The Science of F1 Overtaking

I enjoyed that read. Thanks for sharing.

 

I read that piece last night *for free* off ESPN F1's site, so I'd agree Autosport subscription has lost a lot of value the last few years, especially when a lot of the same content is almost always being redistributed through various internet-media outlets for free.

With that said, 2017 is shaping up to be another sh!et show. I feel w every passing year the sport seems to regress further and further into obscurity, there have been some good strides on certain things but in the grand scheme of things they're just trivial in comparison.

 

Great article. Thanks for posting.

 

Interesting reading, thanks for posting.

 

+3 (or whatever.... )

As always (qualy change being the exception that proves the rule of course), getting these guys to agree on *anything* is hard.

Every team, Rolex, Bernie, Hembery, JT, and more are on the WMSC. No wonder they can't get anything done!

Cheers,
Ian

 

+1

I think Paddy's been in the game so long his intent is truly to help get the sport to the right place rather than for any selfish gain for his team. I don't think he has anything to prove at this point, and he's probably more than confident in himself and the team that they will be able to engineer a fast car irregardless of the reg changes.

Same can't be said about the other "amateur aerodynamicists" in the paddock who are in the "yes" camp.

 

Very good article, thanks Vig.

Good on Paddy Lowe for raising the flags now; bad on Charlie Whiting and Red Bull etc. for thinking that increasing downforce is the solution. Does anybody really care about faster lap times if it reduces overtaking? How can these clowns not remember recent studies?

One of the regular wise sayings about F1 technology that the FIA tries to ban is "once learned, you can't unlearn it" - meaning that teams will remember the benefits and gains of a certain technology and try to replicate the advantages other ways if it's banned. Too bad Charlie Whiting can't remember the results of a study from more than a few years ago.

Yes, I've turned on Charlie Whiting. I used to have a lot of respect for him, but I think he's lost the plot in the last year or two. Old age catching up, perhaps, but many of his decisions and directives are puzzling, and usually counterproductive.

 

The article confirm 2 of my beliefs.

Down force is far too high, because aeros aren't policed enough.
I have mentioned in "my proposal" to allow free aeros, but LIMIT down force.
Low down force could be achieved without much aeros, therefore at lower cost.

Pat Lowes talks about the negative effect of refuelling, as a disincentive to overtake on the track, but using pit strategy instead to pass other cars. I have always thought that refuelling was opening the door to pit strategy, rather than wheel-to-wheel racing.

 

Great insight contained within that article, thanks for sharing. For such an intelligent group of people, lately the brain trust that is F1 sure look like imbeciles when it comes to rulemaking and governance.

 

"Braintrust?....

"Rulemaking?....

"Governance?....



All in very short supply I feel.... [Many imbeciles however. ]

Having said that, one could argue that it's *always* been that way. They kinda "muddle thru", and most of us still follow it.....

I believe the WMSC is at the heart of the problem. Too many voters.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Actually, the late 80s up until the mid 90s was reasonably consistent even with the change from turbos to NA engines. It wasn't until Mad Max Mosley took over and mandated grooved tires (?!?), narrower track widths, etc that the downward spiral began.

But yes, there are currently far too many chefs in the kitchen.

 

I can really appreciate this method of approach for several reasons. First, it will cause teams to focus more on the efficiency of the aero, not quantity generated at whatever cd they deem acceptable. Secondly, for the racing, mechanical grip dependency. Lastly, the teams will still get to manipulate their balance and characteristics in unique ways.

OTOH, aero efficiency is akin to fuel efficiency(flow limitation and quantity on board), and many are not happy with how that is affecting the power output and racing. Also, with free aero design, who would care about the wake produced from their car and how that could really mess up the ability to follow a car, even with reduced aero dependency.

I will also concede that it is pretty big of a team to say, "We don't care what the regulations are, we will win with what you mandate." I can appreciate a team also putting the racing above their own wants to gain an advantage in the rule book. Can't be said by many in the paddock. Good on Paddy!!

 

I will not pretend for one minute that I understand everything about aerodynamics, but I think that if you limit arbitrarily downforce to a certain level, you will make much of the aeros redundant.

If you impose a limit on front and rear downforce, I think we would soon see the front and rear wings shrink, and even the diffuser disappear. Why? Because they would not be so much needed to reach the imposed limit.

Thus, the turbulences affecting the following cars would be less, braking zones longer, etc... and overtaking easier. The cars would be more skittish, which isn't a bad thing IMO.

I like the downforce limit, because it's very easy to check, opposed to the complex measurements needed at present to see it a car if within tolerances, etc... There are huge savings to be made in terms of research, design, wind tunnel, and staff too!!

Instead of counting engines, gearboxes, etc... the FIA should try to tackle one of the most costly items in the budget: earos ...