Do aesthetics have a place in F1?

[Tozza Mazza]

With the 2012 rule changes, one of the major talking points of the season will most certainly be the 'ugly' cars we are seeing.

I think that for 2013 or 2014 we should see a change in regulations, so we get 'more aesthetically pleasing' cars.

I would do this by making the cars curvier, like we saw in the early 90's and mandate lower, shorter noses on the cars, and abolish the hideous step.

Whatever way it's done though, we must be careful not to hinder design!

What do others think?

[beelsebob]

Very clearly, yes they do – we've had several things banned purely in the name of aesthetics before – most sticking in my mind was Jordan's mini-wings above the side pods.

[Tozza Mazza]

I think this was a case of poor vision by the FIA, very very poor indeed.

Why they didn't stick with the initial 2012 rules for chassis height, I'll never understand.

The 'it's too expensive' case doesn't stand up, as every team redesigns its tub every season anyway...

[marcush.]

aesthetics can be misleading ....how impossible the new regs cars looked in 2008 with that ultrawide frontwing and that narrow and high up rear.
Now it just looks normal and we can find good looking examples.

Sure looks have a place...My favorite F1 car was the leyton house CG891 which was a outright desaster of a car but it certainly looked the part.and it will be remembered for long long time(wasn´t it even displayed in Guggenheim museum ?).
I have NO mercy for engineers who come up with crude and unpleasant solutions ,honestly i cannot take them for serious.Engineering excellence and workmanship in overall appearance not only in beautiful details.

[Tozza Mazza]

aesthetics can be misleading ....how impossible the new regs cars looked in 2008 with that ultrawide frontwing and that narrow and high up rear.
Now it just looks normal and we can find good looking examples.

Sure looks have a place...My favorite F1 car was the leyton house CG891 which was a outright desaster of a car but it certainly looked the part.and it will be remembered for long long time(wasn´t it even displayed in Guggenheim museum ?).
I have NO mercy for engineers who come up with crude and unpleasant solutions ,honestly i cannot take them for serious.Engineering excellence and workmanship in overall appearance not only in beautiful details.

Sure, I agree, but when you give engineers an unnatural new regulation, forcing an ugly and unpleasant solution, then you have to ask, could they have done this better.


Answer = YES

[gridwalker]

Very clearly, yes they do – we've had several things banned purely in the name of aesthetics before – most sticking in my mind was Jordan's mini-wings above the side pods.

These "x-wings" were introduced by Tyrrell, but they weren't banned purely on aesthetic grounds : there were a number of occasions where they got caught up in the refuelling rig, causing them to be ripped off when the car left the pit box.

Naturally, having carbon fibre shrapnell flying around the pit lane was considered a major safety risk, so I think it was right to ban them at the time.

[bhall]

What's wrong? What's not to like about disproportional cars with broken noses and wheelbase lengths that fall somewhere between a Chevy Tahoe and a Suburban?

[Giblet]

I thought the only reason tall airboxes were outlawed was because of aesthetics.

[scuderiafan]

F1 cars are closer to airplanes than they are road cars. Everything (albeit the paint/livery design) is made to suit the aerodynamic performance of the car.

[jdlive]

I couldn't care less about how good they look, as long as they are getting faster (which they probably aren't either but ok) it's all good. I personally like the F2012's look so aesthetics is very subjective anyway.

[tomislavp4]

If the cars are allowed to be as fast as the tech allows them to be then no, there is no place for aesthetics. In that case everything will be made to contribute to minimizing lap-times, if a broken nose makes the car faster than so be it!

However, that is not the case. Rules are made to keep the cars in a certain safe performance envelope because otherwise they would be too fast. Now, in this case cars can be made both aesthetically pleasing and not too fast by a good set of rules. If the rules lead to cars like these, than surely, there is something wrong with them! That's how I see it

[Jeffsvilleusa]

I understand that the only reason F1 runs open wheels is because it looks distinctive as a "race car" because they bring no performance gains, only penalties. This is a case of long-standing imposed aesthetics/tradition.

Those who design their own cars know better than me, but it seems there is a tightly defined area within which the car must fit which becomes very apparent when their optimal shape is pressed up against it as is the case with the new noses. I would prefer an more open set of regulations for greater diversity, but in fairness any set of regulations will suffice as long as everyone has to abide by them.

Anyway aesthetics really can't be imposed or they aren't aesthetics anymore. In my opinion they should open up the design box but disallow all the winglets which can break off. Also those disproportionate front/rear wings have got to go. But I'll give credit to FIA for something they did right: slicks! Sadly that's not saying much- they never should have taken them away in the first place.

[bhall]

But I'll give credit to FIA for something they did right: slicks! Sadly that's not saying much- they never should have taken them away in the first place.

I don't know. Imagine all of the overtaking with DRS and grooved Pirellis. I say if you're going to go after artificial madness, don't mess around; really go after artificial madness.

[Bazza]

Best case scenario, only two teams are happy.

The team with the fastest car, and the team with the prettiest car. Every other car is slow and ugly, like a SsangYong.

Think of it this way:
Here's a Bentley, covered in bugs and grime from 24 hours of driving.



Now, you couldn't do that with one of the other 20 cars on the grid because:
A) it's nothing special if it didn't win, and
B) restaurants don't make money if people throw up everywhere because they can see the car.



Try convincing sponsors to get behind something that's ugly and slow will be difficult; the less people want to look at them, the less coverage they're going to get. Same reason nobody has races a silhouette Ssangyong.