The Overtaking Debate : does Mike Gascoyne have the answer - the calendar?

[Purist]

Davyboy, EVERY object that travels through the air, whether on wheels or flying in the sky, WILL produce one of the three conditions I described. The laws of physics DEMAND it. However, as I said, if a car is aero-neutral, it is fundamentally unstable. This is NOT considered acceptable today for safety reasons; the same can be said for car designs that produce lift.

Some reduction in cornering speeds would be fine, but remember, F1, by it's very definition, can't be slowed drastically overall. "F1 cars are supposed to be the fastest circuit, road racing cars in the world." And you can bet your ass that Bernie will make certain this remains so. Therefore, if F1 cars were slowed beyond a point, there would be a ROYAL MESS, because Bernie would have the FIA DEMANDING that Indy Cars, Le Mans Prototypes, Superleague Formula cars, etc ALL be slowed down commensurately so as not to make F1 look "slow" and therefore "bad" or "inferior" compared to those other classes.

Now, I harp on about how aero efficiency as a way to help matters, and here is why. So, cornering speeds remain roughly the same. However, if you make the same downforce, but with less drag, here are the results:
1. Higher straightaway speeds
2. Greater speed differentials between top-end and corner apex speeds
3. Less drag means longer braking zones
4. Higher straightaway speeds means longer braking zones still

Now, there are a number of people who will tell you that the metal brakes can give very good performance compared to carbon brakes, so let's not worry about that just for the moment. Take Turn 1 at Monza, where current top-end is ~215mph, and apex speed is ~45mph. Even with the same downforce, but with drag reduced enough to let the cars reach ~225mph, the car is now carrying 9.5% more energy in absolute terms than if it was traveling those 10mph slower. And the effective energy that has to be taken off by the brakes increases by 12.1% (deceleration of 180mph vs. 170mph). And if you have less drag to help slow you down, then the brakes have to take off even more of that ultimate kinetic energy, which adds further to the lengthening of the braking zone.

And on the track front, ultra-slow corners are NOT necessary to create enough differential for overtaking. The top of the Kemmel Straight sees speeds as high as ~205mph, and the apex at Les Combes is a good 120mph, yet that is still easily enough of a deceleration zone to be used for overtaking.

Also, very slow corners have the drawback of exacerbating the accordion effect. So, if the nose of your car is 1 car length behind the tail of the car in front at the apex of a 40mph corner, and you then accelerate up to 200mph, assuming the same time gap, your nose is now 9 car lengths behind the tail of the car ahead of you. In this case you canNOT treat each car as just a point in space. At 40mph, the transponder in the car ahead of you is 2 lengths ahead of your transponder, so with the same time gap, at 5 times the speed, his transponder is now 10 lengths in front of yours.

Here's where it gets tricky. If you are able to use the slipstream and close so that your nose is less than 4 lengths behind his tail (your transponder is less than 5 lengths behind his, going into this next 40mph corner), but you fail to make the pass, in that next braking zone, you have to take off the energy you have faster than he does. If you both brake at the same point on the track, and you're both "panic braking", a collision is virtually inevitable. The alternative is the brake earlier than him if you can't make the pass, which means you're actually giving up time you gained in order to avoid your car and his trying to occupy the same point in space at the same time (which REALLY does NOT work).

I hope this helps explain some of the dynamics of overtaking. Understanding the basics of what is happening currently is essential for coming up with a solution that actually works, or that at least gets us closer to our goals.

[wnut]

Purist, I don't think you should try an patronise davyboy, he understands racing just fine!

[ECW Dan Selby]

Some informative stuff, there.

But yeah, hopefully no one's feeling patronised about it

Selby

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Some informative stuff, there.

But yeah, hopefully no one's feeling patronised about it

Selby

I did get a bit of a dose of it there didn't I

Still all of this is just a bit of fun. At the end of the day novices like myself who've only been racing competitively for 30 years and more experienced veterans like Purist have one thing in common... we are powerless to do anything about this overtaking problem other than gas off about it

[ECW Dan Selby]

Well guys, interestingly enough, i'm going to Apex Circuit Design next Wednesday.

If you have any question that you're dying to ask, please do let me know and i'll do my hardest to pass that along and retreive a decent answer

Hopefully we can put a fork in to some of these theories/ideas!

Selby

[Pingguest]

I no longer think the re-introduction of ground effects the right solution for the lack of close racing and overtaking. Without ground effects teams and their drivers will always look for the best possible compromise between cornering and straight line speeds. With ground effects this not that much the case, as ground effect aerodynamics are far more efficient than wings. The only way to prevent teams from getting the best of both cornering and straight line speeds, is by introducing a standardized ground effect undertray. That goes without any doubt against the principles of the sport.

[Marbot]

They might be thankful for a standardized one if someone took their wind tunnels away.

But maybe that would also go against the principles of the sport?

Unlimited wind tunnels? No wind tunnels? Or something that's 'artificially' in between?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

They might be thankful for a standardized one if someone took their wind tunnels away.

But maybe that would also go against the principles of the sport?

Unlimited wind tunnels? No wind tunnels? Or something that's 'artificially' in between?

It all sounds like hot air to me.

[AndyV]

The problem is the fans/spectators/sponsors/marshals etc

If we all stopped going to F1 races, watching them on TV, supporting events, buying magazines, getting merchandising, posting on web forums etc, then devoted our motorsport enthusiasm to the better racing found in local club motorsport/karting/bike racing, then F1 will be forced to change.

While F1 still has a fan base (personal and corporate) then there is no need for them to change the show at all, be it tracks, cars, or drivers.

Andy

[davyboy]

Yep Andy... absolutely right.

[Sodemo]

What I don't fully understand though, is that people like Bernie and the teams have a vested interest in F1 being popular. Surely if the races were more exciting, that would mean more viewers, more sponsors and more money?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What I don't fully understand though, is that people like Bernie and the teams have a vested interest in F1 being popular. Surely if the races were more exciting, that would mean more viewers, more sponsors and more money?

The teams (most of) also have a vested interest in hanging on to their infrastructure (wind tunnels etc), and you can only really guarantee yourself hanging on to that by staying ahead of everyone else in those areas.

And if the FIA ever said: 'Wind tunnels, from next season, will be banned'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What I don't fully understand though, is that people like Bernie and the teams have a vested interest in F1 being popular. Surely if the races were more exciting, that would mean more viewers, more sponsors and more money?

I am of the impression most of the gentlemen who are in control of the sport are nearing retirement and far more interested in trading the F1 reputation into their bank accounts than improving the sport.

Their worst nightmare would be that a small Tyrell type outfit could arrive with Jackie Stewart and dominate the competition. It would devalue the overblown teams trying to sell largely useless, if banned, aero experience to new owners.

The fact that the sport would be far healthier and make more money for everyone if it was actually a motor racing series is either lost or irrellevant to the pensioners.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The teams (most of) also have a vested interest in hanging on to their infrastructure (wind tunnels etc), and you can only really guarantee yourself hanging on to that by staying ahead of everyone else in those areas.

And if the FIA ever said: 'Wind tunnels, from next season, will be banned'.

Spec standard wings, widen and harden the tyres, and increase the capacity of the engines, and you will have gone a long way to getting rid of the darn wind tunnels. I believe any wing in front of the rear surface of the front tyres should be banned, and the sectional area and hight of the nose cone should be spec too.

[cmotd]

Originally Posted by Purist

Also, very slow corners have the drawback of exacerbating the accordion effect

Going back to the original question of this thread, it occured to me that a simple and relatively cheap way to make existing tracks better for overtaking is to rebuild some of the corners so that they have TWO definate lines around them.

You can do this by have a flat inner section and a slightly banked outer section so that cars can safely go side by side around the corner thus eliminating the aero effects of one car being behind another, and this accordian effect of braking & accelerating

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What I don't fully understand though, is that people like Bernie and the teams have a vested interest in F1 being popular. Surely if the races were more exciting, that would mean more viewers, more sponsors and more money?

It isn't easy changing something radically when there are so many players involved, but there are changes coming to improve things for 2013 and probably more tweaks after that. Why do you talk as though nothing is changing?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by cmotd

Going back to the original question of this thread, it occured to me that a simple and relatively cheap way to make existing tracks better for overtaking is to rebuild some of the corners so that they have TWO definate lines around them.


You can do this by have a flat inner section and a slightly banked outer section so that cars can safely go side by side around the corner thus eliminating the aero effects of one car being behind another, and this accordian effect of braking & accelerating




It isn't easy changing something radically when there are so many players involved, but there are changes coming to improve things for 2013 and probably more tweaks after that. Why do you talk as though nothing is changing?

The reason everyone gets so touchy is that most of the changes make the situation worse. Pretty nearly every change that has been made in the past has detracted from the racing.
The OWT (overtaking working group) was supposed to facilitate overtaking. Instead they brought in huge movable front wings that made overtaking impossible. The narrowing of the car's widths were supposed to help them overtake. etc etc.

Every change moves F1 away from a drivers' formula and seems to try and prevent a really good driver making a real difference in F1.

There is a whole thread devoted to aero and how bad it is for racing.
Gilles Villeneuve and others were criticising downforce in F1 in 1980 and yet here we are in 2011 ... much worse off!

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by cmotd

Going back to the original question of this thread, it occured to me that a simple and relatively cheap way to make existing tracks better for overtaking is to rebuild some of the corners so that they have TWO definate lines around them.

You can do this by have a flat inner section and a slightly banked outer section so that cars can safely go side by side around the corner thus eliminating the aero effects of one car being behind another, and this accordian effect of braking & accelerating




It isn't easy changing something radically when there are so many players involved, but there are changes coming to improve things for 2013 and probably more tweaks after that. Why do you talk as though nothing is changing?

Because ive been beating the same drum since about 1998. They have had 13 years to do something about it, but have achieved nothing. 2001, 2005, 2009 all saw major aero changes, front wings, rear wings etc. We have had three or four overhauls of aero in that time also, yet none of it improved things, so the whole "so many players involved" bit isn't really true. They got the teams to all change their chassis' before and they can do it again.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by cmotd

Going back to the original question of this thread, it occured to me that a simple and relatively cheap way to make existing tracks better for overtaking is to rebuild some of the corners so that they have TWO definate lines around them.

You can do this by have a flat inner section and a slightly banked outer section so that cars can safely go side by side around the corner thus eliminating the aero effects of one car being behind another, and this accordian effect of braking & accelerating




It isn't easy changing something radically when there are so many players involved, but there are changes coming to improve things for 2013 and probably more tweaks after that. Why do you talk as though nothing is changing?

I like the sounds of this.

Just simply using a slightly banked turn and/or offering an alternative line and adjusting the profile of corners could be an answer.

Selby

[Purist]

Remember what I said from the sub-forum though, that whether a corner is one-line or not is VERY dependent on its context within the rest of the circuit.

Also, the FIA regulations don't allow you to put enough banking into the corners to make a serious difference, unless you can get special dispensation. Maximum allowed banking without that dispensation is 10% (5.7 degrees); Indianapolis is considered to have pretty minimal banking, but it still has just over 9 degrees in its four corners. I'm pretty darn sure that Tarzan at Zandvoort is banked at more than 10%.

Another problem, however, is simply today's driving style. Watch these banked hairpins (like Tarzan), or wider, more sweeping turns at the end of a straight (like Big Bend at Lime Rock Park). Unless the guy on the outside is even or better with the guy on the inside before the very exit, he has to back out, or gets physically run off the road altogether.

Finally, the banked hairpin idea is nice, but has another major technical issue. The run-off has to be graded to line up with the outer edge of the banked corner, including accounting for the banking inclination. Otherwise, anyone going off could just fly right over the run-off.

I certainly don't think it's impossible, but I have little to no faith that Tilke will attempt such a corner, or if he does, that it will come out right.

[Marbot]

Banked corners?????!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvFR9Ml0vU

Let's not let the tail wag the dog.

[Purist]

You do realize, when the calendar was largely public road circuits or classic road courses (Spa, Nordschleife, Bremgarten, Osterreichring, Clermont-Ferrand), banked corners weren't uncommon in F1.

Also, F1 cars, or any open-wheeled car, can't bang into each other like tin tops, and probably can't abuse/disregard the curbs as well as the Aussies did.

Anyway, we weren't talking about huge, speedway corners, but relatively mildly banked hairpins in particular. Tarzan and Hugenholtz at Zandvoort are a better model, as was the old profile of the La Source hairpin at Spa.

Far too many of Tilke's corners are one-liners, and this is a problem that should be addressed. Without completely rebuilding a track, adding a bit of banking to a hairpin corner is still a relatively simple change that should help remedy this to a degree.

[bjohnsonsmith]

This shows the banking at Tarzan.

[wnut]

I present you Cariciola-Karussell, "The Karussell" from the "Full Nurburgring circuit."

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/07/19/10-best-nurburgring-nordschleife-corners/nick-heidfeld-bmw-nurburgring-nordschleiefe-karussell-2007/

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Purist

You do realize, when the calendar was largely public road circuits or classic road courses (Spa, Nordschleife, Bremgarten, Osterreichring, Clermont-Ferrand), banked corners weren't uncommon in F1.

Also, F1 cars, or any open-wheeled car, can't bang into each other like tin tops, and probably can't abuse/disregard the curbs as well as the Aussies did.

Anyway, we weren't talking about huge, speedway corners, but relatively mildly banked hairpins in particular. Tarzan and Hugenholtz at Zandvoort are a better model, as was the old profile of the La Source hairpin at Spa.

Far too many of Tilke's corners are one-liners, and this is a problem that should be addressed. Without completely rebuilding a track, adding a bit of banking to a hairpin corner is still a relatively simple change that should help remedy this to a degree.

Or you could just change the weird little crippled cars!

None of these solutions changes wake turbulence and its associated problems, in other words - not worth the bother.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by wnut

Or you could just change the weird little crippled cars!

None of these solutions changes wake turbulence and its associated problems, in other words - not worth the bother.

Exactly right... no matter what you do, you still have to contend with the aero problems associated with the cars.