The best looking F1 cars were those of the 60s. Smooth, round, no wings, exposed engines with exhaust pipes shooting out the back. Those were cool.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 Formula One Thread
- Thread starter R.Youden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Huge front wings and little rear wings is how Ted Kravitz (sp?) described the developmental cars that were being tested.
I wonder if smaller front wheels will make a comeback...
I preferred this era:
I second that.
And while were at it, put starters back into the cars, and go back to the running Grand Prix start.
And if Juan Pablo were still in F1 that would be a 5 lap disadvantage to him.
I was never a fan to be honest, though I can understand and appreciate their appeal, especially the Ferrari 156.
Now, Auto Union Type D's they were something very, very special indeed.
bartelby said:
I preferred this era...
Some people hang pictures on their wall, I'd hang a 640 next to a Type D on mine.
The babe trumps 'em all.I was never a fan to be honest, though I can understand and appreciate their appeal, especially the Ferrari 156.
Now, Auto Union Type D's they were something very, very special indeed.
Hehe. I've always liked the Brabham insane-in-the-membrane turbo fan car:
Those were the days... Got a slow car? STRAP A TURBOFAN TO THE BACK! Part of that fugly era when ground-effect was king and cars looked like aviation parts with a guy in a tupperware crash-helmet strapped in the middle:
All in all, the cars don't look too bad these days even with the aero surfaces sticking up all over the place.
Does anyone else think that the cost-cutting and stringent design rules have actually hampered competition? The rules have meant that the essence of an F1 car is identical (indeed, mandated) between all the teams. So only teams with tens of millions to spend on testing and tweaking the rigid design within the rules manage to eke out 9 tenths to turn a midfield car into a dominating one. Before the rules, a relatively poor team could negate their disadvantage by building some cheap but effective design elements or technology into their cars. I'm not advocating a return to the ground-effect era, rather saying that strict design rules alone won't bring competition. They've instead meant that making a car quicker than the others costs disproportionately more money.
Those were the days... Got a slow car? STRAP A TURBOFAN TO THE BACK! Part of that fugly era when ground-effect was king and cars looked like aviation parts with a guy in a tupperware crash-helmet strapped in the middle:
All in all, the cars don't look too bad these days even with the aero surfaces sticking up all over the place.
Does anyone else think that the cost-cutting and stringent design rules have actually hampered competition? The rules have meant that the essence of an F1 car is identical (indeed, mandated) between all the teams. So only teams with tens of millions to spend on testing and tweaking the rigid design within the rules manage to eke out 9 tenths to turn a midfield car into a dominating one. Before the rules, a relatively poor team could negate their disadvantage by building some cheap but effective design elements or technology into their cars. I'm not advocating a return to the ground-effect era, rather saying that strict design rules alone won't bring competition. They've instead meant that making a car quicker than the others costs disproportionately more money.
The F1 "rules" are hardly about advancing motor sport in general, but more about maintaining competitiveness.
It's the same at Indy, with break-through technology being banned the very next year.
It's the same at Indy, with break-through technology being banned the very next year.
It is a very fine diving line. If you allow teams a free reign with regard to developing technology then it gets very complicated. You get a staggered system where-by the teams with the biggest budgets can develop the best technology and have, in some peoples eyes, an unfair advantage.
Yes it is often down to the individual engineers, but on the whole they all have the same basic principles. Engineers move around teams and take ideas and develop them. Very rarely will one team make a development and other go "Oh crap, where did that come from?"
Teams go so clever that they could design their aero so that it would be almost impossible for other cars to overtake which makes the sport deadly boring to watch, so in turn manufacturers do not get value for money as they get less people watching. So in a perverse way it is in the best interests of the teams not to develop technology.
One interesting area at the moment is the KERS system. The FIA have proposed that teams develop their own systems after criticism that the standard units where not very advanced. It was my understanding that Flybrid had been given the contract to provide a stock unit but it now appears that the FIA have gone against this decision. Personally I think this is a good technology for the teams to develop but again the cost issue needs to be addressed, just because Toyota has the biggest budget should not result in them automatically having the best KERS system.
Yes, but eventually someone will get seriously hurt or killed from deceleration injuries, like an aortic tear.
I was concerned when Heikki appeared to go under the tire wall. That could have been catastrophic. I wonder if the driver's association is going to say something about the car submarining into the tires like that (if that's what happened as it appeared).
Hehe. I've always liked the Brabham insane-in-the-membrane turbo fan car:
Those were the days... Got a slow car? STRAP A TURBOFAN TO THE BACK! Part of that fugly era when ground-effect was king and cars looked like aviation parts with a guy in a tupperware crash-helmet strapped in the middle:
All in all, the cars don't look too bad these days even with the aero surfaces sticking up all over the place.
Does anyone else think that the cost-cutting and stringent design rules have actually hampered competition? The rules have meant that the essence of an F1 car is identical (indeed, mandated) between all the teams. So only teams with tens of millions to spend on testing and tweaking the rigid design within the rules manage to eke out 9 tenths to turn a midfield car into a dominating one. Before the rules, a relatively poor team could negate their disadvantage by building some cheap but effective design elements or technology into their cars. I'm not advocating a return to the ground-effect era, rather saying that strict design rules alone won't bring competition. They've instead meant that making a car quicker than the others costs disproportionately more money.
50's and 60's stuff looked best to me. then some of the 90's cars.
According to the BBC the force of the crash was about 26G which is
But did you see the mono-coc (sp) was breached again like in Kubica horror crash last season in Canada.
I was worried when I saw that it had gone underneath the tire wall as where does the drivers head go.
Glad to see him out unharmed.
But did you see the mono-coc (sp) was breached again like in Kubica horror crash last season in Canada.
I was worried when I saw that it had gone underneath the tire wall as where does the drivers head go.
Glad to see him out unharmed.
i am so pissed i could not watch this as it was at 4 30 in the morning and there was no replay.
anyone know of a site where i can download the race the next day or something.
i am not rich and do not have a tivo
anyone know of a site where i can download the race the next day or something.
i am not rich and do not have a tivo
There are usually bittorrents of the ITV productions available. That could change next year when BBC takes over the F1 TV rights in the UK.
DVR is the way to go.
Eagle-Weslake (a.k.a. Eagle Mk1). BEST! LOOKING! F1! CAR! EVER! Chassis 104 gets extra insanity props for having a magnesium chassis.I was never a fan to be honest, though I can understand and appreciate their appeal, especially the Ferrari 156.
Now, Auto Union Type D's they were something very, very special indeed.
Well, isn't that basically what they were?
monocque
Getting my tribute in early... RIP.
I splurged a few years back and bought that model from Minichamps. The last model car to be (legally) produced in Europe with tobacco labels.
It's a shame to see super best friends withdraw. I wonder if Herr Turd Nazi Max had an affect on their ability to attract investors?
must be so hard for the teams at the back of the grid to get sponsorship. Feel sorry for Anthony Davidson, he's a really good driver, if he could only get in a decent car you'd see just how quick he is.
- Status