76 replies to this topic

[Afterburner]

Pretty much exactly as it reads. Posts elaborating on the reasons for your choices would be much appreciated.

(If the mods feel this topic could fit into one of the earlier threads on the DRS, then by all means, close it. )

[Brian O Flaherty]

No & No. But then that's because I don't think DRS is a good idea, full stop.

[Dauemannen]

I'm a bit torn on this in practice and qualifying. On the one hand it's yet another skill for the driver to demonstrate, which is always good as it increases the difference between the best and second best drivers. But looking at Sutil in Oz, there's definitely a possible safety risk. I don't really have any idea how big that risk is, but if it causes a major accident, the blood will probably be on the FIA's hands.

In the race I think it's fine as is.

[undersquare]

I found I liked it in qualifying, against my expectations, I was calling it the Fake Racing Wing all Winter.

In the race the point is for the car being attacked NOT to have it, so it can't be unlimited. I wouldn't mind if it were turned upside-down and they could all use it EXCEPT when they have a car behind within 1 second, in one defined zone.

[abc02]

Free Practice? Sure, its just practice.
Qualifying? Yep.
Race? What's the point? If two cars within a second of each other are using the DRS at the same time, then it would be like they didn't have it at all.

[hulmerist]

i really fail to see the point in allowing it during practice and qualifying, it serves no purpose whatsoever

in the race i think it was promising as it is, if you could use it all the time then it would just be pointless having it in the race as well

[Scotracer]

i really fail to see the point in allowing it during practice and qualifying, it serves no purpose whatsoever

in the race i think it was promising as it is, if you could use it all the time then it would just be pointless having it in the race as well

Faster cars = goooooood

[OO7]

i really fail to see the point in allowing it during practice and qualifying, it serves no purpose whatsoever

Gearing. Having it in qualifying allows a car close behind to benefit by having a high top speed and not hitting the rev limiter.

I think the chasing car should be granted unlimited use of the DRS once within 1 second of the car ahead.

[BigCHrome]

There is a reason why it's the way it is. If it was used freely in the race, then its useless. All drivers use it at all times and the guy behind doesn't get close to pass. If they don't use it in qualifying then they will setup the car for shorter ratios and it will be again useless in the race because you will hit the rev limiter and not be able to pass.

[Suntrek]

No & No. But then that's because I don't think DRS is a good idea, full stop.

This.

[Ali_G]

Gearing. Having it in qualifying allows a car close behind to benefit by having a high top speed and not hitting the rev limiter.

I think the chasing car should be granted unlimited use of the DRS once within 1 second of the car ahead.

Excellent point. Although I dunno if this ever came into the minds of the the regulators when they allowed it in the other sessions.


Personally I hate the whole ethos of the system. It's fake racing.

[zdzisio]

i really fail to see the point in allowing it during practice and qualifying, it serves no purpose whatsoever

if you allow it during qualifying everybody chooses gear ratios for qualifying and during the race the DRS is just a boost button.

if you do not allow it during qualifying everybody chooses gear ratios for qualifying and during race DRS is doing exactly squat, cause you just keep on hitting the limiter.

[OO7]

Personally I hate the whole ethos of the system. It's fake racing.

I disagree with it being fake racing. One can argue F1 has been fake ever since aero began to have a dramatically negative impact on a chasing car. Compared to many other series, drivers in similarly competitive F1 teams don't really have to worry about defending their positions, they have the wake turbulence to do it for them.

Edited by Obi Offiah, 07 April 2011 - 00:42.

[Rockatanski]

I find it almost idiotic to support free use of it in the race, that makes zero sense. Better to not have it at all if it won't give an advantage to the rear car

Don't care so much what is done with it in qualifying and practice as long as drivers have enough time to test it

[Ali_G]

I disagree with it being fake racing. One can argue F1 has been fake ever since aero began to have a dramatically negative impact on a chasing car. Compared to many other series, drivers in similarly competitive F1 teams don't really have to worry about defending their positions, they have the wake turbulence to do it for them.

1. Turbulence is increasing the difficulty to pass a car in front. This system is trying to reduce the difficulty.
2. The purpose of wings and other aerodynamics devices is not to hampering passing. DRS is there solely to increase passing.

[CF22]

Leave it as it is or scrape the idea. Unlimited use during the race will just defeat it's purpose, anyway I think this will go away next year.

[King Six]

The DRS isn't so bad in itself, remember that teams would have been using such a thing in the 60's had moveable aerodynamic devices not been banned (of which I'm guessing was very very early on in the history of F1)

So in that sense, the FIA are just sort of freeing up the regulations abit.

I'm not too much of a fan in the way it's used in races though, I think at Sepang it just might look rather farcical. Australia made it look ok and rather competitive but I reckon it's going to be crazy easy in Sepang, we'll see. And then there's China with that massive straight.

I reckon it's here to stay until the new aero regulations come in 2013 (ground effects, smaller wings and such, hopefully)

---

The way I see it, the buffer zone created by the turbulence of these cars destroys the competitiveness of the sport as much as the DRS does, if you want to argue in that sense. It's not about the show or anything stupid like that. Because F1 is not a TV show. It's about the competitiveness.

Edited by King Six, 07 April 2011 - 00:51.

[OO7]

1. Turbulence is increasing the difficulty to pass a car in front. This system is trying to reduce the difficulty.
2. The purpose of wings and other aerodynamics devices is not to hampering passing. DRS is there solely to increase passing.

I don't understand what you mean. The purpose of the DRS is to negate the effects of wake turbulence which hamper passing. In my opinion a properly tuned DRS system will place a chasing car as close to the car ahead when in the braking zone, as that chasing car would have been if wake turbulence wasn't a issue to begin with.

[Ali_G]

I don't understand what you mean. The purpose of the DRS is to negate the effects of wake turbulence which hamper passing. In my opinion a properly tuned DRS system will place a chasing car as close to the car ahead when in the braking zone, as that chasing car would have been if wake turbulence wasn't a issue to begin with.

Nope. The DRS system is to give a straight line speed advantage to the trailing car, which the FIA believe will aid the following car in time, to potentially what the following car lost out on due to turbulence.

The FIA did previously try to directly let the trailing car overcome the turbulence, by allowing a front wing setting change midlap but it didn't work.


I just pray that the 2013 aerodynamic rules package won't be scrapped in favour of this. I want to see close racing through the corners, not just at the end of straights.

Edited by Ali_G, 07 April 2011 - 00:59.

[OO7]

Here are my thoughts on the DRS, which I have copy and pasted from a previous post of mine:

'Well the DRS perhaps isn't the best way of dealing with the problem, I do believe however that the concept could be very good if tuned correctly. People talk of overtaking becoming easy, well back in the late 80's and early 90's, overtaking was alot easier than it was in 2010. Back then you didn't see a car lapping 1.5 to 2 seconds quicker than the car ahead struggling to pass and I don't see members here posting how less than impressed they are with passes from a bygone era, considering it was much easier to do so then than it is now.
In my opinion regardless of whether the slower car is a tail-ender or championship contender, if it is 2 seconds off the pace I don't want to see it battle with a car 2 seconds quicker, this shouldn't happen, the quicker car should be able to breeze past. You can't have it both ways, you can't really expect to have a close fought championship with teams within tenths of a second and exciting on-track racing up front with 2010 style tech regs.

With a 2010 system you can have a faster car starting near the back for various reasons, passing cars upto the midfield teams, then play follow the leader for the remainder of the race despite have a considerable pace advantage, the problem with this is that the racing isn't between the championship protagonists. In 2010 we could see a front running car pass tail-end cars easily, with overtaking becoming more difficult as it progressed, until it became impossible (not difficult or extremely difficult, but impossible) somewhere in the midfield. Wouldn't it be better if the this scale were shifted up somewhat, so that it becomes difficult to overtake another front running car and gradually less difficult as you move down the grid?

I think DRS if implimented correctly, will actually highlight driver skill not diminish it. In previous seasons we would see a driver reign in the car ahead and then struggle to stay within 8 tenths of second of it due to wake turbulence. At this point because the faster driver cannot get closer overtaking remains physically impossible and all the will in the world will do nothing to change that. Considering this driver (who may be extremely talented in the art of passing) can't get close enough due to aerodynamics, which are governed by the laws of physics and beyond the realm of his abilities, how on earth are we able to view his overtaking talents? Of course we can't. The same can be said of defensive driving. We often talk about the skill required to overtake, but less so about defense. F1 seems to be one of the easiest formula in which to defend a position, because a driver has basically got this huge, powerful, turbulent wake, acting like a bunch of linebackers, warding off any intruders trying to encroach a zone within one second behind the car. So what is the skill in that? You don't see too much of people complaining about how easy it is to defend a position.
A well tuned DRS well enable us to witness both overtaking and defensive driving skills. We witnessed this in the first 11 laps of the Australian GP. The DRS allowed Button to get close, sometimes along side Massa, but Massa defended well and held him off.'

As for Sepang being crazy and farcical, I don't it will be. Last year Lewis on fresh rubber, lap 2 seconds a lap plus faster than Sutil and aided with the F-duct, still could not pass him.

[Ali_G]

Obi, I agree with you arguements to a point, I just think that the FIA are going about the wrong way in fixing them.


I also think that the drivers are allowed to get away with too much in the corners. Forcing cars outside of you off the track because you are on the racing line is outrageous behaviour in my book, but seems to have been legalised since the late 80s. This alone is hampering passing to some extent.

[OO7]

Nope. The DRS system is to give a straight line speed advantage to the trailing car, which the FIA believe will aid the following car in time, to potentially what the following car lost out on due to turbulence.

I just pray that the 2013 aerodynamic rules package won't be scrapped in favour of this. I want to see close racing through the corners, not just at the end of straights.

Exactly. The straight line speed advantage is being used to negate whats lost due to turbulence. As I previously mentioned, a properly tuned DRS should have the chasing car as close to the car ahead when in the braking zones, as the same chasing car with no DRS and no turbulence to contend with.

I completely agree with seeing close racing through the corners.

I have a feeling that the 2013 regs may not mak much difference. It was said previously that the diffuser was one of the main problems, however in 2009 we didn't see the non-double diffuser teams able to follow each other closely. This year the diffusers are even smaller than in 2009 and the problem persists. I believe the issue is that the cars make a great deal of use of vortices, which have a significant impact on the downforce created. Turbulence tends to disrupt these vortices and subsequently the chasing car suffers badly.

Edited by Obi Offiah, 07 April 2011 - 01:11.

[Ali_G]

I have a feeling that the 2013 regs may not mak much difference. It was said previously that the diffuser was one of the main problems, however in 2009 we didn't see the non-double diffuser teams able to follow each other closely. This year the diffusers are even smaller than in 2009 and the problem persists. I believe the issue is that the cars make a great deal of use of vortices, which have a significant impact on the downforce created. Turbulence tends to disrupt these vortices and subsequently the chasing car suffers badly.

If the FIA are going with two limited sized Venturi tunnels, then there won't be any diffusers on the 2013 cars.

The new aerodynamics will mean that the cars will be far less dependent on the front wing for frontal downforce and will be able to generate more downforce overall when running in turbulence.

[Sausage]

Q: I don't see why it's used at all, except maybe for having proper gears for the race, but I think they should scrap it somehow. Maybe allow teams to change gears in parc ferme.

R: I think with unlimited use it could become a crutch, as in drivers can keep within 1 second because of it without actually having a car that can go faster after overtaking. I'm more in favour of the multiple sections as proposed by the FIA (maybe for later this year? or already at sepang?). Most tracks have at least 2 good straights, so let's use em.

[Hairpin]

If they put stuff on the car the driver should be allowed to use as he, or she, see fit. Push to pass have no place on serious racing. For many years we had overtaking in the pits, not we will have them in the pits and at a designated overtaking area. Where is the fun in that? They should just concentrate on making some decent aero rules for once instead of the tiny modifications they keep doing.

What is next? A function that prevents you from using KERS if a car is less than one second behind you?

Edited by Hairpin, 07 April 2011 - 01:17.

[OO7]

Obi, I agree with you arguements to a point, I just think that the FIA are going about the wrong way in fixing them.


I also think that the drivers are allowed to get away with too much in the corners. Forcing cars outside of you off the track because you are on the racing line is outrageous behaviour in my book, but seems to have been legalised since the late 80s. This alone is hampering passing to some extent.

I do hope they do come up with better solutions in 2013. I previously suggested active floor aerodynamics, which would basically maintain a cars free air downforce while in turbulence, so no advantage is gained or lost.

Driving standards isn't a big issue in my book. Surely there are a few drivers who now and again will push things too far, but if we look at the Massa verses Buemi in Aus, Massa was 2+ seconds a lap quicker, Buemi didn't even defend his position strenuously yet it took Massa longer than it should have to pass. This is what I meant in my long post when I said 'In my opinion regardless of whether the slower car is a tail-ender or championship contender, if it is 2 seconds off the pace I don't want to see it battle with a car 2 seconds quicker, this shouldn't happen, the quicker car should be able to breeze past.'

Edited by Obi Offiah, 07 April 2011 - 01:20.

[Ali_G]

What is next? A function that prevents you from using KERS if a car is less than one second behind you?

I'm suprised they didn't just do this, now that you say.

[senna da silva]

No & No. But then that's because I don't think DRS is a good idea, full stop.

[ClubmanGT]

Unlimited KERS? Yes. DRS? No.

[Ninjastar]

Instead of a flexi-wing which teams adapted many years ago, now we have a legalised flap drivers can use. But why only when your behind and within x meters/seconds? Also, the 18k rpm limit bothers me, because team are force to go down the gearing route to avoid smacking the rev limiter when in someones slipstream. Maybe the can unlock the rev limiter for the final gear to add to the ability for overtaking? Doesnt bother me if an engine goes due to this, just shows the technical superiority of the manufacturers ability (and budget i suppose).

[BigCHrome]

What I don't like about the DRS is that it makes it very easy for the front runners to pass a midfielder and will deny us the chance of seeing hilarious moments like Petrov vs Alonso. But it doesn't work for a front runner against another front runner.

[baddog]

Either DRS or not DRS, the current fakery is nonsense.

Mind you kers is nonsense too as implemented.

[Gommes]

well I remember how ppl were cryin over the DRS pre season and how it gonna make racing artifical.
Well so far I can't recall INSANE AMOUNT of overtaking during GP Australia.
Imo it should be allowed in 100% during FP, Quali, and also u should be able to use it when u're 1,5sec behind car that is ahead of u, EVERYWHERE on the track. The "zone" is pretty ******** idea.

Tho using DRS anywhere during race without limits is a bullshit. What is point of DRS then if every driver would use it, it would be the same to not use it at all.

[KnucklesAgain]

1. Turbulence is increasing the difficulty to pass a car in front. This system is trying to reduce the difficulty.
2. The purpose of wings and other aerodynamics devices is not to hampering passing. DRS is there solely to increase passing.

I don't have a source but distinctly remember an interview with an aerodynamicist (Toyota?) a few years back, who said that current regulations favor cars that are hard to overtake, and therefore the aerodynamics are specifically designed to created ugly wakes that make it difficult for the following car to close the gap.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 07 April 2011 - 05:57.

[Reinmuster]

Yes and Yes (but at selective tracks only).

I don't think the race should be called fake just because the use of DRS or KERS. It just the next gen of racing that begins now. All current drivers must adapt to it.

[The Ragged Edge]

The F-Duct was basically unlimited DRS and hardly anybody complained. It should be unlimited use and not just restricted to certain parts of the track.

[arknor]

they should let the drivers use it in any 1 sector of the circuit each lap.

[Clatter]

The F-Duct was basically unlimited DRS and hardly anybody complained. It should be unlimited use and not just restricted to certain parts of the track.

There were no artificial limits on when the F-Duct could be used, thats why there were no complaints. It's not so much the DRS that is wrong, but when it can be deployed.

[Augurk]

It should either be Yes and Yes, or scrapped altogether.

The blown up version of this system is what you find in those arcade racing games machines that give the chasing cars a boost or cripple the leading car to make the race as "close" as possible. That's just a horrible idea altogether. Perhaps it's my competitive nature but even when I'm racing a friend, I want to win by blowing the competition away. That system however allows them to screw up in each corner and still catch me.

Ugh, I hate arcade racing. That's why I only play racing sims. But what happens when real life turns into an arcade racing show and the simulators emulate that? Arcade racing sims. Well if that isn't an oxymoron I don't know what is.

[7MGTEsup]

The idea of DRS is to aid in overtaking not to improve laptime, so unlimited use would make it redundent for the reason it was implimented. I for one would rather see a "fake" race with DRS and some overtaking than a "non fake" race where they all follow eachother for 58 laps. I think the tyres and DRS should spice things us a bit this year.

[BRK]

Unlimited usage during qualifying - yes; during the races - no.

By unlimited use obviously I mean flattening the wing on all available straights. If you mean unrestricted use so the teams are free to use it at any point of the circuit as necessary then absolutely NOT.

[OO7]

That system however allows them to screw up in each corner and still catch me.

Ugh, I hate arcade racing. That's why I only play racing sims. But what happens when real life turns into an arcade racing show and the simulators emulate that? Arcade racing sims. Well if that isn't an oxymoron I don't know what is.

If they 'screw up in each corner' they wouldn't be within 1 second and then could deploy the DRS.

[Afterburner]

It's not so much the DRS that is wrong, but when it can be deployed.

It should either be Yes and Yes, or scrapped altogether.

Basically my views on the matter. I really like the idea of the system itself, and now that I've seen a movable wing in action, I can't figure out why the FIA didn't allow them years ago. However, I think the way that it's implemented now during the race is a tad artificial in that it could disadvantage the leading car too greatly on some tracks and result in the following car getting a better result by just waiting until the last lap if possible so that the leading car has no possible retribution. If this situation arises this year then we'll be back where we started--no passing at all.

Plus, allowing drivers to use it anywhere would probably increase the importance of driver skill. Faster drivers could catch faster cars if they could use their DRS more efficiently. Whether they can pass them or not is another story, but you obviously will have more opportunities to pass when you can catch your prey more easily. Who's to say that a few drivers won't make the mistake of using DRS too early/too late and losing a position as a result?

Also, whenever you increase the amount of possible variables in a driver's pace, then you'll have a situation where the drivers with more skill will be able to make good on their abilities. I do like the balance between car and driver in F1 as it is now, but I think that the fastest car alone shouldn't necessarily be enough to net the Drivers' Championship.

Edited by Afterburner, 07 April 2011 - 15:25.

[Augurk]

If they 'screw up in each corner' they wouldn't be within 1 second and then could deploy the DRS.

As I said, I made a comparison to a "blown up version" of the overtaking aid system. That part doesn't apply to DRS in such a way that they can screw up every corner. However, someone can screw up and get overtaken, then re-overtake instantly in the DRS zone. The overtakee is basically defenseless to this.

[Unbiased]

There is definitely a gap showing between the older and newer generation of drivers, concerning DRS and KERS. But especially DRS, with the younger generation getting more out of it than the older generation.

Anyone closely observing the qualifying laps will notice drivers like Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg used the DRS way more than Webber/Schumacher/Alonso. It changes some characteristics of the car, even though it is mainly used on straights or bit curvy areas.

Some say this is the season the old generation drivers will think about retiring because the new generation drivers have fully taken over.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

Faster cars = goooooood

I guess the concept of relative speed in racing is pointless.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

There is definitely a gap showing between the older and newer generation of drivers, concerning DRS and KERS. But especially DRS, with the younger generation getting more out of it than the older generation.

Yes, because once you turn 30, it's impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Please use the smartphone and PS3 argument to explain why younger drivers are better at multi-tasking.

[Bloggsworth]

Drivers should be allowed to use DRS all through practice and anywhere on the circuit once a lap for 25% of the number of laps in the race. It may be that some cars gain little from using DRS on the main straight, but significantly on another part of the circuit, or through a corner leading to a straight, or could run quicker through a corner at the end of a straight, and thus be able to outbrake a car into that particular corner - This would at least have the merit of appearing less artificial than everybody being forced to use it in exactly the same place in a situation that the following car which has better cornering ability but less straight line speed cannot benefit.

[Bloggsworth]

Yes, because once you turn 30, it's impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Please use the smartphone and PS3 argument to explain why younger drivers are better at multi-tasking.

I am 66 and can not only walk and chew gum at the same time but contemporaneously fart - Though it must be said that the farts tend, on the whole, to be inadvertant...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 07 April 2011 - 17:52.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

I am 66 and can not only walk and chew gum at the same time but contemporaneously fart - Though it must be said that the farts tend, on the whole, to be inadvertant...

Sure, but a 20-something could do all that and post a pic of it on Facebook.