According to the article I linked it was 1 second a lap faster than the Alfa Romeo in wet testing and this caused everybody to panic. Funny thing is that Alfa Romeo, at that time, were probably close to a second slower than everybody else anyway ... lol Pete
Really good views of the car "naked": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwT9WtkDkaI The story of Lotus at times seems forgotten to me. Tons of innovation, and even the skunkworks 96T for a final run at IndyCar / CART (not the modern iteration of course). Would have loved to see the 96T and Ferrari 637 here in the States!
Its first laps in an official session were in Friday practice at Long Beach in 1981 (I was there and saw it in action). It looked quite odd over the bumps and kerbs of the street circuit, with the driver and roll hoop bouncing around while the bodywork remained rock steady. Only de Angelis drove the car and set 8th fastest time of the day (kudos to Motor Sport magazine's online archive), which caused quite a stir and led to the 88 being barred from the track for the rest of the weekend. It was relatively slower at Sliverstone, but I don't find that surprising. It was mid-season by then and the rest of the field had developed a lot – not least in terms of circumventing the rule against sidepods touching the track surface – and the turbos were in full flight, while the 88 had done very little testing since Long Beach. There's no doubt the 88 was a genuine threat, and that the competition knew it was only a matter of time before Chapman and company found the sweet spot that would turn it into a winner. It doesn't seem to me it would have been that difficult or even expensive to copy the concept, but at the same time I can imagine the other teams had a very low tolerance for the idea of Lotus stealing another season or two so soon after the domination of the Lotus 79.
Maybe it was wrong, or maybe it wasn't, who knows. The decision-makers at FISA looked after the interest of the sport in general, rather than Chapman's concept. It was maybe a step too far? I have no dog in that fight, personally.
After thinking about this concept most of the day while driving the truck, I am going to agree with De Soto. Yes the concept makes amazing sense but I do not think it was going to set the tracks on fire. Overly stiff cars that were racing then were able to produce the same downforce so the only advantage was driver comfort. Now returning to your point William. I do not know how old you are, but your views sound like somebody that is recent to F1 and does not IMO understand that it is NOT a spec series where all the cars have to be close in performance but in fact IS the sounding board for clever engineers to come up with amazing solutions to fast lap times and handing them over to the best drivers available. In modern times the FIA/FISA have been killing this creativity and this is why IMO F1 is now 1/4 of what it once was and we have all missed out on what the ultimate race car could have been. The Lotus 88 is but one of the many examples, mainly relatively modern. In the old day as long as it met the rules it could race and gee we had some wonderful solutions that were quickly copied and IMPORTANTLY improved upon and that my friend is how we moved forward. Imagine if the Cooper (or Auto Union) rear engined car was banned? Imagine if the disc brake was banned? Imagine if the wing was banned? Imagine if carbon fibre was banned? I could go on ... and oh I wish the FIA would pull their head out of their @rses and relax the rules and lets return F1 to where it once was, an engineers series exploited by the very best drivers! If the cleverest car wins every race, so fncken what ... if the other teams are allowed to copy and learn, next year will be interesting again. Pete
The only thing I can say is there already is a series for that. F1 is supposed to be open wheel racing Pete
Try me !! I am in my late sixties, and I have followed F1 since 1961. I attended my first GP at Spa in 61 - winner Phil Hill. I do not expect F1 to be a specs series, and never advocated that. In fact, I am for a complete deregulation, with just the minimum imposed on constructors, no ban in testing and development, unlimited budget, no limit in the number of engine, qualif cars, a tyre war, no grid penalties, no mandatory pit stop, more technical freedom in engines and chassis, etc.. I would allow third team cars, customers chassis, anything possible for a 24 or 26 cars grid. In fact, I would like complete freedom, bar a few parameters for the engineers to start from: engine capacity probably (but with choice of atmo, turbo or hybrid), chassis crash tested, minimum weight perhaps ... I want World War III on the tracks, with teams competing without having one hand tied in their back. Well, at the moment, F1 isn't "the sounding board for clever engineers to come up with amazing solutions " (sic), most of the solutions are in fact imposed!! Under the present system, F1 is heading for specs series status, and will look like IRL before long! But that's Bernie wants; he is only interested in show business, not in the sport.
F1 is heading for specs series status, and will look like IRL before long! At 20 times the cost, boring audiences world-wide not just in North America.
Oh, the romantics again... Total freedom was great when to build a car you only needed some steel tube and a welding machine. But that stuff of "you can beat the big guys just with good ideas" stopped working long time ago. I agree in that F1 and motorsport in general maybe is overregulated. But as usual, "in medio virtus".
I do not expect to go back to the "chalk on the floor" stuff, but F1 technology now is so regimented that it can't be the right platform for inventive engineers anymore. If the present mindset had been applied from the begining, F1 would never have seen the Tyrrell 6-wheeler, for instance, and many other interesting cars. Certainly ground effect would never have taken off. We wouldn't have witnessed the variety of engine designs, etc... If there is still some technological freedom left, it's in LMP1, where the 4 main protagonists have been allowed to follow different paths: AUDI has a RWD V6 turbo Diesel and hybrid electric at the front. Toyota has a RWD V8 petrol atmo + hybrid system Porsche has a RWD V4 turbo petrol + hybrid system and NISSAN has a FWD V6 turbo petrol and hybrid system at the back ! And if you look at their aerodynamic solutions, you can gauge the level of freedom in that category compared to ther nanny F1 ! From a technical point of view, F1 is utterly boring, IMHO.
If all of the above became true, I could even overlook the open cockpits and open wheels; that's how far I am ready to compromise !
But the present F1 is not the F1 of the beginnings, so a different mindset is necessary. Oh, come on, let's not start talking about prototypes again. I prefer the current emasculated F1 rules to a BOP system like they have at LMP. There were Porsche billboards everywhere at Le Mans 2 years ago so now petrol cars can win, but if Dr. Ullrich moans a bit more about the fuel consumption limits they won't have a chance against Diesel again. Meanwhile, it seems that Toyota has not the same political power as its VW rivals so they first had to drop their RWD and now the NA engine, ending with something quite similar to what the others have. Nissan? Nice PR move. We already have too much politics in F1. With a BOP system, electric power/fuel balance, etc they have at prototypes, it would be a nightmare.
It's your choice, but I think differently. I prefer some technical freedom like in LMP, rather than the arbitrary rules imposed in F1. It allows more diversity, which is what I like in motor racing. The BOP will always be controversial, but it allows cars of different engine designs to compete against each other. F1 doesn't allow that! F1 imposes everything, the bore, the stroke, the number of cylinders, etc... The FIA is slowly steering F1 towards becoming a specs series which I find less interesting. As for the ACO manipulating, nothing is new. When FORD took 2 wins at Le Mans in the 60s with 7 litre cars, the CSI put a capacity limit to 3 litre for prototypes! Then when Porsche won 2 years on the trot with their 5 litre 917 Sport against 3 litre prototypes, the ACO ban the category in future! But at the moment, LMP is the only series that allows some lateral thinking. F1 doesn't. My ideal series would be a true CanAm revival, with complete freedom (well almost), although I don't know if there are many tracks left that could cope with it.
What's the difference between forcing everyone to use the same cars and forcing different cars to perform the same, or even worse, to perform better or worse depending on who has more political muscle? Not really a big difference, IMO.
Diversity, that's the difference. Forcing everyone to use the same cars is the definition of a specs series. F1 is becoming an expensive and glorified specs series. I cannot see where LMP is forcing different cars to perform the same; the proof is that out of 4 front runners in LMP1, 2 are clearly ahead and share the spoils but using different solutions, whilst the 3rd team (Toyota) took the championship last year on regularity. And they all use completely different technologies!! Fot me, that's the proof of the pudding ...
Also, if the present mindset had been present at the time, Chapman would never, ever attempted to launch the Lotus 88; the project would have been killed before it would have reached the drawing board! All the FIA knows is that everybody must do the same; that is really boring !
+1. Apologies William. We are reading from the same page. Your earlier posts did not give me this impression, my bad. Open thinking is what made F1 interesting and what it is. Bernie does not get this. He thinks it is the actual race ... fnck off. ALL of us would have stopped watching F1 multiple years ago if only the race was what it was all about. BTW: tervuren, Mercedes tried a streamlined F1 car in 1955, drivers hated it because it was harder to place the car in corners. That is why open wheelers should be superior. Pete
But the rules are absolutely *not* "arbitrary". It's Formula One, them's the rules..... Deal with it or get the **** out! Yeah, they've got "technical freedom" in LMP - Right up until they're quicker than anyone else, then they get BOP'd out of existence. LMP, right now, to me anyway, is the biggest joke in motor racing; Do a better job than anyone else, & they move the goalposts so you're hosed. It's nothing short of pathetic. At least F1 rules are cast in concrete. LMP you don't know what you're up against. Cheers, Ian
Sorry but I prefer to see a variety of solutions, and different concepts in competition than a "one size fits all" engine formula. Mostly when it's F1, or Indy for that matter, where some design freedom used to be the norm, in the past at least. I have given examples of cars that would never have seen the light of days, under the present principles, where every constructor has to build the same engine type, etc... I have problem to understand why people could defend the present formula which is heading towards a specs series. Mostly is they claim to have followed F1 for some time, and be Ferrari fan. I don't think the Ferrari V12, or the boxer engines would have been tolerated in the past if the present normalisation had existed. Ferrari would have been obliged to observe regulations forcing it to build only V8 like its competitors, I presume. We would never have seen the 4WD cars, or the 6-wheelers, or the Lotus turbine, etc... As for LMP, I have yet to see a constructor being put out of existence by the BOP. Do you know any? BOP is mostly existing in GTE, where it allows cars with different characteristics to compete equaly.
