You can still experiment in F1, but only if your name is Ross Brawn. He did it in Ferrari (with rule bending flexible front wing), in BrawnGP with double diffusor, who knows with what in Mercedes AMG Petronas.
Oh yes, they don't experiment at all now. smh The issue is that the regs have become so confining that they virtually dictate the outcome and so much engineering has been done many concepts are already proven to be fails. All in the name of keeping the costs down and competition closer. Except it fails at that since huge resources are spent to discover the most minute possibilities at gaining an edge.
.....and how do they find out what works best......by innovation. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." A quote from Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. In other words, you're spouting drivel.
Two main reasons for regulation: 1. Experiments in the 1970s & 1980s were bleeding edge technology that worked when finely controlled but caused catastrophic crashes after driver error or material failure. 2. Upsetting effects (aerodynamic & other) on other cars in the close vicinity. Two modern-era innovations that pass the safety test for all competitors: KERS (choice of 2 main types) & DRS.
How would you know, there are ZERO details on ANY of the cars here. Who drove them? What team? Why the design choices? How did it work out? What was the loophole they got around? Who defines "bizarre" One of the laziest "videos" I've EVER seen on YT.
New developments have a way of looking odd until we become accustomed to them. To the people who watched Fangio win in a Silver Arrow, the rear engine cars were bizarre. To those who watched Jim Clarke drive a torpedo car, anything that had wings was bizarre. The arrival of side-pods and skirts was odd. More recently, the high nose and dangling wings at the front look like a walrus or something. And the Concord would have looked pretty odd to the Wright Brothers. What is perhaps more odd, is that the Boeing 707 still looks pretty much like an airliner. Give it only two engines, slightly larger, which they did not have in 1956... Now why are we still building airliners very much the same way we did 60 years ago?
Probably to show off the last time those big air boxes were used. Another big difference is related to its predecessor. In fact the 312T was so much different when compared to the 312B ...
david zdrojewski that's how it always is. Win hands down, get banned. Not just F1? Consider the Mazda 787B at Le Mans. I guess Mazda has the rights to Wankel engines all to themselves, and seeing as it takes a rotary to whoop a rotary,..... you probably get where im going.
designer Gordon Murray prefers to say it was "withdrawn" not banned (and hints that the decision was part of a gambit by Brabham team owner Bernie Ecclestone re increasing his overall power in the sport by staying on good terms with Lotus)
Best way to find out if an idea is good or bad is to build it and see the outcome. I don't find any of these cars ugly, someone had an idea they thought would beat the other guy and they tried it. That is what innovation is all about. If it does not work move on until you find something that does.
It's a bit of a pity that all footage has been stretched to match a 16:9 or even 25:9 video frame representation. This makes some of the cars much weirder than they actually are.
Some of these do NOT fall in the category of bizarre. When multiple teams are doing the same thing, it's normal, not bizarre. A good example is the giant air intake above and behind the driver's head was standard in the '70's. And you misses one. There was a John Player Special, a Lotus, I think, that had 4 wheels in the front. Late '70's.
This is amazing. This makes you really understand how incredibly gutsy these guys really are. Looking back, they really look like astronauts who were going towards the unknown....experiment after experiment, life constantly on the line. Incredibly beautiful.
The first cars shown, with their spindly looking mounts and wings, had the rear wing mounted to the suspension uprights, I believe. It's interesting because it doesn't load the chassis and compress the springs, it just loads the tires and a few suspension bits. I have a bit of a time wrapping my head around it, unsprung weight is a bad thing, and that wing would contribute to that. On the other hand having the tires mashed into the pavement would make for better traction. I don't suppose it's the way to go since you never see racers designed that way any longer.
Jim Hall pioneered the use of wings to generate down force with his Chaparral Can-Am racers. His design used a movable wing with it's angle of attack controlled by a pedal. It did add unsprung weight, but it also allowed for a ton of down force to be applied while cornering without compressing the suspension. On the straights the wing would be flattened out to minimize drag. Movable wings were copied by his competition in the Can-Am series, who took it from there and applied it to the Formula cars of the day. It worked there as well, though they went a bit too far trying to minimize the unsprung weight issue. The result was a fragile support structure that created a few nasty crashes when they failed. FIA responded by banning movable wings and further requiring wings to be mounted to the chassis.
Are you sure it wasn't Fritz Von Opel. Really sure? "Use of wings to generate downforce". How about Bob Osiecki? Both got there before Jim Hall. What Hall did, was much more important: he attached the wing TO the suspension rather than to the body or chassis: that made the real difference. And got banned.
Neither bizarre nor ugly. simply fascinating. Hats off to the pioneers who boldly venture into the uncharted in hopes of finding "the key" without their willingness throw the dice, the auto industry would never be, and the buggy whip would still be a common household item.
Nope, they are all F1 race cars.. Some F1 cars only did a few races because in the early 70's there where many one time only races with these cars beacuse they where all kit cars..
Sorry, wrong. The second and third cars in are Formula Two cars, so I didn't have to go very far in to show this.....so try again. These are NOT all "Formula 1" cars. Period. By the way, the third car in is,I believe, one of the Apfelbeck-head BMW F2 cars.
"Grand Prix" + Formula 1. All others are lesser formulas. Sorry, that's just the way it is - and it's not "nitpicking" to use the correct descriptive word. Or should we include Indy Cars and F5000 as well?
To call these "bizarre" and "ugly" is a reflection of yourself and has nothing to do with the beauty and innovative genius portrayed by these historic, PRE-CAD vehicles we see today. Shame on you for such a degrading title to describe the story of some of the most important F1 cars ever built.
Ralf Schumacher in the Williams walrus at the end. That red March with the saucer on top of the nose took Ronnie Peterson to 2nd in the world championship in '70 or '71, I think, even though he didn't win a race that season.
not a bad survey, not bad at all. you still missed a couple but its interesting to see how there have always been odball f1 cars. a lot of them even went pretty fast.
I don't think the word would be "ugly" for a lot of these, "unusual" would be a better term. At least they could be innovative back then instead of all of the cars being cookie cutter replicas of each other as they are today.
I wouldn't call most of these ugly or bizarre. Most of them were innovative at the time and many cars used the same or similar concepts. Some innovations are silly and never used by anybody else such as the front mounted wing mirror on the Eiffelland car or the 'tea tray' front wing of the March. Other designs such as the large bulbous engine cover of the Ligier or the streamlined Lotus cars were standard designs for their day.
I really don't know why about 75% of these cars are 'bizarre'? The bogie drive 6 wheeler was good though, but the Tyrrell P34 is hardly bizarre and was fairly competitive.
Here goes...I can identify many but not all:- 0:22 McLaren (1968). 0:32 Matra. 0:43 Unidentified F2 car. 0:55 March 711 (circa 1971. Driven by Ronnie Peterson). 1:24 Unidentified. 1:35 Eiffelend-March. 1:46 Eiffellend-March 721 (Rolf Stommelen driver). 1:57 Ligier JS-17 (Jaques Laffite driver). 2:11 Ferrari 312T (Nicki Lauda driver). 2:19 Elf Tyrrell-Ford. 2:31 Lotus Ford Type 88 (Elio de Angelis driver). 2:42 Ligier JS9 (Jaques Laffite driver). 2:54 Saudia Williams-Ford FW07 (Alan Jones driver). 3:04 Tyrrell P34 (Ronnie Peterson driver). 3:15 Kauhsen-Ford 1979 (Patrick Neve driver). 3:25 Ensign N179 3:41 Brabham BT49 3:50 Brabham BT46B "Fan Car". (Only driven in one non-championship event - which it won and was then banned). 4:02 Ferrari 312T3 4:14 Spirit-Honda 201 (Turbo engine) 1981. 4:26 Toleman-Hart TG184. 4:37 Williams-Honda FW09. 4:48 Lotus 79. 4:59 Arrows FA1 (Riccardo Patrese driver). 5:10 Unidentified. It doesn't look like any Benetton Team F1 car that I am familiar with. Maybe sponsored by them. 5:21 Brabham BT45 5:31 Prost AP01 1998 From 5:42 to the end are F1 cars of the 21st. century...and uglier than anything which went before them 5:42 Mercedes-McLaren 5:53 Ferrari 6:06 Mercedes 6:13 Brabham-BMW
4:02 is a Ferrari 312T4 from 1980 (Jody scheckter Driver, Pic Is prolly Long Beach Last hairpin,and its 1980 cuz the car got #1 Scheckter was 79 champion)
Personally I always liked the March 711! It would be useful if the make and model of the shown vehicle was included. A missed opportunity that detracts from this video.
I can not find the 5:10 Benetton anywhere. Is it a real car? Was it ever raced? It is not in the list of Benetton cars. This video lacks information, years, teams, etc.
yes they are a bit bizarre, but i like this. it showa the thinking of the engineers as aerodynamics started to rule F1. a lot of these were to try to take advantage of the loopholes in the regulations, or for aero, like the tyrell 6 wheeler tried to get rid of the big surface of the tyre that was a big air blocker for getting the airflow to run smoothly over the rest of the car. it shows great insight b4 CFD and all the wind tunnel designed cars came along. sure they are a bit weird, but a little weirdness is ok in my book...
Most of these were before the aerodynamic era really came in hence big wings etc, todays F.1 cars spend considerable efforts on perfecting aerodynamics less drag more speed and with less fuel used! I am told that if the road turned like in a tunnel ie upside down a modern F.1 car at full speed could run along it upside down with the down force they generate, i do not know if this true.
You really used your own style on this video - and by "own style" I mean you Googled for some pictures and put them in a slideshow. No context. No names. No details on why they are "bizarre" - and by what standard are they bizarre? How did they perform? Who drove them? What year? What team? The only thing I see that's bizarre is that you'd put such little effort into this and that UA-cam would suggest it to me to watch. Not surprising that 6 years later you still only have 876 subs.
i really like how you half-assed this, what are the names of the cars? what years where they uses? what teams used them? did they ever win any races?
stephen crider thanks for the critique on this poorly written video. This is the result of laziness and zero research.
Pretty stunning isn't it? ZERO effort, other than a quick Google Images search turned into a slideshow. LAME
make your own video you snowflakes
Showing it in the wrong aspect ratio makes it even worse.
The good old days when they could still experiment , today they all look the same :-(
Gear Grinder when u thought u r the best, means u are stalled in progress.
You can still experiment in F1, but only if your name is Ross Brawn. He did it in Ferrari (with rule bending flexible front wing), in BrawnGP with double diffusor, who knows with what in Mercedes AMG Petronas.
Oh yes, they don't experiment at all now. smh The issue is that the regs have become so confining that they virtually dictate the outcome and so much engineering has been done many concepts are already proven to be fails. All in the name of keeping the costs down and competition closer. Except it fails at that since huge resources are spent to discover the most minute possibilities at gaining an edge.
.....and how do they find out what works best......by innovation. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." A quote from Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. In other words, you're spouting drivel.
Two main reasons for regulation: 1. Experiments in the 1970s & 1980s were bleeding edge technology that worked when finely controlled but caused catastrophic crashes after driver error or material failure. 2. Upsetting effects (aerodynamic & other) on other cars in the close vicinity.
Two modern-era innovations that pass the safety test for all competitors: KERS (choice of 2 main types) & DRS.
0:54 "Fuck where'd our front wing go?"
"Ahh fook it m8, poot a fookin serf board on eht insted"
i love the look of some of these old cars, wacky racers , the modern ones all look the same
These were not so much "bizarre" as simply designs intended to circumvent or take advantage of loopholes in the rules.
With bizarre results
I don't think all of them fall into that category.
Bruce Kennewell to many well educated F1 people, "BIZARRE" is in reality Futuristic , Innovative and Design Genius. Good eye Bruce.
How would you know, there are ZERO details on ANY of the cars here. Who drove them? What team? Why the design choices? How did it work out? What was the loophole they got around? Who defines "bizarre" One of the laziest "videos" I've EVER seen on YT.
@ 5:00 That Warsteiner Arrows A2 looks like a fighter jet. Really cool
The 6 wheel Williams was shown. It was tested but never raced as it was banned before it could race.
New developments have a way of looking odd until we become accustomed to them. To the people who watched Fangio win in a Silver Arrow, the rear engine cars were bizarre. To those who watched Jim Clarke drive a torpedo car, anything that had wings was bizarre. The arrival of side-pods and skirts was odd. More recently, the high nose and dangling wings at the front look like a walrus or something. And the Concord would have looked pretty odd to the Wright Brothers. What is perhaps more odd, is that the Boeing 707 still looks pretty much like an airliner. Give it only two engines, slightly larger, which they did not have in 1956... Now why are we still building airliners very much the same way we did 60 years ago?
Kneedragon1962 cause it works
Kneedragon1962 some designs are very adequate, look at the evolutionary history of the crocodile.
At least half these cars I was wondering why they would be on this list.
They look beautiful to me, they were other times
Ricky El Griego Alonso they are all beautiful in their own unique way.
2:06 Why is the '75 Ferrari in this line up ?
Agreed ! And the 1979-80 Ferrari as well. Jody Scheckter's
Probably to show off the last time those big air boxes were used. Another big difference is related to its predecessor. In fact the 312T was so much different when compared to the 312B ...
Marco Geração isn't the air box where the camera is which is above their head?
Kevin Anton perhaps because necrophonica thinks that it is "bizarre and ugly".
Roblox Gamer the ferrari mentioned has no camera mounted on the engine air intake portal.
the fan car at 4:00 was fastest but banned after 1 race
david zdrojewski met all the rules too but still banned.
david zdrojewski that's how it always is.
Win hands down, get banned.
Not just F1?
Consider the Mazda 787B at Le Mans.
I guess Mazda has the rights to Wankel engines all to themselves, and seeing as it takes a rotary to whoop a rotary,..... you probably get where im going.
designer Gordon Murray prefers to say it was "withdrawn" not banned (and hints that the decision was part of a gambit by Brabham team owner Bernie Ecclestone re increasing his overall power in the sport by staying on good terms with Lotus)
Looks like the same idea used by Jim Hall on the Chaparral 2J in the '60s. It was banned too.
'Scuse me, that was 1970.
Best way to find out if an idea is good or bad is to build it and see the outcome. I don't find any of these cars ugly, someone had an idea they thought would beat the other guy and they tried it. That is what innovation is all about. If it does not work move on until you find something that does.
Interesting designs,..............very cool!
and today we have those additional winglets behind the central air intakes once again!
It's a bit of a pity that all footage has been stretched to match a 16:9 or even 25:9 video frame representation. This makes some of the cars much weirder than they actually are.
Some of these do NOT fall in the category of bizarre. When multiple teams are doing the same thing, it's normal, not bizarre. A good example is the giant air intake above and behind the driver's head was standard in the '70's. And you misses one. There was a John Player Special, a Lotus, I think, that had 4 wheels in the front. Late '70's.
They'd probably look less bizarre if they hadn't taken standard 4x3 format photos and stretched them out to 16x9. I hate it when they do that....
This is amazing. This makes you really understand how incredibly gutsy these guys really are. Looking back, they really look like astronauts who were going towards the unknown....experiment after experiment, life constantly on the line. Incredibly beautiful.
Wonderful cars all together , which ar the Bizzar one ??
4:47 What a beauty
tyrell p34 sixwheeler was bizzare, but not ugly or bad performing.
An interesting montage to watch, but where are the names of the cars? Teams? Years raced in? A brief description? Records?
Impressed!! I didn't know that there were such models in F1. Weird though but innovation was their aim in order to gain some seconds...
The first cars shown, with their spindly looking mounts and wings, had the rear wing mounted to the suspension uprights, I believe. It's interesting because it doesn't load the chassis and compress the springs, it just loads the tires and a few suspension bits. I have a bit of a time wrapping my head around it, unsprung weight is a bad thing, and that wing would contribute to that. On the other hand having the tires mashed into the pavement would make for better traction. I don't suppose it's the way to go since you never see racers designed that way any longer.
Jim Hall pioneered the use of wings to generate down force with his Chaparral Can-Am racers. His design used a movable wing with it's angle of attack controlled by a pedal. It did add unsprung weight, but it also allowed for a ton of down force to be applied while cornering without compressing the suspension. On the straights the wing would be flattened out to minimize drag. Movable wings were copied by his competition in the Can-Am series, who took it from there and applied it to the Formula cars of the day. It worked there as well, though they went a bit too far trying to minimize the unsprung weight issue. The result was a fragile support structure that created a few nasty crashes when they failed. FIA responded by banning movable wings and further requiring wings to be mounted to the chassis.
Are you sure it wasn't Fritz Von Opel. Really sure? "Use of wings to generate downforce". How about Bob Osiecki? Both got there before Jim Hall. What Hall did, was much more important: he attached the wing TO the suspension rather than to the body or chassis: that made the real difference. And got banned.
Neither bizarre nor ugly.
simply fascinating.
Hats off to the pioneers who boldly venture into the uncharted in hopes of finding "the key" without their willingness throw the dice, the auto industry would never be, and the buggy whip would still be a common household item.
Ah the days when F1 was the pinnacle of creative solutions and innovation. Now all the cars look and sound the same.
Fantastic. Thanks for the memories
the 5:45 "nose tumour" mclaren it was only in a one test of pre-season to fit sensors from the bars to measure (i think) the deflection
They are going to look odd if you distort the pictures.
First: these aren't all "Formula 1"cars. Bad start.Second, define "bizarre" where race cars are concerned. Bob Osieke's Mad Dog? Please define.
Nope, they are all F1 race cars.. Some F1 cars only did a few races because in the early 70's there where many one time only races with these cars beacuse they where all kit cars..
Sorry, wrong. The second and third cars in are Formula Two cars, so I didn't have to go very far in to show this.....so try again. These are NOT all "Formula 1" cars. Period. By the way, the third car in is,I believe, one of the Apfelbeck-head BMW F2 cars.
OK, how about Grand Prix cars? Really, no need to to nit pick.
"Grand Prix" + Formula 1. All others are lesser formulas. Sorry, that's just the way it is - and it's not "nitpicking" to use the correct descriptive word. Or should we include Indy Cars and F5000 as well?
if they have had really bizarre ones, yeah, why not?
The Ligier 'Teapot' @ 2minutes may have looked ugly, but it was fast.
Back when "wind tunnel" was slang for rectum, and that is where many of these seem to have come from.
You forgot the 2018 cars with that HIDEOUS halo!
forgot the Ferrari with 2 rear wings at funny angles.
To call these "bizarre" and "ugly" is a reflection of yourself and has nothing to do with the beauty and innovative genius portrayed by these historic, PRE-CAD vehicles we see today. Shame on you for such a degrading title to describe the story of some of the most important F1 cars ever built.
I liked that AR Vacuumcleaner vehicle and the Tyrell Sixwheeler very much then...
The Tyrrell 012 is not ugly! looks pretty
Ralf Schumacher in the Williams walrus at the end. That red March with the saucer on top of the nose took Ronnie Peterson to 2nd in the world championship in '70 or '71, I think, even though he didn't win a race that season.
Not a single car i would call ugly. Each one is beautiful and unique
the soundtrack made me scared omg
How about the front "wings" on all the F1's these days
And it would have been nice to know the highest they placed in any given race.
they were at the beginning of "Aerodynamic concept" just that...
the johnny player special is the most sexy! @4:54
geewizboogieman First Ayrton Senna car, black Lotus, John Player Special.
nice as well but for me, the player car wins! ;)
Cool video...why so many thumbs down? Geez
....En busqueda del diseño DEFINITIVO a traves de los años en la FORMULA 1.
not a bad survey, not bad at all. you still missed a couple but its interesting to see how there have always been odball f1 cars. a lot of them even went pretty fast.
Who did the music?
... thought those 2 and 3 wing cars were promising. lol.
Interesting was the freedom of concept of cars. Today they all look alike ...
When shit didn't look the same
Today it's "f1 the clone wars"
What is the name of the background song in the video?
Run what you brung!
Lotus preta e dourada um dos carros mais bizarros da F1? tá maluco?
To have seen it in real life, the lotus 88 from 1981 (The one sponsered by Essex) is by far the best looking f1 car of all time. .....period.
I just cannot find any reasonable answers for that "FUGLY" Ensign!
1:34 look like wedge shape indycar from 70s
What is the music?
I don't think the word would be "ugly" for a lot of these, "unusual" would be a better term. At least they could be innovative back then instead of all of the cars being cookie cutter replicas of each other as they are today.
I wouldn't call most of these ugly or bizarre. Most of them were innovative at the time and many cars used the same or similar concepts. Some innovations are silly and never used by anybody else such as the front mounted wing mirror on the Eiffelland car or the 'tea tray' front wing of the March. Other designs such as the large bulbous engine cover of the Ligier or the streamlined Lotus cars were standard designs for their day.
Can formulate 1 cars be made road use
Why don't they put slots in the pavement and turn them into electric cars?
I really don't know why about 75% of these cars are 'bizarre'?
The bogie drive 6 wheeler was good though, but the Tyrrell P34 is hardly bizarre and was fairly competitive.
5 mins on google with "weird f1 cars" and voila... one apple imovie later...
They look like hot wheels!
Beschissene Optik, Katastrofales Design, aber Sau Schnell, es war so COOL, WAHNSINN
Would be much better if you identified the cars!
Here goes...I can identify many but not all:-
0:22 McLaren (1968).
0:32 Matra.
0:43 Unidentified F2 car.
0:55 March 711 (circa 1971. Driven by Ronnie Peterson).
1:24 Unidentified.
1:35 Eiffelend-March.
1:46 Eiffellend-March 721 (Rolf Stommelen driver).
1:57 Ligier JS-17 (Jaques Laffite driver).
2:11 Ferrari 312T (Nicki Lauda driver).
2:19 Elf Tyrrell-Ford.
2:31 Lotus Ford Type 88 (Elio de Angelis driver).
2:42 Ligier JS9 (Jaques Laffite driver).
2:54 Saudia Williams-Ford FW07 (Alan Jones driver).
3:04 Tyrrell P34 (Ronnie Peterson driver).
3:15 Kauhsen-Ford 1979 (Patrick Neve driver).
3:25 Ensign N179
3:41 Brabham BT49
3:50 Brabham BT46B "Fan Car". (Only driven in one non-championship event - which it won and was then banned).
4:02 Ferrari 312T3
4:14 Spirit-Honda 201 (Turbo engine) 1981.
4:26 Toleman-Hart TG184.
4:37 Williams-Honda FW09.
4:48 Lotus 79.
4:59 Arrows FA1 (Riccardo Patrese driver).
5:10 Unidentified. It doesn't look like any Benetton Team F1 car that I am familiar with. Maybe sponsored by them.
5:21 Brabham BT45
5:31 Prost AP01 1998
From 5:42 to the end are F1 cars of the 21st. century...and uglier than anything which went before them
5:42 Mercedes-McLaren
5:53 Ferrari
6:06 Mercedes
6:13 Brabham-BMW
4:48 lotus 85T/86T (de Angelis), and the unknown car is the Tyrrell 012 driven by Alboreto
Brabham Alfa Romeo fan car is winner Sweden F1 Gran prix 1978. >Niki Lauda>>>
4:02 is a Ferrari 312T4 from 1980 (Jody scheckter Driver, Pic Is prolly Long Beach Last hairpin,and its 1980 cuz the car got #1 Scheckter was 79 champion)
I am impressed by your knowledge of the different cars,I only knew a handful of them.Thank you
I already knew the years and model number... having followed F1 for 50 years.
ur so kewl
Niki Lauda 's Ferrari is a Crazy
I really like the songtrack! how is it called and by who?
+MoeMahtava I'm sorry my friend, I don´t no know. This song is from a friend , I had borrowed this CD a long time ago.
what a pity :(
sounds like tangerine dream to me
Tried shazam & it doesn't know, either; shazam sucks trying to figure out older, obscure music
darude - sandstorm
Where are the 2014 to 2016 F1 cars??? Lol hahahaha
And the complete season of 2014, 2015
Personally I always liked the March 711! It would be useful if the make and model of the shown vehicle was included. A missed opportunity that detracts from this video.
I can not find the 5:10 Benetton anywhere. Is it a real car? Was it ever raced? It is not in the list of Benetton cars. This video lacks information, years, teams, etc.
It is the 1983 Tyrrell 012 and that wing was only used in testing.
Some one was experimets, and others was cool, bizarre?, many ...
2:20 awesome cars
Now you seen 1 you have seen them all
yes they are a bit bizarre, but i like this. it showa the thinking of the engineers as aerodynamics started to rule F1. a lot of these were to try to take advantage of the loopholes in the regulations, or for aero, like the tyrell 6 wheeler tried to get rid of the big surface of the tyre that was a big air blocker for getting the airflow to run smoothly over the rest of the car. it shows great insight b4 CFD and all the wind tunnel designed cars came along. sure they are a bit weird, but a little weirdness is ok in my book...
Bizarre? Dangerous cars would suit much more?
Most of these were before the aerodynamic era really came in hence big wings etc, todays F.1 cars spend considerable efforts on perfecting aerodynamics less drag more speed and with less fuel used!
I am told that if the road turned like in a tunnel ie upside down a modern F.1 car at full speed could run along it upside down with the down force they generate, i do not know if this true.
Ni idea, aquí hay coches que fueron preciosos
Ima scan a bunch of still pics from magazines and make me a video with no information at all. Just assemble someone else's work and spew it back out.
5:01 Name of that car?
John Tyler Arrows A2
I thought the Ferrari at 5:56 looked good...
Starts @ 0:23
Now they all look crap with that halo
Lotus black and golden, bizarre f1 car? Crazy?
Angelo Thomé Magro Thomé Thats what I thought. That car was beautiful.
I like the Tyrrell P34 6 Wheels. Look for HOT RACING CLUB.
The music is fine, the cars not much less the 312, this one does not know anything of F1
diversity is beautiful
You really used your own style on this video - and by "own style" I mean you Googled for some pictures and put them in a slideshow. No context. No names. No details on why they are "bizarre" - and by what standard are they bizarre? How did they perform? Who drove them? What year? What team? The only thing I see that's bizarre is that you'd put such little effort into this and that UA-cam would suggest it to me to watch. Not surprising that 6 years later you still only have 876 subs.
Where is Caterham of 2014? That thing was creepy ugly.
NO SON BIZARROS..SON HERMOZOS :)
Why is the John Player Special in his list. It's good looking "conventional" car. Paint job???
i miss the names and dates
2:42 les pneus arrière wtf ....^^
Why the Ferrari at the end
The whole nose section looks a bit out of place somehow
6 wheel Tyrell
Check the tyres 😨