22 replies to this topic

[Yelnats]

This is an old topic that comes up now and then and usually divides into two camps pretty quickly. I am in the "NO" camp and I think there are fewer "YES" types out here these days because it has becomeing more evident that technologies used in F1 today have little to do with road cars.

A causual look at the modern F1 car reveals design elements like high drag wings, rear weigh bias with rear drive, hand fabricated carbon chassis which are very rigid but supply little opportunity for controlled crushability and energy dissapation in collisions. All of these have little use in a modern car with it's emphasis on saftey, and low pollution and fuel consumption.

1. Are there any areas that F1 makes a significant contribution to "Improving the Breed" or is merely a selfish technical exercise for us motor racing fans?

2. Should F1 be regulated to make it more of a development tool for road cars?

Do we really want F1 to be a development tool for the road car or, like myself, do you feel it should remain in the stratosphere of technical development?

[desmo]

Yelnats,

Good questions there.

I think that F1 has unquestionably contributed at times to the cars we actually drive. My favorite example is the Cosworth DFV engine. Any econobox with sporting pretensions today has what is in many ways essentially half of a DFV. I watched the compact architecture, the narrow included angle four valve heads trickle down to the most mundane road cars.

I think, however, to cite specific examples is to miss the point. The philosophy, embodied by Soichiro Honda, that racing makes an ideal training ground for young engineers is one that has borne much fruit for Honda among others. The engineers learn problem solving and development in a time limited environment where they get excellent feedback on their work. I think of it as more of "a rising tide raises all boats" proposition whereby the standards of automotive engineering are advanced by the growth of both the engineers and the technologies utilized in F1.

I have some "crazy" ideas that would IMO make F1 more of a legitimate development venue for road cars. For instance, I would scrap virtually all the technical regs with regard to the powerplant and instead allow a fixed amount of petrol for race distance. Yes, the dreaded "economy run". This would likely lead to tech developments with badly-needed real world applications. The fuel economy concept has gotten bad press in the past but I think that the technology now exists that would avoid the running dry and drastically slowing car scenarios that have spoiled the show in the past.



[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Marco94]

In 1988 we also had the economy races, but I have never been dissapointed in the races then. Today, fuel measurement has become so accurate the cars will not run out of fuel unless the driver is stupid. I would think limiting the amount of fuel is a good way to get back some relevance for production cars and a great way to limit speeds. The amount of fuel represents an amount of energy and ultimatly limits the speed therefor.

Marco.

[BRG]

I think it is years since there was any relevance in F1 for road cars - even stuff like the trick electronics of recent years originated either in road cars or aircraft, not the other way around. But it doesn't matter. It is a sport, not a laboratory.

Jaguar, BMW etc want to use F1 for brand identity and image, not technical advancement (oh, they may try to fool the average car-owner, but we know better, I hope!).

Incidentally, desmo, I am not sure about the DFV example - there were plenty of production engines like that before 1967. If anything, wasn't the DFV really just two FVA engines in a vee? And the FVA was based on a Ford production motor.


------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[desmo]

I can't think of any production engines that utilized the revolutionary narrow included angle four valve head prior to the DFV. This was a major step forward, although one can almost always find older examples of any "new" advance. If you have any specific examples to cite I would be surprised. The DFV head introduced the tumbling charge in the modern sense. All the four valve heads I've seen prior to it used a substantially larger included valve angle and were very different in the way they filled the cylinders with fresh charge.

I think, as well, that the ECU's software used in F1 is in some ways more advanced than anything currently seen in road cars. Or was at least before Brown-Shirt Max began mucking about in the works. The current rules are such that the teams run virtual spec-engines so no dramatic new ideas are likely to emerge from the current formula. The potential exists, however for F1 to be a viable showcase for new technologies with commercial applications. In my opinion a more wide open formula would play well here in the States, as very little innovation is on display in American racing formulae anymore and alot of Americans being technology junkies would really sit up and take notice if new ideas were on display in F1. The emulation of NASCAR style low tech "parity" regs is playing to a market demographic here that is already swamped with slickly packaged product. NASCAR will always do that sort of thing better as it is their game.

[blkirk]

I posted this before in another thread, but I don't think anyone saw it.

I think an IACC (International America's Cup Class) style design rule for the geometry of an F1 car would do wonders for making the cars different. In IACC racing, a host of yacht design variables such as sail area, boat width, displacement (hull not engine), wetted length, etc. are plugged into a rather nasty looking equation. If the result is less than or equal to a set number, the yacht is legal.

If applied to F1, designers would suddenly have a much more fluid box to work with. You want to have a larger diffuser? Great. But you'll have to give up some of your rear wing. You want a wider track? No problem. You just have to have a shorter wheelbase. You want a lower ride height? The car has to weigh more.

It would even be possible to bring the engine into the equation. If you want a 4.0L displacement, you have to give up some downforce or rev limit or track or maybe even a little bit of all three. You could even include the number of sensor inputs to the ECU. Every active system on the car would then cost power and downforce in addition to $$$$.

If you tell someone that their rear wing has to fit in a box WxHxD, most any decent engineer can come up with a nearly optimal design. But if you say that total downforce generating surface area (in sq cm) plus engine displacement (in cu cm) plus rev limit divided by 10 (in rpm) must be no greater than 5500, it suddenly becomes a much more difficult problem to crack.

Right now each area of the car has relatively few variable open to the designers. Doing an optimization on only 3 or 4 variables is relatively trivial. If all the features of the car were linked, however, it becomes a matter of trying to optimize 50 to 100 variables. This is a far more difficult task.

The best part is that if all the designs start heading in the same direction, you can simply change the equation slightly to make that particular feature more expensive. So if everyone decides to go the diffuser route, simply make that part of the equation more expensive so that the designers have to start giving up track, wheelbase, and minimum weight to get that diffuser they all want. Everyone will have different opinions on which way to go to get their cars back into spec.

I think this sort of system would lead to all kinds of innovation. Some of which would actually be applicable to street cars. The engine in my Honda has technology that they developed the last time they were involved in F1. I can only imagine what the state of the art would be in turbo engines if the F1 teams had been allowed to keep working on them.

- Brian

[desmo]

blkirk,

I find your proposal intriguing, although I don't know enough to have an informed opinion on how workable it would be. I'd like to see a draft set of regs proposed as a trial baloon to see how it held up to the scrutiny of qualified engineers. My perhaps overly simplistic approach would be to simply limit plan area, particularly outside of the wheelbase, to reduce aero downforce. Thanks for contributing.

[Art]

The first car to use Disc Break's was the Crosley. And the first race car to use them was Jaguar. And active suspension was used by Citroen, Lincon, and I believe Cadillac. Paddel shifters are used on ATVs with sequential gear boxes. The rear view mirror was used at Indy. Many things have been used on race cars and production cars.

Art

[Art]

Also one or more of the high dollar production cars are using a manuel gear box that you don't use the clutch.

Art

[Ray Bell]

BRG - the FVA was part of the DFV package. The deal with Ford was to finance an F1 engine, but to show viability Cosworth built the F2 engine with the head design for the DFV. It was a success, so Ford put up the money for the F1 engine.
As for disc brakes, there was a Special that raced in South Australia just after the war with a Morris Minor (pre-war) chassis, Bedford (Vauxhall) 4-cyl engine and home made disc brakes. I'll look for a date...

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Nathan]

I listed some ideas off the top of my head. Please correct me if Im wrong. These are items that have come from F1 or will come soon.

1) semi-automatic and tiptronic gearboxes

2) Peugoets intake system

3) active suspnesion or "ESP"

4) higher compression engines, Hondas and Ferrari can atest to that.

5) Turbocharger technology

6) spark plug technology along with Im sure oil and fuels

7) Good-Year must have come up with something in the tire compund department.

8) Fuel Injection

9) VTEC (God bless it) and other variable valvetrain units.

10) Im sure clutch and brake companies have benefited from it

11) Traction Control and ABS technology improved from racing

So there are lots...also the new helmet protective sides that came out in 1996 have help improve baby seat designs.

[Yelnats]

I think Desmo's point about a training ground for engineers has some validity although the number that can participate in an F1 programme is miniscule when compared to the thousands working at Honda. But there's a bigger issue in that if Honda regards F1 as the best training for their engineering staff, it says something about the level of technical expertise they expect from their staff. Honda has always been the first to apply new technologies and whether F1 training led to that attitude or visa versa is sort of a chicken and egg thing.

I personally think the research departments of major automotive have much greater recources than any F1 team and are looking in an entirely different direction but I would rather buy a car from a company that participates in F1 (bike or car) than one that limits it's efforts to NASCAR. (Hope I don't draw Joe Fan into this) {;->

[Jonathan]

Most of the big teams arent useing F1 as anything more than just advertising. All the major engine work is being farmed out to smaller companies such as Ilmore, Cosworth, Yamaha (or whatever).

In these situations I don't think that racing improves the breed much.

On the other hand, where Honda and BMW are involved (actually using their companies engineers as a training ground), where techical problems need to be solved quickly and your companies engineers feel a sense of accountability for the success or failure of your cars performance, then even if the technology being worked on isnt directly related to todays production cars, at least the engineers are learning to think on their feet and to solve technical issues quickly... these are things that encourage innovation and development... In that sense I think racing does actually improve the breed.

[desmo]

MN,

I'd like to think a little of Honda's racing heritage lives on in my humble road car. When it's turning 7,000+ rpm it begins to sound like... Anyway I'd like to think so.

I am a little disappointed in Mercedes for farming out their F1 engine to Ilmor. I wonder how much input (if any) they have into the design and construction of that engine. I understand the reasons why they chose to do it that way, but still if their own engineering people were involved it would be more impressive to me. If I worked at M-B in engineering, I'd be a bit peeved and insulted that our own staff weren't entrusted with the task. I think that is an indication of M-B's motivations being more centered on PR considerations. Can you imagine Honda doing that? Or Ferrari? Soichiro and Enzo would be spinning so hard in their graves they might meet up in the vicinity of the earth's core!

[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

Agreed. But I'll bet there is some M-B hardcore assistance to Ilmor... computer stuff, technical information dating back half a century, things to do with balancing V10s. Surely they would have the odd think-tank sessions between M-B and Ilmor.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[davo]

BLKIRK

I like your idea of America's Cup style rules for F1. The only addition I could make would be that the teams would have to settle on one "formula" for the season - otherwise the monied teams would optimise their cars "formula" for each race.

This would allow some of the minor teams to optimise their car design to one particular type of track - Monaco, or Monza perhaps and consequently be further up the field for that one race.

Hmmm...

I think that the great seasons of racing (F1 and other classes) have taken place when the field has had a range of performance types. It would also perhaps make overtaking easier?

[BRG]

Reading through all the posts here, I am struck by how rarely F1 seems to have generated any useful technology, certainly in the last 30 years or so. It is only stuff like ground effects, which are pretty much unuseable in the real world, that is original. Other things, like discbrakes, turbos, traction control, ABS and so on were developed either for road use or by the aircraft industry.

Back when Bugatti or Alfa made road cars that could race in GPs by more or less unbolting the wings and putting on an aeroscreen, there was loads of breed-improvement going on. But in the modern era, racing cars have become so divorced from road cars that there is about as much read across as there is from horse racing.




------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[Phil Brett]

The theories of groung effects have been used in road cars for some time now even if it's not always for increased traction.

In the UK when Ford released the Sierra people noticed that it was really bad in crosswinds. It turns out that they had made the underside of the car very aerodynamic, and the sides were very rounded at the bottom of the doors which helped the air escape.

Wind tunnel tests showed that either side bars or a small front spoiler would cure the problem ( which is the option they took ).

I'm not sure Turbos in F1 really helped though. The ability to run 47PSI boost ( which a lot of teams did ) isn't very practical on the road ( super fuel, heavy blocks, weeks of lag ) and turbos were working fine on road cars before then.

I wonder if any other obviously new road car technologies have gone into F1? Turbos, maybe. 4WD? PAS?

[davo]

I think the huge $ and technical push of the F1 turbo era can be credited with driving complex electrical control of engine, materials tech, manufacturing techniques and tolerances. All of these things are beneficial for road turbos in the 0.5 to 1.0atm boost ranges.

Would all of this have happened without the F1 $s - maybe. But when the budget is nice and big some of the more blue sky ideas can be explored. I would argue that the other thing which happens is development time frames get enormously compressed.

Turbos have certainly been much cheap (particularly when compared to blowers) since the turbo era.

[MrAerodynamicist]

The answer has to be a yes, it might be a very small yes but it's still a yes. Whether ot not any technologies go direct from F1 to Road is not the only consideration. F1 is advancing knowledge about cars, design and their behavour. This will at the very least have some indirect effect on road cars.

You could also argue that all science and technology is interlinked, whether its F1 or fish biology Anything that increases the collective knowledge of the human race will ultimate have an effect on road cars. This might be indirect, [ie a discovery leads to another discovery which leads to another discovery which leads to another discovery which leads to a technology for road cars!]

------------------
MrA
AtlasF1 BB Members | | BREADnet | | Pigeon Religion | | Motorsport Anagrams

[Nathan]

Ask anyone who owns a Honda...

[Yelnats]

Well I'll think I'll chime in on the nay side just to provide some more substance for this debate.

Safety, environmenal, ecomomy and driving aids are the major areas of automotive investigation today and F1 contributes little to these fields.

In a collision the rigid carbon-fibre F1 chassis would reduce the average passenger to mush without the five point harness and physical fittness levels that a F1 driver enjoys. Instead of crush zones, F1 uses energy shedding fragmentation, not very practical in a road accident when the effects of carbon-fibre and flying engine blocks on passing traffic.

Environmental effects are completly ignored by F1. The carbon fibre chassis is hopelessly unrecycleable. The exhaust would be classified as dangerous toxic emissions by any modern criteria. Fuel economy means nothing since refueling became the norm. Technologies like alternative fuels are not explored and a brick is streamlined compared to the modern F1 car with it's wings and wheels.

Drivers aids like traction control and anti-lock breaking are banned and handleing aids are of course out of the question. RPM's in the high teens mean little to road cars. Diamond Like Coatings, Berylium/Alu and Metal Matrix materials have little future in road cars due to cost or toxic properties.

Since saftey and envionmental issues began to predominate in the early seventies, F1 has contributed little and has gone up the road of dead end technologies. F1 is for our amusment but means little to the progress of the modern road vehicles. automobile.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Yelnats:
Fuel economy means nothing since refueling became the norm.

Thats not quite true, better fuel economy means less fuel used, so less fuel has to be carried so the car is lighters = faster lap times.



------------------
MrA
AtlasF1 BB Members | | BREADnet | | Pigeon Religion | | Motorsport Anagrams