The New Look F1 Cars of 2009

[timbob]

After the 2008/2009 hybrid Williams of a few weeks ago, with the new wings on the old 2008 car, I've come across a picture of the hybrid BMW, but with none of the aero appendages, giving a clearer picture of what the 2009 cars are going to look like.

Front heavy, and a bit out of proportion on first impressions, it's not a looker! Time will tell whether the new look cars grow on me though...



Discuss!

[kambites]

It's a long time since F1 cars have been attractive to my eyes.

[tuscan30]

Looks like they got Top Gear to design it !

[funkyrobot]

[chris_w]

Will probably work better in profile but that rear wing...

Still, to my mind, the best looking F1 car is one overtaking another so we'll have to give this look a chance.

[10 Pence Short]

Rear punctures here we come!

[clonmult]

"that rear wing"? What rear wing? I see a little bit of painted plastic/carbon fiber at the back, but no wing!!!!

[Zhastaph]

oh dear

[mister.t]

oh dear

[hornetrider]

oh dear

[TimmyArt]

Is this a joke??
I was expecting this -

[Cliffv8]

whys the front wing so big? if it was the same size as the rear it wouldn't look so bad

[Muzzer]

Does it really matter what they look like?

At the end of the day, I'd rather see close, wheel-to-wheel racing than a beautiful racing car (although I suppose we're not even guaranteed that)

Besides, the cars we've had for the last however many years aren't going to win any beauty awards are they?

Give it a few years, they'll adapt to the new rules and they'll look better.

[williamp]

Awful looking thing. Still, as Max keeps telling us, f1 has become boring, so we needed this change..

[AlexS]

Cliffv8 said:

whys the front wing so big? if it was the same size as the rear it wouldn't look so bad

The shape is dictated by the new rules. The aero investigations showed that the centre of the front wing was the most affected the wash of the car infront, so the new rules dictate that it must be aero neutral. The outer section is less affected so is now larger to maintain front end downforce.

[MrKipling43]

I quite like it.

[timbob]

The only thing that doesn't appeal to me there in that shot is the sense of proportion. The front wing looks too big, the rear looks too small. But that doesn't bother me, as in the 1997-1998 rule changes the new 1998 cars look really narrow and a bit silly. After 6 months though, looking back at the 1997 cars, they seemed stupidly spindly and wide - so we'll get used to the proportions I would imagine.

Things I do like:

Smooth bodywork - no more stupid sticking up wings, bargeboards, flouncy twiddly aero appendages. The new cars look sleek and cool.

Angular wings - those squared off ends on the front wings look cool. More solid and engineered, less "wind tunnel" than cars of recent years. The front wing is also lower again, which looks better.

Slicks - I'm sure it will look better with slick tyres on.

[crossle]

The most hideously out of proportion mistake I've ever seen...

And these things are supposed to represent the pinnacle of automotive progress?

Why are those front and rear wings so completely out of proportion?

[woof]

reading Autosport last week - the decision to remove all the winglets wasn't to do with reducing aero - or reducing "dirty air" - it would of made virtually no difference

It was purely to create smooth areas for sponsor logos, to make them more visible

[10 Pence Short]

crossle said:

Why are those front and rear wings so completely out of proportion?

To allow the cars to follow each other closer through the corners.

Smaller rear wing = less disturbance for the following car.

Bigger rear wing = less detrimental effect from the car in front.

We'll only see the effect once they go racing, though.