Poll Should it stay or should it go now

[Clinton]

look at the cable going into the rear wing

None of this fancy shit.

 

[Brogan]

None of this fancy s***.

Please don't bypass the swear filter - just type the word normally and the filter will do the rest if the word is prohibited.

http://cliptheapex.com/help/rules-and-guidelines

 

[FB]

Is that a good thing or bad thing FB? It seems to be from the seventies so it is naturally very ugly.

TC, you have no soul... Ugly!

That was Colin Chapman's follow up to the Lotus 79, strangely, called the Lotus 80 which was Chapman's attempt to get away from wings. It had sliding skirts under the nose, side skirts and skirts at the rear. The reason I posted this as it was the ultimate extension of the "wing car" but had lots of problems with chassis flexing which made it unstable.

From what I understand a return to wing cars would reduce the problems with turbulence when cars are following one another. But I might be wrong...

 

[Pyrope]

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.

That's the cast iron clincher. F1 simply has to be the fastest form of non-oval racing going, or it loses status and viewers. The two major occasions when F1 went down the slow road (1952-53, 1961-65) both resulted in a huge boom in the popularity of sportscar racing two to three years later. It almost happened again in the early 1980s but then turbos came along and F1 started to hold its own. Bernie was there for all three occasions and knows just how important speed is.

Another major argument is adaptability. Having your downforce built into your car's monocoque will seriously mess you up if it turns out you went down an evolutionary blind alley that season. Just look at how badly Renault have been compromised by their front-exit exhaust, and the Lotus 80 and 81 were complete nightmares. The arguments about advertising space and "the look" are both minor but worth considering, although I have to say that I really like the look of the Delta Wing and that pretty much does without wings. How fast it is remains to be seen...

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.

Yes, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and 1s seems like a good place to do it based on the evidence of the previous ten seasons' racing.

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.

Except that they weren't. Most of what we saw during the 2000s was a driver gain on a rival by 0.2-0.5s a lap, get to about 1s behind them and.... nothing. They were simply not close enough to pick up a tow. Only when a driver obviously had a huge advantage in speed, and were gaining by over half a second a lap, did we see traditional slipstreaming on the straights. I have a feeling that what you may be remembering is the late '80s and early '90s when active suspension allowed cars to run closer. AS may well be a technological answer but it was phenomenally expensive. Much more expensive than KERS and look at how many smaller teams couldn't afford that initially.

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.

We did see that at times, yes. Spa would be a very good case in point, but as I said, there is still a bit to learn about how the DRS integrates with other factors such as the tyres, weather, track design, and so on. This year we also had occasions when the DRS zone wasn't long enough to have an effect, and times when it was the perfect length and resulted in both cars entering the braking zone at approximately the same time. This year's implementation was very simplistic on the whole. I think next year we may see them try to be a bit more subtle. I hope so, anyway.

 

[Clinton]

>Please don't bypass the swear filter - just type the word normally and the filter will do the rest if the word is prohibited.

Fair enough, Brogan. Actually I should probably avoid swearing in the first place!

That's the cast iron clincher. F1 simply has to be the fastest form of non-oval racing going, or it loses status and viewers. The two major occasions when F1 went down the slow road (1952-53, 1961-65) both resulted in a huge boom in the popularity of sportscar racing two to three years later. It almost happened again in the early 1980s but then turbos came along and F1 started to hold its own. Bernie was there for all three occasions and knows just how important speed is.

My knowledge of F1 history from before the mid-90s is sketchy indeed, so I'll admit this is a good point.

I have to say that I really like the look of the Delta Wing and that pretty much does without wings. How fast it is remains to be seen...

There's no accounting for taste! I'm more inclined to wonder how it deals with a hairpin.

Yes, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and 1s seems like a good place to do it based on the evidence of the previous ten seasons' racing.

Certainly. But the point was that DRS is an entirely different (and inferior) phenomenon to slipstreaming, which your brain finds much less intuitively predictable (and therefore less pleasurable to watch).

Except that they weren't. Most of what we saw during the 2000s was a driver gain on a rival by 0.2-0.5s a lap, get to about 1s behind them and.... nothing. They were simply not close enough to pick up a tow. Only when a driver obviously had a huge advantage in speed, and were gaining by over half a second a lap, did we see traditional slipstreaming on the straights. I have a feeling that what you may be remembering is the late '80s and early '90s when active suspension allowed cars to run closer. AS may well be a technological answer but it was phenomenally expensive. Much more expensive than KERS and look at how many smaller teams couldn't afford that initially.

I agree that there is a trade off between DRS and close racing/ passing. I, like many others it seems, would simply prefer the situation you describe to the DRS version of F1.

We did see that at times, yes. Spa would be a very good case in point, but as I said, there is still a bit to learn about how the DRS integrates with other factors such as the tyres, weather, track design, and so on. This year we also had occasions when the DRS zone wasn't long enough to have an effect, and times when it was the perfect length and resulted in both cars entering the braking zone at approximately the same time. This year's implementation was very simplistic on the whole. I think next year we may see them try to be a bit more subtle. I hope so, anyway.

If we are to have DRS, then I would prefer to see no DRS zone at all during the race at circuits like Spa and Montreal. In other cases, for example Valencia and Abu Dhabi, it's fair to say that the aesthetic downsides of DRS should be weighed against the deadly dull racing that these track layouts otherwise tend to produce, so a lengthy DRS zone is more welcome.

Another way in which the DRS implementation might be more subtle is if more of the zones are located somewhere other than in the favoured overtaking spot. To take inspiration from Indycar's "push-to-pass", they might also consider limiting the use of DRS to say 12 occasions per race - although then again this might make the concept more gimmicky than it already is.

 

[Mezzer]

I think the fundamental problem is thinking that "more overtaking" automatically equates to "more exciting racing". Many people, such as myself, found interest renewed when Hamilton joined F1 with his "last of the great brakers" style to overtake, but now 2 evenly matched cars can overtake each other as many times as they like a la DRS, how very exciting. I hardly think that's better racing, I can see that on an scalextric track. At least with KERS both drivers have it and can use it when they feel is best for their lap, but DRS all seems terribly artificial to me. And as for allowing it at any time on a quali lap, sheesh ...

 

[johnnoble1990]

I have to agree with Mezzer about Lewis' style of overtaking. Overtaking on a straight isn't all that exciting really. I watch these 4 videos so much and really miss it now. I just hope the lack of this style of overtaking from Lewis was more because of his own head, than F1 itself changing, because going forward if we don't have this level of skill on show then i'm off to watch touring cars.

Mod Edit by Keke - Moved Hamilton Overtake videos to his Driver Thread.

 

[johnnoble1990]

I think DRS would be better if it was done by GPS and then when a driver got to 0.1 seconds behind it could shut and make it so the driver has to do the work.

Or alternatively do what a lot of people suggest and have it so both cars are allowed to use it for unlimited time, though i don't know whether it would just cancel each other out.

 

[Greenlantern101]

DRS is not ideal, but its the best solution to help faster cars overtake .... FOR NOW.

Come 2014 when ground effect will be reintroduced the dirty air factor will be greatly diminished and DRS should be discontinued.

 

[jez101]

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.

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. .

Sorry to burst the bubble mate, but HAM on RAI was heavily influenced by Lewis having much fresher tyres while RAI on ALO at Silverstone was down to Kimi being low on fuel and Alonso having just pitted. That would have made ALO 2s a lap or more slower. Montoya was just nuts but Schumi needed just second to lock up the WDC and he had turned in slightly too early there.

You have argued eloquently, but I don't think you have addressed at all how a car is supposed to get through the wall of turbulence that is filling what used to be the "hole in the air". If you are saying that the cars need a complete re-think then perhaps I would agree but I think there have been a lot of re-thinks on this subject over the last 15 years.

Until we have a rethink that allows for proper overtaking on the track (and not follow-the-leader-until-the-pitstops when positions change in such an exciting way ) , I think we need DRS on the cars. Yes, we need to tweak some of the zones, but I do not want to go back to Abu Dhabi 2010.

 

[Galahad]

DRS is not ideal, but its the best solution to help faster cars overtake .... FOR NOW.

Come 2014 when ground effect will be reintroduced the dirty air factor will be greatly diminished and DRS should be discontinued.

The last I saw of the 2014 regulations, the ground effect proposals had been dropped and the DRS was still included.

I think DRS serves a useful function if it balances out the inherent disadvantage of the aero wake, pretty much as Keke has said. I think this season there have been a few occasions when the zones were too long, and the driver in front had no opportunity to defend whatsoever. Thanks to Pirelli, there was a fair bit of overtaking outside the DRS zones too, and their own figures bear that out.

More overtaking doesn't equal more excitement for me, but I think a complete absence of overtaking makes an exciting race extremely unlikely.

So, I would support its retention for 2012 and hope the FIA get their numbers right in fine-tuning the number, location and length of the zones.

 

[RasputinLives]

What I object to about the DRS is it takes away the art of defending a position so why not treat it like the KERS system? Every car has a certain length of time (7 seconds?) they can have their DRS system activated per lap that way it puts the skill of using it back in the drivers hands.

It would be the guy in fronts job to use it effectivly to make sure the guy behind doesn't get close enough to use it to get past him - and the guy chasings job to make sure he forces the guy in front to use all his defending whilst he has some left to get past. Would still mean that a much faster car could still force a pass more easily whilst still insuring that a driver has to plan and use skill to make the move. It wouldn't just be a magic overtake button anymore anyways.

Plus we'd see a lot more dummies, punch, counter punch, wheel to wheel stuff I reckon. Was it Button on Massa in Brazil where he sold him the fact he was trying to pass on the start/finish straight so Massa used all his KERS up only for Button not to use his and jump him a couple of cornors later? that sort of overtaking I'd welcome.

 

[KekeTheKing]

What I object to about the DRS is it takes away the art of defending a position

Part of the reason that something like DRS had to be introduced was that the art of defense had become much too robust. This was brought upon by the drastic improvements in safety.

One of the reasons that overtaking worked so well from the early days of auto racing through the 80's was that there was almost equal onus on both parties to use extreme caution when in close quarters. They had a lot more to lose than a position.

The mid-90's ushered in a ruthless form of racing where drivers become ever more emboldened by the security of their cockpits. By the 2000's blocking had become commonplace and the top drivers had perfected the practice.

The combination of turbulent air and excessive defense in the braking zones was enough to make overtaking an almost miraculous achievement.

 

[RasputinLives]

Whilst I understand that Keke - and yes agree that the likes of Mansell and Senna brought in blocking to the extreme in F1 - you only have to look at the uproar blocking coursed in Indycar the yera Mansell went over there to realise F1 had gone into that ruthless fashion and I agree it went too far but there has to be a happy medium.

Isn't one of the things that makes F1 exciting the fact that a driver in lesser machinary can use their skill to beat those in superior machinary? If you make it so that a faster car can always pass a slower car in front you might as well just run drag races.

Defending a position can be done fairly and more often than not is. Vettel did a wonderful piece of defending on Hamilton in China where he just placed his car in the exact right position in the braking zone that Lewis just couldn't take advantage of tghe extra speed he was carrying in. How exciting was it watching Schumi hold back Webber and Button in Canada and Lewis at Monza?

I understand the need to give a quicker driver the ability to pass otherwise its just a proccession but you can't take away the art of defence either which is why I liked my suggestion of giving them both the equal tools to pass with and it becomes a matter of out thinking the other to use it which I think is far more exciting to watch than knowing that if Webber only qualifies in 18th he's bound to come through to the points.

 

[Pyrope]

I think it will take time for drivers to get the hang of defending against DRS, but some have clearly got a few ideas. I have a feeling that Seb knows very well how to put a faster chasing car on the back foot already. Just watching him defend against Hamilton was interesting earlier in the season (I forget where offhand, anyone?) and the way he baulked Lewis at the hairpin before zipping off showed that he has got one heck of a brain in there. As with most things in F1, where a technology exists the better drivers will always find new and interesting ways to either use it or compensate for its lack.

 

[FB]

Another thought on DRS, how many times this season did we see cars going into a corner 3 abreast where the two trailing cars both had their DRS open? I can't remember manys season where this sort of thing happened so often, not even bak in the 80's with variable turbo boost.

 

[Bushi]

For me it can stay, but it has to be adjusted. Like for instance when they pass someone and they are next to them, the DRS should be deactivated. When someone passes someone just before a DRS detection zone, the one who is just passed can only use DRS on the next lap.

 

[teabagyokel]

Button's overtake on Schumacher is often cited as an example of why DRS is wrong. The fact that Button was within the same straight as Schumacher was due to DRS. From lap 40 to lap 65 (including four Safety Car laps) Button passed Liuzzi, Karthikeyan, Trulli, d'Ambrosio, Glock, de la Rosa, Buemi, Maldonado, Alguersuari, Heidfeld, Kobayashi, Webber and Schumacher. It is possible that without DRS, Button could have endured enough laps of frustration behind some of those midfield runners to make his eventual win impossible.

So, in summary, what you would have seen in Canada was Schumacher get passed by Webber anyway and Button just about on his back for 4th. An improvement if you have any interest in seeing Schumacher standing on the podium, but ruining one of the best races of the year.

It is possible to have DRS which can facilitate overtaking whilst not guaranteeing success. We had such DRS zones in Barcelona and at Monza.

In my opinion, the difference between DRS and no-DRS is the difference between the tense and thrilling conclusion to the 2011 Spanish Grand Prix and the pointless borefest that the previous 14 Grands Prix at the same circuit. It is the difference between having 42 half-passes at Valencia and having no passes at all save for Luca Badoer failing to get out of the pit lane.

OK, DRS is artificial, but Formula One is artificial. Racing in cars is artificial. If you were to design a race that was entirely without artifice, you would have 22 naked and extremely thin people running round 300km of a Circuit.

It overcomes the turbulent air problem, and I personally don't want to see a race like the 2008(-09) European Grand Prix again!

 

[Mezzer]

I suggest the fact that everyone thinks the regs need to be tweaked with ever-increasing complexity to get DRS to be better by definition implies its not great. IMO DRS came in so that the FIA could control the issue raised by the F-ducts, I'd have rather seen some adjustments in the KERS regs, e.g. more power available, maybe for a shorter time, and can't be pressed twice within say 10 seconds. Something of that ilk maybe ...

 

[Mezzer]

OK, DRS is artificial, but Formula One is artificial. Racing in cars is artificial. If you were to design a race that was entirely without artifice, you would have 22 naked and extremely thin people running round 300km of a Circuit.

True, but my opposition to Danica Patrick would be reduced.