Formula 1 2009

[Rossiya]

Hmm. The videotape seems to suggest otherwise:

Classic Mika.

Mikia wins his second championship.

Not at all! They suggest that he tons of charisma to me! Why, his one-word answers to paragraph-long questions hit me as sarcasm excellently performed, under the pretence of him being Finnish.

When you compare Hakkinen's interview style to the monotonone, monotonous garble from Hamilton, about how his opposition was very good, the car was very good, the team was very good, he would like to thank his father etc., that always strikes me as totally uncharismatic, boring, and useless.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean Lewis is a consumate professional who always seems to say the correct thing while in public?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-AQGohc3zI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpUQY-zoFnE

Bonus videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMBP1T_jw5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6e3bDs2lgw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VW2oAkjcJ4

 

[Rossiya]

You mean Lewis is a consumate professional who always seems to say the correct thing while in public?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-AQGohc3zI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpUQY-zoFnE

Bonus videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMBP1T_jw5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6e3bDs2lgw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VW2oAkjcJ4

A consumate professional who always says the correct thing in public is not the same thing as a charismatic figure, and if that statement of yours was not parodical, you sir, are mistaken.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You didn't watch the videos, did you?

 

[Rossiya]

No, I try to avoid Lewis Hamilton as much as possible. I can only expose myself to his boringability when the season starts.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I always liked Mika Hakkinen actually.

I don't really see how that logically follows. at least as long as the braking distance for all the vehicles is essentially the same. Most passes happen on the straight before the turn. If the following car can't get at least partially alongside prior to the braking point, he's not going to be able to complete the pass regardless of the distance required. And if it's an outside pass, he has to essentially be completely past the overtaken car prior to the braking point to make it stick.

Obviously there is more to overtaking than brakes - you need to able to follow the car ahead reasonably closely, you need to position your car well on the track, and you need a general advantage in speed/performance.

But braking plays a big role - if you can get alongside another driver coming up to a corner then whoever is latest on the brakes is going to have a better chance of taking the position. Longer braking zones make outbraking moves easier to pull off, because there is more 'wiggle room', so to speak.

Earlier braking points would also bunch cars together more as the leading car would have to slow down earlier in the straight, leading to more opportunities for overtaking.

By the way, I'm kind of puzzled that you would say most overtaking happens in a straight line... 95% of passes in F1 happen at corners?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Earlier braking points would also bunch cars together more as the leading car would have to slow down earlier in the straight, leading to more opportunities for overtaking.:

Not if everybody has essentially the same brakes with the same stopping distances, which has been the case since at least the 80s.

And the cars do get closer together the slower they go, but the time differential remains the same so there is no advantage to be gained that way. That is unless there is an accordian effect which requires multiple cars and typically only happens during the start of the race or after a full course yellow.

By the way, I'm kind of puzzled that you would say most overtaking happens in a straight line... 95% of passes in F1 happen at corners?

If you look closely, the overtaking car must be at least partially alongside the overtaken car by the time they get to the braking zone. If he's not, there is no requirement for the overtaken car to not turn into the corner as usual, so the overtaking car has no choice but to abandon the pass attempt or crash into him. It is always the overtaking car's responsibility to avoid the crash unless he is already alongside. Then the roles reverse and the overtaken car has the responsibility to avoid contact when the overtaking car is on the inside.

There is also another element which makes inside passes even more difficult. The track is typically going to have marbles and other debris off the racing line which increases the braking distance even more. So the car on the outside will always have a braking advantage over the car on the inside - at least if he is taking the normal racing line.

But you are correct that the pass itself is completed in the corner most of the time. The only real exception is the outside pass which must be essentially completed before the cars get to the braking point. Otherwise the overtaken car has the advantage of inside position so the overtaking car must give way.

If the overtaken driver doesn't make any mistakes, it's really all about getting off the previous corner faster than the other car. That's what sets up the actual pass in the vast majority of cases, especially nowadays with semi-automatic gearboxes which means it is virtually impossible to miss a shift anymore.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Well, obviously if all the cars stopping distances were identical metre for metre then outbraking would be more difficult, but even in spec series it probably wouldn't work out exactly that neatly. The problems come up when the braking distances become so short that any advantage you do have under braking is too hard to capitalize on.

Anyway, when two cars are racing on a straight, the lead car will hit the braking point first and begin to slow down sooner - from that point the car behind has an advantage in speed that will be maintained until the exit of the corner, where the tables are turned as the lead car can get on the gas first.

This is why gaps between cars open up on straights and shrink at corners. The effect is more pronounced at slow corners at the end of long straights because there is a more severe reduction in speed. So even while braking at the same rate as the car in front, you can gain ground.

Here the chasing car (if it’s faster or better handling) can try to press the advantage by pulling inside of the lead car and muscling onto the racing line: you don't need to take the corner perfectly, just lever enough of an advantage over the other car that you get priority on the better line at the turn in point.

If the braking point were close enough to the turn in point, then the lead car could be half way around the corner by the time the chasing car gained any ground, and any chance for an outbraking move would be defused - hence why longer braking distances would aid overtaking.

Obviously there is more to overtaking than this but it’s a pretty big part of it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Double post. Please delete.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, obviously if all the cars stopping distances were identical metre for metre then outbraking would be more difficult, but even in spec series it probably wouldn't work out exactly that neatly. The problems come up when the braking distances become so short that any advantage you do have under braking is too hard to capitalize on.

The F1 rules have mandated that the brakes be the same for quite a while now for safety and sporting reasons. They may all even come from the same vendor, although I'm not sure about that.

And if you are braking at the maximum limit, you will decelerate at the same rate given that the cars weigh the same. Increasing or decreasing the distance shouldn't make any noticable difference other than the fact that you are braking longer and for a greater distance. You will still be decelerating at the same rate relative to the other vehicle.

Anyway, when two cars are racing on a straight, the lead car will hit the braking point first and begin to slow down sooner - from that point the car behind has an advantage in speed that will be maintained until the exit of the corner, where the tables are turned as the lead car can get on the gas first.

Not at all given that both drivers brake at the maximum threshold, which they do unless they want to get passed or lose ground, or they are on a dirty part of the track off the racing line.

This is why gaps between cars open up on straights and shrink at corners..

No, that's not why. Once again, the time differential remains the same even though the cars get physically closer together the slower they go. The time differential between the cars remain the same so nothing is gained even though it appears to be the case.

Here's an example. Let's assume that the cars are separated by one second. At 30 mph that translates into 44 feet, At 180 mph that translates into 264 feet. So on the fastest part of the track, they are almost separated by the length of a football field, but at the slowest corner on the track they are separated by the length of a large living room. But they are still one second apart.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

The F1 rules have mandated that the brakes be the same for quite a while now for safety and sporting reasons. They may all even come from the same vendor, although I'm not sure about that.

IIRC the brakes in F1 could be made more efficient, but the rules don't allow it.

No, that's not why. Once again, the time differential remains the same even though the cars get physically closer together the slower they go. The time differential between the cars remain the same so nothing is gained even though it appears to be the case.

Here's an example. Let's assume that the cars are separated by one second. At 30 mph that translates into 44 feet, At 180 mph that translates into 264 feet. So on the fastest part of the track, they are almost separated by the length of a football field, but at the slowest corner on the track they are separated by the length of a large living room. But they are still one second apart.

Okay, that does sound more correct than my version, I'll give you that.

BUT the fact remains that the cars are closer together at slow corners, making it easier for the faster car to overtake - slow corners have longer braking zones, hence longer braking zones are good for overtaking.

Slower cornering speeds would also help, but since it's easier to pass in a straight line than in a turn, slowing the cars down earlier in the straight would be more effective.

 

[Formaldehyde]

IIRC the brakes in F1 could be made more efficient, but the rules don't allow it.

Exactly. To do so would merely drive up the cost and make the cars much more inherently unsafe because the goal is to always reduce unsprung weight as much as possible. By keeping the brakes relatively uniform, not only are they making the racing safer, but more competitive and cheaper as well. Allowing the F1 teams to mess with the brakes is only going to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots, even further reducing the passing which occurs.

BUT the fact remains that the cars are closer together at slow corners, making it easier for the faster car to overtake.

Once again, it is an illusion because the time differential remains the same. You have to decrease that time differential to the point where you can catch a draft down the straight to slingshot past.

Slower cornering speeds would also help, but since it's easier to pass in a straight line than in a turn, slowing the cars down earlier in the straight would be more effective.

If it slows everybody down the same amount, it's not going to change anything.

Actually, the biggest detriment to passing these days is aerodynamic turbulence as you get near the other car. Typically the front wing stops working and the trailing car starts understeering quite badly. Hopefully by reducing the aero appendages and the size of the wings, the current F1 cars should dramatically help address this issue. Having tires with a lot more mechanical grip should help as well. It should make it a bit easier to go offline to make the pass and still have enough grip to execute the pass.

F1 is doing everything they can to have more passing. They know all-too-well they need to do so to help grow the sport, especially in the US.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Exactly. To do so would merely drive up the cost and make the cars much more inherently unsafe because the goal is to always reduce unsprung weight as much as possible. By keeping the brakes relatively uniform, not only are they making the racing safer, but more competitive and cheaper as well. Allowing the F1 teams to mess with the brakes is only going to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots, even further reducing the passing which occurs.

I don't think F1 would be F1 if there wasn’t a certain amount of room in the rules for haves and have-nots, if you follow me. I would be quite disappointed if F1 ends up running spec engines as Mosley seems to want. Also, I would think that better brakes being prohibited is at least partly to do with overtaking, but hey.

Once again, it is an illusion because the time differential remains the same. You have to decrease that time differential to the point where you can catch a draft down the straight to slingshot past.

Okay, well two points here I guess:

-Most circuits in F1 today have straights that are too short and corners that are too tight & frequent for pure slipstream passing, not to mention the difficulties the cars have following each other (and as long as they have wings, they will have trouble in this respect). Mostly it’s more a matter of using the slingshot to pull alongside, even partially, in preparation for an outbraking move into a corner. The problem then is for one car to actually brake later than the other in order to gain distance, which is very hard to do when the brakes are almost like on/off switches and it’s too hard to make a gain without having a huge advantage.

-I understand that the time gained/lost remains unaffected, but that doesn’t mean that the physical gap between the cars is an illusion. Slow corners with high braking areas are where the cars are naturally closest (and aero turbulence lowest), which makes them prime real estate in terms of gaining track position, regardless of how much faster one car is than the other over a split or over a lap.

If it slows everybody down the same amount, it's not going to change anything.

The point is what happens when there is a difference in performance: specifically when a faster car catches a slower one.

Actually, the biggest detriment to passing these days is aerodynamic turbulence as you get near the other car. Typically the front wing stops working and the trailing car starts understeering quite badly. Hopefully by reducing the aero appendages and the size of the wings, the current F1 cars should dramatically help address this issue. Having tires with a lot more mechanical grip should help as well. It should make it a bit easier to go offline to make the pass and still have enough grip to execute the pass.

F1 is doing everything they can to have more passing. They know all-too-well they need to do so to help grow the sport, especially in the US.

I understand well enough the aero issues and indeed I hope there will be more overtaking this season (tho afew drivers have said that they don't expect too much of a difference).

Additionally, I have to say that if Bernie was REALLY interested in promoting F1 in North America, then that continent would still have at least one GP on the calendar this year.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't think F1 would be F1 if there wasn’t a certain amount of room in the rules for haves and have-nots, if you follow me.

Well it certanly hasn't been that F1 since the days of active suspensions and elaborate engine control systems to provide traction control. They reasonably decided that the title should really go to the team with the most cubic dollars as it had in the past. And given the current economic climate, it appears they were quite wise to do so.

II would be quite disappointed if F1 ends up running spec engines as Mosley seems to want.

Yes and no. It would obviously discourage the engine builders from helping to subsidize the racing, but the benefactors of that support are typically the top teams instead of the rest of the field. OTOH it adds immensely to the cost and it makes for a decided lack of competition from the vast majority of the teams.

-Most circuits in F1 today have straights that are too short and corners that are too tight & frequent for pure slipstream passing.

Not at all. Even Hungary has the front straight. If you analyze the passes that do occur now, the vast majority do indeed require slipstreaming - at least to some degree.

Mostly it’s more a matter of using the slingshot...

Um, that is another word for slipstreaming...

--I understand that the time gained/lost remains unaffected, but that doesn’t mean that the physical gap between the cars is an illusion.

No, the physical gap itself is obviously not an illusion as I showed. The gaining of any time advantage due to the different distance a car can travel at different speeds is the illusion. Once again, if the time differential betwen the cars remains the same, there is no advantage gained.

--Additionally, I have to say that if Bernie was REALLY interested in promoting F1 in North America, then that continent would still have at least one GP on the calendar this year.

Yeah. That is rather disappointing. But given the climate in Mexico, I don't see them going back there soon. And the temporary circuit in Montreal is a dangerous compromise at best. It's a miracle that nobody has died there.

 

[raketooy]

I just read that the champion will be determined by number of wins alone, and points matter only if it's a draw.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73744

 

[Dell19]

I just read that the champion will be determined by number of wins alone, and points matter only if it's a draw.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73744

Which is a silly system as it has the potential to create odd situations where a driver has the same number of wins as the winner of the title but then finishes 6th in the championship whilst the guy that finishes 2nd might have scored 30+ points more than the title winner.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Yeah, it strikes me as being pretty silly as well.

Kind of funny though because the reason they reduced the relative points value of wins in the first place is because Schumacher was winning all the time.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Not at all. Even Hungary has the front straight. If you analyze the passes that do occur now, the vast majority do indeed require slipstreaming - at least to some degree.

-

No, the physical gap itself is obviously not an illusion as I showed. The gaining of any time advantage due to the different distance a car can travel at different speeds is the illusion. Once again, if the time differential between the cars remains the same, there is no advantage gained.

Even if a car is less than half a second behind another, there will be times over the course of a lap when the physical gap between them could be fifty or sixty metres, and times when they are separated by less than a car length.

The idea is that the best places to overtake are the places where the gap is small, & these points usually come at the end of straights.

If F1 races took place on ovals, then the cars could just speed by each other in straight lines, but – F1 circuits, especially modern ones, have twists & turns and very few straights more than a couple thirds of a mile long. This makes it difficult to fully pass another car without coming up to a corner, meaning that braking becomes vital.

Which leads into my MAIN point:

That longer braking distances would make it easier to capitalize on advantages in braking performance, which would make overtaking easier.

If two cars come up to a corner, and one driver brakes later than the other, and in doing so gains half a car length on his competitor, then he would gain a full car length over a braking zone twice as long. In this case, if he is close enough to the other car as it goes into the braking zone, then he can make a pretty reasonable attempt to overtake.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just read that the champion will be determined by number of wins alone, and points matter only if it's a draw.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73744

Yes and no. The champion will be determined by wins but everything else remains the same. The Constructors Cup and 2nd-whatever are still determined by points, which is just wrong as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is going to generate a number of ill-advised passes amongst the frontrunners. And that is going to result in some very interesting radio conversations and finger-pointing after the races. I also expect it to be rescinded after one or two really nasty incidents as a direct result.

 

[Dell19]

They've already decided to drop it and use the normal points system for this season.