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

[S griffin]

Well yes they should have cut the downforce sooner rather than put in artifical aids like DRS. It was a lazy solution that hasn’t solved the problem. I’m glad the cars have much less downforce, although the DRS still needs to go

[chillibowl]

As a side concern then, given the budget caps and their desire to keep them low, how long will it take for teams to generate the income necessary to design their way out to the dirty air/aero problems.

Rather, if it cost them several billion to develop along this path in the first place, it’ll take a whole lot more money to design their way out of it?

Spending money like drunken sailors imo was the lazy soulless path imo but the unintended consequence of the budget caps is that there is no longer enough money to fix it!

[S griffin]

Well hopefully they won’t need to spend too much. To be fair the rules have worked in making cars easier to follow, even if there is still a problem. So we shouldn’t be too concerned for now, as long as they keep things aero from getting out of control again. Money well spent IMO. And considering the budget cap is for the teams rather than the rulemakers, they should be able to keep things under control

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

No, I don't think so. Application of throttle (and brake) at the right time have been part of the essential skills of racing drivers since racing began. Having a hole appear in your rear wing at set points on a circuit every lap is just that - there is no skill whatsoever involved and the pass which follows is soulless, 'spice it up for the viewers because they must have lots of overtaking' artificiality.

I agree though, DRS is not uniquely artificial. The rule set, the cars and the circuits all impose artificiality, but DRS is (for me) the worst example, which I have found increasingly offensive, particularly recently. I'm not a 'purist' but I think we all know something isn't quite right when the driver's skill married with the capabilities of his car has to be enhanced in this way. I guess we just have to accept that 'not quite right' is how it has to be, it's just how the 'not quite right' is currently managed that isn't...... quite right. Maybe I've been watching too much from Goodwood.....

So it's not about being artificial or not but tradition. Now I can agree with that.

Richard

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So it's not about being artificial or not but tradition. Now I can agree with that.

Richard

I don't think it's tradition either. I guess I don't know what it is. But DRS has gradually got my dander up more and more. Perhaps it has something to do with the thought that it wouldn't still be so necessary this season. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just getting old and a return to times where downforce wasn't such a controlling issue is really what I'd like and can't have....

[S griffin]

I hark for a days when the quality of overtaking was more important than the quantity. Seeing someone breeze past on the straight is not a great overtaking move. The only driver in recent times who has done exciting moves regularly is Daniel Ricciardo

[BTCC frog]

It looks as though steps to at least reduce DRS may be on the horizon:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...rawn/10407071/

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...2023/10409217/

I am pleasantly surprised by this. Well done Ross Brawn, FIA. In my opinion, overtaking should be difficult. It is more entertaining to watch a car stuck behind another for several laps than breeze past easily, as long as the car behind is able to follow closely and have a go, and it also makes the art of racecraft, particularly in defence, more important.

It is a step in the right direction, and in my opinion DRS needs to go completely by 2026 at least.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

It looks as though steps to at least reduce DRS may be on the horizon:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...rawn/10407071/

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...2023/10409217/

I am pleasantly surprised by this. Well done Ross Brawn, FIA. In my opinion, overtaking should be difficult. It is more entertaining to watch a car stuck behind another for several laps than breeze past easily, as long as the car behind is able to follow closely and have a go, and it also makes the art of racecraft, particularly in defence, more important.

It is a step in the right direction, and in my opinion DRS needs to go completely by 2026 at least.

I read of that a couple of days ago and thought about time..... then the day after read of Albert Park contradicting that statement with confirming a 4th DRS zone for the AGP in 2023. An increase in DRS.

As part of the track changes introduced this year they had planned to trial a 4th DRS in Friday practice back in April of this year. That trial did happen and some drivers said it was too dangerous to have the 4th zone in the area proposed through what used to be the chicane at the end of Lakeside Drive and has been straightened to be a flat out curve. it was scrapped following the Drivers’ Briefing due to safety concerns.

A year on, there is a strong desire to have it reinstated, with Australian Grand Prix boss Andrew Westacott saying he is very confident it will be used.

“With the circuit modifications at Albert Park, there were meant to be four DRS zones,”

“There was meant to be a DRS zone around Lakeside, the fourth one that Fernando Alonso made some safety comments to the FIA Race Director [about].

“We’re optimistic, highly optimistic, that we will get that fourth DRS zone back for 2023, which is a wonderful addition to the competitiveness of the racing, and the overtaking in the racing.”

So what was said by drivers to be unsafe last year, and ditched mid meeting as a result, suddenly becomes safe this year. With no changes to the track to reduce the risk. Just a dismissive reaction by the organiser to a highly experienced drivers concerns backed by other drivers.

Driver safety? PFFFT. Its all about will the show, and if there are resulting incidents as a result, the DTS new wave F1 fans will love it.

So I take talk of DRS reductions with a pinch of salt given the reaction of a promoter

[Skam85]

Why does Drive to Survive always have to be mentioned as some sort of negative these days every time a new thing is changed or suggested for F1? It's weird and I see it on so many platforms.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Why does Drive to Survive always have to be mentioned as some sort of negative these days every time a new thing is changed or suggested for F1? It's weird and I see it on so many platforms.

Why does it have to be mentioned?
It doesn't.
The show is highly regarded as a factor in popularizing F1 in North America.
An American media company owns F1.
They are taking F1 to places it has not gone before and those places are places not familiar to many long-term enthusiasts of F1.

They question whether or not this is good for F1.
When people whose major reason for being involved with the sport is commercial rather than for a general love and appreciation of F1 and its people there are always question of motive and money.
We all know this.

The people who frame DTS in connection with changes in the sport where there seems to be a commercial motive causing the override switch to be on and simply driving the sport to a place where there is little regard for the views of the enthusiasts and participants know that this can either destroy the fabric of the sport or alternatively all end in tears.

That is why they connect the two. Both are tied to the overall desire for gold, the money, and to serve an ambition that is not ethical but simply greed.
When personal ambition overrides common sense, traditional or conservative views, subjugates legitimate concerns or the safety of others, then it is selfishness and greed is usually at play.

When that happens it will usually end in tears for some individuals or a group.
So people who connect DTS with arrogance in the administration of the sport, which it still is because it is a competition, a traditional one that has been commandeered for the purpose of profit, are doing so because they have a concern for the well-being of the sport and its participants.

Its only responsible to call into question actions that look as though they are wrongly motivated and may harm the participants.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Why does it have to be mentioned?
It doesn't.

Exactly

It's unnecessary gatekeeping.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by E.B

So what was said by drivers to be unsafe last year, and ditched mid meeting as a result, suddenly becomes safe this year. With no changes to the track to reduce the risk. Just a dismissive reaction by the organiser to a highly experienced drivers concerns backed by other drivers.

Driver safety? PFFFT. It's all about will the show, and if there are resulting incidents as a result, the DTS new wave F1 fans will love it.

Think that you're being a bit harsh on Mr Westacott there - he didn't say that the extra DRS zone would be in the same place, nor did he say that they wouldn't make safety improvements to the track IF the DRS zone was in the same place.

My "read" of the DRS reduction statement was that they were looking at shortening zones individually - not necessarily have less zones in total.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Think that you're being a bit harsh on Mr Westacott there - he didn't say that the extra DRS zone would be in the same place, nor did he say that they wouldn't make safety improvements to the track IF the DRS zone was in the same place.

My "read" of the DRS reduction statement was that they were looking at shortening zones individually - not necessarily have less zones in total.

Fair comment..... I will confess to having read the article after a sleep deprived night of world cup watching, so I might not have been at my most understanding level!

[S griffin]

Hopefully we will see DRS less powerful in 2023, although it would be better for all concerned if they just got rid of it completely.

[chillibowl]

i guess my first question about getting rid of it would be if such a move would invalidate the new design philosophy? i would suspect that without DRS, the recent rule changes would no longer do nearly as much to encourage close racing and we would be rather quickly back to the old problems.

anyways, we all know the reasons why DRS was brought in...to alleviate the dirty air problem, to prevent tires from over heating, and to encourage closer racing.

if they could achieve that without DRS (or some other aero trick) then great but until then im going to advocate for more DRS, and if safety can be addressed would advocate that the system stay active for the entire lap.

to each their own of course but i like the tactical implications of using DRS in more places.

particularly when a lead driver uses it against back markers but more so when its a close battle involving two smart drivers giving up pace and place before activation zones in order to set up the switch backs or to facilitate a pass somewhere else down the road....love that sort of track knowledge!

Max and Chuck at Jeddah was pretty cool imo.

[Aysedasi]

I'm firmly with Griff on this one..... Drivers have to learn to overtake again instead of having a 'cheat' button.

[seanyb505]

I like the concept of a push to pass boost, but the drs implementation feels half baked from a technical side. Why not tie the additional speed to something power related instead of aero, then give it a race limit instead of you must be 1 second behind? Probably more expensive I'd imagine?

I'm nervous there will be far less passing it drs is completely cut. If drs trains are an issue, why on earth would no drs be different? I'm legitimately asking as I'm ignorant beyond the seemingly limited effects of a natural draft.

[Aysedasi]

Are DRS trains an issue?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by E.B

Fair comment..... I will confess to having read the article after a sleep deprived night of world cup watching, so I might not have been at my most understanding level!

Yeah - I'm like that during the Tour de France every year!

[seanyb505]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Are DRS trains an issue?

Maybe not an "issue" in the sense that it's a pain point. I feel like that they exist and frequently form in the midfield tells me cars with relatively equal drag set ups aren't exactly going to encourage passing. Even that the lead drs car can't get past a full fat winged car doesn't give me hope that keeping that full wing angle on the lead drs car is somehow going to magically make the pass once you outlaw drs.

Again, this post comes with an ignorance disclaimer.

[NaBUru38]

My biggest complain is the 1-second rule, which causes drivers to have a different number of activations per race.


I would give one activation for every 5 laps scheduled, so everyone is on equal foot.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Maybe not an "issue" in the sense that it's a pain point. I feel like that they exist and frequently form in the midfield tells me cars with relatively equal drag set ups aren't exactly going to encourage passing. Even that the lead drs car can't get past a full fat winged car doesn't give me hope that keeping that full wing angle on the lead drs car is somehow going to magically make the pass once you outlaw drs.

Again, this post comes with an ignorance disclaimer.

One thing that isn't widely understood is just how much attention and effort F1 aero design teams put into into making their cars hard to follow and hard to pass. I certainly think the FIA underestimate it.

FIA change regs to make it easier to pass. F1 teams pour resources into making it harder to pass their car under those new regs.

[Greem]

It should be functionally equivalent to IndyCar's "push to pass" system; a limited total amount of time is available during the race. Open it where you want to, when you want to.

That adds far more to the race strategy than sitting in a chain of cars, all unable to pass.

Won't ever happen though, because Not Invented Here.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

My biggest complain is the 1-second rule, which causes drivers to have a different number of activations per race.


I would give one activation for every 5 laps scheduled, so everyone is on equal foot.

That's one of the problems. It's pretty much unrestricted in terms of number of times it can be used, so F1 drivers have become too reliant on it and have forgotten how to overtake without it.

[chillibowl]

but surely F1 uses brake energy recovery still and its as much about defence as it is offence.

is this not effectively push to pass?

and seanyb505's point about a DRS train...i wonder if what he is noticing is the leading car using that extra horsepower (160hp for a few seconds per lap) to defend/keep the following car outside the DRS activation zone.

some may say that drivers need to re learn how to overtake (and by extension learn how to defend again) but the reality is that this is happening quite a bit every lap.

the dance between DRS and MGU-K particularly between drivers of a certain skill level and track knowledge is real and is happening frequently every lap imo.

get rid of DRS fine but that requires a new engine formula and a new aero formula...if anyone has a few extra billions laying around.

Originally Posted by peebee2

One thing that isn't widely understood is just how much attention and effort F1 aero design teams put into into making their cars hard to follow and hard to pass. I certainly think the FIA underestimate it.

FIA change regs to make it easier to pass. F1 teams pour resources into making it harder to pass their car under those new regs.

right!

i would suspect that in addition to designing cars that run optimally in clean air/in the front, i wonder how many teams actually have the computing power to simulate or wind tunnels sophisticated enough to factor in airflow in the middle of crowded field?

and if they do, one would think the budget cap now prevents them from spending the money necessary to carry out those level of computations?

while it was a bold move by Brawn and FOM to fund their own research into a design philosophy the encourages close racing in traffic it also highlights imo the teams' unwillingness or inability to design their own cars with that same philosophy...so we have a bunch of cars that cannot follow closely enough to effect passing short of a driver errors, accident, failure, or having at least a 1s speed advantage.

and given the desire to bring the cars closer together in terms of lap times...that would make overtaking even harder without an 'artificial' aero aid because now (well potentially if the rules work out) no car will have the natural speed advantage to effect an overtake.

side question...do the low end teams with even less resources also design their cars to operate optimally in clean air/front of the pack?