Jump to content


Photo

2013 Aero Formula vs DRS


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

Poll: Ground Effects vs DRS (101 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you prefer ground effects to return or DRS to stay ?

  1. I'd prefer a return to ground effects. (I'm over 30) (34 votes [33.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.66%

  2. I'd prefer a return to ground effects. (I'm under 30) (55 votes [54.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.46%

  3. I'd prefer DRS to stay. (I'm over 30) (6 votes [5.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.94%

  4. I'd prefer DRS to stay. (I'm under 30) (6 votes [5.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.94%

Would you class DRS as fake racing ?

  1. Yes (I'm over 30) (26 votes [25.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.74%

  2. Yes (I'm under 30) (40 votes [39.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.60%

  3. No (I'm over 30) (14 votes [13.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.86%

  4. No (I'm under 30) (21 votes [20.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.79%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:42

Simple topic.

DRS has been put into F1 to make overtaking easier.

DRS was originally a stop gap measure until the 2013 aero regulations were to come into force. The 2013 aero regulations would have seen a return to ground effects, dramatic reduction in wing sizes etc to see a return to close racing on track.

However, today it was announced that ground effects are out and DRS will stay.

I've also added an age element to the questions. I just want to see the answers out of curiosity.

Advertisement

#2 fololo

fololo
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:51

Simple topic.

DRS has been put into F1 to make overtaking easier.

DRS was originally a stop gap measure until the 2013 aero regulations were to come into force. The 2013 aero regulations would have seen a return to ground effects, dramatic reduction in wing sizes etc to see a return to close racing on track.

However, today it was announced that ground effects are out and DRS will stay.

I've also added an age element to the questions. I just want to see the answers out of curiosity.

announced where?

#3 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:57

announced where?


http://news.bbc.co.u...ne/13326363.stm

Minor reduction in wing sizes will happen. Getting rid of diffusers and return of venturi tunnels will not. We've seen time and time again that simple reduction in wing sizes is not helping racing.

#4 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:42

Well, I'm shocked.

From various posts on the forum I got the impression that younger fans and especially fans who are new to the sport (more likely to be younger fans) were more in favour of DRS than against it. My impression seems to be wrong and misguided.

#5 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:48

I can't really vote on your poll as I HATE DRS, but am ambivalent towards a return to ground effects. If it were a straight choice between the two then ground effects wins hands down, but it'd be equally happy with other practical solutions (if any were to come to light).

#6 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:54

I guess the fact that I turned 30 in March has turned me into an old-timer :rotfl: Especially since I went for ground effects.

#7 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,003 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:03

I think you are oversimplifying as presenting the options as a straight fight between having a ground effects aero formula or keeping the DRS. What we should remember is that this story by the BBC only presents a second draft of the proposed rules, and while these are the ones that are set to go to the World Council for discussion, they are certainly not set in stone. I believe it's quite likely that come 2013 we may see neither ground effects or the DRS.

I tolerate the DRS at present, although I believe that it isn't really necessary now.

#8 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,795 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:09

I think DRS is a very good thing atm in F1 but I prefer them to have cars that can pass eachother without such a thing, whenever that will happen. Calling fake needs a standard of real next to it, but if you can say last year was real and this year is fake I'd much prefer the fake. I suggest stop being so asspained about it because for the moment it's here to stay.

#9 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,606 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:17

i find it really disapointing about the floor. teams would much rather make small changes to front wings than take a plunge on something different.

cost is a lame excuse, just take the best solution u can come up with on your current budget
or a mostly spec floor..

#10 dansus

dansus
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 May 2011 - 21:53

Absolute nonsense. The whole point of ground effects was to reduce turbulence, increase lap times and make it possible to follow through a corner. All that work by Patrick and Rory is wasted to be replaced by short sightedness.

First DRS and now this. No wonder Sam is bitching, Williams havent got any money to develop it and would be even further behind.

#11 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,187 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:05

First DRS and now this. No wonder Sam is bitching, Williams havent got any money to develop it and would be even further behind.

Develop what? :well:

#12 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:13

the problem with ground effect is the development scope. Namely that there isn't any so it will plateau quite quickly then what? You 're effectively signing off on F1 getting very very spec.

#13 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,120 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:13

If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.

#14 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:49

I think the reason behind the nice race we had in China and Turkey was the Pirelli tyres and not DRS. So Im dissapointed with these news.

I cannot understand why F1 isn't using the most efficient solution to reduce drag and keep a good amount of downforce.

Costs? don't make me laugh. Arent they planning a budget cap?

Complexity? there's lots of other racing series using ground-effects. I found things like F-Duct complex, not this one.

#15 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:01

Absolute nonsense. The whole point of ground effects was to reduce turbulence, increase lap times and make it possible to follow through a corner.


It actually works in a different way. The reduction in turbulence isn't substantial, bu the downforce generated by ground effect doesn't fall off near as much when in turbulence.

#16 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:02

the problem with ground effect is the development scope. Namely that there isn't any so it will plateau quite quickly then what? You 're effectively signing off on F1 getting very very spec.


There's plenty. The tunnels will most likely be limited by depth and width. There's still plenty of aerodynamic scope in terms of the small front and rear wings and loads of other bodywork.

And aerodyanmics aren't the only design element of an F1 car.

#17 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:26

the problem with ground effect is the development scope. Namely that there isn't any so it will plateau quite quickly then what? You 're effectively signing off on F1 getting very very spec.

I'm not sure about that. Even limitating dimensions, working on the underside can give room for many different designs. :well:

If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.

:up:

#18 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,410 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 09 May 2011 - 00:41

I bet if they introduced ground effects and it didn't quite work right nobody would give them the benefit of the doubt.

#19 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,606 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2011 - 00:58

lmp cars use venturi's, and while they arent cheap, they are really good value compaired to f1. i guess the lmpc cars have venturi's, and those cars are cheap...

Advertisement

#20 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,459 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:08

There's plenty. The tunnels will most likely be limited by depth and width. There's still plenty of aerodynamic scope in terms of the small front and rear wings and loads of other bodywork.

And aerodyanmics aren't the only design element of an F1 car.


Didn't the proposed 2013 rules also include a spec rear wing?

#21 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,459 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:11

If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.



I think the reason behind the nice race we had in China and Turkey was the Pirelli tyres and not DRS.



I agree that the biggest factor in more overtaking and more exciting racing this year is they tyres, and not the DRS.

KES really only works as a passing aid if the other guy doesn't have it. And the only guys without it are the three new teams at the back.


#22 MonzaF1

MonzaF1
  • Member

  • 487 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:48

Well, I'm shocked.

From various posts on the forum I got the impression that younger fans and especially fans who are new to the sport (more likely to be younger fans) were more in favour of DRS than against it. My impression seems to be wrong and misguided.


I am 48 and I am pleasantly surprised, I too expected otherwise.

I think its great that younger fans can see how farcical f1 is at the moment. Werll done!!

#23 MonzaF1

MonzaF1
  • Member

  • 487 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:51

If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.


:up: :up:

I would also add that the bad qualiitty tyres f1 requires also has a lot to do with the f1 farce.

I think f1 should look at MotoGP for s solution.

No wonder Rossi does not want to shift to f1 - he is a great champion and understands that a driver counts for much less today than at any time previously.

Edited by MonzaF1, 09 May 2011 - 01:53.


#24 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,016 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 09 May 2011 - 02:04

DRS is partial, so I dont like it. I have sat through many boring races because I love the sport. Why not induce a extra element on the rear wing that produces a lot of drag instead? Now you have a bigger pocket of turbulent air and the car behind has better chances of getting into that.

#25 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,606 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2011 - 02:05

motogp is also boring?

#26 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:22

DRS is partial, so I dont like it. I have sat through many boring races because I love the sport. Why not induce a extra element on the rear wing that produces a lot of drag instead? Now you have a bigger pocket of turbulent air and the car behind has better chances of getting into that.


The same effect can easily be achieved by going back to 2m wide cars and wider tyres.

You could easily mandate Pirelli to make wider tyres which still have the grip of todays width of tyres.

I've been banging on about this for years. It would give a bigger advantage of a car in a slipstream like a handford device did in CART.

#27 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,014 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 12 June 2011 - 21:07

The DRS was an absolute joke today.

Is this racing ?

There was no way MS could defend against the two cars behind him. They drove clear around him. It robbed Koba of a 5th place too.

#28 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 12 June 2011 - 23:26

Im not a Schumacher fan, but it wasnt nice wacthing him passed by Webber without any chance to defend.