When did "modern"F1 begin

[Just_a_fan]

Modern F1 started with carbon chassis. Before that there was a direct lineage back to the 1930s with space frames, folded aluminium etc.

[nokivasara]

Modern F1 started with carbon chassis. Before that there was a direct lineage back to the 1930s with space frames, folded aluminium etc.

Maybe this. Or was it when Colin Chapman introduced the Lotus that had the engine and transmission as a part of the frame, supporting the rear suspension?

The active suspension Williams was too modern for F1

[Andres125sx]

I believe it was 1992 that Williams had their all singing all dancing FW14B active suspension car.
Many would say that was the peak only for it to be outlawed.

Agree, maybe we may define "modern era of F1" when rules started to downgrade F1 cars significantly to prevent exessive speeds. In that case that was exactly the day


In my mind I´ve always assumed F1 is considered "modern" since aerodynamics, as that´s been the factor pushing F1 well above any other category. Before aero maybe F1 was still the fastest category, but the fastest in same league. With aerodynamics they jumped to a new league never seen before wich now includes new members (wec, gp2, superleague...), but it all started with F1 aerodynamics

[Andres125sx]

i think personally the 'biggest' change in recent times are not the changes from 2009 or coming in 2021 for example,
but far more the (mandated) hybrid start in F1 since 2014, as before 2014, there was 'just' car, gasoline engine, driver.
now we have car, gasoline engine, electric power, driver. there are now essentially 4 areas that must work together in full harmony,
where before it was 'just' 3.

This is also an inflexion point. Since this F1 is no longer about raw speed, but about managment, even when I´m not sure if Pirelli tires are an even bigger factor, but both have contributed to turn F1 into a managment competition instead of a raw speed one as it had always been. And I don´t like this change at all

Just look at the difference between pole lap and fast lap, or how easy even a midfielder can do a fast lap if they put new tires at the end of the race. They all could go so much faster in the race that their real race pace is almost comical, not what I expect from a race day

[henry]

I think there was an inflection in the trajectory of F1 when performance became more dependent on engineering than design. By design I mean finding new solutions to problems and by engineering I mean refinement of solutions. This was influenced by increasing constraint in the rules and the availability of resources, money, people, computing, to pursue each solution deeper and deeper. Today we are approaching the peak of this. In 2021 the design aspects will be almost wholly encapsulated in the rules leaving only the refinement of those as differentiators.

I would place the inflection somewhere in the 1980s.

[Lotus102]

1968 - first commercial sponsorship worn on the cars, and aerodynamic devices.

1977 - Renault enters beginning the 'modern' manufacturer interest with an emphasis on 'road relevance' (Merc, Alfa Ferrari etc in the 50s were carrying on their historic racing heritage and did not spark a growth in manufacturer interest which the Renault involvement eventually did)

1981 - First Concorde Agreement signed, beginning the modern commercialisation of F1, although this did not take its current form until some years later

1985 - turbo-only formula ends DFV 'kit car' era and means a team has to have some level of manufacturer support to win (ironically the DFV started out as one of the first true examples of a manufacturer backing an independent team)

1989 - two separate developments, Ferrari's semi-automatic gearbox and Leyton House's aerodynamically sophisticated car designed by Adrian Newey presage the importance of electronics and the total domination of aerodynamics

1999 - the inaugural Malaysian Grand Prix, beginning the era of F1 eschewing its traditional races in favour of new ones in burgeoning markets with low interest in motor sport

[strad]

Since this F1 is no longer about raw speed, but about managment, even when I´m not sure if Pirelli tires are an even bigger factor, but both have contributed to turn F1 into a managment competition instead of a raw speed one as it had always been. And I don´t like this change at all

See, Sometimes Andres and I agree totally.

[Lotus102]

Modern F1 started with carbon chassis. Before that there was a direct lineage back to the 1930s with space frames, folded aluminium etc.

The carbon monocoque was mostly just an aluminium monocoque in a different material. The alu monocoque was the big step, especially when the engine was included as a stressed member. You can argue that the ladder chassis evolved into the spaceframe (e.g. Ferrari 375 to Ferrari 500, Maserati 4CL to A6GCM), but the monocoque was a conceptual break.

[Just_a_fan]

Modern F1 started with carbon chassis. Before that there was a direct lineage back to the 1930s with space frames, folded aluminium etc.

The carbon monocoque was mostly just an aluminium monocoque in a different material. The alu monocoque was the big step, especially when the engine was included as a stressed member. You can argue that the ladder chassis evolved into the spaceframe (e.g. Ferrari 375 to Ferrari 500, Maserati 4CL to A6GCM), but the monocoque was a conceptual break.

But the monocoque wasn't a new idea - it had been used in the 1930s on road cars, for example, and in aircraft before/after that.

Where the use of carbon for the chassis was the big step was safety. Before the carbon tub, F1 cars were death traps with many drivers being killed / seriously injured over the years. After the introduction of the carbon tub, deaths are thankfully rare.

The safety of the sport is what marks out "modern" F1 from "old" F1 in my mind.

[Andres125sx]

Since this F1 is no longer about raw speed, but about managment, even when I´m not sure if Pirelli tires are an even bigger factor, but both have contributed to turn F1 into a managment competition instead of a raw speed one as it had always been. And I don´t like this change at all

See, Sometimes Andres and I agree totally.

I should read all posts in this thread again, I must have misread something!

[Lotus102]

Modern F1 started with carbon chassis. Before that there was a direct lineage back to the 1930s with space frames, folded aluminium etc.

The carbon monocoque was mostly just an aluminium monocoque in a different material. The alu monocoque was the big step, especially when the engine was included as a stressed member. You can argue that the ladder chassis evolved into the spaceframe (e.g. Ferrari 375 to Ferrari 500, Maserati 4CL to A6GCM), but the monocoque was a conceptual break.

But the monocoque wasn't a new idea - it had been used in the 1930s on road cars, for example, and in aircraft before/after that.

Where the use of carbon for the chassis was the big step was safety. Before the carbon tub, F1 cars were death traps with many drivers being killed / seriously injured over the years. After the introduction of the carbon tub, deaths are thankfully rare.

The safety of the sport is what marks out "modern" F1 from "old" F1 in my mind.

The monocoque wasn't a new idea in the 60s, but previous incarnations had been isolated experiments and not been remotely influential. Once the Lotus 25 came along, within a few years everyone had switched to monocoques.

The carbon tub was a big step forward from the safety perspective, but I don't know if you can give it sole credit for turning the sport from a dangerous one to a safe one. And it's not as though it made a massive difference statistically. There were four deaths in F1 in the five years to 1980, and four deaths in the five years after it - but there had been eight deaths in the five years to 1975. There were a whole host of other developments underway in the late 70s and early 80s, in circuit design and other infrastructure, medical facilities at circuits, handling and transfer of casualties, motorsport medicine, and other car safety devices like aircraft-style self-sealing fuel tanks and automatic fire extinguishers. Sid Watkins joined F1 in 1978, for example. So yes, the safety is a big factor in F1 but when can you date it from? Jackie Stewart's crusade in the late 60s? Pete Revson's crash that prompted greater circuit safety infrastructure? Roger Williamson's or Tom Pryce's crashes that led to a revolution in the marshalls' role in safety? Niki Lauda's crash that led to a move away from the older unsafe circuits? De Angelis' death? Senna's? I see it much more as a steady evolution involving lots of different factors, not a single revolutionary development.

[Tommy Cookers]

carbon fibre monocoques were introduced for stiffness not for strength
because for aero reasons suspension became ultra stiff the cars needed huge structural stiffness (in a small space)

cfc was outstanding in weight-specific stiffess but poor in fracture work
so crash safety was a concern - resulting in large inclusions of very high fracture work fibres (the opposite of carbon)

there's nothing advanced or better about monocoques
given space eg the early aircraft or human-powered aircraft (or bridges) the spaceframe is superior
given little space the monocoque is superior, certainly in stiffness
if you keep on reducing the space allowed, a spaceframe becomes a monocoque

cfc benefits spaceframes of course

so 1960 ('lowline' Cooper and Lotus 18) could be the start of modern F1 - the first year free of design faults
in car configuration, structure. suspension geometry/driver adjustability
ok they missed aero

btw and afaik
F1 started in 1948 - the WDC in 1950

[lumpy200]

Thanks for all your replies, I have enjoyed reading them. Very educational!