Deadly DRS?

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Certain moveable aero parts are allowed It's called DRS and I can't stand it.

Also moveable aero parts are dangerous the moveable skirts (Brought in to get round the ban on ground effect.) in the ground effect cars directly caused a series of incidents/accidents (namely Nelson Piquet fainting on the podium of the Brazilian GP after an exhausting race, the death of Ferrari's Gilles Villeneuve, Rene Arnoux’s Renault being projected into the tire barriers due to ground effect pressure loss, Jochen Mass's burning car was sent into the crowd because of the same pressure loss, Didier Pironi's accident during the German Grand Prix) finally triggered a quick response from the FISA, with the ruling body deciding to ban ground effects in the final stages of the 1983 season.

And some say it was the flexi front wing that caused Vettel to lose control of his car and T Bone Button at Spa.

I know nobody has mentioned this and I don't know why, the fact is that the last race in Canada could have seen the first accident directly caused by DRS. If Schumacher's DRS had failed stuck open (As it did, they are supposed to fail stuck closed.) at the end of the final straight and he had tried to take the chicane he would have had a massive accident maybe even a life threatening one...

I think the FIA should start to consider that probability, before it actually happens..
 

Jos the Boss

Champion Elect
I think the same thing that happened at Turn 8/9 would have happened and he would have just missed the second part of it due to not being able to turn in as much
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
He already knew he had a problem by then he would not have known that if it happened in the DRS zone approaching a known tricky chicane at 200 miles an hour with no down force until it was too late...
 

MajorDanby

Motorsports' answer to Eric the Eel
Contributor
I don't think any of the other teams DRS's will fail in a similar manner. As far as I have heard it was part of the carbon ducting sticking out of the wing that caused it to fail open
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
The problem with that MajorDanby is now that the Merc's DRS has been classed as legal other teams are going to copy it. and it will at first be an add hock item which may be even more likely to fail. in the open position...
 

Viscount

Pole Sitter
Contributor
Brakes can fail at high speed, suspension can fail at high speed (which happened to Buemi in 2010). A DRS failure is much less dangerous than those in my opinion.
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Yes and that has happened tyres can also blow out at high speed, the difference is brakes, suspension and tyres are a necessary part of the car DRS isn't quite the opposite in fact so why put something on the car that is completely unnecessary has shown itself to fail and is potentially lethal....?

And worse still it seems 50% of people don't even like it, it is as daft as Bernie's sprinkler idea or his lets put short cuts on the track that drivers can use....
 

Viscount

Pole Sitter
Contributor
Driving a Formula One car is potentially lethal and could be driven by remote control, so one could argue that having a driver sitting in the car is unnecessary. Extreme example I know, but lot's of things could be perceived as an unnecessary risk depending on different peoples opinions.

There are the other '50%' that do like it... I for one think it's a necessary evil due to the way cars are designed now which limit the opportunities to overtake. I just believe it could be implemented better, perhaps like in Formula Renault 3.5 where cars have 800 seconds of DRS use per race to be used anywhere, or just scrap KERS and allow DRS to be used for a limited number of seconds per lap.
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Sorry don't buy that what with all the safety measures the FIA introduce to save lives including developing front roll hoops, why do they feel it necessary to put something on the car that is potentially dangerous simply because they think it improves the show which In my opinion and other it doesn't, the drivers have KERS they have a push to pass setting why do they need something that guarantees an overtake and that the driver in front cannot defend against, its crap and it's dangerous..

I really hope a driver doesn't have to get seriously injured or worse to prove I have a point.
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
One thing though I would rather this thread didn't discuss whether or not DRS is good or bad for the sport and concentrate only on if it potentially dangerous or not, although I know this may be difficult as I myself have put my feelings on that aspect of it forward already.

Oh well nice try me....:(
 

gdeacon7

Rookie
Vettel's crash at Spa was caused by him pulling out of the tow too quickly on a damp track and losing the back end. The car oversteered so I don't see how it could be the front wing's fault.

I don't think a DRS failure could cause a massive accident because I think you overestimate how much downforce you lose by activating it. The rear wing is still there producing some downforce, plus the diffuser/underside, front wing, and other aero parts are still working fine. The car obviously wouldn't make the apex of the corner if the DRS stayed open, but it should manage to brake enough to keep out of the barriers.

But I do take your point that when DRS was introduced, one of the selling points was that it would always fail in the 'safe' position, with the wing closed. Now we've seen it stuck in the open position, and at least once it has opened when it shouldn't have (Alonso in China 2011). Clearly it needs work, but I don't think the device exceeds the accepted level of risk that F1 operates on anyway.
 

ExtremeNinja

Karting amateur
Contributor
Well, to use a parallel, I don't think it is any more dangerous than the brake cables on my road bike. My brakes fail in the open position and I am certainly a lot more vulnerable on my bike than a formula 1 driver is in his cockpit. People get on bicycles with cable operated brakes every day.

In fact, to bring the comparisons closer, I went karting about four weeks ago and the brakes disappeared 2 laps into qualifying. It gave me a bit of a fright but, not being particularly experienced, I knew I only had a max of 8 laps within which to grab pole. I stayed out for a lap and a half and got pole on the full lap that I was brakeless (I was racing some muppets and these were only indoor corporate karts, but still). The pitlane was closed so I had to 180 it on the main straight and drive it into the pits backwards. The marshals went nuts until they checked the kart out to find that the brake block had split straight down the middle. I was driving and I could have pulled over at the side of the track or gone into trundle-mode - so could Schumacher have. Mercedes have found a flaw with thier system. Do you think they should have retired Rosberg when Shuey's car failed? They will certainly address the issue and revise the part which caused the fault before this weeks Grand Prix.

Anyway, motorsport is dangerous. Look:

You will see this sign at every sanctioned motor-racing circuit in the UK.

You've argued that DRS isn't necessary. Well neither are wings. The cars don't need to be open wheel or open cockpit and they don't even need to be as fast as they are. In fact, they don't need to exist.

[EDIT] I have been waiting for an excuse to tell my brakeless pole story too, so sorry if I have overindulged myself. :1st:
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
You carry on over indulging nowt wrong with that like I said I hope I am wrong...

I don't need to exist but for some completely unknown reason I do I say that as a parallel to the existence of DRS.

Bucking my own advice on not slating DRS there, sorry about that..;)
 
Top Bottom