Your opinion on 'Drag Reduction System'

OK .
I guess this is no place for debate then .

That's fine with me .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

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 .

You are likely to get a "blah , blah , blah" , or a "you don't understand" , though .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Spot on , 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 Daniel

Better than your view which is that the guy in front should always have the advantage even if ultimately he's significantly slower.

---

Oh , so now you want to debate , do you ?

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I guess I take it that you agree with it being too dangerous .
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 .

---

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 Dylan H

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.

---

I can agree with that , as the way they've been talking about the tires "falling off the cliff" might spring a few surprises .


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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

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.

---

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. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I've heard that driving faster than the guy behind sometimes helps :D

---

Why didn't they think of that? Doh!!!