Most important technical development in F1?

[WhiteBlue]

Poll is now integrated. Each user has three votes that he can distribute over the ten items.

[aral]

• Fully stressed rear engine by Chapman
• Slick tyres and radial carcass technology by Michelin
• Turbo engines by Renault
• First electronic Engine Control Unit and fuel injection (ECU)
• Carbon fibre sandwich monocoque design by Barnard
• First semi auto gear box by Barnard
• Ground effect car by Chapman (for all aerodynamic floors and diffusors)
• Full size front and rear wings
• First side mounted radiators by Maurice Philippe
• Driver safety cell with protected FT3/5 fuel tank, front, rear, side and top impact and penetration protection

I would set this up so that each voter would have three or five votes to spread over the ten proposals.

I think that your first item, should just read "fully stressed engine", omitting the words "by Chapman". I too thought that this was his idea, and said so when someone said that Cooper had first used it. However, several others pointed back to earlier uses of such an engine. Chapman may have perfected it but others had thought of it. Incidentally, the DFV was built to be fully stressed, so i wonder who actually suggested to Cosworth, that they build it in that way?

[xpensive]

Just vote gil, we all have our preferences, but this is the way it came out, hope you can live with it?

[WhiteBlue]

I think that your first item, should just read "fully stressed engine", omitting the words "by Chapman". I too thought that this was his idea, and said so when someone said that Cooper had first used it. However, several others pointed back to earlier uses of such an engine. Chapman may have perfected it but others had thought of it. Incidentally, the DFV was built to be fully stressed, so i wonder who actually suggested to Cosworth, that they build it in that way?

We learned that the fully stressed front engine had been pioneered by Lancia's Vittorio Jano. I thought the front engine version had no impact but the rear engine had. I will re word it a bit.

I believe that Chapman or his design team was also responsible for the BRM P83. Chapman had been a consultant to BRM for some years if I remember right.

[xpensive]

Unfathomable, WB organizes a poll regarding a rather important subject an he gets 14 members to respond?

Guess Hamilton's new bimbo would raise more interest, pathetic.

[aral]

I think that your first item, should just read "fully stressed engine", omitting the words "by Chapman". I too thought that this was his idea, and said so when someone said that Cooper had first used it. However, several others pointed back to earlier uses of such an engine. Chapman may have perfected it but others had thought of it. Incidentally, the DFV was built to be fully stressed, so i wonder who actually suggested to Cosworth, that they build it in that way?

We learned that the fully stressed front engine had been pioneered by Lancia's Vittorio Jano. I thought the front engine version had no impact but the rear engine had. I will re word it a bit.

I believe that Chapman or his design team was also responsible for the BRM P83. Chapman had been a consultant to BRM for some years if I remember right.

There are probably more items that should have had more importance, so I won't be voting.

But you did not answer my question. An engine is not normally designed to take all the stress loads of suspension etc, yet Cosworth built the DFV to take these loads. So obviously somebody must have requested them to take the stressing as an integral part of the design. Was it Chapman? I would prefer to believe that it was Frank Costin or Keith Duckworths idea. Trivial maybe, but the real initiator should be given the credit.

[xpensive]

I belive that the engine as a fully stressed member was a lesson learned by Chapman and Philippe from the Lotus 43,
where the BRM H16 was such a monstrous engine, unique in its stiffness, that he simply asked Duckworth if it could be done with a V8.

During the 1.5 era, it was probably not even considered.

[Tim.Wright]

Regardless of who inventd the stressed engine concept, I don't think it can be considered the most important technical development in terms of performance.

Imagine if there was no stressed engine. The teams would sufficiently adapt a rear structure without too much loss in performance.

I think the most important developments are things like decent tyres and wings (Lotus 49B was the first in F1?). These developments you can call important because they are;
1. Worth seconds per lap (important for performance)
2. Still being used (still relevant)

Other things in this group might include, carbon primary structure (as I mentioned before), and the rear mounted engine.

Most of the other things in the list bring lesser amounts of performance OR they are not relevant anymore.

Just my opinion

Tim

[xpensive]

I think it belongs there, however, this might be highlighted in 2013, if we will see 1.5 I4 turbos again with subframes.

Remember in the poll, each member can cast three votes!

[WhiteBlue]

I belive that the engine as a fully stressed member was a lesson learned by Chapman and Philippe from the Lotus 43,
where the BRM H16 was such a monstrous engine, unique in its stiffness, that he simply asked Duckworth if it could be done with a V8.

During the 1.5 era, it was probably not even considered.

The fact that the BRM P83 and the Lotus 43 came out at the same time with the same engine fully stressed one years before the Cosworth engine makes it very unlikely that the idea emerged anywhere else but from Chapman or one of his closest technical people. The problem with the BRM H16 engine was its poor power/weight ratio. It took four people to lift it from a truck. Nobody but Jim Clake could ever drive the monster competitively and even Jim won only one race in the Lotus 43 (Watkins Glen). It is very unlikely that BRM came up with the joint solution to use the engine as the stressed member. That is a typical Chapman solution to a power/weight dilemma. I see absolutely no problem to credit him with this invention. The honor for the first fully stressed front engine in the Lancia D50 clearly goes to Vittorio Jano.

The D50 btw, has another interesting feature which may have caught Chapman's attention. It had side paniers as fuel tanks which caused the fuel to burn without changes to the CoG. The idea is very similar to the fuel tanks used in Chapman's integrated monocoque fuel tank elements. I was wondering if Chapman was aware of all the innovations in the D50 and if that car was the source for both ideas.

[aral]

I belive that the engine as a fully stressed member was a lesson learned by Chapman and Philippe from the Lotus 43,
where the BRM H16 was such a monstrous engine, unique in its stiffness, that he simply asked Duckworth if it could be done with a V8.

During the 1.5 era, it was probably not even considered.

The fact that the BRM P83 and the Lotus 43 came out at the same time with the same engine fully stressed one years before the Cosworth engine makes it very unlikely that the idea emerged anywhere else but from Chapman or one of his closest technical people. The problem with the BRM H16 engine was its poor power/weight ratio. It took four people to lift it from a truck. Nobody but Jim Clake could ever drive the monster competitively and even Jim won only one race in the Lotus 43 (Watkins Glen). It is very unlikely that BRM came up with the joint solution to use the engine as the stressed member. That is a typical Chapman solution to a power/weight dilemma. I see absolutely no problem to credit him with this invention. The honor for the first fully stressed front engine in the Lancia D50 clearly goes to Vittorio Jano.

The D50 btw, has another interesting feature which may have caught Chapman's attention. It had side paniers as fuel tanks which caused the fuel to burn without changes to the CoG. The idea is very similar to the fuel tanks used in Chapman's integrated monocoque fuel tank elements. I was wondering if Chapman was aware of all the innovations in the D50 and if that car was the source for both ideas.

I have just been speaking to an ex-BRM employee, who has told me that it was in fact Tony Rudd, who came up with the idea of using the engine as a stressed member. The engine was built with heavy castings, to take suspension loads, and was fitted to the BRM race car, where Chapman saw the advantages of a stressed engine. He then fitted it to the Lotus 42 and 43. It is not known whether Chapman subsequently asked Cosworth to beef up the DFV to use the same principles, or whether Cosworth, on their own initiative, decided to follow the BRM idea. The beefing up of the BRM to take the loads was not very scientific, and was partly the cause of a heavier than anticipated engine.

[WhiteBlue]

I have just been speaking to an ex-BRM employee, who has told me that it was in fact Tony Rudd, who came up with the idea of using the engine as a stressed member. The engine was built with heavy castings, to take suspension loads, and was fitted to the BRM race car, where Chapman saw the advantages of a stressed engine. He then fitted it to the Lotus 42 and 43. It is not known whether Chapman subsequently asked Cosworth to beef up the DFV to use the same principles, or whether Cosworth, on their own initiative, decided to follow the BRM idea. The beefing up of the BRM to take the loads was not very scientific, and was partly the cause of a heavier than anticipated engine.

Rudd claims that the H-16 would have been successful had the drawings been followed accurately - as it was the engine had heavier castings than planned and its power to weight ratio was unfavourable; it also had breathing difficulties and only started to improve when it fired as a sixteen cylinder engine rather than two eights.

This sounds like the castings for integrating the engine into the chassis were not Rudds idea but put to him by an outsider which was very likely Chapman. It also shows that weight was only one part of the problem, the other being a lack of power.

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgki ... -e-H16.htm

This story shows that the approach was simply not radical enough. The engine should have had four valves for competitive breathing, only six camshafts and different crank shaft designs in the first place. By the time all these things were added the smaller and lighter purpose build Cosworth V8 was a run away success.

Perhaps we should simply credit BRM with the idea because they designed the first fully stressed rear engine regardless of who had the idea. I suggest that xpensive takes it up with Ciro. We cannot make changes to the original post any more.

[xpensive]

I think it belongs there, however, this might be highlighted in 2013, if we will see 1.5 I4 turbos again with subframes.

Remember in the poll, each member can cast three votes!

[Italiano]

Remember in the poll, each member can cast three votes!

Now you tell me.

[xpensive]

I know, sorry about that, WB set up the poll and somehow missed that piece of info, now the poll is on my thread and I simply don't know how to add the info, but I have asked one of motorsport's most influencial and philosophical moderators to do something about it.