New car reveals
Discussion
Some Gump said:
Interesting that they don't want to show the bottom of the car. Hope there's some nice trickery there that makes them perform.
That matt black finish certainly makes it look like they're trying to disguise something, however they'd be daft to put anything on display at all if they really didn't want people to know what they're up to. The cars we'll see up to the first test aren't the cars currently in the simulators and wind tunnels, that's for sure.
F1GTRUeno said:
The HALO is a standard shape so that teams don't try and get aero advantages.
If you think any of the others are going to look any different you're gonna be disappointed.
The base shape will be the same however there is a permissible degree of modification allowed in the form of additional aero addenda, I doubt we'll see these though until the on-track test sessions.If you think any of the others are going to look any different you're gonna be disappointed.
Edited by CardShark on Friday 16th February 02:06
The basic proportions of modern F1 cars are quite good, but I think as a sport we have forgotten the cars need to look good overall to attract new people to the sport. These cars look like every part was designed in isolation with no thought given to overall aesthetics. Look at LMP1 cars for example amazing, good looking things. This is the fault of the rulemakers, the teams are just trying to build the fastest cars they can within a crazy set of rules.
I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
patmahe said:
The basic proportions of modern F1 cars are quite good, but I think as a sport we have forgotten the cars need to look good overall to attract new people to the sport. These cars look like every part was designed in isolation with no thought given to overall aesthetics. Look at LMP1 cars for example amazing, good looking things. This is the fault of the rulemakers, the teams are just trying to build the fastest cars they can within a crazy set of rules.
I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
The basic proportions are all wrong. They're much too long and only recently became wider to cope with that. Current cars are massive boats compared to the 90's where neatness was everywhere (well, aside from McLaren in 1995).I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
Cars can't look like that because it looks ridiculous and it's a closed cockpit. Fans don't want closed cockpit F1 cars which is why there's such a backlash against HALO because it's a halfway step in that direction.
F1GTRUeno said:
The basic proportions are all wrong. They're much too long and only recently became wider to cope with that. Current cars are massive boats compared to the 90's where neatness was everywhere (well, aside from McLaren in 1995).
Actually I’m pretty sure that the opposite is true; the maximum width was increased in the regs and that, factoring in the minimum weight and areas available for aero, made extending the length the best engineering solution for the teams. There’s simply more opportunity to work the air with a longer car.In a formula producing so much downforce there is very little disadvantage to making a long car from a handling perspective, The car is one big wing and making it longer generally makes it a more stable aero platform.
Drastically cut the minimum weight and watch wheelbases tumble. I hope this is the direction the regs are going with the 80kg driver weight rule for next year as that would enable Ross Brawn’s working group to radically reduce the minimum weight of the cars without being accused of endangering drivers.
HustleRussell said:
Actually I’m pretty sure that the opposite is true; the maximum width was increased in the regs and that, factoring in the minimum weight and areas available for aero, made extending the length the best engineering solution for the teams. There’s simply more opportunity to work the air with a longer car..
The maximum width was decreased in 1998 and increased last year. It came after criticism that the 2010-2016ish cars were really long and narrow and made them look a lot better proportioned.The problem is they are absolute boats now.
As you mentioned in your posts there are technical reasons why they became so long but my god, they really are huge, unwieldy looking things in the flesh and the previous narrow width made it all the more apparent.
F1 cars need to shrink in every sense and get back to the neatness of the 90's for aesthetically pleasing cars but because of the developments in the 20 or so years since then, they won't.
F1GTRUeno said:
patmahe said:
The basic proportions of modern F1 cars are quite good, but I think as a sport we have forgotten the cars need to look good overall to attract new people to the sport. These cars look like every part was designed in isolation with no thought given to overall aesthetics. Look at LMP1 cars for example amazing, good looking things. This is the fault of the rulemakers, the teams are just trying to build the fastest cars they can within a crazy set of rules.
I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
The basic proportions are all wrong. They're much too long and only recently became wider to cope with that. Current cars are massive boats compared to the 90's where neatness was everywhere (well, aside from McLaren in 1995).I'm a fan of the sport for over 25 years now and I think we've gone the wrong way aesthetically for years, the halo is the latest in the line of wrong steps IMO. If head protection is required then I think the red bull aeroscreen was the best solution I saw, unless the indycar screen proves effective at deflecting large high speed projectiles. I like the idea of a full canopy too despite the inverted car argument.
Given F1 can write any rules it might want, why can't cars look something like this
Cars can't look like that because it looks ridiculous and it's a closed cockpit. Fans don't want closed cockpit F1 cars which is why there's such a backlash against HALO because it's a halfway step in that direction.
hing about the looks. Me, I can't wait for testing to start.F1GTRUeno said:
HustleRussell said:
Actually I’m pretty sure that the opposite is true; the maximum width was increased in the regs and that, factoring in the minimum weight and areas available for aero, made extending the length the best engineering solution for the teams. There’s simply more opportunity to work the air with a longer car..
The maximum width was decreased in 1998 and increased last year. It came after criticism that the 2010-2016ish cars were really long and narrow and made them look a lot better proportioned.The problem is they are absolute boats now.
As you mentioned in your posts there are technical reasons why they became so long but my god, they really are huge, unwieldy looking things in the flesh and the previous narrow width made it all the more apparent.
F1 cars need to shrink in every sense and get back to the neatness of the 90's for aesthetically pleasing cars but because of the developments in the 20 or so years since then, they won't.
This is why 80kg drivers must be mandated and minimum car weights slashed. It's the only way short of mandating standard sized parts or a maximum length.
I do think that the 2017 cars, on balance, looked as good or better than any from about 2007 - 2016 though.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff