81 replies to this topic

[uzael]

I've been following F1 off and on for the past 10 years and while passing has never been an overwhelmingly common occurance during a grand prix, it is almost unheard of now. Except at the start and the occasional mistake by another driver, assing only occurs when one car has a huge speed advantage over the other. Take the recent race at the Nurburgring for example. Coulthard chased alonso lap after lap until alonso punted him off course with that shabby brake test, but Schumi caught up to Alonso and would have easily passed him given another lap. No doubt Alonso's car was starting to go off in the waning laps, but it still showed how much faster one car has to be to pass another.

My main question is, are the tracks not condusive to passing, or has F1 evolved technologically to the point where it just shuffles out into roughly the same order every race? If it is a technical reason, what are some of the solutions to fix this problem. What rule changes could be put into effect to tighten things back up? If it is simply down a to matter of money spent, how can it be evened out so that the advantage conferred by huge spending is limited?

[marion5drsn]

There are three reasons for any occurrence where humans are involved, # 1, The wrong reason, # 2, The right reason, & # 3, Of course the real reason.

But of course it is my opinion that the Real and absolute reason is the @!#$%^&*() over use of
AERODYNAMICS
As one other person stated that unless the car wanting to pass has an extraordinarily amount of power over the car in front he is not going to get past. I believe the aero people call this UPWASH or turbulent interference.
Down with all this aero stuff and get rid of diffusers especially! This just happens to interfere with one of my pet theories that the best V-10 is 144-degree block angle! Bring out the trundle carts and send them to the Guillotine (Or the gallows as you prefer). Who needs racing cars that are made to stick to the top of tunnels at 3 or 4 gees? If this was the purpose of racing cars it might be correct but do we need it? I say nay, there are more pressing things like rebuilding the old tracks with better sight lines etcetera. M.L. Anderson

[MaDDim]

marion5drsn is absolutely right. Aerodynamics is the reason why there is so little overtaking nowdays. Especially the diffuser. You have two cars with lots of aerodynamic downforce and when the second cames near the first it simply can't get grip of and just stays a little behind in every corner. So to overtake you have to have a lot of straight track and big amount of overpower than the first.
The thing is that most of the tracks are designed many years ago and cannot give this opportunity to anyone because they are small and narrow. Some new tracks (Sepang) are designed for the new F1 cars but there isn't so much that anyone can do to have the same battles as in the past that the cars had more mechanical grip.

[Ben]

Why no passing?

It certainly doesn't help that clean passes like Montoya's are referred to the stewards, why would you risk it? Ralf certainly doesn't. God only knows what they'd be like in a BTCC race (those of you who saw the Rockingham races will know exactly what I mean)

From a technical point of view though, the aerodynamics are a problem.

Ben

[nrp]

Combination of aerodynamics, pit stops and the new scoring system.

The aero has been discussed above (and I agree) ...

Why should a driver risk taking himself off the track when he can just sit behind him and wait for his guys in the pits to do a faster stop than the opponent? Of course, this doesn't happen after the last stop, but the gaps are usually quite big by then, and even when they get close, the new scoring system means it's better to settle for one or two points less.

While I like the idea of taking points down to eighth place, they should have done it by maintaining relative gaps; something like 15-11-8-6-4-3-2-1. That way, it's worth making an attempt on the lead - four more points!

Hmm ... there's a points thread somewhere ... think I'll carry on this post there.

[jgm]

I recall that when Nigel Mansell went off to race in CART in the USA he was very taken with the fact that on some short ovals there was a certain type of banked corner where it was possible to follow a variety of equally fast lines so that if you came up on a slower car you simply went through the corner on a different line and came out in front at the other end of the corner. I think this may have been due to the corner being progressively banked so that the higher you went the faster you could go. There used to be a corner like this on the Mexican GP circuit - the Peralta - where there was a lot of overtaking in (rather than before) the corner even though it was a fast corner. Perhaps there isn't enough overtaking because of unimaginatively designed circuits.

[marion5drsn]

QUOTE FROM MaDDim;
The thing is that most of the tracks are designed many years ago and cannot give this opportunity to anyone because they are small and narrow.
QUOTE FROM uzael;
No doubt Alonso's car was starting to go off in the waning laps, but it still showed how much faster one car has to be to pass another.

The tracks are just not wide enought to make passing very practicable, a point that I missed in my diatribe about !@#$%^&*()_+ Aerodynamics. It is a good thing that some others saw this! M.L. Anderson

[gshevlin]

Reasons:
======

1. Brakes
Current F1 cars are about 5 meters long. The current braking points for medium-speed corners from high speed can be as short as 50 meters from the corner. That means that to pass another car cleanly, the car behind has to be able to make up 10 meters in 50 meters i.e. the car has to have 20% better braking capability than the car in front. The difference between cars is much less than that since braking systems are mature and extremely effective...

2. Transmissions, Traction Control
There are no opportunities to overtake leaving a corner since the driver in front is not going to miss or muff a gearchange, nor is he likely to suffer dramatic wheelspin and be slow leaving the corner.

3. Aerodynamics
Cars cannot follow each other closely for extended periods of time since the loss of front end downforce negatively impacts the handling of the following car. There is a vacuum immediately behind the leading car, and lots of turbulence, both of which rob the following car of downforce.

4. Circuits
The tendency in recent years has been to remove high-speed corners and long straights from circuits and replace them with medium-speed corners and "point and squirt" layouts (Magny-Cours, Barcelona, Hungaroring, new Osterreichring, new Nurgburgring). This inevitably reduces overtaking opportunities.

BTW, the old suggestion of banning carbon-fibre brakes won't work. The FIA paid for Williams to test metal brakes in 1997, and the team found that the braking distances were not significantly greater, due to new metallic braking materials. The main reason F1 cars use carbon brakes is to reduce unsprung weight.

[Carsten]

Was there more overtaking in the ground-effects days of the late '80s and early '90s? I don't know.

My guess is that the aerodynamic influence was even more pronouced, but (as the previous poster explained) the longer braking distances and lack of TC control allowed for more driver error.

I am too young for that era, so am keen to hear opinions.

[Ross Stonefeld]

1. The grid is too competive. Even a second a lap spread out over a 90 second 15 turn track isnt a huge margin

2. The drivers dont make mistakes

3. The straights arent long enough (elapsed time wise) for slipstreaming to play out

4. The brake zones are so short you cant outbrake a guy unless you're alongside him evenly.

5. The aero turbulence makes it all but impossible to get close enough to even ram the guy.

[masterhit]

Also F1 cars are a lot lighter these days. This is a significant point - if they raised the minimum weight limit enough, it would take far longer for an F1 car to stop than at present.

[marion5drsn]

After reading and rereading this column I am beginning to wonder if the Aerodynamicists are deliberately designing into the cars aero turbulences ?
M.L. Anderson

[alexbiker]

No need at all to do that - were there no deliberate aero at all on a GP car, there would still be great turbulence behind it - force any sizeable object through the air, and it will have wake turbulence. Then take one that deliberately uses the air, throws out massive quantities of heated air, and pitches, rolls and yaws, you have more than enough aero problems. As it stands, I'm surprised the cars are as insensitive as they are to following another.

Also, turbulent flow increases drag exponentially over laminar flow, so deliberately inducing it would destroy the lift/drag ratio, and then you wouldn't have to worry about the following cars - you'd be last on the grid.

Alex

[Peter Morley]

One reason for no overtaking is lack of incentive to do so.

If the cars did not make pitstops, thus ensuring that the only way of gaining a place was by overtaking on track, then you can be sure that the teams would find an alternative design that enabled the cars to overtake (whether that be completely different aero packaging; different brake materials; making the driver change gear, stop the wheels spinning and everything else that used to be called driving).

The cars are designed to go as quick as they can within the parameters of current races, if you obliged them to overtake on track you can be sure that the designers would find a way to do so pretty quickly.

Or give points to less places - why try a risky overtaking move when it is only worth at most 2 extra points.

[stuartbrs]

Well, id say the brakes were the main reason, its just too short a distance these days to try anything really meaningful on the guy in front.

But...

Why should it be easy? These guys are supposedly amongst the best current drivers on earth, who`s to say that with less aero and weaker brakes that it would be any easier to pass a Shuey, or a Montoya, or a Raikkonen. Theres as much skill in keeping someone ( fairly ) behind you as there is in trying to get past in the first place, these guys shouldnt be getting passed all the time.

What was the famous race win Gilles Villeneuve had where he had quite a few cars bottled up behind him in that pig of a ferrari, with far more nimble aero cars with better brakes hanging off his gearbox?

I dont think there should be all this fuss about no-passing in F1, I think with the skill the drivers are required to have that it shouldnt be easy to get past purely from a human point of view, aero or no aero.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by stuartbrs

What was the famous race win Gilles Villeneuve had where he had quite a few cars bottled up behind him in that pig of a ferrari, with far more nimble aero cars with better brakes hanging off his gearbox?

How come when Villeneuve did that everyone says he was the greatest driver ever etc. and when Boutsen did exactly the same everyone blames the car/circuit/sponsors etc. - anything but give a reasonable driver some credit?

Thinking about the braking distances:

Sometime ago Williams said they had tested steel (at least some kind of steel alloy) brakes and found that the braking distances were about the same as carbon (in fact I think they even suggested they could have been shorter). Of course this did sound like bo££ocks.....

[desmo]

Here's a bit from an old Racetech on Ferodo's dabbling with iron rotors in F1 with Williams:

"Compared to C-C, according to Ferodo's dyno tests, it offered a higher mu value [friction coefficient] on the first lap and a 'competitive' mu value further into the race.

"The first track test of DS4000 with Williams took place at Monza in May 1999. Testing continued for three months at Monza and Silverstone and then Alex Zanardi used DS4000 in practice and qualifying for the German GP at Hockenheim.

"Willars reports that DS4000, as the dyno suggested, 'worked very well from the first corner' and also offers that it exhibited 'very nice initial bite'. He says: 'We are not claiming it was better overall than C-C. We are saying it had better initial mu readings and better peak readings'.

"Willars says that DS4000 generated less friction material drag than C-C. 'Our pads and cast iron discs behave in the conventional physical way, by contracting when they cool. Carbon material can expand as it cools. Carbon brakes have a fair amount of drag and the F1 caliper manufacturers put a lot of effort into techniques for pulling the pads off the disc'.

"Since the cast iron disc operates at significantly lower peak temperatures than its C-C counterpart, there is potential gain in terms of overall aero of the car. In particular, the provision of cooling air for the front brakes plays a key role in the overall aero performance of an F1 car."

In sum, it is IMO a questionable at best proposition to assert that mandating ferrous brakes would lead to any significant increase in braking zones/distances. The idea of mandating ferrous brakes nevertheless seems to be bandied about frequently as a panacea for enabling passing under braking.

[wawawa]

How would it be if the FIA mandated a maximum degree of downforce, i.e. the car must not weigh more than 600 + x kg. at any time on track.

This won't reduce innovation, since designers will have to find the most efficient way of generating (at most) x kg. of downforce.

Also, by tinkering with x, the FIA could reduce speeds in a clean manner whenever they felt they were getting out of hand.

If they kept the aero-dependence very low, this should permit cars to follow each other more closely, don't you think?

[MaDDim]

Originally posted by Peter Morley

If the cars did not make pitstops, thus ensuring that the only way of gaining a place was by overtaking on track, then you can be sure that the teams would find an alternative design that enabled the cars to overtake (whether that be completely different aero packaging; different brake materials; making the driver change gear, stop the wheels spinning and everything else that used to be called driving).

The cars are designed to go as quick as they can within the parameters of current races, if you obliged them to overtake on track you can be sure that the designers would find a way to do so pretty quickly.

Well pointed Peter!!!!That's the spirit. I am with you 200%

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Peter Morley
One reason for no overtaking is lack of incentive to do so.

If the cars did not make pitstops, thus ensuring that the only way of gaining a place was by overtaking on track, then you can be sure that the teams would find an alternative design that enabled the cars to overtake (whether that be completely different aero packaging; different brake materials; making the driver change gear, stop the wheels spinning and everything else that used to be called driving).

The cars are designed to go as quick as they can within the parameters of current races, if you obliged them to overtake on track you can be sure that the designers would find a way to do so pretty quickly.

Or give points to less places - why try a risky overtaking move when it is only worth at most 2 extra points.

But even a guy on a strategy involving more stops, who is *desperate* to get by so he can make his strategy work; isnt getting or taking a lot of chances.

[desmo]

Originally posted by wawawa
How would it be if the FIA mandated a maximum degree of downforce, i.e. the car must not weigh more than 600 + x kg. at any time on track.

This won't reduce innovation, since designers will have to find the most efficient way of generating (at most) x kg. of downforce.

Also, by tinkering with x, the FIA could reduce speeds in a clean manner whenever they felt they were getting out of hand.

If they kept the aero-dependence very low, this should permit cars to follow each other more closely, don't you think?

There are ways of limiting aero downforce that are actually possible to scrutineer don't forget. And to maximise fairness and overall competitiveness, rule stability not a rule that encourages constant changes subject to political pressures and the whims of the governing body should be the goal.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Thats one of the things I really like about F1. They generally tend to leave things alone. If they think its getting out of hand they make (usually big) rules changes, then give it a few seasons to see how it plays out. Series like NASCAR and CART and IRL have their place where they are 'works in progress' and its nice to have series that cater more towards the spectacle, but I really appreciate that F1 lays out the rules and then encourages the teams to beat the crap out of each other.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by desmo
There are ways of limiting aero downforce that are actually possible to scrutineer don't forget.

Umm.. Not sure what you mean here Are you saying that teams can get past the limit during scrutineering? I suppose so, but I was thinking more in terms of something like a standardized sensor placed in the suspension to measure the weight of the car on track. Or something else that could be used to measure the car's downforce as it races, not just in parc ferme.

And to maximise fairness and overall competitiveness, rule stability not a rule that encourages constant changes subject to political pressures and the whims of the governing body should be the goal.

Absolutely agree, but firstly I'm not suggesting that they should change it frequently, and secondly, at least this is a uniform sort of rule change, not something like "this year we'll change the wing limits, next year the tyres, next year the engine..." etc.

[desmo]

I assume you are thinking of something like using strain gauges on the suspension pushrods linked to a data logging system. I doubt that such a system could be devised with the reliability and accuracy necessary to DQ an entrant. I think it would make TC seem by comparison a simple thing to scrutineer. More to the point why go that route when a simple to scrutineer limit of bodywork plan area and number of wing elements in conjunction with the current stepped floor underbody regs could accomplish essentially the same purpose? When writing regulations simplicity is a cardinal virtue.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by desmo
I assume you are thinking of something like using strain gauges on the suspension pushrods linked to a data logging system. I doubt that such a system could be devised with the reliability and accuracy necessary to DQ an entrant. I think it would make TC seem by comparison a simple thing to scrutineer. More to the point why go that route when a simple to scrutineer limit of bodywork plan area and number of wing elements in conjunction with the current stepped floor underbody regs could accomplish essentially the same purpose? When writing regulations simplicity is a cardinal virtue.

Fair enough

[carbsmith2]

They haven't gotten lighter-the 312T3 weighed 600kg, and was overweight. Heck, they where 35cm wider back then too! Actually, it wasn't that easy to pass then. Just easy to mess up and leave a huge opening. Aerodynamics do it. They managed to get rid of the slipstreaming and mess up the downforce though. That must have taken some effort! Maybe a lower diffuser would keep more air on the front wing?

[RTH]

Many of the excellent points made above have been blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer now for literally decades.

It appears sadly we will get no meaningful regulation change from the present regime until there is a major high profile fatality or a car goes in to the crowd - then tabloid and TV news media pressure will bring about wholesale car changes to reduce both engine power and cornering speed - hopefully with the complete removal of all aero downforce generating surfaces to the benefit of cost,safety,and spectacle

[masterhit]

Originally posted by carbsmith2
They haven't gotten lighter-the 312T3 weighed 600kg, and was overweight. Heck, they where 35cm wider back then too! Actually, it wasn't that easy to pass then. Just easy to mess up and leave a huge opening. Aerodynamics do it. They managed to get rid of the slipstreaming and mess up the downforce though. That must have taken some effort! Maybe a lower diffuser would keep more air on the front wing?

Ah, that's my theory stumped then!

Inceasing the minimum weight would mean more inertia due to greater mass, but somebody will probably say that the aero effect is too great for it to be noticable, given how much downforce is generated.

Anyone have any formulae from a given era that illustrates how much downforce is generated from an f1 car from recent seasons on a given track at a given speed?

[RTH]

Originally posted by masterhit


Ah, that's my theory stumped then!

Inceasing the minimum weight would mean more inertia due to greater mass, but somebody will probably say that the aero effect is too great for it to be noticable, given how much downforce is generated.

Anyone have any formulae from a given era that illustrates how much downforce is generated from an f1 car from recent seasons on a given track at a given speed?

I have seen figures of 1500kg @ 200mph quoted in technical journals for recent cars

[gshevlin]

If you want to greatly reduce downforce, then you should eliminate or severely reduce front and rear wing sizes. However, in the current economic climate this will not happen. since those objects are a significant part of the car's advertising space. Additionally, reducing wing sizes without reducing horsepower will make the cars much faster in a straight line, which will certainly freak out the insurance companies...

[marion5drsn]

Quote from gshevlin;

If you want to greatly reduce down force, then you should eliminate or severely reduce front and rear wing sizes. However, in the current economic climate this will not happen. Since those objects are a significant part of the car's advertising space. Additionally, reducing wing sizes without reducing horsepower will make the cars much faster in a straight line, which will certainly freak out the insurance companies.

Answer from M.L. Anderson;
Much of the down force does not come just from the wings but from the Diffuser and other places that are too small to be used by the advertising group, altho I must admit that they can find some of the most peculiar spaces to do their placement of advertising. It is getting to the place where the placing of advertisements is the function of the aero group. This more so than the genuine placement of aero effective devices. It makes one wonder if they are aerodynamicists or just hacks of the Sales Group !
I can even remember when the Euros used to make fun of the Americans when they put ads on the car but now they are worse than we! Yours, M.L. Anderson

[Schummy]

Lots the reasons preventing overtakeas have been said here, particularly the Aero-devil thing.

Another thing that can have an effect is modern tires. Firstly by reducing brake distances and helping traction (preventing spins). Although it has a positive side increasing "mechanical" (non aero) grip. Secondly, radial tires are usually less forgiving than older crossply type tires, and then cars has to run "on rails", penalizing forcing manouvres. People who has raced those two types of tires can tell better than me about this.

Obviously, driver aids are against oportunistic overtakes (preventing driver errors)

My fav "solution" would be: no driver aids (and gear lever mandatory), much less aero allowed, new rules about tire types (more forgiving ones), increased weight limit (probably with a modular measureness of the weight by zones of the car).

(PS: I know that claiming all those "solutions" is silly, nowadays, but anyway...)

[smithy]

Originally posted by gshevlin
Reasons:
======

1. Brakes
Current F1 cars are about 5 meters long. The current braking points for medium-speed corners from high speed can be as short as 50 meters from the corner. That means that to pass another car cleanly, the car behind has to be able to make up 10 meters in 50 meters i.e. the car has to have 20% better braking capability than the car in front. The difference between cars is much less than that since braking systems are mature and extremely effective...

.....

BTW, the old suggestion of banning carbon-fibre brakes won't work. The FIA paid for Williams to test metal brakes in 1997, and the team found that the braking distances were not significantly greater, due to new metallic braking materials. The main reason F1 cars use carbon brakes is to reduce unsprung weight.

If you look at MotoGP, the braking distances by comparison are huge. For example, at Catalunya the cars brake for Turn 1 at allegedly 80 meters. The MotoGP bikes are braking w-a-a-a-y before the blend line. Does anyone know exactly how far back the blend line is?

Also at Turn 4 (I think - the right hander as the track turns back on itself) the cars are braking as they cross under the bridge and again the bikes brake a long way back - my guess about 100 meters further back.

Funnily enough, we get lots of passing in MotoGP.

SBK is going to Magny-Cours this season - we'll get another comparison of braking distances. The cars were braking at 150 meters for the Adelaide hairpin. It will be interesting to see how far back Hodgson & co need to throw out the anchors.

[Schummy]

smithy brings an interesting point mentioning MotoGP (and motorbike racing in general). It is a subtle thing that goes against overtaking, and it is related to braking and speed in general.

Formula 1 drivers apparently tends to brake guided by some reference point in the tarmac or beside it. I have hear this procedure to some of them (Perez-Sala, Gene, I think de la Rosa). The speed and the shortness of braking zone makes it virtually no possible to simply guess the time to brake estimating the distance to the corner.

According to John Cleland (comparing himself with Warwick in BTCC), in touring cars drivers *can* appreciate that distance visually and, thus, can adjust to any different conditions could happen (other drivers, weather, tires, car damage, etc). I think in motorbike it must be like in TC (relatively long braking zone, and brakes applied progressively, no in a "on-off" way).

In motorbikes, a rider following another seems to have an advantage taking him as a "reference" to precise the manoeuvre (I hear it many times in FIM GPs commentary). This produce a "slingshot" effect: the rider behind has an advatage and can overtake the rider in front, who, eventually will be in advantage when he is overtook, and will can regain the position, etc. It is to say, two riders who run at moderate distance, tends to be "attracted" to form a group, and , when it is formed, it is not easy to escape from it.

The reverse situation arise in F1: when a driver closes on another driver, aero effects makes slower the driver behind (and, comparatively, faster the driver in front). The effect is a "repulsive" effect that tends to separate two cars if they are becoming too close. It needs a "great energy" to overcome this "barrier". When the (considerably) faster car can overtake, the surpassed car is against this same barrier, preventing it to fight for regaiinig the position.

In short, motorbike racing apparently tends to form groups, meanwhile F1 tends to make "barriers" (lonely cars, or trains of cars following a slower one, without any chance to overtake).

[JwS]

I don't think it is as complex as all that, with a given width of track, bikes have more options of different lines through a corner. In addition, since there is no downforce generated, there is no penalty to riding in the wake of another bike.
Some drivers use conscious reference points for braking etc, some don't, depends on the driver. Assuming two very good drivers/riders you can't judge your line based on the guy in front, unless you just want to follow him, you have to ride your own line.
There is a psychological advantage to being behind, you can see where you are faster than the other guy and push yourself to catch up. Alot of people have more trouble leading because you have to push yourself to the limit without a 'target'. The good guys can do this. (all F1 drivers)
JwS

[marion5drsn]

Quotw from JwS
There is a psychological advantage to being behind, you can see where you are faster than the other guy and push yourself to catch up. Alot of people have more trouble leading because you have to push yourself to the limit without a 'target'. The good guys can do this. (all F1 drivers)

I have noticed this myself and wondered about this fact but no one until now has said anything about it. Altho I believe that it is just as true in F-1 as anywhere else. Notice how many drivers are good qualifiers but don't seem to change their pace in the race. While others run faster in the race itself. It is much easier to pace oneself against the people in front of you even if they are slightly slower. Psychologically it seems to be so! M.L. Anderson

[masterhit]

I think it is worth noting that comparing Moto GP bikes to cars is a bit of a waste of time. A motorcycle will not generate anything like the level of downforce of an F1 car, plus AP have been using carbon brakes in Moto GP since Wayne Rainey in '88.

There's way more downforce up for grabs with current F1 designs in comparison to current Moto GP designs and that affects braking.

If an F1 car is producing downforce equivalent to 250 percent of its own weight,that downforce acts as a brake, shortening braking distances, and I cannot see how any major changes will improve overtaking for anything other than short term as the sheer numbers are too big for an aero guy to resist regardless of rules.

It's like Examination boards - each year they try to make things harder, but the numbers still go up year after year. Anytime they get a reduction it's a serious achievement. Because every year people have access to more information than the previous year, so the growth is cumulative

Interestingly IIRC an F1 car has a drag factor probably four times that of the average road car.
Probably 50 percent of an F1 engine's power is used just to drag an F1 car through the air, so in theory an F1 car could hypothetically do 300 mph, but don't quote those figures as where air exists, so will aerodynamics.

There's an idea, maybe Bernie could have a word with NASA in organising an official Formula 1 universe championship, based in space, where air, and therefore aerodynamics, would not be a problem - maybe this is why Ferrari allegedly bought all that specially developed material from NASA............

However F1 cars these days are also designed to go through sequences of fiddly third gear corners, designed to be just the right speed for viewers to see the sponsorship decals without being so slow as to be seen as taking the piss, as this is the norm in modern F1 circuits (third gear corners, that is. As if those involved in F1 could ever be accused of taking the piss!)

I hate to say it, but the only time that we fans consciously notice sponsorship logos in the first place is when we are bored while our beloved car is stationary in the pits, the rest of the time we are imagining ourselves as the driver in the car, the logos mean feck all as we are racing.

[Scoots]

MotoGP uses carbon brakes.

Non carbon brakes do not fail the same way as carbon brakes do, so if maximum brake sizes were specified that were smaller than the current carbon brakes the concept of a driver "managing" his brakes could come back.

Manual transmissions to improve the likelyhood of driver error might help overtaking, but the teams hate it because it also increases engine failure

Desmo's aero plan is the way to go! Eliminating all aero would make F1 inferior to lesser series in lap times, it'll never happen.

The problem that has not been mentioned yet is that the rules have all evolved along one particular development line so that none of the teams can do anything really revolutionary and with all of the cars performing so similar all over every track the speed differences will necesarily be similarly small and minimize overtaking opportunities. If there was a plan area aero limit, crash test rules and no other rules pertaining to chassis/aero then we would have a formula with some ideas we could see!

[Tracy]

Reduce the swept volume of the brake rotor area by say 20%. Limit the diffuser area by say 20%. Reduce engine size to 2.75 Litres, reduce wing sizes by 10%. Increase car width to 2 meters to increase cross section and hey presto. I know that there is forced stability on the engine front, but can this go on indefinately? 900 bhp is almost at the level of the turbo monsters of the mid eighties in race trim. If this engine reduction thing is all too much of an issue, why not just limit the amount of fuel they can use over a race distance?

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by gshevlin
Reasons:
The main reason F1 cars use carbon brakes is to reduce unsprung weight.

No, number 1 is to reduce accelerated mass.

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Tracy
Reduce the swept volume of the brake rotor area by say 20%. Limit the diffuser area by say 20%. Reduce engine size to 2.75 Litres, reduce wing sizes by 10%. Increase car width to 2 meters to increase cross section and hey presto. I know that there is forced stability on the engine front, but can this go on indefinately? 900 bhp is almost at the level of the turbo monsters of the mid eighties in race trim. If this engine reduction thing is all too much of an issue, why not just limit the amount of fuel they can use over a race distance?

What would happen is that the aero guys would kick up a fuss, make a compromise, the thing would be delayed for a year while they employ a whole bunch of new people to run parallel development and then when the rules are finally introduced the cars will probably be just as fast and just as effective.

The FIA won't spend the money to employ good independent aerodynamicists who could make sure that any new regs have a hope of working before they are introduced.

If aero was affected by that much, in theory they would do 260 down the straights, but in reality they would just apply even higher wing angles and the downforce would still be the same.

If the engine is using 50 percent of its power to pull the wing through the air, the margin is too great for rule changes to have palpable effect.

[JwS]

First, I would say that at max speed 100% of the engine power is being used to overcome drag (aero and mechanical)
As far as I know bikes don't use downforce, it just doesn't work because of variable lean angle etc.
No matter what you do with the regs, the teams will eventually reach similar performance levels, you can make the cars slower, but if they are still being driven on the ragged edge of performance then passing will be difficult, unless one team finds a temporary advantage (ferrari 2002) or the driver keeps screwing up (and shouldnt be driving an F1 car)
Manual transmissions will increase the screwup rate somewhat,
JwS

[JollyRoger]

The reason MotoGP bikes have so much passing is that they can travel so close to each other in the corners.

This is because their grip is reliant mainly on mechanical effects, and not aero, so the person in front of them will not have a huge effect on them, other than creating a slip-stream.

Wings should be made smaller, banned, or made to a standardised design which gives very little effect and just provides advertising space.

[Schummy]

Speaking about a related thing, F1 doesn't needs to be the fastest (over a lap) car to be the main world closed track series. In 70s CanAm acrs were (potentially) faster and nobody doubt F1 was the pinacle. In fact, in 1970 Porsche 917 and Ferrari 512 were probaly faster than F1 cars in super fast circuits (old Spa, maybe old Monza).

This is, they can reduce aero and gemneral perfomance in F1 without losing its status, even if eventually some series could become faster around a lap. After all, LSR cars are positively faster, are not they?;)

[masterhit]

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the chicanes were added to the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans purely because of concerns about tyre blowouts, or whether Bernie and Max found the idea of a sportscar doing 240 mph down the straight rather embarassing in comparison to F1 top speeds at the time, and encouraged safety concerns...

[RTH]

Performance reductions in power, downforce, and driver aids would be part of a program equally cutting all these items in all FIA world catagories thus F1 would still remain the pinacle.

After all none of this is new over the last century............just some of the things once legal now outlawed on cost and safety : -

Unlimited capacity engines, Alcohol fuel, Air Brakes, 4 wheel drive, Superchargers, Turbochargers, 6 wheels, 26" Wide Slicks, Ground Effect, Fancars, Rocket Fuel, Active Suspension, ABS, and much more.

Nasa reseach shows the human brain only has a "safe" exposure to 1.5G Current F1 cars exert between 3 and 4 G through corners maybe 20 times every 90seconds of a lap with spike readings of 8G - worse they have rapid left to right reversals .

The brain has the consisency of a jelly which is being thrown about in a rigid shell. Brain damage is cummulative just as with a Boxer who ends up "Punch Drunk " we still have desperately sad living examples of this in well known ex-champions. For instance Jensen Button took a blow of over 40G in his Monaco crash . For long term health reasons he would have been well advised to have undergone several months recovery period which he may come to regret not doing.

Cornering speeds are unsafe for drivers brains at present - even if they never have any "off's" .This is just one of the reasons why cars need to have their performance and cornering powers curtailed. After all when nobody is allowed to have some performance enhancing item on their car its the same for everybody what does it matter.

The rules need to be framed so that it promotes exciting racing - fighting with the wheel 4 abreast throgh a fast sweeping long corner - but at half the present speed . If you don't believe it go to the Goodwood Revival meeting and see just how exciting racing can be with your own eyes. With a few simple changes to current F1 rules we could watch that sort of spectacle every fortnight.

[Bob Sacremento]

I watched the last race in France so had no commentary I could understand so maybe missed a few things, but to me there was plenty of overtaking, and that was between competetive cars as well.
Before the man on the track, I was settling down to enjoy the usual procession, another and then afterwards I watched some proper overtaking. Maybe it is just that overtaking is easier at Silverstone, but it seems to me that they can overtake if they need to and it is either the tracks that are at fault or that they just wait until a pitstop to overtake, which is what we see at most of the other races.

[MaDDim]

No passing in F1? Well I think... Silverstone last week...was an F1 race ...wasn't it?
I asked and there are rumors that it actually counts for the F1 world championship. You think it is only rumors????????

[mart]

No passing in F1...that's not strictly true, there is quite a lot i fyou look further down the field but one problem is that TV coverage tends to show the front runners where there is more at stake if it goes wrong (& thus a less attractive option!)

Out of all the teams at a Grand Prix, it's the production teams that need to be more on the ball & show us the racing & not the 50plus lap winners parade that the racers follow!!

[Bob Sacremento]

Yes mart, that is also a reason, I get increasingly annoyed by the coeverage especially when you see half a move in the corner of the screen just for the cameras to cut to a pit stop. Someone last year used to post statistic of the number of passing moves ( excluding lap 1) in each race. I was always surprised to see how much there was. and how it hadn't really changed much over recent years.
I also remember hearing or reading, although it may well have been a load of rubbish, that under the concorde agreement, they have to show a certain number of hours of the teams depending on their position.