Can't they take 2 old cars and test how best to improve overtaking without DRS (ground effect, tyres etc)? Pirelli get an old car to develop their tyres so shouldn't be too difficult to arrange some other ones to do rudimentary testing on. I guess as always the teams will never agree to it.
The teams might agree to a Caterham being used, but other than that, they'd be too afraid of it giving one team an advantage.
They didn't seem to mind a Renault/Lotus being used for Pirelli. Surely if the car is 2010 - 2012 spec it won't matter too much?
I really don't think ease of overtaking is an issue. Russia last year is a case in point, overtaking was very easy leading to a thrilling opening stint and a boring second half of the race as the cars had been sorted into pace order. Scenario: The second place car has been three quarters of a second quicker than the guy in first all weekend but lost the lead at the first corner after starting on pole. Which produces the most entertaining race: A. Following another car is easy, the car in second is able to run glued to the back of the car in front and makes an easy pass at the start of the second lap before cruising to an easy win. B. The following car struggles to keep close to the car in front through the corners, but is able to get a tow down the pit straight but not quite enough to pass. The leading car is having to watch in his mirrors every lap, driving at the limit, unable to make a mistake. Now and then the second place car gets a better run out of the final corner and is able to launch an attack, forcing the leading car to go defence and fight to hold position, sometimes through a series of corners. Entertainment depends on circumstances. There have been plenty of times where overtaking has been too easy to produce entertaining races, especially in recent years. 2005 was one of the most difficult seasons for overtaking. And the battle for the lead at Imola between Alonso and Schumacher, where Alonso held off a much faster Schumacher to win the grand prix, was really a turning point in F1, where people began to say that overtaking had become far too difficult and that changes must be made. Personally I think that was a great race. But that was also the season when Raikkonen won Suzuka from 17th on the grid, overtaking Fisichella on the final lap, at one of the most aero-dependent circuits in the world. In the dry. Alonso also overtook Schumacher around the outside of 130R that race. There is no entertaining set of regulations. You can have refuelling/non-refuelling, durable/fast-degrading tyres, high aero/low aero, ground effect, fast cars/slower cars, turbocharged/NA/hybrids/electrics, you'll always get good and bad races.
I actually liked the refuelling in 2009, especially where they qualified with a chosen amount of fuel for the 1st stint. I appreciate that everyone sort of ended up on similar strategies in the end but with optional tyre compounds it could work - especially if those tyres are nominated pre season and the cars are designed around them.
After this weekend its very clear what needs to change. Reduce dirty air, tyre saving and fuel saving.
Again I don't agree on the dirty air thing. I missed yesterday's race, but apparently it was another boring one despite Vettel and Massa storming through from the back of the grid. Would suggest overtaking was too easy rather than too difficult. Tyre saving and fuel saving is a tricky one. The teams will always try to eke out tyre performance. Even in GP2 there's a big emphasis on managing tyre performance across a stint, even though everyone one stops every race. The fuel flow and fuel limits needs to be scrapped for a start. These powertrains are supposed to be inherently more efficient, they shouldn't need to be restricted in this way. They could have achieved this level of efficiency with the V8s if they'd run them with aggressive rev limits and fuel limits. The whole point of this engine change shouldn't have been to reduce fuel consumption in F1 cars, it should've been to develop green tech which filters into real world applications. That's the only way F1 could ever be carbon negative. They've completely defeated the object by banning in season engine development and applying ridiculous restrictions to give a false impression of fuel efficiency. And to boot they've massively damaged the sport as a spectacle. What a colossal waste of money. It could've been so good too.
I dunno, we have had over 10 years of cars in 2nd place that would rather stick 3 seconds behind to preserve their car. That's what makes F1 boring. Lack of action at the front
I think it's usually more a case of the driver in front not wanting to build more than a three second gap and risk their car.
I think the real problem with yesterdays Canada was expectation. It wasn't that bad, better than the last two, as racing spectacles, by a country mile, but it just wasn't 'Canada' once Q was over. I think the over-taking generally looked too easy because, with the exception of Alonso and Hulkenberg, no one tried to actually defend aggressively against DRS. Vettel and Massa carved their way through the field, and there was action all down the field. But not at the front, which is really what everyone wants to see but, for all the talk of 'attacking', there was the distinct impression that team orders were in effect. As for preserving tyres. that's really always been the case to a certain degree, but it has got far worse since the tyre rule and pit-lane speed limits. Now we have a case of tyre strategy being dictated by trying to get into Q3.
