Bmw-sauber Showcases New F1 Car

[gloomyDAY]

*cough* Aryan *cough*

What's your gripe? Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.

Sure, the rear wing looks ugly, but everything else is razor sharp. The massive front wing, slick tires, and clean body makes for an impressive profile. Remember that aesthetics are not the purpose for 2009's newly revamped cars, it is racing!

Everyone should settle down. Let's just enjoy the racing next year.

kthnxbai

No matter what the regulations, no matter what the technology, some people get it right, some people get it wrong....

(Whilst it pains me to say it, I always thought that the MP4/1C was the sleekest, most perfect shape.....but, jesus, that Lotus 93T was an abomination! And to think it was designed by the genius who brought us the 79!)

[ArrowsFA1]

Have any drivers said that it will make no difference? Not that I'm aware of.

I didn't say drivers had said it would make no difference, just that there is a question mark over whether it will or not.

Kudos should be given to the FIA for recognising the aero-grip problem and attempting something to redress the situation.

The "aero-grip problem" is hardly new.

And how many 1970's cars were hideous? Many more than were stunners.

I didn't say there weren't hideous F1 cars in the 1970's.

Since Aero can't be uninvented....well, without adapting the NASCAR formula of a brick on wheels...how else would you want the powers-that-be to approach the problem?

Perhaps they have it right already. Time will tell.

It would appear, with all due respect, that you are very happy to criticise the FIA for everything they do (and let's face it, you are on record as saying the 2008 spec cars weren't your cup of tea either) but don't actually offer any solution.

In a nutshell my opinion is that the 2009 spec cars are fugly. That's not a criticism of the FIA, it's a comment on my view of how the cars look. It's also not a technical term backed up with technical knowledge as I freely admit. Tony Purnell has said he suspects the new aero rules will do little for racing. That's an opinion too, and he knows a damn sight more than me about these kind of things.

However, we're not even into 2009 yet so let's wait and see how things pan out. Perhaps the cars will look gorgeous and the racing will be spectacular mokin:

I didn't say drivers had said it would make no difference, just that there is a question mark over whether it will or not.

There are always question marks. If there wasn't, then running the FIA would be a job any tool in a kilt could do.

The "aero-grip problem" is hardly new.

Very true, but then all the more kudos to the FIA for not making a 'knee-jerk' reaction to the problem.

I didn't say there weren't hideous F1 cars in the 1970's.

Which just proves that whilst some cars look good (the Lotus 79), others look awful (the Ensign from 1979) under the same regulations. Looks are not part of any F1 designers concern nor can any regulations prevent monstrosity.

I suspect that, as a harsh critic of the FIA, you would have been quick to proclaim them as having lost the plot had they insisted that the new regulations should be based around aesthetics.

One thing is for certain, the air doesn't care if what it's hitting is pretty or not.

[jens]

Appearance, appearance... Well, I don't have a problem with the rear wing. It may be smaller, but generally not annoying. However, the front wing seems clearly too big and I suspect they have made some kind of a miscalculation. It's simply unnormal that the front wing is wider than the car itself! Wings may be lost not only at the starts, but also during overtaking, when the cars are closely together side-by-side. It would even look better if they had no front wings - this would also fulfil the goal of "less downforce"!

I personally had no problem with the winglets and stuff, because innovation is what I like to see in F1. But I don't want to see F1 cars starting to look like F3 cars or something like that - and unfortunately the new cars look outdated, leaving a clumsy and underdeveloped impression.