Just_a_fan wrote: ↑12 Aug 2017, 01:41
The whole thing is just pretty pictures. It's entirely a graphic design exercise with little, if any, technical thought. The "tunnels" aren't tunnels and would generate little downforce. The balance would be entirely rear biased too, although the so-called rear wing is just a glorified engine cover so probably would be pointless.
Piff and dribble. That's all it is. Shame so many in here buy into the pretty art work.
You're right. Among other things you can't legislate for aesthetics, that's why this year we have shark fins (personally I don't mind) and T-wings. He suggests it as a car to enable nose-to-tail racing, but has massive wheels on the car which are the biggest source of downforce loss for the following vehicle. The chassis might work for a spec formula where low drag is necessary because power is an issue, so I could see something similar to this for the next Formula E car, but with the all weather tyres and wheel covers.
If he suggested it as an oval configuration a rearward aero-balance is desirable for stability, reducing front load from ~45% to ~30-35% from road to speedway would be typical.
He may only be a graphic designer and he is (at least in part) responsible for the updated aesthetics of the Indycar for 2018 (sans screen/shield) which looks okay if compromised aerodynamically. They're using the same tub as the DW12, which I always felt looks a bit tubby, and have reduced the total downforce substantially (-35% IIRC) from an already fairly low benchmark in top-flight open-wheeled terms, 2018 Indycar will have less downforce than F2 and Super Formula.
