Jump to content


Photo

14 reasons to love the refuelling ban (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

Poll: 14 reasons to love the refuelling ban (merged) (198 member(s) have cast votes)

Refueling ban...

  1. ...Pro (123 votes [62.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.12%

  2. ...Contra (39 votes [19.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.70%

  3. ...Uncertain (36 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:00

I'm not crying.

After 15-20 years (as I watched) of fiddling banning turbos, active suspensions, TC banned - unbanned - banned, slicks - grooves - slicks, aero rules changed again and again, refueling brought back and now banned again, nothing ever got better really.

I'm only saying, face reality.


Well you have to remember that those overtaking charts include cars being lapped so it looks worse than it is, with the field being closer now.

For me, watching old races is nostalgic, but modern races are much better. We cherry-pick the best moments from the old races, in reality it was mainly boring with bad coverage, following the leader mindlessly round and round, and what action there was happened off-camera with no replays. There wasn't much background information on the teams and drivers either.

The cars are too fast for the tracks today, and there's way too much downforce, but that can be fixed. If Max had gone sooner and DDD's had been banned, it would be a lot better already.

Advertisement

#102 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:03

Well you have to remember that those overtaking charts include cars being lapped so it looks worse than it is, with the field being closer now.

For me, watching old races is nostalgic, but modern races are much better. We cherry-pick the best moments from the old races, in reality it was mainly boring with bad coverage, following the leader mindlessly round and round, and what action there was happened off-camera with no replays. There wasn't much background information on the teams and drivers either.

The cars are too fast for the tracks today, and there's way too much downforce, but that can be fixed. If Max had gone sooner and DDD's had been banned, it would be a lot better already.




No they don't.
These figures do not include positions gained in the pits, position changes on the first lap of the race, lapping slow cars, or gained when a car has a serious technical problem (e.g. puncture, accident damage etc.)


Monaco was (excluding wet races, or exceptional scenarios) always a POS in terms of of on-track racing.
It was POS in 1929, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009.

And now it's got siblings like Barcelona, Valencia, Singapore, Hungaroring.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 12:05.


#103 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:03

Bingo, that and the fact that drivers block-n-chop and the tracks are stuffed with chicanes and single file sectors.


but the differences between the teams in 2010 will definitely increase, which means more overtaking again
(i know it's not related to refuelling/ban)

#104 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:06

but the differences between the teams in 2010 will definitely increase, which means more overtaking again
(i know it's not related to refuelling/ban)




Only at the back of the grid, if anything.

#105 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:10

Only at the back of the grid, if anything.


of course, but your charts include the whole field, not just the front runners

#106 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:14

No they don't.
These figures do not include positions gained in the pits, position changes on the first lap of the race, lapping slow cars, or gained when a car has a serious technical problem (e.g. puncture, accident damage etc.)


That's a misquote. The source, cliptheapex.com, does not say it excludes lapping. It says "These figures do not include positions gained in the pits, position changes on the first lap of the race, or gained when a car has a serious technical problem (e.g. puncture, accident damage etc.) ".

So it's quite doubtful how valid those overtaking charts are.

Edited by undersquare, 22 December 2009 - 12:15.


#107 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:25

That's a misquote. The source, cliptheapex.com, does not say it excludes lapping. It says "These figures do not include positions gained in the pits, position changes on the first lap of the race, or gained when a car has a serious technical problem (e.g. puncture, accident damage etc.) ".

So it's quite doubtful how valid those overtaking charts are.




http://www.cliptheap...b7761c22e885abb

The overtaking figures for each race do not include:

* Position changes on the first lap of the race
* Position changes due to drivers lapping backmarkers
* Positions gained in the pits
* Positions gained when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc.



The charts are quite valid.
You're simply in denial.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 12:27.


#108 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:34

http://www.cliptheap...b7761c22e885abb

The overtaking figures for each race do not include:

* Position changes on the first lap of the race
* Position changes due to drivers lapping backmarkers
* Positions gained in the pits
* Positions gained when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc.

The charts are quite valid.
You're simply in denial.


No if the evidence is there I'm happy to accept it. They didn't say that in the place I looked that's all.

Still doesn't mean I'm going to join you in your doom and gloom though :p . Things change, often for the better.

#109 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:40

I'm going to be very interested to see if more cars (24 or 26 instead of 20) := more overtaking. Theoretically, it should. It also means that there's more chance of more people 'outperforming' their car's performance in qualifying and vice-versa, which may lead to more overtaking in the race.

#110 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:41

Well you have to remember that those overtaking charts include cars being lapped so it looks worse than it is, with the field being closer now.

For me, watching old races is nostalgic, but modern races are much better. We cherry-pick the best moments from the old races, in reality it was mainly boring with bad coverage, following the leader mindlessly round and round, and what action there was happened off-camera with no replays. There wasn't much background information on the teams and drivers either.

The cars are too fast for the tracks today, and there's way too much downforce, but that can be fixed. If Max had gone sooner and DDD's had been banned, it would be a lot better already.


Not to sound like a nostalgic git or anything but I watched the Hungaroring 89 race that was taped for me as a child. I've seen it before but after watching it again, it made me realise that the Hungaroring was at one point a really good track for overtaking. The track hasn't changed much so what did? The cars. It definitely seemed easier to pass other cars in 1989 than in 2009. The biggest problem with modern cars is that the factors that enable slipstreaming have been restricted by the FIA. Engine rev-limits, engine freezes and a ban on electronics that helped stabilise the car in turbulent air. The tyre war is gone too (hopefully back in 2011 though?)

I don't however take the view of the JPM/Schumacher fans who say that overtaking is entirely down to the driver. It's part of it but the fact is that we have aggressive drivers like Hamilton, Alonso and Button and yet they find overtaking to be extremely difficult. Remember Silverstone this year? Lewis and Fernando were trapped behind a two-second a lap slower BMW (Heidfeld). I think that if Montoya came back he would find overtaking nearly impossible. I also think the same is true if MS makes his return to the cockpit. A driver's aggression can only go so far in producing overtaking manoeuvres.

Anyway, on topic I don't think that refuelling will make much of a difference. The only hope we might have is that some drivers set their cars up for race pace while other set it up for qualifying. That used to produce some overtaking when refuelling was banned.

#111 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:49

I'm going to be very interested to see if more cars (24 or 26 instead of 20) := more overtaking. Theoretically, it should. It also means that there's more chance of more people 'outperforming' their car's performance in qualifying and vice-versa, which may lead to more overtaking in the race.




For how long ?!

Easy come, but I think, easy go
(the new teams) as the song says.

#112 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:50

Bah Mark Webber will still get screwed by the lollie pop man regardless..

#113 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:58

From cliptheapex.com



Posted Image
Posted Image



And BTW in 1983 the was refueling, from 84 to 93 it was banned.
Yet in 83 there was more passing then 96, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93.

So historically, with rule changes, things either stay the same, or more often then not they get worse.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. "




The overtaking figures for each race do not include:

* Position changes on the first lap of the race
* Position changes due to drivers lapping backmarkers
* Positions gained in the pits
* Positions gained when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone made a version of that chart extending back to the 50s or 60s? I'd be very interesting in seeing the figures from the pre-wing era. Of course, with smaller grids, you might have lower peak numbers...


#114 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 13:04

Not to sound like a nostalgic git or anything but I watched the Hungaroring 89 race that was taped for me as a child. I've seen it before but after watching it again, it made me realise that the Hungaroring was at one point a really good track for overtaking. The track hasn't changed much so what did? The cars. It definitely seemed easier to pass other cars in 1989 than in 2009. The biggest problem with modern cars is that the factors that enable slipstreaming have been restricted by the FIA. Engine rev-limits, engine freezes and a ban on electronics that helped stabilise the car in turbulent air. The tyre war is gone too (hopefully back in 2011 though?)

I don't however take the view of the JPM/Schumacher fans who say that overtaking is entirely down to the driver. It's part of it but the fact is that we have aggressive drivers like Hamilton, Alonso and Button and yet they find overtaking to be extremely difficult. Remember Silverstone this year? Lewis and Fernando were trapped behind a two-second a lap slower BMW (Heidfeld). I think that if Montoya came back he would find overtaking nearly impossible. I also think the same is true if MS makes his return to the cockpit. A driver's aggression can only go so far in producing overtaking manoeuvres.

Anyway, on topic I don't think that refuelling will make much of a difference. The only hope we might have is that some drivers set their cars up for race pace while other set it up for qualifying. That used to produce some overtaking when refuelling was banned.


Oh I agree they have to do something. It was a mistake to have the OWG run by aero enthusiasts, putting the fox in charge of the chickens :lol: .

And allowing DDD's as I said. Still it can be done if they set themselves to do it.

On refuelling, well I'm nervous they're going to start the race largely in speed order. Just have to hope the setup and tyre wear factors will be enough.




#115 the9th

the9th
  • Member

  • 1,544 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 22 December 2009 - 13:13

This is not about mere details, its about the whole concept of racing.
Keep it simple, keep it stark, stay away from the fuel rig.
qualifying == on empty tanks
race != from qualifying stints
real overtaking != overtaking because someone's starting his 2nd stint and the other is finishing his first...
Overtaking was not the essence of racing, what really mattered was how many laps of fuel x and y driver had, how did their stints overlap. We had 20 drivers and 20 individual races which, inconveniently, were set a the same time. Maybe 50% racing the other guy. I won't miss refueling.

#116 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 22 December 2009 - 13:16

I agree with all of your points OnyxF1, maybe except the MSC and JPM finding overtaking surprisingly hard - they were here in 2006 when the cars were already hyper aero sensitve. But you point out an important thing a lot of people seem to miss: rev limited engines and such really do kill overtaking as no matter how close cars can follow one another through a corner, overtaking is still going to happen at one, two at most points at the circuit: the heaviest breaking zone so the difference in power and top speed at the straight leading to it is crucial. So it's no wonder overtaking is hard if everyone happily agreed to have engines more or less at the same level of performance.


edit: and yeah, I can't even wrap my head around the idea of DDD not being banned for 2010. After they were legalized for 2009, which was a good move IMO, everyone admitted they do increase the amount of dirty air so eh, WTF?

Edited by wingwalker, 22 December 2009 - 13:19.


#117 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 13:44

I think it just reflects a general laziness on the part of the F1 community. There is no single person interested in the quality of the racing, nor is there any general consensus that things need to be improved. Occasionally an individual in F1 points out the obvious, but there is no collective will to "fix" things, and that's where the problem is...

#118 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 13:45

I agree with all of your points OnyxF1, maybe except the MSC and JPM finding overtaking surprisingly hard - they were here in 2006 when the cars were already hyper aero sensitve. But you point out an important thing a lot of people seem to miss: rev limited engines and such really do kill overtaking as no matter how close cars can follow one another through a corner, overtaking is still going to happen at one, two at most points at the circuit: the heaviest breaking zone so the difference in power and top speed at the straight leading to it is crucial. So it's no wonder overtaking is hard if everyone happily agreed to have engines more or less at the same level of performance.


Oh don't misunderstand me, the way JPM and MSC overtook with those hypersensitive cars was nothing short of amazing, but the cars are even more sensitive now and the effectiveness of slipstreaming has been cut drastically. I think even those two would find it very difficult.

edit: and yeah, I can't even wrap my head around the idea of DDD not being banned for 2010. After they were legalized for 2009, which was a good move IMO, everyone admitted they do increase the amount of dirty air so eh, WTF?


Yep, I'm not sure as to why the DDD has not been banned. In fact I believe there's a "triple diffuser" being developed by a number of teams now, which will make things even worse I'd imagine.

edit: I didn't actually used to think the DDD made much difference until some of the drivers started commenting on the fact that the "DDD cars" were very hard to follow.

Edited by OnyxF1, 22 December 2009 - 13:46.


#119 nir

nir
  • Member

  • 1,185 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:21

The funny thing is that refueling was added to improve racing. Now they are removing it for the same purpose. I remember watching F1 in 91-93. The races in places such as Hungary, Monaco, where you can't over take, were boring. You just had a train of cars behind the leader. Remember Hungary 1992, Mansell had all sorts of problems, then he was after Senna, then he could not overtake him. same goes for Monaco 92. Same goes for Hungary 1991.
The thing is, since then- we have many more circuits where it is hard to overtake. we will not see more overtaking in 2010. It is just going to be more boring. We will have a lot of trains. people think that drivers just don't try hard enough. This is BS - it is just next to impossible to overtake.

There are few reason for lack of overtaking, none of them has to do with refueling.

1) No 1 factor - CIRCUITS.
2) engine freeze - everybody got similar engines.
3) RPM limitation. This kills slitpstreaming. You hit the limiter. The stupidest thing ever.
4) Aerodynamics - lets bring back ground effect - this way grip is less affected when following a car, since downforce that is coming from the bottom - doesn't need clean air.

Advertisement

#120 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:32

I'm not crying.

After 15-20 years (as I watched) of fiddling banning turbos, active suspensions, TC banned - unbanned - banned, slicks - grooves - slicks, aero rules changed again and again, refueling brought back and now banned again, nothing ever got better really.


I'm only saying, face reality.


Posted Image
Posted Image


Those stats are the biggest scam on this forum and everyone knows it. I've debunked them enough already but think what you want to think if it will make you feel better. I agree with the reality check though

#121 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,721 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:47

I wonder howcome people on this forum a) dislike the fact that most overtaking is done through strategic pit stops, and b) dislike the ban on refuelling, too.

the resutl of the ban will be fewer overtaking, even if it was in the pits.
on a race like monaco the winner will be known by the end of saturday

#122 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,497 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 December 2009 - 14:59

the resutl of the ban will be fewer overtaking, even if it was in the pits.
on a race like monaco the winner will be known by the end of saturday

Doesn't make much difference. From P2 is not easy to attack in start, and P3 guy usually is not fast enough. But the lack of fuel ruinage in qualiying will make saturday more exciting.

Actually with reafuelling banned, the strategies will not always be so straightforward, and I think your claim could be incorrect.

Edited by Bianchimont, 22 December 2009 - 15:00.


#123 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:06

The funny thing is that refueling was added to improve racing. Now they are removing it for the same purpose. I remember watching F1 in 91-93. The races in places such as Hungary, Monaco, where you can't over take, were boring. You just had a train of cars behind the leader. Remember Hungary 1992, Mansell had all sorts of problems, then he was after Senna, then he could not overtake him. same goes for Monaco 92. Same goes for Hungary 1991.
The thing is, since then- we have many more circuits where it is hard to overtake. we will not see more overtaking in 2010. It is just going to be more boring. We will have a lot of trains. people think that drivers just don't try hard enough. This is BS - it is just next to impossible to overtake.

There are few reason for lack of overtaking, none of them has to do with refueling.

1) No 1 factor - CIRCUITS.
2) engine freeze - everybody got similar engines.
3) RPM limitation. This kills slitpstreaming. You hit the limiter. The stupidest thing ever.
4) Aerodynamics - lets bring back ground effect - this way grip is less affected when following a car, since downforce that is coming from the bottom - doesn't need clean air.

I'd rather we didn't bring back ground effect, and instead just ripped the wings off the cars entirely. Let them have no more than 500kg of downforce max, and give them bigger slicks (especially at the back). I think that would go a long way to helping the overtaking issue.

#124 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:08

I'd rather we didn't bring back ground effect, and instead just ripped the wings off the cars entirely. Let them have no more than 500kg of downforce max, and give them bigger slicks (especially at the back). I think that would go a long way to helping the overtaking issue.


Why not just watch BTCC. :rolleyes:

#125 Deeq

Deeq
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:16

And BTW in 1983 the was refueling, from 84 to 93 it was banned.
Yet in 83 there was more passing then 96, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93.

So historically, with rule changes, things either stay the same, or more often then not they get worse.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. "


+1 :up: :up: :up:
Abubooring,Barcelona, HungarOhBoooring, SingOhboooring,Valiumcia..and Monaco
with tracks like these...it will be exciting racing. :rolleyes:

Edited by Deeq, 22 December 2009 - 15:17.


#126 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:17

Robracer, because I want to watch good looking open wheel cars, rather than FWD shitboxes from a continent I don't live on?

Is it wrong for me to claim that the emphasis on downforce generation makes for dull racing? I think the evidence is pretty clear that it does, and I don't see how it enhances the spectacle.

Yes, it is against 40 years of design trends, but designs are dictated by the regulatory windown, and always have been, so different rules would produce different designs. And rules eliminating downforce generation as a major part of the design of F1 cars would make for "better" cars I feel.

Edited by juicy sushi, 22 December 2009 - 15:17.


#127 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:17

Doesn't make much difference. From P2 is not easy to attack in start, and P3 guy usually is not fast enough. But the lack of fuel ruinage in qualiying will make saturday more exciting.

Actually with reafuelling banned, the strategies will not always be so straightforward, and I think your claim could be incorrect.




With refueling banned, capped engined and spec tires everyone will end up on the same strategy.

#128 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:18

Robracer, because I want to watch good looking open wheel cars, rather than FWD shitboxes from a continent I don't live on?

Is it wrong for me to claim that the emphasis on downforce generation makes for dull racing? I think the evidence is pretty clear that it does, and I don't see how it enhances the spectacle.

Yes, it is against 40 years of design trends, but designs are dictated by the regulatory windown, and always have been, so different rules would produce different designs. And rules eliminating downforce generation as a major part of the design of F1 cars would make for "better" cars I feel.




Nobody would give a shit about 40 year old open wheel shitboxes made in Britain to be embarrassed by Formula Nippon cars.

#129 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,721 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:22

Doesn't make much difference. From P2 is not easy to attack in start, and P3 guy usually is not fast enough. But the lack of fuel ruinage in qualiying will make saturday more exciting.

Actually with reafuelling banned, the strategies will not always be so straightforward, and I think your claim could be incorrect.

and where would the strategy variation come from..? and what will you be able to do on track and you can't do know?
we've seen in singapore cars being 1.5 sec a lap faster and having trouble making a pass. having them on different fuel loads created part of that difference. now where would you find 2 cars close to each other on the grid with so much gap between them?
sure, a car's handling will change a lot with more fuel so the car in front could be slower...but how much slower?
and guess what, it will get faster as the race goes on because it would use more and more of the fuel...

I don't know what people want from this ban..."great, no more passing in the pits"?
yeah, but it will lead to "great, no more passing at all"

#130 BiH

BiH
  • Member

  • 2,309 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:23

the refueling ban will not help overtaking.

#131 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:30

Nobody would give a shit about 40 year old open wheel shitboxes made in Britain to be embarrassed by Formula Nippon cars.

Would they be embarassed by Formula Nippon? The cars would be slower, but if they were more entertaining, the public wouldn't care. It's not about the fastest lap time, to the audience at home, it's about the most entertaining racing.

I think downforce gets in the way of that.

#132 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:34

Would they be embarassed by Formula Nippon? The cars would be slower, but if they were more entertaining, the public wouldn't care. It's not about the fastest lap time, to the audience at home, it's about the most entertaining racing.

I think downforce gets in the way of that.




If entertainment matters why isn't Superleague Formula or World superbikes or go karts more popular ?!
Yes it would matter, because people expect the best, best cars-teams-drivers witch usually means worse racing.
The old Formula 2 championship and before it the Voiturette racing were know to be more exciting then GP/F1 GP racing but they weren't more or at least as popular.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 15:35.


#133 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:35

Would they be embarassed by Formula Nippon? The cars would be slower, but if they were more entertaining, the public wouldn't care. It's not about the fastest lap time, to the audience at home, it's about the most entertaining racing.

I think downforce gets in the way of that.


Actually cutting downforce has the opposite effect to what you think. After downforce levels were cut in 2005 by raising the height of the front wing, passing became even more difficult. In terms of aero, it is not about cutting downforce per se, but finding ways that the car in front produces a cleaner wake so that not too much downforce is lost when the car behind is attempting to slipstream and overtake.

#134 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:39

The funny thing is that refueling was added to improve racing. Now they are removing it for the same purpose. I remember watching F1 in 91-93. The races in places such as Hungary, Monaco, where you can't over take, were boring. You just had a train of cars behind the leader. Remember Hungary 1992, Mansell had all sorts of problems, then he was after Senna, then he could not overtake him. same goes for Monaco 92. Same goes for Hungary 1991.
The thing is, since then- we have many more circuits where it is hard to overtake. we will not see more overtaking in 2010. It is just going to be more boring. We will have a lot of trains. people think that drivers just don't try hard enough. This is BS - it is just next to impossible to overtake.

There are few reason for lack of overtaking, none of them has to do with refueling.

1) No 1 factor - CIRCUITS.
2) engine freeze - everybody got similar engines.
3) RPM limitation. This kills slitpstreaming. You hit the limiter. The stupidest thing ever.
4) Aerodynamics - lets bring back ground effect - this way grip is less affected when following a car, since downforce that is coming from the bottom - doesn't need clean air.

I dont think tracks are that big of a problem. Even at tracks that are supposedly bad for overtaking, you'll usually see some good action there in the lower classes. I think that pretty much points to the cars as the sole reason overtaking is so difficult nowadays. RPM limit is a concern, I agree. Aerodynamics - yup.

But the point is that there *are* fixable reasons overtaking isn't as good these days. People seem to think that because they've made bad decisions for the past 15-20 years or so, that its never going to be possible to start making some good ones. But I think we're already stepping back into the right direction. Some of the good racing back in the 80's and early 90's certainly had a lot to do with the ban on refueling(just watch GP2 to see that there can be strategy and overtaking without refueling), even if it wasn't the *only* reason.

#135 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:41

If entertainment matters why isn't Superleague Formula or World superbikes or go karts more popular ?!
Yes it would matter, because people expect the best, best cars-teams-drivers witch usually means worse racing.


That's partially true although it also has a lot to do with marketing power. For example A1GP used to produce better racing than F1, particularly when they had the Lola-Zytek package but that series is dead due to its lack of visibility (and incompetent directors). Superleague, Go-Karts and such are small fry in terms of international motorsport and thus cannot compete with the marketing machines of the likes of F1, MotoGP and NASCAR.

#136 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:42

If entertainment matters why isn't Superleague Formula or World superbikes or go karts more popular.

I would argue that comes down to brand recognition. People know what F1 is, it's widely marketed and easily accessible, with personalities and brands they already know and associate with.

Yes it would matter, because people expect the best, best cars-teams-drivers witch usually means worse racing.

Best doesn't mean fastest, so I'm not sure how people expecting the best means that the cars must be terrible at racing each other. Having the best talent (be it design or drivers)does not mean worse racing necessarily, as the most talented teams in other sports do not necessarily put on the worst displays of their respective sports. The rules in F1 are extremely poorly written, and as a result, have created cars which are terrible at racing each other. Throw in some truly awful race tracks and you get a poor product. It's easier to fix cars than tracks, and would make a larger general improvement. I feel removing the dependence on downforce would really fix the "raciness' of the cars, as it is the generation of downforce which makes it hard for cars to follow closely and take advantage of passing opportunities when they emerge.


#137 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:43

Would they be embarassed by Formula Nippon? The cars would be slower, but if they were more entertaining, the public wouldn't care. It's not about the fastest lap time, to the audience at home, it's about the most entertaining racing.

I think downforce gets in the way of that.


Again, why not watch BTCC or WTCC or DTM etc. That is the entertainment, the overtaking, the racing you want. F1 is about the fastest cars on any given track being driven by the best drivers in the world. It hasn't been entertaining in terms of overtaking and racing for years.

#138 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:43

Actually with reafuelling banned, the strategies will not always be so straightforward, and I think your claim could be incorrect.

Right. While it does remove the variable of 'fuel load', it adds more variables in terms of how the car reacts to a weight drop of some 200+kg over a race, and there's still the choices of 1, 2 and 3 stops and whatnot.

#139 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:44

Again, why not watch BTCC or WTCC or DTM etc. That is the entertainment, the overtaking, the racing you want. F1 is about the fastest cars on any given track being driven by the best drivers in the world. It hasn't been entertaining in terms of overtaking and racing for years.

Maybe because some of us *like* F1 and dont think that overtaking and Formula One have to be mutually exclusive? :well:

Advertisement

#140 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:45

Maybe because some of us *like* F1 and dont think that overtaking and Formula One have to be mutually exclusive? :well:


Was I replying to you? :rolleyes:

#141 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,210 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:47

While I wait to see what happens, I do think there will be less overtaking in the race.

Simply because they all at any given time run roughly the same fuel load. That didn't happen in the past few season, where for example one stoppers were racing against 2 stoppers.

I will however continue my little crusade. Disallow the pit to talk with the drivers (except for emergencies, like a car having a terminal problem), and then the race will be on. No more micromanaging and nanny drivers through the race, will do the trick just fine.

#142 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:47

Was I replying to you? :rolleyes:

No, but you were making a comment on a PUBLIC FORUM, weren't you?

If you want to have private conversations, then take use of the PM system.

#143 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:49

Simply because they all at any given time run roughly the same fuel load. That didn't happen in the past few season, where for example one stoppers were racing against 2 stoppers.

Yea, but now we'll have drivers with new tires racing against guys with older tires(will be worth a couple seconds, just like the difference between 1 and 2 stops).


#144 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:49

Actually cutting downforce has the opposite effect to what you think. After downforce levels were cut in 2005 by raising the height of the front wing, passing became even more difficult. In terms of aero, it is not about cutting downforce per se, but finding ways that the car in front produces a cleaner wake so that not too much downforce is lost when the car behind is attempting to slipstream and overtake.

If you have no downforce, then you have no reason to worry about the wake in the first place. Yes, downforce levels were supposed to be cut, but they actually weren't, and the raising of the wing didn't reduce the wake sensitivity of the cars themselves.

I'm not suggesting a small cut, I want the wholesale removel of downforce generation from the car. If the issue is downforce generation is sensitive to wake turbulence from the car in front, then if one stops trying to generate downforce, the issue no longer exists.


#145 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:53

If you have no downforce, then you have no reason to worry about the wake in the first place. Yes, downforce levels were supposed to be cut, but they actually weren't, and the raising of the wing didn't reduce the wake sensitivity of the cars themselves.

I'm not suggesting a small cut, I want the wholesale removel of downforce generation from the car. If the issue is downforce generation is sensitive to wake turbulence from the car in front, then if one stops trying to generate downforce, the issue no longer exists.

They need to have some kind of downforce. There's only so much mechanical grip they can put on the cars while still maintaining 'F1 level' speeds.

And while I think the removal of all wings is a bit too much of a jump to be practical, I do think that the addition of ground effects and more work in simplifying over-body aero(and the diffusers) would go a long way in reducing 'the wake'.

#146 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,497 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:55

With refueling banned, capped engined and spec tires everyone will end up on the same strategy.

I don't think so. When refuelling was allowed, it was the only choice to pit when you are running out of fuel. Or a lap or two earlier. Now there is no such clear pit stop sequence.

Pit stop timing will depend more on how the strategical positions develope during the races, and how the tyre performance is dropping off for each driver. In theory, I think this gives better chances to win from behind, but it depends how the race develops and how tyre performances and tactical game turns out. For example if you are focussing to keep one driver behind, another driver might appear with a strategic window to overtake you both in pits. Also without reafuelling, the car which visited pits will gain more speed and will be able to do overtaking. In the past, taking more fuel pits meant you will become slower, and you cannot overtake anyone, insteady you were ruining races for the lighter drivers.

Someone could take the gamble and pit after first lap, hoping for safety cars. So everyone should then overtake that driver later to finish in front of him.

Edited by Bianchimont, 22 December 2009 - 15:56.


#147 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:56

If you have no downforce, then you have no reason to worry about the wake in the first place. Yes, downforce levels were supposed to be cut, but they actually weren't, and the raising of the wing didn't reduce the wake sensitivity of the cars themselves.

I'm not suggesting a small cut, I want the wholesale removel of downforce generation from the car. If the issue is downforce generation is sensitive to wake turbulence from the car in front, then if one stops trying to generate downforce, the issue no longer exists.




There were boring races even when the cars didn't have any downforce, particularly at Monaco and at the old 'Ring after refueling was banned post 57.
Monaco was always a POS for GP cars/racing (with or downforce) but it was always more fun with voiturettes/F2s/F3s.



#148 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:57

No, but you were making a comment on a PUBLIC FORUM, weren't you?

If you want to have private conversations, then take use of the PM system.


The other guy was moaning about F1 being boring and wanting downforce reduced by removing wings. That is similar to touring car racing. That was the point I was making to this other guy, not you. :wave:

#149 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 15:58

If you have no downforce, then you have no reason to worry about the wake in the first place. Yes, downforce levels were supposed to be cut, but they actually weren't, and the raising of the wing didn't reduce the wake sensitivity of the cars themselves.

I'm not suggesting a small cut, I want the wholesale removel of downforce generation from the car. If the issue is downforce generation is sensitive to wake turbulence from the car in front, then if one stops trying to generate downforce, the issue no longer exists.


The problem is that your solution is not feasible. F1 is the fastest motorsport series and that is how the public views it. If you strip all the downforce aero bits from the car like flip-ups, wings, diffusers (!) and the like you will end up with cars that will be totally uncontrollable and probably slower than a V8 Supercar around a track. No amount of tyre technology or bigger tyres will make up for the tremendous amount of grip lost through the removal of aerodynamically-generated downforce.

And while I think the removal of all wings is a bit too much of a jump to be practical, I do think that the addition of ground effects and more work in simplifying over-body aero(and the diffusers) would go a long way in reducing 'the wake'.


:up:

#150 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,210 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 22 December 2009 - 16:22

Yea, but now we'll have drivers with new tires racing against guys with older tires(will be worth a couple seconds, just like the difference between 1 and 2 stops).

That isn't a given. There are some tracks that certainly favor what you say. Particularly Barcelona, where drivers did often set faster laps after getting new tires, and being fueled up. But this is the exception.

However last year, there wasn't such a huge difference between in and out lap, then what we saw in years before that. And why is that? Slicks, and only one tire provider. The tires are not cutting edge development anymore, What we have seen in 2009 is that tires were sensitive to temperature changes between qualification and the race. And that was intentionally asked by the FiA, to make a stronger challenge. The real effect was that cars that had the setup wrong for race day where nowhere in the race. . I do expect the same scenario to unfold next year, because tires don't seem to change significantly so far for next season. Teams build evolutions of the 2009 cars, optimizing the DD's too, no heavy changes, so ..

the match winner beside setup will IMO be the race strategy again. (Mosley's "racing is like chess" legacy)

But I still hope that the first few races might spring surprises. But I won't hold my breath.

Edited by HP, 22 December 2009 - 16:24.