86 replies to this topic

[superden]

I'm sure, from reading the Sauber thread, that I'm going against the popular tide here but I'm just not feeling it, at all.

Based on the above, the cars look like overweight, elongated descendants of the 2016 designs and with the fins and angled wings they are starting to look like a confused and cluttered aerodynamic mess again.

For me, this is just a massively missed opportunity. It's a case of evolution by committee, rather than the revolution the sport desperately needed.

[PlayboyRacer]

There will be no revolution.... its pie in the sky stuff. The category won't ever return to anything remotely resembling its glory days. 

I'm still hopeful of a great season ahead but that's more on the basis that I'm hoping Red Bull can really fight Mercedes/Hamilton for the championship.

These regulations don't even guarantee better racing, in fact don't be surprised if it's more processional. They've missed the mark (as usual) on what is really key to making great racing and Formula 1 a real challenge again. My two cents.

[Scotracer]

THEY LOOK AWESOME.

 

Two of the biggest F1 faux-pas from the last 20 years:

 

1) Going from 2000mm to 1800mm wide in 1998

2) Raising and narrowing the rear wing in 2009

 

They've fixed both         

[superden]

THEY LOOK AWESOME.

Two of the biggest F1 faux-pas from the last 20 years:

1) Going from 2000mm to 1800mm wide in 1998
2) Raising and narrowing the rear wing in 2009

They've fixed both

Yet still made the rear wing hideous and the length of the cars means the increase in track is visually lost. Plus they still managed to miss the mark in every other aspect. I don't see what there is to 'clap' about frankly.

[PlayboyRacer]

I'd argue Formula 1 has actually never truly recovered from the mess they made in 1998, no matter what has been rectified well down the track. Feels like one step forward, two steps back....

[Scotracer]

Yet still made the rear wing hideous and the length of the cars means the increase in track is visually lost. Plus they still managed to miss the mark in every other aspect. I don't see what there is to 'clap' about frankly.

 

I've seen you moan about every possible single thing in current F1 recently. I think maybe it's your perception that's out of whack...

 

To me, the Sauber C36 is the best looking F1 car since 1997 ended.

Edited by Scotracer, 20 February 2017 - 12:02.

[K20a]

We've seen cgi renders/studio images of two out of ten 2017 designs.

I understand where you are coming from, but perhaps atleast wait until we see all the cars, on track in the flesh?

I personally feel the wider cars and tyres will be far more discernable on track.

That Sauber is gorgeous imo.

Edited by K20a, 20 February 2017 - 12:06.

[TheRacingElf]

Don't like them either, they are better than what we had for the last few years but they are nowhere near good looking enough to use them as a wallpaper, for example. 

[PlayboyRacer]

To me, the Sauber C36 is the best looking F1 car since 1997 ended.

 

That's the problem though. Your not necessarily wrong... but it looks nowhere near as good as a 1997 spec F1 car. So whilst we have improvement, it's still a long way off the mark. As are many other things.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 20 February 2017 - 12:10.

[superden]

I've seen you moan about every possible single thing in current F1 recently. I think maybe it's your perception that's out of whack ...

Or maybe it's just people like you applauding poorly thought out revisions to regs that were ill-advised in the first place that just perpetuates this mind numbingly tedious formula by giving the changes some sort of legitimacy, without actually thinking about whether they are beneficial, or demonstrably better than what has been shown to be possible before.

Try again without the attitude. You don't agree with me? Fine, argue the point on a technical level, or jog on.



Just because it's the 'best looking car since 1997' doesn't mean it's a good looking car, or that the regs it runs to are good, worthwhile or beneficial to the sport in the long term. Better is merely relative to what went before, not a measure of what is 'good' overall.

Edited by superden, 20 February 2017 - 12:20.

[Burtros]

Its not the dramatic step in looks we were promised. We are still stuck with the stupid and ugly front end, and the only bits that obviously different is the rear wing. 

 

So far 2017 reg update has been a massive let down. Keen to see more cars though.

[Marklar]

It bothers me so much how the new rear wings and the tyres are making it looking so much better now, but then you stil have these ugly noses and (now this year) these shark fins.

[Clrnc]

People overreacting over 2 launch from 2 traditionally conservative teams. 

[RedBaron]

I think the front wings look superb with the angle added to them.

 

The rear wing, it looks alright but a bit too A1GP-esque for me if I'm being picky.

 

Apart form that the only part I don't really like is the upright vanes either side of the side pods.

 

Tyres look great, the floor is wide but on track it'll be barely noticeable.

[Scotracer]

Or maybe it's just people like you applauding poorly thought out revisions to regs that were ill-advised in the first place that just perpetuates this mind numbingly tedious formula by giving the changes some sort of legitimacy, without actually thinking about whether they are beneficial, or demonstrably better than what has been shown to be possible before.

Try again without the attitude. You don't agree with me? Fine, argue the point on a technical level, or jog on.



Just because it's the 'best looking car since 1997' doesn't mean it's a good looking car, or that the regs it runs to are good, worthwhile or beneficial to the sport in the long term. Better is merely relative to what went before, not a measure of what is 'good' overall.

 

The fundamental point is cost. If you want to completely tear-up the design concept of an F1 car so you have maybe no front wing, but a long/large venturi tunnel then you'd have the teams having to begin again. From scratch.

 

These stupid concepts that circulate online of 'the future of F1' might have got people's hopes up but what Sauber revealed today should be no surprise to anyone. You've been able to read the regulations for over a year now.

 

The major complaint seems to be that the cars are long....they are because it's more beneficial! You can't change the physics of the matter. Do you want to have even tighter regulations so that they are limited?

[superden]

People overreacting over 2 launch from 2 traditionally conservative teams.

No other cars are going to look massively different within these hugely restrictive regs. It's variations on a theme, and the theme is about as attractive as a rhino's ass. They will all have fins, shovel front wings, A1GP rear wings, cluttered aero appendages, ridiculous hectares of floor poking out each side, wheelbase dimensions from a London Bus and look like they were designed by a committee that never actually met.

[ArchieTech]

Seems to be exactly what the regulations dictated it was going to have to look like. I'll wait to see it on track though I can already tell that the shark fin needs to go for aesthetic reasons. Also it's quite strange how all the bodywork will be so far inboard from the actual floor. I'm just glad we've got the wider tyres, not that the angle of the Sauber picture does them justice.

[superden]

The fundamental point is cost. If you want to completely tear-up the design concept of an F1 car so you have maybe no front wing, but a long/large venturi tunnel then you'd have the teams having to begin again. From scratch.

These stupid concepts that circulate online of 'the future of F1' might have got people's hopes up but what Sauber revealed today should be no surprise to anyone. You've been able to read the regulations for over a year now.

The major complaint seems to be that the cars are long....they are because it's more beneficial! You can't change the physics of the matter. Do you want to have even tighter regulations so that they are limited?

Ok, so let's just keep the status quo then. No matter that it produces hideous cars, dull racing and stifles engineering advances in favour of engine development that only benefits manufacturers. Still, it's cheap ... in every sense of the word.

F1? Needs more 'dull' ... that'll work.

[RedBaron]

A football is always round (spheroid) so generation to generation there's no change and no complaints.

 

Formula 1 cars regardless of the regulations regardless if they went back to 1997 bodywork will always have a huge percentage of complaints because everyone has their era, the era they loved and they're all so different.

[superden]

A football is always round (spheroid) so generation to generation there's no change and no complaints.

Formula 1 cars regardless of the regulations regardless if they went back to 1997 bodywork will always have a huge percentage of complaints because everyone has their era, the era they loved and they're all so different.

That's certainly a part of it.

[milestone 11]

Shark fins, ugly noses and halos. What more could a pretty F1 car want.

[MikeV1987]

looks fast to me

[CountDooku]

Don't like them either, they are better than what we had for the last few years but they are nowhere near good looking enough to use them as a wallpaper, for example. 

 

I had this as a wallpaper for a while and I'm not even a Ferrari fan. 

 

[Rinehart]

I'm sure, from reading the Sauber thread, that I'm going against the popular tide here but I'm just not feeling it, at all.

Based on the above, the cars look like overweight, elongated descendants of the 2016 designs and with the fins and angled wings they are starting to look like a confused and cluttered aerodynamic mess again.

For me, this is just a massively missed opportunity. It's a case of evolution by committee, rather than the revolution the sport desperately needed.

It seems to me that even on a dedicated motorsport forum, the main interest is in the liveries, not the design, so I can only assume the casual/new fan will be even less interested in the design. 

What I'm saying then is that its not a missed opportunity, there was no opportunity. What the cars are shaped like is way less important than how they're painted and how they race. 

[P123]

It's just a super-sized version of the last generation, with added A1GP rear wing and Newey derived race killing downforce. But we can all get excited about the timesheets and the drivers going 'wheeeeee' over the radio as they zoom around a corner flatout on rails. That's sure to increase the popularity of the sport.

[CountDooku]

I think the front wings look superb with the angle added to them.

 

The rear wing, it looks alright but a bit too A1GP-esque for me if I'm being picky.

 

Apart form that the only part I don't really like is the upright vanes either side of the side pods.

 

Tyres look great, the floor is wide but on track it'll be barely noticeable.

 

IMO the cars are waaaaaaay too long, The fact that they are now much longer has robbed us of any sexiness we might have seen in the new, fatter tyres. The nose doesn't help the front view and the shark fin doesn't help the side.

 

SWB is always better and proportions matter.

Edited by CountDooku, 20 February 2017 - 12:55.

[superden]

It seems to me that even on a dedicated motorsport forum, the main interest is in the liveries, not the design, so I can only assume the casual/new fan will be even less interested in the design.
What I'm saying then is that its not a missed opportunity, there was no opportunity. What the cars are shaped like is way less important than how they're painted and how they race.

How they are shaped, shapes how they race.

Edited by superden, 20 February 2017 - 12:59.

[Jamiednm]

While I'd love to see the cars return to a shorter wheelbase, the biggest visual problem I have with the current generation of cars is the ridiculously complex front wings. They look hideous, make the cars overly sensitive to a leading cars wake, and ironically, have absolutely zero relation to production cars, when we're repeatedly told we need to have hairdryer engines to make them 'road relevant'.

 

But this isn't 2017-specific (the rules just haven't done anything to address this), so I will reserve judgement of 2017 cars until I see them on track. I expect the cars will be slightly more spectacular, the races to be even more processional, and the engines to sound exactly the same as last year. We'll see...

[thegamer23]

We haven't seen them yet on a racetrack, just studio photos or approximative renderings.

I think some desktop wallpapers might be changed in a few days time. 

[Clrnc]

For people who want simple aero, you are basically limited the freedom of the aerodynamicist. I never minded all those winglets and stuff in the past because every little part makes a difference on the car and make it less reliant on engines. Nowadays, the balance are completely wrong. 

[JHSingo]

It's hard for me to get excited by the look of a car, particularly when I fear this regulation change will be a mistake. For me, the quality of the racing is what matters more than the looks.

 

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[MasterOfCoin]

Honestly i'm more concerned with the racing on track, and how these cars can really overtake each other, than the aesthetics of the 2017 cars. 

[Marklar]

It's hard for me to get excited by the look of a car, particularly when I fear this regulation change will be a mistake. For me, the quality of the racing is what matters more than the looks.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

I fear it will be a pig without a lipstick.

[RedBaron]

The two posts above (above Markler's post, he's gone and got between us) are right.

 

For now it's fun to discuss the look, but ultimately it's what they do when they hit the track that really matters.

 

I posted an image of a BMW Sauber from 2008 in another topic, I'd happily watch 20 of those cars race nose to tail and battle if it was good racing.

 

I'm not saying these cars will be the answer to close racing, but that is what matters ultimately. The racing.

Edited by RedBaron, 20 February 2017 - 13:29.

[CountDooku]

The two posts above are right.

 

For now it's fun to discuss the look, but ultimately it's what they do when they hit the track that really matters.

 

I posted an image of a BMW Sauber from 2008 in another topic, I'd happily watch 20 of those cars race nose to tail and battle if it was good racing.

 

Meh. Am I the only one who is not fussed by passing?

 

I would rather have much, much faster cars that were bonkers to drive but difficult to overtake. Like 07 & 08 actually.

[ConsiderAndGo]

Meh. Am I the only one who is not fussed by passing?

I would rather have much, much faster cars that were bonkers to drive but difficult to overtake. Like 07 & 08 actually.

Cannot compute....

[RedBaron]

Meh. Am I the only one who is not fussed by passing?

 

I would rather have much, much faster cars that were bonkers to drive but difficult to overtake. Like 07 & 08 actually.

 

I didn't say passing...

 

I said battling and close racing, so we agree!

[superden]

I didn't say passing...

I said battling and close racing, so we agree!

Those front wings won't allow close racing.

[RedBaron]

Those front wings won't allow close racing.

 

I covered this already!

 

I'm not saying these cars will be the answer to close racing, but that is what matters ultimately. The racing.

 

Keep up guys!

[CountDooku]

Cannot compute....

 

People who like passing can watch NASCAR.

 

The F1 attraction for me has always been about outright speed actually, rather than spectacular passing.

[JHSingo]

People who like passing can watch NASCAR.

 

The F1 attraction for me has always been about outright speed actually, rather than spectacular passing.

 

It should be a combination of the two. F1 cars should be spectacular, but equally it shouldn't be a parade. There's been too much of that recently.

 

Racing for me is about battling, wheel-to-wheel action, overtakes. That's what is exciting. A group of fast cars driving around without that is not exciting.

 

Not every race needs to have over 100 overtakes to be great, but it does need cars that are at least capable of overtaking each other.

[RedBaron]

[superden]

For a sport so ridiculously obsessed with 'spice', this is all comedically mild.

[Marklar]

I'm sure I'm reading this graph wrong.

[CountDooku]

 

Totes scientific. 

[RedBaron]

I'm sure I'm reading this graph wrong.

 

It's the same graph my girlfriend shows me before we have intercourse. I just swapped out the labels.

[loki0420]

If they simplify front wings and get rid of damn thumbs they would look very good. But actually to look better only lower and wider RW would still be enough.

[morrino]

“It looks like a boat”: Hamilton on new Mercedes

[ConsiderAndGo]

“It looks like a boat”: Hamilton on new Mercedes

 

Can generally see him canning F1 at the end of his contract. Not for this topic, though.

[Rinehart]

How they are shaped, shapes how they race.

Yes, indeed, so I'm supposing the majority of fans would take any shape, that shaped good racing. As long as they had a nice blingy paint job.