Poll DRS - Your opinions on it now

[Blog Zbod]

I do love analogies like this Blog Zbod but they can go both ways... Imagine a football match with goals smaller than the ball. That's a bit like f1 in 2010

Someone won every F1 race in 2010. If the football goals are smaller than the ball, no one will win because the match must necessarily end in a tie, or continue indefinitely. Either way, no one can win.

I fail to see the correlation.

 

[KekeTheKing]

I've been a staunch supporter from the start.

There were two main reasons why something had to be done to address the downward trend in overtaking. First is the oft-debated dependency on Aero-Grip that was inevitably disrupted when coming in close proximity to another vehicle. Second was the disturbing pattern in which drivers were defending their positions. When the prevailing consensus was that overtaking was "nigh on impossible", the leading driver was emboldened and felt entitled to defend in a manner that was inconsistent with driver etiquette from years gone by. Add in the amazing advancements in Safety and what you had was a disproportionate advantage being held by the driver in front, on the track and mentally inside the helmet. Generations of drivers were coming up in an environment where fair-play took a back seat, they were hell bent on retaining positions because they knew the difficulties that would follow when they entered the turbulence behind.

As for the "unlimited use" debate. It was definitely the drivers that pushed for the end of its unabated use in practice and qualifying. And I'm glad they did. Unlimited use only goes to serve the best cars. There's no doubt that this has aided Vettel/RBR over the past few seasons in qualifying. It just stands to reason that a car that is glued to the road will reap substantially better benefits in such a scenario.

The notion that DRS was simply catering to casual fans doesn't stand up. The OWG (Overtaking Working Group) had been studying the issues surrounding overtaking for years, conducting numerous surveys across global platforms in order to better understand what motorsport fans of all stripes were looking for in Formula One. Time and again fans from every walk of life cried for more passing.

Having watched many, many races (from the late 70's through today) in a condensed time span like I have, has given me quite a perspective of what Formula One racing has looked like over the years. The one thing that sticks out as the most frustrating thing to watch is a car that is visibly faster being held up by a car that is significantly slower. Sure, you would see this occasionally in the 80's, and then increasingly more often in the 90's, but by the 2000's this was a race by race occurrence for somebody, and while the racing was technologically exquisite, the entertainment value left something to be desired.

It's clear by now that most naysayers will never be swayed on this issue, and in fact become more entrenched every year. But I'm quite sure that the DRS isn't going anywhere. More and more junior formulae will be introducing the concept, ushering in an era of drivers that will have better respect for each other when battling for position knowing that they'll have a fair shake to get back at them sooner or later.

 

[Vortex]

Or to continue the football analogy, what if every time you got close to the oppositions net you could press a button that would make the net temporally much bigger giving the attacker a huge advantage making goal scoring much easier, almost certain. You may end up with 50, 60, 70 goals per game… would this be better?

 

[jez101]

Someone won every F1 race in 2010. If the football goals are smaller than the ball, no one will win because the match must necessarily end in a tie, or continue indefinitely. Either way, no one can win.

I fail to see the correlation.

I was comparing a goal smaller than the ball to overtaking in 2010. Both made the objective impossible. That's all.

I support DRS for the reasons argued by KekeTheKing among others. It's a quick fix to the problem of dirty air.

 

[KekeTheKing]

It doesn't make sense to compare what happened in F1 to other sports. The basic parameters of the game rarely change in other sports. Goal scoring in football didn't become exponentially more difficult over the years due to advancements in Goalkeeper size, strength, equipment, agility, and/or ingenuity. So there is no need to resort to other means to rectify this imbalance.

Motorsport is a discipline of ever-changing goalposts. Adaptations are necessary and should not be viewed through the same scope as other sports.

 

[Andyoak]

Keke... I bow to your research and knowledge once again!

You justify DRS really well and I agree with you about views just getting more entrenched but...
I'm not sure unlimitted use would lead to an RB walkover, as implied. Last year the majority of teams appeared to focus on optimising race performance (with limited DRS) over Red Bull's clear efforts to get qualifying speed with unlimited DRS. If there had been parity between qualifying and race use this wouldn't have occured; and the designers would have worked with this... probably coming up with similar solutions to Red Bull.

I don't know if unlimited DRS would be better racing (and we'll never find out); but I do believe that the choice on when to use DRS should be with the driver... to overtake, to defend, to improve lap time, to push his car and car control even further to the limit.

What I loved about the 80's racing was the way cars always looked as if they were about to go off the circuit and I just don't see it to the same extent today.

 

[KekeTheKing]

I don't know if unlimited DRS would be better racing (and we'll never find out); but I do believe that the choice on when to use DRS should be with the driver... to overtake, to defend, to improve lap time, to push his car and car control even further to the limit.

This is sort of how the World Series by Renault regulates their DRS. They are given an alotted amount of time when the flap can be activated throughout the race and its up to them when/how to use it. We should keep an eye on that this year to see if the teams have worked out the best way to utilize the system after its introduction last year.

Another problem with unlimited use in F1 is that within a matter of races the teams will have worked out the optimum DRS strategy and their would be very little variation in its application. The only time to be gained would be on corner exit by the top car. I'm certain that unlimited use would just further field spread.

 

[Harry]

The Mclaren drivers didn't lobby for the removal of the F-Duct Harry.

Not sure why you're telling me that. I was referring to your comment about giving the drivers free use of DRS at the their own discretion, and never mentioned McLaren or F-ducts.

I don't remeber any lobbying to restrict DRS use in qualifying from the drivers...
If they were that worried / scared why did they use it?

Obviously if they didn't use it, they'd be alot slower in qualifying. What driver is going to do that? They had to take the risk and push the boundaries if they wanted to qualify well.

A couple of the many articles about the drivers wanting to get rid of unrestricted DRS use on safety grounds:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20351041
"Formula 1 is to ban, on safety grounds, the free use of the DRS overtaking aid in practice and qualifying from 2013.
Drivers have complained there have been incidents when some have lost control because they are testing the limits of when they can use the DRS. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...want-DRS-use-restricted-causes-accidents.html

 

[ExtremeNinja]

[Edit]With regards, to the F-Duct, Harry,[/Edit] the McLaren drivers had it from the start and could operate it with their knee. Due to homologation of the monocoque, the other teams had to bodge a solution which meant that all the other drivers had to remove a hand from the steering wheel to operate it. If it had been kept within the regulations then in the following year all cars would have safer methods of operation. The safety grounds argument does not stand up, for this reason. The other teams chose a more dangerous method of activation due to not having had the foresight that McLaren had. It was their choice to take this risk and it was their failure not to innovate in the first place.

 

[Harry]

well, we also seem to have different interpretations of DRS...

 

[Andyoak]

"Formula 1 is to ban, on safety grounds, the free use of the DRS overtaking aid in practice and qualifying from 2013.
Drivers have complained there have been incidents when some have lost control because they are testing the limits of when they can use the DRS. "

Surely that can happen regardless of DRS... the whole point is for the driver to push the car to the limit and in the process will, at times, overstep the limit: it is a learning process.

Are the drivers saying they are incapable of learning how and when to use DRS safely but are able to adapt and learn about tyres that "fall off the cliff"?

ExtremeNInja succintly summarises the fundamental problem that F1 faces... constant legislation to stifle innovation when it gains an advantage. The absolute opposite of what was great about F1 in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Harry]

the free use of DRS wasn't legislated against to stifle innovation - it was requested by the drivers for safety. So as succint as that summary may have been, wherever it occurred, it is not applicable to the use of DRS. DRS wasn't an innovation a team came up with to gain an advantage, it is something the FIA mandated on them to improve the show.
call the drivers what you will - they're the ones with their arse on the line.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

well, we also seem to have different interpretations of DRS...

I was referring to your points about the F-Duct, which I thought was quite obvious.

 

[Blog Zbod]

It doesn't make sense to compare what happened in F1 to other sports....

I didn't compare F1 to another sport. I drew an analogy what it might look like if the FIFA were to abandon the basic principles of competition and fair play and bastardise their rules as the FIA have done.

If you don't care for the sports analogy, how about Greek theatre? DRS is F1's Deus ex machina, a plot device whereby some impossible dilemma miraculously is solved through the intervention of unseen and unknown forces, the g-d out of the machine. A rather tawdry an uninspired contrivance, even in ancient Greece.

...Drivers have complained there have been incidents when some have lost control because they are testing the limits of when they can use the DRS. "...

The throttle works both ways.

I don't begrudge them the rule change but it impacts Vettel's qualie efforts far more than any other driver on the grid. He consistently was able to open his DRS earlier than anyone else, like at the third apex of Istanbul's turn 8. Other drivers only found their safety compromised when they tried to match Vettel's performance.

 

[Harry]

I was referring to your points about the F-Duct, which I thought was quite obvious.

ah, it should be quite obvious to me. My fault again...

Problem is I didn't make any points about F-ducts. And that literally couldn't be any more obvious.

 

[Harry]

The throttle works both ways.

I don't begrudge them the rule change but it impacts Vettel's qualie efforts far more than any other driver on the grid. He consistently was able to open his DRS earlier than anyone else, like at the third apex of Istanbul's turn 8. Other drivers only found their safety compromised when they tried to match Vettel's performance.

yep, the Red Bull's rear diffuser always was vastly superior to the other teams allowing them to open the DRS earlier.
And they still enjoy the advantage of the superior downforce - it's just not so outwardly obvious anymore.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

OK, your dismissal og points made about the F-Duct by Gethinceri, then, in your response to him about the mention of F-Ducts. the dismissal of the point makes a point in itself. The F-Duct is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as DRS with a different method of operation and a different mechanism to achieve the same result. It was brought into the discussion to draw a parallel and to add to add further perspective to the safety argument.

well, we also seem to have different interpretations of DRS...

It does not add to the discussion to make a post with the only possible intent of drawing a line between us and I am sure that our recent spats are serving only to alienate other users. Let's stick to the topics, try and be constructive, and not take potshots and try and outwit each other, please. We've got off on the wrong foot and I'm happy to start again with you.

 

[Fenderman]

Methinks gethinceri's astute observation regarding the discrepancy between drivers safety wobbles about unlimited DRS and lack of same with regard to F-ducts was somewhat too subtle.

 

[Harry]

So subtle in fact, that it had nothing to do with F-ducts! gethinceri's post I replied to was the 8th in this thread about DRS. All he said was "Give control to the driver and free use." There had been absolutely no mention of F-ducts before that, and he didn't even hint that he was talking about giving the drivers' free use of F-ducts. There was absolutely no reason to assume he was talking about anything other than DRS. At any rate, my posts were obviously about DRS.

 

[Harry]

OK, your dismissal og points made about the F-Duct by Gethinceri, then, in your response to him about the mention of F-Ducts. the dismissal of the point makes a point in itself. The F-Duct is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as DRS with a different method of operation and a different mechanism to achieve the same result. It was brought into the discussion to draw a parallel and to add to add further perspective to the safety argument.

they didn't have F-ducts last year when drivers were calling for the removal of free DRS use in qualifying, so it doesn't add anything to the safety argument of the drivers wanting the removal of unrestricted use of DRS in prac and qual that I was talking about. F-ducts have been banned for over 2 years now.