F1 Fanatic

Hi Alianora

OK, To be honest I can’t be bothered to look up each of the incidents that you mention, but off the top of my head at least 2 of them were not DRS related (Jenson Button – Abu Dhabi and Canada) and the Massa one in Singapore was more about a faster car being out of position (due to Lewis’ error) and having to come back through the field. How many of these battles that started on (Or around) lap 3 I don’t know (I suspect not many).

An average (assuming your figures to be correct, which again I doubt) of 1 per race is not significant out of a potential lets say 12? (not taking into account potetial double passes etc)

‘Statistically cars are more likely to finish where they started’ is again just plain wrong. as an example of this, the car that started 17th during the first half of the season, often finished in the points. If you really want to prove this point feel free to compare last years qualifying vs results against this years and I am fairly confident that this will disprove your statement.

In 2010, the cars were running on Bridgestone tyres which were both more durable and the performance difference between the compounds was much smaller. Saving tyres was not as crucial as it is now as the Bridgestones did not ‘fall of the edge of a cliff’ when they wore out. Starting the race on a brand new set of Pirelli’s not only provides the car with a performance advantage from the start but also means that the car doesn’t have to spend as long on the harder (much slower) ‘prime’ tyre. It has nothing to do with DRS at all.

1 per race is significant. Bear in mind that while a battle is going on, those in front are escaping. The way DRS is only implemented by lap 3 means it’s almost inevitable that the pole-sitter will escape. So the absolute maximum is 11, assuming everyone finishes. Typically, races have had 20 finishers, meaning the average maximum is 9. Plus the serious car advantage needed to escape a battle is more likely to be found at each end of the grid; the sophomore teams are so different in pace from one another that only when team-mates find themselves on the same tyre-wear setting (which never happens at Virgin or Caterham due to the drivers being very different in how they handle tyres). The practical maximum per race is therefore 6.

When you note that 8 of the 18 races did not feature the effect, that means the other 10 had nearly 2 incidences of this per race. Nearly 2 out of 6 equates to nearly 1 out of 3. Having a near 1/3 chance of something happening to anyone from positions 2-14 in a given race (if you can foresee ahead of time that it will be dry and have effective DRS zones) is very noticeable. Double-passing would, in my view, make the situation worse, as that’s the sort of “pointless overtaking” I was talking about with di Resta earlier, and those double-passes that occurred in double-DRS races would definitely have to be included in the count. This may well make the effect even more significant.

Bridgestones did fall off a cliff when they wore out (Brazil 2008′s ending, among other races, hinged on this fact) – they simply did so less dramatically. There was sometimes a point to running Bridgestones that were slightly overused, and depending on the precise race situation, the same is true to a lesser extent on the Pirellis. So the tyre characteristics aren’t the reason why tyre management’s suddenly gone from “somewhat helpful” to “one of the very few things that is of any use”. Remember that to do a Q3 lap one must use 3 laps on the tyre and, just like in 2010, all the soft tyres are likely to be employed in the optimum strategy (the exception being in places like Abu Dhabi where the quickest way entailed 2 or fewer stops and the hard compound had to be used). If you don’t have worn softs at the start of most races, you must have them at some other stage of it, so due to the importance of tyre management, allowing tyre changes would simply mean the Q3 lap would be missed to ensure a quicker middle of the race instead of a quicker start. So DRS has everything to do with it.

I agree entirely Rocky, allowing the use of DRS anywhere except the DRS zones in the pre-race sessions is just pointless quite frankly.

Alianora, I really don’t know what your figures above are trying to prove anymore, again, I suggest you compare race starting positions to race finishing positions between last year and this year and it should show (although I don’t know as I haven’t looked myself) that there is more movement in the race this year than last year, which is I think contrary to what your original argument was.

Also, I don’t know if you recall the Brazilian GP of 2008 however there was no ‘falling off the edge of a cliff’ (this term only appeared at the start of this year to specifically describe the Pirelli’s degradation characteristics) as you suggest but a track getting wetter at the end of the race and drivers (such as Glock) on slicks, nothing to do with tyre degradation!

I don’t mind DRS. I think it’s a shame that we didn’t get a year with the Pirelli’s but without DRS so we could see how much each influences overtaking on their own.

In Korea Webber couldn’t get past Hamilton mainly because the McLaren had such good drive out of the slow corners before the DRS zones. Lewis could build up enough of a gap in the first half of the straight so that when Mark opened the wing he’d only be cancelling out Hamilton’s initial advantage. They were on tyres that were a similar age so it was more to do with the characteristics of the car but similar cars on different age tyres would have a similar effect so without DRS the car on newer tyres would have powered past. It would have been interesting to see a year without DRS to truly know Pirelli’s benefit to racing.

That being said, I do think DRS is making the racing more interesting, especially on circuits where they got the DRS zones right. I was genuinely excited about DRS after the Australian GP because the short start finish straight meant that passing wasn’t inevitable. The scrap between Button and Massa in that race was brought about because the DRS let Button get close but not fly past easily. He still needed to get the job done under braking or in a corner, just as he would have without DRS.

The FIA have all the data from this season so they should be able to adjust the DRS zones for next year. If it was up to me I’d be trying to replicate what we had in Australia. Bringing the cars closer together very rarely getting the job done before the braking zone. It’s not the ideal system but I think the racing is better than if we didn’t have it.

I agree with Icthyes comment. It is artificial, which means it will always be detrimental compared to if the same racing could be achieved without it. However, I recognise that it probably is necessary to have something like it now but it should be stop-gap until rules forcing cars to create less turbulence are brought in (still think that ground effects would have been a better idea than turning DRS into a long-term solution). I hate DRS on the principal that it’s false, but have to admit that it has done a good job in several places. I’m another person who liked it in Australia and Monaco because its effect was minimal, but it did help those who looked certain to be able to pass. I also agree with people saying it’s implemented badly. Having 2 zones but 1 activation point in Canada was a travesty, but generally I think I prefer the idea of it being used like KERS, for a few seconds every lap, or certain number of times per race.

And yes, those other things (weight penalties etc.) are worse for F1, Mag (although series like touring cars have them as such fundamental elements now that I don’t mind), and if F1 adopted them it would be even worse, but I don’t see the relevance of that really- them being ‘more’ artificial doesn’t prevent DRS from also being an artificial addition to F1.