Jump to content


Photo

DDRS is banned - is innovation dead?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think about the currents acts against new tech developments? (151 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think about the currents acts against new tech developments?

  1. Innovation is being stimulated by the current format. (14 votes [8.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.81%

  2. Things are being kept in check, it's reasonably okay by me. (52 votes [32.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.70%

  3. Things are going out of hand, innovation has been slaughtered (93 votes [58.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.49%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:47

With the news that Double DRS is banned for 2013, I'm really getting chills down my spine because another good concept is being slashed for nothing. In my opinion, F1 really is going the wrong way with banning great ideas and chaining natural evolution, look at the engine regulations (limiter at 18.000 revs) and the development freeze since 2006. What is your opinion? Discuss!

Advertisement

#2 Daniel Lester

Daniel Lester
  • Member

  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:57

Somewhat agree, certainly is dead. Ironically they opposed customer cars...soon all the cars will be the same anyway at 10 times the price

#3 Topsu

Topsu
  • Member

  • 792 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:01

Keeps the field tight.

#4 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:19

Long-term innovation certainly seems to be. Every time something clever is created, it gets banned for the following season.

#5 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:23

The FIA always closes down avenues, it's their job to contain the cars to manageable speeds. Having said that dDRS wasn't that big a deal, especially if everybody on the field has it it cancels itself.

#6 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:24

http://www.totalf1.c...anned_for_2013/

Formula 1 teams agree to ban double DRS for 2013


Double DRS will be banned for 2013, AUTOSPORT has learned, after Formula 1 teams agreed to a change of rules that will outlaw the concept for next year.

Edited by Gareth, 31 July 2012 - 10:35.
Please don't cut and paste whole articles


#7 chrisblades85

chrisblades85
  • Member

  • 2,606 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:25

I was hoping it would of been DRS in general!

#8 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:26

Imagine the first few years with the 2014 regs.. Fists will fly!

#9 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:28

But in fact this time the majority of the teams has agreed to ban it.. Not much to say ehh?

Edited by Richard T, 31 July 2012 - 10:36.


#10 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:29

But don't you think the FIA is killing innovation. I mean F1 is supposedly the pinnacle of morotsports........anything that comes into it in any form of innovation is banned

J Dampers
Mass damper
F-Duct
EBD
DDD
Engine mappings
MClaren Brake Pedal
Active suspension
Traction control

I mean why introduce DRS and ban DDRS ....its not logical as far as am concerned....

#11 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:29

But infant this time the majority of the teams has agreed to ban it.. Not much to say ehh?

?

#12 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,125 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:31

I was hoping it would of been DRS in general!

+1

#13 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:33

?


he probably meant in fact not infant :)

anyways, teams uninanimously agreed to ban lots of things before today

#14 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:35

he probably meant in fact not infant :)

anyways, teams uninanimously agreed to ban lots of things before today


In fact*

#15 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:40

DRS is sufficient, why do they need super DRS? Helps bring down costs put into fresh research into a field that doesnt help the racing when everybody is going to have it.

#16 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:44

he probably meant in fact not infant :)

anyways, teams uninanimously agreed to ban lots of things before today

My phone is great for changing words for me. If I mistype 'the' as 'rhe' it changes the word to 'rhetorically'. Lots of my texts become rhetorical nonsense. :rotfl:


#17 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:46

DRS is sufficient, why do they need super DRS? Helps bring down costs put into fresh research into a field that doesnt help the racing when everybody is going to have it.


According to Ross Brawn he says its cost effective and is basically a couple of carbon pipes you can get for a few thousand pounds running through the car...........its not like it costs millions!!!

#18 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:54

According to Ross Brawn he says its cost effective and is basically a couple of carbon pipes you can get for a few thousand pounds running through the car...........its not like it costs millions!!!


Maybe Ross didnt want to scare people back at Merc HQ about how much he actually spent? :p

They can as well tweak DRS zones. Super DRS might just put too much top speed in the end, overtaking might get a little dangerous.

#19 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:03

The FIA always closes down avenues, it's their job to contain the cars to manageable speeds. Having said that dDRS wasn't that big a deal, especially if everybody on the field has it it cancels itself.

I think this is exactly why it has been banned. If it was left legal, all the teams would waste money on developing something that would be effectively cancelled out. So by banning it next season you save them the trouble and expense.

Advertisement

#20 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:10

If you kill wrong innovation, that's good thing, isn't it?

#21 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:29

Please does anyone know the tecnical mumbo jumbo behind the Lotus DRS and how they can get it to work during the race unlike ther mercs.....

#22 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:48

Told ya it would get banned :D

This is not killing innovation, it's a rather pointless system once it is known and understood, because every team would introduce it on their car and then every team would go a few kph faster when the DRS is open, that hardly fits the definition of innovation.

The challenge was to introduce it on a car that wasn't made to have it, and the Lotus solution shows this.. (it doesn't channel air all the way to the front)

Props to Mercedes for coming up with this, time to find something else innovative for next season.

#23 KirilVarbanov

KirilVarbanov
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:51

Hmmm ... don't know what to make of that ...
The system wasn't that expensive, it was effective, did not bring uncontrolled amounts of speed, if it was allowed teams could have thought of a different ways to implement it ...

What are the next areas to innovate in? Diffusers strictly regulated, front wings will be narrower, engines frozen, exhaust regulated, rear wings too ... F-Duct banned, Lotus Ride height given No - what's left?

#24 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:52

How was it even innovative?

And it doesn't matter. An incredibly small % of the audience cares about these things.

#25 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,107 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:57


I dont mind D-DRS gone at all, as it's such a pointless and trivial system same as f-duct, but I dont like the way the system had to be come up with and introduced in the first place. Such damn regs and damn formula (of the F1 car) preventing real innovation and development.


#26 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,758 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:58

considering it made the car more balanced when DRS is used it should have been left on.
quite risky to have just your rear wing stalled

#27 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:10

How was it even innovative?

And it doesn't matter. An incredibly small % of the audience cares about these things.

It made cars more stable and gave additional top speed. Sounds like innovation to me.

#28 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:18

It's just a bodywork trick. It's hardly a fan car car or even a turbo.

#29 rossbrawn

rossbrawn
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:24

It's just a bodywork trick. It's hardly a fan car car or even a turbo.


Right :rolleyes: .

#30 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:41

considering it made the car more balanced when DRS is used it should have been left on.
quite risky to have just your rear wing stalled


:up:

It helped MSC stay on track when his rear wing got stuck and stayed open. Without it it would of been harder and obviously more dangerous to get back.

#31 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 904 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:42

I think banning it after the first year is fine. The team that innovated got to keep their advantage for a year. Next year, everyone would simply design it into the car and there is no advantage left, it is just extra cost to implement into the design. The innovator still gets the advantage for the same amount of time they would have anyway, and it keeps spending in check.

#32 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:50

DRS is sufficient, why do they need super DRS? Helps bring down costs put into fresh research into a field that doesnt help the racing when everybody is going to have it.


I've never understood this argument. KERS, for instance can be found in every car, why use it when it's the exact same advantage for everybody?

Also this 'costs a lot to develop' mantra is becoming boring. I'm not an expert on the issue, but I was under the impression that teams have a certain budget, and they will spend all of it on upgrades, regardless if it's a ducting system, exhaust outlet or a new material which makes the front wings 0.0001 microgram lighter.

#33 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:54

Spending millions on developments that add no perceivable difference to the racing and would be of no importance to road car development seems pretty pointless all round.

#34 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:55

I've never understood this argument. KERS, for instance can be found in every car, why use it when it's the exact same advantage for everybody?

Also this 'costs a lot to develop' mantra is becoming boring. I'm not an expert on the issue, but I was under the impression that teams have a certain budget, and they will spend all of it on upgrades, regardless if it's a ducting system, exhaust outlet or a new material which makes the front wings 0.0001 microgram lighter.


KERS was created for a 'greener' F1.

#35 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:59

I've never understood this argument. KERS, for instance can be found in every car, why use it when it's the exact same advantage for everybody?


KERS can be use throughout the lap, DDRS is only active when the DRS is opened.

I'm no huge fan of KERS, I think it's incredibly expensive and complicated for what it gives, but compared to DDRS it's a rather significant addition to F1.

#36 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:03

Also this 'costs a lot to develop' mantra is becoming boring. I'm not an expert on the issue, but I was under the impression that teams have a certain budget, and they will spend all of it on upgrades, regardless if it's a ducting system, exhaust outlet or a new material which makes the front wings 0.0001 microgram lighter.


It might not make much of a difference for the bigger teams, but the smaller teams would have to divert a higher percentage of their budget towards developing things like this, so it makes a big difference to them if they have to start developing it just so they can stay anywhere near competitive on the straights.

You'd just start to see a bigger gap from the front to the back of the grid if every big team was free to develop at will.

Edited by johnmhinds, 31 July 2012 - 13:05.


#37 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:04

And the engine manufacturers have different KERS units, and sometimes the individual teams.

#38 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:17

KERS can be use throughout the lap, DDRS is only active when the DRS is opened.

I'm no huge fan of KERS, I think it's incredibly expensive and complicated for what it gives, but compared to DDRS it's a rather significant addition to F1.

The same effect as KERS can be reached with D(D)RS if implemented differently. Especially normal DRS is basically a strong switch to get the wing to stalled position. Much cheaper than KERS. But well, that's another discussion :)

#39 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:19

The same effect as KERS can be reached with D(D)RS if implemented differently. Especially normal DRS is basically a strong switch to get the wing to stalled position. Much cheaper than KERS. But well, that's another discussion :)


The same effect as KERS?

Good luck implementing DRS in such a way that it adds power to the driven wheels.

There's no shortage of very cheap and simple ways to make the cars faster over a lap, if that's what you mean.. problem is there are regulations.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 31 July 2012 - 13:25.


Advertisement

#40 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:26

The same effect as KERS can be reached with D(D)RS if implemented differently. Especially normal DRS is basically a strong switch to get the wing to stalled position. Much cheaper than KERS. But well, that's another discussion :)


KERS is green, green is a buzzword for the car industry right now. double, triple, quadruple DRS is a flap that moves about and 98% of the people that watch F1 don't even know or care about how a set of pipes can duct air to the front wing and detach the flow

#41 Lemans

Lemans
  • Member

  • 1,332 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:27

You know innovation is dead when everyone on this Forum gets a boner every time some team tests a little 'flick-up' on the wing or a turning vane on the floor. Be still, my beating heart! Is that a gurney?!!



#42 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:40

The teams are still trying and gunning for it though, which is a refreshing thought.

You can always see it as variations on the same theme.. F-duct, DDRS same basic idea.. but end-result different enough for me to be seen as innovative.

There's no point letting everyone have a copy though.

#43 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,478 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:44

Somewhat agree, certainly is dead. Ironically they opposed customer cars...soon all the cars will be the same anyway at 10 times the price

They already are the same.

Customer cars won't be cheaper... impossible.

I'm sure it is at least as expensive for Stewart-Haas to buy Hendrick cars, basically paying full rate to prop up some one else's business instead of having a full roll of employees manning their own suite of CNC and chassis jigs (prehaps they do some parts, but obviously if they were gonna build their own cars from scratch... well then they wouldn't buy customer cars!!)... but obviously they feel that these would be more competitive than their own.

#44 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,360 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:46

I would like to keep it. Everyone will get their version working soon, but not every version will be equally effective, just as some teams old F-duct were stronger. I donĀ“t want spec series, I want different cars with different strenghts and weaknesses.

#45 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,478 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:46

You know innovation is dead when everyone on this Forum gets a boner every time some team tests a little 'flick-up' on the wing or a turning vane on the floor. Be still, my beating heart! Is that a gurney?!!

Nice one.

But it did demonstrate the race car engineers sometimes might know a thing or two more than NASA aerodynamicists, even if they don't know why it works. :)

#46 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:53

I've never understood this argument. KERS, for instance can be found in every car, why use it when it's the exact same advantage for everybody?
Also this 'costs a lot to develop' mantra is becoming boring. I'm not an expert on the issue, but I was under the impression that teams have a certain budget, and they will spend all of it on upgrades, regardless if it's a ducting system, exhaust outlet or a new material which makes the front wings 0.0001 microgram lighter.


Marussia and HRT don't have KERS and the KERS on the renault engine powred cars is rumored to be at 40 k-watts whilst the others are at 60 k-watts.....so not fully the same

Edited by BernieEc, 31 July 2012 - 13:58.


#47 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,865 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:55

Innovation is not dead, someone will come up with something new next season, they will ban it and the cicle will start again. Engineers are smarter than FIA.

#48 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:56

Marussia and HRT don't have KERS and the KERS on the renault engine powred cars is rumored to be at 40 watts whilst the others are at 60 watts.....so not fully the same


kW ... if it was 40 watts it'd barely light a lightbulb :)


#49 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 13:58

kW ... if it was 40 watts it'd barely light a lightbulb :)

apologies.....fixed

#50 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 July 2012 - 14:01

Since KERS is often brought up..

I think this is a special case and not a true innovation, sure they have slightly different systems but the whole thing started out when the FIA decided to create an additional compartment in the rules.

In reality almost everything is going to be refinement of an existing concept, or a typically funny interpretation of the rules.