68 replies to this topic

[Fatgadget]

Just wondering whether this is a recent phenomena?..I'm not talking about creative circumvention of the rules as such,though the dividing lines are indeed blurry! 

 

[Gary Davies]

Michel and Pierre May. See http://type550.com/r...ers/michel-may/

[ensign14]

The very first race ever saw the "winner" (Levassor) excluded from the results for failing to comply with the regulations.  He had sussed a 2 seater was faster than a 4 seater and decided to go for the eyecatching headline of being the fastest than the 30k francs for being the legit winner.  (And, just to hedge bets, Panhard et Levassor entered four-seaters as well; Peugeot also entered 2- and 4-seaters.)

 

Even in Grand Prix racing it was pretty quick off the mark; Napier's special easy-change wheels were not allowed for the GP in 1908.  More innovation that was not permitted than banned, but even so.  And I think Indy made the riding mechanic compulsory after 1911, thus negating the benefit of the rear-view mirror.

[Ray Bell]

Eventually the sliding skirts were banned...

And, more famously, the Lotus 'twin chassis' was banned, along with the Brabham-Alfa 'fan car'.

[uffen]

The banning I know of is mostly fairly recent. CVTs, active suspensions, ABS, J-brakes, x-wings, front tires at the rear, water-cooled brakes, exhaust blown floors, stand-alone naturally aspirated engines, voodoo fuels, traction control, more than four wheels, movable aerodynamics (until the DRS). That's all that come to mind, aside from what has already been mentioned by Ray Bell.

Edited by uffen, 22 July 2015 - 14:02.

[Jack-the-Lad]

"You will have no innovations except the innovations permitted by the rules!"

[Ray Bell]

I guess the two I mentioned, the 'twin chassis' and the fan car were banned under the 'movable aerodynamic devices' rules...

Has 4WD been banned?

[2F-001]

I'm pretty sure 2WD is mandated.

Strictly speaking, I don't think the Brabham fan car was actually banned, but the rules revised after it had been withdrawn.

In the recent past, even things such as a front-rear weight distribution and cylinder v-angle outside of very, very narrow limits were not permitted; but I guess they don't actually constitute 'bans' - or innovations.

[2F-001]

One of the most far-reaching 'bans' of which I can recall the announcement was in 1969 - and that was wings mounted to unsprung parts of the car. That change was effected part-way through a Grand Prix meeting - after first practice, I think.

Had such a major revision to the regulations occurred mid-way through an event before? Or since, come to that? Such a thing seems almost inconceivable nowadays.


I say far-reaching because, although those high wings looked a bit odd to many (and because there was incomplete understanding of the forces that were being played with, some were inadequately engineered or mounted and thus potentially dangerous too) if you're going to have aerodynamically-applied downforce, that's the place it belongs - on the wheel uprights.

The change to it acting on the bodywork/chassis set the pattern for the very stiffly-sprung chassis of every winged racecar from that day on.

Edited by 2F-001, 22 July 2015 - 16:47.

[63Corvette]

Just wondering whether this is a recent phenomena?..I'm not talking about creative circumvention of the rules as such,though the dividing lines are indeed blurry! 

Dust-bin fairings on racing motorcycles.

[Vitesse2]

One of the most far-reaching 'bans' of which I can recall the announcement was in 1969 - and that was wings mounted to unsprung parts of the car. That change was effected part-way through a Grand Prix meeting - after first practice, I think.

Monaco, after first practice on Thursday. All times annulled.

[Henri Greuter]

Bans?

 

- The use of the toxic agent Beryllium as component in alloys still upsets a number of (especially British and McLaren) fans. (nothing truly innovative if you ask me but the major gain was that with lighter components the car could be ballasted at favorable places to enhance weight distribution.)

- the mass damper in 2006

 

 

Henri

[chr1s]

Cigarette advertising!

[Ray Bell]

That took way too long to happen...

[Rob G]

CART banned Porsche's 1990 chassis before the start of the season because it was made entirely of carbon fiber.

[Charlieman]

Two stroke engines in F1 and many series. And engines with opposed pistons.

[GMACKIE]

Asbestos in brake linings/pads...thank goodness.

[2F-001]

Should we make a distinction between existing cars or features of them that were actually raced (or at least constructed)… and concepts that were pre-emptively outlawed?

Eg. of the former: unsprung-mounted and moveable wings (or, Lotus 88, Lotus 96).

Eg. of the latter (a recent one): brake discs that rotate at a different speed to the road wheels (which requires a little thinking about).

[Stephen W]

Several technological advances have been effectively banned by changing the rules to make them less efficient - gas turbines at Indy springs to mind.

 

In hillclimbing the RAC MSA wanted to outlaw karts taking part so introduced a minimum six foot wheelbase. One competitor requested a definition of wheelbase be supplied by the RAC MSA. The definition was "the distance from the centre line of the front most wheels to the centre line of the rearmost wheels". This competitor then designed a small trailer for his kart to tow up the hill. The following year the RAC MSA introduced a secondary regulation that said that one set of these wheels must be the driven wheels and also outlawed engines mounted directly alongside the driver.

 

[Fatgadget]

Should we make a distinction between existing cars or features of them that were actually raced (or at least constructed)… and concepts that were pre-emptively outlawed?

Eg. of the former: unsprung-mounted and moveable wings (or, Lotus 88, Lotus 96).

Eg. of the latter (a recent one): brake discs that rotate at a different speed to the road wheels (which requires a little thinking about).

Now that is clever. What's that all about and how is it implemented?..my brain is hurting just trying to grasp the concept you understand! 

Edited by Fatgadget, 23 July 2015 - 08:03.

[2F-001]

Fatgadget - I never managed to get my head completely around that one, precisely how a benefit would be exploited or what/who had prompted such a thing being specified in the rules. Presumably it would involve some form hub gearing and some tricky calculations involving speed, torque and friction. I think there were some suggestions that improvements to braking might not be the primary objective, but it offered the possibility of circumventing some other regulation - perhaps to improve energy recovery or maybe even a form of traction control.
Quite possibly this was raised on the Tech Forum (in the last year or two, I think this came to light).


Stephen, nice to see the Jefferies/Foden 'Trackstar' again; I don't think I ever saw it run in yellow livery though - I always remember it in red.
How did Karl Schollar's 'Spectre'(?) continue to run? I don't think that had a wheelbase as long as the six-wheeled Trakstar. I thought there was a suspension element to this controversy too - which Jefferies had tried to address with resilient mountings, but that Schollar had something more acceptable. Do you remember the ins and outs of that one?

Edited by 2F-001, 23 July 2015 - 08:24.

[2F-001]

re Karl Schollar's 'Sceptre' (I think I've got the name right this time):

I dug through some old pics to refresh my memory, and now recall that it subsequently ran with twin rear wheels (ERA style) and later in a full six-wheel, three-axle form (March/Williams style). I don't which wheels were driven in that latter form - was it a case of the rearmost (or perhaps all 4) being driven and the wheelbase just making six foot? It must have been marginal.

[Roger Clark]

This almost certainly has nothing to do with recent rulings on brake disks rotating at different speeds but the notorious transmission driven rear brake on the 2.5-litre BRM originally ran at 3.5 times road wheel speed.  Ferodo and Mintex, who both made brake pads for BRM, said the the rubbing speed was too high and BRM fitted a reduction gear to reduce it. 

[kayemod]

This almost certainly has nothing to do with recent rulings on brake disks rotating at different speeds but the notorious transmission driven rear brake on the 2.5-litre BRM originally ran at 3.5 times road wheel speed.  Ferodo and Mintex, who both made brake pads for BRM, said the the rubbing speed was too high and BRM fitted a reduction gear to reduce it. 

 

"Notorious"? I've seen that P25 & P48 feature described as "good in theory", though as with many things BRM, it didn't amount to much in the end, no-one else seemed to want to try the idea. The P25 had a DeDion rear end, so was that a factor in the reasoning behind it? I'm sure I've read that the single transmission-mounted brake's main problem was it's tendency to be affected by transmission oil and dirt, criticism from Sir Stirling about his P25's brakes only seemed to concern the fronts, which failed on him at least once, and later destroyed the entire car when Hans Herrmann had his famously photographed crash at Avus.

[Michael Ferner]

The reasoning behind the single transmission disc brake was almost certainly reduction of unsprung weight. Transmission brakes were also used on early Miller single seaters, and apparently abandoned because of excessive heat that rendered them useless.

[sabrejet]

I guess the two I mentioned, the 'twin chassis' and the fan car were banned under the 'movable aerodynamic devices' rules...

Has 4WD been banned?

 

In some formulae yes, but only here and there.

[PCC]

...along with the Brabham-Alfa 'fan car'.

As this is Jim Hall's 80th birthday, it should be noted that this 'innovation' had already been tried by him and Chevrolet - and banned by the FIA - eight years earlier.

[sabrejet]

As ever, the F1 blinkers are on. The vast majority of innovations (including some major ones like slick tyres and use of carbon composites) pre-date F1 but the illusion must be maintained that F1 is the pinnacle.

 

Dream on and happy birthday Jim Hall!

[Dick Dastardly]

Strictly speaking, I don't think the Brabham fan car was actually banned, but the rules revised after it had been withdrawn.
 

 Agreed, it was never actually banned...the others wanted it banned but Bernie, with his eye on the future [wanting agreement from all other teams to 'promote' F1] agreed not to  use it after its' one outing.

 

 I don't think the Lotus 56B Turbine was banned either, it was just an avenue that Chapman explored but took it no further in F1.

 Current Regs say 4 wheels, the Tyrrell P34 & the Williams & March 6-wheelers weren't progressed either, in the Tyrrell's case because Goodyear stopped  making suitable tyres.  

 Is traction control banned in hillclimbing? I've a feeling that Patrick Wood [?] developed a system for his car around 1994 but others weren't too happy about  this....but could be  wrong?

Edited by Dick Dastardly, 23 July 2015 - 11:07.

[sabrejet]

 Agreed, it was never actually banned...the others wanted it banned but Bernie, with his eye on the future [wanting agreement from all other teams to 'promote' F1] agreed not to  use it after its' one outing.

 

 I don't think the Lotus 56B Turbine was banned either, it was just an avenue that Chapman explored but took it no further in F1.

 Current Regs say 4 wheels, the Tyrrell P34 & the Williams & March 6-wheelers weren't progressed either, in the Tyrrell's case because Goodyear stopped  making suitable tyres.  

 Is traction control banned in hillclimbing? I've a feeling that Patrick Wood [?] developed a system for his car around 1994 but others weren't too happy about  this....but could be  wrong?

 

Traction control is definitely in use in speed hill climbing! (UK at least). In fact about the only think that's not allowed is tyre warmers (but not tyre covers). It's why that branch of the sport is so interesting!

[Roger Clark]

The reasoning behind the single transmission disc brake was almost certainly reduction of unsprung weight. Transmission brakes were also used on early Miller single seaters, and apparently abandoned because of excessive heat that rendered them useless.

According to Tony Rudd, the thinking behind the single rear brake was that the front to rear braking ratio was 70:30, so only one brake was needed at the rear.  There were, of course, several other cars with inboard rear brakes, at the side of the transmission to reduce unsprung weight.  THe BRM rear brake did suffer from over heating and high pad wear.

Edited by Roger Clark, 23 July 2015 - 11:34.

[2F-001]

I wondered if that was the rationale for the BRM. But I'd have thought two smaller inboard discs and calipers would have been a more practical move.

I believe UK hillclimbing still operates without minimum weight limits, doesn't it?

Re. tyre warmers: wasn't one the imperatives for that ban to do with some wariness over lots of electric cables and connectors running from generators over the (often wet) grass of the typically informal paddock?

Sabrejet - I don't see anyone here getting overly blinkered by F1; often things would be disallowed there whilst they lived on in other categories or jurisdictions.

re. The 2J and the BT46B fan cars...
Although the the Brabham's claimed validity was the fan being 'primarily for cooling', I did read some comments, attributed to Gordon Murray, were it was admitted that they knew they just playing with the wording of the rules.

One thing has always puzzled me though - it's often said that Lotus (and others, possibly McLaren) were gearing up to use fans drawing through the 'ground effects' tunnels if the Brabham had continued to run, presumably on the basis of the 'cooling' claims being upheld.
It could be said that on the BT46B the fan was withdrawing air from the area around the engine partially enclosed by the skirts. On the others the radiators would be above the roof of the venturi and any cooling claims would be yet more dubious. I suppose one might argue they would blow over the exhausts but I'm not sure that's actually desirable. Whatever, in my view the Brabham was not legal and, notwithstanding it being a triumph of detail engineering to make it work, should not have been allowed to run.

[Tim Murray]

My understanding of the BRM 'bacon slicer' rear brake is that it just about did its job in the front-engine P25, but was unable to cope in the rear-engined P48 with its much greater weight on the rear wheels. Hence Tony Rudd got rid of it as soon as he was put in charge.

Seen at Chateau Impney a couple of weeks ago:


It's difficult to see how it gets any real cooling.

[PCC]

Although the the Brabham's claimed validity was the fan being 'primarily for cooling', I did read some comments, attributed to Gordon Murray, were it was admitted that they knew they just playing with the wording of the rules.
 

Jim Hall's argument was more subtle and serious. According to Pete Lyons, it hinged on the SCCA's definition of fixed 'coachwork', and on the claim that the fans and skirts were not aerodynamic devices because they did not operate through the interaction of the atmosphere and the moving car. An ingenious argument worthy of the design it defended, but unlike that design, it didn't work.

[2F-001]

And again it's debatable (or least a matter of semantics) that the car wasn't actually banned - it saw out the season, for such races as it contested; more that the rules were refined to preclude its ilk in the future.

I do fear we are straying offline a touch though.

At least the BRM might discourage pushy drivers from nudging from behind!

[kayemod]

My understanding of the BRM 'bacon slicer' rear brake is that it just about did its job in the front-engine P25, but was unable to cope in the rear-engined P48 with its much greater weight on the rear wheels. Hence Tony Rudd got rid of it as soon as he was put in charge.

Seen at Chateau Impney a couple of weeks ago:

It's difficult to see how it gets any real cooling.

 

You're right about the P48, but the P25 had internal cooling vanes, with the closed-off rear end of a front-engined car, it would have needed them. Maybe BRM thought that with extra cooling & flow through associated with a rear engine installation, that wouldn't be needed. Although the whole idea could hardly be thought of as a success, I don't think that brake temperatures were the reason they gave up on it. As I said earlier, in Sir Stirling's recollections of the P25, he only complained about the front brakes, the single rear disc didn't get a mention. In general SCM seems to have thought a great deal of the car, especially its engine.

[63Corvette]

The Porsche 956 chassis was "banned" for having the driver's feet in front of the front axle line. The resulting redesign with the driver's feet behind the front axle line became the Porsche 962.

[Roger Clark]

Tony Rudd said, as Tim did, that the extra weight on the rear wheels of the P48 made life hot for the single disc.  He also says that with the first P25 (P27?) he used an aircraft air speed indicator taped to the body to find the best location for a cooling duct for the rear brake.  He did not bother to test for best exit location, and just cut a hole in the extreme end of the tail.  He was disappointed to find that air also entered through this hole.

[kayemod]

The Porsche 956 chassis was "banned" for having the driver's feet in front of the front axle line. The resulting redesign with the driver's feet behind the front axle line became the Porsche 962.

 

This very common perception really irritates me. The ONLY aspect of chassis design that adds to driver protection is the deformable structure around him, nothing else, NOTHING ELSE AT ALL. The position of the front wheels does look somewhat alarming on some 70s & 80s cars, but IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, the only thing that matters is the structure around him, the front wheels & suspension contribute **** ALL in terms of crash protection.  When Brian Redman asked about crash protection in the Porsche 908-3 being prepared for him to drive the Targa Florio, probably slightly worried by the fact that only a pedal box and a thin skin of flimsy Porsche fibreglass was between him and a frontal impact, he was told to try to position any impact on the left side (I think), because that was farthest from the petrol tank. Why will this perception never die? The cars of that era were indeed dangerous, but that was because of the way they were designed and constructed, a couple of thin skins of bent L72 or a few badly welded tubes aren't going to protect anyone's legs, and the position of the front wheels was totally irrelevant to the overall situation, the front wheels could have been on outriggers a foot or so in front of the car for all the benefit they were going to provide if the poor sod hit anything.

[sabrejet]

The Porsche 956 chassis was "banned" for having the driver's feet in front of the front axle line. The resulting redesign with the driver's feet behind the front axle line became the Porsche 962.

 

Not strictly correct: the regulation applied to a number of series and affected cars (including F1 in fact)  circa 1985/6. The regulation was applied in IMSA and pre-dated Gp C, which was why the 962 was initially targeted at US racing (but not exclusively) and the 956 soldiered on into 1986 in Gp C.

[Gary Jarlson]

Regarding the Brabham fan car: because the team was using the Alfa engine, its ability to produce an answer to the Lotus 79 was practically nil. I'm certain that Bernie knew that the weak link of the Lotus, and the others cars that certainly were to follow, was the sliding skirt. And Bernie believed it was an illegal moveable aerodynamic device. I clearly recall a race report for that Swedish Grand Prix in which it was stated that Bernie had done the fan car as a way to show how poorly written the regulations on moveable aerodynamic devices were. And that he agreed not to run the car again in exchange for a clarification/rewrite of the regulation. A rather extreme and expensive way to get his point across. Now, I have to admit that I have never again seen the scenario I mention reported again, including in this current discussion. Maybe the reporter just made it up.

[George Costanza]

The banning I know of is mostly fairly recent. CVTs, active suspensions, ABS, J-brakes, x-wings, front tires at the rear, water-cooled brakes, exhaust blown floors, stand-alone naturally aspirated engines, voodoo fuels, traction control, more than four wheels, movable aerodynamics (until the DRS). That's all that come to mind, aside from what has already been mentioned by Ray Bell.

 

If we had the 1993 rules with complete unrestriction......... How much faster F1 would be?

Edited by George Costanza, 24 July 2015 - 02:06.

[Lee Nicolle]

As ever, the F1 blinkers are on. The vast majority of innovations (including some major ones like slick tyres and use of carbon composites) pre-date F1 but the illusion must be maintained that F1 is the pinnacle.

 

Dream on and happy birthday Jim Hall!

F1 is generally 5-10 years behind the times in many areas. The current crop are just plain irrelevant!!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by kayemod
This very common perception really irritates me. The ONLY aspect of chassis design that adds to driver protection is the deformable structure around him, nothing else, NOTHING ELSE AT ALL. The position of the front wheels does look somewhat alarming on some 70s & 80s cars, but IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, the only thing that matters is the structure around him, the front wheels & suspension contribute **** ALL in terms of crash protection.....

I would have thought that it was less likely to get a wheel in your face (as with Senna)...

But the main point I can see is that in a side-on collision those nice strong suspension arms can't come through the tub and break ankles etc.

[kayemod]

I would have thought that it was less likely to get a wheel in your face (as with Senna)...

But the main point I can see is that in a side-on collision those nice strong suspension arms can't come through the tub and break ankles etc.

 

It was a suspension arm that did for Ayrton, and a wheel killed Henry Surtees. If something is going to get displaced in a crash and injure the driver, the exact position it starts from relative to the guy's feet seems pretty irrelevant to me. Those old driver-forward cars carried a perception of danger, it was the flimsy construction by today's composite standards that actually made them dangerous.

 

PS To elaborate on the incident that killed poor young Henry Surtees, this isn't too relevant to the points I made earlier, and I wouldn't want to confuse things. He was sitting in a modern carbon composite monocoque, when he was hit by a wheel from someone else's car, not his own. I'm not too expert on modern non-F1 formulae, but is it only F1 cars that have wheel tethers?

Edited by kayemod, 24 July 2015 - 10:22.

[Stephen W]

Stephen, nice to see the Jefferies/Foden 'Trackstar' again; I don't think I ever saw it run in yellow livery though - I always remember it in red.
How did Karl Schollar's 'Spectre'(?) continue to run? I don't think that had a wheelbase as long as the six-wheeled Trakstar. I thought there was a suspension element to this controversy too - which Jefferies had tried to address with resilient mountings, but that Schollar had something more acceptable. Do you remember the ins and outs of that one?

 

 

Above: Karl Schollar's Spectre which initially had Vintage six wheel layout (4 wheels on rear axle - see below) but switched to the 'March' set-up as above.

 

 

 

Above: taken in 2004 the rear end of the Spectre.

[Stephen W]

  

 Is traction control banned in hillclimbing? I've a feeling that Patrick Wood [?] developed a system for his car around 1994 but others weren't too happy about  this....but could be  wrong?

 

 

 

The system used by Patrick Wood was developed by Willem Toet & Richard Marshall who worked at Benetton at the time.

[Stephen W]

I believe UK hillclimbing still operates without minimum weight limits, doesn't it?

Re. tyre warmers: wasn't one the imperatives for that ban to do with some wariness over lots of electric cables and connectors running from generators over the (often wet) grass of the typically informal paddock?

 

Correct there are no Minimum Weights for Hillclimb Cars other than those for specific formulas such as Formula Ford.

 

The Tyre Wramer issue really had nothing to do with electrical cables on wet grass. Go to any modern hillclimb and there are dozens of cables strewn over the grass. The main reason was the old chesnut "the level playing field".

[Charlieman]

F1 is generally 5-10 years behind the times in many areas. The current crop are just plain irrelevant!!

5-10 years behind what, Lee?

 

In the case of carbon fibre, practical applications were developed in the early 1960s for aerospace and first adoption in F1 arrived 10 years later, with another decade or so for the first carbon fibre monocoque. I'm not aware of any serious use of carbon fibre in other classes before the 1970s experiments and 1980s McLaren. So 1970s F1 was behind bleeding edge aero applications (the first of which would have been covered by official secrets law) for carbon fibre, but experiments with GRP, Kevlar reinforcement or even wood laminates indicate that motor sport designers were thinking beyond metal chassis. Some designers were ahead of industries or motor sport classes where there was more money for R & D.

 

Turbochargers had been used in motor sport long before Renault entered F1 in 1977 with the RS01, but the rules were more generous for artificially aspirated engines outside F1. Few people outside Renault believed that a 2:1 equivalence gave turbos a chance. And let's not forget that classes where more generous equivalence was applied (USAC and Group x sports cars) tended to race on high speed circuits where turbo lag was a less significant consideration. So when turbos were adopted in F1, Renault and their co-developers really were innovating.

 

Are the current bunch of F1 cars irrelevant? It could be argued that the energy recovery systems, as concepts, are at least 30 odd years old. Somewhere in the attic, I have engineering papers from the 1970s onwards which propose kinetic (braking) energy recovery systems or thermal energy recovery systems beyond a basic turbo. The sponsors tended to be military (green field thinking) or commercial vehicle manufacturers (realistic projects), but the tech has only emerged in the real world recently. Part of this can be ascribed to IT/electrical power storage developments and I am convinced that motor sport is helping to improve the breeds (plural) of alternative road vehicles.

 

What's wrong in the F1 rules? Cylinder blocks, pistons and other internals MUST be made of approved materials. You may not make a piston out of cast iron (not as daft as it sounds) or use some materials that are used in road cars and bikes.

[Alan Baker]

5-10 years behind what, Lee?

 

 I'm not aware of any serious use of carbon fibre in other classes before the 1970s experiments and 1980s McLaren. 

 

 

 

 

I believe that the first use of carbon fibre in motor racing was by JW Automotive in 1968. They used carbon fibre strips to reinforce thin glass fibre body sections on their GT40s. John Wyer related in The Certain Sound that the stuff was so valuable that they kept it in the office safe.