F1 Technology Overrated?

[What]

You hear about all of these production cars having "F1 technology" incorporated into the design, but is F1 technology really that special? F1 technology shaped the not-so-pretty Enzo, but was it worth it? Or is it gimmick...

There is better technology to be had. The Enzo has a gimmick design. "What" do you think.

[fa22_raptor]

Formula 1 manufacturers such as Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, McLaren-Mercedes and BMW all claim that they incorporate "Formula 1 technology" into their roadcars. I believe that this is very much a gimmick to attract ignorant potential buyers. The technology used in formula 1 itself is absolutely amazing and is by far the pinnacle of automotive technology, BUT obviously this doesn't immediately translate a roadcar into the "ultimate roadcar" by claiming that F1 technology was used in its design.

[What]

...The technology used in formula 1 itself is absolutely amazing and is by far the pinnacle of automotive technology...

That's where we differ. I do not believe that Formula technology is the pinnacle of automotive technology. Formula 1 technology is LIMITED to keep races competitive. There are no limits with production cars. Eventually, I believe that production car technology should SURPASS F1 technology. And I'm not saying that production cars should be able to out-race F1 cars...(or am I?). Everything in F1 is limited. Aerodynamics, horsepower, weight...EVERYTHING. More efficient designs exist. The Enzo was designed off of a limited technology.

[fa22_raptor]

Of course formula 1 cars are limited. Without restriction, speeds would be outrageously dangerous and it wouldn't be competitive because the team with the biggest budget would always win. You see, the reason why I believe it STILL IS the pinnacle of automotive technology is that the teams are able to work WITHIN a certain set of regulations and produce the fastest car possible while still adhering to the rules. They must find the delicate balance between power, weight, strength and endurance to produce a winning car. They exploit every trick in the trade to do this and use every last resource available to them. Of course, this makes F1 very expensive, but the net result is an interesting, highly advanced and fair racing series.
Also, roadcars DO have regulations. Not explicitly stated by the law per se, but manufacturers must keep their cars profitable. In order to do this, they're not going to produce the fastest, most advanced car possible because this would be absurdly expensive. They want to produce good quality cars which are efficient, not necessarily with space-technology.

[ruim20]

the team with the biggest budget would always win.

So... whats the diference from what is hapennig currently in F1 ???

[whiteballz]

because toyota had the biggest budget. look where it got them

[targa]

i think alot of this "F1 Technology" is in the shifting. i know the scaglietti has a 'F1a' transmission which, from what i've read is just like a regular clutchless robitic shifter with the paddles everyone is crazy about.

[dydzi]

i think alot of this "F1 Technology" is in the shifting. i know the Scagleiti(sp?) has a 'F1a' transmission which, from what i've read is just like a regular clutchless robitic shifter with the paddles everyone is crazy about.

scaglietti
f1 technology is not only about shifting, its about materials you're using, brakes, suspenion and many more

[fpv_gtho]

Eventually, I believe that production car technology should SURPASS F1 technology.

Pfft....like F1 would ever become a technological dinosaur to road cars.

[Coventrysucks]

What are you all on?

A "gimmick"?
"Claim to incorperate it to fool ignorant buyers"?

Where do you thing traction control comes from?
Why do you think things like fuel injection were developed?
Disc brakes came from racing, and carbon ceramic brakes are becoming more mainstream - they aren't a gimmick - they stop you more quickly, which is what you want in any car.
What about all the aerodynamic knowledge? The same theory and knowledge that sculpted the Enzo's ugly hide is also used to make sure your small family hatch gets efficiency when cruising on the highway, but is also stable at that speed.

Look at any part of any modern car and you will find that the significant majority of the components will have been shaped by motorsport in some priod of their history, a lot of it from F1.

Of course the technology from the Toyota TF104 isn't going to be in the 2005 Corrolla, but there will probably be some of the information and technoology from the TF104 in the 2015 Corrola in some shape or form.

[Lets Gekiga In]

What are you all on?

A "gimmick"?
"Claim to incorperate it to fool ignorant buyers"?

Where do you thing traction control comes from?
Why do you think things like fuel injection were developed?
Disc brakes came from racing, and carbon ceramic brakes are becoming more mainstream - they aren't a gimmick - they stop you more quickly, which is what you want in any car.
What about all the aerodynamic knowledge? The same theory and knowledge that sculpted the Enzo's ugly hide is also used to make sure your small family hatch gets efficiency when cruising on the highway, but is also stable at that speed.

Look at any part of any modern car and you will find that the significant majority of the components will have been shaped by motorsport in some priod of their history, a lot of it from F1.

Of course the technology from the Toyota TF104 isn't going to be in the 2005 Corrolla, but there will probably be some of the information and technoology from the TF104 in the 2015 Corrola in some shape or form.
Thanks for posting this, I would've had to do it if you didn't. :)

[Coventrysucks]

Got to make myself useful I suppose...

[paul]

yea cars like the enzo are not going to have half the quality components used in f1 cars , if it did then it would cost just as much as a f1 car and defeat the object in making a sutibly cheap roadster/sports car , you might as well go get yourself an f1 car for that money and you would have tentimes better handeling and speed

f1 technoology has to be refined and made simpler to engineer and fit, otherwise the manufacturing costs would be way too high!

[:Exige:]

That's where we differ. I do not believe that Formula technology is the pinnacle of automotive technology. Formula 1 technology is LIMITED to keep races competitive. There are no limits with production cars.
Haha .. thats the funniest thing ive ever heard. There are far more regulations in Roadcars than F1. Road cars have to protect passengers and be capable of protecting children. They also have to protect pedestrians and obide to emmision regulations. Road cars cant have sharp edges .. they cant use loads of electronics because there are already so many wires in road cars for indicators and stuff. F1 cars are by no means regulated apart from in-race things. I would make easy bets that no road legal car will ever beat the current F1 cars in a straight line or around corners .. ever. Regulations are getting tighter and tighter.

[What]

What are you all on?

A "gimmick"?
"Claim to incorperate it to fool ignorant buyers"?

Where do you thing traction control comes from?
Why do you think things like fuel injection were developed?
Disc brakes came from racing, and carbon ceramic brakes are becoming more mainstream - they aren't a gimmick - they stop you more quickly, which is what you want in any car.
What about all the aerodynamic knowledge? The same theory and knowledge that sculpted the Enzo's ugly hide is also used to make sure your small family hatch gets efficiency when cruising on the highway, but is also stable at that speed.


I didn't say that the technology used in "F1" didn't work, I said that it isn't THE BEST. There are better things out there that aren't allowed on race cars.

EXAMPLE:
Production supercars no-a-days boast that they have a "flat panel underbody", just like in F1. Well...a flat underbody isn't the best design for maximum suction. But they won't let you know that, but they WILL let you know that F1 cars have flat underbodies too. I think paddle shifting is overrated also. Continuous transmissions have much more potential.

The McLaren F1 used a fan underneath it to help improve downforce. That's creative. Flat is so gimmicky.

[CdocZ]

ok, saying production cars are unlimited, is not right. if they were, we would have broken 250+ mph a while ago. they have to pass crash regulations, sight regulations (how well the driver can see), and then there are things like the track racers. the comp coupe viper, the clk gtr/clk dtm, the c5r/6r, all amazingly fast cars, but illegal on normal roads. they are limited.

[fpv_gtho]

I think paddle shifting is overrated also. Continuous transmissions have much more potential.

Williams a couple of years ago tried to use a CVT on their cars, but after the first tests basically it was ruled illegal

[What]

ok, saying production cars are unlimited, is not right.

You're taking that too literally. In a production car, for ever "limit" that is set, there is a way around it...unlike F1 racing regs. For example, you can use ANY size engine you please in a production car, you can't in F1. You can use any transmission in production cars, almost any shape, and any weight.

[targa]

I didn't say that the technology used in "F1" didn't work, I said that it isn't THE BEST. There are better things out there that aren't allowed on race cars.

EXAMPLE:
Production supercars no-a-days boast that they have a "flat panel underbody", just like in F1.
*now-a-days*

the only supercar i know of that has a flat underbody is the saleen s7, Saleen, the man, was gloating in an interview about how his was the only car in production with a smoothe underbody

and i think F1 cars have a channeled underbody, its like the most technically advanced racing in the world, i think they would use the best technonogy


For example, you can use ANY size engine you please in a production car not so, the engine in the noble M12 cant be used in a production model, thats why it is sold as a kit car, it can be liscensed accordingly

[CdocZ]

then be more specific. not my fault you didnt type exactly what you meant. so, according to what you did say, your wrong. type your full thought next time.

[fpv_gtho]

You're taking that too literally. In a production car, for ever "limit" that is set, there is a way around it...unlike F1 racing regs. For example, you can use ANY size engine you please in a production car, you can't in F1. You can use any transmission in production cars, almost any shape, and any weight.

There's ways around things in F1 too remember. The 2005 rules were aimed at restricting downforce by 25%, but do you really think that that will be the end result? By the end of the year, teams may only be down 10% compared to last year, with the tyre rules being the main thing slowing them down

[Matra et Alpine]

Saleen, the man, was gloating in an interview about how his was the only car in production with a smoothe underbody
Note that was a quote from Saleen, what did you expect him to say ?
My latest acquisution, the Quantum is flat underbody - it's 8 years old !
Mates Stryker is flat underbody - as is every other Lotus 7 copy in the world :)
The Alpine A610 - a 1992 car - has bolt on panels to provide a flat underbody.
Ultima - flat
Radical - flat or tunnelled if you opt for the race trays

It's best not to trust a company director, a salesman or a president/prime minister. They all twist the real truth to their benefit. Saleen's talking UP his product, can't blame him really.

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

That's where we differ. I do not believe that Formula technology is the pinnacle of automotive technology. Formula 1 technology is LIMITED to keep races competitive. There are no limits with production cars. Eventually, I believe that production car technology should SURPASS F1 technology. And I'm not saying that production cars should be able to out-race F1 cars...(or am I?). Everything in F1 is limited. Aerodynamics, horsepower, weight...EVERYTHING. More efficient designs exist. The Enzo was designed off of a limited technology.

... yes there are, they're called laws

and production cars will never surpass racing technology, if it ever did no one would watch racing, its just one of those things

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

355 had flat underbody .. sortof, just the bit at the rear wasnt

[CdocZ]

and production cars will never surpass racing technology, if it ever did no one would watch racing, its just one of those things
another good point. "what", your wrong, no way in hell are normal production cars are more hi tech. look at an f1 car. you call that limited technology?!?! le mans lmp racers are about as close to a production-like race car, and they were capable of 230+ mph in the early 1970's! not even track legal! and the f1's are even lighter, and about as fast.
also, what, i can disprove everything youve said about production cars being hi-er tech then racing cars, with a single sentence.
If production cars are hi-er tech, then why do most production car technologies for practically all sport type cars come from race car technology?
if you are right, you should be able to answer that. if you cant, then you are wrong. fool.

[What]

the only supercar i know of that has a flat underbody is the saleen s7, Saleen, the man, was gloating in an interview about how his was the only car in production with a smoothe underbody
That's wrong. Many cars, including the recently introduced Ferrari F430 have a flat underbody that was "F1" inspired.



and i think F1 cars have a channeled underbody, its like the most technically advanced racing in the world, i think they would use the best technonogy
No, F1 cars have a completely flat underbody. No channeling.




not so, the engine in the noble M12 cant be used in a production model, thats why it is sold as a kit car, it can be liscensed accordingly
I said that production cars can have any engine SIZE. The Noble's engine is relatively small; only 3 liters. If it couldn't be licensed because of the engine, I promise that it has nothing to do with the engine size.

[What]

what, i can disprove everything youve said about production cars being hi-er tech then racing cars, with a single sentence.
If production cars are hi-er tech, then why do most production car technologies for practically all sport type cars come from race car technology?
if you are right, you should be able to answer that. if you cant, then you are wrong. fool.

Have you read anything that I've written? I didn't say that production cars are technologically more advanced than F1 cars, did I? What I did say was that the so-called "advanced" technology used in today's supercars that manufactures boast about because it was "borrowed" from F1 is overrated. What were you reading? Production cars should possess technology that exceeds F1 cars because there are no limits in the creativeness and ideas that can be used in production cars. Why did Ferrari use a flat underbody for the F430 instead of a channeled underbody? The channeled underbody would offer more suction, thus increasing down force. But the channeled underbody isn't an "F1" product, is it. Saying that my car has a "flat underbody" just like the F1 cars is a GIMMICK. There are better underbody designs, but they aren't allowed in F1 racing. I feel like we the people have been cheated out of the best design possible for marketing purposes. Do you?

And I'm not saying that a production car should out-perform F1 cars just because I say production cars should be more technologically advanced. For example, I believe that production cars have a more advanced braking system than F1 cars because production cars are allowed to use ABS, but production cars don't brake as well as F1 cars.

Bottom line:
I feel like shouting out to the world that your car has F1 technology incorporated into the design is more of a marketing ploy than an assurance of top-of-the-line performance technology.

F1 technology is a performance limited technology set in place to keep the sport competitive. Production cars are limited only to insure the safety of drivers and enviroment; rules aren't created for production cars to keep each car company's performance close and competitive. As for as I know, there isn't a horsepower cap on production cars.

[CdocZ]

you just said something stupid anyway. production cars ARE LIMITED!!!!!!!!

[targa]

That's wrong. Many cars, including the recently introduced Ferrari F430 have a flat underbody that was "F1" inspired.

well, not quite, most of the underbody is channeled on the F430, only like a 2 foot section in the middle isn't.



I said that production cars can have any engine SIZE.

i missed that, sorry

[CdocZ]

one thing tho. just because you have a bigger engine, does not really mean anything. look at the lotus elise. not even 200 horsepower, yet its quite fast. why? not much to move around.
also, about where "what" said something about race tech and production car tech, cant find by quickly skimming, and im at school. if i remember later ill try to find it.

[ruim20]

The McLaren F1 used a fan underneath it to help improve downforce. That's creative. Flat is so gimmicky.

The McLaren used WHAT???

Dreaming about Chaparral a lot aren´t you... :D

[Matra et Alpine]

The McLaren used WHAT???

Dreaming about Chaparral a lot aren´t you... :D
The Brabham BT46B.
http://www.atlasf1.com/2000/hun/faq1.jpg
Designed by GORDON MURRAY - but not a McLaren :)
and banned very quickly as an illegal aero aid -despite all of Gordon's claims that it was only for cooling :)

[ruim20]

yeah, a great f1 car and a great progress, but Chaparral was using those fans some years before.

They say bernie eclestone as those f1s

[Matra et Alpine]

yeah, a great f1 car and a great progress, but Chaparral was using those fans some years before.
Yep, I was only commenting on the F1 because of the McLaren link.
1970 saw jim Hall at Chapparal do it in a seriously BIG way - just as they had also taken wings to the extreme.
Here's the 2J driven by Scotsman (:)) Jackie Stewart ..
http://8w.forix.com/2j-rear.jpg http://8w.forix.com/2j-js.jpg

They say bernie eclestone as those f1s
I remembered that they weren't actuall banned. Accordign to that years F1 books, Bernie withdrew the car as the complaints arrived - so he accepted they weren't to the rules. So it stands as the only F1 car to win in it's first race and to have a 100% record :)

[ruim20]

Isn't F1 nice! Shoping your legs of an inch every year... hmm hmm, i just dont get one thing, why don´t they add wheight to the cars, like in JGTC, or FIA GT, or ETCC, wouldn't that keep the races a bit more fun, instead of looking at the tv and forgeting about the guy that's in first place and finding more interesting the fights for second?

My ideia of formula one would be very diferente, a small group of rules, principal rules, and everything else would come out of the designers and enginers creativity. Faster cars, more tecnology, a real F1... isnt it supost to be the pinacle of motorsports?

[Matra et Alpine]

They HAVE added weight to the cars, ruim.

Most cars run with upwards of 100kg of EXTRA weight to meet the minimum weight of the formula :)

Personally I don't favour weight as a restriction as adding more weight slows down accelaration, braking and cornering. More mass also makes for more danger as any accident is carrying more energy :( The proposals for 2008 are to DROP the weight by 50k fofr safety.

I'd prefer a simple power formula - sayy 600hp and nothing else. Have as many wheels as you want. Deliver the power any way you want. Small W16, turbo, big V8, whatever. NO driver aids, no launch, no abs, no paddle-shift. make it so the driver has to DRIVE and then the designers have the challenge of delivering a vehicel which can be steered and change gear and slip the clutch all at the drivers control and not reliant on somethign else.

IT's all got to much lice scalextric. Drivers push the throttle to go faster and not much else :(

[dydzi]

The Brabham BT46B.
Designed by GORDON MURRAY - but not a McLaren :)
and banned very quickly as an illegal aero aid -despite all of Gordon's claims that it was only for cooling :)
yes, it was used only in one race :)


I'd prefer a simple power formula - sayy 600hp and nothing else.

i'd make it different - 2 litre engine and do what you want
i think using abs and all that stuff is smart, they weren't using it earlier because it wasn't invented by this time, instead of this they were using some different things from their newest technologies i believe,
all these things make f1 safer too, i think

[Matra et Alpine]

I disagree, ABS doesn't make things safer over all.
Drivers RELY on the ABS and brake deeper and later, so any failure of the ABS or lack of grip through say a puncture makes it a LOT worse incident.
Same with traction.
ABS was invented YEARS ago, course they wanted to use it :)

[Coventrysucks]

I'd prefer a simple power formula - sayy 600hp and nothing else. Have as many wheels as you want. Deliver the power any way you want. Small W16, turbo, big V8, whatever. NO driver aids, no launch, no abs, no paddle-shift. make it so the driver has to DRIVE and then the designers have the challenge of delivering a vehicel which can be steered and change gear and slip the clutch all at the drivers control and not reliant on somethign else.

In other words like it was "back in the day".

An interesting idea, which I'd like to see, but as you'll probably remember better than I, the teams will just end up copying the cars with the best "formula" for success, and we'll end up with the identi-grid we have today.

First it was tubular chassis, then mid-engined, then wings, then DFVs, then monocoques, turbos, all the electronics of the early 90s, raised nose cones, exhausts exiting out of the top of the sidepods, etc...

[Matra et Alpine]

In other words like it was "back in the day".

An interesting idea, which I'd like to see, but as you'll probably remember better than I, the teams will just end up copying the cars with the best "formula" for success, and we'll end up with the identi-grid we have today.

First it was tubular chassis, then mid-engined, then wings, then DFVs, then monocoques, turbos, all the electronics of the early 90s, raised nose cones, exhausts exiting out of the top of the sidepods, etc...
Selective memory for all the GOOD ideas that got copied.

Back then F1 cars all looked radically different.
STP with it's mono-pod-front-wing.
Brabham tried surface radiaotors on the angled slopes of the side of the body.
Tyrrel with the shovel nose and then the hammer-heaad shark nose.
Front radiators, side radiators, REAR radiators :)

The drawback nowadays is that just liek our street cars are designed and optimised on computers and so all start to look the same, then I'm afraid it WOUDL be true regardless of what was tried that all cars will start tolook similar.

Sadly, the days of innovation because of crazy ideas from Colin Chapman, en Tyrrel et al are long gone :(

For example, the raised nose we are all used to now. When Tyrrel first did it EVERYONE assumed the benefit was in the aero of the nose and spent lots of time in wind tunnels trying to find the benefits Tyrrel were getting and they couldn't. Turned out that althought the radical looking part was the raised noise and dihedral front wing, the REAL win was the side pods were 50% smaller and hence LESS drag. Today a computer and some dynamic fluid modelling would show it up right away. A couple of seasons back they were messing with people minds with the dihedral REAR wing. Everyone was trying to find out why Williams persevered with it. They were doing it to tie up other teams wind tunnel time :)

[What]

The McLaren used WHAT???

Dreaming about Chaparral a lot aren´t you... :D

Don't ever doubt my knowledge. I'll slap you.


...The car incorporates many world firsts for a road car: a fully carbon fibre monocoque structure, fully active fan-assisted ground effect aerodynamics, a central driving position with two offset rear passenger seats...

[fpv_gtho]

Well Matra, if they didnt have so many engine suppliers, they could try a control ECU idea to try get rid of electronic aids, but i think it'd be alot of work right now to try and do it with Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Renault and Cosworth engines being used.

[my porsche]

Don't ever doubt my knowledge. I'll slap you.

your back :( hahaha

[CdocZ]

what, you must have really long arms. you a radioactive defect or something? :p

[What]

what, you must have really long arms. you a radioactive defect or something? :p
Everything I got is long.

[fpv_gtho]

Everyone says that

[Matra et Alpine]

Well Matra, if they didnt have so many engine suppliers, they could try a control ECU idea to try get rid of electronic aids, but i think it'd be alot of work right now to try and do it with Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Renault and Cosworth engines being used.
I don't buy into the "control ECU" as I think it limits the innovation a team can come up with to improve the performance and optimise the engine.
Take MotGP, there the bikes run many different firing order, crankshaft angles and ignition timing. You coulnd't have that with a control ECU. So I'm against it as it stifle innovation.
The V10 has limited F1 and the V8 continues it. MotoGp is now the peak of engine design and execution. You're getting V5, I4, V4 and V-twin with all kinds of firing orders from big-bang to the Honda being 'configurable' for offset and simultaneous combustion cycles. Yamaha run their engine in REVERSE rotation to improve the handling of the bike !!!
F1 should let engine designers innovate too. If they don't it'll just become a borign NASCAR/IRL/CART and lose all interest.

[fpv_gtho]

I guess its the only real solution to eliminate electronic driver aids though, unless the ECU had certain parameters that the team engineers could and couldnt modify

[ruim20]

My ideia of F1 is on the same lines as CoventrySucks, 2, 3 liter and go for it! do what ever you want, then that would probably make f1 the top sport, most advance at least.

[Matra et Alpine]

My ideia of F1 is on the same lines as CoventrySucks, 2, 3 liter and go for it! do what ever you want, then that would probably make f1 the top sport, most advance at least.
If you dont' find a way to limit the power it will be judged too dangerous. None of the "old" circuits will be able to host any races and the new ones will need even BIGGER run-off areas and the crowds will now be about 1/2 mile away from the action :(

[ruim20]

aaa the miracle of TV and free will drivers, want to race? don´t want to race? :D

i personaly don´t give a Sh... about current F1, it´s a dead sport, giant SCX.

Almost nothing is brought to current road cars, EVEN supercars only profit from tecnology that was avaiable at over 10 or more years. just my opinion.

[Matra et Alpine]

Almost nothing is brought to current road cars, EVEN supercars only profit from tecnology that was avaiable at over 10 or more years. just my opinion.
paddle gearboxes ?
These were crap until F1's double clutch pre-selection was adopted. Even WRC followed suit :)
Exotic brake materials ? Carbon, ceramic.
c/f ? Sure it was around 10 years ago but little was known about making it crash-worthy :)
The complexity of engine mapping for ordinary road cars is unliekly to have progressed without the leasp F1 had to take to tease every hp out :)
From a 'driver' perspective, F1 is still a great race. Yes, it's not overtaking as much as we'd all liek it to be, but to see the driver control the machien is as much fun for some of us. I'd be happy watchinh an F1 car on a circuit on it's own if spectarors were allowed close enough !! But I'm a died-in-the-woiol rally fan. We walk 5 miles into a forest in the pouring rain to see a car flash past at 70mph every 1 minute :)

[Kralle Racing]

F1 tech is overrated like any racing series. The interests of competitive racing and cost containment override fun, interesting, and novel. Just like forced induction (banned in F1) cheaply takes street cars to 50%+ greater power, driving a fan car is night and day vs even race tires. Steering is heavy, but it just tracks s=on line through the corner.

A request: if anyone has a close-up photo of the side skirts on a Brabham BT46B or any similar era car, I'd be very appreciative if you post a link. I've only found one blurry image so far, and its a very different setup than the 2J.

[RacingManiac]

necropost!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

well to answer your direct question ...

The 2J was the innivator and like all the first gen, it was a "simple" material skirt ( rubber in the 2J ).

F1 however, took it another stage -- as is the want of the "pinnacle" :)
And had stiff skirts with rubbing strips in contact with teh ground. These solid skirts were then housed in a slot allowing them to move up and down. This is much more effective at increasing the downforce than a flexible skirt which can distort, fold in and reduce the groudn effect,