Innovations that started a new era in F1
#1
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:07
There have been many innovations in the history of formula 1 that meant it no longer to be what it had been before. Ideas that can be considered as somehow becoming a sort of line between " before" and "after", like the placing of the engine at the rear of the car.
The slick tyres, the wing car or the semiautomatic gearbox, have also been milestones in formula 1.
What other innovations can we also consider that started a new era in F1 and why ?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:13
#3
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:14
1977Originally posted by bigears
The debut of the Renault turbo car at the 1978 British Grand Prix paved the way for a new turbo era.
#4
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:15
#5
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:18
#6
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:23
Barnards Mclaren MP4/1 which started the Carbon revolution too.
#7
Posted 18 August 2005 - 21:41
Chapman introducing tobacco sponsorship - the first major non-motoring sponsorship. This in turn encouraged the growth of the 'garagistes'
#8
Posted 18 August 2005 - 22:04
Rule change that said you had to have the intellectual property of the car you were entering. Bye-bye privateers.Originally posted by WHITE
What other innovations can we also consider that started a new era in F1 and why ?
#9
Posted 18 August 2005 - 22:44
Er, Duncan , the first tobacco sponsor in F1 was Team Gunston. Admittedly Gold Leaf was a somewhat bigger deal ....Originally posted by D-Type
Chapman introducing tobacco sponsorship - the first major non-motoring sponsorship.
The garagistes were Chapman, Cooper and co I doubt BJB and his cousin Peter would consider themselves in the garagiste league. "Cosworth kit-cars" on the other hand .....;)Originally posted by D-Type
This in turn encouraged the growth of the 'garagistes'
Or is this post just your monthly signature justification?
#10
Posted 19 August 2005 - 02:21
Originally posted by D-Type
.....Chapman introducing tobacco sponsorship - the first major non-motoring sponsorship. This in turn encouraged the growth of the 'garagistes'
Can we go back to the sponsorship from the finance houses, Bowmaker, UDT?
They actually paid for whole teams, IIRC...
Of course, it still fostered the growth of the 'garagistes'... BRP for one.
#11
Posted 19 August 2005 - 02:23
Lap times in 1962 challenging (and beating) 1960's despite a litre less in the engines.
#12
Posted 19 August 2005 - 03:48
#13
Posted 19 August 2005 - 03:57
#14
Posted 19 August 2005 - 10:54
#15
Posted 19 August 2005 - 10:59
Originally posted by petefenelon
The package of "innovations" - grooved tyres, narrow cars, the return of traction control - of the late 90s/early 2000s marked a new era: the era of F1 as a joke.
Very cute remark, dear Pete.
#16
Posted 19 August 2005 - 15:26
Rick
#17
Posted 19 August 2005 - 15:34
Originally posted by oldclassiccar
who first went for the big air intakes over the drivers heads? or was something that several teams entered a new season with?? just wondered....some of the 70s F1 airboxes were vast...
Rick
If my memory serves me right, I think that the first air intake for the engine was conceived by Derek Gardner for the Tyrrell 001 - 1971, being very soon copied by other teams.
No doubt it meant a great innovation.
#18
Posted 19 August 2005 - 20:08
#19
Posted 19 August 2005 - 20:23
They might have been penalised, fined, warned...
But nothing happened.
This gave the green light to a new level of unacceptable and unsporting driving tactics subsequently developed to a new level by M. 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' Schumacher.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 20 August 2005 - 08:26
I agree with that and I don't quite understand Vitesse's reaction. Cooper and Climax changed not only Grand Prix cars, but also Grand Prix racing itself by the introduction of a competitive proprietary engine. I find it difficult to think of a more significant change in the world championship era. One contender is the almost simultaneous introduction of aerodynamic devices and commercial sponsorship in 1968.Originally posted by D-Type
As well as (re-)introducing rear engines, Cooper were also the first manufacturer to win with a car with major bought-in components, in the form of engine and gearbox ushering in the era of the 'garagistes'. First the Climax-engined cars of Cooper, Lotus, Lola and Brabham and then the Cosworth era, leading to the FOCA/FISA power struggle which in turn led to "Bernie's Formula 1 circus".
Chapman introducing tobacco sponsorship - the first major non-motoring sponsorship. This in turn encouraged the growth of the 'garagistes'
At around the same time there were the huge changes in tyre technology brought about by Firestone and Goodyear. I'm not really thinking of the slick tyre, which was really just the final step in a path they had been following for several years, but the introduction of the contour moulded tyre in 1966, which permitted much wider and flatter treads. This was a truly significant innovation which never seems to get the credit it deserves when these things are discussed.
#21
Posted 20 August 2005 - 11:37
-Cooper Climax's rear engine; everyone followed, even Ferrari
-Lotus's monocoque tub; everyone followed
-wingz n thingz*; everyone followed
-ground effects
-slicks
after which I rather lost interest in F1 for a few decades.
*also name of a fast food joint on lower 3rd ave in Manhattan. Loved the name, so I took a pic, can't find it at the moment.
#22
Posted 20 August 2005 - 14:14
Originally posted by dretceterini
Pneumatic valve actuation
I thought valves were still actuated by camshafts, and pneumatics used to merely to assist closure..;)
#23
Posted 20 August 2005 - 14:38
#24
Posted 20 August 2005 - 14:43
Neil
#25
Posted 20 August 2005 - 21:15
Aero stuff used to be guesswork, but it became so important that wind tunnels came into use, now wind tunnels drive all the development.
Teapot... what about the Hart 4-cyl engine, did it have a gilmer belt?
#26
Posted 21 August 2005 - 14:34
Composites also instigated another major change: That drivers could much more frequently survive big shunts unscathed due to the integrity of the carbon composite chassis - which in turn, methinks, has 'helped' a trend towards the reckless, selfish win-at-all-cost driving exemplified by at least two recent World multi-champions, one of which incidently did not survive his final accident.
And yet another: Carbon composites pretty much killed off 'Backyard Specials' builders - the expertise, design, analysis, tooling, materials and autoclaves require massive investments - as does the whole aero-development effort.
#27
Posted 22 August 2005 - 10:42
In fact many parts of modern commercial racing series system of motorsport appeared and developed before 1981 and I try to find all "bricks in the wall".
#28
Posted 22 August 2005 - 11:59
Not diverting too much from the head section of the engine...wasn't the 1989 Renault engine the first (talking about F1) to use a chain instead of a belt (as common use in those days) to drive the camshafts? I'm not sure about that (possibly other cars'engine of other eras were driven by chain and not by belt) , but I remember that such a solution was regarded as pretty unique among the field...and soon became the norm.
The 1961-62 two valve Coventry Climx 1.5 liter V8 preceded Renault by being chain driven to each bank.
I won't chase back earlier because I won't know where to stop.
Regard
#29
Posted 22 August 2005 - 13:41
the change from drivers starting out as as extremely rich...to F1 making drivers extremely ( stratospherically?? ) rich...
#30
Posted 22 August 2005 - 14:18
Would it be a stretch to mention the fuel efficiency of the 1984 TAG-Porsche, put a bunch of formerly competitive marques into a tailspin, and the new Nurburgring of the mid-1980s was the dawn of the new era of circuits and the demise of Austria, Zaandvoort, and the like?
#31
Posted 22 August 2005 - 15:01
Active suspension (1987)
those '81 pneumatic suspension things. (1981)
the coca cola bottle style aerodynamics (Barnard 1983)
barge boards (1993??)
quote by Vicuna : Senna and Prost going at each other at Imola in 1989.
Make that Portugal '88 that already started the trend.
Henri
#32
Posted 22 August 2005 - 15:24
Originally posted by Henri Greuter
I would nominate (as not being mentioned yet) half and fully automatic geaboxes with steering wheel activation. (1989
Active suspension (1987)
those '81 pneumatic suspension things. (1981)
the coca cola bottle style aerodynamics (Barnard 1983)
barge boards (1993??)
quote by Vicuna : Senna and Prost going at each other at Imola in 1989.
Make that Portugal '88 that already started the trend.
Henri
1986 Bhabham BT55 " skate " that inaugurated the flat cars era still in vogue.
If I am not wrong, barge boards were first fitted in the last model from the Fittipaldi team at the beginning of the 80s. The car was not finished as team went to bankrupcy.
That car had been designed by Ricardo Divila and Adrian Newey. That was Newey's first job at the formula 1. The car was never seen at the track and barge boards were forgotten until they appear again some years later. This time, to stay.
Could we also mention simulators as a innovation that change F1 ?
#33
Posted 22 August 2005 - 15:34
#34
Posted 22 August 2005 - 15:53
#35
Posted 22 August 2005 - 15:54
Originally posted by John B
Raises a question which is probably obvious but I can't think of who was the pioneer of intensive computer/engine telemetry use - TAG-Porsche, Honda, or someone earlier?
Once again, if I am not wrong, Fittipaldi team pioneered the use of sensors to collect data from the car, back in 1975. However, then, computers were not enough developed and the idea was given up.
In 1981, Maurice Phillipe brought back computers to F1. It was during the development of the Tyrrell 010, and,this time, computers had come to stay in F1.
#36
Posted 22 August 2005 - 16:46
The 2x2 grid.
Once upon a time, 11th fastest could get you on the 3rd row with a shot at leading into the 1st corner. Now you'd need binoculars to see the lights. A banzai start could gain literally a dozen places, which is much more implausible today.
#37
Posted 22 August 2005 - 17:36
Originally posted by Joe Bosworth
Previous quote:
Not diverting too much from the head section of the engine...wasn't the 1989 Renault engine the first (talking about F1) to use a chain instead of a belt (as common use in those days) to drive the camshafts?
Chain drive...an innovation
#38
Posted 22 August 2005 - 22:21
Actually, I think Teapot's just got a bit mixed up in posting this.
#39
Posted 23 August 2005 - 08:42
.... but what I meant was that after Renault reintroduced this layout ALL the others soon followed. (anyway...I'm showing sign of severe brainfade, so don't mind too much about my babbling...only give me a shout to take me back to reality when needed! )
Advertisement
#40
Posted 23 August 2005 - 09:03
I think (and again I might be wrong) White was looking for innovations that fundamentally changed the way racing cars were designed, the way the performed on the track and which meant everyone else had to follow suit. Rear engines and wing cars certainly qualify here - they are quite clearly the kind of "before and after" situation that White referred to - everyone had to follow suit. Different methods of camshaft actuation and tinkering with aerodynamics to produce such lovely things as bargeboards don'y qualify: that's just mucking about with the existing technology - but that's only my opinion.
Sorry if I've spoiled the fun.....
#41
Posted 23 August 2005 - 10:33
Originally posted by ian senior
I don't want to sound churlish, but perhaps it's just me missing the point.....
I think (and again I might be wrong) White was looking for innovations that fundamentally changed the way racing cars were designed, the way the performed on the track and which meant everyone else had to follow suit.
Dear Ian senior,
You are not wrong ! This was what I meant when starting the thread. However, no doubt that there have been many other innovations within a big innovation that also showed the way to follow.
Other members even mentioned examples not related to any technical advance that also meant a "before" and an "after". Perhaps, another good example could be our dear uncle Bernie. Could we talk about a formula 1 before and after he took control of it ?.
#42
Posted 23 August 2005 - 13:19
Introduced by the Matra MS-80, refined by the Tyrell 003 and copied in one form or another by most of the other teams.
Very simply it was a successfull solution to keeping most of the mass of of a rear engined car around the mid point of the vehicle.
Also, the move to shorter races and the use of pump fuel beginning with the 1958 season.
Both changes reduced the need for a heavy stout car and shifted the design advantage to lighter better balanced cars- particularly favoring the British kit car builders beginning in 1959.
Both changes also reduced the cost of building and racing a F-1 car. The cars could be built lighter and cheaper while the use of pump fuel removed the need for exotic fuel formulations. Again the British had the advantage.
Best,
Ross
#43
Posted 23 August 2005 - 13:38
Originally posted by rl1856
What about the coke bottle chassis design of the early 70's ?
Introduced by the Matra MS-80, refined by the Tyrell 003 and copied in one form or another by most of the other teams.
Very simply it was a successfull solution to keeping most of the mass of of a rear engined car around the mid point of the vehicle.
Also, the move to shorter races and the use of pump fuel beginning with the 1958 season.
Both changes reduced the need for a heavy stout car and shifted the design advantage to lighter better balanced cars- particularly favoring the British kit car builders beginning in 1959.
Both changes also reduced the cost of building and racing a F-1 car. The cars could be built lighter and cheaper while the use of pump fuel removed the need for exotic fuel formulations. Again the British had the advantage.
Best,
Ross
Wouldn't you say that the BRM P153 was the next "coke bottle" car? Just a bit before the Tyrrell?
#44
Posted 24 August 2005 - 12:31
Originally posted by ian senior
Wouldn't you say that the BRM P153 was the next "coke bottle" car? Just a bit before the Tyrrell?
I would say so, yes.
BTW, I don't think the coke-bottlelook was a huge turning point in the history of grandprix cars. Only a couple of cars really fitted: the Matra MS80 and maybe 120C, the Tyrrell 001 etc, the BRM P153/P160 and the McLaren M19.
mat1
#45
Posted 24 August 2005 - 13:23
Originally posted by mat1
I would say so, yes.
BTW, I don't think the coke-bottlelook was a huge turning point in the history of grandprix cars. Only a couple of cars really fitted: the Matra MS80 and maybe 120C, the Tyrrell 001 etc, the BRM P153/P160 and the McLaren M19.
mat1
'Coke bottle' wasn't really a paradigm shift, but the quest for a low-polar-moment which would turn on the proverbial sixpence was definitely something that preoccupied F1 through the early 70s. As well as the coke-bottle cars consider the twitchy little Tyrrell 005 and 006 and the very compact Brabham BT42 and BT44. Consider also the Shadow DN1 and DN3 as coke-bottles, albeit perhaps not the 330ml ones, they were slightly bigger cars ;)
And no discussion of low-polar-moment can be complete without the fiasco that was the March 721X, and for that matter the unraced Ferrari 312B3 "snowplough".
#46
Posted 24 August 2005 - 18:38
In the end, of course, they achieved the same ojective by putting all the fuel in a single tank behind the driver.Originally posted by petefenelon
'Coke bottle' wasn't really a paradigm shift, but the quest for a low-polar-moment which would turn on the proverbial sixpence was definitely something that preoccupied F1 through the early 70s. As well as the coke-bottle cars consider the twitchy little Tyrrell 005 and 006 and the very compact Brabham BT42 and BT44. Consider also the Shadow DN1 and DN3 as coke-bottles, albeit perhaps not the 330ml ones, they were slightly bigger cars ;)
And no discussion of low-polar-moment can be complete without the fiasco that was the March 721X, and for that matter the unraced Ferrari 312B3 "snowplough".
But all this was a mirror of what was going on 15 years earlier with the Lancia D50, the Ferrari 553/555 and the Bugatti T251, not to mention 20 years before that with the original Auto-Union and the 1936 Mercedes, and, even earlier, the 1923 Bugatti.
#47
Posted 26 August 2005 - 11:49
Originally posted by petefenelon
'Coke bottle' wasn't really a paradigm shift, but the quest for a low-polar-moment which would turn on the proverbial sixpence was definitely something that preoccupied F1 through the early 70s. As well as the coke-bottle cars consider the twitchy little Tyrrell 005 and 006 and the very compact Brabham BT42 and BT44. Consider also the Shadow DN1 and DN3 as coke-bottles, albeit perhaps not the 330ml ones, they were slightly bigger cars ;)
And no discussion of low-polar-moment can be complete without the fiasco that was the March 721X, and for that matter the unraced Ferrari 312B3 "snowplough".
I think the low-polar moment idea and the coke-bottle idea is not exactly the same. Of course, in the coke bottle cars, a concentration of the mass length wise (and therefore a low polar moment) was part of the idea, but also a mass concentrated low in the cars. Also, because there was a huge difference in weight with fuel (at the start of the race) compared with the weight with low fuel (in qualifying and at the end of the race), it was useful to concentrate the fuel mass, because otherwise it was difficult to get optimal driving characteristics in all circumstances.
In the low polar moment cars, the main theme was agility. The idea was clear, and seemed to be right, but the cars which implemented this idea really (the March 721X, the Tyrrell 005/6) were difficult to drive. I am not sure the B3 snowplough is really one of these. Does anyone have measures of this car?
mat1
#48
Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:49
There was an article about the B3 "Snowplough" (with the obligatory journo test drive) in MS a while ago. IIRC, the car was a 'concept demonstrator' by Forghieri, partly to explore low mass moment of inertia, partly a forward thinking anticipation of the trend for future tracks becoming more and more 'Mickey Mouse', and/or being riddled with chickanes, emphasising agility over high speed cornering stability. IIRC, it was never the intention to race it, but all kinds of Italian industrial strife, internal Ferrari politics and thinning of resources due to the concurrent sports car programme messed up Ferrari's 1973 F1 program, making the "Snowplough" appear to be a failed F1 attempt. Apart from its looks, I wouldn't really consider it a failure - in its own way, it cleared the way (pun intended) for the later very succesful 312T series of low mass moment of inertia cars.
I find it interesting to study the technological trends and fashions in F1 (and racing in general). After a period of emphasis on low center of gravity, center of gravity height really crept upward again with the advent of ground effects (width had to be used for ground effect side pods), especially after the tank sizes almost grew over the drivers' heads with the very thirsty turbo engines. The optimum compromise and priorities are constantly shifting (although it doesn't appear to be the case in recent years)...
BTW, I don't know why the 'polar moment' has been the common usage for so long; 'polar', without being technical, merely refers to one way a moment is calculated relative to a reference point or axes. Moments of inertia are calculated for either areas or masses - in the vehicle dynamics case obviously masses. In (aerospace) engineering we generally refer to areas (sectional properties) when we just say 'moment of inertia', whereas we tend to be a bit more specific and use 'mass moment of inetria' when we are referring to mass properties. Sorry about adding to the confusion...