Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
Indeed, and it brings up the question of how much of the overtaking back in the 80's was also due to larger differences in car performance across the field. And conversely, how much of the decline in these overtaking statistics is down to equalisers like control tyres and restrictive engine rules, rather than the aero issues. |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
I would strongly agree with AndyL in the argument that the disparity in the modern F1 is much lower causing the passing to be difficult. I believe that's also the reason why the new supposedly overtaking facilitating scheme didn't seem to work last year. According to the statistics, the total amount of overtakings stayed unchanged from last year despite some positive signs that cars do seem to follow closer at times; and I believe this awkward situation was owing to the low disparity when the whole field is covered by only 2 seconds, creating a unusual phenomenon when qualifying was more exciting than the race itself. Had that been 4 seconds like before, the races should have contained more passings presumably.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again. My apologies if this is slightly off-topic.
If they're so sure that the chances of overtaking are reduced because the car in front messes up the air and reduces the chasing car's downforce, why don't they just make a rule where every car has to pass a "windtunnel test", where it would be illegal to cause more than a 10% reduction of a chasing car's downforce? I really can't see any reason why that wouldn't work. |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
I wonder what the lap time differences will be at a really long track like Spa? Everyone is well within the old 107% rule so there should be no problem. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|