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

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You realise the whole point of DRS is that the car in front doesn't get it?

I think he does, that's why he says it's inherently unfair...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think he does, that's why he says it's inherently unfair...

This is also why push to pass, a given number of minutes or seconds, has much more equity. You are all the same and can use it to attack and defend. When it runs out its gone.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

This is also why push to pass, a given number of minutes or seconds, has much more equity. You are all the same and can use it to attack and defend. When it runs out its gone.

Yes, and would be totally contra to the aim of DRS.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Yes, and would be totally contra to the aim of DRS.

I'm not sure if you're being difficult on purpose, or missing the point. But yes - it is contra to the aim of DRS. That's the point of this entire thread and what everyone is discussing.

[GingerPixel]

DRS really ruined the excitement for Baku for me, knowing that whatever happened would be pretty meaningless up to the point of the passflaps opening, especially with that long straight. It's a guaranteed position change.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm not sure if you're being difficult on purpose, or missing the point. But yes - it is contra to the aim of DRS. That's the point of this entire thread and what everyone is discussing.

Exactly right. The 'aim' of DRS may at some point in the past have been laudable, but in the opinion of many, it's gone from that to ludicrous. An 'All overtaking is good however it is achieved' situation.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

passflaps

Brilliant. I shall never be able to refer to DRS as anything else now!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm not sure if you're being difficult on purpose, or missing the point. But yes - it is contra to the aim of DRS. That's the point of this entire thread and what everyone is discussing.

The problem with "has much more equity" is that it brings us full circle - back to the idea of two days of practice and then starting the cars in the order of fastest first, and then wondering why there's no overtaking!

[Rusty Nail]

What we need then is two races of equal length, same points for each. First race grid determined by qualifying times as per normal. Second race, complete reverse grid based on the same qualifying times.

Thus the champion is likely to be one of the leading contenders who happens to also be the best overtaker.

Ditch DRS, introduce P2P, give them tyres that will last the whole race and let's see some racing rather than boring tyre conservation and management.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The problem with "has much more equity" is that it brings us full circle - back to the idea of two days of practice and then starting the cars in the order of fastest first, and then wondering why there's no overtaking!

See, you could've just said that as a reply, rather than the overly difficult "but this isn't what DRS is!" - we all know that. That's why it's being discussed.

However, regarding equity - I'm unsure this point stands up to scrutiny. All series spent a weekend putting the fastest cars at the front. But then they manage to have exciting racing too. So if other series manage this, then this is obviously not the norm. F1 has an issue.

Formula E uses the attack mode system. Which is is completely equal in that everyone has to use it, but its use becomes tactical. So it quickly becomes a thinking persons situation of how you use this and when. Similarly with push to pass type systems in other series. Yes you all have to use it, but everyone uses it differently, which creates different speeds of car.

[Pingguest]

If any artificial systems like DRS or push-to-pass are necessary for some entertainment, there is something fundamentally wrong.

[Greem]

And World Rallycross uses the Joker Lap system, where the JL must be taken once by each driver in each round. The JL route varies in that it's sometimes shorter and sometimes longer than the main route, and can have obstacles to slow the cars even further. When to take it is a strategy decision in the hands of each driver, but if they take it on lap 1 to get it over with they could be vulnerable on the final lap (4).

I do however think the FIA should get the organisers of the 24 Hours of Lemons in for advice. They'd come up with something dramatically effective, utterly embarrassing and totally hilarious all at the same time

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If any artificial systems like DRS or push-to-pass are necessary for some entertainment, there is something fundamentally wrong.

Well given the design of the car is in isolation and then they race together there will always be a disconnect as long as aero development is allowed and the laws of physics apply

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If any artificial systems like DRS or push-to-pass are necessary for some entertainment, there is something fundamentally wrong.

Its the old argument. Is it a sport or is it entertainment?
Us anoraks are all over the pure sport

But the average viewer wants spectacle and excitement. Thats what gets the eyeballs, which is why companies pay huge to have their logo and that makes the team owners happy.

True pure motor sport exists at your local track when the amateur racing clubs have a meet

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Well given the design of the car is in isolation and then they race together there will always be a disconnect as long as aero development is allowed and the laws of physics apply

A vehicle will always generate either (positive) lift or downforce (negative lift) - it is practically impossible to make a vehicle neutral in that respect. As Formula One cars generate downforce, the following car has to be faster than the one in front. From an ethnical point of view, that is the way to go.

However, the technical regulations are very prescriptive and cause the cars to converge more than ever before. Thereby drivers do not have a sufficient delta. The overall performances are simply too even. But instead of relaxing the rules and allowing different technical solutions, DRS, P2P and tires with extreme degradation are used to artificially create on-track action.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Well given the design of the car is in isolation and then they race together there will always be a disconnect as long as aero development is allowed and the laws of physics apply

The design of the car is far from in isolation. It's naive to assume the constructors don't put massive effort into making their cars hard to follow and hard to pass. Creating a wake and dirty air, as well as operating in dirty air, is prime aero development. It's a big part of the reason Merc struggle so much, as they spent years honing their cars to run at the front with the enormous engine advantage they had and they can't cope with other cars around them.

[broadrun96]

No matter how advanced the CFD gets it's 100% NOT replicating the actions of moving cars on tracks. Yeah, my dad's been in that consulting industry for decades via multiple aviation aero companies who have been consulted by F1 and manufacturers, they've showed no matter how fancy your wind tunnel/computers you aren't replicating multiple cars and their wash so your designs get trashed if you design for the best df numbers, you have to be willing to compromise and those who do it best get to front rather than stay at the front. See Merc and their struggles as you mentioned

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A vehicle will always generate either (positive) lift or downforce (negative lift) - it is practically impossible to make a vehicle neutral in that respect. As Formula One cars generate downforce, the following car has to be faster than the one in front. From an ethnical point of view, that is the way to go.

However, the technical regulations are very prescriptive and cause the cars to converge more than ever before. Thereby drivers do not have a sufficient delta. The overall performances are simply too even. But instead of relaxing the rules and allowing different technical solutions, DRS, P2P and tires with extreme degradation are used to artificially create on-track action.

I'm 100% certain you loosen the rules we're back to following being impossible and guys dropping back, see previous eras and cars not passing due to development. The above mentioned things were as a result of open aero and teams coming to similar designs since air is air is air. Air over a Red Bull does the same as a MB

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

However, the technical regulations are very prescriptive and cause the cars to converge more than ever before. Thereby drivers do not have a sufficient delta. The overall performances are simply too even. But instead of relaxing the rules and allowing different technical solutions, DRS, P2P and tires with extreme degradation are used to artificially create on-track action.

I really struggle to follow this type of logic. If I follow you are saying that more technical freedom will result in more performance disparity. I can agree with that. How exactly is that wider range of performance to create better on track action? If performance of cars is wider, then they will likely qualify and finish in performance order. Having larger performance gaps will create on track gaps. Cars will not be close to each other. Racing will be boring.

Now, a more nuanced approach (and maybe what you are saying) is that team A will make a car that is fast on the straights, but slow in the corners and team B will make a car that is slow on the straights, but fast in the corners. Both cars might have equal lap time, so the idea is to have cars passing back and forth over a single lap.

On the surface that makes some logical sense. But it seems teams will always coalesce or gravitate toward similar solutions. That teams will "optimize" for overall "best" performance. Back to my slow/fast/corner/straight example, most will realize that passing in corners is always harder/risker than passing on straights and will focus on passing on straights, but with enough cornering speed to not sacrifice overall lap time. Again, in general they will all gravitate toward similar solutions and performance will generally be the same. Once again creating the current situation.

Attempts at alternate solutions run into problems such as failure (Nissan DeltaWing fiasco at LeMans) which destroy funding due to not meeting anticipated goals. Or might be successful, but are banned due to pressure from other teams (and regulators) who fear dominance while other take time and money (maybe a long time, maybe lots of money) to catch up.

Also, the idea of what "good racing" means is not a universally agreed upon concept. One one extreme you have people who thinks that is positional battles that results in lots of back and forth overtakes while on the other extreme it is pure "who can build the quickest car" and no battles for position is just fine as from a pure "sport" perspective, the fastest car wins.

The first example (lots of passing) is more what I suspect the commercial side (and probably the bulk of fans want). The second would be deemed "boring" by most fans.

Ok, you think this is long post already... let me get on my soapbox!

You can have rules that are either open or close loop. So a closed loop system will have feedback. So for example a series that uses some type of BoP (balance of performance) system that dials up/down performance on a car/driver level by things like adjustable weight/hp, reverse grids, etc.. It uses one or more metrics (such as "good racing" = cars that run close together) that has a target value. You look at race results and feed those back as "corrections" (the BoP values) to try to drive the metrics toward your desired target. An open loop system is simple. I has rules that try to get an outcome, but there is no feedback loop. If you don't get your desired results, you adjust your rules and try again. But there is no dynamic system to drive the output.

F1 (generally) is open loop. I think some GT racing is closed loop.

The problem however with F1 is that it has VERY specific outcomes it wants. It wants (not a full list)... (1) beautiful cars (2) cheap cars (3) fast cars (4) entertaining races (5) remember it's heritage/roots.

This might be easier to solve by using a closed loop system. But I think the nature of this would be in conflict with item five in the list above. F1 has a history of having set rules and the idea that it is about "best car wins" vs. "helping hands via BoP". Note that interestingly enough F1 is slowly adding more closed loop items. For example the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions (ATR) system uses adjustments as to how much aero time you get based upon prior year championship standing. But it still remains primarily an open loop system from a regulators perspective.

But within the teams, they operate closed loop. They iterate based upon feedback to change the car over time. But their goals are not fully aligned with those of the F1 regulators. They may not care if the cars are beautiful or cheap or produces entertainment. They care about winning and out of necessity, servicing sponsor's expectations/needs.

But my point is, I think most fans also want "simple rules that result in complex/specific outcomes". For example, they think that open rules will result in beautiful cars, better/entertaining racing, etc. But I suspect that creating...

1. An open loop system
2. With simple rules
3. That generate VERY specific outcomes

...Is effectively impossible to fully achieve. Add in the complicating factors in which the common example of "simple rules" is "freedom of choice" (which is highly unpredictable) and fold in the closed loop nature of the teams with goals that have agenda's that are not fully aligned with the desired outcomes of the F1 regulators.

So if simple rules do not work (and there is no evidence they will), you progressively evolve them to make them more and more restrictive. Which is what F1 has been doing for decades.

Richard

[Greem]

Aha!

We've cycled back to the old enduring question: What is Formula One?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

Aha!

We've cycled back to the old enduring question: What is Formula One?

Ha! I agree. I feel that is a TenTenth F1 Forum maxim! All threads eventually become a variation on "What is F1?", "What is wrong with F1?", "How to fix F1?" Quote below from the "How to fix F1?" thread I started in 2018

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I have felt that most threads here eventually gravitate to the topic of “what is wrong with F1” and “how it can be fixed”.

Richard

[Sodemo]

Lower the front wing and massively reduce the size and overall surface area. The cars are fast enough in fast corners, they don’t need 2000kg of downforce.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Its the old argument. Is it a sport or is it entertainment?
Us anoraks are all over the pure sport

But the average viewer wants spectacle and excitement. Thats what gets the eyeballs, which is why companies pay huge to have their logo and that makes the team owners happy.

True pure motor sport exists at your local track when the amateur racing clubs have a meet

The irony is that DRS does not provide much entertainment, so easy are some of the passes. We have seemingly got to the stage that overtaking is easy enough in F1 cars (i.e. hard but viable) to not need DRS. The upshot of no DRS is a cocktail of genuine overtakes, more wheel-to-wheel battles, and fast cars not automatically moving up to the front.

I'm not a fan of P2P either, as much as I love Indycars. It seems more like a strategic tool in any case, like a more extreme version of fuel saving. As you can use it to defend, it somewhat negates the point of if in a battle, other than as a strategic element to distribute throughout the race however you like. Either way, neither DRS nor P2P should be necessary.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

The irony is that DRS does not provide much entertainment, so easy are some of the passes. We have seemingly got to the stage that overtaking is easy enough in F1 cars (i.e. hard but viable) to not need DRS. The upshot of no DRS is a cocktail of genuine overtakes, more wheel-to-wheel battles, and fast cars not automatically moving up to the front.

I'm not a fan of P2P either, as much as I love Indycars. It seems more like a strategic tool in any case, like a more extreme version of fuel saving. As you can use it to defend, it somewhat negates the point of if in a battle, other than as a strategic element to distribute throughout the race however you like. Either way, neither DRS nor P2P should be necessary.

I highlighted what I thought was the most important part of your post.
Entertainment or sport should be in the gladiatorial battle between the contestants.
Karting can be hugely entertaining without any DRS or P2P.
DRS only exists because the regulators have created monster cars that in most places are too long and large to be effectively raced at traditional road circuits while wheel to wheel.
Track designers have increasing moved to longer straights and tighter corners to provide braking tests to enable overtaking while brake manufacturers provide ever increasingly effective brakes to shorten the braking distance.
Aerodynamic assistance has hugely increased cornering speeds to the place where corners taken at 120kph two decades ago can be negotiated at 160-180kph.
Of course there is less overtaking.
It is harder than ever to overtake unless you have some unnatural artificial assistance.
But that doesn't make it a better spectacle, nor does it make it more entertaining, because the gladiatorial aspect of what does make the sport entertaining is about what happens between the combatants, not in the technical effectiveness of their chariots.

The technology that has overtaken the sport has dulled the combativeness of the combat between the gladiators and no amount of fiddling by regulators or commercial managers will change that until there is a willingness to sit down and look at what will make the chariots effective yet return the drivers to being the more important than the technology they are wielding.

[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.