Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
This is a thread to discuss the idea of subjective aesthetic rejection of technologies; even the idea of aesthetics as it applies to racing. It's something that interests me at least.
Last years rejection of the BMW “ears” was a diminishment of the sport to me. They were no more “dangerous” than the Viking horns they are now sporting. Last year, I saw on this site a 3D graphic showing the site lines from the cockpit: they were proved not a visual impediment. Yet there were so many calls for barring their implementation on “aesthetic” grounds... And then, to my amazement, it happened. It was groundless and stupefying.
Now someone wants to reject new McClaren wing because they, subjectively, believe it to be “ugly”, but to me if it works it's beautiful. The better it works the more "beautiful" it should be considered. Rejecting technological advances (assuming this is one) on "aesthetic" grounds is a reduced definition of aesthetics. Seeing something like this is why I log in in the morning. It’s why I follow F1 and not another series. It's a "passing maneuver" from the engineering team. And it's as fulfilling as a great passing maneuver on the track.
The real race in F1 is to create useful speed...period. The on-track races are just the proving grounds for the complete competitive package... That elusive combination of car + driver + spirit + dollars that creates a winner. IMO, if it proves (within the rules) to enhance a package, it should be judged beautiful. I want new technologies to make it to the races and see them objectively proved "beautiful" or not.
Remember much of F1 is about apperance. If they have ugly cars there will be less glamour associated with the sport and big investors will stay away so anything that's not good looking isn't allowed. Which makes me wonder why Mclaren's paintjob and Ralf's pouting face havn't been kicked out.
I don't agree with it myself but I think that might be alot of thinking behind it.
F1 is driven by money rather than top class drivers.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
The problem with your thread topic is this, you want it to be judged beautiful, you want to be accepted, you want everyone to like it. It's all about you, and thats not how it works. You cant make everyone agree with what you believe or how they judge things. I dont like how the new Mclaren wing looks, even though it might serve its purpose, I dont like it. Understand ? Everyone has a different interpretation of beautiful.
And it's not just about "purpose", F1 cars have to be pleasing to the viewers eye, thats just how it works. It's all about the viewers.
This thread is just a "pout", similar to R.Schumacher's.
mx_tifosi I disagree, an Alfa Romeo looks nice, its probably very comfotable inside and I'm sure it feels great to drive, but it can never be beautiful because the buggers are always breaking down. For something to be truly beautiful its function must outway its aesthetic qualities and it must be designed for its function. I think that if this wing on the Mclaren gains them time over their rivals then it must be beautiful, I'd say that without seeing it. If its within the rules and it does its job its fine in my book.
There are two championships in F1, F1 Drivers World Championship, for the worlds best F1 driver, and F1 Constructors World Championship, for the worlds best constructor of F1 cars. There is no championship for the car that the fans think looks best.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
you mean “subjective aesthetic rejection of new aerodynamic shapes”, don’t you? We have to go further back in the history of F1 than the pylons or the x-wing, until we find turbine powered cars, six wheelers and such. I raised the issue just because there are historical precedents of regulatory revisions that are not based on pure fuctionality, not because I have information that such measures are forthcoming or out of personal preference. Let’s just say the new wing shape met some qualitative criteria for such a parallel to be drawn – and I can elaborate my train of thought somewhat.
It is increasingly important that F1 is relevant in a larger context: Energy sector, financial, automotive, advertising, sustainability, etc. The audience is ever more educated and informed, and the sport has to evolve accordingly. Aerodynamics is peculiar in the way that with the advent of CFD it is debatable whether F1 has more to contribute in CFD technologies generally or just automotive aerodynamics. Much depends on which way the balance will tilt. Still, it represents just a fraction of the equation and at least in the short to medium term, the emphasis seems to be firmly on F1’s relevance to car manufacturers’ requirements. And to me that’s just as OK at this point as any other approach.
As F1’s aerodynamics border on the edge of irrelevant to anything sitting in our private garages, I do agree that perhaps a more honest approach would be to emphasize the contribution of the sport to CFD programs, physics and theory. But aerodynamicists in themselves have much less combined purchasing power than car buyers. And I do think the aero ppl recognize that whatever the general shapes are, as long as there’s complexity, optimisation is always going to be challenge. Aerodynamics are still an art, too, as far as I can tell all calculations are approximations and we’ll have to wait for quite a while until there’s enough computing power and a.i. around for any programs to really start dictating aero shapes to the minutest details.
The teams make the most of the regulations in a sphere that is artificial to begin with so I’m not overly concerned, at least if the FIA would clearly confine itself on imposing bans on new technologies during the off-season only. Thus I hope that if the new McLaren wing proves “legal” within the interpretations that preceded it to this point, the team is allowed to reap the benefits of its new design at least for the rest of the season.
Apart from the rules being an instrument in steering developments in F1 so that it stays generally viable i..e. relevant to all elements that contribute to it (requiring everyone to make compromises), rules are also imposed for safety reasons. In other words, for human viability. Teams won’t try out new shapes unless they have reason to believe that they gain performance i.e. speed. For a long time now, in the absence of rules, we’ve had the ability to make vehicles that surpass all the limits of human control, performance and endurance. Keeping the reigns tight ensures that all areas of F1, driving included, continue to have a deciding human element. Having to give up V10’s is a good example, albeit I would’ve rather seen performance limited with rules about fuel economy/efficiency than by dictating a new engine configuration.
These things are conscious decisions. Yes, the rules preclude the most effective shapes and technologies when it comes to sheer performance. Yes, the system is imperfect, because it’s human. But I wouldn’t call it subjective in any other sense than what is subjective to us all, together. It doesn’t matter if all the advances aren’t indefinitely applied in F1, at least if they continue to have a role somewhere. It’s pretty neat whenever F1 manages by its very competitive nature to inspire innovations. I’m only worried about rules that state there must be no innovation to begin with.
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra
Tom wrote:mx_tifosi I disagree, an Alfa Romeo looks nice, its probably very comfotable inside and I'm sure it feels great to drive, but it can never be beautiful because the buggers are always breaking down. For something to be truly beautiful its function must outway its aesthetic qualities and it must be designed for its function. I think that if this wing on the Mclaren gains them time over their rivals then it must be beautiful, I'd say that without seeing it. If its within the rules and it does its job its fine in my book.
There are two championships in F1, F1 Drivers World Championship, for the worlds best F1 driver, and F1 Constructors World Championship, for the worlds best constructor of F1 cars. There is no championship for the car that the fans think looks best.
If you agree or not with my opinion is up to you, but I truly believe that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No one can "force" me to believe something is beautiful, NO ONE.
Regarding the Alfa Romeo comment, reliability has nothing to do with beauty, they are continents apart from each other.
I'm not sure if you misunderstood my previous comment, I was not trying to make the impression that the new Mclaren wing is useless, or doesnt perform it's meant task, I was trying to let people know that not everyone is going to agree on beauty, or anything for that matter, all the time. And if someone disagrees with you dont go and pout about it. Take it like a man.
mx/tom, It's a human instinct for us to judge aesthetically just as you check out a woman at the pub. You look first, then inspect her engineering features!
mrmr, you make a strong point and have presented it well, but if there were no fans then these innovations would be allowed. I used to visit a lot of F1 forums but got pretty sick of this 'subjective aesthetic rejection' that people spew out like diarrohea on a daily basis because they have nothing constructive to say. It would be nicer if the people in the other thread did less guessing and more engineering but as they whinge the FIA react.
I noticed in the other thread you said you only follow F1. In my opinion you are making a big mistake While I agree F1 does remain the pinnacle, other racing series offer excellent opportunities to learn and are very accessible. As you study them you will learn at a more elementary level that is not subject to such speculation and guessing over function.
As you can see in the "other" thread, I didnt comment or judge whatsoever. What I didnt find necessary was a need for a new thread. I find it irrelevant. Unecessary.
I dont believe people rejected the wing, they simply commented on it not being aesthetically pleasing to the eye, much like this years Renault livery. The aesthetic part of the wing was not the only thing under scrutiny, for the most part people were commenting on the "engineering" side of it as well. But since we are humans (all of us here at F1t I presume), we will look at the physical elements first, then the rest of the structure, which is equally important.
And since when has any body been that bothered by what the other forum members think/believe? For as long as I have been a member here I have not seen anybody take it that personal. It's only a motorsport we're talking about here, it's not that personal of a matter.
mrmr wrote:Now someone wants to reject new McClaren wing because they, subjectively, believe it to be “ugly”, but to me if it works it's beautiful. The better it works the more "beautiful" it should be considered. Rejecting technological advances (assuming this is one) on "aesthetic" grounds is a reduced definition of aesthetics. Seeing something like this is why I log in in the morning. It’s why I follow F1 and not another series. It's a "passing maneuver" from the engineering team. And it's as fulfilling as a great passing maneuver on the track.
That's because they don't.
"A neat car isn't necessarily fast, but a fast car is generally neat."
Most times if something isn't aesthetically pleasing, it's usually a quick-fix solution to a lack of downforce ,for example, and usually takes time for the team to fully intergrate it into the design. Think Ferrari's box-wing
Maybe I should clarify... There were posts last year praying for the BMW “ears” to be banned because they were ugly. Nothing of the kind so far in response to the McLarens innovation. I am not saying that one cannot have a subjective viewpoint or that a particular viewpoint is ‘wrong’. What I am saying is there is a larger definition of beauty beyond visual. When I see these inspired ideas come to fruition I am awed at what these folks can create and I enjoy that feeling. It is literally sensational and pleasurable sensation is one fairly good definition of beautiful.
The sound of a F1 engine is nearly painful aurally, but thinking of pistons turning over 19,000 times per minute is beautiful in the awesome sense. It’s beyond in the ‘eye of the beholder’ into the ‘mind of the beholder’ in the sense that it is a conceptual rather than visual experience of beauty. Comparing a paint job to an aerodynamic solution is comparing decorating to engineering. I think there are different standards of “beauty” that apply to each. E=mc2 is not necessarily a beautiful bit of typesetting to look at, but the idea those four characters define is beautiful in the philosophical sense—aesthetically beautiful.
Also, in the same way you don’t want your ‘eye of the beholder’ dictated to, BMW and McLaren should be able to race a rule abiding ‘ugly’ car. Commercially, I think Vodafone would be happy to be on a winning ‘ugly’ car. If not, they could “vote” their dollars elsewhere.
As long as any part of the car (seen or unseen) helps “the package” move more efficiently and comes from human creative inspiration... It has my vote. What I would love to see is the McLaren’s CFD airflow plot: that I would hope is a laminar, visual beauty. (Although Jackson Pollack might like to see something more chaotic on his wall).
When you start to discuss subjective opinions like aesthatics, it really is a personal matter, and two different people can easily see the same object yet form differing opinions on it's appearance. Personally, since I originally come from an aviation enthusiast's background, a "clean" design not only was pleasant on the eye, it indicated a fundamentally correct piece of engineering. Just examine the wings of highly successful and efficient aircraft wings, and most are devoid of fences, strakes, vortex generators, and the like. The F-15 wing appears a model of simplicity, yet is an incredibly efficient and capable device. The Supermarine Spitfire wing is nothing but an ellipse, yet this aircaft is regarded by many as incredibly beautiful.
Personally, whenever I see winglets, or fences, or any additional aero bits tacked on, they tell me that they are there because of a quick fix, or a requirement for some regulation. I don't care for them, and I really don't like that camera mount "T" on top of the airbox.
But after a while, you learn to ignore what has become common, and I really don't notice that "T" as much.
What also plays a major factor on the eye is the paint job. Teams spend a lot of time and money, go through a lot of focus groups to deliver a paint scheme that helps the appearance and draw the eyes to where they want you to look.
That's why the black with gold trim JPS Lotus still looks stunning, even after all these years.
If they ban the McLaren wing they will have to ban everyone elses which isn't going to happen. The FIA can shove it to be honest, I dont care if it's ugly, I dont care what it does to the sport... They can go banning fundamental things like this in the heat of a championship, McLaren and Ferrari are level on performance and will hopefully stay that way through most of the season, unless the FIA step in a ban part of their car (example: Renault's mass damper).
I think the wing looks fine also if you look they have changed the front suspention as well as for the BMW ears they should never have been allowed on the car in the first place
but as they whinge the FIA react.
While I agree F1 does remain the pinnacle, other racing series offer excellent opportunities to learn and are very accessible. As you study them you will learn at a more elementary level that is not subject to such speculation and guessing over function.
