williams no rules car

[gridwalker]

Cheers, I'll enjoy reading that

[Webber2011]

No worries.
I've been lurking here for a while and learning quite a lot from you guys.
Nice to be able to give a little back

[gridwalker]

Now that I've read the article, I am getting a funny feeling that I've read it before ... which is odd, as I've never bought a copy of F1 Racing in my life!

Seeing as it was the December '03 issue, I would say that I might have picked up a free copy at Autosport International (January 04), except I never went along that year! This is probably going to bug me all day now

As for the inevitable comparisons between this and the Red Bull X1, the two cars were designed around fairly different concepts : Red Bull was given a free hand to design as they wished, so they could use a closed cockpit, a suction fan and an engine of their choice. Williams had to use 2003 F1 legal engines/tyres and technology that hadn't been banned in F1 prior to 1980 (ruling fans and closed cockpits out of the equation).

So, in reality, this isn't a true "no rules" car and the two design exercises cannot be compared directly. If anything, I would think that this is a more realistic representation of what is possible, as it doesn't exist solely to please games enthusiasts.

[andrew]

Thanks for posting.

[machin]

The "Rules" they have stated at the beginning of the article are very open (hence "no rules car"), with only the following covered:-

V10 engine
Grooved Tyres
same length and track dimensions
and same weight..


So why aren't the wheels covered and why isn't the cockpit fitted with a canopy? Surely a true "no rules" car would have these features?

[JackHammer]

The "Rules" they have stated at the beginning of the article are very open (hence "no rules car"), with only the following covered:-

V10 engine
Grooved Tyres
same length and track dimensions
and same weight..


So why aren't the wheels covered and why isn't the cockpit fitted with a canopy? Surely a true "no rules" car would have these features?

Because it's based on the 80s rules

To me this ultimate car basically looks like the FW08B crashed into the FW25

[n_anirudh]

how would it compre to the Redbull X1??

williams no rules car:
todays scenario might allow ebd..leading to a more flush bodywork.

Any clue as to why the FW is anheadral???

[bjpower]

Now that I've read the article, I am getting a funny feeling that I've read it before ... which is odd, as I've never bought a copy of F1 Racing in my life!

Seeing as it was the December '03 issue, I would say that I might have picked up a free copy at Autosport International (January 04), except I never went along that year! This is probably going to bug me all day now

As for the inevitable comparisons between this and the Red Bull X1, the two cars were designed around fairly different concepts : Red Bull was given a free hand to design as they wished, so they could use a closed cockpit, a suction fan and an engine of their choice. Williams had to use 2003 F1 legal engines/tyres and technology that hadn't been banned in F1 prior to 1980 (ruling fans and closed cockpits out of the equation).

So, in reality, this isn't a true "no rules" car and the two design exercises cannot be compared directly. If anything, I would think that this is a more realistic representation of what is possible, as it doesn't exist solely to please games enthusiasts.

it was in the drive section of the sunday times years back

[wesley123]

Ironicly the ground effects used where tried before and failed miserably. The Arrows A2 did same and I beleive the Lotus 80 did too, both complete failrues. Dont know why it would work now.

From what i know these ground effect cars had serious stability problems, they were bad in yaw and pitch, and guess what happens when you ride a kerb wth them, you lose a lot of downforce.

The time gained by the extra downforce is lost by the lack of control of these cars, that is my quick guess.

Anyway it is still cool to see such car.

[Tozza Mazza]

Ironicly the ground effects used where tried before and failed miserably. The Arrows A2 did same and I beleive the Lotus 80 did too, both complete failrues. Dont know why it would work now.

From what i know these ground effect cars had serious stability problems, they were bad in yaw and pitch, and guess what happens when you ride a kerb wth them, you lose a lot of downforce.

The time gained by the extra downforce is lost by the lack of control of these cars, that is my quick guess.

Anyway it is still cool to see such car.

If that was the case, then why did the Lotus 79 crush all opposition in 1978, and non ground effect cars lose all competitiveness in the late 70's and early 80's. Ground Effect gave massive drag - less (ish) downforce, compared to standard car rivals. It would definitely work now, as the DF levels would be similar, (Greater if we kept the current wings), with only a tiny bit more drag. How would this slow them down?

[gridwalker]

Not to mention that modern wind tunnels, CFD and CAD systems would enable designers to optimise the aerodynamics much more efficiently than was possible in the 70s, plus active suspension could keep the car at the optimum pitch for maximising the aero performance.

Remember, the main problem with ground effect cars was maintaining the seal whilst using passive suspension : a modern active system would negate many of the handling issues.

[Tufty]

Thanks a lot mate for sharing

+1, a fantastic insight. Thanks

[countersteer]

The article makes several statements that are drawing comparisons to Bowlby's Deltawing. Reliance on ground effects for downforce... massive shift of tire contact patch to the rear... corresponding shift of weight bias from front to the rear.... limited reliance on the front wing (just a trimtab).

Both the Deltawing and the 6 wheel Williams were driven by the need to compete with lower horsepower engines.

Interesting...