Why does Bernie care about the noise but not the look?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yes, they will.

Two completely different engine configurations.

These are street cars, both are single turbo, the first is a V6, the next is a I6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3t-TGd8taw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puBogiwKMgA

These sounded like my lawn mower...

[maximus]

I wish my car sounded like your lawnmower!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by nickyf1

F1 cars are not about looks.

The Ferrari 312 above was not built to look good, it was built to win Grands Prix and it was built to beat the other guys within the rules.

It has it's central tub, the engine strapped to the back, wheels front and back. F1 has always been the same. The tub, the engine, the wheels, the wings.

These good looking cars were all built not for looks. The 2012 noses are no big deal. Why is it that when the cars look different from the norm, everyone shouts 'UGLY'?

I'm sure wings were considered ugly in '68, as were side pods, as were the air intakes located above the drivers head when they started sprouting..

What he said. I really cannot emphasise how much I don't care what they look or sound like. These are racing cars. That means they are designed to race. Not look good on a poster. That's what paint and stickers are for.

[Marbot]

It's probable that if the regulations current today were in force 20 years ago, the chances are that you would not be looking at cars that look anything like the ones that we see today.

Even with the current regulations, we can still see that a team like McLaren can create a 'good looking' car from them.

Aerodynamic designing of an F1 car has got to a point where every single nook and cranny on the cars can be aero opitimised to a very great degree, and some of their solutions are contrary to what we may think to be 'good design'.

[höller]

What Ecclestone intended to do with that discussion I don´t know. Maybe it had a political background we don´t know as usual.

There is a subtile distinction between sound and noise imo. Seen from an objective point of view the current cars are looking ugly like never before and so is the sound. It´s no wonder as up from a certain amount of rpm almost every engine will sound like an oversized dental drill. Sheer high frequenzy engine roar plus the horryfying rattling noise of the blown diffusor of last year. It can only become better.
There will be less dB (A) because of the turbine but that doesn´t mean the engines will sound bad. For example, listen to Sennas Lotus-Renault of ´86 I found on youtube. The engine is working at low rpm, but I find the sound gorgeous, the typical "tight" muffled engine sound of a turbo racecar, which reminds me of a caged animal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ5T2...eature=related

By the way this engine was the first equipped with pneumatic valves and was able to rev up to 13.500 at least in qualifying.

An excellent sound sample of the V6 turbos of ´86 in action you will find here. (Listen to Johanssons Ferrari between 4:56 and 5:37-thats how the 2014 engines could sound imo).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zIXpI0lpuM

[browney]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Even with the current regulations, we can still see that a team like McLaren can create a 'good looking' car from them.

This shows the FIA could have defined heights in a way that produced the safety result they wanted while still being aesthetically pleasing (ie. not just a box where the 'nose' used to be).

[Adam43]

Well there has been a correlation between the cars getting uglier and the sport becoming more popular. Also the louder and harsher the sound the more popular. Bernie is reflecting what the fans what they want.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Aerodynamic designing of an F1 car has got to a point where every single nook and cranny on the cars can be aero opitimised to a very great degree, and some of their solutions are contrary to what we may think to be 'good design'.

That is because there is way to much time spent in wind tunnels..

I greatly admire Adrian and I hate him at the same bloody time...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Well there has been a correlation between the cars getting uglier and the sport becoming more popular. Also the louder and harsher the sound the more popular. Bernie is reflecting what the fans what they want.

I am not sure about this Adam...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by nickyf1

F1 cars are not about looks.

The Ferrari 312 above was not built to look good, it was built to win Grands Prix and it was built to beat the other guys within the rules.

It has it's central tub, the engine strapped to the back, wheels front and back. F1 has always been the same. The tub, the engine, the wheels, the wings.

These good looking cars were all built not for looks. The 2012 noses are no big deal. Why is it that when the cars look different from the norm, everyone shouts 'UGLY'?

I'm sure wings were considered ugly in '68, as were side pods, as were the air intakes located above the drivers head when they started sprouting..

As someone who was there at the time.... No they weren't considered ugly, the were considered beautiful, different but aggressively beautiful.
Ugly is something that is disproportionate, appears to lack continuity, a flow of unity of purpose. All or some of those apply to most of the 2012 crop. Hence they are ugly, not beautiful.

[fourWheelDrift]

At the risk of answering the original question or referring to the original subject (not usual on page 4 of a ten tenths thread I know)

Bernie is well aware that if this years cars get a bad reaction from the public he can pull a few strings and find a way to get the 2013 cars to look atleast a little different. He is also well aware that going to the new engine configuration is a change that F1 will have to live with for years, quite possibly a decade or more.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by browney

This shows the FIA could have defined heights in a way that produced the safety result they wanted while still being aesthetically pleasing (ie. not just a box where the 'nose' used to be).

The FIA could have said that there should be a minimum and maximum height of upper bodywork all the way from the cockpit area to the tip of the nose.

But the FIA don't particularly care what the cars look like as long as they're safe.

If the FIA start making regulations to ensure that the cars aren't ugly, that's when cars start to look very similar indeed.

It should also be noted that the teams knew about these regulations for quite some time, and knew what the consequences of them would be, and yet they kept remarkably quiet about it.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

...yet they kept remarkably quiet about it.

To the media and the public maybe, but I've heard that at least three team principals informed the FIA that the cars would have this ugly step.

[luke g28]

More regulation is not the answer. Less regulation will allow the designers to build pretty cars again. f1 is more regulated than ever before, now we have ugly cars that all look the same and cant follow each other. Well played.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

More regulation is not the answer. Less regulation will allow the designers to build pretty cars again. f1 is more regulated than ever before, now we have ugly cars that all look the same and cant follow each other. Well played.

The current regulations also allow a 'pretty' car to be designed.

Less regulations will allow the designers to build whatever it is that less regulations allow. Pretty cars may or may not be the result of that. In fact it's more probable that tighter regulations will ensure that 'pretty' cars are built. You just need to make sure that the regulations specify more than the FIA managed to do for this years cars. One more sentence in the regulations would have ensured that step noses could not be built.

Currently:

3.7.9 No bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above the reference plane.

Possible addition to above:

3.7.9a Should not be ugly.



Seriously though, it wouldn't have taken much more than that.

Maybe: No bodywork more than 1950mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template may have an upper surface that is more than [insert reasonable figure in degrees] from the horizontal, whilst still remaining no higher than 550mm above the reference plane.

P.S. Like the McLaren.

I don't know! You figure it out!

[barnettracing]

"Bodywork forward of the cockpit entry, when viewed from the side profile, must have a continuous curve in only one direction."

Fairly simple a probably needs a bit more work but basically would have the correct effect.

[wolfhound]

To the best of my knowledge when the low nose regs were being framed the FIA wanted the nose and chassis max heights to be the same.
There were objectections from some teams as they would need to build completely new chassis two years in a row so the new nose height only came in.
As far as I know there are new chassis regs coming next year orginally to co-inside with the new engine regs but now have got seperated but may have been postponed until 2014.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I am not sure about this Adam...

I suspect I might be making a sweeping generalisation that fails on close examination. What I meant to say was that F1 cars haven't been attractive for years, with the odd exception. It hasn't stopped the sport growing.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I suspect I might be making a sweeping generalisation that fails on close examination. What I meant to say was that F1 cars haven't been attractive for years, with the odd exception. It hasn't stopped the sport growing.

I understand what you are saying and agree.. You can't undo progress I suppose, sometimes that's a good thing and then at times it's not..

I can look at the modern cars and they amaze me even so...

The sport is huge and growing, Bernie has done a great job in that regard..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

As far as I know there are new chassis regs coming next year orginally to co-inside with the new engine regs but now have got seperated but may have been postponed until 2014.

I think that we may find that things in this area get a little more interesting as the season goes on.

[Sodemo]

Bernie must have had his eyes closed since 1998... The narrow cars are the worst thing that has happened to "the look".

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Bernie must have had his eyes closed since 1998... The narrow cars are the worst thing that has happened to "the look".

Yeah. But just think how many more failed overtaking moves there would be with a wider track.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yeah. But just think how many more failed overtaking moves there would be with a wider track.

I always think the 'width prevents overtaking' argument is pretty ridiculous. It's been around since the 1970s but it never really hindered the overtaking then, and it didn't hinder the overtaking in the 90s either. Whenever you run a 200 mile (I know they're only 190 now) race on a road course, you are never going to maintain overtaking across the whole race distance - even with the DRS system. I suppose it depends if you want a race or a show. Bernie, as we all know, wants the latter.

Anyway, back on thread...

[GORDON STREETER]

As regards the sound of exotic engines it was a shame that the rules outlawed those amazing 6 cyl Honda GP bike engines of the 60s, look them up on YouTube.

[JeremySmith]

In answer to the title of this thread, does Bernie have any control over how the cars look? I am not sure he does...

Making comments about the look would open up a major can of worms if he were to comment..

I don't think it can be taken for granted that he does not care about certain issues.