motorsportcollector.com/C...alPhotos.html.

[Peter Mallett]

Except as explained elswhere the fans were driven independently from the engine. Another Chapparral concept was the moveable wing.

[paul-collins]

Yeah. That chassis weighed a ton, too. But it was extremely quick in the corners (as you would expect).

The Brabham couldn't afford the extra weight of a second motor, as F1 was so much more sensitive to the W in P/W. Also, it would have really ruined the aero, moreso than in a closed-wheel design.

[Dino IV]

Spot-on, Peter.

Pretty wild cars these Chapparals.

[ASCII Man]

That Chapparal looks pretty... ****ed up to me... like a laundrymachine welded onto a racecar

[Jordi]

Yeah, the Chaparral looks horrible, but it was effective.

[formulastudent]

yes, it is the worlds fastest vacuum cleaner...

[EERO]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Morris is correct. The Chaparall had the separate engine.

It wasn't banned either. Bernie E owned Brabham at the time and decided to pull it on the grounds of safety. (Before a ban could be imposed). Following drivers complained that gravel was being sucked up through the fan and being thrown into their faces.

That it wasn't a moveable aerodynamic device is a mute point because anybody standing near it when the engine was revved could observe the car lowering itself to the ground and then coming back up on to its springs as the revs dropped.

Peter, I had thought that the Chapparrell was banned under the technicality of the fan blades being a "Moveable device" as this was the easiest way to get rid of it- the rule having been imposed during the 1969 season after the fiasco at Montjuich.

Given that Gordan Murray wasn't really being "innovative" as AdamAshmore sugests but was rehashing the basic concept Jim Hall had unleased 8 years before, how was it not illegal if the precedent had been set with the response to the 2J?

I may be shakey on my history here, but I thought that the Brabham was banned after the Swedish GP and not voluntarily withdrawn by Ecclestone as you suggest. I shall have to dig deeper.

[Peter Mallett]

Dig away old boy. You could be right.

[formulastudent]

Eero, I believe you are right about the Chapparall that seems to be what is said in the official book about the McLaren F1 which has used/uses (dependant on version age) a very small fan for downforce.

As for the brabaham, Niki Lauda talks about it in one of his books and seems to suggest that it was a case of 'compulsory withdrawl' as in, if they refused to withdraw it it would be banned anyway. When the car was withdrawn they re-wrote the rule book to make sure it couldn't come back, Just my take on what Mr Lauda has to say.

[paul-collins]

With Team Lotus in dominant fashion with the new 79, Brabham arrived in Anderstorp with its two BT46s modified dramatically and controversially, with a large fan attached to the rear of the car. The team explained that the device was for cooling the engines. It soon became clear that the primary aim of the fans was to suck air from beneath the cars and improve grip. Rival teams argued that the fans were, therefore, illegal as they were moving aerodynamic devices. The cars also had the habit of hurling stones at cars which were running behind them.

...

The Brabhams were protested before the race began but the protest was rejected...

-grandprix.com

Of course, FIA did outlaw them for the next race, based on the "moveable aerodynamic devices" rule. (How they allowed skirts and adjustable suspensions later is beyond me)

[Adam43]

EERO, it is interesting what you say about innovation. Something that is sadly lacking in motor racing nowadays (not unexpectedly). However it is interesting how a lot of innovations came from sportscar first.

These are two aerodynamic solutions that were tried at the same time or before in Sportscar.

I heard a story (and am unsure if it is true) that (modern day) slicks were 'invented' by a sportscar team. Apparently a team was accidentally sent a batch of tyres before they cut grooves in them. They bolted them on and went quicker. Personally I think this might be erroneous as the teller couldn't relate any details apart from anything else!

What was the position in F1 on 'moveable aerodynamic devices'. When were they banned? Some of the early F1 wing cars had little levers so the wing could be up when going down the straight and down when braking and cornering. These were quickly ruled out. It must have been nearly ten years previous.

What is particular good about cars in the '70s is that they all looked very different.

[Peter Mallett]

The moveable wings thing. Wasn't that a Chapman design whereby the wings were mounted on rubber bands and changed configuration depending on the speed of the car?

I believe Rolf Stommellen had a big accident at Barcelona due to a failure of one of these wings and they were banned from that day onwards. They used to sit about 90cms above the car.