Ross Brawn questions need for DRS in F1

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Ross Brawn questions whether F1 needs DRS.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Brawn wants DRS reassessed (Autosport)

“I think tyres have been a major element. DRS, as far as we are concerned, was introduced to stop the racing being processional and it hasn’t been because of the tyres, so I think at the end of the season with the FIA we should take a step back, look at where it hurt, look at where it helped, and see what we gained, and see if it has achieved all of its objectives.”

Neale: F1 teams need to stick together (Crash)

“Quite understandably, many of the teams mask the way in which their public accounts are provided so that you can’t reverse engineer what’s going on. Formula 1 has for decades been surrounded with a bit of mistrust and rumour – allegations about what are they doing, are they cheating on the circuit, have they got some new wonder device etc… – and I think that’s all part of the sport. I think in reality the bigger prize is that Formula 1 does need to stick together.”

Exclusive Q&A with Lotus?s Tony Fernandes (F1)

“Emotionally, I’d like to see [Karun Chandhok] in the car [at the Indian Grand Prix], but practically there’s no point in putting him in just for the sake of it. We have two extremely experienced race drivers and I’ve got to do what?s right for them and for the team, not for Karun or for the Indian fans. But ultimately it’s not my decision. I’ve told the team it?s up to them.”

Alan Permane via Twitter

“Had a walk around the track today, good improvements in the last sector with the walls moved back a little. more run off at turn three and turn four too.”

The sale of Force India (Joe Saward)

“If it turns out that [Vijay] Mallya is now announcing the sale of a minority of the shares or some such arrangement no-one is going to believe anything that he says as he will already have told a whopping great lie, insisting that the team is not for sale.”

Vicky Chandhok via Twitter

“Its a good thing to have Sahara in F1, could now attract the other Indian bigwigs too soon. Could see some big deals happening soon in India!”

Paul di Resta via Twitter

“Of to Korea now. Feeling much better, been visiting Tokyo for three days. A mad city that never stops.”

Modern F1 Colouring Pages (Car colouring pages)

“These are Formula 1 car colouring pages from the last few years.”

McLaren celebrates 700 GPs – the 100th car (McLaren)

“By the time Emerson [Fittipaldi] finished second in the 1975 Brazilian Grand Prix, our 100th race and the second round of the 1975 season, the M23 had notched up eight wins and 10 podium finishes.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

To fully appreciate Journeyer’s Comment of the Day you need to read it in context so have a look here.

From the forum

A handful of links from the new forums:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Randy Torres!

On this day in F1

Damon Hill won the world championship 15 years ago today at Suzuka.

Hill effectively became champion when team mate Jacques Villeneuve crashed in turn one when he lost a wheel, but Hill sealed the title with a victory in his final race for Williams.

Michael Schumacher finished second ahead of Mika Hakkinen.

Martin Brundle, fifth, scored points in his final F1 race, behind Gerhard Berger and in front of Heinz-Harald Frentzen.

Advert | Go Ad-free

86 comments on Ross Brawn questions need for DRS in F1

  1. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 13th October 2011, 0:12

    DRS works unfairly for that rule saying just the chaser can use it. Probably the effect it has could be checked or simply banned. I don’t really like when it’s said something like “Pilot Z overtook many others” and watching the vedeo you don’t really know if it was for his skills but for the gadget. Just as an example, probably Lewis would really settle down and be better racer if he knew a big mistake would be harder to solve, His powerful McLaren cleans his mistakes so much. If overtaking would be JUST a little harder, he ‘d probably think twice before getting mad

    • Robdsgg said on 13th October 2011, 6:49

      This is tactical by Brawn. He knows his car has the best straight line speed and DRS takes away what ever advantage that gives his team.

      Taking away the DRS would be unfair considering the freeze in engine development has given merc powered cars an unfair advantage.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th October 2011, 6:55

        given merc powered cars an unfair advantage.

        Power isn’t the only measure of an engine’s performance – heat rejection, drive-ability, potential for exhaust-blowing and other factors are all significant.

        If Mercedes engines do have a power advantage it’s a small one, and I suspect it’s cancelled out by these and other factors.

        After all, it’s not as if they’re winning all the races is it?

      • PJA (@pja) said on 13th October 2011, 14:25

        As Keith said power isn’t the only measure of engine performance. I seem to recall that when Adrian Newey joined Red Bull he got them to change from Ferrari to Renault engines because the Renault engines performed better on the temperature side which allowed him to package the bodywork tighter.

        Also for all Red Bull’s comments about the Renault engine been down on power in recent years the Renault team are often near the top of the speed traps using the same engine, showing that all the down force that has helped Red Bull so much does not come for free and it has it’s downsides

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th October 2011, 14:54

          @pja yes, that was the prime reason, the better packaging they allowed. And maybe fuel efficciency was also a part of it.

          The Renault seems to give their teams a tad better traction out of the corners, which (along with loads of downforce) help the Red Bulls get a head start on the straight after that corner (this was very nicely visible in Monaco with Vettel).

  2. Xenon2 (@xenon2) said on 13th October 2011, 0:16

    Is it fair that leading cars can project a barrier of air behind them to slow down their pursuers?

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 13th October 2011, 0:21

      I don’t know… that “dirty air” was the main reason why DRS was created. If the aero oackager would be limited more (as old 70’s F1) overtaking would be easier. Once I gave my opinion about that and some people commented about my words as “that would set back F1 and f1 is all about evolution”, but in my opinion that work

    • unoccprost said on 13th October 2011, 2:09

      Yes, because that’s racing. It’s the reverse on the straight as one gets the slipstream.

      Two equal cars don’t need to have all the same qualities alll the time, but they need to have access to all qualities at their will.

      e.g. on a straight the back car is disadvantaged, but on a straight it’s the reverse.

      DRS gives the back car an extra advantage… for a short time whihc is stupid

      • Mr draw said on 13th October 2011, 7:05

        What about a tool which increases the effectiveness of the trailing car’s front wing when closely following the leading car? That would allow the second car to overcome the downforce reduction, so it can follow more closely, which increases the probability of a “natural” overtake.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th October 2011, 7:09

          They tried that with the adjustable front wing they introduced in 2009 and scrapped at the end of last year. It made little difference and drivers mainly used it for set-up adjustments.

          • Mr draw said on 13th October 2011, 12:10

            Ok, thanks! I guess they did not use a DRS-like detection system, like an “adjustable front wing zone” or something like that? I don’t know whether the front wing’s effectiveness is affected in the same way as the rear wing, but otherwise a “reversed DRS”, or a “downforce increase system” could be a funny gadget for the 2012 season!

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th October 2011, 14:58

            Indeed Mr. Draw, the front wings were operated by a button to adjust them a certain amount of degrees a time but at the choice of the driver (or team instruction) without any limits for following a car close like DRS had.

            If I remember right, one of the reasons it was not all that effective was, the wing still sits in the middle of the turbulent air behind the car in front, hampering its potential and upsetting the precise balance teams want to get downforce exactly where they need it.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 13th October 2011, 19:13

      Remember this solution: CDG

  3. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th October 2011, 0:18

    “If it turns out that [Vijay] Mallya is now announcing the sale of a minority of the shares or some such arrangement no-one is going to believe anything that he says as he will already have told a whopping great lie, insisting that the team is not for sale.”

    Except that he very specifically stated that he was not selling the team. The direct connotation of this choice of words is that he would not be giving the entire team away – and he did not. He sold part-ownership of the team, which is a very different thing.

    • Dev (@dev) said on 13th October 2011, 5:44

      and to add to it, it’s more like issuing fresh equity to raise more capital than a shareholder selling stake. the difference is that when fresh equity is raised the company gets the money for it’s expansion & when shareholder sells he walks away with the money and the company simply has change of ownership.

    • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 13th October 2011, 8:18

      @Prisoner-Monkeys My thoughts exactly. I can see why you don’t like this guy!

      • Huron (@huron) said on 13th October 2011, 9:06

        Some people object to being lied to.

        I think Joe will manage without having PM as a fan. No shortage of people in the F1 paddock that respect his work, unlike PM.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th October 2011, 9:22

          Let me give you an example, Huron: Lewis Hamilton says he is ‘cool’ with Massa

          http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95307

          This could be interpreted one of two ways – either he is somewhat cold to Massa, or he is okay with Massa. Now, I could criticise Hamilton for being cold towards Massa … but that’s not what Hamilton has done at all.

          Saward has attacked Vijay Mallya for selling a part of Force India after saying the team was not for sale. However, Mallya never actually ruled out the possibility of selling a stake in the team. He said the entire Force India operation was not for sale, and he has not sold the entire Force India operation. He sold a 42.5% stake to Sahara India Pariwar, equalling his own 42.5% stake. They would need 42.6% to have a controlling influence. And yet, Saward is attacking Mallya for “selling” the team after saying he would not – but the controlling ownership of the team has not been sold, and therefore Saward is in the wrong.

          • Huron (@huron) said on 13th October 2011, 9:37

            Sahara arguably has more influence in the team than Mallya now and will almost certainly take formal control of the team within a few years, at most.

            That is how business works, PM. You can’t deny that just because you do not like Joe.

          • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 13th October 2011, 13:47

            @huron You are running on assumption there, not fact.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th October 2011, 15:11

            @prisoner-monkeys But Saward is not reacting as much to Mallya selling, as he is to Mallya’s strongly worded denial – Mallya said:

            “I was shocked to read a media report that I am selling the Force India Formula 1 team.
            “This is completely untrue and without any basis whatsoever.

            Telling us there is no basis whatsoever for rumours about a sale, when just such a deal to sell a major stake in the team by one of the 50% owners is something I certainly do consider being in conflict with the truth, or simler – a lie

            Even Saward in his article and the comments to it clearly states, that he would understand a “no comment” statement. But not a lie.

            Now we can find a nice example of how to better say it with fellow Asian entrepreneur/F1 team owner Fernandez in the interview in the roundup today, when asked about Caterham being on the grid next year:

            Unfortunately I can’t go into detail on that right now, but I do want to say that I am very proud of what we have achieved with Team Lotus since we brought it back into F1

            He nicely highlights to positive that has been done, and shows to be looking into the future.

            Or we can compare the far more carefully formulated reaction from GL on a possible sale to GenII

            “Proton hereby states that the alleged moves between Group Lotus and Genii Capital are untrue and that the reports are highly speculative in nature,”

      • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 13th October 2011, 14:59

        Joe has a penchant for being somewhat hysterical. I see he’s now closed his comments because he can’t be bothered with people being “disrespectful” (ie disagreeing/pointing out flaws in his logic). He’s a fantastic journalist, but he does have a few delusions of grandeur. He thinks because he’s in the paddock for years that everyone must listen to him and believe him. Do so much as demonstrate a flaw, he goes into some sort of crazy hyperbole about his experience in the paddock.

        I’m sort of glad he’s closed comments. It was pretty tiring reading his rants at anyone who would so dare as to try and enter an intelligent debate with him.

    • Fixy (@fixy) said on 13th October 2011, 16:26

      A wise wording has saved him from accuses of lying and he also hid the truth.

  4. F1 98 said on 13th October 2011, 0:22

    I like drs but it is unfair

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th October 2011, 2:15

      Then what would you propose as an alternative? If all drivers were given free use of the DRS at all times, it will only negate the purpose of the DRS because a defending driver will simply use it to hold position.

      • xxiinophobia (@xxiinophobia) said on 13th October 2011, 4:39

        I’m not against DRS and I never have been, but the way it has been implemented is wrong IMO. I think DRS should be run like KERS: use it anywhere you want, but only for up to a certain number of seconds per lap.

        This combined with KERS adds some complexity when working out how to use it effectively. Do you overtake with DRS and then use KERS to get away once in front? Do you use only enough DRS to get close, and then use KERS (and maybe the DRS you’ve got left) out of a corner to mount an attack? Do you use up both at the same time and leave yourself compromised until the next lap?

        • Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 13th October 2011, 8:00

          As someone who likes the concept behind how DRS is being used this year (I do disagree with some of the positionings, though) I think you present an interesting alternative.

          I wouldn’t mind if they gave each driver a set number of DRS uses (three, say) a race and kept the one-second-behind rule. It’d still create overtaking while adding a greater element of strategy to the racing and (hopefully) pleasing all the whingers that moan about it being’ too easy’.

          • paolo (@paolo) said on 13th October 2011, 13:03

            I personally like DRS as I think its a tool to help prevent processions such as Abu Dhabi last year (although I do agree with Ross Brawn that its the tyres that have made the real difference).

            I don’t think it disadvantages the car in front unfairly as if that car was fundementally quick enough then it wouold be able to stay with the car that has just overtaken it and then use the DRS itself.

            I prefer to see racing than cars stuck behind each other.

            I don’t think the slip-stream balances out the dirty air effect as described above as the dirty air is approx within 1 second of the car infront which is too far to achieve the benefit of the slip-stream

          • Nixon (@nixon) said on 13th October 2011, 18:41

            Great comment from paolo. I mean take out DRS, and make the aerodynamics simpler (not less effective or less ipmoprtant). That way slip streaming someone might be easier. Another alternative is take out DRS and increase the power of KERS, but they (people who make the rules) shouldn’t make it too strong.

  5. Cacarella (@cacarella) said on 13th October 2011, 0:25

    I think Joe Saward has lost his marbles, half the comments on that article are his and they come across as children arguing.

    I wonder what really happened in 2007???

  6. Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 13th October 2011, 0:47

    HAHAHA! Fastest COTD I will probably ever come up with. :D Thanks, Keith! :)

  7. taurus (@taurus) said on 13th October 2011, 0:54

    Fifteen years since Damon won the title? I honestly refuse to believe I’ve been alive that long.

  8. F1Yankee (@f1yankee) said on 13th October 2011, 1:05

    petrov/alonso is a good example of a worst-case scenario, since it addresses the delta in performance and the issue of “driver motivation” (which is a bunch of crap, imo). this situation, where the sport stifles itself, must not be allowed to exist. it must be physically possible for a faster car/driver combination to overtake a slower one. what good is a sport where 1 team may not score, and must hope for a self-goal from the opponent?

    the greatest performance differentiator this year has been the tires, due to their inefficiencies and inconsistencies compared to the bridgestones, and the teams making less efficient use of them. this won’t last, however. assuming the construction remains constant, the teams will quickly learn all they need to know regarding the pirellis, efficiency will go up, and the races will stagnate again.

    there has to be some means of mixing things up, because the natural tendency is to settle into a very predictable and boring sequence of events. i think drs as we know it feels tacked-on and gimmicky, and will have a limited lifespan. the challenge to the sport is to find a mechanism that springs a fast car, without special circumstances and equal application to passer and passee.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th October 2011, 8:36

      @f1yankee its already noticable how the teams are getting to grips with tuning in to the Pirelli tyres. I gather that’s why Pirelli wants to keep developing tyres to change constantly and offer new factors to keep it interesting.

      I think that view on DRS is pretty well balanced. Although I do feel the FIA might get it optimized better next year from experience at the tracks this year hopefully making it less of an obvious passing aid (like we had in Turkey and to a tad lesser extent at Spa)

    • Dave_F1 said on 13th October 2011, 14:59

      Something to remember about Petrov/Alonso at Abu-Dhabi last year is that Renault were significantly faster than anyone else down the straghts because they had a better F-Duct & had gambled on a lower downforce setting & had run a better pit strategy than Ferrari.

      In that case why should a team that did a better job be penalised unfairly by the car behind having something like DRS?

  9. davidwhite (@davidwhite) said on 13th October 2011, 1:29

    Completely agree with Ross Brawn. I do feel as though DRS has “dummed down” Formula 1 this year. I hear all of the arguments about improving overtaking, but ultimately giving your pursuer a 10k speed advantage to make an overtake takes some of the contest away for me. I’d rather see a driver fight tooth and nail to get past a slower driver ahead using KERS and tyre tactics rather than allowing him to effectively hit a boost button which isn’t available to the car in front. Ultimately the car is in front for a reason and it’s up to the driver behind to find a way past on equal terms.

    That said i’m a big fan of KERS. It’s available to everyone (well almost everyone…), requires driver skill and when employed cleverly can really help overtaking. Hamilton’s overtake on Vettel this year was a perfect example of driver skill using gadgets to overtake – not just gadgets doing the overtake.

    Ultimately, I just can’t get excited by a DRS assisted overtake, and that’s the problem.

    • Girts (@girts) said on 13th October 2011, 7:12

      Totally agree with you. The best passes of this year have been non DRS. In my opinion, DRS belongs to the same category as reverse grids or ballast system or even worse. I’ve never been a fan of this gimmick and I really hope that it will disappear after this season.

    • Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 13th October 2011, 7:40

      I can’t be bothered to write out a massive response to this debate once again, so I’m going to be lazy and copy and paste something I’ve already said on the forum because I feel the arguments apply here too.

      @davidwhite

      I challenge that argument. First of all, the majority of the spectacular passes I can remember this season have taken place outside of DRS zones. I think I can remember more passes into Turn 1 at the Nurburgring a few months ago than into the Chicane at the end of the DRS zone. This is a good thing. It also means that the art of race craft and overtaking ability is no less important in the DRS era than it was before it, which I agree is an important thing for the pinnacle of motorsport. “But Geoffrey, what about Istanbul? DRS it WAY too easy to overtake at the end of the straight!” Yes. I agree. I can’t argue against you there. However, DRS is a unique and completely brand new concept. It’s bound to take a bit of time for the FIA to tweak it and to discover where it does and where it doesn’t work so effectively. I agree to an extent that it’s unnecessary to place DRS zones on long straights where lots of overtaking has always tended to occur. I’m also not convinced about the idea of double DRS zones. But it’s good that the FIA are clearly learning about what’s working and what isn’t and are adjusting the use of DRS accordingly.

      I’m very much for the retention of DRS. I believe it can be an effective tool for equalising the playing field like I outlined earlier. I also disagree that it’s ‘destroyed the art of defensive driving’. I’ve watched every race this season and the majority of DRS ‘attempts’ I’ve seen throughout the season have not resulted in overtakes. You still have to be in a good position to make the maximum use of it and get passed. Button didn’t simply drive around Massa in Melbourne did he? And on the other hand, if it wasn’t for DRS, I doubt Alonso would’ve ever made that move on Webber in Valencia. So to say that it’s spoiling F1 racing or whatever is just bizarre to me.

      I also think the DRS factor adds a whole new unique, exciting element to racing. Remember when Hamilton was chasing down Vettel in Barcelona towards the end of the race? I remember everyone saying that as soon as Lewis was within 1 second, it was on like Donkey Kong. I think it’s both cool and exciting when you see a car get within 1 second of a rival and you see that DRS graphic start flashing. It’s like it’s the F1 equivalent of a fighter pilot getting a lock-on on a target. You think “oh my, here we go!” and you just know that something dramatic is about to occur. I also like the fact it’s an element that’s unique to F1. It helps to differentiate Formula 1 racing from the other single-seater series as well as illustrating just how important the physics of downforce and aerodynamics are to F1 cars.

      @girts

      Totally agree with you. The best passes of this year have been non DRS. In my opinion, DRS belongs to the same category as reverse grids or ballast system or even worse. I’ve never been a fan of this gimmick and I really hope that it will disappear after this season.

      That’s the point In my opinion, having the majority of overtaking moves in the sport being DRS related would be a terrible thing. That’s not what it’s designed for. As you don’t need me to remind you, the DRS was born out of the desire to counter the ‘dirty air’ effect. How many times have we seen genuinely faster cars or drivers close up to a slower rival and then struggle to find any way passed as soon as they get within 1-2 seconds behind? The disturbance to the aero balance of the cars would make it just too difficult for even the best drivers in the world to actually get into a position to make a move in the first place. The idea of the DRS is not to produce easy ‘slam-dunk’ overtaking opportunities but to allow drivers to get into positions to overtake where they have usually been unfairly disadvantaged by dirty air. I hear a lot about how DRS gives the attacking driver an unfair advantage but I disagree. DRS is an equaliser. It helps to take away the disadvantage of dirty air and give drivers a chance to pass.

      So, yeah. I’m a fan of DRS and while I agree it’s not yet been ‘perfected’ I hope the sport doesn’t discard the idea too quickly because it’s played a significant role in shaping the truly exceptional action we’ve seen so far this season.

      • Girts (@girts) said on 13th October 2011, 8:40

        @Magnificent Geoffrey

        Thanks MG, great comment as always. DRS hasn’t, of course, destroyed F1 or the art of defensive driving. We have seen a lot of great and long fights for positions despite quickest driver using the DRS. But we have also seen a lot of cases where it has acted as a push-to-pass button and where I personally would have loved to see fiercer fights instead.

        For sure, DRS is an equaliser as well; I just ain’t sure that such an equaliser is needed in F1. It isn’t like overtaking was impossible in times before DRS; actually I think the number of passes increased quite remarkably already in 2010. Another problem is that it’s very hard to adjust the DRS so that it acts only as equaliser but doesn’t give an unfair advantage to the pursuing car. This setting of unique DRS detection points & zones on each track, adjusting, deciding between 1 & 2 zones… It all just seems too artificial for me.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th October 2011, 8:43

        @magnificent-geoffrey reacted to that in the forum already. In short:
        – No, I do not like the concept of DRS
        – I agree with you on how it should work like it did in Barcelona and some other tracks
        – Yes, DRS did work as the stopgap is was supposed to be on several occasions and when properly optimised it should be able to do so on all tracks.

        Therefore, i agree with Brawn that its necissary to get clear what the target for the DRS is and optimize it for that.
        So NO, DRS passes are not exiting to see most do not fancy seeing many of these Ross.
        Yes, optimise it to keep it as a possibility to catch back and be able to follow close to make a move after losing DF in the corners.

  10. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 13th October 2011, 1:51

    I think it’s a shame we didn’t have DRS last year, it might have got a better reputation and spared us some pretty dull processions, not to mention probably prevented the whole “faster than you” saga.

    I think there’s a lot of myths about the Pirellis. China showed us a world of potential with contrary strategies, but the rest of the season has rarely turned out anything like it. When you consider all the different kinds of passing we’ve had because of the tyres – passing someone you’ve just come out of the pits behind because they haven’t stopped, cars falling into other’s clutches because they are harder on their tyres, the massive myth about drivers preserving tyres which has a LOT to do with set-up and less to do with drivers taking too much life out too early – in the end we still have little driver input into a move, almost as little as DRS, which in some races we’ve seen it been possible to defend from.

    We’ve seen more moves, mostly due to the tyres but really they’re barely any less artificial than DRS has been, the only real difference being that one is “the same” (which isn’t that true) for everyone and the other isn’t (and that’s before we get down to the dirty air argument). In a way we’ve been lucky to have a competent organisation in Pirelli managing the tyres and doing a far better job with their allocation than the FIA has done with the DRS placements, or we’d be having Turkeys every three races.

    I have enjoyed the new F1 greatly and it would be too much to ask it to be perfectly balanced every race (though I fear little will have been learned for next year). But just as less aero-sensitive cars would be preferable to needing DRS, tyres that genuinely lose performance according to heaviness of use (and proper trade-offs between use/saving) and not be a ticking time-bomb whose fuse length can be slightly tinkered with would also be preferable. That is, if purity is your main concern.

  11. RumFRESH (@rumfresh) said on 13th October 2011, 2:00

    As Martin Brundle said during the Japanese GP, DRS is great since it allows cars that are fundamentally faster to get by. Unless there’s a better solution that caters to this issue, DRS is the only way. I’m sure we have seen more cases of cars that are fundamentally faster using DRS to overtake than we’ve seen unfair passes. Even so, drivers will push harder on the rest of the track to avoid being vulnerable in the DRS zone.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th October 2011, 3:58

      Unless there’s a better solution that caters to this issue, DRS is the only way.

      Yes: ban aerodynamics outright. But the teams will never agree to it because they know aerodynamics give them more grip, and therefore more speed.

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 13th October 2011, 9:16

      If cars are fundamentally faster, they should be able to get by anyway, shouldn’t they?

      DRS is a sticking plaster, that’s all, to cover up (with varying effectiveness) the fundamental problem that overbody aerodynamics are too prominent in F1. The teams had a chance to correct that properly by reintroducing ground effect, but chose not to, because the big teams are afraid of levelling the playing field – which shows the utter folly of having the sport’s rules set by its competitors. But there you go.

      • RumFRESH (@rumfresh) said on 13th October 2011, 18:43

        Exactly, you’re right. The clean air for the car in front will give them an advantage over the car behind. DRS simply gives the car behind that advantage back on the straights. The problem with DRS is it removes the role of driver skill in the overtake. This is what I don’t like.

    • graham228221 (@graham228221) said on 13th October 2011, 9:28

      As Martin Brundle said during the Japanese GP, DRS is great since it allows cars that are fundamentally faster to get by.

      @RumFRESH

      I disagree vehemently with this. What’s wrong with having a fundamentally faster car stuck behind another car? It adds unpredictability to a race and helps to showcase defensive and offensive driving skills.

      This season, when a driver finds himself out of position relative to his car’s performance you just know that it’ll be a few laps, max, before he gets past.

      I’ve no doubt that Vettel would still be on for another title this year, but without DRS would he have walked away with it in the fashion that he has done? I suspect not, but unfortunately we will never know and the questions that have hung over his racecraft remain disappointingly unanswered thanks to this arbitrary gimmick.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th October 2011, 9:32

        @graham228221

        I disagree vehemently with this. What’s wrong with having a fundamentally faster car stuck behind another car?

        Given that they’re more likely to be able to pass this year anyway because of the new tyres, I agree with you.

        I’ve no doubt that Vettel would still be on for another title this year, but without DRS would he have walked away with it in the fashion that he has done?

        Absolutely – he’s rarely been behind anyone in the first place anyway. And his best passes – on Rosberg at Spa, on Alonso at Monza – were accomplished without DRS.

        • graham228221 (@graham228221) said on 13th October 2011, 10:09

          Absolutely – he’s rarely been behind anyone in the first place anyway. And his best passes – on Rosberg at Spa, on Alonso at Monza – were accomplished without DRS.

          Fair point, maybe I should have been paying more attention to Vettel after all :(

          • Tango (@tango) said on 13th October 2011, 10:29

            Fair point, maybe I should have been paying more attention to Vettel after all

            Admitedly, this year, paying close attention to Vettel was a case of : “How far in front is he? Oh, that much? Oh all right then”.

          • graham228221 (@graham228221) said on 13th October 2011, 13:44

            In my defence, I was actually at Monza for the Alonso/Vettel battle but on the opposite side of the circuit :)

        • RumFRESH (@rumfresh) said on 13th October 2011, 18:40

          Definitely agree there. The best overtakes this year were done outside the DRS zones.

    • RumFRESH (@rumfresh) said on 13th October 2011, 18:38

      I agree with most of you. I’m actually against DRS overall. But as a solution to a lack of overtaking it is working. It’s just that if we look at Abu Dhabi, I did not find Alonso struggling behind Petrov to be entertaining at all. The Renault was simply faster on the straights. I actually found it quite funny that the basic element of racing which is overtaking was lacking in the highest category of the sport.

  12. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 13th October 2011, 2:37

    They could try with no DRS zone at some of the grand prix after Korea. After all, both championships will surely be decided a couple of GP before Brazil, and they tried 2 zones before.

    I think the DRS is good, and it gives another dimension to racing, specially the use of KERS for defending. But it needs tweaking, because at some of the Grand Prix the DRS-zone was very long, or it was determined at the wrong bit of the circuits.

    After the season finishes, the FIA will have all the parameters from each grand prix, so they’ll know what to expect next year. For example, I doubt FIA will make the same mistake and give the drivers free use of the DRS for the whole back straight at China, or use 2 DRS zones at Canada only separated by a chicane (which already was a good overtaking spot before the introduction of the DRS).

    F1 should keep going with this solution, improving it year after year.

  13. TED BELL said on 13th October 2011, 2:53

    Niki Lauda , me and now Ross Brawn feel the same way about DRS….I think it should be renamed the “Dumb Racing System”.

  14. Doance (@doance) said on 13th October 2011, 4:05

    No one wants to see a DRS overtake. All the best racing is done where there is no DRS. It takes away entertaining battles by automatically letting the faster car through. And it isn’t fair that it works better at some races than others.

  15. Hatebreeder (@hatebreeder) said on 13th October 2011, 4:45

    Though i thought DRS was a good idea cause it would aid overtake in tight tracks, that failed in Valencia, and i realised DRS was a bad idea and now the whole tyre issue, well I dont think i like degrading tyres that much anymore. Everyone was happy refuelling was banned cause back then no one would race on track and all the drama takes place in the pits. But then now it’s boiled down to everyone just taking care of their tyres and whoever stays out longest on one set, wins. Its not really important to pass someone immediately cause if you stay out long enough and manage your tyres, the guy ahead will eventually struggle and you will pass him. The skill has gone down from raw overtaking to management and driving style change. I was reading an article on BBC.co.uk on what happened to lewis in 2011 and it showed this video of lewis passing kimi at monza 07 at turn 1 by braking late and locking his tyres and then brushing off the understeer by simply turning his wheels while still locked and passing him. And I realized he cant do that anymore cause if he does, he will flat spot the tyres and his car will vibrate and his lap times will fall and he will have to limp back to the pits for tyre change and if he happens to clip the wing then he will be penalised for dangerous maneuver. Sad.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.