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

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by Tathrim

But the races weren't as good as the ones at the Osterreichring, as a converse. I do agree, however, that the cars are also partly to blame.

Personal dislike of a couple of Tilkodromes aside, I agree that the current F1 cars are not able to overtake really and that most circuits, modern or old style, do not suit the F1 cars.
Before F1 headed to Silverstone with the new section I watched one or two races that used the new section. And I thought "wow, there seems to be something possible", despite earlier doubts when I saw the changes to be made.
And now to the dilemma in current F1 racing. The cars, or should I say vehicles, are not developed for the circuit anymore but the circuits are attempts to suit the cars. Tries, that fail further.
F1, at one point in time, quit developing vehicles that suited circuits and as soon as they lost the ability they cried for circuits suiting their vehicles. That`s another reason why F1 in its current shape never would do well at circuits like Road America or Road Atlanta even if those circuits would turn into fully asphalted parking lots to fit high FIA safety standards

[Marbot]

I should have put this http://smibs.tv/TFL here earlier.

Episode 5 (testing) gives Pedro's insight into downforce etc (towards the end of the programme). The other episodes are also very interesting.

Note: I am not surprised that Mike Gascoyne is saying what he says, because Team Lotus are about to start work on their very own state-of-the-art wind tunnel........

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Marbot

TBH, If you can have good racing at these circuits with GP2 cars etc, then I think that the problem may lay elsewhere.

Ding Ding Ding...... we have a winner!

Nail on the head Marbot.

[Marbot]

Mike Gascoyne seems to have the same thought processes that all of those aeroplane builders had from a while ago. They said that we can build bigger, faster, planes to carry more people more efficiently, but everyone will have to extend their runways by half a mile or so............

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by E.B

Ding Ding Ding...... we have a winner!

Nail on the head Marbot.

Well, if you're like me, and you watch the GP2 races on Eurosport in the morning before the GP kicks off. You find yourself thinking - What on earth are these guys on about?!

[safc_fan89]

In most years there's been a decent amount of overtaking at Bahrain. Last season the extra loop just spread out all the cars, everyone ran the same strategy, there were no safety cars and no cars qualified out of position so nothing was ever likely to happen.

I think you have to look at the cars more than the calendar. All of the circuits changed to try and aid overtaking haven't changed things at all.

Plus, simply adding some undulation doesn't make overtaking magically happen. The Istanbul track has produced some awful races since the first few.

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Sepang is probably one of the best places to overtake, alongside Interlagos. That's because corners after the long straights aren't so tight, so you can brake later and won't leave the track. Actually, at Sepang's first and last corners you just can't brake too late, there is always room to push the braking point further. Of course you will accelerate out slower, but the point is that you can't do that in Korea and Abu Dhabi.

Exactly. One of reasons I like Sepang. It only becomes difficult when you get stuck behind a fast car on the straights and in "the dirty air" zone as happened to Lewis Hamilton last year when he raced up to 6th and couldn't make his way past Adrian Sutil. I suppose it helps that Sepang is quite a wide track as well.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, if you're like me, and you watch the GP2 races on Eurosport in the morning before the GP kicks off. You find yourself thinking - What on earth are these guys on about?!

I have to agree, and again it's a matter of money.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by jab

It's not a street circuit
There's no one set formula for overtaking. Medium speed corner-straight-slow corner doesn't always work, because you have so many things to take into account - topography, bumps, setup of the cars, earlier corner combinations etc. For me, it's simply a case of some circuits produce good racing, others don't - not saying you shouldn't bother changing them but at the same time, I don't think there's much of a science behind it. There's no mathematical formula

Most of the Tilke circuits are chasing a compromised setup on the cars - long straights, fast corners and also slow corners as well - and to try and generate mistakes, like those off-camber chicanes at Abu Dhabi. I don't think either approach works - Tilke has admitted himself that these "mistake-generator" corners don't work because the drivers are just too good. And also he does seem to have a tendency to design tracks where there's only one line through each corner - some of the best corners in F1 are/were those which you can take different lines through

My thoughts too. There is no set way of making a circuit (or there shouldn't be, as each one should offer a different challenge to the driver on an ideal calendar) and corners with multiple lines mean cars can travel side by side more easily, and produce better "racing" as opposed to just plain "overtaking".

Having a lap or two where two or even three cars raced almost side by side would be far more exciting than merely increasing the "number of overtakes".

[Sodemo]

Banked corners / hairpins can allow different lines, but are never used in modern track design.

[Chiefy]

While the problem is the not the fault of the circuits on their own, Gascoyne is right to call for the boring ones to be axed - and Bahrain is top of the bill in that regard. There have been good races in Malaysia, China and Turkey in the past but a calendar-share deal that would enable countries like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi to go on hosting grands prix (albeit bi-annually) while lessening their costs and affording us some light relief in the form of more exciting races elsewhere might yet be prudent.

Gascoyne also talks about the rear wing flaps. To me this concept seems over-engineered now. Maybe it's a good idea, but we'll only ever see it used in a particular zone on a particular straight on each track - how boring is that? And it's the same with KERS. All the teams decided against using it in 2010, the upshot of which is that they've had a whole year to tinker with it for 2011. Shortcomings the like of which we saw with the Ferrari system in 2009 will not show themselves again because everything will have been made super-reliable. I still wish someone like Williams had gone against the agreement and used KERS last season... A bit more freedom to design and develop could help to spice things up; what we're getting is a bit too prescriptive in my view.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I remember watching many a race in the '70s and overtaking could be just as much a problem then as it is now. The big difference now is their is very little aerodynamic difference between the current cars, compared with the cars back then and so they are all making a similar sized hole in the air and so producing a similar amount of turbulence, especially now the double diffuser has now gone.

[Marbot]

Other things that happened 'back in the day', were that things like tyres, dampers and brakes would wear at alarming rates. Engines would lose a lot of power over the course of a GP, quite normally. All these things, happening at varying degrees on different cars, made quite a difference to the spectacle.

[bjohnsonsmith]

And now everything is so homogenous, we now get rather homogenous racing.

[davyboy]

I've just highlighted this on another thread. The sole reason overtaking is a problem in Formula One is because of the cars and in particular, their aerodynamics. It's not the circuits. Place a field of Formula Fords, Superkarts, bikes etc... on the same tracks that host Formula One events and there won't be any problems with overtaking.

Are we surprised that an aerodynamicist is deflecting attention from the cars in favour of the circuits ? As Marbot put it so eloquently... why would Turkeys vote for Christmas ?

[Marbot]

Mike Gascoyne has all the more reason to say what he says because, as I said earlier, he's about to witness Team Lotus have its very own wind tunnel built.

All hail to the great God Aerodynamaces!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I've just highlighted this on another thread. The sole reason overtaking is a problem in Formula One is because of the cars and in particular, their aerodynamics. It's not the circuits.

Modern F1 cars are aerodynamically so similar to each other as well, so in some respects it rather like a spec series.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I've just highlighted this on another thread. The sole reason overtaking is a problem in Formula One is because of the cars and in particular, their aerodynamics. It's not the circuits. Place a field of Formula Fords, Superkarts, bikes etc... on the same tracks that host Formula One events and there won't be any problems with overtaking.

Are we surprised that an aerodynamicist is deflecting attention from the cars in favour of the circuits ? As Marbot put it so eloquently... why would Turkeys vote for Christmas ?

I don't think Aerodynamics is the sole reason although clearly it is an important one. Few things are ever that simple and there are multiple reasons that lack of overtaking is an issue.

The nature of the aerodynamics now in use is certainly a major one however other significant issues are the convergance of circuit and car design, restrictive rules that remove the opportunity for innovation and lead to near identical cars, rules which restrict strategy and remove further sources of variation in performance, a scoring system that discourages risk taking. Very high levels of driver skill and the automation of the gear change process that combine to make driver errors very rare.

I think F1 should take a big step away from uniform circuits and risk aversion (sporting risk not safety) while simplifying the aerodynamics and simultaneously opening up the technical regulations to allow greater variety.

[Marbot]

Opening up the technical regulations even a teeny weeny little bit is going to require more than the current RRA (resource restriction agreement) to keep things in check.

Even suggesting that the exhausts to no longer be restricted in the way that they are, would see a larger portion of team expenditure heading towards the chaps who work with the tubular stuff.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I don't think Aerodynamics is the sole reason although clearly it is an important one. Few things are ever that simple and there are multiple reasons that lack of overtaking is an issue.

The nature of the aerodynamics now in use is certainly a major one however other significant issues are the convergance of circuit and car design, restrictive rules that remove the opportunity for innovation and lead to near identical cars, rules which restrict strategy and remove further sources of variation in performance, a scoring system that discourages risk taking. Very high levels of driver skill and the automation of the gear change process that combine to make driver errors very rare.

I think F1 should take a big step away from uniform circuits and risk aversion (sporting risk not safety) while simplifying the aerodynamics and simultaneously opening up the technical regulations to allow greater variety.

Well if other things, with exceptionally competent pilots, can overtake around these circuits and Formula One cars can't, it would seem to highlight that the problem is with the cars.

Let's invert the discussion. What type of circuit would be necessary to allow Formula One cars to race closely and constantly swap places ? Something with no turns at all ? A super speedway ?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Well if other things, with exceptionally competent pilots, can overtake around these circuits and Formula One cars can't, it would seem to highlight that the problem is with the cars.

Let's invert the discussion. What type of circuit would be necessary to allow Formula One cars to race closely and constantly swap places ? Something with no turns at all ? A super speedway ?

I didn't say aerodynamics wasn't a problem, just that it is not the only problem.

You could massively cut downforce and sensitivity by banning overlapping elements in wings for example, all that fancy nonsense on the front wing would be outlawed in one fell swoop and that'd be a good start but you also need to stop designing the circuits to suit the cars. The engineers should have to compromise the car design to make things work reasonably well at all the circuits, even ones with bumps, yes there should be some. The regulations should be opened up so that the teams have the opportunity to innovate and risky strategies should be encouraged by allowing dropped scores again so that a single DNF doesn't matter so much.

If you do these things the sport will become more interesting, there will be more chance of innovation bringing rewards and the resource restriction agreement will be less relevant. Currently everything is so restricted that the only way to gain an advantage is to spend huge amounts of money to find an ever so slightly better way to do the same thing everyone else is doing.

[Purist]

Fine, Formula Fords could put on a real show at Shanghia; I'd MUCH rather watch them do so at Oulton Park! Just as, I'd rather watch an F1 car do demo laps at Spa than watch all the best racing moments from Bahrain strung together into a single event!

There NEEDS to be loosening of the regulations. Multiple engine architectures and turbos should be options available to designers. Also, if a team has X amount of dollars to work with in a season, and they have flexibility in aerodynamics, they'll do more sweepings design changes, because those cost the same but give a larger return in pace. Those larger changes would have the added benefit of being less sensitive overall than all the niggly little things that sprout from the cars now.

Less sensitive aero coupled with different power/torque curves will make it easier to follow another car, AND will give more porounced performance differentials between the various cars in different parts of the circuits.

The circuits DO bear a major role, particularly the newer ones. They are all designed with a fairly uniform philosophy on racing and overtaking, and they now make up an almost dominant proportion of the calendar. So, of course, the cars are designed more for those circuits than any others. On top of this, EVERY team takes the time trial approach to designing their cars. These are not racing cars as such in that respect, but are made to optimize their overall lap time when in clean air. Thus, we DON'T GET ANY cars that have ultra-good handling, or that are bricks with engines, but rather, EVERY car is already compromised in its overall design (which goes WAY the hell beyond simply aerodynamics).

And as if that wasn't enough, NONE of the newer tracks create that truly compromised situation. What I mean is, so much of the lap is wrapped up in corners and braking that you do NOT have the handling difficulties that you had in the corners on a track like the old Hockenheim. Not enough of the lap is made up of "straights" at these newer tracks for that much of the downforce to ever be removed in order to optimize performance. And no track like that will be purpose-built again in all likelihood, because it would be considered "too fast" and "not safe".

The homogeneity of new tracks' lengths doesn't help either. Imagine a new F1 track of just 2.5 miles, but that had an average pole lap speed of ~135mph (on par with some of the Tilke circuits in average speed, but 25%, or more, shorter in length). It would have to be something VERY different from the current fare.

Basically, good racing at these higher levels of performance with the vehicles will REQUIRE technical diversity in the machinery, AND a real variety of circuits for those vehicles to race on. A case of doing either one or the other will NOT deliver the desired results; BOTh of these changes MUST happen.

[Purist]

I must also add that there was a very common characteristic of old, wingless, racing cars that will NOT be acceptable in this day and age with current safety requirements and the speeds of today's top-level, circuit racing cars. Many of those older machines produced lift at high speed. And actually, if there is something worse than that, it might well be a car that is aero-neutral under "normal" conditions, because such a vehicle is inherently unstable. In other words, there is some level of drag, and downforce that will inevitably have to go with that drag, that is NECESSARY in modern racing cars in the top rungs of performance today.

As an extreme example, Hermann Lang had the wheel covers fitted to his Mercedes streamliner during practice for the 1937 Avusrennen. After that first session, he came back and DEMANDED the covers be removed. The covers gave reduced drag/turbulence, but led to an air pressure build-up under the car, and specifically, in the wheel wells. This resulted in the front wheels lifting off the ground while Lang was traveling in excess of 240mph.

More recently, the Porsche 911s of the 1960s and '70s had a tendencyto lift their noses above 140-150mph.

And we have seen with the late '90s GT1s, as well as Indy Cars of this past decade, that too much flat surface area under the cars has rather bad consequences if the car in question gets much of any pitch-up.

If you have any doubts as to the necessity of drag, consider an arrow fired from a bow, and that the feathers on the back produce drag, which gives stability, and makes certain that the pointed end arrives at the target first.

[Sodemo]

Just give them the kind of aero package that F3 cars have and be done with it. Small wings, limited aero. Done.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I would like to see a return to multiple engine configurations. I know the current formula is there to keep the costs down but the current parameters are so rigid, F1 is virtually a spec formula.