 | |
Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful?
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? -
01-25-2007
, 05:58 AM
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: a_Frank wrote: How do you define nice ? For me, an F1 car looks at its best flat out through the 180R, or Is that 130R when you *really* get the tail hanging out?  |
Quote:
|
You can blame me if you want, but I don't work in F1, and I don't really want to, anymore. Very sensible. |
aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years
anyway.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. |
were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly
controlled!
Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar
now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be.
pete
--
pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com "it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
What are the stats for wins by "ugly" cars? |
boss that will tell you that a winning car is a beautiful car, but
IMO...
None of the Tyrells from '71 thru '73 were particularly nice looking.
In the mid-70s we had cars with massive air intakes - and I thought
they all looked awful. Some of them won.
The '75 Ferrari, whilst elegantly engineered, was no oil-painting.
Schumacher's '96 Ferrari was an ugly car, even more so after the
mid-season introduction of a new shape nose.
The Brabham fan car was not nice to look at.
Whilst I liked the lines of the '91 Benetton, I thought the cars that
succeeded it (and won) from '92 to about '96 were not especially good
looking.
I would agree that a paint job can make a big difference. The Lotus 72
looked much better in the black & gold JPS colours than in any other
trim I saw it in.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly controlled! |
Quote:
|
Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be. |
and if the rules get closer and the racing gets closer, people probably
won't object to that. But if there's no real difference between one team
and the next, I'd hope that people would complain en masse. Perhaps too
much to hope for, though.
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:40:12 GMT, "AC" <alancx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: What you F1 newbs forget, is that a lot of the shape of body parts is made by the decision of computers and wind tunnels. So, let's blame Phil. Yes, but a great colour scheme can rescue an iffy looking car. Of course sponsors dictate the colours, but its a human who decides how to apply them. Of course none of hat has anything to do with performance. Just sayin....... |
Quote:
|
That's true, but now i wonder how the negotiations with sponsors would go. I see the scenario, where say, ING says 'ok, we'll give you X amount, which is quite substantial, but we want our logo on the front wing'. What can the team do ? I don't know how many major sponsors are queuing up, but there can't be a lot of them. |
cost you X. Sidepods, 3X, that little bit down by the driver's
ankles, .1X, &c.
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
a_Frank wrote: How do you define nice ? For me, an F1 car looks at its best flat out through the 180R, or Becketts, or the Parabolica. If it looks like it's going that fast when it's not moving, so much the better. Aesthetically if it looks like it does the job it was designed for, then the chances are that I like it. I don't think an F1 car should look like it was designed by someone with an art degree. |
not to pair golf pants with a checked shirt and striped tie.
Quote:
|
What you F1 newbs forget, is that a lot of the shape of body parts is made by the decision of computers and wind tunnels. So, let's blame Phil. |
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly controlled! Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be. |
....Thank the BMIA, kids.
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Pete Fenelon wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly controlled! ...and replaced with regenerative braking systems. *Yawn*. Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be. F1 has always been about how to go as fast as possible within the rules, and if the rules get closer and the racing gets closer, people probably won't object to that. But if there's no real difference between one team and the next, I'd hope that people would complain en masse. Perhaps too much to hope for, though. |
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:33:23 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: Pete Fenelon wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly controlled! ...and replaced with regenerative braking systems. *Yawn*. Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be. F1 has always been about how to go as fast as possible within the rules, and if the rules get closer and the racing gets closer, people probably won't object to that. But if there's no real difference between one team and the next, I'd hope that people would complain en masse. Perhaps too much to hope for, though. ...FAH, LOW, THE, MUH, KNEE. |
that matches up with just about no one else, and the manufacturers, who
can see a way to do a load of R&D work on stuff they'll have to do soon
anyway, and get free advertising as a payoff. If nobody watches it,
though... how long will they remain interested?
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:17:01 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com wrote: Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years anyway. Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly controlled! Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be. Agreed. ...Thank the BMIA, kids. |
can lose the last two words, and that still holds. There are many
British teams, sure, but Mad Max has gone over the heads of the teams -
just listen to what Norbert Haug had to say about the rules - basically,
forget what Ron Dennis and co. want, because they're not important
enough. The BMIA loses if there is spec everything, because the teams -
some of whom are members, but not all - will suddenly shed a load of
jobs, and a load of work that they would get made out will no longer be
done, because the aero stuff won't change more than once per year. What
was it again? FAH LOW THA MUH NEE?
--
Phil
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.