Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

[Ogami musashi]

Having your car that doesn't suddenly turn into oversteer is a driver aid for you?

Then in this case, yes, the FIA wants driver aid.

By the way they also plan to use moveable aerodynamics to get the old less drag/no downforce loss which i guess by your standards would be a serious driver aid.

[kilcoo316]

Having your car that doesn't suddenly turn into oversteer is a driver aid for you?

Understeer dude, understeer.


It looks like oversteer because it is mid-corner understeer.

[Scotracer]

It didn't seem to be anything in particular...just a complete loss in downforce. This was noticed by the OWG on the previous design cars - maybe it's just something that you have to live with, with single seaters that have wings.

[Pingguest]

Having your car that doesn't suddenly turn into oversteer is a driver aid for you?

If that's not in the driver's control, yes.

[Ciro Pabón]

I totally disagree with two things:

- The title of this thread
- The way this thread is full of opinions, some very detailed, about what has caused the "change". There is no change, except the one that might have been caused by wet or incomplete races.

I insist, as I've done many times, that one of the problems is the lack of camera time for backmarkers, hence most overtakings are not seen on TV. Perhaps that's the reason for the perception of overtaking improving: better TV production.

The case of Oz is pathetic, if you use it to judge the results of the OWG, specially when you take in account the artificial results we are getting from "soft" tyres.



Anyway, before reaching any conclusion, I'd say let's wait and see until the end of the year.

For comparison, here are the numbers I got for 2008, in the exact same way I've done for a couple of years now (credits for the info to Brian Lawrence, number cruncher extraordinaire: 12 years in a row counting overtakings):

Total overtakings '97-'08


Overtakings per GP '97-'08


Overtakings per track '97-'08


Overtakings per track, including standard error '97-'08

If I remember well the comments of last year, I might have an error here about what tracks were designed by Tilke (blue triangles). Thanks in advance for any corrections.

Overtakings per year '83-'08 and linear regression


Frequency distribution of overtakings per GP '97-'08


When I have some time I will post the overtakings per driver in 2008 (for the improbable person who might be mildly interested).

[kilcoo316]

I totally disagree with two things:

- The title of this thread
- The way this thread is full of opinions, some very detailed, about what has caused the "change". There is no change, except the one that might have been caused by wet or incomplete races.

Don't forget the relative tightness of the field this year.


The OWG goal was to enable a car to overtake another that was around 1 second a lap slower than the rest.

In this, I think they have succeeded.

But the tightness of the field, where there is often under 0.2 sec a lap difference between subsequent cars, makes it impossible to overtake, regardless of downforce.

[Ciro Pabón]

The OWG goal was to enable a car to overtake another that was around 1 second a lap slower than the rest.

Oh, c'mon, Kilcoo. In my book, you earn points for quickly thought excuses... A car that is 1 second slower than the rest is a "Trulli train" in all series, including "Ye Olde Drivers and Olde Machines Race at Nottingham Forest Track". That kind of car does not need an OWG and changes to half the regulations to be overtaken... It needs somebody that has pity and shot the old horse in the head.

Show me the cars at NASCAR that need 1 second difference in lap times to be overtaken and I will believe all the arguments about the magnificent work of the FIA in this respect.

Yeah, sure, I can almost understand your point: the OWG tried but the world turned against them, so in the end there was no change. Poor things.

Maybe next year they will buy rFactor and simulate what's going to happen before forcing the teams to spend a couple of hundred million dollars in KERS!

(Note to self: write e-mail to Max to point him where he can buy a decent simulator. Better yet: write e-mail to Bernard to congratulate him on a work well done and encouraging him to squeeze another couple hundred million dollars from the teams to pay the tracks so they can pay him his "franchise fee").

However, I'm not arguing what's the goal of the OWG, no matter how esoteric and complex it might be. What I find extremely funny is the fact that some people is claiming that there was a lot of overtaking at Oz.

There wasn't a lot of overtaking at Oz. So, the rest of the arguments about what caused the "change" are moot.

I have to concede that you did not argued that statistics are no good for anything (that's a frequent line of argument of those disgusted by the raw numbers).

What I can argue is that what the OWG writes with its collective hand, it erases with its elbow. Many changes are for equalizing the series, ain't they? So, for the love of Pete, why having an OWG to begin with? This year KERS fracas is a point to be thoroughly thought, don't you agree?

All I can say is: if you don't know where you're going, there is no favorable wind. I can also repeat my mantra: "it's the track, stupid!".

[Ogami musashi]

Ciro: You're a bit harsh when yourself have a very narrow analysis.

You look at number; I look at physics. You focalize on Oz while i take the whole season (that's why i said in my first comments after Oz that "we have to wait a bit").

What i mean here is that what i look at is the possibility to follow another car closer

As you said, many other parameters are to be taken into account so your statistics do not tell the truth neither.

Kilcoo: No, it is oversteer; When in yaw, the front wing gains a lot of downforce in the wake.

Scotracer: Of course if you change balance you have a loss of downforce somewhere, but this is not the important bit, the important bit is the repartition of loss.

[Ciro Pabón]

A bit harsh?

You too, Brutus, my son? This forum needs an OWG (Out of this World Group).

Let the theorizing continue, you seem to be happy about how closely a car can follow another. Probably that's the goal of racing: to follow closely the car in front. If that's the case, my most humble apology for interrupting, feel free to analyze the repartition of loss (?).

I bet that was another goal of the OWG. Next time I see I race I will say: "hey, that's a good repartition of loss! Nothing like F1 for sheer excitement!". Sorry, sorry, that might have been a little bit harsh...

If I wanted to be harsh, I would be the person in this thread reminding the forum who the OWG is: the technical directors of Ferrari, Renault and McLaren.

Yes, the same group of people that has been fired from their teams in the last couple of months, because under their regulations, their own teams are at the back of the grid after being at the front. And, that, dear Ogami, includes the regulations about the DDD. You wrote the regulations but you did not understand them. Nice work, you OWG guys! Now, that's what I call harsh: real life.

[kilcoo316]

Oh, c'mon, Kilcoo. In my book, you earn points for quickly thought excuses... A car that is 1 second slower than the rest is a "Trulli train" in all series, including "Ye Olde Drivers and Olde Machines Race at Nottingham Forest Track". That kind of car does not need an OWG and changes to half the regulations to be overtaken... It needs somebody that has pity and shot the old horse in the head.

Show me the cars at NASCAR that need 1 second difference in lap times to be overtaken and I will believe all the arguments about the magnificent work of the FIA in this respect.

Go read up on what the OWG did then.

Before this year, you had to be 1.5-2 seconds a lap quicker (at Barce) to ensure being able to overtake a car in front. Now that is down to around a second. If you want an example of cars a second a lap slower not being able to overtake, watch a Spanish GP, or look at the time loss (relative to the race leader) of a quick driver working their way back up through the field after an incident.

The trio then set about quantifying the exact figures behind the overtaking problem by using empirically sourced information from McLaren’s F1 simulator. The working group calculated that at the old Barcelona circuit, with a fast corner leading on to the main straight, the driver in a following car needed an advantage of two seconds a lap in order to have any chance of overtaking into the first corner.

That advantage was reduced to 1.5 seconds once downforce levels had been halved. And when the group began to model ways of maintaining the balance of the following car, the overtaking advantage was reduced to a second, which the designers agreed was acceptable.

So there are two points there:

1. Downforce levels have been clawed back beyond what the OWG originally worked down to (the DDD only being a part of that).

2. The close field means sequential gaps of 1 second/lap between cars are not common.




As for the comparison to NASCAR - ridiculous. On all F1 circuits there are multiple practical lines for maybe 3km (continuous) at most... in NASCAR you can choose multiple practical lines for the whole race distance (up to 500 miles). An absurd comparison.

[kilcoo316]

Kilcoo: No, it is oversteer; When in yaw, the front wing gains a lot of downforce in the wake.

May I direct the right honourable gentleman to:

An interesting quote by Sebastian Vettel about the new regulations:
"Generally compared to last year you are able to follow closer, but then you lose the grip more abruptly. All of a sudden you lose all the downforce, all the grip, from the front axle. So that makes it still difficult to pass someone."

"You would think that upwash from the rear wing is bad," Lowe said. "The upwash is strong, but a very strong inwash at ground level is also driven by the rear wing. That inwash brings new high-energy air in at ground level. If you took the rear wing off altogether you would lose that effect and the wake would be a lot worse."

Having determined the best possible rear wing configuration to generate the least damaging wake, the OWG moved on to determine the optimum front wing and floor for the following car. Lots of different floor shapes were tried, including underbody tunnels and other radical ideas, but the OWG found that the best solution was similar to that on the current cars, but with the diffuser section mounted further back to use more of the benefit of the inwash.

The front wing will thus be lowered and, at 1800 mm, will be 400 mm wider than on the 2008 car. The most important point, however, is that the aerodynamic profile of the central section of the front wing will be fixed so that it remains neutral and does not generate downforce. This is because the central section of the wing is the most badly affected by the central upwash of the wake, and is the last part of the wing to receive the fresh high-energy air from the ground level inwash. By disabling this section, this effect is eliminated. Conversely, the wider outboard and lower extremities of the new front wings benefit more from the high-energy inwash air. This all helps to maintain the downforce and thus to manage the following car's balance better while it is running in a wake of the car in front.

[Ogami musashi]

A bit harsh?

You too, Brutus, my son? This forum needs an OWG (Out of this World Group).

Let the theorizing continue, you seem to be happy about how closely a car can follow another. Probably that's the goal of racing: to follow closely the car in front. If that's the case, my most humble apology for interrupting, feel free to analyze the repartition of loss (?).

I bet that was another goal of the OWG. Next time I see I race I will say: "hey, that's a good repartition of loss! Nothing like F1 for sheer excitement!". Sorry, sorry, that might have been a little bit harsh...

If I wanted to be harsh, I would be the person in this thread reminding the forum who the OWG is: the technical directors of Ferrari, Renault and McLaren.

Yes, the same group of people that has been fired from their teams in the last couple of months, because under their regulations, their own teams are at the back of the grid after being at the front. And, that, dear Ogami, includes the regulations about the DDD. You wrote the regulations but you did not understand them. Nice work, you OWG guys! Now, that's what I call harsh: real life.

i don't see any link between what we're discussing and that.

I seriously think you lost the plot.

We're discussing if the OWG had some success; We think that yes because cars are able to follow each other..period.

Never said the racing was suddenly great because of that.

I kind of reject every person that employs the "reality check" argumentation like if they had to correct vision of thing and the others were out this world.



Kilcoo: I speak about yaw conditions; In straight line wake yes the cars tend to understeer.

[kilcoo316]

Kilcoo: I speak about yaw conditions; In straight line wake yes the cars tend to understeer.

I (and Vettel/Lowe) also talking about yaw conditions.



How would you know if your understeering when your going in a straight line?

[Ogami musashi]

Because when you try to turn it understeers.
Of course this is a result.

Vettel never talked about yaw.

Yaw means you have an angle with the leading car; not that your car is yawing.

[Ciro Pabón]

As for the comparison to NASCAR - ridiculous. On all F1 circuits there are multiple practical lines for maybe 3km (continuous) at most... in NASCAR you can choose multiple practical lines for the whole race distance (up to 500 miles). An absurd comparison.

Not so absurd. I've been saying for years now that the problem with overtaking in F1 rests a lot in the layout of the tracks. Those tracks F1 race (at least a majority of them) were built in the 60's and 70's when the cars had no downforce. I dare to say that the philosophy of track design hasn't changed and I also say that what Mr. Tilke has offered to the world is more of the same (and a couple of hairpins: what a grrrreat solution!).

Moreover, the few tracks that were quick tracks, where speed at the exit of the curve could take you forward, have been emasculated with uncountable chicanes, haven't they? Why? Simple: because the incredible grip caused by downforce makes any fast curve as dangerous as working in Afghanistan for an ONG, that's why Monza was ruined.

Now, what have caused several clashes of opinion between aerodynamicists and other people in the forum (mainly me ), is the blind (yes, blind) reliance of the former in aerodynamic solutions to what is actually an aerodynamic problem: the cars have too much grip, period. Paliatives like mobile wings or fancy analysis of downwash, where have taken F1? Into being called "the most boring exciting sport in the world".

Has any of you fall asleep at a GP? I confess I have. Why? A picture is worth a thousand words, so several pictures are worth several thousand words (and some smiles, I hope).

Trulli leads, as Briatore pointed out!


Trulli again! Kudos to Nico, who somehow managed to get past.


All aboard the Trulli train! Montoya and Rosberg came together on the next turn, knocking Rosberg out of the race.


Follow me guys! Closely!


Now, seriously, you say that there is a practical alternate line of 3 km. Where? If the tracks were forced to paint yellow continuous lines in the sectors where is impossible to overtake, I bet you wouldn't find discontinuous lines over 300 meters long.

That's what allows Trulli to prosper.

NASCAR is a very good point of reference. I know there are some purists that claim that F1 cars cannot be run on ovals. Why, if I may ask? Actually, large (restrictor plate) ovals are designed for F1 cars and viceversa! Have you read track regulations? F1 cars are one of the few classes of cars that can run on ovals, or I eat my track designer hat.

Do you want to know why F1 doesn't run in ovals (what about one or two? Is that a sin?):

F1 cars do not run in ovals because it would make clear that the aerodynamics of an F1 car are too bad to be true. The cars would have to be changed to more clear lines and more effective drag coefficients (rings any bells?).

However, without entering the thorny issue of ovals for F1 cars, you need to be a little on the "indignation-by-argument-that-impairs-my-post" side to not be aware that tracks can be improved. For starters, what about a 30 m wide track? Perhaps not along the whole track, but in selected "overtaking zones". What about more sideslope on some curves? For people as desperate as to try movable wings, this could be a very easy (and cheap!) alternative.

I repeat: it's the track, stupid!

Perhaps some day it will be tried, I know my time is the future (and, as my brother says, always will be).

i don't see any link between what we're discussing and that.
...
I seriously think you lost the plot.
...
I kind of reject every person that employs the "reality check" argumentation like if they had to correct vision of thing and the others were out this world.

Well, I reject some lines of argument, you reject me. Sigh. Ogami, you know I like your posts (a lot!), but sometimes... Give me patience, oh gods of racing.

I suppose that reality checks are not good in this cruel world, where theories are preferred to numbers, specially when the former supports our statu-quo and the later doesn't. That's what the OWG did, that's the result they got so far. Remember the CDG (Center Downwash Generator or some fancy name like that) debacle? It took some wind tunnel time to prove that the contraption worked against overtaking!

Now, let's cover this year OWG rules about DDD with a "veil of pity": the truth, dear and respected Kilcoo and Ogami Mushashi, a truth proven amply by Brawn, Toyota and Williams designs, is that the OWG did not gave a second thought to what they were writing. Are you trying to convince me that they were so subtle as to reach so many conclusions as the ones put forward in this thread? That defies credibility.

Now, instead of putting forward convoluted theories, we could (as I said before) wait until the year is over to conclude:

a. That the overtaking has increased.
b. That the overtaking has not increased.

However, at Oz (the only "normal" race so far) numbers are against the OWG results. That's what I said. What's exactly the fallacy in that very simple phrase? If it's true, I fail to see how some people can reach so many conclusions about something that didn't happen.

Now, you argue that cars can drive closer. Good for them.

Is that a result that the OWG was looking for? You bet.

Have many of the changes in aerodynamic regulations brought forward by that group backfired? Spectacularly!

Is in this light that the work of the OWG must be judged. The harsh fact that 2 of 3 of its integrants have been fired recently could shed some light into their relative success so far, but then, if this conclusion is against aerodynamic gadgets (and underpowered and costly KERS), we better claim that reality is not good for us. Yeah, sure, if we ignore the elephant in the room, it will disappear...

Now, if you want to convince me (and I guess, some other people in this forum) about so many conclusions, would you be so kind as to post at least a couple of numbers that support them? This is a technical forum, I'm sure most members can dig those numbers...

"Because XXX said so" (Vettel or anybody) is not enough where I work. How about a quick analysis of time differences among cars between last year and this year? I can be convinced pretty quickly by that kind of reasoning, heck, I'm trained to. Now, if many of you argue that you have the impression it is so, I'm left with the impression you have not done your homework.

The only way I see for the future OWG (if somebody wants the job, which after this year experience I seriously doubt) is to limit downforce to a number. Period.