How easy should overtaking be in Formula One?

[Marbot]

GP2 seems to have a good balance of amounts of overtaking vs difficulty in overtaking, as does the Superleague series. Both series use under-body aero to a greater degree than F1 does.

I think that we should see the movable wing as a stop-gap measure until the 2013 regulation cars come along.

[Chiefy]

Originally Posted by Purist

BTW, since we're using it so much, can we spell "judgment" correctly, please.

How can you chastise people for their spelling of a word yet initialise a phrase with which others might or might not be familiar? By the way, it is 'judgement' - and your Oxford English Dictionary will confirm it.

Back on topic and I think I'd have to agree with the sentiment that it would be better to see 'good overtaking' than 'more overtaking'. But this can be a complex issue. Look at Abu Dhabi. Surely everyone believes that Alonso is better than Petrov, and people will say that he should have been able to overtake, but that the cars' performance thwarted his efforts. Maybe Petrov just did a great job. Kubica, after all, was overtaking people round the outside...

I think the racing in the last few seasons has been pretty good. Overtaking is not easy but some people will make it stick. Others are clumsy, and yet more too scared to try. The poster who mentioned more variation in car attributes is on my wavelength; to have some cars kinder to tyres, some better at the start of a GP on heavy fuel and some better at the end on light loads, some cars better in a straight line and others better in the corners, would liven the show up a little more for me. Artificially seeing to it that cars can overtake all of the time is not really up my street. I'll reserve judgement on the rear wings until I've seen them in action. The real trick solution would be to slacken the rules in some areas of design, perhaps.

A case in point would be the Arrows of 2000, which was a demon down the straights. Unfortunately, apart from being a great looker with decent drivers, it lacked in almost every other department.

[Teretonga]

I read an interview with Mike Gascoyne yesterday made in the middle of 2010 and he said that the wide wings were deemed to balance the cars at the start of 2010 and that it should have worked but the double diffuser increased the downforce available at the rear.

This was probably why the front wing then became critical in 2010 with all the variations on increasing downforce and restoring balance.
The simple fact is the designers will never want to resort to significantly less downforce from aero and will always look to aero to restore balance and downforce (because its the quickest and easiest option) unless it is taken out of their hands.

Mandating the wing planes, any add ons and the underbody would eliminate that process, diverting efforts into mechanical advantages.

As for the variable wings, power to pass buttons etc its all just an attempt to avoid dealing with the real issues at the core of the problem.
Braking systems:
Iron brakes are nearly as effective as carbon ones now, its just that the carbon systems are much lighter. Changing to iron brakes would speed development of iron brakes but add little difference in braking distances, unless they were restricted in size and power.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by jab

There's a difference between more overtaking and better racing. That's the key thing

To sum up in a curt sentence for a change

True, however with no overtaking, there is no racing!

The car design must help the drivers to race, and the best combination of car and driver over the race distance should win.

If we look at MotoGP, there is not excessive overtaking even in MotoGP2,
Formula Fords with no down force have great races, it is therefore unlikely that evenly matched cars will ever overtake too easily - push to pass is a whole new problem! However it has to still be better than NO OVERTAKING at all!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

True, however with no overtaking, there is no racing.

The car design must help the drivers to race, and the best combination of car and driver over the race distance should win.

If we look at MotoGP, there is not excessive overtaking even in MotoGP2,
Formula Fords with no down force have great races, it is therefore unlikely that evenly matched cars will ever overtake too easily - push to pass is a whole new problem! However it has to still be better than NO OVERTAKING at all!

I can remember a race at Phillip Island inn the 500cc days with Rainey, Schwantz, Gardner et al and the lead changed more than once a lap, lap after lap.... All the observation proves is that racing has changed.... and maybe not for the better.

If my choice was GP cars with no downforce or the present cars with artificial passing mechanisms to promote overtaking I'd choose no downforce every time.

[JeremySmith]

If overtaking was too easy, we would have nothing to complain about...

[dsg]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

If overtaking was too easy, we would have nothing to complain about...

I think you understimate us.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I can remember a race at Phillip Island inn the 500cc days with Rainey, Schwantz, Gardner et al and the lead changed more than once a lap, lap after lap.... All the observation proves is that racing has changed.... and maybe not for the better.

If my choice was GP cars with no downforce or the present cars with artificial passing mechanisms to promote overtaking I'd choose no downforce every time.

I couldn't agree more!

"Downforce is the bain of Formula 1" Jean Todt some time ago, I believe.

[Marbot]

Sauber's adjustable rear wing in action (towards end of vid).

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q3JJyUeysNg

Seems to operate just fine.

[Adam43]

They won't be allowed to open and close it do often in the race, but I guess they are just testing it.

It was a quick movement. This surprised me a little, but I'm not sure why.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They won't be allowed to open and close it do often in the race, but I guess they are just testing it.

It was a quick movement. This surprised me a little, but I'm not sure why.

Only in practice and qualifying can it be used all of the time. In the race it can only be used when the car is less than 1 second behind the car in front, and only then on certain parts of the track.

It must take a fair bit of power to raise that flap when the car is going at speed.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Only in practice and qualifying can it be used all of the time. In the race it can only be used when the car is less than 1 second behind the car in front, and only then on certain parts of the track.

It must take a fair bit of power to raise that flap when the car is going at speed.

Earlier before I was sceptic about the movable rear wing. But assuming movable aerodynamics are the answer to the lack of close racing, I don't understand the artificial restrictions to the use of that. The driver should be allowed to change any aerodynamic setting, including the ride height, throughout the entire race.

[ECW Dan Selby]

My guess is it'd just be fighting fire with fire. I like the look of it!

Selby

[jab]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Only in practice and qualifying can it be used all of the time.

Can't be used at all in quali

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by jab

Can't be used at all in quali

It can be used at any time during practice and qualifying.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/ru...ulations/8692/

[Marbot]

Doesn't look like overtaking is going to be much easier, according to Kubica.

Kubica explained that the wing’s assistance for overtaking is minimal: “Today I did run behind another car once. The other car wasn’t using it and I was, but was it possible to overtake? No chance. I was using it straight away as well…so we will see.”

No one seems to have anything good to say about it.

"I hope it improves the show by 100 percent because, if it doesn’t, it’s just not making any sense.”

Rubens Barrichello.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2...ew-rear-wings/

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2...dashboard-now/

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2...ng-rear-wings/

[wnut]

Oh dear!

It will however introduce another variable which can only be good at least in the interum.
The braking zones after the deployment could get a bit interesting with the car being destabilised by the variable loads.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I have a feeling it will end up working tbh. This is a pretty tight and twisty track.

Can it be used at the same time as KERS?

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Can it be used at the same time as KERS?

Selby

Yes, I think it can.

FIA are open to a bit of tweaking, if necessary.

How the regulation will be initially implemented:

"A single line on the straight will show where the overtaking zone starts, while two lines will be painted at the preceding corner to indicate the one-second time difference distance. This latter line will also serve as a visual back up for the FIA should the official timing transponders fail at any point."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89260

[Morris Dancer]

Originally Posted by wnut

I couldn't agree more!

"Downforce is the bain of Formula 1" Jean Todt some time ago, I believe.

Hear! Hear!

[NaBUru38]

Most of the problem is downforce. Less downforce, slower cornering speeds, longer braking. Less downforce, longer braking due to less grip. Longer braking, more time to manoeuvre, more room to brake later.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Last year's championship was close, yes, but the actual racing was as dull as ever. To use Symonds' football analogy, it was like watching a season of 0-0 draws with the occasional 1-0 win. A season like that would result in the league table being very close, but it wouldn't be called an exciting season, surely?

Ditto... not! I do prefer interesting races over interesting championships. However, a football match with few goals may be very interesting if teams try and try to score but fail (missing the ball, shoting with bad aim, losing the ball just outside the area). The same with motorsport: I don't need a lead overtake per minute, but I demand seeral attempts.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't think that what fans want overtake after overtake. What I think they want, is the possibility to overtake, ie cars running close. The current draft (slipstream) from a car is so big, that as soon as a following car gets within 2 car lengths, the pass is almost a full gone conclusion.

Cars that can follow closer, but give less tow. Cars running wing to wing, slipstreaming down straights, and at the end of the straight, just about getting alongside another car.

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

If overtaking was super-easy, there would be a couple of overtakes in the first couple of laps as faster cars in race conditions moved past the faster qualifiers. This would then be followed by 50 laps of watching the fast cars drive off into the distance.

Pitstops add a variation of the above. Fast cars will sometimes drop behind slow cars if they stop relatively early, but they will then breeze past the slower cars again.

If overtaking is very difficult, we will be faced with seeing obviously fast cars getting poor results because of somehow getting themselves trapped behind a slower car, and conversely slow cars getting good results that are not merited by their speed.

Having cars bunched together and having lots of overtakes aren't synonyms. In 1998-2001, CART had a lead change every 20 seconds at Fontana and Michigan. It was completely artificial. It was amazing for two races in a season, but I wouldn't recommend it for a full season.

However, some championships have cars so equal in performance that they can't overtake. The Argentine Top Race had that problem: drivers circled copying each other's times, and there was no way of finding the meters to overtake.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Most of the problem is downforce. Less downforce, slower cornering speeds, longer braking. Less downforce, longer braking due to less grip. Longer braking, more time to manoeuvre, more room to brake later.


Ditto... not! I do prefer interesting races over interesting championships. However, a football match with few goals may be very interesting if teams try and try to score but fail (missing the ball, shoting with bad aim, losing the ball just outside the area). The same with motorsport: I don't need a lead overtake per minute, but I demand seeral attempts.




Having cars bunched together and having lots of overtakes aren't synonyms. In 1998-2001, CART had a lead change every 20 seconds at Fontana and Michigan. It was completely artificial. It was amazing for two races in a season, but I wouldn't recommend it for a full season.

However, some championships have cars so equal in performance that they can't overtake. The Argentine Top Race had that problem: drivers circled copying each other's times, and there was no way of finding the meters to overtake.

Yea, but thats oval racing. "Road racing" or "European racing" is different in the sense that if two drivers make it through a corner side by side, its a big deal (and exciting). There is a sense of anticipation of an incident or a cracking move. You know something is going to happen.

When two cars go side by side in an oval race its quite normal, and can go on for a few minutes without incident.

[Purist]

Sodemo, what you just said REALLY depends on the oval in question.

The bigger ovals with more substantial banking allow for more continuous side-by-side racing (places like Daytona, Talladega, and Michigan). Ovals with less banking, or even shorter ovals with quite a bit of banking, require much greater discretion to avoid a wreck (places like Indy, Pocono, Dover, Loudon, and Bristol).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

Sodemo, what you just said REALLY depends on the oval in question.

The bigger ovals with more substantial banking allow for more continuous side-by-side racing (places like Daytona, Talladega, and Michigan). Ovals with less banking, or even shorter ovals with quite a bit of banking, require much greater discretion to avoid a wreck (places like Indy, Pocono, Dover, Loudon, and Bristol).

Don't forget Texas, though only 1.5 miles long has 24° banking.

[Oran Park Forever]

How easy should overtaking be in Formula One?

As easy as Senna/Alesi: Phoenix 1990
" " Arnoux/Villeneuve: Dijon 1979
" " Rosberg/Villeneuve: Long Beach 1982
" " Gethin/Peterson/Cevert/Hailwood/Ganley: Monza 1971
" " Senna/Mansell/Prost/Rosberg/Piquet: Jerez 1986
" " John Watson vs the rest: Zolder 1982
" " John Watson vs the rest: Detroit 1982
" " Mansell/Piquet: Silverstone 1987
" " Mansell/Prost: Monaco 1991
" " Alan Jones vs the rest: Osterreichring 1977
" " Jones/Villeneuve: Zandvoort 1981
" " Mansell/Berger: Mexico 1990
" " Alboreto/Prost: Monaco 1985
" " Rosberg/Mansell: Dallas 1984
& on & on....

Funny how all the above are either pre ground effect/ground effect or flat bottom. They had no problem with nose to tail competition. Not to mention choice of tyre manufacturer, choice of tyre compound, choice of engine configuration etc etc.....all adds up to "on track competition", not passing the other guy with "pit strategy" which seems to be what F1 has been reduced to.

Even the commentators declare that a driver will be "stuck behind him" until the next pit stop.........all except for Kobayashi which begs the question, why can't the rest give it a go? They speak in amazement that he even attempts to pass other cars, while most just complain to their race engineer about being "faster than this guy but he's holding me up".

New generation circuits designed by computer geeks who've never sat their a*** in a race car also don't help.........




.