No Overtaking!

[Marbot]

According to Autosport the new rules for 2007 will further hamper overtaking.But they may also bring the performance of the cars closer together than ever before.So what do you think and why?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/55560

[chillibowl]

if the racing gets closer and as Bridgestone have now warned that the preassure will be on teams to make the tires work for them rather than Bridgestone making tires to suit a specific chasis, the focus will be back on the aero guys to put forward a car that can get the most out of their tires.

so they spend less on engines and more on aero and ultimatly we are still holding our breath for more overtaking. sounds cost effective to me.

[zac510]

Bringing the cars closer together relative to lap speed will always make overtaking harder!

[jnr blue 91]

so welcome mr adrian newey!!!

[Bononi]

They'll race closer but the overtaking will be harder... I already saw that somewhere else...

[Pingguest]

I agree with the Autosport article. If you really want to see more overtaking, you should allow drivers to have different speeds. And it's what we saw in the 1980's.

[chunterer]

Oh god no!!!!

What's the matter with these flippin FIA people?!! Don't they read or listen to anyone!

We want more overtaking not less!

If anyone wants a half decent template for designing cars that run close together and also promote overtaking look at their new super feeder category GP2, but they won't because it's not technical enough I suspect!

(Rant at end)

[climb]

Just a reflection: let's compare Silverstone races of 2003 and 2004: similar cars, same techical basis, yet two completely different races: the first one of the best ever, the second a boring parade like many others.
is the poor spectacle down to cars, then? Or does drivers' attitude play a key role?

[Marbot]

I must admit to being a little disappointed that there was not a reduction in downforce (I haven't yet seen the technical regs however).But if the cars are closer together and there's a chance that some drivers are on the "option" tyre,then all is not lost.

[luke]

Anyone can be fast in a Formula one car if it is easy to drive. If they are hard to drive like they were before the '90s before all the aids came in then we'd see more overtaking IMHO. I know it was before my time and no doubt someone will pick that out!..but from watching many onboard camers from that era, you had to guide the car into the corner, now all you have to do it seems is simply aim it at the corner, and that car will do it all for you...

Here's how it is...

LESS DOWNFORCE. that way, when you get up close to a car, the downforce off the front of your race car isn't taken away so there is less dirty air and you can stay with a car. Therefore greater chance of overtaking...

LESS DOWNFORCE. Look at the cars from the early '90s downwards, so basic in design ie no chimleys silly tedious flappy side wings and millions of other irrelevant flaps that made you think, am I looking at a carved up tin?
I always have disagreed with the fact that its best to have more downforce and less front line speed.
I think personally there is nothing wrong with nice straight line speed and horse power and torque. It's the cornering speeds that are the problem, so why not ban all the crap on the sides and have F1 cars that are nice and a bit faster on straights, that makes the fact that you have to work harder in the corners, and you see drivers working around things and more varied set ups driving styles, lines and varied ways of taking corners etc.

LESS DOWNFORCE. Look at GP2 cars this year. They went back to slicks, but took away more rear downforce. That way the cars were much more twitchy and harder to drive from the rear.

That's what I think anyway.

[zac510]

ban, ban, ban. that'll fix it!

[Marbot]

Heidfeld expects less overtaking.

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=134888

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by luke

Anyone can be fast in a Formula one car if it is easy to drive. If they are hard to drive like they were before the '90s before all the aids came in then we'd see more overtaking IMHO. I know it was before my time and no doubt someone will pick that out!..but from watching many onboard camers from that era, you had to guide the car into the corner, now all you have to do it seems is simply aim it at the corner, and that car will do it all for you...

Here's how it is...

LESS DOWNFORCE. that way, when you get up close to a car, the downforce off the front of your race car isn't taken away so there is less dirty air and you can stay with a car. Therefore greater chance of overtaking...

LESS DOWNFORCE. Look at the cars from the early '90s downwards, so basic in design ie no chimleys silly tedious flappy side wings and millions of other irrelevant flaps that made you think, am I looking at a carved up tin?
I always have disagreed with the fact that its best to have more downforce and less front line speed.
I think personally there is nothing wrong with nice straight line speed and horse power and torque. It's the cornering speeds that are the problem, so why not ban all the crap on the sides and have F1 cars that are nice and a bit faster on straights, that makes the fact that you have to work harder in the corners, and you see drivers working around things and more varied set ups driving styles, lines and varied ways of taking corners etc.

LESS DOWNFORCE. Look at GP2 cars this year. They went back to slicks, but took away more rear downforce. That way the cars were much more twitchy and harder to drive from the rear.

That's what I think anyway.

Less downforce isn't a garantee for more overtaking. The F3000 lacked close racing and overtaking as well. But the GP2-cars have significantly more downforce, but they provide close racing and overtaking.

[Kieran20]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Less downforce isn't a garantee for more overtaking. The F3000 lacked close racing and overtaking as well. But the GP2-cars have significantly more downforce, but they provide close racing and overtaking.

close racing and they are identical cars. i think luke is mostly right, the fins ans chimneys are all pointless, all there extra falps on wings should be banned. reduce downforce yes because the carsd toay just go way too fast round corners. if there is less downforce and a smaller hole in the air then surely cars will be able to follow closer.

[outflat]

Ban tyre changes.

Aside from 2005, there's been no overtaking since 1982.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by outflat

Aside from 2005, there's been no overtaking since 1982.

Cue wave of video footage.

[Matski]

Originally Posted by Kieran20

close racing and they are identical cars. i think luke is mostly right, the fins ans chimneys are all pointless, all there extra falps on wings should be banned. reduce downforce yes because the carsd toay just go way too fast round corners. if there is less downforce and a smaller hole in the air then surely cars will be able to follow closer.

If all the extra flappy bits etc. are as pointless as people are saying, why do formula 1 teams spend millions developing them - I suspect they are not pointless at all.

I've said this before and I suspect I'll be saing many more times....

F1 is not a single chassis/all cars are the same series... that is one of the things that makes it interesting and unique... If you want to see identical cars jostling for postion on track then watch A1GP - and support your country.

Instead of comparing Formula 1 to GP2 and trying to make it more like GP2 - Just watch GP2 INSTEAD!

Some of us are actually into cars, we like to marvel at the engineering and the innovation. We like the variety and the way the same goal can be approached so many different ways and still be within 0.001s, we like the different look and the different styles of the cars - and we like the flippy bits and winglets because they represent the pursuit of perfection, top quality design, thinking, engineering and manufacturing... the FIA is strangling this in an effort to appese the nostalgic misty-eyed fans that think money and technology are evil.

On 10/10's it seems to be frowned upon to get excited about crashes, or talk about injuries and deaths (a number of such threads have been locked very quickly) - but yet many people yearn to see F1 return to twitchy cars with less grip that are harder to drive and more likely to cause accidents - the danger should come from 'pushing the envelope' not dumbing down the engineering.

There are many many different racing series out there - find one you like and watch that - don't pick the one that's easiest to watch on TV and then try and change it until you like it.

Rant over.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by outflat

Ban tyre changes.

Aside from 2005, there's been no overtaking since 1983.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Matski

There are many many different racing series out there - find one you like and watch that - don't pick the one that's easiest to watch on TV and then try and change it until you like it.

Rant over.

Good suggestion. Why choose one to watch when you can have all you want and get the best of them all...

[Marbot]

I watch them all,even the tractor pulling,where they don't actually pull tractors! I will have to take that up with them on their forum.

[Bononi]

Go there and pull it, Martyn

[Ciro Pabón]

Originally Posted by Matski

...We like the variety and the way the same goal can be approached so many different ways and still be within 0.001s, we like the different look and the different styles of the cars - and we like the flippy bits and winglets because they represent the pursuit of perfection, top quality design, thinking, engineering and manufacturing... the FIA is strangling this in an effort to appese the nostalgic misty-eyed fans that think money and technology are evil.
...

How many times have you been put in the "quaint" field when you are really making a reasonable and perfectly logical suggestion that is ahead of your time? And how many times have you been put in the "non-modern" world just because you like all kinds of racing? I don't like a bit the "snobbiness" of people that seems to think soapbox races don't have a justification, or even tractor pulls (well, that series is not my favorite one, but is a matter of principle...). I also don't like posts full of common places and that repeat "The man's" line of reasoning.

I repeat frequently (not in this forum, here I am a newbie...): attack the post, not the poster. Who cares about the mistiness of my eyes? Surely you don't. Anyway, there is a reason for opposing downforce and it has been from the beginning. Let me ellaborate, please, in "full rant mode" .

I'd say there is something positive about the "push-to-pass" idea: beyond the alleged "artificiality" of it (it is more of the strategy of it, everybody will have the button), it is the only way I can think of F1 getting involved in the hybrid car design.

After all, F1 cars are becoming rapidly the "dinosaurs" of the racing world, no matter how much FIA tries to "pinnacle" us... they use gasoline! ...they give you like 2 kilometers per liter... they are more and more obsolete by the day, given the insistence on prohibiting driver aids. The humble medium-sized cars in your garages are more advanced, my friends: they have ABS, full traction control, active suspension, fully active ECUs and all kind of gadgets in a world computerized by the minute.

There is a grave risk of your cars being more able than F1 cars that mainly are developed aerodynamically... to have more drag! I don't know how proud an engineer can feel by improving by 10 newtons the downforce with another ugly (yes, ugly, terribly ugly) winglet, pod or aero thingy.

F1 cars are at grave risk of following the path that racing locomotives followed at the beginning of the 20th century, overwhelmed by their immense cost, the lack of popular support (how many of you race and how many only watch other people race?), and the sheer impulse of the rest of the world. During the 1900's railroads owners were sure of their superiority and in less than 15 years the world abandoned railroads "en masse" because the world got a different engine and begot the era of cars. As I see it (yes, I know well this is one of my first posts and that most of what I've said is heretical) this is just a "small step for a man".

There are supercapacitors and hydristors that surely are going to be used soon, if not in F1, then in the real world . The operative word here is not "push-to-pass" but "energy storage".

There is a suggestion around the Internet for I don't know how long to limit the fuel on board: this would limit the downforce available to designers automatically, if you don't want to spend all your fuel on it.

Look, of the 700+ hp of an F1 car, 500 are there to fight drag (and provide downforce), the rest is for acceleration. This is ridiculous and even Chapman is sorry about it. Actually, he was the first to propose that limitation. I quote him from memory: "There should be only three rules in F1: the length of the race, the amount of fuel and the weight of the car".

I wonder why they took so long, after all, even MIA has made clear recommendations three years ago. (there you can check a little on Chapman's opinions about racing). Are these people "out of touch"? Just look at the list of authors in the link I give.

It is about time FIA stops dragging its collective feet and use the 2 billion the teams spent yearly in something more intelligent than a futile aerodynamic problem, that as you point out (you don't reach the same conclussion) has been solved with the same results by everybody. It only requires a little foresight... besides, I fail to see why it can't be fun. I fail also to see how the expensive wind tunnels working three-shifts could find radically different design solutions, where the dimensions of the car and every aerodynamic gadget is probably the most regulated area in the racing world. Take a look at 2006 regulations and tell me if the "body" section isn't the longest one.

Finally, if you wish to "improve overtaking" (isn't that a little... ehem... stupid?) why don't we make two racing lines at tracks? Simple, isn't it? However, here we have a world where the people commenting about racing concentrate only in the car.

How would you feel if the road agency, seeing a stretch of a two-lane road congested, suggested: a) put a NOx tank in every car to allow overtaking or, b) change the aerodynamics of trucks to allow overtaking or c) reduce the power of trucks for the same? In heaven's name, they would suggest immediately to add two lanes more!

Actually, I would do the opposite: I want trickier curves, downill or uphill braking zones, transition curves with varying superelevation, combination of circular and spiral curves, tracks where you can see the whole circuit from the stands and stopping making tracks in the middle of nowhere using money of a dictator from an oriental country, just because FIA refuses to give TV money to track owners! Half the stands were half empty at half the races this year... doesn't that "half-terrifies" you? If you don't you probably love the hyperexpensive tickets: c'mon, U$600 for a mediocre stand where you can't see but a minuscule part of the track?

Sorry for the length of the post. However, if I keep coming here, you'll see that this one is a "model of brevity" and that it may seem choppy because I tried to sum it up...

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Ciro Pabón

I repeat frequently (not in this forum, here I am a newbie...): attack the post, not the poster. Who cares about the mistiness of my eyes? Surely you don't. Anyway, there is a reason for opposing downforce and it has been from the beginning. Let me ellaborate, please, in "full rant mode" .

Ah, that's good you've been reading our F.A.Q. . Now,I'm sorry Ciro, but nobody's is attacking the poster, not in this particular thread, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Ciro Pabón

Sorry for the length of the post. However, if I keep coming here, you'll see that this one is a "model of brevity" and that it may seem choppy because I tried to sum it up...

Don't worry about the "length", it always make a good reading if it has interesting content. But with all that it has been said so far, we still get nowhere as good as the old saying : if you don't like it, don't watch it.

There are lots of threads from the last week back to 8 years ago, about how bad and how we could improve racing in F1. We have posts from the last century, stating that F1 is dying, is losing ground to champ cars (now NASCAR is the "one"), that the crowds are gone and the fans are seeking new exciting categories. People say FIA do this, Max do that and Bernie spoils every fun for getting big money. We've been watching boring to death races for at least three decades though people don't lose a minute of the racing, and in the very last one, people were worried because there was some emotional display and things didn't look like a perfect F1 Grand Prix script. People post here about every single detail of the race, moaning, shouting how baaaaaad it is and it will always be. They throw technology knowledge that even engineers PHD would be amazed, and show skills that very few F1 wizards would be able to have.
People love to suffer, to be bored and to be angry about how bad it is.
So let's invade FIA, the team outfits and take over ! Let's make a better F1 !


I suggest Martyn Bott for FIA's head.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

I suggest Martyn Bott for FIA's head.

Thank you very much.

Oh wait! That's an unpaid job isn't it!

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, bononi, maybe I exaggerated a little about the post-poster thing, but I turned 47 yesterday and I am always been "misty-eyed". The first F1 race I attended was Jarama 1965 and I still miss Jim Clark... but, as you, I don't miss the old cars. I like, over all, inventiveness and I am sure the people making the cars and the pilots racing in them are doing their best.

However, I agree totally with your answer: the point I was trying to make is that F1 is an ever-changing business.

About the presidency of FIA, this is another point of contempt: the antidemocratic structures and the privacy with which the rules are written and the financial side is held are not good. Actually, I believe they are unsustainable in the world I live and, as the way the engines are made and the bodys designed, are there to change.

Many voices, the voices of professionals, are heard by these who want to hear. So, if Marty runs on an original platform, he has my vote.

Marty, these are my suggestions, in case you are interested (out of thread, sorry, or perhaps, not totally out of thread, you tell me):

- create an independent arbiter college (like FIFA International Board)

- create descending/ascending series and a clear path to F-1 that does not depend on your representative (the first team and the first pilots of F-3 get promoted to F-1 and viceversa)

- promote racing at the entry level, for example, making the FIA license an alternative to driving license for young people and develop really cheap karts

- orchestrate an end (don't know how) to the hold FOM has on the business

- promote tracks as places where friends meet to race, places that don't host races but create them

We could even change the rules for him to get paid (unpaid positions tend to be filled by millionaires!).