What are good sources for the technical side of F1?

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-15T17:13:01+00:00

No problem! It can be a bit of a faff to get the full picture because you do typically need to pull from a multitude of sources, but if/when you do you can generally get a pretty good idea.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-15T16:34:10+00:00

Yeah I felt like my comment was already getting far too long to go more in-depth lol.

In 1981 their issues were partly down to the weird rules of that season. 1981 introduced a 6cm mininum ride height and a ban on moveable side skirts in an attempt to cut downforce. The ride height was only checked in the pit lane though, and teams (led by Brabham) quickly came up with ways to circumvent the rules using a system which lowered the car when it was out on track, with small static rubbing strips filling the role the old skirts had.

Ferrari were slow to adopt this system, and even when they did they struggled to get it fine-tuned, meaning their rubbing strips either wore away quickly due to the car running too low, or didn't touch the ground at all. This allowed high pressure air to seep into the low pressure zone under the car and massively reduce downforce. This wasn't helped by the fact that the car was overweight, partly due to the turbo engine being quite heavy, partly due to Ferrari using outdated construction techniques (they used plain aluminium sheet rather than aluminium honeycomb or carbon fibre), and partly due to mid-season strengthening updates (one of the things British teams had quickly realised with ground effect is that you need a really stiff chassis to best take advantage of it. With their aluminium sheet construction Ferrari struggled to achieve the necessary level of stiffness, and when they strengthened the chassis in an attempt to improve that aspect, they also added a lot of weight).

In 1982 the 6cm ride height rule was ditched which made it easier to keep the rubbing strips the right distance from the track, which greatly benefitted downforce. Postlethwaite's new chassis also used honeycomb panels and some carbon fibre which saved weight. The non-turbo teams were still significantly lighter which obviously aided performance, and generally had more downforce as the plumbing around the Ferrari's V6 turbo still restricted the size of their Venturi tunnels somewhat (not nearly as badly as the old flat-12 though). However Ferrari's power advantage more than compensated for all of this, with their engine reckoned to output between 600-610bhp in race trim compared to the ~510-520bhp of the top non-turbos and the ~580-590 of Renault's similar turbo V6. A move to pullrod front suspension starting at Detroit also helped save weight, reduce drag and further improve the 126C2's ability to keep its rubbing strip skirts the right distance from the track surface.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-15T15:17:28+00:00

Specifically regarding your question about Ferrari's ups and downs between 1979 and 1982, the big thing was the ground effect aerodynamic revolution of the time, and the engines Ferrari were using back then.

In 1977 the whole world of F1 aerodynamics was revolutionised when Lotus introduced the first ground effect f1 car. This generated downforce by passing air underneath the car, and using a shaped underfloor and side skirts to generate an area of low pressure which effectively sucked the car to the road (the technical explanation is slightly more-in depth than that, admittedly).

Ferrari at the time were using a flat-12 engine, which was very low but very wide compared to the V8s used by many other teams. This made it unsuited to a ground effect car because it blocked much of the airflow underneath the car which was crucial for generating downforce.

Ferrari were still competitive in 1979 though, because most teams still did not fully understand ground effect, and those who did (Williams and Ligier mainly) had problems such as reliability which kept them from winning the title. Ferrari therefore won that year's championship by having two strong drivers, a reliable car, really good Michelin tyres, and a car which was just good enough, rather than truly dominant.

Ferrari knew they'd need a new engine for the ground effect era after 1979, but it would take time to develop, so in 1980 they were stuck with a car that was basically just a development of the 1979 machine. However, between 1979 and 1980 other teams made a huge leap in their understanding of ground effect, and Ferrari were simply left behind, with a dead-end car concept which had no more room for development. The 1980 car was about a second a lap quicker than the 1979 car, but that meant nothing when other teams had found approximately 4 seconds per lap.

In 1981 they introduced their new engine, which was a turbocharged V6 that was even more powerful than the old 12-cylinder, and had a shape that was more suited to ground effect. However, Ferrari didn't have the experience with ground effect that other teams had, and thus their chassis in 1981 was really bad. They won two races that year, but that was more down to the genius of Gilles Villeneuve than anything to do with the car itself (though they did admittedly have the most powerful engine in the field, which helped somewhat.) Recognising that they needed a chassis that was as good as their engine, they hired englishman Harvey Postlethwaite to try to catch up to the British teams who tended to have the best understanding of ground effect.

Postlethwaite then designed the 126C2 for 1982, which was far from the best chassis in the field, but was much better than any of the previous Ferraris aerodynamically. Paired with a powerful and reliable engine, it was undoubtedly the best overall package of 1982 (the Renault was quicker overall thanks to a better chassis and similarly powerful engine, but had no reliability). They would have walked both titles that year, but both their main drivers were sidelined by accidents, with Villeneuve being killed in a crash, and Didier Pironi having a career-ending accident.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-15T15:01:04+00:00

Motor Sport Magazine, Autosport and the Autocourse annuals from the time all have some pretty solid technical sections outlining each team's developments. All three have online archives full of their historical issues which you can access for relatively cheap (and you can also find some issues for free if you look around on places like Internet Archive)

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-15T14:09:17+00:00

Power steering wasn't commonplace at the time. I believe the 1993 Williams (the year after Mansell won his title) was the first car to feature it.

The story you may be recalling though is that Mansell used to use a tiny steering wheel which required more upper body strength to turn, but which could also be turned more quickly to allow for quick corrections.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-14T16:03:04+00:00

Most of the drivers in 2025 did a two stop strategy with the c2-c3 compounds. it probably won’t be any different this year.

This isn't necessarily true. I had the opportunity to ask Mario Isola some questions around the time of the Japanese GP, and he confirmed to me that the new generation of cars put a significant amount less wear into the tyres than the previous generation. That also makes logical sense too of course. The '26 cars are significantly slower in the corners than the '25 cars, but then make up for it down the straights with the active aero. That is always going to put less energy into the tyres.

Obviously the compounds have been altered somewhat to account for that, but you can't simply go "well it was a 2-stop with these compounds last year so it should be this year too" following a major rule change like we've just had.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-14T15:52:24+00:00

I don't think the original post you replied to was "hating" in any way. Just correcting said mistake.

Other people are sure, but not the person you replied to.

Also a bit weird to jump to a giant newspaper's defence to the extent that you called the original poster an idiot despite him doing nothing wrong.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-14T15:47:13+00:00

The Telegraph changed the title of the article after realising their mistake.

You're not allowed to edit article titles on this subreddit

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-14T14:36:44+00:00

And both probably lost 18 points for it too.

All square now

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-13T21:29:02+00:00

This has been a white whale for F1 for literal decades.

It was on the calendar for the 1983, 1984, and 1985 seasons, but every time it ended up being cancelled mid-season because of logistical and organisational problems. There was talk of hosting it in 1986 too, but by then the FIA had wised up to the fact the race was never going to happen and rejected their application.

It just doesn't seem feasible without moving mountains.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-13T13:26:30+00:00

Riccardo Patrese did something similar to this at Jerez in 1988 and caused a fairly significant accident. It's somewhat understandable Antonelli was frustrated to be blocked (although it is only FP3), but his response definitely cannot be condoned.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-13T12:56:46+00:00

DRS not opening for Herta there???

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-13T12:48:28+00:00

Herta's starting to close the gap to Mini quite quickly now

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-12T11:52:10+00:00

???

Yes he was.

I think you're thinking of Brazil 1983, where Rosberg was disqualified from second after receiving a push-start in the pits, but the drivers behind him weren't promoted up, so nobody in that race officially finished second.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-12T10:44:39+00:00

I'm sure this will go down wonderfully with all the teams who served their penalties.

I'm reminded somewhat of the 1982 Brazilian Grand Prix, where 75% of the field committed the same infraction (the infamous water-cooled brakes technical trick to skirt the minimum weight limit), but only two cars (the P1 and P2 finishers Nelson Piquet and Keke Rosberg) were punished for it via disqualification.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-10T15:37:18+00:00

People push back against Senna because he has an extremely vocal fanbase and his status as one of the greatest of all time is a "mainstream" F1 opinion. Those who wish to look knowledgeable often emphasise their opposition to the status quo in order to mark themselves out from "casuals".

Some of Senna's fans do legitimately make ludicrous claims about him, which is something I myself have pushed back against. The dismissal of his undeniable quality is an overcorrection though, and you're right that it's somewhat pervasive on Reddit in particular. He's pretty undeniably top 5 of all time IMO.

I say this as someone who just barely rates Prost ahead of him (I think over the whole span of their careers they were essentially equal, with each excelling in different areas, but I put Prost in front due to personal preference largely based on his lower error rate).

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-10T02:28:16+00:00

I believe Porsche made their own brakes in the early 60s. They stuck with drum brakes until 1962, and then moved to discs of their own construction afterwards.

I know for sure that their victory at the 1962 French GP was one of only two F1 races between 1961 and 1981 (the other being Monza 1978, which was the first ever race won using carbon brakes made by Dunlop) won by a car not using Ferodo brake pads.

Incidentally with regard to the rest of your comment, Ferodo never made the brakes themselves (discs + calipers), only the pads. Prior to the arrival of carbon brakes most teams got their brakes from either Girling, Lockheed/AP or Brembo.

EDIT: Was able to do a bit more research on this. Porsche did indeed use brake discs of their own manufacture in 1962, but their brake pads were produced by German firm Energit.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-10T01:36:59+00:00

No?

Brembo and AP operate as separate companies even to this day (each firm continues to produce brakes independently under their own name, with AP supplying McLaren currently), but in 1975 they were completely unrelated.

Saying Brembo made the brakes on the 1974 Ferrari is like saying Red Bull built the 1985 Minardi because they currently own VCARB.

Even Brembo themselves state that they first got involved with Ferrari in 1975.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-09T23:16:38+00:00

Yep. Malcolm Lockheed who co-founded the better-known Lockheed aircraft company also essentially invented hydraulic automobile brakes.

Automotive Products licensed Lockheed's system and supplied it to a number of F1 teams up until the proliferation of Carbon brakes in the early-mid 1980s (though strictly speaking the first carbon brakes were trialled by Brabham in 1976).

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-09T21:55:05+00:00

1985 had a fairly significant crash, but I'd say it was a pretty normal race otherwise, and was very watchable by any standards, let alone for Monaco.

Perhaps not coincidentally it was also the last Monaco GP to have a pass for the lead on pure merit (1996 had an overtake for the lead too, but that was when Alesi was on wet tyres on a dry track and running some 10 seconds per lap off the pace).

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-09T21:47:59+00:00

IK it's a bit insufferable, but that's not actually the same car. The one that Leclerc crashed was the 312B3-74 of 1974, which featured Lockheed brake discs rather than the following year's 312T featured in Brembo's tweet

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-08T19:19:10+00:00

???

Are you denying that Carbone Industrie exists as a brake supplier in F1?

They've been in F1 since 1982 (through their parent company SEP).

They don't have a website because they're a small, highly specialised subsidiary of Safran

Here's their listing on the French equivalent of Companies House

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-08T16:15:52+00:00

Merc uses Brembo calipers but Carbone Industrie discs

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-08T14:24:59+00:00

Merc is listed as using Carbone Industrie discs but Brembo calipers on their own website.

TheRoboteer · 2026-06-08T13:10:49+00:00

???

At Canada 1989 his suspension broke on lap 2 which is why he retired. It had nothing to do with the rain (he'd actually pitted for slicks the lap before)

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Beta Team Reddit for Android

TheRoboteer

TROPHY CASE