Brakes to help overtaking
Discussion
So many tracks it is hard to pass and braking zones are so short now due to the amazing grip and power of the brakes. Since they are pretty much a standard part (brembo I believe?) why not spec a much worse performing brake that will increase the braking zones which would help overtaking?
It wouldn't cost much maybe even less.
Thoughts?
It wouldn't cost much maybe even less.
Thoughts?
slipstream 1985 said:
I agree however every team I believe outsource the brakes. Did Toyota not try to design inhouse brakes when they first entered and wasted millions before reverting to what everyone else was using.
It's one of the proposed standardised parts for 2021, so everyone will have to use the same, apart from minor tweaks to suit driver preference.The strong brakes are required to enable DRS to have enough time to get the job done, Or 90% of the job, the final 10% being done under braking.
If they had to brake earlier, the DRS car would generally be too far back for any amount of braking finesse to complete the overtake.
Allowing powerful brakes (as powerful as Brembo can deliver, really), effectively makes each tracks long straight longer, long enough combined with DRS for overtaking. No practical or affordable way to make the straights physically longer at most tracks.
Another road block to F1 doing anything to influence braking I imagine is safety. Brakes are a safety feature, and if they forced a reduction in braking power and anything bad happened, even if there was the slightest suggestion it was compounded by the weaker brakes, the headlines would not be good... ABS removal was OK as it's fair enough to say the driver should brake, not the car - and they all sign up to 'drive' so no arguments. But to actually force their brakes to to take a calculated extra distance to slow the car...? That's probably a step too far in that direction.
If they had to brake earlier, the DRS car would generally be too far back for any amount of braking finesse to complete the overtake.
Allowing powerful brakes (as powerful as Brembo can deliver, really), effectively makes each tracks long straight longer, long enough combined with DRS for overtaking. No practical or affordable way to make the straights physically longer at most tracks.
Another road block to F1 doing anything to influence braking I imagine is safety. Brakes are a safety feature, and if they forced a reduction in braking power and anything bad happened, even if there was the slightest suggestion it was compounded by the weaker brakes, the headlines would not be good... ABS removal was OK as it's fair enough to say the driver should brake, not the car - and they all sign up to 'drive' so no arguments. But to actually force their brakes to to take a calculated extra distance to slow the car...? That's probably a step too far in that direction.
Jasandjules said:
slipstream 1985 said:
It wouldn't cost much maybe even less.
Thoughts?
Um, well, if everyone has the same brakes then they can all brake at the same points... The same way they do now.....Thoughts?
markcoznottz said:
They tried steel brakes years ago, made no difference.
Yup, they all trot that story out and yet nobody is very convincing about out .Makes one wonder why they switched to carbon in the first place . OK , they are lighter, but , aided by huge aero downforce , they are better too. Safety ? Oh God, not that tired old argument - much used by F1 people as the ;last resort to oppose anything they don't like , when they can't think of any other reasons . I struggle to see how having brakes that stop a car from 180mph in 100m are inherently safer than ones which take 15m longer - it isn't as though a child is going to run across the track in front of them ...
Edited by coppice on Thursday 16th May 07:06
Eric Mc said:
Engineering in inefficiency does not sit well with F1 engineers and designers.
This is the nub!The distance (or lack of) required of an F1 car to shed speed is truly amazing - when viewed up close, it is a remarkable sight. When two cars do this side by side, more so.
Everyone knows the issue. It's the dispersal of air spewing from the diffuser that limits the downforce of the following car. Forcing a car to generate downforce from nothing other than a front and rear wing would - as I understand it - solve a lot of the problems. The car following would actually be 'sucked' toward the car in front and when it pulls out, gets a daffy of additional downforce enabling even later breaking.
But, this would render the skills of an army of designers and the like, redundant and so likely to be opposed by the teams.
Metal brakes have the same stopping power as carbon brakes. It is the tyre which runs out of traction first over braking performance,
The advantage of carbon though is the weight and longevity and ability to deal with heat compared with metal brakes.
They could still engineer metal brakes which stop them the same distances and likely make them work reliably all race long.
To open up the braking distances you’d have to engineer less efficient stopping power through the pads and that’s counter intuitive and probably not a path to safety. He could have stopped but the brakes were engineered to be less efficient!
It’s going to be aero or tyres which need to be trimmed but they are both seen as backward steps.
It’s normally wet races which provide the answer (unless stopped the moment it gets tricky and runs behind a safety car), we love seeing the cars sliding, traction issues and lots of overtaking.
The advantage of carbon though is the weight and longevity and ability to deal with heat compared with metal brakes.
They could still engineer metal brakes which stop them the same distances and likely make them work reliably all race long.
To open up the braking distances you’d have to engineer less efficient stopping power through the pads and that’s counter intuitive and probably not a path to safety. He could have stopped but the brakes were engineered to be less efficient!
It’s going to be aero or tyres which need to be trimmed but they are both seen as backward steps.
It’s normally wet races which provide the answer (unless stopped the moment it gets tricky and runs behind a safety car), we love seeing the cars sliding, traction issues and lots of overtaking.
IMO all the best racing, as far as the average spectator is concerned, happens when there is more power than grip. F1 cars are so glued to the track there's no spectacle. Yes to people who understand it the drivers are going through enormous forces and are placing the cars with pinpoint accuracy but the average joe wants to see a car moving about with the driver fighting the wheel. F1 has got itself painted into a corner now. Anything, including increasing braking distance, would be seen as a backward step and there's no real forward step that would be acceptable under safety considerations.
Kraken said:
IMO all the best racing, as far as the average spectator is concerned, happens when there is more power than grip. F1 cars are so glued to the track there's no spectacle. Yes to people who understand it the drivers are going through enormous forces and are placing the cars with pinpoint accuracy but the average joe wants to see a car moving about with the driver fighting the wheel. F1 has got itself painted into a corner now. Anything, including increasing braking distance, would be seen as a backward step and there's no real forward step that would be acceptable under safety considerations.
There are plenty of other forms of motorsport for average Joe. I have to agree, F1 has become increasingly technical, at the cost of on track action. But the inescapable fact is that the grandstands are filling up and 350 million people are watching at home.I enjoy the technical side of the sport very much, and the off-track drama and development stories. And although rare, there is still action on track to enjoy, just not every race.
TheDeuce said:
There are plenty of other forms of motorsport for average Joe. I have to agree, F1 has become increasingly technical, at the cost of on track action. But the inescapable fact is that the grandstands are filling up and 350 million people are watching at home.
I enjoy the technical side of the sport very much, and the off-track drama and development stories. And although rare, there is still action on track to enjoy, just not every race.
Are spectator numbers going up or down?I enjoy the technical side of the sport very much, and the off-track drama and development stories. And although rare, there is still action on track to enjoy, just not every race.
Do we have honest and believable figures from circuit owners and TV companies?
25 years ago Bernie was bandying around total figures that were way higher than 350 million.
Eric Mc said:
Are spectator numbers going up or down?
Do we have honest and believable figures from circuit owners and TV companies?
25 years ago Bernie was bandying around total figures that were way higher than 350 million.
I expect today's figures are more accurate than the Bernie figures from back then!Do we have honest and believable figures from circuit owners and TV companies?
25 years ago Bernie was bandying around total figures that were way higher than 350 million.
The problem is, that because of Bernie's Bulls
t numbers, it's hard to say for sure if the figure has increased or not in the last decade. According to Liberty the number has increased since they took over. Which we pretty much have to accept, not going to get a more accurate answer anywhere else.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff