44 replies to this topic

[Matt Somers]

Anybody else hoping for some closer wheel to wheel action in the wake of the EBD ban? I'm obviously no aero expert but surely without the EBD the wake effect should be reduced / changed. Hopefully this will be enough to see some closer racing. Also whilst on this subject perhaps this could be the reason for McLaren's decision to continue with the lower nose? Perhaps they feel even if they don't have the balls out pace to qualify at the front having the low wing design will aid in overtaking?
I'm anticipating that the FIA will have to reduce some of the DRS zones this year as the front runners might be able to follow more closely especially with Pirelli having supposedly given more grip to the front tyres aiding mechanical grip in slower corners.

[Ross Stonefeld]

What I'm hoping is less rear downforce = more rear wing required = more difference between DRS open and closed(due to more drag)

[Mastah]

And more ridiculous passes?

[Kucki]

What I'm hoping is less rear downforce = more rear wing required = more difference between DRS open and closed(due to more drag)

You want even more silly looking drive by's?

Edited by Kucki, 24 February 2012 - 12:39.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't mind more overtaking, no. You can make passing easier, you'll never make racing easier.

[Matt Somers]

This is why I was hoping for closer racing so the need for DRS is diminished and perhaps we can go back to no DRS next season

[dau]

I don't think it will have a noticeable effect on the wake. We didn't have widespread EBDs until 2010, the cars had problems in dirty air long before that.

[Matt Somers]

But in 09 we had DDD 08 we were at the end of a set of regs which means everything is pretty much refined. I see what you mean though.

Edited by Matt Somers, 24 February 2012 - 13:42.

[icecream_man]

This is why I was hoping for closer racing so the need for DRS is diminished and perhaps we can go back to no DRS next season

I believe for that to happen the FIA have to clamp down a lot further on the aero side of things. While the cars are so aero dependent the DRS will remain the only way they can realistically get close and overtake without desperate moves that end in collisions

[Peter3hg]

I don't think it will have a noticeable effect on the wake. We didn't have widespread EBDs until 2010, the cars had problems in dirty air long before that.

2009 we had the DDD and then EBD from mid 2010 onwards. This may be the first year the 2009 regulations get the chance to do as they intended.

[RealRacing]

2009 we had the DDD and then EBD from mid 2010 onwards. This may be the first year the 2009 regulations get the chance to do as they intended.

Exactly, the 2009 change of rules was a result of a great effort (including fan surveys as I remember) to increase overtakings. Unfortunately, Brawn found a loophole with the DDs and everything was set back. Then in 2010 we thought the 2009 regs were going to have their effect finally but they came up with EBD and again managed to evade the spirit of the rules and they had to come up with DRS (which personally I don't like as I think it makes overtakings artificial). So finally this year it seems that the 2009 reg changes will be properly implemented, but the question is: are the cars finally producing less aero turbulence, so as to allow the trailing car to come close enough to pass without losing grip and control? The funny thing is that FIA does not seem to test these issues before the season starts. Suppose the cars are now less turbulence-producing and the DRS is not necessary anymore? Will passing now be too easy? In any case, I keep my fingers crossed that they finally achieve what they set out to do in 2009.

[OO7]

2009 we had the DDD and then EBD from mid 2010 onwards. This may be the first year the 2009 regulations get the chance to do as they intended.

There wasn't much overtaking between the non-DDD cars, as they still had the same trouble of not being able to follow closely enough.

[Peter3hg]

There wasn't much overtaking between the non-DDD cars, as they still had the same trouble of not being able to follow closely enough.

I'm sure I remember a noticable increase in overtaking in the early races before most cars had the DDD.

[RealRacing]

There wasn't much overtaking between the non-DDD cars, as they still had the same trouble of not being able to follow closely enough.

Would this mean that FIA failed from the beginning? Did we really get a chance to see the effect of the new regs in 2009? In any case, if FIA have effectively failed, one would imagine they would continue to pursue their original goal. It was a long, dedicated process (they even created The Overtaking Group if I remember correctly), that was supposed to culminate in better overtaking. The 2009 cars, which at that point seemed horrible to everyone (we didn't know what was coming) were a product of this. I'm not sure if the wide front wing is a good ally of close racing anyway...

[FPV GTHO]

I'm sure I remember a noticable increase in overtaking in the early races before most cars had the DDD.

That was because of KERS, as you had Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Heidfeld all racing with KERS but bad aero, and the Brawns, Red Bulls, Toyotas and Williams racing with better aero but no KERS. Once the KERS teams caught up with the aero it was back to normal.

[Bunchies]

I believe for that to happen the FIA have to clamp down a lot further on the aero side of things. While the cars are so aero dependent the DRS will remain the only way they can realistically get close and overtake without desperate moves that end in collisions

That's not true, worn Pirelli tires provide enough of a mechanical grip advantage that it doesn't matter. Source: All the non-DRS zone passes last year due to Pirelli.

DRS is unnecessary and cheap.

[cheapracer]

Difficulty in passing came about with the directional strakes you see in the diffusers. These create vortices that make both the diffuser and rear wing more effective but also create half the bad turbulence that effects the following car.

I see no reason why the FIA just can't rule for no strakes, it would have a small cost in redesigning and improve close racing.

The strakes of course come from airplane design ...

[icecream_man]

That's not true, worn Pirelli tires provide enough of a mechanical grip advantage that it doesn't matter. Source: All the non-DRS zone passes last year due to Pirelli.

DRS is unnecessary and cheap.

So you're saying that it's ok that passing is possible when there's enough of a difference in tyre performance ?

I disagree. I don't think that alone is acceptable. DRS was implemeted to negate the problem of not being able to follow closely as a result of modern day aero. Until that aero situation is addressed (as per cheapracer's point above) and it becomes once again easier to follow the car in front, then I personally think the DRS needs to stay

Edited by icecream_man, 24 February 2012 - 17:09.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Source: All the non-DRS zone passes last year due to Pirelli.

DRS is unnecessary and cheap.

Well there were hardly going to be DRS passes in non-DRS zones

[cheapracer]

Well there were hardly going to be DRS passes in non-DRS zones

Ok on the surface thats funny but truth is the DRS allows the cars to close up up to one second on the straight putting them into position for passes at other parts of the track so DRS is actually responsible for a lot more than the stats suggest.

Edited by cheapracer, 24 February 2012 - 17:28.

[icecream_man]

Ok on the surface thats funny but truth is the DRS allows the cars to close up up to one second on the straight putting them into position for passes at other parts of the track so DRS is actually responsible for a lot more than the stats suggest.

Again a very good point

[Ross Stonefeld]

Ok on the surface thats funny but truth is the DRS allows the cars to close up up to one second on the straight putting them into position for passes at other parts of the track so DRS is actually responsible for a lot more than the stats suggest.

Agree

[Seanspeed]

Ok on the surface thats funny but truth is the DRS allows the cars to close up up to one second on the straight putting them into position for passes at other parts of the track so DRS is actually responsible for a lot more than the stats suggest.

Yup. And it puts a lot of pressure on the driver in front once they know a car behind is DRS-capable, which I think is good for the entertainment and for the drivers. Its tense.

I'd say the biggest thing will be to manage the DRS zones well. They did a pretty good job of it last year 80% of the time, but a few could obviously use tweaking or complete re-thinks, so hopefully it'll be even better this year.

But drive-by passes will always happen with DRS once in a while. Some passes would be made even if the DRS wasn't there, so those sorts will usually be made much easier when they add DRS to it. All-in-all, though, I think its created more chances for close racing than it has chances for easy passes. Plus, even if a driver gets an easy pass, it allows the race to continue flowing. That driver is then free to try and hunt down the next guy, creating some more action.

I think the positives have outweighed the negatives with DRS and combined with the Pirelli's, will continue to be the major factor in the quality of the racing. The loss of EBD may make some tiny benefit, but I doubt it'll be anything noticeable.

[dau]

I believe for that to happen the FIA have to clamp down a lot further on the aero side of things. While the cars are so aero dependent the DRS will remain the only way they can realistically get close and overtake without desperate moves that end in collisions

I think we would need completely new aero regulations. Like those that were proposed for 2014 until the teams shot them down because DRS worked good enough for them.

[Crusoe]

I think there will be less passing this year. I believe that EBD allowed drivers to be faster at certain points in the race which cost them more fuel, this was very obvious with Vettel's flying starts or a few times when Button was very quick in the end of the race (on the same tyres as competition).

[Seanspeed]

I think there will be less passing this year. I believe that EBD allowed drivers to be faster at certain points in the race which cost them more fuel, this was very obvious with Vettel's flying starts or a few times when Button was very quick in the end of the race (on the same tyres as competition).

There's other things that would explain Vettel being quick in the beginning and Button at the end.

Tire management will still be the name of the game, so this same thing you're talking about - going faster at certain points at a detriment to something else - still exists. Plus, teams will always use the least amount of fuel they think necessary, so fuel issues can still occur.

[Matt Somers]

Taken from: http://www.formula1....1/11/12816.html

Q: Finally, who has done the most overtaking in the races after lap one?
A: This classification is headed by Sauber’s Sergio Perez and Buemi, both with 82 overtakes. They are followed by McLaren’s Jenson Button (77), Red Bull’s Mark Webber (76), Alguersuari (74) and Schumacher (71).

These drivers tend to be the ones most out of position from a poor qualifying and/or from their tyre management.

However what is more interesting is this:

Q: What is the breakdown of overtaking manoeuvres within these totals?
A: There have been 441 ‘normal’ overtakes this season and 363 ‘DRS’ overtakes; from the total of 804 clean overtakes, 55 per cent were normal and 45 per cent were DRS. 300 overtakes were on the three slowest teams by faster cars, with passes between team mates accounting for 76 overtakes.

I wouldn't have thought more overtakes would be attributed to non DRS takes. However here may be my controversial support of DRS, if you are fastest enough at the stage in the race as the guy following overtakes you by the time you come back around to use DRS again you should be able to retake that position. We rarely saw this as the case (a tussle for position) meaning that DRS is effectively a way in which to put the drivers in the correct order for which their strategy is at the time. This in theory stops the Petrov/Alonso situation where eyebrows is clearly quicker but can't get past the Russian due to the turbulent air. DRS has it's pro's and cons in my opinion. It's the areas in which mechanical grip becomes more of a factor that we all want to see 'real' overtakes.

[Ross Stonefeld]

DRS is basically a clumsy, but somewhat effective, solution to the penalty of the car behind having to sit in turbulence.

[Ali_G]

Ok on the surface thats funny but truth is the DRS allows the cars to close up up to one second on the straight putting them into position for passes at other parts of the track so DRS is actually responsible for a lot more than the stats suggest.

Go through a slow corner and this closing up effect is lost. If you are under the gearbox of another car before the braking area of a hairpin, you won't be under the gearbox on the exit of the hairpin.

Very slow corners everywhere on a track hampers racing as much as a loss of downforce when in turbulence. Note that tracks infested with slow corners everywhere is mainly a trait of mid 90s onwards.

Edited by Ali_G, 25 February 2012 - 15:52.

[Ali_G]

I think that making the cars less dependent on front wing downforce would also be a good move.

Elongate the sidepods and give the cars two limited sized venturis. Be fairly tight on the design so that the centre of downforce from the venturis supplies the front with enough downforce to run wingless at some tracks.

[HoldenRT]

DRS is basically a clumsy, but somewhat effective, solution to the penalty of the car behind having to sit in turbulence.

Exactly.

[Ali_G]

The problem with DRS is that to compensate for the following cars being slower in the corner you are giving them an advantage on the straight.

In that it makes no sense. Instead of creating two problems (which you then have to attempt to balance out) just go about genuinely solving the original problem instead of making half arse attempts to solve it (2009 aero package).

This was to be the intention with the 2013 aero rules but they have no been shelved which is most dissapointing.

[BillBald]

The problem with DRS is that to compensate for the following cars being slower in the corner you are giving them an advantage on the straight.

In that it makes no sense. Instead of creating two problems (which you then have to attempt to balance out) just go about genuinely solving the original problem instead of making half arse attempts to solve it (2009 aero package).

This was to be the intention with the 2013 aero rules but they have no been shelved which is most dissapointing.

Disappointing but inevitable.

Teams may want to put on a "good show", but most of all they want to win. Winning is more likely with a car which is difficult to pass, so even the most well-designed rules will be circumvented.

[Ali_G]

Disappointing but inevitable.

Teams may want to put on a "good show", but most of all they want to win. Winning is more likely with a car which is difficult to pass, so even the most well-designed rules will be circumvented.

Well, when it is difficult to pass, it favours teams who qualify well.

[Skinnyguy]

I think you´re over cooking it if you want a new aero rule package. The 2009 rules have improved the previous scenario A LOT. Some stuf like DDD and EBD has hurted the effect, but it was still good. I don´t think there´s any need for DRS at all now with Pirelli tyres. Maybe getting rid of it could even improve the races by giving back some relevance back to qualifying and track position. Long battles (ala Lewis-Schumacher Monza) have almost gone.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 25 February 2012 - 18:40.

[Ross Stonefeld]

A battle that was helped by DRS...

[Skinnyguy]

A battle that was helped by DRS...

If you use it in 20 60 laps races, sometimes you´ll get something good. However, I think that it was good battle because of someone getting gearing wrong understimating DRS effect, not because DRS. Have Hamilton had the correct gearing to use DRS as it´s supposed to be, it´d have been a drive-by.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 25 February 2012 - 18:50.

[Seanspeed]

Long battles (ala Lewis-Schumacher Monza) have almost gone.

Long battles can also get boring and predictable. A driver learns exactly where they need to position their car to stop the other driver from making a pass, so they do it lap-after-lap and it takes the excitement out of it. Remember Schumacher/Button in Barcelona?

[Skinnyguy]

Long battles can also get boring and predictable. A driver learns exactly where they need to position their car to stop the other driver from making a pass, so they do it lap-after-lap and it takes the excitement out of it. Remember Schumacher/Button in Barcelona?

I get excitement from that. Battles where you wonder lap after lap in some hot spots "will he pass?" I like that.

Battles where I wonder "when will he pass?" are not funny.

[Seanspeed]

I get excitement from that. Battles where you wonder lap after lap in some hot spots "will he pass?" I like that.

Except that in some cases, you already know the answer is gonna be 'no', which is when it becomes boring.

[BullHead]

Dirty air is as old as aero itself. The many attempts at rectifying this show that nothing will make much difference short of abandoning wings altogether. The DRS is a circumventing solution, not that I like it...

[Ali_G]

Dirty air is as old as aero itself. The many attempts at rectifying this show that nothing will make much difference short of abandoning wings altogether. The DRS is a circumventing solution, not that I like it...

It wasn't anything like the issue it has been from about 1992/1993 onwards though.

[BullHead]

yeah, that could be argued... So what happened do you think in those years to make it the problem it became?

[pingu666]

tyres got smaller, and the cars have gotten narrower, aero is way more refined.

the cars dont punch a big hole in the air anymore, and i suspect they leave more of a hot and tubulent air tunnel rather than a void/low pressure zone like the older cars.

[Ali_G]

tyres got smaller, and the cars have gotten narrower, aero is way more refined.

the cars dont punch a big hole in the air anymore, and i suspect they leave more of a hot and tubulent air tunnel rather than a void/low pressure zone like the older cars.

Narrow track cars came in, in 1998. Agree with the rest you have to say though.