Improving the ability of F1 cars to overtake ontrack

[dave kumar]

Manchild - yes some definitions are always a good way to tighten up a discussion. I am specifically interested in increasing the number of attempts that are made to overtake another car for race position. And yes the ideal scenario is to have a yo-yo effect for closely matched driver/cars where a driver may be overtaken but can then fight back to try to regain track position.

I think there have been some interesting points made about the change in drivers over the decades. I remember a recent interview with Damon Hill where he was musing over the crop of young drivers entering the sport. If I remember correctly his point was that entering the sport at such a young age meant that they might be more maluable to the team's ethos and less able to assert their own will.

But saying all that there have been corking overtaking and retaking manoevers in the last few years. I don't have that kind of memory that can retrieve a date (surely someone else can please) but what about Raikkonen the season before last when he did .. some ... stuff, and of course JPM's maiden season. It just seems we only see it when conditions are just right. Isn't it time we broadened the range of conditions that overtaking is an option! I don't think drivers want to be conservative although the knee jerk response to M.Schumacher's dominant season by changing the point system was clearly a step in the wrong direction. These guys are ultra competitive and if you give them the incentive and opportunity to win a race they will.

Finally I love Checkered's idea for a nanocoating of the track surface. Absolute lunacy and should be implemented immediately.

[donskar]

Excellent posts on this topic, very interesting. I'd like to approach the issue from a tangential (and simpler) angle.

Overtaking is very difficult because the cars (at their respective levels) are so similar. We often see two McLarens on the front row, followed by two Ferraris (or vice versa) and then we have the second rank a row of BMW followed by a row of Renaults, etc, etc.

To the main point - cars too closely matched. I don't remember the last time we saw a post here that related to the superiority/inferiority of one F1 engine compared to another. Passing as a function of power is rarely seen. Similarly, I don't remember a commentator saying driver X was able to pass driver Y because driver X's car had superior brakes. And - except for McLaren's superior ability to ride the curbs at some tracks - we rarely if ever discuss handling ability. It's all down to aerodynamics: X is faster on the straight than Y becasue X is running less wing, but Y handles better than X because Y is running more wing.

By approaching a spec car series with so many tight constraints, the powers-that-be are killing the ability to make cars different. It was not so long ago that we looked forward to a new engine updates during the season that gave another 200 revs and 8 HP, for example. Instead constructors now trumpet new aero packages with changes invisible to all but the most fanatical. We peer at close up photos: "Look, that barge board is at least 4 mm wider!" "No, it's just a shadow."

With so many other constraints, it seems that aero is the only area relatively open to change. And aero CAN make passing more difficult. We don't need charts and graphs to know that tubulence behind a fast-moving object can unsettle an object close behind it.

Summary: the problem is mainly aero, BUT largely because it is increasingly difficult to make advances in any other area but aero.

Solution: make F1 what it is supposed to be, a (relatively) wide open field where the world's best engineers design cars that are increasingly superior in power, materials, and construction techniques as well as in aerodynamics. Instead, we are approaching a spec car series.

[Conceptual]

Excellent posts on this topic, very interesting. I'd like to approach the issue from a tangential (and simpler) angle.

Overtaking is very difficult because the cars (at their respective levels) are so similar. We often see two McLarens on the front row, followed by two Ferraris (or vice versa) and then we have the second rank a row of BMW followed by a row of Renaults, etc, etc.

To the main point - cars too closely matched. I don't remember the last time we saw a post here that related to the superiority/inferiority of one F1 engine compared to another. Passing as a function of power is rarely seen. Similarly, I don't remember a commentator saying driver X was able to pass driver Y because driver X's car had superior brakes. And - except for McLaren's superior ability to ride the curbs at some tracks - we rarely if ever discuss handling ability. It's all down to aerodynamics: X is faster on the straight than Y becasue X is running less wing, but Y handles better than X because Y is running more wing.

By approaching a spec car series with so many tight constraints, the powers-that-be are killing the ability to make cars different. It was not so long ago that we looked forward to a new engine updates during the season that gave another 200 revs and 8 HP, for example. Instead constructors now trumpet new aero packages with changes invisible to all but the most fanatical. We peer at close up photos: "Look, that barge board is at least 4 mm wider!" "No, it's just a shadow."

With so many other constraints, it seems that aero is the only area relatively open to change. And aero CAN make passing more difficult. We don't need charts and graphs to know that tubulence behind a fast-moving object can unsettle an object close behind it.

Summary: the problem is mainly aero, BUT largely because it is increasingly difficult to make advances in any other area but aero.

Solution: make F1 what it is supposed to be, a (relatively) wide open field where the world's best engineers design cars that are increasingly superior in power, materials, and construction techniques as well as in aerodynamics. Instead, we are approaching a spec car series.

I have my fingers crossed in hopes that the new IRL/Champ Car merger will bring exactly that!

Chris

[mx_tifoso]

Good point donskar, one of the main issues with the current field of cars is that they are extremely similar and do not have enough differences to set them apart from each other regarding on-track performance.

An era which seems very interesing to me is the beginning of F1 as we know it; the '50s. In those times, at least IMO, the specifications of the competing cars were the direct contrast of what F1 is now. Current F1 cars are extremely similar in engine performance (including a few teams sharing engines), similar brake systems, etc, and for the most part the only aspects of them that are different from one another are the aero specifications. In contrast '50s cars had similar aero (very primitive compared to modern standards), but each team's cars were very different to their competitors in almost all mechanical aspects. Maybe the past should begin to repeat itself pretty soon!

I'm going to use the '57 season as an example:

- BRM P25 features:
275 bhp 2.5 litre straight-4,
2 valves/ cylinder,
4-speed gearbox,
disc brakes,
weighed 690 kg's

- Ferrari Lancia D50:
285 bhp 2.5 V8,
4 valves/cylinder,
5-speed gearbox,
f/r drum brakes,
weighed 640 kg's.

- Maserati 250F:
270 bhp 2.5 I-6,
2 valves/cylinder,
4 speed gearbpx,
Hydraulic drum brakes f/r,
weighed 630 kg's.

If you notice, engine configurations, valvetrains, brake systems, and weight differed from manufacturer to manufacturer. That is what made the racing so great, there was a lot of competition and each team brought their unique design to the series. Different output levels, gearboxes, etc, made overtaking a more frequent spectacle, as each car wasn't almost identical to its opponent. A variety of extremely differt gearings, fuel economy, and output levels made each race a unique experience. And I believe that variety is what F1 needs now, not the standardization of aero, tyres, or frozen engines that we currently witness.

Of course, this is all based on my understanding and personal opinion, so please take lightly.

Ultimatecarpage.com- F1 1950-1959

[Ogami musashi]

we'll see what happens in 2009.

[modbaraban]

While myself, manchild and some others were focused on drivers and driving, Ciro added a nice point about the role of TV and now we're finally back to our muttons with a very good point by donskar!

F1 needs some room for vast innovations, so that the teams could go different ways to achive wins. And yet again I think the cost cutting mania should vanish from the FIA intentions. Instead the manufacturers would be left with the variety of ways to compete under the fuel per limiting rule! In this way we have a chance to see exciting races and some technologies for future road cars.

[fastback33]

Good point donskar, one of the main issues with the current field of cars is that they are extremely similar and do not have enough differences to set them apart from each other regarding on-track performance.

An era which seems very interesing to me is the beginning of F1 as we know it; the '50s. In those times, at least IMO, the specifications of the competing cars were the direct contrast of what F1 is now. Current F1 cars are extremely similar in engine performance (including a few teams sharing engines), similar brake systems, etc, and for the most part the only aspects of them that are different from one another are the aero specifications. In contrast '50s cars had similar aero (very primitive compared to modern standards), but each team's cars were very different to their competitors in almost all mechanical aspects. Maybe the past should begin to repeat itself pretty soon!

I'm going to use the '57 season as an example:

- BRM P25 features:
275 bhp 2.5 litre straight-4,
2 valves/ cylinder,
4-speed gearbox,
disc brakes,
weighed 690 kg's

- Ferrari Lancia D50:
285 bhp 2.5 V8,
4 valves/cylinder,
5-speed gearbox,
f/r drum brakes,
weighed 640 kg's.

- Maserati 250F:
270 bhp 2.5 I-6,
2 valves/cylinder,
4 speed gearbpx,
Hydraulic drum brakes f/r,
weighed 630 kg's.

If you notice, engine configurations, valvetrains, brake systems, and weight differed from manufacturer to manufacturer. That is what made the racing so great, there was a lot of competition and each team brought their unique design to the series. Different output levels, gearboxes, etc, made overtaking a more frequent spectacle, as each car wasn't almost identical to its opponent. A variety of extremely differt gearings, fuel economy, and output levels made each race a unique experience. And I believe that variety is what F1 needs now, not the standardization of aero, tyres, or frozen engines that we currently witness.

Of course, this is all based on my understanding and personal opinion, so please take lightly.

Ultimatecarpage.com- F1 1950-1959

I think you make a very good point, and i like your idea but, how would the FiA go aobut doing this now that the cars are so much faster?

Actually i may have just answered my own question. If a team makes the car too fast causing the driver to black out or not be able to compete to the best of their ability's, and while limiting driver aids so they HAVE to use their own true skill, i don't think we would need to see so many rules that we do now. (wow holy run-on sentence batman!)

anyways what do you guys think about that?

[Conceptual]

I think that the driver aids being removed is going to be a very BIG thing this year for overtaking. I know that almost every driver says it isnt a big deal, but then in EVERY testing interview you read "Despite all of the red flags..."

Driver error is going to happen, alot. Especially while dogfighting for position, someone is going to be less than optimal or in the wall. That is why overtaking was so hard, because no matter how hard you pushed the guy in front of you, he was ALWAYS optimal exiting the corner, and that is a very frustrating thing for the guy trying to pass.

17 days, and we will see who has the stuff for 2008!

I can't wait!

Chris

[dumrick]

I know that almost every driver says it isnt a big deal, but then in EVERY testing interview you read "Despite all of the red flags..."

...and it's only logical to consider that, in a race, diver's stress is higher than in testing, so errors should happen more.

[Ogami musashi]

Just to illustrate the problem is complex.

Kubica just said in today interview that the absence of TC made any excursion off line a no go....So actually it tends to decrease the chances of overtaking.

Again many parameters to take into account and to mix but just to say that those "not rocket science ideas" are not so workable until you pull "rocket science" into them.

The decrease of downforce is one big example of it.

[manchild]

Too bad Ralf isn't in F1 anymore. Imagine him driving without TC. I guess FIA waited for him to leave in order to ban TC.

[mx_tifoso]

I think you make a very good point, and i like your idea but, how would the FiA go aobut doing this now that the cars are so much faster?

Obviously I can't go into very intricate details, but there are a few things that would be a good idea IMO.

I'm not an engineer by any means, but a variety in powertrains would be a step forward along with simpler aerodynamics. Of course there would be a mandatory displacement, such as the current 2.4, but there would be a different type of configuration depending on what type a team prefers or has more experience in.

Such as Renault designing a turbo V6, Ferrari sticking to their V8, etc. But a wide range of possibilities that would free up the restricted capabilities of the many talented people in F1.

And more changes better thought up by other people that actually know what they are talking about for instance .

Basically, what I'm getting at is that "variety is the spice of life", and that F1 could be even better than it is at the moment. And there is too much that is the same, or too similar.

I think I've mentioned some of these thoughts in previous threads already.

[checkered]

This is a very complex topic.

The big difficulty here is that the lack of overtaking is due to multiples aspect but each one affect the other.

Say if you take the aeros, one of the solutions is to decrease the downforce (that what's has been adopted for 2009, a cut by 50%) and increase tyre grip.

Now the problem is that tyres are actually also a cause of lack of overtaking.
Like aerodynamics a two fold problem occurs, being that the tyres loose too much rubber that go offline and tyres are too sensitive.

So if you increase tyres, you have to see what will come next.

So we have to tackle things at once.

...

As for now 2011 plans are stand by, but OWg made it clear they'll continue to reshape things with a big revamp in 2013.

Ogami, this is what

I like about your posts (especially): You keep the entirety of what an F1 car is in mind, constantly. It's way too easy to parrot lines like "bring back slicks" or "ban aero" without thinking about the context, just as it is simplistic to think about racing events, like overtaking, out of context. I firmly believe that there are entirely rational solutions to letting F1 evolve and thrive, in fact I believe if we "listened" to F1 properly it would "tell" us what it needs to happen like good friends do. And I do feel that the powers that be have deliberately, and ultimately against their own interest, chosen to ignore or even censor part of that feedback through shortsighted rules.

The starting point isn't tangible, but the underlying rationale, the immaterial "idea". This involves asking qualitative questions (like "Does 'improved overtaking' equal 'more overtaking'?"), quantitative ("What is the range of controlled lateral freedom of actions available to a driver?") and yes, even emotional ones ("What is exciting about the buildup to a pass?"). We've also got to accept, that while we can arrive at very clever answers without ever going racing, for F1 to remain viable, ultimately some issues have to be settled on the track. Otherwise we're trying to dictate reality and I suppose that is a very faulty proposition when faced with the "collective", "empirical" and even "chaotic" intelligences beyond individual (subjective) perception.

A detail, where is it mentioned that the OWG will review things in 2013? I haven't seen much said about this lately.

Seriously, I think aerodynamics influences a lot on overtakings, as there is clearly a chorus of people in the bussiness that are saying that dirty air is a problem. Counting the "officially proposed" changes to improve overtakings, this are the numbers:

Aerodynamics: 7 changes
Tyres: 2 changes
Engine: 2 changes
Chassis: 1 change

So, unless the "collective brain" has descended to zero also, aerodynamics matters a lot.

About checkered comments, sure there are proposals in the forum that relate to tactics: look at the "Others" section in my first post. None of these proposals have been implemented, maybe because they are crazy and because there are other reasons for the refueling and qualifying rules besides increase overtakings. For example, banning tyre changes would be dangerous.

Ciro, I have some interesting data about rationalisations behind rule changes but it will require some effort from me to bring it to a messageboard environment. I'll propably end up doing so in a separate thread since it involves other issues as well.

I didn't quite get to where I was going with the tactics issue in my last post. Teams like McLaren, if I've understood it correctly, have a satellite uplink to their factory during the races where they constantly run different scenarios (simulations) about the best attainable results. This takes a lot of the kind of judgement that relates to overtaking away from the drivers. Yes, they can still display skill, but they aren't "racing by ear", by instinct and feeling. And feeling, and indeed inspiration, despite all the machinery and media involved, is something that conveys amazingly well to the audience. I'm sure you'll agree when I put it to you that Monty's emotions in F1 were on many occasions decipherable (and enjoyable) through his on-track actions.

We're missing that, because the teams are "butting in" the personal conversation the drivers are having with their machines, the circuit and their competitors. Sometimes one sees pleas of "letting drivers do mistakes again" but this, to me, misses the larger issue - it's as much about "doing right things" as well. Human capability, perception and passion is misunderstood and underappreciated, very evident already in the lack of drama in getting used to a TC-less experience. This is why I also feel less threatened about so called "driving aids" than many - they do have the potential to lead development astray, but as long as being operated and being pushed to the limit by humans their net effect is anything but mechanistic or robotic.

[donskar]

Still on topic, I believe: to illustrate the variety we now lack in F1 - and the advantages variety can bring - can someone with access to the info (I'm at work - SHHHHH!) produce the starting grids for a 1998 and 1988 F1 grid?

We'll see LOTS of manufacturers now long gone, gride sprinkled with MANY F1 World Drivers Champions, and lots of different engines.

My F1 days don't (quite) go back to the 1950's but I remember when grids held cars with monocoque chassis built of various materials (even the early McLaren with some sort of laminate with wood involved?) Ferraris with tube frames (!), triple ignition Maserati V12s, ALfa flat 12s, etc, etc.

I'm sure we (as opposed to casual fans) would be thrilled to see 30+ cars qualifying - at one point there was a pre-qualfying to reduce the field to a group, only the fastest of whom would finally make the grid - YES, many F1 teams "on the trailer" because they were not good enough to make the field!

Finally, there was an aspect of "spec car" during the era of the Ford Cosworth DFV. Any good designer (and a few bad ones) could draw up a tub, add your pukka suspension, add a Hewland and a DFV and away they went. Many were horrible, but the variety! More colorful cars and characters than current fans can dream of.

Here comes the boss . . .

[Ogami musashi]

Checkered brings a fundamental question, what is F1 for the FIA?

The overtaking problem is really a consquence for the bigger picture.

I read many opinions (valuable) that this or this is racing, but the reality is that it is not that important.

The real thing is how the FIA sees the F1.

There's a very crucial chapter in the 2011 framework (bodywork pdf).
It compares the Nascar position market to F1.
It describes nascar as being a marketing series while F1 being a technological series.

The FIA says that for the future, f1 won't be a nascar like, but that on the other hand the technology will now have to be road relevant.


The FIA sums up this thing by this definition of F1:

-Road relevant
-Cost controlled
-More action
-Fast enough



Now from those points flows the technical regulations, so before jumping with you ideas anyone, please check that you start from the frame of the FIA.

I'll talk about the last two points.

More action and fast enough just follow the 2006 survey.

A large percentage of fans asked for more driver skill (bye bye TC/EBS) and more action (Hello aero cuts/reshapes, slicks).
The fans also in a very very large majority expressed they liked F1 for being the fastest series and the high end technology.

Read carefully the above words "fastest" and "high end", "driver skills" and "action".

Because this is were FIA started to answer the needs of the fan..into a frame of much much more obscure world.

Fans want more driver skills, they banned TC in response.

Fans wants more action, as more action is vague, the FIA started to tackle the thing with that image of cars overtaking each other, fighting back etc..

There's no reference point for that ..F1 has always been a technological series so level play field was never the case.

So they think at GP2 or Formula BMW etc...in fact they even think of the no-aero series like moto gp were "lap time decrease when following someone", that's how their 2011 adaptive aero,ride height, and their non workable CDG wing came to life.


But that's not easy as to do so you need to cut aero. Cutting aero means being slower so a moto gp like situation is not possible how to do that?

Well the fans did help..they said "the fastest"...they did not say "faster and faster".

The result is that the 2009 aero modifications done by the OWG will give F1 cars slower by as much as 5 seconds (yes 5 full seconds) from 2007 and still i take into account that the teams won't really cut the downforce by as much as planned since the original plan was 5 seconds slower than 2006 lap times.

The F1 will end up being just about 1 to 5 seconds faster than GP2 cars (while now they are 6 to 12 seconds faster) but still being "the fastest"..fans are happy.

The fans want "high end technology". The FIA doesn't want "high end racing technology" anymore, but who cares? the FIA markets that F1 will be a road relevant high end series and that's what people want! the fans said "high end technology" they did not say "constant engineering series!".
The F1 could be a series where you buy from third parties high end chassis people won't care (that's what FIA thinks) hence all those standard parts goes.


What i want to say is that FIA answers the needs of fans but with some hidden requirements.

On the subject of overtaking, i'm sure that overtaking will be easier, it will even be like i suppose here we want to see it, the car will have to be faster than the leading one to overtake in contrary to nascar or motogp were in the slipstream you "just" have to take the line...the drawback then is that the cars will now be slower.

The original plans were to make the cars going faster by 2011 (but still slower than 2007 by 3 seconds) and make even more easier overtaking.

According to what the OWG said, i think the plans for 2011 will be delayed to 2013 under a more radical form...what will this form be? i don't know.


My opinion is that the FIA choosed the wrong path, not only i'm not for a wheel to wheel action (i'm for it, but not mandatory to a race..)but i'm against slowed down F1 (accelerations and speed are what make F1 driving different from another series, and the same goes for every series with different specs) but hey how knows???!

We'll see next season, maybe something interesting will pop up! The budget cap may be the savior of that horrible "standard parts" story..

F1 is cool for that, always changing.