How much have regulations evolved?
Discussion
This is purely thought experiment level thinking. How much of a modern F1 car could legally be used in, say, mid-60's F1? I know manufacturing techniques and materials have come on a long way, but let's presume you and your fully stocked F1 manufacturing plant fall into a wormhole and emerge, fully functioning, in '67.
wst said:
This is purely thought experiment level thinking. How much of a modern F1 car could legally be used in, say, mid-60's F1? I know manufacturing techniques and materials have come on a long way, but let's presume you and your fully stocked F1 manufacturing plant fall into a wormhole and emerge, fully functioning, in '67.
On the technical side, ‘67 would’ve been the 1.5T / 3.0 era? So modern forced induction engine capacity is too big for a start. The modern car would significantly exceed the maximum 1960s car width and length if one existed, and had there been a minimum ground clearance the modern car would’ve fallen foul of that. I can’t imagine the 1967 treaded bias ply tyres would’ve taken kindly to modern hugely wide wheels.Everything was made of Aluminium and Magnesium in 1967 F1 because that’s about as spaceage as materials got back then. I know that nowadays historic race series explicitly prohibit ‘exotic materials’ especially in engines but I doubt that was the case in 1967 so I reckon the fact that the modern car is made entirely out of carbon fibre wouldn’t have been a problem. In 1967 Lotus had already made a road car with a composite monocoque (the Elite) but I don’t think anybody had made a composite F1 tub yet.
I am not sure what the fuel regulations were in 1967 so it’s possible that the modern cocktail of fuels and lubricants would not have been permitted.
On the sporting side, Nobody was refuelling in ’67 so the modern car would’ve played nicely in that respect. I am not sure if there were regulations governing the number of team members or the type of equipment used during pit stops back then.
With F1 regulations, Necessity is the mother of invention so the rulemakers wouldn’t have been anticipating the advent of aerodynamics, electric hybrid power assistance, 8-speed sequential gearboxes, waste heat and energy recovery etc etc… the regulations have generally been reactive to innovations of the time so your modern day F1 designer would find regulations of the time refreshingly free.
HustleRussell said:
On the technical side, ‘67 would’ve been the 1.5T / 3.0 era? So modern forced induction engine capacity is too big for a start. The modern car would significantly exceed the maximum 1960s car width and length if one existed, and had there been a minimum ground clearance the modern car would’ve fallen foul of that. I can’t imagine the 1967 treaded bias ply tyres would’ve taken kindly to modern hugely wide wheels.
Everything was made of Aluminium and Magnesium in 1967 F1 because that’s about as spaceage as materials got back then. I know that nowadays historic race series explicitly prohibit ‘exotic materials’ especially in engines but I doubt that was the case in 1967 so I reckon the fact that the modern car is made entirely out of carbon fibre wouldn’t have been a problem. In 1967 Lotus had already made a road car with a composite monocoque (the Elite) but I don’t think anybody had made a composite F1 tub yet.
I am not sure what the fuel regulations were in 1967 so it’s possible that the modern cocktail of fuels and lubricants would not have been permitted.
On the sporting side, Nobody was refuelling in ’67 so the modern car would’ve played nicely in that respect. I am not sure if there were regulations governing the number of team members or the type of equipment used during pit stops back then.
With F1 regulations, Necessity is the mother of invention so the rulemakers wouldn’t have been anticipating the advent of aerodynamics, electric hybrid power assistance, 8-speed sequential gearboxes, waste heat and energy recovery etc etc… the regulations have generally been reactive to innovations of the time so your modern day F1 designer would find regulations of the time refreshingly free.
1967 was well into the 3 litre formula. The last year of the 1.5 normally aspirated regulation was 1965. "1.5 Supercharged" was allowed for in the 3 litre era but nobody took up that particular spec until Renault started developing their 1.5 litre TURBOCHARGED engine in 1976. Everything was made of Aluminium and Magnesium in 1967 F1 because that’s about as spaceage as materials got back then. I know that nowadays historic race series explicitly prohibit ‘exotic materials’ especially in engines but I doubt that was the case in 1967 so I reckon the fact that the modern car is made entirely out of carbon fibre wouldn’t have been a problem. In 1967 Lotus had already made a road car with a composite monocoque (the Elite) but I don’t think anybody had made a composite F1 tub yet.
I am not sure what the fuel regulations were in 1967 so it’s possible that the modern cocktail of fuels and lubricants would not have been permitted.
On the sporting side, Nobody was refuelling in ’67 so the modern car would’ve played nicely in that respect. I am not sure if there were regulations governing the number of team members or the type of equipment used during pit stops back then.
With F1 regulations, Necessity is the mother of invention so the rulemakers wouldn’t have been anticipating the advent of aerodynamics, electric hybrid power assistance, 8-speed sequential gearboxes, waste heat and energy recovery etc etc… the regulations have generally been reactive to innovations of the time so your modern day F1 designer would find regulations of the time refreshingly free.
Intriguing to contrast Sixties' laissez faire approach with today's prescriptive regime . Back then, engines of 1.5T or S/C or 3 litre NA, but some raced with 2.1 litre Climax engines early on and Lotus raced with a Pratt and Whitney gas turbine; 1.6 F2 cars also raced with F1 at some early races of 3 litre formula .
Gears ? How many you had was up to you but I think everybody raced with five
Number of cylinders? 3 litre era featured 4, 6 , 8 , 12 and 16 . In V , Flat , H and inline format.
Now ? A mandated V6 with a mandatory rev limit(which is rarely,if ever, reached ) and a set of regs which mean that everybody is effectively building the same engine . Oh,and you can't blow 'em up very often for 'economy reasons' - which is why budgets are now what , 50 times greater? , than when you could use an engine for 3 laps in qualifying and then chuck it away .
Variety used to be the spice of life ...
Gears ? How many you had was up to you but I think everybody raced with five
Number of cylinders? 3 litre era featured 4, 6 , 8 , 12 and 16 . In V , Flat , H and inline format.
Now ? A mandated V6 with a mandatory rev limit(which is rarely,if ever, reached ) and a set of regs which mean that everybody is effectively building the same engine . Oh,and you can't blow 'em up very often for 'economy reasons' - which is why budgets are now what , 50 times greater? , than when you could use an engine for 3 laps in qualifying and then chuck it away .
Variety used to be the spice of life ...
The initial 1966 regs said absolutely nothing about turbocharging. It did allow supercharging though, and it was that permission which Renault used as their gateway to introduce turbocharged units in 1976/77. Many of the British teams objected to the use of turbochargers at that time as they were claiming that they weren't permitted under the "supercharging" rules.
In many ways, it was this moment when the conflict between the teams and the governing body began - and it was this conflict which eventually led to the F1 set up we have today.
In many ways, it was this moment when the conflict between the teams and the governing body began - and it was this conflict which eventually led to the F1 set up we have today.
FIA formula 1 regulations, applicable 1/1/66 to 31/12/70
Engines:
Reciprocating piston engines - max 3000cc NA, 1500cc supercharged.
wankel rotary engines - max 1500cc NA, 750cc supercharged.
Gas turbines - subject to equivalence formula.
Gearbox:
Must include a driver-selectable reverse gear.
Chassis and bodywork:
Minimum weight 500kg, including oil and coolant, excluding fuel and driver.
Coachwork must not protrude outwards beyond the vertical plane of the inside face of the wheels.
Driver must be able to enter and exit the driver's seat without opening a door or removing any panel.
Compulsory rollover bar, 3cm above driver's head, capable of supporting the weight of the car and driver without deforming.
Seatbelts optional.
Fuel:
Commercial grade.
Refuelling allowed.
Races:
Minimum distance 300km, maximum 400km for World Championship races.
Non-championship races may be over 400km, but in such cases must include one compulsory refuelling stop.
And that is pretty much as detailed as the regs were. No limits on materials for any components, no specified overall vehicle dimensions, no limits on number, size or type of wheels and tyres, and no limits on engine technology beyond the capacity limits.
Eric , given how little turbocharging was used in '66 (some trucks , Corvair and that's it I think ?) I had assumed it wasn't deemed necessary to mention it as it fell withing the generic s/c wording but I must have forgotten about Renault's petition . I did see the debut of the Renault at Silverstone in 77 and as it wheezed its way around I thought -'nice try , never catch on' . And nine years later Rosberg averaged 162 mph - they did sort of catch on quite a lot .
Forget to mention above that the 3 litre era also featured 2 and 4wd cars .
Forget to mention above that the 3 litre era also featured 2 and 4wd cars .
coppice said:
Eric , given how little turbocharging was used in '66 (some trucks , Corvair and that's it I think ?) I had assumed it wasn't deemed necessary to mention it as it fell withing the generic s/c wording but I must have forgotten about Renault's petition .
Aren't / weren't turbos originally called "turbo superchargers"? Hence no mention of the word 'turbo' in the regulations, as it was covered by the SC part?HarryFlatters said:
coppice said:
Eric , given how little turbocharging was used in '66 (some trucks , Corvair and that's it I think ?) I had assumed it wasn't deemed necessary to mention it as it fell withing the generic s/c wording but I must have forgotten about Renault's petition .
Aren't / weren't turbos originally called "turbo superchargers"? Hence no mention of the word 'turbo' in the regulations, as it was covered by the SC part?Yes , forgot to mention the Offenhauser big 4 turbo , which was the mainstay of Indy racing for decades. I assume that lag wasn't too much of an issue round the Brickyard . As Regazzoni put it (memorably , if mistakenly) -'It's easy - it's a-left , a-left a-left ' .
Love to see the reaction of Graham Hill et al if Lewis could time travel on to the 1966 grid...Or vice versa.. 'You're paid HOW much ? '
Love to see the reaction of Graham Hill et al if Lewis could time travel on to the 1966 grid...Or vice versa.. 'You're paid HOW much ? '
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff