Talk:Ferrari 126C

Formula One High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Types

This article makes it seem like all the cars that had "126 C" as part of their nomenclature were all the same. They are a series of cars, with very different chassis and even engines, listed as separate entities by Ferrari themselves. Check the Ferrari site if you want proof of this separateness of identity. --Amedeo Felix 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension Updates for 1982 season.

Following the introduction of the Postlethwaithe-designed 126/C2, it was realised that, while the new chassis was a vast improvement over the original, it was still much harder on tyres than the Cosworth-engined Brabhams. The difference was that the Brabhams, designed by Gordon Murray, used a rising rate suspension system instead of the traditional rocker arms. Postlethwaite was aware of this and as part of the development, had a similar package in the pipeline from early in 1982 and although it was available from Monaco, it was not raced until later (Detroit?).

The rising rate 126/C2 enabled the full potential of the team, and particularly the engine, to be realised and despite the incredible misfortune of losing both their principal drivers that season, Ferrari still won the constructor's Championship. Patrick Tambay and Mario Andretti were recruited to stand in for Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi. IMHO, the 126/C2 represents one of the finest GP cars ever built and lost opportunities for both Villeneuve and Pironi.

Unfortunately, I am doing all this from memory. If I can ever recover my old copies of Grand Prix International, which logged just about every chassis change from that era, I will post whatever infor I can find.Flanker235 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory is a problem - particularly when it's memories of pretty useless reporting back in the day. Even the Ph.D. holding designers were struggling to understand their own creations and most of the journalists had a pretty weak mechanical background. The best approach is to steer clear of the whys and wherefores and just log the changes in geometry and design. Interpretation can be left to other websites.78.17.237.208 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Chris 126 CX CK.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible article - from beginning to end

This is really a terrible article, full of opinion and unsourced rubbish. Really the best step would be to delete it entirely. As is pointed out above, the article covers a series of entirely different cars as if they were just minor variants of a single model - when they only shared the basic layout of the engine.78.17.237.208 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]