Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
I believe Chapman began thinking about active-suspension in the early eighties as an aerodynamic device, but as the flat-bottom rule was introduced in 83, the entire thing was pretty much forgotten until it came back in 87, but primarily to keep tires in their maximum contact patch with the road under all G-conditions; cornering, braking, and acceleration.
Then it was Newey who really understood how to make ground-effect with a flat-bottomed car with Leyton House, stepped nose and diffuser, but realized that he needed a constant and minimum ride-height to make it work, which he got at Williams.
As for Newey asking for more Renault power, the active system was indeed power consuming and Dudot favoured flexibility before top-end Hp, just like it was Newey who wanted the engines to run hotter in order to use smaller radiators.
I can imagine there was a lot of arguments between the two on many engine-issues.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
The results don't lie I'm afraid. As Peter Wright at Lotus said the mechanical side of things wasn't too expensive or complex. It was the software side of things and working out the logic of what the system did under different circumstances. That can only come from one place since the biggest advantage in an active suspension system really is aerodynamic. If that was easy then other teams would have been getting on with the job of catching up. Instead they lobbied to get it banned.
The hydraulic and pneumatic systems in the Williams certainly were power consuming and that is one reason for the pressure on the Renault engine. When you get someone like Newey making a lot of noisy demands it puts pressure on everything and everyone else. That's the point here.
Notice the common theme: He decided to do something that he had no idea about, no idea how to work with it but he had decided, probably within a minute of seeing it, that it was a material he simply had to work with. A couple of companies he talked to found it too scary a prospect.
xpensive wrote:To imagine that this man is content with designing carbonfibre furniture today, mindboggling really.
That doesn't sound very different from work done in contemporary F1.
Well, IMO Barnard was a bit of an anachronism. He would ideally fit in the Chapman's era. His strength were breakthrough ideas while the more time passed the more emphasis came on refinement.
What's interesting is that Rory Byrne came into prominence by refining Barnard's designs. The B19X series Benetton's which won races were direct descendents of Barnard's B191 and Ferrari's up to F2001 were evolutions of Barnard's F310B.
Barnard really was the guy who set Formula 1 up for what it is now technically .
Not only did he come up with the goods characterising a current car.
-powertrain an integrated part of the design process has to fit into the aerodynmic constraints
-Carbonfibre tub
-gearbox automatic shift
-reliable CF Gearbox casing (Arrows)
-lightest everything without compromising durability -CF suspension etc
-aero -he came up with coke bottle ,stepped bottom longitudinally (high nose in effect )
-everything bespoke ,less and less off the shelve parts
-before everything cf he was the one to have everything machined and welded to highest standards (including complete gearboxhousings in titanium)
but he also implemented real R&D Departments into Formula 1
His trace of paving the way for todays race factories:
Mclaren sure would not be what it is today without him -and -of course Ron Dennis who instantly understood and provided the goods ....
Ferrari GTO in Guildford(sold to Mclaren to produce high quality parts for SLR)
Bennetton Godalming ( Walkinshaw an dbriatore fired him because of his Insane spending -NASA approach...)now Lotus
Ferrari FDD later B3 Technologies (Now in Gordon Murrays hands)
Toyota F1 /stillborn (RTN) now Caterham composite
To say he was not a detail man is a gross misconception -the man is just a detail freak ..What he is not interested in is fiddling around with one and the same thing turning it upside down year after year and optimising it in homoepatic doses -
the reality of todays formula 1 ...and he is not a fan of todays AERO dominance either as I understand.
No wonder he is not interested anymore..
That's pretty much how I've understood Barnard's decision to go design furniture as ridiculous as it seems.
He's commented multiple times on how technically restrictive the formula is now, so I can't imagine he has any interest in getting involved in such stupidity that will allow him to stretch his wings so to speak. I think we're really being robbed of many new developments that could happen with the rules being what they are. I would love to see what Barnard would do with design if the formula were more open as the man is an absolute genius. Same goes for Gordon Murray.
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet
Gordon Murray was not to be trusted with a clean sheet of paper
as shown by the (surface-radiator) BT 46 and the (laydown) BT 55
and he was the F1 equivalent of those who could have signed up the Beatles, but chose not to
he (and rulemaking friend Ecclestone ?) produced flexible skirts/dams underneath the (flat-bottomed) BT 44b
ie had ground effect technology in his hands but didn't notice its potential
GM, like most designers, was best working within constraints, and thus earned a reputation
did Mr E ever forgive him for the above shortfalls ?
I find it intriguing that there are still people out there who did not see through the "surface-cooled" BT46, when it was nothing but a decoy for the fan-car which was in the pipeline, if you take closer look at the images, it was simply styrofoam pads.
As for the low-line BT55, the concept worked fine on the 1988 McLaren, it was just the tilted BMW-engine that didn't like it.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
I don't think it is fair to compare chapman with newey. Chapman innovated, Newey perfected. Both worked within the confinements of the rules, and those were and are more stringent for Newey, which the latter duly likes. The one couldn't survive in the others era: Newey isn't an innovator and chapman would go crazy when he had to limit himself to correlations between cfd, windtunnel and track.
I also wouldn't call Newey the person behind active suspension. He just took the idea which was created much earlier, had access to technology which was able to make it run better and lighter, and just made it work properly. But he didn't invent it, just perfected it. The same with exhaust blown diffusers: in the 80s they came up with it (I think Renault did), from mid 90s teams slowly and progressively started to step away from it, but then Newey reintroduced it together with creative engine mappings.
There was always something with Barnard's personality that appealed to me, kind of Gascoyne's, like his legendary rows with
Ron Dennis on spending or when he purposely designed the Ferrari 640 that it was impossible to install a manual gear-shift.
My kinda man. All the way. Had I been blessed with a fraction of his vision, I'd turn religious.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
