15 replies to this topic

[AdrianThompson]

When did F1 regs change to require the drivers feet to be behind the centerline of the front wheels? I’m sure there’s a way to search for this, but it’s defeating me. Also, prior to the rule change were there any cars from that immediate era (early 80’s I assume) that already met the rule? I’m sure years before there were cars that did, all front engine cars obviously, but I mean in the 5 years prior.

[midgrid]

The regulation was introduced for the 1988 season. I believe the catalyst for the change (or rather final straw, since there were several leg-breaking crashes in the preceding years!) was Jacques Lafftite's career-ending crash at the 1986 British Grand Prix.

[AdrianThompson]

The regulation was introduced for the 1988 season. I believe the catalyst for the change (or rather final straw, since there were several leg-breaking crashes in the preceding years!) was Jacques Lafftite's career-ending crash at the 1986 British Grand Prix.

Wow, that late, I'm amazed. I always assumed it was the early 80's

[Thundersports]

I thought it was earlier; 1983 springs to mind.

[arttidesco]

Wiki seems to be in favour of '88 I thought it was much earlier too, IIRC Group C had this kind of rule for 1986, hence the introduction of the IMSA inspired 962C.

Edited by arttidesco, 13 February 2012 - 23:31.

[Twin Window]

I thought it was earlier; 1983 springs to mind.

That was my reaction too.

[midgrid]

It was definitely 1988, although I suppose that a similar frontal-impact protection rule may have been introduced in 1983 (first frontal crash test?).

I've checked Autocourse, which says that the teams which chose to run turbo engines in 1988 did not have to comply with the new rule if the 1988 chassis was "materially the same" as its predecessor, and also had identical engine mounting-points, and if the intention to follow this route was registered with the FIA prior to the 1987 Italian Grand Prix; Ferrari, Arrows, Zakspeed and Osella did so. Osella was, however, excluded from the 1988 San Marino Grand Prix, because the new FA1L (introduced for this race) was judged to differ too greatly from the FA1I to merit the concession.

[Rob G]

Also, prior to the rule change were there any cars from that immediate era (early 80’s I assume) that already met the rule? I’m sure years before there were cars that did, all front engine cars obviously, but I mean in the 5 years prior.

The Brabhams BT52-BT54 might be the most likely candidates. The bodywork ahead of the front axles was very low and the drivers did appear to sit further back. I found this drawing that shows that, if the pedals weren't behind the axle line, they were pretty darn close.

Edited by Rob G, 14 February 2012 - 00:58.

[AdrianThompson]

The Brabhams BT52-BT54 might be the most likely candidates. The bodywork ahead of the front axles was very low and the drivers did appear to sit further back. I found this drawing that shows that, if the pedals weren't behind the axle line, they were pretty darn close.

Wow, what a brilliant drawing, thank you. You can clearly see the pedals well behind the CL

[AdrianThompson]

Are there any others besides the BT52? It seems that all the cars in the early 80’s were around a 108” wheelbase, but from 88 onwards they were all around 114”. I assume that was a rule change that went with moving the drivers feet? Are there other cars prior to 88 that managed to get the feet behind the front wheelbase but still live with the 108” (or voluntarily longer) wheelbase?

[Rob G]

Are there any others besides the BT52? It seems that all the cars in the early 80’s were around a 108” wheelbase, but from 88 onwards they were all around 114”. I assume that was a rule change that went with moving the drivers feet? Are there other cars prior to 88 that managed to get the feet behind the front wheelbase but still live with the 108” (or voluntarily longer) wheelbase?

The lengthening of the wheelbase wasn't a rule change, but rather a by-product of the rule change dictating the feet being behind the centerline of the front axle. There's never been a minimum wheelbase specified; it's all a matter of optimal packaging.

[Nikos Spagnol]

It was definitely 1988, although I suppose that a similar frontal-impact protection rule may have been introduced in 1983 (first frontal crash test?).

I've checked Autocourse, which says that the teams which chose to run turbo engines in 1988 did not have to comply with the new rule if the 1988 chassis was "materially the same" as its predecessor, and also had identical engine mounting-points, and if the intention to follow this route was registered with the FIA prior to the 1987 Italian Grand Prix; Ferrari, Arrows, Zakspeed and Osella did so. Osella was, however, excluded from the 1988 San Marino Grand Prix, because the new FA1L (introduced for this race) was judged to differ too greatly from the FA1I to merit the concession.

So the FA1L was a FAIL?

[fausto]

Wiki seems to be in favour of '88 I thought it was much earlier too, IIRC Group C had this kind of rule for 1986, hence the introduction of the IMSA inspired 962C.

Yes, but cars built from 1985 onwards had to comply to the new footwell rules (and, probably, Group C2 even before, I'm sure Ecosse had some kind of troubles with the 1984 Lola/"De Cadenet" derived chassis)

[kayemod]

The lengthening of the wheelbase wasn't a rule change, but rather a by-product of the rule change dictating the feet being behind the centerline of the front axle.

This has always been a bit puzzling for me, it's true that early 80s F1 cars looked a bit alarming with the driver's feet right at the front of the car's structure, but I've never understood what the position of the axle line has to do with driver safety. The only thing protecting the poor guy's legs in a frontal impact is the structure around them, in those days it was just some folded fairly light gauge glued and rivetted aluminium monocoque, vastly weaker than the intricate aerospace-standard composite structures that cars have today. It's possible that some 80s drivers might have felt 'safer' with their feet positioned an inch or two behind the front wheels and not sticking out in front of them, but any benefit would have been purely psychological, what crash protection there was came from the strength of the monocoque, the position of the front wheels themselves would have had very little to do with it.

[D-Type]

I think it's simply that the "strong" part of the monocoque stopped at the front wheels as it had to take suspension loads. Ahead of that there was the equivalent of chewing gum (comparatively speaking). So a drivers legs stood some chance in the event of an impact if they were behind the wheels whether designed in or not. The impact tests would confirm this.

[Lee Towers]

If I recall correctly Berger had some trouble with this at the start of 1990. I think McLaren ran the car in testing with his feet in an illegal position (i.e. ahead of the centreline) while they amended the car. By Monaco however I still believe the car had not been modified and he was still having trouble (I'd imagine Monaco would exasperate the problem).

Berger's felt, understandably, he would be safer driving a car he felt comfortable in with his feet ahead of the centre line rather than an uncomfortable car with his feet behind the centre line. This was only a year after his accident at Imola of course.