The overtaking working group

**Born Racer** · 22 Jun 2009, 20:42 (Ref:2488563)

Well, it's been a failure hasn't it?

Someone somewhere hasn't allowed them to slash downforce enough to make them more readily overtakeable and able to overtake.

Silverstone is a fine circuit, and you don't expect it to be one of the ones most available for overtaking, and I accept this, but the cars can't follow closely enough to make moves that aren't a bit do-or-die.

Why oh why are they taking so many years to sort this out? They've been banging on about making the cars better equipped to overtake for so long, at least 10 years in my experience. It's a tad embarrassing when non-motorsport fan friends acknowledge this and say "haven't they been talking about it for ages?" and I have to admit that yes they do. The mention of an 'overtaking working group' is a bit more embarrassing.

Super Hans · 22 Jun 2009, 20:55 (Ref:2488571)

They're definitely able to get closer than they used to, but not quite close enough.

Taprobane · 22 Jun 2009, 21:05 (Ref:2488577)

The designers are just too clever.

I think the only option is spec parts, for good or for bad.

**Adam43** · 22 Jun 2009, 21:10 (Ref:2488582)

I think there has been a huge case of too much expectation here.

**Born Racer** · 22 Jun 2009, 21:13 (Ref:2488584)

I actually enjoyed the British Grand Prix, because Silverstone is a fine circuit, knowing the drivers enjoy driving it, and due to the seemingly trivial but somehow valuable aspect of a passionate crowd, and the tension of the battles we did see, but it's not enough when they continue to suggest that they'll sort it out.

Are there some vested interests in retaining such aerodynamic dependence?

Teretonga · 22 Jun 2009, 21:18 (Ref:2488587)

Maybe.
The group said that they wanted to make it easier to follow but didn't want to create a situation where it was easy to pass.
Max confirmed this.

In the end it appears that having the manufacturers involved hasn't provided a solution or not the solution most fans hoped for.
So we have what we have....

amk · 22 Jun 2009, 22:27 (Ref:2488628)

What do you guys think - by how much is double diffuser increasing turbulence behind the car.I suppose the original rule (for diffuser size) was made after OWG recommendation ,and dd must have bigger air throughput ... Just spotted an article in german in which Massa was saying something along those lines ...

Flat12-Aircool · 22 Jun 2009, 23:29 (Ref:2488644)

The only way you will get a car that performs better for overtaking, is if they make it look more and more like a Le Mans Prototype or something.

As for the double diffusers I think that on their own they are not to blame. But because of the extra grip they provide towards the rear of the car, the Teams are able to add more Frontal downforce to balance the car aerodynamically. Notice how once the DD's came on stream after the first few races, then the cars also sprouted 2 sometimes 3 decked Front wing set-ups.

Thus with extra surfaces on the front wing there is a greater disruption when following another car.

**Bononi** · 22 Jun 2009, 23:30 (Ref:2488645)

Maybe they don't know the meaning of overtaking.

Marbot · 22 Jun 2009, 23:44 (Ref:2488654)

The double decker diffuser was never really intended.It came about through a regulation that was drawn up and written by the teams and then found to be rather vague when looked at in the harsh light of day.

Normally it is the proximity of the diffuser to the rear wing that causes turbulence,which is why the rear wing is so high in order to stop the two from working together.You may get more downforce from the DDDs,but that doesn't necessarily mean more turbulence.

As I think I posted elsewhere,it is expected that the teams will recover up to 90% of the downforce that they had last season by the end of this season,and in some cases (Honda for example) they may even have reached that figure already!

**bella** · 22 Jun 2009, 23:56 (Ref:2488660)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

The double decker diffuser was never really intended.It came about through a regulation that was drawn up and written by the teams and then found to be rather vague when looked at in the harsh light of day.

the teams writing a really strict rule is rather like turkeys voting for christmas, isn't it?

i do agree. it has been a bit of a fail. and they've been incredibly fortunate that the whole world has changed since this time last year and on the whole people have forgotten about it.

Marbot · 23 Jun 2009, 00:24 (Ref:2488667)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella

the teams writing a really strict rule is rather like turkeys voting for christmas, isn't it?

Yes,the idea that teams draw up and write regulations that actually give the 'people' what they want is really quite absurd.The FIA wanted cuts in downforce in the region of 70% of 2008 levels,but the teams,ever mindfull of what the public wants,battled hard to retain more than 50%.Well done!

JeremySmith · 23 Jun 2009, 00:37 (Ref:2488670)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I think there has been a huge case of too much expectation here.

Quite honestly need we say anymore?

Marbot · 23 Jun 2009, 00:40 (Ref:2488672)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Quite honestly need we say anymore?

Well,it is a discussion forum,but.......

JeremySmith · 23 Jun 2009, 00:42 (Ref:2488674)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well,it is a discussion forum,but.......

Go ahead then...

JeremySmith · 23 Jun 2009, 00:45 (Ref:2488676)

Smart arse...

Marbot · 23 Jun 2009, 00:56 (Ref:2488681)

I'd rather talk about wings than war.

JeremySmith · 23 Jun 2009, 01:08 (Ref:2488687)

There are many different opinions as to what would improve the sport, show, racing, call it what you will..

The cars are so close now aren't they in performance, so what can we expect to be honest?
Sometimes one team, will perfect their setup for a certain GP faster and better than others..

More downforce please...

rocketracer · 23 Jun 2009, 02:02 (Ref:2488705)

i really think there was an improvement, and more overtaking in the early races.

Maybe that was KERS, maybe that was the spread of teams, some having DDD, and others not, maybe it was the early extreme differences between the softs and hard tyres, whatever. It appears as though now, after the shakeup of the regulations, that the teams have settled into similar rythms, and we are back to where we started. With very little performance difference, expecially braking difference between the cars because they're so light.

Perhaps more weight in the cars is one solution. This will extend braking distances, and also lead to greater wear rates on tyres. I get the feeling that if all the cars were as twitchy and seemingly hard to drive as most of the KERS cars (due to their weight balance issues), then we'd probably have some mistake ridden, but excellent racing.

remember that KERS was a big part of the OWG strategy for overtaking, and no doubt it has been a big disappointment that KERS has turned out to be such a flop...

Marbot · 23 Jun 2009, 07:26 (Ref:2488800)

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketracer

Perhaps more weight in the cars is one solution.

More weight = more kinetic energy = bigger accident for same speed.

Probably why 5,500kg trucks are limited to 160 kph in the FIA truck racing series!

Peralta · 23 Jun 2009, 08:28 (Ref:2488834)

How about steel brake discs instead of carbon to increase braking distance? How about actually using a gear lever to change gears like the old days. More chances of a driver making a mistake letting the following driver to capitalize when pressuring. Real racing remember those days.

rocketracer · 23 Jun 2009, 08:31 (Ref:2488836)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

More weight = more kinetic energy = bigger accident for same speed.

Probably why 5,500kg trucks are limited to 160 kph in the FIA truck racing series!

yes, that certainly is a trade off which i did think of, but conveniently failed to mention...! Should not compromise the safety of the current cars, i think everyone would agree on that.

but i guess after considering this, the current KERS cars have the same weight, but different weight balance, so hence my later point - not necessarily increase in weight, but decreasing the amount availabe for ballast ie KERS cars.

perhaps i should have said: if you give all drivers a pig of a car like the bmw, then we will get some highly entertaining racing (which seems to be more the publics perception of what the OWG represent)! now how could that be mandated..........

Marbot · 23 Jun 2009, 11:04 (Ref:2488947)

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketracer

perhaps i should have said: if you give all drivers a pig of a car like the bmw, then we will get some highly entertaining racing (which seems to be more the publics perception of what the OWG represent)! now how could that be mandated..........

First of all Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey would be banned (it would actually be written into the technical regulations).Then you would ban all the 'whiney' drivers who,despite the fact that their car is capable of producing 5Gs,complain that they have "no grip".

ukaskew · 23 Jun 2009, 11:52 (Ref:2488990)

Like a few have said, there did appear to be a quite noticeable difference at the first few races with cars following each other much closer than I can remember in the past few years.

Gradually things have been edging towards "normal service", I presume as the cars have been further developed. At the end of the day, isn't it in the teams interest to sling as much dirty turbulent air out as possible, to minimise somebody overtaking them?

CreweAlex_42 · 23 Jun 2009, 12:14 (Ref:2489008)

Hello there. New to this board, so here goes.

IMO Aerodynamics are the biggest barrier to overtaking, so surely it might be easier for the FIA to issue Stock Rear and Front wings of a certain low efficiency, and then maybe open up the rules slightly so if the teams wish to improve their grip levels, they have to achieve it through Mechanical means rather than Aerodynamically?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Group B & Group S rally cars research	TrevorC	Motorsport History	18	3 May 2018 05:25
So...Group 5, Group C, or LMP?	minimangler	Sportscar & GT Racing	57	11 Oct 2009 13:01
Group C and Group A Touring car Forum	groupnxu1	Australasian Touring Cars.	1	22 Nov 2005 05:12
Victorian Group C and Group A owners	groupnxu1	Australasian Touring Cars.	2	4 Jun 2005 23:42
What is you favourite Group 4 (pre Group B) 1970's Rallycar and why?	Robin Plummer	Rallying & Rallycross	13	17 Feb 2003 21:37