Which team, past or present, has brought the most innovation to F1

[JamesH]

I'm thinking it must be Lotus - ground effect, monocoque chassis, side mounted radiators, double chassis, carbon fibre (with Mcclaren).


Any other team with similar levels of innovations?

[Knowlesy]

Lotus and McLaren are the first that come to mind yeah.

Gordon Murray era Brabham too.

[Marbot]

I'd have to go with Lotus. They even raced a gas turbine a couple of times, and were the first to test a type of semi-auto gearbox.

[SennaTheGreat]

Lotus all the way, were they the 1st team to use and win a gp with active suspension? Lotus Honda 99T - Ayrton Senna - Monaco?

[garcon]

Seems a pretty straightforward case for Lotus.

A worthy mention for Tyrrell perhaps?

How about BAR for their second fuel tank?

[andy97]

Tyrrell - the 6 wheeler, the high nose, the "X Wing" additional aerofoils, the completely filled in front wish bones.

Only the high nose can be considered to be succesful & enduring but the other ideas still showed a degree of lateral thinking on a very tiny budget.

Honourable mention for Renault, too, for introducing the turbo back in the 1970s.

[chillibowl]

although they did not come up with the idea but the Cooper's rear engine placement was a game changer.

[fourWheelDrift]

Maybe the thread title should be which team is the second most innovative in the history of F1 as there doesn't appear to be a lot of debate about Lotus being No 1 in this area.

Much more to debate about Number two but as others have said Tyrell must be right up there.

Mclaren have come up with lots of interesting things but as they mostly seem to get banned they are hardly very influential!

[chris bailey]

Perhaps the question should be "successfully innovative"?

In which case, Lotus, definitely. The early monocoque cars, the 49, the 72, the 78 and 79 and (perhaps) the active suspension cars. Being innovative and making it work is the key. The turbine car didn't, however interesting a departure. The twin-chassis Lotus 88 was another case of "nice idea, never going to work".

[foreversideways]

Lotus by a country mile.

[foreversideways]

Actually just reading the comments reminded me of just how sterile F1 is now, other than geeks i doubt most people couldn't identify which F1 car was which if they were all turned out in white.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by foreversideways

Actually just reading the comments reminded me of just how sterile F1 is now, other than geeks i doubt most people couldn't identify which F1 car was which if they were all turned out in white.

That is of course because of what people have now is what works the best. You cant change the laws of physics and the laws of physics is what defines how the cars looks today. Also with todays extremely short development time (and massive budgets), whenever somebody thinks about something new then all the teams will have copied the concept over to their cars in a couple of races.

[foreversideways]

I think it's actually because the rules are so tight on what is and what isn't allowed. Gordon Murray, a great innovator in his time, has stated that he would have no interest in designing an F1 car now for this very reason.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by foreversideways

I think it's actually because the rules are so tight on what is and what isn't allowed. Gordon Murray, a great innovator in his time, has stated that he would have no interest in designing an F1 car now for this very reason.

No matter how open the rules are, there will always be one best design and thats how all the cars would end up looking like

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Wims

No matter how open the rules are, there will always be one best design and thats how all the cars would end up looking like

Stringent rules generally block out alternatives, and stifle creativity.
Designers generally don't like that.

Sure, they may find a common design that works best for a little while, but there will always be a chance for something completely different to take the scene by storm.
You don't really have that these days, now it's just enormous amounts of effort and funds put into minute details that get that 1 tenth, maybe 2 tenths of a second.

No longer will you see experiments like a six wheeler, or a turbine engine, or anything at all really.

And that just sucks.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Not quite, stringent rules generally block out alternatives, and stifle creativity.
Designers generally don't like that.

Sure, they may find a common design that works best, but there will always be a chance for something completely different to take the scene by storm.
You don't really have that these days, now it's just enormous amounts of effort and funds put into minute details that get that 1 tenth, maybe 2 tenths of a second.

And that just sucks.

But the thing is, whenever a team comes up with something new that works then it will be on all the other teams car within 3 races, like say the f-duct

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Wims

No matter how open the rules are, there will always be one best design and thats how all the cars would end up looking like

I think it is a combination of many factors but I would highlight three,

1. convergance because the teams now have the technology and budget to find the ideal solution,

2. The extremely restrictive regulations

3. All the tracks are very much alike

1 and 2 are mentioned above but not 3 I think. If there was more variety in the circuits, in the variety and combinations of corners and also in bumps which have all been ironed out. We should have smooth circuits and some with a few real bumps to contend with. If there was more variety of circuits teams would find themselves making different compromises and producing genuinely different cars.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Wims

But the thing is, whenever a team comes up with something new that works then it will be on all the other teams car within 3 races, like say the f-duct

Yeah, but so what?
Then it's onto the next big thing.

Creative design is a journey, not a goal. (Oh, how cliché...)

That's how it is now, but it's so minute you barely notice it, broadcasting teams have to spend hours of time patiently explaining just what is so different about this and that car that makes the other car win so much.
While it used to be pretty fecking obvious. Hey look, it's got a big fan that sucks the thing down like a vacuum cleaner!

[Wims]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Yeah, but so what?
Then it's onto the next big thing.

Creative design is a journey, not a goal. (Oh, how cliché...)

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying that in the end (as in really quickly) all the other teams will catch up and the cars will look the same.

[wnut]

On a slightly different tack

Jackie Stewart for F1 and racing safety, and forming the GPDA into a proper organisation capable of fighting for driver safety. (Tyrrel I guess allowed him to do the work)

Louis Stanley (BRM) for the mobile medical response facilities and getting Sid Watkins involved.

[wnut]

Whoever the person at Williams was that made active suspension really work. Lotus brought it into F1, but somebody at Williams made it work!

Does anybody know who should be credited with Williams active suspension?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Yeah, but so what?
Then it's onto the next big thing.

Creative design is a journey, not a goal. (Oh, how cliché...)

That's how it is now, but it's so minute you barely notice it, broadcasting teams have to spend hours of time patiently explaining just what is so different about this and that car that makes the other car win so much.
While it used to be pretty fecking obvious. Hey look, it's got a big fan that sucks the thing down like a vacuum cleaner!

You are pretty lucky with BBC coverage. The Australians are stuck with a local feed that replaces the pit walk and pre race show with a bunch of locals that resemble two gents in a pub having an ill informed discussion.
How to cover F1 if you really hate it!

[rocketracer]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are pretty lucky with BBC coverage. The Australians are stuck with a local feed that replaces the pit walk and pre race show with a bunch of locals that resemble two gents in a pub having an ill informed discussion.
How to cover F1 if you really hate it!

hahaha, that's pretty true.... but you forgot to also mention the bias which adds yet another (sour) flavour....

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by wnut

Whoever the person at Williams was that made active suspension really work. Lotus brought it into F1, but somebody at Williams made it work!

Does anybody know who should be credited with Williams active suspension?

At Lotus it was Peter Wright with a large input from David Williams from Cranfield Institute.

At Williams it was Patrick Head and Frank Dernie - the team's aerodynamicist at the time. I believe AP were involved too.

The goal of Lotus was to maximise grip by controlling the wheel movement to maximise the contact patch.

Williams took a whole different approach: their objective was to manage the aerodynamic package to get the most from it. By keeping the body and therefore the aerodynamic surfaces 'level', whether the car was braking, accelerating or cornering hard, the Williams had maximum downforce and minimum drag at all times.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by phoenix

The goal of Lotus was to maximise grip by controlling the wheel movement to maximise the contact patch.

Williams took a whole different approach: their objective was to manage the aerodynamic package to get the most from it. By keeping the body and therefore the aerodynamic surfaces 'level', whether the car was braking, accelerating or cornering hard, the Williams had maximum downforce and minimum drag at all times.

Are you sure about Lotus's goal being just about controlling the wheel movement? I always thought Lotus's objective was about keep the aerodynamis surfaces level, as well as keeping the tires perpendicular to the road in corners, allowing for much higher levels of grip and control by eliminating body roll caused by the centrifugal forces on a car as it corners.

As to the question, Lotus.