|
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that so much of the downforce generated nowadays comes from tricky little vortex generation and management. The rules are such that this becomes the only option for big gains now - you have to construct and manipulate incredibly complex systems of vortices which tend to be so finely tuned that all manner of things can push them outside their operating window and suddenly you're goosed. It's easy to lose up to 50% of your downforce by following another car closely but it's also easy to lose ~20% even from a fair distance, never mind things like gusty cross winds and steer effects.
The teams do make every effort to reduce these sensitivities but they are a fundamental side-effect of the physics you're forced to exploit. The 2009 rules should go a long way to making closer racing easier as they dramatically reduce the options for such complex and sensitive aerodynamic systems.
I do believe that F1 cars should always have downforce, not just so i get to keep my job (!) but also because they should have the strongest outright performance of any circuit-racing car. We just need the FIA to forget tradition for a minute and start thinking with an open mind with regard to the aero regulations. In itself, aerodynamics isn't responsible for the pi## poor state of racing in F1, it's the narrow alleyway the rules have forced the aerodynamicists down. There is no reason why it *has* to be done this way.
Maybe when Max gets done going all 'Howard Hughes' on us then we'll get someone in charge who looks at the situation in a different way.
|