"How can F1 increase overtaking" - A Level Physics Report

[747heavy]

I think mep, along with other on her made some good and valid comments.
In a nutshell you need a performance difference to make overtaking happen (one has to be faster then the other at some point of thetrack)
This can be due to a varity of things, driver skills (as in the wet race example), or a technical difference in the cars. ( more power, better tyre, more downforce etc.) Therefore one would need to "create" this performance difference if it does not "naturally" occur.
There are some specifics in the way current F1 cars generate their downforce, which put´s the following car at a disadvantage, Edis made some good and valid comments (IMHO) on this topic.
But I would not "blame" downforce per see as the reason, we see little overtaking in F1 in recent times/years.
There are other classes/categories, which have similar "problems" but no downforce to speak off.
The underlying problem there, as in F1 is that the cars (and drivers) are too equal, partly due to very tight/restrictive rules.

As for the "argument" (in good spirit) between mep and JET, I think the "truths" is somewhere in the middle. I would side with mep (sorry JET) that reduction in grip per see would not necessary increase overtaking. Take Ice Racing (Throphy Andros" as an example. I have to admit, that I have not seen a race in years, but some years back, it was not normally the case, that there was a lot of overtaking ing to happen. And the griplevel their is low, compaed to F1 (or any form of circuit racing), the cars have wings and spoilers, but due to the relative slow speeds the nature of the surface and other factors, aerodynamic and downforce are not that important. (not all important).

IMHO, the reason that we >>sometimes<< see more overtaking in wet races is that, at times, it does create a performance difference.
Some drivers are better then others in driving in low(er) grip conditions, have a better setup for this conditions and/or have better tires at one point in the race, giving them a edge.
I think, this is the point JET wanted to make, and there is some merrit to it.
But ask yourself the question what would happen if all races would be wet races/including qualifying?
We may see other cars/drivers on pole, and then they drive into the distance, because they are better under these conditions, but I don´t think that we would generally see more overtaking.

The beauty with some/most wet races is, that the conditions/grip levels normally vary during the race (more or less rain, rain stops etc.), so the drivers need to "anticipate" the grip level from lap to lap (corner to corner) and then commit to a braking point etc.
Some get it more right then others, and some may have more "feel"/skill under this conditons.
In the end, it´s just a way to "create" a temporary performance difference.

[carnocs3m5]

Wow, this is certainly proving very fruitful I must say!
Thanks guys! I really appreciate the numerous ideas you have given me.

[Ciro Pabón]

We have been through this one hundred times.

If it's not downforce, then why the series with less downforce have more overtakes?

Have you ever tried to close on a car with wings? You try that and let's talk again.

Convergence of design? Care to explain why doesn't it happen in ALL series?

[747heavy]

why downforce = wings?
why can indycars/champcars race nose to tail all day long?

if no wings = easy ovetaking, why do I have to see boring Formula Ford, V8Supercar and Porsche Cup races with little overtaking?

which series do you have in mind Ciro?
A look into the rule book perhaps yields the answer to your last question?
Normally race series, which are based on a road car (like GT3 or WTCC) pose a limit to convergance of design.

Care to explain?

[Ciro Pabón]

why downforce = wings?
why can indycars/champcars race nose to tail all day long?

if no wings = easy ovetaking, why do I have to see boring Formula Ford, V8Supercar and Porsche Cup races with little overtaking?

which series do you have in mind Ciro?
A look into the rule book perhaps yields the answer to your last question?
Normally race series, which are based on a road car (like GT3 or WTCC) pose a limit to convergance of design.

Care to explain?

Sure, Heavy, it's always a pleasure to "talk" with you. Old members, please skip this post, you've already read it here and there.

Why downforce = wings?

Let's see... because wings are made to create downforce?

why can indycars/champcars race nose to tail all day long?

Well, I've said this a thousand times, (and using your VERY same words, 747Heavy!), so let's go for one thousand and one:

"...for every design there is a right track."

Proof? Sure (sorry, fellas, again. I've posted this thing every year since... I don't know. There are versions for every year since 2006, scattered around the forum):

Number of overtakes per race. San Marino, Monaco, Canada, Australia, Hungary, France, even Belgium and Spain: all are "narrow track" GPs... coincidence? I don't think so


Evidently (to me) Indy cars run in 40 meters wide tracks while Super V8 don't... not to mention that touring car racing is a contact sport!

That is, the second reason why F1 cars are horribly uncompetitive: they are not made for the tracks the cars run in. Give Formula One 35 degrees of banking and 50 meters wide tracks and let's talk about Indy style overtaking.

I don't know about Porsches nor Formula Ford, not a follower, but you will find a reason for me, will you?

Besides, the downforce/dirty air problem is relative... Check this apparently clear progression in "boredom", lack of competition and aerodynamic investment I've posted weeks ago:



I'm taking this image from this document, that you have to read: Formula One 2011: Chassis Regulation Framework - A Briefing Note in preparation for the Formula One Manufacturers’ Advisory Committee. Mr. carnocs3m5 will love it, just check who wrote this paper and what racing car manufacturers stands behind it. You can skip everything until page 14, then read carefully. It's Tony Purnell speaking, by the love of Pete, not me.

Anyway, I think it is important that in engineering you discern the main reason behind a problem, if you are looking for its solution (or if you write an introductory paper on the subject, ehem).

Most of the recipes given have been already tried. In my own words:

4.2

A novice asked the master: ``I’m building a car that sometime runs well and sometimes runs poorly. I have followed the rules of building and testing, yet I am totally baffled. What is the reason for this?''

The master replied: ``You are confused because you do not understand Tao. Only a fool expects rational behavior from his fellow humans. Why do you expect it from a machine that humans have constructed? Computer aided design simulates determinism; only Tao is perfect.

``The rules of design and construction are transitory; only Tao is eternal. Therefore you must contemplate Tao before you receive enlightenment.''

``But how will I know when I have received enlightenment?'' asked the novice.

``Your car will then run correctly,'' replied the master.

So, when you see overtaking in F1, when the cars "run correctly" you can claim that you have found the main cause and thus, the probable solution (and, if you believe me, you have also found Tao! ).

In the last decade F1 has tried more grip, rule changes (a lot!) and most all of the recipes already given to no avail. So, the cars still do not run correctly.

Actually, 747, I'm sure you will find this very interesting: how NASCAR, with its characteristics that promote following (clear in the previous picture, at least to me), is a team sport (like football), in opposition to F1 which, again, to me, is an individualistic sport (like tennis). Read it and, I swear, Heavy, you'll understand at once why some cars follow others, while F1 drivers doesn't: F1 drivers cannot! The cars don't handle when following, period. So, it's a very different sport... and a very different fan base, if I may add.

Social science at 190 mph in NASCAR biggest superspeedways

Those who deny the fact that wind tunnel investment has changed overtaking could ponder this (again, sorry for the repetition, old timers). I guess you can see a peak in 1983 to 1985 contrariwise to some respected members opinion (I respect members, but not necessarily opinions):



It's taken from a very old post here, that might be interesting for the paper, btw.

Check also this topic (follow the link to the Clip The Apex site, carnocs3m5, that made an study on Brian Lawrence data, inspired by a series of posts wrote at this forum): A great F1 passing study (must read!)

And now, my friend, you can write your paper... but read The Tao of Racing first. If you are not amused, at least you can pick one quote for the introduction.

[wrigs]

We have been through this one hundred times.

If it's not downforce, then why the series with less downforce have more overtakes?

Have you ever tried to close on a car with wings? You try that and let's talk again.

Convergence of design? Care to explain why doesn't it happen in ALL series?

It does. It's not a binary parameter as you seem to infer, i.e. you seem to suggest that it either happens or it doesn't, without varying degrees. Any series that has just a single technical rule will have some level of convergence of design. In fact, one could even argue that a series without any technical rules whatsoever will still have some small degree of convergence of design due to the selection of the tracks. The point is that convergence of design happens in any series, but in Formula One it is, unfortunately, rather extreme.

One of the reasons for this is that the technical regulations in Formula One are ridiculously many. The way things are regulated today dictates very closely the shape the car can have.

Another reason is that Formula One drivers, at least in the top end of the field, where we want to see the overtaking, are among the very best drivers in the world. This means that you can't really expect them to make as many driver errors as you would expect in a series like GP2 or Formula 3, where the cars are identical except for setup.

Saying that aerodynamic dependancy or track design is the problem is to focus on one small part of the complete picture. Rather, technical convergence of design affects all aspects of the design. Convergence of design in suspension and drivetrain, for instance, is also a part of the problem.

[Ciro Pabón]

Oh, please, wrigs, have you ever taken a look at NASCAR rules? They are several books long!

Actually, this is a trick question: you couldn't have seen them unless you actually work there. NASCAR rules are not even made public... so I find VERY hard to believe that the elegant 30 pages or so technical rules of F1 approach the complexity of NASCAR encyclopedia.

F1 rules are published in advance (hey, I gave a link in my previous post in this thread that showed how this year rules were planned since 2007!) and almost with the intention of developing a technical competition on its interpretation, or so it seems to me. It's kind of SAE racing but with 1 billion dollars budgets!

Hoewever, I concede that it is a question of gradation, I agree with you. I've spoken about what I believe is the main reason for lack of overtaking, I won't repeat arguments, either I convince you or I don't. You, on the other hand, have convinced me: you have a valid point, I'm not disputing its existence but its importance.

Besides, in NASCAR people is proud of cheating... so the rules have behaved accordingly.

Smokey Yunick, the legendary Daytona Beach mechanic, used to insist that "it wasn't cheating if the rules didn't say you couldn't do it", so NASCAR book is legendarily long.

In 1968, NASCAR specified how big a fuel tank could be, but Smokey noticed no one said how big the fuel line could be. Instead of a half-inch fuel line, Yunick created a two-inch fuel line that was 11 feet long, and held five gallons of gas. Cheating? Not really, since nowhere did it say you couldn't do that. The guys at McLaren are aficionados... believe me.


I have already told this story. An exasperated competitor accused Yunick of cheating. The marshalls asked how did he know Smokey was cheating. The answer: "Because we're also cheating and the s.o.b. won!".

Take in account NASCAR is also VERY old, so its rules are much older than F1 rules, as you already know, so marshalls have had a lot of time to develop some strategies to counterweight all kinds of smart deviations.

Now, on this subject, how much time do you have for convergence in a series that uses carburetors?

For young people, carburetors were a device used to feed gasoline to cars in times of yore, before fuel injection was invented, but is still used in NASCAR. And no, I am not sure why.

The 2001 Daytona 500 is famous in this continent (yeah, we watch NASCAR also and our IQ hasn't drooped noticeably, or so we think): eighteen teams were fined for cheating, with infractions that included illegal fuel additives, an illegal air deflector, an illegal fuel tank, illegal control arms, and illegal suspension modifications. I repeat: F1 teams are inept at divergence... those marshalls are used to ANYTHING.

Now, if those guys aren't fixed on forced convergence (why do you think they invented a whole new car, very strictly defined, the famous COT), then no series is.

So, yeah, I'd say you're right, but not on the mark.

A final comment: you attribute to excellence of drivers the lack of overtaking. Again, yeah, you have what I call "an slightly valid point". However, say that to J.P. Montoya... and explain NASCAR overtaking with that argument. I'm not saying that Juan, my compatriot, is a worse driver than Jimmy Johnson, quite the contrary, I rate him very highly, as I do with all F1 drivers, but, hey, wake up: any series has the best drivers... for that series. Say that to David Coulthard or Ralph Schumacher that, according to your theory, should have dominated "lesser series". They did not.

Sure, there is a "larger standard deviation" in abilities, I agree, but to attribute lack of overtaking to that? Well, I don't. However, this is the Internet, I'm not here to convince anyone, but to have a good time... and, yes, I'm having it. Can you believe I'm quite convinced with what I wrote?

I've heard the "best drivers in the world" argument from... NASCAR fans. I've smiled. Those are the best drivers in North America, period. Take them to a Tokyo race, with a Nissan under their feet and let's see how they behave. Besides, everybody knows that the best drivers in the world are kart drivers... we have already won all the F1 championships you wish to mention, from Senna to Alonso. If you wanna know how good a driver is, put him in a kart and I'll tell you.

Mick Schumacher: the apple and the tree are always close


Is this guy known in F1? Clue: his name is Sebastian


At least I hope you already see I'm not in "binary mode", as I understand you think of me: I'm an old engineer and for old engineers the world is gray and there is always a lot of reasons for anything, all valid.

However, what distinguishes good engineers from regular ones is the ability to differentiate "the Thing", with capital T, from "the thingies", without capitals. What distinguishes F1 from other series is a) the huge downforce they employ and in a far second place, b) the quaint "street" circuits they race on, much more "older" and with much less money invested on them than on the cars (probably there is no series in this world where the track gets in one year the same amount of money that the cars get in one weekend, except, maybe, dirt tracks).

However, we are not going to repeat the recent and already famous "ringo vs myurr push-pull rod cage match", are we? I think you're reasonable, but I think (surprise!) I'm more.

[mep]

Well Ciro you write a lot and give many links but what is the actual point you want to make?
Somehow that got lost.


1. Reason why there is so less overtaking. Or maybe there is enough and we are just whining something or dreaming of better days which maybe never existed.

2. Theory to solve the problem

3. Reason why the theory should work.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Reason
Overgrippy tyres make for drivers being less relevant in braking and acceleration zones. It also helps teams add infinite amounts of aero grip when the tyre keeps taking all the punishment.

Theory to solve: By reducing tyre grip it would be a totally revolutionary way to look at the problem. People using the aero argument fail to see that Indycars have the same problem as F1 at street circuits. Not only that, but most the time there are only ever 1 or 2 engine suppliers...very condusive low drag profile oval overtaking. Why? The car ahead has to do alot more work than the car a few meters behind
Using Carts and motorbikes as examples of how it should be done is not at all helpful, as these machines will always have a smaller on road profile than an F1 car.

Using banking and longer corners with a gradient will help, but it will need to be heading into a very big breaking zone, like magny cours. Note this is in addition to my theory of less grippy tyres. As I feel there is no one right answer.
More that some single ideas will have more impact than others.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FhGpia_85s[/youtube]

Reason why the theory should work
We want F1 to be about the pinacle of racing. Therefore it should mean the cars kick out over 700bhp at least. what will happen when you reduce the aero profile of these cars and use ground effects instead? There is no guarantee it will work and there are very dangerous possibilties when the effect is changed through a bumpy track or on road contacts.

The ideal is to reduce the amount of grip in a car while giving the driver more power than the rear tyres can handle. This does many things instantly. If the tyre grip is so low, most teams will have near exactly the same amounts of rear end grip regardless of fancy suspension setups. Because if the tyre is giving up earlier, your ability to tune the suspension accordingly drops a staggering amount.
The window is narrower.
This brings teams closer together than they have been in the "grippy tyre era". Aero will be limited to how much the cars tyres can handle effectively. Yes Aero grip is different to mechanical grip, but there is a correlation. Eau Rouge, 130R and turkeys double header will all be about driver balls, as will other corners which will have different characteristics due to the nature of the ungrippy tyre.
Drivers will adjust to the nature of these tyres, but we will see more driver error, and more overtaking as a result.

We all know the feeling when you have a mirror full of a guy chasing you. Can you imagine picking your braking point doing it cleanly and accelrating away effieciently under the intense pressure of guy who is doing it slightly better?
Today Petrov can hold off Alonso for 40 odd laps, not make a single mistake.

I ask the Jury, do you think Petrov would be able to that for 40 laps without locking up or powersliding out of a corner on my theory of ultra hard non grippy tyres?

Special thanks to my mate Simon Buffell for the technical assists on this.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well Ciro you write a lot and give many links but what is the actual point you want to make?
Somehow that got lost.


1. Reason why there is so less overtaking. Or maybe there is enough and we are just whining something or dreaming of better days which maybe never existed.

2. Theory to solve the problem

3. Reason why the theory should work.

Mep, this is a thread started by a person that asks for help in writing a paper. I don't recall him asking for "making a point". However, as you asked for it (and very nicely, thank you), there you go.

I have been trained, when writing a paper, to find secondary information (bibliography) and, if having time and knowledge, create primary information (experiments). If it is a basic paper (state of the art summary, for example), you can simply content yourself with secondary info. If someone ask for secondary info, I give him some context.

End of my explanation about my intentions. Very simple ones.

Now, you ask for a simplification of the Racing Car Manufacturers Association opinion (let me assure you it's not MY opinion: research and opinions don't go side by side and there are PLENTY of threads asking for unsubstantiated opinions on this subject).

There you go (I answer point 1, because point 2 and 3 are hard o deduce and very long to explain. Please, please, read the paper, there are at least two dozen improvements proposed.):

1. High downforce and front wing sensibility to turbulence, that impedes close car following and narrow tracks that doesn't allow drivers to pick different trajectories or are not wide enough for side by side racing on curves.

So, less wings and new tracks.

However, if you don't have the time and/or the gusto, this is a transcription of one of the reasons given, written in 2007:

1. Aerodynamics: Compared to today, the 2011 car regulations will aim for ~50% less maximum downforce and ~50% less maximum drag (i.e. that experienced at maximum speed). The precise figures, including centre of pressure requirements will be fixed through simulation work under the guidance of an FIA Aerodynamic Working Group1. The aim will be to make the 2011 cars marginally faster in terms of lap times than the 2009 / 2010 cars, but with broadly similar top speeds. This is to be achieved by:

....

The paper is signed by BMW Group, Ferrari, Ford Motor Company, Honda Motor Company, Mercedes, Renault, Toyota and the VW-Audi Group. I'm betting on Mr. carnocs3m5 finding that link quite useful.

Finally, I respectfully think that any engineering solution is complicated, it comes, some times, from sites unexpected and nobody foresees it in advance. Besides, normally is made of little innovations here and there and when the "problem" is solved, people do not notice (only your colleagues). If the engineering solution is good enough, people actually forget that there were a problem.

It's because of that fundamental concept of mine that I'm not one of the "nostalgic guys", I actually think things have improved during the last couple of years and they will improve more this year. If I pointed out that in 1983-1985 there were more overtakings is because saying the contrary is to be unfamiliar with the numbers.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Ciro,

Why then do indycars struggle on non oval tracks?

Same cars right?

[Ciro Pabón]

No, JET, and you know it. Indy cars are spec cars. They are made to run very fast, on tracks so wide and with such a banking that they race essentially flat out. Aerodynamic efficiency, in terms of low drag is paramount here, so, street races are not their turf. Btw, to me, watching an oval Indy car race is as fun as watching the grass grow, with cars zooming at 330 kph all the time. Dangerous, sure, but not entertaining as a driver competition, for my "racing" taste.

If that's The solution, that is, a high speed spec series, I do not want it and I think I can speak for everybody in this forum when I say it goes contrariwise to F1. Even a drastic simplification of current rules is a move against the history of Formula racing; the people that made the rules were many things, but I don't think they were stupid.

We have had 60 years of regulations written by them, that is, more than two generations of smart people. I believe in incrementally better rules, developed with manufacturers and public input, and I also believe in solving problems through hard work and research and you know it, friend.

[gridwalker]

An oldie, but a goodie : "Applying science and commonsense to overtaking"

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft20831.html

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

No, JET, and you know it. Indy cars are spec cars. They are made to run very fast, on tracks so wide and with such a banking that they race essentially flat out. Aerodynamic efficiency, in terms of low drag is paramount here, so, street races are not their turf.

Ciro, from what you are saying, I gather you agree that Aero is not the solution or the "magic bullet" to the problem?
Street races may not be their Turf, but then nor are ovals F1 cars turf.
The more you look at the problem the more complex and diverse it becomes.

Changes to the rules
Changes to Tracks and track layouts
Change to "spec aero"
Etc.

My opinion is keep F1 the way it is, but make the tyres harder so that it nullifies the aero gains. Its simple, cost effective and will improve the show.

You could even try it for 1/3 of a season then revert back to the older grippy tyres if it fails.

[wrigs]

Ciro, I honestly don't see what excites you to keep on arguing.

We are not in disagreement over the main points that you are arguing. The main points you are arguing are merely a subset of my overall point.

The only disagreement I have voiced with you so far is that you focus narrowly on a few very specific points as being the root of the problem. Richard James, the author of the document on Divergent Governance, used the term "the cause of the cause" in his analysis of the overtaking problem in motorsport, and, as far as I can tell, you speak of this yourself too, but I do not believe you apply it.

If we focus on the problem as it immediately meets our eyes, it's easy to get carried away with suggesting solutions that, while solving one problem, creates a bunch of new problems. Reducing the size of the rear wing gave birth to double-deck diffusers, banning the double-deck diffuser made the exhaust-blown diffuser an important device, which the FIA has already tried to regulate too. All that happens is that the engineering freedom is reduced, which will make the cars more similar.