So in short, F1 can do it.

The thing for which by a technically worse series can do should be possible by the higher series as well.

I am lost as to why the overtaking is STILL not possible at the Formula One racing series.

All reasons are written here.

My mistake.

the irl cars use paddle shift now, but not seamless i guess, theres no point in the extra expense...

the biggest problem is that there is to much aero downforce and to little mechanical grip

2nd problem is the brakes are way to good, they brake so late that if you want to outbrake someone, you have to brake on 75% of the braking distance then him, not possible

You've never ridden a motorcycle? Mis-shifts and false neutrals happen in sequential boxes all the time.

How many F1 rejects actually got a fair crack at Formula-1?

Mario Andretti, Emmerson Fittipaldi, Nigel Mansell, to name three.

Sato (BAR 2004), Stefan Johansson (Ferrari 1985-86, McLaren 1987), JJ Lehto (Benetton 1994), Eddie Cheever (Ligier 1982, Renault 1983), Mark Blundell (McLaren 1995)

also with a stick shift you cant change gear in the highspeed/high g corners normaly, so the gear selection is changed with that in mind, so 4th might be longer or shorter than ideal. i doubt that happens in f1 to anything but a tiny extent now, plus they have 7 gears.

the american open wheel to f1 transitions of drivers is about as successful as any other intake, about 50%

I have to agree with most of the above....

In F1, every car is different and it is all about me me me... with a standardised Indy Car it means the car designer's can give the car ample downforce without compromising over-taking (too much turbulent air behind the car).


A push to pass button? Does this increase additional Revs/Engine power or is it like a KERS system?

Track layout and design is very important too, I long for the day I see an F1 race on an Oval track.... now that would = mucho mucho overtaking would it not?

IIRC, the former on the push to pass. As far as F1 on an oval, how come I'm picturing CART at Texas all over again? Not to mention the Euros would riot. Then again, F1 on the proper Indy oval would be entertaining, if just for the nostalgia. That would be an epic month of May: F1 in the first half, Indy in the second.

Back on topic, I'm an armchair engineer just like the rest of you, but their seem to be many repeats that reappear. Personally, I say the DDD and the garbage tracks are the main causes. Valencia needs to end up in a trashcan. The thing is, though, these classic tracks don't get to interesting unless something epic (crash, rain) happens. And with the DDD, we get the issue of banning new tech. We are in the series that prides itself on technical innovation, yet ban anything that is too advantageous because someone got their first. Stop nurfing the series and go from there.

I have watched IRL in person while at Sears Point/Infineon Raceway. It cost me $20. It isn't the greatest venue, yet is one of the best equipped in California. I'm more than willing to pay 10x the price to watch F1 cars around a Tilkedrome.

Double-decker diffusers aren't really 'new tech', though, they're just an example of what goes wrong when you start restricting designers too much with technical regulations. They start to think and engineer around the rules, instead of around the laws of physics.

Well then I think it's to pull a NASCAR. Tech rulebook = Shotgun fodder.

Isn't it exactly this problem that has brought us to the point we are at now, years perhaps even decades of new designs being reigned in by technical regulations, layers upon layers of rules changes and enforcements that restricted the cars, coupled with allowing teams their say in what the next big change will be. The teams will of course have their own agenda and rarely would it include things they don't like or don't want on their beautiful races cars.

peeling away all of this to find race cars that can overtake each other is not going to be easy, and I'd guess the majority of us agree it's not just one change that will instantly fix this problem, we all have our opinions! but sooner or later something will have to give, or viewers will vote by switching off and then it will be too late.

James Hunt was stripped of a Spanish race win in 1976 because the car width was 1.8cm too wide - while this was later given back upon appeal, Bernie Ecclesstone said it's a thin line and they over stepped it. James Hunt said he didn't know the car was illegal, he just drives the damn thing!

Why can Indycars pass?

Well, on most circuits they can't and the fans of the series have been livid about most of the recent road and street circuits. The Brazilian race though had numerous caution flags and a red flag for rain. That is what creates passing........bunching up the cars at regular intervals.

Sure, Indy has boring races, they all do on occasion, but other than the debacle that was Kansas, I can't think of any that bring extreme outrage.

the level of passing hadnt plunged to f1 levels, but they had some meh races...

there was passing at the last race even after a bunch of green laps, the circuit is good

id love to see f1 cars on the indy oval, but with some chicanes thrown in for good measure. f1 cars have 100 extra hp over a indycar so would easily be faster around the oval, so thats unlikely to happen

Not necessarily I would think because F1 cars are not designed to run on ovals. They carry too much downforce and thus drag, probably even at the lowest downforce setting. It would also be unsafe I think because the sidepods are not designed specifically to for hi speed side impacts into the wall.

In my view, if F1 wanted to encourage close racing and overtaking all they have to do is to reduce the high percentage from total downforce thats coming from the wings and give more room for ground effects. I think today there are plenty of examples in other series where this can be achieved without compromising safety. F1 had fairly good overtaking until post Senna when the rule change forced teams to focus on wings with more turbulence generated.

A1GP's John Travis was quoted in an Autosport article that when they designed the new Ferrari powered car they wanted to have close racing and overtaking, which they eventually achieved successfully. He said he looked at the solutions F1 was using and it was all wrong, at least for A1GP's design objectives. He said what helped was the lessons he learned from his Champcar days. The A1GP cars looked very similar to the F1 minus the complex aero bits and it had very good downforce as well, according to driver feedback. There were ex F1 drivers. Drivers liked the chassis and the only comment particularly from drivers with F1 experience was the weak Ferrari V8 engine.

So it seems you can have good looking cars, good chassis with good downforce and still have overtaking and close racing. The aero philosophy helped cars to try and follow closely while their Push to Pass system (map change and higher revs) helped to overtake and it worked.

Interesting case study where the cars were concerned. Too bad about the series going bust.

So it can be done.

I watched an F1 race on a street circuit once. Got to see half of one corner. Cost me $100. I'd be more than willing to watch an IRL race on an oval and I don't like the IRL...

I am not so sure about the F1 cars being faster on an oval. Speeds on the main straight at Indianapolis for Indy cars are higher than the trap speeds for the F1 cars at Indianapolis. What would be really interesting is to see a flying start on an oval with the F1 cars.

A few years ago NASCAR ran some laps at Talladega without restrictor plates and hit 228mph on the straight and had a 221mph lap speed.

That would be an interesting comparison. I remember reading that Al Unser Jr was clocked at 248 mph on Indy's backstretch driving the 1994 Penske-Mercedes in 1994. Wonder how fast a trimmed-out mid-80s Brabham-BMW turbo would have gone?

I would like to see a Indy Car race in a F1 track that is notably famous of lack of passing (like Barcelona or Valencia... maybe even Bahrain).

Another test would be seeing a F1 race in a Indy track where those who follow it see lots of passing. That would settle the dispute if it's the tracks or the cars.

Drivers are race junkies. They will, generally, take the best drive that is available to them. There is too much elitism in and around F1. It usually comes from 'the pinnacle of motorsport' brigade. As though watching one form of motorsport over another makes them a better motorsport fan.

What we are actually talking about here is product. It took a while for me to warm to Indy/oval racing. There is no doubt that there is more excitement when watching Indy. Compare an Indy pitstop with an F1 pitstop. A pitstop may win or lose a few places in Indy. In F1 it has often been the only place where there has been a change in race order. Yet we still get 'the pinnacle of motorsport' brigade spouting that F1 is better. Well F1 is, probably, the most technologically advanced form of motorsport. It is not, and has not been for sometime, the pinnacle of motorsport, I hate the term, for a long time. Indy has created a product and takes corrective steps to protect it. F1 does not know what it is. Is it a sprint series. Which is what fuel-stops turned it into or is it an endurance prototype series? For me it is the latter.

Sorry for the rant. But please help me out here. Don't call F1 the pinnacle of motorsport because it isn't. If enough of us try hard enough, we might stamp the term into extinction.

Someone else posted this clip in another thread, but it epitomises what F1 could be like and (to a degree) why indycars are better to watch.

The path forward for F1 should be clear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzyNJWXwBlI

Why is it forbidden to use ground effect? If it improves that racing (instead of the DDD)

IRL tech regs mandate a minimum inclination of front wings on ovals.
This way, teams are forced to use a lot more downforce than necessary: if they could freely setup the cars, they would be a lot faster over a single lap, provided the driver is good enough to keep the car on course.

Instead, they are forced to use an unnecessary amount of downforce that has two effects:

1) when a car is in another car's wake, it still has enough downforce to stay on the road
2) drivers can go flat out from start to finish, and differences in ability are minimized.

It's not a real solution.

Some years ago I saw an IRL race on a 1-mile oval where two Penskes drove side by side in the lead lap after lap. Announcer seemed excited with this "racing", while it was obvious they were simply holding everyone back by blocking both lines. What a joke.

Well, in 09 all IRL race wins were shared between Ganassi and Penske, except for one (Wilson in Detroit I think). So it's not like everyone can win races there on merit. But still there is overtaking possible even for the lead as could be seen last weekend.


Good one!

I'm not that techy so shoot the idea but not me.

Lose all the regulations and limits that restrict either aero or mechanical grip of the cars, if they want DDD's let them, if they want venturi's let them, if F1 is the pinnacle of technical design then let them have free reign to design what they want and instead replace the restrictions on design with a measurable restriction in the amount of turbulence a car can produce at certain speeds and at a certain distance. There must be a way of measuring turbulence produced using wind tunnels big enough for a full size car, the car that is submitted to race must under go the checks in front of FIA scrutineers and any major changes during the season must again be validated.

Not only would this stop the team to team sniping about weather something is legal or not but it would force teams to design cars with max downforce but with minimum turbulence which allows competing cars to follow closely.

Maybe some of the more technical amongst you can answer weather any of that is possible.

Max Mosley suggested something along these lines in 2004, freeing up aerodynamic regulations in exchange for a single limit on the amount of downforce generated. The figure was something like 500kg. It disappeared without a trace, to my knowledge without any explanation on why it was impracticable. The instruments to measure this certainly exist, and there would be an advantage to having such a black-and-white, simple set of regulations.

I think what I'm getting at is that there are ways of producing downforce that give of less turbulence than others, so basically the teams can have as much downforce as they like but they must stay within a set measurable limit of turbulence produced so that a chasing car still has reasonable downforce operating, plus it will also emphasize more development in mechanical grip since there would be no boundaries as opposed to downforce which would only be restricted to turbulence produced.

Ok so you managed to pick apart someone else's post, but have you any idea yourself?

The latest crapwgon Dallara has little to no ground effects , the DP01 that Champcar used had ground effects. Lola's proposed Indycar for 2012, would have ground effects also, if you think F1 front wings are big , the Dallara crap has a snowplow