Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fritz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!felix!fritz!roger
From: roger@fritz.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: 84 Corvette Handling, etc.
Message-ID: <313@fritz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 09:16:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: fritz.313
Posted: Tue Jun 19 09:16:26 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:45:10 EDT
References: <153@oliven.UUCP>
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, Ca.
Lines: 21

[]

Chris Prael recently mentioned Formula 1 suspensions being very
harsh.  This is quite true, though less true than it was in 1982,
the last year that ground-effects were legal.  Since the ban on
skirts, airfoil underbodies, etc., the drivers have all said how
much more pleasant the cars are to drive, with the softer suspensions.

I believe that "pleasant" is a relative measure here.  For example,
I watched the Canadian Grand Prix on ESPN recently, and was interested
to here the announcer comment that Brabham was running much softer
suspensions than any of the other teams.  This was evident on one
part of the course, where the camera angle was ground-level.  Early
in the race, with full tanks, the Brabham of Nelson Piquet would
bottom out; a flash of sparks the evidence.  Later in the race,
as the fuel was consumed, no more sparks.

The drivers may believe it is an improvement, and I'm sure it is,
over ground-effects Formula 1 cars.  But "pleasant?"

Roger Webster