Do you agree with what our Editor has to say? We want to know what you think. Email in your opinions to katie_power@ipcmedia.com. Or alternatively, you can send your responses into Racecar Engineering, Leon house, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR9 1HZ.


Really exciting new ideas in motorsport engineering are as rare as sound foreign policy in the middle east. So when one as good as Creuat's new suspension comes along it deserves any attention it gets. But for all the excitement, what are the chances of it changing the shape of the racecar as we know it? It depresses me to say they are probably pretty slim.
The history of racecar design is punctuated by trendsetting technological milestones that provide the landmarks with which we navigate the past. The mid-engined Cooper, the monocoque Lotus, the ground-effect Lotus, the carbon-tubbed McLaren - all these left their mark on racecars resulting in the single seaters we are familiar with today. Wouldn't it be great to witness another revolution in design? To see conventional springs, dampers and anti-roll bars, with all the compromises they encompass, being swept aside in favour of a more fundamentally pure system. It would be a leap as big as from spaceframe to monocoque or from wings to ground effect.
But I doubt it will happen, and this is why. The commitment from Racing For Holland has to be commended, because taking a new technology into a new environment and blazing a trail with it takes courage. As the late Carroll Smith once said, 'the last of the old will always beat the first of the new,' and with good reason. For a technical advance to pay dividends, it has to be standing on the shoulders of an already optimised package. If not, any advantage it gives will be lost in the deficiencies of the rest of the package. To maintain that level of competitiveness while retaining enough spare capacity to develop something new will always be a challenge.
Assuming a new technology like Creuat's suspension works, the first hurdle it will encounter is finding a race team willing to put itself through the research and development pain barrier that will have to be breached before a worthwhile advantage is found. However, nothing ventured nothing gained, and with sufficient resolve anything is possible. So the technology starts paying dividends, the car tops the timesheets and becomes the one to beat. That is when you attract the attention of the organisers. What they previously let through scrutineering as an interesting curiosity is now being viewed as an unfair advantage. Under pressure from other teams they will be faced with a choice. Either they let the winning team keep their technology but accept it will mean other teams will inevitably have to follow suit to regain competitiveness. Or, alternatively, the organisers ban the technology, save everyone the expense of development and strike another blow against rising costs in motorsport.
The latter strategy is the favoured tactic in Formula 1 and is already filtering down through other tiers of the sport. As a self-confessed innovation junkie, I find the prospect all too depressing but it may go some way to explaining why, despite a widespread belief in the myth, motorsport no longer improves the breed.

Charles Armstrong-Wilson
Editor