Pete J. Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Had some time to mess around on photoshop and created my own version of the new Mercedes McLaren.
jeffs396 Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Yes, they sure are UGLY for 2014. Still looking forward to the new season though, they can redeem themselves somewhat with some staggering performances from the new drivetrains. The Caterham is the ugliest of them all IMHO:
afx Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 The trend started when they did away with the low rear wing a few years back and it has gone steadily down hill every since.
Ace-Garageguy Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) My understanding is that the appearance these days (the shape) is almost entirely dictated by the results of the computer CFD (computational fluid dynamics) aerodynamic simulation of proposed designs. I'm having a hard time swallowing that these 'drag-reducing' programs are entirely fully developed however, because so many designs just look wrong. Fiberglass sailplanes, with which I have some experience, are the most aerodynamically efficient machines on Earth. Notice they strangely have no plethora of odd whiffles and projections anywhere... Edited February 24, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy
Brett Barrow Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) FIA is lowering the nose to prevent the cars from launching up and over the car in front after a rear-end crash. But the teams still want the aerodynamic benifits of the high nose which has been around since the Benneton B192 in 1992, so they've come up with these strange designs. I think they're better than the stepped nose of the past couple years, but they are still ugly. But then again, the last time I checked they don't give out points and prize money for "best looking car"... Edited February 24, 2014 by Brett Barrow
Pete J. Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 All very true, but like Bill, I have a lot of exposure to things that fly and the common wisdom is that if it looks right, it flies right. There are exceptions such as the F-117 but those are generally done for a given purpose. These new F1 cars are meeting some really weird rules. The up and flying over a car in a rear end collision is to my eye the contact of two very sticky tires coming in contact with opposed rotational forces. I seriously doubt that the extended proboscises will do much to alleviate that. They just look like very inappropriate appendages. Like the aardvark they serve a very specific purpose and that is just weird.
Deano Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 So, Greg, are you calling that 'pretty' or 'ugly'? Personally, I think the F-4 Phantom is one of the most testosterone laden, muscular and best looking fighters ever to cruise the skies! Of course, I could be biased; my dad (along with several thousand other guys) built them!
Pete J. Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) The Phantom is a series of fixes and can not be called attractive. It is more like a beat up boxer. Aggressive? Yes Clean? Oh, heck no! We use to say that it was proof that if you put a large enough engine on a brick it would go supersonic. The drooping tails and the upturned wing tips were all after designs to fix aero problems with the basic design. This came from an era that transonic flight was not well understood and the flight test program was needed to develop fixes as problems came up. No, the F4 is anything but beautiful, but it is an iconic aircraft. Oh, and when the Tbirds and Angels flew them, they made an outstanding airshow aircraft. Big, noisy, smoky, impressive? Oh yea but never good looking. Edited February 24, 2014 by Pete J.
Austin T Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I do agree some of the new F1 cars are rather "Suggestive" with their looks. All joking aside i like last years car's better, who knows what we're in for next year. Hopefully some of the restriction get lifted and we can see some more pistons. (Just my person preference). And on a side note if you can't contribute something that adds to the conversation please don't post, quality over quantity.
kitbash1 Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) In my humble opinion, the Lotus 49 and the Tyrrell 03 were the most beautiful F1 cars made. Edited February 25, 2014 by kitbash1
Austin T Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) For those who like the old Graphics but the modern cars.http://www.carthrottle.com/if-cars-wore-retro-graphics-like-this-wed-all-like-f1/ Edited February 25, 2014 by Austin T
DonW Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) They lost their looks when they went front engined, to my mind! Likewise Indycars and dragsters... I still love the sport though. Doh! I meant rear engined! Edited February 25, 2014 by DonW
Greg Myers Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The Phantom is a series of fixes and can not be called attractive. It is more like a beat up boxer. Aggressive? Yes Clean? Oh, heck no! We use to say that it was proof that if you put a large enough engine on a brick it would go supersonic. The drooping tails and the upturned wing tips were all after designs to fix aero problems with the basic design. This came from an era that transonic flight was not well understood and the flight test program was needed to develop fixes as problems came up. No, the F4 is anything but beautiful, but it is an iconic aircraft. Oh, and when the Tbirds and Angels flew them, they made an outstanding airshow aircraft. Big, noisy, smoky, impressive? Oh yea but never good looking.
DonW Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) I can't see that doing too well in F1 even with Vettel at the controls... It has got a brutal elegance in it's clean form I agree. Edited February 25, 2014 by DonW
Greg Myers Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 So, Greg, are you calling that 'pretty' or 'ugly'? Personally, I think the F-4 Phantom is one of the most testosterone laden, muscular and best looking fighters ever to cruise the skies! Of course, I could be biased; my dad (along with several thousand other guys) built them! Have to agree with you Dean. I did four years working on the Phantom II '69-'73 in the Navy. However Pete has the answer.But his "Looks right, fly's right" don't always work, I.E. The phantom II
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now