[Rules] DRS: Is it time for it to go?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Oooo, that’s an interesting idea.

It’s a sticky plaster on a band aid, but I like it.

Yes, that's how I view it as well. For now it's a necessary evil with high downforce cars. Probably with the 2026 regulations with the active aero in the corners to give the following car more downforce in the very place they currently have a disadvantage, namely the corners, DRS can be abandoned. Till that time this would be an easy to implement solution for the longer straights to get the following car closer earlier on the straight so natural slipstreaming can do it's thing rather than the "passflaps" with the undefendable 30kph differences we have now.

If you would plot out the speed traces the quite different impact of the change becomes more tangible:

Currently (note the high difference in end speed):



As proposed:


As you can see, it aids the following car in getting closer again much sooner after the corner, but the actual overtaking is with a normal slipstreaming difference. One could call it a proximity aid rather than the overtaking aid that DRS is now. The length of the DRS zone would be tuned that when it closes the following car would be about 10-15m behind and would need the rest of the straight and the natural slipstream effect to try an overtaken (how it always was before high downforce).

[Sodemo]

If the cars had much lower downforce they would be more reliant on mechanical grip. The only figures I could find for a modern F1 car was that they produce around 1400kg of downforce at the highest speeds. Here is my take on it, the cars are already fast in high speed corners, whether they are doing 230kph or 210kph, it’s still a fast corner. The problem is, all the spectator areas are normally miles away from the high speed sections of track due to having to have 500 metres of run off (or whatever the FIA stipulates). Where the crowds and cameras can get closer to the cars are in the slower corners, however the cars are now so much slower in slower corners due to all the added weight + fuel load. When you think that 30 or so years ago the cars weighed 505kg, compared to today’s near 800kg. By culling the aero significantly you would see an improvement in cars being able to follow, however this would need to be done via the upper surfaces for the most part, so shrink the front and rear wings to a third of their surface areas and lower the front wing to be as near to the ground as possible. If it were then possible to lose 100kg of weight from the cars then that would be ideal, but I don’t think that will ever be the case.

[1969MGCGTdriver]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

By culling the aero significantly you would see an improvement in cars being able to follow, however this would need to be done via the upper surfaces for the most part, so shrink the front and rear wings to a third of their surface areas and lower the front wing to be as near to the ground as possible.

I hate DRS. Unfortunately its probably never going away so there has to be more tweaks. I've been shouting for simplified aero for years. They've gotten it cleaned up but there's still more to go. To start, get rid of the rest of the winglets and further simplify the front and rear wings. Two element front wing and single element rear wing but allow the beam wings to remain. Use active suspension to allow for better use of ground effects. Allow unlimited use of DRS whenever and wherever the drivers want to use it, but maybe put a time limit on total use (similar to Indy with PTP). To counter that, increase the energy harvesting and deployment but with no limit on use.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

I hate DRS. Unfortunately its probably never going away so there has to be more tweaks. I've been shouting for simplified aero for years. They've gotten it cleaned up but there's still more to go. To start, get rid of the rest of the winglets and further simplify the front and rear wings. Two element front wing and single element rear wing but allow the beam wings to remain. Use active suspension to allow for better use of ground effects. Allow unlimited use of DRS whenever and wherever the drivers want to use it, but maybe put a time limit on total use (similar to Indy with PTP). To counter that, increase the energy harvesting and deployment but with no limit on use.

Yep, the size of the wings now is ridiculous. I think ideally you would want the rear wing raised a bit too.

[chillibowl]

but surely, had the designers opted for a design path different to the over development of aero, they then would have picked a different focal point, invested considerably into it, and over the decades would have developed another area to the Nth degree quite possibly leading us down another (or the same even) pathway of over complexity/over specialization which likely would have resulted in the same outcome...a large number of long time fans saying 'this is not racing anymore' no?

time, as it is with most things, is the real enemy.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Cars like HAAS and Williams that prioritise aero efficiency were able to defend nicely, as they should be able to.

Mate, lol, they’re not ‘aero efficient.’ They’re short on (efficient) downforce which is as aero inefficient as you can get! All their development is about trying to catch up on downforce.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Mate, lol, they’re not ‘aero efficient.’ They’re short on (efficient) downforce which is as aero inefficient as you can get! All their development is about trying to catch up on downforce.

You say that, yet McLaren are signficantly slower than them on the straights yet their laptimes are not any better.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, the size of the wings now is ridiculous. I think ideally you would want the rear wing raised a bit too.

Because people (drivers and fans alike) complained the cars were too slow in 2014-2016, hence the increase in wing and tyre sizes (i.e., increasing mechanical grip, since aero is just a multiplier of mechanical grip) for 2017.

Cutting the wing size would make them corner at Indycar or F2 levels -- at 3g instead of 5g -- which is noticeably slower. About 10s/lap slower.

For reference if you had no downforce at all, they would corner at 1.5g and lap about 20-30s/lap slower.

To quote Mark Webber, the 2014 cars were "too slow, not stimulating".

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely, had the designers opted for a design path different to the over development of aero, they then would have picked a different focal point, invested considerably into it, and over the decades would have developed another area to the Nth degree quite possibly leading us down another (or the same even) pathway of over complexity/over specialization which likely would have resulted in the same outcome...a large number of long time fans saying 'this is not racing anymore' no?

time, as it is with most things, is the real enemy.

There is probably a lot of truth to that argument.
It is a function of money and investment over time, leading to ever decreasing technical advantages at an ever increasing cost.
Fifty years ago, in 1973, you could find seconds a lap with just an efficient repackage of the balance within a layout. The McLaren M23 was basically a redefinition of the Lotus 72 concept. The 73 Ferrari 312 didn't work but by refining the package Lauda won the title in 1975.

Now hours of time and millions of dollars are spent in pursuit of 1/100ths of seconds.

My earlier point of blaming the regulators wasn't blaming any particular group per se but simply noting that the regulations are what determines the design parameters.
The issues do lie in the regulations, even though as Richard pointed out, there are a lot of vested interests in pitching their arguments for various rules about what they deem as sacrosanct or otherwise.

[S griffin]

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

[nobster]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

so if you did a better job then the rest you should be punished...?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

I don't see how that is a problem with DRS per se, but more a problem as a whole of one team doing a better job of interpreting the regulations (if you even consider that to be a problem).

Maybe the irony here is that because RBR has done such a good job of applying DRS to their advantage, it might accelerate revisions to the DRS regulations?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Because people (drivers and fans alike) complained the cars were too slow in 2014-2016, hence the increase in wing and tyre sizes (i.e., increasing mechanical grip, since aero is just a multiplier of mechanical grip) for 2017.

Cutting the wing size would make them corner at Indycar or F2 levels -- at 3g instead of 5g -- which is noticeably slower. About 10s/lap slower.

For reference if you had no downforce at all, they would corner at 1.5g and lap about 20-30s/lap slower.

To quote Mark Webber, the 2014 cars were "too slow, not stimulating".

But the 2014 cars were narrower and had thinner tyres. If they just trimmed the downforce the current cars would still be wider and have wider tyres so more mechanical grip and less weight transfer, so wouldn’t likely be as slow as those cars.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

So Mercedes and Ferrari have both heavily underperformed but should be rewarded for that? Riiiggghhtt....

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

So Mercedes and Ferrari have both heavily underperformed but should be rewarded for that? Riiiggghhtt....

But being rewarded for that is exactly what will happen. As a result of their underperformance this year, they will both have more money to spend and more wind tunnel time next year then RB will….and so on down the grid.

Mind you, I don’t see this as a problem in much the same way as I don’t see DRS as being a problem. Rather I see it as the application of the same logic that necessitates DRS…an attempt to re order the grid by conferring benefits to the cars that follow.

No doubt these are band aid solutions but in lieu of any other viable solution to generate a closer grid the rules makers have little choice but to act this way no?

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

But would you be saying the same if it were Mercedes that had perfected DRS rather than Red Bull?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Another problem with DRS is how Red Bull have made their system better than others, so that's another performance gain that we can do without

I know I am piling on here, but am I missing something here? Teams who implement superior solutions is a negative? Is engineering better solutions not at the core of F1?

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Teams who implement superior solutions is a negative?

as it relates to entertainment, yes indeed superior solutions can become negatives.

RB this year would be case and point.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Is engineering better solutions not at the core of F1?

well banning better solutions certainly is at F1's core.

actually after 5 races, im surprised no one is seemingly even making an effort to say RB is violating the sprit of the rules with their DRS treatment.

as the rule makers try to encourage closer racing/a tighter grid, and as Brawn warned, superior and/or clever solutions can be a problem if and when those solutions contribute to increased pressure to spend more/up the budget cap limit.

in that light, i can also appreciate there is a fair amount of irony to all of this as the most expedient solution to preventing RB from continuing to too cleverly working their DRS system might actually be the best argument to just ban DRS and its related systems for everyone?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as it relates to entertainment, yes indeed superior solutions can become negatives.

RB this year would be case and point.

A good example of the conflicting goals of F1. We want teams to be creative. We don't want teams to benefit too much from their creativity.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

well banning better solutions certainly is at F1's core.

Touche!

Originally Posted by chillibowl

actually after 5 races, im surprised no one is seemingly even making an effort to say RB is violating the sprit of the rules with their DRS treatment.

Yes. My take is that anyone can make any accusation they want. Especially accusations that might result in benefits to themselves!

If you look online, there seems to be no shortage of pundits who spell out exactly how and why RBR is so quick. It seems to be focused around aero efficiency and anti dive suspension geometry. How do you ban those? They are basic concepts. The devil is in the details. It is likely just elegantly implemented. How do you regulate that? If everyone seems to "know how they do it", why hasn't anyone replicated it yet? I expect the answer is "requires full rethink of our aero/chassis concepts". Then do that for next year! It will be painful, but that is how it goes. People want performance parity super quick in these new regulations. It may take a while for that to happen. And each time they make changes to the regulations, there may be surprises in which someone jumps ahead of the others. And it is just as likely that those who are performing well today may do the same tomorrow. That is why it was such a shock that Mercedes failed so badly. But it can (and clearly did) happen.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as the rule makers try to encourage closer racing/a tighter grid, and as Brawn warned, superior and/or clever solutions can be a problem if and when those solutions contribute to increased pressure to spend more/up the budget cap limit.

in that light, i can also appreciate there is a fair amount of irony to all of this as the most expedient solution to preventing RB from continuing to too cleverly working their DRS system might actually be the best argument to just ban DRS and its related systems for everyone?

The regulators did say they will try to immediately close unexpected loopholes. I mostly take that as solutions that were not to the spirit of the regulations. Specifically solutions that manage to extend somehow outside of the boxes they put the teams into. I support that approach.

But what happens when a team plays perfectly inside of the box, and just performs better than the others? Even in spec series, you see performance differences.

This has strayed a bit from DRS. But it does remind me of the changes made between last and this season regarding ride height. Frankly it was to dial RBR back a bit as others struggled to get a handle on porpoising. It was a kneejerk reaction. It seems to have not phased RBR and yet others remain somewhat adrift this year as much as last. Maybe people should consider that rule changes that target RBR (or anyone else) might be just as likely to backfire than succeed.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by morninggents

But would you be saying the same if it were Mercedes that had perfected DRS rather than Red Bull?

Are you turning this into something it isn’t? Making it a football type “discussion”.

Fair play to Red Bull for coming up with this trick, I’m impressed. However, I can see the point of view of someone who thinks DRS should just be the same on everyone and that is the intent. It’s not my point of view, but no need to discredit as such.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

A good example of the conflicting goals of F1. We want teams to be creative. We don't want teams to benefit too much from their creativity.

lol right!

although it would be nice if two teams could be creative at the same time.

thats not too much to ask for is it?

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...But what happens when a team plays perfectly inside of the box, and just performs better than the others?...

tough question and one made even more difficult given how underprepared the other tops teams seem to be this year (AM aside).

any curtailing of RB mid season when they have indeed played fairly inside the sandbox really wouldn't be about protecting the integrity of the cap or new regulations or the conditions/ideals Brawn would have held to when considering a ban (i assume of course).

it would be about helping out Merc, and to an extent Ferrari as well, despite how far behind they are.

while i could accept a ban on entertainment grounds i would most certainly struggle with the backfire it would have on the sporting ethos.

[S griffin]

I see DRS as a driver aid like traction control. It has devalued a lot of driver skill it has. And also can lead to another performance gain like RBR have, which is not good if we need to keep things close and competitive.

[nobster]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I see DRS as a driver aid like traction control. It has devalued a lot of driver skill it has. And also can lead to another performance gain like RBR have, which is not good if we need to keep things close and competitive.

again...if one team does a better job then the other teams with this "driver aid" then why punish them? Other teams need to catch up!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Fair play to Red Bull for coming up with this trick, I’m impressed. However, I can see the point of view of someone who thinks DRS should just be the same on everyone and that is the intent. It’s not my point of view, but no need to discredit as such.

I feel that the entire RBR car design is the key, not the DRS system per se. The car is quick in the corners and whilst not the overall fastest without DRS, it knocks the pants off everything with the wing open. It's the Newey Effect writ large.

It's akin to the power/reliability advantage that Mercedes had when the hybrid PU rules came along; it wasn't solely the PU that worked better than anyone else's, it was the whole package. Williams and McLaren demonstrated that only too clearly.

Having lived through a variety of eras of dominance - Williams, McLaren, Ferrari, RBR, Mercedes, RBR again. Swings and roundabouts, and the only one that I got properly bored by was the Ferrari years with all of their political moves to shift the rules towards them.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Greem

Having lived through a variety of eras of dominance - Williams, McLaren, Ferrari, RBR, Mercedes, RBR again. Swings and roundabouts, and the only one that I got properly bored by was the Ferrari years with all of their political moves to shift the rules towards them.

The garagistes had the last laugh, banning the use of sunny Fiorano year round at the "cost" of the British teams being unable to lap their cold and windy Silverstone home track at will (such a pity, right?).