By way of introduction (I'm still relatively new here) and also (hopefully, if anyone replies) to get to know other members' opinions, I thought I'd offer some of my thoughts on the current situation in F1 regarding the attempts to improve the spectacle for fans. It's quite long, I know, but I'd like to read what other people think about these and other related issues I haven't considered. Cheers. The Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) As it stands: I think it works better in practice than it should in theory. When it was introduced in 2009 it was something of an irritant because the only teams that seriously used it (McLaren, Ferrari and Renault) were all squabbling in the midfield. It really just interfered with the title contenders' races and I remember a number of occasions when Button, Webber or Vettel sighed about Hamilton's or Raikkonen's magic button. Its reintroduction in 2011 has been much more entertaining, chiefly because only the 'new' teams aren't running it but also because of those that are there is, in these early stages of the season, some disparity in its execution. Red Bull Racing's KERS works only intermittently. The Mercedes system appears still to be superior in terms of harvesting the energy (braking stability) and delivering the boost smoothly. McLaren's integration (ease of use) seems to be the best (e.g. in contrast Alonso has had to be urged to "remember" to use it, which could indicate that it's not intuitive for the Ferrari drivers, maybe because managing other systems isn't straightforward). You also have driver ability - knowing instinctively when and for how long an 80bhp boost can be employed to attack or defend against other drivers. That's all well and good, but as the season wears on RBR will get on top of their KERS issues; teams will understand better how to set up their cars to respond to harvesting energy under braking or smoothly applying the boost; drivers will improve how and when they use the magic button. Eventually everybody's use of the system will be equalised and KERS will cancel itself out, making it a pointless waste of money. What I'd like to see: in terms of its use to improve F1's green credentials, charging the system up in the garage is a joke. I think using it at the start of the race at all should be banned - the race order out of the first corner or two should depend on the drivers' abilities to get their cars away from the line when the lights go out. In addition to that, I think the restriction on the time that the boost can be used for should be removed and deployment capacity should be dependent on how much energy can be recovered and stored. Any restriction should be on the type of storage cell used, to ensure that additional capacity carries a prohibitive weight penalty. Within that boundary teams would be free to balance increased boost against weight. The Drag Reduction System (DRS) As it stands: in terms of the seemingly decades-long complaints against processional racing I don't think anyone could argue that DRS hasn't been successful, whatever your opinion on artificiality or giving an advantage to the car behind. Whether you like it or not is another matter but the inexorable and inevitable development drive to push a car through the air ever faster through aerodynamics had created a stalemate in racing. In effect, Adrian Newey beat Lewis Hamilton hands down every time. If the DRS is artificial then so is the exquisite sculpting of wings and bodywork and in my opinion there was no other solution to combat the lack of racing than an artificial solution. DRS has made redundant one of my favourite innovations of recent times, however, which was McLaren's F-duct. I liked it because it was so elegant and, in such a high-cost sport, cheap but now, with an adjustable rear wing, unnecessary. What I'd like to see: the regulations applicable to the use of DRS as an overtaking aid (i.e. during the race, as opposed to a general anti-drag mechanism as it is used during practice sessions) are understandably restrictive during this introductory phase while its impact on safety is assessed. I'd like to see its race use opened up to include any stretch of road that can be remotely considered a straight (i.e. where drag is a drag). One designated zone gives the impression that the drivers are only supposed to overtake at that point on the circuit. If they can get past Canada without any accidents or potential accidents caused by DRS then I'd like to see them open it up to two zones and possibly, by the end of the season, three zones. Banning of the adjustable front wing As it stands: as far as I remember the adjustable front wing was introduced to help improve overtaking by providing more grip when exiting a corner following another car. It never really worked but I think it was used by drivers to help manage tyre degradation and balance as the fuel levels and weight of the car came down. What I'd like to see: I'm in two minds about this one. Given the principle of unpredictable tyre wear contributing to more strategic racing then, in terms of entertainment for the fans, I'd say good riddance. In terms of helping the driver as the weight of the car reduces (significantly) I think it was a useful tool. Top ten drivers starting the race on Q3 tyres As it stands: there's an advantage to drivers in 11th or 12th place on the grid, who can start on new tyres, over those starting on the fifth or fourth rows. It hasn't caused any controversy to my knowledge, whether among fans, commentators or drivers, so I suppose the advantage is not as great as, in theory, it should be. In my opinion, if you're going to put the top ten drivers at a disadvantage like this then, on principle, you might as well put them all at the back and make them fight through the pack. I feel this is an unnecessary constraint and penalises some drivers for being faster than others. What I'd like to see: this rule doesn't make any sense to me and I think it should either be removed entirely or extended to cover the whole grid, which would apply the same principle to those at the back vs. the midfield as well as apply the same rules to everyone. Mandatory running of both tyre compounds As it stands: it guarantees at least one pitstop per driver, ensuring that those drivers who can eke out their tyres for an entire race are not permitted to make use of that advantage over those who can't. If it wasn't for Perez in Australia I'd argue that this is pointless, now, given the wear rate of the Pirelli tyres. In fact, given the unique characteristics of Albert Park, I'd still make that argument in relation to the remainder of the 2011 season but, even regarding the 2010 season, I consider it to be overly restrictive. Teams and drivers should be free to choose and modify their own strategies without the regulations dictating them. What I'd like to see: I dislike this rule and I think it should be dropped. Another thing about tyres: the Pirelli factor As it stands: it looks to me like Pirelli have been brave, ambitious, inclusive and open-minded, creating a tyre situation that is great for the fans by being, to a degree, unpredictable for the teams. In a sense they're sacrificing their commercial interests for the good of the sport. Of course, in reality they must hope that the praise they receive for reintroducing excitement to F1 contributes positively to their commercial interests (I'll certainly choose Pirelli when I'm due a tyre change, just out of gratitude). I sincerely hope we don't come to a circuit and encounter a situation that is, for Pirelli, what Indianapolis was in 2005 for Michelin because, so far, this year's single tyre supplier seems to be giving us a better show than even the Bridgestone/Good Year tyre war. It's certainly demolished the closed, conservative demonstration Bridgestone alone gave us. What I'd like to see: Pirelli just keeping at it. Great job. Reintroduction of permissible team orders As it stands: banning team orders was pointless because it couldn't be policed. In Germany last year Ferrari just took the piss by not even trying to cover up what they were doing. How the team manager chooses to utilise his team is down to the team manager, and he is responsible for risking position in the constructor's championship because of his decisions. If someone in his team doesn't like his decisions then those problems are there for the team manager, not the governing body, to resolve. What I'd like to see: the FIA to continue keeping their noses out of how team managers run their teams. Artificiality generally I am of the opinion that the only real way to measure one driver against another is to have them run naked through a forest. Anything other than that is necessarily artificial. The extensive compendium of sporting and technical regulations along with the driver handbook specifically set the artifice of F1 by restricting so many aspects of the engines, the chassis, the aerodynamics, the racing boundaries, the behaviour of the competitors and their teams, and every imaginable detail of the sport. Broadly I'd come down on the side of a level playing field: as long as the rules apply equally to all the drivers then I don't really have a problem. Where an advantage has to be given then, because F1 is about being fastest, it should always be given to the faster driver at a given point in time. The fastest driver in qualifying should be given an eight metre head start over the second fastest, and the fastest driver in the race should not be held back because of the aerodynamic effect of dirty air. That's an example of why I'm broadly in favour of DRS while being unhappy about the top ten drivers having to start on their qualifying tyres while the rest of the field can start on new tyres.
Nice one Genji. I'm writing this before I've read what looks like a very thorough examination of things and will respond more thoroughly when I've more time. Cheers.
genjirrumatio : Hello welcome to the Forum, dont think ive said hello yet , so there ! Great post, im just going to comment on things i have a view on : KERS : KERS has been good in its reintroduction, better when everyone has it than just the richer few. I love how the drivers have to strategically plan out how to use this extra 80 horsepower around the track, and when coupled with DRS a lethal force. DRS : Im a positive person when it comes to DRS, a lot against it, but i think the FIA has got it right, it aids overtaking but doesnt give it to you on a plate. The only fault is that lapped cars can unlap themselves, a needless rule. It also gives an added challenge in qualifying. Top ten drivers starting the race on Q3 tyres : Such a stupid rule, why should the 10 fastest cars be penalised for being fast, i pity for the fourth and fifth rows as they are at a biggist disadvantage of being under cut by cars behind. Pirelli Tyres : << that's what we all owe Pirelli, they have done a sterling job, the races are so much better, and team strategist are so much freer to do different stops or use different compounds. The races aren't too gimmicky, there just right. Pirelli are risking their own name to make tyres less durable, for the sake of good racing.
Quality Genji. Quality. There are a number of things I have to say but have no time to do so right now. Will get back to you. Top quality article.
Cheers, cosi - it not a thorough examination, just a few thoughts about some points I think are interesting. Hello, sportydan - thanks for the welcome. Yeah - lapped cars unlapping themselves... I'm not sure. Let's say Kobayashi pits from 7th position for new option tyres and comes out in 10th just behind Alonso, who's 2nd and five seconds behind Hamilton but slowly catching him. Kobayashi is now a lap down on Alonso but can keep up because he's on fresh tyres. He uses DRS to nail Alonso into turn one. That's got to interfere with Alonso's race. Kobayashi needs to get past Alonso and Hamilton, though, to chase down Petrov who's in 9th. It's not fair that Kobayashi's race should be compromised because Alonso's making his tyres last but on the other hand he's arrested Alonso's potential progress to the lead. It's a tough one and I suppose we'd have to see it played out for real and decide what was fair but for the moment I'd have to say I'd prefer to see the advantage go to whoever is fastest on the track, even if they've been lapped.
Hello and welcome I'm busy with odd jobs today so I'll have to take a couple of attempts at this. DRS: I'd like to see it on a timer, say 5 minutes for a race and you can use it as and when you please. All the drivers need is a count down on their wheel to show how much is left and a button to turn it on and off. This will mean the car in front won't know when its coming, and drivers will have to manage how much time they have left with the system throughout the race. KERS: I'd like to see this either limited to power or time of use (not both), this will give the teams a direction of development to go in. The poorer teams would struggle so maybe the FIA should make teams sell their KERS which is no more than 12 months out of date for a nominal fee, helping the 'little teams'. Two compound rule: Get rid of this, teams should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to use the 2 different compounds. Now that there is no chance of people doing a 0 stop strategy its not needed. Will open up the choices for cross over strategies too. To be continued
Genji, great post, gotta give you rep for that. KERS: In 2009, the teams that ran it had all sorts of problems, and the costs involved with the technology made it look like a waste of time. This year, the teams have improved the system and energy recovery systems will likely become an important part of F1 in the future. At the moment some systems are more efficient then others, but soon everyone on the grid will have KERS and there will be no advantage - so I agree with you: KERS should not be limited to 80hp, and teams should have greater flexibility. DRS: I share a different view about the DRS - I feel there are still safety concerns with the sudden loss the downforce. While it has improved overtaking this year, I believe the tyres are playing a bigger part in overtaking - where the driver behind has much more grip coming out of the corner and uses this to his advantage to overtake. Overall i'd say the system has been a success in improving overtaking, but it's too early to make any conclusions about it yet. Pirelli: With a short amount of time, they have done a brilliant job. Sure the large tyre marbles cause a few problems, but it makes the racing exciting again. The higher degradation involves more pit stops, which ultimately has teams choosing different strategies. Just a few laps less on the tyres can have big differences with grip level and again, this makes overtaking more possibly and encourages different strategies. Pirelli deserve a lot of praise for their hard work. The tyres, in my opinion are the main reason why 2011 has been so great so far. Q3 tyres and compounds: I agree with you on both of these rules - the driver in 11th should not have an advantage over someone who outqualified him, the rule should be removed. As for the rule about using both compounds - the team have six sets of tyres to use for qualifying and the race - they should decide what compound of tyres they want to and when. They have this option in qualifying and it should be extended to races. Team orders: As you say, teams orders were impossible to police, so the only realistic option was to remove the ban and let teams run things how they want. So far I have been impressed at how most teams are still letting their drivers race, but as the season progresses, the team may be more strategic and use team orders to increase one drivers chances.
@KERS I agree that KERS shouldn't be used from the start since it just plays into the hands with people who just have the best KERS out of all the teams. People might say Lewis got the jump on Vettel at china but as we saw from the last two GP's that its only his KERS doing the work for him for the overtake not his starts. Just as bad as 2009 IMO, "Lewis just overtook 4 cars before the first corner" well of course he did, the other 4 drivers didn't have KERS to match it with duh....Same applies when he was against vettel. @DRS For me I like it compared to the rest of the faults you bring up with this season. Every driver suffers from dirty air when behind another car, no trying to escape it you just have to deal with it. I see the DRS zone as the place where they gain back the time they lost being behind the dirty air of the car infront. DRS just equals the playing field when fighting for posistion. @Tyres Worst problem I have with at the moment, not because of Pirelli's doing, but of the FIA rulebook saying every car below 10th place can choose any tyre they want which would most likely be the tyre they weren't able to use in Q3 for being too slow. If I had it my way I would change the rule that If your teammate got into Q3 it's obvious you just wern't quick enough and shouldn't be given an advantage since the car is clearly fast enough to make it, Schumi for instance has had this advantage for the past 3 races over Nico, and the reason why he could go 110% at the start in Malaysia. Q2 drivers who missed Q3 unlike their teammate should be forced to use the tyre which they set the time on, just like the front 10, tough **** I say.
KERS, everyone has it, so i don't see the problem with it tbh, in fact I have said pretty much the same as BLS has on this subject, and in regard to qualifying, I think the whole 'keep your set-up' is a load of shyte. I think after qualifying everything should be open to change, I don't see why it isn't tbh, as the OP says is it really fair to have the person who failed to get into Q3 getting an advantage over someone who did simply because they failed? P.S. Genjji, where did you get part of my signature from?
Wow - cheers for the responses, everyone. BLS - thanks for the welcome. Interesting idea about the timer-based DRS. I once posted a similar idea on 606 but about KERS - five minutes over a race distance giving the driver the choice whether to use it to try to build up a lead at the start of a race, reserve the boost until towards the end and use it to hunt down his rivals, or use it as now to improve lap time generally over the whole race. The only thing is, that doesn't optimise the energy recovery aspect of KERS. A car might not recover enough energy early on to enable a flat out attempt to build up a big lead, and if the power is saved until the end of the race then it's a waste of the energy recovered at the start. So the same principle applied to DRS is interesting. In that case, however, you'd have to overcome the decision to employ DRS solely as an overtaking device during the race. As Jose Lorca says, we're some way from doing that at the moment. It's been used for only a couple of races and, although I think it's been good on the safety front so far in both the races and in practice sessions, perhaps we've just been lucky and in any event it hasn't been tested or even considered as freely available under competitive racing conditions. Under current rules, KERS is used to generally improve a driver's lap time on a lap-by-lap basis while DRS gives an extra boost for overtaking but only when a driver is close enough to the car ahead. Fundamentally they do the same job, which is to deliver an extra burst of speed over and above what a car can deliver without them. In my opinion the separation between them should be maintained - one should be used strategically to improve lap time generally, but should be limited over an entire race rather than lap-by-lap, and the other should be a tactical solution to aid overtaking only when a car is in a position to do so. Which is best for which job I'm not sure. Jose Lorca - yes you're right: the safety concerns of DRS haven't been answered yet and it will take time. Opening the wing element at the right time (i.e. not too soon) is driver-controlled and perhaps the safety concerns will never go away but the longer we go without an accident and the better drivers get at controlling it the more our safety concerns will diminish. Point taken about it being too early to tell. So far so good but we haven't got very far with it yet. The other thing about the tyres (and again, we're only three races in so we'll see if it all looks as rosy later in the season) is that, despite the higher wear rate, the tyres seem to be perfectly safe and durable, they just lose performance. Well done Pirelli. @SilverArrow - thanks for your reply. Theoretically KERS should be the same for all drivers off the start because the unit has been charged in the garage and there is a clear optimum moment of boost deployment once the wheels have stopped spinning. My objection to using it at the start, however, is that charging the unit in the garage has nothing to do with kinetic energy recovery so it's a bit daft, like suggesting it shouldn't be used for starts because, in the last race I watched, another driver used it to beat my favourite off the line. I wasn't bringing up faults, incidentally. I was just giving my opinion on some of the constraints often referred to as artificial. Some of them I like, others I don't. They're not faults. They're all working as intended, I believe. Do you think Webber should have been forced to start on the tyres he set his best time on in China because Vettel started from pole? Miggins - good point about parc fermé and having to run qualifying and the race on the same setup. I can think of one big advantage to it - reliability has been a lot better since the regulations were changed to prevent mechanics dabbling with the car overnight. I think set up changes should be permitted if the race is declared wet (or if qualifying was wet and the race is dry). Regarding the signature - sorry, that's confidential.
strewth - too much to read. Well I'd ban KERS. I'd have DRS available to the driver anytime he wants. ALL cars to start on the tyres they did their best lap on. I'd reintroduce refuelling by having ALL cars start with say 100Kg of fuel. No refuelling with SC out, and no pits for tyre-changing while it is out. You take your chance on running out.
@genji Well when you consider a car placed 18th at the start get's up to 3rd behind his teammate just doesn't seem right when you look at it throughout the race. Punish the slow reward the fast not the other way round IMO. Before these tyre rules came up Webber would of been lucky to get into the top 5 let alone the podium. Why does it have to be 1 teammate prooves to be faster in quali than the other, yet the other guy gets an advantage on race day because he wasn't quick enough. I just don't see the logic in it tbh.
with respect to unlapping yourself, surely if you have the pace to get passed surely you must have the pace to pull away. but, on a similar theme a rule I would like to see introduced is no 'overtaking' on a blue flag, people taking advantage of the blues by following first while the guy you're racing obeys the rules and pulls aside isn't really fair and should be treated as being under yellow by those not on the lead lap.
Yeah, I know. sorry 'bout that. You get started, you keep going, you stop when g/f says "how flicking long are you gonna be on that thing, anyways?" 'k. On what grounds? Now, or later when there's been a reasonable assessment of the safety issues under racing conditions? With you on that. All or none. Interesting. You could maybe go a little bit further - give them, say, 140kg of fuel so it's just about possible to lean it out for a race but only if they go really slowly. You know, I'd actually pass on the refuelling thing altogether. It would mix things up, I know, but you'd just get back into the ultimate artificiality with short sprint stints and someone like Schumacher being able to twist the rules so he wins every time. Great ideas, though. Very original IMO, so thanks for that. No - I say punish the slow off the line who may have been fast yesterday but clearly aren't on it today and somehow contrive to lose the eight metre advantage they were rewarded for being fastest yesterday, and reward the drivers whose heads are in gear right now and pull back fifteen places through sheer driver ability. Qualifying merely decides the order in which drivers start the race. It doesn't and shouldn't have any bearing on the race other than starting order. F1 is about racing on Sunday, not punching a hole in the air on Saturday. I'm very comfortable with the reduction of the importance of qualifying. For far too long races have been decided by not-racing. Now the tyres and rules are beginning to redress the imbalance. Try telling that to Hamilton in Malaysia vs. Petrov last year. We keep being told it's easier to hunt than to be hunted. You're right in terms of clear performance disparity but I think that when performance is more equitable it can be difficult to pull away. Personally I'd like to see blue flags banned and leaders have to overtake back markers instead of them jumping out of the way, especially now that we have DRS. However, back markers offer an interesting opportunity to chasing drivers (who could say Hakkinen's overtake of Schumacher using Zonta at Spa in 2000 shouldn't have been allowed?) and I think it's a fundamental aspect of racing to use other drivers to put your competitors at a disadvantage.
Hmmmmm true.......very true genji, 8 meters would give a fair enough advantage when you think about how small the gaps really are. Maybe they should just scrap the whole "use the tyre you qualified in" rule, then I probably wouldn't look so biased with a vettel picture lol.
someone like Schumacher being able to twist the rules so he wins every time. Mate, sit in a car and win 5 titles in a row after bringing a team from hopelessness and confusion back to the top. And with that break nearly every single F1 record that .. still to this day.. have not been broken. I do not enjoy reading articles put together by someone that has his ideas built up on stereotypes. Yes MSC may have had his bad times, we know that, but are you one of these people that hide away his successes and only look at the surface of his career? He had a fruitful career and pushed himself to the limits, and got away with it. And there will be more to come, mark my words.
Sorry, Michael, I didn't realise that was you. See my post here, Manny. That said, if you don't mind me asking, do you always take offence when someone criticises Schumacher, or has a negative opinion about him? There were many more people than just Schumacher involved in bringing Ferrari back to life in the late 90s. I know what Schumacher's strengths were and I don't want to argue about his weaknesses but in my opinion they were many and significant. I have no wish to denigrate or belittle his exceptional achievements here but I think they are the surface of his career and just a little below that are some unappealing attributes. It's an opinion I share with many other people so, yes, I'm one of those. Sorry. Ah well - time will tell on that but I hope we do once again get to see the racing brain and raw speed that I remember him on his good days for, but this time in a fair fight.
genjirr.....when g/f says "how flicking long are you gonna be on that thing, anyways? It must be time to stop taking the little blue pill, mate. On the subject of Schumy - he was the best for some of the time, but a tad over-rated. He also got the most 'help' any driver/team ever has. Examples like intentionally driving into Damon - AND STILL WINNING THE WC -- most absurd decision ever?
