A setback for Ferrari?

[East Londoner]

There's rumours flying around that the 2012 Ferrari has failed the FIA crash test. Not sure how reliable the reports are, but if so, Red Bull and McLaren could capitalise well from Ferrari's delay.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/175967/1/ugly_ferrari_fails_fia_test.html

[lostpin]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too. Take the 1996 car, for example...

[dr-baker]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too. Take the 1996 car, for example...

My goodness, that was an hideous car. I've seen it on display in the flesh in a museum and it looks no better.

[DanielPT]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too. Take the 1996 car, for example...

I think they wrote 'ugly' because Luca Di Montezemolo said that he didn't mind if it was an ugly car because it is more important that it was a winning car.

[mario]

There's rumours flying around that the 2012 Ferrari has failed the FIA crash test. Not sure how reliable the reports are, but if so, Red Bull and McLaren could capitalise well from Ferrari's delay.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/175967/1/ugly_ferrari_fails_fia_test.html

Whilst it will not be ideal for Ferrari to have failed the test first time around it doesn't seem to have had that much of an impact on development of the car - the Gazetta Dello Sport is reporting that Ferrari have passed the crash tests this week after reinforcing the chassis. If they had tested the chassis again this week and it failed for a second time they might have been in a bit of trouble - especially since you now have to pass the crash tests before testing - but overall they probably haven't lost out all that much to McLaren or Red Bull, if at all (you have to expect that the top teams already have a contingency plan in place just in case they fail the crash tests).
Of course, whether the overall package will prove to be competitive is another matter - I guess that we'll get a chance to dissect the car in a few weeks time when it is launched...

[Mister Fungus]

I think they wrote 'ugly' because Luca Di Montezemolo said that he didn't mind if it was an ugly car because it is more important that it was a winning car.

Nah it says in the article "don't expect an attractive car".

[FullMetalJack]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too. Take the 1996 car, for example...

My goodness, that was an hideous car. I've seen it on display in the flesh in a museum and it looks no better.

The low nose version was one of the best looking Formula 1 cars ever.

The high nose version however was one of the most hideous cars of the 90s.

[East Londoner]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too. Take the 1996 car, for example...

My goodness, that was an hideous car. I've seen it on display in the flesh in a museum and it looks no better.

The low nose version was one of the best looking Formula 1 cars ever.

The high nose version however was one of the most hideous cars of the 90s.

Weirdly enough, it's the exact opposite for me. I think the low-nose version looks slow, and the way the nose connects with the front wing itself is ugly. The high nose version looks a far more balanced car, and prettier to boot as well.

[Wizzie]

I think they wrote 'ugly' because Luca Di Montezemolo said that he didn't mind if it was an ugly car because it is more important that it was a winning car.

Nah it says in the article "don't expect an attractive car".

Ferrari fans all over the world are already christening it as "The Ugly One"

[mario]

I think they wrote 'ugly' because Luca Di Montezemolo said that he didn't mind if it was an ugly car because it is more important that it was a winning car.

Nah it says in the article "don't expect an attractive car".

Ferrari fans all over the world are already christening it as "The Ugly One"

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the final car looks like - either way, it's appropriate that others have raised the F310 in this thread, and the impact of the change in nose height, since there are a number of changes in the regulations that should see restrictions on the height of the front bulkhead and nose tip (the FIA wants to ban the current high noses because the cars are more likely to flip when they collide). As things stand most teams have a nose design not dissimilar to that of the raised nose version of the F310 (or the F310B), whereas in the longer term we are more likely to see something closer to the form of the early season F310.

However, it has to be said that the rumours coming from McLaren seem to suggest that the team have had to drop the L shaped sidepods they had developed for the 2011 car. With the FIA restricting the location of the exhausts quite tightly, it seems that the L shaped sidepods would interfere with the positioning of the exhausts and have had to go, so at the moment it sounds as if Ferrari have a slightly more radical design than McLaren (with all of the attendant benefits and downsides that can bring by the looks of things).

[Captain Hammer]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too.

I seem to recall Martin Brundle saying something about how beautiful cars look quick, and cars that look quick generally are. That said the F310 did win races, and Ferrari finished the 1996 season in second overall.

Personally, I think Domenicali is doing some early damage control to head off some anticipated criticism. The 2012 car will probably have an industrial vibe to it, like the Sauber C29. It's not going to have the elegant, flowing lines to it that other cars do. But it won't have a face that only a mother could love, either.

[Wizzie]

If it's ugly, than it has to be slow too.

I seem to recall Martin Brundle saying something about how beautiful cars look quick, and cars that look quick generally are. That said the F310 did win races, and Ferrari finished the 1996 season in second overall.

Although one may argue that Ferrari may have been just as well off giving Michael a modified 1995 Ferrari to wring the neck out of. Besides, if Irvine's performance in 1996 was anything to go by, then the F310 was only the 4th or 5th best car at most and that Schumacher got far more out of it than anyone ever could.

[Captain Hammer]

To be fair to Irvine, only four of his eleven retirements in 1996 were his fault (and he was still classified in Monaco). Everything else was mechanical.

[AdrianSutil]

To be fair to Irvine, only four of his eleven retirements in 1996 were his fault (and he was still classified in Monaco). Everything else was mechanical.

And the 5 races he did finish, he scored 11 points. Not bad considering he wasn't as good as the Benetton's drivers yet.

But I'll admit, the F310 is an awful-looking car.

[DanielPT]

To be fair to Irvine, only four of his eleven retirements in 1996 were his fault (and he was still classified in Monaco). Everything else was mechanical.

And the 5 races he did finish, he scored 11 points. Not bad considering he wasn't as good as the Benetton's drivers yet.

But I'll admit, the F310 is an awful-looking car.

Yes it is, IMHO. Both the high and the low nose versions. Yuck!

[dr-baker]

To be fair to Irvine, only four of his eleven retirements in 1996 were his fault (and he was still classified in Monaco). Everything else was mechanical.

And the 5 races he did finish, he scored 11 points. Not bad considering he wasn't as good as the Benetton's drivers yet.

But I'll admit, the F310 is an awful-looking car.

Yes it is, IMHO. Both the high and the low nose versions. Yuck!

And the ugliness wasn't just in the nose but the sidepods as well and just the general bulbousness of it, I reckon.

[DanielPT]

Yes it is, IMHO. Both the high and the low nose versions. Yuck!

And the ugliness wasn't just in the nose but the sidepods as well and just the general bulbousness of it, I reckon.

Yep, those sidepods and everything around the cockpit. It looks like the car was fed on steroids alone...

[DonTirri]

To be fair to Irvine, only four of his eleven retirements in 1996 were his fault (and he was still classified in Monaco). Everything else was mechanical.

And the 5 races he did finish, he scored 11 points. Not bad considering he wasn't as good as the Benetton's drivers yet.

But I'll admit, the F310 is an awful-looking car.

Yes it is, IMHO. Both the high and the low nose versions. Yuck!

The mid-nineties wasn't exactly the golden age of car design anyway. I mean it gave us This:

[dr-baker]

The cars from 1992 to 1994 were the most beatiful, in my opinion. 1996 until recently were not good, either because of the above or due to all the aerodynamic flick-ups etc. Eughhh.

[East Londoner]

The cars from 1992 to 1994 were the most beatiful, in my opinion. 1996 until recently were not good, either because of the above or due to all the aerodynamic flick-ups etc. Eughhh.

The late 1990s Mclaren cars would like to have a word with you. Clean lines, with the sleek West livery

[Collieafc]

I dont know, the late 90s McLarens just seemed a bit cold to me.

But to be fair, the 1991 Jordan and 1995 Ferrari make up for some of the abominations that the 90s served up...

[dr-baker]

OK, so that kinda makes up for the 1995 abomination. But there is a definite change in overall beauty levels between the early 1990s and the late 1990s generally, right?

[nome66]

the 1995 McLaren reminds me of a hatchback my dad used to own.....in '95....hhmmm.....

[IdeFan]

OK, so that kinda makes up for the 1995 abomination. But there is a definite change in overall beauty levels between the early 1990s and the late 1990s generally, right?

Its more like a mid 90s slump:

Early 90s were good:





Mid 90s were terrible:





Late 90s were good again:





Its a general rule but there are exceptions, Williams were consistently good up until 1998 while Ferrari had a good looking car in the mid 90s (the 1995 one).

[Wizzie]

It almost looks like Ferrari had a design competition in LEGOLand to design that

[mario]

OK, so that kinda makes up for the 1995 abomination. But there is a definite change in overall beauty levels between the early 1990s and the late 1990s generally, right?

I would assume that is in part down to the FIA's reactions to the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger in 1994 and the serious accidents that Wendlinger and Hakkinen had in 1995 - it resulted in major changes to the regulations that saw changes to the front crash structure and new side impact tests, followed by raising the sides of the cockpit.

[AdrianSutil]

It almost looks like Ferrari had a design competition in LEGOLand to design that

Christ look at it! How the hell did Ferrari allow that to drag it's fat arse out of Maranello?!

[CoopsII]

I dont know what the problem is? The car did the business for Ferrari and Schumacher becoming the only other non-Williams Renault winners that year (cept for Panis' Ligier flukey Monaco win). Brawn and Byrne did well with it considering it wasnt even their design (Barnard). I always liked it, particulary the side-pods.

[Cynon]

I kind of liked the 1996 Ferrari as well to be honest...

[Ataxia]

I never minded the low nose F310, but with the high nose it looks like it has a double chin...

[nome66]

It almost looks like Ferrari had a design competition in LEGOLand to design that

like this one? wait, this is from 2000

[lostpin]

The only difference between the two images is the fractionally narrower front tire. Trust me, I'm good at this.

[The Passenger]

I never minded the low nose F310, but with the high nose it looks like it has a double chin...

Kind of looks like a goblin shark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin_shark