Ross Brawn says F1 cars from 2021 need to look sensational, like 'video games'

[Vanja #66]

I have been criticized from being in favour of Ground effect cars, but groundeffect makes sense.
https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news ... be-996501/

It does, but it's not the only thing that can make for better racing. With only slight tweaks to current regulations, you could reduce the downforce just a bit, but make the car a lot more "raceable", or "followable" if you like... And when you look at the overall concept and have clear goals in your head, you can make cars even faster than today's and still a lot more "raceable"

[Jolle]

Like this?



or...

[strad]

I think that as a general rule I love a beautiful car and that as often has been said a fast looking car is usually a fast car. HOWEVER it ain't always so.
Given a choice of winning in an ugly car or losing in a sleek beautiful car which would you choose?
I know which I would pick.

[NathanOlder]

I think that as a general rule I love a beautiful car and that as often has been said a fast looking car is usually a fast car. HOWEVER it ain't always so.
Given a choice of winning in an ugly car or losing in a sleek beautiful car which would you choose?
I know which I would pick.

AJI wasn't asking which would you like to drive in, i think what he was getting at (in an extreme way) was , you seem to be saying you prefer a 2014 dodgy looking caterham over a 1991 7up Jordan because the caterham is faster. You would take performance over the aesthetics , but the looks are very much important.

[marmer]

I think that as a general rule I love a beautiful car and that as often has been said a fast looking car is usually a fast car. HOWEVER it ain't always so.
Given a choice of winning in an ugly car or losing in a sleek beautiful car which would you choose?
I know which I would pick.

AJI wasn't asking which would you like to drive in, i think what he was getting at (in an extreme way) was , you seem to be saying you prefer a 2014 dodgy looking caterham over a 1991 7up Jordan because the caterham is faster. You would take performance over the aesthetics , but the looks are very much important.

That Jordan might have given that caterham a run for its money lol

[AJI]

I think that as a general rule I love a beautiful car and that as often has been said a fast looking car is usually a fast car. HOWEVER it ain't always so.
Given a choice of winning in an ugly car or losing in a sleek beautiful car which would you choose?
I know which I would pick.

AJI wasn't asking which would you like to drive in, i think what he was getting at (in an extreme way) was , you seem to be saying you prefer a 2014 dodgy looking caterham over a 1991 7up Jordan because the caterham is faster. You would take performance over the aesthetics , but the looks are very much important.

That Jordan might have given that caterham a run for its money lol

Sure, I picked an extreme example, but that was kind of the point.
I was actually picturing the 2014 Williams when I posed the question, and they beat Ferrari that year...

This same argument can be applied to the PU from an aural aesthetics POV. Some don't like the sound compared to the V8, but if one is going to beat the other on the race track who cares about the sound? I'll tell you who, Ross Brawn...

[Just_a_fan]

You would take performance over the aesthetics , but the looks are very much important.

In a racing car, performance is always more important than looks. Always.

When watching motorsport, the quality of the racing is always more important than the looks of the cars. Always.

I would always watch 20 dildo-nosed Caterhams having an excellent on track race than 20 Ferrari 250GTOs in a 90 minute procession.

I would rather have a picture of the Ferrari on the wall, however.

[marmer]

You would take performance over the aesthetics , but the looks are very much important.

In a racing car, performance is always more important than looks. Always.

When watching motorsport, the quality of the racing is always more important than the looks of the cars. Always.

I would always watch 20 dildo-nosed Caterhams having an excellent on track race than 20 Ferrari 250GTOs in a 90 minute procession.

I would rather have a picture of the Ferrari on the wall, however.

If the cars don't matter what they look like then why has wrc basically died from years of crappy uninspiring cars even with the great technology inside them. And has had to make the cars look better and more exciting to save the sport.

[NathanOlder]

@ Just a Fan. The point is, Formula 1 needs to be visually great, and we're not talking about on track action, its just about outright speed, and aesthetics. I know performance comes first every time, but we are talking about the rules, if you set the rules in a way that the cars will look good, then we would get good looking cars, 100% built for performance. win win.


Just a general question for everyone,

Would you rather watch an F1 series with

1) You're ideal looking cars for modern F1 that can lap Monza in 1.20.000

or

2) Cars that you would consider ugly (my example would be 2014 Caterham/Force India) that could lap Monza in 1.19.000


Lets say you get the same amount of overtaking in both formula's so that doesn't come in to the equation.

I would take the slower more attractive cars every time. Maybe I'm in the minority with that then ? Option 1 for me.

[AJI]

. Maybe I'm in the minority with that then ? Option 1 for me.

You know you're not in the minority when the message from the promoter aligns exactly with your thoughts on the matter...

Just to be clear, i agree with @Just a Fan 's philosophy on performance over aesthetics, but when the aesthetics are affected due to a regulation change that makes the designers that think outside of the box make the cars look stupid, then the image of the sport is being damaged for a reason that has not been properly considered.
I think that is Brawn's ultimate point.

[djos]

@ Just a Fan. The point is, Formula 1 needs to be visually great, and we're not talking about on track action, its just about outright speed, and aesthetics. I know performance comes first every time, but we are talking about the rules, if you set the rules in a way that the cars will look good, then we would get good looking cars, 100% built for performance. win win.


Just a general question for everyone,

Would you rather watch an F1 series with

1) You're ideal looking cars for modern F1 that can lap Monza in 1.20.000

or

2) Cars that you would consider ugly (my example would be 2014 Caterham/Force India) that could lap Monza in 1.19.000


Lets say you get the same amount of overtaking in both formula's so that doesn't come in to the equation.

I would take the slower more attractive cars every time. Maybe I'm in the minority with that then ? Option 1 for me.

Option 1 thanks.

[nokivasara]

I would take option 1 over opt 2 if option one was to manage only 1.20.000 while racing hard for the majority of the race distance.
If option 2 would be able to do 1.19.000 while preserving fuel and driving to a delta lap time most of the race then I'd say No thanks!

Whatever they look like is fine as long as they don't cruise around saving fuel, pretending to be a environmentally friendly form of motorsport.
I just want to see balls out racing!

I would also like to see room for different designs and drive trains in the regs.

[KeiKo403]

Option 1 for me also.

I have faith in Ross Brawn. I read in an interview he did that their design team are running simulations and doing CFD work and his eyes have been opened by what is possible. Remember that teams are limited by regulations on how much computing power they're allowed to use, from a mainstream personal POV there's still a lot of power available to them but in todays world they're restricted massively. Brawn said that he and his team don't need to abide by the regulations and he's seeing some wonderful things.

I think every F1 team is designing their cars' to be as fast as possible. They don't have the luxury of additional computing power of CFD/wind tunnel time to design a good race car.

Hopefully the next set of regs can have at least a little thought put into them.

[digitalrurouni]

I love those video game cars. I love the 2008 era cars because they look like video game cars most out of all the F1 cars seen so far. I say bring those cars on. What's done in the past is in the past. New and crazy is better. Those 1989 cars are great but boy do they look lame now with the helmet sticking so far out of the bodywork.

[AJI]

I love those video game cars. I love the 2008 era cars because they look like video game cars most out of all the F1 cars seen so far. I say bring those cars on. What's done in the past is in the past. New and crazy is better. Those 1989 cars are great but boy do they look lame now with the helmet sticking so far out of the bodywork.

As the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

As I stated previously, 1989 was the 'goldilocks' period for F1 IMO. The cars looked good, but they also looked fast without resorting to stupid visual tricks like sloped RW end plates and idiotic delta shaped FW's that serve no aerodynamic purpose. The fact that you can really see the driver also appeals to me, so I have to disagree on that. But the main thing I love about those cars is that they don't look like big fat pigs, because they weren't.