The banned F1 car that wasn't actually very good

[@leopold7562]

"Violated the spirit of the rules". In other words, it wasn't technically breaking any rules, but Ferrari didn't like it.

[@FrontSideBus]

leopold Quite standard for Ferrari that... if they can’t make it work themselves, they get it banned.

[@kosice1234]

At that time particularly it would be Renault, Alfa Romeo and Ferrari.

[@gufo_tave]

Ferrari? If i remember well, the one who pushed for banning this car was Brabham, as a revenge for their Bt 46B (the "fan car"). And remember that at early 80s, Brabham was a top team.

[@carlosandleon]

well if you think about it, it makes sense. the main reason about the rules was to ban ground effect and though not specifically stated, it did break the meat and the reason and the spirit of the rules itself

[@Hebdomad7]

If Ferrari do it, it's innovation. Anyone else it's cheating.

[@hazy33]

From the heady days when the drivers legs were part of the crash structure.

[@mattyg267]

Exactly my thought... it's scary how little 'car' is between the driver and the nose. Drivers legs where way in front of the front axle too... the Ricardo paletti crash in '82 always makes me shiver, how much the front crumpled.

[@hazy33]

@@mattyg267 I deliberately never saw that crash in detail just the tv footage that was looking from the front of the grid. But also Pironi's legs sticking out after his horrendous crash. Those Ferrari's were complete death traps as proved by Villeneuve.

[@hazy33]

@Strange Faction what absolute crap. Tell that to the families of Riccardo Paletti, Stefan Belloff and everyone else that died. Think before you post next time. Delete your comment, you're an embarrassment to your own family.

[@UnitSe7en]

@@hazy33 The concept is that if you are in danger and know the danger to yourself and others, you do everything you can to avoid it and not hurt those around you. It's a very simple thing to understand. _Strange Faction_ didn't say those designs were a _good_ idea, because, very obviously, when *accidents* happen, people get killed. But the notion of a shared respect is what's lost when you cover everyone doing dangerous things in foam. You should consider yourself as one of the more embarrassing, ignorant and disrespectful people to ever post a YT comment this year. Congratulations.

[@anon2036]

@@hazy33 1 iq comment. try harder.

[@Apollo_s2k]

I much prefer these type of videos than the ones where you guys sit down and talk. Please make more videos like this!

[@themightydash1714]

yeah, and you dont have to look at the fat bloke, its so distracting.

[@Squilliam-Fancyson]

@@themightydash1714 he isnt fat, his bones are heavy!

[@georgebridgeman-sutton2858]

@@themightydash1714 What's wrong with looking at a fat bloke?

[@Jacob19991864]

@@themightydash1714 I quite like the fat bloke

[@georgebridgeman-sutton2858]

@@Jacob19991864 He's a good, knowledgeable guy with excellent speaking skills.

[@kieranjones5021]

Team: *creates an innovation* Other teams: *Cant be bothered making one so complain to the FIA to have it banned*

[@evbunke2]

Seriously the more I learn about F1, the more it seems like the teams and the regulators are a bunch of crybabies. What's the point of all that incredible engineering if they just constantly ban innovations?

[@kieranjones5021]

@@evbunke2 ikr its fucking boring and makes so that back marker teams can't really climb the order

[@T0BBi94]

@@kieranjones5021 Actually today it is the opposite for back markers. The teams with more budget can and will exploit the rules and regulations much harder and better than smaller teams. This is one of the consequences with the 2021 change. It will take time before the smaller teams catch up again because the larger teams will be able to exploit the rules better with the new cars.

[@kieranjones5021]

@@T0BBi94 True

[@Appletank8]

When perfecting and testing a new technology costs a few millions over your budget, but the other team doesn't have that problem, are you really surprised people don't want to be the guy stuck with a Corolla while there's a guy constantly winning the race with a McLaren?

[@IR-xy3ij]

Engineers: FIA: No.

[@michelvanbriemen3459]

Engineers on one team: FIA: Fine Renault: No Mercedes: No more engine for you Ferrari: I leave now FIA: NO NO NO NO

[@Sungblox]

Michel van Briemen Renault was lotus in the 80’s

[@kaydnburns5935]

Motor sports are pretty much all garbage now. Racing used to be about getting an edge, by innovation and discovering new techniques. When you at the level god tier drivers, if given identical cars the only reason you win is because of luck. A car breaks down, they hit a part of the track that had more rubber than you etc. it’s all luck.

[@richardhobbs7360]

Kaydn Burns you sir have never watched F1 If it wasn’t about innovation and design then why is there a huge gap between say merc and Williams or the top 3 and the rest of them

[@KokoroKatsura]

a n i m e n i m e

[@paulo9504]

I remember 1981 well. The twin-chassis Lotus 88 violated the "spirit" of the rules but Gordon Murray's hydropneumatic suspension system on the Brabham BT49C didn't? The reason the 88 was banned was because the other teams weren't clever enough to come up with Chapman's idea. And, yes, the other teams feared what this car was capable of. It's kind of harsh to say the 88 wasn't any good. I believe the original iteration of the car, which first ran at Long Beach, had great potential. However, the car was banned before it could really be properly developed. The subsequent iteration of the 88, which appeared at Silverstone that summer, had some modifications made to it and that version, imo, was a bit of a mess. However, the 88 only made two appearances and was never given a chance. Chapman's last innovation's potential went completely unrealized which was a shame.

[@rexstetson1717]

Very upsetting this was banned. I cannot think of any other instance in all of sports, where a team, athlete, or piece of equipment was banned or penalized for being against “the spirit of the rule.” That’s the whole point of having rules. Something is either legal or it’s not. If you govern based “the spirit of the rules,” it means you actually have no rules, just a subjective set of nebulous guidelines. Rules on the other hand are objective. Whatever we think of politics in F1 now, in the past they were far worse. Still though, when someone produces a radical new innovation in F1, it’s often the first response of rival teams to run to the courts to get the innovation banned, rather than knuckle down, and try to rise to the challenge. Sad.

[@paulo9504]

@@rexstetson1717 To elaborate further on my original post, teams feared the 88 and politicked to get it banned. The reason was simple. Had the 88 been allowed to run, then the other teams would have been forced to abandon their cars and copy the 88 which would have been extremely costly. The Brabham BT49C was a cheater car, make no mistake about that. Its hydropneumatic suspension was not easily mimicked by other teams. However, most teams implemented a hydraulic lowering system controlled by a switch on the dash. That was a simpler and much cheaper way to circumvent the 6 cm ride height rule than Chapman's elaborate Lotus 88. The 6 cm ride height rule could only be enforced while the car was sitting still during scrutineering or during post practice/qualifying/race checks. It couldn't be checked while the cars were on track and at speed. Most people could see the cars were dropping at speed, it was impossible to police. That was the loophole in the rules that was exploited. Car only had to pass checks in the pits.

[@TheFastolf]

I was precisely going to point that out. "It wasn't any good"...maybe it wasn't as good because it was barely out of the box when they banned it? Who knows what it could have been if allowed to further develop and even embraced by other teams.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The 88 was a blatant cheat. Rules banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces. Making them bigger and naming them "secondary chassis" didn't make them legal.

[@davidcolin6519]

@Ric Boni I remember them all. But none of that has anything to do with the subject at hand, the Lotus 88. The problem was ground effect, not the 88. And to think that ground effect was eliminated is simply BS, the fact that everything from F1 to your godawful Audi S7 has a diffuser demonstrates the truth of that.

[@navret1707]

F1 and NASCAR: if you cannot outrun them, outlaw them.

[@RedAssassin274]

Rip Dodge Charger Daytona, too much for Ford and Chevy 😔

[@RedAssassin274]

@Bailey Finley I don't think the 426 ever raced the Ford 427 in Nascar, 427 came after I beliebe

[@russotusso1695]

Every Motorsport is like that

[@thethirdman225]

It was illegal from the start and Chapman knew it.

[@cbj4sc1]

Yeah racing where one guy kinda fucks off because their team found some invention is very entertaining. Imagine if every season of every motorsport was 2014-2016 Mercades domination

[@marcoamrcarvalho]

Imagine a car like that turning around the Eau Rouge. The car would just take off at the top of the hill.

[@davidcolin6519]

This is the problem with never actually having seen it in action. You never know However, how many "Ground Effect" era cars literally took off at Eau Rouge? I THINK that I watched every race of the Ground Effect era, and I can't think of it ever happening. The 88 may (in fact, almost certainly would have) needed development time. But there is no reason to think that it wouldn't have been perfected. So, it would have been way faster than other GE cars because it would have had far MORE GE. So why would it have flown off at Eau Rouge? What don't you understand about GE? that it can be far greater than gravity? (BTW and FYI, GE cars were generating 6 Gs, if that is the case, Eau Rouge would have been no sweat in the 88)

[@eddie_23]

That's radion actually

[@bobdole5350]

@@davidcolin6519 He said in the video that when the air went between the two chassis, rather than below, it inverted the downforce to lift instead. Could quite easily take off (at the front end) if the conditions happened to be perfect at the time. Still a very minute chance, but in F1 that can mean the difference between success and failure!

[@russotusso1695]

@@davidcolin6519 first, GE cars never produced 6Gs, second, did you even watch the video, car littearly could go from maximum downforce to lift, imagine that happening at 250+ KMH there, it's simple to see that car was dangerous in its original form, maybe it could have been solved later down the line but by that time somebody would have been killed.

[@zammy7155]

@@eddie_23 *Radillon

[@AJSoundbites]

F1 is really made of people who dont give up and go for the win/innovations against all odds. New F1 fan here and loving it.

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

Guys like Chapman and Brabham never gave up. The rest of them were just cretins and it seems like they haven't changed much either.

[@lightningmcdweeb]

welcome to the brother hood

[@MatthewLee8383]

Shame there's no major innovation allowed these days though.

[@swine13]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock hrm, interesting development, But uh... what does that have to do with F1?

[@thethirdman225]

Matthew Lee Of course there is. They have just reached a point in the design cycle where they are afraid to take too many risks. When every component has to work with every other component, the risks of making large changes and messing up the performance of the rest of the car is high. Look at front wings today. They almost dictate how the rest of the car is designed.

[@eamonahern7495]

Chapman's innovations always seemed to be at their best when there was a bigger risk of death when things went wrong. Judging by what what was said by di Angeles here, this would have been a great car.

[@zhuyufan1186]

Yeah, the older lotus are fast but fragile. At least Sir Jackie Stewart told us that.

[@psykkomancz]

As Chapman once said : "Proper race car will break apart just after the finish line."

[@mattyg267]

Only have to look at the front end of Ronnie Peterson's lotus 78 after the monza '78 crash to see how fragile and paperthin they actually where

[@gufo_tave]

Actually, he said this car was too much unpredictable: when everything was OK you could have lots of downforce, but the minimum anomaly would create even LIFT.

[@Appletank8]

70% fast and 30% flying doesn't sound great.

[@JohnGeorgeHill]

Beginning of the end of F1 innovation. Now..hardly anything new is allowed. I was a young teenager racing my slot cars back then, and I was always surprised that our little slot cars had many innovations before the real race cars did. For instance, our tires were wider than they were tall, long before the real cars had wide tires. We innovated aero before the real cars did, with sheets of thin Lexan on the sides tunneling air, a massive rear spoiler and a flat front splitter much like Le Mans Prototypes, but at least a couple of decades earlier. Finally we had a split piano wire chassis that allowed the body to move around separately from the chassis. Not exactly like this Lotus 88, but a similar concept. Great stuff at the time. I was at Long Beach, saw the 88 practice but in the end never raced there. What a shame.

[@Appletank8]

John G. Hill It’s a difficult balance between allowing for innovation yet stopping one team from dumping a billion dollars into perfecting design. There’s also the problem with modern aero making it nearly impossible for chasing cars to get close, unless you ban any modification that causes bad airflow behind the car.

[@thethirdman225]

The axles on the “banning innovation“ band wagon won’t last much longer.

[@jean-pierregenoud-prachex1597]

I am surprised even a respected technical writer as Giorgio Piola seems to miss the point about the twin-chassis technology. All comments are focusing on the sliding skirts issue and the 6 cm ground clearance rule introduced in 1981. But the twin chassis technology was released well before this, and had nothing to see with the ban of the skirts. As explained several times by Team Lotus aerodynamicist Peter Wright, the objective was to fight the porpoising phenomenon, which generated constant variation in the pitch of the car and generated randomly lift then downforce in straight lines as well as quick bends. This phenomenon was extremely dangerous as the behavior of the car at high speed became totally unpredictable. This lead most F1 engineers to use outrageously hard springs to limit the phenomenon, albeit not remove it completely. The thing is, after the tests performed by Team Lotus at Jarama at the end of 1980 with the Lotus 86, then the tests at Paul Ricard in February 1981 with the Lotus 88, it appeared clearly that the porpoising was over for real with these cars. The car pitch and downforce generated by the ground effect became constant, and the drivers had a decent ride in their soft sprung structure. For these reasons, I don't understand Piola's comments about the drivers finding the 88 "dangerous", something which does not appear in period reports. It was for sure very different to drive as the dynamics of the car was for sure very different from what they had experienced before. We should keep in mind that these cars did only a few laps at speed, so it is very ambitious to issue firm statements based on so little feedback. I remember reading similar comments about the first active F1, the lotus 92 of 1993. Nigel Mansell was frightened by the car which had no roll nor pitch... Nobody would challenge the interest of active suspensions a few years later, though. My understanding is that the ban of the Lotus 88 and the authorization of Brabham's pneumatic suspension was an gigantic leap backwards in terms of security, as it allowed to maintain 1980's level of downforce while imposing extremely harsh suspensions on all cars, all conditions to create horrific accidents.

[@iehen]

"I don't understand Piola's comments about the drivers finding the 88 "dangerous", something which does not appear in period reports" i don't know Mansell's thoughts, but for sure Elio De Angelis was worried about the car and his brother confirmed this

[@rockzs74r]

It was a perfect legend then. Because everything good about is is an absolute myth. A hero you shouldn't meet

[@ABaumstumpf]

Well - no. The Engineers of that time as well as the drivers never said anything like he claims in any interview or at other occasions, most of the time expressing regret that it was never allowed to race. And there have been (due to enough fans) many people looking at the design and its effects. Producing lift? utter garbage.

[@mrjohnnyk]

@@ABaumstumpf Well unintended lift was actually a common issue with advanced aerodynamics of the 80's and 90's. I mean look at the infamous Mercedes CLK-GTR that had a notorious lift issue that didn't show up until certain situations while racing, which was so bad that it caused the car to go airborne and do a backflip.

[@trevordillon1921]

John Klise the Mercedes was a very complex and highly specific scenario relating more to the actual pitch of the car than anything else. The vehicle itself would never produce lift, but the flat underside of the car would catch wind because the car was not angled far enough forward.

[@DominikMaslyk]

@@mrjohnnyk That was the Merc CLR.

[@thethirdman225]

@@ABaumstumpf Did you not watch the video? Did you understand it?

[@grzesiekL91]

One thing that video didn't mention explicitly enough is the fact that BOTH structures were independently connected/sprung to the wheels of each other, while bodywork including mirros, wings, (paint/sponsors part) was sitting directly on the outer, stiffer chassis - you can see onboards of Lotus 88 where at around 2nd gear the bodywork goes down to omit the 6 cm mandatory ground clearance, so the green chassis(bodywork) here on the video moves along purple actually. That kind of setup can make setting up the car tricky, as stiffness of the ARB/springs as well ride height can make huge difference in overall balance of the car through corners.

[@1183newman]

The Lotus 23b was also banned from Le mans in 62. This was due to Jim Clark racing a 23b earlier and getting over a 2 minute lead over ferrari and aston but was forced to retire due to a cracked manifold. When Le mans came along the other teams were worried and everything was done to make sure the car could not race. The scrutineers complained the window was to low, the car was to low and the car had 6 wheel nuts and the rear and 4 at the front which wasn't actually against the rules but they deemed it against the spirit of the race. Lotus flew an engineer back to england over night and worked all through early morning to correct all the changes. The car still failed because now it had 4 studs front and rear and whilst the scrutineers were not engineers they failed it on the basis that the car had 6 studs on the rear and so must have needed 6 and not 4. LColin was furious and went around the pits showing other cars like ferrari who also didnt meet requirements such as being to low, window being to low, no spare tyre etc. Lotus vowed never to race at Le Mans again.

[@1183newman]

Later a representative from Le Mans visited Colin and asked him to write down a number that would put things right between lotus and Le Mans. Colin wrote down a number and the man simply said that is way to much and left.

[@cbj4sc1]

Lotus raced at the 1993, 1997 and 2013 24 hours of Lemans. Some vowe huh?

[@1183newman]

@@cbj4sc1 long after the founder colin chapmans death. So yes Colin Chapman kept his vow until the day he died.

[@LisaL.]

sounds like sour grapes to me. The only problem with the car was air leaks, once they fixed it, it would have been a monster. And every team knew it, that was why it was banned.

[@SilverScarletSpider]

Every 4 years F1 should strive to deregulate rules. Set important safety guidelines yes, but if you properly rebalance monetary rewards and distribution from success, each team can innovate with research and Development

[@jundies171]

Dreamy Mercedes vs ???

[@want2cLOTS]

Spot on 100%. When I started following F1 as a teen in the 70s the great thing about it was not just the racing but that there was always something new around the corner. Not every idea worked, but the point was that they had the freedom to try new concepts. In particular it meant that even a small team might hit the front of the grid if they out-thought the other guys. Mid-mounted engine, V6, V8, Flat8, V10, V12, Flat12, H16 engine configurations, Monocoque chassis, use of engine as a stressed component, the Cosworth DFV as an independent engine available to all, aero wings, 6 wheel chassis, ground effect, the Turbo engine, carbon chassis, carbon brakes, semi-auto gearbox. All came about from efforts of individual teams who moved F1 tech forwards. Now we're supposed to get excited when someone brings out a modified front wing...and it needs an aero expert to explain how it helps clean up the airflow for a 2% gain etc etc.

[@Appletank8]

want2cLOTS Sure, but now the amount of resources some teams can afford to throw at their R D means everyone else is left behind.

[@LimitPro1]

@@Appletank8 another reason to hate environmentalist

[@Appletank8]

@@LimitPro1 what does tha t have to do with anything

[@spawnof200]

the more i hear about innovation being squashed in F1 the less i care for it.

[@marcuswagner1396]

Theyre basicially redditors

[@spawnof200]

@randomguy8196 tbf i werent refering solely to the use of ground effect

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@Decimated_By_A_Train You know nothing. This car didn't pass a single check of the stewards. It was a blatant cheat (rules banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces. Making them bigger and naming them "secondary chassis" didn't make them legal) and, when it seems there was the possibility that it could be allowed to race (only because Lotus kept on showing it to the tracks) IT HAD BEEN THE OTHER BRITISH TEAMS THAT COMPLAINED.

[@Decimated_By_A_Train]

Neutron Alchemist alright jeez calm down, no need to be so confrontational

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Yes; they have hybrid powertrains because they are "relevant to today's road cars", yet don't have ABS or stability program.

[@mrrn100]

Giorgio maybe the double chassis concept as you said was ahead of its time and would work with the smart digital suspension, later used by Williams and banned. The car was also beautiful. Elio de Angelis was a fabulous driver great to watch images of him.

[@alanbagnall4578]

The unending creativeness of Chapman would be lost in today’s F1 with it’s overly prescriptive ruleset. A shame as some of his designs were just beautiful!

[@ChaitanyaShukla2503]

Creative engineers always shine no matter how restrictive rules are. Chapman even would have some crazy designs in today's rule set.

[@TroubledCarOwner]

​@@ChaitanyaShukla2503 ,usually the innovations come from finding 'loopholes' in the rules. The Lotus 88 in the video also utilized a loophole. Now it's almost impossible to find one. We don't see real innovations anymore, because it's almost impossible to make something new. The rule book is so specific and thorough. I'm not surprised if they restrict how much you can angle the end plates of the front wings. The best that the engineers can do is OPTIMISE, and finding the best setup is not innovation.

[@MarcelAltmann]

Alan Bagnall chapmans creativity killed a lot of drivers

[@nanderlizernanderlizer684]

Alan Bagnall why do you idiots complain that one team always wins and also complain it is too restrictive. Having more open rules would make the gap between each car expand massively

[@alexfitzpatrick2509]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock find me one in the v6 era please not brawn a whole decade ago

[@TheMightyAntar]

Good to see more revealed about the car after so long. Like the Lotus 80, it looked like it would be fantastic and logically appeared to tick all of the right boxes until you throw in the then 'black art' of aerodynamics.

[@michaelwijaya5562]

Jake should be in the member of f1 technical director overseeing technical rule change in 2022, this was ahead of its time (2022)

[@MattBakerDrums]

Designers and engineers (and, to be fair, most people in F1) are ingenious. Incredible what ideas they come up with.

[@bragee]

Chapman's ingenuity at its extreme, criminally banned before it got properly tuned... Love that era

[@thethirdman225]

Banned under a rule that Chapman was intimately familiar with. He knew it was illegal. He was playing word games. The ban was totally justified.

[@MihzvolWuriar]

Autosport is been one heckin' goog of a channel this year, congratulations, I really didn't know about this and it was awesome... BTW, you guys have the means to figure this out: What would happen to F1 if ground effect wasn't banned 2 years later? In general, no this car only. What would happen if F1 unbanned ground effects in early 2000s? By then, the sport was so safe, I really don't see why it wasn't unbanned until now, and if you ask me, this is exactly the cause why we have so much problems with overtaking in the last decade.

[@MihzvolWuriar]

@@myster1ous23 All that I know is that GE was banned because it increased so much the speed at corners, safety standards weren't up to it back then, and I completely agree with that if it was the case, I don't however, agree with this view from the 2000s to now, safety standards were so good that F1 started to struggle without it, and I think it was because of this ban we had so much problems with overtaking... But I'm not 100% sure, too, and I'd welcome any insight.

[@thethirdman225]

Ground effect never went away. The diffusers everyone talks about are ground effect. The difference is that at the end of 1982, the FISA, as it was then known, mandated flat bottom cars, eventually with very specific measurements that had to be checked. For 2022, that rule has been lifted.

[@georgeross7145]

Kenny Weld adapted the idea to his dirt track car and changed that genre forever.

[@vsm1456]

sounds interesting. do you have a link where I could read more about it, or some keywords I could use to find it myself?

[@JinteiModding]

Mazda: *makes the 787b with the Rotary Engine and win FIA: *_HoLd ThE fUcK uP_*

[@succmama1039]

W8 that's illegal

[@Mauro-82]

No, they have only won one race in years and on that occasion they let them run with 170kg less than their rivals in the same category because of how bad they were. Many of the opponents had failures, they won thanks to reliability and lower consumption due in large part to their reduced weight (the Jaguars, which had to carry 170kg more despite being in the same category, had to slow down in order not to exceed the maximum consumption limit allowed in the C2 category, the others broke down). The rule change (3.5-litre naturally aspirated engines as in F1) was planned long before Mazda scored its only win, and in any case it would have made no sense to ban one of the least performing cars on the grid.

[@jasonmoyer]

Weird, when I've seen the Lotus 88 driven now, it seems like the outer bodywork is sucking itself to the ground just fine. And I've seen drivers compare the way it drives favorably to a "modern" (pre-hybrid) car.

[@chrisbigelow7390]

Agree bullshit superficial analysis.Both of them unqualified to make judgements on the overall concept. The deficiency described is easily solved via the rebound settings of the pneumatic cylinders on which the secondary (ground effect) chassis is sat on (the bobbleheads didnt realize that apart from a twin chassis it is also using the BT49 concept of varying the height for legality when measured in the pits). Car has worked fine in several outings since 1981

[@russotusso1695]

None of the times is it driven to limit and at old 80s bumpy tracks

[@russotusso1695]

​@@chrisbigelow7390I like you call it superficial analysis, by a man who has been following and illustrating F1 cars since 70s, but then you do actual bs superficial analysis, even tho you probably never even sat in a race car before of any kind.

[@PavlosLepaul]

Interesting confrontation with this myth.

[@PavlosLepaul]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock Well, for me, as young every time when I read about something banned, I thought about something extremely good. Maybe It's only me, but every time when I hear about banning something, I feel like It was better than conventional projects.

[@weston9106]

Pavlos Lepaul other teams thought it would be competitive.

[@ABaumstumpf]

Well - the thing is - it was not a myth. The car simply was superior. The only "myth" here, or rather outright lie - is the car supposedly creating lift.

[@1183newman]

It basically came down to the other teams having just revealed their brand new cars and then Lotus revealing a new car with some new innovations. In the past this had resulted in these other teams having to quickly adapt their own cars to stay competitive. They complained because they had no desire to have to redesign their own cars having just designed them and refused to race unless the car was banned. Initially they all heard a rumor the car had no chassis and tried to ban the car based around this principle until the car was revealed to have 2 chassis, then they complained about the 2 chassis instead. Nowhere in the rules did it state that a car could only have one chassis and scrutineers gave the car the all clear to race on 2 separate occasions but were overruled by the race organisers who were worried about the other teams refusing to race.

[@No.Handle31]

Chapman was a genius and he would have made it work. I like how people come out of the wood work to pan Chapman now. He is not alive to defend himself and also it took Ferrari 7 times that was a great feet for a small company.

[@russotusso1695]

Guy died like one year later, he wouldn't have time to make it work, and even if he did, by that time somebody would have been killed.

[@No.Handle31]

@@russotusso1695 Guy died! You mean Colin Chapman. And I'm sure it would have worked. And if you know anything about F1 of that time all the teams where pushing it. And drivers died they knew the risk!

[@thethirdman225]

@@No.Handle31 You’re on your own with that. Didn’t you watch the video? The drivers didn’t like it. It became irrelevant at the end of 1981 because skirts were reintroduced for 1982.

[@No.Handle31]

@@thethirdman225 Yeah I watched it. But if given the chance to race could have ironed out the faults. Need to try something before getting it right. That's how F1 has always worked I think you need to know how the sport works. Also if you can't see Chapman was a true genius then you definitely don't know your onions.

[@thethirdman225]

@@No.Handle31 Well, I reserve the right to march to my own drum beat. And I don't recall saying anything whatsoever about Colin Chapman.

[@AmaroqStarwind]

I want to see this car make a comeback, at the very least for sim racing.

[@ABaumstumpf]

enough fans have studied it - the car simply was great.

[@thethirdman225]

@@ABaumstumpf That’s because the only people who have “studied it” recently don’t know anything about it. The internet loves a conspiracy theory. That’s why we’re on a path of de-evolution.

[@Wbfuhn]

It can still show potential, someone has to get their hands on the car and drive it on several tracks, look at the recorded data and feedback and make changes that could make new models more efficient and faster.

[@gt1man931]

To say is wasn't good is a misnomer. It was never developed. It was potentially way too good

[@ScottKenny1978]

It was a movable aerodynamic surface. Which have been banned in F1 since the 1960s.

[@thethirdman225]

@@ScottKenny1978 It wasn't that section of the rule that was in question. The problem was that it was a suspension-mounted aerofoil.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@thethirdman225 "airfoils must be rigidly mounted to the body of the car" The phrasing bans both movable airfoils and airfoils mounted on some kind of suspension.

[@thethirdman225]

@@ScottKenny1978 That's true but the wording of the objection specified suspension-mounted aerofoils. It's part of the same rule.

[@thethirdman225]

Many cars ran without front wings in 1980 and 1982. In fact the Brabham BT-49, driven by Riccardo Zunino. shown at 1:55 shows the front wings set at a _negative_ incidence.

[@Ellipsis115]

0:36 This is very well explained something I've often thought about.

[@gustavmeyrink_2.0]

Unpredictable and dangerous. Perfect synergy with the sponsor Courage.

[@davidjmcclelland]

The one time there was too much hairflow in the '80's

[@jean-pierregenoud-prachex1597]

Just a quick answer to the last comment of TheThirdMan: the "primary chassis" is not attached to the wheel uprights by means of a "linkage", but by means of a ... suspension (coil springs and damper). This is very different from what existed back in 1968, where the aerofoils were directly and rigidly bolted to the uprights. The problem is that the 88 has two suspended parts, each one with its own suspension, and the aerodynamic devices (rear wing and side pods) are attached to the suspended primary chassis, as requested by the rule book. The rule book did not imagine there could be two suspended elements for one single car. That's how the 88 was in agreement with the wording of the rules as they were back in 1981. This is why the Lotus 88 was declared legal by the US court after the Long Beach disqualification. The car was later disqualified in other countries as the FIA supported the idea that the decision from the US court was only valid in the US, not anywhere else in the world. Way after that, the FIA court in Paris decided that the car would be banned forever, but this decision was never clearly explained other that "the car broke the rule".

[@thethirdman225]

Yes, it was different but that didn’t change the fact that once those little springs compressed, the load was directly on the uprights. I have an unbroken series of Grand Prix International mags from the start of 1980 to the end of 1982. The Lotus 88 was discussed in many issues and the reason they protested it was that it was a suspension mounted aerofoil.

[@dizzyguygunner]

Isnt this something that the FIA is proposing for 2021? Where part of the chassis would be in sync with the wheels?

[@thethirdman225]

Only a small part at the rear of the car. It’s not much more than the evolution of a brake duct.

[@JuanAntonEgo]

Now that's what we all call... Thinkin outside the box! U gotta give the man credit tho. (Colin Chapman) this type of radical thinkin is what made Lotus win World championships. 😁😁

[@TMJ32]

It's pretty far fetched to suggest the motivation for this was driver comfort. I don't think the engineers give a crap about whether the driver is uncomfortable with hard springs. More likely it was the compliance of the car on a bumpy track and not being able to use the kerbs that was a bigger factor. If they could spring the main chassis softer they could use the kerbs and the car wouldn't be unsettled by bumps, while the secondary chassis could still run on the ground producing maximum downforce all the time.

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

It's a pity it wasn't as good as it looked (I'm happy to take the words of the drivers - their the ones with their necks on the line after all - and I mean that literally), because that was a fricking beautiful car!

[@deltacx1059]

I hate how f1 is so whiney. There is no "spirit" left, the.officails make it so cold and unfeeling.

[@crusherbmx]

"The efficiency of the comprise" I love that, something.a lot of pseudo engineers miss. Colin Chapman is a classic example.

[@ahl.56]

Judging by the title I thought they banned the Williams FW42!

[@efthymis_mc34]

A main chassis being sprung as the main part of the car with an unsprung structure to amplify ground effect? Isn't that pretty close to what the 2021 ruleset is bringing?

[@chrishamilton2559]

Yes. In both Formula1 and Indycar

[@stpbasss3773]

Yeah guess what......rules change lmao

[@mrjohnnyk]

He was 40 years ahead of time

[@weallfollowmanutd]

Brabham only ran the hydro-numatic suspension in 81' because the rules changed for the cars to run with a higher ride height, to stop the teams running ground effect skirts. It wasn't to make a better ground effect car, but to get around the rules.

[@weallfollowmanutd]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock I know what you're saying, however the reason Brabham did it was to cheat. Williams weren't cheating with active suspension. Basically the stewards in 1981 had to measure the cars before they left the pitlane and came back after each session. Brabham had a button to raise the car with a bottle of air, so they could get round the rules. It was farcical. Everyone else copied it after one race.

[@FRailFan]

I'm no aerodynamicist, but that lifting issue could most like have been fixed. Maybe with like an actual front wing, minimalistic build to prevent too much drag of course. If just that isn't enough then maybe even a little more height to the rear wing too. After all just as downforce requires a certain speed too work, so would an up lift to raise the vehicle off the ground. Yes the car is primarily a ground effects car but surely you could combat the up lifting flaw with some more over body aerodynamics, no? Unfortunately we will never know. Unless someone were take the existing chassis, try to develop it to be comfortable and competitive with 1981 F1 times. Keeping with in the regulations of the day. Right like that'd happen. One can dream.

[@swine13]

Aerodynamicist... I cant even pronounce the bloody word

[@thethirdman225]

Wouldn’t matter. It was illegal anyway.

[@Phos9]

I don’t get how Colin Chapman ever thought this car would be allowed. The outer body is a movable aerodynamic device.

[@Phos9]

Ryan Miller it’s not a question of ground clearance, no moving aerodynamic devices was against the rules long before this car.

[@Phos9]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock The ground clearance regulations were why he had the second chassis, but that doesn't make the second chassis not a moveable aerodynamic device. Gordon Murray even routed a lot of BT46B's fan through a radiator, but the outer body of the 88 was just an aerodynamic device. He might as well have shown up with a Chaparral style wing pedal.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock Mobile skirts had been banned. This car linked the mobile skirts and called them "chassis", but that didn't make them legal. It actually didn't pass any scrutiny. It was declared illegal as soon as it was shown, so blatant the cheat was.

[@thethirdman225]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock Technically it absolutely DID break the rules. The rules say that any aerodynamic device must be fixed to the suspended part of the car. This was a rule that had been in effect since 1968 and one with which Chapman was very familiar. The problem was that the so-called “secondary chassis” was fixed by linkages to the suspension uprights, making it a suspension-mounted aerofoil and therefore illegal. That Chapman called it a primary or secondary chassis doesn’t matter. If you call a cow a bird, it still can’t fly. Chapman was playing semantics and he knew it (unless he was completely stupid, which he wasn’t).

[@thethirdman225]

@@AzathothsAlarmClock That’s what Chapman was gambling on, I suspect.

[@TheDogofTin]

FIA: Wait, That’s illegal

[@DW-eo8gl]

It's hard to believe it would have been as bad a Piola states without the drivers talking to the engineers to work on how to resolve those problems during development. You know, like teams used to do. It's also hard to believe that, with a first iteration like the 88 was, that there would be no problems to resolve or to put it another way, improvements that others would make over time. Much like other teams built on Chapman's innovation in many earlier examples of the man's genius. Sadly, we will never know thanks to it being banned.

[@thethirdman225]

What? You think they didn’t? De Angelis said it would take another 12 months of development to make it competitive. It didn’t matter because skirts were reintroduced for 1982 and the 88 became irrelevant.

[@charlesanzalone5846]

Mario was great at setting up a car, he taught the concept of tire stagger used in Indy car

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

Chapman was a genius. But even geniuses gets things wrong. Having said that, it's a stunning car for its time, just glad, under the safety circumstances, that it was never raced. It's far too easy to see that going the way of a few other beautiful but deadly designs (across the grid, not just CC's).

[@StuntpilootStef]

Chapman did way too many risky things in his cars. He is directly responsible for the deaths of Clark and Rindt. His 88 was dangerous on a whole new level.

[@Chuckiele]

@@StuntpilootStef Hes directly responsible for Rindts accident, but his death is completely on himself.

[@StuntpilootStef]

@@Chuckiele Yeah, that's the better way of saying it, I admit.

[@JB-dy2sq]

At least I got to race at last year's Historic Monaco Grand Prix and it was brilliant to see the car driven in anger there 😊

[@darikdatta]

It's completely unfair to say this though because it was a revolutionary design and hadn't gotten the chance to be developed and refined in race conditions. It was the worst dual-chassis car in the history of F1.

[@canarybiker1262]

To be totally honest - the drivers said the car was unpredictable and dangerous. This is not only a risk for the drivers of them but for the other cars on the track as well. That's basically enough said about it. The sport would go away from actual driving talent over to whoever takes the highest risk of dying in the process by riding an unpredictable car. That's not the spirit of the sport. My opinion would change, if they actually solved the problem of sudden lifting, but they didn't (because it's basically impossible, as race tracks are never totally flat). Maybe in the future we can maintain the floor sealing by some sort of energy field, which fully adapts to road surface - but it isn't today and surely wasn't back in 1981.

[@yindyamarra]

It still looks better on the front than the horrible wings on the front on today’s cars today, wings on wings on wings

[@bryanbernheisel7441]

Unfortunately, this is a problem both in the past and present in all levels of racing, not just F1. As a dirt late model chassis builder, I can assure you that innovation is being stifled everywhere. Made a technically legal change that wipes the floor with current technology? Banned.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

This car didn't pass a single check of the stewards, since it was a blatant cheat. Rules banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces. Making them bigger and naming them "secondary chassis" didn't make them legal.

[@thethirdman225]

@@neutronalchemist3241 Close. Banned under the rule that says all aerodynamic devices must be fixed to the suspended part of the car. The so-called “primary chassis” was fixed by a series of linkages to the suspension uprights, making it illegal. You can see the linkages in the video and in Giorgio Piola’s drawings.

[@thethirdman225]

Had nothing to do with technology. Chapman was playing semantics.

[@michaelhaskey6044]

I don't know about the spirit of the rules. I thought the reason for banning was under the movable aerodynamic device rules. Wish they still had that rule now.

[@thethirdman225]

They do. There have been exceptions, like DRS and skirts. This was banned because it was a suspension-mounted aerofoil, regardless of what Chapman called it.

[@Pubwie]

i love these videos. thank you

[@archibaldchimpin]

pubwie chapman was a genius, probably a bit mad, but what a creative guy, I’ve always considered him the best ever.

[@Blue-yp5mz]

Well if im not mistaken, William car also been banned at start of the season..🤣

[@thethirdman225]

The 6-wheeler?

[@eddieconroy212]

Very interesting. I’ve always wondered how the 88 would have performed on track? I read that Chapman was devastated when it was banned and in some ways contributed to his death at the end of 82?

[@FrontSideBus]

Stig qwe It’s certainly interesting in what might have been as he would have been jailed if he had lived!

[@thethirdman225]

It's hard to know what was going through Chapman's mind at the time. His business partner John De Lorean had been jailed for cocaine importing and Chapman's own accountant was also given four years for fraud. Had he lived, Chapman would have spent at least ten years behind bars, according to the court. I have no doubt that this was a major contributor to his obstinacy when it came to this and why he wanted to take it to court.

[@thethirdman225]

Sorry, but this car was not within the letter of the rules, much less the spirit. Go to 2:35 on the timeline and you will see exactly what the problem was. The outer chassis - also known as the "primary chassis" - is attached by means of a linkage to the wheel uprights. This is directly against the rule that says that all aerodynamic surfaces must be fixed to the suspended part of the car. The wheel upright is not a suspended part of the car. The law was brought in during the 1968 season when F1 suffered a spate of wing collapses and the FIA banned suspension-mounted aerofoils. The car was, in fact, illegal from any standpoint.

[@Akniy]

Technically it's coming back for 2021. The ground effect aero elements will be separate to the chassis technically

[@ramonmorel5473]

Someone know the music at 1:23?

[@joedelancia5134]

What if this technology is use is drag car where this chassis is being use to increase downforce ?

[@David-db6yj]

“60 seconds equal one minute in Africa”

[@Squilliam-Fancyson]

I heard there are a lot black people in Africa.

[@LuizAlexPhoenix]

Where water is wet and is called rain when it falls from the clouds. The sky also looks blue when tgere are no clouds and gravity pushes you against the ground.

[@BennyVolvo]

@@LuizAlexPhoenix gravity doesn't exist...

[@JONNOG88]

@@BennyVolvo Gravity is a capitalist construct. That's why the USSR. Where the first into space.

[@eldafmawla977]

What's with the spooky backsound, i'm literally listening at 2am

[@THOMAS01ify]

I'd like to see a new series outlawf2 any aadvantage any perfoemce enhancer is allowed you can push to the limit and beyond no spd restrictions let's see just how fast they can go .

[@robertmacphee5]

Latest addition Renault R.S.19 Illegal driver aid which still didnt get them out the midfield

[@marciocoelho2481]

I miss those times in F1.

[@robbiemoon2207]

That chapman bloke was years ahead of his time when it came yo designing a f1 car

[@mellilore]

People here seem to like blaming Ferrari for what happened to the Lotus 88. In fact it was Ecclestone, Brabham owner, avenging his own 1978 Brabham bt46 fan car, banned after its maiden win in Sweden at the insistence of Colin Chapman himself who in 1978 (just three years before this) was otherwise dominating the scene.

[@PuddinPie]

Cool story bro, I’m gonna watch it again!

[@motorhead1995able]

I really love piola

[@slipangle3027]

Can I just say how friggin' cool this car looks? I mean seriously.

[@monsterbnt]

Maybe not best F1 car ever, but definitely most beautiful one, specially in black

[@TheSageJ]

The irony is this is basically the same concept of the new 2021 F1 cars.

[@NotCubes]

Yeah... No, it isn't

[@stpbasss3773]

Not really ironic at all since this was like 50 something years ago lmao, shit changes every year in F1.

[@swattoolblaastoose1761]

Love Giorgio

[@RobbertsTravelGuides]

Piola should make an F1 Car and show hes knowledge of Aero

[@juliataylor2623]

But the Brabham BT49 won the title that year by the same method of post race concealment.

[@michaelkeha]

Calling not good is a bit of incorrect statement this is a case of if allowed to run and evolve as a design it may well have become the greatest F1 car ever built but it was cut off at the first real litmus test.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

It was a blatant cheat. Rules banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces. Making them bigger and naming them "secondary chassis" didn't make them legal.

[@chowonspapa]

good video!!

[@mirrorblue100]

If the 88 had gone through development - it WOULD have been very good.

[@mosca3289]

Love Giorgio 👍🏻

[@TheSapier]

Such amazing technological improvement banned immediately by the FIA

[@Driver22845]

Wait is the ocelot r88 from gta 5 online based of this

[@johanrosenfeld3153]

Bonjour à tous, le FIA a banni le F1 Lotus à double chassis fin 1981 et vive le règlementation technique 1983 des F1. Merci cordialement, Johan.

[@johnturner4400]

You wonder how many great drivers lives were saved by banning this car

[@mrjohnnyk]

Yeah cars with lift issues like that could have lethal effects when a car in front messes up their airflow.

[@JONNOG88]

If was a shame Colin Chapman died so young. Had he lived longer I can image Lotus would still be dominant be in F1.

[@FieldMarshalRommel23]

How do F1 teams keep technical secrets if other teams can see their designs?

[@ianvital8834]

man What if I apply those on a caterham.

[@Tom_Hadler]

It didn't break the spirit it broke the rules very clearly. Minimum ground clearance: It fails. Therefore illegal. If a time is not specified it must mean 'all the time'.

[@jamesandonian7829]

Did you watch and LISTEN? lol the rule only applies to stationary cars, when moving, air pushes down on the car and lowers it. Faster you go, the more the car will be pushed lower. Saying the rule should apply all the time makes zero sense. You see bottom cars scrap the ground all the time, doesn't mean their car is illegally too low.

[@Rose_Butterfly98]

I wonder if cars today could use ground effect, like not f1 cars. Just everyday family cars, just to make them safer with better cornering without adding too much drag. Then again, humps.

[@Appletank8]

Ground effects can be used in regular cars to some degree, that’s what diffusers are for. But road cars need to contend with the fact that the ground isn’t perfectly flat, so there’s limited effectiveness. Also there aren’t many situations where you need to take a sharp corner at speed anyway. What’s safer is slowing down.

[@htdtr]

Such a cool looking car though

[@kcb5150]

I think it's a bit hasty to call it a technical failure when it never had the bugs ironed out given the politics working against it.

[@ShionShinigami]

Everybody quiet!!! Giorgio speaks.

[@marksimpson2689]

Who knows, with development it may have worked well

[@fabharlock4208]

Me la ricordo bene, ed era inguidabile, come si lamentò Elio.

[@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab]

"wasn't actually very good" my eye! It had not opportunity to be developed properly. If it was no good and had no potential, it would not have been banned...it was an elegant solution to the ground effect / ride height issue that retained comfort for the driver, engine & gearbox. It was far better than the Brabham solution.