GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Scott on January 10, 2014, 02:34:36 PM
-
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. :fool: :fool: :fool:
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:DntKnw: :fool: :DntKnw:
-
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.
-
I look at DRS like I look at cheap whiskey: Far from good, but far better than nothing.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
:DntKnw: :fool: :DntKnw:
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.
-
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.
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.
I would like to disagree regarding procession Irisado, because I feel it really makes the racing dull. I could remember the Spanish Grand Prix, Hungarian Grand Prix, for which only the first corner mattered, everything else would be same till the end. At least, DRS has given the drivers to avoid that sort of thing.
But I like Scott's proposal of limited DRS duration rather than specific area, that will surely make close racing much more interesting. :good:
-
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!).
The cars would still have aero, but they would be less dependent on it. That's the critical factor. The cars were not always this reliant on aerodynamics, yet the sport was still Formula 1, so I don't understand this addiction to aero dependency that designers have got themselves hooked on.
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?
This was the rule in 2005, and it worked to a certain extent. It was certainly better than DRS, and would have the added benefit of saving Pirelli taking lots of flack for having to produce tyres which wear out. It was abandoned after only one year though, ostensibly because of safety issues, but in reality because it disadvantaged Ferrari, and at that time Ferrari had a secret deal with the FIA allowing them to argue for rules to be removed which they didn't like.
What is important to remember though about 2005 was that there was a tyre war, so the need to last for an entire race distance was made more interesting because of the competition between Bridgestone and Michelin. The latter winning on performance grounds quite comfortably that year.
I would like to disagree regarding procession Irisado, because I feel it really makes the racing dull. I could remember the Spanish Grand Prix, Hungarian Grand Prix, for which only the first corner mattered, everything else would be same till the end. At least, DRS has given the drivers to avoid that sort of thing.
Yes, I remember those races too, although Hungarian Grand Prix over the years have often been spiced up by tyre wear issues, retirements, and even rain (the 2006 event and Button's first win). I'm not advocating processional racing, but at least there's nothing artificial about it. Opening and closing a wing flap to breeze past people is not Formula 1 racing in my book.
-
I can understand the resentment regarding DRS, Irisado, but my point is you have to start something. Yes it does feels artificial, in my opinion it gives the trailing car an unfair advantage, but something had to be done. May not be perfect, but its a step towards something. As you have mentioned many times before, the cars have become so reliable, now what can we do about it? Because of the tireless work of the mechanics, the feat has been achieved, you cannot just dismiss that. may be teams are not pushing to the limit, or it can be due to the advancement of technologies or it could be both. I don't think teams will like to come out of it, so I have a feeling it will be there to stay for quite a while.
I have always liked the idea of Scotty, that all teams to be given exact amount DRS time to be used, which will surely make things very interesting. Just stopping it in the grounds of safety is daft, as last it was legal to use in anywhere during qualifying and free practice session. If it was safe then, it should be safe during the race as well.
-
I don't think they will ever go back to a single set of tires per race. The problem is that the tire supplier is there, at great expense, to get their name on international TV. With one set of tires per race, they get almost almost zero broadcast time.
-
I can understand the resentment regarding DRS, Irisado, but my point is you have to start something. Yes it does feels artificial, in my opinion it gives the trailing car an unfair advantage, but something had to be done. May not be perfect, but its a step towards something. As you have mentioned many times before, the cars have become so reliable, now what can we do about it? Because of the tireless work of the mechanics, the feat has been achieved, you cannot just dismiss that. may be teams are not pushing to the limit, or it can be due to the advancement of technologies or it could be both. I don't think teams will like to come out of it, so I have a feeling it will be there to stay for quite a while.
Agreed that the cars are too reliable, but the solution to that was not to bring in DRS. It was to give the teams more money, cap the budgets, and remove the rev limits and gearbox restrictions which have helped to make the cars more reliable. Yes, there are practical problems with some of these ideas, but it would make for an altogether more enjoyable (in my view) spectacle than artificially induced overtaking.
Also, the re-introduction of turbos may help to bring back some unreliability, particularly in the early races of the season.
-
Irisado all motor racing is artificial, there ain't a thing natural about it, so how you can claim DRS is artificial is a puzzle. :confused:
When any team gets the jump on the rest of the field with a new innovation and keeps winning easily, or better still when some cars are deliberately set up to stifle the racing by being defensive and keep positions rather than moving forward in a race, is that artificial? When the powers that be limit weight, height, width, cc, materials, fuel, or tyres is that artificial?
.....or is it simply doing what's necessary. :DntKnw:
-
Returning to ground effects would help passing, while retaining the down force drivers love and giving the teams an area for technical development. This was planned for the new rules package, but was eliminated for reasons unknown. Otherwise, the cars are so restricted by the rules, they are bound to be reliable. If you liked the '90s, you should have been around in the '80s. I4 and V6 turbos against V8 and V12 N/A engines. Everyone cranking them to the max for a few extra HP. Ground effects cars, active suspension systems, qualifying engines and tires. Those were the days!!!
-
Ground effects would also make DRS unnecessary, since the backwash would be negligent. They could practically get rid of the rear wing if it wasn't for the advertising dollars they need space for.
As for DRS being unnatural, the truth is DRS is simply artificial drafting, and works a lot like they used to do, except that you could still draft in other places on the track as well.
-
Irisado all motor racing is artificial, there ain't a thing natural about it, so how you can claim DRS is artificial is a puzzle. :confused:
What I mean by artificial John is that it works like a driver aid. I remember all the fuss about traction control, active suspension, ABS, and all sorts of other gizmos which became increasingly part of Formula 1 in the early 1990s until they were banned. They didn't do the sport any favours, and I view DRS in the same way. It's an artificial overtaking aid for the drivers, when they should be able to overtake without the need to open a wing flap.
-
But if you can't, and I mean CAN'T overtake without something like that, what do you do?
-
Wouldn't power steering, power brakes, remotely adjustable diffs, computerized anti-stall systems and semi-auto gearboxes with paddle shifters also be driver aids? I've always thought it was silly that a modern F1 cockpit has all of those but still has a manual brake balance adjust lever.
F1 will always have driver aids. The only question is, which ones?
-
But if you can't, and I mean CAN'T overtake without something like that, what do you do?
Change the cars so that you can. The FIA and the teams won't do it though.
Wouldn't power steering, power brakes, remotely adjustable diffs, computerized anti-stall systems and semi-auto gearboxes with paddle shifters also be driver aids? I've always thought it was silly that a modern F1 cockpit has all of those but still has a manual brake balance adjust lever.
F1 will always have driver aids. The only question is, which ones?
There used to be a definition of what were classed as driver aids in Formula 1, but I can't remember it. If anyone with a better memory of the FIA's rulebook can, then that would help here. In a nutshell though, the type of driver aids that were around in the early 1990s are the things that I refer to as driver aids. I view DRS as a gadget like traction control, active suspension, or ABS, so for me it's a driver aid.
-
I think that's a cue for our residential rule book expert Ali to make an appearance Irisado. :good:
-
But if you can't, and I mean CAN'T overtake without something like that, what do you do?
Change the cars so that you can. The FIA and the teams won't do it though.
That'a exactly right, so there you are. And I don't think active suspension was a driver aid. It should have been developed as it has street car applications, especially as many US roads are crap these days. It was banned as too expensive for the smaller teams to afford.
-
I think that's a cue for our residential rule book expert Ali to make an appearance Irisado. :good:
That's what I'm hoping for :).
That'a exactly right, so there you are. And I don't think active suspension was a driver aid. It should have been developed as it has street car applications, especially as many US roads are crap these days. It was banned as too expensive for the smaller teams to afford.
It was also banned on safety grounds if I recall correctly, but the whole package of rules which came into force at the end of the 1993 season were not only part of a cost cutting measure, but were also there because of complaints that Formula 1 cars were becoming too easy to drive with all the gizmos bolted on.
It was also one of the few rule changes which worked, because the grid was really shaken up for the first couple of races in 1994. You had midfield teams right up at the sharp end (look at the performance by Arrows early on as an example). If only the events of Imola and Monaco 1994 had never transpired....