Dynamic Roll Over

Downforce Restrictions, Wings And Fins

30 posts in this topic

Strikes me we are loosing the point of F1 to a certain extent.

In order to maximise the viewing enjoyment and the excitement level, we are trying to slow the cars down and improve the overtaking abilities of cars following by limitting the amount of wings and such on the cars. This in turn limits the abilities of the car behind. Its a catch 22 situation.

Surely a suggestion is to rather give the teams carte blanche on wing and fin development and sizing. Rather give the sport a maximum "wake turbulence" that a car is allowed to leave behind it. This will allow the teams to develop the cars to their maximum potential but in turn will force the teams to leave "clean" air behind the car. Thus improving overtaking.

A system could even be implemented whereby should your car leave cleaner air than others, your weight of the car could reduce. Something along those lines...?

Edited by Dynamic Roll Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, a newcomer with an original post of something f1 related! It's been a while since we seen one of those!

Welcome aboard, DRO. As for your post, yes, it's a catch 22 situation. My guess is that, regretfully, there is no simple way to measure the car's turbulence with a certain degree of uniformity as to ensure that every team will be treated more or less fairly. If you just measure the car's turbulence, some team might say that their turbulence is worse, but spreads less, others will say that the turbulence is milder, but it is also caused in layers that are critical for the car behind.

The easiest way to uniformly measure the turbulence capability of a car is, precisely, to focus on the surfaces that cause it.

Again, my guess, is that there is no solution as long as development is so constricted and grip is mostly aerodinamically generated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, and welcome DRO (as you will inevitably be known). I'll leave it to the members (DOF, you there?) who have a better understanding of aerodynamics and such to make a reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikes me we are loosing the point of F1 to a certain extent.

In order to maximise the viewing enjoyment and the excitement level, we are trying to slow the cars down and improve the overtaking abilities of cars following by limitting the amount of wings and such on the cars. This in turn limits the abilities of the car behind. Its a catch 22 situation.

Surely a suggestion is to rather give the teams carte blanche on wing and fin development and sizing. Rather give the sport a maximum "wake turbulence" that a car is allowed to leave behind it. This will allow the teams to develop the cars to their maximum potential but in turn will force the teams to leave "clean" air behind the car. Thus improving overtaking.

A system could even be implemented whereby should your car leave cleaner air than others, your weight of the car could reduce. Something along those lines...?

Welcome aboard DRO!

There is no easy answer to the overtake question but technicaly speaking there are two factor to blame: tracks and the aerodinamic evolution of cars. Since nowadays there are much more aero related grip than before is very important to achieve more mechanical grip in order to improve overtaking. Something like Aero Grip + Mech Grip = Total grip. I think the total grip must be in the same order of today but with a different proportion of both components. And then will come the FIA to screw up everything... so Bernie´s shortcut idea is not so bad... whatever the guy in charge cannot resolve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a problem? Thinking about the past 20+ years of Formula 1, we've not seen any more, or less, overtaking. Problem is, most people's memories of the sport don't go back far enough to consider this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a problem? Thinking about the past 20+ years of Formula 1, we've not seen any more, or less, overtaking. Problem is, most people's memories of the sport don't go back far enough to consider this.

I disagree. It's know that the average ammount of overtakes in a season has been doing down for the past couple of years. Granted, we've had some fantastic races in the space of a decade, but according to the stats, we've been seeing less and less overtaking.

Oh, and welcome to TF1 DRO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's know that the average ammount of overtakes in a season has been doing down for the past couple of years. Granted, we've had some fantastic races in the space of a decade, but according to the stats, we've been seeing less and less overtaking.

I have no clue where to begin with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue where to begin with you.

What about: "Quantity of overtaking manoeuvres are as basal to an F1 spectacle as quantity of captures are to a chess match"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikes me we are loosing the point of F1 to a certain extent.

In order to maximise the viewing enjoyment and the excitement level, we are trying to slow the cars down and improve the overtaking abilities of cars following by limitting the amount of wings and such on the cars. This in turn limits the abilities of the car behind. Its a catch 22 situation.

Surely a suggestion is to rather give the teams carte blanche on wing and fin development and sizing. Rather give the sport a maximum "wake turbulence" that a car is allowed to leave behind it. This will allow the teams to develop the cars to their maximum potential but in turn will force the teams to leave "clean" air behind the car. Thus improving overtaking.

A system could even be implemented whereby should your car leave cleaner air than others, your weight of the car could reduce. Something along those lines...?

Welcome. Yours is a good suggestion imho. The only question is whether it's feasible or not, as Andres (Quiet One) ponders. I don't know the answer to that, but it's a novel idea and worth some aerodynamicists thinking about.

Ahh, a newcomer with an original post of something f1 related! It's been a while since we seen one of those!

Ahh yes, September 2006 at least!

Is there really a problem? Thinking about the past 20+ years of Formula 1, we've not seen any more, or less, overtaking. Problem is, most people's memories of the sport don't go back far enough to consider this.

Right you are Mike. I reckon recent seasons have been pretty exciting.

Edited by Max Mosley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome guys and sorry for my belated response.

On the issue of wake turbulence. Each F1 car is crash tested I assume at an FIA facility. The ruling body and concerned bodies make huge profits from the sport and rules in F1 can be adopted in various other formulas so surely investment in a means of determining wake turbulence would or could be used to police not only just F1. The reason I say this is that surely if the same centre that crash tests the cars, constructs a wind tunnel with measuring systems inside. X number of sensors spread out on a grid behind the car. Y number of grids at fixed distances behind the car. Take a signature with no car in the tunnel. Then take another sample at a certain windspeed which arguably affects passing most. No sensor may exceed a certain deviation from the original signature. That deviation may be a resulting sustained increase or decrease in wind speed or alternately resulting sensors which detect fluctuating wind speeds. I dont know. Maybe each sensor should detect wind speed but also air pressures. There must be guys in white coats that have these answers...

I hear what you are saying about more turbulence spread out over a greater area and in truth, that would be encouraged so that instead of a direct channel of very dirty air that is completely undrivable, one results in a wider area of more drivable air.

Is there or is there not less overtaking? Almost immaterial I reckon. If we have removed all the winglets and changed the sizes of front and read wings in order to promote overtaking, then the same logic applies to my suggestion.

I just believe the fundamental principal must be not to limit development in Formula 1!

That brings up the whole issue of testing limits in Formula 1 which I believe are counter productive. What other sports are there where the ruling body prevents its competitors from doing everything within their power to achieve the highest level of performance? Excluding drugs etc. We dont tell runners that they can only run on Monday to Thursday so that they use fewer pairs of shoes!

I think I will cut it short there and wait for comment. Either that or I will ramble on ...

Thanks guys, DRO!

Edited by Dynamic Roll Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome guys and sorry for my belated response.

On the issue of wake turbulence. Each F1 car is crash tested I assume at an FIA facility. The ruling body and concerned bodies make huge profits from the sport and rules in F1 can be adopted in various other formulas so surely investment in a means of determining wake turbulence would or could be used to police not only just F1. The reason I say this is that surely if the same centre that crash tests the cars, constructs a wind tunnel with measuring systems inside. X number of sensors spread out on a grid behind the car. Y number of grids at fixed distances behind the car. Take a signature with no car in the tunnel. Then take another sample at a certain windspeed which arguably affects passing most. No sensor may exceed a certain deviation from the original signature. That deviation may be a resulting sustained increase or decrease in wind speed or alternately resulting sensors which detect fluctuating wind speeds. I dont know. Maybe each sensor should detect wind speed but also air pressures. There must be guys in white coats that have these answers...

I hear what you are saying about more turbulence spread out over a greater area and in truth, that would be encouraged so that instead of a direct channel of very dirty air that is completely undrivable, one results in a wider area of more drivable air.

Is there or is there not less overtaking? Almost immaterial I reckon. If we have removed all the winglets and changed the sizes of front and read wings in order to promote overtaking, then the same logic applies to my suggestion.

I just believe the fundamental principal must be not to limit development in Formula 1!

That brings up the whole issue of testing limits in Formula 1 which I believe are counter productive. What other sports are there where the ruling body prevents its competitors from doing everything within their power to achieve the highest level of performance? Excluding drugs etc. We dont tell runners that they can only run on Monday to Thursday so that they use fewer pairs of shoes!

I think I will cut it short there and wait for comment. Either that or I will ramble on ...

Thanks guys, DRO!

There's truth in what you say towards the end. Formula 1 should be about pure competition with minimal restrictions....and for a long time it was. Trouble is, the technological Pandora is out of her box and can't be put back in. We've progressed so far technologically that we could, if we so desired, construct cars that would race themselves. We're so far advanced that we must either take that final step or stop and assess what the core of motorsports is.

If we take that step towards ultimate technological freedom, you really must eliminate the driver, then the debate is over and we might as well get on with it. The sport will lose tons of fans, though, and gain only the technologically minded scientist-types that are a clear minority.

If we stop and assess, we will come to realize that the attraction of motorsports is watching a fellow human demonstrate superior car-control skills against competitors while driving very fast. The actual speed doesn't matter, as long there's risk and skill involved. I'd wager that if we held a race with 1960's F1 cars, built to current safety specs, we'd see great racing. There's the rub...you've gone against the perceived spirit of Formula 1 to gain the real spirit of a motor race. Odd how that happens.

What we really need is to eliminate as much aero-grip as we can. Let physics, and a driver's car control, determine how fast a car can go without shunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi another newbie here,

How would this work from track to track with different downforce levels (and drag and turbulence).

Individual drivers choose to run different set ups and different cars also act different ways. How could you measure all possible set ups.

Also would this eliminate aero updates during the year??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't compare the modern F1 scene with anything we've seen in the past. Through the 70s and 80s we saw a totally ongoing evolving F1 car, from 6 wheels, to the first elements of proper aerodynamics. Ground effect with side skirts. Then not just bolting a big wing to push the car down, you had to factor in drag, fuel consumption, etc. Then on to turbo era and to the real professional F1 team and the phasing out of the garagista. In a race then, there would be a huge difference in lap times between the front rows and the midfield/tailenders, making passing relatively easy as there was quite a difference in performance between cars.

Over the last few years we have seen races where 2 seconds separate the pole car and the last car. 2 seconds! over a distance of approx 3-4 miles! The cars are almost identical, the regulations have funneled the modern F1 car into a production line fleet motor.

There's not much room any more for lateral thinking, for unique concepts, it has become staid.

I don't have answers. I wish I did. I just want to see racing.

An F1 car cornering with 4-wheel-drift is just cooool..!!! Old-skool. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just ruined the revelation of my epiphany from last night :( (well, it was a lousy epiphany, anyways)

Last night, I was watching "Lap of the Gods" . It basically is a lap of lots of tracks (mostly the old ones as it is a film from 1992) filmed with an on board camera between the 70's and early 90's. It's a good chance to see a lap by the old glories (Tambay, Jabouille, Prost, Mansell, Andretti, etc.) and some old tracks (Kyalami, Anderstop, Brands Hatch, etc.) too bad they are all just practice laps but still enough to give you a certain feeling of the tracks.

While watching it you could see some of the old legends struggling with their cars more than nowadays rookies, and driving around some very bumpy and often dusty and inadequated tracks. I pictured nowadays cars around those tracks and not one of them would have been considered a "good track with plenty of overtaking opportunities". Yet, these guys did it.

So...what's different? Besides things we commented ad nauseam, I mean. And here comes my lousy epiphany: these guys never drove at 100% the car/driver combination.

Today, most drivers and cars are giving 99.99%. You can see them making very few mistakes (except the rookies, and Piquets). Car failures for over exerting them are something that only happens to a Lewis. The rest just give their best and hopes it's enough. The problem is that that levels the field way too much and leaves no room for differences. A Lewis/Alonso/Kimi can be great, but they can just be a tenth of a second quicker than a Rosberg/Heidfeld/Rubinho which are just a tenth quicker than an Alguersuari. That is why a minor change in the cars can upset the whole field, which is good, but also why they can't overtake each other. No KERS, no minor development can do much.

We need cars that can give a lot more than the drivers can manage. In the old days, even a Prost had troubles keeping his car on track. Tracks were awful (by nowadays hiper perfectionist standards), cars engines were too powerful for the aerodinamics, and drivers were basically riding wild broncos. Today, they are driving comfortable sedans with cruise control (I am just being metaphorical, please!). The drivers still can make a difference but it's too little. It's uncommon to see a guy suddenly make a fast lap out of nowhere. In that regard, Kimi/Massa/Alonso are among the few which I have seen suddenly improving times in noticeable ways. Most others have a lap time which is almost unmodifiable besides a few tenths.

Give them cars that are dangerous to push beyond 80% of their capacity. Make drivers push above that edge and they will have plenty of power/speed to overtake each other. Of course, it will be a compromise between passing the other guy and crashing against a wall. But that's the beauty. Senna could be so much quicker than the rest partly because of the car, but also because he was able to push the car right into the "suicidal" mark. Sometimes he had to achive that with a car that was almost about to loose all grip, or on dusty areas of a track. That whould happen today. Then you would see lots of drifting. Lots of accidents, too. But there are enough safety measures today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still remember TC ban when many of us thought it would help overtaking... I think DOF and some others said overtaking would be even harder and I think it is a bit worse lately. Too many races without a decent fight and 'experts' say it will be even worse next year.

Formula One is boring from a technological point of view and I started watching F1 because of the cars when I was a child. Maybe it's too easy to kid a child so the fan base gets bigger and bigger every year but I'm not too sure about that. I think people are more than ever watching the drivers and not the cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's truth in what you say towards the end. Formula 1 should be about pure competition with minimal restrictions....and for a long time it was. Trouble is, the technological Pandora is out of her box and can't be put back in. We've progressed so far technologically that we could, if we so desired, construct cars that would race themselves. We're so far advanced that we must either take that final step or stop and assess what the core of motorsports is.

If we take that step towards ultimate technological freedom, you really must eliminate the driver, then the debate is over and we might as well get on with it. The sport will lose tons of fans, though, and gain only the technologically minded scientist-types that are a clear minority.

If we stop and assess, we will come to realize that the attraction of motorsports is watching a fellow human demonstrate superior car-control skills against competitors while driving very fast. The actual speed doesn't matter, as long there's risk and skill involved. I'd wager that if we held a race with 1960's F1 cars, built to current safety specs, we'd see great racing. There's the rub...you've gone against the perceived spirit of Formula 1 to gain the real spirit of a motor race. Odd how that happens.

What we really need is to eliminate as much aero-grip as we can. Let physics, and a driver's car control, determine how fast a car can go without shunting.

1] I disagree with "Let physics, and a driver's car control, determine how fast a car can go without shunting".

Motorsport is a team sport, development race, as much as it is an individual sport.

2] There is less passing then before. Quite a lot.

f1_total_passes.png

f1_total_passes_dry.png

As you can see, dry weather overtaking was at an all time lows in 2008 and 2009. The new aero rules did nothing but make the cars more ugly and press the reset button.

And in fact by subtracting the 2009 Brazil race folly witch put the top 3 overtakers back on grid with the right dry weather setup, the 2009 would be the worst season for dry weather passing in F1 recorded history.

3] 1960s cars would not produce better racing on the current circuits with the current drivers.

Because

a] the circuits that produced the best racing no longer exist (in their old form),

b] modern driver block and chop, they are not gentlemen that pull to the right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just ruined the revelation of my epiphany from last night :( (well, it was a lousy epiphany, anyways)

Last night, I was watching "Lap of the Gods" . It basically is a lap of lots of tracks (mostly the old ones as it is a film from 1992) filmed with an on board camera between the 70's and early 90's. It's a good chance to see a lap by the old glories (Tambay, Jabouille, Prost, Mansell, Andretti, etc.) and some old tracks (Kyalami, Anderstop, Brands Hatch, etc.) too bad they are all just practice laps but still enough to give you a certain feeling of the tracks.

While watching it you could see some of the old legends struggling with their cars more than nowadays rookies, and driving around some very bumpy and often dusty and inadequated tracks. I pictured nowadays cars around those tracks and not one of them would have been considered a "good track with plenty of overtaking opportunities". Yet, these guys did it.

So...what's different? Besides things we commented ad nauseam, I mean. And here comes my lousy epiphany: these guys never drove at 100% the car/driver combination.

Today, most drivers and cars are giving 99.99%. You can see them making very few mistakes (except the rookies, and Piquets). Car failures for over exerting them are something that only happens to a Lewis. The rest just give their best and hopes it's enough. The problem is that that levels the field way too much and leaves no room for differences. A Lewis/Alonso/Kimi can be great, but they can just be a tenth of a second quicker than a Rosberg/Heidfeld/Rubinho which are just a tenth quicker than an Alguersuari. That is why a minor change in the cars can upset the whole field, which is good, but also why they can't overtake each other. No KERS, no minor development can do much.

We need cars that can give a lot more than the drivers can manage. In the old days, even a Prost had troubles keeping his car on track. Tracks were awful (by nowadays hiper perfectionist standards), cars engines were too powerful for the aerodinamics, and drivers were basically riding wild broncos. Today, they are driving comfortable sedans with cruise control (I am just being metaphorical, please!). The drivers still can make a difference but it's too little. It's uncommon to see a guy suddenly make a fast lap out of nowhere. In that regard, Kimi/Massa/Alonso are among the few which I have seen suddenly improving times in noticeable ways. Most others have a lap time which is almost unmodifiable besides a few tenths.

Give them cars that are dangerous to push beyond 80% of their capacity. Make drivers push above that edge and they will have plenty of power/speed to overtake each other. Of course, it will be a compromise between passing the other guy and crashing against a wall. But that's the beauty. Senna could be so much quicker than the rest partly because of the car, but also because he was able to push the car right into the "suicidal" mark. Sometimes he had to achive that with a car that was almost about to loose all grip, or on dusty areas of a track. That whould happen today. Then you would see lots of drifting. Lots of accidents, too. But there are enough safety measures today.

I agree and disagree.

The drivers are so close because:

a] they are better prepared then ever; as J. Villeneve said, the lack of fitness of 20 years ago was a (big) reason for the mistakes/overtaking

b] there is a better/tougher ladder (of) series witch no longer fields 3/4 of the grid with pay drivers (even the top guys like Fangio, Senna and Schumacher were pay drivers)

c] the thing about the though cars is relative, mostly it's a myth.

The Indycars and Can-Am cars had over 1000 hp in the early 70s, the 1930s GP silver arrows had 500-646 hp (even 730 hp) on skinny tires and drum brakes. The Group B rally cars of the mid 80s were a lot more raw and dangerous according to Senna and Mansell then the F1 racecars.

After the end of the supercharged era (post 51, think the silver arrows of the 30s, the Alfa 159, BRM V16) Grand Prix racecars where usually (the successful ones at least) nice handling cars, nowhere near the most raw of monsters as some would want to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree.

The drivers are so close because:

a] they are better prepared then ever; as J. Villeneve said, the lack of fitness of 20 years ago was a (big) reason for the mistakes/overtaking

b] there is a better/tougher ladder (of) series witch no longer fields 3/4 of the grid with pay drivers (even the top guys like Fangio, Senna and Schumacher were pay drivers)

c] the thing about the though cars is relative, mostly it's a myth.

The Indycars and Can-Am cars had over 1000 hp in the early 70s, the 1930s GP silver arrows had 500-646 hp (even 730 hp) on skinny tires and drum brakes. The Group B rally cars of the mid 80s were a lot more raw and dangerous according to Senna and Mansell then the F1 racecars.

After the end of the supercharged era (post 51, think the silver arrows of the 30s, the Alfa 159, BRM V16) Grand Prix racecars where usually (the successful ones at least) nice handling cars, nowhere near the most raw of monsters as some would want to believe.

And I agree and disagree with you :P

One thing I think we are all making clear is that we want to feel the excitement of days past. That does not mean we want the exact same kind of races there used to be.

My guess is that if we could simulate on a computer a race at, let's say, Monza, or Monaco in the 80s and the same race as it happened in any of this decade's seasons, we would notice a few things:

1) Overtaking was indeed easier in the past. That did not improve per se the show.

2) I bet we would see many more mistakes both from top and bottom of the field drivers. Drivers crashing against another car was a common sight in the 80s. Not to mention reliability issues, driver's mistakes, switching teams mid season, etc.

3) It would be very interesting if you could fin some more statistics, besides overtaking. For example, a quick search on the internet shows that from 1980 to 1984 no WDC had less than 3 retirements in that season. Just imagine the uproar nowadays if a driver won a championship like that (makes me feel silly for criticizing Button over his pale second half of the season). In fact, in 1984, Nikki Lauda had 6 DNFs, yet he became WDC that year.

4) In short, I don't think we would be much happier we some overtaking, if we get to see a Lewis, Nando or Schumi breaking their engines or being crashed by some mid field driver every 3 races.

5) Nowadays drivers are indeed less prone to errors. Cars are also unbreakable by the 80s standards and tracks are mathematically designed to be perfect for the cars. A bumpy track-induced accident today is almost impossible (Glock's accident was the last one, I think)

6) When refering to "wild broncos" I didn't mean the cars were actually like that, but more to the relative differential netween how much can a driver give and how much the car can give. Today there is almost no way a driver can bring 6/10s to a car (sorry Alonso!), drivers/teams can find better setups, yes, and they can sometimes gamble on strategies (not so much anymore, which impoverishes F1 ultimately) but they cannot assert enough difference to overtake another car cleanly. And with current micromanagement from marshalls, taking risks on corners can easily turn a boldly move into a huge penalty. Result? The more conservative, the better. And let's not even get started with the engine/gearbox limitation rules...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but drivers make a difference if there is a difference.

Raikkonen was more then 6/10th per lap faster then Badoer, more like 1.6 to 2.6 seconds; Kovalainen was slower and more inconsistent then Hamilton; Piquet Jr. was only good at crashing.

Those guys made up most of the grid in the 80s and early-mid 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About overtaking I always wonder why a car more than a sec/lap faster and still holded by a worse car/driver for many laps. One second a lap faster is nothing? I think it's a lot but you need more than that, it depends on the track I think but it should be enough for a clean overtaking everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own thoughts are the reason we have less overtaking is due to it been less emphasis put on driver skill. I will give some examples.

1 - lower straight line speed combined with higher cornering speed means lower braking distances and some corners are now flat out when they were not before, fix would be less aero grip and higher engine power.

2 - semi automatic gearboxes means missed gear changes are not really a problem anymore, bring back manuals and mistakes will return giving overtaking oppurtunities.

3 - blue flags mean a car been passed has to deliberatly make space for the leadersm instead scrap the blue flag and simply tell the lapped car they not allowed to block the leaders, so the leader has to go off the racing line to lap rather than the other way round, if the leaders are fighting it out when they lapping this can create some overtakes.

4 - ban pit to car radios so the driver makes the call when to pit, and isnt told how to drive.

Edited by chrcoluk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys and your obsession with overtaking.

How about better tracks. Just for kicks. Bumpy and slippery sections, awkwardly tilted curves, etc, etc. Plus, imo, chicanes and other track alterations at the start of the weekend so that computer modeling provides less accurate data and the cars are not freakingly modified time and again.

Then, lift specs that don't involve safety issues. Rev up to +30,000 rpm if you can. Let each team do as much as they can budget in any development direction they feel like it. It's their business, after all. Sure, provide an envelop so that the overall dimensions of the cars are within certain logical limits and then let the engineers screw in 7 wheels if they so feel like it. Also, let's see what dynamic aero can do... have a car throw out flaps when breaking and arrow up when on a straight.

For my money, fck the overtaking. Rather, where the fck is the "best in the world" racing that F1 promises yet never delivers? The technology, cash, imagination, and expertise are all there... being wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3] 1960s cars would not produce better racing on the current circuits with the current drivers.

Because

a] the circuits that produced the best racing no longer exist (in their old form),

b] modern driver block and chop, they are not gentlemen that pull to the right

I disagree. The 1960s were technically the best times for overtaking - all the cars actually produced lift in their normal trim; when running behind another car the lift would be reduced (like downforce is now) and the cars following actually had more grip.

You get this phenomena in some single seater categories now.

My own thoughts are the reason we have less overtaking is due to it been less emphasis put on driver skill. I will give some examples.

1 - lower straight line speed combined with higher cornering speed means lower braking distances and some corners are now flat out when they were not before, fix would be less aero grip and higher engine power.

I agree there: in the turbo era the cars ran less wing rear wing and had more straight line speed and were able to follow better.

But one thing I cannot understand is why the FIA haven't reduced the retardation of the brakes. ATM they are far too powerful and the braking distances as a result are far too small. In a dry face this plays a huge part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The 1960s were technically the best times for overtaking - all the cars actually produced lift in their normal trim; when running behind another car the lift would be reduced (like downforce is now) and the cars following actually had more grip.

You get this phenomena in some single seater categories now.

I agree there: in the turbo era the cars ran less wing rear wing and had more straight line speed and were able to follow better.

But one thing I cannot understand is why the FIA haven't reduced the retardation of the brakes. ATM they are far too powerful and the braking distances as a result are far too small. In a dry face this plays a huge part.

Hey Kid! Are you sure what are you doing? Your avatr is a provocation! Show some respect to us the old members! I give 3 minutes to remove it or it will be understand as a war declaration!:lol: By the way nice AS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now