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. I’m of the opinion that we need one and not the other. Personally, I’d rather see DRS but with the old Bridgestone tyres. We didn’t see much close quarter stuff because it was almost impossible to follow in the wake of another car. DRS would solve that.

      Alternatively, we could have no DRS and these current tyres (albeit slightly more conservative so that it’s the same number of pit-stops, but the drivers can push). It would be interesting to see how that goes.

      Just once this season I’d love to see FIA say that there is to be no DRS for a single race, and see how it unfolds. I think we’d see less people trying to pull away as much to escape DRS, so it could, theoretically, be a much closer field whilst racing.

    2. I think they had it right in 2011, and it’s slowly gotten a bit much since then. I think we (or the guys making the rules) need to keep considering what F1 would be like without DRS. Because I don’t think we need it to make the sport more entertaining any more – nor do the casual fans.

      I’ll await till mid season till I pass my judgment on the tyres. Last year it was much less of a dictator during the races by that point, and a lot had it figured out.

    3. Dusty in California (@dusty-in-california)
      3rd May 2013, 18:55

      I remember a few years ago (before both DRS and Pirelli) watching lap after lap of cars circulating in position, completely unable to pass. Even if a car was visibly quicker, once it got into the dirty air, it lost its advantage. There was one particularly famous 30+ lap episode, maybe with Massa, but it happened all. the. time. A driver would get close, but never close enough to pass and they’d finish the race like that.

      I am confused why someone would want to return to that. Can those of you so against the tires and DRS give me an honest answer why you think eliminating them wouldn’t return us right back to no passing?

      1. Can those of you so against the tires and DRS give me an honest answer why you think eliminating them wouldn’t return us right back to no passing?

        There was plenty of passing prior to 2013. Tyres made of cheddar cheese are not a requirement for passing.

        1. The options do not have to be either gadgets and phoniness or processions. There is lots they can do to reduce their aero dependancy like taking away rear diffusers, limiting their wing shapes and sizes, perhaps they could require the cars be a further half inch higher off the ground underneath, or some argue the opposite in that ground effects are the answer and less wing. Sure I agree that if you hardened up the tires and took away DRS without reducing their dependancy on wings and downforce they’d be back to processions, but as I say there is tons of middle ground in between.

          JV used to argue back in the day of grooved tires for the return of the big fat slicks they had in the 70’s. Not only did they provide tons of mechanical grip, but they also created so much drag down the straights that in order to achieve any kind of respectable straight-line speeds you had to run less wing. So that would kill two birds with one stone. Mechanical grip plus less wing and therefore less dependancy on downforce and less disturbance of your car when in dirty air. They had confidence back then to pull out and attempt passes by the seat of the pants, not by gadgets that make the job too easy like DRS does, and on tires that they fear killing just by trying to pass someone or by trying to defend.

        2. Dusty in California (@dusty-in-california)
          3rd May 2013, 19:45

          So you would be OK with 2012-spec DRS and tires?

          1. Yes.

            The tyre question posed was “What effect are the current tyres having on F1 racing in 2013?”

            I get the impression a lot of people are responding to some very different question of their own creation, one which perhaps looks like: ‘Do you like the Pirelli tyres of the last few years more than the tyre situation as it existed in the early 2000’s?”

            In fact I see several commenters who explicitly say they voted “positive” on the tyre question even though they think the 2013 tyres have gone too far, on the grounds that they like the “Pirelli era” in general. Which is not actually responsive to the question which the poll asked.

            1. The effect for me of the current tires is that most of the passing we see cannot be trusted to be a driver vs. driver competition but rather an advantaged drivers vs. a disadvantaged driver competition not due to one being more skilled than the other but due to one driver being on tires in a totally different state than the other or because one is forced to drive to delta times, far too often in the races. Or by DRS. In what is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing.

            2. @jonsan good point actually: overall I like the Pirelli tyres, but I feel that the 2012 ones would be better than these. So in that case, I disagree on that account that they are beneficial to the sport.

        3. @robbie I think the best way to curtail dirty air is to use ground effects and then simply remove front wings, and limit the rear wings to single elements. That way, we don’t have the stupid aero-sensitive, unnecessarily complicated, multi-element wings we have now which cost a fortune to develop.

          With the ERS systems in place from 2014, we can then remove DRS entirely and toughen up the tyres a notch, so we still have that element of strategy which I think is key but there is also an abundance of flat-out racing.

          I live in a dream world though… ;)

    4. The tyres are atrocious. If the FIA wants more pit stops (as they evidently do) than they should simply require that every car make some mandatory minimum number of pit stops per race. That way we’d get the strategy involved with multiple pit stops plus we’d see a bit more actual racing.

      Claims that “tyres have always been a part of F1” sail right past the point. Engines have always been a big part of F1 as well – it does not follow that the FIA should require all engines to be less reliable than they currently are because unpredictable breakdowns would add to “the spectacle”. Or does it? Based on some of the opinions I see here, it sounds like engines deliberately designed to be unreliable might go over very well with some people.

    5. DRS, get rid of this nonsense.

      Tyres, produce a tyre that can last the distance but if pushed too hard drops off. But comes back after a cool down period.

      Let the drivers drive, not manage. If I wanted to watch a bunch of managers I’d attend our board meetings more regularly.

    6. I’ve never felt that “one stop races” are the bane of Formula One and a problem which urgently requires correction. Where did this idea come from anyway?

      But if they really are such a problem, simply mandate that every car must make a minimum of two pit stops per race. Then make tyres which actually work. Result: we get to see pit stop strategy and we also get to see drivers pushing to the limit a little more often.

      1. @jonsan Not really. If the tyres lasted forever (like in the Bridgestone days), we would see basically a three-stage race, similar to the two-stage race we had back in 2007-2009, where positions would all be determined after a driver made their only stop.

        1. Sounds like you’re basically saying that it’s a bad thing if the finishing order in a race is determined by the order of the fastest car/driver combo.

          Absent reliability issues and driver errors, we should expect that in general (1) the starting grid would be in order of the fastest drivers/cars, that (2) the order at the pit stop (or stops) would reflect the faster drivers/cars, and (3) the finishing order would reflect the order of the faster drivers/cars. That is the entire purpose of a race, after all. If we’re going to start making rules to try to prevent this from happening then we’re getting away from racing and moving towards theater.

    7. Due to the shrinking margins between cars/laptimes, to see more “pure racing/ overtaking” do we now need 2km+ long straights?

      Or DRS.

      and/or degrading tyres?

    8. The main complaint I have against DRS is that it’s unfair: the driver trailing has an advantage over the car in front, which just seems wrong to me. One way to make this more fair is to give the drivers a certain amount of ‘DRS seconds’, which I still don’t like as it’s still artificial.

      Regarding the Pirellis: today I read some stories about Grands Prix from the 1950s. For instance there was the 1956 Italian GP: the Ferrari drivers Musso, Castellotti and De Portago didn’t put any effort in preserving their tyres. And within six laps, all three drivers either had to come in and change tyres, or in De Portago’s case crashed out following tyre delamination. Fangio on the other hand had put some effort in conserving his Ferrari’s tyres. As a result, he probably could have done the 60-lap race on one set of tyres (he hit mechanical troubles after 17 laps).

      What I’m trying to say: conserving the tyres is nothing new. Only because the teams are able to understand the tyres better (because of all sorts of measuring tools and simulations), they are able to give their drivers target laps. So it’s unfair to blame the ‘target lap’ thing on the current Pirellis.

      I voted the Pirellis have a neutral effect: like many comments on this article say, I think the tyre degradation is a bit too much, but essentiall it really isn’t all that bad.

      1. andae23 I agree re tyres.

        But e DRS: didn’t a trailing car always have an advantage with the slipsteam effect anyway? The aero on modern F1 cars has negated that. DRS brings it back.

        1. @adorimedia I completely agree! DRS should though be adjusted to give back the disadvantage of running in dirty air behind a driver, rather than give them the chance to be past any driver regardless half way down the straight.

          1. Yep, I see what you mean and it would be great to have the device as accurate as that. But I’m not sure that any car can pass any other down a straight. Its still the faster cars that will pass the (slightly) slower ones in front. Slower cars struggle to pass faster cars.

            Overall, what’s happened over the past 30-40 years is that in order to make the playing field more equal (fairer) and reduce costs, rules to level the playing field (somewhat) have been introduced. Initially this is seen as the way forward by teams and fans alike because everyone wants a level playing field. But when that happens, and particularly when huge resources/budgets are in play and at stake, then the point of difference becomes smaller. It becomes harder to achieve. It also becomes more expensive to achieve especially when loopholes are closed as quickly as they are in this era. Thats where F1 is now. Progress directs engineers to focus on an area that hasn’t been focussed on before, simply to gain that 10th advantage. In this day and age an “advantage” is 10ths of a second. 20-30 years ago it was more than that.

            The rule makers do listen to the fans and try to spice it up – hence the tyres/DRS. I’m not saying I agree with it, but i understand why we’ve got to where we are. And if we didn’t have it, F1 would be back to where it was in 2004 – before we had as many forums to voice our displeasure.

        2. @adorimedia – DRS is indeed intended to artificially induce ‘slipstreaming’, but the reality is that on most occasions the trailing car is able to just sail past. The difference between DRS and slipstreaming is that slipstreaming always switches off at exactly the right moment, while DRS (under current regulations) doesn’t understand the difference between driving behind, ahead or alongside a car.

          I would say: if you want to have a DRS system that perfectly simulates ‘slipstreaming’, don’t overcomplicate it and do what the FIA initially wanted, which is tweak the aero regulations to optimize slipstreaming (for intance: separate the rear wing into two parts on top of the rear wheels). But… unfortunately they postponed these regulation changes to 2017 (originally it was 2014) and to be honest, I don’t have much hope for that either.

      2. Tyres in the 1950’s were the best they could be. Nobody was deliberately putting bad tyres on the cars back then to try to create an artificial challenge for the drivers and teams.

        he hit mechanical troubles after 17 laps

        That was also an inherent limitation of the cars of the period. If we’re going to pit rapidly degrading tyres on the cars to ‘spice things up”, why don’t we likewise put rapidly degrading engines and other mechanical parts in them for the same reason?

        1. Firstly, I would guess its cheaper to make the tyres degrade and easier to maintain/police than an engine or a gearbox. Because if we put rapidly degrading “everythings” on cars, websites would be filled even more with disgruntled fans.

          Re 1950s: No one had the resources to look into the tyres back in those days. It was a challenge in itself to get the car to the finish line mechanically. Thats where R&D was directed (if at all). Its the price of progress…

          1. I would guess its cheaper to make the tyres degrade and easier to maintain/police than an engine or a gearbox.

            I doubt that. Simply require everyone to use a 1984 Honda engine and a 1986 Ferrari gearbox.

            1. @jonsan – lol, that made my day :)

      3. The main complaint I have against

        That’s not correct English, is it? :/

        1. @andae23 I think it’s fine, but perhaps “with” would fit better instead of against. It reads perfectly fine though!

    9. Juan Pablo Heidfeld (@juan-pablo-heidfeld-1)
      3rd May 2013, 19:52

      I voted positive for both. DRS in the last race was very good, brought the driver close enough to challenge, if they were clearly faster they passed, if only slightly then it put them side by side.

    10. I think DRS has been good for Formula 1. I do however think the current regulations are not great. I preferred the regulations regarding DRS from 2011 and 2012.

      Tyres on the other hand, I think have been fantastic for the sport. The only issue is, there has to be some compromise, either you make tyres really durable and then drivers can push like mad in quali, but only make 1 stop every race, or make them not last so long and have the problem we have today regarding having to only push 75-80% as oppose to perhaps 90-95% (and sometimes 100% if your name was Schumacher and you managed to make a 4-stop work) we had in the Bridgestone era.

      2011 and 2012 were fantastic years racing-wise, but perhaps some people are getting ‘bored’ of how F1 currently is. People didn’t mind Schumacher winning in 2000 and 2001 (the latter by some margin) but 2002 was silly and deterred a lot of people. Arguably it was similar in the ’90s when Williams was dominating, though I am a bit young to remember that. F1 is all about evolution and innovation as well as sorting out the legendary drivers from the great drivers from the above average drivers, and remember we have all these regulations coming in for 2014. None of the first 4 races have been an absolute classic, though the first half of Malaysia was fantastic, and then all of a sudden everybody is saying F1 has become boring or that Vettel wins every race because the tyres are messed up or something along those lines.

      Despite all this I do feel something does need changing regarding both DRS and tyres, but there’s absolutely no way whatsoever that (be warned, I’m about to defend the FIA here) whatever changes are made will please everybody, so really the FIA are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If F1 is ‘boring’ at the start of 2014, then I will worry, but at the moment I’m not concerned about the state of it.

    11. Voted for negative on the DRS since I see no need for 2 zones in every race, other than that, I´m cool with DRS although it is artificial.
      Voted very negative on the Pirelli tyres since what we are watching is not racing, it´s tyre management 101. I´m baffled how people can say it´s having a positive impact. That is beyond me!!

      Please let there be another tyre supplier for 2014…. out with the Pirellis I say!!!

      1. @karter22 the problem as far as you’re concerned is not the tyres supplier, but the FIA. Pirelli have done exactly as they were asked, so as long as what the FIA wants doesn’t change the tyre supplier doesn’t make the blindest bit of a difference.

        They could just as easily make indestructible tyres as mozzarella ones if they were tasked to do so I’m sure.

        1. @vettel1
          I understand that the FIA has asked them to produce these lemons, but in all honesty, if I was the owner of Pirelli I would not comply with such things. It´s my company, my product, and I don´t want people thinking my product is crap, simple as that.
          There is a saying in my country that says: the monkey will dance if you pay him enough. The same could be said about Pirelli, They have become the FIA´s callgirl.
          Seems that contract must´ve been good enough for Pirelli in order to give in to this crap.

          1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
            4th May 2013, 8:42

            Actually, it was the teams that asked Pirelli to make these tyres. Not the FIA.

            1. @prisoner-monkeys true enough, I stand corrected on that aspect. The point remains the same though: Pirelli are just doing what they’re asked and they’re getting lots of publicity for it @karter22, and as the saying goes “any publicity is good publicity”.

            2. @prisoner-monkeys
              I doubt that the teams agreed to such lemons. They must´ve wanted grippier tyres but not so that they would tear off in so few laps.
              Yeah I´ve heard that one as well but still, Pirelli will be asociated with bad tyres, I fail to see how that´ll increase sales! I wouldn´t want to put a tyre in my road car that has technology coming from F1 seeing how bad they desintegrate in so little time!

            3. @karter22 – The teams specifically asked for tyres that behaved differently to the Bridgestones. They wanted tyres that drivers would have to work to manage so as to introduce a range of strategy options for each race, because it was noted that when Bridgestone was supplying the tyres, there was only ever one optimal strategy that everyone stuck to. When Pirelli submitted their proposal for what they wanted to do, a large part of it hinged on the way they would constantly and subtly alter the tyre compounds so that the teams could never be totally comfortable with their previous knowledge of the tyres. This was one of the major elements of the proposal, and one that was very well-received by the teams.

              Of course, you can continue to stick to the belief that if something is bad for Formula 1, then it’s clearly not the teams’ fault and that they are just the victims who are forced to put up with the poor judgement and lack of foresight that other have inflicted on them. However, that argument holds no weight, as the teams had to unanimously agree on the new tyre supplier when Bridgestone announced their intention to leave the sport. They knew exactly what Pirelli planned, and Pirelli have followed that plan from the moment it was agreed that they would be the tyre supplier.

            4. @prisoner-monkeys
              I´m not saying the strategy part is all that bad… I just wish they wouldn´t desintegrate so fast… 2012 spec rubber would have been fine!
              Oh and BTW, Bernie got Pirelli as the tyre supplier, Jean Todt wanted Michelin as the sole tyre supplier!

            5. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
              5th May 2013, 9:43

              The teams were already familiar with the 2012 tyres. The point of changing them was to give the teams a new challenge.

              And while Bernie might have backed Pirelli and Todt Michelin, the teams were the only ones who got a vote on the matter.

        2. “They could just as easily make indestructible tyres as mozzarella ones if they were tasked to do so I’m sure.”

          Could they, though? Do we have any proof they could make anything near the quality of the Bridgestones? Perhaps they saw that the FIA wanted *** tyres and though to themselves “yea we can finally get back into F1 now. we can’t compete in a tyre war [Pirelli specifically stated they would not come into F1 unless they were the sole manufacturer] but we’re actually being ASKED to make shoddy tyres”

          Besides which, Pirelli accepted the FIA’s mandate and therefore ultimately responsible for this farce. If no tyre manufacture were willing to accept the FIA’s absurdity, then the FIA would have no choice but to back down and we’d be left with at least a semi-sensible formula.

          “I was only following orders” is not an acceptable line of defence in any courtroom!

    12. Traverse (@)
      3rd May 2013, 20:26

      I absolutely hate DRS, KERS, these Pirelli/Blue Peter/here’s one I made earlier/papier-mache/do it yourself Art Attack tyres and any new nonsense idea that Bernie comes up with.

      1. Traverse (@)
        3rd May 2013, 20:35

        Dagnabbit! I meant to vote “DRS is having a very negative effect on F1″ but accidentally picked “DRS is having a negative effect on F1”. That’s the last time I use a touch screen phone…EVER!!!

      2. KERS is OK because everybody’s in the same position. DRS is daft because it’s only the people following that get the benefit. I think very few people could argue that the first 6 laps or so of Bahrain were great. And that’s because everybody were on relatively fresh tyres, and pretty much everybody bar the leader has DRS – because they were all following within a second of the guy in front.

    13. I think the DRS should be available to all the drivers during the race and not only the ones that are 1 second behind.

      I don’t see any passing as artificial. Worn tyres are not anything new in F1, they are simply much more aggressive now. IMO too aggressive. I think what is needed is the right balance where tyres do not last an entire race, but at least half a race or a third of the race so that the drivers can push the cars rather than conserve them. I can not really tell whether they’re driving to delta times or not. If one car is, so are the others, so it’s the same for everyone anyway. What’s artificial about that?

      In the grand scheme of things, the more conservative the drivers drive, leads to better reliability and improved safety as the speeds are not as radical as they can be. Better reliability leads to saved costs. But if the tyres degrade too fast that may be a safety concern as well.

    14. Aimal (@aimalkhan)
      3rd May 2013, 21:09

      How about reducing the gap created by the DRS in the rear wing when activated?

    15. I would like to see the fragile tires and DRS gone, because they are band-aid measures that bring the credibility of F1 as a sport into question.

      The problem is that F1 has gotten to a point where these items are needed in order to provide “exciting” racing. Sooner or later F1 needs to change it’s formula and drop the downforce levels significantly. I would suggest that the wing sizes be drastically reduced and the ride height raised slightly. I would also like to see all teams either run a spec diffuser, or a spec floor with significant ground effect. These areas of development are largely invisible to viewers (especially the casual viewers that FOM seems so keen on courting), and yet they constitute a huge performance disparity between big and small teams.

      Furthermore, the whole development freeze on engines is doing F1 no favors… if F1 wants engine manufacturers to come back, they need to allow engine development, and frankly I think the cars could use a lot more power.

      Lastly, the cars need bigger, more puncture-resistant tires to shift the grip balance towards mechanical/away from aero; and to encourage drivers to battle wheel-to-wheel without fear of a puncture ending their race.

      I hope the formula can change soon, because I want to see a little less artificial competition. In the meantime, I’m sure I’ll still be watching anyways :-)

      1. +1, well said

    16. Michael Brown (@)
      3rd May 2013, 22:50

      DRS: Makes overtaking too easy. Its benefit should be reduced. Considering that, bring back free usage for FP and quali.

      Tires: The only Pirellis I liked so far were the 2011 ones. It may not have been perfect but it was still better than Bridgestone.

    17. DRS negative; Tyres positve.

    18. I voted negative for both.

      I loathe DRS & think its hurt the racing far more than its helped it & its also slowly but surely destroying my love of F1, Everytime I see a DRS pass I feel myself becoming less interested in watching.

      Also something to consider regarding DRS, The lack of DRS didn’t seem to hurt Alonso at Bahrain, He still managed to pull off a lot of overtaking, It was all real exciting overtaking as well!

      While I voted negative on the tyres I did so based on the tyres as they have been so far in 2013. I feel they have been way too sensitive & have hindered the racing & not helped it, Watching drivers driving to a lap time (Which is often slower than what GP2 cars could run at), having to ask there team if they should race a car ahead or behind them is not correct in my view.
      I get that tyre management has always been a part of F1, However the current level is too much & is detracting for the racing.

      I think the balance with the tyres was about perfect in 2011, They still degraded & therefore forced the pit stops people seem to love for some reason but they were not so sensitive that you had everyone desperately trying to nurse them & they were not the talking point of every weekend as they have been in 2012/2013.

      However if I had a choice I’d either take every dry compound to every race & let teams/drivers run whatever they wanted as was the case Pre-94, Or just make each team pick what compounds they want to run 2 weeks before each gp rather than having Pirelli force everyone to run the compounds they feel is best.

      For me there’s 1 word in the title of this article which needs to be looked at & thats ‘Balance’. There should be a balance between overtaking been too hard & been too easy & there should be a balance between managing tyres & been able to push them.
      Right now for me the balance of both is wrong, DRS is making passing so easy that its been devalued & Tyre management is now so important that drivers are unable to really lean on them.

      1. Something else I just want to say regarding DRS.

        One other reason I feel its bad for F1 is that I don’t feel there ever going to be able to get the balance right & therefore its always going to produce a number of the easier so called Highway passing which I don’t think anyone really enjoys to see.

        In 2011 when it produced easier passes we were told ‘Its work in progress’ that ‘The length of zones & position of activation points will be tweaked’ & that ‘It will be better next year’.
        Well in 2012 with knowledge gained & zones tweaked it still produced a similar level of the easier pass.
        In 2013 so far I feel its been much the same & the addition of 2nd zones hasn’t helped this.

        I feel that the issue is that everyone looks at controlling how effective or not DRS is purely by the length of the activation zone, Making it shorter will lessen the effect & making it longer will increase the effect. However I’d argue that assumption is wrong & that circuits like Shanghai, Montreal & Spa where Zones were shortened with little effect prove this.

        The effectiveness of DRS isn’t judged by zone length or detection/activation points but instead by tyres, downforce levels, gear ratios, gap between cars, wind direction, wind speed, How many cars are together & also how good an exit the cars got from the previous corner.

        Due to all this I feel it will be impossible to ever reach a point where DRS works as it was intended (An assist & not purely an overtaking device) on a consistent basis.

      2. @stefmeister Balance, indeed, and I see that lacking with DRS; witth the tyres it is imo. better, but I would like the FIA to be more aware of that need for a balance in most any rule.

    19. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
      4th May 2013, 1:10

      I don’t think Formula 1 has the right balance. I think it has the next-best alternative.

      To my mind, the tyres and DRS were introduced to do what the teams could not – or, more likely, were not willing to – do and create a version of the sport where drivers could actually race one another, and where the result was not decided by whoever was the first driver into the first corner. I remember those days quite well, and for all the criticisms of DRS and Pirelli, I think they are the lesser evil compared the alternative when the alternative is racing without any actual racing.

      In an ideal world, the endless pursuit of aerodynamic grip would be a thing of the past. For instance, the Red Bull RB9 has a front wing with six individual elements, which I think it just over the top – teams should be limited to a front wing with no more than two elements. But the teams would refuse to agree to any rule limiting their ability to develop their front wings, because they know that more aerodynamic grip means more speed. I’ve often found the talk of “improving the show” to be quite hollow, principally because deep down I know that every team on the grid would happily take a dominant car, and that if there is a show to be improved, then let it be the show for second place.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys, that is well put; I also agree for the most part, though I believe that DRS might be dropped without negative effect, that is only a slight difference in how we judge it.

        1. @prisoner-monkeys I too think what you have said has been well worded, but I don’t believe that our only options are these tires and DRS, or processions. And while I think you make an excellent point that the teams wouldn’t agree to, for example, two element front wings to help ‘improve the show’ when they would happily rather have a dominant car and let the show be for second place, I also think that they would change their tune if the fans starting falling away in droves due to a phoney show of DRS passes and drivers only pulling off passes because his foe was at a tire disadvantage.

          F1 went years doing nothing about the processions in the MS/Ferrari era, and now they seem bound and determined to promote passing at any cost, even risking the integrity of Pirelli and the sport, so something has changed, and if it is that they are now paying more attention to fan surveys, then perhaps they are listening still to those of us who certainly don’t want phoniness as a substitute for processions.

    20. Tyres need to be able to last a lot longer than they do.What’s the point in holding Quali if drivers can’t/won’t turn a few laps because they need to conserve the tyres that they have for the race.
      And what’s the point if the drivers have to drive the race in conservation mode for a fair percentage of the race so as to conserve their tyres.
      Maybe DRS would be better if the driver coming under attack from the driver behind can also use DRS.

      1. Then the DRS would have no point at all…

    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.