F1: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

  • Thread starter Only_in_f1
  • 78 comments
  • 7,202 views
I think both Williams and March have tested 4WD cars in the past but both of these were 6 wheeled cars!


Metar's Ferrari 312T6
 
I just researched some... Williams' and March's 4WDers weren't 4WDers in the traditional meaning, since the powered wheels were the four rear ones. The tests were moderately successful - not slower, but at the same time, not faster.

Ferrari tested one too, called a 312T6. Their concept, however, was four wheels one the same axle (like big trucks have). In '76, Niki Lauda reckoned he could race it once or twice in preparation for the next season, and was very satisfied with the car - but his crash threw it out of the window.

4WD, 4 Wheel Steering and more than four wheels were officially banned in '83.
 
There were many attempts at 4WD in F1, but none of the cars ever really worked. In fact during one of Lotus’s attempts I believe Hill used the words “death trap” and refused to drive it again. But I digress…

Correct about the Lotus. Colin Chapman was convinced 4WD was the way forward but the drivers never got on with the 4WD cars and it never performed well in F1 on a Lotus. I believe it did rather better in the gas turbine Indycars raced by the team, where the 4WD was practically a requirement to cure excessive wheelspin from the vast amount of torque generated by gas turbines, but I might have my history a bit mixed up with that. Perhaps understeer was less of a problem at the brickyard.
 
I believe it did rather better in the gas turbine Indycars raced by the team, where the 4WD was practically a requirement to cure excessive wheelspin from the vast amount of torque generated by gas turbines, but I might have my history a bit mixed up with that. Perhaps understeer was less of a problem at the brickyard.

It was a project probably mothballed after Mike Spence died in one during qualifying for Indy in '68.

Wiki has a good article on 4WD in F1
 
Honda RA272

2006sagf1hondara2721965co8.jpg


Do i need to say more:)


WORD!
 
How about dem pace/safety cars!

The good:

clkf1car06_01.jpg


The bad:

73305500_1573cd0d5e.jpg


The ugly:

1243668.jpg


EDIT: The ugly image is not showing, but try to imagine a Honda Prelude as a safety car. (1994)
 
50s F1:

The good: Juan Manuel Fangio takes 5 titles in 8 years driving for 4 different teams in the World Championship.

The bad: Jean Behra's tantrums result in Harry Schell's racer being handed over to the Frenchman after Schell set a lap record in qualifying for a GP.

The ugly (and tragic): Luigi Fagioli, Alberto Ascari, Eugenio Castellotti, Ken Wharton, Archie Scott-Brown, Stuart Lewis-Evans, Peter Collins, and Luigi Musso are all gone before the decade is out.

The even more tragic: Mike Hawthorn, Britain's first World Champion, is also killed before 1960, on the A3 motorway, at the age of 29.

The "different": Tony Brooks wins his first F1 race driving a Connaught at Syracuse. He would go on to place 3rd in 1958, and 2nd in 1959 in the Driver's Title.
 
I'm sorry for beign a little off-topic, but the effects of the sun in this pic it's just...

 
It is also pretty ancient. I haven't heard of the idea again for at least a year.

Yes; nobody liked it, being too bizarre and 'useless'.

Wouldn't that be quite unstable aerodynamically?

Probably, but then there will be a clean air mass behind the car where the air is not being pushed by the wing to force the car on the track. This leaves the nose on any other car in clean air when slipstreaming on straights.

Either way, F1 is still 'sufficient' without this split-wing.

Edit: Actually, my theory is wrong. As Blake had said in another thread (Unraced F1 cars), they did not do a thing for aerodynamics and passing.
 

Latest Posts

Back