|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Sep 2010, 08:43 (Ref:2756621) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Which team, past or present, has brought the most innovation to F1
I'm thinking it must be Lotus - ground effect, monocoque chassis, side mounted radiators, double chassis, carbon fibre (with Mcclaren).
Any other team with similar levels of innovations? |
||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
9 Sep 2010, 08:55 (Ref:2756628) | #2 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
Lotus and McLaren are the first that come to mind yeah.
Gordon Murray era Brabham too. |
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 08:57 (Ref:2756629) | #3 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
I'd have to go with Lotus. They even raced a gas turbine a couple of times, and were the first to test a type of semi-auto gearbox.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 12:07 (Ref:2756713) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 601
|
Lotus all the way, were they the 1st team to use and win a gp with active suspension? Lotus Honda 99T - Ayrton Senna - Monaco?
|
||
__________________
It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married. |
9 Sep 2010, 13:19 (Ref:2756750) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
Seems a pretty straightforward case for Lotus.
A worthy mention for Tyrrell perhaps? How about BAR for their second fuel tank? |
||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
9 Sep 2010, 13:39 (Ref:2756760) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,020
|
Tyrrell - the 6 wheeler, the high nose, the "X Wing" additional aerofoils, the completely filled in front wish bones.
Only the high nose can be considered to be succesful & enduring but the other ideas still showed a degree of lateral thinking on a very tiny budget. Honourable mention for Renault, too, for introducing the turbo back in the 1970s. |
||
__________________
Born in the Midlands, made in the Royal Navy |
9 Sep 2010, 13:56 (Ref:2756769) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
although they did not come up with the idea but the Cooper's rear engine placement was a game changer.
|
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
9 Sep 2010, 14:55 (Ref:2756791) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,355
|
Maybe the thread title should be which team is the second most innovative in the history of F1 as there doesn't appear to be a lot of debate about Lotus being No 1 in this area.
Much more to debate about Number two but as others have said Tyrell must be right up there. Mclaren have come up with lots of interesting things but as they mostly seem to get banned they are hardly very influential! |
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 16:27 (Ref:2756834) | #9 | |
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 235
|
Perhaps the question should be "successfully innovative"?
In which case, Lotus, definitely. The early monocoque cars, the 49, the 72, the 78 and 79 and (perhaps) the active suspension cars. Being innovative and making it work is the key. The turbine car didn't, however interesting a departure. The twin-chassis Lotus 88 was another case of "nice idea, never going to work". |
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 17:02 (Ref:2756844) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,132
|
Lotus by a country mile.
|
||
__________________
"Racing is Life. Anything before or after is just waiting" |
9 Sep 2010, 17:05 (Ref:2756847) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,132
|
Actually just reading the comments reminded me of just how sterile F1 is now, other than geeks i doubt most people couldn't identify which F1 car was which if they were all turned out in white.
|
||
__________________
"Racing is Life. Anything before or after is just waiting" |
9 Sep 2010, 17:53 (Ref:2756877) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
That is of course because of what people have now is what works the best. You cant change the laws of physics and the laws of physics is what defines how the cars looks today. Also with todays extremely short development time (and massive budgets), whenever somebody thinks about something new then all the teams will have copied the concept over to their cars in a couple of races.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 17:56 (Ref:2756880) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,132
|
I think it's actually because the rules are so tight on what is and what isn't allowed. Gordon Murray, a great innovator in his time, has stated that he would have no interest in designing an F1 car now for this very reason.
|
||
__________________
"Racing is Life. Anything before or after is just waiting" |
9 Sep 2010, 18:01 (Ref:2756883) | #14 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
No matter how open the rules are, there will always be one best design and thats how all the cars would end up looking like
|
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 18:05 (Ref:2756887) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Quote:
Designers generally don't like that. Sure, they may find a common design that works best for a little while, but there will always be a chance for something completely different to take the scene by storm. You don't really have that these days, now it's just enormous amounts of effort and funds put into minute details that get that 1 tenth, maybe 2 tenths of a second. No longer will you see experiments like a six wheeler, or a turbine engine, or anything at all really. And that just sucks. |
||
|
9 Sep 2010, 18:07 (Ref:2756888) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 Sep 2010, 18:08 (Ref:2756889) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,355
|
Quote:
1. convergance because the teams now have the technology and budget to find the ideal solution, 2. The extremely restrictive regulations 3. All the tracks are very much alike 1 and 2 are mentioned above but not 3 I think. If there was more variety in the circuits, in the variety and combinations of corners and also in bumps which have all been ironed out. We should have smooth circuits and some with a few real bumps to contend with. If there was more variety of circuits teams would find themselves making different compromises and producing genuinely different cars. |
||
|
9 Sep 2010, 18:12 (Ref:2756892) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Quote:
Then it's onto the next big thing. Creative design is a journey, not a goal. (Oh, how cliché...) That's how it is now, but it's so minute you barely notice it, broadcasting teams have to spend hours of time patiently explaining just what is so different about this and that car that makes the other car win so much. While it used to be pretty fecking obvious. Hey look, it's got a big fan that sucks the thing down like a vacuum cleaner! Last edited by ASCII Man; 9 Sep 2010 at 18:18. |
||
|
9 Sep 2010, 18:17 (Ref:2756897) | #19 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
||
|
9 Sep 2010, 23:11 (Ref:2757041) | #20 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
On a slightly different tack
Jackie Stewart for F1 and racing safety, and forming the GPDA into a proper organisation capable of fighting for driver safety. (Tyrrel I guess allowed him to do the work) Louis Stanley (BRM) for the mobile medical response facilities and getting Sid Watkins involved. |
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 23:13 (Ref:2757043) | #21 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Whoever the person at Williams was that made active suspension really work. Lotus brought it into F1, but somebody at Williams made it work!
Does anybody know who should be credited with Williams active suspension? |
|
|
9 Sep 2010, 23:18 (Ref:2757046) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
How to cover F1 if you really hate it! |
||
|
10 Sep 2010, 03:49 (Ref:2757096) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 924
|
hahaha, that's pretty true.... but you forgot to also mention the bias which adds yet another (sour) flavour....
|
||
|
11 Sep 2010, 14:00 (Ref:2757685) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
At Williams it was Patrick Head and Frank Dernie - the team's aerodynamicist at the time. I believe AP were involved too. The goal of Lotus was to maximise grip by controlling the wheel movement to maximise the contact patch. Williams took a whole different approach: their objective was to manage the aerodynamic package to get the most from it. By keeping the body and therefore the aerodynamic surfaces 'level', whether the car was braking, accelerating or cornering hard, the Williams had maximum downforce and minimum drag at all times. |
||
|
12 Sep 2010, 06:06 (Ref:2757909) | #25 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Quote:
As to the question, Lotus. Last edited by bjohnsonsmith; 12 Sep 2010 at 06:12. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rallycross past and present | King Arthur | Rallying & Rallycross | 7 | 25 Nov 2004 12:52 |
Toyota Allegations Past and Present | Korr | Formula One | 16 | 3 Dec 2003 15:32 |
adding oil at Le Mans in the past and present? | djb | Motorsport History | 6 | 8 Sep 2001 08:15 |
Drivers poll - past and present | vauxhall | Touring Car Racing | 12 | 13 Mar 2001 22:22 |