The overtaking working group

[Kempi]

They can follow each other closely enough now. There were cars really close in Beckets, Maggets and Abbot to normally give themselves a chance. We also have a rev limit, though. This makes it quite a bit harder to slipstream past since the engine at some point just doesn't give you any room any more to gain any speed.

[Born Racer]

Hello there. New to this board

Hello. Welcome to Ten Tenths.

surely it might be easier for the FIA to issue Stock Rear and Front wings of a certain low efficiency, and then maybe open up the rules slightly so if the teams wish to improve their grip levels, they have to achieve it through Mechanical means rather than Aerodynamically?

Yes. It seems something of a 'no-brainer' to me, so to speak, but there are certainly many brains in F1, and maybe vested interests to prevent this. I also feel obtaining mechanical grip is more exciting to study as a fan than the whole issue of aerodynamics, but that might slightly be because I find it easier to grasp.

[neiltb]

you did see that at least once on an in car where the driver was following and bouncing off the limiter.

In that case you can blame the team, they can change the ratios to give a bit more in a straight line, but then if it slows your acceleration as the guy in front you might get passed so we can blame the team again for playing it safe.

I love aerodynamics, I think it's amazing what they can do with a low pressure area under a high pressure one that is seperated by a surface, however, the amounts of downforce generated and the cars utter dependence on them are what is killing motor racing.

I can't think of any series that has improved as a spectacle since I have watched with more aero (since 89 or so). F1, not any better (if a bit closer this year), BTCC was awesome, alfa ruined it with the silverstone 155 and the aero war and improved with spec wings. NASCAR, COT is a disgrace, with those endplates I think I could catch a slide and I'm pish and they can't get as close as they used to.

[PTRACER]

It's not totally to do with aerodynamics, it's to do with braking ability as well. An F1 car can go from 150mph to 50mph in what, 100 metres? Braking ability needs to be greatly reduced and it may make it easier for overtaking to take place.

[CreweAlex_42]

Hello. Welcome to Ten Tenths.

Thanks for the welcome.

Could there be an arguement for different "Classes" of cars with different specifications, all with an equal chance of winning? Could this spice up the racing?

So for example Ferrari may wish to run with a V12, but what they gain in power, they lose in terms of minimum weight, size/material of brakes and fuel tank size.
Whereas another team may only wish to run a V6 where they have a lower minimum weight limit, larger fuel tank and different brakes.

Although the V12 engined car may have an advantage on the power areas of the circuit, the V6 car would have a significant advantage through the twisty stuff.
Thinking along the old Mini - VS - Ford Mustang races in old BTCC, or am i just talking rubbish?

[neiltb]

take the wings away, leave the brakes the same, I assure you braking distances will increase.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by CreweAlex_42

So for example Ferrari may wish to run with a V12, but what they gain in power, they lose in terms of minimum weight, size/material of brakes and fuel tank size.
Whereas another team may only wish to run a V6 where they have a lower minimum weight limit, larger fuel tank and different brakes.

That's how it used to be! (except V8s instead of V6s,but V6s did have turbos).

I think that it would be very difficult to 'equalize' all the different bits and pieces.Now,if there was a budget cap........

Originally Posted by CreweAlex_42

Could there be an arguement for different "Classes" of cars with different specifications, all with an equal chance of winning? Could this spice up the racing?

You mean where maybe some teams haven't got a good chassis,but have a really good engine and where the other teams have really good chassis but have 'slower' engines......hmmm,I think I've seen that written down somewhere before.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by CreweAlex_42

Hello there. New to this board, so here goes.

IMO Aerodynamics are the biggest barrier to overtaking, so surely it might be easier for the FIA to issue Stock Rear and Front wings of a certain low efficiency, and then maybe open up the rules slightly so if the teams wish to improve their grip levels, they have to achieve it through Mechanical means rather than Aerodynamically?

They are probably pretty close to max mechanical grip already...After all, they all run the same tyre, so the max grip is the same for all.

[csirl]

One simple way of helping overtaking is to stop concreting or astroturfing the edge of the race track. The margins of error are too great as there is no penalty for putting 2 or even 4 wheels outside the white lines.

If a driver was punished every time he put a wheel on outside the white line e.g. grass or wicked saw tooth curbs, then you'd get more mistakes and more overtaking. You'd also get the less skillful drivers having to be conservative with their lines which means that better more precise drivers can get a run on them.

Its a total farce when you see cars going off the track without losing any momentum.

[davyboy]

Well Sam Michael is in agreement too. Williams' Nico Rosberg suffered quite badly from the inability to overtake at Silverstone.

Sam Michael's thoughts here.

I was very interested to note his reference to overtaking in kart racing...

Originally Posted by Sam Michael

They want to know that they are watching the quickest cars in the world. Because if they just wanted to see overtaking, they could go down to Shennington kart track.

You'd see a lot more overtaking down there than you ever would at a grand prix, or any autorace if you like. But there is a reason why you don't get 100,000 people watching go-kart racing, and that is because there is no technology. There is overtaking, but everything else that F1 has they don't have.

It may be lower tech... but the overtaking working group, or whatever they call themselves, would do a lot worse than take a close look at the fundamentals of a kart - immense driver challenge, very low grip to power, long braking distances, castor based turn-in, tolerance to bumping/boring etc... and look at how they could apply some of these concepts to the F1.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by csirl

Its a total farce when you see cars going off the track without losing any momentum.

I completely agree.

Nobody wants a return to the days when a mistake regularly lead to serious injury or death but if a driver makes an error or goes off course, it should lead to retirement, or at least a significant loss of time.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by davyboy

tolerance to bumping/boring etc...

Most F1 enthusiasts already have a high tolerance for boring.

[Marbot]

I'm not really sure that people watch F1 for the technology.We've been told that it's for another reason.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Most F1 enthusiasts already have a high tolerance for boring.

[neiltb]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Most F1 enthusiasts already have a high tolerance for boring.

I thought that was a requirement! It's a bit above the world paint drying championships but we all stopped watching that because Dulux kept winning.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by neiltb

I thought that was a requirement! It's a bit above the world paint drying championships but we all stopped watching that because Dulux kept winning.

Yes,it didn't help that my favourite team 'Crown' were hit with a $100,000,000 fine and ejected from the championship for pre-warming the wall before applying the paint.

[Scotracer]

Originally Posted by Peralta

How about steel brake discs instead of carbon to increase braking distance? How about actually using a gear lever to change gears like the old days. More chances of a driver making a mistake letting the following driver to capitalize when pressuring. Real racing remember those days.

Steel brakes give the same performance as Carbon. In 2004 (I think) Jaguar were going to run Steel discs but the weight issue was what changed their mind.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Scotracer

Steel brakes give the same performance as Carbon. In 2004 (I think) Jaguar were going to run Steel discs but the weight issue was what changed their mind.

I think that individual drivers had a preference for one or the other.

[Sodemo]

I really am at a loss for what to suggest.

I really thought the 2009 cars would be a lot better than they are.

The only thing I could suggest is wider cars (more drag + more stable + more mechanical grip) and wider rear tyres.

Making the cars heavier would help, as would increasing the reliance of underbody aero. I can't think of anything else.

[Satorian]

After the rain races of 2008 I've been wondering whether mechanical grip truly is the answer. We had fantastic rain racing in 2008, with all the aero they were still running, but reduced mechanical grip due to the slippery surface.


Perhaps less mechanical grip is the answer? Ultra-hard tyres that offer little grip and throw next to no marbles onto the track, so a wider choice of lines remains? Could also work well with the lack of refueling that's coming.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Satorian

After the rain races of 2008 I've been wondering whether mechanical grip truly is the answer. We had fantastic rain racing in 2008, with all the aero they were still running, but reduced mechanical grip due to the slippery surface.


Perhaps less mechanical grip is the answer? Ultra-hard tyres that offer little grip and throw next to no marbles onto the track, so a wider choice of lines remains? Could also work well with the lack of refueling that's coming.

But they did that in 1998 and again in 1999. Much harder tyres, which resulted in much less mechanical grip. The teams countered that by running much more aero. The end result was tricky, twitchy, knife-edge cars which produced very poor racing.

[Satorian]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

But they did that in 1998 and again in 1999. Much harder tyres, which resulted in much less mechanical grip. The teams countered that by running much more aero. The end result was tricky, twitchy, knife-edge cars which produced very poor racing.

But now we have very specific limits to aero. I don't think they could currently run much more aero even if they wanted to.

Now to just get rid of the DDDs and introduce some really hard tyres.

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by Marbot

First of all Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey would be banned (it would actually be written into the technical regulations).Then you would ban all the 'whiney' drivers who,despite the fact that their car is capable of producing 5Gs,complain that they have "no grip".

Where are you going to find all the new drivers?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Peralta

How about steel brake discs instead of carbon to increase braking distance? How about actually using a gear lever to change gears like the old days. More chances of a driver making a mistake letting the following driver to capitalize when pressuring. Real racing remember those days.

I'll drink to all of that!

But in addition, flat bottomed cars and no diffusers whatsoever. The rule would be simple: no floor at all under the car rearward of the drivers - erm - seat. Maybe the definition of what supports the engine, gearbox, rear suspension and rear wing would need some careful consideration in the written rules, as what we now know as a floor or a diffuser might be described as an engine mount, or rear wing mount, by the designers in a similar way to rear crash structures having a dual function on some 2009 cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by HughGJohnson

Where are you going to find all the new drivers?

Good point.

Must remember that racing drivers never have enough grip.What a 'whiney' bunch they are!