87 replies to this topic

[amppatel]

Hello,

Most people say that the problem with DRS is the fact that it is artificial - I think this is because people can see it wide open and all of a sudden the overtake has happened. It is also not great because the overtakes happen in the middle of the straight. Ideally we want to see it either at the exit of the previous corner or into the breaking zone of the next turn.

The main reason given by the officials/teams was that DRS would only give back time lost by the behind car loosing down force in turns.

So my idea (which could have been said before) is not to have a drag reduction device but a device which would add down force to the (behind) cars during all corners of the track but only if they are close to the car in front before the turn. This exactly achieves what they want by only giving back the down force that would have been lost.

This means the behind car can take more extreme lines so he can overtake during the exit or even in the corner. The best thing about it is that most of the time the cars would be in the same state during the overtake and so this issue of it being 'artificial' is lessened. It becomes more like KERS which no one seems to complain about.

They could add simple flaps to the front (mainly) and the rear to give the extra down force needed. Also the drivers might not want to use it for all the allowed time (like they do for DRS) as if the car has already been straightened up they don't need the extra down force they need to shed the drag.

Of course implementing something like this would be difficult, as it is a lot harder to have a flap on the front wing, but I guess the teams could be able to overcome that.

What are your thoughts, I have added a poll.

[Clatter]

I'd say that adding downforce in that way would likely unbalance the car making the situation worse and put more pressure on the tyres causing extra wear.

[DrivenF1]

How about cars within 1 second get 6 extra seconds etc. of KERS per lap? It's well within the capacity and as it's already implemented it would seem far less artificial.

I've never considered this but I quite like it.

[Clatter]

How about rather than having the DRS open the whole length of the DRS zone it gets closed once the attacker gets to a certain point alongside. This would mean that prime aim of allowing the attacker to close up in the dirty air has been achieved and there will still be a battle going into the braking zone.

[Disgrace]

How about just removing the bloody thing.

[P123]

They used to have driver adjustable front wings.

Edited by P123, 24 April 2013 - 21:08.

[BigCHrome]

That was the point of the movable front wing in 2009 and 2010 but it never worked out. I don't think there is a way to make a passing device that isn't artificial and bad. I think the only real solution is to decrease aerodynamic influence on the cars to the level where the car behind can follow to at least .5s without losing performance.

[JonathanProc]

How about rather than having the DRS open the whole length of the DRS zone it gets closed once the attacker gets to a certain point alongside. This would mean that prime aim of allowing the attacker to close up in the dirty air has been achieved and there will still be a battle going into the braking zone.

I think a solution like this would be extremely difficult for the FIA to implement unfortunately. They can barely manage the current system, so I imagine all hell would break loose if it failed and a driver was able to use it passed the "certain point".

[amppatel]

They used to have driver adjustable front wings.

That was the point of the movable front wing in 2009 and 2010 but it never worked out. I don't think there is a way to make a passing device that isn't artificial and bad. I think the only real solution is to decrease aerodynamic influence on the cars to the level where the car behind can follow to at least .5s without losing performance.

But the problem was that it wasn't enough. They need to do the calculations but something with the area of the DRS flap with a similar AoA. Before they ended just using it to tune the front end down force. This flap would not have many settings for the AoA except either up/down...

Edited by amppatel, 24 April 2013 - 21:16.

[JonathanProc]

That was the point of the movable front wing in 2009 and 2010 but it never worked out. I don't think there is a way to make a passing device that isn't artificial and bad. I think the only real solution is to decrease aerodynamic influence on the cars to the level where the car behind can follow to at least .5s without losing performance.

I thought the point in the movable front wing was to help keep the car balanced as the tyres degraded? Or was that just what the teams eventually ended up using it for rather than to aid overtaking?

Edit: Nevermind, it seems amppatel has taken care of my query.

Edited by JonathanProc, 24 April 2013 - 21:14.

[Clatter]

I think a solution like this would be extremely difficult for the FIA to implement unfortunately. They can barely manage the current system, so I imagine all hell would break loose if it failed and a driver was able to use it passed the "certain point".

I agree, but one can hope.

[Les]

They really need to do something to sort out the aerodynamic problem. DRS seems to be a convenient way to avoid the real issue and personally I don't take any pleasure in seeing cars sweeping past much slower cars who are completely defenceless. To me it goes against the spirit of racing that the driver behind is operating under different rules to the one in front. The driver in front should be able to defend! I believe that overtaking could be made easier in a far less artificial way. I was really disappointed that the 2014 rules were changed to eliminate the aerodynamic rules that were originally included (much, much less effective wings but some form of ground-effect).

[BigCHrome]

They really need to do something to sort out the aerodynamic problem. DRS seems to be a convenient way to avoid the real issue and personally I don't take any pleasure in seeing cars sweeping past much slower cars who are completely defenceless. To me it goes against the spirit of racing that the driver behind is operating under different rules to the one in front. The driver in front should be able to defend! I believe that overtaking could be made easier in a far less artificial way. I was really disappointed that the 2014 rules were changed to eliminate the aerodynamic rules that were originally included (much, much less effective wings but some form of ground-effect).

Braking duels and watching who blinks first is one of the best parts of racing. Watching fast cars zoom past slower cars who did a clever strategy to get ahead is not interesting to me at all.

I think the much less effective wings are still included in the rules.

[redreni]

There's nothing wrong with DRS - or there wouldn't be if the FIA would do what they said they would do when they introduced it, namely if overtaking becomes too easy, have fewer and/or shorter activation zones. Where a car is 0.5s or more faster than the car in front, DRS should get him close enough to be in a position to make an overtaking attempt, without rendering the leading car helpless. It should not allow him to go by on the straight - if that's happening you need to shorten the activation zone to lessen the effect.

However, the situation probably looks worse than it is on account of the tyres. Where the passing car's tyres are in significantly better nick than the car being passed overtakes on the straight are almost bound to happen, DRS or not, simply because of the huge advantage in cornering speed and traction, which allows the passing car to stay close on the exits of the corners and pick up a really good tow along the straight. So if people see a 3-stopping driver on 5-lap old tyres passing a 2-stopping driver on 12-lap-old tyres on the straight and moan about DRS, to be honest they're moaning about the wrong thing. The move would happen easily and without a real fight in any event. When cars are on the same strategy and have similar levels of tyre wear, at most circuits the DRS does more or less what it should do - gets the following car within range but doesn't get him past. As the teams learn how to get performance and low deg from these tyres things will stabilise and we'll start to see this more.

[Deluxx]

How about just removing the bloody thing.

[Seanspeed]

They really need to do something to sort out the aerodynamic problem. DRS seems to be a convenient way to avoid the real issue

I hear this all the time, but there is no way to 'sort out' the aerodynamic problem. They've tried many times and nothing works because there is no magical fix to it short of taking away a massive amount of downforce from the cars. Those 2014 rules that were dropped were dropped precisely because it would make F1 cars too slow.

You cant have your cake and it too here, unfortunately. You either get fast F1 cars that cant pass for crap without DRS, or you can get slow F1 cars that can race each other better. I'll take the former. At least DRS has proven to work.

There's nothing wrong with DRS - or there wouldn't be if the FIA would do what they said they would do when they introduced it, namely if overtaking becomes too easy, have fewer and/or shorter activation zones. Where a car is 0.5s or more faster than the car in front, DRS should get him close enough to be in a position to make an overtaking attempt, without rendering the leading car helpless. It should not allow him to go by on the straight - if that's happening you need to shorten the activation zone to lessen the effect.

However, the situation probably looks worse than it is on account of the tyres. Where the passing car's tyres are in significantly better nick than the car being passed overtakes on the straight are almost bound to happen, DRS or not, simply because of the huge advantage in cornering speed and traction, which allows the passing car to stay close on the exits of the corners and pick up a really good tow along the straight. So if people see a 3-stopping driver on 5-lap old tyres passing a 2-stopping driver on 12-lap-old tyres on the straight and moan about DRS, to be honest they're moaning about the wrong thing. The move would happen easily and without a real fight in any event. When cars are on the same strategy and have similar levels of tyre wear, at most circuits the DRS does more or less what it should do - gets the following car within range but doesn't get him past. As the teams learn how to get performance and low deg from these tyres things will stabilise and we'll start to see this more.

Well said.

Edited by Seanspeed, 24 April 2013 - 21:42.

[wingwalker]

I'd like to see the DRS zones reduced drastically and placed NOT on the track's best overtaking spot. That's easily doable, while DRS removal could only by implemented from next year onwards.

[Nahnever]

How about cars within 1 second get 6 extra seconds etc. of KERS per lap? It's well within the capacity and as it's already implemented it would seem far less artificial.

I've never considered this but I quite like it.

This is really perfect, and I was going to suggest the same thing.

[Azp]

I'd like to see the DRS zones reduced drastically and placed NOT on the track's best overtaking spot. That's easily doable, while DRS removal could only by implemented from next year onwards.

+1

I've never understood why they place long DRS zones on the longest straights that least require DRS and no DRS zones on the shortest straights which would most benefit from DRS.

Surely the fairest way to apply DRS for its original purpose would be for a team of FIA engineers to model/calculate the average time lost due to reduced downforce for a car following within X seconds of another for the corner (or series of corners) preceding each straight. This time is then given back on every straight on the circuit by shedding a standard amount of drag for whatever distance it would take to recover the lost time by the braking zone.

The main problem would be the amount of variation in the actual time lost between different teams versus the average, but if this slightly hurts faster cars and slightly helps slower cars this can benefit the spectacle. The amount of DRS available would vary based on the gap to the car infront at detection point in the braking zones preceding each corner or series of corners.

Edited by Azp, 24 April 2013 - 22:27.

[noikeee]

I hear this all the time, but there is no way to 'sort out' the aerodynamic problem. They've tried many times and nothing works because there is no magical fix to it short of taking away a massive amount of downforce from the cars. Those 2014 rules that were dropped were dropped precisely because it would make F1 cars too slow.

You cant have your cake and it too here, unfortunately. You either get fast F1 cars that cant pass for crap without DRS, or you can get slow F1 cars that can race each other better. I'll take the former. At least DRS has proven to work.

This. DRS is a necessary evil, and it has made the races infinitely more interesting than the processions of 5 years ago. I think it should be toned down quite a bit though, one thing is enabling the faster cars/drivers to be able to generally overtake, another thing is for that to happen almost automatically... at the moment defensive driving is not rewarded at all neither track position.

[pingu666]

its terrible, press a button to go past, WOW what skill!

id like em to try less slot gap but a longer zone. might make it look less fake.

[Les]

I hear this all the time, but there is no way to 'sort out' the aerodynamic problem. They've tried many times and nothing works because there is no magical fix to it short of taking away a massive amount of downforce from the cars. Those 2014 rules that were dropped were dropped precisely because it would make F1 cars too slow.

You cant have your cake and it too here, unfortunately. You either get fast F1 cars that cant pass for crap without DRS, or you can get slow F1 cars that can race each other better. I'll take the former. At least DRS has proven to work.

I really don't think its impossible to have F1 cars that are fast but can pass. Maybe not as much as they are at the moment with DRS but if we could get back to a situation like there was in the 80s/90s. Downforce could be cut, engine power and mechanical grip could be increased surely?

[Wander]

The extra KERS thing if you start a lap within a second of a car ahead could be interesting.

But I am one of those people who don't see DRS as a big issue either way. I can do with it and without it. In the end, they have sometimes got the balance just right and the DRS has allowed quicker cars to just about overtake cars on tracks where it would have been agonizingly difficult otherwise.

[Kucki]

I hear this all the time, but there is no way to 'sort out' the aerodynamic problem. They've tried many times and nothing works because there is no magical fix to it short of taking away a massive amount of downforce from the cars.

Yes and thats good because the balance moves towards a bigger reliance on mechanical grip. Did you know there used to be a time in F1 not too far ago when closing in on an opponent getting into the draft was actually considered an advantage.

Those 2014 rules that were dropped were dropped precisely because it would make F1 cars too slow.

Then add some more umph to the cars. Remember how fast and violent the cars used to be around places like Monza also not too long ago. The cars need more power less aero grip more mechanical grip. Too bad at some point the plans for 2014 were ditched and we are now living in the parallel world were the decision was taken to steer F1 into super mario kart la la land. By now we could have this great generation of formula 1 champions battle it out in awesome great cars that are beautiful to watch. Instead we have a push to pass button, unimpressive ugly cars, on asphalt oceans. Its a shame really. Imagine how awesome F1 could be. The knowledge is out there but they are stubborn. Just look at history and put the pieces together for an awesome formula.

[Nonesuch]

There's not too much wrong with DRS as a device, but the FIA has gotten so involved in regulating it that it has become highly predictable and there is little skill and challenge in it. I'd rather get rid of it altogether, or just give the drivers and teams complete freedom in its use, but perhaps changing the current restrictions could also improve its effect on races. For example, didn't one of the Formula series - it might have been Formula Nippon - have a KERS that only worked a specific number of times per race? That might be a decent idea: put an 8 minute time limit on the use of DRS, and let the drivers decide when and where to use it.

Edited by Nonesuch, 24 April 2013 - 22:38.

[Mrluke]

They just need to generate aero a different way, look at the delta wing bucket loads of downforce but no wings. Underbody aero does not need clean airflow.

Edited by Mrluke, 24 April 2013 - 22:48.

[Morbus]

I was really disappointed that the 2014 rules were changed to eliminate the aerodynamic rules that were originally included (much, much less effective wings but some form of ground-effect).

Yeah, and they're all saying next year's cars will be so much different. They won't!! It will be the same exact thing as this year. I really hope people don't get their hopes up for something different, it will be the same thing.

[genespleen]

I'd be interesting to know if the Overtaking Working Group ever seriously discussed *dramatic* limitations to wing surface areas. I suppose by nature it was a conservative group (Byrne, Lowe, and Symonds), but it'd be nice to see a radical reduction...

[BigCHrome]

I hear this all the time, but there is no way to 'sort out' the aerodynamic problem. They've tried many times and nothing works because there is no magical fix to it short of taking away a massive amount of downforce from the cars. Those 2014 rules that were dropped were dropped precisely because it would make F1 cars too slow.

You cant have your cake and it too here, unfortunately. You either get fast F1 cars that cant pass for crap without DRS, or you can get slow F1 cars that can race each other better. I'll take the former. At least DRS has proven to work.

You can. By increasing power and mechanical grip. The only things the FIA and OWG have tried were designed to keep the advantage of the big teams by keeping the focus on aerodynamics.

Yes and thats good because the balance moves towards a bigger reliance on mechanical grip. Did you know there used to be a time in F1 not too far ago when closing in on an opponent getting into the draft was actually considered an advantage.


Then add some more umph to the cars. Remember how fast and violent the cars used to be around places like Monza also not too long ago. The cars need more power less aero grip more mechanical grip. Too bad at some point the plans for 2014 were ditched and we are now living in the parallel world were the decision was taken to steer F1 into super mario kart la la land. By now we could have this great generation of formula 1 champions battle it out in awesome great cars that are beautiful to watch. Instead we have a push to pass button, unimpressive ugly cars, on asphalt oceans. Its a shame really. Imagine how awesome F1 could be. The knowledge is out there but they are stubborn. Just look at history and put the pieces together for an awesome formula.

Well said.

[HoldenRT]

I'd settle for them shortening or lengthening DRS zones.. and having 2 on a track seems overkill IMO. The one in Bahrain in S2 seemed pointless. It should get the driver alongside, not get him easily infront.. before the braking zone.

I'd rather them play on the conservative side but adjust it during the weekend. They already do that, but I mean adjust it more on the conservative side.

Edited by HoldenRT, 25 April 2013 - 00:34.

[RealRacing]

Yes and thats good because the balance moves towards a bigger reliance on mechanical grip. Did you know there used to be a time in F1 not too far ago when closing in on an opponent getting into the draft was actually considered an advantage.



Then add some more umph to the cars. Remember how fast and violent the cars used to be around places like Monza also not too long ago. The cars need more power less aero grip more mechanical grip. Too bad at some point the plans for 2014 were ditched and we are now living in the parallel world were the decision was taken to steer F1 into super mario kart la la land. By now we could have this great generation of formula 1 champions battle it out in awesome great cars that are beautiful to watch. Instead we have a push to pass button, unimpressive ugly cars, on asphalt oceans. Its a shame really. Imagine how awesome F1 could be. The knowledge is out there but they are stubborn. Just look at history and put the pieces together for an awesome formula.

Oh you mean it CAN be done but they WON'T? You mean there already has been an era in F1 where cars could overtake on track without the necessity of DRS? You mean it is desirable to have the leading and trailing car under the same circumstances as that is fair? You mean fair blocking is as important a skill as passing?

Dude you are a party spoiler! Just when I was about to propose digitally superimposed NOS on different places of the track that give speed boosts and virtual mines that could be deployed behind the car to give the following cars that hit them rev limitation for 5 secs! Other elements could also be added in the shape of fruits and stuff...

[Kingshark]

How about just make drivers drive with an open DRS throughout the whole race?

Hell, how about just change the regulations stating that the open DRS position is how the rear wing is suppose to be like the whole time?

It wont slow the cars down too much, as we saw with Alonso who was only 1 second/lap slower than Vettel with DRS. Plus, less downforce = closer racing.

This sounds delusional, I know.

Edited by Kingshark, 25 April 2013 - 02:53.

[mattferg]

How about just make drivers drive with an open DRS throughout the whole race?

Hell, how about just change the regulations stating that the open DRS position is how the rear wing is suppose to be like the whole time?

It wont slow the cars down too much, as we saw with Alonso who was only 1 second/lap slower than Vettel with DRS. Plus, less downforce = closer racing.

This sounds delusional, I know.

Each team's DRS works in a different way, and as we saw last year, Ferrari's DRS is a lot less efficient than other teams (probs by design). What might only slow Alonso down might spin the downforce dependent RB9 and/or whatever the team with the highest top speed with DRS open is ATM.

[packapoo]

Help me out here.
Didn't the DRS spring from the innovation of McLaren's 'F' duct?
When the teams caught on and saw the 'must have' usefulness of that idea, they rushed into adding it to their car. Problem was McLaren's was engineered in at the get go and most, if not all, did not enjoy that benefit. Which lead to some rather dodgy and potentially dangerous setups.
So the FIA had to step in, ban the thing and then came up with their DRS idea.

So, why not get around the artificiality of DRS by bringing back the solution initiated by McLaren, but properly engineered in?
That not only gets around the Mickey Mouse solutions previously offered up, it negates the horrible artificiality of the DRS - lets the drivers get on with racing.
That they could operate it at any point of the circuit.....? Well would sort the real racers out from the wannabes.

[muramasa]

They really need to do something to sort out the aerodynamic problem. DRS seems to be a convenient way to avoid the real issue and personally I don't take any pleasure in seeing cars sweeping past much slower cars who are completely defenceless. To me it goes against the spirit of racing that the driver behind is operating under different rules to the one in front. The driver in front should be able to defend! I believe that overtaking could be made easier in a far less artificial way. I was really disappointed that the 2014 rules were changed to eliminate the aerodynamic rules that were originally included (much, much less effective wings but some form of ground-effect).

Well said, exactly.



Some people seem to be so short-sighted and narrow, all-or-nothing minded.
Every changes they've made to the rules in 00s had only made the car more and more sensitive, just precisely as most pundits as well as technical minded fans had predicted.
grooved tyres, keep raising front wing height, diffuser being smaller and smaller, etc. all these surely made car go slower but at the same time made the car more aero-sensitive. All this well predicted and every changes lamented at the time. To understand and predict that, it only requires some basic knowledge about F1.

as for 09~, the aero character, that downforce is dependent on upper body aero, hasnt really changed at all. Also big front wing plays too much role in aero. at first they could go tale to nose but soon it's gone as development advanced and front wing gets more complex.

Also frozen, rev-limited engine dont help at all.


As for ground effect or any aero configuration that is different to current one, I dont know why some people seem to think it's impossible. Esp this claim "You either get fast F1 cars that cant pass for crap without DRS, or you can get slow F1 cars that can race each other better. I'll take the former." is laughable. Why some people can have such 0 or 1 thinking, i dont know. Why dont they make abit of effort to look out there.
Actual example are there. GP2 car used to have only minimum feature of ground effect and racing was great. Current Super Formula (formerly known as Formula Nippon) cars have ground effect without problem, and Indy cars at least used to have some ground effect altho not sure about current car.

In theory it's pretty easy and simple to have working ground effect.
Good balance b/w ground effect (under body downforce), degree of upper body aero contribution, and amount of drag (to enable slipstreaming effect), while reducing turbulence (maybe there's hint in indy style rear wheel fender).
Then get back "normal" tyres that can hold no matter how much you attack. 90s and even most of 00s, drivers were attacking as hell, and while tyre preservation is always key factor, drivers could push the tyres to the max both in quali and race.
Sure in reality there will be some issues to overcome but i dont see why one should assume it's impossible at all.

[FPV GTHO]

as for 09~, the aero character, that downforce is dependent on upper body aero, hasnt really changed at all. Also big front wing plays too much role in aero. at first they could go tale to nose but soon it's gone as development advanced and front wing gets more complex.

I dont think thats got anything to do with the front wing, its because of the diffusers. The 2009 cars were supposed to have weak rear ends, but then 3 teams launched with double diffusers. Then 2010 everyone had one but Red Bull introduced the blown diffuser. Then 2011 the double diffusers were banned, but Red Bull had their engine maps to make the blown diffusers even more powerful. 2012 they mandated the exhaust tips but they were still sealing the diffuser.

Get them back to the proper 2009 diffusers, that dont have any exhaust sealing or additional inlets, they wont be able to rake them so high to increase their size, they wont be able to have as strong of a coupling effect with the beam wing and rear wing (iirc the beam wing is gone next year anyway) then there will be significantly less rear downforce. Which will then need to be balanced with less front downforce, and should go some way towards what the 2009 rules were intended for.

[Rinehart]

I think DRS is ok as it is. I don't think its fake because the car getting into the zone has had to have the speed to get there, and is then penalised by losing downforce by following to closely. So as others have said, its about the length/strength of it.

In Bahrain, some of the overtakes on the main straight were sensational, just enough to get the cars alongside - e.g. Hamilton on Perez.
Its the DRS zones that make it look like motorway overtaking is rubbish - where the move is complete way before the braking zone.

[DampMongoose]

Gordon Murray's designs that were in Motorsport a few issues back sound like the best solution to me, it's all about removing the aerodynamic devices that create the 'wake' that makes it difficult for one car to follow another, so smaller wings/single plane and a curved underbody to create the downforce by ground effects. The last thing we need in F1 is a solution that is as artificial as DRS itself!

The answers to these problems would be best left to the designers and aero people, but those in F1 at the moment aren't going to want a shake up I don't suppose...

[Kalmake]

My formula would have no DRS detection points and zones. Sensors in cars would determine when gap is less than 1 second. Also, unlike now, pulling alongside to make the pass closes DRS again. This would simulate bigger wake like in the olden days. There would be no need for track specific arbitrary tweaks. Sensor tech would be relevant to safety devices and driverless cars.

[BoschKurve]

Gordon Murray's designs that were in Motorsport a few issues back sound like the best solution to me, it's all about removing the aerodynamic devices that create the 'wake' that makes it difficult for one car to follow another, so smaller wings/single plane and a curved underbody to create the downforce by ground effects. The last thing we need in F1 is a solution that is as artificial as DRS itself!

The answers to these problems would be best left to the designers and aero people, but those in F1 at the moment aren't going to want a shake up I don't suppose...

What was he proposing to remove exactly?

[BoschKurve]

I think for me one of the absurd things with DRS is that they had to add that, but then they had to restrict defensive moves even further which I don't agree with if you're going to allow for these freebie passes. I'd rather see 2 changes of direction allowed to defend attacking drivers who are using DRS. Ideally I'd rather not even see DRS at all, but if I had to compromise, I'd rather see the defensive rules relaxed a little.

[Requiem84]

simple solution;

make DRS less effective.

The speed difference between DRS attacker and non DRS defender is too big.

DRS attacker has the DRS advantage+slipstream advantage. DRS is usually about 10-15 kp/h, slipstream another 5 or maybe 10.

This is why cars can drive past other cars and then get back onto the racing line; most boring passes in history.

Make DRS 5 kp/h, and make the DRS zones longer... and we might see some real racing, as the cars would be side to side more often into the braking zones...

[DampMongoose]

What was he proposing to remove exactly?

Basically the rear wing and diffuser IIRC, he suggested a design like the one printed in the magazine would create it's downforce by having a shaped underbody, rather than the flat bottom cars we have currently, which would apparently mean a massive reduction in the wake behind the car, imagine the Arrows F1 car that didn't have any wings at all and was entirely ground effects, it looked similar at the back to that! I'll have to dig it back out and have another look if I can find it...

[7MGTEsup]

Maybe one solution would be to have the DRS at the start of the straight so the following driver can get into the draught then the last 400m is for the driver to get along side and do him on the brakes?

[SpaMaster]

Hello,

Most people say that the problem with DRS is the fact that it is artificial - I think this is because people can see it wide open and all of a sudden the overtake has happened..

No, those who say that say it because of the concept, nothing to do with visuals.

Dirty air means loss of undisturbed air space and air flow coming from unexpected direction and with unpredictable forces. No amount of extra-wing would give the exact required downforce.

To put in another way, the car depends on air space to go faster there. What you are saying is removing the air space and give whatever it takes to achieve that downforce. It can never be compensated. We have give the extra wings, but the air space was long gone.

[BoschKurve]

Basically the rear wing and diffuser IIRC, he suggested a design like the one printed in the magazine would create it's downforce by having a shaped underbody, rather than the flat bottom cars we have currently, which would apparently mean a massive reduction in the wake behind the car, imagine the Arrows F1 car that didn't have any wings at all and was entirely ground effects, it looked similar at the back to that! I'll have to dig it back out and have another look if I can find it...

F1 should have switched back to the ground effects cars for 2014. There's no reason for not revisiting them at this point if the goal is to try and have better racing on the track as cutting down on the wake behind the cars would work wonders, and not need the silly DRS garbage.

Any chance you could post scans of the article?

[DampMongoose]

F1 should have switched back to the ground effects cars for 2014. There's no reason for not revisiting them at this point if the goal is to try and have better racing on the track as cutting down on the wake behind the cars would work wonders, and not need the silly DRS garbage.

Any chance you could post scans of the article?

I agree with you entirely, I'll have a look back in my old copies of Motorsport, I'm not 100% sure if the article was in a relatively recent edition or another similar article from further back but I will have a look, there was a recent one which has images online if you google it, which GM produced back in 2000 or so for a new interpretation of F1 that had Gas Turbine engine, canopy, ground effects and movable sliding skirts for slow corner downforce etc...

I'm not sure if the modern thinking was part of the same article or not, but I'll have a look... if it's an older one I'll be rooting about in my loft for the forseeable future

[Rob]

DRS is a sticking plaster on a broken arm. It doesn't address the fundamental problem. They need to address the dirty wake issue.

[RealRacing]

What was he proposing to remove exactly?

Bernie...

[Dolph]

How about just removing the bloody thing.

Yes, 50 laps of Trulli trains. PLEASE!