The great aero debate: Who's got it right?

The start of this years motor racing action has brought spectacular racing, drama and excitement. But it has also brought up a very important question. Which series has gone down the right route with its aerodynamics? I am of course talking about Formula 1 vs IndyCar, both of which have launched new cars these past two years and have gone down very different routes to provide what they hope is great racing. And what we have seen so far has been incredibly interesting...

At the start of 2017, F1's new high downforce monsters hit the track for the first time and instantly became the fastest race cars on the planet. Lap records tumbled, speeds increased and the visual spectacle of a car on a flying lap became something else entirely. These had really become the ultimate Grand Prix car. Over in America, IndyCar was gearing up to change its own chassis. The Dallara DW12 was set to lose its present, aerokit and high downforce configuration, for a lower downforce spec universal aerokit in 2018, but with a huge 60% of its downforce coming from underneath the car. Quite a change of direction for the series. And a bold step to take.

At the end of 2017, F1 had seen its overtaking figures slashed by half of what there was in 2016. The initial fears from late 2016, that the cars would diminish the racing spectacle thanks to the increased turbulent dirty air they'd produce was brought true. Some races were thrillers, like the Spanish and Azerbaijan Grand Prix. But too many races saw little wheel to wheel action in a season eventually won by Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes, the Germans taking their fourth consecutive constructors title. IndyCar meanwhile saw a spectacular season close with a grandstand finish that saw Josef Newgarden beat out rivals such as Scott Dixon and Simon Pagenaud to that year's title. For IndyCar, things were looking up. For F1, everyone hoped that things would look up.

Flash forward to the present and both series have had their opening two rounds. F1 had a fairly quiet race in Melbourne before a tense strategic thriller in Bahrain. IndyCar had an incredible season opener in St Petersburg, with a solid showing next time out in Phoenix. The first two races with the new IndyCar had shown that the series had been absolutely right in cutting down massive aerodynamic parts and focusing and improving the racing. The cars had lost none of their speed, in fact Jordan King broke the St Pete lap record in qualifying. But with most of the downforce coming from underneath the car, the racing had improved immensely at a tricky street circuit as St Petersburg. Over 300 overtakes took place in that race alone. F1 could barely manage 15 in Melbourne. So of course, the debates begun...

IndyCar has clearly got it right for its own series when it comes to aerodynamics. The reduction in dirty air has allowed cars to follow each other much more closely than in F1. So that's settled then. IndyCar has won, right? Well it's not that easy. Because IndyCar features a spec car. Everybody has the same chassis and aero. The only difference is the engine. Some teams run Honda power, some teams run Chevrolet power. It's all down to recourses and how you set up the car, and of course the drivers. F1 of course sees everyone build their own chassis, design their own aero so every car is unique and of course four engine suppliers. Honda, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes. Most definitely not a spec racing series. So how does F1 get a slice of IndyCar's action? How does it become so competitive that more than three teams can win races and the cars can follow closely?

Taking the 'ground effect' approach that IndyCar has taken would be a good start. Its clearly working. But we have to factor in the spec series nature of IndyCar. It allows for greater competition and more variety in winners, as no one team can steal a march on car design. This is something that is not in F1's nature or DNA, and no one would allow it to become so. The series has always been about designing the best car to beat your opponents. But is that providing the best racing in the world? 

Right now, not its not. A middle ground must be found, but taking inspiration from IndyCar. Don't become a spec series if that's not what your series is about. But change how downforce is produced and what aero each car has. Minimise that top aero and allow that downforce to come from underneath the car. Exactly what IndyCar has done. Allow each team to build their own car. Yes, it may still reward the Mercedes and Red Bull's of this world. But it would make it a damn sight easier for smaller teams to win races, as there would be a lot less gains to be found. And it would cut costs too. If everyone has the majority of its downforce coming from underneath the car and it is all a fairly equal percentage across the field, then what gains can you find?

The aero debate is one that will probably rage on for a while. But what is clear is that some ways work better than others and produce spectacular racing. And right now it seems, IndyCar is ahead of the game. With regulation changes being mooted, it's now F1's turn to show us what it can do.