The emergence of the new McLaren MP4-18 this week confirmed the many rumours that the car is a radical revolution, rather than evolution for the team. While many of the most impressive changes are under the skin, aerodynamic fine-tuning has clearly played a part in the design process. And while the MP4-18 may prove to be the fastest and best F1 car designed yet, it is a perfect illustration of the seemingly incessant move towards F1 cars that combine perfect aerodynamic profiles with a cold, precise appearance. Face it, the F1 cars of today are not pretty.
F1 history is littered with truly magnificent and beautiful machines: the Mercedes 'streamliners' of the 1950s; the 1960s designs of Colin Chapman; the 'sharknose' Ferrari 156; the Tyrell 003. Each one offers a representation of the technology of the time - from the rear-engine Lotus' that revolutionised the sport, to the emergence of aerodynamics as the future of the sport in the form of the Tyrell 003. And yet despite representing sequential advances in the technical 'standard', despite representing increased usage of complex calculations and accurate measurements, they all maintain a visual beauty that can only come from the eye of their designer. The modern F1 car with its wind-tunnel perfected aerodynamics and complex suspension geometry has lost that essence, the flowing lines, the inherent beauty of a human design and that is a disaster.
The 1980s and to some extent the 1990s were not as badly afflicted with this problem. The massive turbo cars of the 1980s with their wide slicks and huge rear wings looked fabulous - powerful, wild beasts that required a special talent to tame them. In comparison the current crop of highly developed and finely tuned F1 machines lack balance and presence. It is almost de rigeur for an F1 car to have a rear suspension set lower than its nose, and to have unsightly aerodynamic aids protruding from every surface. The problem is perfectly illustrated by the excitement that greeted the appearance of 'shark' gills on the sidepods of the new F2003-GA. Has it really got so bad that a few air vents with nostalgic undertones are the most attractive feature of an F1 car?
Of course rule changes and the march of technology have not helped. Narrow, grooved tyres mated to increasingly narrow and pinched chassi are the result of technological advances and the rules intended to slow those advances. F1 cars look silly and fragile, with no more presence than a F3000 car and compared to the current crop of Champ Cars/IRL machines and sports prototypes such as the Audi R8, they lack the flowing lines and visual power of yesteryear.
But do not misconstrue an appreciation of the meaty F1 cars of the 1980s for a criticism of neat designs. The Lotus' piloted by Jim Clark lacked any sort of intimidating presence but the smooth lines and the way the chassi sat low between the Firestone tyres is perfection.
There is a lot wrong with F1 at the moment. Depending on whom you talk to the growing presence of the manufacturers is good and bad, plus there is the issue of the impact of designs on the ability of cars to overtake. The design ethos in the sport is unfortunately another thing that is wrong with F1, just to add to the list. Designs are going in the wrong direction for those fans who want to see close racing between cars that individually are a piece of automotive art. Ultimately there needs to beauty as well as function.
To finish off consider this rather interesting if abstract point: the beautiful cars of yesteryear, the Lotus 49, the Ferrari 312T4 never lacked any ability to overtake. So is it any coincidence that the emergence of the mathematically 'perfect' F1 supercars has resulted in a monotonous tendency for those cars to race in gird order? We think not.
Back to the Last Word main page
Back to Main Page
Visit
Linksheaven! The Motor Racing Directory
© 2000 motorsportforum@yahoo.co.uk