Overtaking in F1 and what it should not be

[bhall]

The DRS was introduced because that advantage that is a fundamental of racing was hampered by increasing drag due to wake structure.

Therein lies the crux of the disagreement, it seems. I'm OK with that particular advantage being hampered, because the advantage is hampered by a completely natural occurrence. Just as I unconsciously accept that gravity will ultimately keep the cars on Earth, I accept that modern Formula 1 cars are constructed in such a way that overtaking is made more difficult. I make no distinction between those truths, because both are natural.

Incidentally, it's precisely because of both that we get to marvel at the blistering pace we see every time we see those cars in action. I'm continually amazed by the products put forth by these teams as they attempt to exploit every subtle nuance of the rules. Be it a drooping nose with Stretch Armstrong wings or an inside out sidepod, or even something as simple as a frisbee on a wheel, the amount of effort put forth is staggering.

I consider DRS to be a sort of so-called "victory ballast" which gets in the way of the teams who most competently exploit those rules. In a sport which measures itself by tenths and hundredths of a second, because so much goes into gaining those tiny fractions, it's beyond my comprehension that it's considered OK, for the sake of a "better spectacle," to insert an element into the sport for the sole purpose of deadening the impact of those fractions. I don't like it.

Yes, the sole purpose of the rules governing the use and construction of tires is completely for a "better spectacle." I accept that with the same ease that I accept gravity and wake disturbances because every team is free to avail themselves of their interpretation of those rules at any time. A universal rule is natural.

The leading car will never be able to use DRS. Ever. It's not universal, thus is unnatural in my eyes. That's simply how I see it and why I'm so vehemently opposed to DRS.

(I was aiming for an ispiring "bring it all home" effect. Did it work?)

[Mr Alcatraz]

I disagree entirely. As my earlier question alluded to – who has successfully defended a DRS powered overtake. The answer is basically no one. I agree that we don't want to be in a position where a car catches and then never passes the car in front, but we similarly don't want to be in a situation where we're guaranteed that if a car catches the car in front, they will pass them in the next 2-3 laps. We appear to be in the latter situation at the moment.

It seems to end with the conclusion ..
"In the end, Formula One as it is now, with KERS and Pirelli tyres could easily do without a drag reduction system, which is a very artificial system in its currently regulated form."

I couldn't agree more! I want more battles, not more 'free' overtaking.

I agree with these opinions on all points. I also think that the pilot in the lead will/may be more prone to wearing his tires excessively if he feels he needs to accelerate a little faster than he normally does out of the last turn before the DRS zone in order to exceed the one second gap, (which he may or may not know he has) thus compromising his race even further.

[Pandamasque]

I'd like more differing strategies. We need a prime tire that allows to do a 1-stopper and be near the 3 stopping cars at the end.

Do you think it's a good idea to have more tyre stops and use more rubber when F1 is supposed to go greener?

Oh come on... this year they're burning more fuel to power their rocket-thrust diffusers. Everything in F1 demonstrates the lack of any interest to real green tech, PR spin is all there is. In fact there so much of it, that one can restore enough energy out of it to power a small town

[Sebp]

This would lead to larger braking zones which in turn would give us a lot more outbraking manoeuvres.

Why would it? If both drivers start at the same speed, end at the same speed and have the same tyres (i.e. the same grip) then the relative braking distance between the two drivers is the same regardless of the actual length of the braking zone....?

In fact its worse if the grip levels stay the same as there'll be no skill braking since the deceleration will be brake force limited not driver skill limited (i.e. trying to brake at the limit).

Exagerating, the status quo is you press the brake pedal and stop immediately.
With weak brakes you get a "gentle" deceleration curve and a long distance between the first application of the brakes and full stop. Within this longer braking zone there would be more time for playing with the brakes and for judging your opponent.

[Sebp]

I'd like more differing strategies. We need a prime tire that allows to do a 1-stopper and be near the 3 stopping cars at the end.

Do you think it's a good idea to have more tyre stops and use more rubber when F1 is supposed to go greener?

Oh come on... this year they're burning more fuel to power their rocket-thrust diffusers. Everything in F1 demonstrates the lack of any interest to real green tech, PR spin is all there is. In fact there so much of it, that one can restore enough energy out of it to power a small town

PR the green is (for the moment, anyway)

For me the new engine rules for 2013 are the first proper attempt to go "greener".
Along those lines I don't understand why Bernies PR-department allowed the most obvious (as in: any layman can see it) anti-green tyre-regulation to be introduced.

Occasional viewers don't see that more fuel is burnt to feed the diffusers!

[jenkF1]

DRS has produced some great racing this year, particularly at China. And in its favour you need to remember, there are so many factors as well as driver in motorsport that affect pace.Its about when the opportunity arises, the car is working well for you, to use all that skill to carve your way through the field. HOWEVER

DRS as a concept maybe great and green, it seems crazy that modern F1 cars have only recently been aloud moveable aero pieces. But there is little doubt, DRS is there to PATCH OVER the issue of dirty air. In 2009 we thought that the removal of intricate aero sculptures from the bodywork would spice things up. However, these large snow plough front wings have become even more complicated and the performance of the car further dependant on this item...so we have solved little.

If I had my way? Dinky, basic front wings. Maybe take them off altogether. And claw back the lost downforce with ground affect. Tune this ground affect to improve passing. Would this work? Who knows but I think the risk is worth it. As for DRS, this great green tech can be activated by the car in front also.

[Ogami musashi]

Therein lies the crux of the disagreement, it seems. I'm OK with that particular advantage being hampered, because the advantage is hampered by a completely natural occurrence. Just as I unconsciously accept that gravity will ultimately keep the cars on Earth, I accept that modern Formula 1 cars are constructed in such a way that overtaking is made more difficult. I make no distinction between those truths, because both are natural.

Natural? One is the core of sport (gravity) the other is a product of a set of rules..there's nothing natural in the later;

I consider DRS to be a sort of so-called "victory ballast" which gets in the way of the teams who most competently exploit those rules. In a sport which measures itself by tenths and hundredths of a second, because so much goes into gaining those tiny fractions, it's beyond my comprehension that it's considered OK, for the sake of a "better spectacle," to insert an element into the sport for the sole purpose of deadening the impact of those fractions. I don't like it.

Where do you see DRS is hampering technological competition??? DRS is there to recover a side effect of the rules set not to recover a side effect of technological competition.
There's no link between them...unless you consider desirable that a team put technological effort into making overtaking harder by disturbing wake..

You know, what you are saying is a bit like if you'd find abnormal a soccer player without a ball in his feet runs faster than one with arguing this negates the sprint training of players.

Yes, the sole purpose of the rules governing the use and construction of tires is completely for a "better spectacle." I accept that with the same ease that I accept gravity and wake disturbances because every team is free to avail themselves of their interpretation of those rules at any time. A universal rule is natural.

The leading car will never be able to use DRS. Ever. It's not universal, thus is unnatural in my eyes. That's simply how I see it and why I'm so vehemently opposed to DRS.

"Chris" are tall; So people not called "chris" aren't tall? Of course not.
I think you mess up a bit with terminology and concepts there;

Taking it another way around, a non winged series is also unnatural to you since the leader will never benefit from slipstream thus it is not universal...




@machin:

Shorter braking distance (i.e: Higher deceleration) makes things harder because the reaction time is fixed; But in fact it is not at overtaking someone that it makes it harder, in fact it makes it easier; where it is harder it is not to end you outbraking maneuver straight into the gravel/wall. See:

Imagine two cars traveling at 100m/sec; in a situation A the two cars have 2g's of deceleration (20m/s²) and in situation B double that, 4g's (40m/s²).
One driver (1) tries to outbrake (2) and reacts in the shortest time possible, let's say 0.1sec

In both situations then 1 brakes 0,1 sec later than 2.

In situation A after 0,1 sec since 2 braked, 1 has traveled 0.1*100=10 meters, 2 has traveled 9.9 meters (the calculation for that is bit more complicated);

In situation B after 0,1 sec since 2 braked, 1 has still traveled 0.1*100=10 meters, but there 2 has traveled 9.8 meters.



Of course since it taken at a very short time reference it seems not so big but look at the numbers after 2 seconds:

Situation A: 1 has traveled 200 meters, 2 160 = 40 meters between them;
Situation B: 1 has traveled 200 meters, 2 has traveled 120= 80 meters between them;

You can see the distance doubled between them. You could say so what? The problem is when you have limited room for operation that is when you start to look at the ratio of distance difference between cars/total braking distance.
This ratio translates how much time you have to succeed in your outbraking maneuver;

Since braking distance in situation B decreases while distance difference increases you can easily see the ration will be greater and greater meaning less time to react, If after 2 seconds i'm 80 farther than my opponent on a 100 meters braking distance this will be harder for me that if i'm 40 meters away from him in a 200 meters braking distance.


Now...hum as i say..i don't see any problem at all with outbraking..a major part of the overtakings in F1 is done on braking..

And DRS makes it even easier since the DRS activated car has higher top speed thus longer braking distance (thus more room).

[bhall]

Taking it another way around, a non winged series is also unnatural to you since the leader will never benefit from slipstream thus it is not universal...

That a car produces a slipstream is completely natural. That's an immutable fact of terrestrial racing. It's absurd to me that efforts would be made to mitigate the effects of that naturally occurring reality.

I could hit a baseball a helluva lot further without that pesky wind resistance getting in the way. It's fair for me to ask for a ball that somehow lessens the impact of air?

[Giblet]

Problem is not that these cars produce a wake, it's that the wake it produces it absurdly and disproportionately large, and to make it worse, they can't slipstream in the corners.

What this led to was processional racing as nobody could get close enough to pass when the car was within 1-1.5 seconds. The tow on the straights wasn't enough so we had to endure the Trulli train every single race. The DRS to me is lessening the effect of the cars inability to slipstream and close up in the corners, by letting them close quicker on the straights.

If the cars were not allowed to produce so much DF, or produced it with tunnels instead of wings, we wouldn't even need DRS or this discussion

My personal feeling is that the uses of the DRS should be limited or come at a point cost. The former is a better and easier solution.

[volarchico]

I could hit a baseball a helluva lot further without that pesky wind resistance getting in the way. It's fair for me to ask for a ball that somehow lessens the impact of air?

I think they tried that concept with golf balls. Seems to have worked, last I checked! And no one complained, either. Well...maybe they did, I wasn't around when the dimpled ball was created and neither were internet forums.

[Ogami musashi]

Taking it another way around, a non winged series is also unnatural to you since the leader will never benefit from slipstream thus it is not universal...

That a car produces a slipstream is completely natural. That's an immutable fact of terrestrial racing. It's absurd to me that efforts would be made to mitigate the effects of that naturally occurring reality.

I could hit a baseball a helluva lot further without that pesky wind resistance getting in the way. It's fair for me to ask for a ball that somehow lessens the impact of air?

Where is the link with what you said about universality???????

Besides what you say here is non sense...according to you F1 should not exist because the technical competition you see and the root core of show is based on solutions to "natural" problems. Yes..trying to find more power from an engine, or having more and more downforce is precisely to try and overcome natural obstacles....


So going back to the topic, the DRS is made to alleviate the slipstream reduction that occured because of the set of regulations from the last 10 years; The goal is to use this tool to go back to a more natural situation on which car racing was based for decades; In this situation the leader does not benefit from slipstream so the DRS is not available for him... There's no difference in it and i fail to see any logic in your argumentation so please try to explain it a bit clearer (by formulating to logical links) thanks.

[bhall]

I could hit a baseball a helluva lot further without that pesky wind resistance getting in the way. It's fair for me to ask for a ball that somehow lessens the impact of air?

I think they tried that concept with golf balls. Seems to have worked, last I checked! And no one complained, either. Well...maybe they did, I wasn't around when the dimpled ball was created and neither were internet forums.

And every golfer uses a golf ball with dimples. I'd be totally fine with DRS if, at any given time, 24 of 24 cars could use the device. But, as it stands now, only 23 of 24 cars can use the device.

Yes, I realize that if the leader, the only car which can never use DRS, could use the device that its benefits would be negated. But, in my mind, fair is only fair if rules are applied evenly.

Hey, I recognize that I'm clearly in the minority here when it comes to DRS. I've said my bit, stating it the only way I know how, and yet change still marches on as it always does. I'm just going to place a mental asterisk in my memories of this season, and DRS seasons to follow, and remember them the way I remember the so-called "Steroid Era" of baseball.

It is what it is.

[Giblet]

Well, if we are going to use golf as an example, then the golf ball does not draw any parallels IMO.

To make golf fair, women get to hit from a closer tee then men in a match. They go in disadvantaged (like a following car) due to the size and strength of their swing (the large and unusable wake), and the playing field becomes leveled when thy get to stand closer to the hole for their drive.

Football is also unfair. Either the goalie shouldn't be allowed to use hands, or everyone else should. He goes in disadvantaged due to that huge net.

Point being, Formula 1 is a unique beast, even amongst all other motor sport. The difference between a following car and a leading car was too great, considering at the start of the race they are potentially exactly the same.

[bhall]

But, women and men never compete against one another professionally. For the purposes of competition, the PGA uses one set of tees while the LPGA uses another. That's fair.

And as an American, I couldn't care less who's allowed to use their hands while playing soccer. (It's a joke, folks.)

I think F1 painted itself into a corner, so to speak, when, for a variety of reasons, the rules became so restrictive that every team eventually landed on roughly the same solutions to the technical regulations. I personally think that there's never been an overtaking problem, but there was never even a perceived overtaking problem when there was freedom within the rules for teams to take wildly different approaches in how they addressed those rules.

As I've said, I think DRS is a way for Formula 1 to maintain the performance we've all come to expect from Formula 1 cars, by way of wings and slots and whatever else to ensure that the car is almost painted to the track, while at the same time providing for a spectacle which negates the inherent byproducts of those same rules. And I don't like it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

What's left is that "the pinnacle of motorsport" is now a series with a built-in bias. Even NASCAR, which is commonly derided by countless members of this very forum, applies its rules, however arcane they may be, evenly among every competitor.

[Giblet]

I get where you are coming from, and I have to say I agree that overtaking problem is more perceived than anything.

I think if refueling was still around, the DRS would make more sense, as there was the strategy AND the wake issue. The tires and lack of refueling makes me wonder if the DRS is needed. The FIA needs to understand that you can't just introduce two new factors in a season like completely different tires and the DRS.

Myself, I think that the DRS should have a penalty or limited number of uses instead of a limited area of use. 3 times per race max or 60 uses a year. If you decide to use it 5 times in a race, you will have two less uses later.