Isn't that what they tried at the start of 2009 with the larger front wings to pick up the air and smaller rear wings to create less turbulence? Didn't really work then and the cars looked daft! As said, it's an age-old problem of F1.
No no no, 'back in the day' goes back a lot further than that! Besides, that was the year they couldn't change tyres at all or face a penalty, which was madness from start to finish (literally............). But it also highlights how crap the racing was as they tyres just didn't degrade under normal conditions. I'm not saying a lockup wasn't a bad thing in earlier years, its just now a single lock up pretty much means you need to pit.
I'm not sure there is a solution. Any car will create a hole in the air and turbulence that the following car will be disrupted from. Maybe there should be a negative DRS on the front wings instead of the rear wing, such that a car running in turbulent air and change the angle of the front wing to compensate for the loss of downforce by following another car? Could then get in the normal slipstream on a straight without the need for current DRS on the rear wing? Whatever they do will always have an element of trial and error and there are teams that will benefit and some will lose. DRS has solved the problem of no overtaking at all which was once an issue, but it has made it too easy in some cases which then detracts from the value of an overtake and the spectacle. In a lot of cases though it has allowed a car to get up alongside another which has resulted in some decent wheel to wheel action through the next corners so its not all bad.
I like that, they had something similar in 2010 iirc, the trouble was they would set it up to it's optimum for a clear lap and just ended up with the same problem. A front 'DIS' (Downforce Increase System) that is activated in roughly the same way as DRS, but for a whole lap, could negate it. My major gripe with it, and with DRS, is that it's an unfair advantage. I prefer the 'push to pass' of Indycar where everyone gets the same amount.
PtP is quite good, the main issue with it in F1 is the disparity in engine performance. A Honda with PtP will still have less power than a Mercedes without! It does bring in a tactical element to it as well as a driver has to decide when to use it and when to hold some back for defending. It works well in Indycars as the cars don't have the same performance differentials as teams in F1 do, so it is more effective and can be used anywhere around the circuit.
But the cars are wider now. Wider cars do not help overtaking. This is why aesthetics suffered as cars were starved toward anorexic proportions in the first place.* Wider cars are an aid to stability whilst cornering, especially when riding on wider tyres. It has resulted in them becoming quicker with an increased challenge for drivers which is what the public wanted. Higher speeds also increase the spectacle (especially track-side) but at the same time make overtaking more difficult – in no small part due to increased problems with aerodynamics. Bearing in mind all of the above, I don't see much problem with the chassis now**. DRS may be something of a gimmick but unlike previous attempts to address the problem, it has been effective in overcoming (or at least, off-setting) what had become the biggest criticism levelled at F1; and as it has become better understood, circuit-based activation / deployment points have been more finely tuned to 'dial-out' much of the artificiality seen at its inception. - - -o0o- - - *Since vision is the primary sense in humans, a car's appearance is ultimately more important than its sound. I believe we will look back upon the era we have just waved good riddance to as one of the most objectively ugly in F1's history. **Although ASC's "negative DRS" is genuinely interesting, disturbing airflow at the front of the car would create the need for a total re-think on present chassis design. The result would not be pretty and would surely bring about larger inequalities between teams, leading to a poorer spectacle, thus invoking further tweaks and re-thinks…
Wider cars create more drag and punch a bigger hole in the air aiding slip streaming. With DRS it has become too easy and gimmicky IMO.
I agree with your first sentence but the extra drag and reduced air-pressure in the wake (which as you say, provides help for slip-streaming) is offset by the dirtier air; a natural consequence of better aerodynamics which are modelled in clean air. For this reason, DRS helps exploit the increased potential for slip-streaming which you have highlighted. Without DRS (which I agree, is something of a gimmick, albeit a successful one), we would take a step back in the direction of fewer overtakes and see less of the wheel to wheel action we've enjoyed this season where cars get closer in the braking zone with a chance to be alongside on corner entry. I agree DRS is not a perfect solution; but whether we like it or not, to-date it has been the only successful solution to 'the overtaking problem' which crept upon us because of designers' progressively better understanding of aerodynamics.
I can understand their points tbh, they're going to get less money, but must do more R&D and a lot of the engine is going to be standardised almost to the point that it will an FIA engine licensed to Ferrari, rather than a Ferrari engine.