2013 Aero Formula vs DRS
#1
Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:42
DRS has been put into F1 to make overtaking easier.
DRS was originally a stop gap measure until the 2013 aero regulations were to come into force. The 2013 aero regulations would have seen a return to ground effects, dramatic reduction in wing sizes etc to see a return to close racing on track.
However, today it was announced that ground effects are out and DRS will stay.
I've also added an age element to the questions. I just want to see the answers out of curiosity.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:51
announced where?Simple topic.
DRS has been put into F1 to make overtaking easier.
DRS was originally a stop gap measure until the 2013 aero regulations were to come into force. The 2013 aero regulations would have seen a return to ground effects, dramatic reduction in wing sizes etc to see a return to close racing on track.
However, today it was announced that ground effects are out and DRS will stay.
I've also added an age element to the questions. I just want to see the answers out of curiosity.
#3
Posted 08 May 2011 - 18:57
announced where?
http://news.bbc.co.u...ne/13326363.stm
Minor reduction in wing sizes will happen. Getting rid of diffusers and return of venturi tunnels will not. We've seen time and time again that simple reduction in wing sizes is not helping racing.
#4
Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:42
From various posts on the forum I got the impression that younger fans and especially fans who are new to the sport (more likely to be younger fans) were more in favour of DRS than against it. My impression seems to be wrong and misguided.
#5
Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:48
#6
Posted 08 May 2011 - 19:54
#7
Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:03
I tolerate the DRS at present, although I believe that it isn't really necessary now.
#8
Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:09
#9
Posted 08 May 2011 - 20:17
cost is a lame excuse, just take the best solution u can come up with on your current budget
or a mostly spec floor..
#10
Posted 08 May 2011 - 21:53
First DRS and now this. No wonder Sam is bitching, Williams havent got any money to develop it and would be even further behind.
#11
Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:05
Develop what?First DRS and now this. No wonder Sam is bitching, Williams havent got any money to develop it and would be even further behind.
#12
Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:13
#13
Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:13
#14
Posted 08 May 2011 - 22:49
I cannot understand why F1 isn't using the most efficient solution to reduce drag and keep a good amount of downforce.
Costs? don't make me laugh. Arent they planning a budget cap?
Complexity? there's lots of other racing series using ground-effects. I found things like F-Duct complex, not this one.
#15
Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:01
Absolute nonsense. The whole point of ground effects was to reduce turbulence, increase lap times and make it possible to follow through a corner.
It actually works in a different way. The reduction in turbulence isn't substantial, bu the downforce generated by ground effect doesn't fall off near as much when in turbulence.
#16
Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:02
the problem with ground effect is the development scope. Namely that there isn't any so it will plateau quite quickly then what? You 're effectively signing off on F1 getting very very spec.
There's plenty. The tunnels will most likely be limited by depth and width. There's still plenty of aerodynamic scope in terms of the small front and rear wings and loads of other bodywork.
And aerodyanmics aren't the only design element of an F1 car.
#17
Posted 08 May 2011 - 23:26
I'm not sure about that. Even limitating dimensions, working on the underside can give room for many different designs.the problem with ground effect is the development scope. Namely that there isn't any so it will plateau quite quickly then what? You 're effectively signing off on F1 getting very very spec.
If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.
#18
Posted 09 May 2011 - 00:41
#19
Posted 09 May 2011 - 00:58
Advertisement
#20
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:08
There's plenty. The tunnels will most likely be limited by depth and width. There's still plenty of aerodynamic scope in terms of the small front and rear wings and loads of other bodywork.
And aerodyanmics aren't the only design element of an F1 car.
Didn't the proposed 2013 rules also include a spec rear wing?
#21
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:11
If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.
I think the reason behind the nice race we had in China and Turkey was the Pirelli tyres and not DRS.
I agree that the biggest factor in more overtaking and more exciting racing this year is they tyres, and not the DRS.
KES really only works as a passing aid if the other guy doesn't have it. And the only guys without it are the three new teams at the back.
#22
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:48
Well, I'm shocked.
From various posts on the forum I got the impression that younger fans and especially fans who are new to the sport (more likely to be younger fans) were more in favour of DRS than against it. My impression seems to be wrong and misguided.
I am 48 and I am pleasantly surprised, I too expected otherwise.
I think its great that younger fans can see how farcical f1 is at the moment. Werll done!!
#23
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:51
If you need gizmos like DRS and KERS to create overtaking then something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.
I would also add that the bad qualiitty tyres f1 requires also has a lot to do with the f1 farce.
I think f1 should look at MotoGP for s solution.
No wonder Rossi does not want to shift to f1 - he is a great champion and understands that a driver counts for much less today than at any time previously.
Edited by MonzaF1, 09 May 2011 - 01:53.
#24
Posted 09 May 2011 - 02:04
#25
Posted 09 May 2011 - 02:05
#26
Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:22
DRS is partial, so I dont like it. I have sat through many boring races because I love the sport. Why not induce a extra element on the rear wing that produces a lot of drag instead? Now you have a bigger pocket of turbulent air and the car behind has better chances of getting into that.
The same effect can easily be achieved by going back to 2m wide cars and wider tyres.
You could easily mandate Pirelli to make wider tyres which still have the grip of todays width of tyres.
I've been banging on about this for years. It would give a bigger advantage of a car in a slipstream like a handford device did in CART.
#27
Posted 12 June 2011 - 21:07
Is this racing ?
There was no way MS could defend against the two cars behind him. They drove clear around him. It robbed Koba of a 5th place too.
#28
Posted 12 June 2011 - 23:26