Technology Spin Offs of F1

[wnut]

McLaren remote monitoring of vital signs introduced to Children's Hospital!

http://www.pitpass.com/47071-McLaren...-to-save-lives

Good to see, McLaren are getting good at this - c.f. Bionic Arm

[mrfizz]

Very impressive.

Erm, my fiesta's got traction control............

[wnut]

Originally Posted by mrfizz

Very impressive.

Erm, my fiesta's got traction control............

Why?

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by wnut

McLaren remote monitoring of vital signs introduced to Children's Hospital!

http://www.pitpass.com/47071-McLaren...-to-save-lives

Good to see, McLaren are getting good at this - c.f. Bionic Arm

That's great !

[S14]

Originally Posted by wnut

Why?

To shave off a couple of tenths at Parabolica, of course!

[Marbot]

Traction control appeared on road cars long before it came to F1. Anything to do with carbon fibre, you would have to thank aerospace for. ABS appeared on road cars long before it came to F1. ESP has never gotten to F1. Turbo charging became quite common on road cars in the seventies (Saab Turbo, etc), Renault were the first to introduce turbocharging to F1 at about the same time. Trucks had already been using turbo chargers for quite some time. Porsche were first with the 'Flappy-Paddle' gearbox. Brabham had carbon brakes in 76, but this was again something that aerospace were using first (Concorde).

So, if we discount the fact that many things were already in common use prior to being used on F1 cars, then F1 certainly has had an influence on modern road vehicles.

But things like the remote monitoring system are certainly a benefit from a teams electronics department. Carbon fibre wheel chairs (I want one) are also a real benefit (if a somewhat expensive one!) for some people. Carbon fibre push-bikes, etc.

[b1ackcr0w]

Sometimes it's more clear-cut than others. The obvious example is Audi's sportscar programme, where they have found its advantageous to get in the slip-stream of cars they want to eventually overtake, ideally by tucking their front bumper under the other vehicle's exhaust pipe, so they now devote a section in the owners manual of their road cars to perfecting the technique.

In other cases it's more debatable. For instance, for many years BMW have been making weight savings on both their consumer and racing products, by not fitting an indicator system.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by b1ackcr0w

Sometimes it's more clear-cut than others. The obvious example is Audi's sportscar programme, where they have found its advantageous to get in the slip-stream of cars they want to eventually overtake, ideally by tucking their front bumper under the other vehicle's exhaust pipe, so they now devote a section in the owners manual of their road cars to perfecting the technique.

In other cases it's more debatable. For instance, for many years BMW have been making weight savings on both their consumer and racing products, by not fitting an indicator system.

Similarly, many Vauxhall Merivas have the option of stability control which prevents them leaving the centre lane of the motorway at a steady 65 mph.

[Greem]

Joking apart, the standardisation of crash tests of road vehicles in Europe was driven by the FIA after changes in F1 and other forms of motorsport. The crash tests that F1 cars have to pass are far more stringent than those for road cars, yet the tests are done in the exact same way.

For me personally that's far and away the biggest "spin off" from F1 (and other forms of motorsport). There are lots of us - probably a few reading this - who wouldn't be here if Mr Mosley hadn't pushed EuroNCAP along.

[b1ackcr0w]

Indeed. It's not always the Car industry that directly benefits from F1. Airbus has a bunch of ex-F1 people and tie ups that make aircraft lighter, stronger, more fuel efficient, better aerodynamically etc, etc. Sorry to advertise my benefactors, other large passenger aircraft are available

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Turbo charging became quite common on road cars in the seventies (Saab Turbo, etc)

Indeed, GM had put it on to road cars in the early Sixties. And, of course, forced induction was not at all uncommon on pre-WWII racing cars.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Greem

Joking apart, the standardisation of crash tests of road vehicles in Europe was driven by the FIA after changes in F1 and other forms of motorsport. The crash tests that F1 cars have to pass are far more stringent than those for road cars, yet the tests are done in the exact same way.

For me personally that's far and away the biggest "spin off" from F1 (and other forms of motorsport). There are lots of us - probably a few reading this - who wouldn't be here if Mr Mosley hadn't pushed EuroNCAP along.

I agree that the road crash tests are good, but they are still a complete joke. Who in their right mind would race a standard production car unaltered? They have all the structural integrity of a coke can!
Granted they were much worse when subject to self regulation.

Wish we could get the same standards in the foods we eat .....

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wnut

I agree that the road crash tests are good, but they are still a complete joke. Who in their right mind would race a standard production car unaltered? They have all the structural integrity of a coke can!

Likewise, who would use a racing car to take the family on a long trip to the seaside?

The point was that too many people got killed in racing cars, so standard tests were introduced (in F1 and other single-seater series mainly) and these then became the basis for a standardised way to test and rate production cars. I think to call them a "complete joke" is a bit of stretch, wnut.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I agree that the road crash tests are good, but they are still a complete joke. Who in their right mind would race a standard production car unaltered? They have all the structural integrity of a coke can!

Well, production cars are not specifically designed to go racing. Crumple zones, rather than iron girders, work best for them.