Paddle shifters are only seen on a wider variety of vehicles because in most cases, it’s a gimmick, an optional selling feature. Unless we’re talking high end performance cars, vast majority of road cars can be fully automatic.
If active suspension had received as much R&D and marketing over the last 20-30 years as paddle shift gearboxes have, perhaps we’d see active suspension on a wider variety of road vehicles.
Pretty much every car has the option, and it's not a selling feature it's just given out because sometime it's necessary to have that control depending on the driving situation. Only time I hear the "gimmick" argument is from those who are greatly opposed to it due to wanting traditional manual gearboxes. Even the high end cars are semi auto, or 7 to 10 speed auto because the computer shifts faster. But that technology innovation came from the move away from manual gear boxes to semi auto paddle boxes and then further. So in reality the innovation has proven itself and beyond.
As for R&D being taken from Active suspension, that's not true at all. The first systems were developed and being used in the 50s and then further in the next decade and onward. Bose even had a system in the early 90s, known as the "magic carpet" suspension that virtually eliminated body roll. However, it was costly (again) and heavy to implement for the time. This was done by a manufacture who wasn't even in F1 and others as well not in F1. Also there is plenty of active electronic suspension it's just in upper end luxury and high performance cars as I said. There is no reason to put it into lower end or even mid range cars especially for the cost.
Like I’ve said, I understand the safety argument in the 90s, I just don’t think the same argument is as strong today.
Great, glad again you understand after being told a few times. The argument however is for the FIA to decide. Teams want it back as I said though.
It is a big factor in what is allowed in F1 though, at least according to the big wigs in F1. They’re always yammering on about road relevance, and trickle down development, blah blah blah. Personally I could care less about road relevance. My point is, a lot of where F1 is today (eg hybrids) is because of manufacturers insisting on road relevance, while at the same time they spend endless dollars researching downforce, which for 95% of road cars, has no relevance. Same with paddle shift gear boxes to a degree.
No it's not a big factor, it only recently became one, due to how big of an effect the 08 global market crash had on the automotive industry and how it eliminated frivolous spending, which despite how you and I see it, that is what racing more often tends to be. Manufactures (other than Ferrari) don't want to spend millions of dollars unless they're getting some added benefit to use, beyond PR and global advertising 20 to 22 Sundays every year.
They're not researching down force they know the science, what they're doing is spending money developing tools to reconfigure aero kits within the always changing rules of F1. Which is why when you get consecutive years of the same rules, you don't see the cars change drastically. Also aerodynamics doesn't have "no relevance" for "95 percent of road cars". If it did companies wouldn't spend as much as they do on ANSYS or CAD tools that help model CFD to better enhance the shape of their cars and allow for better fuel efficiency along with other factors. Again as I said
these advances in such tools have real world applications even if what F1 teams are doing don't, and F1 teams have actually helped the industry by advancing said tools through their "non relevant" work. As for the gearboxes I've explained it quite well it's a dead horse to keep trying to rehash it from step one.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you so much for helping me understand, oh wise one.
Not a problem 👍
Though I'd probably be far more receptive and feel less likely to point out that I'm repeating myself, if I didn't have to in the first place every time you want to state yourself (views?).
