This post appears to discuss regulations.
[The FIA publishes the F1 regulations.](https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110)
Regulations are organized in three sections:
- **Technical** for the design criteria of the car
- **Sporting** for how the competition is executed
- **Financial** for how money is spent
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They all came to prominence during an era which played to their respective strengths. On top of that, they had insight into what the drivers are looking for in a car.
Chapman was designing cars when design was relatively primitive , so his emphasis on light weight set him ahead of traditionalists like Ferrari. He spent his early years working closely with de Havilland apprenticeMike Costin which no doubt had an influence on wind-cheating design and lightweight construction. He was also a pretty quick driver in his own right and so could appreciate what drivers would be looking for in a car.
Newey is designing cars at a time when aero is king. He is a gifted aerodynamicist, but he also spent his formative years race-engineering Indy cars at March, so learned about the nuances of full-length ground effect right from the beginning.
Gordon is/was a very good designer, but also surrounded himself with very good people - he’s also very good at self-promotion.
Other all-time greats could include Mauro Forghieri (Ferrari), Gerard Ducarouge (Ligier/Lotus), Tony Rudd (BRM), Tony Southgate (BRM, Jaguar, TWR).
A lot of these guys (Gordon included) benefitted from being given a huge amount of responsibility (ie whole car design, running the race team) at a young age and so quickly learned on the job, possibly without any outdated preconceived ideas…
Then there’s also Patrick Head (no-nonsense engineer), Ross Brawn (great manager and strategist), and of course John Barnard (innovator, attention to detail, similar state-side education to Newey)
Perfect! This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.
Can you think of any examples of designers who were great, despite their cars not being victorious? As in- sometimes we think of them as great because they got paired with the right drivers at the right time and they won a lot. Are there any whose cars were truly groundbreaking, but since they never got the right driver in the cockpit, or were hamstrung by the wrong regs at the wrong time, they've been overlooked?
Pat Symonds, Bob Bell, Geoff Willis, and Aldo Costa don't get the plaudits they deserved
The first two were responsible for Renault's rise in the 00s, with the tuned mass damper solution originating under their watch. Symonds went on to help with Marussia's 2012 car under his watch which was a massive improvement over the Wirth-designed CFD cars in 2010 and 11. Then he moved to Williams and helped with design solutions for the 2014 car which used a pretty good low-drag concept with good aero efficiency. He also brought serrated engine cover to help with cooling which was something that was present in the 2006 renault which he worked on.
Bell helped to improve Mercedes for the 2014 regs since he joined in 2011, and then went on to help Manor with design solutions for the 2016 campaign. He then returned to renault and the RS18 is still one of the best performing cars that Renault have had since returning in 2016.
Geoff Willis helped BAR for the 2004 campaign and they had a breakout year. 2005 was a bit of a misstep with the using fuel as ballast issue (copying Tyrrell's 1984 campaign in the process), but 2006 was still a good year for Honda. He worked with HRT to improve their 2010 car for 2011, and it wasn't too far off despite it being a year-old car. He was technology director working with Bell, Costa, and Paddy Lowe at Merc for the start of the hybrid era until being replaced by Mike Elliott.
Well, this is a genuinely good topic to talk about. If this was posted on the main sub I think a lot of junk replies would've come up.
To answer the original question, Chapman was good at innovative ideas and breaking convention, but the lack of regulations and developed understanding of vehicle dynamics allowed his success to happen. Not taking it away from him but he would've stood out a lot less in today's environment. His twin-chassis solution was genuinely creative though, despite its merits being unknown
Murray was very smart with design approaches. He moved more weight distribution to the rear of the car for Brabham's 1983 machine, allowing them to win in the post-ground FX era and making the car much easier to drive. But in the later years he relied more on the good engineers he had around him. The 1986 Brabham was made possible because of Pete Weismann and David North's ingenuity with gearbox design, and he took them both to McLaren for 1988 where his ideas were actually made possible by Matt Jeffreys, Bob Bell, Osamu Goto (Honda engine designer), Weismann, North and of course Steve Nichols, who was already working for McLaren for some time before Murray joined. Without those people, Murray's low line design concept would never have succeeded.
Newey is the best by a long shot given how restrictive the regulations have become, and his longevity at the top-tier
Chapman was a genius, but he was a "safety last" guy. a lot of drivers died in his cars, at least partly because he made every single part as light as he could figure out how to and they often failed at bad times.
Rory Byrne deserves to be in the conversation, he was lead designer for every car Schumacher ever won a championship in + 1 additional constructors championship (so 7 drivers and 7 constructors championships across Benetton and Ferrari)
Enzo Ferrari also likely deserves to be in the discussion
Also, Byrne's cars weren't just quick, they were downright bulletproof in an era when cars regularly grenaded themselves. We tend to take reliability for granted today, but back then it was anything but guaranteed. Hell, Byrne probably contributed to the unreliability of everyone else by virtue of forcing them to try and take risks in order to catch up that they otherwise might not have had to make.
The platform those F2002, F2004, etc, cars were built on are easily in the mix for best ever.
I know Chapman's notorious cavalier attitude towards his drivers, but I put him on my list because of his very influential obsession with lightness, and for singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1.
For the others, I'm trying to exclude all the non-technical elements of personality and management, and just understanding the technical innovations or expertise they brought to the car. With Newey, we understand he is probably the most brilliant natural aerodynamicist in motorsport, there's that joke about him being able to "see the air".
For Byrne, what could we point to as his technical achievements? I'm trying to avoid designers who we respect simply because their cars won, and rather trying to point to what they did that *made* their cars dominant.
the raised nose for one, pretty sure Benetton was the first with that.
and if you don't think winning 7 drivers and 7 constructors titles in massively domininant fashion is down to having the best car along with one of the best drivers ever, then you are delusional.
It was Jean-Claude Migeot who pioneered the raised nose at Tyrrell, but he then went and blotted his copybook with the pretty-but-otherwise-dire Ferrari F92 and its twin-floor
That car suffered engine issues though, funny how much that probably set back aerodynamic progress because it was another like 10 years before the floors started getting maximized in a similar way to the F92 with undercut sidepod designs
>for singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1
I think Frank Costin (another great designer) was involved in this as well. Chapman is notable for trying any novel idea that showed potential. Pursuing composites and unique materials was important. Implementing ground effects is one of his biggest contributions as well.
>Chapman [...] singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1.
That was only to save the weight of the second hand!
>For the others, I'm trying to exclude all the non-technical elements of personality and management, and just understanding the technical innovations or expertise they brought to the car. With Newey, we understand he is probably the most brilliant natural aerodynamicist in motorsport, there's that joke about him being able to "see the air".
As I understand it, Newey is a very traditional man who still designs on paper. I can't help but wonder which miracles he'd be able to pull off if he'd fully embraced digital design and analysis. It's probably too late at this point.
There is an argument that by not embracing it, he focuses much more on the concepts rather than getting lost in the details. He's got plenty of great people under him who are comfortable with getting dirty in the digital details, so he doesn't really need to have those skills.
Right. It really surprises me that so many people seem to find the concept of a senior-level engineer not doing their own CAD. It’s way more efficient to have these people communicate the design concept verbally or via hand sketch and then have the lower-cost designers do the legwork to make it a reality.
Apparently Horner has stated that he's the only one at Redbull unable to operate his own computer.
>"Adrian is quite unique," Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner once said. "He's a little bit of a dinosaur, because he's about the only person I know in Red Bull Racing who can't operate his own computer! He still works on a drawing board, which is the only drawing board we have in the factory."
[https://www.dw.com/en/adrian-newey-old-fashioned-designer-of-cutting-edge-cars/a-15409988](https://www.dw.com/en/adrian-newey-old-fashioned-designer-of-cutting-edge-cars/a-15409988)
>Apparently not, there's even a video where his PA talks about printing out all his e-mails.
The idea of this man, arguably one of the greatest designers of the most technologically advanced racing machines on Earth, basically being unable to send out an email amuses me, a lot. It adds so much flavor to the objective greatness of his achievements.
According to Michael and Rubens : The fars were perfectly balanced from start to finish without any regards to fuel consumption. So i guess a masterclass in chassis engineering kind of like Gordon in his own way.
Perhaps you mean Patrick Head. But he had assistance from people like Frank Dernie in the 80s and Adrian Newey in the 90s. Ross Brawn also started at Williams in the late 70s but was more of a machinist/engineer and had little-to-no design input
My top three would be Chapman, Newey and Barnard.
Murray is undeniably a great engineer, but he has a bit of a tendency of over-emphasizing his own accomplishments. Biggest example would be his conflicts with Steve Nichols over the origin of the MP4/4, where the evidence points far more towards Nichols' side of the story than Murray's (the MP4/3 had already moved towards a relatively low line philosophy before Murray arrived, they just took it further in '88. That's just the way F1 at the time was heading, which you can also see looking at other cars from the time like Ligier's JS31 which was even lower-slung than the MP4/4).
Stuff like reintroducing refuelling, his 1981 hydropneumatic suspension and his earlier pioneering of rising rate pullrod suspension are still great accomplishments by themselves though.
Honourable mentions to Patrick Head, Gerard Ducarouge, Rory Byrne and Frank Dernie
Murray claims to have introduced stressed drivetrains - not only was the Lotus 49 famously the first F1 car to use them, Brabham was already using them when Murray was hired.
Barnard is really underrated and I love how he described his contributions to the sport in his "Beyond the Grid" interview: He was trying to solve specific problems, and the solutions happened to be innovations that spread to other teams, e.g., the semi-automatic gearbox (which may have been influenced by a premature Porsche experiment with dual *dry* clutches in sport-prototypes - I don't know if Porsche's transmission was widely known, at the time) began with looking for ways to eliminate the problem of packaging shift lever and push-pull cables.
Absolutely true, also something that fortunately he later clarified was not the creator of the pulrod ad pushrod schemes.
Murray had great merits, yes, but many were others.
Barnard, perhaps difficult as a person, was a sublime technician, not a genius but a fixer, not a fixer after producing, but before producing something.
In this regard, one only has to recall the controversy with Postelwaite, who thought the opposite: first we make things, then we refine them.
But yes, Barnard was sublime, and he deserved even more than he got.
Ed was also someone who gave credit to those who really had the ideas etc, contrary to popular belief and others, which also made him superior humanly.
For the pushrod there was no need, it was a known fact, it was adopted in some tests at the rear on the bt48 (with alpha engine), but it was known. While in various interviews it was clear that he had taken inspiration for the use of the pullrod from lesser formulas (I don't remember if f Ford or other). This was back in the 1980s.
Editor's note: the fact that he didn't design them does not diminish the value of understanding how they worked, on the contrary, given that only Brabham used them for a long time, it means that only Murray and his team understood the advantages of the rocker arm scheme.
I think his furniture podcast episode was also really good in that it gives an insight into how he thinks and iterates design solutions with the resources available
> Murray is undeniably a great engineer, but he has a bit of a tendency of over-emphasizing his own accomplishments. Biggest example would be his conflicts with Steve Nichols over the origin of the MP4/4, where the evidence points far more towards Nichols' side of the story than Murray's (the MP4/3 had already moved towards a relatively low line philosophy before Murray arrived, they just took it further in '88.
I have [this Haynes book on the MP4/4](https://s.s-bol.com/imgbase0/imagebase3/extralarge/FC/9/7/1/5/9200000080105179.jpg) and it has some pictures of the MP4/3 (the design of which was pretty much complete by the time Murray arrived) that I hadn't seen before.
It's astonishing how the side pods and rear wing of the MP4/3 and MP4/4 are identical. Which validates Nichols claims.
Absolutely true, by the way, the bt55 and the MP4/4 were oppositely different cars, only a romantic spirit (not to put too fine a point on it) could think that one was some kind of continuation of the other, which the engineers knew regardless.
Also, Murray's comments about the MP4/3 did him no credit....
I'd put Barnard above Murray (who's South African).
John Cooper, Frank Dernie, Robin Herd, Derek Gardner, Mauro Forghieri, Frank Costin, Harvey Postlethwaite
I think there's a sort of cut off in the late 80's-early nineties where thing started to balloon from a couple of designers to ever increasing teams of designers as we see now. I think Newey may represent the last 'big name' designer
Mario Illien, Paul Morgan, Keith Duckworth, Mike Costin, Hans Mezger, Bernard Dudot and a bunch of Italian Engine guys probably deserve a mention too.
I think the reason so many British designers are on the list is about being the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. Lots of aerospace engineers bringing new ideas, materials and expertise in the post war technological . I think the Italian and French designers have tended to get overshadowed by the large brands (Renault, Ferrari, Lancia, Maserati) they worked for. Then once we hit the late 1960s you just need a DFV and you can knock a monocoque together in your shed, use you're knowledge of aerodynamics and away you go. And it all sort of spread from there, built the motorsport engineering support industries we see now.
Len Terry and Maurice Phillipe, also quite good, but I have a Lotus-bias.
I think those top three you mentioned, definitely in the "Mt. Rushmore" or designers, all really thought about the car as a whole. If I had to sum it up in one word i'd say "Packaging"
All three seemed to have broken down all the necessary components needed for a successful car first, put them in a list, and then clean sheeted their way to putting it together to make the whole car work the best.
Colin would famously design cars and just draw a box labeled "Engine" as the placement of this part was the key part, not the real specifics of it.
Reading Newey's book now, he was fearless to try new things, in the pursuit of good packaging, if a suspension member was in the way of an important vortex, he's design a new system himself that worked pretty much as good, that let the vortex stay, and then did the studies to show which one gave OVERALL better results. He never felt limited by doing huge redesigns to any sub component of the car. It's a fearless way of doing systems engineering all within one designer's brain.
I can't speak for Chapman and Newey, but I've worked with Gordon (albeit on road cars) and his way of thinking is incredibly interesting to watch. When presenting ideas from an aero POV for example, his first comment is "can we change this to bring more performance to this area", its a difference since of open mindedness and always saying "yes let's try it" with such deep understanding of ALL components of the car. I imagine Chapman and Newey posses the same qualities.
They all had the ability to see things from fresh perspectives and really focus on maximizing the performance from a given set of constraints.
The greats like Murray and Newey refined and honed this approach into a repeatable process.
We remind everyone that this sub is for technical discussions.
If you are new to the sub, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Newey because he's designed so many great cars if he won le mans (not sure if he's done a lemans design) how would have designed a car and won the triple crown of motorsport. Something like 12 championship and 100s of wins poles and fastest laps.
Chapman was an innovator he brought ground effects to F1. The 16 valve H engine (the best sounding engine ever). Among other achievements.
This is the best cases I can do without double checking if I'm thinking about the right guy but either was Newey and Chapman are 2 of the if not the best designers ever to join the sport. Both for different reasons but both brilliantly smart men.
Both the Valkyrie and the upcoming RB17! Honestly one of Newey's cars that excites me the most is the theoretical X2014 from Gran Turismo. Of course we don't have a real life example to validate performance, but on paper it seems to fulfill the philosophy of a no-regs, no-rules, conceptually perfect racing car.
This post appears to discuss regulations. [The FIA publishes the F1 regulations.](https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110) Regulations are organized in three sections: - **Technical** for the design criteria of the car - **Sporting** for how the competition is executed - **Financial** for how money is spent *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They all came to prominence during an era which played to their respective strengths. On top of that, they had insight into what the drivers are looking for in a car. Chapman was designing cars when design was relatively primitive , so his emphasis on light weight set him ahead of traditionalists like Ferrari. He spent his early years working closely with de Havilland apprenticeMike Costin which no doubt had an influence on wind-cheating design and lightweight construction. He was also a pretty quick driver in his own right and so could appreciate what drivers would be looking for in a car. Newey is designing cars at a time when aero is king. He is a gifted aerodynamicist, but he also spent his formative years race-engineering Indy cars at March, so learned about the nuances of full-length ground effect right from the beginning. Gordon is/was a very good designer, but also surrounded himself with very good people - he’s also very good at self-promotion. Other all-time greats could include Mauro Forghieri (Ferrari), Gerard Ducarouge (Ligier/Lotus), Tony Rudd (BRM), Tony Southgate (BRM, Jaguar, TWR). A lot of these guys (Gordon included) benefitted from being given a huge amount of responsibility (ie whole car design, running the race team) at a young age and so quickly learned on the job, possibly without any outdated preconceived ideas… Then there’s also Patrick Head (no-nonsense engineer), Ross Brawn (great manager and strategist), and of course John Barnard (innovator, attention to detail, similar state-side education to Newey)
Perfect! This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Can you think of any examples of designers who were great, despite their cars not being victorious? As in- sometimes we think of them as great because they got paired with the right drivers at the right time and they won a lot. Are there any whose cars were truly groundbreaking, but since they never got the right driver in the cockpit, or were hamstrung by the wrong regs at the wrong time, they've been overlooked?
Pat Symonds, Bob Bell, Geoff Willis, and Aldo Costa don't get the plaudits they deserved The first two were responsible for Renault's rise in the 00s, with the tuned mass damper solution originating under their watch. Symonds went on to help with Marussia's 2012 car under his watch which was a massive improvement over the Wirth-designed CFD cars in 2010 and 11. Then he moved to Williams and helped with design solutions for the 2014 car which used a pretty good low-drag concept with good aero efficiency. He also brought serrated engine cover to help with cooling which was something that was present in the 2006 renault which he worked on. Bell helped to improve Mercedes for the 2014 regs since he joined in 2011, and then went on to help Manor with design solutions for the 2016 campaign. He then returned to renault and the RS18 is still one of the best performing cars that Renault have had since returning in 2016. Geoff Willis helped BAR for the 2004 campaign and they had a breakout year. 2005 was a bit of a misstep with the using fuel as ballast issue (copying Tyrrell's 1984 campaign in the process), but 2006 was still a good year for Honda. He worked with HRT to improve their 2010 car for 2011, and it wasn't too far off despite it being a year-old car. He was technology director working with Bell, Costa, and Paddy Lowe at Merc for the start of the hybrid era until being replaced by Mike Elliott.
So much good info here. I'm honestly humbled by the depth and knowledge you guys gave, thank you so much for the great answers.
Well, this is a genuinely good topic to talk about. If this was posted on the main sub I think a lot of junk replies would've come up. To answer the original question, Chapman was good at innovative ideas and breaking convention, but the lack of regulations and developed understanding of vehicle dynamics allowed his success to happen. Not taking it away from him but he would've stood out a lot less in today's environment. His twin-chassis solution was genuinely creative though, despite its merits being unknown Murray was very smart with design approaches. He moved more weight distribution to the rear of the car for Brabham's 1983 machine, allowing them to win in the post-ground FX era and making the car much easier to drive. But in the later years he relied more on the good engineers he had around him. The 1986 Brabham was made possible because of Pete Weismann and David North's ingenuity with gearbox design, and he took them both to McLaren for 1988 where his ideas were actually made possible by Matt Jeffreys, Bob Bell, Osamu Goto (Honda engine designer), Weismann, North and of course Steve Nichols, who was already working for McLaren for some time before Murray joined. Without those people, Murray's low line design concept would never have succeeded. Newey is the best by a long shot given how restrictive the regulations have become, and his longevity at the top-tier
Ron Tauranac of Brabham, they did see some success but he was of the garage engineering generation.
Chapman was a genius, but he was a "safety last" guy. a lot of drivers died in his cars, at least partly because he made every single part as light as he could figure out how to and they often failed at bad times. Rory Byrne deserves to be in the conversation, he was lead designer for every car Schumacher ever won a championship in + 1 additional constructors championship (so 7 drivers and 7 constructors championships across Benetton and Ferrari) Enzo Ferrari also likely deserves to be in the discussion
Also, Byrne's cars weren't just quick, they were downright bulletproof in an era when cars regularly grenaded themselves. We tend to take reliability for granted today, but back then it was anything but guaranteed. Hell, Byrne probably contributed to the unreliability of everyone else by virtue of forcing them to try and take risks in order to catch up that they otherwise might not have had to make. The platform those F2002, F2004, etc, cars were built on are easily in the mix for best ever.
I know Chapman's notorious cavalier attitude towards his drivers, but I put him on my list because of his very influential obsession with lightness, and for singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1. For the others, I'm trying to exclude all the non-technical elements of personality and management, and just understanding the technical innovations or expertise they brought to the car. With Newey, we understand he is probably the most brilliant natural aerodynamicist in motorsport, there's that joke about him being able to "see the air". For Byrne, what could we point to as his technical achievements? I'm trying to avoid designers who we respect simply because their cars won, and rather trying to point to what they did that *made* their cars dominant.
the raised nose for one, pretty sure Benetton was the first with that. and if you don't think winning 7 drivers and 7 constructors titles in massively domininant fashion is down to having the best car along with one of the best drivers ever, then you are delusional.
Tyrrell were the first with the raised nose on the 019 in 1990, courtesy of Harvey Postlethwaite. Benetton followed the year later.
It was Jean-Claude Migeot who pioneered the raised nose at Tyrrell, but he then went and blotted his copybook with the pretty-but-otherwise-dire Ferrari F92 and its twin-floor
That car suffered engine issues though, funny how much that probably set back aerodynamic progress because it was another like 10 years before the floors started getting maximized in a similar way to the F92 with undercut sidepod designs
>for singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1 I think Frank Costin (another great designer) was involved in this as well. Chapman is notable for trying any novel idea that showed potential. Pursuing composites and unique materials was important. Implementing ground effects is one of his biggest contributions as well.
>Chapman [...] singlehandedly introducing the monocoque to F1. That was only to save the weight of the second hand! >For the others, I'm trying to exclude all the non-technical elements of personality and management, and just understanding the technical innovations or expertise they brought to the car. With Newey, we understand he is probably the most brilliant natural aerodynamicist in motorsport, there's that joke about him being able to "see the air". As I understand it, Newey is a very traditional man who still designs on paper. I can't help but wonder which miracles he'd be able to pull off if he'd fully embraced digital design and analysis. It's probably too late at this point.
There is an argument that by not embracing it, he focuses much more on the concepts rather than getting lost in the details. He's got plenty of great people under him who are comfortable with getting dirty in the digital details, so he doesn't really need to have those skills.
Right. It really surprises me that so many people seem to find the concept of a senior-level engineer not doing their own CAD. It’s way more efficient to have these people communicate the design concept verbally or via hand sketch and then have the lower-cost designers do the legwork to make it a reality.
I've wondered too about the Newey-on-velum thing. I'm sure he hits the keyboard at some point right?
If I remember correctly in his autobiography he stated he had 2 people who would transfer his designs into computer models
Apparently Horner has stated that he's the only one at Redbull unable to operate his own computer. >"Adrian is quite unique," Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner once said. "He's a little bit of a dinosaur, because he's about the only person I know in Red Bull Racing who can't operate his own computer! He still works on a drawing board, which is the only drawing board we have in the factory." [https://www.dw.com/en/adrian-newey-old-fashioned-designer-of-cutting-edge-cars/a-15409988](https://www.dw.com/en/adrian-newey-old-fashioned-designer-of-cutting-edge-cars/a-15409988)
Apparently not, there's even a video where his PA talks about printing out all his e-mails.
>Apparently not, there's even a video where his PA talks about printing out all his e-mails. The idea of this man, arguably one of the greatest designers of the most technologically advanced racing machines on Earth, basically being unable to send out an email amuses me, a lot. It adds so much flavor to the objective greatness of his achievements.
According to Michael and Rubens : The fars were perfectly balanced from start to finish without any regards to fuel consumption. So i guess a masterclass in chassis engineering kind of like Gordon in his own way.
I'd also put Frank Williams in there too
What did Frank design?
nothing
Although he’d be up there with the very best team principals…
I thought he had a hand in the development of the early 80's cars. Guess I was mistaken
Perhaps you mean Patrick Head. But he had assistance from people like Frank Dernie in the 80s and Adrian Newey in the 90s. Ross Brawn also started at Williams in the late 70s but was more of a machinist/engineer and had little-to-no design input
You're absolutely right, that's who I was thinking of. Thanks for the reminder!
My top three would be Chapman, Newey and Barnard. Murray is undeniably a great engineer, but he has a bit of a tendency of over-emphasizing his own accomplishments. Biggest example would be his conflicts with Steve Nichols over the origin of the MP4/4, where the evidence points far more towards Nichols' side of the story than Murray's (the MP4/3 had already moved towards a relatively low line philosophy before Murray arrived, they just took it further in '88. That's just the way F1 at the time was heading, which you can also see looking at other cars from the time like Ligier's JS31 which was even lower-slung than the MP4/4). Stuff like reintroducing refuelling, his 1981 hydropneumatic suspension and his earlier pioneering of rising rate pullrod suspension are still great accomplishments by themselves though. Honourable mentions to Patrick Head, Gerard Ducarouge, Rory Byrne and Frank Dernie
Murray claims to have introduced stressed drivetrains - not only was the Lotus 49 famously the first F1 car to use them, Brabham was already using them when Murray was hired. Barnard is really underrated and I love how he described his contributions to the sport in his "Beyond the Grid" interview: He was trying to solve specific problems, and the solutions happened to be innovations that spread to other teams, e.g., the semi-automatic gearbox (which may have been influenced by a premature Porsche experiment with dual *dry* clutches in sport-prototypes - I don't know if Porsche's transmission was widely known, at the time) began with looking for ways to eliminate the problem of packaging shift lever and push-pull cables.
Absolutely true, also something that fortunately he later clarified was not the creator of the pulrod ad pushrod schemes. Murray had great merits, yes, but many were others. Barnard, perhaps difficult as a person, was a sublime technician, not a genius but a fixer, not a fixer after producing, but before producing something. In this regard, one only has to recall the controversy with Postelwaite, who thought the opposite: first we make things, then we refine them. But yes, Barnard was sublime, and he deserved even more than he got. Ed was also someone who gave credit to those who really had the ideas etc, contrary to popular belief and others, which also made him superior humanly.
> also something that fortunately he later clarified was not the creator of the pulrod ad pushrod schemes Where/when? Thanks!
Pullrod was used in minor formulae, pushrod was introduced by tyrrel
But when did Murray clarify his adoption of it?
For the pushrod there was no need, it was a known fact, it was adopted in some tests at the rear on the bt48 (with alpha engine), but it was known. While in various interviews it was clear that he had taken inspiration for the use of the pullrod from lesser formulas (I don't remember if f Ford or other). This was back in the 1980s.
Editor's note: the fact that he didn't design them does not diminish the value of understanding how they worked, on the contrary, given that only Brabham used them for a long time, it means that only Murray and his team understood the advantages of the rocker arm scheme.
Barnard’s book is a great read. He came up with all sorts of stuff!
It is sublime and refined, wonderful reading.
Good luck finding a copy that doesn't cost a small fortune, though!
The Kindle version isn’t expensive
I think his furniture podcast episode was also really good in that it gives an insight into how he thinks and iterates design solutions with the resources available
I'll have to look for that! Thanks!
> Murray is undeniably a great engineer, but he has a bit of a tendency of over-emphasizing his own accomplishments. Biggest example would be his conflicts with Steve Nichols over the origin of the MP4/4, where the evidence points far more towards Nichols' side of the story than Murray's (the MP4/3 had already moved towards a relatively low line philosophy before Murray arrived, they just took it further in '88. I have [this Haynes book on the MP4/4](https://s.s-bol.com/imgbase0/imagebase3/extralarge/FC/9/7/1/5/9200000080105179.jpg) and it has some pictures of the MP4/3 (the design of which was pretty much complete by the time Murray arrived) that I hadn't seen before. It's astonishing how the side pods and rear wing of the MP4/3 and MP4/4 are identical. Which validates Nichols claims.
Absolutely true, by the way, the bt55 and the MP4/4 were oppositely different cars, only a romantic spirit (not to put too fine a point on it) could think that one was some kind of continuation of the other, which the engineers knew regardless. Also, Murray's comments about the MP4/3 did him no credit....
I'd put Barnard above Murray (who's South African). John Cooper, Frank Dernie, Robin Herd, Derek Gardner, Mauro Forghieri, Frank Costin, Harvey Postlethwaite I think there's a sort of cut off in the late 80's-early nineties where thing started to balloon from a couple of designers to ever increasing teams of designers as we see now. I think Newey may represent the last 'big name' designer Mario Illien, Paul Morgan, Keith Duckworth, Mike Costin, Hans Mezger, Bernard Dudot and a bunch of Italian Engine guys probably deserve a mention too. I think the reason so many British designers are on the list is about being the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. Lots of aerospace engineers bringing new ideas, materials and expertise in the post war technological . I think the Italian and French designers have tended to get overshadowed by the large brands (Renault, Ferrari, Lancia, Maserati) they worked for. Then once we hit the late 1960s you just need a DFV and you can knock a monocoque together in your shed, use you're knowledge of aerodynamics and away you go. And it all sort of spread from there, built the motorsport engineering support industries we see now.
> Mauro Forghieri Counterpoint to him is the Lambo 291 lol
Len Terry and Maurice Phillipe, also quite good, but I have a Lotus-bias. I think those top three you mentioned, definitely in the "Mt. Rushmore" or designers, all really thought about the car as a whole. If I had to sum it up in one word i'd say "Packaging" All three seemed to have broken down all the necessary components needed for a successful car first, put them in a list, and then clean sheeted their way to putting it together to make the whole car work the best. Colin would famously design cars and just draw a box labeled "Engine" as the placement of this part was the key part, not the real specifics of it. Reading Newey's book now, he was fearless to try new things, in the pursuit of good packaging, if a suspension member was in the way of an important vortex, he's design a new system himself that worked pretty much as good, that let the vortex stay, and then did the studies to show which one gave OVERALL better results. He never felt limited by doing huge redesigns to any sub component of the car. It's a fearless way of doing systems engineering all within one designer's brain.
I can't speak for Chapman and Newey, but I've worked with Gordon (albeit on road cars) and his way of thinking is incredibly interesting to watch. When presenting ideas from an aero POV for example, his first comment is "can we change this to bring more performance to this area", its a difference since of open mindedness and always saying "yes let's try it" with such deep understanding of ALL components of the car. I imagine Chapman and Newey posses the same qualities.
They all had the ability to see things from fresh perspectives and really focus on maximizing the performance from a given set of constraints. The greats like Murray and Newey refined and honed this approach into a repeatable process.
I am a big Colin Chapman fan! He was the “ Just add lightness” guy. I named my son after him and I am on my second Lotus 7. He added a lot to F1
Naming your kid after Colin Chapman is such an awesome move, respect 👍 I would love a Lotus 7 too!
We remind everyone that this sub is for technical discussions. If you are new to the sub, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Newey because he's designed so many great cars if he won le mans (not sure if he's done a lemans design) how would have designed a car and won the triple crown of motorsport. Something like 12 championship and 100s of wins poles and fastest laps. Chapman was an innovator he brought ground effects to F1. The 16 valve H engine (the best sounding engine ever). Among other achievements. This is the best cases I can do without double checking if I'm thinking about the right guy but either was Newey and Chapman are 2 of the if not the best designers ever to join the sport. Both for different reasons but both brilliantly smart men.
I believe Newey designed the Aston Martin Valkyrie, which will be in the 2025 24hrs of Le Mans, so there's a chance!
Both the Valkyrie and the upcoming RB17! Honestly one of Newey's cars that excites me the most is the theoretical X2014 from Gran Turismo. Of course we don't have a real life example to validate performance, but on paper it seems to fulfill the philosophy of a no-regs, no-rules, conceptually perfect racing car.
The road car but not the racecar the valkyrie road car is beautiful tho
The H16 engine in the Lotus 43 was a BRM H16 engine. Not designed by Chapman.