Adrian Newey, 2011

Newey concerned about “overly manufactured” F1

2011 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Adrian Newey, 2011
Adrian Newey, 2011

Red Bull designer Adrian Newey says he expects the new adjustable rear wings introduced this year to increase overtaking.

But he warned they could make passing too easy and creating an “overly manufactured” spectacle.

Speaking at the annual Sid Watkins lecture for the Motorsport Safety Fund at Autosport International Newey said:

It will help, sure. It reduces the drag of the car on the straights so that you’ve got extra straight-line speed.

I think the key thing is going to be adjusting it, juggling it, so that it makes overtaking possible but not too easy. If it makes overtaking too easy, so that you get into the position where you want to be second going into the last lap, it then becomes overly manufactured.

There is that danger and certainly at the moment the boost that’s provided, to me, looks too big.

Personally, I know I’m in a minority in this view, the difficulty of overtaking is vastly over-egged. Because what difficult overtaking does mean is that when someone does overtake it’s really memorable.

We all remember [Nigel] Mansell going around the outside of [Gerhard] Berger in Mexico or Nigel and Ayrton [Senna] having it out along the length of the Barcelona straight.

Those stand out because overtaking isn’t that easy and if it becomes like a NASCAR slipstreamer it’s going to lose something.
Adrian Newey

Newey also said he is concerned that high straight line speeds could contribute to accidents in 2011.

Increased closing speeds could create greater risk of an accident similar to the one suffered by Mark Webber in Valencia last year.

The very high end-of-straight speeds are probably the most dangerous area. That’s something that worries me slightly this year with the moveable rear wing and KERS.

We could potentially have some very high end-of-straight speeds. It’s not so much the speed itself as when you get that sudden difference between them.

That, of course, was what happened with Mark – Heikki braked earlier than Mark expected and it’s the huge difference in speed that causes the accident.
Adrian Newey

Newey explained the difficulties of preventing this kind of accident through car design:

There are ways being thought of. The fundamental problem is as long as we have an exposed rear wheel then when a nose hits a rear wheel the rotation is going to lift the car.

You could look at regulating very now front noses but that brings other things. At the moment the great thing about high noses is there’s little danger, if a car T-bones another one. If you T-bone a car with a low nose the car could end up on top of you.

So it’s like all these things. It’s almost like the original debate over safety belts: 99% of the time they’re good for you but occasionally there’s going to be an accident where you’d be better not to have a safety belt.
Adrian Newey

Asked what else could be done to stop cars flying into the air Newey added: “Probably get the drivers to brake a bit earlier!”

Autosport International 2011

Browse all Autosport International 2011 articles

Image ??

91 comments on “Newey concerned about “overly manufactured” F1”

  1. 100% agree Adrian Newey. If every driver will be able to overtake,it will no longer be something people will look forward to see.

    1. I don’t think every driver will, you still need to carry the speed from the corners to the straight, so for that if the car back is something like the Newbie of 2010 against a Ferrari I doubt that will happen.The car still needs to be good in corning.
      But up in the front it will be nice to see some moves by great drivers.

      Another things mentioned by someone here is that to overtake you need huge amount of courage which few drivers if any like Alonso, Hamilton, Kobayashi, Kubica even Schumacher have, may be some other names may add.

      If what Newey said is right then at the end of the season we will have a poll of the “Best Defense of the season” in F1F.

      1. Agree with Adrian Newy 100%!!!

    2. I also 100% agree with Newey

    3. 100% Agree. Quality not quantity.

      Last two seasons have been great entertainment.

      1. Newey is correct to a point. If overtaking is too easy it will devalue it, however overtaking has been getting far too hard. Just look at the fanal race of last season, the two best overtakers in F1 (Hamilton and Alonso) stuck behind far slower cars for most of the race. I know part of the reason is the track design but the other part is the fact that the cars can no longer lap as close to each other as the cars in Mansells day. Something has to be done and I think that the new floor designs may be the answer in 2013.

    4. For sure this will be a year to remember as the sadest year. I really hope they realize their mistake for 2012! This is just humbug! Another big reason overtaking in F1 is so hard is that the skill level is so high! They make so few mistakes and everybody is on the absolute limit. Just look lower down on the grid and rookies and what not. Overtaking happens there. Different tracks offer longer straights where slipstream is possible and that’s your best bet at overtaking someone that’s as fast as you are.

      This rule is just c**ck

    5. Newey takes a stand like a good sheep dog all the sheep fall in line.
      Don’t forget you must be within a second of the car in front to use the adjustable wing and you can only use it on one spot per lap. This is a design to overtake a slower car for position not an equal car or better for position.
      Relax and enjoy the show.

  2. Asked what else could be done to stop cars flying into the air Newey added: “Probably get the drivers to brake a bit earlier!”

    This is a very valid point, does anyone else feel that braking distances are too short? If we reduced the braking power through regulation, it might make it easier for drivers to pull a last-of-the-late-brakers style manoeuvre on someone while making the sport a bit safer, does anyone have any thoughts?

    1. yep, with longer braking times there is more chance’s for a driver to overtake. i didn’t think of that! so how would they do it.. slipperier tyres? smaller brakes?

      1. That was the theory behind bringing in the grooved tyres in 1998: smaller contact patch = longer braking distance = more overtaking. Unfortunately it just moved the ratio of grip towards aero and away from mechanical, and hindered overtaking more than it helped.

        Interesting/ironic that Newey’s two examples of great overtaking moves are from 1990 and 1991 respectively. I agree that overtaking shouldn’t be easy, but you still want one or two exciting moves per race, on average across the whole season.

      2. i didn’t think of that! so how would they do it.. slipperier tyres? smaller brakes?

        AUS_Steve, Steel Brakes like the old days would increase the braking distances, instead of using the current exotic carbon fibre composites.

      3. they could simply revert to steel brakes

    2. Might not go down well with the saftey side of things…you need brakes to avoid walls sometimes ;D

      1. Regardless of the brake disc material being used, the drivers will sort out their capabilities and limits, and apply them accordingly. I don’t see that as being a safety issue.

        1. Yes, and when you think of that it also means it wouldn’t increase overtaking. Everyone would have the same brakes, same distance to stop, how would it help? I don’t get it.

    3. I agree, Newey is perfectly correct. I share his fear of these wings making overtaking to easy.

      So should we make them use steel brake discs? But woudn’t that make them braking worse than GT cars and high end road cars? Hm, this is not easy!

      1. No none of that, just reduce the maximum diameter of the brake discs, it would be an easy regulation to introduce at the start of a season or to even fine-tune midseason, with co-operation from teams and brake manufacturers.

      2. Would ceramic-carbon composite disks be a happy medium? Higher performance than steel but increasing the braking distances over pure carbon brakes, and potentially reducing the danger at the start of races of having ‘cold’ brakes.

        1. That might be a solid compromise, Rob.

        2. I believe that the current brake rotors are carbon-ceramic. They certainly arent CFRP or Carbon Composite along those lines. People often bring up steel brakes as a solution for increasing braking distances, but that wouldnt actually work, because the limiting factor for braking is grip (both aero and mechanical). Think about it…a car with traditional steel brake rotors is able to lock up its tires under braking (braking force exceeeding tire grip) just as easily as a car with carbon ceramic discs. The difference is that steel discs are not as durable, and not as capable of dissipating heat as effectively during severe, prolonged use (i.e., F1 racing). What this means is that steel discs would yield the same stopping distances, unless they began to suffer from excessive brake fade or warping from overheating, which would be a major safety issue. Steel brake discs used in motorsports are generally designed to withstand this kind of heat and force anyway though. So ultimately, the real difference would be that (safe) steel brakes would perform the same as carbon ceramic brakes, but would be heavier, cheaper, and slightly more prone to failure.

          1. Very interesting. Thanks, Hallard.

  3. interesting article.. and i agree with his words about making passing easy.. that’s what makes battles for position so fun to watch.

    and when you think about it.. since a ferrari can fight with a renault for the whole race. if the cars have those rear wings then the ferrari can pass easily, and we will actually have less overtaking.. or less battles at least. But it’s an interesting topic which i’m sure will come up a lot over the next year..

  4. Fair comments. Good to see he is concerned with keeping the spectacle as ethical as possible.

    1. keeping the spectacle as ethical as possible.

      I agree, regardless of how right or wrong he is, he has just said something for the right reason. Which in my book amounts to a new level of respect.

  5. I think what Newey is forgetting is that in order for cars to be in a position to be able to overtake each other is that they have to be going faster than the cars in front.

    With the performance differential that there is in F1, it will probably mean that those cars that can get ahead will stay ahead unless they make mistakes – teammates, however, will be able to stay with each other which might encourage some overtaking (unless the car is red). The rear wing device will then be a way for the driver behind to punish them for that mistake – so i’m not entirely sure that there will be a problem of constant slipstream battles. Then again, i’m not sure how much ground you can make up in one straight – if its a huge amount then it might be a problem – but I suppose you have to be earlier on the brakes anyway!

    1. ……some overtaking (unless the car is red)

      I think u need to go through the season again as u can see not only red cars but many other use the same principle with different manner…

      **** vettel you need to save fuel………*** remember…

  6. agree completly. it’s the wrong way to solve the problem, if there is a problem.

  7. First they were talking to improve overtaking now they are saying that there may be too many< well we have many season of F1 little overtaking lest full fill those gap then we will decide.

  8. I doubt f1 will be an overtaking fest, but i wont mind if bahrain ends up like moto gp with the guy in second place having the advantage into the last lap

    1. I can’t see the penultimate lap being that crucial. You can easily be talking 20+ seconds between 1st & 2nd and you can only flick the switch within a 1 second gap. I only recall Singapore in 2010 where it was down to the wire between Alonso and Vettel.

  9. Ironically, Pat Symonds thinks exactly the opposite:

    1. Nice find, although after reading that, I get the impression they are pretty close in their opinions.

      Both say there is a bit of fear of making it to easy to pass. And they both agree, that doing new things is needed.

      The difference is, Newey highlights the safety risks as well, while Symonds speaks more about the interest in getting some new things in to work on for the teams.

    2. Thanks for the link. But it doens’t seem to be exactly the opposite PM?

      “Overtaking should not be too easy. It should be like a goal in football – not a basket in basketball.”

      On a darker note, it’s a shame that Symonds is allowed to talk about F1 at all to be honest :)

  10. Personally, I know I’m in a minority in this view, the difficulty of overtaking is vastly over-egged. Because what difficult overtaking does mean is that when someone does overtake it’s really memorable.

    When a car that is catching another at over a second per lap is then unable to pass that same car, the difficulty of overtaking is definitely not ‘vastly over-egged’.

    1. agreed. aero generated downforce dependency is the problem here. modern F1 cars would never be able to produce a Villeneuve – Arnoux battle.

      bit fat tyres and reduction in downforce by 60-80% and we’d see some racing.

      1. You’d probably have to go back to early ’80s tyre compounds and brake set-ups to recreate battles like that. And that’s simply too unsafe for modern F1. Four drivers died between 1980 and 1986.

        1. Not true, the cars these days can withstand large impacts without the drivers feeling anything. F1 drivers these days get hurt less than the average football player, so I won’t mind seeing more crashes for the sake of entertainment. They can take a few knocks for all that dosh they make.

          1. I’m sure the chassis can take greater impact. But a crash always has bits of bodywork flying about. That’s a huge risk with open cockpit cars. Plus nobody would want to be in Schumacher’s position at Abu Dhabi!

            In any case if I wanted crashes for crashing’s sake, I’d watch a demolition derby.

        2. why would you need 80’s tyre compounds and brake setups?
          and even if you did have to, why is that unsafe?

  11. First,
    I don’t like that he compares a battle between Mansel and Senna to the one-off passes we see in the modern era. The cars of that era were no where near as aero-dependent as todays and didn’t suffer the same imbalance when following another car closely.
    Marks accident was caused primarily (in my belief) by a frustrated fool. There was no reason for the fastest car on the grid to try and slipstream behind a car that was easily four seconds slower that weekend. It wasn’t because Marks straight line speed was so high, it was that it was so high when compared to the car he decided to tuck himself under.

    1. Several days late with this, but its worth pointing out that the Lotus was quicker in a straight line than the Red Bull because it had so little downforce in comaparison.

  12. A. Newey is only talking from the POV of RBR, as if they will remain in front of the grid all the time ….. :(

    He should not forget Williams was once a front team.

    I am not even sure using Webber/Kova is good example and compelling a driver to brake late is share arrogance!! The blame (as is the case on our roads) lies on the wheels of the car BEHIND not the poor Kova infront!!

    Oh! And yes, you are in the minority in your views on overtaking. This is guy who is known for creating fragile cars!!

    1. When did he ever try and claim it was Kovi’s fault?

      It was a joke about how there wouldn’t be so many accidents if the drivers didn’t push so hard!

      1. That, of course, was what happened with Mark – Heikki braked earlier than Mark expected and it’s the huge difference in speed that causes the accident.

        If the above is not laying blame on Kova …. well, I beg to disagree.

        1. I don’t see him laying blame on either person here. Kova breaked earlier than Webber expected is a statement. The causality lies the speed difference. The relation slow-fast is far more determining than the relation Heikki-Mark.

  13. Its like in Indy car there is overtaking but its boring to watch. Its too predictable.

    1. The wings will make overtaking easier in straigh line, by one car going faster. But in turns I don’t think they will be able/allowed to move the rear wing, so the only increases in overtaking will be boring straight line ones.

      1. Exactly, these wings are designed to fall back into position (bringing back higher downforce) at the moment the driver hits the brake.
        Otherwise he would have no grip in cornering.

    2. Road racing in Indycar is boring now, especially since they got rid of Belle Isle and Watkins Glen, plus they’ve even lost their best ovals (Michigan, Homestead, Chicagoland, Richmond).

  14. Personally, I know I’m in a minority in this view, the difficulty of overtaking is vastly over-egged. Because what difficult overtaking does mean is that when someone does overtake it’s really memorable.

    Exactly my thoughts, overtaking should be a challenge just like putting in a perfect flying lap or setting the car up just right. This assistance is totally artificial and I do worry that’ll it’ll ruin the challenge of F1.

    My biggest concern is that the wings can only be activated on one straight for each circuit, so at every track there will now be just one designated “overtaking point” with drivers only willing to make a move at that one, easy point. I’m worried that tracks like Montreal, Monza and Spa will lose a lot of their appeal because they won’t allow for as much creativity when it comes to overtaking.

    My favourite overtake last year was Lewis Hamilton on Nico Rosberg at Melbourne, simply because he showed some balls and tried something different. Now there’s no reason why drivers would take the risk of making a move like that, when a couple of corners later they’ll have a massive, artificial assist.

    1. And as well as holding off because a move would be much easier at the “overtaking point”, they’ll also not want to overtake early and then be totally helpless against being retook when they reach the straight!

    2. I agree with almost 100% of your point except when you use the Hamilton on Rosberg pass as an example of a great overtake. It definitely was an incredible overtake, but at that point in the season the Mclaren was the only car equipped with an F-duct, which is essentially a moveable rear wing. So one could argue that it was the ‘gimmick’ device which made the pass possible, thus he had an artificial assist.

      1. Yeah perhaps, although you could equally argue that it’s just a design feature that Mclaren happened to get right, just like Red Bull’s insane aero last year or the Brawn’s tyre management in early-2009.

        In contrast, the moveable rear wing is simply too arbitrary to be fair, that’s what’s made it seem too artificial for me. If the driver could use it whenever they like (as they will be able to do in Practice and Quali), then fine, but it’s only at one point on the track and only when they’re a second behind another car.

        It’s as bad as success ballast in other racing series, IMHO. Why unfairly punish a car that’s in front, and usually in front on merit?

        1. Agreed. You cannot compare the F-duct to the rear wing for the exact reasons you describe, I think I’m just trying to say that the end result will be the same. You still will need
          Lewis style balls to pull off a pass like Melbourne, even with the advantage of the MRW or the F-duct.

      2. Thats only a design advatage in the car though. Not something regulated like the MRW is, when it can only be used by the car less than 1s second behind, on one designated straight.

        Its even stated in the rules that it cant be used in the first X metres of a straight, and the last y metres.

        Why would a driver effectively need to be told he needs downforce in the traction and breaking zones?!

  15. I agree with Adrian’s point of view, I don’t think anyone wants to see ‘manufactured’ racing. The ultimate solution is to reduce aerodynamic dependancy and tackle it that way, however I would say lets see what it brings. Lets not judge it yet until we see how it works

  16. Its funny how things change if someone like Newey voices doubts. All i hear on websites like this is that overtaking is too hard. Now Newey says, its going to be too easy everyone gets spooked. Well we’re going to probably have to go the other a way a bit before we find the correct level.

    Personally i quite like seeing a car on the limit so i want to see lewis drift a bit round 130r or Stavelot.

    So Alonso can now overake Petrov, so what? Those who think improving overtaking will necessarily improve the sport may be in for a bit of a shock.

  17. Adrain Newey is right. Saftey Belts are bad :)

    But his main point is also true. The overtake was always a great piece of driving. Something special. it was the racing. Now it will just be hit the wing button, hit the KERS button and you wizz past the other car with only KERS on. No real skill. No one will obther with going around the outside of another car, why take the risk when you can just follow into the straight and pass

  18. I do agree with Newey that it might make overtaking less memorable and too easy, but it’d be nice to see it before we discount it, maybe it wont be quite as easy/dangerous as it seems.

  19. From an authenticity point of view, I don’t mind the moveable rear wings, although I agree with AN that perhaps increased passing for the sake of it unnecessary , and possibly undesirable.

    What bothers me about the moving wings is the arbitrary ‘once per lap’ rule as well as the ‘within a second of the lead car’ rule. If you give a driver a car, he should be allowed to use the equipment at his discretion. Rules for safety and fair racing are important, I agree, but I fail to see how restricting the frequency and timing of a feature in the car is necessary or desirable. And placing these restrictions lends to a perception of a less-than-authentic, ‘manufactured’ sporting spectacle, as AN points out.

    1. I agree. They should let the defending driver trim his wing as well. KERS+movable rear wing makes the lead driver a bit of a sitting duck.

      IMHO, the best battles of 2009 involved a defending car with KERS. I like the cat and mouse game that overtaking is these days. I say give the drivers all the trick parts and let them use it at their own discretion.

    2. Agreed. What bothers me is not the moveable wing, but the restrictions set for it. One can debate about the use of a moving rear wing when you already add KERS, but the artificial character is generated by the addition of said extra rules (on a designated straight, when within a certain timelimit of the car ahead).

      Have a limit on using the wing (similar to KERS or the moveable front wing) if you really want to add a restriction. If one drivers wants to go all out with reduced drag on a certain part of the track, why not? I would think that this could police itself really. Surely a reduced amount of downforce isn’t useful over an entire track. If that were the case, they’d just run smaller amounts of wing.

  20. Yeh sorry I have to disagree slightly with Adrian here.

    He said overtakes need to be special, but the trouble is, we don’t have overtaking. The blame is completely irrelevant, the fact of the matter is we don’t have anywhere near enough overtaking.

    If this can increase it and still has an element of skill to it, then it’s not going to be a problem (as far as overtaking goes – safety is another thing).

    I only see this rear wing activity as a temporary solution until 2013 anyway.

    1. we don’t have overtaking.

      Yes we do. Look at the recent best overtaking move of 2010 article, and you will see that there is still a great amount of memorable overtakes.

      I think people need to wait for 2013 before we go nuts about lack of overtakes. As the 2013 changes should provided a real solution to it, that is assuming of course, Ferrari doesn’t derail it.

  21. spudw I agree – I was disappointed to hear about that ruling, too.

  22. I dont know why everyone keeps mentioning the 1980’s! Ive watched f1 from 1980 and i can tell you there were plenty of dull races with limited overtaking, it wasnt alot different from today tho id like to see the stats.

    Plus you got truly terrible production, you’d follow “local hero” trailing round in 15th or you’d spend half the race watching the leader. There were zero stats and Murray made more mistakes than Legards even thought of – tho it was much more tricky to commentate on then.

    The true nirvana for the sport was in the 1950’s and guess what, most of it wasnt captured on telly!

    1. There were dull races in every era and there were good races in every era. I can’t imagine there being a decade where it was ALL good or ALL bad. That would be ludicrous.

  23. What is really ironic to me is that Newey´s driver, Vettel — who is not an overtaking master — would be the one who could have a great benefit with those new wings…

    Anyway, I agree 100% with his opinion!

    1. Not that ironic. If Newey builds the car as fast as he thinks he did it will be Vettel at the front from pole being afraid of everyone overtaking him!

  24. Thank you! Thank you Adrian. After how exciting last year was, I would think they’d think the overtaking WASN’T an issue and I like it as it is anyway. But he expressed exactly why I stopped watching NASCAR and particularly the restrictor plate races. Passing isn’t thrilling when it comes a dime a dozen. When you know the race craft and strategy involved just to make a pass stick, you have a sense of awe and respect for the drivers involved. Hell, after a couple months in iRacing and just driving the Skip Barbers, I have a newfound respect for the art of passing. Getting by someone who’s only a tenth or two slower than you is really intense and nerve racking! You have to set it up *just* right and even then, there’s no guarantee they won’t use the opportunity to pass you back if they get a better run out of the corner. Giving the car behind an unnatural and sudden advantage makes it feel like a gimmick, plain and simple. I hope they get rid of this after the first race.

    1. Im not sure that overtaking while braking from 300 kmh to 100 kmh into a corner will be easy thanks to a gimmick, there still need to be extraordinary skills involved, the driver will just get some help in getting past a wake of dirty air from the car in front. You still need to brake earlier than the car you just passed (speed differences),make the move stick, take the right line through a corner, . We are not going to have nascar slipstreaming thats for sure, f1 is racing on tracks not on ovals. Its going to be perfect!

  25. How about you could give the teams to use either KERS giving out as much power as they like, or they can use the adjustable rear wings to reduce drag.

  26. “I know I’m in a minority in this view”

    Not with me and a lot of other fanatics Newey!

  27. THe problem is not the gadgets, but the rules which enforce when and where on the track they are used.

    Give drivers the gadgets, and by all means limit their use on a per lap basis. But having rules about when they can be used against another car is just dumb.

  28. Just imagine being leading all race, saftey car displayed on the final stages, second car gets within a second, and overtakes you on the stright to the flag ….

  29. It should be interesting if the KERS works together with this rear wing, but if overtaking becomes too easy, the probable solution could be to regulate the number of times you can use it in the entire race. However, some (or the majority) of pilots would sahe KERS or rear wing actions as a wildcard for the last lap. And it’s a shame what FIA finds out as solutions, sometimes they’re wrong and I hope this probably-easy-overtaking wouldn’t be seen as more spectacle when it isn’t necessarily. Or it would became as the Stallone’s film Driven. He is the last one and says to his teammate: “Let’s pass them all” and they do it as easy as impossible. I got bored of that film and I don’t want a boring F1.

  30. Is Newey really concerned? His Red Bulls of the past two years have been very bad at following in the turbulent wake and his world champion has yet to prove his abilities in that area. Or is he worried that come race day his one-lap specialist will be able to be passed instead of being a roadblock?

    1. I don’t really remember a race where one of the RB6’s took the win on raceday where they didn’t win by a (small) landside. If anything, Vettel hasn’t showed that he is able to overtake in a commanding fashion à la Hamilton. Vettel’s wins were boring races, where he set fast lap after fast lap. He was hardly a roadblock at Bahrain, Australia, Malaysia, Valencia, Japan, Korea, Brazil or Abu Dhabi. If anything, this might aid Vettel into more overtaking of his part (although the effects of the moveable wing are yet to be proven aswell).

  31. Finally, someone expresses what I’ve felt for a long time

  32. This is silly. If you need to be in second on the final lap then we will see a fight to be in second for the final lap. It is sport and the driver who makes the best use of the rules and the car abilities will win, until the next race when everybody will try to use the same trick on him.

    Everybody has forgotten that without the rain last year the races would have been processions.

  33. Newey is right, this gimmick I believe will benefit the sport as a whole. The point I find concerning is the amount of in-car adjustments the drivers are taking on nowdays. Why can’t we restrict the amount of adjustments a driver can make, bring back the skill of setting a car up? Front wing, rear wing, fuel mixture etc… need not be adjusted during races if the car is set up ultimately at the start of the race.

  34. Adrain is right but the part about wanting to be second on the last lap is wrong…it’s not often you have driver 1 second behind and if it does happen (most likely at tracks like monaco and singapore) then it will be pretty darn exiting knowing in the back of your mind the man behind has a chance…and that brings onto my next point: overtaking at monaco and singapore! WOOT!

  35. The whole ‘lack of overtaking’ debate is valid but the last thong we need is undeserved overtaking. This idea might tide us over until the dirty air problem is solved through rafical changes to the regs, but I am not hopeful. I want to see overtaking battles, not random osition swapping. I want to see skillef drivers on lesser cars making it hell for the top teams. Of a driver gets past they should deserve
    it. Btw ~ ever heard anyone complain of lack of overtaking in horse racing?

  36. That step is absolutely necessary, in order to avoid the boredom created by stupid track design. One will still need some speed in order to catch up with an opponent, so this is just a small aid, remember the conditions on the activation of the system. Exciting season is forthcoming :)

  37. I’d like to see some stats on how many times the MRW could of been used in 2010. I’d suggest not as many as people think. From memory most got stuck about 1.5 second behind the car in front, so no use of the MRW allowed.
    With the exception of the last race, anyone that got within a second did get past a majority of the time. Don’t mention Bahrain because again people couldn’t get within 1.5 seconds never mind 1 second.
    If its going to work they are going to have to play around with the gap in which it can be used.

    PS. I rather see one great over take than twenty poor ones. I kind of agree with Newey if it becomes too easy, but we’ll have to see, I not sure it will.
    I never want to see more than one or two retakes that just makes it a joke IMO

    1. You might be right BBT. On the other hand, there was not much use in trying to close into the guy in front this year, was there?

      With that wing, Vettel might have tried in Singapore, Hamilton might have fashioned closing in for a move on Vettel and Webber in Turkey etc.

      1. Equally why overtake if they can easily just retake, I suggest a smart driver would just follow until close to the end of the race.

        I 90% sure Hamilton was not close enough to use the MRW in Turkey.
        Vettel might of been close enough in Singapore but I would be surprised if he wasn’t.

        Having said all that I’m open minded, it could be the best thing ever or a total flop.

    2. I’d like to see some stats on how many times the MRW could of been used in 2010.

      That’s a great idea. I’ll have a look into it.

      1. It would be interesting, my (or other peoples) perceptions of the different it might make could be miles out depending on the reality of how many times it gets used.

        My guess would be almost never for people chasing RBR a little more often in the top six places and will be used most in the middle order battles, so biggest benefit to those runners.

        Might benefit team with poor pit stops as it might no longer be the end of the world if you drop behind someone you are quicker than.

  38. I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you design this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to create my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thanks a lot

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.