Would passenger cars be worse off if F1 never existed?

[Valve Bounce]

Unfortunately, most of this discussion has, so far, been discussed in a McLaren thread.
So I thought I would open this discussion up to all comers.
Basically, one school of thought appears to claim a whole raft of innovations have come to the passenger car industry as a direct result of F1.
Then, another school of thought, of which I am unashamedly a member, claim that the motor industry would be just as well off if F1 never existed.
So, I ask all our forumers to consider where our passenger cars would be if F1 never existed, and if our passenger cars would have been much the lessor.
Of course, I look at my Volvo Cross Country, and I am satisfied that it has many features which make me comfortable and safe without F1's influence. Like Side impact system, great A/C, sound system, safety air bag curtain, memory seat position with heated seats, leather upholstry, radial tyres, pastic bumpers, bixenon headlights, heated rear window, windscreen washers, wipers on my headlights, great rust prevention coating, sliding roof, factory tow bar and ski rack, booster children seats, AWD, ..........I could go on forever.
So, what about your car? whre has F1 contributed to the extent that it would have been untennable if F1 never existed?

So, what do you think?

[Flat.tyres]

I think you need to look at Motorsport in general.

there is no doubt that innovation developed for racing sometimes filter down to production cars as has been well documented. would these innovations have been developed if Motorsport never existed? why would they? what would be the incentive to build cars that go over 70 miles an hour if people weren't excited by speed and instead just wanted a nice, safe four seater that did 50 mpg.

F1 has produced many innovations that have impacted on production cars. that is obvious, whether it takes a couple of years or a couple of decades to be adopted. the fertility bed is still rooted in F1 design and quest for the minute improvements.

[Valve Bounce]

I think you need to look at Motorsport in general.

there is no doubt that innovation developed for racing sometimes filter down to production cars as has been well documented. would these innovations have been developed if Motorsport never existed? why would they? what would be the incentive to build cars that go over 70 miles an hour if people weren't excited by speed and instead just wanted a nice, safe four seater that did 50 mpg.

F1 has produced many innovations that have impacted on production cars. that is obvious, whether it takes a couple of years or a couple of decades to be adopted. the fertility bed is still rooted in F1 design and quest for the minute improvements.

I disagree. I think that we have had cars going well over 70 MPH without any influence from F1. We could go into a helluva list of cars that went very fast in the fiftees that did not derive any benefit from F1.
If you want to contest this, lets have your list of improvements that passenger cars could not do without that came directly from F1 and would not have existed but for F1.

For a start, disc brakes didn't come from F1.

Next!!

[Flat.tyres]

I disagree. I think that we have had cars going well over 70 MPH without any influence from F1. We could go into a helluva list of cars that went very fast in the fiftees that did not derive any benefit from F1.
If you want to contest this, lets have your list of improvements that passenger cars could not do without that came directly from F1 and would not have existed but for F1.

For a start, disc brakes didn't come from F1.

Next!!

Without wanting to do any research on something so obvious, I would hazard a guess we need to be looking at active suspension, safety cells, advancement in engine performance and technologies, fuel and oil performance and obviously brake improvement and cooling.

I suggest for a start, you look at things like TPM systems for pressure and temp monitoring (in fact, a whole host of monitoring systems developen in F1 are redily availible on road cars), try XTRAK for kinetic energy for future innovations, anything by the God who is Chapman or Lotus in their heyday for some historicals and if you want something newer, then the F430 for current stuff.

Next!

[Valve Bounce]

Without wanting to do any research on something so obvious, I would hazard a guess we need to be looking at active suspension, safety cells, advancement in engine performance and technologies, fuel and oil performance and obviously brake improvement and cooling.

I suggest for a start, you look at things like TPM systems for pressure and temp monitoring (in fact, a whole host of monitoring systems developen in F1 are redily availible on road cars), try XTRAK for kinetic energy for future innovations, anything by the God who is Chapman or Lotus in their heyday for some historicals and if you want something newer, then the F430 for current stuff.

Next!
I don't think that my car hs active suspension, the SIPS did not come from F1, nor did the air curtain air bags, I don't think the temp monitoring of my A/C comes from F1, I don't understand how fuel and oil performance can be directly attributed to F1, in fact I think you are being deliberately vague so that just about nothing you have said connects my Volvo Cross Country to F1.

But I have already named a helluva lot of stuff in my car that did not come from F1.

Your dismissive "Next" is just a cop out that, in fact, you can't name anything significant and prove it came from F1.

[ioan]

Unfortunately, most of this discussion has, so far, been discussed in a McLaren thread.
So I thought I would open this discussion up to all comers.
Basically, one school of thought appears to claim a whole raft of innovations have come to the passenger car industry as a direct result of F1.
Then, another school of thought, of which I am unashamedly a member, claim that the motor industry would be just as well off if F1 never existed.
So, I ask all our forumers to consider where our passenger cars would be if F1 never existed, and if our passenger cars would have been much the lessor.
Of course, I look at my Volvo Cross Country, and I am satisfied that it has many features which make me comfortable and safe without F1's influence. Like Side impact system, great A/C, sound system, safety air bag curtain, memory seat position with heated seats, leather upholstry, radial tyres, pastic bumpers, bixenon headlights, heated rear window, windscreen washers, wipers on my headlights, great rust prevention coating, sliding roof, factory tow bar and ski rack, booster children seats, AWD, ..........I could go on forever.
So, what about your car? whre has F1 contributed to the extent that it would have been untennable if F1 never existed?

So, what do you think?

The average road car wouldn't be worse if F1 would have never existed.
because F1 did not invent the engine, the transmission, the steering wheels, nor the wheels!

99% of the technology used on road cars was developed for road cars and most of the road car producing companies never raced in F1.

Also most of the technology that come to road cars from motor racing came from rallying and endurance racing, not from F1.

Technology and materials used in F1 are way to expensive to make it on ordinary road cars, only a few high end sport cars are benefiting from technology transfer from F1 to road cars and even there in a limited measure.

There might be more technology transfer from road cars to F1 and racing in general.
Why is that? Because there are far more engineers working on developing road cars that those working for racing cars.

[ioan]

Without wanting to do any research on something so obvious...

I, very friendly, advise you to do some research before posting. You might come along in a much better light and you'll also know a lot more about cars in general.


Next!

Go and do some extensive research on this topic. ;)

[Flat.tyres]

I, very friendly, advise you to do some research before posting. You might come along in a much better light and you'll also know a lot more about cars in general.



Go and do some extensive research on this topic. ;)

From someone that systermatically ignores his own signature, I consider this a compliment :laugh:

[ioan]

From someone that systermatically ignores his own signature, I consider this a compliment :laugh:

I don't ignore it, you ignore the facts that I show you.

[Flat.tyres]

I don't ignore it, you ignore the facts that I show you.

Sorry, must have missed them. All I saw was your opinion that F1 cars benefit more from road cars than the other way around.

Now, excuse me, I'm just off to flog my CLK to Ronny Boy for a couple of Million for his R&D department to rip apart for all its secrets.

[Rusty Spanner]

Then, another school of thought, of which I am unashamedly a member, claim that the motor industry would be just as well off if F1 never existed.

The industry would certainly be a little richer! Although I think given time they'd have invented F1 (and promptly ballsed it up!) anyway. It might be stupidly expensive but many manfacturers seem convinced being part of it is good for them.

[Rollo]

Where would the impetus to develop new technologies come from if motor manufacturers weren't competitive. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be technological change, but the rate would be slower.

Motor companies are that - companies. They're driven firstly by the profit motive, not technological advancement.

[Flat.tyres]

I, very friendly, advise you to do some research before posting. You might come along in a much better light and you'll also know a lot more about cars in general.



Go and do some extensive research on this topic. ;)

OK, here we go just to shut you up.

Past

LSD which for the forerunner of electronic traction control has it's origins back in 1932 when Ferdinand Porsche designed a GP car which experienced excessive wheelspin so a LSD was created by 1935. Direct innovation that was developed by the forerunner of F1 that has a bearing on almost all cars developed today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_slip_differential

Present

We need to look at the Furgerson P99 which was I believe the first 4WD sports car but also the first car with fully mechanical ABS. This was 45 years ago and we still use these basic systems. You need to go back to the turn of the centry for the first 4WD car which was funnily enough made by Spyker :laugh:

I use this example to show that gradual evolution filters through F1 and GP racing right to the basic principles of today.

Future
http://www.oxin.co.uk/news/newsitem.php?newsid=148

Now, that is what F1 puts into Cars. Please disprove my research or conclude that F1 benefits the car industry.

I do conceed that innovation in F1 has been stiffled by draconian regulations and as soon as someone comes up with something, it gets banned. There is also a lot of good stuff that comes out of the car industry but to say that F1 doesn't have any impact on road cars is naive.

Lets hope that the FIA open up innovation again.

[ioan]

You people are missing the point of why road cars aren't built using the technology developed in F1.

Simply because road cars are produced to enable people to go from point A to point B, while F1 cars are produced for racing which is a totally different target.

Technology in F1 is developed and optimized for very high performance in terms of speed over a very short distance (before it was 310 kms and now it went up to 1500 for the engine).
To achieve this high performances very expensive materials and manufacturing processes are implemented and used (just think about the cost of producing an F1 car without accounting for the development costs, around $ 2 millions).

All these things make the mythical technology transfer from F1 to road cars almost nonexistent.

That some technology developed in F1, or endurance racing made it to production road cars after 20 or 30 years is hardly considered technology transfer as it is probable that they would have got to the same technology or even better in all that time anyway.

[Flat.tyres]

You people are missing the point of why road cars aren't built using the technology developed in F1.

Simply because road cars are produced to enable people to go from point A to point B, while F1 cars are produced for racing which is a totally different target.

Technology in F1 is developed and optimized for very high performance in terms of speed over a very short distance (before it was 310 kms and now it went up to 1500 for the engine).
To achieve this high performances very expensive materials and manufacturing processes are implemented and used (just think about the cost of producing an F1 car without accounting for the development costs, around $ 2 millions).

All these things make the mythical technology transfer from F1 to road cars almost nonexistent.

That some technology developed in F1, or endurance racing made it to production road cars after 20 or 30 years is hardly considered technology transfer as it is probable that they would have got to the same technology or even better in all that time anyway.

And you seem incapable of understanding that innovation filters down to standard technology over a period of time.

What 20 years ago was cutting edge is now end of life but you need the innovation to continue to push the boundaries.

You say that people need to go from A to B. I agree so why do car companies spend money on new cars and new models. Because we need to constantly improve to get ahead of our rivals in the big race for money.

Just accept that there is technology transfer from F1 to road cars and visa versa.

[Erki]

Nope. Ever heard of Le Mans? Ever heard or rallying? Those two have way more to do with passenger cars than FZzzz...

[Flat.tyres]

Nope. Ever heard of Le Mans? Ever heard or rallying? Those two have way more to do with passenger cars than FZzzz...

In the early days, I would say that F1 and GP had more to do with car development and definatly enhancement but since the 70's I guess you are correct that Le Mans and Rallying influence Car production more than F1.

Lets hope the future is more creative.

[ioan]

OK, here we go just to shut you up.

Past

LSD which for the forerunner of electronic traction control has it's origins back in 1932 when Ferdinand Porsche designed a GP car which experienced excessive wheelspin so a LSD was created by 1935. Direct innovation that was developed by the forerunner of F1 that has a bearing on almost all cars developed today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_slip_differential


So from your very own link:



In automotive applications, a limited slip differential (LSD) is a modified or derived type of differential gear arrangement that allows for some difference in rotational velocity of the output shafts, but does not allow the difference in speed to increase beyond a preset amount. In an automobile, such limited slip differentials are sometimes used in place of a standard differential, where they convey certain dynamic advantages, at the expense of greater complexity.

The main advantage of a limited slip differential is found by considering the case of a standard (or "open") differential where one wheel has no contact with the ground at all. In such a case, the contacting wheel will remain stationary, and the non-contacting wheel will rotate freely– the torque transmitted will be equal at both wheels, but will not exceed the threshold of torque needed to move the vehicle, thus the vehicle will remain stationary. In everyday use on typical roads, such a situation is very unlikely, and so a normal differential suffices. For more demanding use however, such as driving off-road, or for high performance vehicles, such a state of affairs is undesirable, and the LSD can be employed to deal with it.

First of all the LSD is a development of existing differential systems.
Secondly it is used only on certain road vehicles because it is mostly useful on race cars.




Present

We need to look at the Furgerson P99 which was I believe the first 4WD sports car but also the first car with fully mechanical ABS. This was 45 years ago and we still use these basic systems. You need to go back to the turn of the centry for the first 4WD car which was funnily enough made by Spyker :laugh:

I use this example to show that gradual evolution filters through F1 and GP racing right to the basic principles of today.

As the Ferguson P99 was not the first 4WD car and the one that Ferdinand Porsche invented in 1900 or Spyker used in 1902 were not F1 cars I still fail to see how you can claim that 4WD is technology transfered from F1 to road cars.

http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/who.html


Future
http://www.oxin.co.uk/news/newsitem.php?newsid=148

Now, that is what F1 puts into Cars. Please disprove my research or conclude that F1 benefits the car industry.


You mean that starting from this paragraph:
more energy storage capacity and lower cost than is possible with electrical hybrid systems this work may well pave the way for low emissions road cars of the future.

You came to the conclusion that this will be technology transfer from F1 to road cars? Where's the proof?!

I also believe that energy storage systems already exist on road cars and this will be nothing new and that the technology transfer goes the other way around.

As you see you can't make me shut up cherry picking the LSD invented by Ferdinand Porsche for a non F1 car ( I admit it was a race car though).

[ioan]

And you seem incapable of understanding that innovation filters down to standard technology over a period of time.

What 20 years ago was cutting edge is now end of life but you need the innovation to continue to push the boundaries.

You say that people need to go from A to B. I agree so why do car companies spend money on new cars and new models. Because we need to constantly improve to get ahead of our rivals in the big race for money.

Just accept that there is technology transfer from F1 to road cars and visa versa.

Do we need to go from A to B with 300 kmh? No. Than why adopt very costly F1 technology?

You are arguing from the POV of F1 being the only way to make an automotive related invention, which is completely and utterly wrong.

The targets of F1 and road cars production aren't the same, thus the technology used is that much different.

[Rollo]

Do we need to go from A to B with 300 kmh? No. Than why adopt very costly F1 technology?


Because if you can gain any commercial advantage by selling technology, then it's a good idea to exploit it.

Bosch Fuel Injection, TAGs initial Engine Management Chipsets, Honda's VTEC, Alfa Romeo's VVT were all adopted within 5 years of F1 development, not your theory of 20 year lead time - why? Because there was a commercial reason for doing so.

If you're going to invest millions of pounds to go motor racing then are you honestly telling me that the automotive companies wouldn't want a return from their investment? Why else would they bother in the first place?

I argue that an F1 team forms part of a manufacturers research and development and in such a harsh environment, that makes perfect sense. Other manufacturers like Subaru choose different environments to test their designs and as such seek differing commercial advantages.

I think I've more than adequately done my research in these threads.

[Flat.tyres]

Do we need to go from A to B with 300 kmh? No. Than why adopt very costly F1 technology?

So why have normal road cars capable of 250 kph when the speed limit is 110 kph. We might just as well all have 1.1L cars. :rolleyes. Stop argueing for the sake of it.


You are arguing from the POV of F1 being the only way to make an automotive related invention, which is completely and utterly wrong.

What total and utter bullsh*t you have come out with YET AGAIN.

Please show me one example where I have even hinted that!!!!

I sussgest you go back and read my posts again and retract that remark. Yeah, I know. Fat chance of that happening as you never back up your opinions with facts. :rolleyes:

So, before you answer another post on this thread, PLEASE BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR RETRACT IT!!

I have consistently said that F1 was more innovative in the past, that other forms of Motorsport contribute more in the modern era and that general production cars contribute to F1 so please point out where I have said any different.


The targets of F1 and road cars production aren't the same, thus the technology used is that much different.


What a bogus arguement. Planes and cars are aimed at different markets but share many technologies. To use your logic, you would have to say that Production Cars and F1 cars are aimed at different markets so there is no transfer of innovation which contradicts what you have been saying up till now.

Go back and come up with some facts instead of ill thought out opinions please.

[Firstgear]

There might be more technology transfer from road cars to F1 and racing in general.


A certain Ferrari driver may be hoping you're wrong.

Here's a clip from engadget.com



Nissan unveils concept car with anti-drunk driving technology
Posted Aug 3rd 2007 3:43PM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Transportation

Just as expected, Nissan has indeed rolled out a concept vehicle that showcases its long-awaited anti-drunk driving technology. The vehicle sports "multiple preventative features" designed to curb inebriated operation of vehicles, and essentially detects the driver's state of sobriety and kicks into action if you've had a bit much. Amongst the detection agents are alcohol odor sensors built into the locking shift knob, seat-mounted sensors that can activate a voice and navigation screen warning, and a facial monitoring system that determines your "state of consciousness through your eyes." Regrettably, there's still no word as to when this system could actually hit showroom floors, but if the automaker has shelled out enough dough to craft a concept vehicle, we'd imagine it's not too far out.

[Flat.tyres]

A certain Ferrari driver may be hoping you're wrong.

Here's a clip from engadget.com



Nissan unveils concept car with anti-drunk driving technology
Posted Aug 3rd 2007 3:43PM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Transportation

Just as expected, Nissan has indeed rolled out a concept vehicle that showcases its long-awaited anti-drunk driving technology. The vehicle sports "multiple preventative features" designed to curb inebriated operation of vehicles, and essentially detects the driver's state of sobriety and kicks into action if you've had a bit much. Amongst the detection agents are alcohol odor sensors built into the locking shift knob, seat-mounted sensors that can activate a voice and navigation screen warning, and a facial monitoring system that determines your "state of consciousness through your eyes." Regrettably, there's still no word as to when this system could actually hit showroom floors, but if the automaker has shelled out enough dough to craft a concept vehicle, we'd imagine it's not too far out.

:laugh:

Former GP drivers beware :laugh:

[tinchote]

Cars are not sophisticated because of F1. They are sophisticated because people like them that way, and the only way to sell a $50,000 article again to someone who has already bought it is to make the new one "better".

Big companies have R&D departments. Big car companies have R&D departments. Innovation comes from any source available. Some stuff might have come from F1, but similar things would have been developed anyway.

[ioan]

Because if you can gain any commercial advantage by selling technology, then it's a good idea to exploit it.

Yeah sure, and people would rather buy a 100000€ VW than a 15000€ one. :rolleyes:
Do you know that the Veyron that some people are paying 1.300.000$ or more for it still comes at half price, the rest of it being supported by VW?
So how does that bode well for high technology road cars being a viable commercial project than ordinary people will benefit from it???


Bosch Fuel Injection, TAGs initial Engine Management Chipsets, Honda's VTEC, Alfa Romeo's VVT were all adopted within 5 years of F1 development, not your theory of 20 year lead time - why? Because there was a commercial reason for doing so.

And those were used on high end super fast and hugely expensive cars that Joe can't afford himself.


If you're going to invest millions of pounds to go motor racing then are you honestly telling me that the automotive companies wouldn't want a return from their investment? Why else would they bother in the first place?

They do it for the publicity, for brand awareness at global scale, that's all. Not for the technology gains. They could develop the technology that they actually use on their road cars for 1/10th of the price of running an F1 team.


I argue that an F1 team forms part of a manufacturers research and development ...

Wrong, and that's why Ford left, and VW and Audi aren't even considering it, and still they make very very good cars (I'll take an Audi any day over a Mercedes BTW). And Toyota and Honda we'll leave if they can't win the championship.

Much more road car division relevant R&D is done in DTM, BTCC, WRC at very low costs compared to F1, but there is no such TV coverage and thus no global brand awareness.

This is my point of view and I very much believe it as being valid. Just ask Bernie! :D

[ioan]

So why have normal road cars capable of 250 kph when the speed limit is 110 kph. We might just as well all have 1.1L cars. :rolleyes. Stop argueing for the sake of it.



What total and utter bullsh*t you have come out with YET AGAIN.

Please show me one example where I have even hinted that!!!!

I sussgest you go back and read my posts again and retract that remark. Yeah, I know. Fat chance of that happening as you never back up your opinions with facts. :rolleyes:

So, before you answer another post on this thread, PLEASE BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR RETRACT IT!!

I have consistently said that F1 was more innovative in the past, that other forms of Motorsport contribute more in the modern era and that general production cars contribute to F1 so please point out where I have said any different.




What a bogus arguement. Planes and cars are aimed at different markets but share many technologies. To use your logic, you would have to say that Production Cars and F1 cars are aimed at different markets so there is no transfer of innovation which contradicts what you have been saying up till now.

Go back and come up with some facts instead of ill thought out opinions please.

Try ignoring my post if you don't like what I write. I've decided to do the same with yours.

[Wilderness]

whre has F1 contributed to the extent that it would have been untennable if F1 never existed?
Perhaps a more approprate question would have been "where has the aeronautical industry contributed to the extent that it would have been untennable if the technology transfer from aerospace tech never occurred?"

Back in the day, the progression was aeronautical industry to motorsports to road cars, but the days of open F1 designs are long gone. If today F1 dsigners were allowed to freely innovate, it could be a different story, but regulations and safety concerns are too constricting wrt innovation.

F1 today is just another marketing tool to separate us consumers from our hard earned cash.

[Rollo]

And those were used on high end super fast and hugely expensive cars that Joe can't afford himself.


Hmm.
The Mercdes Benz 190 "Ponton" (W121), M-B 190E (W201), Honda Civic and Alfa Romeo Spider are all cars that I could have easily afforded at the time.

Perhaps Joe should switch jobs :D

[wmcot]

Actually, I think more of the technology comes from a combination of NASA and NASCAR! ;)

Seems like most of the posts are doing the old chicken/egg argument with the twist that they don't recognize the chicken and egg as being related!

If you build a car, someone will race it (even the Prius!) When you race a car, someone will modify it. A few of the ideas will transfer back and forth until the exact origins become blurry. Add to that the fact that there are dozens of types of racing and it is impossible to tell what came from where.

[Valve Bounce]

OK, here we go just to shut you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_slip_differential

Present

We need to look at the Furgerson P99 which was I believe the first 4WD sports car but also the first car with fully mechanical ABS. This was 45 years ago and we still use these basic systems. You need to go back to the turn of the centry for the first 4WD car which was funnily enough made by Spyker :laugh:

I use this example to show that gradual evolution filters through F1 and GP racing right to the basic principles of today.

.

First of all, there never was a Fugerson P99 4WD sports car. However, if you, by any chance are referring to the Ferguson P99 formula 1 car which Sterling Moss drove to victory at Oulten Park, it was not the first car with ABS.
In fact, the first car with ABS was the Ferguson R5, a passenger car. http://www.ferguson-museum.co.uk/racing_car.htm
So the system was taken from a passenger car and put into the P99 F1 car.

I think this has just about shot your argument and flattened its tyres, so to speak.

We can argue also that the automatic transmissions of today's F1 cars owes it's roots to the Model T Ford, although that is a tad tenuous. But I think you get the picture.

[Rollo]

Plenty of systems in road cars don't have practical applications in F1.

ABS - although it has been tested, the advantages gained are more than negated by the weight penalty.
Things like Airbags, Four Wheel Steering, Hydropneumatic Suspension, Air-Con, Stereos, etc. are simply impossible to implement in GP cars.

The Ferguson although it was a 3L car, competed in 1961-2 which was some 4 years before the introduction of the 3L formula. In fact as far as I know, the only F1 car with 4WD to ever score a championship point was the Matra at the Canadian GP (?) - someone else can check that.

4WD is most definately not an F1 invention and nor did anyone really learn much from its incursion into GP racing.

[fan-veteran]

Well, the transfer of "technologies" from F1 to road cars is nonsense. Only one 'technology from F1' found it's way - carbon fiber reinforced disks for brakes. But - first it was not a F1 technology but a space shuttle, and second - it was adopted in very expensive Porsche sports cars.

Racing cars and road cars are two very different kind of stuff.

[fandango]

Formula 1, much as I like it, has very little to do with road cars, apart from the marketing aspect. This "filtering down" technology idea is not valid, imo, because apart from a designer's idea, anything developed for F1 simply wouldn't work for road cars for a multitude of reasons like reliability, material costs, production costs etc.

Car companies need to conduct so many tests before putting any feature into production that F1, on a practical level, is simply useless to carry out. There are too many variables in racing to guarantee that something would work on a road car. It's just not scientific enough.

Imo the idea that F1 technology "filters down" to your humble road car is just more marketing to enhance brand loyalty, as if the Megane you bought last year is in some way connected to Alonso's championship winning F1 car. Or if your Honda breaks down you'll be feeling empathy with Jenson Button....

[Valve Bounce]

Sorry, double post because of a glitch in my PC.

[Valve Bounce]

[quote="Rollo"]Plenty of systems in road cars don't have practical applications in F1.

ABS - although it has been tested, the advantages gained are more than negated by the weight penalty.
Things like Airbags, Four Wheel Steering, Hydropneumatic Suspension, Air-Con, Stereos, etc. are simply impossible to implement in GP cars.

The Ferguson although it was a 3L car, competed in 1961-2 which was some 4 years before the introduction of the 3L formula. In fact as far as I know, the only F1 car with 4WD to ever score a championship point was the Matra at the Canadian GP (?) - someone else can check that.


Really?? You disappoint me in your lack of knowledge. I thought you knew more about motor racing.

1. First of all. the P99 was a 1.5 litre car, modified to 2.5 litres when it was sent down to the Antipodies to race in the series there.

2. 4wd was banned when it was obvious the Fergussen system gained an advantage ober the two wheel drive cars.

3. ABS was also banned in F1 later.

All the other things you mention, I have to agree. It is what makes my car great, and has/had nothing to do with F1. So thanks for the support, Rollo.

[Flat.tyres]

Try ignoring my post if you don't like what I write. I've decided to do the same with yours.

Ahhh, but you don't ignore them, you post lies that you refuse to even attempt to back up or retract :laugh:

[Valve Bounce]

Ahhh, but you don't ignore them, you post lies that you refuse to even attempt to back up or retract :laugh:

That's over the top.

Furgerson 99 Sports car. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Ahhh, but you don't ignore them, you post lies that you refuse to even attempt to back up or retract :laugh:

You're sore loser mate, exactly like your idol Ron Dennis. :rolleyes:

We could do really well without individuals like you around here. All you here is attack others to make yourself feel better. :s

[Rollo]

1. First of all. the P99 was a 1.5 litre car, modified to 2.5 litres when it was sent down to the Antipodies to race in the series there.

2. 4wd was banned when it was obvious the Fergussen system gained an advantage ober the two wheel drive cars.

1969 Canadian GP
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr182.html

Matra (a four-wheel-drive car for Johnny Servoz-Gavin)
I think I was right, there.

Your Ferguson P99?
http://www.gpracing.net192.com/cars/data/186.cfm

In 1963 it appeared in the Tasman series with Graham Hill and Innes Ireland alternating as pilot.
Actually, I can't even find a single instance either in the grandprix.com archives or the FIA that Ferguson ever entered a car for an FIA GP; certainly none of the books I have mention this thing. It can't have been that impressive.

4WD was banned after Williams tested their six-wheeled car in 1981 with Alan Jones at the wheel. That's nearly 20 years after you suggested.
Unless someone can find evidence to the contrary, I think that both of my claims are upheld.

[Valve Bounce]

Your Ferguson P99?
http://www.gpracing.net192.com/cars/data/186.cfm

Actually, I can't even find a single instance either in the grandprix.com archives or the FIA that Ferguson ever entered a car for an FIA GP; certainly none of the books I have mention this thing. It can't have been that impressive.

4WD was banned after Williams tested their six-wheeled car in 1981 with Alan Jones at the wheel. That's nearly 20 years after you suggested.
Unless someone can find evidence to the contrary, I think that both of my claims are upheld.

Check this out then, Rollo. http://www.ferguson-museum.co.uk/racing_car.htm

and if you read your own link, it tells you when it started in an F1 race. As for not being that impressive, you'll have to take that up with flat tyres, not me.

[ioan]

Actually, I can't even find a single instance either in the grandprix.com archives or the FIA that Ferguson ever entered a car for an FIA GP; certainly none of the books I have mention this thing. It can't have been that impressive.

I'll help you out there:



"Impressed by the P99, Moss spent a lot of time that summer adopting a new driving style, better suited to the four wheel drive car. He showcased the car's true potential at the non-Championship race at Oulton Park, where he scored a victory in damp conditions."

From: http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2911/Ferguson-P99-Climax.html

[Valve Bounce]

................and here: P99 achieved noteworthy success in the hands of Stirling Moss, winning the Formula 1 Oulton Park Gold Cup in 1960. On his way to winning the British Grand Prix at Aintree, Sir Stirling was black-flagged for not having done the practice race in that particular car. Four wheel drive in Formula 1 was then banned. However, he and Peter Westbury who later won the British Hill Climb Championship, had proved the extraordinary roadworthiness that results from the combined system of four wheel drive and anti-skid braking.

It was an extraordinary achievement not only to design but to win with one attempt at building a Grand Prix car out of the Ferguson stable and to therefore become the only four wheel drive F1 car ever to win a Grand Prix. The car was designed to the normal zero tolerance standards which Harry Ferguson set in all his engineering projects. Sadly Harry Ferguson died shortly before the car had its amazing success.

This innovative car had a front mounted Coventry Climax 4-cylinder engine, Ferguson four wheel drive system and Dunlop Maxaret ABS brakes.

[Flat.tyres]

That's over the top.

Furgerson 99 Sports car. :rolleyes:

Sorry, why is this a lie and what do you mean.

I never said it was the first car to have 4WD but the first sports car. It was a bit of trivia where the interesting part with relevance to this thread was the innovation it brought which was fully mechanical ABS.


P99 achieved noteworthy success in the hands of Stirling Moss, winning the Formula 1 Oulton Park Gold Cup in 1960. On his way to winning the British Grand Prix at Aintree, Sir Stirling was black-flagged for not having done the practice race in that particular car. Four wheel drive in Formula 1 was then banned. However, he and Peter Westbury who later won the British Hill Climb Championship, had proved the extraordinary roadworthiness that results from the combined system of four wheel drive and anti-skid braking.

[Flat.tyres]

You're sore loser mate, exactly like your idol Ron Dennis. :rolleyes:

We could do really well without individuals like you around here. All you here is attack others to make yourself feel better. :s

Rubbish. I called you a liar because you lied about what I had said in my post so I was stateing a FACT.

However, if you want to continue with the personal attacks such as the ones quoted, then I'm sure that you'll get away with it.

I'll probably end up with points for asking you to retract your lies now :laugh:

[janneppi]

Propably, i can't for the life of me image what goes on heads of you two. This is a place to have nice discussions about F1 and you two manage to spoil my work days with your inane personal comments. good job, both of you, regardless of who might have started your silly little tiff this time.

[Flat.tyres]

Propably, i can't for the life of me image what goes on heads of you two. This is a place to have nice discussions about F1 and you two manage to spoil my work days with your inane personal comments. good job, both of you, regardless of who might have started your silly little tiff this time.

Hey, no problems Modereto old son. Just having a bit of tit-fer-tat with the little darling. Don't worry, I'll not ask him to retract it again :D

Go back to your pipe and slippers. Nothing more to see here :laugh:

[Valve Bounce]

Sorry, why is this a lie and what do you mean.

I never said it was the first car to have 4WD but the first sports car. It was a bit of trivia where the interesting part with relevance to this thread was the innovation it brought which was fully mechanical ABS.

First of all, the P99 was not a sports car.

Secondly, it derived the ABS from a road going sedan car, the Fergusson R5, which was detailed for you here: http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=335106

[pino]

Hey, no problems Modereto old son. Just having a bit of tit-fer-tat with the little darling. Don't worry, I'll not ask him to retract it again :D

Go back to your pipe and slippers. Nothing more to see here :laugh:

I suggest you give it a break and you use another tone when replying to a Mod. I am very tired of you, your arrogance and the fact that you laugh at members all the time. One more single attack/comment on any member and you will be out of here for good ! Try me...

[Flat.tyres]

First of all, the P99 was not a sports car.

Secondly, it derived the ABS from a road going sedan car, the Fergusson R5, which was detailed for you here: http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=335106

Why was the P99 not a sports car? Do a google search or something and you will find out. It actually won the British GP with Sir Sterling Moss but was disqualified for some reason that I cannot remember.

The R5 was a prototype that the P99 race car was developed from to get interest from production manufacturers.

So, we have a dream for a road car with ABS and 4WD that had to be made into a race car before the innovations were taken seriously and taken up by Jensen.

You see, this really is a chicken and egg situation. A prototype road car is made into a race winning sports car so the innovations from the race car (which was built from the road car) can be taken into production road cars. It perfectly exemplifies the cross pollernation of ideas between the production, prototype and race cars of the era.

[Flat.tyres]

I suggest you give it a break and you use another tone when replying to a Mod. I am very tired of you, your arrogance and the fact that you laugh at members all the time. One more single attack/comment on any member and you will be out of here for good ! Try me...

It was ment in a lighthearted manner but I see personal attacks from Mods is permitted on this forum against members that are just trying to inject a bit of jovality. Perhaps it's the language barrier or something but you seem to have a real problem with me as you have detailed in PM's. Don't know why but that's your problem.

I'll save you the trouble. I'm off but it would be nice to leave this post here as it's not abusive and in response to yours. Wonder if you will :wave:

[pino]

It was ment in a lighthearted manner but I see personal attacks from Mods is permitted on this forum against members that are just trying to inject a bit of jovality. Perhaps it's the language barrier or something but you seem to have a real problem with me as you have detailed in PM's. Don't know why but that's your problem.

I'll save you the trouble. I'm off but it would be nice to leave this post here as it's not abusive and in response to yours. Wonder if you will :wave:

My "real" problem with you is that no matter how many times I've asked/warned you to not to post insults/personal attack you carry on and on and on. I've had enough...

Back to the topic now please :)

[Valve Bounce]

Well, seeing Mr Flat is gone, no use my trying to tell him the differrence between a Sports car and a Grand Prix car. :(

[wmcot]

Wow! From all the posts, it seems that F1 has gained a lot from tractors! No wonder Ferrari included the Case logo on their cars at the USGP!

(Wonder who will build the first carbon-fibre tractor with 700 - 800 HP?)

[Valve Bounce]

Wow! From all the posts, it seems that F1 has gained a lot from tractors! No wonder Ferrari included the Case logo on their cars at the USGP!

(Wonder who will build the first carbon-fibre tractor with 700 - 800 HP?)

I am sure BHP would be interested.

[Hondo]

All things considered, F1 and motorsport in general have probably gained more from passenger cars, including their fans and audiences.

I think passenger cars have benefited from racing in general, not just F1, in the area of tires. A good set of street tires today are probably better than the best racing tires of ten years ago.

[Valve Bounce]

All things considered, F1 and motorsport in general have probably gained more from passenger cars, including their fans and audiences.

I think passenger cars have benefited from racing in general, not just F1, in the area of tires. A good set of street tires today are probably better than the best racing tires of ten years ago.

LINK PLEASE!!

No Kidding, I'd like to get a set of those tyres when my current set of Pirelli Scorpions wear out. Thanks.

[tinchote]

A good set of street tires today are probably better than the best racing tires of ten years ago.

I would really be surprised if that's the case. Tyres is probably where there is a more radical performance difference between race and street condition. Any F1 tyre from the last 10 years (and more) is designed to last about 150km, compared to maybe 80,000 from a street tyre.

[Hondo]

I would venture to guess that some of the technology and or chemistry used in constructing a racing tire would bleed over to the passenger car type tires.

[fan-veteran]

I doubt. The experiments needed (investigations) to produce a road tire go and go on their way without additional experiments in F1 field to be needed. But, hey - there is an easy seen evidence - which tire manufacturers participated in F1 - Goodyear, Bridgestone, Michelin. Where are the remaining manufacturers in terms of their road tires?, and where were Michelin before taking part in F1? As we see all the manufacturers do not gain some boost in their production from F1 participation, nor the remaining lag behind.

The same is true for automobile manufacturers. BMW produced superb cars before 2000, AUDI does not participate in F1. And so for many others.

[wmcot]

A good set of street tires today are probably better than the best racing tires of ten years ago.

I would guess that would be more like the 1960's instead of 10 years ago.

[rah]

AFAIK, these could be F1 innovations:

Electronic brake distribution?
Electronic clutches
Semi automatic gearboxes
Drive by wire throttle
Data logging

I could be wrong (and often am) but I thought these first originated in F1.

I am sure there are some more. I guess I am in te F1 is good for road cars camp.

Something else to consider is that some innovations do not come from F1, but are refined in F1.

If you are looking for a road car directly benefiting form F1, then the Ferrari F50 used a detuned F1 engine from memory. Not exactly mainstreme, but it is a road car.