Posted 31 March 2005 - 23:19
A "fluffy" subject perhaps, but one that always inspires strong viewpoints. So, I can't resist either. Sorry.
It appears to me that the era where one first fell in love with racing has a considerable impact on how one judges the the appearance of the cars. As with driver talent, it is, IMO, basically an exercise in futility to compare across eras.
And what is beauty? Must asthetics be graceful, ballarina like, or can they be simple, brutal, practical elegance and still appeal?
Would it, from a racer's perspective, not suffice to say that the beatiful cars are the cars that won races, and the ugly ones the cars that did not win races?
Many 'go-faster' bits that actually worked have throughout history not bestowed the lucky car to receive them with added beauty - on the contrary. Are fat tyres pretty? Hardly. Are wings? Nope. DO they appeal to a lot of people? Yes. They look 'racey'.
Then again, maybe it isn't that simple. Maybe motor racing is, to me at least, about more than winning (which probably goes a long way to explain why I would never be considered a racer) - it is also a spectacular endeavor with appeal to all the senses. And let's face an ugly truth - funding of motor sports also depends on its ability to entertain - even if shaped ugly, racing cars are still expected to be well-presented, unless we're looking at demolition derby bangers or such like. Current US dirt-track cars with their mix of old and new, asymmetry and monster ugly wings are aesthetic disasters, but still appeal in some pervese way - and they tend to be very well presented, too (before the race, anyway).
Sticking to open-wheelers:
Aesthetically, I find the the macho brutes of the pre-WW I era appealing; the Duesenbergs and Millers of the Indy era prior to the 'Junk Formula' era I find just soooo pretty; the Mercedes and Bugattis, Auto-Union (C-Type) of the thirties combine functionality with aesthetic appeal from different approaches; the Scarab, Dino 246 and Lotus 16 were each the icing on the old front engined cake in different ways; the original Lotus 25 (skinny 15" wheels, type 21 screen, needle nose, faired-in tail) is to me the prettiest racing car of any period; the BRM P261 not far off; the otherwise rather bulky Eagle scores by its presentation, the looks of its engine and exhausts, and that 'beak' detail; the Lotus 56 was perhaps the cleanest, basic shape to race; the 72 inherited the format for F1; the BRM P160 showed that gentle curves and straight lines could still be combined beautifully; 312T and BT44 confirmed it; Lotus 79 integrated function and shape in a homegenenous way not seen since the 56; BT49 did it again in Murray's strict but elegant geometrical style; BT52 did the same, but with better proportions; Jordan 191 just happened to get everything right with what was available at the time.
My list of ugly racing cars cars is by far the longer one, but for some reason I find a lot of the really ugly ones just as appealing, maybe because a lot of them are just different or original; this pretty much applies to all 1970's cars - and then there are those that I just feel indifferent about: For instance, the 250F: Classic slipper shape, yes, but it just seems too bulky relative to its wheels, and all those louvers look like a rash; M19 is similar in concept to the P160, but somehow gets both proportions and details wrong - to me, it just looks bloated. And so on.
The slipper shape up to and including the 1950s has its own intrinsic beauty, the cigar shape og the 1960s even more so (if one forgives the shape its propensity to generate lift at speed) - the 1960's cigar shape was just so clean and neat. The 1970s were characterized by variation and originality - few were pretty, most were an aesthetic mess but virtually all were interesting visually. For a short while ground effects and its after effects brought some elegeant simplicity back, soon to fall by the bargeboard, winglets and, IMHO, the worst design eye sore of all: The raised nose with underslung front wing. I may be an old f@rt, but I just can't find any way to enjoy the looks of the current cars. Spectacularly beautiful composite compound curvature shapes and exquisite workmanship, yes, but overall aesthetic appeal? Sorry, I just can't see it. I find the Tecno PA123 less ugly than any current F1 car, what with all the fins and protrusions and bits of the current F1 car making it look like some monster that has escaped from the deep seas...
Rant over.
PS: Maybe one of the reasons the Tecno appeals to me was its sound: It was just such a LOUD and metallic wail. Sat opposite the pits at Zolder in 73 (when Amon scored his point!), everyone's hands would come up to cover their ears shortly before Chris was expected to appear...and in Sweden in 1977 you could audibly follow Lafferty's Matra engine all around the track over the din of everyone else. Absolutely spine-tingling. Like Twinny said - 'Horny'.
What if we were to look at all the cars in F1 starting with the seventies, and do a beauty and beast rating? Wicked!
Good Lord, what were they thinking? The March Tea Tray (what is it about Tea?) was pretty awful as well.
in BRG or red?
