# Analysis: F1 Overtaking Statistics & Analysis

127 replies to this topic

### #51 cheapracer

cheapracer
• Member

• 10,388 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:23

Because first shorter braking distance allow for more slipstream time (replace slipstream by closing in time if we speak about moderate straights) next because if the guy makes a mistake the mistake has actually a greater effect than with a longer braking distance.
See for example if the guy breaks @ 50m/s let's say 1 tenths of a second earlier than you in:

A: a braking distance of 100 meters to get to 25m/s
B: a braking distance of 50 meters to get to 25m/s

You still spinning this crap? Try watching your TV set, the F1 races are shown there and then watch a MotoGP race, the ones with long braking distances....

### #52 RSNS

RSNS
• Member

• 1,512 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:33

I think the following (correct me if I am wrong)

The main problem lies in the fact that there is only a narrow path which is not dirty. Therefore, there is only one good trajectory. It is obviously difficult to overtake in these conditions

In part, that is due to the fact that current tires create marbles. If tires were harder and did not create marbles, yet if they were larger so as to have extra grip

And

If there were at least 3 different roughly effective trajectories to one or two bends

Overtaking would be easier

Perhaps this would mean wider circuits.

Edited by RSNS, 28 September 2009 - 09:34.

### #53 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:37

The OP list fails to note that most passing occurs during pitstops now

As the original post states:

"The overtaking figures for each race do not include position changes on the first lap of the race, positions gained in the pits or when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc."

### #54 cheapracer

cheapracer
• Member

• 10,388 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:42

- On brakes I tend to side with Ogami Musashi here. I don't think that is the issue at all, if anything most of the passes we see are crazy last minute bonzai braking moves. What we actually need is many more slipstreaming passes. And here again the problem is subtle, because the cars can actually slipstream each others beautifully well (until they hit the rev limiter), we've seen this occasionally. The problem is in getting close enough after a corner to begin the slipstream! But these points here are just my opinion based on watching the races rather than looking at the stats.

- I also think the current tracks aren't the problem, AT ALL. Ffs just look at the Detroit and Phoenix numbers. How were those mickey mouse tracks any better for passing than Singapore? Yet the numbers are much much better because they raced there in the mid 80s, and not with these super aero sensitive bitches.

Now you consider your 2 points matched against each other for a bit

Todays cars are no faster in a straight line than a V10 and certainly slower than a Turbo and yet there was plenty of passing at Monaco, Detroit, Phoenix and Long Beach including John Watson starting in last place and winning at Detroit and Long Beach (can you imagine that happening today?).

These tracks are far away from being 'slipstream' tracks and have the 'car in front jumps away' syndrome so the only item left is braking area. I watched everyone of these races and thats where the answer is.

As the original post states:

"The overtaking figures for each race do not include position changes on the first lap of the race, positions gained in the pits or when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc."

Ahhh, sorry, thats my mobile phone for ya mixed with my old eyes

I think the following (correct me if I am wrong)

The main problem lies in the fact that there is only a narrow path which is not dirty. Therefore, there is only one good trajectory. It is obviously difficult to overtake in these conditions

In part, that is due to the fact that current tires create marbles. If tires were harder and did not create marbles, yet if they were larger so as to have extra grip

And

If there were at least 3 different roughly effective trajectories to one or two bends

Overtaking would be easier

Perhaps this would mean wider circuits.

There been a "racing line" forever, there has always been marbles too.

Edited by cheapracer, 28 September 2009 - 09:48.

### #55 jez6363

jez6363
• Member

• 574 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:47

I think the following (correct me if I am wrong)

The main problem lies in the fact that there is only a narrow path which is not dirty. Therefore, there is only one good trajectory. It is obviously difficult to overtake in these conditions

In part, that is due to the fact that current tires create marbles. If tires were harder and did not create marbles, yet if they were larger so as to have extra grip

And

If there were at least 3 different roughly effective trajectories to one or two bends

Overtaking would be easier

Perhaps this would mean wider circuits.

Definitely the tracks are very far from ideal for F1, for exactly the reasons you say (it's perhaps the second overall main problem, the first is aero making slipstreaming impossible)

The first thing - marbles - its so so easy to fix it beggars belief its not been done. Just use harder tyres. Its an easy rule change, could be brought in immediately, at least in part - just use the hardest current tyre at all remaining races. Then next year the tyres are just all harder than the hardest of the current range, and get rid of this daft two rubber rule. Note - I am saying make them harder - not make them so hard they don't degrade - they should still only last say about a third to half a race - make them harder, and thinner with less rubber, so they still wear out the same, but just generate a lot less loose rubber in doing so.

The second is the off line grip in braking and traction zones, on some key bends. Given that significantly enlarging the tracks is impractical, it either needs artificially rubbering in, or some sort of graduated surface of increasing grip putting down as you move away from the optimal line (the spraygrip type option I keep banging on about).

That sort of grip variation would also play into the hands of the more skilled drivers - basically enhancing the small differences between the drivers, by giving them an extra variable they can apply their skill to. It would also lead to more in-race variation in grip, as once you have an area of high grip, using it more would sometimes exaggerate the effect and it would get even better - seeking out grip is a key driver skill, now becoming useless because there is only one possible route to use. Wet races show just how effective that skill can be used.

### #56 Gareth

Gareth
• RC Forum Host

• 11,797 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:51

During the 80s we lost 10 moves per year

During the 90s 15

The 2000's, up and down a bit

To me this says that the change in overtaking is less about the rules and more about developments in aerodynamics.

### #57 cheapracer

cheapracer
• Member

• 10,388 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:54

Definitely the tracks are very far from ideal for F1,

The first thing - marbles - its so so easy to fix it beggars belief its not been done. Just use harder tyres.

?? the tracks have always been the same excepting in more modern times the surfaces are now generally excellent, smooth and of a consistent mix from track to track.

I have raced a few classes from Karts to sports cars and every single track and meeting I have ever run have all had marbles since the 70's when I started.

### #58 jez6363

jez6363
• Member

• 574 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:06

?? the tracks have always been the same excepting in more modern times the surfaces are now generally excellent, smooth and of a consistent mix from track to track.

I have raced a few classes from Karts to sports cars and every single track and meeting I have ever run have all had marbles since the 70's when I started.

As you say, the tracks are better than they were - but the cars are much more better, so to speak. If the cars were like they were 30 years ago, the tracks, and marbles, would be fine.

We could unwind F1 tech to 70's/80's levels, and probably even make it safe, but its not really F1 then (it would be better - turbos, skirts, active suspension, fan aero etc....).

I think the biggest thing is that the grip from aero, in F1, is now so significant in cornering that you just have to use the fastest line, because as soon as you are not on that line, you lose so much time. 30 years ago, using a less optimal line made much less difference to your lap time, so you could basically drive around slower cars more easily.

Put another way - the old 'slow in fast out' option no longer really works. If you are slow in, you are slow out. In days when mechanical grip dominated apex speeds, you could take a different line in, to get better exit traction and pass on the following straight.

Of course that affects the 'hard tyres' argument I put forwards a bit back. But that is a more complicated argument because while harder tyres reduce mechnical grip, they also increase braking and traction distances, so using alternate corner lines has a bigger effect, and I still think harder tyres ends up being a good overall thing.

### #59 Ryongsyong

Ryongsyong
• Member

• 84 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:15

As people have said, the amount of wet races in a season will have an effect on the overall figure and muddy the waters a little, so these are the average number of overtaking moves per race per season rounded to the nearest 1, when wet races aren't included. As the years go by they can be separated into groups:

Over forties:
1983: 42 (1 wet)
1984: 43 (1 wet)
1985: 40 (2 wet)

Over thirties (mostly):
1986: 36 (0 wet)
1987: 34 (0 wet)
1988: 27 (3 wet)
1989: 33 (3 wet)
1990: 30 (1 wet)

Over twenties:
1991: 29 (3 wet)
1992: 24 (3 wet)
1993: 25 (4 wet)

Over tens:
1994: 19 (1 wet)
1995: 14 (4 wet)
1996: 11 (2 wet)
1997: 13 (2 wet)
1998: 12 (2 wet)
1999: 13 (2 wet)
2000: 14 (3 wet)
2001: 11 (2 wet)
2002: 12 (1 wet)
2003: 15 (2 wet)
2004: 14 (1 wet)
2005: 10 (1 wet)
2006: 16 (0 wet)
2007: 11 (3 wet)
2008: 11 (5 wet)

Below ten:
2009: 9 (so far)

There are some errors in the table thoughâ€”for instance the 1995 European GP is considered not to be a wet race when I would say that it definitely was and the track conditions contributed to a lot of the events that occurred there. There might be others there too I didn't notice.

These figures can not really be relied upon still though as it may be that in one year a track that usually produced lots of overtaking anyway was held under rainy conditions and so wasn't considered, but in any event it's pretty obvious where the trend's heading.

### #60 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
• Member

• 787 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:23

You still spinning this crap? Try watching your TV set, the F1 races are shown there and then watch a MotoGP race, the ones with long braking distances....

I'm spinning this crap yes cheap, and last time you failed to prove anything against it except the same "watch motoGP". I recall you my latest statements: Longer braking zone doesn't mean more overtaking on braking just as shorter doesn't mean less.

You're comparing apples and oranges, vehicule that are maybe less than one meter wide against 1,8 meters wide on the same tracks...
Rest assured that if the cars has the same width you would see as many side by side braking overtakings as in moto GP... As i said, you can simply overtake by delaying YOUR own braking point as the fact the shorter braking distance, the greater the speed differential allows you to pass the other guy, the next part of the move is harder yes, you have to not overshoot yourself okay...

You're doing the same thing you put against people in this thread, you take a situation with vastly different characteristics (a motogp vs F1) and draw your own conclusions..

If you don't believe my physics, believe the facts: you have braking overtaking in F1 and quite a significant part over the totality of overtakings, so don't bring Motogp into the game, motogp has a lot more overtakings overall.

### #61 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:26

There are some errors in the table thoughâ€”for instance the 1995 European GP is considered not to be a wet race when I would say that it definitely was and the track conditions contributed to a lot of the events that occurred there.

That one could have gone either way.
Ferrari and McLaren started on slicks and although they dropped down the order at first, they managed to move back up by the time everyone else had stopped for slicks by lap 17.

This is a work in progress though so there are bound to be some errors.

I'd be grateful for any feedback to help improve the data.

### #62 Chezrome

Chezrome
• Member

• 1,218 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:27

Nick Heidfeld said the same thinga year ago in an interview when asked why they are less overtaking maneuvres. The brakes are just incredibly good and the braking distance is extremely short. The second reason he mentioned was the cars beeing so aero-grip dependent.

In that case no refueling should improve overtaking. Heavier cars= longer brake-distances, and dropping off in tyre-quality should also increase the brake-distances.

### #63 Jojodyne

Jojodyne
• Member

• 377 posts
• Joined: October 99

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:27

DMN, do you have driver specific overtaking status?

From an Autosport article in 2007 by Michele Merlino.

The Most passes per driver per race

Passer Race Year Passes
Alain Prost South Africa 1984 22
Alain Prost Italy 1986 16
Ayrton Senna Germany 1993 16
Eddie Irvine France 1999 16
Michele Alboreto Japan 1987 15
Rubens Barrichello Australia 1999 15
Ayrton Senna Brazil 1988 15

### #64 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
• RC Forum Host

• 7,370 posts
• Joined: May 08

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:27

There was definitely one race in 2006 wet - Hungary.

### #65 Ryongsyong

Ryongsyong
• Member

• 84 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:30

That one could have gone either way.
Ferrari and McLaren started on slicks and although they dropped down the order at first, they managed to move back up by the time everyone else had stopped for slicks by lap 17.

My thinking was really that considering how Hill managed to crash out near the end things were still pretty slippery if you went anywhere off the racing line, but whether that means it's a dry race because the racing line itself is pretty dry, even if nowhere else is, is a difficult one I concede.

### #66 jez6363

jez6363
• Member

• 574 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:56

I'm spinning this crap yes cheap, and last time you failed to prove anything against it except the same "watch motoGP". I recall you my latest statements: Longer braking zone doesn't mean more overtaking on braking just as shorter doesn't mean less.

You're comparing apples and oranges, vehicule that are maybe less than one meter wide against 1,8 meters wide on the same tracks...
Rest assured that if the cars has the same width you would see as many side by side braking overtakings as in moto GP... As i said, you can simply overtake by delaying YOUR own braking point as the fact the shorter braking distance, the greater the speed differential allows you to pass the other guy, the next part of the move is harder yes, you have to not overshoot yourself okay...

You're doing the same thing you put against people in this thread, you take a situation with vastly different characteristics (a motogp vs F1) and draw your own conclusions..

If you don't believe my physics, believe the facts: you have braking overtaking in F1 and quite a significant part over the totality of overtakings, so don't bring Motogp into the game, motogp has a lot more overtakings overall.

Its an interesting question. I think I partly agree with Ogami Musashi, though I'm not sure how much of a factor braking is.

If you have longer braking distances, and less powerful braking, then you definitely get more time to out brake someone.

But, it also makes less difference to exactly pick the right braking point. Also, having less powerful braking makes it easier for the driver to moderate their braking, so if they did start braking too soon, they can back off and mitigate the error. Still, the advantage in that would end up with the behind driver, because they can see the driver in front, and basically have more time to react to what they do.

It still remains a fundamental problem that to pass under braking, one of the drivers will be off the perfect line, and that loses them apex speed and usually puts them on a more slippy part of the track.

I guess my view is that the combination of longer braking distances, little aero, and a wider racing line compared to vehicle width, give better overtaking in MotoGP. All factors probably are significant, but maybe the (relatively) narrower racing line in F1 is the biggest factor, because being off it is such a huge penalty because it means you are losing so much aero generated cornering grip, which doesn't affect MotoGP.

All factors should be investigated by the OWG, and fix whatever can be done - I suspect harder tyres is the only quick win for 2010, unless they mandate single element rear wings with max depth, for all races. I really really hope they don't think the fuel changes are going to fix overtaking...

And lets face it - who is going to complain if we have a season of TOO much overtaking... It would be interesting to see a more radical change - get rid of rear wings and diffusers and make them use those harder 'demonstration tyres'. Of course, we'd have the drivers sat over the back axle, on top of the engine, to get some traction...

### #67 jez6363

jez6363
• Member

• 574 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:07

In that case no refueling should improve overtaking. Heavier cars= longer brake-distances, and dropping off in tyre-quality should also increase the brake-distances.

Anything new will mix things up for a few races, and will generally play into the hands of the better drivers, because they will adapt quickest. But once things settle down, it will be back to the status quo.

Maybe that is a generic problem with assessing the effect of rule changes - people get all excited because a new thing brings in more overtaking - and they over estimate the value of the change, because its not really made a difference, it just takes a few races for teams and drivers to adapt.

So maybe its quite possible to get a rule change that looks good for a few races or a season, but is actually bad in the long run (aero changes that looked good then led to tyre management being so key) - and vice versa because it takes a while for people to understand how to use the new thing to overtake (kers, which took a while to get refined so you could brake properly).

So instead of rule changes, which teams and drivers always adapt to after a few races, maybe the answer is to have things like the tyre choice, rev limit and max wing angles, whether you get a front wing or just a stub, only announced to the teams on race day morning. Make the ability to adapt more important than endless fine tuning. After all, that is much more likely to bring the best drivers and cars to the front. Not sure how much the predictability is important to safety though - mixing things up like that means more chances of crashes I guess - so maybe the range of variation would have to be less at places like Monaco.

### #68 noikeee

noikeee
• Member

• 11,022 posts
• Joined: February 06

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:18

Now you consider your 2 points matched against each other for a bit

Todays cars are no faster in a straight line than a V10 and certainly slower than a Turbo and yet there was plenty of passing at Monaco, Detroit, Phoenix and Long Beach including John Watson starting in last place and winning at Detroit and Long Beach (can you imagine that happening today?).

These tracks are far away from being 'slipstream' tracks and have the 'car in front jumps away' syndrome so the only item left is braking area. I watched everyone of these races and thats where the answer is.

That is a good answer, you have made me think, but I'm not convinced. Let's match this against another point of yours, which is absolutely correct:

The OP list fails to note that most passing occurs during pitstops now (probably mentioned already) but also fails to mention how many near on track passes there used to be, as in cars getting side by side but the passee saving it and staying ahead - those were just as exciting as the actual recorded on paper passes and there was more of them than actual successful passes.

In the old Detroit/Phoenix races cars managed to get side by side a lot. We both agree on that. However if you were right and the issue was brakes, they would only get side by side in the braking zones. That's not really what happened, cars would follow close after the turns and get side by side fairly easily. Sure the big decisive differences would come in the braking zones, but that would only be the final part of the moves.

Now compare this to yesterday when Kimi was closing on Naka 3 seconds per lap - yet when he got stuck behind him, he couldn't follow him after any turn. Now if he could, then the pass would obviously be a braking pass and not a slipstreaming pass. Why? Because the straights are short and there's no time to finish the move within the accelerating part of the straight. In a track with monstrous straights like Spa or the old Osterreichring back then, it'd be a pure slipstream pass.

This is why the problem is subtle. I expressed myself wrong by saying we're lacking slipstreaming passes. It doesn't actually matter if the pass is in the braking zone or in the accelerating zone. That is the end, the problem is in the means. And nowadays the cars can still outbrake each other perfectly fine (see Rosberg yesterday), and they can still slipstream perfectly fine - until the rev limiter. What they can't, is to follow after the corners. That is the problem.

### #69 scheivlak

scheivlak
• Member

• 12,785 posts
• Joined: August 01

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:27

There was definitely one race in 2006 wet - Hungary.

And another one: China

### #70 r4mses

r4mses
• Member

• 1,103 posts
• Joined: April 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:47

first race in 2010 will see a spectacular race with lots of overtaking, many contacts and incidents. stewards will punish 95% of them (to harsh), so there will be 0.0 position changes in the second race as all drivers are afraid of receiving drive through penalties.

<nightmare/>

### #71 grunge

grunge
• Member

• 4,663 posts
• Joined: May 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:56

What they can't, is to follow after the corners. That is the problem.

they did the OWG tests for the same reason..and the results were stunning in the respect that it showed the changes made in order to improve overtaking over the past years had infact been utterly detrimental to the cause..

Before the OWG results came out,the primary thought was ''get rid of them wings'' , but as the test results showed the wake from the rear wing was much less damaging than the diffuser..its a complicated picture..this was the first time that they didnt use CFD tests as their base of analysis..they did some real tests with wind tunnels and track conditions..i was really hopeful before the season..but then the same old story again
the biggest dissapointment for me have been the adjustable front wings..the only use these things have is adjustment of balance issues with tire wear and fuel levels.
they increase the the movable degrees to 10 on both front and rear wings..so lets see

### #72 Scotracer

Scotracer
• Member

• 2,956 posts
• Joined: June 08

Posted 28 September 2009 - 12:57

You still spinning this crap? Try watching your TV set, the F1 races are shown there and then watch a MotoGP race, the ones with long braking distances....

Not even comparable.

F1 cars have complex aerodynamics that restrict following in fast corners. F1 cars are 1.8 metres wide.

MotoGP are not...and not.

### #73 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
• Member

• 787 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 28 September 2009 - 13:18

they did the OWG tests for the same reason..and the results were stunning in the respect that it showed the changes made in order to improve overtaking over the past years had infact been utterly detrimental to the cause..

Before the OWG results came out,the primary thought was ''get rid of them wings'' , but as the test results showed the wake from the rear wing was much less damaging than the diffuser..its a complicated picture..this was the first time that they didnt use CFD tests as their base of analysis..they did some real tests with wind tunnels and track conditions..i was really hopeful before the season..but then the same old story again
the biggest dissapointment for me have been the adjustable front wings..the only use these things have is adjustment of balance issues with tire wear and fuel levels.
they increase the the movable degrees to 10 on both front and rear wings..so lets see

Actually, what failed is the overtaking in itself, the cars can definitely follow each other far closer, look at vettel on hamilton, and the race pace was no different.

Why there's less overtaking than planned remains to be analysed, who's the culprit?? KERS? tyres? spread of field? aeros? we don't know.

### #74 David1976

David1976
• Member

• 1,100 posts
• Joined: September 08

Posted 28 September 2009 - 15:20

Very interesting.

May I suggest some or all of the following to improve the specticle:-

1) KERS with double the current output.
2) Banning of defusers and utilisation of flat bottom chassis to reduce wake.
3) Double the angle of attack adjustments for the front wing with similar restrictions for usage per lap to help overcome the problems following cars closely.

Other possibles could include:-

1) Random sprinkling of water from jets in the corners of circuits.
2) Random grids.
3) Large output turbo engines with adjustable boost with c20% power uplifts via cockpit adjustments (still with fuel usage considerations).

The current regulations do not have enough possibilities to increase overtaking. They seem to have failed at every attemp to address this.

### #75 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 15:30

Before I get started on updating the tables & charts, are there any other amendments apart from the following?

1995 European - change to wet
2006 Hungary - change to wet
2006 China - change to wet

Thanks.

Edited by Brogan, 28 September 2009 - 15:30.

### #76 Chezrome

Chezrome
• Member

• 1,218 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 17:48

Again I will suggest: allow Kers, but only for overtaking, not for defending a position. The extra power from kers will nullify the dirty air aspect, allow a driver to get close, and the (perhaps electronic enforced) rule kers can't be used to defend position will not allow slower cars to 'block'.

### #77 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
• Member

• 7,670 posts
• Joined: February 08

Posted 28 September 2009 - 18:06

here is a good blog with some overtaking stats from different drivers..

Edited by BMW_F1, 28 September 2009 - 18:06.

### #78 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 18:22

That's the same as we have in the Statistics forum here: http://www.cliptheap...c...?f=51&t=847

Currently Brian has done up to Valencia: http://www.cliptheap...c...?f=51&t=973

It's easier to read on the forum as the formatting is preserved.

Edited by Brogan, 28 September 2009 - 18:24.

### #79 turin

turin
• Member

• 3,086 posts
• Joined: February 01

Posted 28 September 2009 - 18:33

what if we count only the passes good for race points? That is, all the passes for positions 8 to 1. My take is that it would be pretty even throughout the history of the sport.

### #80 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
• Member

• 2,823 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 19:34

For me.... I want to see....

Super Soft Tyres... with one super hard set of tyres..... The super softs last about 30 laps if managed well, 10 if driven too hard... The Hard tyres are then considerably harder than today's tyres, thus forcing the driver to make a set up on his car that is a halfway house between being ideal on the softs and ideal on the hard compound.... THIS in itself will result in some pretty radical differences between the cars, some will be horrible on the hard and some blinding quick on the softs and vice versa.... should really change things up a bit....

Get rid of those damn stupid "wider than front wheels wings" to save costs on damaged wings (pretty much every race now, someone needs a nose changed). Go back to the standard size wings..

Then to really add the differential difference an Indy style push to pass system that offers considerably more power than the current KERS system. That way, two drivers may use their entire allocation of push to passes (defending and attacking)....while someone sneaks up on them and uses their push to pass to pass two cars instead of one...and we go three wide down the straight after Eau Rouge again!
Maybe allowing the engine to rev to 22,000 rpm 10 times per race would be a solution.

Just my 2 cents...

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 28 September 2009 - 20:28.

### #81 ivanalesi

ivanalesi
• Member

• 1,770 posts
• Joined: August 04

Posted 28 September 2009 - 20:35

They went into the wrong route, every single formula which has great overtaking uses lots of underbody aero - not less!
Also tyres, they should be bringing exactly the worst tyres in their range. But then drivers like Nick will start to moan and make Bridgestone look bad because they can't find good setup.
Next year it will be very exciting, but so much depends on Bridgestone!

### #82 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
• Member

• 1,197 posts
• Joined: August 01

Posted 28 September 2009 - 21:19

Actually you only ever need 1 rule on engines: Max cylinder capacity.

Everything beyond that is artifical BS.

I think that is too restrictive.

Maximum energy input. Make whatever you want to power the vehicle but you are only allowed a fixed number of kJ input into the vehicle. 1 cylinder, 12 cylinder, 2 stroke, 4 stroke, rotary, turbine, normally aspirated, turbo, petrol, diesel, solid rocket fuel, hydrogen, electricity. Recover as much energy from the vehicle as you can and reuse it however you want.

### #83 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
• Member

• 1,197 posts
• Joined: August 01

Posted 28 September 2009 - 21:30

I love discussing overtaking. A lot of people seem to think that it is a single item which is stopping overtaking, and if we just reverse that one thing, the cars will fly past one another again. You're all right, and you're all wrong.

It is the brakes. It is the tyres. It is the engine. It is the aerodynamics. It is the computer overriding driver mistakes. It is pit stop strategy. It is financial disparity. It is qualifying. It is the rules stability. It is constant changing rules. It is the inconsistent application of penalties. It is the points structure. It is the 8 engine limit.

It is a combination of all of these things. Fixing any one of them will have a very small effect on overtaking. Fixing all of them is prohibitively expensive in one go. It will take years of incremental improvement, just as it took years of incremental decline. What will really happen is that they will change one thing, and the people who though that one thing was the magic bullet and be disappointed. Those who believed in another magic bullet will flood the BB with a bunch of I told you so's. They'll go back to the drawing boards and they'll come up with another idea, and it too will fail, because they will fail to address the whole of the problem.

### #84 RSNS

RSNS
• Member

• 1,512 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 28 September 2009 - 23:12

I love discussing overtaking. A lot of people seem to think that it is a single item which is stopping overtaking, and if we just reverse that one thing, the cars will fly past one another again. You're all right, and you're all wrong.

It is the brakes. It is the tyres. It is the engine. It is the aerodynamics. It is the computer overriding driver mistakes. It is pit stop strategy. It is financial disparity. It is qualifying. It is the rules stability. It is constant changing rules. It is the inconsistent application of penalties. It is the points structure. It is the 8 engine limit.

It is a combination of all of these things. Fixing any one of them will have a very small effect on overtaking. Fixing all of them is prohibitively expensive in one go. It will take years of incremental improvement, just as it took years of incremental decline. What will really happen is that they will change one thing, and the people who though that one thing was the magic bullet and be disappointed. Those who believed in another magic bullet will flood the BB with a bunch of I told you so's. They'll go back to the drawing boards and they'll come up with another idea, and it too will fail, because they will fail to address the whole of the problem.

You are quite right. That is why every rule has the apparent effect of doing more harm than good. That is also the reason because when rules are maintained, engineers eventually find ways of making overtaking possible.

But that said, there are certain factors that very clearly make overtaking very hard. One of the most obvious and very easy to remedy is rev limiting; more difficult to handle are aerodynamics, tires and even tracks.

.

### #85 r4mses

r4mses
• Member

• 1,103 posts
• Joined: April 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 23:23

I think that is too restrictive.

Maximum energy input. Make whatever you want to power the vehicle but you are only allowed a fixed number of kJ input into the vehicle. 1 cylinder, 12 cylinder, 2 stroke, 4 stroke, rotary, turbine, normally aspirated, turbo, petrol, diesel, solid rocket fuel, hydrogen, electricity. Recover as much energy from the vehicle as you can and reuse it however you want.

that'd be fckng great! ...but cost get out of control :/

"Maximum energy input [=certain amount of fuel]. Recover as much energy from the vehicle as you can and reuse it however you want." + some restrictions concerning materials would suit my idea of F1 aswell.

### #86 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
• Member

• 7,276 posts
• Joined: June 06

Posted 29 September 2009 - 01:17

Easy solution:

Make the cars half as wide and half as long and give them maximum 600cc engine.

Space to fit 5 cars wide on the track and slip-streaming all race long!

(Built with F1 budgets they will soon become spectacular and more advanced than other similar cars of course...)

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 29 September 2009 - 01:17.

### #87 Kucki

Kucki
• Member

• 1,284 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 10:27

Nick Heidfeld answers in an interview why there are few overtakings in F1 and what the main issues are:

Brakes are too good causing a very short braking distance

Cars beeing too aero-grip dependent

Cars are too fast

AT 4 min 55 sec.

Translation:

There are several reasons for the lack of overtakings. The first reason is that the cars are too aero-grip dependent and its hard to stay close to the car infront threw corners because you lose so much grip the closer you get.

The second most important reason for the lack of overtakings is that we are just generally very fast, like you said in the DTM there are more overtaking maneuvres, they arent slow either but they are slower then F1, and if you look at the motorsport ladders, the lower the Series is and the slower the cars are, the more overtakings you see.

If we arrive to a corner at 300 km/h, the brakes are so incredible good, that we maybe will stay only 50 meters on the brakes, then the other car that is behind you would have to brake atleast 7 or 10 meters later to overtake you, that means he has to brake 20% later to overtake, that is what makes it so hard - the braking distances are extremely short.

Edited by Kucki, 29 September 2009 - 10:30.

### #88 r4mses

r4mses
• Member

• 1,103 posts
• Joined: April 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 11:50

so why don't they go for lets say steel or ceramic brakes instead of carbon fibre? as a side effekt costs might be reduced aswell.

### #89 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 13:50

As per the earlier comments, I have now created a new set of tables and charts for dry races only.

Clip The Apex | F1 Overtaking Statistics & Analysis

Regards.

### #90 pgj

pgj
• Member

• 1,691 posts
• Joined: March 06

Posted 29 September 2009 - 14:15

Actually, what failed is the overtaking in itself, the cars can definitely follow each other far closer, look at vettel on hamilton, and the race pace was no different.

Why there's less overtaking than planned remains to be analysed, who's the culprit?? KERS? tyres? spread of field? aeros? we don't know.

Shortening braking distances does not improve overtaking opportunities. Improving braking efficiency will reduce overtaking opportunities even more by shortening braking distances through increasing the thickness of brake discs. Even though this move is being promoted on the back of improving safety. There is probably a case for reducing braking efficiency in an attempt to lengthen braking distances. We have the obverse with rev limits on engines. Just a thought.

### #91 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
• RC Forum Host

• 7,370 posts
• Joined: May 08

Posted 29 September 2009 - 14:26

As per the earlier comments, I have now created a new set of tables and charts for dry races only.

Clip The Apex | F1 Overtaking Statistics & Analysis

Regards.

Wow. So 2009 is really the worst season in terms of overtaking?

### #92 pgj

pgj
• Member

• 1,691 posts
• Joined: March 06

Posted 29 September 2009 - 14:31

As per the earlier comments, I have now created a new set of tables and charts for dry races only.

Clip The Apex | F1 Overtaking Statistics & Analysis

Regards.

### #93 Brogan

Brogan
• Member

• 32 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 14:39

Wow. So 2009 is really the worst season in terms of overtaking?

Well the 2009 data isn't yet complete obviously so the only figure you can really use is the "equalised" value which takes into account the number of GPs.
Although granted, that is also the lowest of the sample but may yet improve.

### #94 Dave P Fanclub

Dave P Fanclub
• New Member

• 19 posts
• Joined: March 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 14:40

If the cars of the 80s and early 90s were as closely-matched as they are in this era, there wouldn't have been much overtaking then either. There'd be plenty of overtaking with this current generation of cars if some were six seconds quicker than others, but we don't want to go back to those days do we? It's less to do with aero regs and fuel stops than the relative speed difference.

### #95 noikeee

noikeee
• Member

• 11,022 posts
• Joined: February 06

Posted 29 September 2009 - 16:03

If the cars of the 80s and early 90s were as closely-matched as they are in this era, there wouldn't have been much overtaking then either. There'd be plenty of overtaking with this current generation of cars if some were six seconds quicker than others, but we don't want to go back to those days do we? It's less to do with aero regs and fuel stops than the relative speed difference.

I don't agree. This weekend we had Kimi closing in on Naka at 3 seconds per lap and he couldn't pass. If both had a 1980s F1 car, he wouldn't have need half that difference. It's just a feeling, but I'd confidently bet on it.

### #96 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
• Member

• 787 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 29 September 2009 - 17:51

Shortening braking distances does not improve overtaking opportunities. Improving braking efficiency will reduce overtaking opportunities even more by shortening braking distances through increasing the thickness of brake discs. Even though this move is being promoted on the back of improving safety. There is probably a case for reducing braking efficiency in an attempt to lengthen braking distances. We have the obverse with rev limits on engines. Just a thought.

I disagree that shortened braking distances as they are have decreased braking overtaking possibility and i've given my points and will direct you to this video of youtuve of the 15 best overtakings moves in the sole year of 2008 to count how many braking-overtakes you have:

Now that's only for 2008 and only among the 15 best.

If you disagree, bring actual points, not opinions.

### #97 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
• Member

• 7,670 posts
• Joined: February 08

Posted 29 September 2009 - 18:00

It still has a lot to do with the driver.. Compare Lewis's overtaking stats with the rest of the drivers.. You will see that his numbers are comparable to the best overtakers of past years. The vast majority of the drivers today don't have those skills.

### #98 carlt

carlt
• Member

• 1,489 posts
• Joined: June 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 19:44

Employ the same professional Stewards for each race so the drivers/teams no what they can and can't do to overtake [ too much risk of inconsistent penalties ]

Make the exit of the artificial run off zones [ eg 1st corner Spa ] a little bumpy so cars can't put their power down so easily [ so no advantage to be gained ] and then remove the penalty for using this area

this might encourage drivers to have a go at overtaking ?

### #99 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
• Member

• 2,248 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 29 September 2009 - 19:52

Rev limited engines killed overtaking.

I bet it's more about super brakes and CF brakes.

### #100 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
• Member

• 2,248 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 29 September 2009 - 20:04

so why don't they go for lets say steel or ceramic brakes instead of carbon fibre? as a side effekt costs might be reduced aswell.

They do this in IRL, CF is for super speedways only.