planetf1.com

http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

I am actually more impressed by the speed of these current gen F1 cars than overtaking. I guess I'm saying I would rather watch an F1 car go round a circuit on its own than slow cars overtaking each other. If they could achieve these speeds with mechanisms other than the current aerodynamics, which apparently make following closely difficult, it would be ideal. But artificially trying to increase overtaking with more DRS doesn't do it for me, personally.

Underviewer wrote:I am actually more impressed by the speed of these current gen F1 cars than overtaking. I guess I'm saying I would rather watch an F1 car go round a circuit on its own than slow cars overtaking each other. If they could achieve these speeds with mechanisms other than the current aerodynamics, which apparently make following closely difficult, it would be ideal. But artificially trying to increase overtaking with more DRS doesn't do it for me, personally.

How many laps can you watch of a car going around very quickly, before it gets boring?

babararacucudada wrote:http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

That isn't really the problem, the problem is getting anywhere near the car in front. Tracks like Albert park, you hit a wall as soon as you got within 0.6.

But lets not forget, Albert Park is the 2nd hardest track to overtake on, after Monaco. I remember last year were all had this discussion and then had an overtaking feast the next race in China. So lets wait and see. You needed to be 2 seconds quicker to just attempt an overtake in Albert Park, that figure is about 0.4-0.5 once you get a DRS advantage in China.

Is there any way to redesign Albert park to allow for more overtaking?

I saw a post on Reddit,they extend the back straight by 300 into a tight hairpin. You lose turns 13 and 14 which are two turns hard to follow through. It would definitely help and is viable and mainly uses existing road. But whether they team it worth it is another matter.
Found it;

lamo wrote:I saw a post on Reddit,they extend the back straight by 300 into a tight hairpin. You lose turns 13 and 14 which are two turns hard to follow through. It would definitely help and is viable and mainly uses existing road. But whether they team it worth it is another matter.
Found it;

PGA tour golf courses are constantly being re-designed as ball and club technology allows players to more easily negotiate course hazards so yeah, I suppose the same principle can apply to GP circuits although I do like the different challenges tracks like Monaco & Melbourne present to the drivers. I enjoy seeing cars perform on high speed circuits like Italy & Spa, drivers circuits like Suzuka & Canada and tight tracks like Monaco & Melbourne. Different racks should present a variety of challenges.

A few ideas to create more overtaking:

* Reduce the dependence on aero grip. Simplify front wing design
* Teams get allocated a certain amount of different compound tyres per season. They can then use them any way they wish. They all get the same amount of the same compound per season but it's their decision how they use them.
* Change the regs to allow a "Push To Pass" option where the car gets a decent power boost for a limited time per race (Say 60 sec/ race). It's up to the driver how they use the boost. They can use it to defend or attack. They can use it all early in the race or save it to later and can be used anywhere on the circuit. The same concept can be applied to the current DRS if they don't want to mess with the engine regs too much. Get rid of the DRS zones and say to the teams "You get 60 sec use of DRS per race. Use it how you like, when you like, where you like".

Push to pass would be even more of a gimick than DRS.

There are certain tracks are hard to pass on, Melbourne being one of them. If a slight redesign can fix that I think that's probably the best way to go, rather than introduce another gimick.

I would draw the line at Monaco though.

* Have sprinklers wet the track at random intervals
* Reverse grid according to championship position

On a serious note

Jezza13 wrote:A few ideas to create more overtaking:

* Reduce the dependence on aero grip. Simplify front wing design
* Teams get allocated a certain amount of different compound tyres per season. They can then use them any way they wish. They all get the same amount of the same compound per season but it's their decision how they use them.
* Change the regs to allow a "Push To Pass" option where the car gets a decent power boost for a limited time per race (Say 60 sec/ race). It's up to the driver how they use the boost. They can use it to defend or attack. They can use it all early in the race or save it to later and can be used anywhere on the circuit. The same concept can be applied to the current DRS if they don't want to mess with the engine regs too much. Get rid of the DRS zones and say to the teams "You get 60 sec use of DRS per race. Use it how you like, when you like, where you like".

I do like these ideas, especially 2 and 3. It’d be interesting to see how teams and drivers use the allocations if they know they have a set amount of each to last the season. I would also like to see what happens if it was up to the driver to decide which compound to use, instead of the team

Altair wrote:Push to pass would be even more of a gimick than DRS.

There are certain tracks are hard to pass on, Melbourne being one of them. If a slight redesign can fix that I think that's probably the best way to go, rather than introduce another gimick.

I would draw the line at Monaco though.

Maybe the term "Push to Pass" was the wrong one to use for what I was getting at.An "Engine or turbo boost" button would be more relevant. They had a similar tool available in the first turbo era but it's use was unlimited. The down side being if you used it too much you'd run out of fuel before the race ended. I don't see engine boost or the change in the use of DRS as a gimick. I agree the current use of DRS is but it's not really the DRS itself that governs overtaking opportunities but it's the length of the actual DRS zone. A DRS zone that's too short virtually negates the use of the DRS system and a zone that's too long leaves the driver in front virtually defenceless. By getting rid of the DRS zones and limiting the use of the DRS to a pre-determined time limit per race, or getting rid of it altogether and introducing an engine boost option with the same concept, still allows everyone to race on an equal level. It's just introducing another tactical weapon for the driver to use as the driver wishes throughout the race. The current DRS zoned concept is not a tactical tool. It's just a tool that favours 1 driver over another in an overtake situation if the DRS zone is the right length. The non zoned DRS or the engine boost concepts are really no different to 1 driver starting the race on soft tyres and changing to hards at a pit stop and another driver staring on hard tyres and pit to change to softs. They've both got the same tools available, they've just chosen to use them at different times.

I like the idea of extending the back straight in Melbourne by 300m. Looking at Google Earth, there also looks to be room to either straight line the front straight somewhat directly into the current turn 3 virtually making a 1.5km pit straight or extend the straight by 300m and turn corners 1 & 2 into a tight chicane, much like Nurburgring. If the chicane was made wide enough then there may be scope to allow 2 cars to go through it side by side thus still keeping turn 3 as an overtaking opportunity as well.

They're ready to add more DRS zones but they can't think of simplifying the front wing. Wouldn't simpler front wings also reduce costs to some extent (apart from aiding overtakes)?

lamo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

That isn't really the problem, the problem is getting anywhere near the car in front. Tracks like Albert park, you hit a wall as soon as you got within 0.6.

But lets not forget, Albert Park is the 2nd hardest track to overtake on, after Monaco. I remember last year were all had this discussion and then had an overtaking feast the next race in China. So lets wait and see. You needed to be 2 seconds quicker to just attempt an overtake in Albert Park, that figure is about 0.4-0.5 once you get a DRS advantage in China.

This. Every year we get the same knee jerk reactions about introducing some new rules. Give it time and tracks with better overtaking characteristics before rushing off with rule changes

The problem with push to pass is the same as what can happen with Drs, the guy behind uses it to try and pass and the guy ahead uses it to stay in front, similar to kers really

Plus purists would bang on about it being "artificial overtaking"

I think what will eventually happen will be what happens in video games.

The cars behind enjoy a greater harvest efficiency than the cars in front. Thus eliminating the car in front having the same extra boost to defend and the car behind gets the advantage. Few years away from that.

Let us strip away the gimmicky solutions and get down to the root cause. Passing is difficult because cars can not get close to each other. Once any car gets within a second of the car ahead, the turbulence screws up downforce, the tires get less grip, they slide.

Current Formula One cars are so heavily massaged in aerodynamics that they are sensitive to the slightest turbulence. In theory, in the wind tunnel, and in clear air they work fantastic. But introduce the slightest turbulence, we saw that in Australia. Once Hamilton got behind Vettel he had no option but to follow. Although I am not a card-carrying member of the Lewis Hamilton fan club nor do I have any desire to change my sex in the hope Lewis can be the father of my children, it would have been nice if he could have closed up and brought the fight to Vettel. I want to see competition, cars actually mixing it up, nose to tail, side by side, proper motor racing.

It's the freaking cars. Fix the cars.

I was waiting for this thread to pop up because I have a prepared response. Indycar.

They also recognized that passing was difficult. So they made the cars less sensitive to turbulence, gave the under body more downforce but the upper bodywork less, and dropped the rear wing so the car generated less turbulence itself.


https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... 44cb43.jpg

The solution has been staring us in the face, it has been addressed in a timely manner by another series. Yet Formula One spins it's wheels mired in crap politics.

I would love it if they "fixed the cars" as Blinky says. Forget all of the other stuff, let them battle it out.

F1 really needs to prioritize solving the dirty air problem once and for all. It bothers me that they seem more wrapped up in Halo devices and DRS zones. Ross Brawn is apparently looking into this with a dedicated staff so I'm hoping for the best. I really think that any solution will have to combine increased under-body downforce with simpler aero up top. You will probably also have to standardize wings in order to design them to best work in unison with one another (Front wing of the chasing car and rear wing of the car in front). They have to figure out how best to minimize the effect and then bake that into the regs.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Let us strip away the gimmicky solutions and get down to the root cause. Passing is difficult because cars can not get close to each other. Once any car gets within a second of the car ahead, the turbulence screws up downforce, the tires get less grip, they slide.

Current Formula One cars are so heavily massaged in aerodynamics that they are sensitive to the slightest turbulence. In theory, in the wind tunnel, and in clear air they work fantastic. But introduce the slightest turbulence, we saw that in Australia. Once Hamilton got behind Vettel he had no option but to follow. Although I am not a card-carrying member of the Lewis Hamilton fan club nor do I have any desire to change my sex in the hope Lewis can be the father of my children, it would have been nice if he could have closed up and brought the fight to Vettel. I want to see competition, cars actually mixing it up, nose to tail, side by side, proper motor racing.

It's the freaking cars. Fix the cars.

I was waiting for this thread to pop up because I have a prepared response. Indycar.

They also recognized that passing was difficult. So they made the cars less sensitive to turbulence, gave the under body more downforce but the upper bodywork less, and dropped the rear wing so the car generated less turbulence itself.


https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... 44cb43.jpg

The solution has been staring us in the face, it has been addressed in a timely manner by another series. Yet Formula One spins it's wheels mired in crap politics.

Yes, perfect. I think you nailed it.

Altair wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Let us strip away the gimmicky solutions and get down to the root cause. Passing is difficult because cars can not get close to each other. Once any car gets within a second of the car ahead, the turbulence screws up downforce, the tires get less grip, they slide.

Current Formula One cars are so heavily massaged in aerodynamics that they are sensitive to the slightest turbulence. In theory, in the wind tunnel, and in clear air they work fantastic. But introduce the slightest turbulence, we saw that in Australia. Once Hamilton got behind Vettel he had no option but to follow. Although I am not a card-carrying member of the Lewis Hamilton fan club nor do I have any desire to change my sex in the hope Lewis can be the father of my children, it would have been nice if he could have closed up and brought the fight to Vettel. I want to see competition, cars actually mixing it up, nose to tail, side by side, proper motor racing.

It's the freaking cars. Fix the cars.

I was waiting for this thread to pop up because I have a prepared response. Indycar.

They also recognized that passing was difficult. So they made the cars less sensitive to turbulence, gave the under body more downforce but the upper bodywork less, and dropped the rear wing so the car generated less turbulence itself.


https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... 44cb43.jpg

The solution has been staring us in the face, it has been addressed in a timely manner by another series. Yet Formula One spins it's wheels mired in crap politics.

Yes, perfect. I think you nailed it.

But whats the down side of removing, reducing or altering the aero dependency of the cars?

Could the overall lap speed be compromised and if so are people willing to see cars lap slower for the sake of increased competition? If we did a side by side race with an F1 and road spec Indy car on any F1 track, i'd wager the F1 car would beat the Indy car over a lap by a comfortable margin, and a lot of that margin would be due to the cars cornering capabilities.

The last F1 Indy car comparison I could find was here:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsport ... s-compare/

"The last modern comparison of note is F1 and Indy car. The most recent road course to host both series was Montreal's Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in 2006. Sebastien Bourdais' pole time of 1:20.005 in his Lola-Ford/Cosworth Champ Car was impressive, but the 1:14.726 delivered by Fernando Alonso in his Renault RS26 was especially remarkable, given how F1 moved from volatile 900 hp V10s to torque-less V8s in '06"

Granted in this comparison the F1 engine was about 70HP up on the indy engine in 06.

The F1 engines of today are punching out just as much HP as the engines in the mid 80"s but lap significantly faster. Pole position at Spa in 1985 was 13 sec slower than in 2017 even though both engines had similar power outputs. Now i'm not putting this all down to the evolution of aero, other factors including better power to weight ratios and an overall advancement in technology certainly helps, but a lot of the cars overall increase in lap speed comes through how quickly it gets through the corners, and aerodynamics plays a big part in that.

How many times do we hear drivers say " We don't have to lift through that corner anymore"? So are the drivers, the teams and the fans happy to possibly compromise outright lap speed for increased lap to lap competition? Personally i'd gladly settle for cars a few seconds a lap slower if it meant following the car in front and overtaking became easier.

sandman1347 wrote:F1 really needs to prioritize solving the dirty air problem once and for all. It bothers me that they seem more wrapped up in Halo devices and DRS zones. Ross Brawn is apparently looking into this with a dedicated staff so I'm hoping for the best. I really think that any solution will have to combine increased under-body downforce with simpler aero up top. You will probably also have to standardize wings in order to design them to best work in unison with one another (Front wing of the chasing car and rear wing of the car in front). They have to figure out how best to minimize the effect and then bake that into the regs.

The age old problem is, to get the likes of Red Bull and McLaren to go along with that you'd need to neuter the engine regs too otherwise they'll argue you're making it even easier for the EM works teams by cutting off areas independent chassis makers can make a difference in (standard wings,diffuser etc) but maintaining the open engine development we currently have.

And there's 2 big EM's erring on blocking any changes to the engine so it's pretty much a stalemate. Brawn needs to take a no nonsense approach to both really and introduce just as much standard parts or simplification on the engine side as the car side. Hopefully with a budget cap and redistribution of funds too.

Otherwise they'll just keep blocking each other.

babararacucudada wrote:If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

Baba, we tried to discuss this 'rule' in an overtaking thread this winter, and didn't really come to an answer. The problem is that, as far as I am concerned, there is no such rule that allows you to run an outside driver off the track, if the insider is ahead at the apex.

Incidently, an overhead camera view last weekend in Albert Park reminded me of Bernie's idea to introduce lanes in corners, a bit like lanes on an athletics track. He wasn't being as daft as some would have us believe. If the above mystery rule really exists, then Bernie would have put up a good solution to a self-imposed problem.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

That isn't really the problem, the problem is getting anywhere near the car in front. Tracks like Albert park, you hit a wall as soon as you got within 0.6.

But lets not forget, Albert Park is the 2nd hardest track to overtake on, after Monaco. I remember last year were all had this discussion and then had an overtaking feast the next race in China. So lets wait and see. You needed to be 2 seconds quicker to just attempt an overtake in Albert Park, that figure is about 0.4-0.5 once you get a DRS advantage in China.

This. Every year we get the same knee jerk reactions about introducing some new rules. Give it time and tracks with better overtaking characteristics before rushing off with rule changes

Then again, at Francorchamps Vettel spent lap after lap trying to get past Hamilton and being unable to do it. And was it in Mexico where Hamilton commented a year or two ago that it was impossible to pass? The problem is real, and was aggravated by the decision to go all out for faster lap times through even more elaborate wings.

What I find an even bitterer thought is the idea of fans wanting to hand out a point for pole position, when already the whole of Grand Prix racing has been reduced to winning Q3. Niki Lauda is doing a marvellous job for Mercedes at the moment, but he himself perfectly described the current problem in one of his books - I believe it was 'Second time around'.

Fiki wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

Baba, we tried to discuss this 'rule' in an overtaking thread this winter, and didn't really come to an answer. The problem is that, as far as I am concerned, there is no such rule that allows you to run an outside driver off the track, if the insider is ahead at the apex.

Incidently, an overhead camera view last weekend in Albert Park reminded me of Bernie's idea to introduce lanes in corners, a bit like lanes on an athletics track. He wasn't being as daft as some would have us believe. If the above mystery rule really exists, then Bernie would have put up a good solution to a self-imposed problem.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

That isn't really the problem, the problem is getting anywhere near the car in front. Tracks like Albert park, you hit a wall as soon as you got within 0.6.

But lets not forget, Albert Park is the 2nd hardest track to overtake on, after Monaco. I remember last year were all had this discussion and then had an overtaking feast the next race in China. So lets wait and see. You needed to be 2 seconds quicker to just attempt an overtake in Albert Park, that figure is about 0.4-0.5 once you get a DRS advantage in China.

This. Every year we get the same knee jerk reactions about introducing some new rules. Give it time and tracks with better overtaking characteristics before rushing off with rule changes

Then again, at Francorchamps Vettel spent lap after lap trying to get past Hamilton and being unable to do it. And was it in Mexico where Hamilton commented a year or two ago that it was impossible to pass? The problem is real, and was aggravated by the decision to go all out for faster lap times through even more elaborate wings.

What I find an even bitterer thought is the idea of fans wanting to hand out a point for pole position, when already the whole of Grand Prix racing has been reduced to winning Q3. Niki Lauda is doing a marvellous job for Mercedes at the moment, but he himself perfectly described the current problem in one of his books - I believe it was 'Second time around'.

But Hamilton mentioned it was much easier to follow closely than it was last year. So maybe on a track that affords greater overtaking opportunities it will be less of an issue. We don't want to make it too easy everywhere, as otherwise whoever turns up in the fastest car will be virtually guaranteed a win

Albert Park is not a great barometer. The characteristics of the track do not allow for great overtaking. Just let's see how a few other races pan out before rushing out with rule and/or technical changes

Had a look at that - and it could work - just need a small extension of a road to make it sensibly merge into the current track leading to the second last turn before the main straight - as a local, I think that could work and will make suggestions to my relevant authority

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

Baba, we tried to discuss this 'rule' in an overtaking thread this winter, and didn't really come to an answer. The problem is that, as far as I am concerned, there is no such rule that allows you to run an outside driver off the track, if the insider is ahead at the apex.

Incidently, an overhead camera view last weekend in Albert Park reminded me of Bernie's idea to introduce lanes in corners, a bit like lanes on an athletics track. He wasn't being as daft as some would have us believe. If the above mystery rule really exists, then Bernie would have put up a good solution to a self-imposed problem.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:http://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-open-t ... drs-zones/

More DRS Zones. It might help a bit at a few circuits. They probably are already using the parts of the circuit where DRS could be the most use, though sometimes having 2 DRS zones close together can create another opportunity.

If they really wanted to increase overtaking, one possibility would be to change the overtaking rule at corners, such that the driver on the inside at a corner is not permitted to run wide and force an overtaking driver off the track. The track is intended for racing, so why not let both drivers race on the track? By changing that one Rule, they could create an improvement in overtaking opportunities.

That isn't really the problem, the problem is getting anywhere near the car in front. Tracks like Albert park, you hit a wall as soon as you got within 0.6.

But lets not forget, Albert Park is the 2nd hardest track to overtake on, after Monaco. I remember last year were all had this discussion and then had an overtaking feast the next race in China. So lets wait and see. You needed to be 2 seconds quicker to just attempt an overtake in Albert Park, that figure is about 0.4-0.5 once you get a DRS advantage in China.

This. Every year we get the same knee jerk reactions about introducing some new rules. Give it time and tracks with better overtaking characteristics before rushing off with rule changes

Then again, at Francorchamps Vettel spent lap after lap trying to get past Hamilton and being unable to do it. And was it in Mexico where Hamilton commented a year or two ago that it was impossible to pass? The problem is real, and was aggravated by the decision to go all out for faster lap times through even more elaborate wings.

What I find an even bitterer thought is the idea of fans wanting to hand out a point for pole position, when already the whole of Grand Prix racing has been reduced to winning Q3. Niki Lauda is doing a marvellous job for Mercedes at the moment, but he himself perfectly described the current problem in one of his books - I believe it was 'Second time around'.

But Hamilton mentioned it was much easier to follow closely than it was last year. So maybe on a track that affords greater overtaking opportunities it will be less of an issue. We don't want to make it too easy everywhere, as otherwise whoever turns up in the fastest car will be virtually guaranteed a win

Albert Park is not a great barometer. The characteristics of the track do not allow for great overtaking. Just let's see how a few other races pan out before rushing out with rule and/or technical changes

Oh, I could never support changes to Albert Park itself, simply because a certain sport took the wrong "improvement" route.

I'm glad you mentioned what Hamilton said; I missed that, and I'm rather surprised. Still, having by far the faster car, and with an added DRS zone, it was still impossible for him to even attempt an overtake. Did he elaborate on that problem? Did he comment on tyre wear behind the other car? Or was there less buffeting behind the other car? Edit: Did anybody else make a similar comment, to your knowledge? Max spun trying to follow another car, and didn't Lewis go off at the same corner? (I'm not sure, I haven't had time to watch the race again.)

Sadly I feel this is another consequence of the big teams having so much political clout in the sport and being able to influence the regulations. It is well accepted that the overtaking problem that has existed for over 20 years now is fundamentally caused by over-reliance on aerodynamics, yet nothing has been done to resolve it. I can only conclude that this is because no one actually wants to resolve it. The teams with the most resources want the sport to remain a contest of who can run the most CFD optimisations rather than a test of real mechanical design and ingenuity as it keeps them at the front.

I'm not having a dig at Ferrari here, Red Bull and Mercedes are just as much to blame.

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:F1 really needs to prioritize solving the dirty air problem once and for all. It bothers me that they seem more wrapped up in Halo devices and DRS zones. Ross Brawn is apparently looking into this with a dedicated staff so I'm hoping for the best. I really think that any solution will have to combine increased under-body downforce with simpler aero up top. You will probably also have to standardize wings in order to design them to best work in unison with one another (Front wing of the chasing car and rear wing of the car in front). They have to figure out how best to minimize the effect and then bake that into the regs.

The age old problem is, to get the likes of Red Bull and McLaren to go along with that you'd need to neuter the engine regs too otherwise they'll argue you're making it even easier for the EM works teams by cutting off areas independent chassis makers can make a difference in (standard wings,diffuser etc) but maintaining the open engine development we currently have.

And there's 2 big EM's erring on blocking any changes to the engine so it's pretty much a stalemate. Brawn needs to take a no nonsense approach to both really and introduce just as much standard parts or simplification on the engine side as the car side. Hopefully with a budget cap and redistribution of funds too.

Otherwise they'll just keep blocking each other.

I don't agree with the conflation of those two issues at all. Nothing about the engines makes it harder to overtake the car in front of you so it really shouldn't be part of that discussion. I'm sure Red Bull will use it as leverage as you've suggested but at the end of the day, it's a separate issue.

Honestly I don't think it's appropriate to keep blaming the engine rules for years and years and years after they have been changed. The token system is now long-scrapped and the excuses should stop IMO. And for the record, I would like to see a new engine formula for 2021.

sandman1347 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:F1 really needs to prioritize solving the dirty air problem once and for all. It bothers me that they seem more wrapped up in Halo devices and DRS zones. Ross Brawn is apparently looking into this with a dedicated staff so I'm hoping for the best. I really think that any solution will have to combine increased under-body downforce with simpler aero up top. You will probably also have to standardize wings in order to design them to best work in unison with one another (Front wing of the chasing car and rear wing of the car in front). They have to figure out how best to minimize the effect and then bake that into the regs.

The age old problem is, to get the likes of Red Bull and McLaren to go along with that you'd need to neuter the engine regs too otherwise they'll argue you're making it even easier for the EM works teams by cutting off areas independent chassis makers can make a difference in (standard wings,diffuser etc) but maintaining the open engine development we currently have.

And there's 2 big EM's erring on blocking any changes to the engine so it's pretty much a stalemate. Brawn needs to take a no nonsense approach to both really and introduce just as much standard parts or simplification on the engine side as the car side. Hopefully with a budget cap and redistribution of funds too.

Otherwise they'll just keep blocking each other.

I don't agree with the conflation of those two issues at all. Nothing about the engines makes it harder to overtake the car in front of you so it really shouldn't be part of that discussion. I'm sure Red Bull will use it as leverage as you've suggested but at the end of the day, it's a separate issue.

Honestly I don't think it's appropriate to keep blaming the engine rules for years and years and years after they have been changed. The token system is now long-scrapped and the excuses should stop IMO. And for the record, I would like to see a new engine formula for 2021.

It's separate to the overtaking issue aye, these engines are actually pretty good for that. But there's just no way the chassis makers will go for things that help the overtaking like more standard parts on the chassis side unless the engines take a hit somewhere too, like in complexity,expense and availability. (Curing the first two creates the third you would hope for the next regs).

Otherwise it's just too imbalanced with the engines becoming even more the dominant differentiators in performance and I don't think there's much appetite for that. Imagine if Red Bull this year were forced to run the same floor,wings etc. as Mercedes. They'd be left with the suspension,sidepods and bargeboards as the only real way to overhaul the engine difference and that would be next to impossible unless Mercedes were useless in those 3 areas which they obviously aren't.

It's a good opportunity for Brawn to just wipe the slate clean and start again with both of the main performance differentiators and I think he needs to stand firm to finally solve these types of issues and I hope he does.

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:F1 really needs to prioritize solving the dirty air problem once and for all. It bothers me that they seem more wrapped up in Halo devices and DRS zones. Ross Brawn is apparently looking into this with a dedicated staff so I'm hoping for the best. I really think that any solution will have to combine increased under-body downforce with simpler aero up top. You will probably also have to standardize wings in order to design them to best work in unison with one another (Front wing of the chasing car and rear wing of the car in front). They have to figure out how best to minimize the effect and then bake that into the regs.

The age old problem is, to get the likes of Red Bull and McLaren to go along with that you'd need to neuter the engine regs too otherwise they'll argue you're making it even easier for the EM works teams by cutting off areas independent chassis makers can make a difference in (standard wings,diffuser etc) but maintaining the open engine development we currently have.

And there's 2 big EM's erring on blocking any changes to the engine so it's pretty much a stalemate. Brawn needs to take a no nonsense approach to both really and introduce just as much standard parts or simplification on the engine side as the car side. Hopefully with a budget cap and redistribution of funds too.

Otherwise they'll just keep blocking each other.

I don't agree with the conflation of those two issues at all. Nothing about the engines makes it harder to overtake the car in front of you so it really shouldn't be part of that discussion. I'm sure Red Bull will use it as leverage as you've suggested but at the end of the day, it's a separate issue.

Honestly I don't think it's appropriate to keep blaming the engine rules for years and years and years after they have been changed. The token system is now long-scrapped and the excuses should stop IMO. And for the record, I would like to see a new engine formula for 2021.

It's separate to the overtaking issue aye, these engines are actually pretty good for that. But there's just no way the chassis makers will go for things that help the overtaking like more standard parts on the chassis side unless the engines take a hit somewhere too, like in complexity,expense and availability. (Curing the first two creates the third you would hope for the next regs).

Otherwise it's just too imbalanced with the engines becoming even more the dominant differentiators in performance and I don't think there's much appetite for that. Imagine if Red Bull this year were forced to run the same floor,wings etc. as Mercedes. They'd be left with the suspension,sidepods and bargeboards as the only real way to overhaul the engine difference and that would be next to impossible unless Mercedes were useless in those 3 areas which they obviously aren't.

It's a good opportunity for Brawn to just wipe the slate clean and start again with both of the main performance differentiators and I think he needs to stand firm to finally solve these types of issues and I hope he does.

All valid points, but the perspective is for just the top teams. I advocate for the FIA to produce standardized under bodies, and front and rear wings. Fans do not see the under bodies, and most cannot tell the differences between a Ferrari and Red Bull rear wing. But what this measure does is bring the budgets to a less insane level and allow lesser teams to fight on a more level playing field. With standardized parts, the turbulence can be reduced, and the cars can be less sensitive to aero disturbances.

In the 1970's the cars reached a level of performance where safety became a concern. And since the 1970's, the rule makers have introduced regulations that limit the performance of the cars. So going faster can be done easy, we just need to peel away some restrictions. Personally I get confused when egos intrude and fans want the fastest car.

I mentioned Indycar. With their new car they decreased downforce, to a level 2/3 in previous years. What that does is put the outcome of the race firmly in the hands of the drivers, the cars are more difficult to control, and mistakes are magnified. Indycar could have built a much faster car, but they made the conscious decision to go with a slower car that generated a lot more close battling and also made sure that it took a darn good drive for anyone to win.

Imagine that, the driver won, not the car.

The FIA are idiots and have never approached this problem in the right way.

The problem is not the amount of overtaking during the race... But how to make the rear car able to approach and overtake the front car without requiring a stupid active aero device to get close enough, and without losing too much grip from dirty air.

One of their fixes was to increase mechanical grip... Great decision, now all the drivers have much more rubber in their tires to play with, easier to push further and correct mistakes. No overtakes can happen without the DRS.

Sure, if you limit the mechanical grip like it was done in 1998, some guy like Adrian Newey will keep throwing more and more aero at the car, but limiting aero is up to the FIA, not the teams. Every team will do whatever it takes to win.

Besides, F1 is not NASCAR, it does not need a large amount of useless overtakes in every race, all it requires is that overtaking be POSSIBLE at all. Without DRS.

Drastically reduce overall grip, increase horsepower... Make those drivers work hard for their income... Maybe even bring back the steel brakes... We'll see more overtaking.

While we're at it, remove limits on engines while simplifying the manufacture. No electric stuff, F1 is not that. Turbo can stay, it can help making the cars less drivable and less teenager-friendly. Bring back gravel traps to punish unskilled drivers.

There does seem to be a misconstrued perception that overtaking makes for exciting and quality racing.

Issues for me are that F1 cars are too easy to drive and mistakes rarely get punished severely. Drivers these days rarely make major mistakes in dry weather, spins and retirements due to driver error are relatively rare, especially amongst the front runners. The odd occassion where a car gives a little squirm on a corner exit is now classed as exciting. Drivers also rarely look knackered on race completion, it's easy for them and they are driving with their ability most of the time.

Dirty air is a big problem though, and has been for about a decade now. Whilst I'm against artificial racing, dirty air makes it artificially hard to catch and pass a car on many of todays circuits. You have to carry a big time advantage to do it.

Badgeronimous wrote:Issues for me are that F1 cars are too easy to drive and mistakes rarely get punished severely. Drivers these days rarely make major mistakes in dry weather, spins are relatively rare. Drivers also rarely look knackered on race completion.

This has nothing to do with the cars being less physical, and everything to do with the drivers being more fit.

As an aerodynamicist, the easiest way to allow cars to follow more closely are:

1. Increase ground effects
2. Reduce upper body aero

f1madman wrote:As an aerodynamicist, the easiest way to allow cars to follow more closely are:

1. Increase ground effects
2. Reduce upper body aero

I would add that narrowing the cars would also make for more passing and better racing.

I like the tires as they currently are, I hope they don't get more narrow again like they were. Downforce just needs to be cut, and more of it needs to be produced by the underside of the car. Which everyone here has been screaming for a long time. Steel brakes are a good idea, but the idea of going backwards technology wise when the carbon brakes have been used so long is probably difficult for some to swallow. So, it should be about ground effect and downforce reduction, at least in terms of how the wings are produced. More power and less grip is a scenario I think we'd all like to see.

Also, in response to the OP, it is already against the rules to crowd another car off the edge of the track. Whether or not it is enforced is an entirely different matter.

Cold Gin wrote:I like the tires as they currently are, I hope they don't get more narrow again like they were. Downforce just needs to be cut, and more of it needs to be produced by the underside of the car. Which everyone here has been screaming for a long time. Steel brakes are a good idea, but the idea of going backwards technology wise when the carbon brakes have been used so long is probably difficult for some to swallow. So, it should be about ground effect and downforce reduction, at least in terms of how the wings are produced. More power and less grip is a scenario I think we'd all like to see.

Also, in response to the OP, it is already against the rules to crowd another car off the edge of the track. Whether or not it is enforced is an entirely different matter.

Perhaps reduce brake disc size a little bit?

5,000bhp engines.

No brakes at all.

Remove the Halo, HANS, and helmets.

Manual gearbox.

The solution without changing anything except doing away with the crappy gimmick that is DRS, is to bring back traction control.

This will allow drivers to push further and longer, into and through corners, where currently they have to lift because the car begins to wash out and maintaining momentum would result in either veering off-track or worse. Ground Effects would also assist in improving the action, but at no point would I ever want for anything to be standardized outside the current ECU supplied by McLaren because it's been in use all these years and to my knowledge has never failed or been found to have been tampered with.

Spec series already exist and while they serve their purpose, the purpose of F1 is to see what manufacturer/team could outdo the rest and a great part of that should continue to be the design, engineering and development of the car.

lamo wrote:I saw a post on Reddit,they extend the back straight by 300 into a tight hairpin. You lose turns 13 and 14 which are two turns hard to follow through. It would definitely help and is viable and mainly uses existing road. But whether they team it worth it is another matter.
Found it;

This would work imo. But Albert park being a street circuit it might not be possible.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The solution without changing anything except doing away with the crappy gimmick that is DRS, is to bring back traction control.

This will allow drivers to push further and longer, into and through corners, where currently they have to lift because the car begins to wash out and maintaining momentum would result in either veering off-track or worse. Ground Effects would also assist in improving the action, but at no point would I ever want for anything to be standardized outside the current ECU supplied by McLaren because it's been in use all these years and to my knowledge has never failed or been found to have been tampered with.

Spec series already exist and while they serve their purpose, the purpose of F1 is to see what manufacturer/team could outdo the rest and a great part of that should continue to be the design, engineering and development of the car.

When last we used traction control overtaking rates were really, really low.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The solution without changing anything except doing away with the crappy gimmick that is DRS, is to bring back traction control.

This will allow drivers to push further and longer, into and through corners, where currently they have to lift because the car begins to wash out and maintaining momentum would result in either veering off-track or worse. Ground Effects would also assist in improving the action, but at no point would I ever want for anything to be standardized outside the current ECU supplied by McLaren because it's been in use all these years and to my knowledge has never failed or been found to have been tampered with.

Spec series already exist and while they serve their purpose, the purpose of F1 is to see what manufacturer/team could outdo the rest and a great part of that should continue to be the design, engineering and development of the car.

As people are suggesting there's less overtaking due to the shorter braking distances giving less opportunity I'm not convinced that reducing this futher would help overtaking.