[Rules] DRS: Is it time for it to go?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Blaming the regulations? It’s the designers. Or physics. F1 has had a problem with overtaking for longer than two decades ago. At least three decades ago people were moaning about the same things! Aero too important, cornering too high, can’t follow, the cars more important than the drivers.

Until we blame the right things, or accept the actual cause, nothing will change. And even then. The regulations have slightly influenced it, but it’s not the inherent issue.

Actually Adam, I think you're both right. It's a combination of car and track design combined with idiocy like the continuation of DRS. As I've said time and time again (boring, boring), unless the governing body (and the teams) are prepared to be 'brave' and try it without DRS we'll never know whether drivers can get overtakes done without artificial aids. Which almost certainly means that we will have to live with them for many years yet.

[Adam43]

I agree that if we still have DRS we aren’t going to see what the actual problem. Can’t be worse than the mid ‘90s though can it? Or chose another era people moaned about the show.

[Aysedasi]

The biggest problem is that DRS is perceived to work for 'the show'. It satisfies the organising body as well as the teams and the drivers (it seems). It's the racing 'purists' who don't like it and they're never going to change it for us while those with less 'pure' views who are content with (many even excited by) banal overtaking hold sway.

[Born Racer]

I'm prepared to put it on the line and say it is now a little worse in a way. Because we have the chance to have real overtaking, but have crossed the optimum point in terms of the current basic car regs (high downforce-producing) and are going the other way.

The drivers can still get the moves done the proper way when they have to. Is it my perception or is it getting worse? Perhaps due to multiple DRS zones or teams (particularly Red Bull) getting a real handle on best utilising DRS to their advantage).

[Adam43]

The trouble with the ‘purists’ is that we moan all the time anyway (things are never as good as they once were) and rarely have a coherent argument.

As purists we also have the luxury of not needing to be fully expert, most tellingly never having to deal with the consequences of our decisions, and don’t have to make compromises when it comes to safety, commercial, trams, drivers, fans, etc., etc., and etc…

[Sodemo]

They have been saying the same thing for 30 years, but the issue is the aero “problem” (on the whole) gets slightly worse every year. A few rule changes here and there have either made it slightly better or slightly worse but the general trend is that it’s harder to follow as each year passes.

I just don’t understand why they need to generate so much DF because that’s part of the problem. If they had skinny (F3 sized) front and rear wings I think they would be able to follow a bit better.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Blaming the regulations? It’s the designers. Or physics. F1 has had a problem with overtaking for longer than two decades ago. At least three decades ago people were moaning about the same things! Aero too important, cornering too high, can’t follow, the cars more important than the drivers.

Until we blame the right things, or accept the actual cause, nothing will change. And even then. The regulations have slightly influenced it, but it’s not the inherent issue.

Yes. Blaming the regulators.
Why?
Because it's the regulations that determine the envelope in which the cars are designed. Designers are constrained by those rules.
But if the rules determine what can and cannot be done then those designers just do all they can to go faster.
The current rules were set to make overtaking easier, but the precept was that we had to maintain the current cornering speeds.
That was never going to work and i knew as soon as they were announced and detailed that we would not be a lot better off and said so on this forum.

Aerodynamic downforce is a difficult monster to tame, and the simplest way to eliminate the excessive influence is to eliminate or reduce its importance to the point where no one has any real aerodynamic advantage.
You may have some to provide stability at high speed and to get a tow but basically you don't want it to the degree that if affects the ability to follow closely or create was so that cars cannot race wheel to wheel, or follow closely in corners.
The size of the current cars is primarily because the longer the car the greater the under body down force that can be generated.

So when the current regulations were announced it was clear that the sort of car we were going to get was nothing like the sort of car F1 needed if it wanted to return to the days of the Monza slipstream battle of 1971

Max V said before this current regulation that it didn't matter if the cars were 5 seconds a lap slower because spectators wouldn't see the difference.

Max was aware than that aerodynamic monstering is the biggest blight on close racing and driving we have in the sport.

NASCAR, V8 Supercars, Porsche Cup, all have issues that follow on from aerodynamic downforce generated between the cars.

Go back to the days of the 1 litre F3 in the late 60's and FF or even the F2 cars from the 70s with basic wings and you get racing unhindered by wings.

Slicks are fine, wings are Ok, but when the success r failure of car design hinges on it ability to generate mammoth amounts of downforce from tthe underside of the car you are always going to get boring racing.
They knew that when they designed the cars because they went to great lengths to change wing design on the rear to eliminate disturbed air as much as possible.

What they should have done was eliminate the importance of undercar aeroflow as much as possible and limit the effect and power amount of downforce that can be generated) of the front and rear wings.

Cars would be less sensitive to disturbed air, less troubled following closely, faster in a straight line (terminal speed) and have longer braking distances.

Back to the early 80s when cars had more power than they could use.
Yes, they could stack on more appendages for downforce, but you could limit that.
Maybe slower by several seconds around a lap but more raceable.

[Adam43]

I get the envelope thing, but it is the designers that came up with aero and making it so good. The regulations have actually reduced their efforts.

But I agree you could change the regulations to remove more downforce.

As for wings / underbody downforce. It's not straight forward, but generally the call has been for less dependence on the wing and more underbody to reduce the impact of following. They've only gone and done that with the latest rules!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I get the envelope thing, but it is the designers that came up with aero and making it so good. The regulations have actually reduced their efforts.

But I agree you could change the regulations to remove more downforce.

As for wings / underbody downforce. It's not straight forward, but generally the call has been for less dependence on the wing and more underbody to reduce the impact of following. They've only gone and done that with the latest rules!

But was the right direction for the sort of racing most of us would appreciate?

[Adam43]

The idea of relatively more underbody was to help the cars follow each other.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The idea of relatively more underbody was to help the cars follow each other.

I know.
But reasoning was flawed.
Basically the root of the problem is that no one wants to reduce downforce and cornering speed.
They are in love with the idea that these are the fastest cars in the world etc. They are, in sustained cornering speed, because of the high downforce.
But that affects the spectacle and the competitiveness of the racing on track.

F1 is competitive all right, but it's more a technical competition between the engineering teams rather than the drivers.
And this set of regulations have amplified that fact, not reduced it.

That in turn leaves us with races that relatively produce few changes on track.
Artificial means like DRS enable passes but unless there is a major incident or issue there is little relative change.

Look at Miami.
Leclerc finished where he started but had he started higher he would have finished higher because he could be faster over a lap than Alonso.
Only Hamilton and Verstappen moved into the top seven.
Gasly moved out, from 5th down to 8th, Magnussen moved from 4th down to tenth.
Ocon went from 8th to 9th.
The only shift from the ten was Bottas moving from 10th to 11th with Hamilton moving into the top ten.
Mclaren wasn't a lot different from where they started.
Relative to the others nor were Hass, Williams, or Alfa Romeo.

If this race and Baku were the measures of the success of the new regulations (hopefully they are not) they have failed to deliver better racing.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I know.
But reasoning was flawed.

There were a lot of idiots who thought it then.

It's flawed because any downforce isn't going to help. It was jsut lesser of two evils.

And we can't tell because of DRS.

Perhaps, ultimately, it's just inherently dull if measured by this measure.

[Richard C]

I get the "blame the regulators" stance. The problem is... they don't operate in a vacuum and just write up rules all on their own. My impression is that it is a collaborative approach with carious categories of participants. Now the question is... who all is in the room when the core fundamentals are decided?

I think the answer is that we can say "manufactures" and "large teams" are in the room, have large voices and are a big part of the problem. I am sure that within those groups there is also a vocal but minority group who would agree with many of the radical ideas mentioned here on a daily basis. But they are unable to generate enough support to push their agenda through.

Or, if they do get their items included in the priority lists, it is low on the list and can easily become "lip service" that is used to placate that group. For example the 2026 technical regulations has a goal of reducing the weight of the car. I have no doubt they will try. They may even achieve some minor reductions as they expect some level of power unit simplicity may result in some savings. But at the end of the day, I expect that things like weight reduction (or DRS replacement to keep on topic) are far down on the priority list. And when that happens, that means those items are the first to be abandoned or marginalized when they come in conflict with other higher priority goals.

Look at this article. What is the expected savings they might see? They toss around 35kg which is pretty small. It sounds like a token level of effort. That the sacrifices required for real reduction would drive other changes that would be deemed unacceptable.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1s-p...-cars-in-2026/

My point is... I don't think there is any one group who can easily have the blame assigned to them. I also think those who push for these changes are not in a position power and/or are a minority opinion.

I am not saying I agree with the status quo. I would like to see entertaining racing that are achieved organically (see my earlier long winded post on the Holy Grail of "simple rules" that creates "complex systems" such as beautiful cars that naturally produces entertaining racing). I just think it's not simple to create that type of outcome organically. If it doesn't happen organically, then the next best is regulations that bake in tools (i.e. P2P, etc.) that are controlled by the drivers in skillful ways with the goal of producing entertaining racing. I would like to see the cars become less complex and lighter. I would make a number of technical changes (i.e. Active suspension and active aero).

Richard

[Taxi645]

As said, I think putting the DRS zone at the start of the straights in stead of the end will make it's effect less artificial, more exiting and requiring more skill.

Here is what it could've looked like in Miami (green is the current DRS zone, red is as proposed at the start of the straight):

[Adam43]

Oooo, that’s an interesting idea.

It’s a sticky plaster on a band aid, but I like it.

[S griffin]

I remember what Niki Lauda said when DRS first happened. His words were "Why should the FIA decide where to overtake?" I've agreed with that since the start. These are the best drivers in the world and they should be able to work out overtaking from themselves, but since DRS has come in, they seem to have forgotten how to. Some circuits shouldn't even need DRS, as overtaking would probably happen anyway. DRS will never be perfect, so quite frankly there's no point to it

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Oooo, that’s an interesting idea.

It’s a sticky plaster on a band aid, but I like it.

TBH, I'll take anything almost to change the current farcical situation.

[chillibowl]

obviously not going to change anyone's mind and no point in trying but i have to ask...

the last 2 races can be characterized as having ineffective DRS zones (both races had their zones reduced considerably) which in effect gave us two races that were not 'ruined' by DRS...or rather two races where we could all see and/or imagine what would happen if DRS was no longer a part of F1 racing.

the clear outcome was that basically everyone found these races incredibly boring, including those of you who detest DRS also found these races boring, or at least, certainly rated them poorly in the rate the race threads.

so my question is, what actually gives?

shouldn't you guys have liked these races a whole lot more? after all, were these last two races not the closest F1 has been to proper racing in quite some time?

[Adam43]

That’s fair.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The trouble with the ‘purists’ is that we moan all the time anyway (things are never as good as they once were) and rarely have a coherent argument.

I'm not exactly a purist. Like Maximus said, I want to be entertained.

I don't need purity to be entertained. Nor do I need parity.

But I certainly need fairness. The DRS 1-second rule is unfair, so I propose a rule change to make it fair. It would still be artificial, but that's not too bad.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the last 2 races can be characterized as having ineffective DRS zones (both races had their zones reduced considerably)

The DRS zones were perfectly effective in Miami? We saw quite a few overtakes using them, even from the Ferraris (and IIRC Alonso's Aston Martin) who aren't that fast on the straights.

The only cars that were badly stuck in DRS trains were the ones with a lot of drag, which is their own design decision. Cars like HAAS and Williams that prioritise aero efficiency were able to defend nicely, as they should be able to.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the clear outcome was that basically everyone found these races incredibly boring, including those of you who detest DRS also found these races boring, or at least, certainly rated them poorly in the rate the race threads.

I thought both races were solid and entertaining spectacles. A fair dinkum 6-7/10.

E.g., the cars that got 'stuck' in DRS trains in Baku were cars like the McLaren. Which are high drag designs, which is the team's own choice when compared to lower drag designs like HAAS, Alpine or Williams. Even so, Norris and Piastri eventually executed some nice overtakes!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the last 2 races can be characterized as having ineffective DRS zones (both races had their zones reduced considerably) which in effect gave us two races that were not 'ruined' by DRS...or rather two races where we could all see and/or imagine what would happen if DRS was no longer a part of F1 racing.

I confess I didn't see ineffective DRS zones?

[Sodemo]

The main fault of the lack of passing or rather the inability to follow closely is the cars, however a degree of fault also has to lie with the circuits.

I find it somewhat laughable that the genesis of DRS came from a situation where Alonso couldn’t pass a car at Abu Dhabi to claim the title. Abu Dhabi is or was one of the worst designed circuits I’ve ever seen and that it was used as a catalyst for this overtaking “aid”, is such a crazy series of events.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I thought both races were solid and entertaining spectacles. A fair dinkum 6-7/10.

actually rated Baku at a 6 myself but more so for the amount of sessions run in anger there but also for Alonso's brilliant non DRS assisted pass on Sainz at turn 6 there.

and in the Miami race there were some opportunistic non DRS moves and attempts. i can certainly admit to that.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

E.g., the cars that got 'stuck' in DRS trains in Baku were cars like the McLaren. Which are high drag designs, which is the team's own choice when compared to lower drag designs like HAAS, Alpine or Williams. Even so, Norris and Piastri eventually executed some nice overtakes!

no doubt there are several reasons for why the train forms and while i will not discount setup and high drag designs as being a major factor, i also think that a car's ability to recover energy to be deployed at the driver's discretion is also a formidable defensive tool and definitely one (as seen in Baku and Miami) made even stronger when the DRS zones are shorter.

with Miami, i would suggest there is a very strong argument to be made that the defensive characteristics of that energy deployment did outweigh the benefits of DRS.

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

But I certainly need fairness. The DRS 1-second rule is unfair, so I propose a rule change to make it fair. It would still be artificial, but that's not too bad.

which brings me around to this...

if the lead drivers do have defensive tools at their disposal (beyond running in cleaner air), then why is DRS or even the 1-s rule considered unfair?

its no secret where the activation zones are and every driver has the freedom to plan their lap accordingly and thus use their counter measures where most beneficial.

and certainly they do do this and it can be an effective defence as we see when these trains form up...unless the following car is significantly faster (due to setups, car design, driver skill, engine lifespan, compound choice, tire health, or some combination).

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I confess I didn't see ineffective DRS zones?

not my assertion by any means.

that these races were considered by many to be boring due to the shortened DRS zones has been mentioned as part of the post race narratives for both races. quickly found an article for Baku. sure we will see similar in due course for Miami.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...zone/10464063/