113 replies to this topic

[Risil]

An interesting idea came out of Autosport's recent interview with outgoing F1 kingpin Ross Brawn:
 

Speaking in an exclusive interview with this week’s Autosport magazine, Brawn said that F1 chiefs had begun thinking up how best active aero could be used.

“One of the big things about the 2026 car is whether we have active aerodynamics,” said Brawn. “I think that’s an efficiency step which is very appealing.

“It’s still got to be sorted to see how that can be done, and if it can be done safely and predictably. But, active aerodynamics, we semi have them at the moment with DRS, as DRS is active aerodynamics.

“But can you do something much more significant?

“If you have active aerodynamics, then of course you could affect the car in front. You could have a proximity [that] once you get within a certain degree, the car in front loses a little bit of downforce and you gain a little bit of downforce. There’s tricks you can play with that. It becomes an opportunity.

“I’m not saying we would do that, but it becomes an opportunity. So, the 2026 car is lessons learned from what we have now and I think we’ll incorporate some form of active aerodynamics.”

 

He's just asking questions!

 

Of course Autosport's headline boffins have already dubbed this "reverse DRS", or to give it its full title "reverse drag reduction system". Which can be simplified to "drag increase system", or DIS, which is coincidentally (and I mean coincidentally) the name of the city of hell in Dante's Inferno.

 

https://www.autospor...e-drs/10406755/

[Burtros]

That’s not racing. Simple as that.

Probably best he’s going if he’s talking like that. And I speak as someone who always embraces change and likes Brawn.

Just to add - I often think people float ideas that are insane as it makes less crazy ideas more palatable in future. Not sure how serious to take this.

Edited by Burtros, 01 December 2022 - 11:23.

[Clatter]

An interesting idea came out of Autosport's recent interview with outgoing F1 kingpin Ross Brawn:
 

 

He's just asking questions!

 

Of course Autosport's headline boffins have already dubbed this "reverse DRS", or to give it its full title "reverse drag reduction system". Which can be simplified to "drag increase system", or DIS, which is coincidentally (and I mean coincidentally) the name of the city of hell in Dante's Inferno.

 

https://www.autospor...e-drs/10406755/

 

Not sure what I think about active aero, but totally against the suggestion that it could be used to hobble a car in front to give a chasing car an advantage. It's a system that would make the cars faster, but the biggest beneficiaries will always be the bigger teams, who will be able to exploit it the best. Also means that the possibility of an upset when a team gets their setup wrong will be negated.

[smitten]

Add simplicity is what I say: stop adding complexity!

[JimmyClark]

Ugh this reminds me of the early 2000s when everybody was coming up with crazy ideas to stop Ferrari and Schumacher. 

 

We don't need it; the cost cap rules will gradually bring everyone closer together. If a driver runs away with a race, then good on them and their team. 

 

I guess one acceptable tweak would be to not let the leader get DRS off backmarkers, but that's as far as I would go. 

[EvilPhil II]

Get rid of active aero... Let the best driver and car combination win. Celebrate a pure championship and appreciate the pinnacle of a sport for what it is. If that isn't your thing I hear Mario Kart is pretty entertaining.

[SenorSjon]

Nuke it from orbit and then kill it with fire. Please. Rubberbanding* is the main theme about this. 

 

When did Brawn turned into Brown and lost the plot of F1?! The sprint race/qualy** wasn't bad enough, we seem to top it with this nonsense. Or does the race leader get a standard 'gap to driver behind -3s' penalty at a pitstop to make things exciting again?

 

 

I remember trying to get back into Nascar after it wasn't on TV here for decades, but they made a monstrosity of their competition rules. I refuse to watch that.

 

 

 

*Don't click too much on that site, you'll lose hours before you know it.

**Take your pick

Edited by SenorSjon, 01 December 2022 - 11:31.

[F1Frog]

Sounds better than DRS.

[IrvTheSwerve]

DRS is more than enough 'active aero' that disadvantages defending drivers. The talk should be around canning DRS, which is what these new regs were designed to do. I'm sick of easy drive-bys robbing us of lap-after-lap battles. Using aero even further to slow cars down is a step too far for me.

 

If they want to do some research into active aero in terms of using air brakes, stuff like that, that sounds moderately interesting however I'm sure it would bump the cost up a bit. Drivers won't like the unpredictability of aero changing depending on their proximity to other cars, you could argue there's a safety issue there too in terms of car balance being affected.

[CSF]

Ugh this reminds me of the early 2000s when everybody was coming up with crazy ideas to stop Ferrari and Schumacher. 

 

We don't need it; the cost cap rules will gradually bring everyone closer together. If a driver runs away with a race, then good on them and their team. 

 

I guess one acceptable tweak would be to not let the leader get DRS off backmarkers, but that's as far as I would go. 

 

Bring back the idea that all drivers drive all cars I say. 

[IrvTheSwerve]

Ugh this reminds me of the early 2000s when everybody was coming up with crazy ideas to stop Ferrari and Schumacher. 

 

We don't need it; the cost cap rules will gradually bring everyone closer together. If a driver runs away with a race, then good on them and their team. 

 

I guess one acceptable tweak would be to not let the leader get DRS off backmarkers, but that's as far as I would go. 

 

Getting DRS from backmarkers is something that should never have made it to the track. Seems like lazy programming to me, it should be fairly easy to drop it...but this is F1...

[SilverArrow31]

If they really want to do this just give unlimited DRS to everyone except the leaders...

BUT DON'T DO IT AT ALL!

[absinthedude]

What the hell are these people smoking?

 

NO NO NO. And get rid of DRS while you're at it. 

 

Meanwhile I'll be happily doing something else rather than wasting my time with the bad joke that F1 has become anyway. But there's a small part of me that still cares. 

[Widefoot2]

[Huffer]

Bad idea.

 

Allow teams to use active aero all of the time? Sure. No problem. Use it to hobble the teams and drivers doing an excellent job on a race weekend? No thanks. 

[noikeee]

I think DRS is fine but we don't need any more of it.

The spirit of DRS should be to offset the dirty air problem, giving some extra slipstreaming power to the car that would be affected by dirty air. In my mind that is fair, however this seems to go further - it's like an in-race success ballast, or as others said above, rubber-banding in video games. I don't like it.

[Nemo1965]

I have had a much better idea... for years. Use DRS but the moment the cars are lying astern, close the DRS automatically. Or... allow to open the DRS on the other car as well. That way both cars will be next to each other until the moment of braking. 

[Nicktendo86]

If they do as Brawn suggests I will be done with F1.

[Huffer]

NO NO NO. And get rid of DRS while you're at it. 

 

Sadly, I think we need DRS even more so with the current regs given that the ability for cars to follow closely comes at the cost of a reduced slipstream effect. 

Slightly off topic, but I'm still off the mind that at the very least, carbon brake discs (rotors for you Americans out there ) need to be taken away and replaced with steel to increase braking distances and provide more opportunity for passing. All this nonsense with DRS is just a band aid fix that ignore the real issue with F1 cars. They've made a positive step with the aero regs - I'm largely happy with how that's worked out, but the FIA needs to be brave and do some more to gives us more racing. 

Edited by Huffer, 01 December 2022 - 12:14.

[Larunss]

Today is not the April Fool's day, is it?

Why do these people come up with all these crazy ideas?
They have just introduced budget cap and aero testing restrictions for top teams in wcc. Maybe let's wait for a couple of years to see if this helps with bringing the fiekd together.

Actively slowing down the leader just seems like the total opposite of what I would consider racing.

DRS is bad enough as it is, but instead of getting rid of it we may get some more variations of it. Ingenious.

[PayasYouRace]

With my aerodynamicist’s hat on, I see how you could potentially ensure that two cars running in close proximity have the exact same downforce and drag, which would make the battle purely one of driver skills

With my F1 fan hat on, I can see how F1 would completely fail to implement anything properly and we’d end up with something like DRS it it’s poor implementation.

[Widefoot2]

Slightly off topic, but I'm still off the mind that at the very least, carbon brake discs (rotors for you Americans out there ) need to be taken away and replaced with steel to increase braking distances and provide more opportunity for passing. All this nonsense with DRS is just a band aid fix that ignore the real issue with F1 cars. They've made a positive step with the aero regs - I'm largely happy with how that's worked out, but the FIA needs to be brave and do some more to gives us more racing. 

I understand your reasoning, but steel/cast iron rotors will be much heavier and more dangerous in the event of crashing and losing a corner, or disc failure itself.  C-C disks weigh less and fracture more "benignly" in the event of failure, so are safer for all involved near the track.

[ckolcz]

Disgraceful. I'm out if this happens.

[Huffer]

I understand your reasoning, but steel/cast iron rotors will be much heavier and more dangerous in the event of crashing and losing a corner, or disc failure itself.  C-C disks weigh less and fracture more "benignly" in the event of failure, so are safer for all involved near the track.

 

I'm not sure that's really an issue though, is it? The wheel and brake "tin" should stop any fragments from escaping if the brake disk were to fracture (unlikely). The fact that the disk makes the unsprung mass heavier is a good thing though - as it will also help increase the braking distance due to more braking torque needed to slow the rotation of the wheel.

[Afterburner]

*Don't click too much on that site, you'll lose hours before you know it.

Listen to this guy he’s not kidding.

[Bliman]

Maybe they should use a parachute. They can look at dragsters.

[oli4]

Here i am hoping they would get rid of DRS and it seems they are planning to make things worse. 

[Widefoot2]

I'm not sure that's really an issue though, is it? The wheel and brake "tin" should stop any fragments from escaping if the brake disk were to fracture (unlikely). The fact that the disk makes the unsprung mass heavier is a good thing though - as it will also help increase the braking distance due to more braking torque needed to slow the rotation of the wheel.

The rotational inertia is secondary to the typical "Mu", or relative friction capacity, as well as heat rejection of C-C discs and pads compared to cast iron (racing cars rarely use actual steel discs) and conventional racing brake pads. These two factors are predominantly why C-C brakes allow faster stopping compared to CI setups.

[solochamp07]

Genius! Ross should speak to Bernie about starting a new formula using all these artificial aero gizmos and Bernie’s sprinklers. They could add snipers at the hairpins and maybe a random tornado generator on the straights. All good stuff, just stay the hell away from F1!!

[Huffer]

The rotational inertia is secondary to the typical "Mu", or relative friction capacity, as well as heat rejection of C-C discs and pads compared to cast iron (racing cars rarely use actual steel discs) and conventional racing brake pads. These two factors are predominantly why C-C brakes allow faster stopping compared to CI setups.

 

Yes, I'm aware of this but it's still going to contribute longer braking distances as; not only are the brake components producing less torque because of reduced friction, but the angular momentum of the wheel is greater when compared to using CF rotors. And this also has an effect in increasing the time taken to slow the rotation of the wheel down. 

 

I'm just saying that, in my view at any rate, it's a preferable option to any hodge podge aero braking and something that could even enable us to get rid of DRS. 

Edited by Huffer, 01 December 2022 - 13:16.

[Clatter]

Sadly, I think we need DRS even more so with the current regs given that the ability for cars to follow closely comes at the cost of a reduced slipstream effect. 

Slightly off topic, but I'm still off the mind that at the very least, carbon brake discs (rotors for you Americans out there ) need to be taken away and replaced with steel to increase braking distances and provide more opportunity for passing. All this nonsense with DRS is just a band aid fix that ignore the real issue with F1 cars. They've made a positive step with the aero regs - I'm largely happy with how that's worked out, but the FIA needs to be brave and do some more to gives us more racing. 

 

Would steel brakes really increase the stopping distance? The limiting factor on braking is tyre grip, and steel brakes are probably just as capable of locking the wheels.

[Huffer]

Would steel brakes really increase the stopping distance? The limiting factor on braking is tyre grip, and steel brakes are probably just as capable of locking the wheels.

 

Short answer; yes.

 

Long answer; the amount of force that a tire generates under braking is (in part) dependent on how quickly you can slow the rotation of the wheel. CF brakes enable that to happen very quickly, but steel components would reduce the amount of brake torque for a given input force/pressure from the brake pedal, which in turn reduces how quickly the wheel slows down. Oh...and as I mentioned...they're also heavier and that increases the amount of torque required to slow the wheel down from the same speed as wheel using a CF brake.

Edited by Huffer, 01 December 2022 - 13:27.

[maximilian]

I don't even care what nonsense F1 throws at us these days.  Do whatever.  

[Clatter]

Short answer; yes.

 

Long answer; the amount of force that a tire generates under braking is (in part) dependent on how quickly you can slow the rotation of the wheel. CF brakes enable that to happen very quickly, but steel components would reduce the amount of brake torque for a given input force/pressure from the brake pedal, which in turn reduces how quickly the wheel slows down. Oh...and as I mentioned...they're also heavier and that increases the amount of torque required to slow the wheel down from the same speed as wheel using a CF brake.

 

I'd like to see some figures on it though. I used to think the same way, but I'm just not convinced it would make a significant difference. They could of course get a similar effect by making the carbon brakes smaller.

[kosmos]

It's never going to happen and we all know it. No need to get mad about it.

[Dolph]

I remember one time when Hulkenberg was leading a race at Interlagos many years ago. He was a bit fortuitous to be leading by so much. He was also unlucky to lose that lead with a safety car. But imagine the world reacting to someone like Hulkenberg that year at Interlagos or Hill in 1997 Hungaroring being artificially slowed down to enable others to catch up.

Or Frentzen in 1999 Magny Cours. He was nuraing a gearbox problem in the end. Add to that also artificial slowing down. Makes me wince just thinking about such a scenario.

 

What if I'm going looong on my first stint. Will I be slowed down?

Edited by Dolph, 01 December 2022 - 13:43.

[Clatter]

I remember one time when Hulkenberg was leading a race at Interlagos many years ago. He was a bit fortuitous to be leading by so much. He was also unlucky to lose that lead with a safety car. But imagine the world reacting to someone like Hulkenberg that year at Interlagos or Hill in 1997 Hungaroring being artificially slowed down to enable others to catch up.

Or Frentzen in 1999 Magny Cours. He was nuraing a gearbox problem in the end. Add to that also artificial slowing down. Makes me wince just thinking about such a scenario.

 

They might as well just bite the bullet and introduce success ballast. AT least it would be cheap and quick to implement.

[P123]

F1 hunting for new sharks to jump. 

[uzsjgb]

Not sure what I think about active aero, but totally against the suggestion that it could be used to hobble a car in front to give a chasing car an advantage. 

 

Right now aero hobbles the car behind to give the leading car an advantage. 

[ANF]

I'll ask the stupid question then: What exactly is active aerodynamics?

[YorkF1Fan]

Wouldn't it just be easier to cut the engine power to slow the driver down? It'll just be like the racing on GTA online  But if they are going for entertainment how about when the leader pits they can only have 3 tyres on their car!! 

[Clatter]

Right now aero hobbles the car behind to give the leading car an advantage. 

 

They already have an artificial aid in DRS to let drivers overtake, last thing we need is more stuff to let drivers gain unearnt positions.

[ANF]

Wouldn't it just be easier to cut the engine power to slow the driver down? It'll just be like the racing on GTA online  But if they are going for entertainment how about when the leader pits they can only have 3 tyres on their car!! 

I think I suggested that years ago in one of my anti-DRS rants.

[SenorSjon]

I remember one time when Hulkenberg was leading a race at Interlagos many years ago. He was a bit fortuitous to be leading by so much. He was also unlucky to lose that lead with a safety car. But imagine the world reacting to someone like Hulkenberg that year at Interlagos or Hill in 1997 Hungaroring being artificially slowed down to enable others to catch up.

Or Frentzen in 1999 Magny Cours. He was nuraing a gearbox problem in the end. Add to that also artificial slowing down. Makes me wince just thinking about such a scenario.

 

What if I'm going looong on my first stint. Will I be slowed down?

 

I imagine someone getting his first pole and first for a team, yet come race day, it was as if it never happened...

[genius83]

Ross Brawn is getting Old, nothing more to see. He should be hired by Ferrari as Team Principal for getting more of this non-sense stuff in strategy and away from destroying the sport all together.

 

DRS should be allowed for everyone for the whole time whether its qualifying or race, that is it nothing more nothing less. Unless FIA decides that F1 will become wingless DRS will always be needed.

[uzsjgb]

I think DRS is fine but we don't need any more of it.

The spirit of DRS should be to offset the dirty air problem, giving some extra slipstreaming power to the car that would be affected by dirty air. In my mind that is fair, however this seems to go further - it's like an in-race success ballast, or as others said above, rubber-banding in video games. I don't like it.

 

I think this message has to be repeated again and again. DRS does not give the car behind an advantage, it offsets the dirty air problem. I see no difference if this offset were to be on the leading car, instead of the following car. Theoretically the best way to implement DRS would be to allow it after every corner to offset the dirty air effect of that specific corner, instead of giving the drivers the accumulated amount on one or two straights.

[uzsjgb]

They already have an artificial aid in DRS to let drivers overtake, last thing we need is more stuff to let drivers gain unearnt positions.

 

What do you mean by "unearnt positions"?

[w1Y]

Shall we just make a rule that if a car is behind you, you have to let it past by rule.

[jwill189]

I enjoy playing Mario Kart, but that doesn't mean I want F1 to turn into it.

[PayasYouRace]

Slightly off topic, but I'm still off the mind that at the very least, carbon brake discs (rotors for you Americans out there ) need to be taken away and replaced with steel to increase braking distances and provide more opportunity for passing.

That’s still a myth. The tyres are the limiting factor in braking distances.