mr.Rager Wow you are one ignorant fuck! Read this and you'll know exactly why ground effect was banned! www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/06/07/banned-ground-effects/
You realize the only proven danger was that it was faster right? Slowing the cars by making engines smaller or wings smaller is smart, but banning things that could have simply been hugely innovative like this is just boring. Kind of like the ban on rotary engines in Le Mans. Admittedly there is the death of Villeneuve, which might've been in part due to ground force. But we don't even really know if it was that or the tires. The only other bad things that occurred were crashes, and well, that does kind of happen in F1. Crashes and deaths happen in F1, I honestly don't know if the ground effect era had a higher rate of these or not. That would be the real question here. This article does nothing to state (that I can see of, maybe I missed it) whether there was an increase in crashes or not.
+copper4eva Villeneuve crashed his car because he hit the back of slower car on an in lap, had fuck all to do with ground affect, why don't you read a book before you say your next stupid thing.
+copper4eva Villeneuve crashed his car because he hit the back of a slower car on an in lap, has fuck all to do with ground affect, why don't you read a book before you say your next stupid thing.
mightress Ferrari is just salty that almost all other super car manufacturers are far superior than them.(Lamborghini, McLaren, that Hyper car with a Volvo engine etc).
Latsaaben, to be fair to them, ground effect cars were stupidly dangerous. And any weakness between the two chassis could have easily killed the drivers... While innovation is always welcome... This car was a step too far
FIA was and still is a fucked up organization. Chapman didn't cheat, so they should set a new rules for the next year and let Lotus race with 88. It did a lot of damage to Colin's mental health. :(
They didn't ban the car during the season (it wasn't allowed to compete from the first race) and they didn't change the rules. The Type 88 was a blatant cheat. Mobile aerodynamic surfaces had bee already banned (and the rule had been introduced specifically to ban mobile skirts) cause they were really dangerous. In the Type 88 Chapman simply linked the two mobile skirts to create a single mobile aerodynamic surface under the car, and called it "chassis", but the only real chassis of the car was the so called "secondary" one. The one the tyres were attached to. The only thing worth of note was the obstinacy of Chapman and Lotus to propose the car at every GP.
Neutron Alchemist That's true but technically it only was "one" chassi. so they said we didn't write it don't like that but we meant it that way. I think they should have something like a independent court in those situations to clearify whether they are following the rules or not
Is not a question of reintrepretation. Only in movies the rulebooks need to contain any posible variation of a banned practice, and so, if it isn't specifically described in the book,the practice is allowed. In reality, if the rules of soccer forbid to kick your adversary, they didn't need to describe any possible variation of the kicks. Any kind of kick is banned, unless is specifically written otherwise. In this case, the rules banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces. What Lotus described as a "primary chassis" in reality was a single mobile aerodynamic surface. It didn't have any other justification. So it was banned. The only point of discussion seems to be that the track referees allowed the car to participate to the first day of free practice, ahead of the first GP of the season. But track referees don't control the compliance of the cars to all the rules first to allow to them to practice. They usually only control if the car is plainly dangerous (IE, if there are parts that are not secured). if a car is later discovered to cheat the rules, it can be disqualified after having run and after having won too.
Sad story, reminds me of Williams that wanted to introduce CVT after very good results in tests. Banned. F1 is not the Pinnacle of what can be achieved. It is a mix of entertainment and technology.
Well, F1 IS the pinnacle of what can be achieved, in the sense that just about everything you can do to make a car fast round a track has been developed and tried at some point in F1. No other formula comes close IMO. But yes, the rules today prevent a car designer from employing ALL the (known) tricks at once. If you could, then the cars would be too fast and/or too dangerous. Safety is paramount today, rightly so... The interesting thing would be to see which combination of technologies would produce the absolute fastest car.
No Le Mans Endurace is now way way ahead of F1 both in terms of technology and application to everyday road cars. F1 has followed NASCAR into the Sports Entertainment bracket.
+jon doe no it isn't. No way in hell. Nothing matches F1 around any track. R35 GTR vs F1 in Suzuka fastestlaps.com/tracks/suzuka Only 40 seconds slower, not much. Super GT a series in which heavily modded R35 races has a record lap time of 1:55 in suzuka. Still 22 seconds down from F1. Stop dreaming.
I saw this car's first appearance, at the '81 U.S. Grand Prix West, in Long Beach. Looked very sharp, with mirror-like sides that up-sweep to the rear wing. Elio De Angelis drove it during Friday practice and qualifying sessions, and Saturday morning practice, but other teams protested the car's design and the car was banned after that for the remainder of the weekend. The teams protested that having two sub-chassis that move relative to each other in order to maintain a seal of the side skirts to the road surface, constituted a moveable aerodynamic device, something long-banned in F1. One thing that Clive didn't mention, is that the inner chassis was much more softly sprung than the outer chassis. This made the ride much more comfortable. To maintain a seal of the fixed side skirts of the other teams' cars to the road, the chassis springing was much stiffer, giving a highly punishing ride to the driver. A Lotus 88 driver enjoyed a much more softly sprung ride, and could maintain a faster pace throughout the race than the other drivers could. One thing I'm curious about is why the jump in Type numbers from 80 to 88.
The latest GT-R does Red Bull Ring(F1 Austian grand-prix) in 1.45.50 2017 F1 Mercedes-Benz W08 does it in 1.04.25 And it's one of the shortest track on the calendar. At Spa GT-R loses over a minute...
In reality, other than being a blatant cheat (The rulebook banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces, and to make them bigger didn't make them legal) it was actually a slow, crappy and plainly dangerous car, and the pilots later confirmed they felt relieved when it had been banned.
You need to do some research. This car was protested by no fewer than eleven teams. Only Tyrrell, ATS, Fittipaldi and one other didn’t protest against it. It was no miracle car either. It was always several seconds off the pace.
Changing the rules simply because someone found the way to meet them and have a better car. Essentially: You are not allowed to be that far ahead of your competition in engineering.
They didn't change the rules. The Type 88 was a blatant cheat. Mobile aerodynamic surfaces had bee already banned (and the rule had been introduced specifically to ban mobile skirts) cause they were really dangerous. In the Type 88 Chapman simply linked the two mobile skirts to create a single mobile aerodynamic surface under the car, and called it "chassis", but the only real chassis of the car was the so called "secondary" one. The one the tyres were attached to. The only thing worth of note was the obstinacy of Chapman and Lotus to propose the car at every GP.
1) The car was obviously a cheat from the start. The rulebook banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces, and to make them bigger didn't make them legal. 2) In reality it was actually a slow, crappy and plainly dangerous car, and the pilots later confirmed they felt relieved when it had been banned.
They should treat formula 1 and athletics in a way so we can see just how fast we can go... i wanna see jet engines on a car... and humans racing against horses
Lack of human innovation, F1 is a key indicator of this. The corporate world has stifled or devolved humanity simply to maintain their "control" over everything. This car should have been the benchmark by which all later cars were judged...banned instead, TOO innovative.
Cillian Kane, jet engines wouldn't work as they take too long to accelerate out of corners... Also, let's not be under any illusion on how stupid it would be. Just watch Richard Hammond's jet car crash on Top Gear... 20 of those things in a wreck.. No thank you!
Stopped watching f1 after Senna died and the sport has been in a downward spiral ever since with huge cumbersome autopilot cars and overtaking only on straights
They passed it under the official scrutiny testing, then when the other teams got wind of it and complained (cough/cough/Ferrari/cough/cough) then and only then did they decide to Ban it. If they had painted it red and stuck a prancing horse badge on the front it would have been ok. Ps If you doubt my account... My two uncles were on the Lotus team at the time. 1 was the Chief mechanic in charge and the other was one of the 5 pit mechanics so I heard the story 1st hand.
The issue was that the "twin chassis" represented a moveable aerodynamic device - something that was expressly banned at the time. While Ferrari certainly were one of the teams to complain about it not being within the rules, IIRC they were not the only ones. Six wheelers, alleged water injection, Brabham's hydro pneumatic suspension system, the Fan cars, even Ross Brawn's double diffuser... all were non Ferrari innovations that weren't banned. I know it sucked for Lotus because they'd thrown their all into this one tech trick... and it was banned.
1) The car didn't pass any scrutiny. It was obviously a cheat and was stopped from the first time it was shown. The rulebook banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces, and to make them bigger didn't make them legal. 2) TO COMPLAIN HAD BEEN THE OTHER BRITISH MANUFACTURERS, NOT FERRARI. 3) In reality it was actually a slow, crappy and plainly dangerous car, and the pilots later confirmed they felt relieved when it had been banned.
@@mightressOther way around. McLaren’s chassis was a unitary structure, vacuum bagged and baked in an autoclave (Hercules). It was more advanced than Lotus’ chassis, which was bonded and riveted. You can see the rivets in this video.
There is anecdotal evidence that it didn't work ...the downforce was very inconsistent. De Angelis is said to have told his Italian journalist mate that he was relieved it was banned.Maybe if it had some development it could have been sorted, but ultimately massive ground-effect downforce was just going up a blind alley. Cornering speeds would have just become too high.
i can imagine that since you need substancial speed so the outer chassis stays sucked down ... end with every little bump it just wants to jump back up since its suspended on some sort of oil dampened spring shocks ... at least it seems like that wehn he pushes on the car
I saw it run at Long Beach in 1981. It had been in the pits but not out on track. My brother and I went out to photograph practice trackside. We were at turn 4 when it first went by. "It's out" I told him as he fidled with his camera bag. I was ready for it the next time it came by and took a beautiful side shot as it passed. (I had it made into a 8X20.) It then went back into the pits and was never on track again that weekend. I don't believe it actually set a lap time. A beautiful car.
Every time a team comes up with some cutting edge peiece of technology, the FIA bans it. "Pinnacle of technological advancement in motorsports" my fucking ass.
FIA actually banned a safety feature .. since this twin chassis car would not have been susceptible to dangerously bottoming out, as were later cars which without skirts ran dangerously low ride heights, killing many drivers, like Senna.
No, it was banned under a pre-existing rule that prohibited suspension mounted aerofoils. That rule stipulates that all aerofoils must be affixed to the suspended part of the car.
This kind of reminds mee of the upcoming new Formula 1 cars for 2022. But instead of a double chassis design, the new cars have a ground effect floor + chassis combo.
Caro Clive tieni da conto le tue vecchie Lotus. Sono le macchine da corsa più belle al mondo. Di sempre. Non c'è Mercedes o McLaren o Ferrari che tenga
I don’t know if this car would make it. The idea is indeed brilliant but Lotus kept on using normally aspirated Cosworth engines. The ground effect car was very fast on corners and the double chassis made the car much more driveable to the driver, but the other teams were also building ground effect cars with 1000 HP turbo engines. Any advantage this Lotus would have on corners would vanish on straights. After Chapman’s death Lotus also went turbo…
Another masterpiece from Colin Chapman... However the problem was that with ground effect the pilots were suffering of two much G force in curve which caused safety problem. This is the reason why the year before 6cm clearance was introduced and the skirts banned. Brabham (with hydropneumatic suspension) also tried to workaround the rules to use ground effect. For similar reason later on Turbo-charged engine would be banned too because F1 were becoming power monsters. These limitations might be seen are setback but innovation might not be done at cost of drivers safety and there is still room for innovation within rules.
Until the early 80's the formula 1 and world rally championship was free to evolve without serious restrictions. Gradually during early 80's the drivers weren't able physically to control the high speed and acceleration of their cars. A great example was the class B of world rally championship. For me that was the golden period of Motorsport. The drivers were struggling with the immense power, speed and acceleration. Afterwards restrictions made cars safer and boring. Also electronics helped less gifted drivers to surface. 80's was revolutionary in many technological areas too. It was the end of the analog area and real human interaction with technology. After 90's the digital revolution changed everything.
I really don't understand this kind of innovation suffocation. In a very specific circuit i understand, they want to keep things somewhat competitive and everybody driving fairly similar cars so that it's more about driver performance than the machines, but you're talking about formula 1, the pinnacle of automotive engineering, pitting against one another auto giants, exotic car manufacturers, and smaller high tech engineering companies, to see who can make the fastest car. If someone comes out with a better design, they deserve to win and others will come out with a better design or copy their opponents. I don't follow much auto racing but i was paying attention to motorcycle racing there for a while and I liked Buell when Harley killed the brand. I was very excited when they announced Erik Buell Racing and said EBR would compete in racing. The bike they came out with was lighter than other bikes on the circuit because of trademark buell features like the perimeter brake rotor, fuel in frame, and using the engine as a stressed member of the frame. The rules allowed for a larger displacement if you had a v-twin engine rather than an inline engine so they went with 1190cc, and in the end the inline 4 engines had more power, but the EBR bike was lighter. Amazingly though they forced EBR to add weight to the bike in order to race, giving up their primary advantage. I can't understand rules like these, why not just be honest about it and say we expect everyone to fit in a mold and not be unique.
This is what holds F1 back, manufactorers are not allowed to push innovations forward. The last time anyone really did was McLaren with their stalled rear wing system. FIA went and made that into DRS, which is a lot more synthetic and they normalized it accross the feild. Before that was what Red Bull with the blown defuser? Thats now banned. Mecedes had that system where the air going though the DRS system would channel to the front tires giving more lift and top end speed, also banned. There was that one time Ferrari had like a U cut out in their rear wing, banned
0:30 shows exactly why it was illegal. _"Article 274/3 "Coachwork and Dimensions", Rule 7 which specifies that any part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured to the entire sprung part of the car and must remain immobile in relation to the vehicle."_
For all those interested in the real story of the Lotus 88, it is not told here. There is a very important part missing. Back in 1968, there was a proliferation of very high aerofoils on F1 cars. They were very effective as long as they stayed in one piece. The problem was that they were mounted to the wheel uprights to maximise the load on the tyres but minimise the load on the chassis. This was a good idea in principle until they started to collapse. At the French Grand Prix at Rouen, Lotus driver Jackie Oliver was involved in an enormous crash when the high wing on his car failed. Here is an example on a Brabham: www.formula1-dictionary.net/Images/wing_failure_1968_brabham.jpg This led to an immediate ban on suspension-mounted aerofoils. So to the Lotus 88. What Clive Chapman doesn’t tell you is that the so-called primary chassis was designed to apply downforce to the suspension, via links just inside the uprights. When you see him pushing down on the chassis, all that is happening is that the spring mounts for that component compress and the load is transferred immediately to the wheels. It was just another take on 1968. This was not so much a work of clever design as it was a play on words but ultimately, nobody in 1981 thought it was anything less than a breach of the rules and nobody but Lotus complained when it was banned. It was just another concerted attempt to get around the rules. At that point it was not showing a lot of potential and the team admitted that it would take at least a year to develop. m.imgur.com/ja6PvFt duddhadotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/lotus88b_l.jpg All other theories about it being too fast or too clever or the result of pressure by Ferrari are wrong. That’s just victim talk. Everyone knew it was illegal. Even Lotus didn’t push too hard when it happened.
Exactly. It is sad for Lotus because they put all their chips in on this design, and if it had worked (as the 78 did a few years earlier) they would have been world champions in all likelihood. But it was also clearly a violation of the "moveable aerodynamic device" rule in place at the time. That had originally been intended to apply to traditional "wings", but IMO it was rightly applied here. The real question I have is why Brabham's hydropneumatic suspension system - designed solely to get around the minimum ride height rule - was not also banned before racing...
@@ShmuelWeintraub From memory, that was in response to a minimum height restriction rule introduced for 1981. The idea was for the car to clear a 6 cm high measuring stick placed under it before it left the pits and on its return. This was supposed to eliminate skirts (which were also moveable aerodynamic surfaces, as are DRS elements in the rear wing of a modern car...) The Brabham suspension was supposed to circumvent this by alternately raising and lowering the chassis to bring the sidepods closer to the track and make a better seal for the undertray. This required incredibly stiff suspension. The driver would leave the pits and throw a switch and the car would suddenly drop down to its designed level. When it returned to the pits, the driver would throw the switch and the car would pop up again. Because it was relatively easy to implement, it only took a race or two before everyone was using it. It was banned for 1982 and side skirts reappeared.
Weird if the FIA never banned it. Could f1 had changed into something different now, Maybe a new look? When ever F1 gets to the pinnacle of technology in a race car the FIA ban certain things that make it “good”
@kevin paul halliday And we'd have dead drivers at every other corner. Ground effect skirts are banned in every single motorsport across the world for a very good reason: Any slight contact with another car loses the suction and flips the car. It's amazingly dangerous
@@Excludos thats why they would use fans dipshit, to keep the car grounded, much cheaper to have a fan suck a car down than expensive wings, winglets, drs
@@thapelomashaomasemola7922 Bad luck. It was a dangerous idea and plenty of people objected. In the end all the teams agreed and Brabham took the unusual step of withdrawing the car before the FIA could rule against it. Remember that cars have been disqualified after winning races. Nobody wanted that.
I wouldn't say it's the most radical f1 car... I mean, the one that had 6 wheels and the one that had a giant fan underneath to suck the car to the track were a bit more radical, at least in my own humble personal opinion.
In the F1 history there had been many dominating car (Mc Laren Porsche, Mclaren Honda, Williams Honda, Wiliams Renault, Ferrari, Red Bull Mercedes...). The FIA doesn't intervene as far as the dominance isn't due to a single device that no other team use and whose adeherence to the rules is controversial.
Well said setoain20. This is without a doubt a leap from the heap of ordinary trash that was raced. They knew Lotus was going to be a trend setter and an innovator that no one could match or follow. So they banned it. You see this in every sport. It's sad but true. I like the Run What You Brung to the race track kind of guy. It makes for the best racing. F1 today is horrible.
F1 has become the most expensive parade in the world. Cars don't pass, there are only one or two makes that are competetive, the same ones win and the rest are there to make up the numbers.
Math M there once was a class called group c prototype. Basicly just what you said. Only wheelbase and track was within a given spec. And if i am mistaken by that please correct my answer without being rude, its been a while since the banned the class.
@@mightress That is not true. Group C was far from unlimited. In fact, it was the first formula to stipulate fuel consumption. That’s right- hippies and tree huggers rejoice! It was a fuel allocation formula. At Le Mans you had 2,500 litres of fuel to last you 24 hours and woe betide you if you were a millilitre over. You got disqualified.
@@mightress They didn’t ban Group C. It was replaced with a new formula which had engines more closely related to F1. This was because teams were leaving Group C in droves because F1 wasn’t that much more expensive and got your sponsors more air time.
The team lotus drivers said they were glad it got banned because it was not that good of a car on the track as it would unpredictably switch from tons of downforce to actually having lift because the body didn't stay a constant height from the ground spoiling the ground effect and making the car very unpredictable and dangerous to drive at speed.
What we hear here are only praises about this car. In performance comfort, that's indeed as comfortable as FW14b. Still, knowing what ground effect weakness caused in 1982, that car would've lasted a season. Paddy Lowe often blamed rideheight technology not much advanced by then. That last sentence would've spared Villeneuve and Senna (Maybe De Angelis)
I was a big Lotus fans in those days and remember the conversations around the car. It had such little track time whether the dual chassis concept was going to be successful is I think still open to debate. You also have to take into account the banning of the Brabham fan car three years before which Colin (with Ken Tyrell) had been at forefront of. Lotus has certainly led the way with Ground effects with the wonderful 78 and 79 but then lost it with the 80 and thereafter. As a Lotus Fan the debut of the 80 rather than the banning of the 88 was more disappointing. At the time much of the expectation around the 88 was that it would be banned and the pass by the scrutineers in practice perhaps a surprise.
It broke the no moving body work rule. It only got to do a few laps during Friday practice at the 1981 USGP @ Long Beach before the FIA first banned it.
We need a new Formula series that encourages that sorts of innovation instead of banning it for a boring status-quo where driver gossips got more attention than the actual cars. This new age sucks and is made for bots.
The old old story, if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em! Remember the Norton Rotary? Honda were scared to death of it and made all sorts of fanciful stories up about it until it too was banned.
Oh also toyota in wrc 1994 I think 🤔 that they got caught using turbo restrictor that even the organizers said that is the most advanced tech I ever seen in 30 years history of motorsport.And mazda also in lemans with the rotary after they win in 1991 fia banned the rotary engine.
This more of the same thing that happens with any sanctioned sport. If one teams innovation top all others instead of making the other teams develop something to count it, they just ban it. Just ask Ford about their 429 engines used in the GT40 Mark IV series. Other race team screamed at the sanctioning body and the rules were changed to no bigger a displacement that 5.0 liters after 1969.
1) The car was obviously a cheat. The rulebook banned mobile aerodynamic surfaces, and to make them bigger didn't make them legal. 2) In reality it was actually a slow, crappy and plainly dangerous car, and the pilots later confirmed they felt relieved when it had been banned.
That's hilarious that they used almost the same technique to get around the same rule low riders had to get around. In LA they banned cars that were too low to the ground so they made it variable by adding hydraulics it allowed them to raise their cars around police so it met the minimum requirement then drop it back down later. The FIA basically did the same thing to Formula 1 to limit high ground effects and they made it so the downforce would deform the sidewall and lower it while driving.
Hard to believe the FIA would want anything banned, F1 is Special Forces Of motorsport, it’s purpose to test ‘non-conventional’ tactics so that one day the parts that work can be applied to everything else. Each time a new innovation is brought to them I imagine their attitude would be “Let’s see what this can do??”, rather than dismissing it as too good.
There should be a race that happens every ten years, where there is an unlimited budget to make the fastest car possible. No rules, just legendary fun.
it passed the ground clearance when standing still. but it broke the rules about haveing moving aerodynamic parts. it was not real inovation just a blatant attempt to get around the rules
I struggle a bit with the "double chassis" description. The chassis holds the wheels and drivetrain and there's only one of those. The second "chassis" is what I would call floating bodywork with integrated aerodynamics ... maybe an aerochassis? OK, maybe two chassis ... 🤔 ... maybe.
Groundbreaking of course when it comes to the technical design. But why not go all in and put the driver on the front wing? And then hire von Munchhousen to drive it?
Ferrari International Assistance, strikes again. F1 designers will take the rule book and push the limits of those regulations. They will sometimes manager to go past till another team shouts foul. Nothing new here then.
smilescfd Wow you are one ignorant fuck! Read this and you'll know exactly why ground effect was banned! www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/06/07/banned-ground-effects/
The same Ferrari International Assistance that allowed McLaren and Lotus to use the 3D throttle right after having said to Ferrari it was out of the rules, so stopping its devlopment in Maranello? The same Ferrari International Assistance that allowed McLaren to get away with their chief designer stealing Ferrari's bluetprint? The same Ferrari International Assistance that forced every team to run with Mercedes control units?
By the way, isn't the Type 88 doing what red bull did with their front wings? They got round the rule in a smart way. Flexible front wing, so when the car is not moving it meets the requirements, but when you add air load on the wing it goes down and gets better aerodynamics
@@drazenbudis1303, I think they had a flexing nose-not the wing itself-which achieved the same result but the wing passed the deflection tests. And before you say "brilliant" remember moveable aero devices are not allowed, and the flexing nosecone was a moveable aerodynamic device(the entire body is an aero device).
I want to see super formula 1 with best ever cars, with fans sucking the air under the car and speeds of 400+km/h, all the latest and best technology, it would be awesome, everything banned in f1 to be in sf1
while this system was dangerous for high speed cornering and the dangers of even a little piece of the car coming off could kill someone it still saddens me that the FIA is more interested in keeping F1 linear, right now teams can buy engines and such from other teams well where is the innovation teams should have to build there cars from scratch not go "so we have built the car based on what the winners are doing, but we have forgot the engine no worries we buy Mercedes or Ferrari's engines" this is not innovation, this is making F1 boring and just the same every year, Formula E is where the future is with jaquar (one of the oldest and most notable racing teams), BMW, Mercades and nissan including many others and also Aston Martin closing in for the FE, why go F1 when E is better anyway.
Ummm..actually the 88 Chassis was deemed a "Moving Aerodynamic Devise"...the same Rule that Colin Chapman and the others used to get the Brabham BT46 banned....KARMA.
No. There wasn’t actually a rule to ban the Brabham fan car. It was an agreement reached across all teams. I don’t think the FIA were even involved (it was actually FISA then anyway).
Wouldn't a second chassis just add a huge weight penalty? Doesn't sound to elegant if all you are trying to do is seal leak for better ground effect. Maybe it wouldn't have done as well as people think.
The name is a little misleading... a better term would have been "split chassis". I think you are right Ian, there would have been a weight penalty for all the extra hardware that allowed the aero surfaces to move while remaining 'attached' to the wheel hubs (or wherever). But think of it this way... ground effect cars were much bulkier and far LESS aerodynamic than their non GE counterparts - yet they were faster by far because they didn't slow down as much for the corners and thus did not have to accelerate again out of the corners. No-one knows how the T88 would have done if it raced. Testing times showed it to be very very competitive, but we'll never know whether it would have been the cakewalk to a championship some thought. We may even have learned that, while unquestionably fast, the trick suspension linkages required to transfer load to the wheels couldn't handle the bumpy surfaces of the day etc. It's hard to speculate.
