81 replies to this topic

[Paco]

If Party Modes are getting banned as considered a driver aid, then how is DRS any different.

It’s a driver input that assist the speed of the car?

How can the FIA insist on banning engine modes but not DRS?

[ARTGP]

Why are you expecting consistency now? When has the FIA shown to be a consistent governing body?

[Pentecost]

Are you serious?

DRS is the same for everyone. Engine modes definitely aren't. 

I do think it's a bit unfair to ban multiple engine modes, but it will probably result in a closer field.

[Laster]

I don’t see the relation between the two. What has the engine modes being banned got anything to do with the DRS, a device specifically designed to aid overtaking. I don’t necessarily agree with the ban on party modes, I haven’t read the articles why they’re doing it, it does seem like it’s specifically there to slow down Mercedes, but clearly it’s a lot stronger with some engines than others. Whereas the DRS is just universally there for everyone to use to create overtaking opportunities.

[Paco]

Why are you expecting consistency now? When has the FIA shown to be a consistent governing body?

Lol. Of course nott 😀.

[GhostR]

If Party Modes are getting banned as considered a driver aid, then how is DRS any different.

It’s a driver input that assist the speed of the car?

How can the FIA insist on banning engine modes but not DRS?

 

You really need to ask this? Apples and oranges come to mind.

 

Engine modes: exist in part because of ambiguities in the rules, and the qually modes might (nothing proven) be generated through less-than-legal methods that the FIA can't, for whatever reason, detect. So now, the FIA issues a rules clarification that will outlaw qually-specific modes. I'm fine with that - it's no different, really, to the rules that prohibit setup changes between qually and race.

 

DRS: it's explicitly written into the rules. The rules literally tell the teams exactly what they can and can't do with DRS, and if the teams do go outside what the rules allow they will be in trouble.

[Paco]

I don’t see the relation between the two. What has the engine modes being banned got anything to do with the DRS, a device specifically designed to aid overtaking. I don’t necessarily agree with the ban on party modes, I haven’t read the articles why they’re doing it, it does seem like it’s specifically there to slow down Mercedes, but clearly it’s a lot stronger with some engines than others. Whereas the DRS is just universally there for everyone to use to create overtaking opportunities.

“the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”.

That their reasoning for banning party modes. However, that reasoning makes DRS needing to be banned as well if that’s the pure definition.

[Paco]

Are you serious?
DRS is the same for everyone. Engine modes definitely aren't.
I do think it's a bit unfair to ban multiple engine modes, but it will probably result in a closer field.

It’s only available unequally as a driver aid to the car behind not to the leading car in a pass. So no it’s not. It very much causes a problem based on the reasoning they are using to ban party modes “the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”.

DRS isn’t a safety innovation that aids a driver.. it’s solely a driver aid for performance and if FIA using that logic to ban party modes, it nulls DRS as well.

Edited by Paco, 14 August 2020 - 14:02.

[uzsjgb]

“the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”.

That their reasoning for banning party modes. However, that reasoning makes DRS needing to be banned as well if that’s the pure definition.

 

That reasoning would also lead to banning steering wheels. They are definitely aiding the driver.

[Laster]

How is using the DRS breaking the rule - “the driver must drive the car alone and unaided.”
Is anyone telling the driver when to use it?
Is this not a device mandated by the FIA rules, thus making it legal?

I really don’t see what the DRS has got to do with this at all.

[Celloman]

They also banned DAS (for next year) and F-Duct even though driver 100% operated those systems manually. It makes no difference, they can ban specific things while allowing others. Besides, banning DRS would be a terrible idea with the current cars.

Edited by Celloman, 14 August 2020 - 14:15.

[KWSN - DSM]

DRS and engine modes completely different - Personally I would get rid of DRS and let the engines be run in which ever crazy mode they could be run in, while allowing the engine manufacturers to do what ever they wanted to improve their engines within the scope of the regulations.

[Goron3]

I can't believe this is the state of F1 discussion.

[KWSN - DSM]

I can't believe this is the state of F1 discussion.

 

It is not, there are hundreds of other aspects of F1 we turn over repeatedly - Sort of the raison d'etre for the forum one could say.

[Paco]

For me, it’s the defition of the rule they are trying make against engine modes not fitting at all. If they apply that clarification of the rule then it also affects the implementation of DRS. It’s a bogus logically argument but in doing so, I believe DRS then needs to get ban at the same timing.

[Huffer]

This is one of those time where I can't tell if the OP is being serious or if this is just really good satire.

[JHSingo]

Yeah, because the thing F1 really needs right now is even less overtaking. Like a hole in the head. 

[KWSN - DSM]

DRS is artificial, there are plenty many ways they could write rules making cars more able to overtake, if there were no DRS the teams would have to develop for overtaking as well.

[Baddoer]

DRS stands for Drag Reduction System, it naturally reduces air resistance

Engine modes are for increasing power output, so completely different

[MattK9]

“the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”.

That their reasoning for banning party modes. However, that reasoning makes DRS needing to be banned as well if that’s the pure definition.

No, this is the line of the regs that they are using to enforce the rules not the reasoning for the change.

The FIA appear to be able to clarify rules on a whim via technical directives.

DRS is a specific device defined in the rules. That surely is outside of any other lines in the regs that suggest it should not be legal. I dont think that DRS is fit for purpose but that is a discussion for a different thread.

Interestingly, surely the driver being able to change brake bias and diff settings is similar to engine settings. Are they likely to be banned or could they be argued for on safety grounds?

[Sterzo]

If Party Modes are getting banned as considered a driver aid...

They're not. Read the article in Autosport. It's about the FIA's ability to monitor engine legality.  I don't think their statement says they are a driver aid. But it looks like they have a concern the modes could be set up as a driver aid (presumably illegally).

 

 

How can the FIA insist on banning engine modes but not DRS?

 

They're changing the aerodynamics in 2022, to make overtaking more viable. That should hopefully make DRS redundant and they can do away with it then. Discarding it now has no logic.
 

[Atreiu]

These hybrid engines were a huge mistake.

[ATM]

We will probably still have a transition year in 2022, with both DRS and new rules active, to validate that we can safety get rid of DRS. Ar least this is what I would do.

Frankly, I don’t understand this hate towards DRS in itself. Warching older older races, Pre-DRS, man it was a snoozefest. The first corner order was the final result usually. And yeah, overtaking was much harder and skillful then, but give me 20 DRS passes over one classic one (which was what those races had...).

[Clatter]

We will probably still have a transition year in 2022, with both DRS and new rules active, to validate that we can safety get rid of DRS. Ar least this is what I would do.

Frankly, I don’t understand this hate towards DRS in itself. Warching older older races, Pre-DRS, man it was a snoozefest. The first corner order was the final result usually. And yeah, overtaking was much harder and skillful then, but give me 20 DRS passes over one classic one (which was what those races had...).

 

I hate it because in most cases it has simply made passing too easy. Watching a flyby where one car has been given extra power simply isn't exciting.

[KWSN - DSM]

I hate it because in most cases it has simply made passing too easy. Watching a flyby where one car has been given extra power simply isn't exciting.

 

Agree, and to this purist it is not racing, which is really what it should be about.

[MasterOfCoin]

I hate it because in most cases it has simply made passing too easy. Watching a flyby where one car has been given extra power simply isn't exciting.

Well simply tell them to drive faster.....and there won't be a DRS flyby...

[ATM]

We all know that the main problem is not the DRS itself, but the wake/dirty air modern cars produce. Solve that and DRS can be safety elliminated.
As for DRS, the fact that it makes passing too easy can be tweaked (with some benevolence from the teams and FIA). For instance, after FP2, based on experiments and data from previous year, I guess they can already see if DRS is too efective for the initial length of the DRS-designated zones. So, if it’s too efective, just reduce the zone at the start (the acivation point) by 100 meters for instance. If it’s ineffective, extend it. Enough to have 2 cars side by side at the braking point. Really, it shouldn’t be that hard for engineers having nearly NASA qualifications and a shitload of computers to do simmulations on.

[BobbyRicky]

If Party Modes are getting banned as considered a driver aid, then how is DRS any different.

It’s a driver input that assist the speed of the car?

How can the FIA insist on banning engine modes but not DRS?

 

[Celloman]

DRS is artificial, there are plenty many ways they could write rules making cars more able to overtake, if there were no DRS the teams would have to develop for overtaking as well.

Really, why don't you go ahead and name one? They have tried to solve this for at least 20 years now, I remember the issue of overtaking being discussed in 1999 and the rule changes in 2009 were supposed to make overtaking easier, but achieved nothing. If they can't figure it out in 20 years, I think it's safe to say DRS is our best bet.

[Celloman]

I hate it because in most cases it has simply made passing too easy. Watching a flyby where one car has been given extra power simply isn't exciting.

Only when there is a significant delta in tire wear. When tires are approximately in good condition, it's still extremely hard to pass on several tracks, including Barcelona and Silverstone. I remember watching Abu Dhabi last year with the technical DRS glitch and everyone was just waiting for DRS to get enabled again to have something happen on the track.
 

[MikeV1987]

This is just next level pedantry.

[DutchQuicksilver]

DRS won’t be banned. At least not until the FIA have formed the regulations that much so that cars can actually follow each other close in corners.

[Paco]

DRS stands for Drag Reduction System, it naturally reduces air resistance

Engine modes are for increasing power output, so completely different

 

Inverse relationship yes.. same effect as per the rule clarification by the FIA of driver assist  as now worded in deciding to ban engine modes.

[Paco]

That reasoning would also lead to banning steering wheels. They are definitely aiding the driver.

 

Except a car can't turn itself..   a car does need engine mode and conversely as per their logic then a moveable aero element done by the driver for their own net benefit.

[Paco]

DRS stands for Drag Reduction System, it naturally reduces air resistance

Engine modes are for increasing power output, so completely different

 

yes.. opposite but both benefit a driver through its activation.. as per their ridiculous logic both need to be banned.  Unless engine modes become a push to pass button like DRS.

[Paco]

DRS won’t be banned. At least not until the FIA have formed the regulations that much so that cars can actually follow each other close in corners.

 

 

I fully agree.. even though I don't care for DRS at all. 

 

That said.. I still do not see how the logic for working in this engine mode ban crap isn't directly in the same vein of logic for needing to BAN DRS if that is their logic for insisting on removal of engine modes. 

 

The cars freaking change shape and have moveable aero devices for the exact reason the FIA have concerns about moveable engine maps..    Just because it's standardized doesn't mean it's right..

 

if their legal position for the engine maps is LOGICAL..

then so does DRS have to go..

 

not that I think their logic in any way makes sense.

[Paco]

I get most don't want to see DRS go and rather like watching people wizz past due to a moveable aero devise that gives the lead car a huge SPEED disadvantage and handicap.. but so does ENGINE MAPS.

 

I would much much much rather have DRS banned, and allow engine maps help drivers push their car through a pass activated by the driver making the move..

Edited by Paco, 14 August 2020 - 23:49.

[w1Y]

I think its pretty bloody clear isnt it.

To hurt merc. Since ferrari clearly got hit it seems that they now have an effort to go after merc. They will then cry ignorance when Daimler decide to pull the plug.

Edited by w1Y, 15 August 2020 - 05:53.

[Diablobb81]

Still not sure if trolling or meltdown.

If serious: DRS is written in the rules.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 August 2020 - 06:00.

[Requiem84]

DRS is explicitly prescribed in the rules.

#endoftopic.

[Lights]

I fully agree.. even though I don't care for DRS at all. 

 

That said.. I still do not see how the logic for working in this engine mode ban crap isn't directly in the same vein of logic for needing to BAN DRS if that is their logic for insisting on removal of engine modes. 

 

The cars freaking change shape and have moveable aero devices for the exact reason the FIA have concerns about moveable engine maps..    Just because it's standardized doesn't mean it's right..

 

if their legal position for the engine maps is LOGICAL..

then so does DRS have to go..

 

not that I think their logic in any way makes sense.

 

The point of your thread is basically that you seem to think the FIA make stuff up on the go and changes rules based on vague argumentation that logically can also be applied to other aspects.

 

And in that you're right. The FIA is sort of incompetent and don't seem to appear to know what they're doing a lot of the times. I think it's mentioned a whole lot around here.

 

Either way it seems to be the case that most people have understood your point differently. 

[Lights]

I hate it because in most cases it has simply made passing too easy. Watching a flyby where one car has been given extra power simply isn't exciting.

But for the FIA it's necessary to keep flyby passes possible, because they don't seem to be a big fan of drivers trying to overtake in corners.

Edited by Lights, 15 August 2020 - 15:28.

[wj_gibson]

DRS is artificial, there are plenty many ways they could write rules making cars more able to overtake, if there were no DRS the teams would have to develop for overtaking as well.

Those of us who watched F1 for 20+ years prior to the introduction of DRS recall designers intentionally creating rear wings that would disturb the subsequent airflow sufficiently to prevent anyone from following too closely, thus preventing overtaking.

 

The growing difficulty that the cars were having in overtaking was one of the main reasons that refuelling was reintroduced in 1994, that an abortive attempt was made to bring back ground effect in 2000, and informed the lengthy studies that went into the aero rules for 2009. The failure of the final of those changes led directly to DRS.

 

So no, the teams would not have to develop for overtaking at all. The history of the sport suggests that they will develop for the exact opposite.

Edited by wj_gibson, 15 August 2020 - 06:45.

[richardprice]

Forget DRS, how about...

Tyre calls by the pit wall
Strategy calls by the pit wall
Temperature calls
Fuel saving calls
Tyre saving calls
Team orders
Any radio communication at all where the pit wall issues any communication that isnt a directive from race control - unless they are discussing what they are going to be doing after the race, radio calls should be the driver telling their team what tyres to put on and when

The list goes on - its so completely inconsistent its stupid.

Edited by richardprice, 15 August 2020 - 06:56.

[PlatenGlass]

Really, why don't you go ahead and name one? They have tried to solve this for at least 20 years now, I remember the issue of overtaking being discussed in 1999 and the rule changes in 2009 were supposed to make overtaking easier, but achieved nothing. If they can't figure it out in 20 years, I think it's safe to say DRS is our best bet.

Actually I think the point is that they never made any real effort. They talked a lot, did nothing other than a few things around the edges and finally introduced DRS.

People have previously mentioned more tyre grip with less aero grip, or ground effect, which would be less affected by the car in front. But they've never tried any of it.

[Beamer]

“the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”.

That their reasoning for banning party modes. However, that reasoning makes DRS needing to be banned as well if that’s the pure definition.

Drs is not a driver aid. If drs is a driver aid, so are all wings, gearboxes, power steering, brakes, mirrors, clutches, suspension. Come to think of it, just strap the driver to the engine and leave all the rest....

[absinthedude]

I'd rather see DRS go than engine "party mode" but I fail to see any connection between the two. While I personally don't see it making the desired difference, I can see why the FIA is banning certain engine modes. Policing it is going to be interesting but not impossible. DRS is a wholly separate issue. Is it a "driver aid"? It's driver operated, but so are the steering wheel and the brakes. 

 

Regarding overtaking and specifically the issue of cars being unable to get close enough.....it's been discussed since the 80s at least. In the late 90s there was a proposal to cut downforce levels to 1990 levels and even then that was felt to be insufficient a move. Let's face it, theoretically F1 cars have had enough downforce to drive on the ceiling since at least the Lotus 79. The issue of how F1 can allow cars to follow each other through corners at a reasonably close distance while maintaining sufficient downforce that they don't look really slow has been under discussion for decades now. The 2022 rules with ground effect re-introduced might help. It's the only reasonable solution anyone in a position of influence has ever proposed and the only one supported. 

[Sterzo]

Those of us who watched F1 for 20+ years prior to the introduction of DRS recall designers intentionally creating rear wings that would disturb the subsequent airflow sufficiently to prevent anyone from following too closely, thus preventing overtaking.

That's startling. I seemed to have missed it. Can you cite some examples and sources?

[wj_gibson]

That's startling. I seemed to have missed it. Can you cite some examples and sources?

Off the top of my head, no, but it was discussed quite extensively at the time. I’m sure you have sufficient internet search skills to find relevant examples yourself.

[Celloman]

Actually I think the point is that they never made any real effort. They talked a lot, did nothing other than a few things around the edges and finally introduced DRS.

People have previously mentioned more tyre grip with less aero grip, or ground effect, which would be less affected by the car in front. But they've never tried any of it.

This is exactly what they tried in 2009...