I am no F1 conceptualist, but I am an automotive engineer, and one thing I can tell you is that at 200 kmh, the amount of energy expended on overcoming air friction is way,way,way higher than the amount of energy expended on overcoming rolling resistance. Keeping in mind that a teardrop is the most perfectly aerodynamic shape, we can see that, in some ways, your front-light, rear-heavy design would be almost aerodynamically counterproductive–driving backwards down the highway might be more efficient. Unfortunately, while teardrops are aerodynamically ideal, they are not generally stable enough that building a giant teardrop car would be effective. In order to improve vehicular stability, aerodynamic downforce must be generated at high speeds–unfortunately, generating this downforce via your aforementioned ground effects generates aerodynamic drag, reducing energy efficiency. Lifting the car using an aerofoil design will actually generate additional aerodynamic drag, as well–reducing rolling resistance slightly, yes, but at the cost of a heavy decrease in aerodynamic efficiency, which is a much greater factor, as we've discussed. In other words, your current design is taking a massive, massive amount of aerodynamic inefficiency on to actually increase vehicle instability at speed–you're hurting yourself doubly. Focusing on balancing aerodynamic efficiency and dynamic stability instead of just decreasing friction would lead to a much, much more efficient design.

This, of course, is not the case with a water-based aerofoil design–in that case, since the amount of energy necessary to propel a vessel through water is vastly greater than the amount of energy required to move the same vessel through air, maximizing the lift to minimize the contact with water, even at the cost of aerodynamic efficiency, is usually the most efficient choice.

Thus, we can see that the problem with using an aerofoil design on a car is that it is not a direct allegory to a boat–an aerofoil boat is more efficient because it pulls itself out of a higher-friction medium (water) to travel through a lower-friction medium(air)–and there is no convenient layer of lower-friction medium for cars to operate in just above their current operating medium. A hydrofoil does not reduce friction–it just moves the vessel to a zone of lower inherent friction.

I hope this helps,
Formula

I am no F1 conceptualist, but I am an automotive engineer, and one thing I can tell you is that at 200 kmh, the amount of energy expended on overcoming air friction is way,way,way higher than the amount of energy expended on overcoming rolling resistance. Keeping in mind that a teardrop is the most perfectly aerodynamic shape, we can see that, in some ways, your front-light, rear-heavy design would be almost aerodynamically counterproductive–driving backwards down the highway might be more efficient. Unfortunately, while teardrops are aerodynamically ideal, they are not generally stable enough that building a giant teardrop car would be effective. In order to improve vehicular stability, aerodynamic downforce must be generated at high speeds–unfortunately, generating this downforce via your aforementioned ground effects generates aerodynamic drag, reducing energy efficiency. Lifting the car using an aerofoil design will actually generate additional aerodynamic drag, as well–reducing rolling resistance slightly, yes, but at the cost of a heavy decrease in aerodynamic efficiency, which is a much greater factor, as we've discussed. In other words, your current design is taking a massive, massive amount of aerodynamic inefficiency on to actually increase vehicle instability at speed–you're hurting yourself doubly. Focusing on balancing aerodynamic efficiency and dynamic stability instead of just decreasing friction would lead to a much, much more efficient design.

This, of course, is not the case with a water-based aerofoil design–in that case, since the amount of energy necessary to propel a vessel through water is vastly greater than the amount of energy required to move the same vessel through air, maximizing the lift to minimize the contact with water, even at the cost of aerodynamic efficiency, is usually the most efficient choice.

Thus, we can see that the problem with using an aerofoil design on a car is that it is not a direct allegory to a boat–an aerofoil boat is more efficient because it pulls itself out of a higher-friction medium (water) to travel through a lower-friction medium(air)–and there is no convenient layer of lower-friction medium for cars to operate in just above their current operating medium. A hydrofoil does not reduce friction–it just moves the vessel to a zone of lower inherent friction.

I hope this helps,
Formula

Oh well it is pretty though