Overtaking in F1 and what it should not be

[Just_a_fan]

It's not so much the actual overtaking that is so exciting but the fact that the drivers are willing to try it more often and not back off quite so far because of the dirty air penalty.

This issue is one that I have mentioned many times - it's not the number of overtakes that matters it's the chances that are important. And they don't have to be 100% chances; 50% chances are good enough for the best drivers to try their luck.

In terms of the ability to run closely, I do wonder if they should remove the beam wing from the cars. This is a key factor in the upwash behind the car which is often quoted as limiting the ability of the following front wing to work properly.

[Ogami musashi]

The problem is the cars aero efficiency.

Not brakes. Reverting to brakes that require more input just suits a certain style a bit more than the others.
Take away the cars reliance on aerodynamic downforce, and you will see serious racing.

I quote you as a starting point to my argument because i think lot's of people are mislead by what they call "proper racing" and use contradicting argument to support their idea.


The DRS rational is twofold, first it starts from the fact that the slipstream in F1 is significantly lower than in other series because the wake of the cars gives an increase in some form of drag (induced drag on wings); Since induced drag is dependent on wing AOA by lowering the rear wing AOA you both reduce its section drag and induced drag resulting in much more of slipstream.
The second idea is because F1 cars can now (since 2009) follow each other far closer than before if, at the end of straight they could close in even more they would be able to attemp an overtake maneuver after that.

So the first thing to get is that the DRS tends to actually reproduce what your "proper racing" cars benefit from that is slipstream; And talking about the least aerodynamics downforce governed form of motorsport I.E karts, i can assure you that slipstream passes are quite like what you see in F1 now provided you have a long enough straight (this is the case at my track).

Getting rid of "aero dependency" will only make that slipstream higher and worsen what you see as a problem.
In addition aero dependency makes car having much more energy available to attemp overtakes for many dynamics reasons;

The fact that the leading car can't use DRS is thus pretty logical as this is exactly the case in non winged cars (the following car has TWO advantages, low drag and more grip due to less lift).

See..."proper racing" is not so "proper"..


The second thing is that according to the DRS second idea, you should see a good amount of overtakes outside the DRS zone and guess what ? 65% of the overtakes in china were done outside the DRS zone .


Last, people need to stop with braking zones...this makes years i'm saying that but have you really watched the races? a very large part of overtakes in F1 those days are done on braking! and DRS even increased that! You can even see slingshots outbrakes.

[machin]

Beelsebob put it quite nicely on the very first page of this thread:-

No, having drivers following in the wake of a car that's pushing enormous amounts of air both up and outwards puts the drivers on an inherently unequal footing, DRS attempts to equal the footing.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Beelsebob put it quite nicely on the very first page of this thread:-

No, having drivers following in the wake of a car that's pushing enormous amounts of air both up and outwards puts the drivers on an inherently unequal footing, DRS attempts to equal the footing.

I missed that amongst the wall of text. But certainly a +1 from me.

[bhall]

That still doesn't make any sense to me.

The DRS is only used on a straight where the trailing car already has a natural advantage precisely because the leading car is "pushing enormous amounts of air both up and outwards." If DRS is truly about about putting drivers on "equal footing," then the leading car, not the trailing car, should be able to deploy DRS along straights. After all, the leading car is acting as the trailing car's de facto DRS.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That still doesn't make any sense to me.

The DRS is only used on a straight where the trailing car already has a natural advantage precisely because the leading car is "pushing enormous amounts of air both up and outwards." If DRS is truly about about putting drivers on "equal footing," then the leading car, not the trailing car, should be able to deploy DRS along straights. After all, the leading car is acting as the trailing car's de facto DRS.

The leading car would then gain more speed as a result nullifying any benefit to the trailing car.

[bhall]

Exactly. That's "equal footing."

[Ogami musashi]

That still doesn't make any sense to me.

The DRS is only used on a straight where the trailing car already has a natural advantage precisely because the leading car is "pushing enormous amounts of air both up and outwards." If DRS is truly about about putting drivers on "equal footing," then the leading car, not the trailing car, should be able to deploy DRS along straights. After all, the leading car is acting as the trailing car's de facto DRS.

No. Pushing...up and outwards means nothing; As i said the advantage in drag reduction the F1 cars used to have prior to DRS (and since modern days) is less than in non winged cars thus DRS was meant to reduce drag even more to regain that natural advantage;

That is "equal footing".

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Exactly. That's "equal footing."

How is giving the car ahead DRS, equal footing?

Remember, this is not about penalising the car in front. Its about overtaking.
If the car ahead is not able to keep ahead by 1 second then he is game for overtake, simple as that. And 100% correct IMO.

[bhall]

It's not the job of F1 regulations to somehow introduce parity into the laws of physics so that every car is placed on a level playing field on the track. I'd respectfully suggest another form of entertainment if that's your goal.

You want your car to be able to run in clean air and gain all of the beautiful advantages it entails? Build a better car and relegate your rivals to the dirty air.

That's Formula 1.

[volarchico]

Well, unfortunately for you, the FIA disagrees as to your definition of Formula 1.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

It's not the job of F1 regulations to somehow introduce parity into the laws of physics so that every car is placed on a level playing field on the track. I'd respectfully suggest another form of entertainment if that's your goal.

You forget that since aero became the predominant factor in F1 it prevented overtaking, or made it extremely difficult. It also and made every human effort to pass near physically impossible unless there was a crushing car advantage.
You want to keep that?

Good luck finding that Formula, because its not Formula 1. Here is perfect example of what F1 should be, and eventually will return to being in the right management.
DRS is a stepping stone....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3tXJm9tYGM[/youtube]

[Just_a_fan]

You forget that since aero became the predominant factor in F1 it prevented overtaking, or made it extremely difficult. It also and made every human effort to pass near physically impossible unless there was a crushing car advantage.

Wrong. The problem is that the FIA introduced rules that reduced the effectiveness of underfloor downforce generation so the teams end up using evermore refined wings to do the job. These are the problem. Downforce is not, of itself, the culprit.

And as I keep saying, there are lots of no/low downforce series out there if that is what you want. You won't necessarily find any more overtaking in them though...

[Ogami musashi]

You forget that since aero became the predominant factor in F1 it prevented overtaking, or made it extremely difficult. It also and made every human effort to pass near physically impossible unless there was a crushing car advantage.

Wrong. The problem is that the FIA introduced rules that reduced the effectiveness of underfloor downforce generation so the teams end up using evermore refined wings to do the job. These are the problem. Downforce is not, of itself, the culprit.

And as I keep saying, there are lots of no/low downforce series out there if that is what you want. You won't necessarily find any more overtaking in them though...

The aero/overtaking problem is more complex than a simple yes/no statement.

And the overtaking problem in its whole is even more complex; I agree with you that no downforce series can be dull..

[bhall]

And I would say that there never was an "overtaking problem" to begin with, because I recognize that the same tools which allow F1 cars to achieve the awe-inspiring performance we've come to expect from the formula are also some of the chief reasons why on-track action is sometimes seen as limited. DRS is a move by Formula 1 to have its cake and eat it, too.

Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways, but, for the life of me, I don't understand how something like DRS is deemed fair when, at any singular point during a race, it's only allowed for 23 of the 24 cars on track.