Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

The place for anything and everything else to do with F1 history, different forms of motorsport, and all other randomness
User avatar
Henrique
Posts: 669
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 03:48
Location: Portugal

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Henrique »

DonTirri wrote:I'm surprised nobody has named the OTHER Ligier-car that was ugly as hell.

The sidepodless 1983 JS21:
Image

Seriously, thats ugly.


What really surprises me there is how that monstrosity was born. F1 cars didn't have sidepods when F1 started, then they started having sidepods. At what point did someone at Ligier said: "Hey, I know. Let's get rid of sidepods while everybody else uses them!"?

The results speak for themselves:
Ligier in 1982 - 20 points, 8th place.
Ligier in 1983 - 0 points :shock:
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

The idea of having short sidepods made perfect sense, in light of the aerodynamic regulation changes for 1983, namely the introduction of a flat floor between the wheel axles. Because the sidepods were no longer generating downforce, the shortfall in aerodynamic grip had to be compensated by mechanical grip, so a rearward weight bias was required, hence shorter sidepods placing more weight at the rear. Also, the sidepods were now generating positive lift rather than negative lift, so shortening them was also an attempt to reduce lift.
It worked just fine on the Brabham BT52 and on the Tyrrell, and Spirit, Ligier and Osella came to the same conclusion, but with awful results. The Brabham was chuffingly quick in '83.
For 1984, Brabham extended the sidepods to re-position the radiators to improve the cooling and the turbo and intercooler was relocated to improve fuel consumption, as refuelling was banned. The Brabham was unquestionably the fastest car in '84, but the reliability just wasn't there.
Last edited by Faustus on 11 Feb 2010, 20:05, edited 2 times in total.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
User avatar
Life w12
Posts: 84
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 05:53
Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Life w12 »

Here's the March 751 with a, well, wierd rear wing
Image

1979 Ensign, 'nuff said
Image

I know this isn't an F1 car but Kenny Hamilton's 1982 Indy 500 car must get some mention
Image
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

I know this isn't an F1 car but Kenny Hamilton's 1982 Indy 500 car must get some mention
Image

There was an article in Autosport about this car a little while ago.
Last edited by Faustus on 05 May 2009, 08:45, edited 1 time in total.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

1979 Ensign, 'nuff said
Image

The idea for this makes sense, but did Mo Nunn have to make it so ugly? Removing the water and oil radiators from the sidepods allows you more freedom to play around with the wing profiles in the sidepods and generate more downforce, but it does look awful.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

Life w12 wrote:Here's the March 751 with a, well, weird rear wing

Image

I'd never seen that photo before. That is weird. Can anyone identify the track? Hang on, that's Silverstone, isn't it?
I may be wrong, but it looks like the rear wing is also sitting lower than normal. This reminds me of the 'double' rear wings that some F2 and F1 teams ran in the late 70s, before wing-cars. They ran a single, sometimes double, wing element as close to the ground as possible, hanging off the gearbox. Like the F2 car that Jean-Pierre Jabouille won the 1977 European F2 championship with.
Last edited by Faustus on 05 May 2009, 08:46, edited 3 times in total.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
User avatar
Yannick
Posts: 1448
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:53

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Yannick »

That's an ancient version of a diffuser on Vittorio's car there, isn't it?
"I don't think we should be used to finance (the manufacturers') R&D because they will produce that engine anyway" said Monisha Kaltenborn.
"You will never see a Mercedes using a Ferrari engine or the other way round."
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by WeirdKerr »

oh thats crazy... and as for the ligier js21..... i give you that and raise you the ligier js 31

Image
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

WeirdKerr wrote:oh thats crazy... and as for the ligier js21..... i give you that and raise you the ligier js 31

Image


I never got why the rear wing was set so far forward. Completely counter-productive. The multiple fuel tank thing apparently was a constant hassle, because they could never get the fuel distribution right and the weight distribution went out of the window.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
User avatar
Yannick
Posts: 1448
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:53

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Yannick »

As silly as the shape of all these Ligiers may have looked, they always benefitted a lot from their trademark blue color scheme. I like the teapot. I'd like to have some tea right now, actually!
"I don't think we should be used to finance (the manufacturers') R&D because they will produce that engine anyway" said Monisha Kaltenborn.
"You will never see a Mercedes using a Ferrari engine or the other way round."
User avatar
Paul Hayes
Posts: 1101
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:54

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Paul Hayes »

Faustus wrote:I know this isn't an F1 car but Kenny Hamilton's 1982 Indy 500 car must get some mention
Image

There was an article in Autosport about this car a little while ago.


Rather defeats the object of being an "open-wheeler" that one, doesn't it? How did they get away with that?
User avatar
dragonsteincole
Posts: 129
Joined: 12 Apr 2009, 11:17

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by dragonsteincole »

WeirdKerr wrote:oh thats crazy... and as for the ligier js21..... i give you that and raise you the ligier js 31

Image


Rear wing aside, i actually think that's one of the better-looking f1 cars. Low, semi-sleek, and I'm a big fan of the sidepods, as ineffective as the actual car was. :lol:
User avatar
Cynon
Posts: 3518
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 00:33
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Cynon »

I rather like the Kenny Hamilton Indy 500 car. Reminds me of a jet -- only fitting that Eagle Aircraft sponsors it!

The Ligier JS21 reminds me of the Lola B03/00 Champ Car a bit. Especially that front wing.
Check out the TM Master Cup Series on Youtube...
...or check out my random retro IndyCar clips.

Dr. Helmut Marko wrote: Finally we have an Australian in the team who can start a race well and challenge Vettel.
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Nuppiz »

Just found a pic of this behemoth: The Lion F1 project!Good thing that it never existed anywhere else than on paper.
Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/modeles/modeletc.aspx?idModele=1251&alpha=L&LG=2
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by dr-baker »

Nuppiz wrote:Just found a pic of this behemoth: The Lion F1 project!Good thing that it never existed anywhere else than on paper.
Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/modeles/modeletc.aspx?idModele=1251&alpha=L&LG=2


Imagine the pitstops with so many wheels so close to each other !!!
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Nuppiz »

dr-baker wrote:Imagine the pitstops with so many wheels so close to each other !!!

Yeah and the tyre costs! :mrgreen:
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
Reverie Planetarian
Posts: 268
Joined: 21 Apr 2009, 17:02
Location: In the gravel trap off Turn 4

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Reverie Planetarian »

Nuppiz wrote:Just found a pic of this behemoth: The Lion F1 project!Good thing that it never existed anywhere else than on paper.
Image
http://www.statsf1.com/constructeurs/modeles/modeletc.aspx?idModele=1251&alpha=L&LG=2

Holy hell. Just...smile and nod, racing fans, smile and nod...wave at the designers, look in their paddock, smile and maybe we'll get out of here alive...
Some say he plans to put an S921 on the Goodwood 2012 run, and that he DOES know what Deletraz is doing.
All we know is...he's called Perry McCarthy!

...we'll never see an S921 at Goodwood, will we?
User avatar
Life w12
Posts: 84
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 05:53
Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Life w12 »

How about this gem designed by Enrique Scalabroni in 1988
Image
According to Scalabroni, the only reason why it wasn't built was because of lack of funding, talk about a reject car design
User avatar
Reverie Planetarian
Posts: 268
Joined: 21 Apr 2009, 17:02
Location: In the gravel trap off Turn 4

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Reverie Planetarian »

Oh, good. The son of the Pininfarina X.

...which sounds like a gearhead's B horror movie or something...

*cackling over Scalabroni concept strapped to table, being pumped with electricity*

IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!
Some say he plans to put an S921 on the Goodwood 2012 run, and that he DOES know what Deletraz is doing.
All we know is...he's called Perry McCarthy!

...we'll never see an S921 at Goodwood, will we?
crazydude1992
Posts: 113
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 09:13

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by crazydude1992 »

Whats that axe in the middle of the front wheel? :shock:
Artificial intelligence is no match for F1 rejectdom.
User avatar
minrdi
Posts: 123
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 05:21
Location: St Leonards, NSW Australia
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by minrdi »

I'm not surprised it failed to get off the ground - no one in their right mind would fund that rhomboid disaster! :o

Let's not forget that Scalabroni also involved himself in the aborted F1 programs of Il Barone Rampante (1991-2) and Izukawa Internation (1994), and the Durango team.

AND he was going to take Asiatech into F1 as a constructor into 2003 and beyond, turning up at the Monza paddock press club with some very grand plans (and some very small scale models of the Asiatech 2003 contender)... that not surprsingly went nowhere...

Very odd to see such a fall from grace for the man who pioneered the semiautomatic gearbox design of the 1980s Williams cars, and who was the technical director of the race-winning 1989-90 Ferraris... It's a shame to see, but on the basis of that very odd design, it might actually explain something... :lol:
"The advantage of jumping the start is that you can get away a lot quicker." - Murray Walker

Editor, Richard's F1
Visit my F1 website at http://richardsf1.com
Exclusive news, reviews and interviews for F1, IndyCar, V8 Supercars and the WTCC
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Salamander »

Life w12 wrote:How about this gem designed by Enrique Scalabroni in 1988
Image
According to Scalabroni, the only reason why it wasn't built was because of lack of funding, talk about a reject car design


I had trouble actually figuring out where the wheels were there, the perspective makes it looks like the front wheel is to the side of the nose cone, and the rear wheel looks like it's where the rear-right wheel would be on an actual car. Thank goodness that didn't make it to a race, I doubt it be anywhere near even the Colonis and Eurobruns unless the sidepod wheels also turned, and that looks quite doubtful.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by WeirdKerr »

You can see shades of the 1990 ferrari in that ODD car.....
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Faustus »

I remember reading the Autosprint article with this... thing. I think I've got the cutting from it somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Scalabroni stated that the idea was suggested to him by one of his students (he was lecturing part-time at a university). Brilliant idea, great lateral thinking and very clever interpretation of the rules. Really, potentially revolutionary ideas like this, that can potentially change the face of the sport, do not come along very often. It would be a great engineering challenge, from a mechanical point of view, to make it work. I wonder what happened to the student.
Think of the aerodynamic advantages as well. No front wheels blocking the airflow to the sidepods, so the sidepods and intakes can be quite small and shaped nicely around the driveshafts.
In the article, the middle wheels AND the rear wheel are driven, thereby not contravening the four-wheel-drive rule.
Last edited by Faustus on 29 May 2009, 04:51, edited 1 time in total.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
Popi_Larrauri
Posts: 416
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 19:53
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Popi_Larrauri »

Faustus wrote:I remember reading the Autosprint article with this... thing. I think I've got the cutting from it somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Scalabroni stated that the idea was suggested to him by one of his students (he was lecturing part-time at a university). Brilliant idea, great lateral thinking and interpretation of the rules. Really, potentially revolutionary ideas like this, that can potentially change the fact the face of the sport, do not come along very often. It would be a great engineering challenge, from a mechanical point of view, to make it work. I wonder what happened to the student.
Think of the aerodynamic advantages as well. No front wheels, blocking the airflow to the sidepods, so the sidepods and intakes can be quite small and shaped nicely around the driveshafts. Oooh, driveshafts enclosed in airfoil sections!
In the article, the middle wheels AND the rear wheel are driven, thereby not contravening the four-wheel-drive rule.


It´s just a matter of feeling, but... it feels to me like it could be quite difficult to find lateral stability, it's seems it's would going to roll over in every fast corner.

Innocent questions:

1) The center of gravity, after all the reduction of the car had been done in lower parts (smaller sideposds, and only one front wheel), should go higher? Should it be replaced with mechanical grip generated by more and neater influx or air into sidepods/bargeboards?

2) After there is only three wheels, would then generate less traction? Or, given some way the same traction: wouldn't it degradate the tyres a lot faster?

3) I think understeer should be an enormous problem to overcame... it's true?

4) And last, not so serious, but funnier: How much time could take to replace in pitstop the front wheel?
Winners have lots of friends, losers have good friends.
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by WeirdKerr »

Popi_Larrauri wrote:
Faustus wrote:I remember reading the Autosprint article with this... thing. I think I've got the cutting from it somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Scalabroni stated that the idea was suggested to him by one of his students (he was lecturing part-time at a university). Brilliant idea, great lateral thinking and interpretation of the rules. Really, potentially revolutionary ideas like this, that can potentially change the fact the face of the sport, do not come along very often. It would be a great engineering challenge, from a mechanical point of view, to make it work. I wonder what happened to the student.
Think of the aerodynamic advantages as well. No front wheels, blocking the airflow to the sidepods, so the sidepods and intakes can be quite small and shaped nicely around the driveshafts. Oooh, driveshafts enclosed in airfoil sections!
In the article, the middle wheels AND the rear wheel are driven, thereby not contravening the four-wheel-drive rule.


It´s just a matter of feeling, but... it feels to me like it could be quite difficult to find lateral stability, it's seems it's would going to roll over in every fast corner.

Innocent questions:

1) The center of gravity, after all the reduction of the car had been done in lower parts (smaller sideposds, and only one front wheel), should go higher? Should it be replaced with mechanical grip generated by more and neater influx or air into sidepods/bargeboards?

2) After there is only three wheels, would then generate less traction? Or, given some way the same traction: wouldn't it degradate the tyres a lot faster?

3) I think understeer should be an enormous problem to overcame... it's true?

4) And last, not so serious, but funnier: How much time could take to replace in pitstop the front wheel?


it has 4 wheels the rear whell can be seen under the mount for the rear wing
_
_ _
_
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Salamander »

Popi_Larrauri wrote:
Faustus wrote:I remember reading the Autosprint article with this... thing. I think I've got the cutting from it somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Scalabroni stated that the idea was suggested to him by one of his students (he was lecturing part-time at a university). Brilliant idea, great lateral thinking and interpretation of the rules. Really, potentially revolutionary ideas like this, that can potentially change the fact the face of the sport, do not come along very often. It would be a great engineering challenge, from a mechanical point of view, to make it work. I wonder what happened to the student.
Think of the aerodynamic advantages as well. No front wheels, blocking the airflow to the sidepods, so the sidepods and intakes can be quite small and shaped nicely around the driveshafts. Oooh, driveshafts enclosed in airfoil sections!
In the article, the middle wheels AND the rear wheel are driven, thereby not contravening the four-wheel-drive rule.


It´s just a matter of feeling, but... it feels to me like it could be quite difficult to find lateral stability, it's seems it's would going to roll over in every fast corner.

Innocent questions:

1) The center of gravity, after all the reduction of the car had been done in lower parts (smaller sideposds, and only one front wheel), should go higher? Should it be replaced with mechanical grip generated by more and neater influx or air into sidepods/bargeboards?

2) After there is only three wheels, would then generate less traction? Or, given some way the same traction: wouldn't it degradate the tyres a lot faster?

3) I think understeer should be an enormous problem to overcame... it's true?

4) And last, not so serious, but funnier: How much time could take to replace in pitstop the front wheel?


1) I don't think it'll roll over, but the driver will have to go slower in high speed corners, as there is only one wheel doing the actual turning. That alone could've killed the entire project before it even made it to a race, had it found the funding.

2) I don't think the sidepod wheels will do any turning - from the perspective, it looks like they're just adjoined to the sidepods. I was going to say that attaching them to the sidepods would create extra drag, but now I look closer, it looks like the sidepod design is so the wheels will be behind the front wing, eliminating that issue quite effectively, actually.

3&4) Both completely valid points which could wreck the project, even if the inherent issue with high speed corners was fixed.

Of course, this is just me looking at the thing, I could be completely wrong. If the sidepod wheels actually do some turning, then really the only issue remaining is changing the front and rear wheels. If that problem can be overcome, then you never know, it might just work.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
Popi_Larrauri
Posts: 416
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 19:53
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Popi_Larrauri »

Popi_Larrauri wrote:
Faustus wrote:I remember reading the Autosprint article with this... thing. I think I've got the cutting from it somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Scalabroni stated that the idea was suggested to him by one of his students (he was lecturing part-time at a university). Brilliant idea, great lateral thinking and interpretation of the rules. Really, potentially revolutionary ideas like this, that can potentially change the fact the face of the sport, do not come along very often. It would be a great engineering challenge, from a mechanical point of view, to make it work. I wonder what happened to the student.
Think of the aerodynamic advantages as well. No front wheels, blocking the airflow to the sidepods, so the sidepods and intakes can be quite small and shaped nicely around the driveshafts. Oooh, driveshafts enclosed in airfoil sections!
In the article, the middle wheels AND the rear wheel are driven, thereby not contravening the four-wheel-drive rule.


It´s just a matter of feeling, but... it feels to me like it could be quite difficult to find lateral stability, it's seems it's would going to roll over in every fast corner.

Innocent questions:

1) The center of gravity, after all the reduction of the car had been done in lower parts (smaller sideposds, and only one front wheel), should go higher? Should it be replaced with mechanical grip generated by more and neater influx or air into sidepods/bargeboards?

2) After there is only three wheels, would then generate less traction? Or, given some way the same traction: wouldn't it degradate the tyres a lot faster?

3) I think understeer should be an enormous problem to overcame... it's true?

4) And last, not so serious, but funnier: How much time could take to replace in pitstop the front wheel?


Oh!... It seems that I must correct gamma on my monitor... it needs a bit of imagination, but it seems to be a fourth wheel there, indeed.

That partially kills question 1, and definitly destroys question 2. But three and four still remain. Even more, rear (I mean rear rear) wheel should be an impossible problem to be replaced quickly. An dI remember by 1990 there were tyre replacements (not refuelling).
Last edited by Popi_Larrauri on 28 May 2009, 22:50, edited 1 time in total.
Winners have lots of friends, losers have good friends.
Popi_Larrauri
Posts: 416
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 19:53
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Popi_Larrauri »

[/quote]Of course, this is just me looking at the thing, I could be completely wrong. If the sidepod wheels actually do some turning, then really the only issue remaining is changing the front and rear wheels. If that problem can be overcome, then you never know, it might just work.[/quote]

Of course, its a matter of a pure theoretical exercise. I appreciate the answer, even if there was a fourth wheel in the rear end and my questions were a bit unfounded (well, you know, a clock that doesn´t work mark exactly the hour txo times a day).
Winners have lots of friends, losers have good friends.
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Salamander »

Popi_Larrauri wrote:That partially kills question 1, and definitly destroys question 2. But three and four still remain. Even more, rear (I mean rear rear) wheel should be an impossible problem to be replaced quickly. An dI remember by 1990 there were tyre replacements (not refuelling).


Your point in question 2 still kind of stands, tyre degradation will be a problem if they just have one wheel turning. They may be able to fix the rear wheel changing problem by attaching the rear wing to the chassis, which it looks like it actually is, zooming in a bit, but the front wheel will definately be a problem, with that piece of nosecone in front of it. I can't see how they'll fix that problem, the only thing I can think of is jacking the car up a bit, having the driver push a button that drops the wheel, and then fitting a new one. Which sounds expensive, but if executed properly, might actually shorten tyre changing time. I'm actually quite interested in seeing whether or not the whole thing would work.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
User avatar
Waris
Posts: 1781
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:07
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Waris »

minrdi wrote:I'm not surprised it failed to get off the ground - no one in their right mind would fund that rhomboid disaster! :o

Let's not forget that Scalabroni also involved himself in the aborted F1 programs of Il Barone Rampante (1991-2) and Izukawa Internation (1994), and the Durango team.

AND he was going to take Asiatech into F1 as a constructor into 2003 and beyond, turning up at the Monza paddock press club with some very grand plans (and some very small scale models of the Asiatech 2003 contender)... that not surprsingly went nowhere...

Very odd to see such a fall from grace for the man who pioneered the semiautomatic gearbox design of the 1980s Williams cars, and who was the technical director of the race-winning 1989-90 Ferraris... It's a shame to see, but on the basis of that very odd design, it might actually explain something... :lol:


I'm surprised Enrique Scalabroni hasn't lodged an entry for the 2010 World Championship. Are you sure he's not sneakily involved in Campos or Epsilon-Euskadi? :lol:
MOTOR RACING IS DANGEROUS
User avatar
madcat
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 Dec 2009, 12:18
Location: UK (but Tuga)

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by madcat »

Image

Image

USF1 anyone?
As i looked at my naked body in the mirror, i thought to myself,
"I'm going to get thrown out of Ikea any minute.".
User avatar
CarlosFerreira
Posts: 4974
Joined: 02 Apr 2009, 14:31
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by CarlosFerreira »

madcat wrote:Image

Image

USF1 anyone?


How the heck did those even happen? The second one looks like they drove off with the roof of the shed attached! :lol:
Stay home, Colin Kolles!
User avatar
madcat
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 Dec 2009, 12:18
Location: UK (but Tuga)

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by madcat »

Image
Image

The lovely Eifelland-Cosworth team of 1972. Great in corners, couldn't see in straight lines...

Image

The Kauhsen-Cosworth

Another couple of beauties. All powered by Cosworth. Hmm new teams with crap cars powered by Cosworth, now why does that sound familiar?
Last edited by madcat on 11 Jan 2010, 16:25, edited 1 time in total.
As i looked at my naked body in the mirror, i thought to myself,
"I'm going to get thrown out of Ikea any minute.".
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Tyrrell P34
Image

Brabham BT46B (Not so ugly but very unusual...)
Image
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
RejectSteve
Posts: 891
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 22:32
Location: Aquashicola, Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by RejectSteve »

CarlosFerreira wrote:
madcat wrote:Image

USF1 anyone?


How the heck did those even happen? The second one looks like they drove off with the roof of the shed attached! :lol:

And that's why the FIA banned suspension-mounted wings, my friends.
Nissanymania! Friday has never been the same since.

The car in front is a Stefan.
Phoenix
Posts: 7986
Joined: 21 Apr 2009, 13:58

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Phoenix »

Consider the Brabham BT48, a lumpy piece of crap seen here driven at Sao Paulo by Niki Lauda in 1979:

Image
User avatar
Barbazza
Posts: 1636
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 19:30

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by Barbazza »

I must be the only person who loves the Tyrrell P34 then - that picture looks quite recent so is probably the car I saw in the museum at Coventry as the blurb next to it said it was still being raced.
User avatar
CarlosFerreira
Posts: 4974
Joined: 02 Apr 2009, 14:31
Location: UK

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by CarlosFerreira »

RejectSteve wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:
madcat wrote:Image

USF1 anyone?


How the heck did those even happen? The second one looks like they drove off with the roof of the shed attached! :lol:

And that's why the FIA banned suspension-mounted wings, my friends.


Really? Didn't know it was banned. I mean, I reckon the battle is to diminish unsprung weight, not to put the roof from your dog's house on top of the suspension and drive about. :D Thanks for the tech history tip, though.
Stay home, Colin Kolles!
User avatar
shinji
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 4007
Joined: 18 May 2009, 17:02
Location: Hibernia

Re: Ugliest Non-Reject Car design

Post by shinji »

Better than 'Tour in a suit case' Takagi.
Post Reply