Jump to content


Photo

F1 designers call for track changes


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:01

I just came across an article regarding the lack of overtaking in F1 that I thought was very interesting.

In the article both Adrian Newey and Sam Michael say that the circuit design is a major reason for the lack of overtaking in F1.


Some of Newey's comments;

"Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence,”

“Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits.”


Some of Michael's comments;

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,”

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking."

“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all."

“It’s because of the circuit layout – it’s because when they lay out circuits they don’t look closely enough at the combination of slow-speed corners onto straights followed by slow-speed corners."


I agree with both these men. What's your opinion?

Full article;

http://www.itv-f1.co...e.aspx?id=47588

Edited by fastlegs, 04 January 2010 - 18:02.


Advertisement

#2 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:06

The racing's crap because they don't clean the track before the race IMO. Look at Brazil, that was a great race because the track was green.

#3 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,615 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:07

Stop making anymore street circuits!!!

#4 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:09

They need to ask the drivers why there is hardly any racing, not the designers.

#5 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:10

Stop making anymore street circuits!!!


Or if they do, design them with overtaking in mind.

#6 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,695 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:11

Find the circuits that people say are crap, then look at the non F1 racing that takes place.... IMO it's more car than circuit issue. (Of course there is a relationship that could have mutual serving adjustments, but just blaming track design is IMO lazy)

#7 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:13

They need to ask the drivers why there is hardly any racing, not the designers.


IMO, they need to ask both the drivers and car designers.

#8 robracer

robracer
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:13

I think if they really cared about the racing they would've got rid of Monaco decades ago. That is the worst circuit for racing because it is so narrow. And is there really alot of overtaking at Monza? It seemed to me last year that Sutil was stuck behind Kimi lap after lap, but that was probably because of KERS when I think about it.

#9 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:15

IMO it's more car than circuit issue.


Possibly. However, the track design is a close second.

#10 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:20

I think if they really cared about the racing they would've got rid of Monaco decades ago. That is the worst circuit for racing because it is so narrow. And is there really alot of overtaking at Monza? It seemed to me last year that Sutil was stuck behind Kimi lap after lap, but that was probably because of KERS when I think about it.


I'm torn on this one.

I agree with you that it's terrible for overtaking, however, IMO the tradition that Monaco brings to F1 I think makes me want to see it stay.


#11 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 04 January 2010 - 18:30

This is what should be done:

Barcelona: Change the chicane and have the first corner in the final complex as before, but have the chicane leading straight out to the start and finish straight.
Nürburgring: Skip the chicane, and add a ninety-degree turn as final corner.
Hungaroring: Clean up the track better, also abandon meaningless chicane in S2.
Monza: Widen the track by three metres.
Suzuka: Yep, the same.
Abu Dhabi: Remove T5 and T6, just lead the cars straight into the first hairpin.

Those things should make all tracks faster, plus leading to more possibilities to snatch a position.

Edited by jeze, 04 January 2010 - 18:30.


#12 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,489 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 04 January 2010 - 19:02

They have been designing the tracks for overtaking for a decade, and it's never really solved the problem. All we got was a bunch of shit tracks.

#13 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 20:12

Well Well Well Captain Tightpants big fan of modern tracks who always blames the cars for lack of overtaking, what do you say about that

"Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence,”

“Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits.”


Some of Michael's comments;

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,”

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking."

“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all."

Edited by Kucki, 04 January 2010 - 20:15.


#14 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2010 - 20:20

IMO, they need to bring back the high speed corners and get rid of the abundance of 2nd - 3rd gear chicane-type corners. There's too much cut and thrust type of racing and that makes it very difficult to pass. Somehow, bravery needs to be rewarded like it used to. Again, just my .02 cents.



#15 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2010 - 20:22

I'm torn on this one.

I agree with you that it's terrible for overtaking, however, IMO the tradition that Monaco brings to F1 I think makes me want to see it stay.


I agree. The commercial aspect & glamour of Monaco is too important for them to drop it off the calendar, IMO.

#16 Lukin83

Lukin83
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2010 - 20:27

IMO, they need to bring back the high speed corners and get rid of the abundance of 2nd - 3rd gear chicane-type corners. There's too much cut and thrust type of racing and that makes it very difficult to pass. Somehow, bravery needs to be rewarded like it used to. Again, just my .02 cents.


Silverstone is all about high speed corners and that was one of the dullest race last season.


#17 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2010 - 20:44

Silverstone is all about high speed corners and that was one of the dullest race last season.


You are kidding, right? Silverstone is a lot slower than it used to be. The fast & brave corners that used to separate the top drivers are no longer there.

Edited by 911, 04 January 2010 - 20:45.


#18 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,489 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 04 January 2010 - 22:26

I've just written a huge article about this.

http://noikeeeonmoto...hael-are-wrong/

Why Newey, Whitmarsh and Sam Michael are wrong

A couple days ago I had read a news article about Sam Michael, Williams’ technical chief, complaining that F1 needs to start focusing on changing the tracks to improve overtaking and forget changing the cars. I thought he was mad, but didn’t bother much with it. Now ITV has put a new piece on their site recovering Sam’s statements and adding new quotes by both Adrian Newey, legendary designer contracted to Red Bull; and Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren’s team principal, that supports him. It’s time to analyse it, and demonstrate why this is a dangerous way of thinking.

Let’s get some quotes then. These are by Sam Michael:

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,” he said.

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking.

“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all.


And these are by Martin:

“You only need to do simple statistical analysis and look at where the overtaking moves are,” he told F1 Racing.

“If, say, we race on 18 circuits with 350 corners, then 90 per cent of overtaking moves in a year would happen at just 10 corners.

“You also have to look at the preceding corner.

“The fact that overtaking is focused on such a small number of corners clearly demonstrates that it’s circuit-dependent.”


All of this is… true and well observed. You do get far more passing in Hockenheim than in Monaco or in the Hungaroring. That much is obvious. The thing is, that has been true since F1 ever existed. It’s always going to be more difficult to pass in tight street circuits with many corners, than in wide circuits full of long straights. Yet, there wasn’t a problem in old F1. At the least-overtaking friendly circuits in the calendar, even if passes were rarer, they were still possible. In fact, old F1 was so much more overtaking friendly, that the Monacos were seen as an unique challenge, instead of as the-circuit-where-things-will-be-even-duller. All of this logic also applies to when comparing other categories against F1, since we have often seen lower formulas pulling great shows where F1 had processions. Unfortunately I don’t have stats for GP2, A1GP, etc, but I do have them for old F1 vs current F1 and it shows that this all isn’t just nostalgia bias, there really was a whole lot more of passing:

Posted Image

Go check the individual tables for each track and you’ll see that in the 80s, Monaco had as much passing as we have now in the most overtaking-friendly tracks, like Bahrain!!! (average of Monaco 1985-1990: 15,7 passes/race; average of Bahrain 2004-2009: 17 passes/race). The better tracks of the time had three times as many. (average of Hermanos Rodriguez 1986-1992: 46,3 passes/race). If this doesn’t show that there is a problem with the current cars, I’m not sure what does. Now there’s a big question on whether it’s physically possible to have cars that overtake as much as the old ones, while lapping as quick as the current ones, but I can’t answer that, and Newey/Whitmarsh/Michael’s arguments aren’t based in that anyway.

Let’s move on to another two quotes by Sam Michael:

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,” he said.

(…) “It’s because of the circuit layout – it’s because when they lay out circuits they don’t look closely enough at the combination of slow-speed corners onto straights followed by slow-speed corners.


On the first quote: Really??? What does he think that Hermann Tilke has been doing for the past decade? Because it seems pretty clear to me that the last few 6 or 7 tracks to have entered the F1 calendar, all designed by the german, have all been severely compromised for the sake of overtaking. We have been left with many dull looking, copycats of each-other, utterly uninispiring tracks all full of huge wide straights and hairpins after hairpins, all in the name of improving racing, and yet, although one or two do seem to work a little (Bahrain comes to mind), it’s still not good enough. Some actually backfired, and we have had dreadful races in them. Valencia and Abu Dhabi have been terrible despite hairpins leading into long straights into hairpins, and the last few numbers of the Sepang races have also been poor, despite it being a good layout in theory (and we all remember some pretty fantastic A1GP races there…).

So I am afraid that either changing the tracks for overtaking is a pointless exercise, or that they have been doing it wrong. Or maybe a bit of both. Maybe they should look at the fact that holding races in the middle of the desert or in the middle of an industrial park is a bad idea as the track will be super dirty… or maybe they should realise that hairpin-into-mega-straight-into-hairpin isn’t all there is about it. Back in the 80s/90s there was loads of passing in the corner at the end of the back straight in Jacarepagua, or at the end of the Hangar Straight in Silverstone – both long straights leading into a quick corner, a feature unfortunately rarer and rarer in the F1 calendar. And there seems to be plenty of passing in the hairpin in the modern Hockenheim, despite the fact that the preceding corner is mid-speed. Get rid of this kind of things, and the designers will be so limited that we’ll get a full calendar full of the exact same thing in every track – is this what we want?

Doesn’t it make more sense to change the cars? I’d rather have passing in great, flowing, classical tracks than passing in dreadful tracks, and it’s not terribly more expensive to do it anyway, it’s just that the bill would be for the teams instead of for the circuits – maybe why the teams staff are against it? There just isn’t a great will to do it in that direction any more, apparently. Common sense would dictate for them to have agreed to ban the double diffusers many months ago…


Edited by paranoik0, 04 January 2010 - 22:26.


#19 nada12

nada12
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 04 January 2010 - 22:45

They have been designing the tracks for overtaking for a decade, and it's never really solved the problem. All we got was a bunch of shit tracks.

This. Absolutely. Are they blind or something? Good article, too :up:

Advertisement

#20 santori

santori
  • Member

  • 3,912 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:01

I've just written a huge article about this.


Good article. I agree. I tried to think of a way in which circuit design might be said to have not 'really been addressed at all' but I couldn't. I mean, I'd like to think that they meant something about.... the camber of corners? The material? I don't know. Something from their years of experience. But it doesn't look like they did.

Edited p.s. : To be fair, a small part of the decline in overtaking is because of a general rise in standards.

Edited by santori, 04 January 2010 - 23:07.


#21 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:06

Good post Paranoik. The fact is that, with 2009 F1 cars, it is almost impossible to pass at any of the circuits on the calendar. The car regulations are to fault, not the circuits.

#22 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:21

Good article. I agree. I tried to think of a way in which circuit design might be said to have not 'really been addressed at all' but I couldn't. I mean, I'd like to think that they meant something about.... the camber of corners? The material? I don't know. Something from their years of experience. But it doesn't look like they did.

Edited p.s. : To be fair, a small part of the decline in overtaking is because of a general rise in standards.




I'd say a big part. Plus the spec-ing, The decline of cheating also would play a part.

You need a tire, electronics and engine war, not BS on driver skills

Edited by DOF_power, 04 January 2010 - 23:26.


#23 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:30

You are kidding, right? Silverstone is a lot slower than it used to be. The fast & brave corners that used to separate the top drivers are no longer there.

I didn't see Senna destroying Mansell or Prost at Silverstone in 1990 when it was full of fast corners, are you saying that they're better drivers than Senna?

#24 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:32

Thanks for the great article Paranoik!

Ironic how the "Overtaking Working Group" changes resulted in the 3rd worst year on record for overtaking!! Though perhaps the Double Diffuser had something to do with that.

#25 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:33

I don't see how the circuits can be hanged. We tried having fast bends and long straights like Magny-Cours and Catalunya, and there was no passing. We've tried fast straights with sharp bends at the end, like Bahrain, and still nothing happened. Long straights and sharp bends are nothing new to circuit design - there's at least four examples of it on the Nurburbgring Nordschleife (Aremburg, Adenaur-Forst, Mutkurve and at the end of Dottinger-Hohe), and that was built nearly a century ago.

Aerodynamics is the problem. And aerodynamicists are partially to blame. Of course they'll say it's a problem with the circuits, because with the dependence upon aerodynamic grip, they'll do whatever they have to do in order to keep as much of it as possible and remain competitive. Besides, it's probably cheaper - and certainly far easier - to change the cars than it is to change the circuits.

#26 pred

pred
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:34

I dont expect any solutions in the next decade.

#27 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,695 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2010 - 23:34

Thing is cars change year on year (F1), circuits don't (much). A colaboration between FiA and circuit owners concerning new rules each year would help. Expensive job though. Freeze F1 design (not F1) or keep track owners up to spec (expensive for everyone). It's one of those balances that top level motorsport is constantly facing. I say (or hope) that those that can do something are trying their best. We just have to accept what we get. It will get better (have faith), if we don't like it we'll watch something else, and they know that. To be fair it's not that bad, and I trust those in control to eventually get the balance. (BTW those graphs IMO don't mean s**t)

#28 jez6363

jez6363
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:04

The tracks do need to change - but it doesn't have to mean wholesale redesign. What you actually need is a more complex set of variations of racing line, and more opportunities for the drivers to use their skill to get best braking, cornering and traction.

So what you need to do is have a much wider racing line, and prevent the track being made into a single track road by tyre marbles.

I would like to see some serious work done on ways of changing track grip near key bends - rubbering in artificially, or putting a form of spraygrip in various patterns to give multiple lines etc. For example, have it so that you could get good braking on approach, but that would put you where you got poor traction on exit, or vice versa - so you give two options to a driver.

I reckon you could even improve overtaking at Monaco with this sort of approach, and also move some emphasis back onto driver skill, rather than it being dominated by car performance.

#29 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,211 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:18

First of all, at the same tracks lower formulas and other racing series produce races where overtaking is more common.

Secondly, if they start thinker with the tracks, F1 will become even more boring. Same loohing tracks, same cars, same BS excuses.

A bit extreme, but I hope you get the idea: Why not just build ovals and be done with it?

Less than a decade ago, there was the understanding, that different tracks pose different challenges. I'm not against track changes per se however, but we already know that Tilke tried to create tracks that provide overtaking opportunities for F1. And if the newest tracks that were built with modern F1 in mind, don't produce a spectacle, then how can it be a track problem?


#30 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:23

I don't see how the circuits can be hanged. We tried having fast bends and long straights like Magny-Cours and Catalunya, and there was no passing. We've tried fast straights with sharp bends at the end, like Bahrain, and still nothing happened. Long straights and sharp bends are nothing new to circuit design - there's at least four examples of it on the Nurburbgring Nordschleife (Aremburg, Adenaur-Forst, Mutkurve and at the end of Dottinger-Hohe), and that was built nearly a century ago.


If the new circuits cant be blamed, then why is it that we saw much more overtakings and exciting close racing year after year at Magny Cours, Montreal, Monza, Spa, Interlagos compared to Tilke tracks?

Tilke thinks, a slow hairpin going to a long straight going to another hairpin is the best opportunity for overtakings. But there is non of it while at fast flowing tracks like Interlagos or going into Adelaide chicane at Magny Cours there's plenty of overtaking. At these tracks there are fast and difficult corners leading to long straight, yes aero doesn't allow cars to be too close to each other at the exit of those corners, but still the gap between them is closer then if they would accelerate out of a hairpin.

At Tilke tracks, the cars might be close to each other before and at the apex of the first slow corner, but as soon as they accelerate to the straight there's a lake of gap between them, that's why Tilke designs never worked in the past, and tracks with a good flow like Magny Cours or Interlagos which have those medium - fast, difficult corners leading to a long straight designs work so well.

Edited by Kucki, 05 January 2010 - 00:32.


#31 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,666 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:39

id get rid of the first chicane at monza, and if the cars need slowing just tack a handford wing on or something like that. the sheer raw pace and effeciency of the modern cars plays a part

#32 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:58

I didn't see Senna destroying Mansell or Prost at Silverstone in 1990 when it was full of fast corners, are you saying that they're better drivers than Senna?


Did I say that?

What I'm saying is that the circuits that had faster corners, IMO, provided more opportunities for passing because the margin for error taking these fasters corners was much smaller. Now that many of the current GPs have been "chicaned" to death, it makes it a lot more difficult to pass.

Regarding the 1990 British GP, no, Senna did not destroy Mansell or Prost. In fact, Mansell practically owned that place most of the time between 1987 - 1992. However, Senna did soundly beat Alain in the 1988 race when he lapped him in the same car before he dropped out.



#33 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 January 2010 - 00:58

If the new circuits cant be blamed, then why is it that we saw much more overtakings and exciting close racing year after year at Magny Cours, Montreal, Monza, Spa, Interlagos compared to Tilke tracks?

maybe that is more to do with cars being further apart in terms of pace? and the tyre war? and weather conditions? example, i don't remember the 2007 race at spa as anything exciting, neither the 2008 race besides the wet track at the start and finish.

interlagos is nothing like magny cours or spa, which unlike interlagos have very quick long corners

Did I say that?

What I'm saying is that the circuits that had faster corners, IMO, provided more opportunities for passing because the margin for error taking these fasters corners was much smaller. Now that many of the current GPs have been "chicaned" to death, it makes it a lot more difficult to pass.

Regarding the 1990 British GP, no, Senna did not destroy Mansell or Prost. In fact, Mansell practically owned that place most of the time between 1987 - 1992. However, Senna did soundly beat Alain in the 1988 race when he lapped him in the same car before he dropped out.

you implied it

well your opinion is flawed. the amount of grip you have in the faster corners is huge, look at eau rouge for example, taken flat out, you do not see many mistakes there. heavy braking zones have a smaller margin for error than fast corners in modern f1

1990 was a dry race, 1988 was a wet race. are you sure chassis advantage wasn't part of mansell 'owning' the place? well you can either believe that or believe that mansell was 6 tenths of a second quicker than senna at the 87-90 layout of the track.

f1 is about the car, the speed you take through a corner will always be limited to the amount of downforce your car can generate

Edited by craftverk, 05 January 2010 - 01:06.


#34 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 05 January 2010 - 01:01

If the new circuits cant be blamed, then why is it that we saw much more overtakings and exciting close racing year after year at Magny Cours, Montreal, Monza, Spa, Interlagos compared to Tilke tracks?

Tilke thinks, a slow hairpin going to a long straight going to another hairpin is the best opportunity for overtakings. But there is non of it while at fast flowing tracks like Interlagos or going into Adelaide chicane at Magny Cours there's plenty of overtaking. At these tracks there are fast and difficult corners leading to long straight, yes aero doesn't allow cars to be too close to each other at the exit of those corners, but still the gap between them is closer then if they would accelerate out of a hairpin.

At Tilke tracks, the cars might be close to each other before and at the apex of the first slow corner, but as soon as they accelerate to the straight there's a lake of gap between them, that's why Tilke designs never worked in the past, and tracks with a good flow like Magny Cours or Interlagos which have those medium - fast, difficult corners leading to a long straight designs work so well.


I agree. For the most part, this is what I was trying to say in my post, but you did a better job of explaining it. Thanks. :up:

#35 ebeneezer2

ebeneezer2
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 01:19

Nice article paranoik0 :up: In fact, the situation is even worse than the data makes it look, since the rules have been changed in recent years (e.g. qualifying, safety cars) in such a way that cars are out of position more often - that should increase the amount of overtaking, but it's gone down since the early 90s despite that. In fact, if you look at the overtakes on the circuits like Monza, Monaco, Hungary etc that have been holding races for a long time in this table http://www.cliptheap...c...?f=51&t=822 it's abundantly clear that there is far less overtaking now - so clearly the cars have become a problem. I do hope this wasn't the final conclusion of that overtaking conference they held recently, to expect circuits to bend over backwards and spend millions on changes just because they can't build cars that can follow each other.

#36 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 01:27

I think the cars are both easier to change and more at fault. I've said elsewhere what I feel (yank the wings off, lose the downforce and rely on mechanical grip and more horsepower), and I'll leave that at that. The reality is that the rules need to be rewritten to ensure cars can overtaken. It's not impossible, and with some actual study it is able to be done (the 2009 rules were the product of what was described as just a bit of playing around in the simulator), they just need to be serious about going the whole way, and not allowing in interpretations which will affect the spirit of the rules (such as double diffusers).

#37 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,666 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 January 2010 - 01:35

actully the top 10 is more filtered to race pace order with the fuel onboard (all things being equal, which they arent)

#38 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 05 January 2010 - 01:46

maybe that is more to do with cars being further apart in terms of pace? and the tyre war? and weather conditions? example, i don't remember the 2007 race at spa as anything exciting, neither the 2008 race besides the wet track at the start and finish.

interlagos is nothing like magny cours or spa, which unlike interlagos have very quick long corners


you implied it

well your opinion is flawed. the amount of grip you have in the faster corners is huge, look at eau rouge for example, taken flat out, you do not see many mistakes there. heavy braking zones have a smaller margin for error than fast corners in modern f1

1990 was a dry race, 1988 was a wet race. are you sure chassis advantage wasn't part of mansell 'owning' the place? well you can either believe that or believe that mansell was 6 tenths of a second quicker than senna at the 87-90 layout of the track.

f1 is about the car, the speed you take through a corner will always be limited to the amount of downforce your car can generate


Regarding Eau Rouge. You maybe right - not many mistakes made there but if it's not taken correctly, or if drivers don't take it as fast as they should, then that creates a potential passing opportunity along the following straight (Kemmel) and even into the Les Combes' section.

Mansell at Silverstone: Mansell did have a clear chassis advantage in '91 & '92, but not in '87 & '88, yet he still put on incredible performances there.





#39 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 02:14

Tilke thinks, a slow hairpin going to a long straight going to another hairpin is the best opportunity for overtakings. But there is non of it while at fast flowing tracks like Interlagos or going into Adelaide chicane at Magny Cours there's plenty of overtaking. At these tracks there are fast and difficult corners leading to long straight, yes aero doesn't allow cars to be too close to each other at the exit of those corners, but still the gap between them is closer then if they would accelerate out of a hairpin.

Magny-Cours has the Adelaide hairpin at the end of a long straight. Interlagos has the first corner of the Senna-S at the end of another long, fast section. Montreal has long, fast sections going into the top hairping and then down to the Wall of Champions. All of them have long, fast sections with a corner that requires braking - usually heavy braking - in order to take them properly. You claim that it's the preceding corners that create the challenge; well, before the run down to the final hairpin at Sepang, there is a sequence of three corners that are spaced in such a way that the drivers can only ever get two apexes. The final corner in Bahrain is a double-apex right-hander that gets faster before it goes. Before Shanghai's back straight, there's a sharp left that immediately feeds into a long, slightly-banked right hander. At Istanbul, there's the almighty Turn Eight before the straights. And at Abu Dhabi, there's a chicane and a hairpin where the circuit is so wide that the drivers have to move laterally across the circuit to get the apexes more than any other circuit; as for the second overtaking point, the corner before it has negative camber. While some of those corners are slow and others are fast, they do offer some degree of challenge.

Advertisement

#40 PLAYLIFE

PLAYLIFE
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:10

The difference between racing now and back in the 80s/90s is the time differential between competitors. Now the ENTIRE fueld is covered by a mere 1.5 seconds.

Take a look at qualifying at 1986 Brands for instance - over a 1 min 7 lap the difference between first and last is over 11 seconds. At Monza of the same year it was 13 seconds. Hungary nearly 12 seconds.

Add to that the turbo boost, the fuel economy problems drivers had to deal with, lots of mechanical problems, of course there was more overtaking but they weren't all 'genuine' overtakes, the raw numbers don't tell the story properly of yesteryear.

And even into the 90s, the dominating teams would have a large advantage over the rest - 1991 France for instance, over 2.2 seconds covers 1st-7th.

Edited by PLAYLIFE, 05 January 2010 - 05:12.


#41 Monad

Monad
  • Member

  • 399 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:17

They have been designing the tracks for overtaking for a decade, and it's never really solved the problem. All we got was a bunch of shit tracks.


Exactly. :up:


#42 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:21

The difference between racing now and back in the 80s/90s is the time differential between competitors. Now the ENTIRE fueld is covered by a mere 1.5 seconds.

Take a look at qualifying at 1986 Brands for instance - over a 1 min 7 lap the difference between first and last is over 11 seconds. At Monza of the same year it was 13 seconds. Hungary nearly 12 seconds.

Add to that the turbo boost, the fuel economy problems drivers had to deal with, lots of mechanical problems, of course there was more overtaking but they weren't all 'genuine' overtakes, the raw numbers don't tell the story properly of yesteryear.

And even into the 90s, the dominating teams would have a large advantage over the rest - 1991 France for instance, over 2.2 seconds covers 1st-7th.


bingo.


#43 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:45

I just came across an article regarding the lack of overtaking in F1 that I thought was very interesting.

In the article both Adrian Newey and Sam Michael say that the circuit design is a major reason for the lack of overtaking in F1.


Some of Newey's comments;

"Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence,”

“Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits.”


Some of Michael's comments;

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,”

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking."

“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all."

“It’s because of the circuit layout – it’s because when they lay out circuits they don’t look closely enough at the combination of slow-speed corners onto straights followed by slow-speed corners."


I agree with both these men. What's your opinion?

Full article;

http://www.itv-f1.co...e.aspx?id=47588


So basically what they are saying, if a circuit requires downforce , then overtaking is hard. Just get rid of 50% of F1 downforce and they'll overtake more easily on tracks such as Barcelona :stoned:

#44 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 05:48

The difference between racing now and back in the 80s/90s is the time differential between competitors. Now the ENTIRE fueld is covered by a mere 1.5 seconds.

Take a look at qualifying at 1986 Brands for instance - over a 1 min 7 lap the difference between first and last is over 11 seconds. At Monza of the same year it was 13 seconds. Hungary nearly 12 seconds.

Add to that the turbo boost, the fuel economy problems drivers had to deal with, lots of mechanical problems, of course there was more overtaking but they weren't all 'genuine' overtakes, the raw numbers don't tell the story properly of yesteryear.

And even into the 90s, the dominating teams would have a large advantage over the rest - 1991 France for instance, over 2.2 seconds covers 1st-7th.


Indeed.

Kimi started down the grid back in 2005 alot due to penalities from blown Mercedes engines and he always stormed threw the field easily. He even won from 18th position in Japan. It was because Mclaren was alot quicker than most of the other cars :lol:

I believe Kimi once said that your car needs to be 2 seconds faster than the guy in front to overtake him easily? :confused:

#45 Deeq

Deeq
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 05 January 2010 - 06:19

Find the circuits that people say are crap, then look at the non F1 racing that takes place.... IMO it's more car than circuit issue. (Of course there is a relationship that could have mutual serving adjustments, but just blaming track design is IMO lazy)


I agree with you, this is a mere finger-pointing not a serious or nuanced analysis of the situation. If I have to apportion blame for the lack of overtaking looking from the car/track front only it will be 70 : 30 car design fault.

Sam Michael :

“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,”

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking."


What has he been smoking, there are not a lot of overtaking in any F1 race and certainly not in Monza not in a normal/dry race anyway.

#46 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 06:23

I believe Kimi once said that your car needs to be 2 seconds faster than the guy in front to overtake him easily? :confused:

That's why the Overtaking Working Group was formed: to try and get that number down. At the beginning of 2009, the cars only had to be about a second a lap faster inorder to pass someone. They said they could have gotten that number down, but cars are naturally lapping slower when they are fighitng for position, so while you would have had more overtaking, the problem would be that the leader would get away at the start and no-one could catch him because everyone was busy fighting for position. But by the end of the season, the cars were getting more and more aerodyanmic grip, and it's believed that the designers will be able to get more than they could in 2008 by the middle of 2010. An that's why the designers need to be stopped. It has nothing to do with the circuit design and everything to do wih the fact that the designrs are piling on as much aerodynamic grp as they can muster.

#47 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 January 2010 - 12:53

Regarding Eau Rouge. You maybe right - not many mistakes made there but if it's not taken correctly, or if drivers don't take it as fast as they should, then that creates a potential passing opportunity along the following straight (Kemmel) and even into the Les Combes' section.

Mansell at Silverstone: Mansell did have a clear chassis advantage in '91 & '92, but not in '87 & '88, yet he still put on incredible performances there.

i think that goes for any corner, slow or fast, usually drivers have to lift off before eau rouge because of the downforce they lose through there when following a car

not in 87? you sure about that? both williamses lapped the entire field including Senna! what do you think of that? 88 like i said before was a wet race

Edited by craftverk, 05 January 2010 - 12:55.


#48 Aubwi

Aubwi
  • Member

  • 451 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 05 January 2010 - 15:47

If you want close racing, you have to have cars with similar performance. But cars with similar performance do not facilitate passing. It's a fundamental problem in all of motorsport. So it just makes more sense to look at the circuits.

#49 domhnall

domhnall
  • Member

  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 January 2010 - 16:08

Another thing i don't think helps is the relatively slow straight line speeds these days. More straight line speed = more slipstream effect. Back with the v10s when the cars were 20km/h faster than today and without a rev limit you could pick up quite a tow. I'd like to see those engine rules with the current aero regs and see how that works.

#50 Crazy Ninja

Crazy Ninja
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 January 2010 - 16:20

The difference between racing now and back in the 80s/90s is the time differential between competitors. Now the ENTIRE fueld is covered by a mere 1.5 seconds.

Take a look at qualifying at 1986 Brands for instance - over a 1 min 7 lap the difference between first and last is over 11 seconds. At Monza of the same year it was 13 seconds. Hungary nearly 12 seconds.

Add to that the turbo boost, the fuel economy problems drivers had to deal with, lots of mechanical problems, of course there was more overtaking but they weren't all 'genuine' overtakes, the raw numbers don't tell the story properly of yesteryear.

And even into the 90s, the dominating teams would have a large advantage over the rest - 1991 France for instance, over 2.2 seconds covers 1st-7th.


Yep, totally agree. Its not a simple track vs aerodynamics issue. There's plenty of other factors.