Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who hit the new formula E with the ugly stick?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by happyscrappy-t View Post
    It's horrendous. WTF are the thinking?
    They certainly weren't thinking "Let's build a good looking car."

    "Is that my *** that I smell burning?" ... Helmet Stogie from "Death spasms of the Mabuchi"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Doc Austin View Post

      They certainly weren't thinking "Let's build a good looking car."
      Racecar designers never do.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by FormulaFox View Post

        Racecar designers never do.
        Nothing aerodynamically on that car appears to have been designed by a race car designer. A lot of impressive engineering on the motors and batteries, but the aero, call me skeptical.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BADGER View Post

          Nothing aerodynamically on that car appears to have been designed by a race car designer. A lot of impressive engineering on the motors and batteries, but the aero, call me skeptical.
          Whoever designed that was working within the box Formula E specified.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by FormulaFox View Post

            Racecar designers never do.
            Give Gordon Murray a call. Maybe hit the Ouija Board for Colin Chapman to discuss this as well.
            No signature required

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Automotive View Post

              Give Gordon Murray a call. Maybe hit the Ouija Board for Colin Chapman to discuss this as well.
              Murray and Chapman designed their racecars to go faster, not to look good. That they did look good is nothing more than a happy accident.

              And they were often regarded as quite hideous at the time of their debut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by FormulaFox View Post

                Murray and Chapman designed their racecars to go faster, not to look good. That they did look good is nothing more than a happy accident.

                And they were often regarded as quite hideous at the time of their debut.
                I think you are rewriting history or at least embellishing a bit. The Lotus 49 is "the look" people think of when thinking of F1 cars in the 60s, and the Lotus 79 remains a favorite for many. The Brabhams designed by Murray and his involvement with some of the early Senna McLarens also are generally considered great looking cars. I'm in the minority in not being a fan of the BT-52, but the BT-49 was among the best looking early ground effect cars. I sure there were some disenters, but to say they were often regarded as hideous isn't something I recall about most of their cars.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by BADGER View Post
                  The Lotus 49 is "the look" people think of when thinking of F1 cars in the 60s, and the Lotus 79 remains a favorite for many.
                  That is the case TODAY, but at the time they debuted this was not necessarily the case. In the 49's case it was probably viewed pretty neutrally since it's general appearance was run-of-the-mill by then and what made it good wasn't obvious from the outside. I know some at the time hoped the Lotus 78 would be slow because of how ugly it was, and while attitudes had shifted by the time the 79 debuted(everyone knew they'd need to copy the ground effect design and success has a way of making a car look better), I've seen more than a few quotes from the day dissing it for being "out of proportion" physically.

                  So no, I'm not embellishing or rewriting history. I'm drawing a difference between how we view things now and they were viewed then. Not EVERY car we view as beautiful today was considered ugly at the time, but a great many were. But more importantly, and the PRIMARY point I was making, is that the designers of these cars NEVER set forth with the intent to make a good-looking car, they set forth to make a RACE-WINNING car.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I was not old enough to recall the 60s, but I was around for the ground effect cars and simply don't recall complaints about how they looked. The 312T4 might have been called ugly, but don't recall much criticism back then of the Lotus 79, FW07, MP4, or the BT-49 The Chapparal was about as much of a copy as Barnard could come up with in his living room drawing board, and that car from day one was considered beautiful.

                    Now, if you want to talk about some of the early high nose Bennettons, or the years with the stepped noses, or the penislike extended noses, then yes, those cars were considered hideous from day one.
                    Last edited by BADGER; 10-19-2022, 04:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I wasn't around when any of those cars were new, I just know what I've read from people who were. While not every car was considered an ugly duckling at the time far more were than we often believe today.

                      But again, making a stink about this is distracting from the point: NONE of the cars were designed to look good. When they did, it was a happy accident.

                      Comment

                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X