"How can F1 increase overtaking" - A Level Physics Report

[carnocs3m5]

I am doing an A level Physics 'Research and Report' Coursework, and have chosen to discuss innovations to increase overtaking, which must involve physics!!

I have looked into the CDG concept and KERS, but was wondering what else is out there with a bit of data to support any analysis. I need to be able to display data and show graphical plots - any ideas?

I am considering scrapping the title as to be honest it will probably be easier to choose a less 'secretive' sport/idea

PS - does anyone know where I can find any data on the kinetic energy recovered at certain speeds using different KERS Systems?

THANKS!!!

[Mystery Steve]

You might also look at the rev limits. Currently, a car that is following is able to get a tow, but they can't do anything with it because the car is bouncing off the rev limiter. Perhaps, instead of using the adjustable rear wing to reduce drag, they momentarily allow the rev limits to increase and they gain some additional speed. The adjustable rear wing also has a potential safety hazard if it sticks and doesn't return to the high downforce setting. You wouldn't have that issue with rev limits; you just lift off the throttle like normal.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Seriously hard tyres, that dont provide much grip would be a fantastic start.

[xpensive]

Just ban that hideious front wing altogether, which would hopefully have three effects;

A) Give the following car an aerodynamic chance to get close enough to pass.
B) Driver-confidence to run close in a corner without losing the darn thing.
C) Lowering the total downforce as you have to reduce the rear-wing to balance.

[carnocs3m5]

thanks for the ideas! Is there any numerical evidence to support any of the ideas? I know they are true, but for the CW must have data to display

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

thanks for the ideas! Is there any numerical evidence to support any of the ideas? I know they are true, but for the CW must have data to display

James Allen had a piece I read a year ago when the moveable rear wing idea was floated.
It consisted of various engineers including Pat Symonds, Gary Anderson and other notables.
To a man they all agreed reduction in grip was pivotal. The most important one is the stuff thats in contact with the ground, the tyres.

Reducing Tyre grip by giving them ultra hard compounds that could easily last 2 Gp distances would see drivers sliding, a return to F1 of old where the driver was counted on more than they are now.

And the beauty of it is that it all drivers would be hindered as grip would hamper driver prefering understeer and oversteer.

[WilO]

Less aero, more mechanical grip, and better transition between the two...

[Edis]

If you want to increase overtaking you should:

1. Improve the mechanical grip of the car as a percentage of total grip (better tires, less overall downforce for instance)
2. Improve the downforce produced by ground effects as a percentage of total downforce. Aerodynamic devices that produce downforce by a small pressure difference over a large area (like the underbody) are less senstive to aerodynamic disturbances than devices that produce downforce by a large pressure difference over a small area.
3. Realise that the rear wing wake is a small issue, it's the open wheels and the bodywork that are the main causes for the disturbing wake.
4. Reduce wing loading.

[wrigs]

Seriously hard tyres, that dont provide much grip would be a fantastic start.

Wait, what? How is that a problem?

Edis: I think this is more a matter for general logic or philosophy of science than a matter of physics. However, an engineer posted a thread on here about something he called "Divergent Governance" a couple of months ago. His website is http://www.divergentgovernance.co.uk/. The interesting thing about this is that he wants to focus on the root of the problem with overtaking, instead of focusing on the problem itself. As far as I can tell, he views "solutions" like the CDG and DCS as merely covering up the underlying problem of convergent technical regulations - that is to say, the current technical regulations dictate such similar engineering solutions that the cars lack relative performance differences. This decreases overtaking, in his view.

It was a bit ill received in this forum, but I think a lot of interesting points were brought up both in the thread here and in the author's 67-page document about the subject.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Wrigs

As you correctly pointed out, teams will engineer to a point where there is hardly a difference between themselves.
So what can you do? I will quote aome of Frank Dernies thoughts(which I agree with).

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/g ... rargument/

Some of the piece I will quote:

None of the facts in the last 30 years support the theory that grippy tyres and low downforce promote overtaking. If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.

“Here’s the proof – if downforce prevented overtaking, historically the races with the fewest overtaking manoeuvres would have been the wet races, where maximum downforce settings are used… Why anybody still thinks a reduction in downforce is the solution when faced with the facts has been a consistent mystery and frustration to me.

“Too much difference in grip between on and off line is a major factor, caused by sticky tyres (lots of mechanical grip)

“Braking distances into slow corners are far too short, caused by sticky tyres (too much mechanical grip).

“The other reason why it is hard to overtake in current F1 is that the fastest cars are at the front with slower ones behind, so there is no reason to expect overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.

[wrigs]

Wrigs

As you correctly pointed out, teams will engineer to a point where there is hardly a difference between themselves.
So what can you do? I will quote aome of Frank Dernies thoughts(which I agree with).

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/g ... rargument/

Some of the piece I will quote:

None of the facts in the last 30 years support the theory that grippy tyres and low downforce promote overtaking. If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.

“Here’s the proof – if downforce prevented overtaking, historically the races with the fewest overtaking manoeuvres would have been the wet races, where maximum downforce settings are used… Why anybody still thinks a reduction in downforce is the solution when faced with the facts has been a consistent mystery and frustration to me.

“Too much difference in grip between on and off line is a major factor, caused by sticky tyres (lots of mechanical grip)

“Braking distances into slow corners are far too short, caused by sticky tyres (too much mechanical grip).

“The other reason why it is hard to overtake in current F1 is that the fastest cars are at the front with slower ones behind, so there is no reason to expect overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.

Interesting points in there. I agree with a lot of what he says. I would especially love to see manual gearboxes back in Formula One.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's a durable proposition to outline a specific technical direction for the cars. I'd rather see a thin rulebook that simply specifies a few basic parameters like the amount of fuel available for the race, the amount of tyres provided for a race weekend and so on, and then have the teams innovate their asses off to create a good car around that. Perhaps one could even specify that they should use a manual gearbox to induce driver errors

[mep]

Doing things like reducing tire grip, downforce, braking performance ... can't help because it will affect all cars in the same way. You just get a parallel shift of performance.
I say the best way to increase overtaking is to increase slipstream effect.
A open wheel series with lots of downforce (drag) should be a very good basis for lots of overtaking.
So there is a simple approach you can go:

1 Top speed of cars must be drag limited, or in other words the power of the engine must not exceed the amount of drag for a significant distance on the straights.

2 The engines must be able to rev free when you take away the load. Means when you come into the slipstream of another car and the drag gets reduced the engine can support you with some additional revs to go faster in the given gear.

3 Something written on a different table but the rules must also support overtaking. At the moment race control is so focused on punishing drivers that’s not really worth to try overtaking. Even when you do a perfect move some guys not favoring you will find something to take you out of the race.
You want a example?
Watch last lap of Monaco race 2010.
Then ask everybody if he really likes to have more overtaking.
Seems like for some its better when there is no overtaking at all.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Doing things like reducing tire grip,... can't help because it will affect all cars in the same way. You just get a parallel shift of performance.

Not so Mep.

The beauty of reducing tyre grip is that it will make drivers more important in the equation. Wet races are a shining example.

Teams actualy increase downforce during a wet race but there is way more overtaking.
Why?

Grip is reduced to low levels.

Drivers that can make the difference by finding that extra little in the braking and acceleration zones. For me its pretty clear, somtimes solutions an be quite simple to a complex problem.

[mep]

No,
Wet races are better because the drivers are not used to the lower grip level.
This make especially those wet races nice where the conditions are changing because then its even harder to adapt. Also some of the cars have wet setups some don't. When the grip level is constant the drivers can adapt really fast and there is nothing special anymore. Last couple of years I thought that even rain races can be dull.

Just think about driving on snow. After some practice you can handle it really good.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

No,
Wet races are better because the drivers are not used to the lower grip level.
This make especially those wet races nice where the conditions are changing because then its even harder to adapt. Also some of the cars have wet setups some don't. When the grip level is constant the drivers can adapt really fast and there is nothing special anymore. Last couple of years I thought that even rain races can be dull.

Just think about driving on snow. After some practice you can handle it really good.

We are going to have to agree to disagree mep.

Your analogy of snow cannot be compared. I wont be trying 100% in a braking zone in those conditions
The scope for error is greatly increased when you take the drivers safety net of grip away. Sure you get used to it, but it doesnt eradicate the main problem of their being no grip.
The point is in a current 1 hour and 45 minutes race, a driver can be stuck behind an inferior driver regardless of the downforce levels or track.

Put drivers on tyres that provide less than half the grip they currently get, and I can promise you there will be mistakes being made after more than a season's practice. We will see drivers missing breaking points which will be far more varied due to the nature of the tyres.

Putting power down cleanly will be all to do with the drivers brain and right foot.

Geting the car through a corner will be all about the drivers braking technique, and ability to keep to the limit of adhesion.

It makes the driver more important, almost instantly. I agree that there is no one single answer, but this more than others will turn F1 on its head.