Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Post Reply
natef1
0
Joined: 30 Oct 2008, 13:15

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

Federico wrote: Baharain is only full-throttle straights and heavy brake turns and it is the most boring circuit of the season... :(
Somebody's forgotten Valencia :wink:

Ian P.
2
Joined: 08 Sep 2006, 21:57

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

At some point the question will be raised.....do you want insanely fast cars or do you want racing competition.
The two are not mutually exclusive but all (and I do mean all) of the current regulations are either about safety or about slowing the cars down.
My bet is no-one wants F1 to go the way of NASCAR but the reality is that there will be future regulation changes to slow the cars down. How to do it and how much....that is the challenge.
Personal motto... "Were it not for the bad.... I would have no luck at all."

User avatar
Metar
0
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 11:35

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

That article raises a few correct points. Remember the early-season diffusers? they essentially looked like a prism: Very simple, and, relatively insensitive. But look at the current ones: The secondary (and tertiary) decks have very small slits that feed them, and air needs to hit them in a very precise manner in order to be fully effective. I think that whereas previously, air to the diffuser just had to flow, it now had to flow in a far more controlled fashion. The DDDs are turning out to be damaging, it seems.

Pingguest
3
Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 16:31

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

Metar wrote:
Pingguest wrote:However, I wonder the effects of the double decker diffuser for the overtaking. Back in Australia drivers already complained about overtaking still being too difficult although that diffuser was used by only three teams. The most overtaking we've see so far was due to fuel and tyre compounds.
The ones that complained the most were DDD-drivers - Timo Glock, most notably.
The double decker diffuser would have consequences for the following car, hence the DDD-cars are more difficult to pass. However, Glock complained that overtaking another (non-DDD-)car remained to be very difficult.

User avatar
Metar
0
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 11:35

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

Pingguest wrote:The double decker diffuser would have consequences for the following car, hence the DDD-cars are more difficult to pass. However, Glock complained that overtaking another (non-DDD-)car remained to be very difficult.
It also has consequences if the follower has a DDD. A double-decker is fed by small openings in the underbody - and to feed these properly, you need some very precise airflow. Precise airflow does not exist in traffic. Comparably, a single-decker is simpler, and less sensitive.

Ogami musashi
32
Joined: 13 Jun 2007, 22:57

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

simpler answer: Glock complains about everything.

Back into the winter test, he already said they would not be overtaking because slicks allowed to brake later..> we saw many overtrakings on braking.

He complained about having to "fight to stay on the track when following someone" at the exact same time several drivers (including vettel and heidfeld) said the opposite that it was easier to follow.

Well then i guess even if he sometime says some true fact, it is impossible to knwo when he just complains for complaining.

That said, the DDD diffuser surely have a great influence since the nix the very fundamental of wake generation by the OWG: Having a more powerfull RW than an diffuser.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

Ogami musashi wrote:..That said, the DDD diffuser surely have a great influence since the nix the very fundamental of wake generation by the OWG: Having a more powerfull RW than an diffuser.
The upper slot of the DDD also negates to a certain degree the objective of separating diffusor and rear wing turbulences. I would love to see an analysis of this by the OWG guys.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

timbo
111
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 10:14

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76634
seems IRL have same problems too
Interesting that they look for solution in permitting more downforce

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

The situation is quite different though. IRL are addressing a problem with oval racing which will be at high speed in low downforce configuration to start with. Perhaps they have over done it.

In F1 the common opinion is that the cars need more mechanical grip and create less turbulence. Turbulence usually increases with added downforce.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

mep wrote:
Since a couple of races I changed my opinion. And after Today's race at Silverstone, I think the OWG has failed their job. Both Hamilton and Alonso -two highly talented drivers- couldn't get passed the driving BMW-chicanes. At the beginning of the race Heidfeld had damaged his front wing, lost quite a lot of front end downforce and was about 1.5 seconds slower than Fisichella. Despite all of that, he could easily keep Alonso behind.
It is even worse:
Hamilton was 23,5kg lighter than Kubica and
Alonso was 11,5kg lighter than Heidfeld and he had a damaged wing.
Which is why most teams near the back fuel heavy - if you are going to be stuck behind an endlessly slow car, then one less pit stop leads to lot of track position.

If you fuel light then you have to be very quick and overtake to gain enough time to allow the extra pitstop. We know the McL is not a quick car, so why did they think of using a light fuel load???

Anyway, back to the OP, if Hamilton or Alonso had KERS, they would have easily got past. A mature boost system (KERS or a simple temporary increase in the rev limit) would greatly improved overtaking. Lets say it can only be used once per lap. So you overtake on the pit straight with your boost, and I try to take the position back on the back straight with my boost. The drawback is when both drivers use it at the same time. It would be a bit like scissors-paper-stone!

In truth I think the boost idea is a gimmicky distraction, all we need is less reliance on downforce, and less following turbulance. Further reduce the efficiency of the wings and impose the original intention of the diffuser rule. Ban all sticking out bits between the two wings.

I'd also have a free for all on all passive (non electronic) technology. So mass tuned dampers and more flexible wings are OK, but expensive computer controlled active suspension and adjustable wings are not.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

richard_leeds wrote:I'd also have a free for all on all passive (non electronic) technology. So mass tuned dampers and more flexible wings are OK, but expensive computer controlled active suspension and adjustable wings are not.
That is an interesting idea. So what if the wing adjustment is manual?
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:
richard_leeds wrote:I'd also have a free for all on all passive (non electronic) technology. So mass tuned dampers and more flexible wings are OK, but expensive computer controlled active suspension and adjustable wings are not.
That is an interesting idea. So what if the wing adjustment is manual?
Lets say the definition of a gimmick is somehting that changes the fundamental charactersitics of the car during the race.

On that basis, a moving wing is classed as a gimmick. err... on that basis adjustable brake balance is a gimmick too!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

Post

A gear box with different ratios fundamentally changes the characteristics of the car under way. Still you do not class semi automatic gearboxes as a driver aid.

Adjustable wings can be completely the same. Adjusted by the driver without computer control or at least if you want with no more control than we see in gear change. I would also allow a junction between front wing setting and front/rear brake bias.

Actually front wings could be adjustable and rear wings simply elastic to minimize drag and the need for driver input.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Post Reply