Printable View
He doesn't want your answer. He wants mine. He wants me to explain why I don't want it on a tight, twisty street circuit and then somehow apply the logic that because I don't feel it's safe at Monaco that it's not safe on any track which is completely faulty logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
And you want to duck the question because you don't want to hear the logic .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
You want to call the logic "jibber jabber" , rather than hear it .
That's ok .
I'll debate with Sonic about it .
Seriously, what do you actually want me to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Those "slipstream boosts" were naturally created .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
All the extra speed came from the hole behind the car ahead .
Jumping out from behind into that airstream took serious bravery and car control .
Everyone had the same box of tools .
Turkey this year , every time that DRS straight came , if the tires were allowing them to get close enough to get in the zone , there was a pass .
The tires , essentially , were what made that difference .
The DRS just finished the job . There was no point fighting .
The real issue lies in how the cars cannot follow closely through the corners , due to the hole in the airstream behind .
If they cannot follow within that second through the corner , they don't get the tow , either with or without the DRS .
Without the addition of the tires making the cars run such a speed differentials , the DRS would be a total bust .
Post box , key fob , hammer drill .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
^^^^
B. I Agee with you in every single way, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. F1 will not (some would argue can not) take the wings off the cars, therefore their is no 'natural' way to create that hole in the air for awesome slipstreaming battles.
That being the case I'll throw my lot in with DRS until something better comes along.
As I've said before, I wanted to hate it on principle, I really did, but it give F1 back something (artificially) it has lacked for a long time, and I am LOVING it!
I don't agree that the tyres were causing all of the speed differential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Again we're taking a bad example and making it the rule. DRS was overpowered in turkey and because of this I'm sure they'll turn it down (perhaps too far even) for other races.
I'm being serious here now :) What do you want me to say and I will either agree or disagree, I don't understand the point you're trying to make me make :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
They've been stuffing that genie back into the bottle for many years , with banning winglets and barge boards , limitting size , and lifting wings off the ground .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
Damn genie returns every time .
In those days there were also tires that created the close racing .
+1 to what Bagwan said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
Instead of the genie in the bottle excuse (though I find it astonishing FOTA fully advocate DRS for 2013 onwards) here's an idea: get rid of DRS and tweak KERS instead.
Did not you not notice Rosberg's car went junk quickly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13334558.stm
Alonso stated: "When we followed Rosberg in the first couple of laps, it was impossible to overtake him but when he started to have tyre degradation it was very easy to overtake him. So it is more tyre-related."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I am not making it up , Daniel .
Alonso said it was down to the tires , and it makes sense .
You don't get close by using the DRS , you get by , by using it .
The wings are still fat in the turns in the race , and the cars have thier normal differences in speed , just like in the past when we had a tire war .
The fuel goes down at roughly the same rate .
All is about the same , but for the tires .
That same hole in the air that makes it difficult to get close enough for a pass , DRS or no DRS , but the tires are making it possible right now .
In my humble opinion , the tires are making this device look much better to some than it really is .
Take it away , and after a very short while , I don't think either of us would miss it .
But what would the difference really be? KERS allows cars to both attack and defend and in most cases only those cars not running KERS suffer a real disadvantage when the following driver uses it. So it gives both cars a speed boost which often results in nothing at all. At least with DRS the driver overtaken has the chance to fight back on the next lap if they are actually as quick through the course as the driver that overtook them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I just don't see all the anger over DRS. KERS to some extent did the same thing, since many teams didn't use it or had issues with it. Thus far DRS has worked for everyone the majority of the time. I agree it's a bandaid as compared to limiting the aero of the cars, but I can't see the FIA changing the "formula" quickly given the time and money the teams have invested in the aero construction.
Much like Sonic I accept that it is here and won't go away quickly.
And I also disagree that the use of DRS ensures a pass. There have been quite a few uses of DRS lap after lap that didn't result in the pass being made.
All I can say is that it must have slept with their wives/girlfriends :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Agree about the bandaid thing :)
Instead of "banning" DRS at Monaco, why not ban Monaco? Dreadful circuit which is only on the calendar because of its history and marketing potential. If Tilke designed a Monaco now, in 2011, we'd form an orderly queue to throw rotting fruit at him.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I agree with getting rid of DRS and using more KERS, the problem is that DRS is a dirt cheap solution compared to further improving the use of KERS.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Disagreed.
+ 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
If tilke designed the place now, he'd flatten the hill, install run off all the way to the med and generally suck the life out of one of the greatest challenges of a GP driver. You only need look at the list of winners to know that this place favours the greats - oh and Panis ;)
Senna\Mansell Monaco 1992.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/senn...o-gp_71309.htm
DRS would have been so wrong... not that it would certainly have helped Mansell.
And it is a significant problem, because one represents the future far better than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I dunno, DRS has a part to play; I believe new fords already utilise their own form of DRS - the front grill closing at speed to reduce drag and improve economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Not that I'm against KERS you understand - I think everyone here knows my views on it.
Is one of the myriad reasons why DRS should NOT be used at Monaco - closing speed differentials would be too great, and not enough clean clear space to effect a successful move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
Heck, even Alonso couldn't get past a Lotus for several laps last year.......
I would agree with you, but Bagwan will pounce on me saying WHY? WHY? WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S TOO DANGEROUS?Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
So basically I think DRS should be allowed in Monaco purely to save me from being pounced upon :)
I can see the Shoe exiting the tunnel with only three wheels on his wagon again.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
They have a steering wheel, don't they? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Yep, but, sadly, that does not also control the car in front. Defending at Monaco is quite simple, act like you are an old giffer on the M25 i.e. stay in the middle of the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Unless DRS for monaco works Wacky Recers style, aint no-one getting by a car determined to defend. :p ;)
I guess I take it that you agree with it being too dangerous .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
And you agree with the quote .
It would be understandable for the FIA to ban it for Monaco on the basis that the straights are not long enough to benefit enough from the system .
Also , the track being very tight , it may be difficult to arrange even the one-second line , as the concertina effect is more pronounced there .
It seems , though , that the reasoning behind the FIA's decision to keep it active for Monaco is that the car should run as designed .
Now , there are two aspects to this issue , at least , that are important here , it seems .
One would be that the teams would be automatically obligated to design a wing to deal with only Monaco , or , at least , design the rear wing to be adaptable to this function .
And , that would be more expense .
And the other , likely more important (in thier eyes) , would be the liabilty set up by banning the use of a legal and perhaps even necessary part , thereby proving it something potentially dangerous , yet approved for racing at other venues .
So , they will tell us it's about the cost , and the real reason will be that they would rather see guys in the wall due to that speed differential , than put themselves at risk for a suit .
If it's dangerous here , it's dangerous at any track , as the only real difference is the run-off space .
Even though they have steering wheels , they still take to the air sometimes . Ask Mark and Heikki about closing speeds .
In a nutshell , the passes made with it are too easy .
It is only because of the tire disparity that they are able to get close enough for it to be too easy , and those tires would account for enough disparity on thier own , to make the pass count bigger anyway .
And , finally , it is dangerous , as you intimated earlier .
Blah blah blah.
Eloquently put :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If you don't understand the difference between Monaco and other tracks then you don't understand F1.
OK .
I guess this is no place for debate then .
That's fine with me .
Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
The car in front cannot defend and thus it is not a 'fair' fight and therefore the racing is considered fake. KERS allows this and so this is a proper dog fight since both the car in front and behind can use this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
If you have a significantly inferior car you cannot defend 'properly'. Consider how Hulk fought hard to stay at the front at the Brazillian GP last year and the opposition breezing by Rosberg at Istanbul. The silly one-move-to-defend rule doesn't help either.
Regarding KERS, F1 has always been about the haves and have nots. Problems with KERS? Tough cookies, find a way to solve it. That is the F1 way eg. Mansell hated Williams' active suspension system in the 80s and Williams wanted to understand develop it.
BTW. A good fight doesn't always have to involve overtaking.
Spot on , Wedge .Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
You are likely to get a "blah , blah , blah" , or a "you don't understand" , though .
Better than your view which is that the guy in front should always have the advantage even if ultimately he's significantly slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Oh , so now you want to debate , do you ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Here's a little tip for you .
Don't try to put words in someone else's mouth .
That's not my view at all .
The guy in front should never be artificially disadvantaged .
While I think a lot of your points are absolutely true, I don't think DRS is going to make as much of a difference at Monaco where Vmax isn't that high certainly compared to China or Turkey. I think speed differentials due to tyre wear is going to be far more important, plus the problems going offline thanks to all the marbles being worse with the current tyres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I can agree with that , as the way they've been talking about the tires "falling off the cliff" might spring a few surprises .Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I can also agree with your bit about the DRS .
As I mentioned , "ban it for Monaco on the basis that the straights are not long enough to benefit enough from the system ." .
So , it seems to me it's both useless AND dangerous for Monaco .
We saw how quickly Jenson got past Felipe at Albert Park didn't we? Lap after lap of using DRS in a car that was at the time quicker on track, yet he finally made the pass before the DRS zone using the pit entry. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
And thus far, we've seen at every single race how the DRS often does not ensure a pass. More likely it ensures a pass when it would have been probable without DRS. It's also resulted in people making a pass and coming into the corner too hard, resulting in the overtaken car getting the position back.
The only real "blow by" passes have been with a quick following car staying very close coming into the DRS zone, and then using both KERS and DRS to make the pass seem easy. Of course if it really was easy Jenson would have passed Felipe on the first try at Albert Park.
Problem with DRS? Tough cookies, they should find a way to keep someone from getting close enough to use it.
I've heard that driving faster than the guy behind sometimes helps :DQuote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Why didn't they think of that? Doh!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel