103 replies to this topic

[hello86]

As Kimi has soo much problems with the Bridgestone tyres, my only hope is that he will get along better with the slicks next year.

As I don´t know much about the technical side of F1 and which tyres suit which driver, I´d like to know which driving style will suit better.

[Atreiu]

Should slicks favour smooth or agressive pilots?

[Orin]

AFAIK slicks give more grip and don't suffer from the graining of grooved tyres, therefore the tyre will be easier to drive and have more progressive wear characteristics - in other words they should suit all drivers better. It's an interesting point about Kimi, he is struggling to get heat into the tyres during qualifying, it's probable that he has been setting up the car to treat the tyres well over race distances (something Hamilton struggled with earlier in the season), but has sacrificed qualifying speed in doing so; with the absence of graining on slick tyres he might look much stronger next year.

[BMW_F1]

Originally posted by Atreiu
Should slicks favour smooth or agressive pilots?

Let's make a list of current drivers and their driving style being agressive or smooth.
From the ones I know...

Alonso/aggressive
Massa/aggressive
Kubica/aggressive
Heidfeld/smooth
Button/smooth

....
...
....

[Clatter]

With the changes to the chassis rules I don't think you can really make any judgement call on the tyres suiting anyone in particular.

[Mika Mika]

IIRC Slicks suite the far more aggressive pilot also they wear much better so you don't need to look after the tyres so much as grooves and provide about 20% more grip.

[Gareth]

Originally posted by Orin
AFAIK slicks [...] don't suffer from the graining of grooved tyres

If this is true, you would expect Kimi's and Heidfeld's Q issues to go away with slicks. They appear to struggle to get temp into the tyres without giving them so much hammer that they grain towards the end of the hot lap. If they can drive the out lap as aggressively as they need without risk of graining, they ought to be able to get the tyres up to temp.

Having said that, I agree with HP in another thread: it is almost impossible to predict. Mind you, fun to try though ...

[Mika Mika]

I wander if some of the recent GP2 guys will do really well: PK, Ham and Glock. Maybe Kovo too?

[Ogami musashi]

Gaining occurs with any type of tyre (from road tyre to race tyres).
It is a complex matter of local core and surface temperature repartition.

That said grooved tyres are known to grain under strange circumstances and the graining behavior is very difficult to get predicted.

But far more simply, slicks (and especially next year slicks) offer more grip overall, so aggressive driving is more tolerated.

After that, slip angle vs lateral force curves, combined slip, load sensitivity are such of the variable that will affect the type of driving.

Ideally, we would like to have tyres working on a large slip angle band, tolerate a lot of combined accelerations and have less load sensitivity.

Since the friction coefficient will be higher next year, combined slip will be tolerated more and less downforce will make the tyre's grip having less decrease with speed, however on the slip angle range nothing is guaranteed, modern racing tyres tend to operate on a narrow band.
That said, slicks tested this year showed better overshoot (transient behaviors) performance meaning that you can be really aggressive on them without losing all the grip suddenly, a characteristic of todays grooved tyres.

[Orin]

Good info Ogami musashi.

To clarify my earlier post I was talking about the "graining phase" which is specific to grooved tyres (if my rusty memory serves me correctly).

[Ferrim]

Call me a pessimist, but I still don't believe we are going to have slick tyres next season. I'll believe it when they test only with them in December.

I fear the new 2009 cars will be way quicker than the FIA expected (there are already reports on that) and therefore they will forget about bringing back slicks "for safety reasons".

I hope to be wrong.

[hello86]

Thanks everyone for your explanations.
Kimi never used those slicks at a test this year, did he?

ANd BTW: How can I change the name of the thread? I wanted to say "driving style" instead of just "driving"

[Orin]

Originally posted by Ferrim
Call me a pessimist, but I still don't believe we are going to have slick tyres next season. I'll believe it when they test only with them in December.

I fear the new 2009 cars will be way quicker than the FIA expected (there are already reports on that) and therefore they will forget about bringing back slicks "for safety reasons".

I hope to be wrong.

They will be quicker in a straight line, but I would think the aero changes mean that cars brake earlier for corners and take them more slowly, hopefully the FIA keeps its nerve. Now that teams have accepted rev limited engines it could always impose a lower limit.

[pingu666]

in theory itll favour lewis imo
lewis likes to have abit of drift going, and these slicks and new areo will/should be better for that than current tyres/aero
he might adapt quicker than others (gp2 to f1 and was around fredpace)
he will only of done 2 seasons on groves, kimi/alonso have done quite a few more years on groves, 8 or so ?

mind they may well be scrapping for p7 next year

[giacomo]

The good and fast ones will win on slicks as well on grooved tyres.

Just remember when the grooved tyres were introduced: Nothing changed concerning the balance of power between the teammates of the top teams (Schumacher/Irvine, Hakkinen/Coulthard, Villeneuve/Frentzen).

[as65p]

Can't wait to see "proper" tyres on the cars again

That said, aren't the braking distances expected to be shorter with slicks which would actually make overtaking even more difficult and negate much of the aero changes aimed at the opposite?

[glorius&victorius]

I think slicks should suit all drivers, since in previous series where they raced only slicks are used.

It will make it easier for some drivers to get to speed quicker.

At Sauber and McLaren I didnt see Kimi having any problems with grooves; I am not sure that the problems he has now can be attributed to grooves. But perhaps (hopefully) slicks will make it easier for him to get heat into the tires to the level he likes i.e. it looks like the window of abusing the tires before bad graining starts will be bigger (?) So having slicks will enable him to drive around a "setup" problem, gain confidence and push more, and consequently his qualifying performances could improve.

If Heidfeld has the same problem, it should play out the same for him i.e. driving around a setup problem.

As for Kimi's driving style I think he is very light on tires. I remember a story from his karting days that he (because of lesser resources) was racing with used tires that other (well off) karters threw away. And he still beat them. Perhaps this is also the reason that he learned to drive "economically", making worn tires last longer.

I definitely see the GP2 guys improving, including Rosberg, and also Bourdais.

[Gemini]

Originally posted by Ferrim
Call me a pessimist, but I still don't believe we are going to have slick tyres next season. I'll believe it when they test only with them in December.

I fear the new 2009 cars will be way quicker than the FIA expected (there are already reports on that) and therefore they will forget about bringing back slicks "for safety reasons".

I hope to be wrong.

So FIA will tell Bridgestone to make tyres a bit slower (harder compaund). Remember we are in control tyres situation now.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by as65p
Can't wait to see "proper" tyres on the cars again

That said, aren't the braking distances expected to be shorter with slicks which would actually make overtaking even more difficult and negate much of the aero changes aimed at the opposite?

That calls for a re-introduction of steel disc brakes.

---
And to bring racing back on the track get rid of the stupid refueling (and overtaking in the pit). Really, the 3-4 plus seconds of seeing a hose going into a car isn't exiting at all.... and to top it off pls give us back qualifying with almost empty cars.. there is nothing more interesting than watching an F1 car on maximum performance.
....but now i am going off topic.
---

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Ferrim
Call me a pessimist, but I still don't believe we are going to have slick tyres next season. I'll believe it when they test only with them in December.

I fear the new 2009 cars will be way quicker than the FIA expected (there are already reports on that) and therefore they will forget about bringing back slicks "for safety reasons".

I hope to be wrong.

You'll know it in 5 days, the official tyre compound selection by the FIA is for the september 1st.

IMHO there's almost zero risk slicks got banned for 2009. Bridgestone has already defined their compounds,teams designed their cars for slicks usage (which was not the case of early 2009 designs when grooved tyres were still a possibility).

The question is more for 2010, but as said just above, the FIA can order a harder compound if necessary.

As for speed current trend is that the cars should be as fast as now, maybe a little bit faster but nothing that dangerous.
Braking zones should be shorter at low speed but should stay the same for all other speeds as terminal speeds for 09 cars should be higher that is the cars will drag less.

[Bbbut]

It is not just the tyres that giving some driver such headaches. The grip balance of modern cars has changed quite dramatically.

Take a look at these two pictures and just see the difference between the proportions of front and rear tyres:



Now couple this with the fact of harder tyre flanks, a bigger front wing and a much smaller rear wing and you have a car fundamentally different to drive in 2009.

The grip balance moved to the front by about 15% this year and I expect at least the same movement for next year. This is the new age of aerodynamic development.

So my prediction is "non-aggressive turn-in" drivers will have to adapt even more next year.

[Ogami musashi]

Yes this is definitely possible.

I don't know if the front bias will be extended, not quite sure but definitely the front tyres will gain less grip than the rear because of the front distribution thus it will require aggressive turn in to overshoot the steady states understeer.

Now we'll see. KERS will be either into sidepods or above gearbox. It will also depend on diffuser downforce.

[Slick]

Originally posted by hello86


ANd BTW: How can I change the name of the thread? I wanted to say "driving style" instead of just "driving"

Done

[undersquare]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
Yes this is definitely possible.

I don't know if the front bias will be extended, not quite sure but definitely the front tyres will gain less grip than the rear because of the front distribution thus it will require aggressive turn in to overshoot the steady states understeer.

Now we'll see. KERS will be either into sidepods or above gearbox. It will also depend on diffuser downforce.

Something about this I don't understand...if the cars are getting proportionately more front downforce, why do the front tyres gain less grip than the rear? I'd have expected more front grip and more oversteer?

I can see the front springs would be stiffer to take the downforce, but won't they balance that with more rear anti-roll bar?

What they'd get then is a front-endy car that follows its nose, and a frisky back end with less aero grip.

Then this would help the sensitive drivers, rather than the aggressive ones. But there's something I haven't got hold of, I suspect??

[Ogami musashi]

The less grip from front tyres comes from the weight repartition.
Since this year the lack of TC called for more weight at the front to maximize traction.

This results in more understeer but that is viable of steady state. Basically when you're turning in you mobilize the yaw rate of your car, and having a weight bias in the front makes that yaw rate greater.
This is a transient state, in which is produced a "yaw rate overshoot" that is the yaw rate is greater during this phase than in steady state turn.

Hence while turning in you get oversteer but as soon as you hit the mid corner-exit zone, pseudo steady state occurs and your car understeer which is actually good as it provides good traction.

Hence to turn in you car correctly (take benefit of the overshoot) you need to be very aggressive on the steering wheel, you need to "throw your car into the corner".

You can balance this weight bias with downforce balance, as you've said there'll be more downforce at the front next year so two things will maybe occur:
Either you counter balance the weight bias by having better grip in the front tyres (but they will still get less than the rear) either you push even more forward the weight balance knowing the downforce will help you havin more grip on the front tyres despite the added weight and you end up with similar OS/US sequence.

[Slowinfastout]

I'm not sure but just looking at the 2009 car mock-ups, with the massive front wing and slicks, it makes me think the cars will be more responsive to smooth steering inputs, playstation-like inputs like Massa gets away with right now might upset the cars more? Depends a lot on the tires I guess..

[undersquare]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
The less grip from front tyres comes from the weight repartition.
Since this year the lack of TC called for more weight at the front to maximize traction.

This results in more understeer but that is viable of steady state. Basically when you're turning in you mobilize the yaw rate of your car, and having a weight bias in the front makes that yaw rate greater.
This is a transient state, in which is produced a "yaw rate overshoot" that is the yaw rate is greater during this phase than in steady state turn.

Hence while turning in you get oversteer but as soon as you hit the mid corner-exit zone, pseudo steady state occurs and your car understeer which is actually good as it provides good traction.

Hence to turn in you car correctly (take benefit of the overshoot) you need to be very aggressive on the steering wheel, you need to "throw your car into the corner".

You can balance this weight bias with downforce balance, as you've said there'll be more downforce at the front next year so two things will maybe occur:
Either you counter balance the weight bias by having better grip in the front tyres (but they will still get less than the rear) either you push even more forward the weight balance knowing the downforce will help you havin more grip on the front tyres despite the added weight and you end up with similar OS/US sequence.

Became more fascinating with every reading (11x so far )

So is the weight balance moving back next year, or further forward again, do you think?

[Ogami musashi]

bbut thinks that a move forward will be done because there's less downforce at the rear than at the front.
Thus you can't compensate for more weight on the rear with more downforce (weight=less grip, downforce=more grip) at the rear.

I think it will more or less stay the same but it is unlikely it will come again at the rear as you need to spare the rear tyres because of lack of TC.

If you put more weight on them, you'll ask them more grip for the same acceleration, thus you will wear the tyre faster.
So all teams put front weight bias. In contrary to the 90's (see the mclaren picture) where front tyres were smaller than rear tyres, we now have front tyres as big as the rear so you can afford putting the weight at the front.

We'll what it makes but in any case you'll have more grip than now, so it will definitely cause more aggressive running and more coupled inputs, which is for me quite perfect.

[Walsingham]

What about KERS influence on weight distribution and car balance?

[Ogami musashi]

According to interview KERS will be either in sidepods or around the engine/gear box.

It is too early to say what it will make. However for sure it will poses a problem because the weight bias now is mainly due to ballast, with less ballast aviable (since the min weight is still 605kg) it will be harder to compensate for the KERS weight.

[Gemini]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
The less grip from front tyres comes from the weight repartition.
Since this year the lack of TC called for more weight at the front to maximize traction.

I appreciate your anaylysis but I don't get something...


Sorry, but how come less weight at rear helps traction? It's completely oposite, isn't?

[Slowinfastout]

Originally posted by Gemini


I appreciate your anaylysis but I don't get something...


Sorry, but how come less weight at rear helps traction? It's completely oposite, isn't?

Surely he meant front grip?

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Gemini


I appreciate your anaylysis but I don't get something...


Sorry, but how come less weight at rear helps traction? It's completely opposite, isn't?

"weight" in the term of "mass" that is the structural weight repartition of the car.
If you put more weight on your tyres you actually need more force to have the same acceleration.
That means that using the total grip of the tyre you'll get less acceleration than a tyre with less weight on it.


In the opposite downforce is a virtual weight, a surface force that propagates into the body by strain.
There's no additional inertia induced by downforce so downforce comes with no penalty except one called "tyre load sensitivity" this latter being also present when you put weight on the tyre.

To sum up, more weight=less grip, more downforce=more grip.

There's a nuance to that when you consider transient states that is states that only last some time after an input (like braking, turning the steering wheel etc). in those cases weight can improve grip momentarily but that's not directly the weight who is responsible of that.

[undersquare]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
bbut thinks that a move forward will be done because there's less downforce at the rear than at the front.
Thus you can't compensate for more weight on the rear with more downforce (weight=less grip, downforce=more grip) at the rear.

I think it will more or less stay the same but it is unlikely it will come again at the rear as you need to spare the rear tyres because of lack of TC.

If you put more weight on them, you'll ask them more grip for the same acceleration, thus you will wear the tyre faster.
So all teams put front weight bias. In contrary to the 90's (see the mclaren picture) where front tyres were smaller than rear tyres, we now have front tyres as big as the rear so you can afford putting the weight at the front.

We'll what it makes but in any case you'll have more grip than now, so it will definitely cause more aggressive running and more coupled inputs, which is for me quite perfect.

Thanks. It sounds like kers weight and location will make quite a difference then, and driver weight, to what they can do, with the ideal weight bias being uncertain.

If weight bias does stay the same, as you think it may, and aero balance moves forward, that sounds like a pointy car? Same mass, more 'weight', at the front? So I suspect the sensitive and adaptable drivers will have an advantage even if they're throwing the car into the corners for the yaw overshoot (clearly a must-have in 2009 ).

Also as someone has said, the younger drivers will find it easier to unlearn the grooves than the ones who've done 5,6,7 seasons on them. Vettel and Hamilton especially. I would say also Kimi but I get the impression that anyone who's had "trouble adapting" to anything will take longer to get up to speed - not sure about Kubi for that reason too, they're going to need to be versatile and drive the car, rather than insist on a car that suits their quirks of style.

[Slowinfastout]

If you put more weight on your tyres you actually need more force to have the same acceleration. That means that using the total grip of the tyre you'll get less acceleration than a tyre with less weight on it.

Well. I'm totally out of my depth here..

That goes against my current understanding of mechanical grip... the 'using the total grip of the tyre' bit has me totally confused..



..by acceleration do you mean 'the ability to change direction quickly' or you're referring to acceleration in a straight line? I hope its the former lol

[anbeck]

Originally posted by Gemini


I appreciate your anaylysis but I don't get something...


Sorry, but how come less weight at rear helps traction? It's completely oposite, isn't?

I thought exactly the same thing and my mind kept thinking about it for some time.
At first I'd agree with you, but now I found this:

When accelerating on a straight line, you certainly want most of the weight on the rear axle.

But quite often the acceleration of F1 cars begins in the end of the turn. So I thought that too might weight at the rear might add to the rear losing the grip (by making it 'move' sideways), so that the car begins sliding quite early, which would reduce the car's ability to gently accelerate out of turns without oversteer.

However, it might still be possible that this is utter nonsense


EDIT: Oh, I have been thinking too long about this, other replies have already found their way to this board...

[Ogami musashi]

It is important to clear up what is "aggressive" and "smooth".

An aggressive style can be an aggressive steering wheel frequency (turning the steering wheel fast) but coupling hard trail brake with turn in is considered aggressive too.

But the two are from different kind of parameters. The first is mainly due to transient behavior of the tyres, the latter because of the total friction coefficient aviable (and thus how far you can exploit the grip aviable).

You can then be smooth with your steering inputs while doing a lot of combined actions.

Since we believe weight bias will stay (or even move) foward, i tend to agree with bbbut that aggressive steering wheel inputs will be present, as for the rest more grip means more aggressive driving required.
That will be interesting to see how drivers exploit that grip, currently there's 3-4 dominating driving styles which is already great (not so common).

[Gemini]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


"weight" in the term of "mass" that is the structural weight repartition of the car.
If you put more weight on your tyres you actually need more force to have the same acceleration.
That means that using the total grip of the tyre you'll get less acceleration than a tyre with less weight on it.


In the opposite downforce is a virtual weight, a surface force that propagates into the body by strain.
There's no additional inertia induced by downforce so downforce comes with no penalty except one called "tyre load sensitivity" this latter being also present when you put weight on the tyre.

To sum up, more weight=less grip, more downforce=more grip.

There's a nuance to that when you consider transient states that is states that only last some time after an input (like braking, turning the steering wheel etc). in those cases weight can improve grip momentarily but that's not directly the weight who is responsible of that.

I dissagree with your analysis or maybe with how you communicate that:

"If you put more weight on your tyres you actually need more force to have the same acceleration."

No you don't. The weight itself contributes to the basic tyre grip as it's puts car higher stronger to the tarmac. That's why RWD cars will always have better traction that FWD. As during accelaration weight is being transfer to the rear.

What weight does not help is the fact that in generates stronger lateral G force during cornering, thus require more downforce to compansate for that. But the biggest price is that it will increase the tyre wear.

So the reason that they were moving weight to front was to decrease wear of rear tires caused by lack of TC and unavaidable spins of the rears.

As for the general question of changes with 2009 regulations, I am not so sure the agressive style brings immediate advantage. The tyres grip will change same amount front and rear. Ther frontr wing will bi bigger. The rear wing will be smaller. So from that I conclude the car will get more oversteery, which is a nitghmare for drivers with more aggresive turn in.

[Fatgadget]

Originally posted by hello86
As Kimi has soo much problems with the Bridgestone tyres, my only hope is that he will get along better with the slicks next year.

As I don´t know much about the technical side of F1 and which tyres suit which driver, I´d like to know which driving style will suit better.

Well,back in the day,Prost the smoothest of them all was devastatingly fast on slicks. On the other hand Senna who was aggressive on the throttle was just as fast. Like giacomo said there won't be any discernible difference among the quick guys of either style. Even if you give em wooden tyres they will still be quick.

[Ferrim]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


You'll know it in 5 days, the official tyre compound selection by the FIA is for the september 1st.

Didn't know that! So we are sure then. That's good news, the cars just look a lot better on slick tyres.

[Bloggsworth]

Good drivers are good drivers, if you put cotton reels on their cars, the best drivers would still be the quickest.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Slowinfastout


Well. I'm totally out of my depth here..

That goes against my current understanding of mechanical grip... the 'using the total grip of the tyre' bit has me totally confused..



..by acceleration do you mean 'the ability to change direction quickly' or you're referring to acceleration in a straight line? I hope its the former lol

Look, okay let's say that we have a monocycle okay?

Let's say this monocyle weights 200lbs (yes this is hell of an heavy monocycle). so you have 200lbs on the tyres.

You want a 2g's acceleration (yes, this monocycle is hell of a fast monocycle) so what you want is a 400lbs acceleration.

So you'll ask you tire 400lbs.

Now let's say our monocycle weights 300lbs. You still want 2g's acceleration so now, you need 600lbs from the tyre.

How this performance is affected? What you'll ask from the tyre is that:
Friction coefficient*weight.

In both case we need 400=Friction coef*200. and 600lbs=Friction coef*300.
the result in both case is that we have to have a tyre with the same friction coef, that is 2.
note that this 2 is directly linked to the 2g's acceleration, that is the Tyre friction coefficient is equal to the acceleration needed (this is different is the case of the downforce).

So your first conclusion is that whatever the weight on the tyre, you'll have the same potential of 2g's...NOT.

The problem is that, as you put weight (or downforce) on your tyre, the maximum friction coefficient drops.
This is due to the structure of the tyre so basically when you add more weight the friction coefficient decreases.

That means the 600=2*300 situation is not possible if we assume the first one (400=2*200) was valid.
As you've put more weight on the tyre its friction coefficient can't be as high as with less weight, thus you end up with less grip than before.

That's why putting weight decreases the potential grip.

Now what's the difference with downforce? Downforce too affects the tyre max friction coef (as you put more downforce the friction coef drops too) but downforce as an enormous advantage, if you put on a 200lbs monocycle 100lbs of downforce, it is not equal to a 300lbs monocycle.

The grip necessary to move the monocycle at 2g's will still be 400lbs and it will be under the form
400=Friction coef*(weight+downforce) that is the friction coef will apply to both weight and downforce.


so to sum up, because of tyre load sensitivity adding mass (weight) decreases the grip aviable, while adding downforce, to a certain point, adds grip.

That why downforce is necessary to go to the speeds seen now by F1 cars.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally posted by Gemini


I dissagree with your analysis or maybe with how you communicate that:

"If you put more weight on your tyres you actually need more force to have the same acceleration."

No you don't. The weight itself contributes to the basic tyre grip as it's puts car higher stronger to the tarmac. That's why RWD cars will always have better traction that FWD. As during accelaration weight is being transfer to the rear.

No. see above.
If you're talking with LOAD transfert (and not WEIGHT transfert) that's a different matter, analog to downforce.
but WEIGHT decreases grip.

[Gemini]

In basic words, as I see it, both downforce and weight contribute to grip as both are vertical vectors towards the ground. The difference is that weight creates innertia and is subject of the lateral G forces, while downforce is not.

[Gemini]

Ogami,

do you agree that same car with weight bias 70 rear 30 front will have better traction than car with weight bias 70 front 30 rear? Or you don't agree

[Slowinfastout]

Gotcha Ogami.

Thanks a bunch. I'm easily confused today

I'll mention the driver adjustable flaps again then hehe... apart from them flaps, werent the other changes in the rules enough of a change of balance towards the front?

What would be the effects of using them when not in the wake of another car, for instance... can that stuff be used 'creatively'?

[Gemini]

If I remember correctly driver can adjust the front wing angle only twice (?) a lap.

I guess it will be always utilised, as there will always be the corner when car is most udersteering.

[undersquare]

Originally posted by Gemini
If I remember correctly driver can adjust the front wing angle only twice (?) a lap.

I guess it will be always utilised, as there will always be the corner when car is most udersteering.

My understanding is it's for when following closely behind another car, in dirty air.

[Slowinfastout]

I have to admit this thread immediately made me think of that GV quote:

"I love motor racing. To me it's a sport,
not a technical exercise. My ideal Formula
One car would be something like a McLaren M23
with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp,
21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we
should have narrower tires, but I don't agree
because you need big tyres to slow you down
when you spin. And you need a lot of
horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the
cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic
spectacle, I can tell you. We would take
corners one gear lower than we do now, and get
the cars sideways. You know, people still
rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and
I understand that. I agree with them.
That's the kind of entertainment I want to
give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah !

I [care about the fans], because I used to
be one of them ! I believe the crowd is
really losing out at the moment, and that's
bad."

I have to say I'm with Gilles 100% on this hehe... It's getting a tad complicated for my taste (or brain power if you wish lol..)

[Gemini]

Originally posted by undersquare


My understanding is it's for when following closely behind another car, in dirty air.

That's the primary reason for the innovation, but there no definition of "closely behind' so I guess they will be using this also for curing understeer at differnt occasions.