|
I'm not sure I agree that these concepts are useless in an open formula. We already have regulations which were designed to get rid of dildo noses, stepped noses, and ugly wing attachments. Even for 2018, the wider cars, wider tyres are to try and give a more aggressive look to the vehicles, after we went through a phase of stupid toy looking cars. We already use regulations to try and define a certain aesthetic to the cars, it's just a bit harder to achieve in an open regulation series.
A vehicle will never ever come out looking like an artists impression (the spec IndyCar does not look identical to the original concept), but you can influence them with regulations. Some will argue that that's a bad thing and we shouldn't do that, but it's been happening for decades now anyway.
People already complain that the cars are too similar because the boxes they have to build the cars in are too defined. Well engineers can't unlearn things, so you can't get rid of those boxes. All I'm suggesting here is move the boxes about to a more visually pleasing position (which is what they did for 2018 - it just can go further). That's no different to what we have now, just the parameters moved.
Of course this topic is originally about head protection, which IS a spec part, so can be made to look good. But F1 isn't interested in bringing in a design consultant or even an engineering team to find a good solution - it's interested in being different so it doesn't have to copy anyone else. It's about making a certain solution work, rather than finding the best solution. Basic engineering processes wouldn't allow you to throw away concepts after 2 minutes of field testing, which is what they have done.
|