2014 cars - even uglier; rendering

A common misunderstanding.

The casual fan who makes up most of the market likes pretty cars.

 

"Pretty" belongs on the road,

"Winning" belongs on the track.




Or at least my, give no quarter, competitive nature thinks so.

 

You guys that keep saying this are missing the point. The point is, the rules can be written where the cars aren't ugly, it's not that hard. The teams adapt, and win, with whatever rule set they are given. Example: The F2004 destroyed everyone and looked fantastic doing it. Unfortunately, they insist on regs that result in some of the ugliest cars in F1 history...

 

I get you but if they don't get the audience there won't be any races.

 

+1000000000

Anyone remember the F117? That was an ugly plane, but it knew how to win and win it did. Until the F22 anyway. Sorry to derail, sort of.

 

Cars will either be winning or losing by a nose next season.

 

A race car can be ugly.

But not ridiculous.

 

This:

 

The implication above is that somehow the TWG (I guess now the "strategy group") set out with the idea of them all being forced to do "ugly cars".

That's simply not the case - They became concerned about the high noses basically "spearing" someone in the noggin. Ergo, they agreed to lower the maximum height of the nose tip. That the aero nerds appear to be developing some butt-ugly solutions was certainly never the intent. [And even I've gotta agree, that's some *bad* looking **** in the Autosport rendition!]

If you actually study the rules the relevant stuff just defines some "boxes" that you've got to stay inside or outside of. what you do within those limits is your business, and as we know, the aero nerds rule the roost right now. Whether that's right or wrong is another debate.

Cheers,
Ian

 

It's the damn computers. When a person lays pen to paper esthetics will always be a factor. If only subliminally. The machines got no soul.

 

I think the fia should start to think outside the box and give more generic volume constraints

 

I suspect that the rules are being written this way to avoid the outside the box interpretations that we've seen in recent years.

 

OK.

Could you please tell me exactly what you mean by "more generic"?

"They" (being pedantic, not the FIA but the teams themselves) specify many things in this area;

- You've gotta have a flat bottom eek: )
- It can only be so long/wide/etc.
- The wheels must be "exposed".
- You can only have stuff inside of some specific dimensions/areas.

With no disrespect, "generic" doesn't mean anything..... It's kinda like the guys that want to "ban aero" - It simply can't be done! Any time a body moves through a fluid aero *will* have an impact.

They could say "at X speed the maximum downforce allowed is Y". **** that! If I can build my car, within the allowable parameters, and have it generate more D/F than yours, why shouldn't I win!?

Cheers,
Ian

 

I mean speaking of cubic centimetres and saying for example that a certain amount of volume must be in a certain position rather than defining a box to be completely filled.

 

Or better still just giving constructors better crash tests they have to overcome, like not causing any impact over a certain height in case of a crash, and leaving them more freedom.

 

This could be avoided just making a rule for minimum nose width. OK, cars probably would look quite similar, but now cars are going to look quite similarly ugly.

It seems that the guys making rules didn´t realize that teams could use that "trunk" to circumvent the rules. Just like when they made the "step" in 2012.

 

It's another matter of the regulators not keeping up with the technology, just like some stupid road speed limits.

 

Sorry, but there is no excuse for the rules that dictate tiny rear wings and huge, snowplow front wings. It is absolutely hideous. I'm not worried about the noses, I like the low noses anyway. But the rest of the car...

 

Again, fair enough.

I agree that they're certainly not anything close to "good looking". But, remember, it's primarily the teams themselves that define the rules and that's what they want these days, presumably to obtain the all important "aero balance".

As I've said many times, as long as their performance remains I'm pretty happy. Sure, they're f'ugly, but they do the job wonderfully well.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Just add style points to the WCC.


The teams distrust each other enough to adopt restrictive rules that make attractive cars unlikely.

 

If there were style points in the WCC, Caterham would be challenging for the title. Nice looking car.

 

Agreed, but I never understood the change to the 09+ rules. I would like to see how the passing would have been with the 08 spec cars and DRS. The 09+ aero package didn't help passing, it was DRS that helped passing.

I thought the 07-08 cars looked amazing. Some people thought they were too busy with all the winglets and such but I thought they looked incredibly high tech. Now they get downforce from blowing exhaust, which is more interesting?

 

Yep, 100% agree on all points there!

At least there's no more EBD's next season.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'm hoping this is what will make Red Bull mortal again, but I won't hold my breath.

 

The problem for me it´s not the ugliness of the cars. But I really hate when they put something in the car that it´s only there to comply with the rules. If someone told me the car is faster with that "trunk", I´d be OK with it.