Evolution of the F1 car

[Trikster]

Found this animation pretty impressive - but then again I'm easily pleased...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LPupv06pY

[Eric Mc]

Nice - although it wouild have been even better if it was called "Evolution of the Grand Prix Car" and went all the way back to 1906.

I won't mention the years 1952 and 1953 again.

[nsa]

Genius. Slower version please.

[TheArchitect]

Great stuff, agreed though, would be nice to have a slow motion version.

[Vocal Minority]

It needs to be a bit slower. There is a lot to look at!

[PhillipM]

I found this quite amazing over on F1T:

[Fantuzzi]

They havnt evolved, theyve been Intelligently designed by a creator.

[zac510]

Fantuzzi said:

They havnt evolved, theyve been Intelligently designed by a creator.

[DrTre]

Vocal Minority said:

It needs to be a bit slower. There is a lot to look at!

Get Talk Talk as your ISP, it's marvellous for that sort of thing...

Cheers for the link OP.

[dr_gn]

I'm confused as to what it's supposed to be illustrating TBH.

A series of shapes created in response to an ever changing set of artificial rules hardly constitutes 'evolution', and morphing them simply makes the changes even more obviously contrived.

If anything it shows how compromised an F1 car really is in terms of a vehicle designed to complete a given closed course in the shortest time.

[F1GTRUeno]

The 90s had the best shape.

[Eric Mc]

Seems to be based on the "Evolution Animation" used in the TV series Cosmos back in 1980.

[andy_s]

dr_gn said:

I'm confused as to what it's supposed to be illustrating TBH.

A series of shapes created in response to an ever changing set of artificial rules hardly constitutes 'evolution', and morphing them simply makes the changes even more obviously contrived.

If anything it shows how compromised an F1 car really is in terms of a vehicle designed to complete a given closed course in the shortest time.

That cheered me up.

[Eric Mc]

Surely setting technical limits to the specificaition of the car is what the word "Formula" denotes?

[dr_gn]

Eric Mc said:

Surely setting technical limits to the specificaition of the car is what the word "Formula" denotes?

Why is that relevant? The definition of 'evolution' is 'the gradual development of something'.

Becasue the cars are defined by ever changing regulations or 'formulae', they have not been gradually developed throughout the timeline, rather they have had artificial step changes introduced every few years.

Unless you separate the animation into periods of rule stability it's a pretty pointless exercise in terms of showing how an F1 car has 'evolved'. As it stands it simply shows basic shapes of F1 cars morphing into each other over time.

[rwindmill]

dr_gn said:

Eric Mc said:

Surely setting technical limits to the specificaition of the car is what the word "Formula" denotes?

Why is that relevant? The definition of 'evolution' is 'the gradual development of something'.

Becasue the cars are defined by ever changing regulations or 'formulae', they have not been gradually developed throughout the timeline, rather they have had artificial step changes introduced every few years.

Unless you separate the animation into periods of rule stability it's a pretty pointless exercise in terms of showing how an F1 car has 'evolved'. As it stands it simply shows basic shapes of F1 cars morphing into each other over time.

Evolution is the adaptation of an organism in response to environmental stimuli. In the context of Formula 1, the rule changes each year have to be considered as part of the cars 'environment', and as such the car should be considered as evolved.

Also, evolution is not one long continuous slow change. There are many many examples of extreme single point mutations proving valuble, and being adapted.

[zac510]

Maybe the guy just thought it would be an interesting series of images to observe. Nothing more complicated, no creationist theory, not for others to judge whether it was worth his time and effort, not to prove a point. Just thought it would be interesting.

[dr_gn]

rwindmill said:

dr_gn said:

Eric Mc said:

Surely setting technical limits to the specificaition of the car is what the word "Formula" denotes?

Why is that relevant? The definition of 'evolution' is 'the gradual development of something'.

Becasue the cars are defined by ever changing regulations or 'formulae', they have not been gradually developed throughout the timeline, rather they have had artificial step changes introduced every few years.

Unless you separate the animation into periods of rule stability it's a pretty pointless exercise in terms of showing how an F1 car has 'evolved'. As it stands it simply shows basic shapes of F1 cars morphing into each other over time.

Evolution is the adaptation of an organism in response to environmental stimuli. In the context of Formula 1, the rule changes each year have to be considered as part of the cars 'environment', and as such the car should be considered as evolved.

That's my point - the rule changes are the environment, and it's artificially generated or changed every few years by a comittee. This isn't evolution as defined by the OED which, in this - non organic - context means 'the gradual development of something'.

There is not enough time between rule changes to show any significant development of a base concept to be worthwhile, even less so becasue the animation is limited to a very basic vehicle outline which itself has been fairly tightly controlled over the recent past. If the rules had been less prescriptive and more stable for 60 years then fair enough, we might have seen some interesting developments.

[Eric Mc]

dr_gn said:

Eric Mc said:

Surely setting technical limits to the specificaition of the car is what the word "Formula" denotes?

Why is that relevant? The definition of 'evolution' is 'the gradual development of something'.

Becasue the cars are defined by ever changing regulations or 'formulae', they have not been gradually developed throughout the timeline, rather they have had artificial step changes introduced every few years.

Unless you separate the animation into periods of rule stability it's a pretty pointless exercise in terms of showing how an F1 car has 'evolved'. As it stands it simply shows basic shapes of F1 cars morphing into each other over time.

He used a technically wrong term perhaps if you apply the strict meaning of the word. Left on its own, a 1930 Alfa Romeo does not become a 2012 Red Bull.

What word should he have used though?

I just thought the changing shapes of the cars was interesting in its own right - even if those changes came about partly because of changing rules and regulations.