65 replies to this topic

[dspope]

I'd have to say the 91 Ferrari, from the French grandprix onwards. Very simple, smooth and sexy.

The Jordan of the same year was also stunning, lots of aerodynamic swoops and the nose and airbox cover were pretty unique at the time.

I may be wrong, but I think todays cars are quite ugly in comparison. Narrower, and loads of 'aerodynamic' bumps and lumps and stupid little wings. Anyone agree?

Are smoother cars quicker? Look at McLaren V Ferrari, and people always say the Mclaren is more aerodynamic, and it looks a lot smoother.

D

[Wolf]

I'dont know, higher nose Ferrarri looks better for me and people say (on high-nose thread) that Ferrarri has the best front end (aerodynamically speaking) in F1. Anyway, I've heard somewhere that in a test, of all the drivers, only MS recgnised his car from shilouette drawing (sounds mighty suspicious though, ...).

dspope,
here are two links for you (maybe not what you wre aiming at, nevertheless):

http://www.atlasf1.c...p?threadid=9010

http://www.atlasf1.c...p?threadid=1400

[rainern]

Maserati 250F from the 1950s era
Lotus 33 from the 1960s era
Lotus 72 from the 1970s era
Lola LC89 from the 1980s era
Jordan 191 from the 1990s era

How about that???

Pretty cars huh?

Rainer

[rainern]

i have to agree with dspope
todays cars are dreadful, especially the narrow-style cars (F3 cars on stereoids).
And then the 13" balloon-tyres which I think personally would look better on Bigfoot the monstertruck.

Rainer

[Ali_G]

82 Williams. This Ground Effects beast was a beauty



Niall

[Wolf]

Previously I spoke of comparison betwixt 2000 Mac and Ferrarri, generaly speaking I'd say: perhaps Cooper T60, and BRM P56 with tail pipes.

[mhferrari]

Pre-WWII-Auto Union
1950s-Ferrari
1960s-Lotus w/ British Racing Green
1970s-Lotus 79
1980s-Ferrari
1990s-Ferrari
2000s-Ferrari

Runner up
Pre-WWII-Alfa Romeo
1950s-Mercedes
1960s-Ferrari
1970s-Tyrrell
1980s-Tossup
1990s-BAR 99', just kidding, 97'-99' McLaren
2000s-Williams

[Zawed]

The 95 Ferrari was a beauty.

The 97-00 McLarens look good with the Silver and Black.

The Lotus 49 and 72, both very elegant cars.

The 82 Brabham looked pretty smart and aggressive.

But the 95 Ferrari is the tops!

[moog101]

quite clearly the '60's Honda's were the sexiest little bitches ever, white with rising sun paintwork. I have a big colour picture on my offce wall.

Pure sex.

[SideWaysBob]

The first High nose Tyrrell was very groovy. i'll never forget Alesi taking Senna on at the Phoneix GP.

The Merc' W152 ( i think) was the the best looking pre-war car IMHO.

And anything Red and Italian after that. Pre 90's more than today, you have to look hard to spot the big differences. whilst 70's cars where way out there as the black art of aerodynamics took hold.

Oh and pre 90's had V12 Hollowers

[Mickey]

I'd say the '61 shark-nose Ferrari wasn't too shabby either

[andy_bee]

[DangerMouse]

Modern era the 98 Arrows!

[TommyBoy]

Brabham BT45, everything a F1 car should be.

In fact most Gordon Murray designed cars have IMHO been good looking

There hasn't been a good looking CAR,(and I mean car not livery), since the mid 90's.

[Don Capps]

Without a doubt the Maserati 250F...













....but, just my opinion as to what a proper Grand Prix should look like!

[Ali_G]

Wolf : That would be me. The front end of the Ferrari has an extremely high front nose. This lets air flow over the front wing to be very eficient but it doesn't do any wonders to the rear wing. Hence Ferrari have a great front but only an average rear.

Niall

[moog101]

Donn Capps

A Fangio fan! Good man.

[Ali_G]

What about the 89 McLaren. It was great looking and a good looking nose on it.

Niall

[Timm]

'88 McLaren
'88 March
'91 Jordan
'99 Minardi
'89 Zakspeed

But the winner is.......

'95 Ferrari

The Ugliest......

Any Mild Seven Benetton with white wheels. A crime against aesthetics

[Timm]

Caught up in an F1-centric world, I forgot.......

Audi R8C

[george baird]

Any car with Jim Clark in it.

[colejk]

1988-89 Benneton

with Nannini & (Boutsen?)Herbert

93 Benneton (Camel sponsored)

89 Maclaren

[Formulaben]

Lotus 107B

A side note: before active suspension was banned, the Lotus team planned to design the 108 with full fast active (no springs) and with it a "retractable gear" suspension. When they would arrive at the pits, the active suspension would automatically raise the suspension, lifting the tires off the ground to accomodate the mechanics; the flat bottomed chassis would simply sit on the ground during the tire change. When given the "GO" sign, the suspension would drop instantly when the clutch was engaged. I only wish I could have seen this for one season...

[p][Edited by Formulaben on 10-06-2000]

[Ray Bell]

Usually this topic brings the name 'Eagle' to the forefront... not in Tech forum, eh? Strange... and Don's too old, seen too many.
I vote for the 67 Eagle, also for the 69 Brabham.

[goGoGene]

tanja and I got to sit in the '67 AAR Eagle (Gurney) while at Indy, pics soon to be posted.

ggg

[F1addict]

I must say that i disagree with all of you old timers:the modern F1 are beautifull!!!The reason why so few think so is that you've got to see them for reall!Yes,the tv lenses deform the shapes of the cars and hide certain angles.
I had the chance to see the 2000 cars up close at the french GP and i tell you they really don't look the same as on tv!
My vote?
1.97,98,99,2000 McLarren
2.96,97,2000 Williams
(all of Newey's designs are the most beautifull)
3.2000 Arrows.

Supprizingly,every time i saw a Ferrari,i never found it beautifull(since 97).

[Formulaben]

Yes, I agree. The modern F1 cars are beautiful sculptures. While the older cars had beautiful curves, the newer ones have curves, but also compound curves that gracefully blend into sharp edges. I think that those with a bit of aerodynamic knowledge might have a better appreciation for these machines (regardless of you opinion of how downforce changed racing.)

[Don Capps]

Since I don't see any sign of the Eagle, here are photos of the the Eagle in action.

These are from Dennis David's site:





Along with the 250F, one of the greatest looking cars ever to hit the track.

Then there is the Bugatti 35 series...they were -- and still are! -- literally works of art....











Obviously I don't share the same level of enthusiasm for the modern F1 car that most of you do! I find them purposeful looking perhaps, but certainly not attractive.

[Ray Bell]

Shame the pics don't show the Eagle's best angles. What about the 69 (Ickx) Brabham?

[Darren]

Bugatti T51, Bugatti T59, Alfa Romeo 159, Lancia D50. Rear engines, that's when the rot started. I blame Porsche.

[bogiatzi]

What about the Prost? Despite the car is fake, the deep 'Gauloises' blue, the nice sponsors, the silver BBSs and the lion in front make up high aesthetic levels (that French people know well...) As for the worst, by far that kitch BAR.

[palmas]

The beauty of a shape is the function.
So, I choose any winner! (if it is painted red).

[palmas]

BOGZI, the best of prost is the nose, the rest is ****!!

[Timm]

Seeing the Bugatti getting a mention has reminded me to reccommend the Karl Ludvigsen book 'Classic Grand Prix Cars' It covers the period up to 1960 and it's amazing how little some things appear to have changed. The OHC engines and low-lying chassis were all early-century developments which remain to this day. It's beautifully written and well worth buying.

Seeing KL's byline on this site told me how good Atlas F1 would be.

[Doug]

Brabham BT52

[goGoGene]

Don Capps, go to me and tanja's indy gp photos
http://www.atlasf1.c...?threadid=10818
and you will see the eagle, with tanja and I sitting in them.

ggg

[Barry Boor]

Here's my three penn'orth.
1955 Lancia D.50
1961 Ferrari
1967 Eagle Weslake (The best of them all)
1972 Connew (NOT that I am biased !!!!!!)

These days - zilch. HORRIBLE. High noses UGH !!!!
Narrow track - TERRIBLE. Bring back front engines.......

Sorry, I didn't mean that last remark.

Here is an interesting aside. I am not putting this up as gospel truth, but a guy I know tells me that somebody took pictures of all this season's cars, and coloured them all black. He then showed them to the drivers and asked them to identify which was which. The story goes that only one driver got them all correct.

His name ????

Have a guess.

[Ray Bell]

Thanks, ggg, that's a better angle of the Eagle.
Does everyone agree that it's the best looking car ever?
Another car that looked nice was the Lotus 32B raced by Jim Clark in the 65 Tasman... but not until Jim Palmer bought it and made some changes to the rear body... then it was very tidy.

[Exar Kun]

i'm a modern f1 fan ('cause i'm not very old - and have had little time to catch up on older cars) and i like:

Jordan '91
McLAren '98
Williams '99 (most definately shape not livery)

i liked the '92 benetton when it came out for its high nose and the way the rear end flattened out... (last year of the wide tires too)

overall i don't like the post ground effects to early '90s flat undertray nose to tail look.

i liked the '60s cars to a certain extent too - though wings ruined them at the end of the decade

i certainly agree that the current cars look mutch better in real life than on tv

[b3nster]

I have to say, I liked the potential BAR had coming into 1999. First of all, the test car had a remarkable use of shade and color, and was truly beautiful, see here:



Even more attractive, and a potentiall gorgeous paint scheme would have been the 555 car of Zonta:

[Grimhogun]

The 99 Prost
ALL Ferraris
The McLarens in the rain.
There's just something about a red car going flat out through eau rouge!!!!
ANY CARS WITH MS DRIVING....

[BT52]

DOUG !!!
I thought I was the only one.

The BT52(b) was nicer though with the reversed colour scheme from SStone onwards.

Pity they spoilt it all at the end with the additional 'winglets' at the final two races.

Can anyone find 2 pictures of the BT52, one in white and blue and the other in blue and white and post them next to one another?

Would be greatly appreciated.

[Doug]

BT52,

I think the '83 Brabhams with their almost non-existent sidepods, really tied in the modern GP car with its classical ancestors from the 60's.

I know Gordon Murray probably didn't view this as a high priority at the time, but it is somewhat poetic when a winning modern design can have that kind of aesthetic appeal, as well.

[cambridge]

b3nster.. couldn't agree with you more! was truly disappointed with the look of the BAR's that hit the track...thanks for that great photo!

[bogiatzi]

Palmas, here we don't talk about the best car but about the best-looking car. And the Prost brought the French finesse and simplicity to the aesthetics of F1.

[oldtimer]

How come the 1939 W163 Mercedes Benz hasn't made an appearance in the thread? All those bumps and curves were necessary, being closely wrapped around mechanical components.

And speaking of functional beauty, how about the 1957 Vanwall? "Cela, c'est un bomb" was Maurice Trintignant's response when he first saw the '56 version

[Melbourne Park]

So many beautifull cars, they are all great.

But the vacuum cleaner Ferrari would go down as the most ugly.

[desmo]

Vacuum cleaner Ferrari?

[Ray Bell]

Was that a complete stop in your thought processes, des?
Maybe a slip of the typewriter has brought out an error that is easily explained?

[Melbourne Park]

The vacuum cleaner Ferrari: it was allowed to race once. It was the Lauda period. With all the experts here someone will know its model number. I haven't time, I am working as I post... Ferrari didn't have a ground effect, so they put a suction fan on the back of the car. The horsepower way to get grip! It flew around the corners, but was banned. The fan looked a bit like Ferrari stole it from a Le Mans air cooled Porsche engine. Ferrari probably went to their parts bin of other peoples bits (Ferrari have always made lots of new engines, and no doubt buy the competitions stuff), and pulled out the biggest air fan they had... Gee it was ugly, but then again, if it had of been allowed, we might have grown to like it!