Is F1 getting boring?

[Ciro Pabón]

Oh, by the way, it's "rugby football" not "football rugby" (in case anyone thought I was brown nosing the mod )

Sorry, in my native language we say "fútbol rugby". There is almost no brown nosing in this place, sigh. Where are the sycophants in this place?

[Ciro Pabón]

During Sundays commentary on Radio 5, David Croft spoke about the number of overtaking manouvres per year. Year on year they have been going down but there have always been processional races.

Andrew, I'm not sure, but the figures we have say that overtakes have remained steady in this century.

Contradictory comments from some people:

"I won't listen to them complaining that you cannot change the cars. It can be done, but you cannot have the teams in any shape or form having an input to the sporting or technical regulations, because their job is about winning for themselves.

The problem is that you cannot really have teams in any shape or form having a part in the sporting or technical regulations. You cannot have the inmates writing the regulations. An outside body should draw up regulations to reduce downforce, which currently stops the cars getting close behind each other and is preventing overtaking and then give the teams two years to implement them.

I'm not happy, far from it... It was the kind of race we have had in the past because of the way the cars are designed. The teams knew this would happen when re-fuelling stops were banned, but they created the regulations."

-- Bernard Ecclestone -- (blaming every team in sight and saying they are inmates... we know who the warden is. ).

"The rules are fine. One race doesn't mean anything. The worst thing would be for sudden changes before everybody is sure what they want."

-- Jacques Villeneuve -- (don't worry, be happy)

"What we don't need right now is a knee-jerk reaction. Whatever happens, we must be sure that any changes improve the show".

-- Mike Gascoyne -- (don't mess with our car, is working fine)

"It was boring but it was the first race and it's too early to make a verdict. I think it will work out."

-- Gerhard Berger -- (we are used to be boring, what's the problem?)

"There is no magic formula one, but a change that would help would be to have longer straights with bigger run-off zones."

-- Frank Williams -- (let's people make mistakes, perhaps that would be entertaining)

I apologize for the translations in parentheses, I might have made mistakes.

[Belatti]

Do this with aero, do that with engines, do this with tyres, do that with qualifying, do this with budgets, do that with manufacturers, do this with points, do that with tracks...

F1 is not getting boring.

People is.

I would post a George Carlin video about this matter, but Ciro has already done it somewhere else in the forum.

[Miguel]

First, the on-topic stuff. Isn't Ciro very prone to show the overtaking graph in which it shows that the rule changes have managed to basically kill the overtaking decline and bring it to an almost constant level? I've just had a beer with friends, so I don't feel like looking for it now. 2005 was a very bad year, but the others have been decent. I personally enjoyed 2003 quite a lot, and is perhaps my favourite season amongst the ones I've followed (since 1994).

And now, please, moderators, forgive me for what I'm going to do... But it was Ciro's fault for mentioning Einstein

You're prone to believe in physics, the above formula is an established one derived from one of the (until now) only 3 laws we believe in in many scientific fields:

-Conservation of mass
-Conservation of momentum (N2)
-Conservation of energy

Strictly speaking... only the third one is true as far as we know. The other two are only approximately true when the speeds considered are slow (compared to the speed of light, of course). However, the modulus of tetramomentum (E, p·c) does conserve. Keep in mind that the metric is not the identity matrix as per galiean space, but actually a diagonal (1,-1, -1, -1) matrix.

I'd like to make one final point regarding wake, downforce and overtaking. I think someone in this very thread mentioned 1983 vs 1982. Remember that the regulations changed drastically that year, killing all the ground effect. Have a look at the championship winning car in 83, the Brabham. It was basically a bullet with wings. However, 1983 didn't see an increase in overtaking from 1982 from what I understand.

[Belatti]

I apologize for the translations in parentheses, I might have made mistakes.

Yeah, you or Sir Frankie:

"There is no magic formula one, but a change that would help would be to have longer straights with bigger run-off zones."
-- Frank Williams -- (let's people make mistakes, perhaps that would be entertaining)

With bigger run offs driver dont make mistakes, they run wide and return to the track.

Racing in Mount Panorama would be the opposite of that.

[Ogami musashi]

Ogami, I knew you would start telling long stories again. Let's say it simple. I don't believe for a moment that you can create twice the downforce without creating a significant increase of turbulence, drag, upwash or whatever you call the dirty air.

Don't spend any time on fancy explanations. I simply do not want the cars to compete for more downforce. I want them to have fixed downforce and compete on drag reduction by the best geometries or even geometry changes.

1/You have no right upon me
2/Only respect can force people to conceed right to the others.

I'll do what i please until you show something more than "belief" based on wrong physics knowledge combined with narrow view of the history.

However it is your utmost right not willing to see cars with massive downforce but for god's sake don't assess your downforce limitation as a sound solution, this is only based on your dreams.

First, the on-topic stuff. Isn't Ciro very prone to show the overtaking graph in which it shows that the rule changes have managed to basically kill the overtaking decline and bring it to an almost constant level? I've just had a beer with friends, so I don't feel like looking for it now. 2005 was a very bad year, but the others have been decent. I personally enjoyed 2003 quite a lot, and is perhaps my favourite season amongst the ones I've followed (since 1994).

And now, please, moderators, forgive me for what I'm going to do... But it was Ciro's fault for mentioning Einstein

You're prone to believe in physics, the above formula is an established one derived from one of the (until now) only 3 laws we believe in in many scientific fields:

-Conservation of mass
-Conservation of momentum (N2)
-Conservation of energy

Strictly speaking... only the third one is true as far as we know. The other two are only approximately true when the speeds considered are slow (compared to the speed of light, of course). However, the modulus of tetramomentum (E, p·c) does conserve. Keep in mind that the metric is not the identity matrix as per galiean space, but actually a diagonal (1,-1, -1, -1) matrix.

I know that miguel; but we're talking about cars right? So the 3 equations hold true

[WhiteBlue]

Ogami, I knew you would start telling long stories again. Let's say it simple. I don't believe for a moment that you can create twice the downforce without creating a significant increase of turbulence, drag, upwash or whatever you call the dirty air.

Don't spend any time on fancy explanations. I simply do not want the cars to compete for more downforce. I want them to have fixed downforce and compete on drag reduction by the best geometries or even geometry changes.

1/You have no right upon me
2/Only respect can force people to conceed right to the others.

I'll do what i please until you show something more than "belief" based on wrong physics knowledge combined with narrow view of the history.

However it is your utmost right not willing to see cars with massive downforce but for god's sake don't assess your downforce limitation as a sound solution, this is only based on your dreams.

We can have different opinions on that issue, but I just don't understand why some people want to claw back downforce each year and have it artificially reduced every other yea again. What is the point in this lame game. It does not help with designing better race cars that help with technology and natural resource conservation.

The effort that is constantly being poured into this silly game would be better used to develop KERS and multi stage power systems.

[raceman]

-- Bernard Ecclestone -- (blaming every team in sight and saying they are inmates... we know who the warden is. ).

I, for sure, love this part!

warden, eh?


500th post

[Just_a_fan]

Lots of people coming up with various reasons for reduced overtaking and how they think it should be sorted out.

Have a look at:
http://www.cliptheapex.com/forum/viewto ... f=51&t=822
A wealth of data about this very subject.

Look at how the number of overtakes has been fairly stable since about 1994 (some better years, some worse years). We all know what happened in 1994.
Look at how, before 1994, the number of overtakes was declining year-on-year as the rules were constantly and variously altered to reduce downforce, power, fuel use etc.
Look at where the graphs start: 1983 - the end of the "ground effect era".

[Chaparral]

JAF - that all makes sense - the ground effect period was when things used to happen overtaking wise - I still remember Alan Jones overtaking (whomever) on the outside of a very quick right hander at the A1 Ring plus a load of others - you go to a spec series as we have in many formulae around the globe and (nothing happens). FYI I watched the highlights today of the Bathurst 12 Hour - 6 different classes lots of passing/action (yes off the showroom floor sedans) intermittent weather all day - god it was great to see some (racing)

[Ogami musashi]

Like Ciro, miguel and many other said, i don't think you can isolate one parameter from one period and compare it to now.

Many things changed since GE and for example A1 last turn has multiple lines.

I guess IF you want overtaking in F1 a big raw of changes from all fields are needed..and this will be very hard because you have to make sure one doesn't spoil another.

[hollus]

One suggestion that would not adulterate the spirit too much would be to clean the track before the race. There is not much going on for a couple of hours before the race, right?
I say send out a small army of cleaning trucks to brush the asphalt. The same regular trucks we see cleaning the streets. And then send out a small army of truck with pressurized water, again, the same ones we see cleaning our streets. That way, at the beginning of the race, there would be no marbles, and so more lines available. Also some of the rubber would have been removed from the asphalt, so that the track is green.
This way the drivers would have to deal with changeable conditions, a racing line would develop, but only slowly, the grip levels would change during the race, much in the same way they change now between friday and saturday, so there would be a judgment call to be made relating which tire compound to use when.
This should move the race a bit away from the clockwork precision it has now and add a bit of variability, without really messing up with the cars in arbitrary ways.

[marcush.]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... blame.html

I think this really sums up what is going on.

[donskar]

Can we look at this issue from another angle? Are there any open-wheel series where overtaking is abundant -- at least to a far greater extent than F1? And if so, do any of those series feature fast, powerful cars that provide a spectacle likely to draw the public in large numbers (that is, ruling out FF, FV and other lower formulae).

I think the answer (and I am preparing to duck) is IndyCar racing. Very fast, very powerful cars, driven by quality drivers (not F1 standards, but very good) with LOTS of overtaking.

So what are the factors that result in so much overtaking in IndyCars? And can any of those factors be translated into F1 terms?

Calm down -- I am not saying that IndyCars are anywhere nearly as technically advanced as F1 -- they are not. And I am not saying that IndyCar drivers are F1 quality -- they aren't, overall. But the cars are very fast, quite powerful, and provide a lot of passing and close racing. Why?

[Just_a_fan]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... blame.html

I think this really sums up what is going on.

Agreed to a point. Multiple lines only work if they are useable. If you have 20+ cars using a single line for a couple of laps you're likely to start to build up marbles off that line. The alternative lines then become a bit of a lottery.

If the track is clean at the start of the race then those alternative lines should be available, at least for a short period at the start of the race. Once you get in to a period of laps where no one is close enough to attempt the alternative lines then the marbles will build up again.

The solution? 'Harder' tyres so that less marbles are thrown off in the first place. Would also increase braking distances because the braking traction would be lower and the corner entry speed would also be lower. Both of these will increase the opportunity for an overtake attempt.

And that's what we really want - the opportunity to overtake. Then it's up to the driver to do his bit. The good guys will and thus will shine. The poorer guys will fail in the sport and open the door to fresh talent.

Exciting racing isn't just about lots of overtakes. It's actually about drivers trying to find ways by each other. The really good battles go on for a few laps and are edge of the seat "will he, won't he" affairs. Alonso keeping Schuie back a few years ago, Senna keeping Mansell back at Monaco are both examples of exciting racing with no actual overtake taking place. But there were lots of opportunities for overtaking to be tried even if not successfully so.