Jump to content


Photo

Top 10 ugliest F1 winners ranked: Ferrari, Mercedes and more by Kevin Turner


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 GroupC2

GroupC2
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 26 May 2020 - 14:09

I just started to read the article by Kevin Turner about the Top 10 ugliest F1 winners.

 

The old adage that 'The car that wins is beautiful' yes Kevin set the bar where it is, however I have to call question to the choices. As a Ferrari hater I could not say the Ferrari 625 is ugly, its like the Mercedes W196 a beauty of its period.

 

I could keep calling each of the choices out, they may be trying to fill screen pixels with this kind of story, I say another old adage 'You are better than this!'



Advertisement

#2 10kDA

10kDA
  • Member

  • 226 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 May 2020 - 14:49

I saw this one when I went to their page to read about Abt being made to take a Time Out standing in the corner. Wouldn't it have been easier to follow this title with a single sentence?

 

Anything after the Canadian GP of 1995.



#3 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 May 2020 - 05:53

Are they talking drivers or cars? 



#4 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 27 May 2020 - 07:35

Are they talking drivers or cars? 

 

  :lol:  Anyone dare to take on the challenge for the former?



#5 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 5,145 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 May 2020 - 08:30

Nigel Mansell, no contest. With that ridiculous shank brush/porno bar in his face...  :eek:



#6 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,945 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 May 2020 - 11:02

Any car which wins an F1 race will justifiably viewed as 'a beauty' by the driver and owner, past and present. Some race winners might be described as 'inelegant', but none should be called ugly, thus no ugliest car.

 

For least elegance, I'd nominate the Talbot-Lago T26C, a winner in 1950 before the WDC season started... Solid and functional are two other appropriate adjectives. It was the right design for teams with little money who wanted to go up against the big boys. Fourth in the WDC for Louis Rosier was a well earned result. And it might have been that 4.5 litre engines were the right way had the WDC been run on F1 regs in 1952.

 

The BRM V16s are fascinating cars, but they aren't beauty contest contenders. The 1954 Vanwall Special was a bit contrary compared to the elegant cars which followed.

 

The March 701 might be described as solid and functional, although I'm sure a lot of work was required to keep them performing!

 

I think you have to go to the back of the grid in the 1980s and earlier to see cars which were plain ugly.

 

It is a long time since we have seen an elegant F1 car. Over the last 30 years, the rules have created cars which are too big, too heavy and reliant on aerodynamic clutter. A thought experiment for you: how much extra downforce do you need to generate if the mass/weight of a car increases by 30%? Serious answers in a separate thread.



#7 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 27 May 2020 - 14:13

Wouldn't it have been easier to follow this title with a single sentence?

There were 12 different cars in the 2012 F1 championship; pick any 10.