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