143 replies to this topic

[JeePee]

So, the FIA added a 3rd DRS zone in Silverstone on the start finish straight.

 

DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.

 

I believe some cars, and especially heavy fueled cars, aren't able to take Abby flat. Is this going to mean we have a new old-Eau Rouge here? Take it flat with DRS open, only if you've got the balls to do it?

[f1paul]

So, the FIA added a 3rd DRS zone in Silverstone on the start finish straight.

 

DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.

 

I believe some cars, and especially heavy fueled cars, aren't able to take Abby flat. Is this going to mean we have a new old-Eau Rouge here? Take it flat with DRS open, only if you've got the balls to do it?

Hopefully this.

 

I want to see at Suzuka DRS on the straight that goes towards the final chicane DRS going through with 130R. At the moment, there's only one DRS zone at Suzuka. 

[TomNokoe]

Desperation from Liberty

[f1paul]

Wonder how much of Silverstone is full throttle with these cars?

 

Is it as crazy as 75-80%? 

 

It'll be a NASCAR circuit soon!   

[Jovanotti]

So, the FIA added a 3rd DRS zone in Silverstone on the start finish straight.

DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.

I believe some cars, and especially heavy fueled cars, aren't able to take Abby flat. Is this going to mean we have a new old-Eau Rouge here? Take it flat with DRS open, only if you've got the balls to do it?

I thought of Copse and Maggots when I read T1 and 2. I feel pretty old now...

[Kev00]

Hopefully this.

I want to see at Suzuka DRS on the straight that goes towards the final chicane DRS going through with 130R. At the moment, there's only one DRS zone at Suzuka.

I think 130R at Suzuka will be much easier than turns 1 and 2 at Silverstone, especially with the direction change. 130R looks pretty tame in an F1 car now.

[pdac]

I despair with DRS. Originally, all movable aerodynamic devices were banned. McLaren came up with a clever non-movable solution and so the FIA decided to declare that all teams could use DRS within the limits imposed by the FIA. It's such an artificial and arbitrary system. Either go back to banning movable aero completely or allow DRS anywhere. I hate the system as it is.

[Seanspeed]

Oh wow, yea, that's going to be kind of crazy to try and use in the race.  

 

I suspect in a real world overtaking situation, drivers will have to let off into Abbey, because even if they could take it flat in clean air with heavy tanks, it's unlikely they can if they are following another car closely.  

[Stephane]

What could go wrong with DRS in a flat out corner ? I have no idea....

[Atreiu]

Sounds crazy. I hope there are no huge crashes.

[Seanspeed]

I despair with DRS. Originally, all movable aerodynamic devices were banned. McLaren came up with a clever non-movable solution and so the FIA decided to declare that all teams could use DRS within the limits imposed by the FIA. It's such an artificial and arbitrary system. Either go back to banning movable aero completely or allow DRS anywhere. I hate the system as it is.

There's nothing arbitrary at all about it.  As for artificial, I feel like some people still dont realize why it was ever implemented - because drivers following are at a huge disadvantage in dirty air and so the DRS is there to make up for that disadvantage and balance things out.  It doesn't make sense to give it to every driver anywhere.  That would be completely defeating the point. 

[Nonesuch]

This is excellent. I've long said that if you absolutely want to have DRS, do it in places where it's awesome and risky. Not on boring long straights.

 

[Myrvold]

There's nothing arbitrary at all about it.  As for artificial, I feel like some people still dont realize why it was ever implemented - because drivers following are at a huge disadvantage in dirty air and so the DRS is there to make up for that disadvantage and balance things out.  It doesn't make sense to give it to every driver anywhere.  That would be completely defeating the point. 

Which is why it looks even better when IndyCar have little issues having good racing without any help like that.

[Jovanotti]

This is excellent. I've long said that if you absolutely want to have DRS, do it in places where it's awesome and risky. Not on boring long straights.

...although then it will potentially magnify the differences between better and worse cars again.

Edited by Jovanotti, 02 July 2018 - 17:32.

[Seanspeed]

Which is why it looks even better when IndyCar have little issues having good racing without any help like that.

Having tons less downforce, being a spec series and not racing at the kind of fast tracks F1 does probably isn't a factor here, I'm sure. 

Edited by Seanspeed, 02 July 2018 - 17:32.

[MoP]

FIA are a bunch of hypocrites! Safety, safety, safety.... when it's convinient. 

[KnucklesAgain]

So, the FIA added a 3rd DRS zone in Silverstone on the start finish straight.

 

DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.

 

I believe some cars, and especially heavy fueled cars, aren't able to take Abby flat. Is this going to mean we have a new old-Eau Rouge here? Take it flat with DRS open, only if you've got the balls to do it?

 

There is a big difference between closing when you lift, closing when you touch the brakes, and closing when use the brakes, so let's be precise: it is the latter
 

[Atreiu]

There's nothing arbitrary at all about it.  As for artificial, I feel like some people still dont realize why it was ever implemented - because drivers following are at a huge disadvantage in dirty air and so the DRS is there to make up for that disadvantage and balance things out.  It doesn't make sense to give it to every driver anywhere.  That would be completely defeating the point. 

 

DRS is a perfect example of an arbitrary and artificial device. The criteria for its application in each circuit is at best a combination of hunches and guesses based on the performance of the cars at other previous circuits. Which is why it can be anything between overpowering and uneffective. Some circuits have two zones, others have three, others one. There's no rule, only what they think will be best.

 

As for its implementation, FIA never had the courage it takes to propose and follow through with any technical change which severely slashes aerdynamic dependency and the subsequent effect of turbulence, so DRS was implemented as a band aid. That's it.

 

I've always hated it. It does not solve the problem of turbulnece but creates a huge distraction from it.

[KnucklesAgain]

Which is why it looks even better when IndyCar have little issues having good racing without any help like that.

 

Apart from the tiny help of being spec cars

[Dalton007]

This is excellent. I've long said that if you absolutely want to have DRS, do it in places where it's awesome and risky. Not on boring long straights.

 

 

Exactly. 

 

It would show-off driver skills --- keeping their foot down as the car jitters nervously.

[pdac]

There's nothing arbitrary at all about it.  As for artificial, I feel like some people still dont realize why it was ever implemented - because drivers following are at a huge disadvantage in dirty air and so the DRS is there to make up for that disadvantage and balance things out.  It doesn't make sense to give it to every driver anywhere.  That would be completely defeating the point. 

 

Arbitrary because they have to choose how far behind you need to be before it can be activated. Arbitrarily, that's 1 second. But many cars seem to struggle to get within that distance anyway (because of the dirty air). So, yes, it's entirely arbitrary.

[ConsiderAndGo]

FIA are a bunch of hypocrites! Safety, safety, safety.... when it's convinient.

THE HALO SAVES ALL, remember...

[MasterOfCoin]

Why do i get the feeling this is gonna be a waste of time, like all the other extra DRS zones this year.......

[Myrvold]

Having tons less downforce, being a spec series and not racing at the kind of fast tracks F1 does probably isn't a factor here, I'm sure. 

Not like F1 would provide good racing at Barber, Long Beach etc.

 

Apart from the tiny help of being spec cars

And yes, as (pretty much) spec series helps. However, the racing is much better, and while F1 would always find aero-gains due to development. At least trying to use as little as possible of the body to make downforce would be a great start for F1 to at least have some proper racing.

[DaddyCool]

FIA are a bunch of hypocrites! Safety, safety, safety.... when it's convinient. 

 

Reminds me of the "Eau Rouge is fine to race on in Spa, but not on new tracks" directive.

[Scotracer]

This was the whole reason "use DRS anywhere in quali" was banned.........

 

FIA must make a fortune in the flip flop market, especially with the Halo as branding.

[Mat13]

Brilliant. I love DRS- it's a clever little idea. It's just the gimmicky 'one second behind' implemntation that makes it artificial- give it to drivers all the time I say, and limit its use by the size of Alonso's you-know-whats.

Edited by Mat13, 02 July 2018 - 19:07.

[PayasYouRace]

Having tons less downforce, being a spec series and not racing at the kind of fast tracks F1 does probably isn't a factor here, I'm sure.

True apart from the fast tracks bit, and half right on the spec cars bit. Chassis are spec with some development allows by teams in some areas, plus there’s an engine war.

[Risil]

Even when Indycar didn't have spec cars, the dirty air situation was better than F1's (though it got worse every year). There's also F1's refusal to consider using ground-effects tunnels under the chassis.

[Celloman]

As for its implementation, FIA never had the courage it takes to propose and follow through with any technical change which severely slashes aerdynamic dependency and the subsequent effect of turbulence, so DRS was implemented as a band aid. That's it.

They have been trying to solve the overtaking issue for the last 20 years. It would be foolish to pretend there is some simple solution, which all teams and parties would accept. Turbulence and aero will always be there in some form, it was even an issue in the early 2000's with cars that were aerodynamically much simpler.

[Clatter]

So, the FIA added a 3rd DRS zone in Silverstone on the start finish straight.

DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.

I believe some cars, and especially heavy fueled cars, aren't able to take Abby flat. Is this going to mean we have a new old-Eau Rouge here? Take it flat with DRS open, only if you've got the balls to do it?

They may not be able to take it flat, but that doesn't mean they need to brake. They just need to lift to bleed a bit of speed, so most will probably be able to take it with DRS open.

[Clatter]

They have been trying to solve the overtaking issue for the last 20 years. It would be foolish to pretend there is some simple solution, which all teams and parties would accept. Turbulence and aero will always be there in some form, it was even an issue in the early 2000's with cars that were aerodynamically much simpler.

It would become far simpler if you removed the teams from the rule making procedure.

[PayasYouRace]

I’ve always thought it makes sense to allow DRS in any straight long enough to warrant it. The laws of physics are the same for the whole lap.

I suspect Abbey is a bit too tight to be able to take with DRS open. It would probably be faster overall for the driver to close it in entry, and use the higher downforce to carry more speed through.

[Ickx]

[...]
DRS only closes when you lift off / touch the brakes, so this means that some people might be able to take turn 1 and 2, Abby and Farm, with DRS open.
[...]

The DRS-button on the wheel work in both ways. It is not unusual to close the DRS manually before braking in order to get proper airflow over the wing before braking.

[Sterzo]

DRS is a perfect example of an arbitrary and artificial device...

 

...I've always hated it. It does not solve the problem of turbulnece but creates a huge distraction from it.

 ^ This. The first rule of problem solving is to identify the problem and address it, not do something else unrelated.

[Seanspeed]

DRS is a perfect example of an arbitrary and artificial device. The criteria for its application in each circuit is at best a combination of hunches and guesses based on the performance of the cars at other previous circuits. Which is why it can be anything between overpowering and uneffective. Some circuits have two zones, others have three, others one. There's no rule, only what they think will be best.

 

As for its implementation, FIA never had the courage it takes to propose and follow through with any technical change which severely slashes aerdynamic dependency and the subsequent effect of turbulence, so DRS was implemented as a band aid. That's it.

 

I've always hated it. It does not solve the problem of turbulnece but creates a huge distraction from it.

It does take some guesswork in terms of its implementation, and I've definitely not been completely happy how it's been handled, but I think it's been a pretty clear positive overall. 

 

As for 'solving' turbulence, well, until F1 engineers have figured out a way of altering the physics of the universe, they are *very* limited in what they can do.  I've said it so many times - high downforce = cars will struggle to follow.  It doesn't matter how that downforce gets generated, the best you're going to do is make minimal improvements until you just start stripping off downforce.  The more downforce a car requires to achieve optimum laptimes, the more it'll be affected by turbulence.  

 

'Fixing' the problem will require making F1 much slower, basically.  

 

Arbitrary because they have to choose how far behind you need to be before it can be activated. Arbitrarily, that's 1 second. But many cars seem to struggle to get within that distance anyway (because of the dirty air). So, yes, it's entirely arbitrary.

That's still not arbitrary.     There's pretty decent reasoning they chose 1 second and not half a second or two seconds or more.  Half a second would obviously be extremely difficult due to the problem it's trying to address in the first place.  Two seconds would be incredibly lenient as cars really aren't that close at that point and no overtaking would be happening anyways.  Of the problems with DRS, that bit is not one of them in the least.  

[Seanspeed]

I’ve always thought it makes sense to allow DRS in any straight long enough to warrant it. The laws of physics are the same for the whole lap.

I suspect Abbey is a bit too tight to be able to take with DRS open. It would probably be faster overall for the driver to close it in entry, and use the higher downforce to carry more speed through.

Do F1 cars have a way to manually close DRS without lifting or braking?  

[PayasYouRace]

Do F1 cars have a way to manually close DRS without lifting or braking?

Yes. The driver presses the button again.

Btw you’re wrong about high downforce = bad racing. The way the downforce is generated affects both the turbulence it creates and the sensitivity to turbulence from upstream. I’ve noticed you perpetuate the myth that the only way to fix the problem is by cutting downforce and slowing down the cars in many threads where the topic comes up. It’s not. It is entirely possible to have cars that have today’s levels of downforce but can follow each other better by making use of underfloor aero and other structures. F1’s problem is that the teams are too wedded to their current concepts and won’t accept a major enough rules change to solve the problem.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Do F1 cars have a way to manually close DRS without lifting or braking?  

 

DRS can be manually opened or closed from the steering wheel.

[RacingGreen]

There's nothing arbitrary at all about it.  As for artificial, I feel like some people still dont realize why it was ever implemented - because drivers following are at a huge disadvantage in dirty air and so the DRS is there to make up for that disadvantage and balance things out.  It doesn't make sense to give it to every driver anywhere.  That would be completely defeating the point. 

 

....and here was me thinking that the whole of motor sport was to get in front and therefore you deserve to have the advantage you have gained. 

[Celloman]

....and here was me thinking that the whole of motor sport was to get in front and therefore you deserve to have the advantage you have gained. 

Then we can ignore the races and decide the points outcome based on qualifying. Because surely whoever qualified first deserved to be ahead. With the dirty air disadvantage of current cars, the car behind would probably need to be at least four seconds a lap faster to overtake without DRS. Needless to say, those kind of pace gaps are not happening unless it's fresh tires versus 50 lap old tires. That's why nobody could pass at Montreal for instance even with three DRS zones.

[Whatisvalis]

There is a big difference between closing when you lift, closing when you touch the brakes, and closing when use the brakes, so let's be precise: it is the latter

I seem to remember it mentioned, possibly on Sky coverage, that Hamilton closes his manually - and that must be before the overriding brake activation.

[ANF]

Such a great place for DRS.

[RacingGreen]

Then we can ignore the races and decide the points outcome based on qualifying. Because surely whoever qualified first deserved to be ahead. With the dirty air disadvantage of current cars, the car behind would probably need to be at least four seconds a lap faster to overtake without DRS. Needless to say, those kind of pace gaps are not happening unless it's fresh tires versus 50 lap old tires. That's why nobody could pass at Montreal for instance even with three DRS zones.

 

Yes in as much as whoever qualifies first deserve to start in front, I am totally against reverse grids as well as DRS. (For your information I'm also against large tarmac run off areas that don't punish driver mistakes.) 

 

F1 needs to solve some of the aero shortcomings of the sport in a way that's fair and applies to all cars equally wherever they are on the track. DRS as it stands is intrinsically unfair. But if (as you argue) you have to have something like DRS then wouldn't it be better to reduce the number of activations not increase them. My suggestion would be that every car regardless of track position can activate it for 5 or 10 times in a race - but only  5 or 10 times - then it's up to the driver/team to make the right strategy calls and use their activations to maximum effect. 

[917k]

Which is why it looks even better when IndyCar have little issues having good racing without any help like that.

 

Sure, let's run identical cars - that scream F1 to me....

[teejay]

Having tons less downforce, being a spec series and not racing at the kind of fast tracks F1 does probably isn't a factor here, I'm sure. 

 

Where does F1 do 220 mph laps?

[Wuzak]

Where does F1 do 220 mph laps?

 

Where does Indy do 220mph laps that is not an oval?

Edited by Wuzak, 03 July 2018 - 04:21.

[Afterburner]

Sure, let's run identical cars - that scream F1 to me....

You’d have a more pure driver’s championship than you do now...

No need to run identical cars. Write better rules, and–here’s an idea–enforce them.

[Pete_f1]

https://www.youtube....h?v=ZRh2lDvB03Y
Such a great place for DRS.

Stupid moves result in accidents sometimes

[PayasYouRace]

Yes in as much as whoever qualifies first deserve to start in front, I am totally against reverse grids as well as DRS. (For your information I'm also against large tarmac run off areas that don't punish driver mistakes.)

F1 needs to solve some of the aero shortcomings of the sport in a way that's fair and applies to all cars equally wherever they are on the track. DRS as it stands is intrinsically unfair. But if (as you argue) you have to have something like DRS then wouldn't it be better to reduce the number of activations not increase them. My suggestion would be that every car regardless of track position can activate it for 5 or 10 times in a race - but only 5 or 10 times - then it's up to the driver/team to make the right strategy calls and use their activations to maximum effect.

DRS might be artificial but it is not unfair. It is usable whenever you’re within a gap to whatever car is in front of you, with no limits on uses and it is always there to overcome a particular physical problem. There are odd cases where the implementation leaves a lot to be desired, such as when there are two zones with one detection point, allowing the car that has just made a pass to open it. But the basic principle is entirely fair. Even fairer would be allowing it on any part of the track as long as you’re within a defined gap, and having it deactivated when you draw alongside the car in front.

Turning it into an aerodynamic push to pass would be undoing why it exists. Any time a car in front can activate it it is “intrinsically” unfair.