Let us have a little poll after the first regular race what the users think of the OWG decisions on Wings, diffusors, movable front wings and KERS.
Perhaps this gives us a snapshot of opinions about the quality of the work by the overtaking working group.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Well they haven't reduced the level of downforce by all that much - the difference is not far from the 2004-2005 transition, but the amount of overtaking has improved greatly.
The only thing I'm disappointed about is the rather unelegant solution the OWG came up with - the cars really don't look good (although from a 30 degree angle they look quite smart).
This is the first season where the OWG's recommendations have been implimented. Although there have been a few shortcomings, especially the vague regulations concerning the diffuser, there have also been positive results. There is more passing, and more close battles. Maybe not enough to suit some people, but at least it's improved.
So I judge the OWG based on the fact it's their first effort. Not perfect, but at least some positive moves in the correct direction. Give them a chance, give them time, and hopefully even more progress will be made.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
OK, I personally think the OWG has succeeded in its brief, but the overtaking problem is one that can never truly be fixed without unconventional approaches.
Just to refresh, the brief of the OWG was to enable a car to overtake another car that is approx 1 second/lap slower.
In that goal, I think they have succeeded. The field is spread by approx 1.5-2 seconds*... whereas traditionally it has been 3-5 seconds front to back.
*in Bahrain, the Q1 gap from front to back was under 1.5 seconds - unheard of!
When the gaps are that close, the speed differential between the cars is becoming so small that 'conventional' overtaking is impossible.
Therefore, to fix this, I would propose the following modifications to the KERS system (which IIRC was not a measure introduced by the OWG but directly by the FIA).
1. Limit the KERS 'on' time to less than 4 seconds.
2. More than double the power output of the KERS from 80kW to over 160kW.
This should do two things:
a. Stop drivers from firing the thing on every straight to protect their position
b. Create a greater speed differential between cars for the driver that has saved their KERS
I think that they did reasonably good job.
Although I do not think that this last race is the right measure just because of classes that we have (DDD, noDDD, KERS, KERS+DDD, noKERS) and I think that this overtaking are more result of this confusion. If we look at a relatively equal car on the "wrong" tire conclusion remains that the overtaking are still more because of driver in front mistake - we saw that almost a second slower driver (Trulli on hard`s) can maintain in front of faster one (Vettel on soft`s)...
My impressions are a bit mixed but it is still better than last season calling for rain amid dry race in order to watch racing, not only start, pit stops and finish.
The Vettel situation had me worried as well that there is still something fundamentally wrong. Perhaps that will only fix itself when we come to the refeuelling ban next year.
I feel that they should also make an effort to fix the DDD loop hole and the remaining barge board areas. And while they are at it movable rear wings for reduced drag would be nice.
Finally a wider track for the cars. Every time I watch an historic race I love the fat cars they used to have.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
* That KERS be banned on cost grounds
* Flexible rear wings to be re introduced
* Allow fuel to be used as ballast
* Allow the front wing to be adjusted infinitly each lap, no limits
* Basically allow alot more things that the money that has and will be poured into KERS to get cars closer and get more overtaking manouvers to happen.
OK - main question is do we have more racing, more fun as spectators, as technical fans, as fans at all ... I`m ferrari fan for 30 years (one and only) and I`m glad when they have winning package but I also must admitt that 2005 season was very interesting `cause of realy big compromise in terms of setups and race tactics ... because packacge was not perfect (it was under given circumstances)! It`s really difficult to say my final opinion upon this case because while I`m tipping this I have pro`s and contra`s crossing on my mind. Formula 1 is pinnacle of the motor sports and if rules choke technical progress - no good. On the other hand - if we want realy interesting races to watch as spectators, rules must urge unballanced package - let`s say overpowered engine or undercapable (narrow) tyres, overweight chasis without capability deploying ballast... really hard to find compromise between haveing drivers competition on race track and technical sweet stuff first time seen...
WhiteBlue wrote:Finally a wider track for the cars. Every time I watch an historic race I love the fat cars they used to have.
I love them too. To me, that's what a real racing car looks like.
But in this thread, we're discussing efforts to improve passing. And sadly, a wide car is more difficult to pass. That's one fundamental reason why the cars are so narrow compared to the past.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
The track width was primarily reduced for safety reasons as one of different measures to curb performance. Since then circuit width has increased dramatically and mechanical grip has lost out big time to downforce as a performance driver.
The OWG reform was mainly attacking excessive downforce and insufficient mechanical grip. The original proposal by the FIA included the wider tracks for the cars but it was deemed too radical in terms of aerodynamic consequences by the teams.
I still think it was a mistake not to go that way. The cars would be much more stable and a lot less affected by turbulence if they were wider.
I'm not really impressed by flexible rear wings. That could lead to consequences in terms of mechanical integrity which have worried F1 before the tests were beefed up. It would make more sense to let the SECU adjust the wing automatically for a drag minimised setting over a lap.
And there is still the idea to positively curb downforce by a fixed maximum figure like the minimum weight theey have. That way 99% of the mumbo jumbo on bodywork can be deleted from the rules and the technical regulations can be printed on 5 pages.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
one of the best things about this season thus far is the lack of stability generated by the tyre grip imbalance as well as the differing compounds.
whilst many complain that this is artificial, they are rules, like all others imposed on teams.
hearing teams and drivers complain is fantastic, it means they are struggling and being challenged which is what we need.
F1 recently has become too clinical, allowing teams and drivers achieve perfect laps too easily.
we need more challenging circumstances for teams and drivers to make mistakes. this is when overtaking occurs - after mistakes, particularly on corner exit.
we need more power, with less rear grip (both mechanical and aero), forcing the fastest lap to be a ragged-edge, risky, ballsy style, resulting in more driver errors.
in saying this the OWG has done ok with the majority of downforce loss seemingly affecting the rear of the car. severely limiting flow conditioning to the rear wing, and the failed attempts to significantly reduce diffuser downforce levels were probably their strongest attempts and this needs to be further explored.
Any post(s) made by this user are (semi-)educated opinion(s), based on random fact(s) blurred by the smudges of time.
Any fact(s) claimed by this user will be supplemented by a link to the original source of said fact(s).
WhiteBlue wrote:Finally a wider track for the cars. Every time I watch an historic race I love the fat cars they used to have.
I love them too. To me, that's what a real racing car looks like.
But in this thread, we're discussing efforts to improve passing. And sadly, a wide car is more difficult to pass. That's one fundamental reason why the cars are so narrow compared to the past.
I like this one. Look at the fat rear tyres compared to the front tyres!!
or this
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 29 Apr 2009, 04:55, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
I would like to see a more raised sitting position be forced.
It would definitely increase drag and overall speed of the car, increase the drivers view of the world around him, and we'd likely lose a lot less wings in the start.
It also affords the fans more of a view of what the driver is doing.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
