Sir Jackie Stewart on overtaking

[engineer_roy]

It's a bit akin to yacht racing, albeit at different speeds.The yachting fraternity have clear rules for positioning and overtaking at all times, what can and cannot be done. If you follow the rules and get hit/touched then you are in the clear - likewise hit someone else by ignoring the rules and get penalised.
Boats also do things like cars, the comparative dynamics of speed/weight reduce the actual speed difference so as to make comparison possible. Boats luff up and have leeway, cars drift and have understeer, boats have "mast abeam" and "starboard" rules as well as "water!" or depth rules so why not apply "wheels ahead", "space on the straight" and "space on the corner" rules for cars. Such rules could more easily be monitored on a fixed road surface than they can be on a moving sea surface.

[beelsebob]

It's a bit akin to yacht racing, albeit at different speeds.The yachting fraternity have clear rules for positioning and overtaking at all times, what can and cannot be done. If you follow the rules and get hit/touched then you are in the clear - likewise hit someone else by ignoring the rules and get penalised.
Boats also do things like cars, the comparative dynamics of speed/weight reduce the actual speed difference so as to make comparison possible. Boats luff up and have leeway, cars drift and have understeer, boats have "mast abeam" and "starboard" rules as well as "water!" or depth rules so why not apply "wheels ahead", "space on the straight" and "space on the corner" rules for cars. Such rules could more easily be monitored on a fixed road surface than they can be on a moving sea surface.

If only F1 cars could do interesting things like stealing each other's wind

More seriously, being ahead is still hard to assess on tarmac – assuming these "cars" are travelling bottom left to top right, which is ahead?


You could make an argument for the top one – there's a smaller distance to the exit of the corner.
You could make an argument for the bottom one - if you take a line perpendicular to the direction of travel, its wheels are in front of the others

[Richard]

That's easy. Look at where the wheels are next to each other. The bottom car is ahead. However, in most case the top car will emerge in front on the corner exit.

[beelsebob]

That's easy. Look at where the wheels are next to each other. The bottom car is ahead. However, in most case the top car will emerge in front on the corner exit.

As I said – that argument can be made, but that's only one possible way to determine who's ahead. One could also base the decision on who has further to travel to reach the end of the lap. The bottom car has further to travel and is therefore behind... or is he?

[engineer_roy]

I mentioned "mast abeam". It's simple, sight from a sensor on each car, so long as there is overlap, 20%, 50%, whatever is the rule then the rules apply.
drifting round a corner to reduce overlap is just like luffing up and it has its own penalties in performance. It's the same for bearing away. Space must be given when there is overlap.
Good discussion!

[beelsebob]

I mentioned "mast abeam". It's simple, sight from a sensor on each car, so long as there is overlap, 20%, 50%, whatever is the rule then the rules apply.
drifting round a corner to reduce overlap is just like luffing up and it has its own penalties in performance. It's the same for bearing away. Space must be given when there is overlap.
Good discussion!

Slightly different scenario in the same corner, car A is now drifting (in a rather exaggerated way for an F1 car) as you suggest, which car is ahead?

[engineer_roy]

There's no problem here is there? cars are moving apart. But if A drifts into B then he's got a real problem. He's going in the wrong direction anyway.
If B "luffs up" and can do this without inducing drift then he's ahead by rule and ahead anyway.
Think I need a bit more info from you to understand where you are on this. Are the rear wheels ligned through or are these the front and where is the curved track edge. P.S. nice diagram, wish I could do things like that, I'm a novice.

[beelsebob]

There's no problem here is there? cars are moving apart. But if A drifts into B then he's got a real problem. He's going in the wrong direction anyway.
If B "luffs up" and can do this without inducing drift then he's ahead by rule and ahead anyway.
Think I need a bit more info from you to understand where you are on this. Are the rear wheels ligned through or are these the front and where is the curved track edge. P.S. nice diagram, wish I could do things like that, I'm a novice.

A being somewhat out of control and sliding towards impact with B is exactly the situation I'm talking about here. Based on your above definition of "ahead" as being when you can draw a line through the front wheels and have it be in front of the same point in the other car's front wheels both cars are "ahead" here.

[gridwalker]

No driver WANTS to retire due to a collision, however I believe that many drivers are unaware that one is going to happen until it is far too late to avoid it.

A big part of the problem is that drivers have so much on their plate controlling the car and adjusting the settings that they do not have time to study a tiny mirror to accurately gauge their opponent's position on-track. As safety has improved and peripheral vision has been limited by safety equipment, mirrors have become ever more important for providing information that drivers used to be able to gather by moving their head.

Unfortunately, the current generation of mirrors is completely unsuited for the purpose of providing drivers with sufficient information to judge where other cars are on track. Considering how far all other aspects of racing technology have evolved over the decades, it astounds me that F1 is still reliant upon technology that originated in the dark ages to provide drivers with information that can make or break their races!

Given that some luxury cars already have rear-view cameras for parking purposes, it seems strange that F1 cars do not have similar systems : the cars are covered in cameras anyway, so why not use some to provide vital feedback to drivers?

Why not place 2 rearwards facing cameras on the sides of the car and corresponding displays inside the cockpit? Perhaps these could be located in a similar position to the current mirrors, or protruding slightly from the FW endplate? This would not only provide much better image quality than the current mirrors, but could also be used in stewards' investigations should an incident occur.

I am not saying that mirrors should be abandoned (they should be kept as a redundant system in case of electronics failure) but they should be supplemented with a system that is more fit for purpose in the modern incarnation of the sport.

Just my 2 cents.

[engineer_roy]

Hey guys, I'm getting out of my comfort zone here and not expressing things well. My concern is for establishing when/if "overlap" exists and if it does then from that point on through the corner neither has the right to push the other off the road. Overlap condition should exist, to me anyway, once there is a specific amount of overlap, 40, 50. 60% or so at entry to a corner.
I get beelsebob's point about lines through wheels and cars at different angles but I trust you guys can come up with some way to overcome this with all the modern technology. In my days it would be measured against the white line down the middle of the road.
Please excuse me if I remain passive on this site for now.

[beelsebob]

Hey guys, I'm getting out of my comfort zone here and not expressing things well. My concern is for establishing when/if "overlap" exists and if it does then from that point on through the corner neither has the right to push the other off the road. Overlap condition should exist, to me anyway, once there is a specific amount of overlap, 40, 50. 60% or so at entry to a corner.

Right, I agree that a concrete way of measuring this would be ideal.

I get beelsebob's point about lines through wheels and cars at different angles but I trust you guys can come up with some way to overcome this with all the modern technology. In my days it would be measured against the white line down the middle of the road.
Please excuse me if I remain passive on this site for now.

The best thing that I can think of would be to draw a cone, 60° either side of the cockpit of each car, if any of the other car appears in that cone greater than 1 second before the impact then they could clearly avoid the accident.

[Richard]

A being somewhat out of control and sliding towards impact with B

Doesn't matter who is ahead, sliding out of control is the key point.

[beelsebob]

A being somewhat out of control and sliding towards impact with B

Doesn't matter who is ahead, sliding out of control is the key point.

Agreed – My point was rather that it's not as simple as assessing who's along side who by how much. Visibility of one driver to the other should definitely come into any decision.

[Richard]

Agreed - in my mind the "pulling alongside" issues is a proxy for being working out if a car can seen by the other driver. However, that is only relevant when the cars are in close proximity.

It's easy to apply that principle to Hamilton-Massa in India. I guess you are alluding to something similar to the Hamilton-Kobayashi incident? They weren't wheel to wheel, Hamilton was in the middle and then swung left without seeing Kobayashi on the kerb line, but admitted he should have know Kobay was there.

[beelsebob]

Agreed - in my mind the "pulling alongside" issues is a proxy for being working out if a car can seen by the other driver. However, that is only relevant when the cars are in close proximity.

That's easy to apply that principle to Hamilton-Massa in India. I guess you are alluding to something similar to the Hamilton-Kobayashi incident? Hamilton was in the middle and then swung left without seeing Kobayashi on the kerb line , but admitted he should have know Kobay was there.

I hadn't really thought about that incident here tbh – though it's an interesting point, it's not really just about "does driver x know driver y is there", but "should driver x know driver y is there". The Massa incident at india is clear cut because we know Massa definitely did know he was there. The kobayashi one less so because it's clear Hamilton wasn't aware he was there. I'm not personally convinced that Hamilton should have known – he was looking at the Apex, as you'd expect him to.