When did race cars get so ugly?

[Josh D]

Last Thursday I received my Excellence and Hemmings' Sports & Exotics magazines on the same day. On the cover of the HS&P was a beautiful 917K in silver with Martini livery, and in the Excellence was a feature on the new 919 LMP1race car.

What the hell happened? The 917 is a sculptured work of art that dominated racing in it's time. To actually have form and function must have been great for the spectators back in the '70s. No wonder racing was so popular back then!

The 919 on the other hand is a technological tour de force that obviously follows function over form. What an ugly car! With it's quad headlights on the bulbous front fenders to the 'billboard' that runs longitudly from the cockpit to the rear wing, there is just nothing asthetically pleasing about the car. I know, I know, it's all about the aerodynamics and winning races. But who really wants to watch fast ugly cars?

[oldE]

Josh,

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

While I like the form of the 917 (actually, I prefer the K over the L), I also appreciate the look of the 919. There doesn't appear to be a gram of fat on the car. The wind tunnel has done its work.

I think the biggest problem with our acceptance of many new designs is the reluctance to let go of what we "know" to be fast.

Best
Les

[Aragorn]

I am not a big fan of some of the can-am cars of the late 60's early 70's. High wings looking like tables atop plywood slopes. The six wheel monstrosity from Tyrrell in the mid 70's was pretty hideous also. There was some sort of suction car at indy back in the 60's that seemed to be penned by a person not blessed with good sight.

What I am getting at is some cars have always been designed to work toward a purpose over being aesthetically pleasing. Some cars are both good looking and function well. The Porsche GT3-RS and Ferrari 458 come to mind. Some work well and look hideous. Like the 919.

The new 919 was designed to fit the rules while meeting a goal of being aerodynamically efficient. It does both well while not being visually pleasing.

[sammyg2]

I tend to see beauty in function.

I like what works best, not what "looks better" than it works. That's why I don't like jaguars

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by oldE

Josh,

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

While I like the form of the 917 (actually, I prefer the K over the L), I also appreciate the look of the 919. There doesn't appear to be a gram of fat on the car. The wind tunnel has done its work.

I think the biggest problem with our acceptance of many new designs is the reluctance to let go of what we "know" to be fast.

Best
Les

exactly.

race cars were always ugly. because race cars are about speed. the laws of physics don't care what you perceive as beauty.

also, what you perceive as beauty in racecar design, is just last generations tricks to go faster.

[Ferraripete]

the rule book and the wind tunnel are to be considered the culprit.

that said, the 917k will always be the high water mark for stunning sports racers but that was a time never to return. easily re-interpreted rules and the early days of aero.

now I must say that the 919 is a movie star when compared to the ugly cars that grace the f-1 grid!! the height of ugly!!

[Josh D]

I certainly appreciate 'what' the 919 is and 'why' it is that way. And I'm sure seeing the car up close rather than in pictures to truly see the scale and proportions would make a difference. I do hope it does well for Porsche.

I guess I'm just nostalgic to older car design in general from an asthetic point of view. I was born in '70, so I missed getting to see cars like the 917 race. Guess I'll need to make sure I get to the next Rennsport Reunion.

[sand_man]

I will always have a soft spot for the "golden era" of motorsport, but I'm still in awe whenever I walk around the pits of a current USCC/IMSA (formerly ALMS) event. Particularly the GT classes.

[sand_man]

Now if we're talking about the current lineup of "gonzo nosed schlong tipped" F1 cars, yeah...WOWZERs, they fell out of the ugly tree like rotten fruit!

[AFC-911]

962 > 917 any day of the week.

[sand_man]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

962 > 917...

^^^^This is what my eyes say too!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Function over form, designed by engineers in the wind tunnel. To me they have a technical beauty that I appreciate. Of course I'm an engineer, so I'm probably biased.

[450knotOffice]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

962 > 917 any day of the week.

I'm another one who's of this opinion. As much as I wax nostalgic for the days of the 917 - when I was between 5-7 years old - I happen to think the low, purposeful look of the 956 and 962 look SO much better than the 917, which has a bottom that sits way too far off the ground, in my opinion. Heck, in MY opinion, the 917-30 is by far the most beautiful 917 ever made! That's the one I want to see run in person.

I understand the look of today's Prototypes. They have their own special beauty to them. Every square inch/millimeter has been considered and is meant to maximize performance. To me, there's beauty in that.

[AFC-911]

I also think the RS Spyder looks better than the 917.

[matt f]

934/935
962
956
917
RSR Turbo 2.1

Yeah, all race cars are ugly. (Green text)

[rattlsnak]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

962 > 917 any day of the week.

exactly..

[mschulz]

906 and 908 get my vote, with 904 close behind.

[ted]

Originally Posted by 450knotOffice

917-30 is by far the most beautiful 917 ever made! That's the one I want to see run in person.

seeing it run this would do.
The mighty 917/30 - YouTube

[James Brown]

i bet he is thinking "could use some of that aerodynamic down force right about now"

[Flieger]

The quest for downforce, and the subsequent regulations to control it, killed the looks. Which is ironic considering how beautiful airplanes can be.