Should F1 be a drag race?
Here’s a lesson for the FIA and Formula 1. In 1998 CART introduced a new rear wing called the Handford Device for its two 500-mile races on the high-banked Michigan and California superspeedways. It was used only at those two tracks and was the result of conversations between Newman/Haas aerodynamicist Mark Handford and CART’s technical director Kirk Russell about how to improve overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing.
Serious competition in CART in the preceding years between four engine manufacturers, two tyre companies and four car builders meant performance had shot up. Qualifying engines with 1000bhp began to appear and lap speeds increased at all tracks. But as speeds went up the quality of the racing declined, and Handford proposed a solution.
With conventional wings it was becoming more and more difficult to pass on the big speedways as drivers encountered a churning wave of turbulence as they tried to overtake. Handford’s solution was the Handford Device, a flat plate rather than a wing that created zero downforce but left a hole in the air, enabling a following car to draft and slingshot past.
“The cars made a lot of downforce from the [tunnelled] underbody but the rear wing was a non-downforce-producing device,” Handford says. “We came up with a gadget on the rear wing that created drag but not downforce. Its wake, which was very big, was neither swept upwards nor downwards. When the next car came along it ran into a hole in the air and got a huge tow. I suppose it was exciting because whoever was in the lead on the last lap was guaranteed to lose.”
Indeed there were a record 62 lead changes during the 1998 Michigan 500 and the season-closing California 500 was similarly hectic. But the Handford Device lasted only a few years before the CART/IRL war resulted in the Michigan/California tracks switching to Tony George’s series, where they played host to the very different Indycars.
“What you need is a situation where the guy behind, who has neither track position nor clean air, at least has a drag advantage,” says Handford. “If you follow anybody you’re always going to end up with dirty air, but if you have less drag you’ve got a fighting chance of drafting the car in front. That’s exactly what you get in motorcycle racing.”
Handford is baffled by the FIA’s narrow thinking on this subject. “There’s a very narrow view in F1. They need someone to say you have to get away from flat bottoms [on the cars] and put downforce in the underbody and take it out of the wings. If they did that I think it would become much more exciting to watch.”
He’s been there and seen it all, but GK’s finger is still very much on the pulse of modern US racing. After over 30 years as the American editor of Autosport, he remains one of the most outspoken and authoritative voices on the US scene. Gordon is now Motor Sport’s US editor and monthly columnist, shedding light on everything that is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. 
Grabyrdy:
March 29th, 2010 1:39pm
What are we waiting for, then ?
Bob Geoghegan:
March 29th, 2010 2:43pm
“Not Invented Here” didn’t do much good for General Motors… I don’t know if the Handford ‘wing’ would help F1, but it’s got points against it because of its origin.
Santiago Fernández:
March 29th, 2010 4:23pm
I must confess I was a bit off put by the title, but the article makes a great point, tough it points to something consistent with Mr. Kirby’s previous article: underbody generated downforce is the way to go and all wings do is give a chance to ruin the show.
The idea of the OWG is pretty solid (get toghether the chief technical minds of the sport and make them think about ways to improve the show) but somewhere along the process something went wrong, because it wasn’t cheap and didn’t deliver the required results. Let’s hope next season without the double diffuser things get better.
Kevin Woeller:
March 29th, 2010 8:44pm
I spectated that race at MIS in 1998 and I do not recall using my seat that day! It was the most thrilling, to watch a car draft and perform the classic slingshot pass!!
Nathan:
March 30th, 2010 6:32am
not only that, but look at the front wings those Champcars had! as they didnt create much downforce either (they r also the 1st part of the car to be effected by turbulance and create the most downforce on the car), they hit the turbulance of the car in front but there no massive loss of downforce being lost!
F1 had passing in the 80’s and look at the front wings they had then……. anyone see a pattern forming here?
David S:
March 30th, 2010 8:13am
I’ve also been wondering why the Handford wing hasn’t been considered for a long time now.
Modern F1 cars produce noticably less of a slipstream and cars only seem to pick it up a couple of car-lengths behind rather than 10 lengths of the cars in the 80s.
It seems to me that the obvious way for the FIA to control speeds is to have control front/rear wings in preset low, medium and high downforce settings.
They could easily incorporate aerodynamic concepts like the Handford wing and free up other aspects of development safe in the knowledge that they have a big hammer with which to hit increasing speeds.
Everyone cries that control parts are bad for F1, but if it’s done in exchange for more freedom elsewhere I don’t see the problem. We had 14 years of standard refuelling rigs and now we have a standard ecu, so control parts are hardly a new concept.
David Fisher:
March 30th, 2010 12:40pm
I knew that somebody had the answer aerodynamically. I low pressure area behind the leading car allowing proper slipstreaming. To echo the first correspondent, What are we waiting for?
Steven Roy:
March 30th, 2010 6:49pm
The answer to F1’s problems have been obvious for 30 years but the people in power just won’t tackle them. We have a new formula due in 2013 and we need a campaing to get cars that can overtake. This is not the first post on the subject to appear here as Nigel Roebuck answered a question quoting Patrick Head http://bit.ly/csudQ2 .
I hope these two are linked and Motor Sport is planning a campaign to get rid of wings and get back to downforce generated by the underbody. What we need is high drag cars and no front wings that lose downforce following another car.
This is no a new problem and as I mentioned in my comment on the other post Gilles Villeneuve wanted to get id of front wings in the early 80s because they were ruining races.
Kevin Woeller:
March 30th, 2010 11:45pm
I wonder what Smokey Yunick would think of all this?
Steve Wyant:
March 31st, 2010 3:13am
I think F1 sure needs to do something, but I recall that the Handford Device produced racing (passing) that was just a bit too artificial for me. It was almost as if the following car had no choice but to pass. So, maybe a similar device, but not with quite the same dramatic effect could work?
john read:
March 31st, 2010 3:27am
I agree with Steve. Too much passing is worse than not enough. The last laps of the Daytona 500 were ridiculous. They may as well draw the winner from a hat.
Berni:
March 31st, 2010 7:10am
Better to draw the winner from the hat and have the race decided in the run down to the finish line. Rather than know the result Saturday afternoon. F1 Motor racing please.
Berni:
March 31st, 2010 7:12am
change the clock chaps!
Ollie Emmet:
March 31st, 2010 10:37am
sounds like a good idea,so no doubt it will not be used in f1!
Bernie would rather put in place his silly short caut plan instead!!
Greg Webb:
March 31st, 2010 10:10pm
The racing produced by the Handford Wing was perhaps a touch artificial, but that was exaverbated by ovals on which F1 doesn’t run and the principle was very strong. A suitably tuned version with proper ground effect cars could produce radically stronger racing.
P Kenny:
April 1st, 2010 9:31pm
Must remember that the device was only used on superspeedways. If I remember correctly these cars had to get their wings to create lift such was the downforce created by the underbody.
Poignant photo at the beginning of the article. I believe that it is from 31 October 1999 and we can see the unfortunate Greg Moore at the top of the track. Sadly we all know what happened on the next lap.
mike:
April 2nd, 2010 6:48am
I’ve thought for years that using ground effect tunnels (standardised for Max’s approval), and using the wings for tuning the cars setup, would be the best way to enable overtaking in F1.
But since the whip cracking former pres of the FIA decided a spec series was a better idea, it probably won’t happen.
On a related subject, why the restrictions on the number of engines and tyres? Use as many as you want! The unit costs are low compared to the R&D costs, and since the R&D has been Max’ed, the cost is much less.
More engines, more tyres mean more laps in practice, more time for young drivers, and a better spectacle for the fans.
Russell Unitt:
April 11th, 2010 8:04am
For those who talk about this being an artificial solution and ‘too much passing being worse than not enough’ , as if it were some sort of (distasteful) American solution.
Well I would like you to pause to consider one of the most famous of F-1 races; the 1971 Italian GP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY_sHKRnaeo – a race that was decided only after a feast of slipstreaming and constant overtaking, a race that Peter Gethin only won in the last 50 metres and the first 5 cars finished within 0.61 of a second!
Clive:
June 25th, 2010 6:37pm
Manual gears and 3 pedals.