Most aesthetically pleasing unsuccessful racing car

If it looks fast, it'll be fast, according to one racing saying - but it doesn't always happen. There have been some undeniably pretty racing cars that haven't been that good so, following a couple of threads on aesthetics that still seem to be going strong, I thought I'd start one for cars that haven't really lived up to their looks.

This was partly inspired by a trip to the Beaulieu Motor Museum the other week, and seeing the McLaren MP4/9. The 1994 Peugeot-powered car actually sets the bar pretty high, since it took multiple podium finishes, including second places in Monaco and (inherited) in Belgium. But compared to McLarens of previous years it was a flop, despite a simple, neatly packaged design and that red and white livery that made almost all McLarens look good (its successor being a notable exception!).

For true lack of success, the Andrea Moda S921 has to qualify - with that menacing black livery it was certainly a looker, but only once saw a race start and didn't get much further than that. From the wider world of racing, I'd also nominate the sinister black Epsilon Euskadi EE1 - far and away more successful than the Moda, but with only one season of racing it wasn't given chance to show its potential.

Got to be plenty more than that, but that's a good-looking trio of failures (of varying degrees) for starters...

There was a Ligier from the late '80s which fitted the bill.

Is it this one? It certainly is a decent looking car

http://continentalcircus.files.wordp...uillard892.jpg

Ligier JS17?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ce_GP_1981.jpg

After this car Claude Galpin took over in the design chair and Ligiers were never again going to win beauty contests.

Most pre-Galopin Ligiers were good lookers apart from the JS5 with the wide nose and the huge air box

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1980-05-24.jpg

The BMW M1 was brilliant but rubbish. I don't know if it ever actually achieved any of it purposes but it looked stunning; even in BASF livery.

The Hendrick Motorsports Corvette GTP from the IMSA GT series. Maybe its just the paint job, but I always felt this car looked good. Way better than the Corvette Daytona Prototypes of today. It did manage two wins in 1986 at Road Atlanta and Palm beach, both driven by Doc Bundy and Sarel van der Merwe, but otherwise rarely finished in the top five, and regularly failed to finish at all. With just two wins between 1985 and 1989 (with full factory support from Chevrolet until 1988) I think its fair to say the car was pretty unsuccessful.

http://www.carlustblog.com/images/20...vette_gtp1.jpg

Pretty for a touring car. The 406 never scored a win in the BTCC.

http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/wp...sSuper13-2.jpg

Well post #1 and maybe not exactly what you're looking for but I think I would say Frank Lockhart's V-16 Stutz Black Hawk Special LSR car.

I thought the 1974 F1 Shadow DN - 3 was appealing for a mysteriously unsuccessful ride.


http://www.fantasyjunction.com/cars/...Cosworth%20DFV


Their Can-Am racers were pretty bad ass looking too. Especially formatted in the same livery.

Some of the Minardis were pretty good-looking, even though needless to say they were backmarkers.

I also liked the 2007 Spyker, and 2004 Jordan - both at the back of the field.

I liked the Lotus (Fernandes' new team) of 2010 as well.

Okay, I can carry on... In short: I have liked lots of backmarker cars.:) Certainly they qualify for "unsuccessful" in terms of raw results, but not in terms of aestethics!