An Old mate dropped over with some old instamatic pics of Wigram had a shot of the awesome Red ,lightweight E type with the high wing, any pics or info on this great car, please
An Old mate dropped over with some old instamatic pics of Wigram had a shot of the awesome Red ,lightweight E type with the high wing, any pics or info on this great car, please
Can you post those instamatic shots Angria?
There is an article on Dave and the car in Classic Driver magazine. I have just finished reading a copy of the article supplied to me by a member. Not sure at the moment of which issue it was in.
I think that the red lightweight car you are referring to might be the Scott Wiseman car which I believe still exists in Christchurch. If this is so there are a couple of photos of it in amongst my photos posted on this site.
Last edited by kiwi285; 12-11-2011 at 12:38 AM.
There are a couple of pics of this Jag already on the forum, in the Mike Feisst collection Part 1 thread, at the bottom of page 11 in the General Discussion index. It was entered and driven by Harding Scott-Wiseman, and caused much drooling and gurgling amongst spectators...
thats it scott wiseman, will get istamatic pics and blow them up,
Surname Wiseman, Christian names Harding Scott
Same as Hawthorn, John Michael
And, contrary to the general belief at the time, the E-type was NOT a lightweight
Roger, Blue Leader. Stand corrected on the hyphenation, but I'm sure I read it in a mag of the time. He was invariably entered in the programme as nothing more ornate than simply Scott Wiseman. However, I remain resolute that the sight and sound of the thing wailing round DID cause drooling and gurgling, irrespective of the relative avoirdupois....
Not "A" liightweight but was somewhat lightened. The replacement tailgate alone was a huge saving. The noise was pretty good, the wing a real eye opener. Another ex Buckler driver!
Hi scott wiseman worked for jaguar but the E was never a liteweight
now and for sometime with ray larsen rangiora of d type builder fame
from elsewere on site
more pics from elsewere on site
Jim, why was that aerofoil so high above the roof line. We know from wind tunnel tests, that the air flow over the body would follow the roof quite closely. I think when F1 cars first had aerofoils they were also very high but soon came down. And look at the foils on the NZ V8's....tucked in behind the rear window. Was this car a successful race car?
Almost literally "In Your Face"
image hosting jpg
Baypark December 1969
wigram
A lot of the "research" which was done in the time was to put foils in "freeflow" air. Why did foils come down... the rules made it compulsory.Originally Posted by AMCO72
Would they have come lower by themselves? Who knows, possibly.
The rules also mandated that they could only be mounted to the chassis, not the suspension uprights too.
Remember that all this was prior to real windtunnel stuff, and much of what was done was often because someone else did it. McLaren wings were tested on a Mini van on an airfield, Jim Halls' Chaparlas had high wings and he had access to more tech stuff than most others.
Gerald, as Oldfart has correctly pointed out, the FIA brought in the rules to ban the high suspension mounted aerofoils in F1 from the 1969 season, following some failures at high speed. They also banned them in the Can-Am, but their decision to do this came too late to be considered safe for the 1969 season, as many teams had already developed cars with these wings.
Jim Hall appears to be the first to have tried them in Can-Am, and USRRC, in 1966. Its interesting that McLaren didn't fit them to their cars until 1969. Its true, many mounted them to their cars because they saw others doing it. The difference was, some knew why they were doing it, others didn't. Also, some knew what shape the wing itself should be, and how air flowed over and under it, others didn't. I was told once that a racing car wing needs to have a larger face underneath, than that on top, so the air travels faster underneath than it does over the top, to help pull the wing down. I don't know if thats correct or not.
I recall reading a story many years ago about a privateer Porsche in the late 50s or early 60s that had an aerofoil mounted very high above the car, and which was quite effective. Can anyone give more info on this? I think this was considered the first time this was tried. And yes, the theory is that the air is cleaner way up there, away from the turbulent airflow that surrounds the car body.
Steve you will get your hand spanked by the forum creator for getting so far off topic!
Early race car aero aids were very much from the "angled bit of tin" school of design but you are quite correct, a proper aerofoil shape has a curved, almost teardrop shaped face on the side you want the force, ie underneath to create down force and curved on the upper side on aircraft to produce lift. However in aircraft terms most race cars are travelling at below stall speed and therefore also need wing angle as laminar flow alone is not enough.
Theoretically a wing in clean air will produce more down force which is why they were initially high mounted but for obvious safety reasons this was banned so more thought went into creating clean air to the now lower mounted wing. Despite this being forced by rule makers, in reality the trade off between down force and drag may well have lowered the wings anyway.
We did extensive wind tunnel tests with the '77 deCadenet Le Mans car and found that the full width rear wing gave the same downforce when tucked behind the bodywork but with a massive reduction in drag, ie something for nothing. It seemed the air tumbled off the rear of the engine cover and onto the wing.
That'll be the car Michael May ran at the Nürburgring in 1956
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
