Aesthetics of current sports racecars ?!
- Thread starter 550spydr
- Start date
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
They got hit with the ugly stick.... or maybe the whole tree.... I have been looking through books about sports car racing in the 50s and 60s, and I can tell you things aren't what they were in terms of esthetics. The cars may be safer, faster, etc, but they sure don't look as good. All the pretty stuff is long gone....
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Wind Tunnels!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Eric, Jim,
I could not agree more. The 50's sports racers, beautiful, the 60's even better. The GT40, 917, 956-962, IMSA cars, beautiful.
I know areo now rules but that does not explain the Grand Am ugly. They said it was for safety, safety is very important but ugly ruins it for me. I have always loved the prototypes, hell I have one in my garage, but I would not take a current Daytona prototype if you gave it to me!
Now a new Peougot Le Mans car, yes please!
I could not agree more. The 50's sports racers, beautiful, the 60's even better. The GT40, 917, 956-962, IMSA cars, beautiful.
I know areo now rules but that does not explain the Grand Am ugly. They said it was for safety, safety is very important but ugly ruins it for me. I have always loved the prototypes, hell I have one in my garage, but I would not take a current Daytona prototype if you gave it to me!
Now a new Peougot Le Mans car, yes please!
Back in the sixties, pure two seater race cars thinly disguised as road cars ruled endurance racing. There was plenty of style because the manufacturers wanted an identifiable car, race on Sunday - sell on Monday kind of thing. Of course this was before "equalization" and balancing technolgical advantges across the board became the vogue.
Now you can only tell Stock Cars apart by the headlight decals and logos, no idea on Daytona prototypes and F1 isn't much better. So what's the answer?
I do like the LMP cars and GT2 and Touring Car because you can identify with the cars.
What about Nascar going back to stock sheet metal, or build your tube frame stock car inside a "body in white". Run what you brung, race what you sell, sell what you race.
Geeze, where'd I put those friggin rose coloured glasses!
What was wrong with Plymouth Superbirds, Torino Talledegas, fastback Monte Carlos?
Nothing, plus I think they were faster than todays template identical, wind tunnel proven, 700hp+ Car of Today.
Ok, the Superbirds were kinda ugly, but nothing like a Daytona Prototype or the current Nascars. Cheers
Now you can only tell Stock Cars apart by the headlight decals and logos, no idea on Daytona prototypes and F1 isn't much better. So what's the answer?
I do like the LMP cars and GT2 and Touring Car because you can identify with the cars.
What about Nascar going back to stock sheet metal, or build your tube frame stock car inside a "body in white". Run what you brung, race what you sell, sell what you race.
Geeze, where'd I put those friggin rose coloured glasses!
What was wrong with Plymouth Superbirds, Torino Talledegas, fastback Monte Carlos?
Nothing, plus I think they were faster than todays template identical, wind tunnel proven, 700hp+ Car of Today.
Ok, the Superbirds were kinda ugly, but nothing like a Daytona Prototype or the current Nascars. Cheers
Yeah, but also the camera angle and colour scheme don't do it any favours either...
What happened? If we're talking about closed Le Mans type sports racecars, as the photos would suggest, then regs have changed, minimum cockpit and other dimensions vary over the years, and at the end of the day the designer will have striven to put together the most efficient package that complies with the rules. Whether that winds up being aesthetically pleasing as to form is basically irrelevant.
In the '50s and '60s designers/engineers were not "hampered" by aero or safety considerations and could clothe the basic mechanicals in some very sexy looking bodywork and "if it looked right it was right" Those times are long gone. That is the price of 'progress'.
Race cars are no longer about pretty, they are about getting across the finish line first, as they have always been. If I were to have the choice between a butt ugly car that will win, and a pretty one that won't, then I'll have the ugly one thanks!
Maybe that's the attraction of classic racing, you can have a pretty car and still win. The best of both worlds!
These cars looked great and had a ton of downforce...
Attachments
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I remember reading an article by Gordon Murray, I think he has designed some of the most beautiful race cars ever.
He said something like... Arodynamics are very, very important, but thare are always areas of the car where the shape does not make much differance. In those areas I always try and add asthetics, to accentuate, blend or hide the other areas.
He said something like... Arodynamics are very, very important, but thare are always areas of the car where the shape does not make much differance. In those areas I always try and add asthetics, to accentuate, blend or hide the other areas.
Innovation to the specified purpose has happened. The requirements of a road car are much different than that of a race car and the type of racing can create very different requirements.
We have learned how to adapt to the requirements of single purpose vehicles much better than in the past. Today, you can wireframe from a blank sheet and test for the specific purpose making no concessions to any other use. As such asthetics don't make it go faster, slab sides don't create unwanted pressure changes, etc.
Era gone forever.
Ron
my $0.02 priced for value.
We have learned how to adapt to the requirements of single purpose vehicles much better than in the past. Today, you can wireframe from a blank sheet and test for the specific purpose making no concessions to any other use. As such asthetics don't make it go faster, slab sides don't create unwanted pressure changes, etc.
Era gone forever.
Ron
my $0.02 priced for value.
Good points, cars like the Sauber C9-C11, Porsche 956-962, Mazda 737 had quite flat surfaces yet still looked fabulous. Then again, Gordon Murry did the McLaren F1 3 seater, no aurgument the man knows how to create shapely cars.
Are we expected to accept ugly as effeicient? Popularity of motorsports on TV might improve as well if the cars looked decent, something for the team bosses and sponsors to chew on.
Are we expected to accept ugly as effeicient? Popularity of motorsports on TV might improve as well if the cars looked decent, something for the team bosses and sponsors to chew on.
Thanks Jim, that recharged my rose colored glasses!
There were some butt ugly curvy cars back then too, of course how could we forget beauties like the Matras? Also some looked good at the time but haven't aged well like say Rondeau and Aston Martin Nimrod.
Unless it becomes fashionable to make good looking sports race cars again we may look back to the late 80s when the Saubers, Jaguars and Porsches were banging door handles as the last sweet spot aesthetically.
Have we become slaves to technology? Cheers
There were some butt ugly curvy cars back then too, of course how could we forget beauties like the Matras? Also some looked good at the time but haven't aged well like say Rondeau and Aston Martin Nimrod.
Unless it becomes fashionable to make good looking sports race cars again we may look back to the late 80s when the Saubers, Jaguars and Porsches were banging door handles as the last sweet spot aesthetically.
Have we become slaves to technology? Cheers
