172 replies to this topic

[kevinracefan]

all the slow ones..

 

All of them with B S hanging off the sides of them..

[midgrid]

THEWALL, on 09 Jan 2018 - 17:10, said:

Looks better in low-downforce spec:

[Maustinsj]

THEWALL, on 09 Jan 2018 - 17:10, said:

 

   

 

You can all get lost - I love that car!

[Victor]

RacingGreen, on 07 Jan 2018 - 21:21, said:

Sacrilege!!!

[FoneFanatiq]

Henri Greuter, on 09 Jan 2018 - 10:34, said:

Seeing this car on a wet track, that reminds me about one hope Tyrrell had with it.

One of the ideas was that if in wet weather ther might be track conditions in which the front tires on the first axle worked well enough, then the patch of asphalt direct behind it  would be so much more dry that there was an opportunity to install a slick tire on the middle axle and enhance grip!

I never read or heard if it was tried, let alone if it worked!.

 

 

 

 

Neat or ugly, whatever, but for sure one of the most interesting F1 cars of the entire F1 history.

 

 

Henri

 

I may think its ugly, but i agree with you it is definitely one of the most interesting f1 cars.

[ArrowsLivery]

Almost every car from these two eras are great additions to this thread but these two in particular take the cake. 

 

 

 

[PayasYouRace]

ArrowsLivery, on 10 Jan 2018 - 02:18, said:

Almost every car from these two eras are great additions to this thread but these two in particular take the cake. 
 

 
 

Such a pretty car.

[Bob Riebe]

SuperSwede, on 09 Jan 2018 - 10:28, said:

I love the Smurf-Mobile, the Ligier JS5, the Loti 76 and 78, the Copersucar FD01, Shadow DN5 and all the cars above too.

      

You are not alone.

Some of the cars in this thread are odd looking but to say they are ugly compared to the newer stuff that look like a bulimic cockroach on crack is bizarre to say the least.

[PayasYouRace]

As always, you can never account for taste. There’s only a couple of cars from the entire 70s decade that I’d consider not ugly. Current cars are much nicer to look at than those kitbashed monstrosities.

[scheivlak]

PayasYouRace, on 10 Jan 2018 - 22:08, said:

As always, you can never account for taste. There’s only a couple of cars from the entire 70s decade that I’d consider not ugly. 

 

[scheivlak]

Henri Greuter, on 08 Jan 2018 - 18:00, said:

Make that anything from 2007 on .....

 

 

Henri

I think most current cars are prettier than the high nosed mid '90 cars (starting with those horrible Benettons). To me that was the real Era Of Ugliness.

[ArrowsLivery]

scheivlak, on 10 Jan 2018 - 23:43, said:

I think most current cars are prettier than the high nosed mid '90 cars (starting with those horrible Benettons). To me that was the real Era Of Ugliness.

 

The pre-98 high nose cars are some of my favorites. I think they have just the right proportions. 

[RacingGreen]

PayasYouRace, on 10 Jan 2018 - 22:08, said:

As always, you can never account for taste. There’s only a couple of cars from the entire 70s decade that I’d consider not ugly. Current cars are much nicer to look at than those kitbashed monstrosities.

 

As you say no accounting for taste, I'd express the complete reverse view. I much preferred the basic and at times eccentric cars of the 1970's to today's generation, with their multi-element front wings and other "surfaces" stuck on here and there that are to my eyes extremely ugly, although I thought 2017's wider cars were a slightly better proportioned bunch than the prior couple of years. Take the 1976 grid for example - paint all the cars white and almost anyone in the stands could have still identified the March from the Ferrari, or the Brabham from the McLaren as they drove past at racing speed, and that's not to mention the Ligier teapot and the six wheeled Tyrrell, I'm not sure that is true of today's field. I'm not saying they were all attractive but they all had their own distinct design philosophies. I also have never minded seeing an exposed engine, not everything needs to be shrink wrapped in carbon fibre. I also liked it that the drivers were more visible, and had simpler very distinctive helmet designs, so I'm not looking forward much to seeing next seasons offerings with halos that promise to be the ugliest yet.

Edited by RacingGreen, 11 January 2018 - 01:40.

[PayasYouRace]

RacingGreen, on 11 Jan 2018 - 01:39, said:

, with their multi-element front wings and other "surfaces" stuck on here and there that are to my eyes extremely ugly,

For me that describes the cars of the 1970s more than anything recent, bar 2006-2008.

[SuperSwede]

RacingGreen, on 11 Jan 2018 - 01:39, said:

As you say no accounting for taste, I'd express the complete reverse view. I much preferred the basic and at times eccentric cars of the 1970's to today's generation, with their multi-element front wings and other "surfaces" stuck on here and there that are to my eyes extremely ugly, although I thought 2017's wider cars were a slightly better proportioned bunch than the prior couple of years. Take the 1976 grid for example - paint all the cars white and almost anyone in the stands could have still identified the March from the Ferrari, or the Brabham from the McLaren as they drove past at racing speed, and that's not to mention the Ligier teapot and the six wheeled Tyrrell, I'm not sure that is true of today's field. I'm not saying they were all attractive but they all had their own distinct design philosophies. I also have never minded seeing an exposed engine, not everything needs to be shrink wrapped in carbon fibre. I also liked it that the drivers were more visible, and had simpler very distinctive helmet designs, so I'm not looking forward much to seeing next seasons offerings with halos that promise to be the ugliest yet.

Totally agree with you RacingGreen!

 

I´ve posted this epic pic from Mosport 1976 before, but I think that it suits your post picture perfect (pun intended). Four completely different cars with very distinctive features, driven by drivers who are very easy to recognize due to their helmets, which they all knew were part of their brand.

 

[Henri Greuter]

SuperSwede, on 11 Jan 2018 - 08:27, said:

Totally agree with you RacingGreen!

 

I´ve posted this epic pic from Mosport 1976 before, but I think that it suits your post picture perfect (pun intended). Four completely different cars with very distinctive features, driven by drivers who are very easy to recognize due to their helmets, which they all knew were part of their brand.

 

For sheer variety between all the cars alone I love that era.....

 

Henri

[PayasYouRace]

That is a great picture. Framing, angle, lighting, and quality are superb. I certainly won’t argue the distinctiveness of each car. There’s no problems identifying any of them. But they’re four very different looking, ugly cars to my eyes.

[Anja]

Variety is a valid argument but it's beyond this particular topic. Just because those were distinctive doesn't mean they were good looking and that's what we're discussing here. I'm one of those with opinion that a lot of mid-70s cars is among the very ugliest in history. There were some incredibly awkward shapes, far from something suggesting the fastest racing cars in the world. With a lot of widely disliked cars the criticism comes down to details, some particular parts of the design - with the mid-70s cars my issue is about the whole car, general shape and all, something much bigger than one particular design trait. Almost everything that came before and after that looks better to me. That era had its own merits but in my eyes the cars' aesthetic was not one of them. 

Edited by Anja, 11 January 2018 - 12:49.

[sopa]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I don't think there is much point in arguing endlessly about taste.

 

However, some of the cars from 70's look very boxy. And I wonder, how did they ever expect them to aerodynamically efficient, lol. 

 

Like a HUUUGE airbox on top of the car, or a huge BOX as a front wing. Seriously, why? How was that going to help, lol.

Edited by sopa, 11 January 2018 - 12:56.

[TecnoRacing]

sopa, on 11 Jan 2018 - 12:54, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I don't think there is much point in arguing endlessly about taste.

 

However, some of the cars from 70's look very boxy. And I wonder, how did they ever expect them to aerodynamically efficient, lol. 

 

Like a HUUUGE airbox on top of the car, or a huge BOX as a front wing. Seriously, why? How was that going to help, lol.

 

 

Things were obviously less sophisticated aerodynamically, but the designers were not stupid. Of course the high air boxes were a performance advantage. And those Marches with big wide nose full width noses (like Ronnie's above) where some of the absolutely fastest in a straight line...

[B Squared]

Payas - just curious if you ever saw those "ugly" cars race in period? I saw this same group at Watkins Glen a week or two later and have similar photos. We weren't there for a beauty contest, it was for a Formula 1 race. Even perceived unattractive cars were just plain beasts and got your heart beating a bit faster. It is the first time I've ever heard anyone call out the McLarens and Loti of this era as "ugly" though.

Edited by B Squared, 11 January 2018 - 14:10.

[scheivlak]

sopa, on 11 Jan 2018 - 12:54, said:

 

Like a HUUUGE airbox on top of the car, or a huge BOX as a front wing. Seriously, why? How was that going to help, lol.

Those huge airboxes served to compress the air in some kind of way which gave a small but significant power advantage. Once this was realized the airboxes got bigger and bigger until a rule change limited the height and size. 

Edited by scheivlak, 11 January 2018 - 14:20.

[Anja]

B Squared, on 11 Jan 2018 - 14:09, said:

We weren't there for a beauty contest

 

But this thread is supposed to be one. 

 

B Squared, on 11 Jan 2018 - 14:09, said:

It is the first time I've ever heard anyone call out the McLarens and Loti of this era as "ugly" though.

 

Those two teams are mostly an exception from the rule for me. 

[sopa]

fer312t, on 11 Jan 2018 - 13:44, said:

Things were obviously less sophisticated aerodynamically, but the designers were not stupid. Of course the high air boxes were a performance advantage. And those Marches with big wide nose full width noses (like Ronnie's above) where some of the absolutely fastest in a straight line...

 

It is remarkable though that these very boxy cars were around/peaked during 1-2 seasons. So for whatever reason designers went for these, but realized pretty quickly it wasn't going to work.

[B Squared]

^ The high airboxes were disallowed, I know that this is only part of the equation though sopa.

[B Squared]

Anja, on 11 Jan 2018 - 14:18, said:

But this thread is supposed to be one.

That's why I asked if he'd seen them in person - photos do not always translate the subjects true looks, be it machines, art, architecture or people.

[kevinracefan]

Victor, on 09 Jan 2018 - 22:25, said:

Sacrilege!!!

it may be sacrilege, but it is bad butt ugly...

[SuperSwede]

sopa, on 11 Jan 2018 - 14:19, said:

It is remarkable though that these very boxy cars were around/peaked during 1-2 seasons. So for whatever reason designers went for these, but realized pretty quickly it wasn't going to work.

Well, they worked alright mate, but when Colin Chapman and his designer team learned (by the very flawed Lotus 76), that they could use the air passing under the car to create more downforce and built the first F1 Ground Effect car, the Lotus 78 in 1977, the other designers had to follow suit, and the boxy cars where history..

 

  

Edited by SuperSwede, 11 January 2018 - 15:31.

[sopa]

SuperSwede, on 11 Jan 2018 - 15:29, said:

Well, they worked alright mate, but when Colin Chapman and his designer team learned (by the very flawed Lotus 76), that they could use the air passing under the car to create more downforce and built the first F1 Ground Effect car, the Lotus 78 in 1977, the other designers had to follow suit, and the boxy cars where history..

 

  

 

I see. Big front wing functioned as directing the whole airflow over front wheels - and over the car in general - until other ways of maximizing the airflow were discovered.

[Ali_G]

SuperSwede, on 11 Jan 2018 - 15:29, said:

Well, they worked alright mate, but when Colin Chapman and his designer team learned (by the very flawed Lotus 76), that they could use the air passing under the car to create more downforce and built the first F1 Ground Effect car, the Lotus 78 in 1977, the other designers had to follow suit, and the boxy cars where history..

Boxy cars were already on the way out before Lotus introduced their first ground effects car.

The non fan BT46 was quite a sleek design for instance.

[sopa]

Ali_G, on 11 Jan 2018 - 17:12, said:

Boxy cars were already on the way out before Lotus introduced their first ground effects car.

The non fan BT46 was quite a sleek design for instance.

 

I think the peak of 'boxyness' was around 1975.

 

However, even when purely looking at front wings, the most successful cars of those days (75-76) - Ferrari and McLaren - maintained narrow front wings. And from 1976 the pendulum firmly started swinging towards sleeker cars in general.

[SuperSwede]

Ali_G, on 11 Jan 2018 - 17:12, said:

Boxy cars were already on the way out before Lotus introduced their first ground effects car.

The non fan BT46 was quite a sleek design for instance.

Yes, it was, as most of Gordon Murrey´s creations, but the BT45 which they used during the 76-77 was, if not boxy, (it depends on the definition of boxy I suppose), quite bulky in most of its many different guises. Still a lovely car though.

Having said that, I think that the both of you have a point, it´s correct that the cars already had started to get sleeker by 1977. The fastest car in 75 was the sleek Shadow DN5 (only to be let down by its so so drivers), and in 76 it was the Mcl M23/26 and the Ferrari 312T/312T2, which all are rather sleek cars.

 

    

[Graveltrappen]

[Pascal]

Graveltrappen, on 11 Jan 2018 - 22:14, said:

Oh yeah, I remember seeing this one in Mad Max 2.

[V8 Fireworks]

Maustinsj, on 09 Jan 2018 - 21:14, said:

   

 

You can all get lost - I love that car!

 

Hamilton fan?    

[V8 Fireworks]

RacingGreen, on 11 Jan 2018 - 01:39, said:

. I also have never minded seeing an exposed engine, not everything needs to be shrink wrapped in carbon fibre. 

 

Increases drag compared to a covered engine, you wouldn't choose it unless you didn't have an alternative w.r.t. cooling etc.

[RacingGreen]

sopa, on 11 Jan 2018 - 12:54, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I don't think there is much point in arguing endlessly about taste.

 

However, some of the cars from 70's look very boxy. And I wonder, how did they ever expect them to aerodynamically efficient, lol. 

 

Like a HUUUGE airbox on top of the car, or a huge BOX as a front wing. Seriously, why? How was that going to help, lol.

 

I remember reading somewhere that when the tall airboxes were banned (for the 1976 Spanish GP) the loss of air pressure to the engine field meant that the cars were down on power on average about 12-15 bhp. On a 1976 spec. DFV that's about 3.0 %, not a HUUUGE amount but certainly enough to be worth having the air box when legal.

 

The BOX front wing was designed to reduce wind resistance caused by the front tyres. Remember there were no computer models and much of the aerodynamics was very basic as all the wind tunnel testing was using static models. I believe that Lotus were the first team too use a rolling road wind tunnel (the one at Imperial College) for their revolutionary Lotus 78. There is a story, and it may be apocryphal, that when the Lotus 78 came out Ferrari built a model one to see how it worked but because of their older static wind tunnel their version didn't.

Edited by RacingGreen, 11 January 2018 - 22:52.

[RacingGreen]

V8 Fireworks, on 11 Jan 2018 - 22:39, said:

Increases drag compared to a covered engine, you wouldn't choose it unless you didn't have an alternative w.r.t. cooling etc.

 

I didn't say it was a better or more efficient option, just that aesthetically I didn't mind it. 

[StanBarrett2]

SuperSwede, on 11 Jan 2018 - 08:27, said:

Totally agree with you RacingGreen!

 

I´ve posted this epic pic from Mosport 1976 before, but I think that it suits your post picture perfect (pun intended). Four completely different cars with very distinctive features, driven by drivers who are very easy to recognize due to their helmets, which they all knew were part of their brand.

 

Ugly, less pretty, pretty, beautiful, most beautiful ?   My interest has always been more technical, so the different designs of that period always intriqued me.

 

Always enjoyed the articles in magazines when the cars had been rolled out, to read the ideas of the designers.

Pointed nose, chisel nose, blunt nose ?  Who, which, design was eventually better.............................. and all that

 

macoran

[BMWTeamBigazzi]

johnmhinds, on 08 Jan 2018 - 09:08, said:

March E21

 

March and their laser like thinking! Fast forward to 2018 and what do we have? a HALO-ish, If the great Rolf Stommelen hated then, well am sure it'll pose no problem to today's overpaid, superstar F1 contingent. lol......ahem! Thanks to Health and Safety, Open wheel racing is dead! As is every bloody job nowadays! Can't do this, Can't do that!

Make F1 a free for all again, and do everyone a favour! Wacky Areo... V6, V8, V10, V12? Hell even a W12 if your bold enough like Life! least they tried! and who wouldn't love to hear a Ferrari V12 agian? and boy doesn't everyone love a compelete underdog! it captures the imagination! love or laugh....For example.... As much I laughed at Subaru, Life, Andrea Moda and sadly what was Brabham....at the same time I was really rooting for these guys! you could really see what it meant to these people really trying! and for what?.........

How the hell else are the next generation Newey's, Murray's, Barnard's and engine gurus etc... expected to prosper? 

No chance in this day and age!  Spec this Spec that? FE Have may kept their house in order so far! for how long?..... pretty soon......it's gonna be a Battery war!! bit like Ever Ready Blue Seal vs the Duracell Bunny vs Energizer vs Poundland Kodak branded Alkaline batteries!

Thank **** I lived through a time when racing cars and engines were raw and real! No matter how bad! I applaud the geniuses for trying....As for all the online critics nowadays? go design a car an see how you get on  

[PayasYouRace]

So you’re complaining about spec parts, and then in the next sentence complain about competition resulting in a war. Clearly nothing will please you.

[DeKnyff]

SuperSwede, on 11 Jan 2018 - 08:27, said:

Totally agree with you RacingGreen!

 

I´ve posted this epic pic from Mosport 1976 before, but I think that it suits your post picture perfect (pun intended). Four completely different cars with very distinctive features, driven by drivers who are very easy to recognize due to their helmets, which they all knew were part of their brand.

 

 

Great shot!

 

However, for those who moan again and again against so-called "today's standardised Formula 1", I'd like to remember that all four cars in the image had the same Cosworth engine, the same Hewland gearbox and the same Goodyear tyres (and probably many other common minor components).

[ensign14]

That's the beauty of it.  Democratization. 

 

And, if you couldn't build your own car, that nice Mr Max would sell you the one in front.  And two of the others there were also up for grabs.

[Ivanhoe]

This one's not nominated yet? Strange choice of tyres, hard compound on left front and right rear, intermediates on left rear and full wets on right front 😐

[TennisUK]

Nice car with crap tyres

[kevinracefan]

johnmhinds, on 08 Jan 2018 - 09:08, said:

March E21

I've never seen this one, but I gotta say that if you take off that stupid nose that's a great looking car

[sopa]

I like Eifelland.

 

I like the March 711 too.

 

Maybe because I find the front wing, which is positioned above the nose, kind of cool. 

[RoseTinted]

I'd suggest the March 751 that was fitted with the low rear wing/diffuser. Maybe someone with the skill can post a photo?

[Ivanhoe]

This one?

[RoseTinted]

Ivanhoe, on 12 Jan 2018 - 13:09, said:

This one?

That's the one, although I have only ever seen a photo of it in the pits showing the rear quarter.