Why overtaking is dead, and might never come back

[Zynerji]

You actually agree with my/ Symonds point in your first paragraph...

His point was that the chassis design was TOO good, and the power from the engine wasn't high enough to make the car unstable.

Unlimited DRS would make the self- balance between driver pushing over the edge of stability in search of lap time, thus introducing a skill component that would allow small mistakes, and more overtaking opportunities.

[Manoah2u]

You actually agree with my/ Symonds point in your first paragraph...

His point was that the chassis design was TOO good, and the power from the engine wasn't high enough to make the car unstable.

Unlimited DRS would make the self- balance between driver pushing over the edge of stability in search of lap time, thus introducing a skill component that would allow small mistakes, and more overtaking opportunities.

ah makes sense now, i read that completely wrong, apologies

thanks for the clarification

[strad]

I read it the other way around myself.
Thought he said the chassis couldn't handle the power.

[strad]

Interesting article that was passed along to me from a friend.
Leave it to Rick Mears to make sense...It could apply to F1 just as well.
https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news ... r-warning/

[PlatinumZealot]

With every year more and more people talking about 'how to have more overtakes on F1', with no solution at all seeming to work, here's why I think overtaking may actually never be a thing again on F1.

1. Faster cars qualify higher: If my car is faster than the other, I'm probably gonna qualify higher, so how is there gonna be any overtaking if the faster cars are aready starting in front?

2. Precision and Consistency: F1 gets more and more consistent every day, with both the cars' manufacturing being precise to a nanometer as well as the drivers being incredibly consistent. So there's no reason for a car that's 5 tenths faster than the other to suddenly become 5 tenths slower, therefore there's one less logic reason for a car that's behind passing a car in front. Back in the day engineers and drivers had a vague idea of how much their engines and gearboxes would last, so sometimes a driver would push less than he could, or more, which led to breakdowns. Apart from some engines blowing today, that doesn't usually happen anymore, and even when it does, I don't feel any excitement from seeing an engine blowing.
Also, teams today have a pretty good idea of the ideal pace for the driver to go as fast as possible from start to finish, so there's no reason for a faster car to suddenly become slower.

3. Strategies: Everyone qualifies on low fuel and gets whatever fuel load they want for the race. Also with the more durable tyres, a 1 stop is pretty much always the way to go. With that in mind, strategy is currently not a factor for a faster car to suddenly become slower. When that does happen, we see an amazing show like the Red Bulls gave us at China, but it rarely does happen.

4. Aerodynamics: Everyone blames F1's complicated and sensitive aerodynamics for the lack of overtakes, and that is a part of the problem. But if you watch this video you'll see that the speed with which a car drags the air leaves the car behind less relative speed for its aerodynamics to work, so no matter how simple the aero is, driving in the wake will always be a problem. Just watch the 2009 season: Aerodynamics were way simpler than today, and even so overtaking wasn't considerably better.
Perhaps that could improve with a bigger focus on mechanical grip and ground effect, but the wake of the car in front will always be an issue for cars so aero dependant as F1 cars.

Also: Overtaking in F1 is actually really easy.
Look at how easily Ricciardo was able to overtake on newer tyres in China, or how fast Hamilton made up positions at Bahrain, so fast in fact that after that Grand Prix some were asking if overtaking was too easy. The fact of the matter is: if the car behind is faster, overtaking in Formula One is surprisingly simple. The big problem is that there's no logical reason for a faster car to usually be behind a slower one.


There you have it guys. It may seem a little pessimistic, but every time I think about it, I see no good reason for overtaking to become a common thing in F1, no matter how many DRS zones, no matter how they change the aerodynamics. Leave your opinions down below (I sounded like a youtuber now, sorry).

"Fan boost".. well, my version of it, will solve this. Please see the thread of same name. Yes. You know you want it.

[strad]

nope...afraid I don't

[roon]

Interesting article that was passed along to me from a friend.
Leave it to Rick Mears to make sense...It could apply to F1 just as well.
https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news ... r-warning/

Da comrade, we need more direction from racing politburo, get director of competition on line. Next season communal car will turn us to glorious days.

[strad]

Da comrade, we need more direction from racing politburo, get director of competition on line. Next season communal car will turn us to glorious days.

????????????????????????????????????

[Manoah2u]

Da comrade, we need more direction from racing politburo, get director of competition on line. Next season communal car will turn us to glorious days.

????????????????????????????????????

i'd say wodka.

[Powerslide]

drivers are on the very edge of adhension, thats what they are paid to do...so losing just a little bit of aerodynamic downforce will effect staying close enough to the car in front to make a pass. if the f.i.a dont want to clamp down on those downforce numbers then track design may help as we have seen..slower corners that arent too dependent on downforce followed up by a long straight. i also feel that probably some teams like the status quo..having spent high budget to race but when there is a lot of overtaking and low downforce(high downforce is stable and less sentitive to center of pressure movement)...the chances of crashing is higher so not finishing is the last thing a high budget team wants or any team for that matter since cost to race in formula 1 is so high

[mani517]

Yet, people sign in here and with all the grace of a drooling chimpanzee slap their hands against a computer keyboard, miraculously forming coherent sentences, to complain about a sport they have little comprehension of.

Brilliant! Give that man a prize - the best thing I've read on here in many a moon.

why the complaining about supposed lack of overtaking?

Do you guys (he who feels adressed, feel free to feel as such) even watch F1?

Verstappen on Raikkonen, just to name one. how about Alonso's race.
How about Vettel on Hamilton. Daniels regular late-brake-dive-ins.
Just to name a tiny few of last race.

you guys act like there's no overtaking at all, and it's actually the opposite.
Hamilton vs Rosberg was a prime example of 'great battles' on track, and those were 2 identical cars.

All this whining about nothing, just wow.

If any, aero developments have made DRS have a far less impact than it had before, when it was freshly introduced.
DRS caused an 'immense' raise in overtaking. but it's fully artificial, it's quite frankly unfair. look at how it was before DRS introduction.

it's mentioned before by others; the pink glasses. you don't have to go to the 70s or 80s. It's as recent as in the early 2000's too, looking with 'nostalgia' to the supposedly 'better' f1 cars of 2006 for example.

Even then it was the same.

If there is one thing to point a finger at in regards to how overtaking has become more difficult, it is that the rules have rather reduced 'artistic' freedom of various approaches to car design, resulting in rather similar approaches and thus, similar cars. Same goes for engines; theyre rather pretty much the same, also in their approach.

People confuse a full race with race moments, and confuse momentary overtaking with actual overtaking.
What i mean by that is that for example when there was still fueling, cars had huge different strategies.
So you saw lighter cars (with less fuel) overtaking heavier cars relatively 'easy'. The lighter car however at some point needs to refuel, and later on, the car that was heavier now is lighter and either overtakes the now heavy former car.

Is this overtaking? sure. is it fair? well, back than, one car had like what, a 40kg advantage in weight (less fuel) and now the car has an advantage of opening their rear wing.

in the end, the finish positions are 'the same'. the 'overtaking' never was real overtaking, it was reclaiming your actual position. the same as how for example stroll could be driving in p4 because he has not changed his tires yet. tactics.

'real overtaking' is at the start of the race, and teammates with same cars in same tactics. like Ricciardo vs Verstappen @ Baku for example. Don't tell me you didn't see those overtakes, back and forth.
Hamilton vs Rosberg, another example. etc. etc.

Overtaking is not dead at all.
Without attacking anyone, there's a lot of 'oldwives tales' going on.

As a general response to everyone defending the state of F1 who are happy with a few occasional good shows and rare genuine overtakes. I would like to make a few points -

With almost all widely followed sports, only a small percentage of fans get to experience the sport in-person. So, it is pretty much an obligation for the sport to offer some entertainment. Now, I can't deny that there is a lot to appreciate about what is going on in the track and the technical side of the sport, but, it is just one side of the sport.

Overtaking and close racing is an essential aspect to boost the entertainment factor. If the sport did everything it could and overtaking was still a problem, then, I (and many) wouldn't mind accepting the sport for what it is (or has become). But, that is not the case, F1 is a sport where the terms level-playing and fair-chance don't make sense (both of which will surely improve the close racing and thus contribute to more overtaking).

Teams put themselves before the sport (at least, the big ones do) and manufacturers look at the sport as their marketing platform. When the "sport/racing" is given the priority and due attention, the problems will automatically disappear. For that to happen, teams (those that participate/contribute/dictate the regulations), FIA and FOM should show some level of conviction and accept they aren't doing a good job to improve the quality of the sport.

So, please don't suggest the sport is doing fine and ask anyone who complains to just go and watch the race in person to appreciate it. Also, please don't use the "racing-in-the-past-was-no-better" excuse, it may well be true - but, that doesn't make F1 immune to general expectations.

[Manoah2u]

everybody's offcourse entitled to an opinion, but i'd also like to point out that complaining about everything is something about the current generation, and quite frankly, it's fashion nowadays. people complain about anything, everything, without any solid or real reason just for the sake of complaining, which is really destructive. F1 is no exception. As such, i'd point out that filtering out that 'fashion of complaining' puts things in a different perspective.

doesn't mean offcourse that there isn't stuff to improve, let that be a given.

[mani517]

Of course, a unified/unanimous agreement is impossible and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, when an opinion is shared in the forum in a manner of suggesting others are wrong in general, it isn't wrong to initiate a discussion to point out **not all complaints are baseless**.

If F1 is flawless and people still complain, then, we should consider them as fashion statements and ignore them. No arguments there. But, anyone following the sport long enough would know that F1 likes to patch its regulations with workarounds instead of solutions. On the odd occasion, when F1 realises it is too messed up and tries to overhaul the regulations, it pretty much ends up with a huge performance spread that kills close racing. So, it doesn't take much to see that these complaints have some value. Suggested solutions may be pointless and opinionated, but, the problem is real. If one needs a proof, all we need to do is just try and take the DRS (gimmick) out of the equation and even the defenders of the sport would notice the problem.

It is difficult to take a neutral position and weigh the other side of the argument without bias, but, that is exactly what one should do before dismissing a complaint.

NOTE: I call DRS a gimmick in this response, but, it is just my opinion, of course. But, I really want to say this, many of the fans would like to understand how F1 decided that the dirty air performance impact can be ***fairly*** offset by the use of DRS when the gap is 1 second or less???

[strad]

As I see it much of the problem stems from this thing that was put in place a fair amount of time ago, that all the teams have to agree to a given change.
It doesn't matter what experts say needs to be done if any team sees it as detrimental to them.
Not one of the team principles seem to care more for F1 than to try to get or keep an advantage.

[mani517]

It is one of the main things that F1 has to change to become fair. Make teams play for the rules of an independent governing body... consulting/collecting opinions is OK, but, teams can't get to write the rules.