39 replies to this topic

[Tsarwash]

Any system that allows an advantage to just one driver in a duel is unfair in my book.

This quote got me thinking about DRS. I'm not massively happy about it because it has taken away the chance of seeing some great overtaking moves this season, and last. But on the other hand, I accept it because I don't want to see repeats of say Abu 2010 where Alonso was stuck behind a clearly slower car driven by Petrov for the whole race.

I had another thought about how DRS could be implemented during the race. It would be a lot more complicated to arrange and organise, but if it could be done it might make it more fair and better for overtaking. Firstly, to address the quote above, DRS does give an advantage to one driver, and an advantage that is sometimes too far in the favour of the following car. But it was put there to address the huge advantage that the leading car has had for many a year, which was even more pronounced; driving in clean air. That advantage was often far superior than the one that DRS provides.

So the idea is to eliminate the DRS activation zone and install a more precise system of on-track car position. (This is the bit which may make it unfeasible.) Importantly make the DRS advantage much less pronounced than present, (smaller hole or something*). But the difference is to allow the following car to use it whenever he is one second behind another car, not just on the main straight. This would allow the following car to get faster speeds out of corners, or get little boosts on short straights, as they presently do in qualifying So rather than getting one unfightable advantage on the main straight, the following car gets a much smaller advantage but for the whole lap.

Also I would stop people being able to use DRS on lapped cars. It wouldn't be too difficult to create a computer model that would know who ahead is lapped and who isn't. The big difficulty is being able to know across the whole track who is one second behind somebody else.

The whole point is to negate the natural advantage the leading car has over anybody following closely, but not to leave the leading car a sitting duck. Leaving the logistics aside for a moment, in principle, would this work better than present ?

* You can see that I have a highly technical mind.

[Sakae]

This quote got me thinking about DRS. I'm not massively happy about it because it has taken away the chance of seeing some great overtaking moves this season, and last. But on the other hand, I accept it because I don't want to see repeats of say Abu 2010 where Alonso was stuck behind a clearly slower car driven by Petrov for the whole race.

I had another thought about how DRS could be implemented during the race. It would be a lot more complicated to arrange and organise, but if it could be done it might make it more fair and better for overtaking. Firstly, to address the quote above, DRS does give an advantage to one driver, and an advantage that is sometimes too far in the favour of the following car. But it was put there to address the huge advantage that the leading car has had for many a year, which was even more pronounced; driving in clean air. That advantage was often far superior than the one that DRS provides.

So the idea is to eliminate the DRS activation zone and install a more precise system of on-track car position. (This is the bit which may make it unfeasible.) Importantly make the DRS advantage much less pronounced than present, (smaller hole or something*). But the difference is to allow the following car to use it whenever he is one second behind another car, not just on the main straight. This would allow the following car to get faster speeds out of corners, or get little boosts on short straights, as they presently do in qualifying So rather than getting one unfightable advantage on the main straight, the following car gets a much smaller advantage but for the whole lap.

Also I would stop people being able to use DRS on lapped cars. It wouldn't be too difficult to create a computer model that would know who ahead is lapped and who isn't. The big difficulty is being able to know across the whole track who is one second behind somebody else.

The whole point is to negate the natural advantage the leading car has over anybody following closely, but not to leave the leading car a sitting duck. Leaving the logistics aside for a moment, in principle, would this work better than present ?

* You can see that I have a highly technical mind.

"skid solo" is very much expressing what I think about this subject. There is enough inequalities in individual duels due to inherent nature of auto racing, why add some artificial nonsence to it? Down and out for DRS or any other detracting gimmick.

Edited by Sakae, 31 July 2012 - 10:47.

[dave34m]

Interesting, I personally like it the way it is. If a car can close to 1 second behind the car in front then I like them having an advantage to get past, of course if they are not faster than the car they have just overtaken then they will quickly be re-passed.
They have been altering the DRS areas and hopefully continue to twick these areas but all in all its been very good for sport.

[Fourjays]

I'd suggest doing it by radar, like those parking sensors. Within X distance of the car in front, you can open DRS. As soon as that car is no longer in front (i.e. you've passed them), it closes. This way it could act simply as an improved slipstream effect and not a free pass in a desginated zone. It seems to be what they are tweaking it to do (to get them alongside), but something like this would achieve it more reliably than endless zone tweaking.

[Peat]

That's how i assumed it would work when it was first announced.

I actually think it would lead to better racing too as it would open up so many more opportunities rather than actually WAITING (Ham/Alonso in Canada) for the 'zone' to perform a set-piece maneuver.

[Jejking]

Agreed with that. One zone isn't inviting to push for the rest of the lap. Barcelona f.e. would feature more action if the straight at the end of S2 would be used as well.

Btw, on the lapped cars issue, if that system would have been so easy to create, it would have been installed and set up already, wouldn't it?;)

[Tsarwash]

"skid solo" is very much expressing what I think about this subject. There is enough inequalities in individual duels due to inherent nature of auto racing, why add some artificial nonsence to it? Down and out for DRS or any other detracting gimmick.

I'm sure we all know your opinions of DRS by now. This is a thread discussing ways in which it might work in a better way, not whether we should have it at all. You probably have thirty threads you can go into and pronounce your dislike for the whole concept. Please don't spam this thread.

[prty]

You better pray that the difference doesnt fall under the second in the entry of a fast corner then.

[Foyle]

Much easier:

Simplify and standardise the front and rear wings, and make them full width. Then institute an automatic angle changing system for both of them that produces the same downforce at all times. It is relatively easy to do using load cells or even a spring system for an appropriate design.

Even better replace the front and rear wings with a roll hoop mounted wing - all the downforce apart from car underbody in one spot, a single automatic angle control on the wing to keep downforce constant.

Perhaps increase ride height to reduce influence of underbody.


Lots of benefits.
- Cars could follow other cars at any distance, but with same downforce at all times - would be more like racing motorbikes.
- Would still get slipstreaming for overtaking.
- Probably much less drag, could use smaller engines and less fuel for same speeds.
- Less sensitivity to wind.
- Would help stop the horrific accidents where cars catch air.


But while we are making suggestions, how about an automatic fuel cutoff for 1 second everytime a car goes off track. Could be controlled by the very accurate GPS systems they use.

[Tsarwash]

Btw, on the lapped cars issue, if that system would have been so easy to create, it would have been installed and set up already, wouldn't it?;)

At the minute, I assume that it's a very blunt tool, and it just detects any car behind any other car. What i'm talking about would probably be pretty costly to implement, but if DRS is to continue, then I think this is the direction to move towards. Perhaps.

[johnap]

If we must have DRS my idea is that they allow them to use DRS wherever they like on the track in the race but they can only use it 6 times per race. That way it can be used as a defensive measure as well as an offensive measure.

[Jejking]

I fully agree with Tsarwash. It's simply too hard to get in the tow due to the car pulling ahead directly out of the corner. I completely acknowledge any measure taken to get this zone out of the way, in fact I was saying this from day one (although I hadn't exactly the Pirelli way in mind of passing).

When the guy in front has a worse exit in the DRS zone due to tyres, the guy behind is already directly in the tow and blasts past. It didn't even have to be Turkey to make that happen, look at Silverstone f.e. My point is: every corner should be an opportunity to get close/in the tow but after that you have to take care of the pass yourself, take different lines, another engine mode, KERS, etc.

Edited by Jejking, 31 July 2012 - 12:16.

[FerrariV12]

I've had my own preferred idea for implementing DRS (even more preferred than getting rid of it) for a while, although it has nothing to do with helping overtaking so I'm probably in the minority.

Simply make its use unrestricted, as in practice and qualifying. That's it.

There'd be no more unfair advantage to cars behind, no more restricting it to an arbitrary FIA zone, and would bring some of the purity back as it gives drivers one more way to maximise their speed at every corner, down every straight, would introduce another possibility of driver error, in the same way that drivers used to miss gears and so on, so in a lesser and less direct way it would actually make position changes more likely than without it altogether.

Fully adjustable rear wings were only banned in 1969 for safety reasons - if it's now safe to use in practice, qualifying and in certain sections for certain cars in the race, it's safe to use all the time.

[SpaMaster]

If dirty air is a problem, then fix the design of the car. skid solo is absolutely right and speaks for many who believe DRS is artificial and unfair disadvantage. The teams have taken up the concept purely for the "show" and financial reasons. This is one strong reminder that the present F1 is more entertainment than sport.

Or, one just has to visit Spa-Francorchamps, Hockenheimring and Interlagos to design a track that aids overtaking without any artificial gimmicks.

Edited by SpaMaster, 31 July 2012 - 17:33.

[DrProzac]

Reduce wing dependent downforce, implement proper ground effects. DRS doesn't address the real problem, this can. Make DRS a push to pass system, free to use in any circumstances for a limited number of times per race.

Edited by DrProzac, 31 July 2012 - 18:00.

[Jejking]

I've had my own preferred idea for implementing DRS (even more preferred than getting rid of it) for a while, although it has nothing to do with helping overtaking so I'm probably in the minority.

Simply make its use unrestricted, as in practice and qualifying. That's it.

There'd be no more unfair advantage to cars behind, no more restricting it to an arbitrary FIA zone, and would bring some of the purity back as it gives drivers one more way to maximise their speed at every corner, down every straight, would introduce another possibility of driver error, in the same way that drivers used to miss gears and so on, so in a lesser and less direct way it would actually make position changes more likely than without it altogether.

Fully adjustable rear wings were only banned in 1969 for safety reasons - if it's now safe to use in practice, qualifying and in certain sections for certain cars in the race, it's safe to use all the time.

It's safe but your overtake count would drop below 2004 standards. Why? If driver A in front went for it out of a corner, he accelerated earlier and created a lot of disturbance in the fo... air directly behind him. Cars were even built to mess up the air as much as possible to prevent opponents from getting too close. Driver B is chasing and has to cut through the mess in such a way he can get close, slipstream and pass. In the 'old' days, he had to be multiple seconds faster or have an incredibly stiff and wellbalanced car, if noone made a mistake, to pass.

Since 2005 on, with a big step in 2009, the FIA downsized all excessive bodywork to nil in order to get the cars to reduce downforce and limit their corner speeds. What you are proposing is only going to throw everyone back to 2004 standards. Driver A gets on the throttle out of a turn, enables DRS and starts to create a gap immediately. Driver B on the other hand, has got to wait since downforce is already much lower and the dirty air gets in the way as well. You might say that the simplified design causes dirty air to be minimized as well but still, driver A is pulling away instantly and B therefore is not even going to get close.

[Baddoer]

I propose an Anti-DRS. So, when 2 cars are within 1 second in DRS activation zone, following driver can press a button that will move wing flap on leading driver's car, causing more drag in slowing him down. Bingo!

Edited by Baddoer, 31 July 2012 - 21:00.

[pingu666]

longer/more drs zones but with a smaller slot gap, so the cars "suck up" better through the lap, or section, but dont just drive past easily when it works

[flyer121]

I like the theory behind the idea , however we can implement it much more simply by using the ECU.
Whenever a car creeps up to less than a sec behind a car , ECU cuts the power out by a certain percentage thus handing out an instant disadvantage. Much simpler to implement and monitor.

[dave34m]

how about an automatic fuel cutoff for 1 second everytime a car goes off track. Could be controlled by the very accurate GPS systems they use.

That is a very interesting idea, perhaps limiting them to 50% throttle or pitlane limiter ativated while off track could work. Not sure if its workable in any reliable fashion

[superstring]

As far as I'm concerned, DRS (in its' present form) is just fine. It was meant to provide a counter-measure to the advantage the leading car has from messing up the airflow for the following car. And it works! Pure and simple. And, AFAIK, a car doesn't draft another in the corners, so why complicate things unnecessarily?

As for it being a "gimmick", what isn't a gimmick? Wings? Ground effects? Maybe they should ban suspensions.... a gimmick, after all!

[mtknot]

I think it'd be better to have DRS + Rev limit remover. We know these engines can run at 19.5k RPM reliably so.....

[Peat]

But take a situation like Hungary, lap after lap in the DRS activation zone, nearly a whole race of increased revs. The engine builders wouldn't like it.

[prty]

Rev limit

Indeed, that's one of the main problems for overtaking. Makes you unable to benefit from the slipstream.

[KiloWatt]

Agreed with that. One zone isn't inviting to push for the rest of the lap. Barcelona f.e. would feature more action if the straight at the end of S2 would be used as well.

Btw, on the lapped cars issue, if that system would have been so easy to create, it would have been installed and set up already, wouldn't it?;)

If the cars have a transponder that records how many laps it has done, Im pretty sure I can write a 5 line additional piece of code that will do it. I think it was done this way on purpose to allow lapped cars to get by easier.

[DrProzac]

As far as I'm concerned, DRS (in its' present form) is just fine. It was meant to provide a counter-measure to the advantage the leading car has from messing up the airflow for the following car. And it works! Pure and simple. And, AFAIK, a car doesn't draft another in the corners, so why complicate things unnecessarily?

Turbulent flow hinders the cars in turns but may help them on straights. DRS gives an advantage on the straights. How is this a proper counter measure?

Edited by DrProzac, 01 August 2012 - 18:40.

[superstring]

Turbulent flow hinders the cars in turns but may help them on straights. DRS gives an advantage on the straights. How is this a proper counter measure?

How does turbulent flow from the car in front help the car behind on a straight?

I've heard that teams will intentionally design their car to create as much turbulence behind the car as possible to HINDER the following car(s). Turbulence causes a loss of downforce as the following car's front wing encounters it. It's my understanding that DRS was implemented to counter this effect.

[DrProzac]

Ever heard of slipstreaming? True, you have to get a lot closer to take advantage on the straights that to be at a disadvantage in the turns and the turbulent flow messes up cooling. But the point is that on the straight it's beneficial to be behind the other car. Slipstreaming allows the car behind to go faster, just like DRS (but with DRS it's much easier and the speed differential is greatly - and artificially - increased). You generally don't need downforce on the straights.

In turns, turbulent flow screws up the aero, as you said (and as I wrote before). This is the real problem and DRS does nothing to change it.

The cars still have problems in turns and can't race any closer. In DRS zones you either get no effect at all or way to easy overtakes (not exciting and not real racing, as far as I'm concerned). No effect is much better imho DRS does have some minor positive effects (if the advantage is small enough), but it's not a real solution.

Edited by DrProzac, 02 August 2012 - 19:57.

[superstring]

Yep, I've heard of slipstreaming and the point I'm trying to make is that the turbulent flow created by aero devices on the leading car makes efficient slipstreaming difficult. DRS compensates.

Edited by superstring, 03 August 2012 - 05:37.

[PaulC2K]

I had another thought about how DRS could be implemented during the race. It would be a lot more complicated to arrange and organise, but if it could be done it might make it more fair and better for overtaking. Firstly, to address the quote above, DRS does give an advantage to one driver, and an advantage that is sometimes too far in the favour of the following car. But it was put there to address the huge advantage that the leading car has had for many a year, which was even more pronounced; driving in clean air. That advantage was often far superior than the one that DRS provides.

We need air filters on the front wing!! Dirty air in, clean air out. Step aside Newey!

DRS doesnt bother me, likewise KERS. However i do think KERS does more harm to DRS.
The problem originally was that the driver couldnt stay closely behind the car infront, so it'd either be unable to take the corner right behind them, or it'd lose grip/speed and suffer.
With KERS, the leading car, being first out of the corner is the first on the power, and on KERS, it means instead of them pulling away a bit, its now a bit + some more.
DRS alone would work better, they'd stand a better chance of pulling alongside the leading car, because the leading car hasnt got the advantage of being first on the throttle AND on the KERS taking him either further ahead.

Limiting engine performance (or increasing it), that sounds like the oh so popular feature in sim racing circles known as rubber-band racing, where the slower cars can go faster. Its as 'arcade' as KERS and DRS, and while its not the same principle, it'll be hated just as much. Anything that gives a performance advantage will be. The problem is theres a performance disadvantage from following, but nobody likes to look upon it as performance equalising.

Someone mentioned less dependency on aero, and reintroduce ground effects, but isnt the big problem with GE that you lose a ton of downforce when you go over a bump, because the vacuum effect is reduced or pretty much lost, so if 25% of your downforce is generated by GE, to lose just half of that around a bumpy corner would be dangerous. Wasnt the Nissan Deltawing heavily GE based, and that got the lightest of knocks and stood no chance, it lost downforce and it was race over, it couldnt stop itself because it wasnt being forced into the ground like a aero-based car would.

Edited by PaulC2K, 03 August 2012 - 05:31.

[skid solo]

Its hard to keep up with all these threads on DRS...

Unfortunately I think it's here to stay as it is and the reason I believe that is all the investment that's been made in track design didn't really work as far as overtaking was concerned. The only solution bar creating a new set of tech regs to limit aero was DRS and of course Pirellis tyres that had severe performance drop off. They' now have a formular that is very popular with a lot of people and it's working on the majority of the circuits they've designed.

So even if so called purists are unhappy (and that's just become a derogatory term used to dismiss people who disagree with any part of this modern formula including Schumacher) it's not going to change things..

[Tsarwash]

Well the current DRS has mostly eliminated one problem but introduced a whole new one, the leading driver having now way of defending. My idea is an attempt to rectify the latter without reverting to the former.

[skid solo]

Well the current DRS has mostly eliminated one problem but introduced a whole new one, the leading driver having now way of defending. My idea is an attempt to rectify the latter without reverting to the former.

Hmmm.. The only way to accurately do that would be to test each circuit individually to establish the DRS zones and alter their length to make sure they are sufficient to counter the wash effect of the car ahead without giving the car behind too big an advantage.

[DrProzac]

Yep, I've heard of slipstreaming

I know, i know

and the point I'm trying to make is that the turbulent flow created by aero devices on the leading car makes efficient slipstreaming difficult. DRS compensates.

Well, maybe if the straight is after a fast corner But not otherwise.

But still:
Without DRS: problems in the corners, possible advantage on the straights.
With DRS: the same problems in the corners, big or huge advantage on the straights.

Not a solution in my book
Not to mention I enjoy good defending as much as good overtaking. And overtaking thanks to a big straight line speed advantage isn't great.

I wish they would just try to address the problem, instead of settling for DRS as a "permanent" solution. A ground effect formula was proposed..

[study]

Will the new Turbo engines allow limited overboost?

That could be the new DRS

[Tsarwash]

Hmmm.. The only way to accurately do that would be to test each circuit individually to establish the DRS zones and alter their length to make sure they are sufficient to counter the wash effect of the car ahead without giving the car behind too big an advantage.

Well no. My idea, if possible would allow the driver behind to use drs whenever he wanted. You would lose the zones altogether. The DRS would be much less powerful but they could use it all the time they are 1 sec behind a car leading them.

[Radoye]

Just make it free for all like in qualifying, behind or ahead doesn't really matter. There really is no need to further complicate things. There will be drivers who would dare to use it more than the others, and that should make the difference between the men and the boys.

[skid solo]

Well no. My idea, if possible would allow the driver behind to use drs whenever he wanted. You would lose the zones altogether. The DRS would be much less powerful but they could use it all the time they are 1 sec behind a car leading them.

Well to be fair, as the advantage for the lead driver is gained in the infield it might be a solution to allow DRS to the following driver only on the infield and not on the straights...

[Seanspeed]

Well no. My idea, if possible would allow the driver behind to use drs whenever he wanted. You would lose the zones altogether. The DRS would be much less powerful but they could use it all the time they are 1 sec behind a car leading them.

How do you deal with a situation where a car is teetering back and forth over the 1 second limit? How often is the GPS data updating them on when they can use it? You could have a car that has DRS one second and then doesn't and then does and so on which could be bad in certain situations.

I kinda like the idea otherwise, given that the DRS effect would be reduced quite a bit.

[Tsarwash]

I hadn't thought it through that far, Seanspeed, but DRS automatically closes when you hit the brakes, so maybe that fact could be used. Perhaps you could have five or six detection zones around the track, or perhaps they might be able to use the GPS system that they have. It's only an idea for making an unpopular sticking plaster work better, after all.