Formula One's relevance to aviation

[J.A.W.]

Concorde first flew in 1969.. well before Brabham was using carbon brakes..

Kawasaki also used their aviation tech in its factory racing formula 750 GP motorcycles back in the `70s..
..stuff like tungsten plasma-sprayed aluminium brake discs, & dry-break quick-fill refuelling rigs..

[Greg Locock]

Wow, that's a short list and getting shorter if JAW is right, and I suspect he is.

[J.A.W.]

Sanford Moss & others - were developing turbochargers for aviation nearly a century ago,
& tens of thousands of WW2 aircraft used them..

http://www.edisontechcenter.org/moss.html

When did the 1st F1 turbo-car win a race?

[Greg Locock]

I said it was arguable, I was really thinking more about production cars for that one - my impression is that Renault's use of them in F1 gave turbos a boost in the public's eye for production. So really you need a map showing how the technologies move between 4 fields - F1, other, aircraft, and road cars.


Personally i think those who think F1 drives (or drove) development in new technologies are way short of making much of a case. Sure, great for publicising new technologies, but they aren't the market, obviously, and simply lack the size to do the heavy lifting in fundamental research.

[J.A.W.]

Mighty GM sold regular production turbo-cars to the public - back in the early `60s..
Ironically, Brabham won a couple of F1 Championships with an Irving-Repco development of that GM V8..
..it was in N/A form by then, though..

1st turbo-car to make pole at the Indy 500 - did it in 1952.. ( albeit it was powered by a big Cummins C.I. mill)..

[Robbobnob]

One technology that developed in F1 and then lead to significant research and application elsewere was the advent of the Gurney Flap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurney_flap


Wing End fences also appeared on race cars much earlier than they appeared on Aircraft, though they were theorised as early as the early 1900's, they were not commonly used on aircraft until the late 80's.
In 1968, Mclaren and Lotus and Brabham were all starting to develop winged cars, Mclaren Developed the M7A with end plates on the rear wing, and this was the beginning of the Endplate in Formula 1.

[Greg Locock]

Tip plate:
1946 RC-3 Seabee. production 1060

[J.A.W.]

Check also: the wing-tip aero-end plates on mass-production Heinkel He 162 of 1945..

& Soviet swept-wing fighters of the 40s/50s were liberally festooned with wing fences..

[Greg Locock]

here's a link on the brakes

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=S- ... ns&f=false

[Tommy Cookers]

One technology that developed in F1 and then lead to significant research and application elsewere was the advent of the Gurney Flap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurney_flap

it has been said that .....
the GF formalises in metal or otherwise what was done c WW1 by a suitable length of cord doped onto one wing's trailing edge
(to correct lateral trim, by improving the Cl of the inferior wing, in those years before dedicated trimmer devices)
ie is a convenient modifier of an existing wing

[Edax]

Concorde first flew in 1969.. well before Brabham was using carbon brakes..

Kawasaki also used their aviation tech in its factory racing formula 750 GP motorcycles back in the `70s..
..stuff like tungsten plasma-sprayed aluminium brake discs, & dry-break quick-fill refuelling rigs..

You are absolutely right.(and I'm not) Reminder to check facts before I post from memory.

Personally i think those who think F1 drives (or drove) development in new technologies are way short of making much of a case. Sure, great for publicising new technologies, but they aren't the market, obviously, and simply lack the size to do the heavy lifting in fundamental research.

But for me that (publishing or demonstrating new technologies) is exactly what is needed.

In development we measure the maturity of a process by technology readiness level or TRL

The hardest part is to often get a technology from TRL 3 to 6. The reason is that it is all fine to do some testing in the lab, but to do a useful demonstration under operational conditions often takes a lot of commitment both in time and money. Companies are hesitant (and rightfully so) to embark on it when the outcome is risky.

Yet F1 does just that on a regular basis. Just take the suspension blockers of McLaren. No sane company would take such risk on their product line. Or the new engine by Honda. Can you you imagine them missing spec by about 30% on a commercial contract?

The innovation potential of F1 should not be measured by the amount of PhD's they fund or the amount of new ideas they generate, but by the fact that they have the guts to take new ideas and stick it on a car and drive it around a bumpy track for everyone to see.

[Greg Locock]

Sorry, I have worked in the car business long enough to have seen entire vehicle programs cancelled two years before J1 because of insuperable problems, and I worked on one ultimately successful car that spent most of its development life in our facility with no feasible engine mount system (fortunately resolved at great expense after a couple of years).

I also worked on one program where the engineering prototypes had bodyshells and engine designs based on two completely different strategies for engine mount locations. Management were happy (?) to run development on the two alternatives right through.

So yes I suspect Honda does have its own skeletons in the cupboard.