2009 rules and their failure to produce better racing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

However the point is that the rules as they were decided last year should have reduced the downforce levels by 50%, however due to the FIA allowing the DDD the loss is only of 25% and this means that around 1/2 of the cornering speed increase is due to the use of the DDD.

---

Wait, even with the DDD they have LESS downforce than last year and thats why they are going faster through corners? :s

The reason they are allowed in is because BMW and Renault didnt want the rules closed up further this time last year when Brawn brought up the point of loopholes in the rules. I bet they are regretting that now. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

Wait, even with the DDD they have LESS downforce than last year and thats why they are going faster through corners? :s

---

Please go and read my last post again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Please go and read my last post again.

---

I did, and it still doesnt make any sense, you admit that downforce levels are lower this year than last yet you insist that the DDD is partly responsible for an increase in cornering speeds.

Tell me then, how at the first 5 races Red Bull had increased cornering speeds without the DDD, given that last years Red Bull at this point of the season was the 4th fastest car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

I did, and it still doesnt make any sense, you admit that downforce levels are lower this year than last yet you insist that the DDD is partly responsible for an increase in cornering speeds.

---

And what part of partly doesn't suit reality?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

No matter, what the technical rules are, there is always one common aspect of racing - fastest car drives away from others into the distance. And no matter, how the technical rules look like, there is nothing to do for preventing it and hence, a "normal" Formula One is meant to be boring. This has been the case for the majority of F1's history. If you want excitement, then the fastest cars must start from further down on the grid, but I'm not sure unfair competition would be a preferred choice. An interesting race occurs if the fastest one(s) do(es)n't have a smooth race for some reason - mistakes, strategy, problems, etc. If the fastest car drives into the distance, then it simply does not matter, how easy or difficult is it to pass - it's impossible for a slower car to give any kind threat in that area.

Like F1 as it is. People have always complained about the "excitement" part of F1, we have seen all kinds of rules throughout the years, but the main essence of racing remains the same.

---

Very well put.

And I couldn't be bothered double-quoting :p but also about the fact the overtaking shouldn't be easy and that a good close battle lasting a number of laps is better than cars just automatically driving past each other.

I'm currently working on an (admittedly relatively crude) simulator of an F1 race for a game I'm working on. I'll try not to bore you all with the finer details but each circuit has a property for how easy it is to overtake. I did a little experiment and set the "overtaking" setting for a particular circuit to something abnormal meaning that essentially the cars were all "ghost" cars that could just drive through each other. I ran a race and after the initial swapping around with cars making differing starts, and the "Trullis" dropped backwards and the poorer qualifiers made their way up a few places, the cars just fanned out for the final two thirds of the race with no changes in position.

Making overtaking more difficult, cars would battle all race long, some cars would swap positions as they were both held up by slightly slower cars ahead of them, although of course if the fastest guy was out front he would pull away just as he should do.

Going to the other extreme, basically a "Monaco" or "Hungaroring" setting, meant yes there were very few changes for position but the race stayed more open for longer, and you had cars battling right till the end of the race.

Even implementing things like pit stops with different fuel loads and tyre compounds putting the cars on different strategies, and trying to model stuff like tyre degradation and inconsistencies in sets of tyres, and some cars starting to back off towards to save their mechanicals, yes it produced a bit of more of a variation even in the "ghost car" race, but the overall theme remained.

Admittedly this is just a game, well not even a game but a simulation that I hope to introduce a playable aspect to, may not have much reference to real life, but maybe there's something in all of that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

And I couldn't be bothered double-quoting :p but also about the fact the overtaking shouldn't be easy and that a good close battle lasting a number of laps is better than cars just automatically driving past each other.

---

Agreed. That's why I'm a fan of KERS.

Spain was a good example with Vettel vs. Massa, Kimi vs. Heidfeld.

Problem with Turkey is that the cars were spaced out too far and the track does produce snorefests: 2007 being a prime example.