Car launch 2017
Discussion
Not a looker is it? The nose reminds me of that weird twin tusk thing that Lotus did a few years back, and what it with these thumbnails jutting out and the end of the nose, how hard is it to regulate those out of existence as they look ridiculous.
The step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
The step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
patmahe said:
Not a looker is it? The nose reminds me of that weird twin tusk thing that Lotus did a few years back, and what it with these thumbnails jutting out and the end of the nose, how hard is it to regulate those out of existence as they look ridiculous.
The step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
Quite agree, it should not have been hard to frame the regs in such a way not to leave the door open for the return of these crude temp fixes.The step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
My God - that fin. The more I look at it the more it looks like a bolted on afterthought - silver painted mdf
Have they not "designed" theirs yet?It's so large, you could paint Kingfishers debts to creditors on it and still have room to spare.
Get rid - let's see how the grid shuffles
Edited by ncr69 on Wednesday 22 February 14:53
Edited by ncr69 on Wednesday 22 February 14:56
patmahe said:
Not a looker is it? The nose reminds me of that weird twin tusk thing that Lotus did a few years back, and what it with these thumbnails jutting out and the end of the nose, how hard is it to regulate those out of existence as they look ridiculous.
The step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
Maybe they should paint a picture of scarlett Johansson on the fin, that'll sex it upThe step at the suspension mount points looks clumsy, but I'm guessing its the most efficient arrangement they could find. The fin off the engine cover looks bad, I guess they could paint it black as others have done but why are they even allowed. What is so hard about regulating a clean, good looking design.
So far the 2017 cars are underwhelming, they will need to be very fast and the racing spectacular for people to get interested. The way this season's cars were mooted I was hoping for agressive looking beautiful 'beasts', what we seem to be getting is cars that are being build to such idiotic regulations that they look awful.
markcoznottz said:
Mosley narrowed the track of the cars '95, stupid decision imho, I think the move back to the wider rear tyres is reluctant, but the current atmosphere means things need sexing up.
The worst part is if you look at the '95 cars they look fantastic compared to these.I've been watching the races over the past couple of weeks and the FW17 and 412T2 are gorgeous looking things, you don't really notice the narrower track because the cars are so in proportion.
The Benetton/Ligier with it's weird airbox and the McLaren with it's awful high wing evolved as the season went on and even they became pretty good looking things.
Jez m said:
Loving this pic! Will be especially fun to see a few of these side by side down the Monaco 'straight'! 
The Force india is nasty, Renault the best looking so far.. and we all know a good looking car is a fast car! 
Yep, they look like proper Grand Prix cars from the rear, its just the other 85% of the car(s) thats questionable.skeggysteve said:
garyhun said:
What is the reason for the 'tail' behind the airbox to the rear wing - it looks horrid on all of them. Is it an aero thing or some regulatory thing?
The "sharks fin" as the engineers are calling it, is to improve airflow over the rear wing during cornering I believe. Purely there for aerodynamic reasons. Agree they look awful. 
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff