Tozza Mazza wrote:(F1 drivers tend to like nervous oversteery car, a factor for mercs tiny wheelbase?).
TM
Actually, traditionally there's been a fairly even split between drivers who prefered "nervous oversteery" cars and those who prefered more stable understeering cars. Prost is probably a classic example of the latter, and of the former look up a video of Villeneuve.
A F1 designer a few years ago (during the barge board era) stated that a longer wheelbase primarily let you present cleaner flow to the sidepods and allowed more surface area to "work the flow". This would seem to indicate that friction drag was not a high priority, and also seems to indicate that modern designers tend to look at every square cm of the car as a potential downforce producer.
Other than the barge boards, I don't really see anything in the regs that would change his comments, and since we know they are in fact still trying all sorts of things to clean up the flow into and around the sidepods I'd say it still applies.
You could look up current trends in Moto GP as well, where weight transfer is possibly the 3rd biggest factor (behind riders and transient engine response) in performance. Sure, it's a different discipline, but most of those differences only showcase what's happening (vastly smaller contact patch, higher c of g, no downforce). The same math applies to formula car handling, it's just not as noticable.
Finally, Maclarens "fiddle brake" clearly demonstrates that agility is still important to a modern F1 car, as it's purpose was in effect to snap the car toward the apex on turnin faster than it's geometry would normally allow.
