Less gimicky alternative to DRS

Tagged: , ,

This topic contains 24 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of AndrewTanner AndrewTanner 4 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
  • #129236
    Profile photo of tomc

    I’ll admit it’s helped overtaking, but I still have reservations about it because it is very gimmicky and arbitrary. I know all rules in F1 have elements of this, but at least they’re fair to all drivers.

    I suggest instead of renewing the KERS boost every lap, renew it every 2 or 3 laps (and adjust the amount they’re allowed). This means drivers wouldn’t be able to defensively use it in the same places each lap successfully, and trailing drivers could be able to make a move if they are really on another car’s tail, and not just lucky enough to be in within one second in a certain part of the track.

    Profile photo of tomc

    I guess this couldn’t have been achieved initially because of the weight penalty for KERS, but the teams have had a few years of development on the KERS now, and I’d be surprised if they hadn’t made big headway.

    Profile photo of Movement

    personally I would go to completely the opposite end, and just give the drivers a far more powerful KERS system. I think (but am not sure) that come 2013 the rules will give greater reign to the teams to make KERS more powerful, in which case a dose here and there really could cause an overtake. The teams were keen to do that, because currently the penalty for carrying the extra weight is not really that great compared to the benefits. There are, of course, benefits especially off the line, but if they had twice the power at their disposal, it would be great.

    Profile photo of jonnyw360f1

    I’d keep the current KERS system, and let it be fed in to the drivetrain constantly, therefore finding the best KERS systems – those that are most reliable and the quickest charging. Then, let the drivers use the DRS anywhere and whenever they want, much like the F-duct. In fact – why don’t we just bring back the F-ducts? They’re much less complicated, so there’s much less to go wrong!

    Profile photo of Icthyes

    I think you’re onto something, but I would also say to make KERS more powerful too, otherwise the CoG penalty would be too much just to overtake someone occasionally. So they’d have something like 180 bhp ever 3 laps, or we could be even more interesting and say 60 bhp per lap but you can store it for 3, that way you’d keep catching a slower car which is using its KERS to keep away and then zooooomn. We’d see some rocket starts too and teams without it would absolutely have to, thus actually fulfilling the point of KERS in the first place (developing green tech).

    But I think it’s a clever approach to the problem and much more like the turbo boosts of old.

    Profile photo of TommyB

    DRS isn’t gimicky.

    Fans have moaned for ages about ‘dirty air’ and now they’ve done something about it they are still moaning.

    Malaysia was an absolutely brilliant race and I can’t believe people are still complaining about it.

    Profile photo of Hare

    Fans have moaned for ages about ‘dirty air’ and now they’ve done something about it they are still moaning.

    I’m not sure we’re hearing all the same fans moaning both ways. Fans who are contented tend to be quiet. The ones who are moaning are the ones you hear. So whatever happens, you’ll always hear someone moaning :)

    Profile photo of Dan Thorn
    Dan Thorn

    I agree with Tommy.

    That said, I would like to see some kind of penalty for using the DRS – such as maybe KERS gets disabled for a lap afterwards.

    Profile photo of Red Andy
    Red Andy

    DRS isn’t gimicky.

    To me, a standardised system that can only be deployed under specific conditions a maximum of once a lap is precisely an example of a gimmick.

    I’m not a fan of heavily restrictive regulations; the rules should be guidelines, primarily for safety, with the teams given freedom to innovate within them. For that reason I don’t think moveable wings should be allowed at all, because it would be difficult to relax the regulations on moveable wings without introducing safety concerns.

    I’d agree with some of the points made earlier; allow teams to have KERS but place no restrictions on how much energy can be regenerated or how it can be deployed.

    Profile photo of beneboy

    I don’t like DRS, or at least I don’t like the way it is currently allowed during the race; if you’ve gone to the trouble of designing a system then you should be able to use it wherever and whenever you want.

    I have the same issue with KERS; if you’re going to bother spending that much money developing a system then you should be able to design it to give the maximum performance for the longest possible duration.

    Profile photo of Asanator

    Instead of it recharging every lap, you should be able to store the unused KERs energy for say 1 or 2 laps but never have more than 2 laps worth available (or something), this way you would have different drivers having different amounts of KERS available depending on how conservative they were with it on the previous lap and it’s use would become much more tactical in both attack and defence.

    The F1 teams have been able to produce KERS units which provide more than double more power since the moment they were mentioned.

    Profile photo of Calum

    I’ve had this thought for a while but didn’t think it was enough to start a thread over, so this is the perfect place! ;)

    An F-duct system, as teams already had them perfected with entry through the front of the airbox, and exit on a rear wing plane, but this improved F-duct would not be using a drivers hand to seal the gap as in the RBR, or updated Mclaren systems. Instead a button operated (hyraulic?) flap would open and close over the hole opening to the tube that goes to the rear wing. This wou;ld have provided an ARW style effect.

    I don’t understand why they didn’t just mechanise a flap to cover the opening for FDuct to replace the rather unsafe driver hand off wheel method.

    Profile photo of F1Yankee

    “I don’t understand why they didn’t just mechanise a flap to cover the opening for FDuct to replace the rather unsafe driver hand off wheel method.”

    because movable aero pieces or devices are/were banned is exactly why the driver operated the system with his body, combined with a very generous interpretation of “fresh air vent”.

    i think they should stop screwing around and do it right – more powerful and varied use of kers and adjustable aero. the baby steps taken have proved the concepts, now open it up for progress.

    if a car can save fuel weight by leaning on batteries for the full lap, i don’t see a problem. why shouldn’t a driver be able to tweak the front and rear wings to tune the car, or switch into low/high downforce mode? also needed is the ability to alter car settings on demand, instead of the once-per-lap sillyness.

    Profile photo of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys

    I suggest instead of renewing the KERS boost every lap, renew it every 2 or 3 laps (and adjust the amount they’re allowed).

    The FIA are already considering it, but they say they can’t introduce it until KERS is mandatory. And it’s unlikely that KERS will become mandatory until Virgin, Lotus and Hispania see a use for it, because such a rule change would require the agreement of all the teams – and right now, Red Bull will avoid making it compulsory for as long as they can.

    Profile photo of Klon

    Well, the other obvious solution are standard wings with a considerable lack of aerodynamic efficiency compared to todays wings, done by an enterprise under FIA’s orders. I don’t think I have to explain how happy people would be about that one.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.