38 replies to this topic

[Farhannn15]

DRS is used to increase overtaking but whenever a car comes up behind a backmarker or a lapped car, it also gets the benefit of the DRS and this is particularly handy when it comes to defending from drivers behind, so why don't the FIA just disable allowing getting DRS from a car that's already been lapped?

[DutchQuicksilver]

Don't think it's possible to do that. The electronics just register if 'a' car is in front, not what kind of car (like in a backmarker or not)

Edited by DutchQuicksilver, 04 November 2013 - 20:47.

[icecream]

yep, i think it's a technical difficulty.  though seems crazy. 

[metz]

The purpose of the DRS is to liven up the show.

It has nothing to do with logic or fair play.

So, passing, no matter how contrived, is good TV.

[William Hunt]

Passing these days is so easy that it completely changes the dynamics of a race. It's not hard anymore to overake someone, you need less skill. I think that having 1 DRS zone is more than enough.

[InfectedPumpkin]

DRS suck. Simple as that. No fun in watching DRS overtaking.

[PayasYouRace]

Actually it's quite simple. DRS is supposed to be recreating/amplifying the slipstream - making up for the disadvantage of dirty air. I actually really like that it works with backmarkers too, because it keeps it more in the realm of a physical, aerodynamic aid rather than a competitive one.

 

What you're asking is essentially, "why can drivers still slipstream lapped cars?"

 

Edit: This new layout still catches me out with the edit function sometimes.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 04 November 2013 - 22:11.

[Bloggsworth]

Cos them's the rules...

[pingu666]

because we should love drs and how great it is.

 

overtaking in nascar requires so much more skill its funny when you think about it

[Andrew Hope]

Actually it's quite simple. DRS is supposed to be recreating/amplifying the slipstream - making up for the disadvantage of dirty air. I actually really like that it works with backmarkers too, because it keeps it more in the realm of a physical, aerodynamic aid rather than a competitive one.

 

What you're asking is essentially, "why can drivers still slipstream lapped cars?"

 

Edit: This new layout still catches me out with the edit function sometimes.

I wish you could have a grace period like on other forums of 5 minutes before the "Last edited by blah blah blah" thing shows up. I'm always catching myself with typos and that message makes it look like I'm flip-flopping.

[scheivlak]

DRS is used to increase overtaking but whenever a car comes up behind a backmarker or a lapped car, it also gets the benefit of the DRS and this is particularly handy when it comes to defending from drivers behind, so why don't the FIA just disable allowing getting DRS from a car that's already been lapped?

Why should they? The next car gets DRS as well. 

 

TBH I don't think it makes much difference with the pre-DRS situation when a lapped car could be used as a buffer as well.

[Borko]

DRS suck. Simple as that. No fun in watching DRS overtaking.

It might suck, but it's necessary to have DRS today. Imagine Abu Dhabi without DRS. Every race there would be like 2010 Abu Dhabi GP, one of the worst races ever. Also Barcelona - that track was contsantly, year after year, producing incredibly boring races and everybody complained how boring it was. After they introduced DRS, it has become much, much better, almost ok.

 

So in this kind of F1 era something like DRS is inevitable and I strongly support it. Otherwise we would have Monaco kind of race at half of the tracks.

[Clatter]

Actually it's quite simple. DRS is supposed to be recreating/amplifying the slipstream - making up for the disadvantage of dirty air. I actually really like that it works with backmarkers too, because it keeps it more in the realm of a physical, aerodynamic aid rather than a competitive one.

 

What you're asking is essentially, "why can drivers still slipstream lapped cars?"

 

Edit: This new layout still catches me out with the edit function sometimes.

That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that backmarkers get a blue flag meaning they have to get out of the way anyway.

 

As to those saying it's technically difficult, that's rubbish. It would require a relatively simple bit of programming, but the FIA would be sure to screw it up.

[Jerem]

Actually it could be said that it's better for backmarkers because they can lose virtually no time by allowing the leaders past.

 

IIRC even backmarkers can get DRS from a car lapping them if they are within one second on detection point which makes less sense than leaders getting DRS from backmarkers.

[Grayson]

Actually it's quite simple. DRS is supposed to be recreating/amplifying the slipstream - making up for the disadvantage of dirty air. I actually really like that it works with backmarkers too, because it keeps it more in the realm of a physical, aerodynamic aid rather than a competitive one.

 

What you're asking is essentially, "why can drivers still slipstream lapped cars?"

 

 

I think that this is the right answer. If the rulemakers had told us that they had found a way to bring slipstreaming back, we would be overjoyed and I doubt that anyone would complain that slipstreaming gave cars who were lapping backmarkers an advantage. As it is, they can't do that with the modern cars. The fact that this simulation of slipstreaming does the same seems reasonably authentic in that context.

[Clatter]

I think that this is the right answer. If the rulemakers had told us that they had found a way to bring slipstreaming back, we would be overjoyed and I doubt that anyone would complain that slipstreaming gave cars who were lapping backmarkers an advantage. As it is, they can't do that with the modern cars. The fact that this simulation of slipstreaming does the same seems reasonably authentic in that context.

Except that when slipstreaming you lose that advantage once you come out from behind the car, whereas with DRS they still have the advantage even if they have passed the car. Also with slipstreaming the car being overtaken still had the chance to slipstream back once overtaken, but this is denied with the DRS rules. 

[Brother Fox]

Actually it's quite simple. DRS is supposed to be recreating/amplifying the slipstream

 

Yep.

Its not a perfect copy, so of course has problems as mentioned. Countering that is that they only get to use it in one section (sometimes 2).

 

And i still think its a bit gimmicky

[Gorma]

Yep.

Its not a perfect copy, so of course has problems as mentioned. Countering that is that they only get to use it in one section (sometimes 2).

 

And i still think its a bit gimmicky

It's gimmicky, but it's still way better than no DRS most of the time. I don't miss those snoozefests of the past and I definitely don't miss those Trulli trains. 

Edited by Gorma, 05 November 2013 - 04:44.

[SophieB]

Except that when slipstreaming you lose that advantage once you come out from behind the car, whereas with DRS they still have the advantage even if they have passed the car. Also with slipstreaming the car being overtaken still had the chance to slipstream back once overtaken, but this is denied with the DRS rules.

Leading logically to mad stuff like this, drivers desperately trying to go slow as they can so as not to be on the wrong end of the DRS advantage. http://youtu.be/QXRbgnqIG_Q

 

Another odd quirk of DRS which was pointed out to me a few races ago - it kicks in when cars aren't on track too. If there's a car in the pitlane and it's close enough, then open rear wing ahoy. I forget who that happened to now. Alonso in Japan possibly?

[prty]

When there was no overtaking people complained that something should be done, when drs is done it sucks, if they go back to no drs people will complain again, if aero gets stripped off, people will complain that cars are too slow.
So basically fans have no idea what they want.

[PayasYouRace]

I should add that it's not by any means the best solution to the aerodynamic problem, but that doesn't change the reasoning behind it.

[Kristian]

As they do have DRS to lap, can't we return to the good old days and ban blue flags? 

[stanga]

I think the title of the thread is far too wordy.

 

Please change it to "Why do drivers still get DRS?"

 

Much snappier.

[Lee Nicolle]

Better tyres, less aero, no hybrid motors and less driver aids. And a 2 million USD budget a year!  That will bring back better and real racing.

F1 is so damn confusing these days on TV. You have no idea who is leading. So I go to sleep!

[PayasYouRace]

Better tyres, less aero, no hybrid motors and less driver aids. And a 2 million USD budget a year!  That will bring back better and real racing.

F1 is so damn confusing these days on TV. You have no idea who is leading. So I go to sleep!

 

It's Vettel.

 

[alternative answer]

 

That's what the onscreen graphics are for.

[LoudHoward]

It's not like there isn't slipstreaming without DRS. Anyways, overtaking is essentially a faster car coming up behind another car, running close behind it, slipstreaming and passing it.

 

Goal: Increase overtaking.

Problem: Cars can't follow one another closely.

 

FIA Herp Derp Solution: Artificially increase the "slipstream" in certain places and demand the tyre supplier create a tyre that will force massive pace differences.

 

The stupid thing is everyone knows how to actually solve the issue, the 2009 rule changes were a good first step, everyone knows the aero is the problem. It's like they changed the aero rules, went "well now cars can follow about half a second closer" and instead of doing the logical thing and continuing down that path they abandoned the whole thing (I know this isn't the entire story).

 

Both "solutions" are ********, firstly the tyres are too faff to allow another car to actually follow in the dirty air, and DRS is a bullshit "solution" that 1) isn't the same as no DRS, even the most ardent supporter of DRS can't argue that having X amount of passing with no DRS is better than X amount of passing with it, and 2) made everyone go "good job everyone" and think the problem was resolved.

 

It's ****ing infuriating, all because "the mob" had a collective wet dream over Canada 2010 without actually thinking through what they were seeing. It was enjoyable because it was different, you know what happens when you have that every week, it's no longer different.

 

More limits on upper body aero, bring back ground effect, proper tyres, refueling if it's too boring, super pole for the first 5-6 drivers from Q2, and stop making your tracks look like damn car parks. There, F1 fixed in a single sentence. Not hard is it really?

Edited by LoudHoward, 05 November 2013 - 09:00.

[LoudHoward]

Just to elaborate on why DRS sucks, it's that it removes the skill from the battle. Everyone knows this, even if they haven't thought about it. Because the cars still get stuck about 8-10 tenths back from the car ahead by the aero, the guy in front isn't under really massive pressure. He just needs to keep it on the racing line and the dirty air takes care of the rest. So then he only really has one problem, the DRS zone, so he gets a tidy exit and then what? He has nothing, the car behind gets the slipstream and DRS and has a massive straight line speed advantage and sails past. Wheres the skill?

 

If you have cars that can follow in the wheel tracks of the car in front, 3-5 tenths comfortably (from an aero point of view, obviously it becomes harder to spot your braking points and apexes and stuff, but this is a skill drivers should have from FFord days) then any little mistake by the guy in front is a problem. As it is now, we have two drivers going around, one trying to break, and the other trying to stay, an arbitrary distance from each other, so that when they cross an arbitrary line one of them does/or doesn't get an artificial boost (then after 3 laps if he fails the guy behind goes back to our old 2008 2 second gap to look after his marshmallows). Everyone deep down knows that it's rubbish.

 

The only thing DRS would've been good for was a temporary stop gap while a solution to the actual issue at hand was found. As far as I can tell, most people end up talking about the problems in the two novelty solutions (DRS/tyres) rather than the actual issue that brought them about. 

 

Sometimes I think it's going to take someone like Newey to retire and just draw up a set of aero rules that would allow a car to follow another, he could probably layout a framework in an afternoon.

Edited by LoudHoward, 05 November 2013 - 09:14.

[Bloggsworth]

because we should love drs and how great it is.

 

overtaking in nascar requires so much more skill its funny when you think about it

 

Small difference, NASCAR cars benefit from running close together, it's what makes overtaking work - There's nothing quite like a 200MPH brick for creating a hole in the air. You are comparing apples and oranges, I would never want NASCAR to get aerodynamics anywhere near as sophisticated as F1, it would spoil the show - That said, the best teams and drivers are still at the front when the chequered flag drops...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 05 November 2013 - 09:27.

[DampMongoose]

Another odd quirk of DRS which was pointed out to me a few races ago - it kicks in when cars aren't on track too. If there's a car in the pitlane and it's close enough, then open rear wing ahoy. I forget who that happened to now. Alonso in Japan possibly?

 

It's got nothing to do with the proximity of the cars at the point of opening so the car in the pitlane pitlane is irrelevent, it's whether there was a car in front within a second at the reference point.  If the example you gave was indeed at Suzuka, the reference point for DRS is just short of the chicane after 130R, if a car is following within a second at that point it doesn't matter if the lead car then pits.  I suppose if you've been held up all lap, then they consider you still deserve an advantage even if the car has then moved, at Suzuka you could overtake a car into the chicane just after the reference point and still get DRS from the activation point despite having no one in front of you.

 

It's all a bit Scalextric to me... can't wait to be rid of it.

[prty]

everyone knows the aero is the problem.

 

No, not really. A while ago a F1 engineer (I think it was Ascanelli) said that the actual problem is too much grip at low speeds.

An example exiting a hairpin: one car is behind another, so there's a minimum time delta between them if we assume they don't arrive alongside each other. In the exit of the hairpin, the car in front accelerates earlier than the car behind, with the same time delta (unless you drive a Red Bull). If the F1 has very good traction, the time difference translates into a lot of space very soon, making it impossible for the car behind to compensate for that via slipstreaming along the straight.

So, reducing mechanical grip and specially traction can be a better thing to explore.

 

[DampMongoose]

No, not really. A while ago a F1 engineer (I think it was Ascanelli) said that the actual problem is too much grip at low speeds.

An example exiting a hairpin: one car is behind another, so there's a minimum time delta between them if we assume they don't arrive alongside each other. In the exit of the hairpin, the car in front accelerates earlier than the car behind, with the same time delta (unless you drive a Red Bull). If the F1 has very good traction, the time difference translates into a lot of space very soon, making it impossible for the car behind to compensate for that via slipstreaming along the straight.

So, reducing mechanical grip and specially traction can be a better thing to explore.

 

 

The overtaking working group's findings suggest that the problem is the cars reliance on aerodynamic grip, such reliance when added to the problems of following in the wake of another car which reduces the required downforce compounds the problem.  I personally liked Gordon Murray's solution that was printed in Motorsport previously, remove the wings or make them much smaller and rely on ground effects to generate the downforce without creating the dirty wake. 

[LoudHoward]

No, not really. A while ago a F1 engineer (I think it was Ascanelli) said that the actual problem is too much grip at low speeds.

An example exiting a hairpin: one car is behind another, so there's a minimum time delta between them if we assume they don't arrive alongside each other. In the exit of the hairpin, the car in front accelerates earlier than the car behind, with the same time delta (unless you drive a Red Bull). If the F1 has very good traction, the time difference translates into a lot of space very soon, making it impossible for the car behind to compensate for that via slipstreaming along the straight.

So, reducing mechanical grip and specially traction can be a better thing to explore.

 

 

We tried that experiment, in 2005 we had grooves and tyres that had to last the entire race, not sure how far we want to go down the lower relative mechanical grip route but that didn't seem to work first go around. Lowering mechanical grip increases the relative reliance on the aero, which is what is effected in dirty air. Additionally, you're again attacking a symptom. Hairpin-straight-hairpin Tilkedromes are designed to aid overtaking for these cars, which are I believe flawed. Allow cars to run close to each other in medium and high speed corners and your concertina issue starts going away, and we can go back to some more "proper" tracks rather than the car parks.

 

As mentioned, move to ground effect, and yeah, then I'm not against going the hard tyre route, if not for what you mentioned then at least increasing braking distances a touch and making the cars a bit harder to control couldn't hurt. 

[prty]

We tried that experiment, in 2005 we had grooves and tyres that had to last the entire race, not sure how far we want to go down the lower relative mechanical grip route but that didn't seem to work first go around. Lowering mechanical grip increases the relative reliance on the aero, which is what is effected in dirty air. Additionally, you're again attacking a symptom. Hairpin-straight-hairpin Tilkedromes are designed to aid overtaking for these cars, which are I believe flawed. Allow cars to run close to each other in medium and high speed corners and your concertina issue starts going away, and we can go back to some more "proper" tracks rather than the car parks.

 

As mentioned, move to ground effect, and yeah, then I'm not against going the hard tyre route, if not for what you mentioned then at least increasing braking distances a touch and making the cars a bit harder to control couldn't hurt. 

 

In 2005 the tyres gripped almost the same as in 2004, I remember Gene and Alonso saying that in pre-season. The cars were slower because the aero rules were modified. And anyway it wasn't a huge decrease it tyre grip.

Actually it's the opposite for aero effects: you lose less grip when the tyres grip less. For example, if aero amplifies tyre grip by 2x, tyre A has 2x the tyre grip of tyre B, and running in dirty air makes you have 0.75% downforce:

 

- With tyre A you maintain 2*0.75 grip

- With tyre B you maintain (2/2)*0.75 grip

 

In other words: with tyre B you lose less grip under dirty air. I know it's a huge simplification, but the idea applies.

[prty]

The overtaking working group's findings suggest that the problem is the cars reliance on aerodynamic grip, such reliance when added to the problems of following in the wake of another car which reduces the required downforce compounds the problem.  I personally liked Gordon Murray's solution that was printed in Motorsport previously, remove the wings or make them much smaller and rely on ground effects to generate the downforce without creating the dirty wake. 

 

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/89068

 

And although talk about a return to ground effect in F1 has lifted hopes about better racing, Symonds is not so convinced about that.

"There are loads of people who say that ground effect is better for overtaking. But I would love to know how they know that, because no work has ever been done on it," he said.

"The only wind tunnel work that has been done on overtaking is one lot by the OWG quite recently and one previous to that by the GPMA (Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association).

"Both of those bits of work suggested that if you tried to produce the downforce from the bodywork then it was going to be badly affected by the wake. So what little evidence there is suggests it is not such a great thing to do."

 

[Rocket73]

A lot of those who dislike DRS say that overtaking has no skill with it and that it is as simple as push to pass but I think that isn't true.

 

Look at Hamilton last weekend or look at Barcelona where even with DRS it's still very hard to pass. Sure somewhere like Canada was way too easy this year so that needs tuning.

 

We still have epic overtaking maneuvers and we definitely had to do something about the situation because those bad old days of faster cars getting stuck were anything but exhilarating. In those days if a driver was catching another it wasn't exciting as you knew that he couldn't pass. Now when you see that gap reducing the heart leaps as you know that if he gets close something is going to happen.

 

Personally I would like to see a change in the tyres so people can defend harder.

[Rocket73]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/89068

 

And although talk about a return to ground effect in F1 has lifted hopes about better racing, Symonds is not so convinced about that.

"There are loads of people who say that ground effect is better for overtaking. But I would love to know how they know that, because no work has ever been done on it," he said.

"The only wind tunnel work that has been done on overtaking is one lot by the OWG quite recently and one previous to that by the GPMA (Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association).

"Both of those bits of work suggested that if you tried to produce the downforce from the bodywork then it was going to be badly affected by the wake. So what little evidence there is suggests it is not such a great thing to do."

 

I thought that the idea that ground effect would be immune to dirty air was strange. It may be more efficient in terms of drag but the air behind will still be dirty and with a lot less pressure.

[DampMongoose]

Can't comment on whether the ground effect design idea works in practice, but I'd suggest that Gordon Murray knows a fair bit about it...

[prty]

But you have a point with DRS anyway, because I don't think the way they are adjusting the zones right now is so well done (as far as I know, it's based on trial and error). They should come with a result based on speed of the previous corner, next braking zone, straight length... because otherwise it works well in some circuits and not so well in others.

[nosecone]

In my view the "getting-DRS-from-a-backmarker" just compensates the artificial disadvantage a driver has compared to a driver who his behind him. There is no reason to to punish a driver in front. He must have done something correct because if he hadn't he wouldn't be in front of the other, so there is no reason to punish him, but DRS does.

 

Ok this was OT. The question asked here is a good question. Technically it would be no problem to ignore backmarkers, but i can't see the FiA doing anything regarding this issue. Maybe the FiA wants that the drivers get DRS from backmarkers because it makes it a lot easier to lap them, although it shouldn't be a problem even without DRS... blue flags...

 

Regarding the length of DRS zones PRTY is right. There is no common regulation how to calculate the length of it and this is a problem. There were only a few races where i could agree with the adjustment of the DRS zone(s). But most times it is too long - there are really few occasions in which i thought the zone is too short (ok there are generally very few occasions in which i thought).

 

Last weekend we saw a few "fly by's" but also some cars stucking behind slower cars (Perez behind Bottas), but it is ok that cars with a low top speed can't overtake. It has allways been like this in F1. Only cars with high top speed are capable of overtaking.

 

Sorry this was also very OT