21 replies to this topic

[rjtart]

Most would agree there's been some unappealing body shapes in F1 recently, and rules have been tweaked to presumably make them more attractive. But should this really be the business of the FIA?

 

Suppose an F1 constructor discovered an aerodynamic device (let's call it the "butt ugly device") that improved the car's performance. In fact it worked so well that by the following year every team has adopted the butt ugly device. The butt ugly device complies with all the regulations. The only thing objectional about it is that it's butt ugly.

 

Should the butt ugly device be banned?

 

I'm actually torn about this myself. I prefer attractive cars. The look of the cars I'm sure has an affect on the popularity of the sport. But aesthetics are subjective, and where would such regulations lead us? What do you think?

Edited by rjtart, 22 February 2015 - 00:45.

[Seano]

That a very good an interesting question to consider.

 

Aesthetics generally follow a natural progression. I suspect said but ugly device is an incomplete solution either by regulatory constraints or incomplete design otherwise they would complete into the real deal.

 

As long as it complies or is not dangerous, it should be allowed to stand even if it makes us wince.

 

Seano

[rjtart]

I suspect most will want to stand on principle and say aesthetic considerations shouldn't be a factor, but hasn't that happened this year with the new nose regulations? I haven't heard many complaints about the new regs in that regard.

[HoldenRT]

There's been quite a few innovations over the years, and the ones that were lets say.. "less aesthetically pleasing" always found a way to be banned or removed from the cars.  BMW and Honda had some of those, in recent memory and they didn't last long.

 

The reason given usually being something else, like driver visibility or safety, but yeah.  It's hard to comment personally on whether this is right or not, because it just is the way it is.  There's an aspect of F1 cars that are functional and performance driven and something that is functional can be attractive, separate from the looks of it.  Especially if it works really well and is outside the box thinking.

 

But underneath it all within F1, from the powers that be, there is usually a theme of trying to keep the cars looking good on TV, or in magazines or on posters.  When you consider the "aesthetics", it's sort of a hidden rule in the regs.. and it becomes even HARDER for teams to be innovative these days.  And the designers like Newey complain enough about that as it is.  There's nothing stopping a team from doing it, but within 6-12 months, it's highly unlikely that the new part will still be on the car.  If it's really ugly it might only last a few months before it's banned.

 

Innovations and variations between the cars are good though.  These days most of the cars pretty much look the same to me, so I get a kick out of launch topics when people discuss the differences and get excited about them, because they are so minor.  The airflow around the car and minor details might be different but the wing shapes and general concepts seem quite similar.  They are all pretty much clones of each other, very similar to a spec series.  It's not a spec series but the regulations are so tight, so that it's like a semi spec series.

 

It's under the hood, where the bigger differences seem to lie.  It's hard to argue against teams being able to innovate and have original shapes and differences that separate them, but at the same time.. people are always talking about liveries and ugly noses and things like this.  So it's an interesting balance.  To me open wheelers in general aren't very attractive it's a pretty weird shape, it's the performance and driving characteristics of open wheelers that I find appealing.

[Rob G]

This isn't anything new though. Those ludicrously high airboxes of the 1970s were chopped down in mid-season 1976 once it became obvious that the sky really was the limit. Just imagine the current crop of cars with airboxes as tall as the roof of a van.

[ardbeg]

It has been done before and will be done again. The winglets, the airboxes... I think the fact that modern F1 cars basically all look the same is a good indication that aesthetics is built into the regulations.

[rjtart]

Still, though, the question isn't just would an unattractive device be banned but should it be banned.

[Atreiu]

My head says no, my heat says yes.

 

Didn't they ban J dampers for aerodynamic reasons? If that somehow stuck, anything can. So I guess there should be a way to make it viable.

Edited by Atreiu, 22 February 2015 - 22:49.

[Peter Perfect]

It has been done before and will be done again. The winglets, the airboxes... I think the fact that modern F1 cars basically all look the same is a good indication that aesthetics is built into the regulations.

 

True, and like you say as a result all the cars look pretty much the same. The idea that there can be a wide range of technically and atheistically diverse cars seems to be an anathema to F1   The only thing that separates them is the liveries, and they're hardly the most inspiring. I thought with the move to greener technologies we'd see a variety of solution but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

[Henri Greuter]

My head says no, my heat says yes.

 

Didn't they ban J dampers for aerodynamic reasons? If that somehow stuck, anything can. So I surprise there should be a way to make it viable.

 

 

About the only time I can remember that they really banned something because of aestethics, using it safety as the excuse were those Tower and X- wings some 14 or so years ago, was it 2000 or 2001?

 

Henri

[R Soul]

That was 1998.

[FerrariV12]

The problem with regulating aesthetics, taking the philosophical argument out of it, is because engineers by their definition are more clever than the rule makers, you can end up chasing your tail a bit.

 

For instance the rule to eliminate the horizontal noses led to the stepped noses, the rule to eliminate them brought the penises, the rule to get rid of them has partially worked but you still see the small thumb-like appendages on the Williams for instance.

 

I was no fan of the 2007/8 cars but at least they were a result of the engineers squeezing the most out of the existing aero regs rather than a side-effect of another rule. To paraphrase the bloke out of Fight Club, stop trying to control everything, let go and see what we end up with looks-wise.

[itsademo]

rjtart

lets not forget human nature we all get used to things before too long and what is butt ugly right now becomes the norm before too long and we accept it as such.

so no they should not ban the butt ugly part especially if it improves the racing

Or would you say the butt ugly device if it just makes a car go faster should be banned but if it improves the show it should be allowed?

[Henri Greuter]

That was 1998.

 

 

Thanks,

 

recalled the events, not the year anymore.

 

 

henri

[Henri Greuter]

 

For instance the rule to eliminate the horizontal noses led to the stepped noses, the rule to eliminate them brought the penises, the rule to get rid of them has partially worked but you still see the small thumb-like appendages on the Williams for instance.

 

 

All of that is a result of refusing to ban the raised noses and allow that stupid rule that lead to the tea tray inder the cockpit.

 

Mandate the hignst point of the tip of the nose to be at a certain height and the underside of the nose cone be at a certain width be in a straight, direct connection  to what is now the front end (edge) of the tea tray and you get rit of a lot of horrible construction  details of of the past.

You also need to prescribe that from th line of the front axle the width of the monocoque is not smaller than a geven amount at any given level or pint behind the front axle.

It can be done for sure but it seems as if the rule makers just don't want to get rid of those high nosed and aero details.

 

 

Henri

[Nathan]

I guess for me ultimately it is about the fans, and fans will be attracted to pretty cars before cars that are ugly for a good technical reason.  So in such a case I suppose the FIA would be justified.

[sabjit]

I would just like to point out that unlike the stepped noses, the anteater noses needed to be ironed out for safety reasons more than aesthetics.

 

A spear on the front did exactly the opposite of what the regulations intended, which was to increase crash safety, instead it meant the front of the car provided little deceleration.

[trogggy]

Once every team has the BUD banning it makes no competitive difference, so no problem / don't care at that stage.

[itsademo]

Troggy

While that may hold true for pure performance parts it would clearly make a difference to the teams if for instance it allowed cars to run closer together

[trogggy]

Troggy

While that may hold true for pure performance parts it would clearly make a difference to the teams if for instance it allowed cars to run closer together

True, but that's a different argument, and not to do with fairness... F1 rules are mostly arbitrary - so banning the BUD on arbitrary grounds would be no different to many of the other restrictions in place.  Anyway, anything that allowed cars to run closer together would probably be unintentionally sabotaged by some technical working group or other in no time at all anyway.

[R Soul]

I also think the rulemakers are justified in trying to ban ugly things, but it's not enough to just have a rule saying "this must be within these dimensions" or "this must not exceed these dimensions". They need to find out the purpose of the ugly thing and change the rules on that too. Someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics than me can suggest how the diffuser rules can be changed to remove the incentive for a high nose. While the incentive is there, designers will do whatever they can get away with to get lots of air around the bottom-sides of the car.

[Lemans]

I would love to have beautiful cars but legislating aesthetics would be impossible. Besides, that would basically create a spec-series which would be a tragedy.