F1's biggest technical blunders

BRM H16 motor, Subaru F1 engine, Gordon Murray's surface cooling idea at Brabham, Arrows A2 wingless car, DRS....

I thought the issue with Virgin was that they had put together a sponsorship with Petrobras that included fuel supply but it fell through so they had to run BP(as part of the Cosworth deal) and the new fuel numbers weren't enough for the existing tank.

That's another version of 'not making the fuel tank big enough' but mitigating factors. They didn't do proper risk assessment rather than not being able to count the number of laps. 

Perhaps the Jaguar R3? I assume someone will know how exactly but they didn't calibrate their wind tunnel correctly. Presumably they were using a different/new tunnel. Only once the car hit the track did they realise they had a dog on their hands that would spend most of the season racing Minardis.

The Lotus 88 was either Colin Chapman's greatest idea or his worst as it got banned in case it was too fast

The Lotus 88 was either Colin Chapman's greatest idea or his worst as it got banned in case it was too fast

was this car actually any good?

Fairly sure it was, since it resolved the main issue with aerodynamics, ie maintaining a constant flying height and rake. 

BRM H16 motor, Subaru F1 engine, Gordon Murray's surface cooling idea at Brabham, Arrows A2 wingless car, DRS....

Nailed it well there. Top of the heap would have to be DRS though.....

I thought the issue with Virgin was that they had put together a sponsorship with Petrobras that included fuel supply but it fell through so they had to run BP(as part of the Cosworth deal) and the new fuel numbers weren't enough for the existing tank.

 

That's another version of 'not making the fuel tank big enough' but mitigating factors. They didn't do proper risk assessment rather than not being able to count the number of laps. 

That fuel supplier result is a pretty generous take on the Wirthless-ness of the designer......As I recollect he's had more recent failings in his design efforts in that Stateside open wheel series.......

It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

Edited by saudoso, 25 June 2016 - 11:53.

 

 

It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

gordon murray t25

Now that's bad. Usually happens when F1 chaps start three hugging.

Nailed it well there. Top of the heap would have to be DRS though.....

 

 

That fuel supplier result is a pretty generous take on the Wirthless-ness of the designer......As I recollect he's had more recent failings in his design efforts in that Stateside open wheel series.......

I imagine you wouldn't need a lot to be a few laps short?

Now that's bad. Usually happens when F1 chaps start three hugging.

I don't know that it was a blunder, more the free market. Even Ferrari abandoned them because V10s were better. They only wrote it into the rules because Toyota were coming in and talking about looking at all three. 

Seeing that Ferrari where the only one's to have success with a 12 cylinder engine in F1; and the only one's to really use it, it seems to me, maybe it was a blunder to actually use that configuration. 

From only an eyesore issue, the phallic front nose's from a few years ago. 

The walrus nosed Williams FW26. Took advantage of F1's more lax rules on development and tried something from left field. Could have been truly innovative and changed F1 aero design, but like the rest of the design experiments over the years (Williams' Monza rear wing of '97, Tyrrell P34, etc.) they mostly failed. 

Haas's front wing is becoming a blunder. Cost Grosjean what? 2-3+ race issues. 

I don't know that it was a blunder, more the free market. Even Ferrari abandoned them because V10s were better. They only wrote it into the rules because Toyota were coming in and talking about looking at all three. 

Ferrari (& Toyota) were forced to ditch V12s that were in development due to rules changes, not by choice. Rules written specifically to block those new engines.

Edited by saudoso, 25 June 2016 - 23:18.

What about the miserable Life W12 F1 engine? A complex solution to a non-existent problem.

V12s were being looked at by Toyota(and Cosworth) but the FIA said everyone on V10s(and everyone was, except for maybe Minardi still sucking wind with an old V8) to keep costs under *some* control. Given they were still insane in the early 00s. 

V12s were an outlier anyways, as HaydenFan said. Someone might have flirted with them again and wasted a ton of money and had not much more than sound to show for it. Sound is nice and all, but it's a race not a concert.

Yes, hugging is typically done with only two. ;-)

 

Ouch, can't believe it took me so long to figure this one out.

I don't know that it was a blunder, more the free market. Even Ferrari abandoned them because V10s were better. They only wrote it into the rules because Toyota were coming in and talking about looking at all three.

V12s were being looked at by Toyota(and Cosworth) but the FIA said everyone on V10s(and everyone was, except for maybe Minardi still sucking wind with an old V8) to keep costs under *some* control. Given they were still insane in the early 00s. 
 
V12s were an outlier anyways, as HaydenFan said. Someone might have flirted with them again and wasted a ton of money and had not much more than sound to show for it. Sound is nice and all, but it's a race not a concert.

Edited by saudoso, 26 June 2016 - 02:45.

Sound is nice and all, but it's a race not a concert.

V12s were being looked at by Toyota(and Cosworth) but the FIA said everyone on V10s(and everyone was, except for maybe Minardi still sucking wind with an old V8) to keep costs under *some* control. Given they were still insane in the early 00s.

V12s were an outlier anyways, as HaydenFan said. Someone might have flirted with them again and wasted a ton of money and had not much more than sound to show for it. Sound is nice and all, but it's a race not a concert.

It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

One of the best-looking Grand Prix cars ever...along with the Scarab, another failure.

Technical failure par excellence: the 1955 GP formula allowed 750cc supercharged engines.  The idea being you could supercharge a Formula 3 engine and have yourself a Grand Prix car.  DB tried that at Pau.

Their sole finisher was Paul Armagnac. 16 laps down by the finish.

The problem was that the supercharged engine pushed out 87 bhp.  Eighty-seven.

Nothing to do with free market. Banned out of fear.

No one was even running a V12. And For most of the 90s it was mostly only Ferrari. It was the proverbial locking the barn after the horse had bolted(but had one from a neighboring field sniffing around). 

 

It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

But was it really a blunder? Two years later, Murray used the same principles while working at McLaren, and the result was the MP4/4. Which is one of the most dominating cars ever, if not THE most.

IIRC, the problem with BT56 was with its BMW inline-4 engine, which had to lay almost flat on its side, so it could fit inside the very low lines, after which it got constant troubles with engine lubrication. But the concept itself, I don't think it was a blunder.

Wasn't it the other way round. V10s mid late 90s early 00s then they changed to V8s and Minardi had the option to stay on V10s

2000 the V10s ruled and the V12 was threatening to return in 2001. It was banned. New rule saying all engines needed to be V10, 3000cc. The V8s came later.

But was it really a blunder? Two years later, Murray used the same principles while working at McLaren, and the result was the MP4/4. Which is one of the most dominating cars ever, if not THE most.
 
IIRC, the problem with BT56 was with its BMW inline-4 engine, which had to lay almost flat on its side, so it could fit inside the very low lines, after which it got constant troubles with engine lubrication. But the concept itself, I don't think it was a blunder.

BT55. And that's a blunder to me. 
 
Now he did get it right with the MP4/4

Edited by saudoso, 26 June 2016 - 11:55.

No one was even running a V12. And For most of the 90s it was mostly only Ferrari. It was the proverbial locking the barn after the horse had bolted(but had one from a neighboring field sniffing around). 

They weren't. They were running V10s and had power limited by RPM. Going V12 could change that. So they just banned it. Blunder.

Honda?

... Sound is nice and all, but now it's just a race not a no longer a concert.

There, fixed that little pearl of wisdom for you.

Edited by saudoso, 26 June 2016 - 12:13.

I hate V10s bring back V12s, I hate V8s bring back V10s, I hate hybrids bring back V8s, I hate fusion reactors bring back hybrids...

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 26 June 2016 - 13:13.

You do?

I dont get why you guys are talking about cars that where simply not as fast as the others.

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 June 2016 - 08:20.

 
It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

Both are debatable, especially by those of us old enough to witness the '60s and '70s. ;-)

Don't they say that if you remember the 60s, you weren't there?

I dont get why you guys are talking about cars that where simply not as fast as the others.

Nice one. Remembered me of this:

Perhaps the Jaguar R3? I assume someone will know how exactly but they didn't calibrate their wind tunnel correctly. Presumably they were using a different/new tunnel. Only once the car hit the track did they realise they had a dog on their hands that would spend most of the season racing Minardis.

That's similar to Honda in 2007. But even though they realized it they still couldn't get any further up the field in 2008. Momentum counts for something in F1, and Honda was spending most of the year recalibrating and comparing the windtunnel results with reality.

Edited by Lights, 27 June 2016 - 15:41.

I dont get why you guys are talking about cars that where simply not as fast as the others.

Is that for real ?

never seen that before

yep

It's Friday practice in China, I think 2009?

Not uncommon with Newey cars, Coulthard had a suspension failure in practice at Malaysia in 07 or 08.

Nice one. Remembered me of this: Video

I see your McLaren and raise with a Jordan:

http://www.liveleak....=cd7_1207576127

Edited by jcbc3, 28 June 2016 - 06:10.

Ferrari (& Toyota) were forced to ditch V12s that were in development due to rules changes, not by choice. Rules written specifically to block those new engines.

Yes, my recollection is that Ferrari did and published a study that concluded a V-12 might likely be advantageous over existing V-10s and the sport stepped in to set the cylinder count at ten to prevent potentially obsoleting all the existing powertrains. I've still got a copy of the study somewhere.

No. That's why the Cosworth DFV V8 was better than the Ferrari, BRM, Weslake and Matra V12s. Not to mention the BRM H16.

 

Isn't it a given that a high cylinder count allows for smaller bores and shorter strokes, giving higher rpm at the same piston speed, better flame front propagation in the smaller bore, and ultimately more power from r a given displacement (for a trade off in higher friction).           

Yes.

Let's not forget the higher RPM advantage wasn't possible in the Cosworth dominance era. Everyone was limited to pretty much the same redline by the coil spring reaction time until Renault brought the pneumatic valve closing system with their 1.5T in the 80s.

Thank you. So what we're saying is Cosworth did a better job on their V8, or had an advantage within the rule structure (or both...or neither)?

Torque? Fuel consumption? Size? Vibrations? Others?