TBK-Light.com

There's no excuse for F1 to be ugly

Does it matter what Formula 1 cars look like?

The short answer is yes; they are supposed to represent the pinnacle of contemporary engineering creativity and excellence. F1 is a worldwide entertainment industry and a shop window for wealthy and high-profile multinational companies to bring their products or services to the attention of millions.

It is an enterprise that prides itself on being an attractive show. Unattractive cars undermine the entire F1 brand.

The FIA presents F1 2014 as a forward-looking, ecologically responsible business, concerned with the efficient use of energy among its core values. But no one could honestly say the appearance of the majority of 2014's cars reinforces that message.

That the new technologies required have created technical problems is fascinating, and, for sure, the rapid pace of development always seen in motorsport will quickly produce workable solutions.

We can expect the usual nonsense from the teams and the sport's governing body, as those directly involved try to explain away the visual abominations: 'The rule changes are there for reasons of safety'; 'A winning car always looks beautiful'; 'They look like this for aerodynamic reasons'; 'The most efficient shapes are not always the best looking'.

Not true; a bad piece of design will always be a bad piece of design and those who suggest that we will 'get used to them' are sublime optimists.

The FIA's group of well-paid rule-makers seem to have been unable to foresee the consequences of their mandates. It always defies belief when this occurs. The phenomenon is not particular to motorsport: it is common among those in power.

But we all know that actions taken for one reason will often produce unsatisfactory results in other areas. The result of proposing a number of specifically defined cross-sections whose shape and position are mandated by the FIA, with no regard for the potential appearance of the cars, does little for F1's credibility as a premium experience.

Nevertheless, however shortsighted the rule-makers, it is incumbent on the teams to do a professional job when developing a car within the regulations. There is always the opportunity to present a good design solution rather than an appalling one.

Most F1 teams use the same body surface development CAD tools, but when I look at 2014 Caterham, Ferrari, Toro Rosso or Red Bull cars, for example, I discern the work of under-trained or insensitive engineers, with no understanding of the complexities of body surfacing, hiding behind the excuse of 'aerodynamic requirements'.

This year's nose shapes are the first and easiest things to criticise, but the developments of the shapes of engine covers are equally poor. So why is the McLaren MP4-29 engine cover so beautifully executed, while the Ferrari's is so bad? That someone influential at McLaren has taste could well be the answer.

As a senior F1 aerodynamicist friend said to me, "We can only test what we can think of and with an engineering training we are not properly equipped to come up with aesthetically pleasing results, so we don't understand how to make things look nice."

One senior designer says: "The great thing about the new rules is that because the nose of an F1 car has little effect on aero performance we are getting such a variety of solutions, the cars can all look different."

In other words people are either choosing to produce these dreadful-looking machines, or they are incapable of maintaining control over their surfaces.

CAD programmes will join up the dots and the lines on the screen at the press of a button, and five-axis milling machines will cut the master model exactly as you have defined it. In the past, drawings would be passed to experienced pattern makers who would create a master model in wood, using their natural understanding of three-dimensional forms. Beautiful cars would result.

Modern 'on-screen' design is certainly an efficient way of integrating all the complex elements of a modern racecar, but you can only see what it really looks like when it has been built. Today's engineering training is totally screen-based, providing only virtual opportunities for interpreting and experiencing three-dimensional form.

We are expected to endure 2014 shapes defined by an engineering CAD programme with limited surface development capabilities in the hands of pure rationalists. This is simply not good enough.

The cars are not only an insult to the fans, they also carry with them the suggestion that the outcome of a more energy efficient future is that things must inevitably look bad; in other words, the price to be paid for responsibility is bad design.

This assumption is unacceptable.