It’s a brilliant technical mini-study that I strongly encourage you to read – here’s a brief outline of his suggestions.
Anderson starts things off on the right footing by looking at how F1 cars can be helped to race more closely to each other. He ignores gimmicky, artificial ideas aimed only at increasing overtaking, such as power boost buttons.
Instead Anderson looks at why F1 cars cannot run close to one another and points to three problems: loss of rear wing downforce, turbulent air reducing the ‘ram’ effect of a following car’s engine, reducing engine power; and reduced front wing and bargeboard assembly downforce.
To remedy this he proposes the following:
Bring back slicks increasing mechanical grip at turn-in.
Lower and reduce the size of the front wing to make it less effective and less sensitive to the wake of another car. Also make it a fixed specification for the duration of the season.
Simplify suspension wishbones so they no longer have an aerodynamic function, reducing the negative effect of following another car.
Simplify brake ducts so they no longer have an aerodynamic function, reducing the negative effect of following another car.
Ban aerodynamic covers on wheels to marginally increase drag, thereby allowing another car to follow more closely
Ban bargeboards cutting downforce and reducing the negative effect of following another car.
Simplifying upper bodywork cutting downforce and reducing the negative effect of following another car.
Increase the size of the diffuser to give the driver back some of the lost grip but in a form that will not be significantly reduced as one car follows another.
Make the rear wing a fixed specification for the duration of the season to make it less than optimal at unusual tracks like Monte-Carlo (where a high downforce setup is needed) and Monza (where a low downforce setup is needed).
It seems like a sensible, rational, well thought-out set of proposals that I’ve hardly done justice to here – do go out and buy the magazine. Hopefully the FIA’s aerodynamics working group will come up with something along these lines.
(The only part I’m not convinced of is the idea of having fixed wing specifications for an entire season. What if one team deliberately ran a high downforce wing all year, finished last most of the time but won Monte-Carlo by seven laps?)
Does something like this stand a chance of getting implemented? I doubt it.
In 1999 Max Mosley ignored a report by the by the FIA Advisory Experts Group that urged similar measures – cutting downforce levels by 50% and increasing mechanical grip and drag by 10%. Since then downforce levels have only increased.
In recent years we have heard some patently ridiculously suggestions for how to improve racing in F1 – such as the criminally ugly ‘Centreline Downwash Generating Wing’.
Presently the overtaking working group are arguing in favour of some watered-down versions of these proposals but seem to have overlooked the basic problem that if you give a driver more downforce it robs the driver trying to pass him of the same. Their ideas to increase rear wing height and introduced driver-operated moveable wings seem counter productive.
What is needed is precisely the kind of intelligent, rational, clear ideas that Anderson has put together. It’s time the FIA tapped into this kind of thinking.
Photos: HondaRacingF1.com | LAT Photographic
More on improving racing in Formula 1
- Overtaking: too much or too little?
- Traction control ban: Better races, less safe, more controversy?
- Time for grooves to go
- Mosley wants standardised F1 cars
- Raikkonen: “I was bored”
- What the FIA’s F1 survey really tells us
- Is this the ugly face of future F1?
- Boring races
- Ten videos Max Mosley should watch