I think it'll make things more interesting, quali will be a more accurate reflection of race pace, which frankly is what it was always supposed to be. I'm very glad that the rule has changed, I've always detested artificially created differences in rules between the race and quali, DRS whenever you want it/quali tyres/quali fuel etc etc. I won't miss it.
My personal view is that since it seems that we must have DRS then it should be used exactly the same way in qualifying as in the race. Yes, I know that means that teams will use it by sending out one driver to help another but that already happens anyway.
When the FIA decided to allow the DRS system, they said from the very beginning that allowing the DRS to be open at any time during free practice and qualy was going to be a temporary allowance until enough data was collected for safety, performance, ect issues. This rule has nothing to do with the FIA trying to end Red Bulls dominance. Just look through the history books and you'll dominance comes in large waves. McLaren was dominant in the 90's, Ferrari for most of the 2000s and now its Red Bulls turn. There's already enough conspiracy theories for F1 fans to wrap their heads around, this little change isn't one of them.
I agree, I don't think its a conspiracy, more of a case of correcting an aberration. The fact that it may slow the RBs down is just a pleasant coincidence! That said, I'm sure Adrian is on the case ...
I would love DRS in the race, it certainly would add an element of bravery. Certainly better than restricting it in qualifying IMO.
For instance changing fuel load would mean that you could use DRS one lap around a corner when previously you would have been unable to, the question is when do you attempt this. Or DRS passing around the outside of a competitor would certainly be seen as brave (or reckless by some).
However the whole reason it was removed was because it was seen as dangerous. A ridiculous arguement I think, these are meant to be some of the finest single seater drivers in the world and have to possess a super licence to even take part in an official session. How this doesn't qualify the drivers to know when to open it and when not to I don't know.
As for whether Red Bull will be the most adversely affected by the change, they should be on paper. However every year Newey always finds a way. I wonder if Mercedes will try and change their front wing DRS to the Red Bull DDRS system of stalling the beam wing which has fewer issues with the airflow reattaching I believe.
First of all I do appreciate your argument teabagyokel, honestly I do.
"It is anomalous because despite all the fuel and tyre qualifying regulations that have been bandied around since 2003, never before has a permanent part of the car' s bodywork been regulated differently in qualifying and the race."
Tyres and fuel wearing out or burning out could not be replicated from qualifying to race and the choice is, for now, to allow cars to go as fast as they can in qualy.
But, despite that argument being used here several times, free use of DRS in a selected straight line with no one in front of you does not replicate race conditions. What is then the justification for allowing the limited use (in selected parts of the circuit) of a device that is to be used extraordinarly to overtake on the course of a race? And if its use is going to be allowed why not let it be used freely? it's the same as with tyres and fuel. Let it be used in a way that allows car to go faster, not slower.
The argument that it does not reflect race pace makes no sense. The use of DRS in a couple of straights doesn't either. If DRS is freely used In circuits where overtaking is hard the fast one lappers will have an advantage and in fast overtaking circuits is the other way around. In the end the most balanced combination of driver and car will win in the course of a season. And the show is guaranteed as cars with different approaches will fight one another a lot more in track.
And if DRS is not allowed during qualy, (the best proxy for race conditions) then at least cars with a good DRS will leap in front in the course of a race. But if DRS is used as in race conditions then faster cars overall will be ahead already and the ones behind who might be faster turning will not posess a good enough DRS to go through.
So I ask again? How does this benefit the spectator?
Bear in mind that the reason I don't like the change of rules is that it is taylor made to benefit one team, and the way to prevent this is to not allow rule changes mid season unless the decision is unanimous. I only adress these arguments because they are non sequitur.
To Tea Pits: To be fair with them, you are right. To be fair to me, mentioning Red Bull's success is a excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta. I was talking about Ferrari being benefited not Red Bull being harmed.
Mezzer: Maybe he did, I never heard of that, but if DRS has a massive failure it should just plainly be banned. Which brings us to another subject: the reason why it was freely used was to make sure it had enough testing to its safety. Now, it has been argued that two years are more than enough testing. Why? If it costs nothing to test it why not continue using the same rule? Bear in mind teams are constantly changing the actual gadget, should it not get maximum testing possible prior to every race on every weekend? Some would argue that free practice is more than enough to tes it. But are you going to test it as much if you know it is only to be used in the race in a couple of spots? Does it need to be that reliable?
Brogan: Could you please make an assessment to who had immediate gains with the change of those rules. F-Duct (Ferrari), Mass Dumper (Ferrari, Alonso famously said Ferrari were cheaters), Flexible Floor (Ferrari), the third pedal I honestly do not remember what it was, but if I had to bet you know where I'd put my money. And you forget that ridiculous weekend at Silverstone where Ferrari got their way to ban exhausting only to be stoped by a direct confrontation of all the other teams (except their lackays at Sauber) because it was putting to waste all the money everyother team spent by forcing massive changes into all of their cars.
Please can you state what it is that leads you to believe that the rule change is designed to assist Ferrari? So far you have wrote some very long posts on the subject of the rule changes and how you feel about them but have not given any reasoning as to why your appraisal is such when you have been asked for it. It will be a lot easier to continue the discussion if you share your reasoning as to why you think that this is a conspiracy in favour of one team or against another. At the moment, the only I evidence I have to substantiate your claim is your own statement, which is currently not backed up by anything else.