In all seriousness though that was after a wing failure, not a crazy design (Jack Brabham at 68 Monaco IIRC)
In all seriousness though that was after a wing failure, not a crazy design (Jack Brabham at 68 Monaco IIRC)
I know. I was just saying that the reason the wings on those cars kept failing was because they were attached to the moving suspension.
As a GPL owner, I have to admit that the cars of the 60s look fantastic too but the modern cars still win in my book
The cars of the 70s and 80s may have had character but they remind me of Indy cars, just uglier.
The cars of the 70s and 80s may have had character but they remind me of Indy cars, just uglier.
Me too, but the topic is about F1 cars and there was no F1 back then. There were plenty of "wacky" designs back in those days too, including a monster from Ferrari, a 4WD car with a V12 at each end! It went like a proverbial rocket but was very unkind on tyres. Suffice to say that its superior speed and power were wasted due to the numerous stops for fresh rubber and the design was (wisely) abandoned.
WTF? I have been following F1 since I was a little kid, but I've never seen that one. I'm actually quite surprised how many of the cars in this thread are unknown to me.
yeah I know I know, but lets face what F1 is: the standarisation of gp motor racing. In my view, F1 cars are the pinnacle of the racing cars, and those days those cars where the beasts on the tarmac (or whatever it was
)Attention OT coming:
Its like football, football started in England before FIFA, so it did the racing cars before the F1.
These days, f1 cars are more technological beasts rather than engine beasts.
Compare "The Jackson Bentley Old Mother Gun" with the first F1, is there any simmilarity?
The 8 wheel version you can see in this pic is claimed to be a fake.
However, there was a 6 wheel version of the 312T2 also called the T6
http://www.oto6.free.fr/6roues/formule1/cr-fio77.jpg
Couldn't find a better pic of it.
illepallThis is getting more weird by the minute That's only because we now have the technology for technical aids, which was not available back then. The ony difference between F1 now and F1 in the 70s is that we have much more stringent rules these days. Back then there was room for wacky ideas, now there isn't (as much). F1 is still the pinnacle in terms of technology, just as it was back then. (Technology doesn't just mean electronics)
Of course, the racing back then was also a helluva lot more exciting.
Would have been awesome to see full grid of those 6-wheelers.
Im sorry for the BIG OT
Well I didn’t mean precisely electronics, I use the word Technology on purpose, and I meant things like extra light materials that have to pass infinite durability test, car designs modelled using CAD aids with the possibility to use this designs on a wind tunnel, tyre compounds that are design specifically for each GP on the calendar, steering wheels that allow control parameters on the engine, offline analysis data with the possibility of fault detection and fault diagnosis, ... (I could be describing things forever)
The only important aid that is controversial is TC, in my view its a feature that most of the people don’t understand the importance (they know what it is and know what happens if you don’t have it), I mean with this, the last time TC (and active suspension) was forbidden in 1992 two drivers died. So TC is allowed, because on these cars is understood as a security device. Nothing to do with driver skills, in fact Hakkinen (in his last test in McL) has said that he was impressed with the amount of variables a driver has to take account these days on a race.
The other electronics to control things in a car its just to improve the car performance, for example drive by wire using electric drives is far fastest than using mechanical devices.
You say that is the pinnacle is any different now than then? Well, they didn't not use CFD in the 60's because it was too hard, it just wasn't invented. In 100 years time they'll look at us and wonder how we made racing cars using antiquated techniques. Just because technology in general has advanced doesn't mean the old cars were any less at the pinnacle of engineering/racecar design.
The TC ban (incidentally in 1994) did not lead to the death of two drivers - to say such things shows a lot of ignorance of racing and vehicle dynamics, as well as the two accidents in question. It is possibly arguable that had active suspension still been allowed it might have saved Senna, but thats like saying that had 1990's technology been around in the 60's it would have saved Jim Clark. Ratzenbergers accident was caused by his own mistake a lap earlier, and no amount of computer trickery can help when your front wing comes of at 190mph going into a right hander.
And there is no reason that fly by wire throttle is 'quicker' than a cable operated throttle - both are as quick as the right foot. If anything the cable will be quicker as the throttle pedal is directly attached to the throttle, whereas the fly by wire has to interpret a signal and move a motor. The advantage comes when the pedal can be overridden or tweaked, although I believe that is outlawed in F1 now - the throttle (slide/butterfly) has to do what the pedal does...
Well I think the main advantage of a fly by wire throttle pedal is packing, which is hugely important in a single seater.
I don't feel F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport anymore because there is no room for any real innovation, a few gimmicks just don't do. The problem is the cars are designed by Max and Bernie the teams just make them.
I don't feel F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport anymore because there is no room for any real innovation, a few gimmicks just don't do. The problem is the cars are designed by Max and Bernie the teams just make them.
No Im saying this
Answering this
You are right I am a big ignorant in racing matters
, I’ve just read this (and its probably arguably because of the source)CFD was used in the sixties to design aircrafts. Navier and Stokes lived at the early 1800s so the physics of the fluids are around since two centuries before even than Electrodynamics. I think CFD was not used because they didnt think that aerodynamics effects were a plus on the car performance.
About the drive-by-wire I didn’t mean exactly electronic throttle actuation, but a more general concept (including ETC, the steering by wire, etc). The performance of the car is fastest, moving mechanical parts implies wear and that can cause undesired effects. Electronics usually can overcome this problem, because you can know what happened using off-line data analysis and know exactly what device failed or the failure origin.
For example in the ETC The data from the throttle is sent also to other units and improves the “driveability” of the car.
I think its quite obvious that drive-by-wire creates systems with fastest and more robust response, I’m sorry if you cant see that.
A good discussion going on here, it's good to see this stuff getting some air.
The pinnacle scenario really didn't begin until Colin Chapman unleashed some brain cells, before then people were satisfied with minor innovations as long as they produced an improvement. Rear-engined monocoques began the revolution into a whole new way of thinking and constructors haven't really ever looked back since then. Even old man Ferrari had to change his attitude of "the horse always pulls the cart". You don't win in F1 these days if your thinking is outdated or if your design doesn't evolve.
Modern F1 cars are conceived and designed by engineers, not by Bernie or Max. The whole idea of a formula is to provide a framework, constructors have the task of attempting to create a car which meets the criteria of the formula. There is plenty of innovation and scope across the whole field of constructors and it includes major design elements as well as the tiniest little thing. Teams spend zillions of dollars on testing and development of every component and system which doesn't occur in other motorsports to the extent of F1, which is why it is dubbed "the pinnacle". The biggest obstacle to innovation is safety, and so it should be thanks to the hard work of people like Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and others who had the balls to change the F1 paradigm which ensured the future of the formula.
Many people might be surprised to know that some cars created back in the 40's were capable of similar speeds as todays engineering marvels. A lot has changed of course, and drivers can be expected to live longer these days.
The pinnacle scenario really didn't begin until Colin Chapman unleashed some brain cells, before then people were satisfied with minor innovations as long as they produced an improvement. Rear-engined monocoques began the revolution into a whole new way of thinking and constructors haven't really ever looked back since then. Even old man Ferrari had to change his attitude of "the horse always pulls the cart". You don't win in F1 these days if your thinking is outdated or if your design doesn't evolve.
Modern F1 cars are conceived and designed by engineers, not by Bernie or Max. The whole idea of a formula is to provide a framework, constructors have the task of attempting to create a car which meets the criteria of the formula. There is plenty of innovation and scope across the whole field of constructors and it includes major design elements as well as the tiniest little thing. Teams spend zillions of dollars on testing and development of every component and system which doesn't occur in other motorsports to the extent of F1, which is why it is dubbed "the pinnacle". The biggest obstacle to innovation is safety, and so it should be thanks to the hard work of people like Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and others who had the balls to change the F1 paradigm which ensured the future of the formula.
Many people might be surprised to know that some cars created back in the 40's were capable of similar speeds as todays engineering marvels. A lot has changed of course, and drivers can be expected to live longer these days.
As said above, the packaging is an important part (no cable to route through the bulkheads, just the wiring looms and hydraulics). But a fly-by-wire system will stall have wear - you still have motors and spindles and wiring connections and throttle pedal position sensors.
As for a cabled throttle, they would still use the throttle position sensor for the ignition and fuel mapping (as a basic load sensor), and that data can still be sent to improve drivability. So, no, fly-by-wire won't produce a faster or more robust responce, and I'm sorry if you are so impressed by electronics that you fail to see the basic ability of a mechanical system.
For what it's worth the fly-by-wire systems most advanced feature is the delayed opening of one throttle relative to the other (although that could also be replicated reasonably easily with a mechanical system before you all should 'see, I told you'), which enhances low speed (<14,000rpm) response. And the lagging cylinder bank is alternated to balance the component lives. I've a very good technical book on Ferrari (I think it's called Ferrari F2001, but I forget the author [I might edit this later when I remember]) that considers some of these topics.
To be blinded by the apparent virtues of electronics is as bad as not being able to see the advantages. Yet to misjudge mechanical devices as 'less reliable' or 'less functional' is a much worse crime. Electronics would be nothing without mechanics, yet mechanics survived thousands of years without electronics.
Well, what other modern racing series has really space for real innovation? GT and some endurance series might have less restricted regulations but you don't see anything as new, spectacular and crazy as you saw in F1 20-30 years ago or rallying in the 80s. That's not only F1's fault, just too bad that motorsport has evolved this way.
I don't think modern F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport because it lacks the racing part.
It's the pinnacle of motorsport, but MotoGP is the pinnacle of motorracing.
Unless your a brash fool who thinks that the crashing in touring cars somehow counts as racing.
Unless your a brash fool who thinks that the crashing in touring cars somehow counts as racing.
Current GT racing is equally overly restricted, some other GT formulas allow for some relative freedom and greater innovation eg. Britcar and Dutch Supercars. There's still some room for innovation at LeMans, but no one is going to make a serious investment there as VW will just pour more and more money in. There really isn't that much innovation though in top level motorsport because there's this misguided idea that to get close racing everything has to be virtually a spec series. Spec series are great for doing what they do but they should not be the pinnacle of motorsports, however, teams now really have no interest in thinking for themselves, you can make far more money far more easily by running a car in a one make or strictly governed series because you have to make very few components yourself and are pretty much guaranteed that your car isn't going to end up with a big design flaw.
The innovation we saw in motorsport up to the late 70s/ early 80s stopped simply beacuse it became too dangerous. The focus went over to saftey.
I think that's fair enough too. Imagine where we'd be now if F1 was never restricted? There would be lots of dead people.
That's the usual bollocks teams and promoters give you for not wanting innovation and design, if you have strict safety controls it doesn't have to be dangerous. Some club formulae still have home built and substantially redesigned cars and they don't seem to have people dropping dead left right and centre. Same goes for Britcar, Dutch Supercars and the Nurburgring 24 hours, they all have pretty free regulations and I don't see any more danger than the more tightly control GT formulae
Well, I just looked up the Britcar regulations as an example, and it looks like there are a few.
http://www.racingdevelopments. ... britcar/britcar_rules.htm
Those rules are out of date, the whole system of classing by weight/power was never used and the cars currently run with no weight limit and loose engine regulations. It offers a lot more freedom than other types of GT racing so a lot more components can be manufactured by teams rather than bought in.
If you go and compare with other GT series you'll find they're far more restrictive and cost a lot more to go a lot slower
Then again, with modern safety instructions cars could be more powerful and harder to handle (= highlighting real driver talent), without getting casualties on every year.
Wacky F1 cars
(83 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG