Most important technical development in F1?

[747heavy]

I agree with both post above (Xpensive & autogyro).
One reason, that we see less inovation is the highly regulated nature of F1 (now for cost reasons), which is wrong IMHO.
One of the most stupid rules is the minimum weight limit, and the ban on different transmission systems (CVT).
most of the systems, Xpensive mentioned above where pioneered in a era of free competition. radial vs. bias ply tire, n/a vs. turbo engine etc.
If we want to see more of this, we should go back to fair and open competition, so that the best system wins.
Not enforcing some artificially limits, like KERS capacity etc.
It will be difficult to have both development of new technologies and cheap racing/low cost of competition at the same time.

the solutions produced in F1 (or any other form of racing) will allways be a functions of the rules governing the sport. So let´s not blame the engineers,aerodynmists for the solution they (are forced) to produce.
F1 is per se, not best placed to be road car relevant, as open wheels are not really the norm in todays cars, but do we want to use that argument, to stop F1 and only focus on sports,touring and GT-car racing?

Aerodynamic as such is quite relevant to road car engineering, and ground effect aero is used on high end sports cars these days - so not all bad here I guess:


Trend of the aerodynamic downforce coefficient of Ferrari GT models recorded over the last 20 years. Since the 355, which was the first downforcing car, the downforce of all following models has been continuously increased. On the V8 rear engine cylinder up to 8 times more than the 355.



http://www.auto-innovations.com/site/do ... eroen.html

[WhiteBlue]

There is a clear trend on all modern road going sports cars to use ground effect aerodynamics as opposed to wings. But the number of cars that make use of downforce is negligible compared to the total number of cars being build. So if we look at the importance of floor aero vs wing aero I would agree that wings are not as valuable an invention as floor aero is.

We seem to have a clear podium now:

1. Carbon fibre sandwich monocoque design by Barnard 19%
2. Ground effect car by Chapman (for all aerodynamic floors and diffusers) 15%
3. Driver safety cell with protected FT3/5 fuel tank, front, rear, side and top impact and penetration protection 13%

4. Fully stressed engine, front by Jano, mid-rear by Chapman et al. 10%

While the first two places are taken by individual inventions the third is the result of the FiA legislation and the teams engineering excellence. So Barnard and Chapman come out as the most recognized F1 engineers which is kind of fitting. The third place probably goes to Vittorio Jano which is also fitting in my view. His work for Alfa Romeo and Ferrari has been ground breaking many times with the D 50 and the Dino V6 engine as the most prominent examples.

[RacingManiac]

To a degree I think Aero has its influence in road going vehicle, and that influence is likely to increase in the future as bids to improve overall efficiency increases. Now the way aero is being used in F1(or indeed, racing in general) is probably not where the road going vehicle technology is heading, with maybe exception in those uber-high performance cars. What might be more relevant is the methodologies used in evaluating aerodynamic on a car. Be it as the use of CFD and windtunnel and so forth.

F1 is some really detail oriented engineering applied to a really narrow scope, but the same tools and methods can just as well be applied to other stuff....all the more reason why some place like the ex-Toyota F1 shop is still pretty much utilized now, since there are a lot of other work can use their expertise and tools....