Cast your vote for the most gorgeous car body! These are the prime contenders.
As a start of our new series, we are going to celebrate the most exciting and eye-pleasing body styles in car design, from last 70 years of the automobile era. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surprisingly, cars have what can be considered an universal beauty - no matter where you're coming from. Even evil-looking aliens might be pacified if you arrive in one of these models... or you can make a very fast escape, if things go wrong.
Italian Stylists in the 60s: Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, by Franco Scaglione - 1967
Continuing the string of simply enchanting designer bodies for Alfa Romeo in the 50s and 60s (see for example the Pininfarina custom body for Alfa Romeo 33 revealed at Paris show in 1969 and discussed in our previous article) - Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale ("Street") is another curvaceous beauty, as desirable as it is rare.
The street version of the Alfa-Romeo Tipo 33 racing car was designed by Franco Scaglione, a major talent who just left Bertone studio, and went free-lancing, apparently losing none of his master touch.
The first production vehicle to have "butterfly" doors, the first mid-engined Alfa Romeo road car appeared at Milan Motorshow in 1967. Its voluptuous, nicely proportioned shape many consider to be one of the most beautiful designs ever:
On a racing track the car was intended to lock horns with Ferrari (then promoting its famous Dino 206S) and a line of 910s from Porsche. The 33 model performance was called "unprecendented": considering it went from 0 to 60mph in just 6 seconds, and could reach maximum speed of 162 mph (260 km/hr) - making it a true supercar at the time, perhaps even better than Ferrari Daytona.
(image credit: Phillip Leemans)
Only 18 such cars have been built, mostly due to their astronomical price. Some versions had an entirely different front-end styling (I find it much tamer and less flamboyant):
(images credit: Wouter Melissen / Rob Clements)
The 33 Series Alfa-Romeo chassis proved to be attractive to numerous stylists, among them Bertone, Pininfarina, Ital Design from 1968 to 1976. In the future issues of the series we will try to cover these rarities, as well.
"Muscular, aggressive and sensual, the 33 Stradale was magnificently sculpted"
---------
German Style: Could it be the neatest-looking German supercar from the 60s?
As we all know, Porsche designers rarely change body styles, preferring to stick to the same "good old" look for decades. However, there was one model easily overlooked, sandwiched between canonical 911 and variations on 550 Spyder - the drop-dead gorgeous Porsche 904 Carrera GTS.
Porsche 904 Carrera GTS (1963-1964) was no slacker in every department. Coming from a premier sports car manufacturer it's got what it takes to compete on the track - but the street version is even more exciting, bringing these sexy curves to the highway. On a closer look, the car even had "garters", funky-looking leather hood straps... Not to mention that it makes great scale model toys (I remember having one as a kid)
The 904 model debuted in 1963, as an answer to the new great cars from Alfa-Romeo and Abarth in GT class. Since then it has become one of the most collectible Porsche models, a fascinating page in the marque's history.
Note the uncluttered back-end styling, and the compact aerodynamic look, taking advantage of its short-base chassis.
Proving the versatility of this car, it won a second place in a snow-covered 1965 Rallye Monte Carlo. Imagine sending this sculpted metal rocket around snow-covered road curves, ripping through the silent winter forest... tasting the car's exclusivity and power.
The following are rarely seen images from the official 904 concept brochure... I am almost convinced that this was the ultimate in German sports car styling, bar some fabulous examples from Mercedes.
I agree the P1800 is perfect as well, especially considering you can get a restored one for around 15000. The tipo 33 is gorgeous but completely unobtainable.
I wouldn't say that the Alfa is beholden to the E Type Jaguar. Its style is really evolutionary from the late 40's early 50's Disco series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Disco_Volante, and you can even see some of these styling hints in the touring cars from the 30s like the great 2900 8c coupes. I would say if anything Jaguar was behind the times when you compare say the XJ120 to a Disco Volante, though I love the Jaguar for any other dozens of reasons.
Joe, here is a link to a lot of historical Alfa Romeo cars that were either concept cars or especially reflective of a design from specific models. http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/model/6/Alfa%20Romeo/model.aspx
One great thing about Alfa is that they used a lot of different designers and were not afraid of taking chances. Not a great business model, but a treasure for us car buffs.
I really like that Type 33. I like the new Alfa C8 too. Why isn't the Ferrari 275GTB in on THE list? I would never say that the 904 wasn't a beautiful car, I've lusted for one since the day I first saw and sat in one. BUT, i would say that the 906 is more beautiful. And while we're at it, A Lotus Eleven was sensual as well. AND while the "E" type is beautiful, you must look back to the "C" and "D" types....They were truly "Sex on wheels". And those Elise's are seducing me at this very moment...Gotta go.......
About the similarities in the design. To my knowledge the space shuttle design itself was never classified. I remember hearing an interview with a NASA engineer who stated that if the Russians had asked for the schematics they probably would have been given them.
All similarities end after external appearances. The main point of difference is that Space Shuttle is TWO-stage rocket -- first stage are solid boosters, while second stage is an orbiter itself. Buran-Energia is a three-stage rocket, Energia being a complete independent heavy-lift booster in the same class as Saturn V. Orbiter is just a payload (or a third stage at most), and could be lifted to LEO without ever engaging its engines, which are much smaller and less powerful that Shuttle's ones. It had much more sophisticated avionics compared to early shuttles, as it could land automatically, and it was also equipped with ejection seats for all of crewmembers -- something that Challenger crew would sertainly wish they had.
khathi is essentially correct. The Buran was a principally different vehicle, similar in appearance only. It is significantly smaller the the Shuttle as well. To call the Energia a launch vehicle in the same class as the Saturn V is technically correct but deceptive. The Saturn V had a design capacity of 200 tons to LEO (It actually lifted 156 tons to LEO with Apollo 17.). I think the Energia could manage just over 100 tons. Still, I don't mean to belittle the Energia. It is an impressive launch vehicle. But it is unlikely the Saturn V will be topped any time in the near future.
Well, Saturn V COULD've been topped -- if the whole Energia-Buran project wasn't scrapped, that is. You see, Energia was a highly scalable design, and you could've easily bolt up to a four additional fist stage boosters (IIRC, some of the pics even show this config, sadly, it was never really flown) effectively doubling its capacity -- up to 175 tonnes. But you are right, LEO capacity for standard config was just 100 tonnes, 20 tonnes less than for Saturn V (which could lift just 120 tonnes to LEO, not 200).
Another point -- the orbiter that was destroyed in 2002 was OK-1K1, the very same that was flown in 1988. Another one, OK-1K2, one that should've fly manned mission, was never completed and is still mothballed in Baikonur, IIRC.
Objection! Crew capsule remained intact after orbiter disintegration, and remained intact (and crew alive, albeit with at least several crewmembers inconscious) until the final strike into the water. Had it been equipped with ejection seats, crew could safely eject during "drop" phase.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but the Baikal story is a well done 1st April joke, by Vadim Lukashevich, the webmaster of buran.ru - the most comprehensive website on Buran project.
There were advanced plans to improve the Saturn V as well. One was to stretch the tanks and add a sixth main engine for a total of 9 million pounds of lift-off thrust. Another was to add solid, strap-on boosters. Yet another of the more ambitious proposals was to separate the main engines from the tanks and parachute them down for re-use. I actually knew one of the engineers who helped develop the F-1. He said that the only reason the engines were not re-useable was because they were at the bottom of the Atlantic. The engines were actually designed to be able to be used five to seven times. But, alas, so many good ideas never to be tried. Sigh.
"khathi: ejection seats would not have helped the challenger crew - they (still) would have been incinerated at the speed they were traveling."
According to: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/q0122.shtml
The Challenger was at 46,000 ft travelling at 1.9 Mach when the disaster struck.
According to: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg14920124.300-please-keep-your-seat.html
The Zvezda K-36 ejection seat of the Buran allows cosmonauts to eject at 30Km (98,000 feet) and 4 Mach.
Columbia disaster... that's another story.
Thank you for the pics. I've been fascinated by space ships since I was a child and this is the first time I see Buran from inside. So I'm very grateful :)
''Pre-launch moving of "Buran" and "Energia" on rails'' The last two photos are of Proton, not Buran or Energia.
Proton is a much smaller rocket (A medium one). You can also see the 6 outer tanks and 6 engines attached to them, no central engines, very different from Energia's 4 boosters and 3 core engines.
I'm surprised nobody noticed yet. Proton is a sixties design, still flying today, commercially, although they just had one launch failure with the second stage just after staging.
Yoy may be interested in the end of the Buran story: The last prototype has been discovered by a television team somewhere in Bahrain back in 2004. These days, it is on its way to a museum in Germany. Some pics can be found here: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/0,1518,546884,00.html
One reason they might have decided to have it horizontal when transporting to the launchpad is that it's possible to accelerate much faster. The angular momentum on an already erected rocket is so much greater that any acceleration beyond a bare minimum risks damage or even toppling the rocket.
One of the Buran's was stored for a couple of years in a shipping yard in Bahrain (Persian Gulf). I was visiting the yard and saw a space shuttle type of craft, found later on the internet that it was one of the Buran's. The wings where taken off but you could enter the Buran trough a opening in the hull. Took home one of the smaller panels from the cockpit as a souvenir.
Last thing I heard that is will be transported to a museum in Mannhein, Gemany.
The 'German museum' mentioned here several times, is the Technik Museum, and the Buran is shipped to the Sinsheim location of the museum. See http://www.technik-museum.de.
One of these shuttles is in Australia. It was at the worlds fair, and the russians didn't have the cash to fly it home. So it still sits there to this day.
Anon, the one that was in Australia -- it's the very same that finally arrived in Germany some time ago. The company couldn't make profit by using it as an attraction, so they've shipped it to warehouse in Bahrain and just let it sit there.
Regarding the Shuttle and ejection seats, there *were* ejection seats on Columbia, for her first few flights, before the system was considered flight-qualified. There were two ejection capsules, similar to those found on SR-71 Blackbirds, and intended for use if the vehicle was nearly finished with its reentry and about to ditch -- a landing off of a runway is not considered survivable.
But they're problematic. For one thing, they are very heavy. For another, you need a path for the ejection seats to take. For structural reasons, that could only be provided for commander and pilot. It is simply not done to have ejection seats for only two of the crew, so once the crew grew above two, the ejection seats were deactivated and eventually removed. No other Orbiter had them but Columbia.
Would such seats have saved the Challenger crew? Forgiving that they could only have been effective for CDR and PLT, it is still by no means clear that a safe ejection could have been achieved. Most likely, they would have ejected directly into the fireball. And it's not a flight regime where you'd ordinarily want ejection seats -- in all other failure modes, ejection seats during a Shuttle launch will be fatal.
It's not as clear as it might seem. Wayne Hale (former Shuttle program director) has a fascinating series of posts on Black Zones in his blog that goes into this problem in more detail. http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/
One more thing -- there are some very cool pictures in there. Two are of Proton rockets, unrelated to Energia-Buran but to this day, the heavy-lift workhorse of the Russian rocket fleet. More interesting are the pictures of what I presume to be Polyus, the payload of the "other" Energia launch. Energia flew once without the Buran. It carried a space station called Polyus on its back. Little is known about it, as it was a military flight. It may even have been nuclear powered. What *is* known is that although the Energia performed flawlessly, Polyus' own engines failed to inject it into the proper orbit, and it ended up in the Pacific Ocean. Very sad.
One piece of Buran-related hardware did eventually fly: a docking compartment for Mir. It was modified with Apollo-Soyuz Test Project unisex docking adapters and installed on Mir by the Space Shuttle Atlantis. The newly-constructed Orbiter Docking System was designed to mate with it, and it was used throughout the Shuttle-Mir program. Its legacy lives on in the ODSes in each surviving Orbiter, and in the Pressurized Mating Adapters aboard the ISS.
Calli, Polyus was a Prototype Unmanned Laser Battlestation. Gorbachey didn't even know what it was till he showed up for the launch and was then briefed on what it really was. Since he was then trying to shoot down the US's SDI program diplomaticly and publicity wise ... the USSR suddenly having an on orbit working example would have been *Bad*. Especally since he knew the USSR's ecconomy couldn't support building a full on orbit presence that the system would require. Also, the Polyus's engines didn't fail to inject it into orbit. Since the Polyus was, for engineering and/or aerodynamic reasons, mounted with it's tail section forward. The Polyus's RCS failed to stop it's reorintation at 180 degrees but let it spin a full 360 degrees before it's engines fired and did a dandy job of aborting the mission into the Pacific.
mz, moving the rockets out of the assemblly hall to the launch pad horizontly has been the way the USSR/Russians have always done it. All their infrastructer is based around it. When, or if, they ever looked at vertical intergration and rollout it most have not made sence to them since they believe firmly in the engineering proverb "If it ain't broke, don't mess with it".
The Nazi UFO photo is not a fake. Read some of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs and check the external links - they were building such hmm vehicles? as I have seen on Discovery Channel they were supposed to work on hovercraft-like fans only capable to lift them more than few inches above ground :) Similar small saucers have been built more recently and some of them even work in a limited way.
Paris looked so quiet and deserted back then... Even at that time of day, nowadays this stunt would be impossible to perform. There's ALWAYS too much traffic to do something like this now.
Of course he was a selfish, reckless bastard. But sometimes, one needs to be... ;-)
In the interview he talks about the one turn he aborted (at Rue Lepic) because another garbage lorry was in the way...you can notice it in the film at about 6:15. He had to divert through the Cemetery and was afraid of running out of film. Amazing stuff...j'aime Paris!
There's a pretty good quicktime version of the film here, as well as lots of good info on the facts about the filming, as revealed by director Claude Lelouch himself.
The British army used pink for desert patrol vehicles during the Second World War and continued to do so for some time after. Not just slightly pink, either, but /very/ pink. They were known as Pink Panthers.
One of the primary objectives of dazzle camouflage was to prevent effective use of optical rangefinders. It was also important to confuse observers as to course and speed so many camo schemes incorporated false bow waves or false bow and stern outlines. As an aside, sometimes camouflage can be too good. The multi color scheme developed for the Denny Steam Gunboats in WWII was so good that two gunboats ran into each other while on patrol because neither one saw the other.
Pink is a popular color in the military. Robyn Miller, co-creator of the game Myst, has a truly wonderful article on other pink military vehicles here. http://tinselman.typepad.com/tinselman/2006/04/war_pink_peace.html
I need to repaint my bedroom, and Medium Lavender Mauve Grey looks just the ticket. Hurrah for battleships.
Bedrooms aside, dazzle camouflage actually turns out to have been pretty effective, as slow joe crow points out. It was meant to confuse rather than conceal, and did its job very well. (After all - we did *win*.) Many of those patterns created one or more fake bows, which confused submarine periscopes trying to aim for the ship's weakest spot. I do wonder whether the general designs chosen would have been different if the prevailing artistic movement at the time hadn't been modernism (and if you look at paintings by people like Bawden and Ravilious you can absolutely see where those boldly hatched patterns came from aesthetically).
They will definitely have a hard time being hit by torpedoes.
BTW, we have received some emails pointing out that we misidentified the HMS Argus as the HMS Sargus. I'm sticking to my theory that this, too, was part of the camo.
Avi, the picture caption that reads 'The HMS "Sargus"' should say 'HmS Argus'. HMS, standing for His (or Her) Majesty's Ship, does not have 'the' in front of it.
Not sure if that last comment was meant as a contradiction, but just to clarify: no-one would say "the Her Majesty's Ship Whatever visited port today", and even if "popular usage" saw a lot of people abusing the language in that way, it would not suddenly make it acceptable :-P
I always thought that dazzleflage was pretty cool to look at and something that might serve a useful purpose today. Watching a program on sharks a while back some scientists conducted an experiment where they tossed two pieces of wood, one shaped like a seal and one a square. Naturally the shark attacked the seal shape but pretty much ignored the square because it didn't look natural. Imagine if you were to do a dazzle pattern on a wetsuit and/or the bottom of a surfboard and actually make it visible when viewed from below I wonder if it would help to prevent surfers and snorklers from being mistaken for seals by sharks since their outlines would be completely broken up and look completely unnatural to a hungry shark.
"QUANTUM SHOT" #319
|
SFSite
13 Comments:
Too beautiful for words
ROFL:
Look at this Digg - the funniest title ever
I am drooling. And it's unbecoming.
Both cars are styled heavily upon the Jaguar E-Type, first released in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_E-Type
Good point, Joe!
Jaguar though has pretty strange proportions...
Well, someone's a fan of the big headlights...
...but then again, who isn't? ;)
Volvo P-1800.
Perfect.
I don´t like cars in general, but these are SOOO beautiful...!!!
I agree the P1800 is perfect as well, especially considering you can get a restored one for around 15000. The tipo 33 is gorgeous but completely unobtainable.
I wouldn't say that the Alfa is beholden to the E Type Jaguar. Its style is really evolutionary from the late 40's early 50's Disco series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Disco_Volante, and you can even see some of these styling hints in the touring cars from the 30s like the great 2900 8c coupes. I would say if anything Jaguar was behind the times when you compare say the XJ120 to a Disco Volante, though I love the Jaguar for any other dozens of reasons.
GeSchmidtt, indeed there are a number of similarities. Didn't know about the Alfa Disco.
Joe, here is a link to a lot of historical Alfa Romeo cars that were either concept cars or especially reflective of a design from specific models. http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/model/6/Alfa%20Romeo/model.aspx
One great thing about Alfa is that they used a lot of different designers and were not afraid of taking chances. Not a great business model, but a treasure for us car buffs.
The Porsche 904 Carrera GTS is (in my opinion) the hottest Porsche made.
I really like that Type 33. I like the new Alfa C8 too. Why isn't the Ferrari 275GTB in on THE list? I would never say that the 904 wasn't a beautiful car, I've lusted for one since the day I first saw and sat in one. BUT, i would say that the 906 is more beautiful. And while we're at it, A Lotus Eleven was sensual as well. AND while the "E" type is beautiful, you must look back to the "C" and "D" types....They were truly "Sex on wheels". And those Elise's are seducing me at this very moment...Gotta go.......
Post a Comment
<< Home