Andrew Benson has written this: Just thought I'd bring this up, it may fit into another thread so I'll have a look
I hate DRS. It just doesn't work. It would only be useful if everyone had the same car, but because each car has different levels of mechanical and aerodynamic grip, and different gear ratios, and often different tyres (in terms of age or compound) DRS is usually rendered completely obsolete or makes overtakes insultingly easy. It rarely provides an opportunity to be snatched by the driver and it ruins more battles than it creates. Whiting and Lowe are clutching at straws, to spineless to admit it's ****e.
I hope this is going to make sense… Analysis For the most part, I agree with Whiting; and in terms of his technical assessment of its contribution to overtaking, I agree with him 100% - especially with regard to the example given at Spa, where overtaking is common-place without DRS in any case, due to relatively significant speed differences through Eau Rouge, followed by the long straight. Another consideration which should not be ignored is that the racing spectacle can be reduced if drivers are less able to put up a reasonable fight against a potential overtake. What should we do? I have always believed that if DRS is to overcome the 'gimmick' label, it has to be more available! For this reason, I was disappointed that it was rarely used at more than one location on a track, which tended to focus overtaking in that area alone, rather like a power-up pad on an arcade game: usually the place where it may have happened anyway. At present, we have DRS at the discretion of rule makers and not the drivers! What I'd like to see is a transfer of this power, to allow far more driver discretion; thus reducing the reliance upon the FIA to 'get it right'. More DRS zones would increase the chance of a driver to reclaim a place lost a earlier in the lap; and to some extent, reduce the need for somewhat draconian rules about 'defensive moves' - which make the racing even more artificial. DRS should be the prerogative of any attacking driver, ideally all over the circuit; but a defending driver should not have his hands tied more than is necessary for safety alone - any transgression of which should be consistently penalised. Conclusion What I would like to see is some means of timing the gaps between cars at many many more places over the circuit, and for attacking drivers to be able to deploy it more often against drivers who are also allowed to defend more. - - -Other considerations Contrary to my pre-season concerns, Pirelli made a huge contribution to the spectacle of 2011. It should not be ignored that a great many of the overtakes were the result of cars with tyres at different stages in their lives. KERS also contributed to overtaking. What I like about it is that, unlike DRS, a driver can choose to use it at any point on the circuit to attack or defend. It also makes a genuine contribution to the political aspect of F1 with significant technological potential for road cars. I would like to see the power limit doubled, and to see drivers allowed to use it for twice as long each lap! Power to the driver! - - -A final thought Overtaking is only part of the complete spectacle: its importance should be kept in perspective, and a balance must always be struck with another driver's ability to defend, in order to retain the ultimately vital element which keeps a viewer on the edge of his or her seat: excitement!
Your posts are so hard to quote Cosi. If this is possible (a detection zone at every meaningful apex) I'd be open to it. Only if they reduced the angle through which they currently adjust the wing so that it was less powerful. This. Pirelli, in my opinion, were almost entirely responsible for the on track excitement this season. They're doubling the power of it for 2014. Annoyingly though they're changing the name to ERS, which just sounds stupid.
I think basically I agree with Cosi. Certainly I think the racing is better for the introduction of it, it may just need to be utilised more efficiently. And the key example I will cite is: I may hate the man but Alonso missed out on the 2010 WDC in horrendously unfortunate circumstances in my view. With DRS we could have not had to witness the spectacle of him stuck behind Petrov for 40-odd laps for no good reason.
That can't be a good sign for next year. Whiting needs to understand that easier overtaking can also ruin races. DRS is bad enough in the races, but in qualifying it gives the teams with more downforce a bigger advantage, further separating the gap between two teams.
Haha It is designed to! But seriously, you make some good points here. Yes, reducing the angle change in the wing-element is something which would go hand in hand with more DRS zones, but the most important aspect of this is that it would allow a driver to use it with more discretion. (Power to the driver to make his own decisions more often!). 2014 is at least a year later than it should have been! I hope what I said was not too confusing. Yes, I think DRS has been a good thing, over all. It's just a shame that it is so much out of a driver's hands. That is what makes it somewhat artificial: some outside agency dictating how a driver can control his own car! Argh! - it is anathema to me! Exactly. Actually, I think he does understand this, but striking the right balance is tricky. This is why I believe it is so important to put DRS squarely in the hands of the driver, however difficult this may be, in order to remove - or at the very least, reduce - the role of an outside agency playing an active part in how a driver uses his equipment.
dont agree with it at all, its no longer if the faster car can overtake, but when it can overtake. it used to be exciting to see if the driver in front could prevent the driver in fornt form taking the place but this is less and less likely. overtaking has become too easy, that skill is just as important as anything else in the sport
I'd feel a lot more comfortable if it wasn't used at all at places like Spa and Montreal. I think the use of it in qualifying is one of the few advantages of it. Teams can optimise it for qualifying or the race so there's a bit of mystery like in the refuelling era. I don't think it necessarily gives the teams with more downforce more of an advantage than they'd have any way, as the teams with low downforce can run a more aggressive wing angle without suffering in qualifying. They'll always be at a disadvantage, I don't think DRS really exaggerates it in any way.
DRS should be tailored to certain tracks, not all of them. Simple. Either that or remove it completely.
I wonder what it would be like if each driver had a total of say 7 minutes per race that they can use drs after the 1st 3 laps. also if they could only use it for 1 lap in the whole of qualifying
Nonsense mate, nothing personal but F1 is complicated enough 10 years on from what I would call "proper" racing.
10 years ago it was all about aerodynamics, who could build the best engine, who had the best tyre brand, money money and money.
Well EMSC, that is interesting indeed. I wonder if this has more than a touch of nostalgia? Very few people I know believe the racing of 10 years ago to be better than what we have now. Ten years ago we had Ferrari in almost full (ahem) 'control' of the FIA, with a heavy influence upon their race stewards (in my opinion). Ten years ago we had very little overtaking. Ten years ago, with rapidly falling audiences, F1 was looking down the barrel of a gun. In terms of complication, I do not think Sea-Man's idea is "rubbish" at all! In fact, relative to what we have now, it sounds rather simple! It would do away with all the headache of calculating where to have a DRS zone's detection point; where to have its activation point; and how far a car is likely to travel once activated. Whether or not it is practical is an entirely different matter, but Sea-Man's idea is - at least in principle - surely simpler than what we have at the moment?
I meant to put it in terms of racing on the track, not the "backroom deals" and "influences", that you seem to have quite a lot of intelligence and evidence of. Overtaking was acheived by slipstreaming the opponent, not by pressing some buttons on the steering wheel.
Aah yes. On this point, I very much agree with you EMSC. It is indeed a shame the racing is less 'pure' than it was. This is the very reason I'd like to see a driver given the power to use his equipment as he likes, without it being manipulated or influenced in any way from outside agencies - which deservedly attracts the label: 'gimmick'. Then again, it has been a success. Many other thoughts went into the think-tank of the Working Overtaking Group (OWG) in an effort to improve the spectacle. After several years of hard effort, DRS came out well ahead as a clear winner amongst all other proposals. It has undoubtedly worked; but accomplishing a similar increase in overtaking without being artificial whilst retaining F1's crucially important position at 'the pinnacle', is an entirely different matter isn't it? A very difficult matter indeed. But in principle; yes, something feels out of place to me too…
Well, in my opinion DRS is a contrivance and add's false and irrelevant entertainment to F1 and should not be used if outside the total control of the pilot and is subject to "other" external influences. KERs on the other hand seems to me to be a natural and highly efficient virtually free power source and it can be used at the drivers discretion and is well worth retaining and further development. KERs I'm certain will be a common feature on road vehicles particularily trucks within ten years, just imagine a truck with an extra free 200hp pulling off from a junction, what a saving in diesel exhaust fumes !!! Allegedly F1 KERs will be uprated for 2014 to around 160 hp, now, this will be a massive issue for some drivers, 160 hp of variable braking force dependent upon the level of charge in the batteries or capacitors, now this aspect could really sort the men from the boys, already we have heard drivers mention the braking variances after using up their KERs. Only 70 odd days now before the first F1 event, seems a long way away, don't you think
Thanks for the correction pointer, as my original sentence kind of defeated the object. But to the point, I agree fully with you. F1 has seemed to move to the audience's favor rather than watching the athletes themselves push their bodies and minds as well as their machines to the maximum. I am afraid, to bring in more people into the mele of F1, they have lost others because the whole foundation stone is being eroded away.
Yes Ernie: an instantaneous extra 160bhp will be a significantly difficult thing to manage. Not only will it give drivers double the headache, but it will also make huge demands upon the rear tyres. And we should remember that the rear tyres will get this loading 'jump' in both directions, since they make a similarly significant contribution to braking. I can envisage the more capable teams of investing considerable effort in damping both the power delivery and the braking effect, so as not to destroy the rear tyres in a couple of laps! Yes. Such is the nature of commercialisation. Audiences will always be ignorant to the inner workings of their preferred spectacle (relative to participants and organisers); but their demands become overwhelming when the sport itself becomes ever more reliant upon them. Let us hope that someone proves capable of putting Sky's brakes on…
Cosi, yes, interestingly KERs would surely be much more effective if the cars were 4 wheel drive, then we could really exploit the development of KER systems, would that improve the entertainment value whilst retaining the unique authenticity of F1 engineering, maybe a step too far, eh.
