strad wrote: ↑04 Mar 2018, 21:32
""
It's not our job to insure the car sounds nice or smells good or
looks pretty, we are shark like in our purpose, we exist only to make the car go faster. The stop watch is our master.""
Adrian Newey
true, but car ugliness is rather a side-effect from bad decision-making from those whom write the rules,
but the very people that write/change the rules do that / change the rules because of a cause - and in many cases those causes are because designers/engineers push the limits further and futher ( which is their job offcourse ) which then get ( unintended ) side effects.
So it turns into a vicious circle where things keep feeding eachother.
It's not the responsibility of guys like Newey to make cars that look pretty, but at the same time, guys like newey are also the reason why the cars look ugly.
for example - a jump to the side here - the (super) high noses were a result of advancing aero benefits and designs in F1, stuff people like newey persue and are 'responsible' for. that then resulted in the possible danger of drivers getting headbutted by a f1 car
if the car would skid on top of the nose long enough in 'freak circumstances', whereas a steep nose (instead of a horizontal top) would avoid such a thing. the incident between Schumacher-Liuzzi was a discussion point there, both resulting in the then 'knee jerk' reaction in lowering the tips of the nose (which then saw the most hideous f1 cars ever with botched up platypus and (double) phallus nosecones ), aswell as the first steps towards the halo (which we see now).
So in a sense, exactly these guys are the reason why we have these ugly f1 cars.
Now let it be clear that i'm not attacking Newey, Pomodrou, or any designer at all. But we neither shouldn't be blind in why the cars are how they are today.
I also find it rather hypocritical that the fans /f1 world started commenting a few years ago that aerodynamics had too much influence on F1 (when RedBull was dominating for example). That got changed and then engines played a role again like in the older days when the V6 got introduced, and what happened?
Aero guys started complaining that engines now play too big of an influence in F1. It lasted really short before the complains came again.
Like i said, it's a vicious circle that keeps going on and on. And if for some reason Aero and Engines are 'balanced' then Pirelli/the tire manufacturer gets 'blamed' that they have too much influence in the sport.
It's a chaos of ego's, personalities, businesses and quite frankly, everybody who has something to win/lose, and every decision is made around that - but you can't please everybody. So there will always be 'losers' when it comes to it. Sometimes aero guys, sometimes engine guys, sometimes drivers, sometimes teams, sometimes sponsors, sometimes fans.
F1 is 'a machine' that will remain in motion, and so will the rules. it won't remain static, it can't. and so, there will be changes. for better, and for worse.
the halo is, and always was, inevitable. it just took untill now for it to happen. aeroscreen/indyscreen will be inevitable just as much, even if it's going to be rather an evolution of both the halo and the screen. and then the canopy will become inevitable, which, also will be an evolution. even though i'm opposed to it to the fullest but open wheels inevitably are going to 'pass' too. Formula E's cars most certainly will be more or less where the design eventually will head out to. combustion engines, at one point, also will become obsolete or 'outgrown', as much as i hate that. it is, inevitable. the only thing that might come into the mix at some point are hydrogen fuel cells, but fact still is, those are not 'combustion' engines so either way - that will become extinct sooner or later. whether we like it, or not.
so as i said - we can't have it all. does the halo make f1 cars look uglier? sure thing yes. does it improve life chances for a driver by a degree? hell yes, by a huge degree actually. so it's a very defendable choice, whether it's knee-jerk or not. we just have to come to terms with that.
now what i
do find 'problematic' is the 'implementation' of such devices, and agree that it thus resembles a knee-jerk reaction; its another 'object' put into the sport. there is no real 'coherence' or fluency in all of it.
i still would really like to see a fully independent investigation from both engineers, designers, and fans in how a f1 car could look like, if you'd maintain the demand for driver protection and how a 'safety cell' could / should look like including a halo, neck protection, side protection, head protection, extraction, and then see what would happen with the design built around of that with a free vision.
a vision where you are free to use open-wheeled solution (preferably offcourse), covered wheels, ground effects, v6,v10, v8, i4, i5, turbo engines, wings or wingless, and so on.