Your opinion on 'Drag Reduction System'

[Sonic]

what I like about the DRS is that it's mimicking the tow that drivers used to get when they fell into the slipstream of the other car. This was always an advantage that the car behind had, in that it could follow the slipstream of the car in front, and then use that to overtake. The car in front obviously didn't have it.

When "dirty" aerodynamics came into F1, they ruined this. I see DRS as just bringing that effect back. Yes, it's growing on me.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on it too.

A lot has been said regarding the systems perceived 'unfairness' whereby the following driver gets a 15kph boost, but I don't remember ONCE, in twenty years of following this sport anyone complaining about the unfair advantage of a decent tow. Current cars are so efficient that a slipstream is worth 3-5kph tops - nowhere near enough to even get within 50m of the lead car, let alone pass. DRS returns us to the slipstream effect of 40 years ago.

On the subject of a 'zone', this was perhaps my only sticking point to really liking the system. However the alternative is free DRS use or limited number of uses per GP - neither are desirable IMO. The final nail in the coffin of my lingering doubts about the zone came at China. If DRS is just mimicking a tow, where would you get the biggest one? How about a 1.2km straight? IMHO the FIA have got this spot on.

Finally, even after a brilliant race, some are still complaining about DRS. Ok, if you think it's gimmicky, fair enough, but don't go on about the potential for failure! No one worries (openly) about a throttle sticking open etc so let's stop grasping a straws.

[wedge]

To an extent DRS was a failure because Hamilton passed cars without it!

[ArrowsFA1]

A lot has been said regarding the systems perceived 'unfairness' whereby the following driver gets a 15kph boost, but I don't remember ONCE, in twenty years of following this sport anyone complaining about the unfair advantage of a decent tow.

Possibly because less was known about aerodynamics, and the 'tow' did not have to be designed into the cars as DRS does now. It was simply a by-product of cars pushing through the air and leaving a hole behind

Also, the tow then was available at all times. It didn't need a designated gap to be measured or a zone where the rules said could be used.

If the FIA refuse to do anything about the fundamental problem with these cars, designed into them over years of aero development, then DRS is an alternative, but let the drivers use it when they choose in the same way that the tow or the turbo boost button was used.

[Whyzars]

... but don't go on about the potential for failure! No one worries (openly) about a throttle sticking open etc so let's stop grasping a straws.

I don't accept your premise that highlighting the potential for DRS failure is grasping at straws.

DRS uses actuators and electronics do fail so Murphy's Law is in operation here. If they restricted KERS and only allowed its use via the same one second rule it could represent the "push to pass" potential of DRS without the inherent safety issues that an electronic rear wing brings onto the cars. There will also be great incentive to improve KERS under these circumstances whereas DRS represents pretty much a dead-end.

We have seen spectacular rear wing failures at the end of long straights when the wing is under maximum load, imagine seeing the DRS flip open in the middle of a high speed, sweeping corner.

F1 doesn't need this.

[Sonic]

I don't accept your premise that highlighting the potential for DRS failure is grasping at straws.

DRS uses actuators and electronics do fail so Murphy's Law is in operation here. If they restricted KERS and only allowed its use via the same one second rule it could represent the "push to pass" potential of DRS without the inherent safety issues that an electronic rear wing brings onto the cars. There will also be great incentive to improve KERS under these circumstances whereas DRS represents pretty much a dead-end.

We have seen spectacular rear wing failures at the end of long straights when the wing is under maximum load, imagine seeing the DRS flip open in the middle of a high speed, sweeping corner.

F1 doesn't need this.

And those spectacular rear wing failures occurred without DRS - so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Electronics control most of the cars function, so following your Murphy's law premise they could go just as haywire leaving the car stuck at full throttle at the end of the straight.

Do you propose the remove of all systems with a less than 100% reliability record? There won't be much of a car left if that's the vase.

[CNR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/form...e/13109394.stm

BBC Sport has learnt that an error caused Alonso's DRS to 'offset' on that lap.

That meant it was not enabled until 300m before the end of the straight, and was then available after the corner for a short time.

This meant that he gained no advantage from the situation - in fact it actually caused him a disadvantage - so was given no penalty.

FIA officials are still investigating what caused the error.

[gloomyDAY]

I still think the DRS is dumb. Just have a limitless boost button. If the drivers are careless then they will run out of fuel, and the car being caught can actually have a chance to defend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/form...e/13109394.stm

Do I dare say it? Yeah, screw it!

Another clear example of the FIA trying to help Ferrari win.

[Whyzars]

And those spectacular rear wing failures occurred without DRS - so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Electronics control most of the cars function, so following your Murphy's law premise they could go just as haywire leaving the car stuck at full throttle at the end of the straight.

Do you propose the remove of all systems with a less than 100% reliability record? There won't be much of a car left if that's the vase.

I used the example of total rear wing failures to illustrate how dangerous a sudden oversteer condition is. We have actually seen the DRS activate before the car was properly balanced in the straight in Melbourne. That incident in itself might have prompted the immediate removal of DRS but I think they saw it as a controller error and not a failure of the device. Only brilliant reflexes on the driver's behalf saved the car as there is no safety runoff at the sides of straights.

If we gather stats on DRS failures it is not looking very rosy 3 races into the championship.

A throttle stuck open, a brake failure or any of the myriad electronic failures that can occur are all arguably recoverable from a drivers perspective as is a DRS failure as we have seen. Having said that, the DRS, doing what it is designed to do, but at the wrong time, could result in a serious situation. The straight going down to the hairpin in Germany, Eau'Rouge, The Parabolica - sweeping turns, high speeds and unexpected oversteer don't mix.

One possibility is to change the DRS to operate in reverse which I believe would be far safer. The lead car incurs the extra wing going down the straight and creates a larger hole whilst being slowed by the extra wing. This would see wing area during general racing to not be compromised and any device "failure" at another part of the circuit would result in a braked, understeer condition.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the racing in China. I loved how the DRS influenced the race and how natural it all appeared. The drivers actually looked like they were racing and testing wills. When was the last time we saw a "brake check" during a tussle for first place?

China was a wonderful race but the risks that I see from the DRS, as it is currently implemented, do not add up.

[V12]

Still not a fan. The slipstream is/was a naturally occurring phenomenon and wasn't restricted to a computer-controlled FIA-defined zone so there can be no comparison here.

I actually think the moveable wing would be an interesting addition to the sport IF it was available to all drivers all the time as it is in qualifying, it makes the cars faster and more efficient, and even opens up the possibility of driver errors such as the guy who crashed in qualifying at Melbourne when he pressed the button a little too early exiting the final corner, but the way it is at the minute, I'm sorry, I don't care how entertaining China was, scripted movies and TV dramas can also be entertaining, and for something calling itself a sport it's still a joke to be honest. And that's before we even get to the new tyres for this year as well.

Hopefully some serious thought can be put into the 2013 regs so we can get rid of this and in time it will be just a curious blot on the sport's history.

Give me a so-called "boring" (yeah right) 1990s or early 2000s race any day, at least those were real.

[DexDexter]

I don't accept your premise that highlighting the potential for DRS failure is grasping at straws.

DRS uses actuators and electronics do fail so Murphy's Law is in operation here. If they restricted KERS and only allowed its use via the same one second rule it could represent the "push to pass" potential of DRS without the inherent safety issues that an electronic rear wing brings onto the cars. There will also be great incentive to improve KERS under these circumstances whereas DRS represents pretty much a dead-end.

We have seen spectacular rear wing failures at the end of long straights when the wing is under maximum load, imagine seeing the DRS flip open in the middle of a high speed, sweeping corner.

F1 doesn't need this.

Anything can fail, we have to stop racing altogether if we think like you do. Every year there are tires running around, carbon fibre in the air and so on. It's risky, that's why the are paid so well.

Still not a fan. The slipstream is/was a naturally occurring phenomenon and wasn't restricted to a computer-controlled FIA-defined zone so there can be no comparison here.

I actually think the moveable wing would be an interesting addition to the sport IF it was available to all drivers all the time as it is in qualifying, it makes the cars faster and more efficient, and even opens up the possibility of driver errors such as the guy who crashed in qualifying at Melbourne when he pressed the button a little too early exiting the final corner, but the way it is at the minute, I'm sorry, I don't care how entertaining China was, scripted movies and TV dramas can also be entertaining, and for something calling itself a sport it's still a joke to be honest. And that's before we even get to the new tyres for this year as well.

Hopefully some serious thought can be put into the 2013 regs so we can get rid of this and in time it will be just a curious blot on the sport's history.

Give me a so-called "boring" (yeah right) 1990s or early 2000s race any day, at least those were real.

The problem for you is that most people prefer artificial racing to that of 1988, 1992 or the Schumacher years.