PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion on 'Drag Reduction System'



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ranger
27th March 2011, 09:52
May as well let the drivers use it the whole lap after that fairly substandard showing!

Your thoughts?

Daniel
27th March 2011, 09:53
Meh?

MrJan
27th March 2011, 09:54
Pointless on that straight, can't see why they can't just use it all lap round. If the point is to give us more exciting racing then I can't see the benefit of limiting the range that it can be used in.

N4D13
27th March 2011, 09:55
This could be like Bahrain last year - everyone saying that it's going to be boring as hell, and then we're proven wrong in the second race. I don't know if that's the case, but I truly hope it is.

The DRS zone wasn't specially great - the main straight is located after a 4th or 5th gear turn, which doesn't allow the car behind to close onto the leading car, so it's difficult to get close there. DRS can't help that much. If the DRS area was set after an slower turn, it might have a much more beneficial effect.

Robinho
27th March 2011, 10:00
Australia never has a lot of passing, and the straight is very short, i think the DRS worked quite well considering this. it shouldn't offer any freebies, just makes it possible to pass if you are already quicker than the car in front. it added the opportunity for a few passes, which IMO is excatly what it should do.

it will likely work better at different circuits with longer straights, where overtaking is more likely anyway.

I was pleasantly surprised and think so far so good

AndyL
27th March 2011, 10:08
The DRS zone wasn't specially great - the main straight is located after a 4th or 5th gear turn, which doesn't allow the car behind to close onto the leading car, so it's difficult to get close there. DRS can't help that much. If the DRS area was set after an slower turn, it might have a much more beneficial effect.

Yes, spot on I think. It will surely have a bigger effect at other circuits.

Robinho
27th March 2011, 10:18
the moaning and prevaricating about how it was a disatser and would lead to false racing and fake passing was unfounded, and it did let cars run closer and get a chance of passing, but thats still not good enough fo some people who have to find some kind of fault in everything. For me it has potential, as long as they don't go mad and let them have it too long on the big straights

Dave B
27th March 2011, 10:19
I'll give it a few more races and trust in the FIA to tweak it, but 1st impressions aren't great.

Sonic
27th March 2011, 10:21
I'm with Robinho. I was pleasantly surprised with it, creating, as I've said elsewhere, the effect of a decent slipstream, getting the following driver close, but ultimately still leaving him some work to do on the brakes. Personally I think it was just about right in terms of it effect on relative speeds.

My only concern is it doesn't permit the slower car the opportunity for a quick repass, as, let's face it, but the time the pair have completed another lap round to the zone there is no way the slower car will still be within 1 sec. That takes a little something away from the racing IMO; those desperate attempts to repass within two corners, knowing it's your only hope.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps a second zone, or the overtaken car getting one free use of the device to attempt a repass, or - or - well as I say I don't have the answer, but maybe the powers that be will come up with a solution.

MrJan
27th March 2011, 10:46
As Robinho and Sonic have said the system gives you a chance but doesn't put it on a plate. My very first impression was that it didn't do a lot but there were certainly cases where it allowed the opportunity to pass that wouldn't usually exist with normal aero.

My problem remains that it's for a section of the track, why not have it all the way round? This would also help with Sonic's problem of the slower car not getting the chance to pass back. If they do that then I can't see much of an argument, beyond "it's not racing", for not having it. And with the tedium of some of the recent years and the difficulty drivers have following other cars, I don't think that "it's not racing" is actually much of an argument.

steveaki13
27th March 2011, 11:40
I agree with alot of the above.

At this circuit the main staright is not particularly long, and after a high speed corner.

I personally think it should able to be used at any point on the lap, so you can aid your slipstream to turn 1, 3 or is it 12 or 13 after the quick chicane, and more freedom as said would help the re pass.

I think for me you need a wider time to use it, or not at all. The one straight per lap approach is a bit bizzare.
Not sure how you would regulate all of this to be honest, but its not my job. :D

If the rules stay as they are though I think at Spain, Canada, Turkey, Brazil among others with longer straights we will see more affect.

Lets wait and see.

UltimateDanGTR
27th March 2011, 11:54
I'm with Robinho. I was pleasantly surprised with it, creating, as I've said elsewhere, the effect of a decent slipstream, getting the following driver close, but ultimately still leaving him some work to do on the brakes. Personally I think it was just about right in terms of it effect on relative speeds.



Agreed, though I think it will be more effective in places with long straights like Sepang, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi and Catalunya.

Mind you, some of those places listed could do with an actual chance of overtaking...

steveaki13
27th March 2011, 12:00
Yer its obvious at Sepang it should be more effective, while you couldn't watch the Monaco GP and say "Well it didn't increase overtaking". Nothing will.

So we need to wait and see and except on some tracks its just not going to have an effect.

gloomyDAY
27th March 2011, 12:10
I think it still sucks. Get rid of that crap!

Garry Walker
27th March 2011, 14:15
Crap, complete crap. I hope they remove it soon or let it be used all the time. Nonsense that it should be available to one driver, but not to another during a fight.

Sonic
27th March 2011, 14:57
Crap, complete crap. I hope they remove it soon or let it be used all the time. Nonsense that it should be available to one driver, but not to another during a fight.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I don't want to like it - really I don't. But the designers have got just so damn clever that there is next to no slipstream effect, so until someone far smarter than me comes up with a better solution, I'm gonna at least give this a few races to prove its worth.

Brown, Jon Brow
27th March 2011, 15:05
If it is used all of the time then it would be completely pointless because the car infront could use it too.

ArrowsFA1
27th March 2011, 16:15
Made no difference as far as I could see. Apart from being something to talk about it didn't create any more overtaking opportunities.

wedge
27th March 2011, 16:19
It worked well so far.

It cut the deficit of running against a brickwall at the last corner. Best example being Alonso catching Webber mid-race, just before Webber pitted. Under normal conditions Alonso would never have caught up Webber on the pit straight.

UltimateDanGTR
27th March 2011, 16:43
I know exactly where you are coming from. I don't want to like it - really I don't. But the designers have got just so damn clever that there is next to no slipstream effect, so until someone far smarter than me comes up with a better solution, I'm gonna at least give this a few races to prove its worth.

Why is agreeing with you so easy?

Seriously though, you're right. We all know it is a big fat giant gimmick, but if it makes the Spanish/Abu Dhabi/European grands prix actually entertaining, then I think it may be worth it.

ioan
27th March 2011, 19:21
Crap.

tintop
27th March 2011, 20:03
I think that the concept is brilliant - a technology that only favors the overtaking car. A partial antidote to primary source of passing difficulty ...advanced aerodynamics. I think that that gaping drag reduction will have a greater impact in some of the upcoming drag strips as others have pointed out. I wonder how DRS implementation affects the whole drafting dynamic?

christophulus
27th March 2011, 20:33
I liked it. Made it easier to pass without making it completely unchallenging. Until they come up with a more fundamental solution for reducing the wake from the aero, it'll do.

Mark
27th March 2011, 20:47
I liked it. Made it easier to pass without making it completely unchallenging. Until they come up with a more fundamental solution for reducing the wake from the aero, it'll do.

Agreed. The fear that it would make it impossible to defend has proved unfounded.

We'll see in Malaysia which has much longer straights.

GridGirl
27th March 2011, 21:01
Are there any tracks where DRS wont be used? Monaco springs to mind as an immediate example of a track where DRS might not be used due to its tight and twisty nature but at the same time it is a race that could benefit from a bit more overtaking. DRS doesn't seem like th solution to all problems if you ask me.

Mark
27th March 2011, 21:02
Even if it was used at Monaco it would be of limited effect I think.

AndyRAC
27th March 2011, 21:31
A bit too artificial for my liking. Also, the 'overtaking zone'. What's all that about? This meant to be F1 - 'The Pinnacle of Motorsport'. It's okay for BTCC, Nascar, etc
Sorry, while we have to give it time- it's all contrived, and another dumbing down of the sport for the casual viewer.
I'll still follow the sport, but find ALMS/LMS far more interesting from a whole lot of reasons.

SGWilko
27th March 2011, 21:49
A bit sh!t.

airshifter
28th March 2011, 02:16
I actually thought it worked must better than I had suspected it would. It may have made a couple more passes happen, but didn't make them easy or artificial by any means. If used properly on other circuits it could in fact make the races more interesting.

There. I said it. The FIA might have done something that works.

Rollo
28th March 2011, 04:27
I liked it. Made it easier to pass without making it completely unchallenging. Until they come up with a more fundamental solution for reducing the wake from the aero, it'll do.

Remove the Aero. :D

Thinks... I'm going to the Supermarket and buying an Aero bar.

Storm
28th March 2011, 05:21
It wasn't that great but I'll give it the benefit of doubt being the first race and all. Maybe it will work better at snoozefests like Barcelona (with looong main straights)

fandango
28th March 2011, 10:05
We need to give this thing a few races before drawing conclusions. My impression is that it did work as intended. It made it a little easier for a faster car to pass a slower one, but not easy.

One thing I liked about it was that you could see it being used, which I actually didn't expect. I think it adds a bit of drama to overtaking challenges because of that. In that way it's better than KERS, which has seemed to work better as a defensive, anti-overtaking device to me.

Another thing I liked is that the challenge to use it is that the following driver has to get himself into that 1-second space at the right time, so it's not fair to say the overtake is handed on a plate.

I think I saw Petrov comment that he was able to use it while passing backmarkers, which helped him defend his place (against Alonso). Perhaps this usage is not what they had in mind when they introduced the system.

So, not a complete disaster.

Mark
28th March 2011, 10:09
I actually like the concept as if a driver is gradually catching another driver, you know that when they eventually catch up with them they will have some chance of getting by, unlike now where a driver could claw back a 30 second defecit only to be stuck behind the other car until a pit stop or the end of the race!

One modification I would like is that a driver is within a second at the activation zone, they should be allowed to use the device for the entirety of the following lap, and to make it simple, allowed to use it even if they've passed the car in question.

However I don't like the use of it in qualifying? The idea is to make overtaking easier, so why is it deployed in qualifying?

MrJan
28th March 2011, 10:18
However I don't like the use of it in qualifying? The idea is to make overtaking easier, so why is it deployed in qualifying?

I thought that, bit strange to see them all hitting it, and even stranger to see Sutil drop it on the last corner and still keep it out the wall.

555-04Q2
28th March 2011, 11:22
May as well let the drivers use it the whole lap after that fairly substandard showing!

Your thoughts?

Just another gimmick that does not work. It is so easy to work out how to create more overtaking (if that is the point of teh DRS system). I cant believe that the powers that be are so stupid that they dont implement them, instead of these stupid gimmicks.

Zico
28th March 2011, 11:47
I'd love to see all aero removed completely but despite DRS being a bit gimmicky I felt it perhaps did just enough to improve overtaking. We will have to wait and see how it will affect the next race but so far I have nothing negative to say about.

KERS on the other hand is a complete gimmick and offers nothing to the sport at all.

wedge
28th March 2011, 13:27
I actually like the concept as if a driver is gradually catching another driver, you know that when they eventually catch up with them they will have some chance of getting by, unlike now where a driver could claw back a 30 second defecit only to be stuck behind the other car until a pit stop or the end of the race!

One modification I would like is that a driver is within a second at the activation zone, they should be allowed to use the device for the entirety of the following lap, and to make it simple, allowed to use it even if they've passed the car in question.

However I don't like the use of it in qualifying? The idea is to make overtaking easier, so why is it deployed in qualifying?

:up:

Yes its gimmicky but I personally don't want more overtaking but dogfights close to replicating Button vs. Massa.

Sonic
28th March 2011, 21:16
!
One modification I would like is that a driver is within a second at the activation zone, they should be allowed to use the device for the entirety of the following lap, and to make it simple, allowed to use it even if they've passed the car in question.

I'd be on board with that - it removes some of the gimmicky nature of DRS - but doesn't yet answer the question of how to give the slower car the chance to fight back.

SGWilko
28th March 2011, 21:53
how to give the slower car the chance to fight back.

Change the laws of physics?

Sonic
28th March 2011, 22:45
Change the laws of physics?

yeh canny change the laws of physics! :D

555-04Q2
29th March 2011, 11:41
:up:

Yes its gimmicky but I personally don't want more overtaking but dogfights close to replicating Button vs. Massa.

We want both. Problem is, it is difficult for even a fast car to stay close behind a slower one through corners etc cause of the aero setups. I prefer dogfights ala Massa/Button at OZ, but they don't happen often enough.

Garry Walker
29th March 2011, 11:50
If it is used all of the time then it would be completely pointless because the car infront could use it too.
Well, it would demand a high level of concentration to use it all the time all the way through the race and sometimes they would make mistake. But as it currently is, I would prefer to see NO overtaking at all, instead of this crap rule. This fascination with overtaking is such nonsense anyway. You want overtaking, go watch nascrap with their 15062 overtaking moves every lap, if you want overtaking so badly.


Why is agreeing with you so easy?

Seriously though, you're right. We all know it is a big fat giant gimmick, but if it makes the Spanish/Abu Dhabi/European grands prix actually entertaining, then I think it may be worth it.
Go watch WWF if you want entertainment so badly. There have always been races where position dont change much and there is no overtaking, never has it been a problem. Now people are so superficial and casual fans need their entertainment so that real racing and real racing fans have stopped taking preference.

MrJan
29th March 2011, 12:27
Now people are so superficial and casual fans need their entertainment so that real racing and real racing fans have stopped taking preference.

I like to consider myself a 'real racing fan' (been watching motorsport for as long as I can remember) and I want to see overtaking and dogfights. Perhaps this is because I was raised on a diet of single make series and the BTCC, but I can't see why wanting it in F1 makes me less of a racing fan. F1 is a victim of it's own advances, the way that technology in the sport has developed means that it's too difficult to pass a car, even if it's slower than you. In some cases this can be interesting, but for the most part it's dull. Even as a hardened motorsport fan I find myself wondering why I bother sitting down to 2 hours of fairly boring 'action' 19 times a year, and I still can't work out why I made the effort to get up early for Oz.

That said, I don't necessarily think DRS is the best way to sort things out. When I was at testing the other week there was one thing that stood out, the braking distance of the cars. Even at the end of the straight at Catalunya Massa was braking crazy late, as in later than I would doing about 80mph in my road car (even though he's probably topping 200 there). Part of this is because he's braver than I am, but most is down to cars. If rules limit brake developments to increase braking distances then we'll actually get to see drivers awarded for being brave and braking later than their rivals, at the minute this isn't really possible. IMO this isn't as bad as DRS in trying to create racing, because it just gives back the chance for the driver to demonstrate his skill a bit more.

Sonic
29th March 2011, 12:48
To Gary Walker: if you are not watching F1 to be entertained what are you watching it for?

I don't say this to troll, it's an honest question.

I think we all watch for entertainment of some sort. When I'm at the venue I don't need overtaking in shed loads - the smells, the sounds, the race craft are more than enough. But on TV, those things are muted, dulled. Watching a 90minutes procession is certainly no fun from my POV.

wedge
29th March 2011, 13:30
Which would win a paint drying contest? B&Q own brand or Dulux?

wedge
29th March 2011, 13:45
Colin Chapman came up with adjustable rear wings on the 49 but they were banned more because of how wings were attached to the car. The tall, thin struts could never support the loads and this led to huge shunts that inflicted Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt in 1968.

SGWilko
29th March 2011, 17:20
Which would win a paint drying contest? B&Q own brand or Dulux?

So long as you don't buy Crown, I don't care. Crown is the worst paint I've ever used....... ;)

Mark
29th March 2011, 19:00
Wilkinsons own brand is good!

SGWilko
29th March 2011, 19:50
Wilkinsons own brand is good!

Amen brother!

ioan
29th March 2011, 20:51
Now people are so superficial and casual fans need their entertainment so that real racing and real racing fans have stopped taking preference.

Fully agree!
F1 has become a show dominated by stupid gimmicks for the casual viewer who understands bugger all about motorsport.
I wonder how frustrated would some of the F1 engineers of past years in today's circus.

schmenke
30th March 2011, 00:16
...I think I saw Petrov comment that he was able to use it while passing backmarkers, which helped him defend his place (against Alonso). Perhaps this usage is not what they had in mind when they introduced the system.
....

Is that permited? When passing a backmarker a driver is obviously not 1 second behind :mark: .

AndyRAC
30th March 2011, 00:53
Fully agree!
F1 has become a show dominated by stupid gimmicks for the casual viewer who understands bugger all about motorsport.
I wonder how frustrated would some of the F1 engineers of past years in today's circus.

In the last 10-15 years, F1 has really 'sold out' and become corporate - which has attracted millions of 'casual viewers' - who don't care for the history and traditions of the sport. All they want is action, drama, overtaking, crashes....We can't go back....sadly....

You want 'proper' Motor Racing, with varied cars, engines, designs, etc Then F1 isn't for you anymore.

BDunnell
30th March 2011, 00:58
In the last 10-15 years, F1 has really 'sold out' and become corporate - which has attracted millions of 'casual viewers' - who don't care for the history and traditions of the sport. All they want is action, drama, overtaking, crashes....

But I want action, drama and overtaking! It is precisely these three attributes that got me interested in F1 in my childhood during the 1980s. Surely I'm not unusual, or an example of the sort of person whose interest has resulted in the sport having 'sold out'?

wedge
30th March 2011, 01:57
Some people don't like team orders but I guess they know bugger all about motorsport.


But I want action, drama and overtaking! It is precisely these three attributes that got me interested in F1 in my childhood during the 1980s. Surely I'm not unusual, or an example of the sort of person whose interest has resulted in the sport having 'sold out'?

There are people who followed F1 because of Gilles, Senna, Mansell, et al.

Computer game programming legend Geoff Crammond got back into F1 because of Hamilton


Fully agree!
F1 has become a show dominated by stupid gimmicks for the casual viewer who understands bugger all about motorsport.
I wonder how frustrated would some of the F1 engineers of past years in today's circus.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2010/11/30/novembers-audio-podcast-with-pat-symonds/


You want 'proper' Motor Racing, with varied cars, engines, designs, etc Then F1 isn't for you anymore.

You could use that argument for other forms of motorsport.

Garry Walker
30th March 2011, 10:00
That said, I don't necessarily think DRS is the best way to sort things out. When I was at testing the other week there was one thing that stood out, the braking distance of the cars. Even at the end of the straight at Catalunya Massa was braking crazy late, as in later than I would doing about 80mph in my road car (even though he's probably topping 200 there). Part of this is because he's braver than I am, but most is down to cars. If rules limit brake developments to increase braking distances then we'll actually get to see drivers awarded for being brave and braking later than their rivals, at the minute this isn't really possible. IMO this isn't as bad as DRS in trying to create racing, because it just gives back the chance for the driver to demonstrate his skill a bit more.

I agree, brakes are a big issue. I support every development that makes it harder for drivers and demands skills.


To Gary Walker: if you are not watching F1 to be entertained what are you watching it for?

I don't say this to troll, it's an honest question.

I think we all watch for entertainment of some sort. When I'm at the venue I don't need overtaking in shed loads - the smells, the sounds, the race craft are more than enough. But on TV, those things are muted, dulled. Watching a 90minutes procession is certainly no fun from my POV.
I dont think I expressed myself correctly. I see F1 going down the road of entertainment in the style of WWF, with stupid gimmicks. Of course, I want to be entertained, but I mostly watch it because I have been a racing fan since before I started going to school and I enjoy seeing cars on their limit.
All such nonsense as KERS, DRS, two types of tyres you have to use every race, artificial rain, "the glamour" - those hold no interest for me.


Fully agree!
F1 has become a show dominated by stupid gimmicks for the casual viewer who understands bugger all about motorsport.Just the point I was trying to make.

Mark
30th March 2011, 10:32
It's been said a million billion times already but what's really needed is to get rid of the aero completely, you can still have wings if you don't want to spoil the 'look' of the cars, but make them standard and completely ineffective at generating downforce.

If you have zero aero downforce you won't be disadvantaged following the car in front and thus overtaking becomes much easier.

wedge
30th March 2011, 13:09
I agree, brakes are a big issue. I support every development that makes it harder for drivers and demands skills.

Hmmmm, sounds like a gimmick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg-qmCmpQM8&feature=player_embedded#at=114

BDunnell
30th March 2011, 13:18
I dont think I expressed myself correctly. I see F1 going down the road of entertainment in the style of WWF, with stupid gimmicks. Of course, I want to be entertained, but I mostly watch it because I have been a racing fan since before I started going to school and I enjoy seeing cars on their limit.
All such nonsense as KERS, DRS, two types of tyres you have to use every race, artificial rain, "the glamour" - those hold no interest for me.

I couldn't agree more.

ArrowsFA1
30th March 2011, 16:31
If rules limit brake developments to increase braking distances then we'll actually get to see drivers awarded for being brave and braking later than their rivals, at the minute this isn't really possible. IMO this isn't as bad as DRS in trying to create racing, because it just gives back the chance for the driver to demonstrate his skill a bit more.
:up:

BDunnell
30th March 2011, 16:40
We come again to this question of whether going back on technology is necessary or desirable. Many would argue that an F1 car should be the quickest thing to go round any track used by F1 cars. This isn't necessarily a view that I subscribe to, but plenty do.

Mark
30th March 2011, 18:22
I do think F1 should be the fastest series, however you don't need high technology to achieve that. Whack in a massively powerful engine and away you go!

ioan
30th March 2011, 21:03
In the last 10-15 years, F1 has really 'sold out' and become corporate - which has attracted millions of 'casual viewers' - who don't care for the history and traditions of the sport. All they want is action, drama, overtaking, crashes....We can't go back....sadly....

You want 'proper' Motor Racing, with varied cars, engines, designs, etc Then F1 isn't for you anymore.

I certainly enjoy F1 much less than in the 90's, and I can only dream about the show (not the gimmicks) being even close to what ALMS or LMS are showing nowadays!

ioan
30th March 2011, 21:06
You could use that argument for other forms of motorsport.

Wrong. Take a look at endurance racing (ALMS, LMS) the rules as limiting as they are still allow for sensibly different cars to be fielded and be competitive. Nothing like that in F1.

wedge
31st March 2011, 01:21
Wrong. Take a look at endurance racing (ALMS, LMS) the rules as limiting as they are still allow for sensibly different cars to be fielded and be competitive. Nothing like that in F1.

Do you know how the ACO set their rules?

They use air restrictors to create false competition via set lap times round Le Sarthe.

Mark
31st March 2011, 09:54
Do you know how the ACO set their rules?

They use air restrictors to create false competition via set lap times round Le Sarthe.

I've never cared for equalisation formulae. It's so false like the governing body has decided if you are going to win this time. IMO either everyone should compete to the same regs or not at all.

schmenke
31st March 2011, 15:25
...They use air restrictors to create false competition via set lap times round Le Sarthe.

Similar to NASCAR, no?

ioan
31st March 2011, 20:49
Do you know how the ACO set their rules?

They use air restrictors to create false competition via set lap times round Le Sarthe.

It's the same for everyone = fair racing.
What we get in F1 is a gimmick that gives the car behind an advantage to overtake the car in front.
I guess you can spot the difference.

I am also looking forward to the day when F1 will allow for different engine types and configs! :rolleyes:

Robinho
3rd April 2011, 08:47
Turns out the DRS must be a great idea cos nikki lauda has come out and said it's rubbish

N4D13
10th April 2011, 11:30
It seems that DRS is working too well in Malaysia. Every time a car with a working DRS system got behind another one on the main straight, overtaking it became extremely easy.

So DRS wasn't that bad after all. They just need to find a proper way to place the DRS zone.

Sonic
10th April 2011, 12:17
It's growing on me. Most of the passing still had to be done by the driver, it just got them a little closer to the car in front to try it - much like a slipstream used to.

Reliability remains a concern though, as does the apparent difference in the effect it has on everyone's cars. Renault, for example were just ballistic with DRS engaged, whereas for other teams it seem to do little/nothing.

Dave B
10th April 2011, 12:22
A big factor today was circuit design: a long enough straight to give DRS a chance to work, followed by a sequence of corners which means the overtaker still has to do a lot of work, and the overtakee has a fighting chance of regaining the place rather than it becoming a fait accompli.

Daniel
10th April 2011, 12:24
A big factor today was circuit design: a long enough straight to give DRS a chance to work, followed by a sequence of corners which means the overtaker still has to do a lot of work, and the overtakee has a fighting chance of regaining the place rather than it becoming a fait accompli.
Agreed. It seems to cancel out to some extent the whole turbulence thing.

ioan
10th April 2011, 12:30
Still crap. Overtaking has become worthless.
Alonso vs Hamilton without DRS was a highly enjoyable battle, that's what racing look likes, in case some do not know.

AndyL
10th April 2011, 12:30
A big factor today was circuit design: a long enough straight to give DRS a chance to work, followed by a sequence of corners which means the overtaker still has to do a lot of work, and the overtakee has a fighting chance of regaining the place rather than it becoming a fait accompli.

Was that a bit of praise for Hermann Tilke? ;)

Daniel
10th April 2011, 12:30
Still crap. Overtaking has become worthless.
Alonso vs Hamilton without DRS was a highly enjoyable battle, that's what racing look likes, in case some do not know.

Only because Hamilton had issues.

AndyL
10th April 2011, 12:31
Reliability remains a concern though, as does the apparent difference in the effect it has on everyone's cars. Renault, for example were just ballistic with DRS engaged, whereas for other teams it seem to do little/nothing.

Some of the difference in effect may have been down to gearing, some teams may have gone for a long top gear if they anticipated being in a lot of traffic.

Sonic
10th April 2011, 12:38
A big factor today was circuit design: a long enough straight to give DRS a chance to work, followed by a sequence of corners which means the overtaker still has to do a lot of work, and the overtakee has a fighting chance of regaining the place rather than it becoming a fait accompli.

You've also got to give Pirelli a fair bit of credit. Their tyres permit a number of strategies, meaning we saw old booted cars mixing with fresh rubbered ones, leading to some very tasty passes lasting three or more corners.

ioan
10th April 2011, 12:38
So what? It's racing with issues or not.
Since when makes an undeserved advantage attributed by the governing body based on need for show part of racing?

ioan
10th April 2011, 12:39
Honestly the tires' performance was all over the place, no credit deserved by anyone for that.

Sonic
10th April 2011, 12:43
Some of the difference in effect may have been down to gearing, some teams may have gone for a long top gear if they anticipated being in a lot of traffic.

It did cross my mind. The renaults were the only ones playing pin ball on the rev limit in Q, but that could have been wind direction or any number of other factors.

Daniel
10th April 2011, 12:44
Honestly the tires' performance was all over the place, no credit deserved by anyone for that.

I agree. I think the tyres are rubbish. The marbling is silly and on some tracks will stop overtaking.

Dave B
10th April 2011, 12:50
But remember that poor old Pirelli are only doing what people asked of them.

Daniel
10th April 2011, 12:53
But remember that poor old Pirelli are only doing what people asked of them.
IMHO I don't think the tyres really drop off as much would actually make for better racing.

ioan
10th April 2011, 13:36
But remember that poor old Pirelli are only doing what people asked of them.

People, what people? Maybe donkeys asked for that.

ioan
10th April 2011, 13:37
I agree. I think the tyres are rubbish. The marbling is silly and on some tracks will stop overtaking.

Looks like Canada will need around 7 stops and everything will run out of tires halfway through the race if everything stays the same, though I believe that the teams are pushing Pirelli hard to come up with a real racing tire instead of chewing gum.

Sonic
10th April 2011, 13:51
People, what people? Maybe donkeys asked for that.

*raises hand*

I must be a donkey then. Pirelli have done exactly what I wanted them to do. Drivers can either do a four stop sprint, or a two stop conservation run.

Without these variables (DRS, KERS, Tyres) the race result - thanks IMO to very tight parc ferme conditions - would be set on Saturday afternoon.

Garry Walker
10th April 2011, 14:48
Still crap. Overtaking has become worthless.
Alonso vs Hamilton without DRS was a highly enjoyable battle, that's what racing look likes, in case some do not know.

Yes. The passing is too easy now, completely worthless. I hate DRS even more now.

ioan
10th April 2011, 15:19
Yes. The passing is too easy now, completely worthless. I hate DRS even more now.

They made both overtaking and defending racing skills redundant with one stupid move.

wedge
10th April 2011, 16:07
DRS a bit gimmicky today but tyres gave us a good show. I think drivers should be given free reign in dry, race conditions.


----------


I've never cared for equalisation formulae. It's so false like the governing body has decided if you are going to win this time. IMO either everyone should compete to the same regs or not at all.


It's the same for everyone = fair racing.
What we get in F1 is a gimmick that gives the car behind an advantage to overtake the car in front.
I guess you can spot the difference.

I am also looking forward to the day when F1 will allow for different engine types and configs! :rolleyes:

The problem I have with the ACO is not fair racing (Dave Richards STFU and build diesels, blah, blah, blah) its not true competition.

The problem with LMP1 is that the ACO has dictated that diesels are faster than a NA car around La Sarthe.

christophulus
10th April 2011, 22:09
Thinking about the DRS... it was brought in to basically negate the turbulent air off the car in front so cars could feasibly get close enough to pass. However, judging by today, cars seem to be able to follow each other much more easily now the double confuser has been banned, so maybe the DRS isn't necessary after all?

ioan
10th April 2011, 22:44
Thinking about the DRS... it was brought in to basically negate the turbulent air off the car in front so cars could feasibly get close enough to pass. However, judging by today, cars seem to be able to follow each other much more easily now the double confuser has been banned, so maybe the DRS isn't necessary after all?

The DRS has nothing to do with dirty air. Dirty air has a big influence on the front wing and the stability of the front of the following car.

DRS has been introduced to artificially create overtaking, overtaking moves void of any overtaking skills as the driver only needs to push a pedal/button to get extra 20km/h on the straight and breeze by the car in front. Apparently it's some kind of entertainment that I fail to grasp.

BDunnell
10th April 2011, 23:19
The problem with LMP1 is that the ACO has dictated that diesels are faster than a NA car around La Sarthe.

Which it did because it thought it served a purpose for a while. Now it seems to be realising that it no longer suits its needs and is moving away from its pro-diesel stance. This has often been the FIA's way in the past, not least in terms of the process that led to the three new teams joining the grid.

ioan
10th April 2011, 23:53
The problem I have with the ACO is not fair racing (Dave Richards STFU and build diesels, blah, blah, blah) its not true competition.

The problem with LMP1 is that the ACO has dictated that diesels are faster than a NA car around La Sarthe.

There are petrol, diesel and hybrid engined cars in the ILMC/ALMS/LMS series while in F1 teams are playing in teh sand with frozen V8s, very imited KERS and a gimmicky DRS.

Let's be honest, it is difficult to compare the level of the two regulation sets.

wedge
11th April 2011, 01:46
Let's be honest, it is difficult to compare the level of the two regulation sets.

You're missing the point.

The point I'm making is that if you look at the major international championships there is an 'equivalencey' formula - nee formula to manipulate the competition in their respective regulations.

Rollo
11th April 2011, 03:34
I think that this is the absolute crux of the argument:

The DRS has nothing to do with dirty air. Dirty air has a big influence on the front wing and the stability of the front of the following car.
DRS has been introduced to artificially create overtaking, overtaking moves void of any overtaking skills as the driver only needs to push a pedal/button to get extra 20km/h on the straight and breeze by the car in front. Apparently it's some kind of entertainment that I fail to grasp.

:up: Hear hear.

I understand that the FIA wants a better "show", but I tend to ask is that the point of Formula One? Motor Racing at its heart is about who can build the best machinery or in a spec series, who happens to be the best driver. I don't think that either the DRS or the KERS push to pass buttons meet these ends.

Such a thing works very well on video games like Daytona USA or Mario Kart, but the point is that motor racing is neither a video game (although Petrov did try to throw his PS3 controller away in yesterday's race); nor is it played "for fun".
One analogy that I've heard is that it's a bit like the “Hot Ball” in the old Amiga game Speedball 2.

Even with things like extra ballast penalties in Touring Car racing, they don't actively change the behaviour of the car mid-race and mid-lap. A car following already gets a benefit by following in the slipstream of the car in front because the car in front has already punched a hole in the air, giving the following car a second benefit of the DRS is a wee bit silly in my not very paid opinion.

Brown, Jon Brow
11th April 2011, 11:52
We saw a few great scraps yesterday. Alonso versus Hamilton. Webber versus Kob. Schumacher versus Kob.

We wouldn't have seen the the great battle between Alonso and Hamilton if the Ferrari DRS was working. He would have sailed past and Hamilton wouldn't have been able to defend regardless of how many 'moves' he made.

The Webber versus Kobayashi scrap was made because Marks KERS wasn't working. Without DRS Webber wouldn't have been able to fight back.

I think that the tyre regs and smaller diffusers are enough to make the cars capable of passing more this year. I'd be in favour of getting rid of DRS and keeping KERS.

A driver needs to be intelligent to use his KERS in a way that gives him the best possible advantage. But I'd like to see slacker retrictions on how team can develop their KERS. A technological breakthrough with KERS could really benefit road car efficiency.

I've never moaned about the lack of overtaking on some of Tilke's circuits such as Sepang or Shanghai in previous years, but maybe our view on DRS will change after Catalunya and Valencia.

Dave B
11th April 2011, 13:16
For me, DRS should act like a dating agency: make the introductions but leave it up to the two people concerned to hit it off.

DRS should give a driver an opportunity to make a pass, but it should still be up to the driver to do the hard work once he's close enough. In Malaysia this worked, more or less. If it simply results in one car breezing past another down the straight then that's artificial.

Daniel
11th April 2011, 14:18
DRS should act like a forum? :P

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 00:27
:up: Hear hear.

I understand that the FIA wants a better "show", but I tend to ask is that the point of Formula One? Motor Racing at its heart is about who can build the best machinery or in a spec series, who happens to be the best driver. I don't think that either the DRS or the KERS push to pass buttons meet these ends.

I agree absolutely. However, there seems to be an increasing realisation that the endless march of progress has diluted the racing (as opposed to 'show') element to such an extent as to render the sport boring. I can well understand this view, because my interest in Grand Prix racing has nothing to do with strategy or technology. I don't think this makes me the sort of moronic casual viewer these new 'innovations' are supposed to appeal to.

ioan
12th April 2011, 00:43
You're missing the point.

The point I'm making is that if you look at the major international championships there is an 'equivalencey' formula - nee formula to manipulate the competition in their respective regulations.

And F1 has always been an equivalency formula, on top of which we get crappy KERS and gimmicky DRS.

I guess I'll continue missing your point unless I agree with you.

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 00:47
And F1 has always been an equivalency formula

How?

ioan
12th April 2011, 00:51
How?

Since they made rules that limit everything.
Nowadays they even have to build the same engine architecture.

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 00:54
Since they made rules that limit everything.
Nowadays they even have to build the same engine architecture.

But you said 'always'.

ioan
12th April 2011, 01:00
But you said 'always'.

We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Good night.

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 01:00
We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Good night.

It was quite a fundamental one in terms of your argument, though. But you are forgiven. Good night!

Rollo
12th April 2011, 01:10
You're missing the point.

The point I'm making is that if you look at the major international championships there is an 'equivalencey' formula - nee formula to manipulate the competition in their respective regulations.

Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula. There are loads and loads of regulations including engine capacity, number of cylinders, control tyres, dimensions of body work, car widths, car lengths, ride height, weight distribution, centre of gravity, location of various fluid systems... <Yul Brynner> etcetera, etcetera, etcetera </Yul Brynner> and extends to 72 pages of formula. For goodness sake, it's even called Formula One.

It's only in the rarefied atmosphere of the uppermost tiers of motorsport where thousandths of a second in difference in performance count.

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 01:12
Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula.

I wouldn't use that modern phrase in relation simply to the age-old application of certain technical parameters, personally.

Rollo
12th April 2011, 01:21
"Certain technical parameters"???

The regs which define Formula One are probably the most exhaustive set of regulations for any motorsport category in the world. The only other qualifier I can think of would be the BTCC which uses the general principle that if the rules don't say it, then you can't do it.

Even in something like the V8Supercars where the word "parity" was being bandied about as though it was some magical being, the regulations still tinkered with the relative dimensions of various components on the two brands of car to bring them in line with each other.

In principle the whole idea behind the DRS isn't to make the cars "equivalent" anyway, it's specifically to provide the car following with an advantage.

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 01:25
"Certain technical parameters"???

Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.

AndyL
12th April 2011, 11:52
Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.

I agree with that assessment. Equivalency formulas (formula as in equation, not as in recipe) are about adjusting different sets of technical regulations to make them evenly matched. In F1 everyone works to a single set of technical regulations now, so equivalency formulas don't come into it.
F1 has had an equivalency formula for long periods of its history though, with different capacity limits for turbo and normally-aspirated engines. In the 80s when the FIA was doing things like restricting boost and increasing the NA capacity from 3 to 3.5 litres, those were adjustments to the equivalency formula.

Brown, Jon Brow
12th April 2011, 18:44
I thought that 'equivalency formula' was when you get two cars that are built to different regulations competing? Like with the BTC versus Super2000 versus NGTC ?

ioan
12th April 2011, 20:23
I agree with that assessment. Equivalency formulas (formula as in equation, not as in recipe) are about adjusting different sets of technical regulations to make them evenly matched.

And what do you think is the effect of imposing a certain engine formula, limiting the revs to 18000 / min and then freezing it?! :rolleyes:

BDunnell
12th April 2011, 23:49
And what do you think is the effect of imposing a certain engine formula, limiting the revs to 18000 / min and then freezing it?! :rolleyes:

That's not an equivalency formula, for the reasons given by others above — as stated, an equivalency formula is when efforts are made to even out the performance of, say, turbo or non-turbo cars.

airshifter
13th April 2011, 02:28
Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula. There are loads and loads of regulations including engine capacity, number of cylinders, control tyres, dimensions of body work, car widths, car lengths, ride height, weight distribution, centre of gravity, location of various fluid systems... <Yul Brynner> etcetera, etcetera, etcetera </Yul Brynner> and extends to 72 pages of formula. For goodness sake, it's even called Formula One.

It's only in the rarefied atmosphere of the uppermost tiers of motorsport where thousandths of a second in difference in performance count.


I'd more say it's a formula intended to limit maximum performance. Based on "equivalency" you would think there are spec cars on the track, and that the Virgin should be just as fast as the Red Bull.

And in the current Formula, they have DRS and KERS. Like it or not it's here for now.

Roamy
13th April 2011, 06:29
well carving through all the bullish!t posts here - I kinda like the system so far.

wedge
13th April 2011, 14:57
Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.

Hear, hear

Today's motorsport is about parity, cost cutting and the 'show'.

gloomyDAY
13th April 2011, 20:29
This flappy wing was and still is a joke. I noticed that the DRS activation zones have been put in place for the Chinese Grand Prix. I wonder what will be the DRS activation zones will be at Monaco. Laughable!

RS
13th April 2011, 20:34
This is what Alonso said after Malaysia: "If the system (DRS) had worked, I could comfortably have got past Hamilton on the pit straight and I would not have found myself having to fight him wheel to wheel and taking risks."

But isn't that what we want? Would be interesting to see how this years new tyres would have affected "natural" racing without DRS.

Brown, Jon Brow
13th April 2011, 21:09
Do the drivers still have a front wing adjust?

Sonic
13th April 2011, 21:15
No Jon, that's gone

AussieV8
14th April 2011, 04:27
IMHO the idea of the drag reduction system is ok. However, the whole thing of having a "zone" is just ridiculous. I think they should be allowed to use it once per lap, wherever they like.

Either that or allow them a certain number of uses per race, like the push to pass button in IndyCar.

I also think they should pick either KERS or DRS, not both.

Big Ben
14th April 2011, 09:02
I belive it sucks... BIG TIME... and they say it's a huge success so I guess it's here to stay. After all the whole point is to attract the morons... I mean the average guy. Most real F1 fans will follow anyway, it's not like the first time they have to deal with stupid rules... though I don't recall a more stupid one.

Mia 01
14th April 2011, 10:10
Nothing wrong with a bit moore overtaking, I like it, guess it´s therefore a bad thing for the experts.

UltimateDanGTR
14th April 2011, 16:11
I belive it sucks... BIG TIME... and they say it's a huge success so I guess it's here to stay. After all the whole point is to attract the morons... I mean the average guy. Most real F1 fans will follow anyway, it's not like the first time they have to deal with stupid rules... though I don't recall a more stupid one.

what about when under max mosley we had two different rulesets; one for ferrari and one for everyone else :p :

that was just plain stupid.

Sonic
14th April 2011, 16:18
what about when under max mosley we had two different rulesets; one for ferrari and one for everyone else :p :

that was just plain stupid.

;) I think EU might have meant 'official' rules ;)

CNR
17th April 2011, 10:50
alonso was using where it should not have been working

Dave B
17th April 2011, 11:00
alonso was using where it should not have been working

He seemed to have his flap open (oo-er missus) for a couple of seconds when behind MSC but out of the zone. As it's supposed to be controlled by race control I can't imagine they'll be able to penalise him for it, especially given that it seems to still be Beta technology with its share of teething trouble. Anyway, he didn't gain an advantage, but it's certainly worth monitoring in future races. :s

ioan
17th April 2011, 11:01
Crap, just like it was crap in Oz.

Robinho
17th April 2011, 11:02
i'm still pleasantly surprised by it, there doesn't seem to be any absolute freebies, you need to be a good chunk quicker to actually make it work.

Dave B
17th April 2011, 11:06
i'm still pleasantly surprised by it, there doesn't seem to be any absolute freebies, you need to be a good chunk quicker to actually make it work.

Agreed. It looks daft when a faster car breezes past a much slower one, but when they're roughly evenly matched it still requires the overtaker to use skill under braking and to be able to control the extra speed going into the corner. It's not handing the pass to them on a plate, but I suspect that this was partially down to the FIA shortening the zone during the weekend. Had it been the whole straight as originally planned I fear it may have made a mockery of the race but, as in Malaysia, I think it was just about right.

steveaki13
17th April 2011, 11:27
We saw early in the race, when there were about 5 or 6 cars nose to tail, all the rear wings open and it not make the difference, so I think it was about right. Otherwise the lead of the 5 cars would have the others all pile up the back of him.

Overall today I think it worked well enough.

wedge
17th April 2011, 15:24
I'm close to concluding that DRS should be scrapped altogether. The tyres are better to mess with as long as we don't get predictable tyre strategies.

Whyzars
17th April 2011, 16:38
I'm close to concluding that DRS should be scrapped altogether. The tyres are better to mess with as long as we don't get predictable tyre strategies.

I'm with you.

I've actually been expecting a DRS failure to close and a car go spearing off at the end of a straight or worse into the back of another car.

DRS is designed to overcome the gap opened up by a leading car coming out of a corner but worn tyres can equalise that as was shown today.

Sonic
17th April 2011, 19:41
^^^

Whereas I'm coming off the fence on the other side. I've been fairly open minded to the DRS, but I've changed my mind. I'm not just "ok" with it anymore - I like it.

There I've said it. Feels good to be out of the closet.

My name is sonic, and I like the DRS.

christophulus
17th April 2011, 20:06
I think it's a good addition, but I agree that it should be put on a different straight so there's another chance to overtake, rather than in the most obvious place. FIA say they're still learning so why not experiment a bit more?

airshifter
18th April 2011, 01:55
^^^

Whereas I'm coming off the fence on the other side. I've been fairly open minded to the DRS, but I've changed my mind. I'm not just "ok" with it anymore - I like it.

There I've said it. Feels good to be out of the closet.

My name is sonic, and I like the DRS.

I was open minded to it from the start.. not as if we really have a choice anyway so I went with it.

Today I thought the DRS zone was possibly a bit too long. The drivers still had to be close to make a pass but it was maybe a little easier than it should have been.

Whyzars
18th April 2011, 05:38
My name is sonic, and I like the DRS.

DRS is nothing more than a "push to pass" measure to increase overtaking. DRS has potential failure characteristics that could be very difficult for a driver to correct.

Now we all know that electronics never fail but consider what will happen if:

DRS engages too early - sudden oversteer condition as we saw in Melbourne.
DRS fails to disengage - continuing oversteer condition accompanied by reduced braking capacity.
DRS disengages unexpectedly - sudden change in handling characteristics and forward speed.
DRS engages unexpectedly - say a Hail Mary.

Can you imagine if the DRS engaged in the middle of Parabolica or Eau'Rouge?

I see it as a truly dangerous innovation and would rather see KERS rules used if "push to pass" must exist in F1 .

My name is Whyzars, and I don't like the DRS. :)

555-04Q2
18th April 2011, 07:16
Get rid of DRS. It is a stupid gimmick that belongs in a formula like NASCAR, not F1. It must have been thought up by an idiot smelling the finger that he pulled out of his ar$e.

GET. RID. OF. GIMMICKY. DRS. FIA.

wmcot
18th April 2011, 07:31
IMHO the idea of the drag reduction system is ok. However, the whole thing of having a "zone" is just ridiculous. I think they should be allowed to use it once per lap, wherever they like.

Either that or allow them a certain number of uses per race, like the push to pass button in IndyCar.

I also think they should pick either KERS or DRS, not both.

Totally agree with the "zone" part. That seems very artificial - sort of like they want to show overtaking in front of the high paying sponsors who sit along the main straight. I say let the driver decide, just like KERS.

Overall, I'm not sure that it should be in race control's hands. If a fault occurs and a few wings are opened at the wrong time, who gets the blame? No electronic control is glitch free. It should be a driver's decision, not left up to race control.

aryan
18th April 2011, 07:54
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.

Sonic
18th April 2011, 10:03
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
18th April 2011, 15:56
To an extent DRS was a failure because Hamilton passed cars without it!

ArrowsFA1
18th April 2011, 16:31
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
18th April 2011, 17:32
... 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
18th April 2011, 18:41
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
19th April 2011, 00:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/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
19th April 2011, 00:35
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/formula_one/13109394.stmDo I dare say it? Yeah, screw it!

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

Whyzars
19th April 2011, 03:47
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
19th April 2011, 10:28
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
19th April 2011, 10:33
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.

DexDexter
19th April 2011, 10:36
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.

Whyzars
19th April 2011, 11:05
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.

Ho hum. :(

The FIA have implemented a "push to pass" mechanism that is, in its active state, designed to radically alter the handling characteristics in what I consider, a dangerous way.

If they reversed their version of "ON" it would achieve similar with any unintentional device activation being safer. Rather than a failure requiring a driver penalty because he may have gained an advantage, or worse, a car has T-boned an armco barrier 3 metres off the side of the track, a failure in the reverse model would result in a driver screaming down the mike for his engineers to fix it.

I don't see why this change is considered a problem. Oversteer is dangerous, unexpected oversteer can be truly catastrophic.

Sonic
19th April 2011, 11:23
[quote="Whyzars"]

Oversteer is fun. (I realise you are making a serious point but with petrol running thru my veins I couldn't let that one slide - if you'll pardon the pun ;) )

Malbec
19th April 2011, 11:24
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.

Sutil made a driver error when he engaged the DRS too early in Melbourne. This is a different point entirely to the one I think you're trying to make about DRS 'failing' and activating when the driver doesn't expect it. If a driver makes an error with DRS and crashes I don't see how thats different to any other kind of driver error.

DRS is designed to default to its 'off' position, ie in its high downforce state. If the control mechanism fails then its locked in that position. What you're talking about can't happen unless the entire wing fails.

Whyzars
19th April 2011, 11:44
Oversteer is fun. (I realise you are making a serious point but with petrol running thru my veins I couldn't let that one slide - if you'll pardon the pun ;) )

Pun pardoned.

Porsche drivers from around the world totally know what you mean. :)

TMorel
19th April 2011, 11:49
DRS is designed to default to its 'off' position, ie in its high downforce state. If the control mechanism fails then its locked in that position. What you're talking about can't happen unless the entire wing fails.

So does that mean Alonso deliberately cheated when his wing activated in China out of the sector? I thought it was a malfunction and incorrectly popped open causing him problems, but what you're saying is that can't happen?

Malbec
19th April 2011, 12:25
So does that mean Alonso deliberately cheated when his wing activated in China out of the sector? I thought it was a malfunction and incorrectly popped open causing him problems, but what you're saying is that can't happen?

I'm talking about the safety aspect of DRS deploying in the corners. That can't happen and hasn't as they are designed to switch off as soon as brake pressure is applied. The software lockout system thats supposed to function when the car isn't in the designated DRS sector is another matter entirely.

Whyzars
19th April 2011, 17:03
I'm talking about the safety aspect of DRS deploying in the corners. That can't happen and hasn't as they are designed to switch off as soon as brake pressure is applied. The software lockout system thats supposed to function when the car isn't in the designated DRS sector is another matter entirely.

I'm not talking about the DRS deploying under braking, I'm talking about it deploying under acceleration in a sweeping corner.

It only takes three things to happen for someone to get hurt, the wrong point on the track, the DRS deploying unexpectedly and the driver being unable to "catch" the sudden oversteer condition.

Very silly design when the polar opposite of what they've done would achieve the same thing, maybe even be better at it and be so much safer.

The mind absolutely boggles as to why they would implement the DRS this way. Probably a choice between slowing the leading car versus making the trailing car faster and faster always wins.

Bagwan
19th April 2011, 17:32
I'm not talking about the DRS deploying under braking, I'm talking about it deploying under acceleration in a sweeping corner.

It only takes three things to happen for someone to get hurt, the wrong point on the track, the DRS deploying unexpectedly and the driver being unable to "catch" the sudden oversteer condition.

Very silly design when the polar opposite of what they've done would achieve the same thing, maybe even be better at it and be so much safer.

The mind absolutely boggles as to why they would implement the DRS this way. Probably a choice between slowing the leading car versus making the trailing car faster and faster always wins.

I'm with you all the way on this DRS thing , Whyzars .

The addition of a more degradable tire would have been enough .

I , too , worry that a failure is gonna be bad if it's in the wrong spot .

Malbec
19th April 2011, 20:59
I'm not talking about the DRS deploying under braking, I'm talking about it deploying under acceleration in a sweeping corner.

It only takes three things to happen for someone to get hurt, the wrong point on the track, the DRS deploying unexpectedly and the driver being unable to "catch" the sudden oversteer condition.

The only way it can be deployed in the situation you describe is if the driver presses a button to do so in qualifying or practice with his foot off the brake pedal which is driver error. I really don't see how that is different to any other situation involving driver error. Sutil's example which is the one you chose illustrates that perfectly.

Whyzars
20th April 2011, 08:38
The only way it can be deployed in the situation you describe is if the driver presses a button to do so in qualifying or practice with his foot off the brake pedal which is driver error. I really don't see how that is different to any other situation involving driver error. Sutil's example which is the one you chose illustrates that perfectly.

So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

I can't think of any other switch that, if triggered accidentally, has the potential to cannon a driver into a wall at 300km/h.

If a driver ends up hospitalised by this "innovation" he will get great comfort knowing that it was all his fault.

The DRS has been implemented a*s backwards and should either be disabled or its use reversed. The cars cannot continue to drive around with an electronic overtaking aid that has such negative potential. The DRS may very well have racing potential but the accident potential, in its current form, is far too high - in my opinion.

Sonic
20th April 2011, 10:44
So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

I can't think of any other switch that, if triggered accidentally, has the potential to cannon a driver into a wall at 300km/h.

If a driver ends up hospitalised by this "innovation" he will get great comfort knowing that it was all his fault.

The DRS has been implemented a*s backwards and should either be disabled or its use reversed. The cars cannot continue to drive around with an electronic overtaking aid that has such negative potential. The DRS may very well have racing potential but the accident potential, in its current form, is far too high - in my opinion.

You make some interesting points regarding the reversal of the system, slowing the lead car by increasing drag, but surely that proceeds under the premise that inadvertently deploying that system and creating dramatic understeer could be just as dangerous? I can think of a few places I wouldn't fancy that - the tunnel at Monaco for one.

That being the case I guess, from your POV, the system should be removed.

Personally I think the risk is negligible and can only get less so as the technology becomes most tried and tested.

Whyzars
20th April 2011, 12:01
You make some interesting points regarding the reversal of the system, slowing the lead car by increasing drag, but surely that proceeds under the premise that inadvertently deploying that system and creating dramatic understeer could be just as dangerous? I can think of a few places I wouldn't fancy that - the tunnel at Monaco for one.

That being the case I guess, from your POV, the system should be removed.

Personally I think the risk is negligible and can only get less so as the technology becomes most tried and tested.


The lead car is basically slowed today by not being allowed to deploy the DRS. The significant change with a reversal is that the cars are setup with an open wing such that should a failure occur the failed state will be orders of magnitude safer than it is currently.

The tunnel at Monaco is an excellent location for interpreting examples of a DRS failure.

Under the current DRS, unintentional engagement of the system might very well see a car spear into the right hand wall, accelerating and at an angle that beggars belief. Only lightning reflexes could save this situation. In the reversed DRS, unintentional engagement at this tunnel location would also be unpleasant but would be a decelerating, glancing impact with the left hand wall. Imminently more recoverable from a drivers perspective.

The DRS may reduce its failure rate to nearly zero but which system should be in F1 - the current DRS with, in my opinion, a poor safety design or the reverse of it?

airshifter
20th April 2011, 13:06
Some good points Whyzars, but personally I think that view overlooks the other factors that easily lead to drivers loosing control. Let's face it, with these cars making the power they do simply using too much throttle in many situations results in the cars spearing a wall. Combined with KERS there are even more places it could happen.

The advantages of DRS are greater as speed increases, but KERS power is available both at high and low speeds. Both require the driver pushing a button, but in the case of DRS the zone is the only place it can be used. The situations you speak of could just as readily happen if a driver uses KERS at the wrong spot on the track.

Whyzars
20th April 2011, 14:30
Some good points Whyzars, but personally I think that view overlooks the other factors that easily lead to drivers loosing control. Let's face it, with these cars making the power they do simply using too much throttle in many situations results in the cars spearing a wall. Combined with KERS there are even more places it could happen.

The advantages of DRS are greater as speed increases, but KERS power is available both at high and low speeds. Both require the driver pushing a button, but in the case of DRS the zone is the only place it can be used. The situations you speak of could just as readily happen if a driver uses KERS at the wrong spot on the track.

I hear what you're saying and this is not an "F1 must be safe at all costs" thing. They may very well have the right solution to the overtaking problem (if there is one) but in the exact opposite way to what they've implemented.

These cars are violent and unforgiving when they are operating perfectly and I dont argue that. They are also being driven by the best drivers in the world who are able to handle most things these cars throw at them. I just don't believe that the DRS is an optimal implementation from a safety standpoint for the drivers.

My opinion of the DRS is that its a little gimmicky and that tyre and KERS regulations could, in time, achieve the same thing. In fact I think I posted previously that KERS development could accelerate if it was the "push to pass" system of choice.

If they must have the DRS, then in my opinion, the current implementation is flawed. They could achieve the same thing, in a safer manner, if the current implementation was reversed. ie. Set up the car with an open wing and close it on a lead car at designated overtaking points. This approach would slow the rate of acceleration of a lead car and it would incur a slight fuel penalty on each lap that it is defending a straight.

My primary concern with DRS currently is that it alters the handling characteristics to an exaggerated oversteer condition. If it engages unexpectedly, in the wrong spot on a track, it could be catastrophic. If F1 has safety as a primary concern, and I truly believe it does, then, in my opinion, reversing the DRS implementation would be a far safer implementation of the open/closed rear wing technique.

Bagwan
20th April 2011, 15:49
Olivier Panis doesn't think it's a good idea . Here's what he said :

“Really, there are too many things for the driver to be doing on the steering wheel now. Compared with what they did before, I think it's more dangerous and I don't feel good about this philosophy. First he has to change gear…and also if one time the system doesn't work it's going to be pretty dangerous, particularly in a high-speed corner.

“I don't really understand who decides these things and if the guy was smoking something before he did. Really, I don't think F1 needs these types of new things. I hear a lot of drivers complaining about it and I agree with them. I really don't like it and I think it's too dangerous in relation to the show it gives us.”

I thought this quote was particularly apt today , on 4:20 .

ioan
20th April 2011, 19:58
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.

Absolutely agree! :up:

ioan
20th April 2011, 20:03
Olivier Panis doesn't think it's a good idea . Here's what he said :

“Really, there are too many things for the driver to be doing on the steering wheel now. Compared with what they did before, I think it's more dangerous and I don't feel good about this philosophy. First he has to change gear…and also if one time the system doesn't work it's going to be pretty dangerous, particularly in a high-speed corner.

“I don't really understand who decides these things and if the guy was smoking something before he did. Really, I don't think F1 needs these types of new things. I hear a lot of drivers complaining about it and I agree with them. I really don't like it and I think it's too dangerous in relation to the show it gives us.”

I thought this quote was particularly apt today , on 4:20 .

Voice of reason.
DRS is good for drivers who never knew how to overtake the others managed to overtake on other parts of the track then the gimmicky activation zone.

tmx
21st April 2011, 06:31
My opinion is that its only marginally less boring than two car drafting [NASCAR], but still a big distraction from actual racing.

Sonic
23rd April 2011, 11:21
So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

Roamy
23rd April 2011, 11:37
So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

I would imagine that with no runoff areas the potential danger factor outweighs the sporting intent of the device. A failure could and probably would create a life threatening event.

Dave B
23rd April 2011, 15:44
If you do crash at Monaco you're *usually* going much slower than other tracks. And yes, I know, there is still an element of danger and we've seen some hairy moments there.

Garry Walker
23rd April 2011, 16:19
I have a few suggestions for F1, all in the name of improving the "racing"

1) Draw grids from hat
2) At a time chosen by the computer, the race leader has to stop his car for 15 seconds, all in the name of making "racing" better
3) At a time chosen by the computer, all drivers have to pit and put on rain tyres when it is dry, this will make the spectacle better
4) First lap has to be driven in reverse
5) Pitcrews will be replaced by highly trained Monkies
6) Every driver will have to start the race with 15 kg less fuel than they would need to finish the race - this will improve the racing, because at various times different drivers will be saving fuel. This will also make F1 more greener
7) Ban drivers from using wet tyres when it is raining, only dry tyres allowed.

These changes will improve the racing massively and will allow F1 to compete against WWF for the top position in sports entertainment.

airshifter
23rd April 2011, 17:48
So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

It's a smart move in my opinion. KERS alone is a handful at Monaco, and the sport should never disregard safety in the pursuit of "the show".

Whyzars
23rd April 2011, 18:27
So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

When you say it would be the right "choice" for a track like Monaco, what do you mean exactly? Are you saying that every track ideally would have an overtaking aid tailored for it, KERS regulations here, DRS there? I'm not sure they could ever be that predictable but who knows.


I read somewhere (can't remember where) that, as they learn more about the DRS, there is an option of different gaps for different tracks and Monaco was mentioned as a possibility for a different configuration.

You know that I'm not a fan of the DRS and would be OK with it being deactivated but I didn't get the impression, from the article, that the DRS was not being considered for Monaco rather Monaco might receive more of the DRS magic. :crazy:

Dave B
23rd April 2011, 20:22
DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914

Mark
23rd April 2011, 20:41
I don't see the point in allowing it during practice sessions anyway.

SGWilko
23rd April 2011, 21:47
I have a few suggestions for F1, all in the name of improving the "racing"

1) Draw grids from hat
2) At a time chosen by the computer, the race leader has to stop his car for 15 seconds, all in the name of making "racing" better
3) At a time chosen by the computer, all drivers have to pit and put on rain tyres when it is dry, this will make the spectacle better
4) First lap has to be driven in reverse
5) Pitcrews will be replaced by highly trained Monkies
6) Every driver will have to start the race with 15 kg less fuel than they would need to finish the race - this will improve the racing, because at various times different drivers will be saving fuel. This will also make F1 more greener
7) Ban drivers from using wet tyres when it is raining, only dry tyres allowed.

These changes will improve the racing massively and will allow F1 to compete against WWF for the top position in sports entertainment.

When the FIA adopt all your suggestions, I shall hit you quite hard with a blunt instrument! ;)

steveaki13
24th April 2011, 00:54
I don't think it would help much at Monaco anyways, so I think they may as well limit its use there.

ArrowsFA1
24th April 2011, 10:51
DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914
For safety reasons. So it's safe to use at some circuits but not others. I can't think of many other "innovations" where that was the case. Turbos? No. Bit of a handful around the streets but they didn't take them off the cars for Monaco. Double diffuser? No. Perfectly fine everywhere. Slicks. Fine too.

What is it about DRS? If it's not safe to use at Monaco then ultimately it's not the solution.

Whyzars
24th April 2011, 11:35
DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914

If I'm reading this right, they appear to be cautious of their implementation of the DRS and yet may be willing to go with an all or nothing model. Are they making it up as they go along? I do not believe that F1 should have any technology that is disabled/enabled by track. That would be utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Are drivers who support the DRS crossing the line from sportsmen to entertainers?

I realise that reversing the DRS is not going to happen but one way for the current system to be made safer might be to slow the action of the wing. Rather than an instantaneous open/close mechanism, the flap could still slam shut with the brakes but open gradually over a 2 or 3 second time period when engaged. This may reduce some of the impact of the flap opening and might make a failure catchable. The car will still be oversteering from its setup state though. :crazy:

Its all getting a little too hard...

Allyc85
24th April 2011, 16:48
It will be interesting to see how the teams use the DRS at Monza, with the very skinny rear wings they use.

airshifter
25th April 2011, 04:55
It will be interesting to see how the teams use the DRS at Monza, with the very skinny rear wings they use.

Actually depending on the DRS zone Monza could be very interesting. Most drivers use less wing and suffer through corners, while at times some drivers have used a little more wing and lost top speed and potential passing opportunities. Last year Button ran more wing and had advantage in the twisty parts of the circuit, but couldn't make the passes on the straights. Depending on the DRS zone drivers might be able to come up with a more optimal overall setup.

Malbec
26th April 2011, 01:36
So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

Can't speak for Alonso as I didn't really find out what happened (didn't punt him off though did it?) but with Sutil yes it was driver error. I'm sure had you watched the quali session you'd have noticed every driver opening up DRS as soon as they hit the main straight. They all miraculously survived the experience. Sutil probably opened his a fraction earlier than everyone else. He didn't make the same mistake again.

As Airshifter eloquently stated the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Maybe we should cut the horsepower down to something manageable like 20bhp to stop these guys from losing control with the throttle. Ban KERS because deployed (or not deployed) in the wrong place it can cause accidents like Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia. What do we do about brakes? The number of times I've seen people lose control under braking is countless. Ban that too!

I'm still undecided about whether DRS takes away from the 'purity' of racing but honestly I don't think the possibility of it deploying unexpectedly is an issue. Whether it gives the driver too much to concentrate on while overtaking is another issue.

I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.

wedge
26th April 2011, 13:52
I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.

The irony is that even without DRS and if you have the better car it's so easy to slipstream at Spa: La Source-Eau Rouge-Kemmel Straight-Les Combes.

Monza will be interesting. Just like last year which set up strategy will be better: who dares to run minimal or more wing angle of attack.

Whyzars
27th April 2011, 04:07
Can't speak for Alonso as I didn't really find out what happened (didn't punt him off though did it?) but with Sutil yes it was driver error. I'm sure had you watched the quali session you'd have noticed every driver opening up DRS as soon as they hit the main straight. They all miraculously survived the experience. Sutil probably opened his a fraction earlier than everyone else. He didn't make the same mistake again.

As Airshifter eloquently stated the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Maybe we should cut the horsepower down to something manageable like 20bhp to stop these guys from losing control with the throttle. Ban KERS because deployed (or not deployed) in the wrong place it can cause accidents like Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia. What do we do about brakes? The number of times I've seen people lose control under braking is countless. Ban that too!

I'm still undecided about whether DRS takes away from the 'purity' of racing but honestly I don't think the possibility of it deploying unexpectedly is an issue. Whether it gives the driver too much to concentrate on while overtaking is another issue.

I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.


I have watched every qualifying and every race. Alonso got lucky and the Sutil incident illustrated perfectly why the DRS is an accident waiting to happen. To support the DRS we are being asked to believe that electronics never fail.

Of course the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Does that mean we keep adding to that list until the cars are crashing more regularly? Driver error doesn't make a crash OK.

I can't see why the DRS would be acceptable at some tracks and not others. If the DRS is inappropriate for Monaco then it should be banned from all tracks. No ifs, no buts.

Unfortunately, I don't consider the DRS to be an "interesting extra dimension". I see it as a thought bubble that has introduced significant risk to fix a non existent problem.

airshifter
28th April 2011, 22:33
. To support the DRS we are being asked to believe that electronics never fail.



One of the cars in our driveway is fly by wire, and it's not nearly to the level of electronics in a modern day F1 car. Being some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

Sonic
29th April 2011, 10:59
One of the cars in our driveway is fly by wire, and it's not nearly to the level of electronics in a modern day F1 car. Being some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

:up: I've only had one throttle failure (stuck wide open) and that was a traditional mechanical system. Of course electrics can fail, but so can anything else.

SteveA
30th April 2011, 12:31
...some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

Whyzars
30th April 2011, 13:30
:up: I've only had one throttle failure (stuck wide open) and that was a traditional mechanical system. Of course electrics can fail, but so can anything else.

Hi Airshifter and Sonic,

With the limited testing miles in F1 these days I would hope that they've used solenoid's from domestic cars and not their own, lightweight developments. :)

My concern with the DRS is that the rules governing its usage appear to be less than optimal when failure is an ever present possibility. I agree that electronics have improved immensely but that doesn't excuse the DRS having a failed state that may be questionable when, in my opinion, it needn't be.

If they are considering disabling the DRS in Monaco then we must ask why. This disabling might also bring a whole new facet to F1 as well - formula by track so to speak. The race in China was exceptional arguably, in no small part, because of the DRS. Turkey could easily be exceptional because of the DRS for all the wrong reasons. That goes to the heart of the problem as I see it.

They are already allowing the opening of the rear wing in practice so why not formalise it and make that the default position. Allow the cars to be set up with the wing open and close it on a lead car in the designated overtaking section. This would, in my opinion, be safer than the current arrangement.

It does no service to the DRS to have a cloud over it when a rethink of its usage may provide the safeguards that would see it being acceptable on all tracks if safety is the reason that they are considering the ban in Monaco.

2010 was a good year for F1 and 2011 is looking even better.

Daniel
30th April 2011, 13:31
The race in China was exceptional arguably, in no small part, because of the DRS.

Huh?

Whyzars
30th April 2011, 13:46
Huh?

Huh? :)

Daniel
30th April 2011, 14:12
Huh? :)

Your sentence makes no sense.

Malbec
30th April 2011, 15:32
Whyzars, you have it the wrong way round. You seem to believe mechanical control is more reliable than electronic but the reverse is true. The lack of moving parts makes them inherently more reliable whether in domestic or racing use. Hardly anything in f1 is not electronically controlled these days as you know yet reliability at the moment is exceptional and most retirements are due to mechanical component failure.

Attacking drs because it is electronically controlled and failure could have severe consequences makes no sense. The same is true of engines, gearboxes, diffs, the lot.

Whyzars
30th April 2011, 16:08
Whyzars, you have it the wrong way round. You seem to believe mechanical control is more reliable than electronic but the reverse is true. The lack of moving parts makes them inherently more reliable whether in domestic or racing use. Hardly anything in f1 is not electronically controlled these days as you know yet reliability at the moment is exceptional and most retirements are due to mechanical component failure.

Attacking drs because it is electronically controlled and failure could have severe consequences makes no sense. The same is true of engines, gearboxes, diffs, the lot.


This has never been about electronic versus mechanical as both are very reliable and both are prone to failure and both are prone to drivers making mistakes when using them. For me this has always been about pure risk. Why do something one way when another way might have less risk attached.

If the cars are setup with the wing open then an inadvertant closing of the wing, whether via a failure or driver error, will cause a braked understeering condition as opposed to the current situation where inadvertant opening will cause an accelerated oversteering condition.

If they ban the use of the DRS at Monaco then I will be very interested to hear of what scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid. I don't think the technology has a problem but I do think that the rules surrounding the DRS might have a problem.

Whyzars
30th April 2011, 16:11
Your sentence makes no sense.

The race in China was exceptional. We could argue that it was, in no small part, because of the DRS.

Typing faster than my brain could process...

airshifter
1st May 2011, 07:42
I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

You might want to check into the latest developments in the F1 world. Several teams are using engines that are for all practical purposes throttleless systems. This is to keep the air flowing through the engine to aid in producing downforce, and the primary reason for the forward mounted exhausts popping up.

SteveA
1st May 2011, 13:34
You might want to check into the latest developments in the F1 world. Several teams are using engines that are for all practical purposes throttleless systems. This is to keep the air flowing through the engine to aid in producing downforce, and the primary reason for the forward mounted exhausts popping up.

I've read some stuff about variable valve lift, is this what they use?

Seems a lot more mechanically complicated than a conventional throttle, so potentially less reliable.

call_me_andrew
2nd May 2011, 01:28
This will help you catch up

http://www.f1racing.us/blog/blown-diffusers/

http://www.team-sport.co.uk/formula-1/what-does-a-blow-diffuser-actually-do-then/

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/silverstone-tech-the-story-behind-red-bull-wing-and-mclaren-diffuser/


One of Red Bull’s secrets is a setting on the Renault engine for use on the final crucial lap in qualifying, whereby the ignition is retarded on the over-run, which maintains exhaust gas pressure even when the driver lifts off the throttle. This maintains the performance of the blown diffuser and keeps the downforce up when it’s most needed. It thus avoids the main problem of an exhaust blown diffuser whereby when a driver lifts off the throttle for a corner, the downforce goes missing when you most need it and the rear stability changes.

It’s not something you can do for more than a lap or two as the temperatures go sky high, which damages the engine, but it gives that vital fraction of a second which keeps Red Bull ahead of the rest in qualifying.

Wasted Talent
7th May 2011, 22:21
I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

No they don't - think about it... the "throttle" moderates airflow - it all goes back to carburettor engines when the throttle literally "throttled" the engine by closing off the air/fuel mixtures going into the cylinders.

With the advent of fuel injection the "throttle" is actually a control on the fuel side........

WT

N4D13
8th May 2011, 15:55
What a shame. They didn't get DRS right today. I believe that it would have hardly been necessary in Turkey, as the place where DRS was installed usually features lots of overtaking. Maybe they could have tried something else, like the main straight.

Ranger
8th May 2011, 15:56
I think they should allow DRS and KERS (unlimited) at all points on the circuit during the race.

Kudos to the drivers if they can operate both at once. If its too dangerous then they don't have to.

Today's race was a bit too icy for me.

N4D13
8th May 2011, 15:59
I'd rather they couldn't use DRS at all during free practice and qualifying - what for? It only makes it more dangerous for the drivers. DRS is meant for overtaking, not making faster lap times in qualifying.

BDunnell
8th May 2011, 16:00
Kudos to the drivers if they can operate both at once. If its too dangerous then they don't have to.

How on earth F1 drivers once managed to change gear manually, I have no idea when I hear it suggested that pressing a couple of buttons in the cockpit might be 'too dangerous'.

ioan
8th May 2011, 16:09
I'd rather they couldn't use DRS at all during free practice and qualifying - what for? It only makes it more dangerous for the drivers. DRS is meant for overtaking, not making faster lap times in qualifying.

You have to understand that from the strategy POV qualifying is part of the race.
If they can't use it at all in qualifying then they will have to use a different gearing for the gearbox, which will make DRS useless in the race as the gearing will not allow them to use it in an optimum way.

I rather have them drop DRS altogether, KERS is enough to create overtaking if the driver is good enough.

ioan
8th May 2011, 16:10
How on earth F1 drivers once managed to change gear manually, I have no idea when I hear it suggested that pressing a couple of buttons in the cockpit might be 'too dangerous'.

:up:

Dave B
8th May 2011, 16:43
The DRS zone was a bit too long today with cars breeding past on the straight with little hope of the overtakee defending.

steveaki13
8th May 2011, 17:07
How on earth F1 drivers once managed to change gear manually, I have no idea when I hear it suggested that pressing a couple of buttons in the cockpit might be 'too dangerous'.


:up:

I agree I think all the "aids" should be chucked out and manual gear changes bought back. IMO

I always think Gear changing is the most challenging think about driving and race driving and yet the best in the world don't show us how good they are with this.

steveaki13
8th May 2011, 17:09
I think the DRS should be on a secondry straight. Into turn 12 at Turkey cars can overtake anyway and a much more even battle as well.

If you are going to have DRS have it in a place where overtaking is harder. i.e Turn 8 to 9.

Sonic
8th May 2011, 20:00
The DRS zone was a bit too long today with cars breeding past on the straight with little hope of the overtakee defending.

There are some variables that the FIA can't control - windspeed being one. It seemed to have a big impact on the effectiveness of the system in today's race after gear ratio's were chosen with a far gentler breeze.

Today was also the first time I have seen a difference in each teams individual system. For some teams (Ferrari and Red Bull springs to mind) the DRS zone was only just long enough to get alongside, whereas others seemed to be passed half way through turn 11!

I'm still enjoying the new element to the race craft though.

555-04Q2
9th May 2011, 08:11
DRS exposed for it's fakeness, again :down: Get rid of it. Pirelli is doing a better job, without a gimmicky post box slot at the ar$e end of the car.

Big Ben
9th May 2011, 09:13
Every pass is just a formality. You see a driver catching up and you know he'll pass. I had no doubt Alonso would overtake Webber and later on the other way around. All you can hope for is that he won't succeed in his first attempt but you know for sure that nothing worth remembering will happen.

I recall staying on the edge of my seat a few year ago when Mika was trying to pass MS at Spa and then he finally made that great pass and there I was jumping up and down in the house (I was young back then). I knew the Mclaren was faster but I also knew MS could defend and that he would do whatever it takes and he did but then one bad choice from him and an excellent one for Mika and there you have one of the best moves ever. Now all they have to do is push a button and hope the wing didn't get stuck. What a freakin' great show it is.

Anyway, MS thinks it's mega super dooper idea. What about that Ioan?

Ranger
9th May 2011, 09:40
How on earth F1 drivers once managed to change gear manually, I have no idea when I hear it suggested that pressing a couple of buttons in the cockpit might be 'too dangerous'.

Exactly my point, put better.

ArrowsFA1
9th May 2011, 09:45
I knew the Mclaren was faster but I also knew MS could defend...
That's the point about DRS. A driver can't defend against it. A great pass isn't just the pass itself, it's the set up before and securing it after, but with DRS the driver presses the button, overtakes, and that's it. Another overtake into the record books, which is what we all want isn't it? :dozey:

I can't remember which driver it was (Alonso maybe) but he made a valid point about the tyres being more of a factor in the "excitement" than DRS. The disparity of performance, and so lap times, make drivers a "sitting duck" (according to Webber) and DRS just makes it even easier.

I've never argued that F1 needs more overtaking. It needs more racing. The current cars are not designed to race each other, they're designed to run in clean air and DRS does nothing to fix that problem.

SGWilko
9th May 2011, 10:49
That's the point about DRS. A driver can't defend against it. A great pass isn't just the pass itself, it's the set up before and securing it after, but with DRS the driver presses the button, overtakes, and that's it. Another overtake into the record books, which is what we all want isn't it? :dozey:

I can't remember which driver it was (Alonso maybe) but he made a valid point about the tyres being more of a factor in the "excitement" than DRS. The disparity of performance, and so lap times, make drivers a "sitting duck" (according to Webber) and DRS just makes it even easier.

I've never argued that F1 needs more overtaking. It needs more racing. The current cars are not designed to race each other, they're designed to run in clean air and DRS does nothing to fix that problem.

:up: Amen! They got DRS wrong in Turkey. I hope they learn from this. Maybe, rather that allowing full use of DRS in qually and practice, they should use it to determine it's best positioning on the track for best racing?

Arjuna
9th May 2011, 11:43
I'd rather DRS works like speedboosters, operated by driver and give it limit uses. Drivers will use it in case they really need it either for overtaking or to get some extra speed on the straight. Drivers will not be able to use it whenever the limits is used up. This will force them to drive more cleverly. It's not necessary they need such helps the whole race. Besides, yes I get feeling the correct use of KERS is helpful to perform the same advantage as DRS if the drivers are skillful to optimize it handy.

555-04Q2
9th May 2011, 12:08
DRS = Dumb Racing Solution :down:

Arjuna
9th May 2011, 12:26
DRS = Dumb Racing Solution :down: :)

Yesterday was a lot of overtaking, drivers behind were relatively easy to take from inside or outside after long straight. But if this occurrence happened repeatedly on the strength of DRS the race will not be special, so give it limited use. :)

SGWilko
9th May 2011, 12:50
Watching the race again, the racing/passing was not just confined to the DRS zone - quite a lot of passing at the final chicane/start finish straight.

Sonic
9th May 2011, 14:00
^^^^

Indeed, a lot of the drivers were utilizing the systems to get closer into 12, to then make the move into 1.

I can't help but think that all these moaners about the DRS would've hated the 'good old days'. Especially at Monza and the great slipstream battles. Positions could change twice in a straight such was the speed advantage of being behind.

555-04Q2
9th May 2011, 14:49
^^^^

Indeed, a lot of the drivers were utilizing the systems to get closer into 12, to then make the move into 1.

I can't help but think that all these moaners about the DRS would've hated the 'good old days'. Especially at Monza and the great slipstream battles. Positions could change twice in a straight such was the speed advantage of being behind.

And that is what we want. Natural overtaking possibilities by limiting the aero packages of cars, not false overtaking created by a system like DRS. DRS is a gimmick - that works to a degree - but is still a gimmick. I prefer the excitement that Pirelli has created with regards to overtaking.

SGWilko
9th May 2011, 14:51
I prefer the excitement that Pirelli has created with regards to overtaking.

I agree, but the two tyres that get used at each race need to reward a driver depending on strategy.

While a bit slower, the harder tyre needs to last considerably longer, and conversely the soft tyre should have the speed, but not the longevity.....

That I guess is the Holy Grail!

Brown, Jon Brow
9th May 2011, 14:58
I agree, but the two tyres that get used at each race need to reward a driver depending on strategy.

While a bit slower, the harder tyre needs to last considerably longer, and conversely the soft tyre should have the speed, but not the longevity.....

That I guess is the Holy Grail!

This is true. If the prime tyre lasted longer then Button might have been able to challenge for 3rd place with a 2 stop strategy against the others doing 4 stops

Sonic
9th May 2011, 15:01
But 555 you will never, EVER get back to those pre 1971 days.

Bagwan
9th May 2011, 15:14
It should b e called "DPS" , for "Discount Passing System" .
Or , perhaps "SDS" , for "Sitting Duck System" .

Drivers knew they were done , and moved aside for cars passing , as if they were blue flagged .

I was left cold , in a race with lots of overtaking .

The DRS , in a word , sucks .

Whyzars
9th May 2011, 17:24
^^^^

Indeed, a lot of the drivers were utilizing the systems to get closer into 12, to then make the move into 1.

I can't help but think that all these moaners about the DRS would've hated the 'good old days'. Especially at Monza and the great slipstream battles. Positions could change twice in a straight such was the speed advantage of being behind.



I don't think the DRS will survive in F1 but the "one second gap" ruling might.

If the "one second gap" becomes the permanent trigger for options being available to a driver then they might consider traction control or similar to be enabled for a trailing car.

These driver aids might assist a following car to grab the slipstream earlier in the straight whilst still allowing the lead car to defend its lead.

ioan
9th May 2011, 19:33
Anyway, MS thinks it's mega super dooper idea. What about that Ioan?

I still think it's crap.

ioan
9th May 2011, 19:35
That's the point about DRS. A driver can't defend against it. A great pass isn't just the pass itself, it's the set up before and securing it after, but with DRS the driver presses the button, overtakes, and that's it. Another overtake into the record books, which is what we all want isn't it? :dozey:

I can't remember which driver it was (Alonso maybe) but he made a valid point about the tyres being more of a factor in the "excitement" than DRS. The disparity of performance, and so lap times, make drivers a "sitting duck" (according to Webber) and DRS just makes it even easier.

I've never argued that F1 needs more overtaking. It needs more racing. The current cars are not designed to race each other, they're designed to run in clean air and DRS does nothing to fix that problem.

Right on it. :up:

I guess that now that they scrapped the return of ground effects we can slowly think about doing something else every other Sunday.

Sonic
9th May 2011, 22:52
Right on it. :up:

I guess that now that they scrapped the return of ground effects we can slowly think about doing something else every other Sunday.

Don't loose the faith brother. Even bad F1 (which I personally don't think this is) is a million times better than anything else.

ioan
9th May 2011, 23:58
Don't loose the faith brother. Even bad F1 (which I personally don't think this is) is a million times better than anything else.

Bad F1 is not even half as good as ALMS, Le Mans or ILMC. It's about on par with FIA GT where they use weight penalties for those who are faster.

Sonic
10th May 2011, 00:08
^^^ I'll take your word for it. I watch endurance if there is nothing else with an engine on TV, but it's never floated my boat.

AndyRAC
10th May 2011, 00:19
Bad F1 is not even half as good as ALMS, Le Mans or ILMC. It's about on par with FIA GT where they use weight penalties for those who are faster.

Yeah, definately!! Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the best - which many F1 people seem to think.

BDunnell
10th May 2011, 00:19
I've never argued that F1 needs more overtaking. It needs more racing. The current cars are not designed to race each other, they're designed to run in clean air and DRS does nothing to fix that problem.

Very well put indeed. I couldn't agree more.

ioan
10th May 2011, 01:09
Yeah, definately!! Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the best - which many F1 people seem to think.

Popularity has it's toll, in F1's case under par fan base.

gloomyDAY
10th May 2011, 02:52
Right on it. :up:

I guess that now that they scrapped the return of ground effects we can slowly think about doing something else every other Sunday.What?! I was looking forward to that in 2013.

DRS was and still is awful.

555-04Q2
10th May 2011, 07:38
But 555 you will never, EVER get back to those pre 1971 days.

Take that back :(

Sonic
10th May 2011, 10:20
Popularity has it's toll, in F1's case under par fan base.

A rather sweeping statement there don't you think Ioan?

Sonic
10th May 2011, 10:22
Take that back :(

Unless your name is H G Wells that is ;)

Sonic
10th May 2011, 10:34
Oops double post

555-04Q2
10th May 2011, 12:09
Unless your name is H G Wells that is ;)

:p :

Daniel
10th May 2011, 12:13
Can't believe people are whining about Drs. Do they prefer processions?

555-04Q2
10th May 2011, 12:17
Can't believe people are whining about Drs. Do they prefer processions?

No, but we don't like to see cars flying past others that have got absolutely no chance of defending. That is not racing. They need to sort out the aero problems in F1, not try and compensate for them with sh!tty systems like DRS. DRS is just so.....fake.

Daniel
10th May 2011, 12:20
So they got it wrong in turkey. Why don't you go play on your ps3 online rather than whining about it on here? Oh wait that's right..... :D

555-04Q2
10th May 2011, 12:26
So they got it wrong in turkey. Why don't you go play on your ps3 online rather than whining about it on here? Oh wait that's right..... :D

Hehehe.....luckily, I don't play online and prefer to just play on my own or with my son :) I am what you can call safe :p :

ArrowsFA1
10th May 2011, 12:33
Can't believe people are whining about Drs. Do they prefer processions?
No, I prefer racing. Always have. DRS does't promote racing, it creates passing where the car ahead is a "sitting duck" unable to defend the pass.

We didn't have DRS last year and yet there were exciting races.

DRS doesn't fix the problem which, for whatever reason, the FIA is unable or unwilling to address which is the fundamental design of the cars which prevents them from racing closely. Perhaps the teams are unwilling to reduce their aero investment. Perhaps sponsors like the multiple wing elements and barge-boards. Who knows.

As it has turned out the three 'new' elements - DRS, KERS & Pirelli tyres - are at least one too many. IMHO the tyres are having a far greater influence on the races than anything else.

Daniel
10th May 2011, 12:43
I agree that Drs was a bit much in turkey. But Drs as a whole is a step forward.

Whyzars
10th May 2011, 14:54
I agree that Drs was a bit much in turkey. But Drs as a whole is a step forward.

How is the DRS a step forward?

Its not a step forward in engine technology or horsepower.

Its not a step forward in aerodynamics.

Its not a step forward in drive train or suspension or steering.

The DRS in itself is a step backward in that it provides an uneven playing field during the race based on track position. Weight handicapping could be another way to make the field "uneven". Would you consider weight handicaps in the race to be a step forward?

I have been an advocate of weight based handicapping in the past but only in qualifying. That position has essentially been made mute by the tyres this year.

The DRS actually has a hint of desperation about it in that F1 gives the appearance of wanting to do absolutely anything to increase overtaking. Unfortunately, seeing F1 cars flying past other F1 cars is not enjoyable for anybody.
If they continue with the DRS they need to consider dynamically adjusting the zone based on prevailing conditions during the race and limit the number of times the DRS can be used per pit interval.

Sonic
10th May 2011, 15:03
How is the DRS a step forward?

Its not a step forward in engine technology or horsepower.

Its not a step forward in aerodynamics.

Its not a step forward in drive train or suspension or steering.

The DRS in itself is a step backward in that it provides an uneven playing field during the race based on track position. Weight handicapping could be another way to make the field "uneven". Would you consider weight handicaps in the race to be a step forward?

I have been an advocate of weight based handicapping in the past but only in qualifying. That position has essentially been made mute by the tyres this year.

The DRS actually has a hint of desperation about it in that F1 gives the appearance of wanting to do absolutely anything to increase overtaking. Unfortunately, seeing F1 cars flying past other F1 cars is not enjoyable for anybody.
If they continue with the DRS they need to consider dynamically adjusting the zone based on prevailing conditions during the race and limit the number of times the DRS can be used per pit interval.

I can offer you one step forward off the top of my head. We have seen the fastest EVER laps at the last two venues, despite massive reductions in downforce and engine power since they were set. DRS is directly responsible for this step forward in pace.

Daniel
10th May 2011, 15:20
How is the DRS a step forward?

Its not a step forward in engine technology or horsepower.

Its not a step forward in aerodynamics.

Its not a step forward in drive train or suspension or steering.

The DRS in itself is a step backward in that it provides an uneven playing field during the race based on track position. Weight handicapping could be another way to make the field "uneven". Would you consider weight handicaps in the race to be a step forward?

I have been an advocate of weight based handicapping in the past but only in qualifying. That position has essentially been made mute by the tyres this year.

The DRS actually has a hint of desperation about it in that F1 gives the appearance of wanting to do absolutely anything to increase overtaking. Unfortunately, seeing F1 cars flying past other F1 cars is not enjoyable for anybody.
If they continue with the DRS they need to consider dynamically adjusting the zone based on prevailing conditions during the race and limit the number of times the DRS can be used per pit interval.

Did DRS sleep with your girlfriend or something? You seem to have this obsession with making slightly irrelevant points regarding it is all.

The days of F1 being some sort of testbed for roadcars is over, this may have been true in the days where roadcar developement/design was done in a more primitive way, but not anymore. Porsche are using KERS for the 918 Spyder, but this will never happen for everyday roadcars and therefore F1 is not financially worthwhile competing in if you're wanting to develop technology for your roadcars.

I think if we were seeing driver x pass driver y then driver x retook him in the drs zone and then this being repeated ad nauseum then we could say DRS is a complete failure, but this isn't happening. All we're seeing is drivers who are faster than other drivers being able to get past a little too easily. With more experience of DRS, we'll see things get a bit better.

Anyone who thought that F1 was fine before the FIA tried to do something about the lack of overtaking has clearly been dropped on their head an odd number of times. Was DRS overdone in Turkey? Probably, has it been proven to be a failure on all tracks? No.....

Whyzars
10th May 2011, 16:15
Did DRS sleep with your girlfriend or something? You seem to have this obsession with making slightly irrelevant points regarding it is all.

I sometimes think she feels I could do with a performance boost... :)

As far as irrelevant points go I merely disagreed with your comment about it being an improvement. Its a slippery slope when the entertainment becomes more important than the racing.



The days of F1 being some sort of testbed for roadcars is over, this may have been true in the days where roadcar developement/design was done in a more primitive way, but not anymore. Porsche are using KERS for the 918 Spyder, but this will never happen for everyday roadcars and therefore F1 is not financially worthwhile competing in if you're wanting to develop technology for your roadcars.

I disagree. F1, in fact motorsport in general, has always been an idea's factory with the best ideas being adopted by the commercial market. KERS is the example you use. KERS and specifically fly-wheels are being tested extensively in the long-haul trucking industry with double digit percentage reductions in fuel usage being realised. Its appropriate that F1 engineers be tasked with that techical challenge. It advances mankind.

Now the rules surrounding KERS I believe they got those wrong in that it was a "push to pass" item and that is the same with the DRS. Its "push to pass" and I don't believe that is the way for F1 to move forward.





I think if we were seeing driver x pass driver y then driver x retook him in the drs zone and then this being repeated ad nauseum then we could say DRS is a complete failure, but this isn't happening. All we're seeing is drivers who are faster than other drivers being able to get past a little too easily. With more experience of DRS, we'll see things get a bit better.

Anyone who thought that F1 was fine before the FIA tried to do something about the lack of overtaking has clearly been dropped on their head an odd number of times. Was DRS overdone in Turkey? Probably, has it been proven to be a failure on all tracks? No.....

Faster drivers getting past slower drivers easier begs the question as to how they got behind them in the first place. Why should a faster driver be able to get past a slower driver easier?

There is no doubt that an F1 car has a huge advantage when leading and there have been many changes made in the past few years with this in mind. Personally I don't see much of a problem in F1 as the races do pretty much finish in the order expected.

I don't think that the DRS will ever lend itself to "experience" making it better. Track/weather conditions is making it difficult to decide on the optimal positioning of the zone during a race weekend and technology changes from year to year may see most races in the future being affected negatively by the DRS if its adoption becomes permanent.