Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

F1 Aesthetics


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#1 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 13:58

Dear all, this is my first post on this forum. 

 

 

I would like to start a discussion regarding F1 cars and their aesthetics. Formula one as we all know and keep repeating is as much of a sport as a show for the spectators. Hence Formula 1 cars are meant to not just go fast and be safe but also inspire viewers to return to their tvs and pay huge tickets prices to visit races.

 

Modern day Formula 1 has been year after year made to look uglier by regulations. This I believe is not a matter of opinion but a fact. Here are a few things that contribute to the modern day f1 design crisis:

 

-1998 regulations regarding car width, probably the biggest and most painful design change in the history of f1. Sports car stance and proportion are all driven by how well the car is planted on the road. Being planted on the road is a direct consequence of width of the car vs its hight and length. Wheel size plays an important role in this equation but keeping the wheel size out of the equation (for it did not change in the 1998 rules) we ended up with cars that are much too narrow for their hight and for their length. Cars stopped looking muscular and stabile on the road instead going for a narrow, train like and unstable stance. This issue is also very hard to argue from a strictly logical perspective: why take away mechanical grip that the cars had due to their width and substitute it on more reliance on aerodynamics? and after this, complain about difficulties in overtaking cars due to turbulent wake? This in my eye is the one dumbest regulation change ever.

 

-constant increase in wheelbase: this has obviously happened for different reasons: tilkedromes demanding longer wheelbase to go around longer corners, the rule of one fuel tank for the whole race distance and other factors have directly contributed to modern f1 cars looking like stretch limos. Combined with the width restriction, this drives anybody with a taste for car beauty absolutely insane. 

 

-wheel size and tire profile. As mentioned previously, stance is driven by proportions of width hight and length but also by how all the three elements relate to wheel size. If we consider what has been happening with production mainstream cars over the last decades, we can see that while overall dimensions of the cars are growing in every direction, so do the wheel sizes. Just a quick look at a golf Mk1 vs a modern day Golf Mk7 proves this point. Anybody fancy looking at a modern car with the old fashioned wheel sizes? It would look like a oversized whale on little rollerblades. Not your most athletic proportions. But, this is precisely what we have in modern F1. For various reasons, tyre suppliers and teams never agreed to make an adjustment of rim/overall tire dimensions. A good comparison for what is possible in the racing world would be sports car racing series, be it LMP1 or even DTM. This change is a must for f1 if it is to stay relevant in todays world. 

 

-wing dimensions: the issue of the oversized front wing has been almost cured this year, but just to repeat a known fact, design elements of the car that sit wider than its wheels make the car look under wheeled and destroy the stance. We already had a car which lacked stance and the snow plough wings did a bit more to damage the stance. Narrow rear wings also make the car look like a house from the rear view. Where is the width gone? 

 

ok, enough with this rant, I believe that addressing the basic width/hight/length issue and improving wheel sizes would do magic to these cars, MAGIC!

 

ugly noses? In the context of such heavy proportion issues, nose designs are irrelevant in my opinion. Our patient has problems with its skeleton, not with the make up.

 

 

Would love to hear an intelligent discussion on this subject, including, what can we fans do to change the situation? 


Edited by angrysasha, 01 February 2014 - 14:10.


Advertisement

#2 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 01 February 2014 - 13:58

Welcome!

That's one heck of an opening post!

#3 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,790 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2014 - 14:03

what can we fans do to change the situation? 

 

Constructive criticism, preferably addressed to people involved at high levels in the sport. There are certain figures in the sport who will listen (although I doubt autocrats like Ecclestone or Todt would). It feels like Toto Wolff and Luca di M, for example, understand the bigger picture.

 

I guess you could also stop watching F1 and switch over to a rival series. But as you say, the ugliness of the current generation of F1 cars -- while a real problem -- has a lot of different causes and the solutions are not simple. Boycotts are usually only effective if there's a very clear goal in everyone's minds, and even then you've actually got to organise enough people. I'm not going to say that political action like that from fans is intrinsically pointless or laughable: boycotts and protests have brought change in sports like football. But let's be diplomatic here and say that motor racing fans are highly individualistic.

 

Aesthetics are more likely to be a barrier from getting people interested in the first place, than one that's actively going to turn someone off.


Edited by Risil, 01 February 2014 - 14:15.


#4 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 14:19

thank you for the welcome,

 

 

i was imagining a different solution: an ambassador from the design community on the FIA rules committee. Someone with a name and worldwide recognition to help them formulate the rules. Someone who cold object to the rules based on strictly aesthetic terms. Ideally he would be an engineer with a good sense for design but even a car designer (stylist) would do. 


Edited by angrysasha, 01 February 2014 - 14:20.


#5 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 323 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2014 - 14:51

F1 cars were always ugly. Yeah, I just went there.



#6 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,790 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 01 February 2014 - 14:52

i was imagining a different solution: an ambassador from the design community on the FIA rules committee. Someone with a name and worldwide recognition to help them formulate the rules. Someone who cold object to the rules based on strictly aesthetic terms. Ideally he would be an engineer with a good sense for design but even a car designer (stylist) would do. 

 

Like Luigi Colani ;)

 

It's not always down to the rules. When the narrow-track and grooved tyre regs came in there were plenty of objections on aesthetic grounds, but Max Mosley rammed them through based on their perceived safety benefits. There will never again be a situation in F1 when 'Safety' doesn't act as a trump card -- and Mosley used it almost as an 'Emergency Powers' clause. Wheelbase lengthening has been based on design necessities: you'd never have a car aesthetics guru telling Tilke how to design race tracks, and on the whole many of us think the benefits refuelling ban outweigh the down sides.

 

I'm not sure I like the principle of an FIA-appointed aesthetics guru anyway. You might prevent the wide front wing / narrow rear wing debacle but if it really had provided the close racing it promised we might look on it more favourably, ends justifying the means and all. On those grounds the beauty veto might've been overruled, just as it would be if a change (say, closed cockpits) was required on the grounds of safety.

 

And you'll always have the danger of a dogmatic personality in charge just complicating everyone with their own conceptions of beauty. I know there are a few people around who'd like everything to look like a Mac or an iPhone but I'm not one of those people. You don't get to be a big name in design without having strong ideas on what things should look like, and that might undermine the variety on show, not to mention the evolution of designs. What's better looking, a Brawn droopy nose, a Red Bull bent nose or a board-straight Mclaren nose? And how do you deal with ugly innovations as they develop from interpreting the rulebook? The F-duct assembly was pretty ugly but if I'm Ron Dennis I'm going to kick up hell if my rivals got it banned on 'aesthetic' grounds.

 

Incidentally, NASCAR recently made a change to its Sprint Cup bodywork based almost entirely on aesthetic considerations, but I can't see it's affected me at all. They still don't look like real cars and what's more they don't look like cars from the 1960s, which is what we really want.



#7 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 897 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 01 February 2014 - 14:58

Welcome, angrysasha. I concur with your analysis with the exception of wheel and tire size/ratio. Very low-profile tires make cars look like toys and ride like buckboards.

Yes, the cars are designed around them but that is a style necessity, easily changed. Please don't get caught up with fads.

F1 doesn't need to be relevant. Too much time and resources are wasted chasing "relevant."



#8 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,375 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:13

 

-constant increase in wheelbase: this has obviously happened for different reasons: tilkedromes demanding longer wheelbase to go around longer corners, the rule of one fuel tank for the whole race distance and other factors have directly contributed to modern f1 cars looking like stretch limos.

 

 

I don't think there's any relation between a long wheelbase and the tilkedromes on the calendar. I think tilkedromes have more hairpins and slow corners in general than most older circuits. What Tilkedromes often lack are precisely the Eau Rouge/Curva Grande/130R type of corners!

 

In a way one could say that the long wheelbases are the result of the fact that it's almost the only thing that is still free, i.e. not prescribed by the technical rules and regulations....



#9 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:27

Colani? No! Not that clown please.. I was thinking more in the direction of a famouse design house, pininfarina for example could approve of the regulations and it would be a pretty trusted and respected seal of approval.

Tire wheel size? From what I know large sidewalls not only look old they also hurt the performance of the car. Strictly performance speaking, for a current wheel dimension in f1, a 18" rim would have been ideal in contrast with the existing 13. However, I'm saying not only the rim, but overall wheel diameter is too small.

Design is indeed a lot of the times a subjective thing... However even in this field there are some truths that have become evident throughout the history of automobile. Great stance and athletic proportions are of extreme importance for a sports car and a racing car.

#10 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:28

Welcome, angrysasha. I concur with your analysis with the exception of wheel and tire size/ratio. Very low-profile tires make cars look like toys and ride like buckboards.

Yes, the cars are designed around them but that is a style necessity, easily changed. Please don't get caught up with fads.

F1 doesn't need to be relevant. Too much time and resources are wasted chasing "relevant."

 

Yes. It. Does.

 

Can't believe people just don't understand this. Like they imagine money grows on trees and F1 doesn't needs investors, advertisers and manufacturers. F1 does not exist in a bubble. It needs those things and those industries need to be relevant in order to keep, you know, existing. They need to be RELEVANT to their customers, so their CUSTOMERS keep giving them money, so they can give MONEY to Formula 1.



#11 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:31

Like Luigi Colani ;) [...]

Oh god, no. No, please, no.

 

As much as i would like F1 returning to wider cars, wider rear wings, wider tyres and everything, i really don't want some 'aesthetics expert' messing around with the rulebook. It's a technical competition, not an art show after all. And especially considering the variety of looks F1 had over the years - from cigars with bike tyres over flattened cigars with slightly wider tyres, then unshapely things with ironing boards bolted all over them up to what we have today - i don't think there is such a thing as a 'F1 shape' the regulations should or could work towards to.



#12 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:48

The design guru seems like a complicated solution as we all know "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I think this should be up to the teams themselves and the sponsors. I believe that if the rules provide room for it, teams in general try to come up with good looking cars as aesthetics have always been related with fast sports or super cars. When I first got into F1 I was a fan of Ferrari because their road cars looked so great (and their F1 cars at the time did not look bad either). How things have changed...

 

Furthermore, a good-looking car always creates a kind of an imperceptible good-will from fans, which is interesting for sponsors.  From the sponsor POV, one that is worried about its image could ultimately also withdraw funding if they believed the look of the car affects their brand (if I was a sponsor this year, I would seriously think about that). Finally, the other stakeholders of F1 are apparently also worried about this as seen last season with the effort to conceal the step noses. But, in the end, the problem with the aesthetics of the cars comes from the fact that they are a product of the salads that are the brains of the people that are managing the sport: there are bits of Bernie, the FIA and the teams in those cars (there's a thought for next year's Design the Livery contest). Is it a wonder then that they look the way they do?



#13 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 15:56

Colani? No! Not that clown please.. I was thinking more in the direction of a famouse design house, pininfarina for example could approve of the regulations and it would be a pretty trusted and respected seal of approval.

Tire wheel size? From what I know large sidewalls not only look old they also hurt the performance of the car. Strictly performance speaking, for a current wheel dimension in f1, a 18" rim would have been ideal in contrast with the existing 13. However, I'm saying not only the rim, but overall wheel diameter is too small.

Design is indeed a lot of the times a subjective thing... However even in this field there are some truths that have become evident throughout the history of automobile. Great stance and athletic proportions are of extreme importance for a sports car and a racing car.

 

High profiles aid corner grip because of sidewall flex. A low profile tire would reduce grip by a huge amount. Also it would look wrong to me.



#14 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:02

... Not what I was told by other experts. There is an optimal ratio for the tire profile and I was told it would be a lot lower profile, effectively 18" rims for modern f1s. High profile tire make the suspension of a car less effective from what I gather..

#15 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 353 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:12

... Not what I was told by other experts. There is an optimal ratio for the tire profile and I was told it would be a lot lower profile, effectively 18" rims for modern f1s. High profile tire make the suspension of a car less effective from what I gather..

Entirely dependent on the tyre characteristics, Brisgestone previously, and to a lesser extent Pirelli currently, use tyre wall flex to allow movement in the tred to generate heat and, subsequently, mechanical grip. Given the symbiotic relationship between tyres and suspension you can't give such a clear cut answer.

 

Oh, and as to your OP, you can't state something as entirely subjective as aesthetics as a fact. You might find the current cars ugly but that doesn't mean everyone will.



#16 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:18

Considering a huge backlash that f1 car designs have been generating over the years now, I'm inclined to think I'm not alone. Besides, if aesthetics were merely a subject of ones taste, there would be no universally recognized design icons such as the miura, gt40, 250gto, countach, 330p4, mp4-5, 641 etc etc.

No, it's not subjective, there is true beauty and there are laws that govern it.

#17 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 918 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:24

talking about rim size made your whole point bust !  those cars with bigger rims you mentioned have bodywork which helps to work them aesthetically, also rubber profile, rim size ,wheel arch size and design and the bodywork around the wheelarch make the proportions right or wrong. I can't stand those bigger rims looks better statement. F1 with bigger rims and same tyre size would look ridiculous.

 

also there where a lot of regulation changes before 1998, F1 cars looked ugly before and some always will!

get over it, F1 is not about aesthetics! 



#18 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:40

Wheel size is only important in proportion with the rest of the car. For a great example of this look at the mp4-5. That car did not need wheels any bigger. Look at cars in the 60s and 70s. Count how many wheels fit within the wheelbase of those cars? You can't have the car grow 70% in length and not react with wheel dimensions. The cars look like stretch limos.

Bodywork and wheel arch/ fender sculpture are great ways to enhance stance in a sportscar, but the bones have to be right, the basics of width, height and length measured against wheel diameter.

#19 Lemans

Lemans
  • Member

  • 1,326 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:48

Considering a huge backlash that f1 car designs have been generating over the years now, I'm inclined to think I'm not alone. Besides, if aesthetics were merely a subject of ones taste, there would be no universally recognized design icons such as the miura, gt40, 250gto, countach, 330p4, mp4-5, 641 etc etc.

No, it's not subjective, there is true beauty and there are laws that govern it.

 

That is very true. The origin of the word was meant to describe something as being 'correct'. There is a lot of math involved with regards to proportion. People love to say "Well, it's all subjective" but that's mostly a giant, steaming pile of bullshit.

 

I love this topic.


Edited by Lemans, 01 February 2014 - 16:50.


Advertisement

#20 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 16:51

The narrow rear wing is the killer these days.I once photoshoped the F2008 rear wing on to a RB5. Night and day difference.



#21 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 17:04

What's beautiful and what's not beautiful is actually not as arbitrary as it might seem. We universally perceive certain objects as healthy, as safe, as desirable, as strong etc while some other things give us all a feeling of discomfort. Most of these decisions are made by us subconsciously and are rooted in natural selection, ultimately it all ties into what we find appealing in the most basic, instinctual way. Social norms and cultural stigmas play a part, but predominantly we find healthy and strong things beautiful. Hence a panther looks more beautiful than an ant eater to most of us.

On this subject enough research has been done that goes well outside the purpose of this discussion.

What I find interesting is that some of you simply don't care enough for aesthetics. I might have misjudged f1 fan base... Although autosport website might be too hardcore to give a realistic representation of what fans think.

#22 Lemans

Lemans
  • Member

  • 1,326 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 01 February 2014 - 17:22

For me, aesthetics in F1, and in general, are very important. If I'm honest, it's the first thing that got me interested in the sport at a very young age in the early 80's. It wasn't the racing, it wasn't the drivers, it wasn't the engines. It's part of the reason I became a designer.

I think it's a tragedy that the self-professed "pinnacle of motorsport" is feilding such horrifically proportioned cars. I know there are people who say "I don't care what the cars look like-it's all about the racing-blah-blah.", but I'd say It's of incredible importance what the cars look like. To my mind the aesthetics of the cars are as relevant as anything else in the sport.


Edited by Lemans, 01 February 2014 - 17:23.


#23 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,375 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 17:25

Considering a huge backlash that f1 car designs have been generating over the years now, I'm inclined to think I'm not alone. Besides, if aesthetics were merely a subject of ones taste, there would be no universally recognized design icons such as the miura, gt40, 250gto, countach, 330p4, mp4-5, 641 etc etc.

No, it's not subjective, there is true beauty and there are laws that govern it.

So how come I'm not impressed by the so-called beauty of the Miura? (and I'm not alone in this BTW, there are enough people who agree that the aestetic appeal of Ferrari sportscars went downhill the moment they started to build Miura lookalikes)



#24 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,027 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 17:31

I am certain most the 2014 F1 cars are ugly, and I'm even more certain it's none of my business to force them to change that.



#25 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 01 February 2014 - 17:52

I have to say, apart from the noses (obviously), I love the look of F1 cars today. I was slightly disappointed when I heard the front wings would be narrower, thankfully it's hard to notice, and I think they match the rest of the car. It looks aggressive, something that the hedgehogs that came before never managed in my view. As for low profile tyres, I can't think of anything worse, and actually they would lose grip in cornering. The only downside from a high profile tyre is flywheel effect.

Edited by Mat13, 01 February 2014 - 18:04.


#26 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,139 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 18:03

I'm certain all the 2014 F1 cars are beyond ugly, and I'm even more certain it's my business to get Andrew Hope to change them!

 

However, back to the OP, I think dismissing the penis noses so blithely understates the degree of ugliness.  If anything the new noses epitomize the route F1 has gone and just how badly they've got things wrong.  The dick noses are a sad manifestation, an icon of it all.

 

As to how to change things, I don't think there needs to be a representative from Pininininininininninfarina or the like on the rules committee.  I'm not sure who from the teams is on that committee, but I'm pretty sure including two or three designer representatives from the teams themselves, or having them sit as a sub-committee would quickly be able to point out what badly thought it rules would result in.

 

Neil


Edited by Option1, 01 February 2014 - 18:03.


#27 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:10

Great OP and first post! Completely agree regarding proportions and stance. The cars being shorter and wider will not only make the cars look more like racing cars (rather than the darts on wheels they've become) they will also be more exciting to watch as they will have less directional integrity. Think how readily a go kart gets out of shape with its square wb/track ratio and also how easily it can be balanced. This is one of the main reasons the (along with less Df) 《mid 90s cars looked faster and more on edge. Drivers could catch slides, modern F1 cars are either planted or doing a180 such are the slightness of the slip angles they can sustain with the almost 2:1 wb/track ratio.

Regarding aesthetics of the aero that is a slightly different matter. With the advent of advanced wind tunnel testing and CFD, designers will make the car look whatever is fastest and creates the most downforce, looks are second. In the old days they probably tested a few shapes that had been penned by eye and picked the best one. Iteritive and continual improvement that creates the flicks and crazy shapes are a result of the extra thought and design time that goes into the aerodynamics of a modern F1 car.

Add to that a team of rule writers who don't understand aesthetics OR aerodynamics and claim to be making specific aero requirements in the name of safety and you have a perfect storm for eye bleedingly ugly F1 cars.

#28 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 444 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:23

Constructive criticism

 

Oh, the optimism. All our EFFORT to provide constructive criticism is completely wasted on them. "Them".

 

The best we can do is stupid giving them our money. If they want constructive suggestions, they'll ask. If they don't, they wont give a damn about our suggestions and criticism. And they are currently not giving a damn about our suggestions and criticism. So...

 

FYI, I'm not unhappy with current F1. I preferred how it was back in 2009, but I can't really see how it's any different or any worse now... Well, I'm just the costumer. I don't know any better.



#29 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:35

Oh, I agree that there is definitely a general sense of beauty that could be evaluated in F1 cars. And this should be incorporated in the F1 rule making. Teams and hardcore fans don't care much, for them speed is more important. But the governing body should definitely take aesthetics into account when they frame rules, otherwise we end with situations like the hideous noses of 2014.



#30 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:42

For anyone wanting proof that there are rules dictating beauty: 1.61803398875

#31 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:44

For anyone wanting proof that there are rules dictating beauty: 1.61803398875

 

 

nice  :clap:



#32 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:46

For anyone wanting proof that there are rules dictating beauty: 1.61803398875


Nope, you've lost me...

#33 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,375 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:54

For anyone wanting proof that there are rules dictating beauty: 1.61803398875

OK, now apply this to the looks of a F1 car  :D



#34 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:57

Google it.

I haven't done anything other than a fag packet sketch in my brain but I'm willing to put money on the fact that the cars most fans consider the most beautiful (Lotus 79, MP4-5, BT24) exhibit closer resemblance to this ratio than modern F1 cars. Very specifically wb/track ratio.

#35 snert

snert
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:57

Nope, you've lost me...

Fibonacci sequence :up:



#36 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 1,872 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 01 February 2014 - 19:58

For me, aesthetics in F1, and in general, are very important. If I'm honest, it's the first thing that got me interested in the sport at a very young age in the early 80's. It wasn't the racing, it wasn't the drivers, it wasn't the engines. It's part of the reason I became a designer.

I think it's a tragedy that the self-professed "pinnacle of motorsport" is feilding such horrifically proportioned cars. I know there are people who say "I don't care what the cars look like-it's all about the racing-blah-blah.", but I'd say It's of incredible importance what the cars look like. To my mind the aesthetics of the cars are as relevant as anything else in the sport.

 

Same for me. And honestly I can't name a modern single seater or prototype that looks good to me today. 

I think aesthetics has a big impact on people's minds. I'm pretty sure that if you ask to somebody who doesn't follow F1 to draw a F1 car, the proportions of the car will be very close to a 90's F1. 



#37 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:05

Edit meant the BT55 ;)

https://pbs.twimg.co...E-4os.png:large

http://cdn05.motorsp..._topview_79.jpg

Compare the ratio of these two wb/track and tell me which is closer to 1:1.618.

#38 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:06

not Fibonacci sequence, that would be 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 etc. this is the golden section. those concepts are mathematically connected but are not the same thing.



#39 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:12

Anyone who doesn't believe it go flip this 90CW:

http://static.guim.c..._goldfinger.jpg  ;)

Advertisement

#40 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:12

For anyone wanting proof that there are rules dictating beauty: 1.61803398875

I don't think that will convince people. You should at least make a 40min Youtube video where you try to point out the golden ratio in every 'beautiful' F1 car and then explain how everything is connected. Or a book, maybe? Maybe Tom Hanks is a available for a movie as well.



#41 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:20

I don't think aesthetics are massively important; at least to draw new fans in. I started properly following F1 at 7 years old, because it was noisy, and fast, and there were 'red ones'. These were both in the lead, incidentally, giving quite the clue to my rough age...

#42 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:23

I don't like the narrow cars because, as stated, the move had a direct effect on performance. I don't like the messing around with the front wing because over the years the rules have made it harder and harder to follow another car (the front wing regs have played a significant role in that) to the point of a ludicrous sticking plaster of DRS. I don't like the high profile tyres because they appear to have been retained out of ease, not for performance (teams are too afraid they might lose out to each other if they have to have suspension that does anything).

 

But to want some sort of FIA aesthetics cheif to make sure things don't get a bit fugly, is a leap too far. You mention cars such as the Countach as being what we think of as attractive - No it isn't. It's purposeful, but far from beautiful. F1 cars ought to also reflect this - They should be the very epitome of function over form.

 

And if you have some form of aesthetics decree, then are you going to shack up with Bernie and other half deaf dinosaurs and have a noise chief too?



#43 Slumberer

Slumberer
  • Member

  • 132 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:24

If you want them to look like a "racing car" it's simple.

Big rear wheels, small(er) front wheels.

Ask any kid, or watch a cartoon.

And they go faster because they're always rolling downhill.....



#44 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:29

I don't like the narrow cars because, as stated, the move had a direct effect on performance. I don't like the messing around with the front wing because over the years the rules have made it harder and harder to follow another car (the front wing regs have played a significant role in that) to the point of a ludicrous sticking plaster of DRS. I don't like the high profile tyres because they appear to have been retained out of ease, not for performance (teams are too afraid they might lose out to each other if they have to have suspension that does anything).

 

But to want some sort of FIA aesthetics cheif to make sure things don't get a bit fugly, is a leap too far. You mention cars such as the Countach as being what we think of as attractive - No it isn't. It's purposeful, but far from beautiful. F1 cars ought to also reflect this - They should be the very epitome of function over form.

 

And if you have some form of aesthetics decree, then are you going to shack up with Bernie and other half deaf dinosaurs and have a noise chief too?

 

great point, and i must admit, its not my ideal solution either! on the other hand, i feel that the rules are bing made by a committee of blind people. At least one voice of reason, someone who could say "look guys, this will look terrible, lets rethink this issue", just to add this one humble voice to the equation.

 

Countach? im sorry to disagree, countach is anything BUT purposeful. Its one of the most radical and creatively speaking influential cars of the century, but it was an aesthetic dream first and foremost. Most of Gandini's cars are like that... 

 

but regardless of countach, you made a great point, an aesthetics chief might be going too far.

 

any other ideas how to bring badass back to f1 proportions?



#45 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:29

dau, I'm not saying it should be enforced. I'm saying the cars people believe to be more beautiful will likely exhibit it more often.

A thread at F1T on the matter: http://www.f1technic...php?f=1&t=15317

#46 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:33

while designing cars nobody explicitly worries about golden section, however, the hand and eye naturally dictate this ratio to almost all the resulting lines and proportions. its just a basic tendency of nature to align things in this way. but yeah, even in advanced pre production stages of final refinements nobody explicitly puts golden sections into the car. its all natural :)


Edited by angrysasha, 01 February 2014 - 20:34.


#47 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:36

Dear all, this is my first post on this forum. 

 

 

I would like to start a discussion regarding F1 cars and their aesthetics. Formula one as we all know and keep repeating is as much of a sport as a show for the spectators. Hence Formula 1 cars are meant to not just go fast and be safe but also inspire viewers to return to their tvs and pay huge tickets prices to visit races.

 

Modern day Formula 1 has been year after year made to look uglier by regulations. This I believe is not a matter of opinion but a fact. Here are a few things that contribute to the modern day f1 design crisis:

 

-1998 regulations regarding car width, probably the biggest and most painful design change in the history of f1. Sports car stance and proportion are all driven by how well the car is planted on the road. Being planted on the road is a direct consequence of width of the car vs its hight and length. Wheel size plays an important role in this equation but keeping the wheel size out of the equation (for it did not change in the 1998 rules) we ended up with cars that are much too narrow for their hight and for their length. Cars stopped looking muscular and stabile on the road instead going for a narrow, train like and unstable stance. This issue is also very hard to argue from a strictly logical perspective: why take away mechanical grip that the cars had due to their width and substitute it on more reliance on aerodynamics? and after this, complain about difficulties in overtaking cars due to turbulent wake? This in my eye is the one dumbest regulation change ever.

 

-constant increase in wheelbase: this has obviously happened for different reasons: tilkedromes demanding longer wheelbase to go around longer corners, the rule of one fuel tank for the whole race distance and other factors have directly contributed to modern f1 cars looking like stretch limos. Combined with the width restriction, this drives anybody with a taste for car beauty absolutely insane. 

 

-wheel size and tire profile. As mentioned previously, stance is driven by proportions of width hight and length but also by how all the three elements relate to wheel size. If we consider what has been happening with production mainstream cars over the last decades, we can see that while overall dimensions of the cars are growing in every direction, so do the wheel sizes. Just a quick look at a golf Mk1 vs a modern day Golf Mk7 proves this point. Anybody fancy looking at a modern car with the old fashioned wheel sizes? It would look like a oversized whale on little rollerblades. Not your most athletic proportions. But, this is precisely what we have in modern F1. For various reasons, tyre suppliers and teams never agreed to make an adjustment of rim/overall tire dimensions. A good comparison for what is possible in the racing world would be sports car racing series, be it LMP1 or even DTM. This change is a must for f1 if it is to stay relevant in todays world. 

 

-wing dimensions: the issue of the oversized front wing has been almost cured this year, but just to repeat a known fact, design elements of the car that sit wider than its wheels make the car look under wheeled and destroy the stance. We already had a car which lacked stance and the snow plough wings did a bit more to damage the stance. Narrow rear wings also make the car look like a house from the rear view. Where is the width gone? 

 

ok, enough with this rant, I believe that addressing the basic width/hight/length issue and improving wheel sizes would do magic to these cars, MAGIC!

 

ugly noses? In the context of such heavy proportion issues, nose designs are irrelevant in my opinion. Our patient has problems with its skeleton, not with the make up.

 

 

Would love to hear an intelligent discussion on this subject, including, what can we fans do to change the situation? 

 

I forgot in my previous post but I'd like to welcome you to the forum. Hope you stay a long time!



#48 angrysasha

angrysasha
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 20:42

thank you. long time reader, first time participating... certainly going to stay around. always great reading this forum.



#49 genespleen

genespleen
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 February 2014 - 21:29

while designing cars nobody explicitly worries about golden section, however, the hand and eye naturally dictate this ratio to almost all the resulting lines and proportions. its just a basic tendency of nature to align things in this way. but yeah, even in advanced pre production stages of final refinements nobody explicitly puts golden sections into the car. its all natural :)

 No, no, no, no, no.  You're confusing one (quite limited, actually) tendency among *some* evolution of *some* organisms with a quite-separate topic called "aesthetics."  Aesthetics (what humans find "beautiful" and why) is entirely cultural--witness the extraordinary differences in aesthetic values found around the world among different societies, and over time *within* those societies.  That's why one person can find the winglet-festooned monstrosities of F1's, say, 2007 season lovely, and others are absolutely repelled.

 

I don't care for the longer-wheelbase designs, but to argue that they're violating some sort of "aesthetic law" is just incorrect.  There are no aesthetic laws.


Edited by genespleen, 01 February 2014 - 21:31.


#50 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,027 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 21:39

thank you. long time reader, first time participating... certainly going to stay around. always great reading this forum.

 

You can check out any time you like, but you can't ever leave.