What was the first F1 car with paddle shifting?

[xxChrisxx]

"There is no reason for a drivers car to have anything but a proper H box. Begause selecting 'D' and pressing a 'go' pedal is qucker... but boring and unsatisfying. The only reason why paddles are popular is becuase you can pretend you are <insert favourite F1 drivers name>".

"Drivers Car"?

A car for 'drivers'. People who appreciate the skill of a well executed gear shift. Who like the feel of a good turn in and flooring the thottle on the way out. Basically a car designed to be driven, not just sat in as a form of locomotion.

For a car to get from A to B along the motorway, a comfortable cruiser, i'd choose an automatic every time.

For when I want to spank across the snake pass like my air is on fire I want a proper manual. I want to 'drive' the car, not just have it transport me from A to B in a dull fashion.

[Richard]

Contrived limitations are what differentiates a sport from mere function.

The challenge in most motorsports isn't just guiding a car around the circuit, but to also operate the machinary.

The amount of automation is rather contrived so we have an irrational middle ground between full automation or have double declutching and manual wrenches at pit stops.

[autogyro]

The last time I bought a car (2007) the Beamers and the Audi automatic boxes were heavier and using more fuel. With both companies fighting mightily for fuel efficiency I would not believe that they had passed on an opportunity to sell automatics with on par properties. But perhaps you do know much more than those people do.

ZF automatic transmissions in both I believe.
Established monopoly that shows a lack of development interest by any of the big car manufacturers in anything other than gimmicky so called seamless gearboxes and silly paddle shift levers.
Stick a bigger alternator and battery on them and pretend they are hybrids.
Motor mouths won't know the difference.
20 mpg if yer lucky, we had that in the 1930's.
The boy racer marketing hype rules OK.
It is even funnier in motor cycles.
They still use an antiquated foot lever like an old Singer sowing machine.
Brrmm brrmm.

[autogyro]

Contrived limitations It are what differentiates a sport from mere function.

The challenge in most motorsports isn't just guiding a car around the circuit, but to also operate the machinary.

The amount of automation is rather contrived so we have an irrational middle ground between full automation or have double declutching and manual wrenches at pit stops.

Sport?
Maybe just in F1.
I do not go to other racing since I retired from racing myself.
For every reasonable driver I see racing, I could name at least a dozen who are better but cannot afford to race. Sport?
For the privileged maybe.

[Richard]

Sport?

Stick to topic.

[autogyro]

Sport?

Stick to topic.

I was on topic.
You tried to explain the need for manual gear changes as requirements of a sport.
I explained how far from a sport F1 has become.

[Richard]

I was on topic.
You tried to explain the need for manual gear changes as requirements of a sport.
I explained how far from a sport F1 has become.

Sorry, I was wary of a digression about the privileged few.

My point was that the objective isn't to drive as fast as possible, but to drive as fast as possible within a set of relatively arbitrary sporting rules. One of them is manual selection of the gears.

As others have commented, a lot of drivers feel more engaged with the machine when using manual gear selection.

Why do people think pushing a button wouldn't feel the same as a paddle? I guess it because we are trained to drive to change with a stick shift, so pulling on a paddle gives a similar tactile action, as opposed to pushing a silly little button.

Sure a paddle is just a button with a big actuator, but that's human emotion for you.

[xxChrisxx]

You tried to explain the need for manual gear changes as requirements of a sport.
I explained how far from a sport F1 has become.

F1 although now an international business, and willy waving ground for people with ego's and money.

It's still a sport by definition.

What you are saying is the same as:

Football... the objective is to get goals, playing with ones foot only is highly restrictive, more goals would be scored if you are able to throw the ball in the net.

Although the above is true, it kind of defeats the point of making it arificially hard for the organic bit in the middle of the car. There is a reason it's called 'Formula'.

[autogyro]

You tried to explain the need for manual gear changes as requirements of a sport.
I explained how far from a sport F1 has become.

F1 although now an international business, and willy waving ground for people with ego's and money.

It's still a sport by definition.

What you are saying is the same as:

Football... the objective is to get goals, playing with ones foot only is highly restrictive, more goals would be scored if you are able to throw the ball in the net.
Although the above is true, it kind of defeats the point of making it arificially hard for the organic bit in the middle of the car. There is a reason it's called 'Formula'.

Football? I thought that was just a historic game between nations and regions.
You do not mean that artificially developed media thing 'grollyball' of today do you?
I do not follow it, far to predictable and mind deadeningly boring.

So you are saying that F1 must be restricted by any means, simply to make it a competition between a few privileged drivers?
Are you not forgetting the reason F1 was started in the first place. It was a technological competition originally between nations and then between high technology groups. The drivers were simply the best available to help win, not the main reason. The more you restrict technical development in F1, the more you take away it's reason for existence. The drivers can always race karts with high power. That would be just as much a driving challenge.

[xxChrisxx]

Football? I thought that was just a historic game between nations and regions.
You do not mean that artificially developed media thing 'grollyball' of today do you?
I do not follow it, far to predictable and mind deadeningly boring.

So you are saying that F1 must be restricted by any means, simply to make it a competition between a few privileged drivers?
Are you not forgetting the reason F1 was started in the first place. It was a technological competition originally between nations and then between high technology groups. The drivers were simply the best available to help win, not the main reason. The more you restrict technical development in F1, the more you take away it's reason for existence. The drivers can always race karts with high power. That would be just as much a driving challenge.

I am once again stunned by your seemingly flawless ability to totally miss the point.

The point is there are arbritrary rules for every 'game'. This is what makes said game 'fun'.


Let's take your point further of not restricting it. We now have the technology to allow cars to drive themselves round a track, they would do this flawlessly and much faster than any human possilbly could due to perfect consistency. Why not implement this? Then we can get rid of the driver altogether.

This is the natural conclusion to, its a showcase for technology, and drivers aren't important.

Most technical implementation is for driver saftey, we can make cars that are on the order of seconds (if not tens of seconds if allowed) quicker per lap if given absolute freedom. The problem is no human can handle the car.


Bottom line, the TV masses don't give a --- about the technology, they are;t engineers, people want to se a driver race.

[Giblet]

When we take away from the driver we guve to the car or the lap times usually.

To have a manual transmission or an semi-auto is not just a matter of speed.

Footy again. If the players all had to wear slick bottomed shoes with no cleats, only the best balanced and agile players would be able to run down the field or kick the ball.

I have talked before about how I feel about driver aids, or what the driver needs to do, or what you consider to be driving. Some people consider half the skill to be the dance that your feet need to do on the pedals.

It is hard to find the balance between driver skill and technical innovation. You want the car to be able to showcase the drivers talents somehow, and in turn you want the driver to be able to showcase the cars prowess. As soon as that gets skewed, it becomes boring. Ferrari's dominant car for years made F1 boring to watch. At the same time it's no fun seeing an Alonso languishing in a slower car all year.

The last time I saw a driver/car truly be harmonious was senna at Monaca. That was a man integrated into a machine.

[xxChrisxx]

When we take away from the driver we guve to the car or the lap times usually.

To have a manual transmission or an semi-auto is not just a matter of speed.

I agree. It's a slow decline really, you can either have a techological racing series OR one that is driver focused. You can't have both, as technology advances this gap will just get wider.

You either have to having more limits on tehcnology or less focus on the driver.

I personally don't care if modern technology is used. As an engineer' for me the beauty comes from a well designed car, using current or even old technlogy to the very best of its ability. It keeps costs down and focus on the driver.

On the other hand I also appreciate clever use of technology, such as active ride, or the reather impressive lauch control programmes Renault used to have. The problem is the technology adnave leads to boring racing.

My fave manaco race was 92 or 96. 92 because of the last 5ish laps, and 96 becuase of the epic crashes.

[WhiteBlue]

Flexible or active wings, active suspension and other performance enhancing technologies that do not interfere with an autonomous driver could all make a return when a new engine formula appears after 2012. Much of these technologies were cut because cars were developing excessive performance. Once the engines are cut down again and fuel efficient design is introduced those things can help reduce aerodynamic drag and gain performance with lower power.

Sooner or later F1 cars will have electric motors close to all wheels and the ICU will just charge the batteries. You will not even need a transmission in such a car.

[zoru]

You can watch on-board videos for all the tracks (usually pole laps) on the official Formula One web site:

http://www.formula1.com/video/race_edits.html

To me, paddle operation looks more ergonomic than thumb button operation.
Maybe it is because we have only 1 per side opposable thumb which is short, as opposed to 2-3 long fingers.
Moving a thumb without affecting steering wheel grip does not seem easy. (e.g. Trulli at Suzuka braking to the 2nd corner)

[Giblet]

I have no problem with certain game changing technologies remaining banned. Just because something is obviously better and makes the car faster doesn't automatically make the sport better to.

We had a big discussion about Active Suspension before already, and disagree or not, to me active suspension (in it's 90's form, not talking about newer better ideas) was too much of a game changer. Other teams had to have active ride, and we had a season with 2 classes of cars in the field. Each time a game changing tech comes in, the sport goes into tech catchup mode, and the sport aspects get lost in the mire, and the WDC for that year becomes slightly less impressive.

There are reasons boxers don't wear helmets, goalies don't sit in the net holding a piece of plywood, and baseball players don't modify their bats to hit better.

Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad.