Formula One designs that didn't work

[billy bleach]

In the light of the apparent failure of the Mercedes there must be a long line of blind alleys over the years? Williams Walruss springs to mind

[AndreasDavour]

The six wheeled car comes to mind.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by AndreasDavour

The six wheeled car comes to mind.

It did work. It won a Grand Prix.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by morninggents

It did work. It won a Grand Prix.

But that would also mean that the Mercedes concept worked.....

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But that would also mean that the Mercedes concept worked.....

Which Mercedes concept are you talking about? How does whatever you are talking about affect what I said?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Which Mercedes concept are you talking about? How does whatever you are talking about affect what I said?

São Paulo Grand Prix 2022. The Mercedes concept won a grand prix.

[greentrumpet]

Originally Posted by morninggents

It did work. It won a Grand Prix.

And some say that Goodyear failed to develop the small tyres in line with the increasingly sticky rears. Must've had promise, the FIA banned it (after it was replaced by a more conventional design).

[WilliammLesly]

Originally Posted by greentrumpet

And some say that Goodyear failed to develop the small tyres in line with the increasingly sticky rears. Here.
Must've had promise, the FIA banned it (after it was replaced by a more conventional design).

I think Goodyear is a good company, they have a lot of great developments! But she has some omissions!

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by morninggents

It did work. It won a Grand Prix.

I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons that the 6 wheeler did not succeed as the season went on was because the tyre company stopped improving the small tyres that this car used, but kept on improving the standard tyres used by all the other cars.

It was eventually outlawed. Along with the Brabham fan car, not a failure in my book.

The Brabham "Skateboard" may also have been ahead of its time, with its low profile with the driver lying down, it was not a success IIRC.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/bd...fa649b678a.jpg

Originally Posted by steve_r

The Brabham "Skateboard" may also have been ahead of its time, with its low profile with the driver lying down, it was not a success IIRC.

The cars in the 60's had the driver laying down. Even the linked example. Was that not just a return to the past, rather than a revolution as such?

Why did the drivers became placed more upright in the 1970's? Something about shortening wheelbases or aerodynamics at the time?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons that the 6 wheeler did not succeed as the season went on was because the tyre company stopped improving the small tyres that this car used, but kept on improving the standard tyres used by all the other cars.

It was eventually outlawed. Along with the Brabham fan car, not a failure in my book.

The Brabham "Skateboard" may also have been ahead of its time, with its low profile with the driver lying down, it was not a success IIRC.

The Brabham skateboard concept failed not because of the chassis but because it laid the upright 4 cylinder BMW half on its side and therefore created a number of issues with oil circulation and power delivery.

The evolution in principle was in 1988's Mclaren MP4/4 which also had the driver lying down much more. This car concept of course had some influence from Gordon Murray who worked for McLaren at the time.

An earlier Mclaren, the M9A was a failure in concept just like the Lotus 63 and the forgotten Cosworth DFV 4WD. Four-wheel drive failed because of weight and the loss of power through relatively inefficient 4 wheel drive systems of 68-70.
The other reason was the emergence in 1968 of wings which negated wheel spin and increased grip in corners in a much more efficient and lighter way than 4WD and also much simpler and cheaper. The beginning of aero in F1.

[AndreasDavour]

Originally Posted by morninggents

It did work. It won a Grand Prix.

Huh, look at that, it did. I guess it was less of a failure that I imagined it. I'm not sure it "worked", but hey.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by AndreasDavour

The six wheeled car comes to mind.

The Tyrell lurked about for a while - siwheelers from Williams, March and Ferrari never made the grid

[greentrumpet]

Ferguson P99

[wolfhound]

Here are a few cars that failed to perform to their teams expectations.


Starting with Lotus 56, 63, 76, 80, and 88. There maybe others as well.
The Brabham Bt46 in its early form with surface cooling and the BT55.
The Arrows A2, Mclaren M28 & MP18, Ferrari F92A & F93A.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Here are a few cars that failed to perform to their teams expectations.


Starting with Lotus 56, 63, 76, 80, and 88. There maybe others as well.
The Brabham Bt46 in its early form with surface cooling and the BT55.
The Arrows A2, Mclaren M28 & MP18, Ferrari F92A & F93A.

You missed the Lotus 93.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

You missed the Lotus 93.

Yes, that was so bad, they needed Duca to build a new car mid season. And that was instantly so much better

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

You missed the Lotus 93.

There were so many F1 cars that failed to perform it is a long list. However in a lot of case poor performing cars were the result of limited budgets for small teams.


Speaking of budgets Toyota failed to perform in F1 given the resources they had available.

In their current sportscar program they have been the only well funded factory team, It will be interesting to see how they perform against the other factory teams now entering the WEC.

[crmalcolm]

To answer what I think was the OP's question - every car that came third in the WCC.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

In the light of the apparent failure of the Mercedes there must be a long line of blind alleys over the years? Williams Walruss springs to mind

The Honda RA302 not only did not work (the air-cooled V8 was heavy and underpowered compared to the Cosworth DFV I believe), it was also a death trap.



The magnesium alloy sheet metal was, I believe, unusually reactive in the case of a fire. Although most of the cars of that era had poor safety measures for the fuel cells (or lack thereof) and there were other magnesium alloy cars in F1 and other categories at the time.

IIRC, some say Surtees refused to race it because of the magnesium body while others say it was just because of the poor handling characteristics. Not sure.

Also: should F1 bring back Indycar-style pit paddocks, with tents (or even just grass) that are truer to the name of a paddock?



I'm no expert, but that front impact structure seems deficient! We have oil cooler, thin bulkhead and then feet. Yikes.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Also: should F1 bring back Indycar-style pit paddocks, with tents (or even just grass) that are truer to the name of a paddock?

Be worth it just to watch the two Christian's foaming at the mouth about it!

[tocatrucky]

McLaren MP4-18. Kept setting itself on fire so never saw a race weekend.

[Sodemo]

That front exhaust system the Lotus car ran in about 2011...?

[steve_r]

I'm going with the ugly ones

Arrows A2 - although it did score points. Aero has come a long way since those days! Perhaps ahead of its time?



McLarens downfall was highlighted by this ugly beast in 1995, which was not only slow but too actually small to fit in poor old Nigel for his F1 swansong.

[billy bleach]

March 711. Maybe not a failure - Peterson finished second in the Championship - more blind alley than failure with its teatray front wing