the recent 'black' mclaren had a metallic paint in it. not noticeable on tv. even if they were to have 4k resolution, it wouldn't be noticeable, and it gets either lost in pictures or could actually make sponsors less visible due to reflections. so any amount of metallic in the paint must be minimal, and then all the effort needed to make it usable really is a waste. so that's rather why.f1316 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:17 amWhy is it that so few teams use metallic paint? We see a couple of the (imo) nicer ones posted here (the above Renault, the Alfa from the previous page) have a metallic sheen but - other than the chrome McLarens (you could argue the Mercedes but not sure if it is actually metallic, rather than just a silvery shade of grey) - precious few teams actually take this route.
Is metallic paint intrinsically heavier? Or is it other considerations perhaps, like sponsor logos not ‘popping’ quite so much?
I guess another example is that the benson and hedges Jordan from 96 was gold, in line with the sponsor’s branding, but soon became yellow which is really far less identifiably B&H. Must be that the metallic elements in paint add a small amount of weight, I guess, but interested if anyone has any particular insight.
as for the gold jordan, that just looked hideous. yellow looked so much better and brought much more exposure. had nothing to do with it being metallic or not, it was just a boring, hideous color on a f1 car.