How can anyone say the Dallara is ugly ? ? ?

[ChicagocrewIRL]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9433/5compositeskykf9.jpg

PKV's website is finally up and they have this HOT pic of Oriol's Dallara. It's beautiful !!!!

[ChicagocrewIRL]

side note..... doesn't look like those are Firestones on that car. They look like Bridgestone Potenzas. I know Bridgestone owns Firestone but Bridgestone has no affiliation with the IRL. I wonder if the IRL would have a problem with the picture ???

[domaza]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9433/5compositeskykf9.jpg

PKV's website is finally up and they have this HOT pic of Oriol's Dallara. It's beautiful !!!!

I'd say that Dallar is really not UGLY, but it is VERY UGLY, THE UGGLIEST etc. formula I have ever seen.

[Civic]

Apparently some versions of the Champ Car Potenzas are the same or very close to some versions of the IndyCar Firehawks, most likely the ones used for road courses. IIRC, the transition teams used some of their Potenzas during their familiarization tests with the Dallara.

I bet the pic was taken after the Dallara was painted but before PKV received their Firehawks.

I like the second generation Dallara IndyCar. I'm sure a normally aspirated Reynard Champ Car would look similar (the wannabe F1 styling of the Grand Prix Masters Deltas fka Reynards don't count).
http://motorsport.com/photos/irl/2002/pp/irl-2002-pp-tm-0207.jpg

http://motorsport.com/photos/irl/2002/naz/irl-2002-naz-gg-6539.jpg

http://motorsport.com/photos/irl/2002/pp/irl-2002-pp-tm-0172.jpg

[Pieter Dams]

I'm sorry but I don't think that's a very good looking car either... In fact, one of the things I find lots of people dislike about the IndyCar Series is the Dallara car. It doesn't look nowhere near as tough as, say, Michael Andretti's old Texaco car. I liked the G Force chassis much better. The DP01 on the other hand is a little too small in my opninion and to the casual observer doesn't look that much more impressive than a GP2 machine.

[cobre]

the dallara is probably my least favorite car of the last few years (body shape), I'd like to see designs from penske,G-force, swift & yes a dan gurney aar eagle. providing these companies are still able to produce the required #'s of cars. just tossing in my pair of pennies for what it's worth.

[BenRoethig]

Apparently some versions of the Champ Car Potenzas are the same or very close to some versions of the IndyCar Firehawks, most likely the ones used for road courses. IIRC, the transition teams used some of their Potenzas during their familiarization tests with the Dallara.

I bet the pic was taken after the Dallara was painted but before PKV received their Firehawks.

I wouldn't be surprised if the firehawk and the potenza "black" were the same tire. Similar size and weight with the cars and the same group handled both series.

[beachbum]

A race car is a tool, not a work of art. Its shape is dictated by safety regulations, and other size, weight, and aero regulations. A race car builder then determines what mechanicals are required for the job and how they will fit. The result is a race car. Most "styling" comes from the results of wind tunnel tests where the air determines specific details.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. An aerodynamicist may see a car with good aero numbers as beautiful, even if the man on the street thinks it looks like it is from outer space. Take an F1 car. Because of the rules, they have all of these little wings and appendages to get every little bit of downforce. IMHO, they are very ugly, but very efficient.

There is a good reason most open wheel cars today look very much alike. They all see the same air, they all have tires sticking out in the breeze. Designers copy each other and pick up the best bits and ideas from other designs. The differences typically come from the restrictions or laxness of the rules and tradeoffs decided by the designers. Less drag / more downforce, different center of pressure, different center of gravity, etc.

The Dallara does the job intended within the limit of the rules. That is what it is intended to do. It did it better than the G-force/Panoz, so it dominated until it is the only one left. It has proven to be a very safe car, and very adaptable to different requirements. It works well on ovals and road courses. In that sense, it is a beautiful design. To a race team, better lap times are beautiful. Is it "pretty"? Dunno, but it wasn't designed as a show car.

[evo5_mat]

if you think thats beautiful then god i hope dont go down dark alleys and think the women down there are beautiful also? joke!!

sorry its a outdated car that wasnt very modern when it was designed, ok i agree the 2nd gen were more aceeptable to the eye but still seem a heavy looking car.
Ok yes i really liked the dp01, i had reservations at the start and i must admit most of the colour schemes last year didnt suit the car i thought persoanlly but i really changed my view when at long beach and saw alot of new paint schemes which really seem to make the cars look fantastic.

From what been said today that there going to leave the V8 and goto small turbo cars i believe the cars will be heading into champcar looks as there be little need for the huge airbox and that horrible noses which i think most of the problem with the dallara

[johnny shell]

the huge sidepods are the worst part.

those and that big bubble below the wind screen

[dataman1]

I wouldn't be surprised if the firehawk and the potenza "black" were the same tire. Similar size and weight with the cars and the same group handled both series.

Bingo! The logos are spray painted onto the blank blacks. Even the red stripe with the softer compound in CCWS was done with spray paint.

Also KVT (PKV) had tires in their shop for rolling the car, I suspect they just grabbed a set and the photographer nor management noticed anything. But you can bet one our sharp eyed wizzards would see it. Firestone should make some house calls and replace them all.

[SarahFan]

it's much better looking from the front then the side....the pointy nose and the high side pod make it look out of proportion imo..


nice paint job on the KV car......

[bblocker68]

Ugly is too nice of a description for the Dallara. The car is fugly, plain and simple.

To those saying race cars are not works of art are kidding themselves. Take a look at the Ferrari''s of the early 90's or the Lotus 79. Those cars are works of art and will stand the test of time.

[jimispeed]

http://www.indycar.com/multimedia/build_photo.php?photo_id=65512&size=med&time=0.5214976584994662


Ugly!!!

[jimispeed]

http://champcarworldseries.com/content/photos/2007/By800/20070722P_0091.jpg


Beauty!!!!

[Gluaistean]

http://champcarworldseries.com/content/photos/2007/By800/20070722P_0091.jpg


Beauty!!!!

Could not agree more.

[ChicagocrewIRL]

Jimispeed, with all due respect.... I think, and this is just my opinion, the DP-01 is too flat and looks like a pancake on wheels. The Dallara has the racier "wedge" profile similar to a fighter jet.

I do agree that the very first generation IRL Dallara was the ugliest car I have ever seen.

[spiritone]

Very Nice Paint Scheme. Very Ugly Car.

[xtlm]

Dallara isnt the worst looking car
DP01 isnt the best

i preferred the CART cars from like anywhere from 92-06 instead

but anyway yeah, it isnt the worst looking car no...

[Ranger]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9433/5compositeskykf9.jpg

PKV's website is finally up and they have this HOT pic of Oriol's Dallara. It's beautiful !!!!

It only looks decent there because the dim lighting hides some of the bloody ugly contours of the car!

Nonetheless, for now, the car is a necessary evil. Hopefully it is replaced for 2010 if not sooner.

[VkmSpouge]

I don't think the Dallara is an ugly car but I do have to say I prefer viewing the car in the wide shots on TV rather that seeing the close ups :p :

[Jag_Warrior]

Well, I knew a guy who thought that Sandra Bernhard was attractive.

http://www.contactmusic.com/m/dvf%20store%20opening%202%20300507/dvf_store_opening_029_wenn1342749.jpg

Like the picture of the Dallara on page 1, I've seen pictures where she's wearing lots of makeup and the lighting hides many features in her face. Attractive? No. Less hideous? Yes.

To each his own...

[NickFalzone]

I disagree that the DP-01 is much better. They're both ugly. F1 cars are a step up, but kind of like the Dallara F1 seems to be very form follows function, it's just a much more complex design. It would be great if the 2010 Indy Car had improved style as a high priority.

[Champcar4life]

I like the slick look of CART and Champcar cars, so it hard for me to adjust to the Indycar of today, its looks bulk, compare to the Panoz Dp01 and maybe I am blindside, because I am a fan of CART Champcar, even though the series are no longer around, so I guess if I was an IRL fan from the begin, maybe I wouldn't have any issue with the way the car looks, its just a matter of taste.

[shazbot]

Astonishing how this dull subject gets so much air time. Race cars look the way they look in a competitive chassis formula because that's the way that development has taken them. That's the interesting part.

[indycool]

shazbot's "got it." When a member of the general public sees a rear-engine race car, he sees the same thing he's seen for 40 years and probably can't distinguish an '86 March from an '07 Dallara except for the paint scheme at 200 miles an hour. Ugly? Beautiful? I doubt the man on the street sees either one and, IMO, some posting here are just continuing an agenda that no longer has any legs of reality.

[ChicagocrewIRL]

Agenda ? What agenda ? I just came across a beautiful picture of a beautiful car and merely stated how anyone could find it ugly.

I think in a general sense the appearance and aesthetic qualities of racing machines are a factor in the marketability of a series. One of the reasons, but not a main one, that I got interested in open wheel as a kid was because of how different these cars looked from the cars you see on the street. And paging through the Indianapolis 500 program with the pictures of all the past winners and their cars, I can't help but think "wow look how cool these cars are!"

So my agenda, if I have one, is to defend the current car and it's aesthetic appeal. A lot of forum members agree with Robin Miller that the car is ugly. I happen to disagree. That's all. No agenda here. And the picture I posted, to me , bolsters my opinion. It's an opinion,not an agenda . UGH

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't think he means you, Chicago. I believe Indycool is refering to later posts. ;) Many of us have been on here for a long while. And we know where we stand, or stood. But we can't see every criticism as Hillary Clinton sees ANY criticism of her or her actions: point out that she really didn't dodge sniper fire and you're a mean, old keep 'em barefoot & pregnant misogynist. But that's also not to say that some critics don't fall into that "agenda camp."

I mean no offense to you. Different people find different shapes and forms attractive. I was much more drawn to Indy cars of the 80's and early 90's. Whereas the DP-01 was not a supermodel to my eye. While nothing I've seen lately compares to the Lotus 78. But to my eye, the Dallara IRL car is quite ugly. I'm sorry, that's just how it catches my eye. I'm not a big fan of Ferrari in F1 any longer, but I think their F1 machine is gorgeous - a 9! I think the Hondas and the BMW's are perhaps the ugliest machines on the grid 3-4/4-5. I cheer for McLaren now, and I'd give their car a 7-8. Now there's a set of cars that do have somewhat different appearances (especially on the aero devices that fans see most often), yet they all have the same rulebook to work from.

Formula specifications may dictate general design direction. But as you look at the world of aerospace and competitive military bidding, performance specifications are only directly tied to appearance if there are dimensional specifications also at play.

In other words, there are many ways to skin a cat, unless you dictate that it has to be an Old Timer 3 blade knife.

[indycool]

Yes, Chicago, Jag's got it right. It was agreeing with you, not disagreeing with you. IMO, those ex-CC fans who felt the Dallara was ugly (for whatever aesthetic or political reason), are unlikely to change until they might have a different judgment on the new car in 2010 or the jihad ends for them individually.

Like I said, a general fan will notice a snazzy paint job at 200 miles an hour, not this or that aerodynamic thingamadoodle and a general fan is unlikely to call ANY race car "ugly" or "pretty." To them, it's a race car, with four wheels, an engine in the back, painted "X" colors and makes a lot of noise. And you can say the same thing about a Star Mazda.

[PSfan]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9433/5compositeskykf9.jpg

PKV's website is finally up and they have this HOT pic of Oriol's Dallara. It's beautiful !!!!


Why is it, I see a picture like that, and it riminds me of this:


http://www.reallingo.cc/artreaction/images/g-force.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8198/phoenixhy0.jpg

[ChicagocrewIRL]

Yes, Chicago, Jag's got it right. It was agreeing with you, not disagreeing with you. IMO, those ex-CC fans who felt the Dallara was ugly (for whatever aesthetic or political reason), are unlikely to change until they might have a different judgment on the new car in 2010 or the jihad ends for them individually.

Like I said, a general fan will notice a snazzy paint job at 200 miles an hour, not this or that aerodynamic thingamadoodle and a general fan is unlikely to call ANY race car "ugly" or "pretty." To them, it's a race car, with four wheels, an engine in the back, painted "X" colors and makes a lot of noise. And you can say the same thing about a Star Mazda.

understood gentlemen, and that is what you are both, gentlemen. THANKS :)

[-Helix-]

The Dallaras not as bad as people like to complain it is.

It's not the best looking car in the world, but I'd take it over all the European ladder series lookalikes in a heartbeat. And considering how ridiculous F1 cars are getting I would put it near the top as far as current open-wheel cars go.

I agree that the nose is funny looking, but I don't mind the sidepods personally. When I was in St. Pete and hanging out in the paddocks looking at the cars up close I thought they were extremely sexy. I don't think TV does them justice.

But they are outdated and I'm looking forward to the new chassis just as much as everyone else.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/-Helix-/P4040038.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/-Helix-/P4040049.jpg

[indycool]

That's the most sane post on this thread.

[EagleEye]

The teams say its ugly. The drivers say its ugly. The owners, say its ugly.

It is ugly.

Having said that, it has been quite good in races this year, and should bode well for the next few years. The races have been quite goos. Once the series can attract some more $$, we'll be rewarded with a new chassis. Patience....

26 cars at Milwaukee...beautiful!

[indycool]

I have not heard, nor read, a "team" saying it's ugly. I have neither heard, nor read, of a driver saying it's ugly. I have neither heard, nor read, of an owner saying it's ugly.

Links?

[BenRoethig]

Ugly, pretty, or whatever its what we have until 2011.

[EagleEye]

I have not heard, nor read, a "team" saying it's ugly. I have neither heard, nor read, of a driver saying it's ugly. I have neither heard, nor read, of an owner saying it's ugly.

Links?


Ask anyone in the paddock. Annyone.

[indycool]

Well, I asked one longtime chief mechanic I know a couple years ago and he said the Dallara was the most well-built race car he'd ever worked on, that each piece fit perfectly with 0/0 tolerance.

Heard a story this year about how Penske came out with some trick mirrors that were set out so they'd deflect the air over the tires and had everyone scrambling to build trick mirrors. Then Ganassi came out and went fast with stock mirrors and everybody got deked.

Guess anyone but them. Still waiting on links.

[2cool4hollywood]

I wouldn't say it's ugly. I think it has a different look.

[BenRoethig]

Ask anyone in the paddock. Annyone.

Ask anyone in that same paddock if they're prefer a safe car that was ugly or an unsafe car that was good looking. But like I said, how it looks is a moot point, its what we have.

[SarahFan]

Well, I asked one longtime chief mechanic I know a couple years ago and he said the Dallara was the most well-built race car he'd ever worked on, that each piece fit perfectly with 0/0 tolerance.

Heard a story this year about how Penske came out with some trick mirrors that were set out so they'd deflect the air over the tires and had everyone scrambling to build trick mirrors. Then Ganassi came out and went fast with stock mirrors and everybody got deked.

Guess anyone but them. Still waiting on links.

http://www.smackforum.net/showthread.php?t=3628

[Fangio]

Very Nice Paint Scheme. Very Ugly Car.

It`s amazing what paint can do to hide curves. Plus, the RC wings improve it`s shape. The exact same Penske chassis and colors with oval wings is a hidious looking dart.
IMO. ;)

[nigelred5]

I just dislike the way the whole front end is designed. It looks like a winged rolling doorstop. I don't like the way the nose is so wedge shaped and low slung and how the driver's cockpit has to bubble up, but it's cleearly optimized for low frontal area. the paint scheme on Servia's car is pretty cool, but that photo is so re-touched, shaded and accented that a picture of Mr Hankey would look good with the same treatment.

The GP masters cars with the scoop looked awesome as would the DP01. Teh new Ferrari A1GP looks great without all of the F1 flip ups of hte 04 F1 version of the chassis, but it wouldn't be a good Indycar IMHO.

[indycool]

The cockpit on the Dallara, through the years, has had a lot of work done for safety purposes. It as reinforced, made larger, the area around the head was restructured, etc. I believe that was their priority before the CW jihad decided to uses the word "ugly" about it.

Ken, link doesn't work for me........can you redo?

[millencolin]

theres no hiding from the fact that its one ugly car. KV did their best by their dark background and softening the egdes of the car, but its still ugly

a necessary evil

[shazbot]

It's ugly, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not.......wake me up when it's over.......... :s mash:

[indycool]

FACT? FACT? FACT? FACT? FACT?

You can't make a FACT out of ANYTHING being ugly or pretty. That's IYO. Sheesh.

[AussieV8]

I just hate the nose of the latest spec Dallara. I reckon the previous version as posted earlier in this thread looks far better:

http://motorsport.com/photos/irl/2002/pp/irl-2002-pp-tm-0172.jpg

I reckon the relatively small and flattened nose just looks too unbalanced with the bulky rear of the car. The Panoz G-Force didn't look anywhere near as ugly IMHO.

As for the DP-01, I hated the car. IMHO it looks too much like a European ladder series car. Indycars should have a look of their own. One way of doing this is to maintain the style of the lower nose, rather than a European style raised nose.

To get rid of the ugly Dallara flattened nose, I think they should mandate the height of the nose at the front wheels. That would still allow technical innovation if they go with more than one chassis supplier, but would prevent the nose being manufactured that low.

[Rex Monaco]

I think in a general sense the appearance and aesthetic qualities of racing machines are a factor in the marketability of a series.

Which is one reason I prefer ALMS over GrandAm.

[Rex Monaco]

Well, I asked one longtime chief mechanic I know a couple years ago and he said the Dallara was the most well-built race car he'd ever worked on, that each piece fit perfectly with 0/0 tolerance.

I must have missed where he said it wasn't ugly. Can you repeat it for those of us who might be slow?

[indycool]

Rex, read back to Eagle Eye's post. The chief mechanic I mentioned didn't say it was ugly or NOT ugly. He said it was the best race car he'd ever worked on as a mechanic. That's just a different perspective. Eagle Eye says everyone in the paddock thinks they're ugly. I'm still waiting for his/her links.

[coogmaster]

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Tyler/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg

[Rex Monaco]

Well, I asked one longtime chief mechanic...

Guess anyone but them.

This last sentence implies that the two people you sited don't agree it's ugly. Yet that wasn't the case.

One person speaks of the build quality and the other...well I'm still lost as to what changing mirrors (or not changing them) had to do with the question of the Dallara being ugly or not.

[indycool]

Great. Let's have a discussion now about whether mirrors are ugly or not.

[garyshell]

Great. Let's have a discussion now about whether mirrors are ugly or not.


They are ugly. End of discussion. <big ol' grin>

But seriously, I agree that this is a case of form following function. However, I do think the original nose configuration did look much better. The current wedge, has no aesthetic appeal to me at all. I don't mind the look of the rest of the car. It looks fine. There is just soemthing about that nose that makes the built in "ugly" detectors go off.

I remember many many years ago having a discussion with my then girl friends brother about art. He was an artist and I was just getting my first real taste of the art world through the two of them. In particular I was asking him about so called "modern art" and wondering how to know when something was good versus bad art. Jim piped up with, "if your built in shi* detector goes off, it is bad art." The nose of the Dallara for me makes the built in shi* detector go off.

I know, I know the race car is not "art". But when we are talking about beautiful versus ugly, it very much is an "art" discussion.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Great. Let's have a discussion now about whether mirrors are ugly or not.

Well seeing as how you brought up the mirrors, was that your intent?

[indycool]

No. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For Eagle Eye to blanket indicate that everyone in the paddock (every single blob of protoplasm) thinks they're ugly without links or a single name, or someone to say it's "FACT" that they're ugly, is baloney.

My posts have been to say things like that A) ARE baloney, B) some of the things some have a problem with may have been introduced for either safety or competitive reasons, and C) even though "the cars are ugly" was a rallying point for the CW jihad, that ship sank four months ago.

[AntiSpeed]

How is the Dallara ugly?

The wedge-shaped nose
That weird bulb-thing in front of the cockpit
The akward raised-arch sidepods.

From a purely aesthetic view, it has a lot of bumps and bulges that don't really seem to agree with each other. It has a lot of angles in some places then curves in others, and they conflict with eachother.

I'll admit that 26 Dallaras looks much better than 16 Panoz's (would that be... Pani? or something?), but I hope that the next car pays more attention to aesthetics.

[JSH]

I still can't believe there is such heated debate over the aesthetics of a race car. A RACE car... a car designed for function over form.

I agree that many designers at Dallara, or Panoz or Mclaren or RedBull or Ferrari would consider their creations as a form of Art. This is clear... but at the same time, these same designers will NEVER EVER trade form over function in the development of a racecar.

Just look at how many wierd and dare I say ugly protrusions the HondaF1 team have been sprouting on their car to desperately get it to perform...

The Dallara is a car designed with function and safety primarily in mind. I would suggest that there wasn't money in the budget to "tweak" things to make them look better.

[indycool]

If the decision is look better or go faster, or look better or be safer, what does anyone think the priority is going to be?

[garyshell]

If the decision is look better or go faster, or look better or be safer, what does anyone think the priority is going to be?

I don't think anyone is suggesting an answer other than the one you are implying. But there are examples, even in recent memory in our era of aerodynamics where the two (form and function) are not mutually exclusive. Look at the car that Bentley won with at LeMans a few years back. It was wicked fast, stuck to the ground like glue and was drop dead gorgeous.

Gary

[indycool]

Agreed, Gary. That was a beautiful race car. I'm still in love with the old Novis with the tail fin on 'em, and the 1980 championship-winning Chaparral.

[AntiSpeed]

If the decision is look better or go faster, or look better or be safer, what does anyone think the priority is going to be?

Those aren't exactly conflicting priorities...

[indycool]

They well could be. If satisfying some here was a priority, what other purpose would it serve Dallara to build an ugly race car?

[AntiSpeed]

They well could be. If satisfying some here was a priority, what other purpose would it serve Dallara to build an ugly race car?

I don't understand the question?

[Jag_Warrior]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

And that's really all that needs to be said. All this thread proves (to me) is what I said before: different people find different shapes and forms attractive.

As for your pal who said that the Dallara IRL car was the best race car he'd ever worked on, it sounds like he's in a position to have an informed opinion. But when he claims that Dallaras are built to a "0/0 tolerance", he shows himself to be very uninformed on manufacturing and fabrication processes. There is no such (practical) thing as 0 tolerancing in larger scale manufacturing. I'm sure micro-manufacturing works with smaller units of dimensioning and tolerancing. But it would probably be hard for even Danica to fit in a car that would set on the head of a pin. Molds and dies are not/cannot be built to a +/-0 in. tolerance. And the parts produced from these tools will not be +/-0 tolerance. Even the most advanced machine center is not capable of yielding output much tighter than +/-.0005 with any degree of repeatability. You might see a +0.0000/-.0005 in. or +0.0005/-0.0000 in. tolerance in aerospace. But typical aerospace tolerancing for critical parts is +/-.001 for positions and +/-.002 for surfaces. So... I think he's exaggerating on the tolerance bit.

But the Dallara factory has a very good reputation for quality control standards. Conversely, Lola has not been known for its quality standards. It's a dream of mine to someday visit the Dallara facility in Italy... and not have to wear a blindfold as I tour. Dallara has built and designed some fine looking racing machines over the years: Ferrari 333SP, Toyota GT-1 and the Audi R8. And I don't think their initial IRL car was bad looking at all. But based purely on aesthetics (and personal likes & dislikes), CART fan or not, this current one is one ugly kid (IMO ;) ).

[indycool]

Anti, maybe I don't understand your post correctly to ask it......

Agree, Jag, and I used the wrong words to describe what I was told. What that chief actually said was, "it's the best race car I've ever worked on. Every piece fits precisely the way it's supposed to. The tolerances are closer than I've ever seen." I used the word "tolerance" incorrectly.

[AntiSpeed]

Anti, maybe I don't understand your post correctly to ask it......


What I mean to say is that designing a car that looks good has nothing to do with how safe it is. Most race cars in recent history have been phenomenally safe while looking absolutely stunning. Aesthetics aren't something you have to sacrifice anything for (be it performance or safety).

[indycool]

Oh, so the prettiest car, in YOUR opinion, is also the fastest car and safest car automatically. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-KAY.

[AntiSpeed]

Oh, so the prettiest car, in YOUR opinion, is also the fastest car and safest car automatically. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-KAY.

I see what's happening. I think I misunderstood your first post. I assume when you said

If the decision is look better or go faster, or look better or be safer, what does anyone think the priority is going to be?

You actually meant
If the decision is look better and go faster, or look better and be safer, what does anyone think the priority is going to be?

Am I correct?

Dallra is good but not the painting work

[MAX_THRUST]

Been watching Indy Lights on Motors TV here in Europe.

Its sad that the lower formula cars look better than the top cars....

That's all I got to say.

[indycool]

No, Anti- , sorry, I meant what I said the first time. To clarify:

If a designer has a decision to make on what will be faster or what will look better to any and/or every individual, IMO, the designer will pick faster as the priority.

If the designer and the series have a decision to make on what will be safer or what will look better to any and/or every individual, IMO, the designer and the series will pick safer as the priority.

And, as Jag said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So, accomplishing that for every beholder would seem to be an impossible task to begin with.

To the extent that if a designer and/or series picks speed and/or safety as the priority and it happens to meet aesthetic approval of SOME or MANY beholders, then fine.

[garyshell]

To the extent that if a designer and/or series picks speed and/or safety as the priority and it happens to meet aesthetic approval of SOME or MANY beholders, then fine.


It appears that you are still working on the assumption that form and function are two separate disciplines. I don't buy that notion at all. Going back to the Lemans winning Bentley from a few years back, which we both agree was a gorgeous car. If I subscribe to your design paradigm, the function of the cars, i.e. speed and safety, are the only parameters given the design team and if it comes out looking nice, then so be it. That would make the beauty of that car a total accident. Anyone looking at that car knows it's beauty was no accident. That's not to say that form will ever be allowed to trump function. No way. But the two can and should be done simultaneously.

Gary

[indycool]

Form may well be PART of function. But not always. I mentioned earlier cars I liked -- the Novis, the Chaparral. I can mention cars I liked that won races that DIDN'T look snazzy, like Sneva's Ol' Hound in its later years. Used to like the old Oswego wedge design that was NEVER successful on the big stage. The Antares, I thought, was a pretty race car. And I'd bet that someone on this board will disagree on all of them.

"In the eyes of the beholder."

Going back to the Lemans winning Bentley from a few years back, which we both agree was a gorgeous car.......... If I subscribe to your design paradigm, the function of the cars, i.e. speed and safety, are the only parameters given the design team and if it comes out looking nice, then so be it. That would make the beauty of that car a total accident. Anyone looking at that car knows it's beauty was no accident.

Gary

Well, I tried my best you know.

[garyshell]

Well, I tried my best you know.


As well I do! Where have you been? Hiding under a rock or something? I wondered when (or if) you would chime in on this discussion.

Gary

[AntiSpeed]

No, Anti- , sorry, I meant what I said the first time. To clarify:

If a designer has a decision to make on what will be faster or what will look better to any and/or every individual, IMO, the designer will pick faster as the priority.

If the designer and the series have a decision to make on what will be safer or what will look better to any and/or every individual, IMO, the designer and the series will pick safer as the priority.

And, as Jag said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So, accomplishing that for every beholder would seem to be an impossible task to begin with.

To the extent that if a designer and/or series picks speed and/or safety as the priority and it happens to meet aesthetic approval of SOME or MANY beholders, then fine.

Thank you for the clarification. However I still feel it is a moot point since you can have an attractive car irrespective to performance and safety. A designer will never have to "choose" between aesthetics and performance or aesthetics and safety. History has presented us with a significant number of racing cars that have been astonishingly safe, astonishingly fast and astonishingly beautiful, making no compromises one way or the other.

Fair enough, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But if you look deeper, there are things that the vast majority of humans find attractive, and things that the vast majority of humans would find unattractive. We aren't here to please everybody, but it is important that the car is appealing to most people. I have no numbers to back up what I say, but I get a general feeling that a significant number of people involved in the sport, be they fans, drivers, mechanics, whatever, would not say the car is attractive. I invite you to ask around at the next race you go to, I'd be interested to hear what they say. Maybe we can pester Robin Miller (or your favorite racing journalist) into doing a scoop about it.

I'll also say this. Why would a designer care about creating an attractive racecar, as long as it is fast and safe? There is no reason, I suppose. But the Indy Racing League is a business that depends on people watching. They have significant control over the design of the car, and their business depends on having a product that looks and sounds good. So the IRL should make the car's designer make aesthetics a priority right behind safety and performance. Until we convince Miller to write that article, you and I can go back and forth on whether the car is attractive or not. But it is an important discussion to be having, so when the designs for the new IRL car come up, they have an idea of what the fan base wants, and they have an idea of how to shape the car so that it will appeal to and attract new fans to the sport.

[indycool]

Understand. My post was made on IF they had to choose about some certain swoop or swail or safety measure. And I believe I'm right on that. I pointed out cars I felt were fast, safe AND pretty. And cars that were pretty but not fast, and those didn't last long. And an old McLaren that lasted three years winning races that certainly wasn't state of the art at the end of its reign.

Most everyone can love Julia Roberts. Most everyone would put Rosie O'Donnell at the other end of the spectrum. But from my knowledge being unknown, either could be good or bad in the sack. But, IMO, the gap is much closer (or ignored) on the issue of an ugly or pretty rear-engine race car simply because there would be more varying opinions to more varying degrees.

[AntiSpeed]

So what do you personally think of the Dallara anyways?

[indycool]

I think the Dallara is just another rear-engine race car. I've seen sharp paint jobs on 'em and lousy paint jobs on 'em, some that accentuate the car to make it stand out sharply to dull ones.

Just like any other rear-engine race car. Some are bigger, some are smaller, but the BASIC look is the same.......as are midgets, sprinters and Silver Crown cars.....only thing different about them are size and paint jobs.

The prettiest cars I've seen IN GENERAL are some of those West Coast supermodifieds, individual products of the speed-shoppers' art.