Racing lines: May 2018

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Current page

163

Current page

164

Current page

165

Current page

166

Current page

167

Current page

168

Current page

169

Current page

170

Current page

171

Current page

172

Current page

173

Current page

174

Current page

175

Current page

176

Current page

177

Current page

178

Current page

179

Current page

180

Current page

181

Current page

182

Current page

183

Current page

184

Current page

185

Current page

186

Current page

187

Current page

188

Current page

189

Current page

190

Current page

191

Current page

192

Current page

193

Current page

194

Current page

195

Progress has pushed us onto a treadmill of aerodynamics and fractional gains. Should we take a step back to a simpler time?

Has downforce ruined motor racing? It’s an age-old question and one that’s as contentious to ask as it is complex to answer. Why? Because finding ways of going faster is the lifeblood of racing. In fact it’s the whole bloody point.

It’s this relentless pursuit of pace that has provided the creative impetus for great engineering minds to focus and flourish. Whether you’re an engine builder striving for more power, a tyre company tasked with finding more grip or a brake manufacturer trying to get the darned thing slowed down as quickly as possible, the challenge has remained the same for more than 100 years.

It may not seem like it, but aero has always been a factor, too. Whether by softening the edges of an upright radiator shell, wrapping the tops of exposed wheels with a set of curvaceous cycle wings or tucking the driver behind a cut-down aero screen, engineers quickly cottoned on to ‘free’ gains that could be had from cleaving the air more cleanly. Until aero-augmented cornering became the all-consuming obsession, reducing drag was the goal.

Nowadays we have convinced ourselves that there is beauty in functionality but, with very few exceptions, downforce has destroyed the look of racing cars and has led to a very different kind of racing. Yes, there’s a certain outlandish drama to a road-derived GT car festooned with aggressive aerodynamic addenda, just as there’s something that boggles your brain when you see the cascade of winglets and other complex aero devices attached to the car’s nose and flanks. There’s beauty in the form of individual details, but little to love when the collective aero array is viewed as a whole.

Contrast this with cars of the ’50s and ’60s: gloriously sculptural forms, pebble-smooth surfaces pierced only by wind-cheating NACA ducts or soft-edged radiator intakes. These are the enduring beauties of automotive design: Jaguar’s sylph-like C-, D- and ‘low-drag’ E-types; Aston’s DB4 GT Zagato; Alfa’s delectable TZ1 and TZ2; Ferrari’s iconic 250 GTO and the Shelby Daytona Coupé that was conceived to beat it.

And then there are more extreme examples. The Lotus 11 and Lotus 15 sports cars looked sensational – the very personification of an aerodynamic form. In fact think back through the ages and it’s those cars dedicated to cheating the wind that lodge in the memory for their remarkable beauty and commitment to efficient speed. The Porsche 917LH and Mercedes 196R streamliner spring to mind.

Of course there were also the freaks, such as the Cadillac Series 61 Aerodynamic Roadster, nicknamed Le Monstre for reasons that will be abundantly clear if you search Google images. Likewise Le Mans stalwarts Dome, Rondeau and WR pushed the boundaries with super-smooth shapes honed for the Hunaudières.   

I’ve raced two very slippery cars – a long-nose Jaguar D-type and a delectable Alpine M65. Both at Le Mans, on the full circuit, their natural habitat. Home of the classic low-drag, long-tail LM body style, the Circuit de la Sarthe’s endless straights and a long-distance race format meant cars needed a high top speed combined with lower fuel consumption.

Le Mans also championed small engine capacity classes and created the Index of Performance as a means of comparing the relative speed and efficiency of otherwise disparate cars. It’s this IoP that the diminutive Alpine was designed to win. Powered by a modest Gordini-tuned 1.3-litre four-cylinder engine, the Dieppe-built racer was clothed in a remarkable finned, long-tail glassfibre body for straight-line speed and stability.

I can still feel the sensation of spearing down the Mulsanne, initially being out-dragged by Lotus Elans and Porsche 904s, but then reeling them in and eventually passing them as aerodynamic efficiency took over and they ran into invisible brick walls. The Alpine was like a paper dart, apparently racing through a vacuum. I learned to hate the Mulsanne chicanes, for they squandered our precious pace. The M65 was a magical car.

The D-type was a similar, if rather spookier experience. I recall the charge from Mulsanne Corner to Indianapolis being a real test of nerve, the D’s beautiful nose getting lighter and lighter as it snorted its way towards 170mph. Smooth and wingless, it gained speed with impunity, steering inputs fading to nudges of persuasion. It was as far from the sensation of today’s ‘drive on the ceiling‘ as it’s possible to get.

Thinking back to these cars isn’t just an exercise in rose-tinted nostalgia, for like most areas of life you can learn a lot from the past. As we enter an era in which the focus is shifting from raw just-for-the-hell-of-it speed and power to the pursuit of ultra-efficiency and alternative energy sources, it strikes me a return to the days of low-drag aerodynamics is more relevant than ever. Given gratuitous speed is also increasingly becoming a societal red flag, I wonder about the current obsession with endowing road cars with race-car levels of downforce – surely manufacturers should cede to the ethos of the Index of Performance and attempt to master the art of extracting more from less. 

Look back at the work of designers such as Malcolm Sayer, Frank Costin, Dr Samir Klat and Ercole Spada and you could be name-checking a cadre of great 20th century artists, their works fit for exhibition in the Tate Modern. What’s more, you need only watch historic racing to appreciate that these glorious downforce-free machines they penned require an equally fluid, graceful and visually stimulating driving style to make them go quickly.

Of course my glorious low-drag ‘retrolution’ will never happen. And even if it did, CFD software would ensure everyone arrived at the same optimised shape, thereby robbing the challenge of variety and originality. It’s easy to have a downer on downforce, but perhaps it’s computing power that’s really ruined racing?

Dickie Meaden has been writing about cars for 25 years – and racing them for almost as long. He is a regular winner at historic meetings