landogeorgelewis1
Champion Elect
Which is why i said it doesn't matter what any of us say on the subject. DRS is here to stay but as F1 fans we'll always tune in to see the drama anyways.
Incubus
Champion Elect
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I certainly will providing I can find a decent internet stream for the non-BBC ones...
Clinton
Rookie
I was ambivalent towards it at first, but I've grown to dislike it intensely.
Underlying its introduction is a basic mistake: "overtaking is exciting". Actually, in turns out that one car driving past another car isn't necessarily exciting - this statement disguises a greater complexity of value.
One of the things that's exciting about overtaking is the idea that you can ask different engineering teams to construct incredibly sophisticated racing machines, and when you ask them to race each other on a circuit, hey presto - they don't just follow each other around, they sometimes engage in these fascinating duels of wheel-to-wheel combat. I find this result aesthetically pleasing; DRS takes away that pleasure, by directly intervening in the events to ensure that passing takes place. Part of the beauty of racing is that it happens naturally, when you put men (or Danica) in cars and ask them to cross the finish line first. When I see the ridiculous invisible hand of DRS send a car flying past another with unnatural speed, I feel like I'm watching Scalextric cars: set them up on the straight, and race - nope, one of them's come off, stop racing - set up again, and race! Isn't this exciting!
It's also exciting when a following driver completely surprises the lead driver; for example Hamilton on Raikkonen in Monza 2007, Schumacher on Hill in Estoril 1995, Montoya on Schumacher in Spa 2004. The DRS zone renders this kind of subtlety unnecessary, because there's little point in risking such a manoeuvre when the long straight inevitably provides by far the best passing opportunity.
Sometimes, the DRS zone also reduces the complexity of overtakes. Button's overtake on Alonso in the last race was set up by compromising Alonso into the S do Senna, holding the tow through turn 3 and then finally passing him into turn 4 - this kind of extended passing manoeuvre was facilitated by the fact that the DRS zone in Brazil was minimal. On the other hand when the zone is long and situated on the main straight, generally the complexity of most passes amounts to "get in the 1-second zone, point your car in the right direction and brake reasonably late as you pass him" - dull.
The effect of DRS on the aesthetic quality of racing is also profound in another way. You can see a slipstream developing over a number of seconds, gradually, as the following car picks up pace and prepares to pull out - DRS passes on the other hand often seem to come out of nowhere (but without the elegance of the aforementioned "surprise" overtakes), and are difficult to predict based on the general pace of the cars. The 1-second criterion for DRS activation is completely arbitrary, so instead of being simple and intuitive, following a multi-lap battle between cars often devolves into an exercise of paying attention to whether this criterion has been met (something that the viewer often can't even see for himself until the activation point is reached).
Excitement in racing (or in general) is something that develops gradually, increasing in intensity to a peak. The crowd at a football match or boxing contest always becomes most excited during a long exchange - a goal from nowhere, or a one-punch KO, are generally much less exciting than a goal that the crowd anticipates, or a Corrales-Castillo style ebb-and-flow. DRS passes are disjointed; lacking the natural flow of slipstreaming-enabled passes, they are not a substitute for slipstreaming as some have claimed, and they also lack the compensating factor that a goal from nothing or one-punch KO is often the aesthetically pleasing product of extreme skill.
Finally, DRS tends to produce ordering of cars by inherent pace, defeating the distinction between racing and time-trialling. The fact that slower cars can sometimes hold back faster cars is the whole point of having cars race together on a circuit, so ease of passing is far from being a strictly good thing even when the following driver/car is clearly faster than the driver/car in front. How many races have there been this season in which a midfield driver successfully kept one of the big 6 behind him until the chequered flag, given that the driver of the faster car had been able to catch up to him?
On the other hand I will say that in general the quality of the racing has improved this year. But I think that much of that has been down to the tyres, particularly in the first half of the season when the teams were unused to the new regulations. The same phenomenon, of better racing in the first half of the season, was observed in 2010 - this has something to do with the distribution of good and poor circuits in the calendar, but it seems to me that a change of regulations in itself is something that promotes more exciting racing (perhaps because the teams' race strategies are less optimised). And as time has gone on, I've enjoyed DRS-enabled passes less and less - the novelty has worn off. I would scrap DRS.
Underlying its introduction is a basic mistake: "overtaking is exciting". Actually, in turns out that one car driving past another car isn't necessarily exciting - this statement disguises a greater complexity of value.
One of the things that's exciting about overtaking is the idea that you can ask different engineering teams to construct incredibly sophisticated racing machines, and when you ask them to race each other on a circuit, hey presto - they don't just follow each other around, they sometimes engage in these fascinating duels of wheel-to-wheel combat. I find this result aesthetically pleasing; DRS takes away that pleasure, by directly intervening in the events to ensure that passing takes place. Part of the beauty of racing is that it happens naturally, when you put men (or Danica) in cars and ask them to cross the finish line first. When I see the ridiculous invisible hand of DRS send a car flying past another with unnatural speed, I feel like I'm watching Scalextric cars: set them up on the straight, and race - nope, one of them's come off, stop racing - set up again, and race! Isn't this exciting!
It's also exciting when a following driver completely surprises the lead driver; for example Hamilton on Raikkonen in Monza 2007, Schumacher on Hill in Estoril 1995, Montoya on Schumacher in Spa 2004. The DRS zone renders this kind of subtlety unnecessary, because there's little point in risking such a manoeuvre when the long straight inevitably provides by far the best passing opportunity.
Sometimes, the DRS zone also reduces the complexity of overtakes. Button's overtake on Alonso in the last race was set up by compromising Alonso into the S do Senna, holding the tow through turn 3 and then finally passing him into turn 4 - this kind of extended passing manoeuvre was facilitated by the fact that the DRS zone in Brazil was minimal. On the other hand when the zone is long and situated on the main straight, generally the complexity of most passes amounts to "get in the 1-second zone, point your car in the right direction and brake reasonably late as you pass him" - dull.
The effect of DRS on the aesthetic quality of racing is also profound in another way. You can see a slipstream developing over a number of seconds, gradually, as the following car picks up pace and prepares to pull out - DRS passes on the other hand often seem to come out of nowhere (but without the elegance of the aforementioned "surprise" overtakes), and are difficult to predict based on the general pace of the cars. The 1-second criterion for DRS activation is completely arbitrary, so instead of being simple and intuitive, following a multi-lap battle between cars often devolves into an exercise of paying attention to whether this criterion has been met (something that the viewer often can't even see for himself until the activation point is reached).
Excitement in racing (or in general) is something that develops gradually, increasing in intensity to a peak. The crowd at a football match or boxing contest always becomes most excited during a long exchange - a goal from nowhere, or a one-punch KO, are generally much less exciting than a goal that the crowd anticipates, or a Corrales-Castillo style ebb-and-flow. DRS passes are disjointed; lacking the natural flow of slipstreaming-enabled passes, they are not a substitute for slipstreaming as some have claimed, and they also lack the compensating factor that a goal from nothing or one-punch KO is often the aesthetically pleasing product of extreme skill.
Finally, DRS tends to produce ordering of cars by inherent pace, defeating the distinction between racing and time-trialling. The fact that slower cars can sometimes hold back faster cars is the whole point of having cars race together on a circuit, so ease of passing is far from being a strictly good thing even when the following driver/car is clearly faster than the driver/car in front. How many races have there been this season in which a midfield driver successfully kept one of the big 6 behind him until the chequered flag, given that the driver of the faster car had been able to catch up to him?
On the other hand I will say that in general the quality of the racing has improved this year. But I think that much of that has been down to the tyres, particularly in the first half of the season when the teams were unused to the new regulations. The same phenomenon, of better racing in the first half of the season, was observed in 2010 - this has something to do with the distribution of good and poor circuits in the calendar, but it seems to me that a change of regulations in itself is something that promotes more exciting racing (perhaps because the teams' race strategies are less optimised). And as time has gone on, I've enjoyed DRS-enabled passes less and less - the novelty has worn off. I would scrap DRS.
Nice post Clinton says everything about the Dreary Racing System
Go - but not so as to revert to fixed wings of the same design.
I think what DRS has shown us is that the down force impedes passing on the straight, but the passing it DRS enables does not guarantee a more exciting, or better, race.
With rear down force restricted the drivers need to be more switched on for the corners. The cars are simply too capable through the corners, bring back the delicate right foot and make the drivers have a bigger difference on the lap times - well, either that, or let's just get a scalextric set...
I think what DRS has shown us is that the down force impedes passing on the straight, but the passing it DRS enables does not guarantee a more exciting, or better, race.
With rear down force restricted the drivers need to be more switched on for the corners. The cars are simply too capable through the corners, bring back the delicate right foot and make the drivers have a bigger difference on the lap times - well, either that, or let's just get a scalextric set...
Josephiah
Podium Finisher
In the absence of a complete aero redesign, I'd be happy enough to give it another season, hopefully during which the powers-that-be will have worked out better lengths of zones based on this year's data. The cases where I have enjoyed it are the ones where it allows the following driver to get close enough to shape up a move further down the track, so if they can calculate it to work like this more of the time, I'll be happy.
A redesign in favour of more mechanical grip would obviously be preferable, but can't see that happening in the immediate future...
A redesign in favour of more mechanical grip would obviously be preferable, but can't see that happening in the immediate future...
Well, I'll stick up for it. Anything to avoid the days of "one second but no closer" racing we saw up to last year. Yes, once or twice in a season a driver would pull off one of Clinton's surprise moves, but far far far far far too often what we had was a parade where no car could get within a second of the one in front unless they passed them immediately, on pain of making mincemeat out of their tyres. Even at good circuits. This year has been a learning one for the DRS; some places too much, some places too little, and some were spot on. It will get better. There never was any halcyon, golden age of wings-n-slicks racing, and I do wish people would stop extrapolating the odd amazing manoeuvre into fond memories of season-long wheel to wheel dicing; it just hasn't been that way since the late '70s.
Tyres are never going to be the answer. Even during the course of just this season we have seen Pirelli revert much more to the Bridgestone "make 'em last" ethos of construction, rather than the fun-inducing toothpaste doughnuts we had earlier in the year. There is absolutely no incentive for a tyre manufacturer to make tyres that fail week in, week out, in front of hundreds of millions of TV viewers. Add in Red Bull's extreme camber angles and whatever they may or may not be doing with exhaust gasses and the tyres are going to be back at 2010 specs before the end of next season, you just watch. The only way this won't happen is for F1 to produce its own, unbranded tyre. But hey, that would cost money and BCE just wouldn't even dream it.
As long as we have the artificiality of upside down aeroplanes with wheels passing themselves off as "cars" why not have the artificiality of DRS? Wings are not going away, for ever so many reasons, so there has to be something that counterbalances their negative effect on close-quarters racing. Unless you can come up with a better solution than DRS I reckon it's here to stay.
Tyres are never going to be the answer. Even during the course of just this season we have seen Pirelli revert much more to the Bridgestone "make 'em last" ethos of construction, rather than the fun-inducing toothpaste doughnuts we had earlier in the year. There is absolutely no incentive for a tyre manufacturer to make tyres that fail week in, week out, in front of hundreds of millions of TV viewers. Add in Red Bull's extreme camber angles and whatever they may or may not be doing with exhaust gasses and the tyres are going to be back at 2010 specs before the end of next season, you just watch. The only way this won't happen is for F1 to produce its own, unbranded tyre. But hey, that would cost money and BCE just wouldn't even dream it.
As long as we have the artificiality of upside down aeroplanes with wheels passing themselves off as "cars" why not have the artificiality of DRS? Wings are not going away, for ever so many reasons, so there has to be something that counterbalances their negative effect on close-quarters racing. Unless you can come up with a better solution than DRS I reckon it's here to stay.
Josh
Champion Elect
I think if they get the DRS zones right and don't make them too long or too short, so that it actually does what it was originally introduced for (getting the driver behind close enough to the car infront to be able to overtake him into the corner) then it will be a succes.
I hope that with the things they've learned this year they'll get the zones perfect, or at least shorten the zones which were too long this year.
I hope that with the things they've learned this year they'll get the zones perfect, or at least shorten the zones which were too long this year.
Clinton
Rookie
I'd be interested in hearing some of them.
Given the choice between relatively processional races and races with DRS-enabled closing and passing, some people will prefer one or the other merely as a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum in that case - clearly I'm in the former camp.
You provided two reasons: firstly, tyre manufacturers are uncomfortable associating themselves with a tyre that wears out very rapidly; secondly, because the engineers always seem capable of designing cars that overcome these problems (I would add that race strategists also find ways around them).
These are both very good reasons why tyre design isn't the final solution. However, there may be something to the idea that keeping engineers and race strategists on their toes in general promotes good racing, and this can be achieved through substantially changing tyre regulations and various other design regulations year by year. What is your opinion on that?
The classic exuse I've always heard for keeping them was advertising space. I think the main one is the pinncle motorsport needs the fastest cornering speeds. I'm too young and therefore unfamiliar with the ground effect years but I understand the cars can become unstable over bumps etc, cay anyone confirm?
Clinton
Rookie
I believe you're correct about ground effect - it's relatively easy to lose massive amounts of downforce when most of it is supplied by ground effect, therefore wings are considered to be safer.
So I count one strong argument in favour of keeping wings (we want fast cornering speeds, and ground effect is too unsafe to make up the difference if we banned wings). I'm not sure what to make of the argument from advertising space; perhaps if wings were merely to be reduced in size, that wouldn't be a problem.
Andyoak
Champion Elect
Clinton, although I disagree with you about DRS, I appreciate the carefully considered counter arguements you've put forward... have a moustache from me
(if I'm allowed to award one ).
I do agree with Pyrope; it is very easy to extrapolate a rose tinted past from fond memories. Likewise there a a few here (and many more were on 606) who forget that the top teams weren't always Ferrari and McLaren; each generation seems to throw in someone new to the mix...
We will have wings for a long time to come... a my reasons are:
I hope the next big shake up in the regulations will open the door for more surprises than we've seen over recent years but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime I've largely enjoyed this years racing and recognise that DRS has only been a qualified success but it's still been a big improvement on most of the racing I've seen over the past 10 years.
(if I'm allowed to award one ).I do agree with Pyrope; it is very easy to extrapolate a rose tinted past from fond memories. Likewise there a a few here (and many more were on 606) who forget that the top teams weren't always Ferrari and McLaren; each generation seems to throw in someone new to the mix...
Will Red Bull still be there in 2014?
Will Caterham be challenging for wins?
Will Ferrari be banned from accepting tobacco sponsorship and FIAT fold in an Italian Euro callapse?
We will have wings for a long time to come... a my reasons are:
- Advertising space... they bring in the money.
- The public expect to see wings on open wheeled racing cars.
- They have been in use for 40 years and to remove them would require a huge overhaul of the teams engineering expertise, equipment and investment.
- With the teams largely accepting the need to restrict or cap development costs it would never get approved by the manufacturers on cost grounds alone.
- Scrapping wings would upset the apple cart too much and risk HRT and Ferrai swapping places in the first year (not necessarily a bad thing).
I hope the next big shake up in the regulations will open the door for more surprises than we've seen over recent years but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime I've largely enjoyed this years racing and recognise that DRS has only been a qualified success but it's still been a big improvement on most of the racing I've seen over the past 10 years.
I'm sure there were a large amount of fans outside of Britain that felt deprived of a true fight to the finish when Vettel fell off the road.
However, the hard work had already been done, and you couldn't take that away from Jense. Just as if he had caught up to Vettel and passed in the DRS zone on the final tour.
In fact, an overtake into the final corner for a race win would have been highly preferable to what actually happened.
The 2 by 2 phenomenon has ALWAYS been part and parcel to F1. Even more so when the pace gaps between cars were much wider.
However, the hard work had already been done, and you couldn't take that away from Jense. Just as if he had caught up to Vettel and passed in the DRS zone on the final tour.
In fact, an overtake into the final corner for a race win would have been highly preferable to what actually happened.
The 2 by 2 phenomenon has ALWAYS been part and parcel to F1. Even more so when the pace gaps between cars were much wider.
Not really. This was studied extensively by the OWG and other such technical bodies. They established that when you're within a second of another car, the turbulent air being spewed out at you is so devastating to your downforce levels that it's extremely difficult to even stay within attack range for an extended duration.
Clinton
Rookie
Some good reasons there, but in this case I feel I should point out that casual fans don't expect to see any such thing as DRS, either. I believe that many people who don't follow F1 closely are surprised when they learn that following cars are given a speed boost at the expense of leading cars.
Also, if they were able to accept the change from wingless to winged cars, why would they have a problem accepting the change back to cars with wings of diminished size or no wings? F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and as such it should have no problem being a trend setter.
I'll concede that they would have to produce a better design than this, though.
Just so we're all on the same page here, Mercedes' overtaking breakdown shows that out of what they classify as "clean overtakes", 441 maneuvers were completed OUTSIDE of the DRS zone, with 363 occurring in it. 55% to 45%.
http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2011/11/12816.html
There was loads of racing this season, all over the track.
The ease of DRS overtaking is being exaggerated to an almost comical degree right now.
http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2011/11/12816.html
There was loads of racing this season, all over the track.
The ease of DRS overtaking is being exaggerated to an almost comical degree right now.
Clinton
Rookie
True, but it's undesirable and DRS obviously contributes towards it. That is to say, the effect would be at least somewhat less pronounced without DRS.
When I say arbitrary, I mean that this could easily be said about cars within 1.1 seconds, or 1.25 seconds, or 0.93 seconds as well. There's no physical law that applies if and only if cars are within 1 second of the car in front at some point on the racetrack - slipstreaming is very nearly as easy when the following car is within 1.001s of the car in front as it is when it's within 0.999s.
When watching two cars battle each other without DRS, a passing opportunity can often be predicted in advance, and much of the excitement is in seeing the following car pick up the tow and gradually gain ground. The slipstreaming process is intuitive to follow and naturally builds excitement within the overtaking attempt. In the case of DRS on the other hand, we often see two cars enter a long straight and have no clear idea whether one of them might pass the other, depending on the difficult-to-estimate abrupt change in speed that will occur if and when the rear wing opens.
So to follow close racing in a DRS context, the viewer can't sit back and enjoy watching the subtleties of the following car attempting to pick up a tow, or compromise the leading car in advance of an overtaking opportunity to come a couple of corners later - things that are governed by the physics of F1 cars and which your brain can learn to predict with some accuracy, such that it can properly anticipate a coming overtaking manoeuvre. Instead, the viewer is constantly distracted by the question of whether the following car is within precisely 1s of the leading car across some physically insignificant line on the racetrack, and finds it relatively difficult to anticipate whether a pass is going to take place or not, and how much skill this passing manoeuvre is going to require. These problems significantly detract from the pleasure and suspense of watching an overtaking manoeuvre develop, and wondering whether the overtaking driver has the requisite skill to pull off what is evidently a daring manoeuvre.
>There was loads of racing this season, all over the track.
>The ease of DRS overtaking is being exaggerated to an almost comical degree right now.
Right. And that's what leads me to believe that DRS shouldn't be considered solely responsible for the upturn in close racing we've enjoyed this season, the Pirelli tyres having played a major role. Note that, as Pyrope pointed out, Pirelli became more conservative as the season progressed and this contributed to some relatively dull races in its latter stages. I'd be happy to trade off 60% of overtakes next season (assuming that DRS facilitates some of the overtakes outside of the DRS zone itself) in order to see non-DRS F1.
Is that a good thing or bad thing FB? It seems to be from the seventies so it is naturally very ugly.
I still want unlimited DRS all the time. Firstly laptimes would tumble, and secondly it used to be in F1 (look at the cable going into the rear wing). I have never understood the banning of movable aero parts, it seems far out dated
With a bit of regulation these scenes could easily be avoided
I still want unlimited DRS all the time. Firstly laptimes would tumble, and secondly it used to be in F1 (look at the cable going into the rear wing). I have never understood the banning of movable aero parts, it seems far out dated
With a bit of regulation these scenes could easily be avoided
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article