Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

F1's biggest technical blunders


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#1 jimjimjeroo

jimjimjeroo
  • Member

  • 2,103 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 22 June 2016 - 20:46

What are the biggest blunders over the years, most recent in recollection was Virgins 2010 Fuel cell not being big enough to last a race

Advertisement

#2 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,948 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:36

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



#3 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:54

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. 



#4 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 21,452 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 June 2016 - 13:08

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.



#5 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 23 June 2016 - 15:22

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



#6 Izzyeviel

Izzyeviel
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 25 June 2016 - 01:02

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?



#7 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 June 2016 - 03:22

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



#8 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 25 June 2016 - 04:35

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.......



#9 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:53

Brabham_BMW_BT55_F1_car_1986.PNG

 

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


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


#10 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,200 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 June 2016 - 12:13

 

 

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

 

 

gordon murray t25



#11 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 June 2016 - 13:53

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



#12 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 25 June 2016 - 17:18

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?



#13 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 25 June 2016 - 18:21

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

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

In simplest terms, F1 is car and motor. One's to look at, the other to listen to. Either can be beautiful. Losing V12s is the greatest blunder of all to me.

#14 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 25 June 2016 - 19:03

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. 



#15 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 25 June 2016 - 20:56

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. 



#16 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 June 2016 - 21:52

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.


#17 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 26 June 2016 - 00:04

That sure is what I recall.

#18 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 June 2016 - 01:15

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



#19 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:11

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.



Advertisement

#20 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:34

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

 

 

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



#21 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:40

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.

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

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


#22 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:59

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

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

#23 jimjimjeroo

jimjimjeroo
  • Member

  • 2,103 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 26 June 2016 - 08:57

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.



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

#24 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,456 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 June 2016 - 09:35


Unusual rather than failure - the Tyrell 6-wheeler.
Unusual and a failure the mid-fifties Bugatti F1 car.

#25 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,212 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 June 2016 - 10:37

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.

 

27818517321_9498ec0dd9_c.jpg

 

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.

 

10833_360444140178_330843070178_10087867

 

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.



#26 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:11

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). 



#27 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:13

Brabham_BMW_BT55_F1_car_1986.PNG

 

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.



#28 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:47

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.



#29 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:51

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.


#30 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:54

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?



#31 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 12:12

... 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.


#32 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 June 2016 - 13:13

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.


#33 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2016 - 13:39

You do?



#34 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 June 2016 - 15:09

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

uCT37.gifwUd7WmC.gif


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


#35 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 26 June 2016 - 16:01

Brabham_BMW_BT55_F1_car_1986.PNG
 
It didn't work, it sank Brabham, but I really miss Murray's beauties.

Agreed, I also love that car.

Wait, Bernie owned it...

I hate that car. ;-)

#36 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,948 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 26 June 2016 - 18:48

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?



#37 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 22,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 26 June 2016 - 20:12

Where? ;-)

#38 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 June 2016 - 15:27

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

uCT37.gifwUd7WmC.gif

Nice one. Remembered me of this:

 



#39 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 16,657 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 June 2016 - 15:40

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.


Advertisement

#40 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,200 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2016 - 20:47

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

uCT37.gifwUd7WmC.gif

Is that for real ?

never seen that before



#41 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 June 2016 - 21:10

yep



#42 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 June 2016 - 21:56

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.



#43 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 28 June 2016 - 06:08

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.


#44 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,388 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 01 July 2016 - 05:16

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.



#45 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 July 2016 - 17:02

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).

#46 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,948 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 July 2016 - 20:02

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



#47 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 July 2016 - 23:22

 

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.



#48 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 July 2016 - 03:37

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)?

#49 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 July 2016 - 11:13

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.



#50 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,658 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 July 2016 - 12:11

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?