Driving back to the Uk, bit bored, so forgive the ramblings.
If I remember the 911, has no front aero adjustment, could be incorrect in that, plus the mechanical front grip is very good.
combine this with rear engine, makes it very difficult
to balance the aero grip with a low wing but this comes with mechanical front bite once aero is reduced.
You end up getting a double hit, unstable with mechanical grip, unstable with low rear wing aero grip.
So, you cannot run with a low rear wing, and you do not want to sacrifice its good front mechanical grip by making it understeer excessively.
As soon as you start to remove large amounts of rear wing you end up with an aero unstable car.
It also seems to need a lot of rear wing to help compensate the high mechanical front grip at lower speeds.
So it can get unstable when aero is the major contributor, then unstable when mechanical grip is the main contributor, relaying on getting power to the rear to stabilise the whole process. Making the car very quick out of the corners, but having to almost totally rely on driving techniques rather than the chassis.
I can easily run the GT-R with no rear wing or wing at 12. It tends to be naturally mechanically understeery,
with ok front aero so you just live with that. Basically putting your faith in its power and torque to compensate for its under steering nature. Rear wing for me is mainly for lap times.
I have always been fascinated with the 911, but have
kept away from the difficult job of setup. It is a fascinating car.
No I am not driving and writing this.
Will any one tell me if I am right or wrong on this assumption.