Jump to content


Photo

The 2009 cars are really seriously ugly (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#101 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 January 2009 - 16:51

I don't think that the Renault is ugly but it is surely funny...
Posted Image

Advertisement

#102 GlobalGP.net

GlobalGP.net
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 January 2009 - 17:05

Williams is the nicest looking car so far. But would we be saying that if it had a dodgy paint job too???

#103 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 19 January 2009 - 17:23

Don't hold your breath - it may well have a dodgy paint job eventually. :(

#104 topski100

topski100
  • Member

  • 32 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 19 January 2009 - 17:35

A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.

#105 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 19 January 2009 - 20:28

I have to say, the 2009 designs are starting to grow on me. There's some angles that they're... not so pretty, but other's are OK.

#106 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,967 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 January 2009 - 20:31

I must say I love the cars when their still and not going anywhere, they look like mini batmobiles of Tim Burton's films.

But when their on the move and on the track, you notice perhaps how small they look because of the rear wings, it'll take some getting used too.

But again, it's just the shell, regarding the soul, if these cars improve the excitement by even 10%, it'll be worth it.

#107 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,856 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 January 2009 - 20:33

Originally posted by topski100
A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.


True.

Odd how some days ago people were already bitching that the cars were too similar. Wide of the mark there.

#108 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 19 January 2009 - 21:26

Originally posted by topski100
A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.


That was my thought too. Good to see some a differentiation of design concepts...

#109 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 January 2009 - 22:56

Having seen the Ferrari, McLaren, Toyota, Williams and now the Renault, I stand by my comments from a few months ago.

These cars are massively unattractive and do the sport no favours at all.

#110 Racing Dutchman

Racing Dutchman
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 January 2009 - 00:04

I am going to walk to the ING headquaters here in The Netherlands tommorow, present them a picture of the new Renault R29 during their lunch, and will record the time before they puke.
Trust me, this won't take long.

After that I will tell them that if they ever **** with my bank account like Renault ****ed with their livery, I will sue them :wave:

#111 Lurb

Lurb
  • Member

  • 183 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 20 January 2009 - 07:28

You could go to the drivers and ask which car they like better, the ugly or the pretty. I bet 100% of them would say the same:
The fastest.

#112 armchair expert

armchair expert
  • Member

  • 1,927 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 20 January 2009 - 11:37

From what I have seen from many of the individual threads, many are complaining about the livery rather than the design, hence the popularity of the frumpy Williams.

The liveries of the Mac & Ferrari are truly superb, while the other paint jobs are either bland or puke-worthy (so far).

Generally, apart from the front wing design, I am enjoying the different solutions each team has come up with so far. For the first time in over ten years we actually have distinct differences! If they were all black or white, we could, with certainty, pick which was which! I'm not sure which is going to be the fastest, but I like the shape of the Renault, although the clunky front wing pylons don't quite fit with the rest of the flow.

Unfortunately, the outcome of new regulations is normally one team being streets ahead of the rest. :

#113 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 412 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 20 January 2009 - 11:43

Originally posted by Rabbit123
I don't think all these rule changes were even necessary. I mean, 2008 was like, one of the best seasons ever. perhaps a with a slight lack of overtaking, but the Hamilton/Massa battle and Vettel's success and everything else has really got the world's attention, it's been a season full of surprises and excitement. It seems strange that just as F1 is really coming good, people are moaning that it's not exciting enough and there's no overtaking. Fine, bring back slick tyres, that's a good idea; but all this over stuff with the massive front wings and the simple body shape and everything, there's no need for that.


New rules were necessary, but I think the OWG should had choosen for a better, less controversial solution. It found out that, if you want downforce, high downforce-config wings provide the best racing. OK, but why didn't they ban the diffuser? This would had enforced teams to use high-downforce configs to regain as much as possible of the lost downforce.

The same could be said about the central part of the front wing. This part is now standardised and must be flat. They could had achieved the same by simply banning the high nose cones.

#114 etoipi

etoipi
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 January 2009 - 13:46

This link from the Gallery shows the 2009 BMW next to the 2008 BMW - first comparative picture I have seen

http://www.autosport...e/l_p90044760-4

I remember one of the BMW drivers saying the new car was "ugly" - something to do with the wide front and narrow rear wings. It took me a while to get used to these new proportions.

My view now is that the clean, uncluttered lines of the 2009 cars (not just the BMW in the picture, all those I have seen so far) are so much nicer, imo, more aesthetically pleasing - beautiful? than the 2008 cars that have all the projections, wings and fences popping out everywhere.

Other opinions please and I thank BMW for putting the 2 cars together.

#115 gwk

gwk
  • Member

  • 105 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 20 January 2009 - 17:07

Etoipi wrote:

My view now is that the clean, uncluttered lines of the 2009 cars (not just the BMW in the picture, all those I have seen so far) are so much nicer, imo, more aesthetically pleasing - beautiful? than the 2008 cars that have all the projections, wings and fences popping out everywhere.


Completely agree. Compared to last year's car, I think that the 2009 BMW is........seriously beautiful.

#116 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 20 January 2009 - 19:36

Frankly, guys: Yesterday I had a racing magazine of last year in my hands and there was a huge photo of last year's Honda with the wing on the nose.... man, that was ugly!

I like the new cars. Each one has a personality, most of the stuff that was destroying the cars' lines has been outlawed.... I like them!

Take a look at all the photos from this year, and then look at those from last year, you'd be surprised!

#117 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 January 2009 - 05:56

2009 cars are much clean and beautiful indeed.

it's a pity all adds they have (and i like the renault livery):
-i saw in the newspaper a pic from one of those cars we saw yesterday.
-witch one?
-the philips one.
-hum... but the bull one was fastest.
-the vodafone was in there too.

#118 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:00

In fact that would be very retro in some way... I often read that Lotus was regularly referred to as John Player Special in the 70s. :p

#119 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:19

By the press and media, maybe, but NEVER by the real fans. A Lotus is a Lotus is a Lotus.... :)

Advertisement

#120 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 January 2009 - 13:03

Much to the annoyance of the tab merchants! :) They were officially entered as John Player Specials weren't they?

Nice Capricorn in your avatar BTW. ;)

#121 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 January 2009 - 13:11

I think you may mean a SAPAL! :)

#122 Kevie911

Kevie911
  • Member

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 January 2009 - 15:33

I'm not too excited by the '09 look. The rear wing is gruesome, regardless of whose car it is on. IMO the 'beauty' of the car is reflective as much because of the graphics rather than any design. I must say that the 'torso' of the Ferrari is striking, much more so than the Toyota, as an example. The Toyota looks too stretched out for my tastes. As has been mentioned, kudos to BMW for lining up the '08 and '09 cars, so we the poor fans can do a decent comparison. I must say that I like the uncluttered look of the new car. Let's hope that the rules keep the aero bits off of them although I'm sure there are enough loopholes for the designers to navigate.

Let's see what they all look like in Oz though. That'll be the big test...

#123 luskiiimj

luskiiimj
  • Member

  • 228 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 January 2009 - 17:21

I think I've finally gotten used to them. I quite like them now, except the high frontal shots that make the rear wing look higher than it is. The slicks look glorious, and I much prefer the clean lines to the flip-ups - especially those rear flip-ups for the rear wheels. I've always hated those. Was the rear diffuser widened or moved rearward or something? It seems bigger or more prominent.

#124 dentistTubster

dentistTubster
  • Member

  • 158 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 22 January 2009 - 18:07

Originally posted by vivian


I seriously doubt that any team would sacrifice performance for aesthetics! F1 isnt a beauty contest.

And somehow wierd looking solutions never seemed to have stayed for long in F1. Honda's elephant ears, and in early days of MS at ferrari they tried super high winglets, they never lasted.

The X-Wings, as you refer to, were pioneered by Tyrrell in 1997, and they were banned after Argentina (I think, but I might be wrong) in 1998 due to aesthetic reasons. I can't quite remember the FIA wording as to how they banned them, but presumably it was no bodywork above a certain height or something.

#125 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 22 January 2009 - 19:51

Originally posted by dentistTubster
The X-Wings, as you refer to, were pioneered by Tyrrell in 1997, and they were banned after Argentina (I think, but I might be wrong) in 1998 due to aesthetic reasons. I can't quite remember the FIA wording as to how they banned them, but presumably it was no bodywork above a certain height or something.


The flat tops of many sidepod exhaust uplets and winglets over the last 3 years or so would allude ot this upper limit IMO.

#126 dentistTubster

dentistTubster
  • Member

  • 158 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 22 January 2009 - 19:54

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor


The flat tops of many sidepod exhaust uplets and winglets over the last 3 years or so would allude ot this upper limit IMO.

As is most usual, like with most of the bodywork regs, there is presumably an invisible box where no bodywork is allowed (or the engine winglets, like the horns that BMW uses and Mclaren pioneered, would not exist).

#127 MaxScelerate

MaxScelerate
  • Member

  • 4,341 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 22 January 2009 - 20:09

Heck, the rear wings don't look that bad on low downforce settings, it's at high angle that they really stand out in an ugly way...
(I didn't look at regs but it would make sense, if there's sort of a bottom-limit to the wing, that any degree in the angle of attack would translate into a higher, 'taller' wing..?)

#128 Cesar

Cesar
  • New Member

  • 13 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 23 January 2009 - 08:41

Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.

#129 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,352 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 23 January 2009 - 20:08

I've just realised what the new cars make me think of.............a small child playing 'dressing-up' in her mum's clothes. The huge tyres, narrow sidepods, over-wide front wing and over-high rear wing are all so horribly proportioned, nothing fits.


Paul M

#130 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 January 2009 - 04:32

I'm probably the only one, but I find the new cars nice: I like the huge front wing and I never liked the small aeros growing everywhere in the cars (aero mushrooms). The small rear wing reminds me that the cars have lower rear end grip – nice.

Anyway, you'll all be finding them beautiful: as soon as you watch them win races. Just consider Cristiano Ronaldo: the guy is a winner and all the girls want to bed him. If he were a normal guy the same girls would be noticing that he seems a Neanderthal.

So, you'll like the new cars, but I said it first!;)

#131 AyePirate

AyePirate
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 24 January 2009 - 04:37

Originally posted by Cesar
Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.


Each team will need to bring an extra transporter this year- to store spare nose/wing units. :)
The first turn of each race looks to have a high probability of cluster-f.
This is especially true for the back markers.

#132 superstring

superstring
  • Member

  • 265 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:33

I guess, in the end, F1 has always been about the triumph of creative thinking, design and technology over the regulations. That's the F1 game. The more restrictive the regs, the more effort (and money) needs to be thrown at it to find an advantage. So, if the cars are ugly, that's just the way it is. Blame the regs. As for cost cutting, well..... :rolleyes:

#133 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 27 January 2009 - 08:47

Originally posted by superstring
I guess, in the end, F1 has always been about the triumph of creative thinking, design and technology over the regulations. That's the F1 game. The more restrictive the regs, the more effort (and money) needs to be thrown at it to find an advantage. So, if the cars are ugly, that's just the way it is. Blame the regs. As for cost cutting, well..... :rolleyes:


It's a little bit OT but you can still build nice-looking racing cars as Aston proved. If it drives half as good as it looks then Audi and Peugeot will not have an easy life at Le Mans.

Posted Image

#134 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 January 2009 - 09:05

That is gorgeous.... however, I fear if it ain't got a diesel engine, they might as well stay home. :(

#135 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 January 2009 - 09:41

Originally posted by Barry Boor
That is gorgeous.... however, I fear if it ain't got a diesel engine, they might as well stay home. :(


I feel your pain, diesel race engines are boring as hell BUT... I rented a car last summer. It was a brand spanking new ford focus (uk) with a 1.6L petrol engine. It was slow as hell and even driving like a grandma up the A1 for 3 hours the car was not capable of getting more than 34mpg. The last car I owned before moving to London 3 years ago was a 1998 (first generation, a full 10 years older!) ford focus 1.8 turbo diesel. It was much quicker and did 55mpg. Im amazed that in this age of environmentalism such inefficient petrol engines are allowed to be sold. And on that bombshell... are diesel engines not perfect for endurance racing???

EDIT: Misread your post barry :) Thought you said "if its got a diesel"

#136 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,270 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 January 2009 - 09:49

Originally posted by Cesar
Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.

i seriously predict rule modification to narrow front wing width to be put in place as early as by the middle of 2009.

#137 LostProphet

LostProphet
  • Member

  • 1,177 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 January 2009 - 13:08

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor


I feel your pain, diesel race engines are boring as hell BUT... I rented a car last summer. It was a brand spanking new ford focus (uk) with a 1.6L petrol engine. It was slow as hell and even driving like a grandma up the A1 for 3 hours the car was not capable of getting more than 34mpg. The last car I owned before moving to London 3 years ago was a 1998 (first generation, a full 10 years older!) ford focus 1.8 turbo diesel. It was much quicker and did 55mpg. Im amazed that in this age of environmentalism such inefficient petrol engines are allowed to be sold. And on that bombshell... are diesel engines not perfect for endurance racing???

EDIT: Misread your post barry :) Thought you said "if its got a diesel"


I know it's OT, but the 1.6 diesel Focus is a dreadful thing. I got the dubious priviledge of driving one for a couple of days last year for work, and it had no poke whatsoever. Handled as Fords do (very well) and to be fair was pretty torquey, but torque's no good if it's pulling you to a pedestrian speed ;)

I do like diesels though, got a BMW 320cd and it's a brilliant car!!

#138 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 January 2009 - 16:47

I have no axe to grind regarding diesel road cars; they just should NEVER PUT A DIESEL IN A RACING CAR!!!!

#139 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 January 2009 - 16:50

Originally posted by Barry Boor
I have no axe to grind regarding diesel road cars; they just should NEVER PUT A DIESEL IN A RACING CAR!!!!


Why?

Advertisement

#140 GerardF1

GerardF1
  • Member

  • 693 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 27 January 2009 - 17:40

Originally posted by Barry Boor
I have no axe to grind regarding diesel road cars; they just should NEVER PUT A DIESEL IN A RACING CAR!!!!


I have no problem with diesel race cars - it is different but so what - if the engineers can make it work.

What I didn't like - in the way of fuels - was the methanol that CART used ( Does Indy Car still use it?) Not sure of the sensibility of a fuel that burns when exposed to air and has no visible flame. The first clue you have to a fire is the driver on the ground rolling back and forth. The only plus is that it can be put out with water.

#141 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,895 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 January 2009 - 17:43

Why? Have you ever heard a diesel racing car? Racing cars should make NOISE! :)

#142 dentistTubster

dentistTubster
  • Member

  • 158 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 27 January 2009 - 18:13

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Why? Have you ever heard a diesel racing car? Racing cars should make NOISE! :)

:up:

I know - I went to Le Mans in 2007 and the Peugoets and Audis sounded like something of Doctor Who... and then the Panozes went by and they sounded like proper racing cars! :)

#143 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,078 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 29 January 2009 - 21:34

Originally posted by Cesar
Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.



I was thinking the same thing. Front wing designs look fragile, look too easy to be knocked with someone elses, too easy to come in one BIG piece. We could possibly see cars get both front wheels riding on their own front wings. The worst F1 accidents seem to come from front wing riding, ie no steering capabilty. Kubica, Burti et al.

#144 mcerqueira

mcerqueira
  • Member

  • 150 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 27 March 2009 - 01:58

Watching the Melbourne free practice... yep, the cars are very ugly (add the obvious IMHO). I'm not going to bitch about it since it's the name of the game but as a car and aestethics lover they do look weedy, dumbed down and ill proportioned. Whatever you say about all the aerodynamic adenda of yore they looked like the pinnacle of motorsport, now they look like Dyson A1GP cars except with thiner rear tires (another big no-no)

And for those who only care about "exciting" races... I guess if F1 rules changed only allowing giant brown shoeboxes with wheels to be raced that indeed provided lots of overtaking, than all would be well.

Nomex suit on...

#145 Der Pate

Der Pate
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 March 2009 - 09:24

Surprise...first two free practice with a lot of cars off the track...but we lost no front-wing...

#146 giltkid

giltkid
  • Member

  • 234 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 March 2009 - 10:51

Originally posted by Der Pate
Surprise...first two free practice with a lot of cars off the track...but we lost no front-wing...


You'll see plenty lying around after the first corner on Sunday, have no fear

#147 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 March 2009 - 11:03

>
^ The cars look ugly, sound ugly, drive ugly and also have shitty turbulent diffusers.

#148 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 March 2009 - 11:48

Originally posted by Barry Boor
Why? Have you ever heard a diesel racing car? Racing cars should make NOISE! :)



Diesels do make noise! Only a lot less.....
It would help if the turbo's were taken off but I have no idea how large an atmo diesel has to be to generate an equal amount of power as the current turbodiesels in WTTC and LMGTP

I think that the worst offence ever committed to racing in your eyes were probably the Indy STP turbines???

I rather see nice looking cars that make less noise (diesel is fine thank you) then hearing the ugly contraptions of today that are not even stupid enough as if taken out of a comic book in which they appeared, deliberately blown out of proportions with the intention of looking rediculously comical....

Henri

#149 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 March 2009 - 11:49

I've got use to them. If they provide overtaking, so be it. :up:

#150 Trebor152

Trebor152
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 27 March 2009 - 11:51

The Brawn, McLaren and Williams look alright. The BMW and Renault are bloody ugly though.