Re-writing the F1 rule book - Part 1:

from wing cars to flat bottoms

03 Feb 2017

Share
The 2017 season sees arguably the biggest technical shake-up in F1 racing for 20 years, with
the rule makers adopting a previously unseen approach of changing the regulations to raise
speeds rather than keep them in check. In the countdown to the new campaign, we look back
over the other occasions in the modern era when F1 designers have been forced into a
fundamental re-think by a dramatic rules shift, starting with the move from ground-effect
aerodynamics to flat-bottomed cars in 1983

A product of Colin Chapmans perennially innovative Lotus team, ground effect

technology came to dominate aerodynamic development in F1 in the late

Seventies and early Eighties, leading to huge gains in cornering grip and

performance. The key was exploiting an aerodynamic principle known as the

Venturi effect, whereby the underside of the car could be designed so as to

make the entire chassis act like one giant wing which sucked the car to the

ground. The Lotus 78 of 1977 gave a first indication of what was possible by

shaping the underside of sidepods and sealing in the low pressure with side

skirts, but it was the Lotus 79 (pictured above), introduced the following year, that

took full advantage of the principles with its more refined Venturi tunnels and

diffuser.
As Lotus dominated the 1978 championship, winning half of the races, other

teams inevitably decided to follow their design lead, and a swathe of ground

effect cars appeared - including the infamous Brabham BT46 fan car (pictured

above) which featured not only skirts but a large fan to reduce pressure under

the car.

In the face of protests, the fan car concept was soon withdrawn, but more

extreme ground effect solutions followed the next season, including the Lotus
80 (top picture) and the Arrows A2 (pictured below), both of which practically

dispensed with traditional wings altogether in favour of complex and ambitious

skirt and tunnel layouts. But while the more is better ground effect theory

seemed good on paper - and indeed in the windtunnel - in reality these cars

(and others) proved highly unpredictable, never able to guarantee a constant

level of downforce. The low pressure area in particular proved hard to control,

often moving around (leading to an alarming new phenomenon known as

porpoising where the car would dip and heave) or in some cases disappearing

altogether when a skirt became dislodged or broken.

Alert to the dangers, including massively increased cornering speeds and G-

forces, F1s regulators moved to limit the benefits of ground effects in 1981 by

banning skirts and introducing a mandatory ground clearance of 6cm. But the

teams werent so eager to dispense with the enormous gains theyd found, and

several ingenious solutions were developed to get around the new rules.

Amongst them was Lotuss innovative 88 model (pictured below) which featured

effectively two chassis, one inside the other. The inner chassis was essentially
a conventional car independently sprung from the outer bodywork skin, which

acted as one large wing that lowered to the ground at speed but returned to a

legal height in the pit lane.

The 88 was banned before it could be raced, but Brabhams own rule-

circumventing solution, the BT49, which featured skirts that automatically

lowered on track, was to Lotuss chagrin cleared to race, dominated

immediately, and copied (in crude fashion) by rival teams.

In fact it wasnt until 1983, after a campaign blighted by a number of serious

accidents, that ground effect technology as designers knew it was stopped in its

tracks by a new requirement that mandated F1 cars have flat bottoms between

the inside tangent of the tyres (pictured above) and no skirts (which had gained a

temporary reprieve in 1982).

The effect of this rules revolution was massive, with a big reduction in cornering

speeds. Nelson Piquet was the first champion of this new era, his Brabham

BT52 (bottom picture, below) a vast departure in all but livery from its

predecessor, the BT50 (top picture, below), but no less innovative in its own

way.

Illustrations Giorgio Piola, Images Sutton Images / LAT Photographic