Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Shanghai, 2013

DRS and tyres: Has F1 got the balance right?

Debates and PollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Shanghai, 2013The 2013 season is the third year in which F1 has tried to produce better racing using the Drag Reduction System and having Pirelli produce tyres that degrade rapidly.

Both have undergone changes this year. Pirelli has produced a new generation of softer tyre compounds and almost every track will have two DRS zones this year.

However it has opened a debate over whether Formula One has gone too far in altering the sport to make it more entertaining. Has it got the balance right?


Following complaints from some drivers the Drag Reductions System can no longer be used freely during practice and qualifying this year.

To ensure it still has a significant effect, an extra DRS zone has been added at most tracks which previously only had one. The last three races all had one extra DRS zone compared to last year.

Has that made DRS too powerful – or not powerful enough? Do you think F1 has got the balance right? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

What effect is DRS having on F1 racing in 2013?

  • DRS is having a very positive effect on F1 (3%)
  • DRS is having a positive effect on F1 (32%)
  • DRS is having a neutral effect on F1 (11%)
  • DRS is having a negative effect on F1 (38%)
  • DRS is having a very negative effect on F1 (16%)
  • No opinion (0%)

Total Voters: 539

Loading ... Loading ...


In the previous two seasons with softer tyres we’ve tended to see lots of pit stops and strategic variety in the early races, but by the end of the season the teams understand the tyres better and one-stop races become more commonplace.

In response to that Pirelli have produced softer tyres this year. But concerns they may have gone too far, voiced by Red Bull among others, have led them to change the hard tyre to a more durable compound.

Are this year’s tyres too aggressive? Has the move towards softer compounds produced better racing since 2011? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

What effect are the current tyres having on F1 racing in 2013?

  • The current tyres are having a very positive effect on F1 (11%)
  • The current tyres are having a positive effect on F1 (30%)
  • The current tyres are having a neutral effect on F1 (11%)
  • The current tyres are having a negative effect on F1 (24%)
  • The current tyres are having a very negative effect on F1 (23%)
  • No opinion (0%)

Total Voters: 531

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Posted on Categories 2013 F1 season, Debates and Polls

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 177 comments on “DRS and tyres: Has F1 got the balance right?”

    Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
    1. In the Pijelli era, the tyres are so bad that the teams give their driver a target lap time to drive to. The car is able go faster, the driver can is able to drive faster, but the tyres will simply disintegrate if they do so. A driver may only chase a car ahead, or defend from a car behind, if he is driving within the prescribed lap time. Otherwise he has to accept that he will not catch the driver ahead, or even worse, wave through a chasing driver… even though he may feel that an attack or defence is within his and his machine’s capabilities. Yet if he attempts to attack, or defend, outside the parameters of the prescribed lap times, he will be forced to make another pit stop.

      How anybody can class this as having a positive effect on racing is beyond me…

      1. Pirelli should dedicate to make erasers and not F1 tyres

        1. Traverse (@)
          3rd May 2013, 19:21

          Or they could compete with Durex for…actually, on second thought…never mind.

            1. @celeste, @hellotraverse Actually, it was an anger claim but resulted in a joke. F1 is damaged by 3 aspects: No refueling (makes the driver “care” the way it uses the fuel, and by that makes him slow down), DRS is a bad gimmick (makes useless to defend position, and add to that the fact that a good defense also damages the fragile tyres), and don’t forget DRS can get stuck and ruin races (Alonso and Schum). And the tyres, I can’t understand why drivers must use the two compounds. It should be up to the team. If a team could run a nonstop, it would be part of their skill.

            2. I think you are wrong there @omarr-pepper. I think the biggest things that are wrong with F1 currently is 1. too much of the balance tipped towards aero, and the dirty air problems that brings with it. 2. the sport being too expensive, so drivers need to bring money instead of just great racing skills and 3. getting enough young people to be interested to stay healthy for the future.
              As for the drivers running to pre-destined lap times – I lively recall far more of that from the refuelling era. I think its more to do with the pits having more information about what the car is doing than the driver (too much telemetry), so they start telling the drivers how to drive, instead of leaving it to the driver to feel the car (and reacting to fuel levels, brakes going off, tyres going off etc.)

            3. @bascb oh! I agree with those points as well. Thanks.

            1. David (@mansellsmoustache)
              9th May 2013, 22:40


            2. @bascb utterly agree with you

      2. Non/Little F1-fan friends told me: “How a tyre can only last 2 laps in the pinnacle of motorsports?”

        1. Traverse (@)
          3rd May 2013, 20:13

          “How a tyre can only last 2 laps in the pinnacle of motorsports?”

          Because the F1 big wigs have a seemingly relentless desire to appeal to “new markets”, rather than concentrating on strengthening the territories F1 already operates in. Sadly, actual real racing doesn’t seem to appeal to casual fans and thus in order to quell the cries from “The Casuals” (cue The Twilight Zone music), they decide to go down the road marked “easy way out” and introduce these farcical gimmicks (It’s a bit like when a parent shoves a chocolate bar in their child’s mouth to momentarily pacify the kid, rather than deal with the route problem).

          As long as they’re pulling profit out of naive, casual fans, they don’t care, as far as they’re concerned real racing can go and make love to itself (and by naive and casual, I mean people who will pay through the nose for Sky F1 and purchase ridiculously expensive tickets without protest). But then why should they care? They could price the tickets at a grand per seat and people would still pay.

          1. Nick.UK (@)
            3rd May 2013, 22:19

            @hellotraverse “The Casuals” – are ruinning everything from motorsport to music and video games. It’s a disgusting era we live in where the talentless seem to thrive off idiots money.

            1. @nick-uk “It’s a disgusting era we live in where the talent less seem to thrive off idiots money”

              My vote is with this guy. It’s a sad fact that all major sports that are dependent on Sponsor’s hard cash are run as profit business and unfortunately have little interest in the genuine reason for the sport in the first place.

              It will not stop me watching F1 or loving it any less as from a young age I have been hooked & I honestly believe that we are in a golden era of F1 that will get looked back on like the ones we do now.

              No one seems to be mentioning Kers in this debate, I wonder why?

              1.Down with DRS as it is too fake & easy.
              2.Make Kers limited to a whole race distance not just a lap. It will add to strategy and help reduce the kers attacker failing because of the kers defender infront
              3. Take away aero & replace with mechanical grip. Then cars will follow closer and maybe make that pass without the car in front being a sitting duck or mission impossible

            2. James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
              8th May 2013, 11:28

              @Bobby – disagree with KERS. F1 needs KERS to keep manufacturers interested as it reflects the movement of the consumer car market along with the smaller turbo charged engines. I think remove DRS but have the amount of KERS that is coming next year, although maybe adjust that it gets restored every two laps, to add a little more tactics to it.

          2. “Sadly, actual real racing doesn’t seem to appeal to casual fans and thus in order to quell the cries from “The Casuals” (cue The Twilight Zone music), they decide to go down the road marked “easy way out” and introduce these farcical gimmicks (It’s a bit like when a parent shoves a chocolate bar in their child’s mouth to momentarily pacify the kid, rather than deal with the route problem).”

            And the thing is, it’s backfiring. Viewing figures are down, ticket sales are down. So what to do? Learn from this and revert to a proper formula? Or throw a whole load of new gimmicks at the show?

            I know which option I’d chose. Pretty sure FOM will go the other way though… :(

            1. I agree with Bobby. DRS should go away. It is too fake . Tires from 2012 were pretty close to perfect. This running to a delta or the tires shred is a joke. I would like to see Kers and/or DRS set up as a set amount of time to be used.(Maybe 3 minutes over a race span or a set # of times) And they can use them anywhere on the track. Once they are used up, thats it. This would allow drivers to defend a faster car strategically. Also going back to a mechanical grip formula so cars can follow and pass would make F1 exciting again. I doubt this will ever happen like I want, but hey this is what Forums are for, so us fans can vent and play armchair QB. :)

            2. yes, revert to what you call a proper formula and watch the viewing figures drop even more ; have you not noticed the move to pay TV ?

              and ticket sales down ? no recession where you are ? looked at ticket prices lately ?

          3. jimscreechy (@)
            16th May 2013, 16:30

            It’s not just F1, so many aspects of society and the world are being amalgamated. We’ll soon be a homogenous mass with one racing category across the globe… and it will run on google.

      3. I would agree that this year things have gone too far, I would prefer drivers being able to push harder more often.

        I liked how in the past the tyre performance dropped off rather suddenly. What if the compounds were more durable and consistent—so that a driver could push as hard as he wanted, but once the meat of the tyre was used, after say 15-20 laps, the tyres quickly degraded. Maybe even couple this with restrictions on sensor technology so the teams have less instantaneous data about the tyre condition?

        This would create situations where teams and drivers were debating if they could push one more lap or not. Some would get it right, some would get it wrong and the difference could easily be a second or three. It would put it more down to a driver being familiar with his car and the tyres to recognize how much life is left in the tyre.

        1. Yeah, that was “entertaining”, when the performance would drop suddenly. Like a musical chairs dance when you don’t know upfront when the music is switched off. Maybe they should throw dice to see when they need to do an extra lap? Or to go to “jail”?

      4. @PijelliZeroGrip: I totally agree. Added to that, DRS allows for zero-skilled overtaking.

        F1 has become a joke. It’s already been said a million times: bring back races where the drivers are putting themselves and their vehicles on the limit for the entire race.

      5. @pijellizero
        Well said there mate!

        1. Before DRS most overtaking took place in corners but now they just get close enough and wait for the next straight to cruise past. The extreme aero effects making overtaking difficult but a gimmick like DRS isn’t the answer. If they focused less on aero grip and more on mechanical grip then the tyres would be come more important.

          Make tyres last longer but have a mandatory minimum number of stops. Then drivers can drive flat out between stops and not have to worry about shredding their tyres. That would be real racing.

      6. +1. Add DRS to the mix and you have a very sad caricature of F1. How can some F1 “fanatics” consider this spectacle “good racing” is also beyond me.

      7. How are tyres that are designed to degrade any different from the limiting factors of any era in F1.
        For example in the turbo era they essentially drove to target lap times as dictated by the boost being run as a function of available fuel.

        1. No they were not given target lap times. They were told when and where to make best use of the turbos and they were told when they needed to conserve fuel. They were never told “Your target lap time is x:yy:zz”.

          And drivers weren’t on the radio asking if they should be bothering to defend.

      8. exactly

      9. +1 to that. I think best combination is DRS + Bridgestone era :)

        1. @steco – I half agree:

          DRS + Bridgestones + no refuelling
          DRS + 2012 Pirelli’s + bring back refuelling

          Then F1 will be close to being back to how it should be. driver on the limit each lap, every lap!

    2. DRS has killed the sport aspect of F1 since it was brought in. We no longer see much real overtaking we see drivers passing eachother on straights as if they were on the highway. If we must have DRS, have it available for drivers to use a limited number of times per race weekend (Saturday to Sunday). They can use it whereever and whenever they like but the number carries over from qualifying to the race, so do they want to use it to get higher up the grid or to pass in the race?

      The tyres are great because everyone gets the same chance to work out the tyres. It creates strange results in the first half of the year before the best teams work out how to use them properly and move ahead in the second half. It would be nice to see the cars going flat out again all the time but the tyres at least give us real passing.

      Kill DRS, keep the tyres, you get less overtaking but it is real.

      1. @jonners99 So you think its ok that Red Bull have to turn their car DOWN to be able to handle the tyres?

        1. To me that argument is a bit like saying, shame Mclaren built their car to handle v10 engines and have to use a v8. It is the same for everyone and Red Bull had some idea that the tyres would be like this based on the last two seasons.

          These are the best designers and engineers in the world. They are capable of adapting based on fixed conditions. The tyres with a single supplier are a fixed condition that the cars need to be designed to.

          1. Have you actually been to 1 f1 race?

            My first was in 2000, at Spa. Before that I had heard that the noise was crazy and my thought was…” ah boys with toys, they just want to make noise :)”

            Wasn’t until the first one passed at the straight that a couple of things dawned to me:

            1. A weekend of (2000) F1 will have a permanent impact on your hearing if you don’t wear at all times.

            2. The noise (2000) is way beyond funny, in that split second it really became clear, a F1 racer isn’t noisy for fun but because you can’t have mufflers or anything else restricting flow if you want max power, you need every rev per minute you can possibly get from within the limits of physics to get that extra power over the other guys… No Compromise…

            But you and your like think its fine that the F1 field cannot use the already limited available HP in their engine, wow…

            Whats the freaking point of F1 then if may I ask??

            1. I have been to two F1 races, both unfortunately in the V8 era. I would love if the cars and drivers could run on Saturday and Sunday at the very limits of their ability. I just don’t like the argument of Red Bull having to turn their car down to compete as I am sure that all the teams could go a lot faster. I didn’t particularly like my opening metaphor in the last comment as I wrote it but couldn’t think of a better way to articulate my thoughts.

              I think from a racing perspective DRS is a bigger issue than the tyres and think that the tyres create a variable that is interesting for the teams to try and solve. The best argument against the tyres I have seen is that laid out by Pirellizerogroup in this thread. When every one is having to lap to a set time it is not really racing… when everyone has a magic button that lets them essentially drive straight past anyone if they can get within one second then that is also and to a greater extent in my opinion not racing.

              To a casual fan, the tyres make things exciting, I would imagine even to that casual fan DRS seems dumb and fake?

      2. Or perhaps they could do what they currently do and have two DRS zones? With separate activation points? And maybe they should shorten the DRS zones a bit but I think there are still brilliant passes in F1, and besides, DRS provides another tactical area, drivers maybe stay out longer or pit earlier to avoid another driver’s DRS? As for tyres, I think last year’s were perfect, right balance between speed and durability for entertaining racing. This year, pirelli have gone too far. But as for the DRS I can see where you’re coming from.

        As for me, I put really positive for DRS and really negative for pirellis.

        1. drivers maybe stay out longer or pit earlier to avoid another driver’s DRS

          But I don’t see how either of those is particularly interesting. It might be a strategic aspect, but it isn’t an exciting one- just as fuelling to complete passes during pit stops rather than on the track used to be a strategic aspect.

      3. It’s the tyres that do that. if the drivers are on the same quality tyres it’s not that easy to get past with DRS. When there is already a 1 to 3 second lap difference due to the tyres then indeed DRS just compounds the problem.

    3. I think DRS overall has rather spoiled more than it helped do what it was targetted to do. I think its been OK in Australia to help keep a battle going and following a car close enough to be able to find a way past. But more often than not DRS has meant cars zoom past without the leading car even thinking of defending position, and its also made drivers shy away from moves elsewhere too often.

      The tyres are a good thing, although its a delicate balance to keep right. China this year was really on the edge, and we’ve also seen Pirelli being a tad too conservative last year. But overall I would say its been a positive change compared to the bridgestones we had the years before this, where too often the only reason to change tyres during the race really was the mandatory use of both compounds.

      1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
        3rd May 2013, 18:11

        @bascb I still think that DRS, when implemented intelligently, has a place in F1 in 2013. Unfortunately, the FIA are not implementing it very cleverly this season, by putting two zones on every circuit – even ones that don’t need them. There are sections on F1 tracks that could do with a DRS zone and there are some long straights that don’t need one at all. I wish the FIA could see that.

        I agree with you about the tyres. I, for one, would much rather have the current tyres than go back to the old Bridgestone-style compounds.

        1. I agree with you about the tyres. I, for one, would much rather have the current tyres than go back to the old Bridgestone-style compounds.

          @magnificent-geoffrey – me too! Plus, the racing these past three years (this included) has been great and I’ve enjoyed watching every weekend! (It’s fun not pigeon-holing oneself and not declaring to be a “purist”!)

        2. @magnificent-geoffrey @bascb I think the FIA are aware of all of that, but because they changed the rules on the use of DRS in practice and qualifying this year, it meant that teams would likely shorten their top gear since gearing it long no longer gives them as much benefit in qualifying. To ensure that teams still have incentive to gear their cars with enough top gear to make effective use of DRS, they’ve added the second zone at all circuits to try and recover some of the benefit in qualifying that was lost. To me this just illustrates how broken the thinking behind DRS is in general. If that kind of artificiality needs to be used to make it work, then in my opinion the concept as a whole is flawed. I appreciate that it’s trying to fix the problem of dirty wake, but I think the original 2013 regs that were scrapped would’ve been a better solution with little to no wing, and the reintroduction of ground effect. That would’ve allowed the cars to still create a lot of aero downforce, with drastically reduced wake from what I understand.

          1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
            3rd May 2013, 23:17


            If that kind of artificiality needs to be used to make it work, then in my opinion the concept as a whole is flawed. I appreciate that it’s trying to fix the problem of dirty wake, but I think the original 2013 regs that were scrapped would’ve been a better solution with little to no wing, and the reintroduction of ground effect. That would’ve allowed the cars to still create a lot of aero downforce, with drastically reduced wake from what I understand.

            It’s very hard to disagree with you there, I have to admit.

            1. Indeed @us_peter, @bascb and @magnificent-geoffrey, I can only agree whole-hartedly, but with a sagging feeling whenever I think of it. DRS could be a useful band aid, but currently it is not.

          2. @us_peter @magnificent-Geoffrey, agree 100%, I’ve been saying that for ages. People arguing that large diffusers for ground effect would produce the same turbulence are dead wrong, look how close the racing was in the last ground effect era of f1, not to mention diffusers design depends on keeping the air flowing through it attached and clean, other wise it wouldn’t work properly. I’ve said it before and ill keep saying it, bring back ground effect, very strictly controlled to avoid development costs skyrocketing, and then you can make the rear wing top elements tiny, like monza ones, plus no beam wing, and no winglets at all over the bodywork, and the wake would be reduced massively. Then cars could follow wing to wing through high speed corners, like they used to, and now can’t. Ground effect is the answer! Then just do away with drs because it will not be needed.

            1. @fangio85 I agree, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

        3. The problem is the they cannot implement it intelligently. When the cars are on different strategies, DRS will always seem to make overtaking too easy. When clearly the underlying problem is the tyres. When cars are on the same tyres (same nr laps and same compound) then DRS will result in a battle for position which otherwise would not have been possible. If the tyres are different then overtaking is ridiculously easy already anyway. DRS just makes it a tad easier still.

          1. I do agree that it is the current combination that makes for thosse bad cases @patrickl,but I also think this means that given the tyres, we would often be able to do without DRS.

        4. And I agree with you on DRS too @magnificent-geoffrey!

    4. The tires are mostly positive, but I think I would like F1 more without the DRS. I would like to see better KERS (probably next year’s ERS) and bigger, more powerful engines, carefully ballanced by more freedom regarding aerodynamics. That would be my perfect Formula. :D

    5. No they have not.
      The DRS is stupid, complicated, unfair and unnessesary. Get rid of it and hopefully the embrasment will be forgotten one day. Probably not.
      Tyres are a bit more complicated.
      I think they are a too soft and the rules around the tyres doesn’t really suit I don’t think.
      Get rid of the top ten starting on qualifying tyre rule, to stop some from not running at all, and give an opportunity for them to start on the harder tyres more often.
      Then give the top ten qualifiers a replacement set of soft tyres for a tyre which they ONLY use in Q3. To stop them from only doing a single run in Q3. And maybe just a tyre more for everyone to stop those incredibly dull q1 and q2.
      Then the tyres need to be more consistent and faster, with more progressive wear I think. Not as agressive but still much more degrading then the old bridgestones. You don’t have to go from one exstreme to another. I think a middle thing between the current tyres and the 2010 spec bridgestones would be ideal.

      1. @mads agreed.

        DRS is making F1 like WWE Wrestling – not a sport, an “entertainment”. I say “enteratinment” as I believe that is the intention but I actually believe rather the opposite: DRS is sapping the entertainment value with the way in which it is currently implimented. Cars streaming by even before the braking zone is not “entertaining” in my eyes, rather destroying the entertainment value of ballsy overtakes with the last of the late brakers.

        The tyres though I think are a good thing: the rules are flawed and they are too aggressive currently but if we got rid of those rules and reverted to a mid/end of 2011 spec tyre I would be happy: I think there was a pretty good balance at that point in time.

    6. Its not DRS, its the tyres.

      1. @jushua-mesh. This is an interesting point, I’m surprised no one has engaged by this comment yet.

        At first, I thought “are you out of your mind! it’s clearly DRS that is the problem.” But after reflecting a moment, I feel more open to this idea. Creating longer-lasting tyres that the drivers can push non-stop on would allow for more balls-out racing. Keeping DRS would theoretically keep up the passing.

        I would prefer to see each of these gimmicks tested independently of each other. What is a year without quickly degrading tyres, but heavy DRS use like? What is a year with no DRS but quickly degrading tyres like? I think we’d quickly understand which is more artificial.

        1. @jmwalley every day of the week I’d take solely the tyres: even though I think they’re not perfect, at least they are the same for everyone. DRS is only available to a chasing driver, which makes it far more artificial and excitement enhancer in my eyes.

        2. @jmwalley

          I would prefer to see each of these gimmicks tested independently of each other

          Interesting idea indeed!
          My only concern with removing DRS is a midfield car’s dirty air messing up the race (for a huge number of laps) for a driver who’s a competing with front-runners (finally being passed anyway, but only after causing that unnecessary damage – unnecessary for him as he’s competing with other midfield cars).

    7. I put neutral effect for both. I feel that both have improved the show in some areas but detracted from it in others.

      2 DRS zones worked well in Oz and Bahrain but kind of spoiled Malaysia and Shanghai. I reckon it will also improve the show at places like Silverstone and Hungary, but I’m concerned it will again spoil Montreal, Spa, Monza and Interlagos. Those last 4 circuits would be better off not having DRS at all, to be honest.

    8. F1 should be about the wheel to wheel racing and DRS has all but killed that aspect of the sport. Now all we are left with is watching the fastest guy win with all obstacles removed from his path. Very unsatisfying. F1 without DRS is what the purist wants so why are we bring denied it? Is the sport really that badly managed that it can’t see the obvious? If so i fear for the future of F1.

      p.s. DRS is the sole reason i will not be attending a GP this year

    9. I do not love DRS; however, I cannot hate it. I think it serves a purpose once implemented properly. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

      1. (@millirem)

        I do not love DRS; however, I cannot hate it. I think it serves a purpose once implemented properly. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

        I’d suggest putting some proper tracks back on the calendar, and not the tilke-dromes. But that’s just me.

      2. I think the tyres alone could solve that problem. As someone with a degree that involved a lot of scientific experiments, one of the first things you learn is “only change one thing at a time”. I think if F1 had taken the same approach at the end of 2010 we would all be loving f1 right now.

        1. exactly only change one variable.

      3. Pirelli tyres

      4. Fix the aero issues that is the root cause. DRS is a bandage on a pulsing wound. The problem is still there and they are just moving the problems about, decompressing certain areas while compressing others, but not actually reducing the problem that still exists.

        My point, lack of overtaking has been seen as an issue for years now (see: OWG). And the OWG has many times said that disturbed air from all the aero is a problem, but it has yet to be addressed. Instead, F1/FIA took McLaren’s f-duct idea, and turned it into DRS. The result is that some drivers can pass on 5-10% of the track while the remainder not only stays just as useless because of aero influenced restrictions on close racing. That remaining 90% (or whatever it is) becomes even more useless because drivers have no incentive to risk tyres, time, or their car when they know that they can breeze by via these convoluted rules that only benefit the driver behind.

      5. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

        That depends on what exactly it is about Abu Dhabi 2010 which you wish to avoid.

        1. Hector, I’d put money on Jason wanting to avoid how Alonso was stuck behind Petrov for an eternity, even though he was in a much faster car. Of course this happened many, many times times to many drivers during this race and many others during the Bridgestone era. The Trulli Train was truly terrific when your driver wasn’t stuck but was truly terrible if your driver was one of the victims.

          1. The thing with Abu-Dhabi 2010 is that while Alonso was faster than Petrov over a lap, He was not faster than Petrov down the straights purely because Renault had a better F-Duct, Were running less downforce & a higher top gear.

            Alonso was unable to pass Petrov not because of turbulent air or because of the circuit layout, He could not pass Petrov purely because Petrov/Renault had done a better job with car setup, had gone with the right pit strategy & Petrov wasn’t making any mistakes.

            Also don’t forget that Alonso (And Webber behind him) had overtaken other cars before getting to Petrov.

            I’d also suggest that given the Renault’s straght line speed advantage over the Ferrari that race DRS would not have helped Alonso. It would have been like Schumacher/Hamilton at Monza 2011 where Hamilton’s use of DRS was nullified by Schumacher’s superior top speed & where it was only a small mistake by Schumacher (Late gear shift) which ultimately saw Lewis get by.

      6. I dunno, maybe implement the proposed 2013 aerodynamic regulations? The thing is DRS was only ever a stop gap – a sticking plaster if you will – and the root cause of the problems would have been highly mitigated by the regs in a way that would not have tainted the sporting balance.

        Thats the issue. KERS, and even the ERS brought in in 2014 is weaker than it can be. It is a bost buttons. It is also no different to a turbo boost button in that the driver can choose at what position on trak deployes it. DUring attack, defence or simply to minimise laptime.

        DRS is not the same. It is not available to the defending driver, and the attacking driver can only use it in restricted position, within a 1 second gap to the car ahead.

        And the worst thing is it doent facilitate great, skilful, oppotunistic overtaking. He cant use it when he spots the car in front having poor traction out of a corner, or when he has forced the other car onto a comprimised line.

        Its not even making the show better – it just gives the car behind a stupid advantage in a straight line, wheras the other regs would have promoteed not neccesarily the smae amount of overtaking, but struck a better chord between attack and defence. We hardly see drivers putting pressure on and forcing mistakes.

        Its not the pass itself we remeber but the build up, the battle and the eventual resolution that draws people in. And DRS robs that from the sport. Before you could say that for some tracks, overtaking would be difficult, but it would always be eventful. And that despite the greater amount of passing in other categories, F1 could throw up racing and races that no other motorsport could equal in drama, skill and excitement. But not now – this stop gap was never intended or designed as an all round solution to overtaking and the problem of aerodynamic wake, so why would it deliver all this.

    10. I’m enjoying it so I going to put neutral for both, simply because I can’t say it would be better without either agressive tyres or DRS nor has it improved the show. Ultimately it’s largely hypothetical to ponder anything other than the status quo.

    11. there are ways drs can be used in a better way. maybe 2 seconds instead of 1 second. or use a limit to how many times a driver can use the drs in a race. drs if used properly can be a great addition. however atm i despise drs especially when the driver in front has no chance to defend. No problems with tyres teams just need to get on with it

    12. I voted negative for both. DRS is a pretty simple one, its just not required in my view and has destroyed the art of defensive driving.

      With regards to the tyres, I feel that since 2012 they have had a negative effect as they have made really fighting for position a negative. Drivers aren’t pushing anymore, so if they are under attack by other drivers not pushing, they are better off just letting them by, as shown brilliantly by Rosbergs downfall in Bahrain.

      Don’t get me wrong though, Pirelli can have a great effect on F1; we saw it in 2011. I recently rewatched the Chinese and Spanish grand prixs from that year and they were absolutely epic! Still the different strategies and intrigue caused by dreading tyres, but with drivers pushing like hell, dicing for positions and fighting for all it’s worth. The only thin that slightly spoiled those races…. (Well, china) DRS!

    13. We dont need DRS when the tyres provide the passing opportunities. I think removing the DRS with the current tyres would provide purer and more strategic racing (if you cant just blast past someone on a straight you actually have to think about it), the tyres provide the variable needed to create differing tactics.

    14. I voted neutral effect for DRS. On the negative side, DRS is unfair and artificial, but a positive side for me is that the racing can be more exciting in the sense that if one driver is catching another, there is real possibility – but far from a certainty – that he will get by.

      Also, I feel that DRS detractors can get too hung up on a few motorway passes, to notice that some battles are still pretty good even on a DRS straight. Take the last race in Bahrain, for instance. Early on in the race Massa flew by Rosberg on start-finish, which is not the kind of thing that improves the racing, but there were also a lot of excellent battles, such as Button-Perez and Webber-Hamilton.

      As for the tyres, I voted positive effect. I would like to see tyres that enable drivers to push for 15-20 laps, after which they would have to come in for new tyres, but that seems infeasible. If tyres can withstand 15 laps of hard racing, then they would last a lot longer when a driver takes care of it, and we would be back in one-stop territory.

      In Pirelli’s first year, I didn’t like it that my favourite driver Hamilton wasn’t doing as well as he did on the Bridgestones, but since then, and taking an impartial point of view, I enjoy the spectacular if somewhat artificial racing of the Pirelli era more than I did the pure but processional Bridgestone period.

      As a final comment, I would like F1 to experiment a little more with the rules. In particular, I’d like to see a few races without any DRS, and also I would like to see the tyre regulations changed. Why not nominate one race in the season where teams can choose their compounds, and when to run them, i.e., no rule about having to race both (or all) compounds.

    15. I’m all for the improved efficiency of the cars from DRS, it always made little sense to me that such high-tech cars would be so wasteful of energy at higher speeds, where they don’t really need the extra downforce or the drag associated with it. However, the way it is implemented is defective by design and the rules need to be thoroughly revised.

      The tyres have always been a big factor in motorsports, and the current tyres, although a bit on the side of too fragile, don’t really make much of a difference, except for increasing the importance of strategic decisions. I might prefer more durable tyres, but with such different tracks on the calendar, it’s a hard balance to maintain, and the way it is currently doesn’t affect me too much.

    16. It’s had to judge when the FIA DOESN’T HAVE THE BALLS to avoid DRS at one race just to try what would happen. So the whole premise of the DRS being a temporary solution changed to being a permanent concept, nowadays.

      I say DRS has had it’s benefits. But they were often overshadowed by the complete lack of interest by the FIA in making it work properly. Or being clever with it. Putting a DRS zone at the Kemmel straight in Spa is nothing but plain stupid. A striaght that has seen plenty of overtakes even in the 2000’s and they put it there?

      Same with the 2 DRS zones but 1 activation point at Canada 2011. Surely FIA, one of the leading global organizations, can do better.

      1. @fer-no65 I think the opening races (where we had the telemetry problem) would’ve been a prefect test bed for trying a race with Pirelli tyres and no DRS but it seems the FIA have their heads stuck firmly in the sand.

        I think DRS can be useful in certain places (Catalunya or the Hungaroring for example) but on the Kemmel straight or the back staright in Shanghai? That is just simply stupidity.

        1. @vettel1 exactly, my friend.

    17. People who think DRS has ruined the sport really ought to go back and watch a whole race from 2010 or before. Drivers got within 2 seconds and then couldn’t do anything, even if they were 1-2 seconds per lap faster. While we do have some easy passes, DRS often enables battles around other parts of the lap that just wouldn’t have happened before. Just take a look at how much racing there was in Bahrain this year around turns 4-8, where there wasn’t a DRS zone.

      As for the tyres, I think they may have gone too far this year, but I am willing to hold definitive judgment until the second half of the season. At the moment there’s too much tyre saving but once teams figure them out properly the racing might improve. Just look at last year, when people were crying about ‘cheese’ tyres and lotteries early in the season but by the end we had one-stop races.

      1. For me it doesn’t matter that DRS enables battles around other parts of the track. DRS still influences the racing too much even if it means it helped set up some action elsewhere on the lap. It’s still interference by a gadget imho. Frankly I would rather they do other things, of which there are many, to avoid the processions and the inability for faster cars to get by slower cars due to their dirty air. There are other options that don’t result in the passer making effortless passes because his wing is open, and the defender look like he is standing still because he has a temporary disadvantage to the guy behind. That’s not my definition of F1. Passing because you have a gadget, or passing because the guy’s tires and your own are vastly different in condition. It’s makes it not about driver vs. driver.

        Stable tires, no DRS, and much less aero dependancy for me please. Let’s get back to driver vs. driver racing rather than lottery racing. I reject all claims that if we didn’t have DRS and degrady tires we would then by default have processions. There’s all kinds of shades of grey in between those two options that to me would look and feel a lot more like F1 should be.

        1. The thing about driver vs. driver racing is, it sounds like a great thing to aim for, but it’s an abstract notion that has never been consistently achieved. Sure, you can go through highlights reels and find isolated examples, but at the time you had to sit through many boring races to see them. You say there are many alternatives to what we have that aren’t artificial, so what are they? Less aero dependency would be great but would require a structural shift in the technological side of the sport which isn’t feasible, at least not in the short term.

          1. Well I don’t profess to be an engineer, but it seems to me that F1 has, or at least had, an opportunity for 2014, while I assume the chassis are going to be different to adapt to the new engine concept, to do something such as raise the height off the ground that the underside must be, by half an inch for example. They could also reduce the amount of wing they can use by restricting further their shape or angle. Or even just raise the minimum height the underside of the front wing must be. They can eliminate rear diffusers all together. That’s just a few examples off the top from a non-engineer armchair fan, and given that there already seems to be a structural shift in the technology side with the reduction of carbon fibre aero bits all over the cars, reduction in the effectiveness of the rear diffusers and the exhaust surrounding it, elimination of refuelling stops, and the addition of DRS, I don’t see why it would be such a technological stretch to continue to work toward less aero dependancy.

      2. @andrew81 I would agree with you except for the fact that we now have Pirelli tyres: I honestly don’t think both are needed and of the two I’d take the Pirelli’s, just slightly more conservative.

    18. It’s pretty obvious to me: all tracks where it is virtually impossible to overtake without DRS all have serious flaws in track layout (Abu Dhabi, Catalunya, Valencia, Hungaroring etc). DRS covers the flaws a bit. Well balanced circuits that already provided good racing/overtaking before DRS, such as Spa, Suzuka, Silverstone, Malaysia need no DRS.

    19. I don’t think Formula 1 is supposed to be about which driver/team is the best manager of tyres. It’s Formula ONE. It’s about who is the fastest, surely. Why not put grooves back in the tyres and the winner can be the one with the greatest tread depth? When saving tyres is so crucial it’s affecting Qualifying, it’s gone too far. I want to see driver’s being able to push their cars to the limit.

      1. Here, here!

    20. The tires are close, the softs could be a bit more durable and the tire formula would be pretty decent.

      DRS is not all bad. It helps to eliminate the processions behind slower cars that faster cars are unable to pass due to dirty air. The scrapped 2014 aero regs would be a better solution, but if DRS is to stay it should be better implemented. Less or no DRS at tracks that don’t need it. Better implementation of activation points and shorter durations of DRS zones would be better.

    Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

    Leave a Reply

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

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.