Group Admins

  • Profile picture of Keith Collantine

Group Mods

  • Profile picture of damonsmedley
  • Profile picture of Bradley Downton

F1

Public Group active 3 hours, 44 minutes ago

F1 discussion

What could be a better use of DRS?

Tagged: , , ,

This topic contains 37 replies, has 28 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Matthijs Matthijs 9 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #241803
    Avatar of tmekt
    tmekt
    Participant

    That idea of limited usage (a predetermined number of times; 5-10 I’d say) sounds pretty good to me. I would also allow it everywhere (expect maybe some certain places like Eau Rouge, etc.).

    If you had that kind of “unlimited” usage it would less artificial and you could use it to defend but it would still have an effect for overtaking. They would probably still have to allow it in some form in quali too so that teams would have to setup cars for it to make a real difference.

    #241804
    Avatar of medicine_man
    medicine_man
    Participant

    I like the idea of reducing the 1 second gap to 0.5 seconds. At 200+ km/h the distance is 55+ meters in a second which seems a lot and it’s still 20+ meters in very low speed corners. Back in the old days the fights got exciting only if the gap was around 0.3 seconds .. 1 second just seems to be unfair.

    #241805
    Avatar of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys
    Participant

    Here’s an idea for a possible alternative to DRS: resurfacing circuits to have different characteristics throughout.

    The idea for this comes from Montreal. The biggest issue they have is the way the city freezes over in winter. Water naturally trickles down through porous asphalt, and when it freezes, it expands, which breaks up the surface. The solution was to create a less-porous surface to protect it from freeze damage. This created unique grip conditions.

    So, surfaces could be resurfaced (when the work is needed) to alter relative grip. For example, traction zones could have higher levels of grip to help cars get away faster. On the other hand, braking zones could have less grip to put more pressure on drivers trying to attack or defend their position.

    The advantages of this would be two-fold: everyone would have a level playing field at all times (rather than only getting an advantage under certain specific conditions), and it would clear the way for free use of DRS for all cars at all times, which I think would help address the problems associated with cars being unable to follow one another.

    I’d also consider having a cool-down timer on DRS if it was unrestricted. It wouldn’t be anything serious, but simply a system whereby drivers would not be able to open their DRS slot for a certain amount of time – say, twenty seconds – after it has closed. This would encourage more strategic use if DRS: for example, do you use DRS down the main straight in Korea and then try to hold on down the long straight? Or do you wait and see what your opponent does before opening the slot? I’d also consider a system where DRS can only be opened for a certain amount of time before it automatically closes itself.

    #241806
    Avatar of Matthijs
    Matthijs
    Participant

    I’d say give Hermann Tilke a masterclass in how to design circuits that naturally provide good overtaking spots (like Spa, Suzuka and Silverstone) and DRS is no longer necessary…

    #241807
    Avatar of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys
    Participant

    And I’d say that you can’t quantify what makes a “good” circuit. The assumption that you can somehow break a circuit down into key components that, when put together in certain combinations, will guarantee a particular outcome is naive in the extreme.

    It also doesn’t take into account the way that whoever is designing the circuit has to make the best of s bad situation. When Tilke designed the Shanghai circuit, he was given a pieceof reclaimed marshland that was set aside for him by a government that wanted a race, but did not understand the importance of the piece of land the circuit was to be built on. On the other hand, he was consulted on the land used for the Istanbul and Austin circuits, both of which were superior to Shanghai.

    #241808
    Avatar of Matthijs
    Matthijs
    Participant

    And I’d say that you can’t quantify what makes a “good” circuit. The assumption that you can somehow break a circuit down into key components that, when put together in certain combinations, will guarantee a particular outcome is naive in the extreme.

    @prisoner-monkeys: No need to get offensive here. You are right that creating the ‘perfect’ circuit is not like putting the key components together. But there are some very obvious flaws (regarding overtaking) in the layout of various Tilke-circuits and they are not altered. Either overtaking opportunities are not one of the most important issues in creating a new circuit or the designers just don’t know how to create them. I realise this sound very arrogant, I know it’s much easier to judge from the sideline than actually doing it.

    Take Abu Dhabi for instance. The main straight is above average long. But by creating a very slow hairpin before entering this straight, the guy in front just accelates away from you and there is no chance of using slipstream to overtake (without DRS and worn tyres).

    On the other hand, Spa, Silverstone and Suzuka show that medium speed, flowing corners enable drivers to race much closer to each other and the straights do not need to be that long for overtaking manoevers. At Spa, Suzuka and Silverstone there are (many) more overtaking spots than just at the end of the longest straights. Yet Tilke persists in using geometric shaped (and slow) corners and measuring rod shaped straights in his designs. In most of his creations DRS is absolute nescessary to overtake.

    #241809
    Avatar of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys
    Participant

    Again, you’re assuming that if certain combinations of corners are used, then a particular outcome is guaranteed. How do you then explain circuits like Barcelona and Magny-Cours that have had medium-speed corners that lead into braking areas, but don’t allow drivers to follow one another closely or overtake each other?

    #241810
    Avatar of Matthijs
    Matthijs
    Participant

    @prisoner-monkeys: No I am not assuming that, I just point out that there is a correlation between the layout and the number of overtakings in Spa, Silverstone and Suzuka. And that there is a correlation between the layout and the lack of overtakings (without DRS) in Abu Dhabi and Valencia.

    How do you then explain circuits like Barcelona and Magny-Cours that have had medium-speed corners that lead into braking areas, but don’t allow drivers to follow one another closely or overtake each other?

    That is a good question. I think that in Barcelona and Magny-Cours the corner leading to the straight was too fast and that downforce was too important but I don’t really have an answer. But I have the feeling that when they put the horrible slow chicane in the last sector of Barcelona, the number of overtakings (without DRS) at the end of the straight had gone even more down.

    I admit that I may not be able to predict the possibilities of overtaking when I see a new circuit layout. But I feel it’s wrong to use artificial solutions like DRS on existing circuits, when previous races have ‘proven’ that there is something fundamentally wrong with the layout regarding overtaking. Fix that first before you start using artificial methods.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.