My apologies for not seeing this earlier, Silver. Unfortunately, I've only time to answer the DRS part of your question for now.- - -o0o- - - Ever since its introduction, I've felt it would be difficult to shake off the 'gimmick' label from DRS unless properly unleashed. In my opinion, it has been over-regulated since its inception and has still not moved on. Such artificial restriction of a driver's full control of a race car certainly doesn't fit with my idea of purism and still has implications for safety – although mercifully, there have only been a few cases of failures, none of which have led straight to a nasty crash scene. However, I do accept that DRS has improved the general spectacle for the all important majority of viewers by offsetting the eternal overtaking problem with ultra-high-aero-dependent cars – at least at one part of a circuit. Oddly enough, it has also added intrigue to car set-up and even car design (DDRS!); and of strategic gearing: i.e short gearing which may limit the benefit of DRS in the interests of closer ratios for the whole circuit; or longer gearing to avoid rev-limiter when used in the DRS zone, when hoping and/or expecting to need to use it. Of course, gearing has always been about compromise but the latter strategy makes an additional compromise necessary for the car for rest of the circuit. Next year, teams will have to nominate gears for the whole season, which may prove to be additionally interesting to technophiles. DRS has proven its value in overcoming the fundamental problem previously faced by F1 for so long; that of overtaking with ultra-aero-dependent cars. It therefore seems almost criminal to continue to restrict its use with technology external to the car during the race (which is, after all, what it was conceived for), yet sees unlimited use during testing and qualifying, where overtaking is not a problem! Something's just not right about that… And I believe technology is already capable of accurately tracking every car at every point on the circuit throughout the whole race – so, if we're going to rely on external technology, why not work towards a properly unleashed version which allows any driver within 1 second of a car ahead to use wherever he likes? Power to the DRIVERS (and teams) – and not the regulatory body!
Maybe one way to get around the gimmicky nature of DRS would be to implement it in a way similar to the overtake boost used in Indy... In that it can be used for a given amount of time anywhere on the track and can be used to both attack and defend, that way it would be in the drivers hands on when/how to use it. Plus with it being finite, it would make it a valuable resource. Right now DRS mostly leaves the defending driver as a sitting duck.
DRS was brought in to make overtaking possible. The problem is that possible and easy seem to be the same word at some tracks.
The problem with DRS for me is once these guys DRS ahead with an advantage of top speed, they stay there through the whole race. Basically they do all the overtaking within the first 20 laps and then it's pretty much over, in a way DRS is making overtaking worse in my opinion now as some are being geared far higher than others resulting in it being impossible to overtake them. Kimi vs Massa for example, Kimi was faster but since Massa had higher top speed it was impossible to overtake him down the DRS, it's not talent it's just slamming your foot down, press KERS and don't worry about being overtaken in the corners since the tilke tracks make it impossible to do so. At least in 2014 they are restricted to certain gear ratio's, then we will see who the best overtakers are rather than having cars jogging past only because their car is better in a straight line.
Part of the problem is some of the restrictions. Everybody starts on the same fuel load, top 10 mostly start on the same tyres and then have to swap to the same tyres by the rules.... etc. There is mostly only one way to go and today showed that racing isn't one of those options. More freedom may = more strats.
yeah, Alonso didn't really have to work for the 3rd place position, get within a second and then it was night night. 3 or 5 minutes of overall use per race would be a far better implementation of DRS IMO, however I can see there being questions over the safety of it (which is, to coin a schoolyard phrase, so gay). Hopefully turbos and the supposed increase in KERS power which will be available in future seasons will provide what DRS isn't
That's exactly what I was getting at Miggs. Make it finite and allow it for attacking and defending anywhere. Problem solved.
The most pointlessy stupid rule in F1 IMO is the starting tyre rule, which theoretically gives an advantage to the person in 11th over the person in 10th, utter nonsense.
Yeah, both good points. The Indy-boost suggestion has been mooted since DRS conception but I believe the reason they went the way they did was primarily because of safety fears, particularly since at the time it was untried technology (significant loss of aero at speed can be highly dangerous, unlike a stuck open engine-boost or even a stuck at max throttle). Another argument against a time-limit version is that it may encourage teams and drivers to converge on strategic planning to use it for overall race time reduction, rather than purely for for overtaking. For instance, after a few races, a pattern is likely to emerge which shows a benefit to using it earlier (or later) in a race, according to fuel loads and tyre condition (for instance). Whichever way you look at it though Bhaji, it leaves the likelihood (more than the possibility) that some or all of it might not be used for the purpose it was designed for. Bright's answer is especially apt when there is just one place on a circuit, where overtaking is often undefendable (according to how long the mathematicians guessed would be 'just right'). This once again backs the suggestion that it should be more at a driver's discretion. Then again, if it could be used anywhere (according to the 1 second gap), there could be a lot more overtaking and a lot more fighting and reclaiming of positions lost – all over the place! And of course, this reintroduces a whole new ground for the gimmick tag!
I'm not convinced the forced use of both compounds makes any sense either. It forces everybody to similar strats so let them chose if they want to sprint or go for the long game.
Since editing my last, I've seen several new, very good points raised, almost every one of which is a valid criticism because of the regulated use of it, one way or another! And the more regulated it is, the worse these problems tend to be. Implementing the solution may not be simple; but the concept of it is: as far as possible, get rid of the regulations which revolve around DRS ! – Unleash it to the drivers! Then they can use it to fight as they wish – and it will work to promote battle and spectacle because the aero-problem which always made overtaking difficult now has this very tool as its own solution! Right. Too tyred(sic). Tyres will have to wait for later in the week for me. Goodnight.
According to PF1 Mark actually walked out of the drivers conference towards the end of the questions, but I'll wait util a reputable site confirms that. Probably not without good reason, but I'll wait until Miggins says that it's one hundred percent otherwise.
Mark was ignored through mostly the whole session of questions directed at Seb and Alonso and he did walk out.
I can confirm 100% that MW is a childish Primadonna and walked out of the press conference because, surprisingly, the press wanted to talk to the 2 drivers battling it out for the WDC rather than the guy that has a car that is the best out there but is 4th in the standings.
