Charlie likes DRS

[Scott]

when asked if it was possible the DRS could be changed to be used for a set amount of time in a race, as in Formula Renault 3.5.

"Before last year, drivers could use it at any time they wish in practice and qualifying and that led to a couple of incidents where drivers used it too early so for last year we only allowed them to use it in practice here they can use it in the race.

"We think it is important only to be used in certain areas, not for a maximum amount of time."

Great, thanks for that Charlie, nice to know there is more confidence in the drivers of Renault 3.5 as there is of F1 drivers.   

DRS zones are retarded in my opinion.  I accept that there are too many aero issues to do without DRS of any kind until they are corrected, but I really think putting the power in the hand of the driver to use it strategically and responsibly is the best way (i.e. timed DRS per lap or race), and not just have the two DRS zones, where they may as well paint a passing lane down.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112084

[lkjohnson1950]

Totally agree Scott. This is just another example of "Big Brother" protecting us from ourselves. If F1 drivers are the best in the world, they should be able to manage DRS on their own.

[Jericoke]

Totally agree Scott. This is just another example of "Big Brother" protecting us from ourselves. If F1 drivers are the best in the world, they should be able to manage DRS on their own.

The DRS is designed to overcome the aerodynamic disadvantage an F1 car has trying to overtake a car in front of it.  Since they can't design an F1 car to be easy to pass, they've chosen to give trailing cars a slight advantage.

If a driver could use DRS at any point, then problem would remain that from a spectacle point of view, an F1 car is unreasonably difficult to pass, making the race processional.

I don't think that DRS is the ideal solution, however I do think it's doing the job.  (I would prefer that F1 cars be mandated to leave a 'neutral' wake in the air or even favour the trailing car... but I don't know if that's possible)

Unless you're suggesting that DRS can still be opened only by a trailing driver, but at any point on the track?  I'd be okay with that.  In fact that's what I thought it was when I first heard about it.

[Scott]

You simplify it Jeri.  Some drivers would learn to use different DRS tactics.  Perhaps in 3-4 seasons the team strategists would be able to shut down other drivers defensively, but I don't see that happening at all right away. 

As I've said before, if the drivers were given only a certain amount of time per race, then they could choose and use it wisely, if for their setup or general car configuration that meant early on, while for others it would work better later on in the race.  As well some drivers would realize that using it a split second early leaving a corner made a huge difference, while others would tempt fate and use it a bit deeper into the braking area.  Tires would come into play probably.  Some of the late braking DRS probably wouldn't take as well late into the stints as the tires went off.  Light on fuel would probably affect how a driver could use it too. 

The point is, DRS as it is used presently in F1 has taken all but the steering out of the hands of the drivers once DRS is initiated.  Big deal.  It's boring as it is being used now, yet has potential to bring a lot more to the race if the FIA had a bit of creativity.

[John S]

The big difference between F1 and Renault 3.5 series (the old World Series by Renault) is that the Renault cars are all spec cars with Dallara chassis and Renault V8 engines. The areo effect is much more limited in R 3.5 than in F1, so there is a need to be more inventive with the how DRS can be used. Two cars side by side in just two zones in R 3.5 probably would not make for clean passing as the benefit from DRS is less.

I'd like to think some F1 charger would be brave enough to use DRS round 130R at Suzuka, now wouldn't that make us all sit up if it worked.        However I rather feel we may just have a spectacular shunt from such an action,  - so I reckon Charlie is right to stick with the zones. 

 

[Scott]

Come on John, F1 became F1 due to the speed, action, suspense and DANGER.  The FIA and Tilke have pretty much eliminated the three latter of those, but even if there is a shunt in 130R, chances are the driver wouldn't have a scratch on him.  Increasing the possibility of a crash does not increase the danger in today's F1.   

[Jericoke]

Come on John, F1 became F1 due to the speed, action, suspense and DANGER.  The FIA and Tilke have pretty much eliminated the three latter of those, but even if there is a shunt in 130R, chances are the driver wouldn't have a scratch on him.  Increasing the possibility of a crash does not increase the danger in today's F1.   

Now there's a thought... assuming the new turbos are as 'bullet proof' as last season's engines, and F1 safety rules remain strict, then perhaps it is time to design cars (and tracks) to gamble a little.  We need crashes for DNFs.  Not just drivers being silly and bumping wheels, but taking corners too fast: true hero to zero type stuff.

[vintly]

Said it before will say it again - Danger = Excitement. Simple as that. The whole sport has slipped too far in the wrong direction. The cars are safe enough to ensure the driver's come out of almost any big smash without seriously injuring themselves, so tracks should be more dangerous. DRS zone passes are dull, although they do provide something - but can you imagine any one DRS pass making it into a list of great overtakes? Impossible.

[Irisado]

Scott DRS is boring period.  It doesn't matter what they do with it, it's no substitute for authentic passes.  I don't remember a single good overtaking move being pulled off thanks to DRS, they've all either been easy or really easy.  If I'd had a pound for every time David Coulthard uttered the words 'easy DRS pass' on BBC commentary since it was introduced, I'd have a quite a few pounds by now.

Changing it won't make it any better.  It will just make overtaking even more dull than it is at present.  At least with its being restricted there's a chance that a driver might overtake someone outside a DRS zone, i.e. a proper overtaking manoeuvre.

[lkjohnson1950]

We will never see passing as it used to be again for 2 reasons, brakes and aero. The brakes now are so good that an absolute totally banzai late braking move might get you 1/2 a car length, not enough to complete a pass. And current aero rules, which the teams are unwilling to change, guarantee that if you get close enough to pass, you lose most of your front down force and can't turn the car.

 

[Scott]

Irisado, as long as the aero and braking are as Lonny describes it, then DRS is the only way to avoid a procession, which is the greater evil if you ask me. 

Mixing it up by giving drivers control over when and where they use DRS will spice it up, but that's too dangerous for Charlie, so it won't happen anyhow.

[cosworth151]

I look at DRS like I look at cheap whiskey: Far from good, but far better than nothing.

[Irisado]

Irisado, as long as the aero and braking are as Lonny describes it, then DRS is the only way to avoid a procession, which is the greater evil if you ask me.

Which is why I've consistently said that the FIA and the teams should be working together to reduce aero dependency, so that mechanical grip is more important. 

I'd rather watch a procession than DRS passes.  A procession might be dull, but at least it's not artificial.  There's nothing worse than artificial overtaking in my opinion.  It takes all the drama out of the sport.

[Monty]

Which is why I've consistently said that the FIA and the teams should be working together to reduce aero dependency

I do not disagree but without aero, brakes, etc. F1 stops being F1. The cars would be slower than F3 (which still have problems with overtaking!).

I think overtaking in any of the aero series will always need some level of artificial assistance. Whether it is DRS, 'push-to-pass', KERS, etc. I am in favour of forcing teams to complete a race on one single set of good tyres (unless they suffer a puncture). This would result in additional benefit coming from car set-up and driver smoothness. Tactics could range for going hell-for-leather at the start and hoping you can make a gap you can hold when your tyres go-off; to taking early laps really easy and then overtaking later when everyone else has killed their tyres. Still a bit artificial but it might create more exciting racing?

[Jericoke]

We will never see passing as it used to be again for 2 reasons, brakes and aero. The brakes now are so good that an absolute totally banzai late braking move might get you 1/2 a car length, not enough to complete a pass. And current aero rules, which the teams are unwilling to change, guarantee that if you get close enough to pass, you lose most of your front down force and can't turn the car.

 

The other impediments to passing are qualifying and modern driver fitness/preperation.

Qualifying necessarily puts the faster cars ahead of the slower cars.  Sure, there are a few drivers who qualify better than they race (and vice versa), but even that accomplishes one or two passes, and those are mostly text book faster cars passing slower cars.

The drivers are fit, so they can handle the pressure of driving an F1 car, and from simulations they know their cars and tracks inside and out, so they always take the best lines, which reduces passing opportunities, and they ensure the car will last the distance, so there's no reliability issues.

So a couple quick fixes off the top of my head:

1) Forbid simulators.  When a driver shows up on Friday testing, that's their first time on the track in their car.  Let's have some mistakes with braking points and racing lines to capitalize on!

2) Eliminate blue flags.  I don't really like the idea of a back marker deciding the championship, but I think it solves a few problems. 

i) It puts a LOT more passing into the sport.

ii) It makes the backmarker teams relevant to TV time and sponsorship opportunities

iii) It gives incentive for the 'big' teams to form technical partnerships (pronounced 'cost savings') with smaller teams who might help out on track.