Iconic F1 Cars

[ilsit]

Hello everyone, and thanks for reading my post.

I'm in my final year of my degree for University, and have a final year project to do. The project I've choosen is the CFD Analysis,(Aerodynamics) of a front wing section on a Formula 1 car. The way I'd like to do it is compare the most iconic car from each of the decades, so from the 80's onwards (procinding my supervisor agrees) This will allow me to show how the front wings have developed over the past 30 years. Also with the wings being simpler in the 80's compared to now, it will allow me to build up my skills using the software slowly before undertaking more complecated wing designs.

This where you come in, if you could list your most iconic car from those decades I will note them down. I will then look to see if the information required such as wing dimensions if available to design them. Also, any information you have that could be passed on in terms of websites and books I can look at would be a great help.

Thanks in advance.

[anfield5]

Bit difficult to come up with one car from each decade ilist. In the 80's for example there were huge rule changes i.e. the death of ground effects and turbos.
From the 80's I would suggest the Williams FW07, possibly the best ground effect car ever built, but the front wings on these cars were for show, in fact the Brabham BT49 of 1981 did at times run with no front wings attached. If not the Williams then the MP4/4 was the most dominating car of the decade, winning all but 1 race in the '88 season,
In the 90's any Mclaren would do
And for the naughties it would have to be a Ferrari possibly the F2003 GA.

[ilsit]

Bit difficult to come up with one car from each decade ilist. In the 80's for example there were huge rule changes i.e. the death of ground effects and turbos.
From the 80's I would suggest the Williams FW07, possibly the best ground effect car ever built, but the front wings on these cars were for show, in fact the Brabham BT49 of 1981 did at times run with no front wings attached. If not the Williams then the MP4/4 was the most dominating car of the decade, winning all but 1 race in the '88 season,
In the 90's any Mclaren would do
And for the naughties it would have to be a Ferrari possibly the F2003 GA.

Thanks anfield5, the Ferrari and McLaren MP4/4 were one I was considering.

[Storm]

How about the "sabretooth/walrus" Williams BMW of 2002 (or was it 01)? I AM getting old.

It was radical but not very effective so that might be a problem.

[steveaki13]

How about the "sabretooth/walrus" Williams BMW of 2002 (or was it 01)? I AM getting old.

It was radical but not very effective so that might be a problem.

First half of 2004 :)

[anfield5]

How about the "sabretooth/walrus" Williams BMW of 2002 (or was it 01)? I AM getting old.

It was radical but not very effective so that might be a problem.

Was this iconic or moronic?

[Rollo]

I suspect that the Brabham BT20 may have had bolt on wings as early as 1966.
I could be wrong but the Lotus 49 was probably the first car to knowingly sprout wings.

The Lotus 88 was probably the most advanced ground effects car and it was so good that it was banned without ever being raced. Actually it probably technically wasn't illegal but Frank Williams had a tanty and cried to the FIA... boo hoo hoo.

[anfield5]

I suspect that the Brabham BT20 may have had bolt on wings as early as 1966.
I could be wrong but the Lotus 49 was probably the first car to knowingly sprout wings.

The Lotus 88 was probably the most advanced ground effects car and it was so good that it was banned without ever being raced. Actually it probably technically wasn't illegal but Frank Williams had a tanty and cried to the FIA... boo hoo hoo.

I love the twin tub 88 it was another bit of Colin Chapman brilliance, but I would suggest it was illegal as at speed the second chassis was pushed to the track, meaning that it was below the minimum ride height/clearance rules, this was in effect because the outer chassis was fixed directly to the suspension which was illegal. It's a pity because I would have loved to see it racing.

[AndyL]

I love the twin tub 88 it was another bit of Colin Chapman brilliance, but I would suggest it was illegal as at speed the second chassis was pushed to the track, meaning that it was below the minimum ride height/clearance rules, this was in effect because the outer chassis was fixed directly to the suspension which was illegal. It's a pity because I would have loved to see it racing.

There have been a couple racing in Historic F1 in Europe, but sadly they seem to have disappeared in the last few years. I haven't seen them since 2008.

http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/hf108/hf1/12a.html
http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/hf108/hf1/12_1.html
http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/hf108/hf1/11e.html

The second photo gives you and idea of the "minimum ride height" :)

[Hawkmoon]

50's - Maserati 250F
60's - Lotus 49
70's - Lotus 79
80's - McLaren MP4/4
90's - Williams FW14B (I think the Tyrrell 025 'X-Wing' was certainly memorable, if not exactly iconic)
00's - Ferrari F2004

[555-04Q2]

50's - Maserati 250F
60's - Lotus 49
70's - Lotus 79
80's - McLaren MP4/4
90's - Williams FW14B (I think the Tyrrell 025 'X-Wing' was certainly memorable, if not exactly iconic)
00's - Ferrari F2004

The MP4/4 is, for me at least, the most iconic and dominant car ever to grace an F1 track. It was simply an amazing car driven by 2 amazing drivers! :)

[philipbain]

The MP4/4 is, for me at least, the most iconic and dominant car ever to grace an F1 track. It was simply an amazing car driven by 2 amazing drivers! :)

The MP4/4 was very well conceived but in terms of chassis structure and concepts on the car it was entirely conventional for it's time, though it's relative simplicity does give it a certain elegance. A lower Honda engine and a smaller 150 litre fuel cell (mandated by the regulations) allowed for a significantly lower and smaller chassis, aiding rear wing efficiency which in turn allowed McLaren to gain more downforce from a smaller wing profile which in turn reduced drag and aided fuel efficiency which was key on the reduced fuel ration in '88.

So as good as the MP4/4 was, the reality is that it was just massively flattered by the fact that the competition didn't really put any effort into '88 (though Lotus, the only other "turbo" team to produce a new car for '88 did bizarrely design a brand new chassis that didnt take advantage of the engine being significantly lowered and proved that McLaren's advantage wasnt exclusively power related).

Also there were no "next gen" 3.5 litre engines on show in '88, instead we had the Cosworth DFZ V8 (simply an enlarged DFV, an engine which made it's debut in 3 litre form at the 1967 Dutch GP!), the Cosworth DFR V8 (a development version of the DFZ) and the Judd V8 (an enlarged and de-limited version of the Judd F3000 V8 which was built in conjunction with Honda). The DFZ was probably good for about 580bhp, the DFR about 600bhp and the Judd somewhere inbetween but less dependable than either! Compare this to the 620-685bhp (depending on fuel mixture) delivered by the 2.5 bar restricted Honda V6 turbo, a revised version of thier 1987 engine, lowered to take advantage of a smaller flywheel and clutch and optimised to work on lower boost. Had a "next gen" 3.5 litre engine been used in '88 it would have probably blown the MP4/4 into the weeds, indeed, the Honda 3.5 litre V10 from 1989 produced in the region of 700bhp without a cap on how much fuel it could use. As for the other turbo engines used in '88, Ferrari really struggled with the fuel ration until late in the season where a re-optimised engine solved the issue which gave good drivability and torque but this sacrificed top power, Ferrari could have efficiency or power, not both in '88! The Megatron turbo used by Arrows was a development of the "upright" BMW turbo which in '86 had the destinction of being the most powerful engine in F1 history, capable of 1200bhp when conditions permitted and a spike in boost measured in qualifying at Monza was estimated at 1300bhp, though race power was a lot less as the fuel ration was 195 litres. By 1988, with the last works development by BMW 2 years in the past and boost down to 2.5 bar they were looking at around 620bhp but with manageable fuel consumption, which resulted in Arrows finest year in their grand prix career (4th in constructors at year end). Osella ran thier own turbo engine, based on the Alfa V8 from '84, needless to say it was off the pace, probably producing 600bhp tops in race and no doubt with fuel consumption issues (in '83 Alfa would use over 300 litres per car with in-race refuelling with the same engine running only marginally higher levels of boost) and Zakspeed also ran thier own 4 cylinder turbo with similar results as they had in '88 (ie. pretty awful!). Of the turbo engines only Honda got on top of the fuel ration over the balance of the full season, with no effective 3.5 litre opposition it became a McLaren benefit.

So to sum up, I think the MP4/4 is fantastic, but it's record (should have been 16/16 but Jean Louis Schlesser was massively out of his depth in F1, proving it by ineptly taking Seena out instead of simply letting him through when being lapped, filling in as he was for a Chicken Pox stricken Nigel Mansell) is flattered by the opposition concentrating all thier effort on 1989. Does this sound familar, it could be argued that in 2013 a lot of teams didnt get thier act together as they were distracted by the change of formula in 2014, allowing Red Bull and Vettel to dominate.

[555-04Q2]

The MP4/4 is, for me at least, the most iconic and dominant car ever to grace an F1 track. It was simply an amazing car driven by 2 amazing drivers! :)

The MP4/4 was very well conceived but in terms of chassis structure and concepts on the car it was entirely conventional for it's time, though it's relative simplicity does give it a certain elegance. A lower Honda engine and a smaller 150 litre fuel cell (mandated by the regulations) allowed for a significantly lower and smaller chassis, aiding rear wing efficiency which in turn allowed McLaren to gain more downforce from a smaller wing profile which in turn reduced drag and aided fuel efficiency which was key on the reduced fuel ration in '88.

So as good as the MP4/4 was, the reality is that it was just massively flattered by the fact that the competition didn't really put any effort into '88 (though Lotus, the only other "turbo" team to produce a new car for '88 did bizarrely design a brand new chassis that didnt take advantage of the engine being significantly lowered and proved that McLaren's advantage wasnt exclusively power related).

Also there were no "next gen" 3.5 litre engines on show in '88, instead we had the Cosworth DFZ V8 (simply an enlarged DFV, an engine which made it's debut in 3 litre form at the 1967 Dutch GP!), the Cosworth DFR V8 (a development version of the DFZ) and the Judd V8 (an enlarged and de-limited version of the Judd F3000 V8 which was built in conjunction with Honda). The DFZ was probably good for about 580bhp, the DFR about 600bhp and the Judd somewhere inbetween but less dependable than either! Compare this to the 620-685bhp (depending on fuel mixture) delivered by the 2.5 bar restricted Honda V6 turbo, a revised version of thier 1987 engine, lowered to take advantage of a smaller flywheel and clutch and optimised to work on lower boost. Had a "next gen" 3.5 litre engine been used in '88 it would have probably blown the MP4/4 into the weeds, indeed, the Honda 3.5 litre V10 from 1989 produced in the region of 700bhp without a cap on how much fuel it could use. As for the other turbo engines used in '88, Ferrari really struggled with the fuel ration until late in the season where a re-optimised engine solved the issue which gave good drivability and torque but this sacrificed top power, Ferrari could have efficiency or power, not both in '88! The Megatron turbo used by Arrows was a development of the "upright" BMW turbo which in '86 had the destinction of being the most powerful engine in F1 history, capable of 1200bhp when conditions permitted and a spike in boost measured in qualifying at Monza was estimated at 1300bhp, though race power was a lot less as the fuel ration was 195 litres. By 1988, with the last works development by BMW 2 years in the past and boost down to 2.5 bar they were looking at around 620bhp but with manageable fuel consumption, which resulted in Arrows finest year in their grand prix career (4th in constructors at year end). Osella ran thier own turbo engine, based on the Alfa V8 from '84, needless to say it was off the pace, probably producing 600bhp tops in race and no doubt with fuel consumption issues (in '83 Alfa would use over 300 litres per car with in-race refuelling with the same engine running only marginally higher levels of boost) and Zakspeed also ran thier own 4 cylinder turbo with similar results as they had in '88 (ie. pretty awful!). Of the turbo engines only Honda got on top of the fuel ration over the balance of the full season, with no effective 3.5 litre opposition it became a McLaren benefit.

So to sum up, I think the MP4/4 is fantastic, but it's record (should have been 16/16 but Jean Louis Schlesser was massively out of his depth in F1, proving it by ineptly taking Seena out instead of simply letting him through when being lapped, filling in as he was for a Chicken Pox stricken Nigel Mansell) is flattered by the opposition concentrating all thier effort on 1989. Does this sound familar, it could be argued that in 2013 a lot of teams didnt get thier act together as they were distracted by the change of formula in 2014, allowing Red Bull and Vettel to dominate.

Thanks for the info and history lesson there Philip :)

While I concur that the opposition may not have put in the same effort to produce their cars the way McLaren did with their MP4/4, it was still a great car and it shouldn't be dumbed down by that fact. As you mentioned, it's simplicity was its secret and its calling card. It was a simple design that worked and worked very well. Sadly for me, I only started following F1 in 89 so I missed the 88 season, but I have since watched a number of the races from that year and I was amazed at how the MP4/4 dominated. It was a brutal display which, as you said, is something we are seeing at the moment with RBR :)

[dj_bytedisaster]

It [the '88 McLaren] was also one of the most beautiful cars in history. Considering the mingers we'll have to look at next year...

[TheFamousEccles]

@ AndyL - cheers for the links, that 2nd one really is low.... :eek:

[steveaki13]

@ AndyL - cheers for the links, that 2nd one really is low.... :eek:

Tell me about it. Are we sure its not actually imbedded in the ground? :eek: :eek:

[philipbain]

@ AndyL - cheers for the links, that 2nd one really is low.... :eek:

That's sliding skirts for you, they should be rubbing the ground at all times, any leakage will result in a inconsistant level of downforce. The genius of the '88 was to have the "underwing" and side pods as a seperate chassis that could hug the road without any consideration for ride comfort as the driver, engine and gerbox were all mounted in a seperate connected chassis, theoretically giving the advantages of optimal aerodynamics without making the mechanical setup of the car too unforgiving for both powertrain and driver. It was so clever that the rule makers had a hard time interpreting the rules regarding it, I know that detailed revisions were made upon rumours of Lotus running a "suspensionless" car, which they never did in reality though in it's original form the outer tub had no suspension, when the rules were revised they had to give the rules lip service (not much more though) by adding (very stiff with virtually no travel) suspension to the outer tub.

Here is a brilliant video of Williams testing a "no suspension" version of the FW07 in reaction to the rumours regarding the development of the Lotus 88: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFmWd2JkC8

[webberf1]

Firstly, this project sounds totally kick ass. Ok so my choices:
1950s: 1954 Mercedes W196 (Fangio's legendary silver arrows)
1960s: 1967 Lotus 49 (Jim Clark's iconic car)
1970s: 1976 McLaren M23 (James Hunt)
1980s: 1998 McLaren MP4/4 (Senna vs Prost classic)
1990s: 1993 Williams FW15C (easily the most advanced car F1 had ever seen at the time)
2000s: 2008 McLaren MP4/23 (I'm choosing this car because 2008 was the height of aerodynamic complexity in F1 - which the sport had been building towards throughout the 00's. There were millions of winglets and what-nots all over it.)

Apart from my 1970s and 2000s choices which are up for debate, I genuinely think you will struggle to find more iconic choices. They are the ones most remembered in history.

[journeyman racer]

Generally speaking, I'm disappointed that the front wings has so much effect on the performance of F1 cars, that Uni students are now picking it specifically to work on their studies.


Apart from my 1970s and 2000s choices which are up for debate, I genuinely think you will struggle to find more iconic choices. They are the ones most remembered in history.
Yes indeed. I'm genuinely surprised that you didn't choose the Lotus 79 for the 70s. It's probably the second best racing car ever built! (To the FW14B/15C). There has been no Iconic cars, at all, since the FW14B/15C.

[AndyL]

That's sliding skirts for you, they should be rubbing the ground at all times, any leakage will result in a inconsistant level of downforce.

Did the 88 have sliding skirts? Wasn't it partly a solution to the banning of sliding skirts?

[TheFamousEccles]

@ philipbain

cheers for the link - that thing would have been worse than a kart!

[D-Type]

I've only come across this thread today. Had I found it earlier I would have moved it to the Motorsport History forum, where it belongs. But by now there is no point.

In future can I ask you all to please post historical queries on the Motorsport History forum.

[philipbain]

That's sliding skirts for you, they should be rubbing the ground at all times, any leakage will result in a inconsistant level of downforce.

Did the 88 have sliding skirts? Wasn't it partly a solution to the banning of sliding skirts?

My bad, it had fixed skirts on a seperate chassis that permanantly rubbed the ground thanks to virtually no suspension travel! You are right in saying that the 88 was developed as a workaround of the ban on sliding skirts. interestingly in '81 teams ran sliding skirts but lifted thier cars on hydrailics to pass the 4cm ride height test. This approach was taken to the nth degree in F2 which retained skirts and underwings until it's demise at the end of '84, where they developed twin spring systems, the idea being the soft 1st set of springs allow the skirt to touch the ground with minimal force and then the 2nd set make the ride just about barable!