|
No, it really doesn't help. At Indy, the guy who was ahead going in basically dictated, unless the guy overtaking can stick the move, or just about, before the braking zone. Otherwise, the guy who was ahead before just makes it clear he'll run the overtaking car over the inside curb, or off the outside of the track. Heck, on Lap 1 of one of those Indy GPs, I saw them going into that final complex, bypassing Oval Turn 1, four-wide, and not a single position changed. To get around that angular apex, the guys further to the inside were put on too tight/acute a line to make a move. They have the same problem with the "designed" overtaking zones for the IndyCar layout at Sears Point, and the actual racing there is lousy.
Just because the pass is basically made with the closing rate under braking, that doesn't mean that the cars are totally clear of one another near or even at the apex, so if it's one-line, that becomes a real problem.
And remember, 1 mph of top speed is worth several times 1 mph less in apex speed in terms of kinetic energy, and therefore in terms of how much energy has to be taken off in braking.
Is it a myth because side-by-side through turns has always been a myth, or because so many corners on "modern" circuits are designed such that it makes such things a myth? I'm not terribly interested in perpetuating circular, self-fulfilling prophecies. I AM interested in making the racing better.
And yeah, the turns at Bahrain you mentioned earlier are exactly the type I'm talking about the sport NEEDING, smooth-profile, high-speed, long-duration corners. The opening complex at Shanghai, as well as Turns 7 and 8, are also good examples for a "modern" circuit. And smooth-profile, long-duration corners, even slower ones, are still decidedly better for the racing than those ultra-tight, acute/angular turns.
|