Catherham CT01 pics leaked

[Wims]

She's not a looker, thats for sure

[andy666]

Originally Posted by Marbot

One day, F1 cars could look like this:



But the only way to get an F1 car to look like that would be to build the car as depicted in the picture, and not use a set of regulations.

In the meantime, it's function over form that wins the day.

Ferrari doesn't look that bad.

That top pic, the first thing that struck me was the low profile tyres, would that ever be possible ? looks great !!!!! Just seen the story on BBC sport F1 page , according to Gary Anderson the noses on all the cars could look similar to the Caterham , FUGLY !!!! I know the cars are not entering beauty contests but they dont need to look like a Platypus !! Bring back the nose off the 09 Brawn !!!

[Wims]

Those tyres wouldnt be possible, at least not without massive changes to the concept. Todays f1 cars doesnt have properly damped suspension. They have baloon tyres.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Certainly the long wheelbase doesn't help. For me, the best looking cars were the ones from 1990-1993. Short wheelbases, wide track, wide tyres, elegant looks. Awesome.

There are too many. 1962 Lotus 25, 1965 BRM P261, 1973 Tyrrell 006, 1974 Brabham BT44, 1988 McLaren MP4/4, 1991 Jordan 191 or 1992 Williams FW14B. In any particular order and I couldn't cut them down to any fewer; I was born too late (1990).

But, I suppose that is for another thread. C.Scarborough has certainly mentioned that Mercedes-style wide, flat noses are going to be in vogue. The Ferrari doesn't look too bad but it is a drawing and from an angle that doesn't give a fair representation.

The Caterham nose rivals the Williams 'Walrus', March 711 and Eifelland for ugliest F1 front end ever, in my opinion.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Wims

Those tyres wouldnt be possible, at least not without massive changes to the concept. Todays f1 cars doesnt have properly damped suspension. They have baloon tyres.

It's one of the little ironies of modern life.

• F1 cars which have no requirement for quietness and a good ride, but do require sharp precise handling, have big squidgy high-profile tyres.
• Road cars that do need to be refined and comfortable but have no need for super-sharp handling end up with massive rims wrapped with elastic bands.

I don't think it would be a massive change to the concept. Just the same equations with different numbers. Much cheaper than double diffusers, F-ducts, reactive ride height and all the other useless paraphernalia that F1 indulges itself in.

[Mekola]

Weird looking car, but will it be the weirdest of all this year???

[JeremySmith]

I think the Pirelli tyres are better looking..

[Try Hard]

Sorry to say, but it seems like we're all gonna have to get used to the nose concept... as others have mentioned, it's to do with the rules this year.
The noses have been lowered (not allowed above a certain height), but the front bulkheads and cockpit area rules have been kept the same... so if you want to get as much air underneath the nose as possible, make it as high as you can, then raise the cockpit up in the V-shape (hence the "horns") as per the previous years... given that's pretty much the way all the teams have gone the past few years, it's gonna be a year of Uggo's!
Just another case of the F1 teams looking after themselves, and not thinking about consequences (as they apparently blocked the move to lower the front bulkhead height).

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

It looks like an Indycar... that's not a compliment.

Both are very different types of ugly. The Caterham looks skeletal at the back, the rest of it looks like building scaffolding on wheels and there is even a stairway into the cockpit. Indycar is plump at the back; the rest of it looks like a vulture. At least a vulture has a kind of ugly-evil about it but you'll only like the Caterham if you get your kicks oggling building sites and construction projects.

Looks like the raised nose scaffolding will be with us indefinitely? What clown on here promised me that the raised nose would be the thing of the past? Whoever it was -- ban!

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

For me, the best looking cars were the ones from 1990-1993. Short wheelbases, wide track, wide tyres, elegant looks. Awesome.

Yes. I'd stretch that back into the 80's. I think F1 is being very complacent with these hideous cars. It wouldn't do any harm to think more about the aesthetics in relation to the design regulations. It would certainly boost marketing and I'd wager it'd boost the sports popularity as well.

[MJones94]

I have a red mark on my face after all those face-palms.I hope that all the other cars have some progressive sloping noses rather than a jaunty one.

[Marbot]

One of the many drawbacks of F1 is that, due to the regulations, the cars will always look like they were designed by a committee rather than by an artist. Indy car, for example, is free to design whatever car it wants without having to worry too much about its overall performance. So it's little wonder that they look much better. I have no doubt that a spec chassis F1 series would have an awesome looking car, but F1 isn't a spec chassis series.

[myfrontpage]

Nose aside (and if many other teams adopt that approach like has been rumoured then we can't really complain about how ugly it is if it's a decision they are effectively forced or locked into) it's not a bad looking F1 car.

I quite like the rear end of it with that yellow band, that's a nice bit of painting there imo. Not keen on the numbers though.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Marbot

One of the many drawbacks of F1 is that, due to the regulations, the cars will always look like they were designed by a committee rather than by an artist. Indy car, for example, is free to design whatever car it wants without having to worry too much about its overall performance. So it's little wonder that they look much better. I have no doubt that a spec chassis F1 series would have an awesome looking car, but F1 isn't a spec chassis series.

As far as your comment is true I don't agree that is an insurmountable obstacle. With a little bit of vision and self-awareness the powers that be could easily ban raised noses, restrict the nose dimensions to a pre-90's configuration and they should do it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

As far as your comment is true I don't agree that is an insurmountable obstacle. With a little bit of vision and self-awareness the powers that be could easily ban raised noses, restrict the nose dimensions to a pre-90's configuration and they should do it.

I believe the reason for the FIA reducing the nose height to 550mm and no lower, is because that is the height at which the nose hitting a stationary object will have the best effect with regard to safety.

There's nothing to stop a team from producing a car with a lower nose, but it's probable that the FIA have done many nose impact tests to show that a lower nose height than 550mm isn't as effective from a safety point of view.

[mountainstar]

A whole new kind of ugly.

I agree with a previous comment that 1990-1993 was a great era for looks. Cars looked simple and elegant back then.

[chillibowl]

yep ugly and it just doesn't look fast!

taking a look at the comments online and twitter its pretty negative all around. they should have waited for other/top teams to unveil their cars first...if they all look the same then better Ferrari or Red Bull take the brunt of public opinion. their desire to be first was huge PR mistake imo.

[Dead-Eye]

Doesn't look any uglier than anything since the 2009 comedy wing rule changes to me.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Doesn't look any uglier than anything since the 2009 comedy wing rule changes to me.

When I look at 2008 rear wings now they look ridic disproportionate and just weird. I like the current ones far far better than the only low and wide ones. I guess its all in the eye of the beholder

[TF110]

The McLaren last year was low enough, so I don't see them using this solution. Probably an evolution of 2011's car, which was the best looking in the field IMO.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

yep ugly and it just doesn't look fast!

taking a look at the comments online and twitter its pretty negative all around. they should have waited for other/top teams to unveil their cars first...if they all look the same then better Ferrari or Red Bull take the brunt of public opinion. their desire to be first was huge PR mistake imo.

The old adage about "if it looks fast/good it probably is" no longer applies. We are looking at a formula where the rules are so convoluted they verge on a series of desperate moves to contain performance by idiosyncratic ambiguous regulations that rarely make sense and don't encapsulate the car as a whole.

Its like a horse designed by a committee and looks like a DONKEY.

Thats not just the Caterham, its all the current generation. That why the older ones amongst us lament the passing the the 80's & early 90's when the cars were designed more as a whole package, rather than a combination of disconnected design projects patched together, each one an attempt to over come what ever artificial problem has been created by the various committee's responsible for creating such artifical regulations in the first place.

[NewYankee01]

Thank god for that, I was thinking this might have been the ugliest f1 car since the '95 mcclaren, that front view makes it look a monstrocity whereas the side profile makes amends!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

each one an attempt to over come what ever artificial problem has been created by the various committee's responsible for creating such artifical regulations in the first place.

The problem seems to be one of the aerodynamic expertise getting to the point where it follows the regulations exactly. This is in contrast to around 20 years ago, where the regulations were probably just as restrictive (everything had to fit into imaginary boxes), but the aerodynamic solutions were 20 years behind what they are now.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Thats not just the Caterham, its all the current generation. That why the older ones amongst us lament the passing the the 80's & early 90's when the cars were designed more as a whole package, rather than a combination of disconnected design projects patched together, each one an attempt to over come what ever artificial problem has been created by the various committee's responsible for creating such artifical regulations in the first place.

is it the artificial nature of the rules or the artificial way in which the cars are developed which lead to these designs? for instance if your CFD computer model gives you a solution (or a couple of solutions) are you not compelled to use those designs in today's design environment?

maybe im mythologizing how race cars were built in the past, but before the era of supercomputers, i would have though experience, intuition, and aesthetics played a larger role. granted a computer can be programmed to have experience but intuition and aesthetics are beyond their scope.

i have always held the opinion that fast is beautiful but i must agree that the current generation of F1 cars, despite still being incredibly fast, are very hard to love visually.

[NewYankee01]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i have always held the opinion that fast is beautiful but i must agree that the current generation of F1 cars, despite still being incredibly fast, are very hard to love visually.

Agreed, to all the motor museums i've been to around the world I get to a 1970's car i'm poring over the inner gubbins for which there are many interesting parts. I get to a 2000 era car I just walk past the thing!