Larger cockpit openings & head area rule changes in '96, force new chassis' like '95?

F310 was a completely new design yes...everything was different.

I'm not sure if all teams had a completely new design, although with all the bigger cockpits and higher sides new chassis would have to be made and crash tested.

 

They've pretty much all done new tubs year on year for a long time now. Even without substantial rule changes, it's very rare for the chassis (& most other bits come to that) to see more than a single seasons service.

Cheers,
Ian

 

They'll occasionally run out the previous years car, at least early on, (in 'modified' form) if;

- it was dominant the previous year or
- they get behind in manufacturing or
- they realize they've done a dog!.... Mclaren (~10 years back?) was the last I remember completely reverting to a previous design.

But, I think it's very unusual and even then I believe they'll generally lay up new chassis, albeit using an older design.

These things are subjected to such high stresses and built so 'delicately' that they also have pretty strictly maintained lifetimes. Typically, one season.

Cheers,
Ian

 

It's a far cry from the day when the Lotus 72 ran for 6 seasons and was competitive for 5, and the McLaren M23 ran for 5 seasons and was competitive for 4. Even the Ferrari 312T was undefeated (except for the rules change that eventually obsoleted it) in its second season of 1976.

 

Way before my days on this earth... Was the engine the dominant part of development back then or was there for some reason a period seeing very little development?

 

Yes indeed!.....

Of course, they were aluminum back then. The later ones albeit honeycomb glued together. I suspect (but could very well be wrong here) that their lifespans were simply longer too. I do remember drilling out & replacing rivets in tubs on occasion.....

I have a feeling these modern carbon things go a little 'noodly' as they age.

Cheers,
Ian

 

At this point probably they are not 100% sure about what´s going to happen with the carbon tubs when they´re 50 or 60 years old. Even some of the first carbon bicycles were sold with an expiry date. In theory, they should last forever, but it could be cracked in the inside and nobody would notice it without the right equipment.

 

Oh, they're 'strong' all right! The all important torsional rigidity is amazing these days too. But, if you look at what happens in the crash tests they, basically, explode - They can absorb an incredible amount of energy, but there's no repairing them!

By 'delicate' I mean light weight - I just don't think they're built to be long lived was my point.(*)

Cheers,
Ian
(*) EDIT; At least if pushed to the limits. - back off a little, as in the hands of amateurs etc and they're probably fine.

 

I think a major factor was stability in the rules. Some changes did occur - for instance a rules change at the Spanish GP in 1976 banned the tall airboxes that had dominated the sport for several years, but most cars just changed their airbox designs. There was also a limitation on car width, that resulted in one of James Hunt's victories being taken away - for a while, at least.

 

They *can* be built that way - Witness the carbon airplanes we're seeing now - hopefully they don't go all floppy after a few years!

But, and again, I could be wrong, but I don't think these are built that way.

As for fatigue, I guess ask the aviation guys - Done 'right' (read 'heavy' with expanded load paths etc), aluminum is still pretty damn good.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The F2002B was basically an F2002 chassis & engine with some of the new parts on the car already (notably nose cone and wing and some small aero tweaks) and a couple of new engine parts.

 

In the survival cell, sure.

But there's a lot more to them that of course.... For example, I recall reading about a guy who's trying to 'restore' a Honda from a few years ago. It featured one of the early carbon fiber gearbox cases and the guy that designed it simply told him not to use it!... It was 'lifed' and would explode apparently!.... Last I heard, he went to Hewland and did a new one in magnesium.(!)

Cheers,
Ian

 

New Rules for 96 were regarding cockpit escape and ability to extricate the driver - aka Senna and Wendlinger accident at Monaco... cushion on sides of cockpit for heads as well as wheel thethers. the 95 cars were lightly modified with full implementaiton of Mosley rules in 96

Ferrari's F310 was a John Barnard clean sheet - low nose & Rory Byrne high nose mid season. also the first time Ferrari had a V10 vs. V12. 412T2 was last 12 cyl Ferrari in F1.

 

If it were possible, it would be interesting to compare today's operating budgets, of say, Ferrari and McLaren, to those of 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. I suspect that today's are far, far greater, which of course permits much more rapid development, and consequently, obsolescence.

 

Way way over the top compared to the 70's - in the 60's you could field a full team all races for $200K drivers included in that!

I Think Ken Tyrrell spend less than $250K in 71 to win the world championship.

In those days you could re use much of the previous years car.. up until about 1977- 78. when ground effects and computers and wind tunnels became part of it the cost started to go up. then took a Major bump up in 1984, and then again in 1990 from there it just went Nutz!

in 1982 - Niki Lauda was being paid the astronomical fee of $1M for a one year contract. Piquet the WDC earned maybe $400K in 81.


today engineers are earning $1M a year. an average mechanic gets about $150K + travel.

 

Mmm... not sure, I think that Rory Byrne´s "first Ferrari" was the F310B of 1997, that actually still was a Barnard design.

 

I might be wrong, but i think Barnard left shortly thereafter the launch and Byrne took over the development ... early 96...

 

I just looked it up on the handy online inflation adjuster. $200K in 1965 equates to roughly $1.5M in today's money. $250K in '71 equals about the same.

Mind boggling.