87 replies to this topic

[BillBald]

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

There will never be a solution to the dirty wake issue, because designers want their cars to be hard to overtake.

[Rybo]

I would like to see DRS just used for lapping traffic. If two drivers are fighting for position no need to disadvantage one or the other. Let them fight on equal terms.

[Skinnyguy]

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.

First of all, this kind of current defense was already done 95% of times since I started watching, and coming back to racing line in other´s face was already seen in a bad light back then (mid-late 90´s), with or without rule to back it up and punish the offender. So this has nothing to do with introduction of DRS. Racing and defense hasn´t changed recently, current way of defending it´s just been enforced with a rule, a rule that was already respected before 95% of times.

But let´s forget that. So you´re up for weaving. Covering the inside, when the other guy accepts and goes to the outside then back towards racing line in his face so he has to lift, then covering again. That´s not racing, that´s stupid driving that would make trying a pass pointless. If you want that to be allowed you´re clueless.

Cry all you want about DRS, ask for it to dissapear, but please, don´t try to push the "kids on the internet" defense etiquette into racing. There´s no speed differential that will be enough for a pass if the guy in front starts weaving and forces you to get off the throttle for no reason in the middle of a straight. If everyone went by your book, trying to get alongside someone would be a pointless exercise.

Oh, and on topic, someone proposed a bit of extra KERS for attackers. I think it´s a good idea. KERS boosts your speed in initial parts of straights, so it would help people to get proper slipstreams and try to outbrake the rival. DRS boost your speed in the middle of straights, so if you already have a proper shot, the result is a easy pass.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 25 April 2013 - 22:03.

[Skinnyguy]

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?

That´s another good one, but you´d need a point where it should close still with the driver full throttle. Don´t know if it´s easy to do that.

[pingu666]

reducing the slot gap is entirely possible though

[KnucklesAgain]

I would like to see DRS just used for lapping traffic. If two drivers are fighting for position no need to disadvantage one or the other. Let them fight on equal terms.

But the terms are not equal if the cars intentionally create a dirty wake to make it impossible for the following car to get close (confirmed by IIRC a Toyota aero guy, sorry I don't find the link anymore)

[Kucki]

Its nice to have seen people who rarely watch F1 react to the information of how overtakes happen in F1 races.

"Wow how did he get so much faster to drive by all of a sudden?"

"When he is within 1 second of the car infront, he is allowed to press a button to drive faster"

"What? How dumb is that"

Try it. Show a modern F1 racing overtake video, or watch a race with someone who only rarely hears / cares about F1. This type of idiocy cannot have much of a future. Just compare the battles in the first three laps of a race with how the racing looks when DRS is enabled. The one part is exciting and offers real overtaking and defending skills, while the other looks like a world wrestling version of formula 1. But its still real is what they say. Just like those who think wrestling is real. Its not real, its fake. And people tend do, slowly, but surely, get bored about fakeness.

Edited by Kucki, 26 April 2013 - 19:26.

[pingu666]

think nigal roebook made the point, imagine the laughing stock nascar, or any other series if they introduced drs....

[olliek88]

Get rid of it. Alonso showed in Bahrain that overtaking is (shock, horror) more than possible without DRS. DRS, for me, has virtually got rid of the art of defensive driving, its too easy with DRS IMHO, sure certain tracks its a bonus but with the current spec Pirellis (which i like btw) DRS isn't needed, it destroys the pre overtake will they won't they tension. The overtakes that you really stand out are the ones outside of the DRS zone, because they are so much harder thought and worked for.

[DrivenF1]

Keep Pirelli, get rid of DRS in my opinion. Employ greater use of KERS.

Edited by Cult, 26 April 2013 - 20:40.

[Rybo]

But the terms are not equal if the cars intentionally create a dirty wake to make it impossible for the following car to get close (confirmed by IIRC a Toyota aero guy, sorry I don't find the link anymore)

DRS has nothing to do with the dirty wake of a leading car. Its meant to promote passing on straights...

[KnucklesAgain]

DRS has nothing to do with the dirty wake of a leading car. Its meant to promote passing on straights...

1. It has something to do with it in so far as it was FIA's (maybe misguided) solution to the dirty wake problem. It was *supposed* to give back on the straights what the following car lost in the corners, and to provide an artificial slip stream replacement due to the cars having a less usable real one.

2. Be the above as it may, my main point was that the terms are not equal if the following car is purposefully disadvantaged.

[Gyno]

remove DRS compleatly or give the drivers 60 times to use it during a race.
No DRS zones, they can use it when ever they want and Where ever they want.

If they can drive throu corners with it open then so be it.

KERS needs to be more powerfull and the use of it UNLIMITED.


FIA needs to OPEN up regualtions and let the team come up with new things and not clamp down on everything.

[ivi0912329]

Get rid of DRS, make tyres even worse than now. That way teams will reduce downforce to reduce wear rate on tyres.

But not have been happening, teams want to keep high downforce.

[OO7]

Here is my suggestion from a few few years ago: Variable Underbody Aerodynamics.

[Rybo]

1. It has something to do with it in so far as it was FIA's (maybe misguided) solution to the dirty wake problem. It was *supposed* to give back on the straights what the following car lost in the corners, and to provide an artificial slip stream replacement due to the cars having a less usable real one.

2. Be the above as it may, my main point was that the terms are not equal if the following car is purposefully disadvantaged.

I see what your saying, but is your solution to go the complete opposite way? If the trailing car is faster they will pass especially with these Pirelli's

[Atic Atac]

This may sound odd, but i think one of the problems with drs are the TV presenters.

I normaly watch the races live on spanish tv and then i download the itv or bbc feed and rewatch a day later. Well, in Spanish tv they don´t talk much about drs, just a few times along the race.

On english feeds there is, by comparison, a constant talk about drs. Seems like every time someone opens the damm thing it has to be announced and gets a little bit annoying sometimes.

Edited by Atic Atac, 27 April 2013 - 16:46.

[KnucklesAgain]

I see what your saying, but is your solution to go the complete opposite way? If the trailing car is faster they will pass especially with these Pirelli's

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't intend to argue pro-DRS at all. It's just that I agree that there was a wake problem, even though I don't agree with DRS the way it turned out (I might have been ok with the original plan).

The Toyota (IIRC) guy whose statement I mentioned had said that teams are so good at aero now (due to CFD et al.), that it has turned into a weapon against other cars. No longer is it only about how to create downforce for your own car, but also about ruining the downforce of a following car.

In this situation, I don't think it makes sense to say "remove DRS and let them race on equal terms", because they wouldn't race on equal terms, IMO.

I don't have a solution either, though the original plans for 2014 (limited venturis for underbody aero, etc) seemed to make sense to me.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 27 April 2013 - 17:53.

[amppatel]

This may sound odd, but i think one of the problems with drs are the TV presenters.

I normaly watch the races live on spanish tv and then i download the itv or bbc feed and rewatch a day later. Well, in Spanish tv they don´t talk much about drs, just a few times along the race.

On english feeds there is, by comparison, a constant talk about drs. Seems like every time someone opens the damm thing it has to be announced and gets a little bit annoying sometimes.

I agree that one of the main issues with DRS is the fact that people are aware of it. There are lots of artificial things in F1 that help a driver overtake but because we can't see when they are used it is not a problem.

But the commentators must report that a particular overtake was due to DRS, it is just how it is, they cannot simply not mention it.

[Clatter]

I agree that one of the main issues with DRS is the fact that people are aware of it. There are lots of artificial things in F1 that help a driver overtake but because we can't see when they are used it is not a problem.

But the commentators must report that a particular overtake was due to DRS, it is just how it is, they cannot simply not mention it.

Examples?

DRS is the only thing that I'm aware of that only the attacker can use and the defender has no defence.

[Sin]

I like DRS, just don't like the Pirelli tyres this year (and yes I know they were asked to produce them that way)

[HoldenRT]

The "dirty wake issue" isn't really an issue, it's just the nature of racing and cars that rely on aerodynamics. Even stock cars have slipstreaming and dirty wake, just less so.

And the "make tyres crappier" solution is a catch 22, because the more fragile the tyres, the more they are affected when the car slides around in dirty air.

Edited by HoldenRT, 28 April 2013 - 06:21.

[LoudHoward]

No DRS, move the vast majority of the downforce to the underbody (wings basically for some slight trimming/balance), have tyres with a wide operating range that have a small difference in wear between cruising and pushing balls out, make the degredation consistent either way. Add in smaller brakes and we're done. Keep no refueling, the stops are great displays of skill by the team now, and having low fuel qually for a full tank race makes it more likely that the qually order won't always be the race pace order.

Done. I think it really is that simple. Also, I wouldn't mind for each stage of qually you get through, each driver gets an additional set of tyres of their choice, sick of people being punished for being successful, this should primarily be a sport. It need to be entertaining (I think the previous paragraph handles that) but that entertainment needs to be built on the foundation of sporting endeavour or else people will tune out after a few years, regardless of how many flappy-winged-my-tyres-are-2-miles-fresher-than-yours-so-I'm-3-seconds-faster-than-you-now passes we get.

DRS is becoming a monster, I was willing to give it a chance, but it's now being seen as a solution rather than the stop-gap it should've been used as, and that's a big problem for this formula.

Edited by LoudHoward, 28 April 2013 - 06:40.

[KnucklesAgain]

Examples?

DRS is the only thing that I'm aware of that only the attacker can use and the defender has no defence.

The dirty wake can only be used by the defender and for a few years the attacker had no chance unless he was > 1.5 sec faster.

The "dirty wake issue" isn't really an issue, it's just the nature of racing and cars that rely on aerodynamics. Even stock cars have slipstreaming and dirty wake, just less so.

You write as if slipstreaming and dirty wake are one and the same, they aren't. We *want* slipstreaming to be possible on straights, and cars to be not so sensitive that they can't follow closely in corners. It's what DRS is supposed to simulate.

And to say "it's not a problem" when for years we watched faster cars completely helpless seems strange.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 28 April 2013 - 07:58.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

I think the problem with the issue is that adding downforce is probably more tricky than reducing drag. Reducing drag on the straight doesn't really do much to car's handling, since you don't really need much handling on the straights to begin with. Adding downforce in corners is a whole other ball game, and I"m not sure teams would be willing to sacrifice their setup to tune their car for the extra wing. You will also have radically different balance depending on how to close to the car in front you are while being inside the detection zone.

[amppatel]

Examples?

DRS is the only thing that I'm aware of that only the attacker can use and the defender has no defence.

I think it has been mentioned but I guess the dirty air only hinders the car behind.

Also things like engine modes, KERS and fuel.

[Disgrace]

DRS is becoming a monster, I was willing to give it a chance, but it's now being seen as a solution rather than the stop-gap it should've been used as, and that's a big problem for this formula.

[Clatter]

I think it has been mentioned but I guess the dirty air only hinders the car behind.

Also things like engine modes, KERS and fuel.

The dirty air is an effect of the aero, it's not actually designed in.

Engine modes, KERS, Fuel etc. etc. are the same for everybody and not artificially brought in to specifically aid overtaking.

[Clatter]

The dirty wake can only be used by the defender and for a few years the attacker had no chance unless he was > 1.5 sec faster.



You write as if slipstreaming and dirty wake are one and the same, they aren't. We *want* slipstreaming to be possible on straights, and cars to be not so sensitive that they can't follow closely in corners. It's what DRS is supposed to simulate.

And to say "it's not a problem" when for years we watched faster cars completely helpless seems strange.

The dirty air is an effect of the aero and not something within the drivers control. The big problem for with DRS is that the attacker has often got a benefit long after he has passed the car, and on some tracks where the zones are one after the other he can get a double benefit. I want to see overtaking not just a simple waved through pass.

[KnucklesAgain]

@Clatter: I don't disagree with that.

[Rob]

The dirty air is an effect of the aero, it's not actually designed in.

I know for a fact that at least one team was designing the aero for the rear of the car with the intent of worsening the turbulence in the wake region.

[SpaMaster]

But the terms are not equal if the cars intentionally create a dirty wake to make it impossible for the following car to get close (confirmed by IIRC a Toyota aero guy, sorry I don't find the link anymore)

The cars don't intentionally create the dirty wake. It is there inherently, intrinsically. The wings will never work in vacuum. They need air to go fast. If another car is placed in place of the air, it simply cannot get that speed. Simple physics. It is like expecting a fish to breathe on land.

[KnucklesAgain]

The cars don't intentionally create the dirty wake. It is there inherently, intrinsically. The wings will never work in vacuum. They need air to go fast. If another car is placed in place of the air, it simply cannot get that speed. Simple physics. It is like expecting a fish to breathe on land.

Both the post directly above yours and an earlier post of mine referring to a Toyota (IIRC) aero guy directly contradicted the bolded statement. You are welcome to disagree, but IMO the cars do create dirty wake on purpose. And even if they don't, the type of wake we have (or at least had up to 2009) is a direct result of the rules, and there is nothing natural about those. I'm pretty sure that if the aero designers were free from F1 rules, they would not choose cars without underbody aero and a huge wing at each end.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 29 April 2013 - 19:18.

[SpaMaster]

Both the post directly above yours and an earlier post of mine referring to a Toyota (IIRC) aero guy directly contradicted the bolded statement. You are welcome to disagree, but IMO the cars do create dirty wake on purpose. And even if they don't, the type of wake we have (or at least had up to 2009) is a direct result of the rules, and there is nothing natural about those. I'm pretty sure that if the aero designers were free from F1 rules, they would not choose cars without underbody aero and a huge wing at each end.

There is some degree of intentional creation. But that is not the main problem. If that is the case, it would be very easy to outlaw it. These are aerodynamic downforce cars. If you think cars won't get affected when you remove the air in front and put a car there, I think you need to have a deep rethink about how you understand the whole physics. I don't mean to criticize you. But think about it. As I said earlier, dirty wake is not dirty name wise, it is a disturbance created by having an object piercing a hollow block immediately ahead.

Edited by SpaMaster, 30 April 2013 - 05:41.

[KirilVarbanov]

Driver adjustable front wings and some extra KERS power would completely remove the need for DRS.

[Sakae]

From my perspective DRS should go simply based on rationale, that the devise is giving a following car an unfair advantage over the car that is attempting to overtake. If lack of overtaking is at the core of the issue, change vehicle body specs. which could facilitate type of racing we saw in the distant past, and get rid of gimmicks (DRS, funny rubber, etc. are some of this most visible examples).

[KnucklesAgain]

There is some degree of intentional creation. But that is not the main problem. If that is the case, it would be very easy to outlaw it. These are aerodynamic downforce cars. If you think cars won't get affected when you remove the air in front and put a car there, I think you need to have a deep rethink about how you understand the whole physics. I don't mean to criticize you. But think about it. As I said earlier, dirty wake is not dirty name wise, it is a disturbance created by having an object piercing a hollow block immediately ahead.

How would it be very easy to outlaw it? FIA appointing engineers to correct Newey's aero? The only way I can think of is to radically reduce aero dependency of the cars, and I'm not necessarily opposing that. But I don't think it's easy if one wants to retain sophisticated aero.

And no, the problematic type of wake is not a simple result of pushing a thing through air. That's what we had through decades of more unsophisticated aero. Now we seem to have cars that purposefully create vortices behind the car to ruin the aero for the following car. That's very different, IMO.

Driver adjustable front wings and some extra KERS power would completely remove the need for DRS.

We had driver adjustable front wings, they did nothing.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 30 April 2013 - 06:06.

[SpaMaster]

Wings appeared much later in F1 - through 70s. Even then the aero speed of the cars were very low and if we have that speed now, it would be unacceptable to most people. Then later we had reasonable ground effects to allow cars to follow each other.

Intentionally created disturbing-aero elements can be outlawed by FIA. They could recruit specific aero engineers and outlaw anything that they deem fit to be suspicious. That would be a futile exercise. The kind of speed and downforce the modern car generates creates much bigger problems and that is not achieved by intentional disturbance elements designed to not allow a car follow it. Think about it. The purpose of both elements are different. One is to create downforce and the other is to disturb the car behind. They are not the same. Would you spend millions to improve your car's speed or disrupt another car's overtaking attempt? The percentage difference in importance is quite significant. Most aero work is concentrated on improve the car speed and naturally that causes the most damage. People would not be generalizing aero if intentional disturbance elements are the reason. They would be specifically referring to 'remove the disturbance elements' because both are different not only in purpose, but also in design. IMO, the intentional disturbance is probably 10% max of the wake problem caused by the car ahead, the remaining is just the natural effect of the present aero cars.