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 ââ¬Â¦ 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 ââ¬Â¦ we now have an even more obvious one don't we? Once again, this allegation is largely a result of meddlesome dogmatism from 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! é
I share your a lot of your views on this, if not as strongly. I think it's unfair to accuse people who sometimes find the sport dull of having short attention spans, the racing is incredibly dull at times, with a procession of drivers following one another and nothing at all happening. I feel the overtakes in F1 are more exciting than other sports, mainly because of the speed, acceleration and deceleration of the cars. I find Moto GP overtakes boring, mainly because the width of the track in comparison to the bikes is such that the manoeuvre looks too easy. However, overtaking in F1 has dropped dramatically over the decades. A comparison in Autosport magazine recently showed that it has dropped five fold in twenty years, I wouldn't say the overtakes we have now are necessarily better to watch. Also I agree with the FIA that more pitstops is the way to go. It generates scenarios where people are on different rubber and able to attack the driver in front, and in many cases have to attack the driver in front to make their strategy work. There has to be a limit to KERS. I would prefer if it just worked like a normal hybrid engine rather than the driver using it for a boost. But over a third of teams are already running without it, unlimited use would probably price all but a couple of teams out of it. DRS: I'd like to see the attacking driver have the option of using it anywhere on the lap. However, this approach would be unfeasible due to the need to place timing sensors on every single corner to judge the gap between cars. If you just had it on the pit straight a driver could activate it, overtake into the first corner, and then have a free lap's use of it to pull away.
to be honest im not bothered by the lack of overtaking its just the fact the chance was never there. the cars get up to the so called 'dirty air' zone and are stuck behind with that gap. They cant even get close and if they do the tyres or engine overheat. From what ive seen from aus this has actually gone. we have cars right up other peoples gearboxes which gives the fans a thrill. so what if they dont actually overtake. we are watching offensive and deffensive talent on show.
Yes, I agree it has helped. My point it that the factors which are helping create this are being limited; notably the DRS which cannot be used wherever a driver gets within one second. In this sense what I am saying is that it could be even better if a driver could use it anywhere he chooses - assuming he is within one second of another car ahead.
I've seen somewhere (News article here) that the FIA were looking into using GPS to time the gap between drivers. This would surely allow the gap to be monitored throughout the circuit. This would allow it to be used whenever a driver is within a second. Personally I think this is a good thing, because, as Cosicave said, the emphasis is then on the driver to use it wisely and cleverly. I'd also like to see drivers able to immediately use it to fight back after an overtake, this could create passages where two drivers really battle until one gets clear. With KERS, I feel it is expensive for what it bring to the sport. Not all the teams can afford it, or feel the need for it yet, and allowing the system to be developed to its full potential would cost loads, despite it satisfying those who want F1 'greener' and more relevant to the car industry. Again, as cosicave said, it'd make more sense to integrate it into the engine itself as a hybrid, so as to reduce fuel consumption, and not limit its use or power output. I'm not sure what the solution is here, maybe if the FIA could provide a basic KERS system to all teams (perhaps based on Mclaren's, which I believe is supposed to be the best) and let teams use it as they wish?
Also its starting to annoy me that there are people employed by the FiA for few years now known as 'The Overtaking Working Group' and all they have come up with is a few seconds of KERS and a few seconds of DRS... is that it?
El_Bando, I don't think thats a full-time job! I think its a committee made up of various senior designers/engineers and maybe drivers at various teams that meet occasionally to try and discuss ways to improve overtaking.
sorry I didnt mean employed as in paid i ment people assigned (thats a better word??) to look at overtaking. The same guys who found rule loop holes like the DD and F-Duct which didnt help overtaking lol.
Its different roles isn't it though? You can't tell a designer he can't innovate at his team if he's a member of the OWG -nobody would want/be allowed to do it! They make recommendations to the FIA to think about, but the rest of the time they have to concentrate on making their car faster within the current rules. It seems hypocritical though I must admit, but its just the way it is. They can make recommendations to ban the device they've just designed though, which must have happened with some things!
To improve chances of overtaking could they reduce tyre width, in conjunction with bringing weight down a bit (reintroduce a required fuel pitstop?). If both acceleration and deceleration were reduced as a result of less grippy tyres, surely driver ability to execute overtaking and control cornering would improve?
It's great to see some positive thinking like this Canary. However, just for the record, I wasn't discussing the design of KERS units or suggesting they be integral to the engine. I'm not an engineer and have no idea if this could ever be achieved, especially with batteries storing the energy. My real point is that as things stand KERS has negligible impact. Very little return on the investment and very little impact on the environmental fingerprint of F1, as things stand at the moment. But if the usage was not restricted, it might be something really worthwhile for F1's designers to get more from it. The technology is already there. It's just that the FIA are - in the interests of competition - artificially restricting it so that any advantage is minimal, which means it has less importance to designers and is likely to be perceived as little more than a gimmick by an unappreciative audience who see little point to it. And so, on and on. The argument remains roughly circular, achieving very little for anyone. But unrestricted, that might not be the case! As for the DRS, once again it has the potential to achieve far more than at present if its use were at the discretion of the driver - according to being within one second of a car ahead - rather than artificially restricted (controlled) by the whim of the FIA. As you say Canary, the technology already exists. It is a very very simple operation to use the existing GPS system. Anyone who watches NASCAR will be aware that even the TV graphics are instantly updated according to the exact position of each and every car, and gaming technology exists to allow console owners to compete with the real drivers, in real time, in the virtual reality of the console in one's living room. By comparison, a GPS monitored DRS is mere child's play. KERS or DRS will remain gimmicks unless their respective powers are unleashed through less restrictive dictates.
I meant to reply to this earlier but I obviously got distracted, not that you all needed to know this snippet of my life KERS: In its current form it is stagnating and loosing the purpose it was designed for. I understand that the smaller teams can't keep up with the bigger teams in development, but this is how it always has been. We need cars with different strengths to mix up the racing. KERS would be better if it was fully unrestricted, or even if it was a power limit with no time limit. This would rapidly accelerate development and the manufacturers will be happy as hybrid is all the range these days. To keep the 'small teams' happy the FIA could impose a rule that last years KERS (rolling year to year) for big teams has to be made available for small teams for a nominal fee. This will keep them in touch with current times, and would be an improvement on their current no-KERS option. DRS: Undecided to be honest, I'd leave it as it is for now, see how it progresses. If its only a rule change its simple to alter
KERs capacity should be pretty well unrestricted except by weight perhaps, free tyre choices, also get rid of the stupid limitation on having to use two types, DRS or flapping wing, down to driver choice and capability, only teams and drivers should be the controllers of how they go about racing.
I know everyone loves a bit of overtaking but am I on my own in also revelling in a good cunning battle of wits with regards to fuel stop strategies. In a world of easy overtakes and no refuelling breeding stategy, the faster cars will always end in front. But differing fuel stategies always seemed to have the ability to allow teams to spring a surprise. On the subject of the DRS, totally agree. I thought what made an overtake good was the skill to overcome the defensive skills of the driver in front. A DRS induced overtake will just seem cheap and fake which is EXACTLY what will appeal to the American viewers, youd almost suspect these "gimmicks" were introduced specifically for the return to the states. Dont cheapen the sport with meaningless overtakes just to satisfy them, they have NASCAR for that. Watch them introduce a rule before next season where the attacking driver can pit maneuver the defending driver into oblivion.
Nice post Jacky: you've repeated quite a lot of what I was getting at, particularly the cheapening of the sport which I agree is likely to appeal to those less concerned with, or oblivious to subtlety. And as you suggest, the followers attracted by motor sport in the USA very much demand 'obvious' action, too much of which is likely to reduce the in-depth quality which I prefer. This does not mean I do not want to see overtaking of course. It's just that I want to see a deep quality to the whole event. As things stand, we have some gimmicks which achieve little other than drawing attention to F1as becoming full of gimmicks! But as I said above, I believe these gimmicks do not have to retain such a label. If they are used properly they might genuinely add some value.
