Bmw-sauber Showcases New F1 Car

[CNR]

what a fugly car

http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/story/?id=256288&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_auto_racing


BMW-Sauber gave everyone a sneak peek into what Formula One cars may look on the track next season as the first winter test began in Spain on Monday.

http://images.tsn.ca/Story/Image.aspx?path=http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20081117/kubicatest430_55248.jpg&width=430&height=300
http://i33.tinypic.com/10n7sqf.jpg

[ASCAR24/7/365.5]

oh my god i jus peuked! looks like a snowplough

[truefan72]

ugly and useless,

it is amazing how F1 has managed to reverse course evelotion wise.

it is like looking at a 70's aero package

I am really saddened by this course of action that F1 is taking

they are loosing the presitige and unique status of the elite racing series to satisfy the deranged whims of MM and his cronies on the FIA.

by the time they are finsihed, we would have a GP2 like series on hand with one engine, one chasis and zero innovation.

shameful, just shameful what has happened to the sport i grew up with and loved.

[truefan72]

it looks like something I could build with $100k not like something that time. effort, and innovation has gone into.

just a reminder of what we are going to miss
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/heid_bmw_vale_08pre_frontwing.jpg

http://www.f1-fansite.com/wallpaper/2008/testing/BMW-F1.08-Barcelona-01-1440.jpg

these look like the pinnacle of motorsports
the 2009 car looks like a kit car.

[LeonBrooke]

I have to say I like it. It will take some getting used to, but together all the weird-looking elements just fit.

[gloomyDAY]

ugly and useless,

it is amazing how F1 has managed to reverse course evelotion wise.

it is like looking at a 70's aero package

I am really saddened by this course of action that F1 is taking
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!

[jonny hurlock]

looks like a formula bmw car

[truefan72]

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!

there is taking a step back and there is simply dailing back the time machine on aerodynamic evolution in order to purportedly bring abouty more racing.

IMO there was plenty of racing in 2008 and the likely impact of these cars on 2009 racing is going to be nominal; as many preidct.

So what we have left is a Formula BMW looking car, simplistic along with exagerrated wings that leave the car completley unworthy of being a piece of f1 machinery. All in the name of improved racing.

I would really like someone to explain to me how F1 can improve the racing form 2008.

do cars catch up and pass others on the straight - yes
do cars over take others on slow corners - yes
do cars outbreak others and overtake - yes
do we see close fights of cars challenging each other - yes
do we see different cars winning races - yes
do we see the likes of Honda/Force India ahead of supposedly faster cars -yes ( and sutil was going to finshi 4th in Monaco before...)
do we see extreme parity in times amongs the all the cars - yes
did we see dramatic races and great finishes - yes
do we see overtaking in the mid pack -yes constantly ( it just so happens that the cameras are not focusing on these battles that often. I dare say if you watched an entire race only of cars from p7-p15 you would have an completly different view of F1 racing)

so I am not sure exactly what more folks want out of the series.

Perhaps you could explain what more you would like to see (I am not being sarcastic here but an earnest inquest)

[truefan72]

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!

there is taking a step back and there is simply dailing back the time machine on aerodynamic evolution in order to purportedly bring about more racing.

IMO there was plenty of racing in 2008 and the likely impact of these cars on 2009 racing is going to be nominal, as many preidct.

So what we have left is a Formula BMW looking car, simplistic along with exagerrated wings that leave the car completley unworthy of being a piece of f1 machinery. All in the name of improved racing.

I would really like someone to explain to me how F1 can improve the racing form 2008.

do cars catch up and pass others on the straight - yes
do cars over take others on slow corners - yes
do cars outbreak others and overtake - yes
do we see close fights of cars challenging each other - yes
do we see different cars winning races - yes
do we see the likes of Honda/Force India ahead of supposedly faster cars -yes ( and sutil was going to finshi 4th in Monaco before...)
do we see extreme parity in times amongs the all the cars - yes
did we see dramatic races and great finishes - yes
do we see overtaking in the mid pack -yes constantly ( it just so happens that the cameras are not focusing on these battles that often. I dare say if you watched an entire race only of cars from p7-p15 you would have an completly different view of F1 racing)

so I am not sure exactly what more folks want out of the series.

Perhaps you could explain what more you would like to see (I am not being sarcastic here but an earnest inquest)

[ioan]

it looks like something I could build with $100k not like something that time. effort, and innovation has gone into.

just a reminder of what we are going to miss
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/heid_bmw_vale_08pre_frontwing.jpg

these look like the pinnacle of motorsports
the 2009 car looks like a kit car.

Not really.
The 2003 - 2008 cars looked more an more like a Christmas tree with areo bits instead of candys.

The 2009 car:
http://i33.tinypic.com/10n7sqf.jpg

Looks better IMO.
You'll see, it's just a matter of taste. And those of us who followed F1 pre 2000 are used to see beautiful cars with simple and flowing lines!

[wedge]

What an abomination! Absolutely hideous and will take some getting used to.

If the racing is going to be awesome then all will be forgiven....



well, some but not all! :D

[woody2goody]

Looks like a cross between an Formula BMW car, the 2004 Williams and the '2000 Ferrari with better sidepods. Plus the wing off of a 1991 car lol. Looks strange.

I'm not going to say I don't like it but it's a dramatic difference.

[Areez2006]

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!

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/oriolservia_montreal_champcar_2006.jpg

Champ Car (with slicks, hardly any aero, and massive wings). If you can keep a straight face and tell me that car looks better than this one... :rolleyes:

I can understand your argument about looks not being everything...you're right it is about the racing at the end of the day. However, these might not be the implementations to make it happen. There have been seasons in the past before all the aero pieces where teams dominated (i.e. 1988, 1992, 1996 & 1997, 2002...). I'm just suprised that people think this is going to make it better when 2008 wasn't that bad to begin with. This is not Oval racing where everyone is going to have a chance to win. O, and just to clarify, 2009 is all about costs and money, nothing to do with racing; if it was about racing then we wouldn't have lost Canada under the circumstances we did.

[cy bais]

i just don't like the front wing being that wide, other than that, i can get used to the rear wing and definitely prefer the disappearance of all those winglets.

[Roamy]

she looks beautiful - I can't wait - rake that gay crap off them and go racing!!

[ArrowsFA1]

just a reminder of what we are going to miss

these look like the pinnacle of motorsports
the 2009 car looks like a kit car.
I was never a big fan of all the aero stick-on bits and pieces. They may have been the result of impressive, and expensive, work done in the windtunnel but they just illustrated the point that aero dominated above all else, and damaged the racing in the process.

Years ago Gilles Villeneuve said:
"I love motor racing. To me it's a sport, not a technical exercise. My ideal Formula One car would be something like a McLaren M23 with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp, 21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we should have narrower tires, but I don't agree
because you need big tyres to slow you down when you spin. And you need a lot of horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic spectacle, I can tell you. We would take corners one gear lower than we do now, and get the cars sideways. You know, people still rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and I understand that. I agree with them. That's the kind of entertainment I want to give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah !

I [care about the fans], because I used to be one of them ! I believe the crowd is really losing out at the moment, and that's bad."
Almost 30yrs on and we're still losing out. They still haven't got the cars right IMHO. The 2009 version not only looks ugly but the FIA's own technical consultant Tony Purnell has said (http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44594)
"I expect the 2009 car will have quite a lot of downforce – perhaps 70 or 80 per cent of last year’s level – and I suspect that may mean the aero rules do little for racing...aerodynamics is probably the worst thing you can have when it comes to close racing.”
:dozey:

[Daniel]

I like it. The back looks a little strange but it's OK without all the silly bits coming off it

[goodf1fun]

this is not 2009. is a 2008 car fitted with some 2009 wings. the new cars will look better

[ioan]

this is not 2009. is a 2008 car fitted with some 2009 wings. the new cars will look better

Just take a closer look to the nose section (see how wide and high it is compared to the 2008 car?) and you'll see that this is not the 2008 car.

[Robinho]

gievn a clean piece of paper, whats to say that all the teams will tuen up looking like the BMW - sure there will be some common elements, but others may take a slightly different approach and for me that is exciting. the car may look a little simple in its current interim form, but you can bet it will be cleaned up prior to the start of the next season.

i do think the new cars will take a bot of getting used to, but the innovation is still there, the constrained rules just mean they will have to work for it elsewhere and maximise different parts

[ArrowsFA1]

"To me, for the moment, it's the worst (looking) Formula One car I have ever seen. It just doesn't fit together. But we will get used to it. There will be a lot of modifications until the first race in March."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72176

[Giuseppe F1]

Brundle once commented that an F1 should look like it is travelling at 100MPH when it is standing still....

....this pile of s### looks like its made out of lego!!

[BeansBeansBeans]

Just take a closer look to the nose section (see how wide and high it is compared to the 2008 car?) and you'll see that this is not the 2008 car.

Well it's a test hack really isn't it? A 2008 car with some new aero parts (including a new nose) stuck to it for the purposes of testing.

It's not a showcase of the F109 by any means.

[goodf1fun]

is NOT 2009 car. compare the rest of the car and u will see the 2008 bmw.

The new cars will be wider. The nose from the point that you can remove it, looks identical to 2008

[ioan]

I didn't say that it is the 2009 car!
But is it a 2008 car or not?!
I say it is different enough from the 2008 car to be called at least an intermediary car but not the 2008 car.
Sure it has the same carbon tub, but the nose isn't the same, the whole aero package is different and the tires are different too, heck even the engine isn't the same anymore cause the new ones will have to last 50% more, plus there is KERS installed on it and running, so not even the transmission is the same anymore!
So 75% of the car isn't the same anymore.

[goodf1fun]

I didn't say that it is the 2009 car!
But is it a 2008 car or not?!
I say it is different enough from the 2008 car to be called at least an intermediary car but not the 2008 car.
Sure it has the same carbon tub, but the nose isn't the same, the whole aero package is different and the tires are different too, heck even the engine isn't the same anymore cause the new ones will have to last 50% more, plus there is KERS installed on it and running, so not even the transmission is the same anymore!
So 75% of the car isn't the same anymore.


are u working in bmw?

[Daniel]

are u working in bmw?
Are u working in Skoda?

[truefan72]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72176

pretty much sums it up

[goodf1fun]

Are u working in Skoda?


no i am working in VW (real)

[Sleeper]

what a fugly car

http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/story/?id=256288&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_auto_racing



http://images.tsn.ca/Story/Image.aspx?path=http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20081117/kubicatest430_55248.jpg&width=430&height=300
http://i33.tinypic.com/10n7sqf.jpg
I dont mind it but it looks surprisingly like Gould Hill Climb car. A thinner nose would improve the looks massively.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's interesting to read a couple of the comments from the Barcelona test:

Robert Kubica: "Of course we lose a lot of downforce compared to the 2008 car. But because we are back from grooved to slick tyres, we have substantially more grip in slow corners. So with some more development I don't think there will be too big a difference between the 2009 and 2008 cars."

Marc Gene: "We got rid of as many things as possible, to try to create the downforce we'll have the next season. But the main thing is the slicks. I couldn't directly compare them, but the first feeling is that the grip delivered by the new tyres compensates the lower downforce."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72177

The more things change, the more they stay the same :p

It's interesting to read a couple of the comments from the Barcelona test:

Robert Kubica: "Of course we lose a lot of downforce compared to the 2008 car. But because we are back from grooved to slick tyres, we have substantially more grip in slow corners. So with some more development I don't think there will be too big a difference between the 2009 and 2008 cars."

Marc Gene: "We got rid of as many things as possible, to try to create the downforce we'll have the next season. But the main thing is the slicks. I couldn't directly compare them, but the first feeling is that the grip delivered by the new tyres compensates the lower downforce."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72177

The more things change, the more they stay the same :p

But they aren't the same.

Aerodynamic grip is easily lost when in turbulent air, whereas mechanical grip from the tyres & chassis is not affected whatsoever.

In theory therefore, it should be a whole lot easier to get closer to the car in front and precipitate that most rare of natural occurences - a genuine overtake.

However, don't underestimate the genius of aerodynamicists. They are cunning swines whose mantra is "What the good lord taketh away, the wind-tunnel giveth back eventually"

[ChrisS]

It's interesting to read a couple of the comments from the Barcelona test:

Robert Kubica: "Of course we lose a lot of downforce compared to the 2008 car. But because we are back from grooved to slick tyres, we have substantially more grip in slow corners. So with some more development I don't think there will be too big a difference between the 2009 and 2008 cars."

Marc Gene: "We got rid of as many things as possible, to try to create the downforce we'll have the next season. But the main thing is the slicks. I couldn't directly compare them, but the first feeling is that the grip delivered by the new tyres compensates the lower downforce."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72177

The more things change, the more they stay the same :p

The difference will be that mechanical grip coming from the tyres wont be gone as soon as you get close to the car in front in a turn

[ArrowsFA1]

But they aren't the same.
I was simply referring to Kubica's comment that "I don't think there will be too big a difference between the 2009 and 2008 cars". That despite major changes to the regs.

Hopefully the increased mechanical grip will improve the racing, but much of what I've read about the prospects for the new cars confirms your aerodynamicists mantra that much of the lost aero grip will be recovered.

I was simply referring to Kubica's comment that "I don't think there will be too big a difference between the 2009 and 2008 cars". That despite major changes to the regs.

Hopefully the increased mechanical grip will improve the racing, but much of what I've read about the prospects for the new cars confirms your aerodynamicists mantra that much of the lost aero grip will be recovered.

I read Kubica's comments as referring to the respective pace of the cars, not the way they will perform to get that pace.

Gene's comments seem to endorse that.

That said, give those aero buggers enough time & soon enough you'll be bemoaning the loss of all the winglets, chimneys and horns that gave us such a competitive field!

[Sleeper]

But they aren't the same.

Aerodynamic grip is easily lost when in turbulent air, whereas mechanical grip from the tyres & chassis is not affected whatsoever.

In theory therefore, it should be a whole lot easier to get closer to the car in front and precipitate that most rare of natural occurences - a genuine overtake.

However, don't underestimate the genius of aerodynamicists. They are cunning swines whose mantra is "What the good lord taketh away, the wind-tunnel giveth back eventually"
I doubt that very much, in anything other than a slow corner, were they have no trouble following closely anyway, aerodynamic grip is the determining factor, not mechanical. It might be that they can follow closely through mid to fast corners now or they might not, we wont know until they start racing, but I doubt the mechanical grip will be the defigning factor.

I doubt that very much, in anything other than a slow corner, were they have no trouble following closely anyway, aerodynamic grip is the determining factor, not mechanical. It might be that they can follow closely through mid to fast corners now or they might not, we wont know until they start racing, but I doubt the mechanical grip will be the defigning factor.

Aerodynamics will always play a part, but these regulations would appear to have moved the emphasis towards mechanical grip. With that shift in emphasis, the turbulent air from a car is not such a defining factor.

For now.

[Mickey T]

i see chris bangle has moved across to the F1 team...

[Claus Hansen]

Even IRL crap wagon looks pretty now !

I dont agree with the new rules, F1 should be an enginering sport too ! Overtaking, yes of course, but i still think this is the wrong way to go, i would rather see a push to pass button, and and tourbo engine to boots overtaking, than this, a crying same, and a bad move by F1 !

[Daniel]

Even IRL crap wagon looks pretty now !

I dont agree with the new rules, F1 should be an enginering sport too ! Overtaking, yes of course, but i still think this is the wrong way to go, i would rather see a push to pass button, and and tourbo engine to boots overtaking, than this, a crying same, and a bad move by F1 !

Big wings and silly winglets are the things which have made F1 somewhat of a snorefest for the last few years. This year was exciting in some ways but it wasn't the cars that provided the excitement.

[F1boat]

Horrible. Looks like a junior formula car.

[goodf1fun]

Horrible. Looks like a junior formula car.


don't watch f1 in 2009 then :D

[Sleeper]

Aerodynamics will always play a part, but these regulations would appear to have moved the emphasis towards mechanical grip. With that shift in emphasis, the turbulent air from a car is not such a defining factor.

For now.
Well, I've yet to be convinced on that, but we'll have to wait until Australia for the answer.

[Daniel]

Well, I've yet to be convinced on that, but we'll have to wait until Australia for the answer.
It's pretty easy to see. Mechanical grip is less susceptible to disruption by turbulence. Simple as that really.

[ShiftingGears]

It's pretty easy to see. Mechanical grip is less susceptible to disruption by turbulence. Simple as that really.

Lots of regulation changes in the past decade have been aimed at making the cars more able to pass other cars, and they haven't really produced a visible result on track.

The regulation changes work...in theory.

[Daniel]

Lots of regulation changes in the past decade have been aimed at making the cars more able to pass other cars, and they haven't really produced a visible result on track.

The regulation changes work...in theory.

This will work as long as the FIA keep on top of it.

[ShiftingGears]

This will work as long as the FIA keep on top of it.

Hence why I said 'in theory'.

[Daniel]

Hence why I said 'in theory'.
Well Sleeper was talking about being sceptical whether it would have an effect in teh first race next year :)

[Knock-on]

Well Sleeper was talking about being sceptical whether it would have an effect in teh first race next year :)

It probably will have a small effect but not much.

F1 is never going to be Touring cars and any changes will have a minimal effect on overtaking.

My advice would be not to get your hopes up.

[Daniel]

It probably will have a small effect but not much.

F1 is never going to be Touring cars and any changes will have a minimal effect on overtaking.

My advice would be not to get your hopes up.
True :)

I personally believe that F1 should be subistuted with the old supertourer rules and we'd have a far better series :)

[Knock-on]

True :)

I personally believe that F1 should be subistuted with the old supertourer rules and we'd have a far better series :)

Ladies and Gentlefolk.

I give you the 2009 FIA STF1 series.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1108643/banger_racing/

[Daniel]

Ladies and Gentlefolk.

I give you the 2009 FIA STF1 series.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1108643/banger_racing/
better than the 2008 "you touched that other car so 20 lashes and a drive through penalty because we's girly girls here" F1 series :)

Edit: No disrespect to women of course because they can race just as well as men given the right opportunities but you get my point

[markabilly]

And to think they threw away the Kube's chances at a WDC (as though he had a chance anyway!!)so they could spend the last half of the season developing their new 09 car. (well that is what some say...)

Much work to have that pop out!!

Wow, to quote the words of Arnold when he looked at the predator, "u one ugly mutterfookar........

[Tallgeese]

Can't wait to see the 2009 cars but if the stop-gap cars are anything to go by then F1 cars will look like modernised 1980s cars. I don't know what to feel about the the change in the rules but it may produce more exciting racing. If you ask me, the real problem has never been in the regulations (with the exception of 2-race engine rule & grooved tyres), it's been in the fact that the racers aren't willing to over-take or fight as they used to.

[aryan]

Can someone help me understand this forum?

For YEARS, we bitched and moaned about aero, saying that it ruins the sport, complaining of every single winglet that was added to the chassis, from BMW's infamous nose to Honda's front spoilers.

We said we wanted slicks, we wanted wider cars, and less aero. No?

And now, that's what they've given us. They've significantly reduced aero, and now you guys want it back?

Seriously.... this forum never ceases to amaze me. I've never been able to understand what these members like, and what they don't like. The only thing that seems apparent to me, is that they hate change, no matter what it is. Even if it is the exact same thing that they've argued for years in favour of, when it happens, it's bad.

I really respect ArrowsF1, but if you read his comments in this thread, it seems like he's saying: "meh... nothing is changing...all this fanfare for nothing", where being one of the most knowledgeable members of this forum, he KNOWS exactly what is changing. Yes, the '09 cars will probably have the same overall speed as the '08 cars, but he, like all other members here, exactly knows why this is happening.

For years, we complained about dirty air, about how overtaking is impossible these days because cars can't get close enough, about how grooved tyres don't provide enough grip off racing line.

Now, it's happening guys. The '09 car is what we've been advocating for the past few years.

And all you can say is: it's boring? It's like a kart? It's like made of Lego? It's like Formula BMW?

Who cares? If it provides better racing, who cares?

[Daniel]

Can someone help me understand this forum?

For YEARS, we bitched and moaned about aero, saying that it ruins the sport, complaining of every single winglet that was added to the chassis, from BMW's infamous nose to Honda's front spoilers.

We said we wanted slicks, we wanted wider cars, and less aero. No?

And now, that's what they've given us. They've significantly reduced aero, and now you guys want it back?

Seriously.... this forum never ceases to amaze me. I've never been able to understand what these members like, and what they don't like. The only thing that seems apparent to me, is that they hate change, no matter what it is. Even if it is the exact same thing that they've argued for years in favour of, when it happens, it's bad.

I really respect ArrowsF1, but if you read his comments in this thread, it seems like he's saying: "meh... nothing is changing...all this fanfare for nothing", where being one of the most knowledgeable members of this forum, he KNOWS exactly what is changing. Yes, the '09 cars will probably have the same overall speed as the '08 cars, but he, like all other members here, exactly knows why this is happening.

For years, we complained about dirty air, about how overtaking is impossible these days because cars can't get close enough, about how grooved tyres don't provide enough grip off racing line.

Now, it's happening guys. The '09 car is what we've been advocating for the past few years.

And all you can say is: it's boring? It's like a kart? It's like made of Lego? It's like Formula BMW?

Who cares? If it provides better racing, who cares?
:up:

[ArrowsFA1]

Who cares? If it provides better racing, who cares?
I understand what you're saying aryan :cool: I just have two points:

You say "if it provides better racing" and I think that's a big "if" in the light of some of the comments from drivers and the likes of Tony Purnell that I've seen.

Secondly, I like F1 cars to look good. That may be superficial, and I know I lack a detailed understanding of all the technology, but the Lotus 79 was a damn fine looking racing car, as were the Eagle, Lotus 49 etc. In comparison the 2009 spec cars we've seen look all wrong IMHO. Pig ugly. I care about that.

Basically I think the influence of aero has developed too far, and to a large extent it is impossible to "uninvent" it. The 2009 regs have used aero to try to solve an aero problem and only time will tell if this is the right way to go.

I understand what you're saying aryan :cool: I just have two points:

You say "if it provides better racing" and I think that's a big "if" in the light of some of the comments from drivers and the likes of Tony Purnell that I've seen. .

Have any drivers said that it will make no difference? Not that I'm aware of. Both Kubica & Gene have said that the overall level of grip will be about the same, but with more emphasis on mechanical grip than aero grip. There is a substantial difference to how that makes a car behave, even if the lap times end up about the same.

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




Secondly, I like F1 cars to look good. That may be superficial, and I know I lack a detailed understanding of all the technology, but the Lotus 79 was a damn fine looking racing car, as were the Eagle, Lotus 49 etc. In comparison the 2009 spec cars we've seen look all wrong IMHO. Pig ugly. I care about that.

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



Basically I think the influence of aero has developed too far, and to a large extent it is impossible to "uninvent" it. The 2009 regs have used aero to try to solve an aero problem and only time will tell if this is the right way to go.

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?

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.

Wheeling out Lotus 79's is not a solution.

[ioan]

Can someone help me understand this forum?

For YEARS, we bitched and moaned about aero, saying that it ruins the sport, complaining of every single winglet that was added to the chassis, from BMW's infamous nose to Honda's front spoilers.

We said we wanted slicks, we wanted wider cars, and less aero. No?

And now, that's what they've given us. They've significantly reduced aero, and now you guys want it back?

Seriously.... this forum never ceases to amaze me. I've never been able to understand what these members like, and what they don't like. The only thing that seems apparent to me, is that they hate change, no matter what it is. Even if it is the exact same thing that they've argued for years in favour of, when it happens, it's bad.

I really respect ArrowsF1, but if you read his comments in this thread, it seems like he's saying: "meh... nothing is changing...all this fanfare for nothing", where being one of the most knowledgeable members of this forum, he KNOWS exactly what is changing. Yes, the '09 cars will probably have the same overall speed as the '08 cars, but he, like all other members here, exactly knows why this is happening.

For years, we complained about dirty air, about how overtaking is impossible these days because cars can't get close enough, about how grooved tyres don't provide enough grip off racing line.

Now, it's happening guys. The '09 car is what we've been advocating for the past few years.

And all you can say is: it's boring? It's like a kart? It's like made of Lego? It's like Formula BMW?

Who cares? If it provides better racing, who cares?

:up: Excellent comment!

It's fairly easy to explain why this situation. I said it last year and I'll say it again now and next year and so on, IMO more than 90% of the forum members have a low knowledge of the technology involved, they catch some phrases during the race from the commentators, and that's all. These people couldn't make the difference between a McLaren and a Torro Rosso (or any other F1 car for that matter) if both were painted in the same neutral color.
The only thing for them is aesthetics and the name of their favorite driver and team, that's what differentiates between good and bad, beautiful and ugly.
It's like when people say: "It looks fast!" :\

[ioan]

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

Excellent point.

[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 :s 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.