F1; Overtaking; Gimmicks: FIA v drivers?
Discussion
I have never criticised a lack of overtaking in F1 - far from it; I appreciate how difficult it is. This makes a genuine, competitive overtake something to behold, and I appreciate that it will be rare.
The 'overtaking problem' is not F1's as such; it is a largely unappreciative audience who - due to their short attention spans - shout their thirst for trivial action and demand it be slaked every couple of minutes. However, in the effort to satisfy this superficiality, F1 risks further alienation of its fair-weather fan by making the whole 'show' even more challenging for them to understand. What F1 needs to do is educate its audience through persuading them to see its subtlety. In my opinion, this is never going to be achieved with cheap (or expensive!) gimmicks, but with a simplicity which first aims at increasing the relevance of its drivers. By way of example, more pit-stops is precisely the wrong way to go since it increases the importance of pit-crews relative to the driver.
Instead, if we emphasise the relevance of the driver, perhaps people might begin to appreciate what they're doing!
For instance
… if we're going to have KERS - which is fundamentally a very good thing - don't limit its capacity to recover energy, and do not limit the driver's choice on its deployment. This way it would not be a gimmick but a very serious, fully justified piece of kit. And before those who argue for at least 97% equality between teams, let's remember F1's roots eh? It never was any more equal than it is today and this is part of the reason we see relatively few competitive overtakes. Yes, KERS is a good thing if it is allowed to be used fully; but it is the FIA's meddling - in an effort to keep everyone equal - which negates its fundamental purpose and renders it little more than trivial; something easy to call 'gimmick'.
Speaking of gimmicks
… we now have an even more obvious one don't we? Once again, this allegation is largely a result of the meddlesome dogmatism of the FIA, who insist on playing far too big a role. The purpose of the DRS (adjustable rear wing) is to increase overtaking. It is therefore logical to aim to provide advantage for the 'attacker' rather than the 'defender', and the one second rule - which makes good use of available technology - does indeed ensure that this occurs. However, artificially limiting a driver's capacity to use it (in FIA designated areas) can only impinge upon a driver's capacity to use it more creatively. Once again, it is a gimmick because the FIA play too much part, quite literally taking away 'driver power'.
If we're going to have a DRS system designed for overtaking, don't artificially limit it to one or two places; instead, allow the driver to use it WHERE HE SEES FIT!
POWER TO THE DRIVER !!! - It may also help the audience begin to appreciate them!
The 'overtaking problem' is not F1's as such; it is a largely unappreciative audience who - due to their short attention spans - shout their thirst for trivial action and demand it be slaked every couple of minutes. However, in the effort to satisfy this superficiality, F1 risks further alienation of its fair-weather fan by making the whole 'show' even more challenging for them to understand. What F1 needs to do is educate its audience through persuading them to see its subtlety. In my opinion, this is never going to be achieved with cheap (or expensive!) gimmicks, but with a simplicity which first aims at increasing the relevance of its drivers. By way of example, more pit-stops is precisely the wrong way to go since it increases the importance of pit-crews relative to the driver.
Instead, if we emphasise the relevance of the driver, perhaps people might begin to appreciate what they're doing!
For instance
… if we're going to have KERS - which is fundamentally a very good thing - don't limit its capacity to recover energy, and do not limit the driver's choice on its deployment. This way it would not be a gimmick but a very serious, fully justified piece of kit. And before those who argue for at least 97% equality between teams, let's remember F1's roots eh? It never was any more equal than it is today and this is part of the reason we see relatively few competitive overtakes. Yes, KERS is a good thing if it is allowed to be used fully; but it is the FIA's meddling - in an effort to keep everyone equal - which negates its fundamental purpose and renders it little more than trivial; something easy to call 'gimmick'.
Speaking of gimmicks
… we now have an even more obvious one don't we? Once again, this allegation is largely a result of the meddlesome dogmatism of the FIA, who insist on playing far too big a role. The purpose of the DRS (adjustable rear wing) is to increase overtaking. It is therefore logical to aim to provide advantage for the 'attacker' rather than the 'defender', and the one second rule - which makes good use of available technology - does indeed ensure that this occurs. However, artificially limiting a driver's capacity to use it (in FIA designated areas) can only impinge upon a driver's capacity to use it more creatively. Once again, it is a gimmick because the FIA play too much part, quite literally taking away 'driver power'.
If we're going to have a DRS system designed for overtaking, don't artificially limit it to one or two places; instead, allow the driver to use it WHERE HE SEES FIT!
POWER TO THE DRIVER !!! - It may also help the audience begin to appreciate them!
I see what you're saying and largely agree. I've been saying since end 2009, [at the time KERS should stay and] they need to have a free reign on KERS. I should be like Turbos were - development as much power as you wanted to use and for as long as you like given that 1) KERS gets all it's energy from braking 2) can produce as bigger boost in power as you like (can!). This powers development, competition and most importantly, more scope for a difference between the cars = more overtaking.
DRS should be similar if they want the same effect for more variables and pushing yet more economically useable technology for the rest of the world. Trouble is, if they have a free reign too and deployment is used when they like, even for the defender, they will soon start getting greedy for when to use it, and that means crashes and a safety issue. The effectual reason moveable aero was banned in the first place!
It's only until 2013. I still see F1 in recovery and it's come a long way, but more is to come. I welcomed it as at least it's giving something different a try as to me, the best drivers will still shine through, if not through winning then in entertainment, regardless.
DRS should be similar if they want the same effect for more variables and pushing yet more economically useable technology for the rest of the world. Trouble is, if they have a free reign too and deployment is used when they like, even for the defender, they will soon start getting greedy for when to use it, and that means crashes and a safety issue. The effectual reason moveable aero was banned in the first place!
It's only until 2013. I still see F1 in recovery and it's come a long way, but more is to come. I welcomed it as at least it's giving something different a try as to me, the best drivers will still shine through, if not through winning then in entertainment, regardless.
I am sure the modern-day FIA will be open to the idea of allowing the DRS to be run at all times if a few things fall into place. Just because they're not racing out to do it as a kneejerk reaction to the first race doesn't mean they won't.
One thing they've done differently with this regulation is to be more transparent when it comes to when and where they will allow it to be used and said that they'll always reassess where it will be used on all tracks, rather than lock it in before the season and in turn restrict their ability to change it. It could be used in 2 or 3 places by the time we get to Monza if the technology is proven.
Given that they have allowed it to be used anywhere during practice/qualifying shows that there are no safety issues at play.
One thing that might hurt the chances of them making it unrestricted are if RBR or another team start to romp away with race wins by technical advantage. An unrestricted DRS would likely hand them further advantage and this might be one of the reasons why they are taking a cautious approach to its usage early in the season.
One thing they've done differently with this regulation is to be more transparent when it comes to when and where they will allow it to be used and said that they'll always reassess where it will be used on all tracks, rather than lock it in before the season and in turn restrict their ability to change it. It could be used in 2 or 3 places by the time we get to Monza if the technology is proven.
Given that they have allowed it to be used anywhere during practice/qualifying shows that there are no safety issues at play.
One thing that might hurt the chances of them making it unrestricted are if RBR or another team start to romp away with race wins by technical advantage. An unrestricted DRS would likely hand them further advantage and this might be one of the reasons why they are taking a cautious approach to its usage early in the season.
zac510 said:
…One thing that might hurt the chances of them making it unrestricted are if RBR or another team start to romp away with race wins by technical advantage. An unrestricted DRS would likely hand them further advantage and this might be one of the reasons why they are taking a cautious approach to its usage early in the season.
Quite right Zac. Of course, this is the other side of the problem coin I will call 'public demand for overtaking'!It is now common knowledge to all but the most ignorant that F1's lack of overtaking is mostly down to the effect of aerodynamics on relatively small tracks (necessarily so, both for safety and ease of viewing). Therefore the DRS concept is a good one, since it addresses the biggest culprit head on.
And that is why the quicker they get around to allowing its use anywhere on a track, entirely at the 'within one second' driver's discretion, the better.
Surely the easy way to solve the problem is to ban ALL drivers aids (gimmicks), bring back big fat sticky slicks, bring back manual gearbox's (complete with clutches) & return to the glorious days of 3.5 litre V10's & V12's.
I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
fatboy69 said:
Surely the easy way to solve the problem is to ban ALL drivers aids (gimmicks), bring back big fat sticky slicks, bring back manual gearbox's (complete with clutches) & return to the glorious days of 3.5 litre V10's & V12's.
I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
Hahaha… yes, if Bernie comes out with that, it will be the day that F1 washes its hands of any relationship with reality.I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
Unfortunately your idealistic move suggesting progress should go 'forward into the past' is completely at odds with the ethos of F1: that it remains the spearhead of technology; the pinnacle of motorsport. Therefore it will never happen as long as F1 exists, or to put it another way: if it ever happens, 'Grand Prix' racing will be a thing of the past.
There is a difference between a lack of overtaking making that special move even more special, or gifted 'overtakers' like kobaiashi (or however it's spelt) being shown as truely talented, and a boring 'race' where vettel start pole and no one gets close.
I like watching places 3-10 in an F1 race, as you can feel the tension of an impending overtake. But I also like watching 1 and 2 in moto GP, when they are neck and neck into the final corner, which F1 will almost never deliver.
I love F1, but some races you sit back and wonder why they wasted their time since they are almost in the same places as qualy!
Get rid of the downforce, give them 1200bhp and watch the boys and men fall into their natural order
I like watching places 3-10 in an F1 race, as you can feel the tension of an impending overtake. But I also like watching 1 and 2 in moto GP, when they are neck and neck into the final corner, which F1 will almost never deliver.
I love F1, but some races you sit back and wonder why they wasted their time since they are almost in the same places as qualy!
Get rid of the downforce, give them 1200bhp and watch the boys and men fall into their natural order
fatboy69 said:
Surely the easy way to solve the problem is to ban ALL drivers aids (gimmicks), bring back big fat sticky slicks, bring back manual gearbox's (complete with clutches) & return to the glorious days of 3.5 litre V10's & V12's.
I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
If the problem is the disturbed air behind the cars then bring in a rule which says that the air behind the car must be smooth. I can't be the only person who thinks that the aerodynamisists deliberately engineer their wake so as to mess it up for the following car. Further, if you limit the amount of downforce then the cars will have to brake more for corners.I would also get rid of the stupid looking aeroydynamic additions to the cars & insist that all cars are designed with pure & proper shapes such as the Lotus 79, Williams FW07, etc etc.
Proper looking race cars which relied on drivers doing the driving - if that makes sense.
Easy? It should be.
& for gods sake lets hope that Bernie doesnt get his way with the 'fake rain' idea. What a load of b*ll*cks that is!
I don't like KERS and DRS, it make F1 into a computer game.
As for fake rain, I think Bernie's been replaced by a fake Ecclestone. He never used to say such stupid things.
Derek Smith said:
I don't like KERS and DRS, it make F1 into a computer game.
+1 It is slowly being turned into a sop for the 'Playstation' generation. If they can't/don't see the cars on track pulling similar manoeuvres to their latest game it's no good. I can't understand why the obvious aproach hasn't been tried - widen corners. We had a classic example last weekend how easy it is to overtake when JB took FM by using a 'spare bit of track', albeit ilegally.
Bikes have a proportionally higher width of track available and they don't seem to have many problems overtaking.
When was the last time we saw anyone successfully try a 'cut-back' into a corner - tracks and cars have now developed in such a way that there is only one 'racing line'. Move off it at your peril.
I may be cynical but I can foresee the time when the DRS area will be accompanied by a premium on ticket prices in the area(s) it will be used - with overtaking so rare elsewhere I'm sure people would pay more to see 'guaranteed' overtakes.
BB
PW said:
So we just give in to the inevitable and accept that overtaking in F1 is a thing of the past. Forget about it, from now on it is a sport of subtlety, with it's brightly coloured cars screaming round tracks at super-high speed - what idiot would confuse that for a sport of action and excitement?
No, I'm not suggesting this at all. The main thrust of my argument is that the liberties of a driver to use DRS where he sees fit (albeit within one second of the car ahead) is being over-regulated; artificially restricted; thus rendered little more than a gimmick. Furthermore, I am all for overtaking. - It's just that I believe F1 should be wary of pandering to its audience so much that it becomes entirely led and somewhat cheapened by it.PW said:
Like you, I also understand why overtaking is difficult, why there is currently so little of it, and I don't think that KERS or DRS identifies or solves the problem.
In its current guise I completely agree. But I believe that with less restriction we would see more overtaking. I also recognise that with the exception of the DRS (of which: more later), more overtaking in an aerodynamically dependent F1 is at odds with a highly competitive grid with cars of very similar performance.PW said:
That doesn't alter the fact that, IMHO, typically the most exciting aspect of any motor race, not just F1, is two (or more) highly skilled drivers battling on track for position.
Yes, of course few would disagree this is highly entertaining but it is part of a greater whole.PW said:
Given the raucous, attention grabbing nature of its current guise, and its long and rich history, it is in no way "trivial" or "superficial" for people to be expecting and wanting to see more overtaking in a race, in fact it is entirely natural and understandable. It certainly does not make me or anyone else a mindless, braying simpleton.
I was not saying the expectations were trivial. I am saying that relatively fewer overtakes are necessarily less trivial than a great number of them, particularly if they are the result of contrivance. I also agree that it is entirely understandable for F1 to acknowledge the demands made upon it and to attempt to address them; however, it is easy to lose authenticity if these demands are not consistent with the reality of the 'sport'. - Clearly a balance must be struck and we must be wary of rendering the whole thing little more than a circus or glorified, large scale Playstation game; thus risking a brief moment of intense public interest which might rapidly fade when the novelty wears thin. As for "mindless, braying simpleton", I apologise if you felt I was suggesting that missing some subtlety equates to such an extreme. I certainly was not! And as things stand, the nod to the 'Greens' is relatively superficial since it achieves far less than its potential.However, I would now like to expand on what I see as the crucial point about DRS, which I mentioned above:
…The way I see it, it is easy to sympathise with those quick to suggest this is little more than a gimmick, in its present over-regulated guise. But it does not need to be like this! - It is a great idea because it addresses the root of the problem; overtaking in the aerodynamically sophisticated world of F1, where its drivers are regularly pulling 5G for 90 odd minutes. If the driver is empowered to use it over the whole track, it is a simple logic that it must go at least some way towards making overtaking more likely. Instead, we have a Playstation-like 'power-up-pad' area of the track, which would be easy to label 'the overtaking zone'; not that far removed from a novice racer's brief that overtaking is allowed in just one or two designated (and highly regulated) places!
- What I am saying is that the current over-regulation underplays the value of (bon)KERS by restricting its own potential. And this is even more evident with DRS, which I believe could be exploited far more and actually has real potential to address F1's perennial problem-child (as seen by the masses): overtaking.
Edited by cosicave on Sunday 3rd April 02:03
cosicave said:
I have never criticised a lack of overtaking in F1 - far from it; I appreciate how difficult it is. This makes a genuine, competitive overtake something to behold, and I appreciate that it will be rare.
I think I see what you mean. if the whole race builds up to the one overtake then it can still be great.Compare the Italian GP in 71 where there were three or four leaders on the last lap but the result was something of a lottery, with the 87 British where the only overtake of note occurred on the penultimate lap. Both were exciting in their own way but I would assume that for real fans of F1 the latter was the more memorable.
The Italian was unusual and also record breaking being the closest ever finish, with five or six of the cars within 1 second, and also the fastes at over 150mph. It was also gethin's only victory. But Mansell's victory over Piquet, despite there being only two cars in the race from the third corner, is worth watching time and again. More overtaking would not have made the race any better.
Overtaking shouldn't be easy, or common. The most boring races i remember seeing are from the days of CART when they introduced the high drag rear wing on the ovals, multiple overtakes per lap was very tedious.
They need to just let the guys race with technology that is less limited in it's use, limited when you can use KERS is not going to push the boundaries of the technology, and as with Red Bull in race 1, (and was the case for most in 2009), the weight carried doesn't warrant the power boost advantage. Make the KERS free and that will change.
With regards to the rear wing, it's too early to say if it's going to make the racing mickey mouse, but they should at least let the drivers decide when it's used, including allowing the passer/passee to use it and allow it's use in the wet too, we'll soon see who has the skill to run on the limit with lower downforce in low grip conditions.
I've never understood this obsesion in the media and from sport insiders that there isnt enough overtaking, some of the most epic moments in racing come when you know it's almost impossible to pass, yet they manage it. With the way the tyres this year are designed, the last thing needed on most tracks will be the rear wing gimmick, we could have some cracking races due to tyre issues, where in fact we could see drivers holding back and waiting for the oficial straight for an easy pass, and if that does happen that will be a great pity.
They need to just let the guys race with technology that is less limited in it's use, limited when you can use KERS is not going to push the boundaries of the technology, and as with Red Bull in race 1, (and was the case for most in 2009), the weight carried doesn't warrant the power boost advantage. Make the KERS free and that will change.
With regards to the rear wing, it's too early to say if it's going to make the racing mickey mouse, but they should at least let the drivers decide when it's used, including allowing the passer/passee to use it and allow it's use in the wet too, we'll soon see who has the skill to run on the limit with lower downforce in low grip conditions.
I've never understood this obsesion in the media and from sport insiders that there isnt enough overtaking, some of the most epic moments in racing come when you know it's almost impossible to pass, yet they manage it. With the way the tyres this year are designed, the last thing needed on most tracks will be the rear wing gimmick, we could have some cracking races due to tyre issues, where in fact we could see drivers holding back and waiting for the oficial straight for an easy pass, and if that does happen that will be a great pity.
BigBob said:
...
Bikes have a proportionally higher width of track available and they don't seem to have many problems overtaking....
Bikes also have little in the way of aero, far lower cornering speeds in general and riders who actually accept the "if I over cook it, it's going to hurt" ethos that we seem to have lost in F1 (though the cornering speeds probably play some part in this).Bikes have a proportionally higher width of track available and they don't seem to have many problems overtaking....
If you're going to bring in DRS and KERS, let the drivers use it when they want/can. If they balls it up (witness Sutil) they will lose places. So need to make better use of their skill.
All the tweaks and fiddling done in recent times seems to have done nothing to help outright speeds, overtaking or anything else very much.
I reckon a much more radical set of changes is needed. Simplify the rules. Simplify what can and cannot be done. Let the engineers have much more creative freedom and let the drivers exhibit the skill that makes them worth the millions they get paid each year.
I'd just decide on one or two key principles that the sport should follow and try and make a rule as simple as possible. e.g. if we're worried about being "green" (why?!), have a regulation fuel tank of a very specific size to achieve a certain economy, and a regulation fuel to fill it. Beyond that, design a single seat car with open wheels. No moveable surfaces on the car (would go as far as to say that this should include minor tinkering of wing angles etc between tracks/weather conditions). And have a cardboard box/wooden crate of a set dimension (the width dimension calculated to make the width of current circuits useable). If the car can be driven into the box, it passes. Job done.
No track changes any more, especially not for "safety". The driver goes over the white lines that constitute the circuit for whatever reason (easy to judge using GPS trackers), he comes into the pits for a drive through. If he does it 3x, he gets black flagged. Leave it to his (/her) skill/discretion on how to achieve this.
Murph7355:
Nice post.
Nothing is perfect and as I suggested earlier, there will always be a need for compromise and realism; unfortunately we cannot have an uncompromising idealism. However, you have focussed on the most important aspects which might allow us to get a little closer to an ideal and it is pleasing to see you suggest handing more control to engineers and drivers alike. This would appear to address all of the most obvious criticisms - at least to some extent.
If - in the interests of efficiency and overtaking - we're going to have these new ideas (KERS and DRS), let's make proper use of them!
Nice post.
Nothing is perfect and as I suggested earlier, there will always be a need for compromise and realism; unfortunately we cannot have an uncompromising idealism. However, you have focussed on the most important aspects which might allow us to get a little closer to an ideal and it is pleasing to see you suggest handing more control to engineers and drivers alike. This would appear to address all of the most obvious criticisms - at least to some extent.
If - in the interests of efficiency and overtaking - we're going to have these new ideas (KERS and DRS), let's make proper use of them!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff