What exactly are you picturing when you imagine today's race without DRS? Leclerc would have cruised to an easy victory with no danger at all. Vettel and Max would probably still get by Norris, but after that nothing would happen. DRS was doing its job well. Getting drivers alongside into corners, but giving the defender a chance. Leclerc made a critical error giving up the inside line. It was exciting racing. Do we really pine for the idea of it being completely impossible to pass a Ferrari?
Yes. what you said. a nightmare scenario where every race is like France. drs is an artificial sticking plaster on the real issue. it only works in some tracks for the best cars but.... it really is like pushing baby chicks into water. I cannot see how a driver derives any pleasure from a drs pass....
I imagine Max got plenty of satisfaction. None of his overtakes were done deals before the corner, so he had to be good on the brakes and be clever to get the Ferraris. The midfield battles were good as well, it didn't look easy for anyone in that Norris-Raikkonen-Gasly fight. DRS didn't complete the move, just made it possible. The problem at some tracks is that the DRS zone is too long, rather than it being a bad idea altogether. Yes, we'd all love the cars to be able to race without, but it's not easy to do. We could strip back the aero again, but remember that whilst the 09-16 cars were better for racing, 2010 still had severe problems with cars getting stuck for the entire race. Save the DRS criticism for after we've developed a workable alternative.
my view is it's a sticking plaster. why shouldn't I call it so. yes at this stack there's 3 zones so you in effect go 1,2,3. the first one is purely catching you up after last couple of corners on prior lap so by end of main straight into corner 1 you are tightened up. then you've 2 zones to get by. what we saw today was two mercs really struggling on tyres and two Ferraris by far the quickest car a but reacting to Mercedes. red bull did great to do their own different strategy to try position themselves... but in the end ferrari will be kicking themselves.... if thry even see how badly they threw this one away. max had to make a pass and Raikkonen showed how hard it would be made to be at the track due to positioning of car but it's entirely defensive. I was just laughing at ferrari when max passed and they pulled in vettel.and imo threw away 3rd. he had been gaining on bottas all the time. the reality is cars cannot follow each other for long. at other tracks where drs is not as much in play we see cars owed heat and fall back. surely.its best to resolve the issue not hide behind drs artificially helping on a few tracks.
This is the solution Everybody drives one of these and the sound is better than anything at Glastonbury !!!!!!! only disadvantage is there is no drs fitted ha ha
It just looks beautifully simple. No added bits and bobs, no wings, no downforce, no safety (Oh that's not good). Nice to be able to see almost every thing. Overall just looks beautiful.
1. I never really understood the gearbox penalty when hitting a wall or barrier sideways. if there are good reasons, too many variations being tried, then police the replacement to match the one destroyed in FP. 2. I do think manual gearboxes would add spectacle. 3. Removing some of the telemetry would put more on the build/design quality. . In conversation, it was suggested to me that the drivers should have to change the tyres themselves. It would certainly add some spectacle to F1 and no doubt provide some comedic moments.
I always liked the idea of KERS from the 2009 system in the sense that it was up to the driver as to when it was best use it. The predesignated DRS zones just feel so contrived to me. Ground effect seems the obvious way to go too.
So remove DRS, but allow instead a power function whereby they can have additional boost from the hybrid system? But where KERS maybe failed slightly is that a driver could use it to defend or attack, so it could cancel itself out. Should a new system just be used for attacking only, so like DRS can only be when within 1 sec of the car infront but they either have a limited amount of time per race they can use it, or a set number of 'deployments'? It would at least look a lot less fake then DRS.
I don't like DRS simply because in a 2 car battle only 1 car is allowed to use it. What needs to be done is getting rid of the advantage the car in front has due to the wash and the computerised error correcting software. For example, in the last race Max won because his cars computer system saved him from stalling on the grid, it shouldn't, he shuld pay for his mistake, all of them should. F1 cars should wheel-spin if the driver puts too much power through, but they don't because the peddle and engine mapping is electronically controlled so that if a driver puts his foot down too hard the computer will adjust the amount of torque going to the wheels to make sure it doesn't happen.
Yeah, the cars are definitely too easy to drive again. When the three main spins in Austria were caused by gusts of wind, rather than actual driver error (or so they'd have you believe), it means the chances of critical errors are a lot less, which used to be part of the skill in an F1 race. They could revert to standard ECU's, but its likely the manufacturer teams would object. Until the sport is rid of those that wield too much power, i.e. Merc, RBR, Ferrari etc then there is little hope of the technological race slowing down, so we're stuck with all the electronic wizardry for now.
To throw a curveball in and ruin everyone's dreams of past greats, maybe today's drivers are just better than those who came before them? Natural talent will have been a relative constant since racing began, but today's crop of driver probably started when they were 5, and started big time. People moan about drivers getting drives when they're 18, 19, but these 'kids' have over 10 years experience of competitive racing by that point. Go back not to far in the past and Prince Von Count of Norway maybe raced his Bentley around his estate a few times so thought why not, lets buy an F1 drive. They're fitter than those before them, with years of intense physical and mental training. They analyse in ways not even possible 10 years ago, and go into fp1 already knowing the ideal lines and breaking points for even the newest of tracks. I'd argue that even if you sent the likes of Stroll, Ericsson etc back in time they'd stand out about the crowd of what used to fill the F1 field. That and the cars are just built better and put together better. Nothing has a bit of play in it so you're less likely to be surprised by varying handling characteristics as you approach each corner with the suspension shaking linkages loose.
I'd argue they would spin into the barriers on their out lap because they had to adjust their twin turbo pressures manually whilst driving monaco one handed due to having to manually change gears using a clutch and a gear stick. Mansell used to get wheel spin in 6th, these guys don't get wheel spin because their computer controlled engines make sure it doesn't happen through adjustable engine and pedal map settings. The designers have electronically eradicated a lot of the small mistakes that used to cost drivers, that's great in the world of everyday road driving, but **** for the racing world.
If what you are saying is True, why am I totally looseing interest In watching F1 let alone attending any GP races, I went to every British GP from 1969 to 1988 plus a few overseas and loved each occasion but now its just nothing.
I think part of the problem is way too much knowledge. i.e. the drivers are very fit, mentally prepared, and they have the data to know when to brake, what diff setting, brake balance to use etc. So their job is mapped out almost a perfect procedure to follow. In days gone by the drivers all had to drive literally by the seat of their pants. They were thinking on the fly at every corner so they made mistakes and those who made less mistakes could capitalise even if they had a slower car. It's also the engineers and designers who have access to so much data and simulation they are fairly sure what they bring to track will give x result. So it's all so meticulously planned unless their is an issue the result is almost known at the start. Data is also enabling such high levels of reliability very few cars are failing to finish. They have 3D millimeter accurate maps of the tracks, they know what tarmac has been layed and how abrasive/grippy it was last year to name but a few bits of data they have. Just look at Merc, the only mistake was a miss calculation about heat and it was due to unexpectedly high temps in Austria. So maybe somehow we need to remove data sources or do some thing unpredictable like don't allow teams to choose tyres. Give the teams the same types but don't tell them the 'tread' depth maybe even never exactly the same compound. So they are all going out a little blind. Austria was a great race but what made it that? Was it due to unexpected high temps that suited some or was it the track (I don't think just track)?
I fully get the romantic hankering for the cars of yesteryear, together with their 'pure' simplicity. But one might argue 'how far do we go back?' How about Blower Bentleys, lightweight Bugattis with clutch pedals (which needed to be double de-clutched) in the middle - where present day manual cars have a brake pedal? Or outboard, hand-operated, three foot long brake levers? The 60s would suit me fine, but technology cannot be unlearned and F1 needs to sit at the pinnacle while almost all modern day motor racing out-performs Graham Hill's wonderful Lotus. Now, I feel there is another point, all too easily overlooked. - And perhaps not sufficiently appreciated (!?) … Current F1 cars are mega-difficult to drive; much, much more demanding upon a driver than at any time in the past. This year's are more challenging than last year's, for instance; and generally, the cars have followed this trend, year in, year out. Yes, there is a wealth of computerised technology, most of which is overseen by one's pit-crew; but a driver needs to understand it and to be able to implement it (or more challenging still: experiment when solutions are less than clear as often happens with state-of-the-art, brand new tech'), all whilst pulling 5+g on mega-brakes (if leg strength is still sufficient after 80 minutes of repetitive strain injury) and 4.5g laterally due to unimaginable levels of grip, whilst communicating and/or absorbing sometimes difficult concepts to play-out on very challenging steering wheels, in cockpit temperatures which could slow-cook a Christmas turkey. In conclusion, F1 has always had the most challenging asphalt-based cars on the planet, in any and every era. We should respect what present day drivers are actually able to achieve. Most drivers from the past (myself included) would baulk at what is now required. I doff my cap to those at the sharp end.
Whatever happens, there are some apsects of the old days that we yearn for, less grip, powersliding, more driver input/less electronic interference etc, but we definitely don't want to go back to the old days from a safety point of view. I guess that's where the conflict now occurs. The cars are so fast these days, that in some respects the electronics are required as they do help keep the cars driveable. I'm sure there is a middle ground somewhere, but the speed of the cars has to be reduced first, but when that has been done in the past people have complained about making F1 slower and even more boring to watch as the relative limit of the cars is slower and therefore looks bad on TV. The age old answer to fixing F1 is simply that there isn't one.
