Three stage DRS

[Taxi645]

In principle I'm not in favor of DRS because in my view one should set up a pass in the corners not just the straights, it is overly powerful and furthermore it should be about the battle for position not the change of position itself. DRS is classic F1 policy of treating the symptom (namely lack of overtaking) rather than the cause (aero layouts which don't facilitate battling for position in the corners). Something we see all to often (tracks limits to name one).

But ok, knowing that we won't have aero rules next year that will help battling in the corners and knowing DRS won't go away very soon, what could one do to improve it's influence on racing?

To me the problem with DRS is, except for the general objection mentioned above, is that it's current fixed implementation is not equally suitable for each track. What I mean by this is, that on some tracks it's too powerful, virtually guaranteeing a pass rather that merely aiding it and on others it's not powerful enough.

I almost fell off of my chair of disbelief about the comments on Verstappen's move on the Kemmel straight. In stead of criticizing the fact that as a result of DRS the speed difference become so great that normal racecraft (you know the thing normal people like about motorsport) is considered dangerous, Verstappen get's criticized for racing in the first place!

What you want is that with a good exit, a driver following is able to pull alongside the car in front, or near that anyway, at the end of the straight so that entering a brake duel or keen positioning in the subsequent corners will decide who will take the position. What we see now on many tracks is that cars just blast by (too fast to safely defend according to some) and there is no brake duel to speak of because the car has passed too far anyway. That's not race craft, it's not even show business, it's pure and utter boredom (and a really expensive form of it).

So my solution would be to either fine tune the position of the start of the DRS activation zones on each track so that cars will be next to each other at the end of the straight in stead of guaranteeing a pass (with a big margin). Sometimes it will work, sometimes it won't. Race craft will decide. Alternatively you could give DRS three stage of effectiveness depending how easy it is on to overtake on each track.

A few examples of track that could use some adjustment (not a complete list):
Canada
Austria
Baku
Kemmel Straight at Spa
etc.

[Richard C]

A few thoughts...

1. IMHO, you totally missed the point about the Vestappen criticism, but that is a topic for a different thread.

2. More details on how a multiphase DRS might work? Particularly with respect to the points directly below.

3. To your point about blowing past the other guy with ease vs a braking dual... I am lazy as I can only think back to Spa and passes on the Kimmel straight. I think exit speed out of Raidillon and general car performance (power and aero trim) is a bigger indicator of "ease" of passing in that situation. I feel some just got an excellent run out of Raidillon while the other guy didn't. If the two cars and drivers are more evenly match, then the pass attempt happens much later and without guarantee of success.

Richard

[steve_r]

There is no need to over-complicate things with different stages of DRS. As you rightly pointed out - it's the DRS zone positioning and length at each track that should be tweaked.

The real solution would be to introduce regulations that massively reduce aero grip and instead increase reliance on mechanical grip. That does not look like happening soon though.

The Verstappen criticism was not an attack on him racing.

[Sodemo]

No, DRS is an absolute shocker and I think its sad that other series are "adopting it" too.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

DRS is an engineering solution to a current aero-engineering problem that F1 has brought upon itself. The engineers can't or won't step back, so engineer their way forward.

The issue of it being too powerful is as others have commented down to the measuring point, and then the placement and length of the Zone.

[chillibowl]

a bit of a rant alert here

typically the most expense seats at a GP are along the straight (main grandstand but mainly the luxury boxes) and are imo typically filled up with people who are either there for the first time or those who dont know there are much better sight lines to be found elsewhere. (thats a gross generalization i know so please no offence to anyone who genuinely prefers sitting here).

obviously personal preference here, but outside of the start there is not much action along the straight. for me, i like sitting near corners or hairpins as thats where you can really see the cars move around, change direction, slow down and speed up because you cant pick up details when the cars are whizzing by at +200mph (or maybe i just like them more because these seats are slightly cheaper and have the words 'dont panic' written on the back of them).

anyways, the cynical part of me (maybe tin foil hat part of me) thinks DRS is really just there to make the premium/luxury seats feel more exciting by creating the appearance of racing/passing on parts of the track that typically doesn't see much action (in the modern era anyways) and that just so happens to coincide with an area of seats that cost the most amount of money.

its a necessary value added when the most expensive seats in the house tend to be the worst ones from a live spectator perspective.

sad to say but i think they have their zones placed out exactly where they want them to be.

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, in theory you may be correct, but the reality is to question whether the FIA or FOM ever cared about paying spectators. I would argue that FOM has actually done everything in it's power to actually stop people coming to live races, both by putting them on in countries that really have no interest in F1, and worse still, levying the astronomical sanctioning fees on the circuits that have to be passed on to the buying public or from the public purse i.e. local or national taxpayers.

[chillibowl]

fair point...i was thinking more for the luxury boxes/hospitality area spectators who i believe pay FOM directly for the privilege of premium seating.

any benefits and increased price to those sitting on the main grandstand would be a way to help the local promoter offset the huge sanctioning fees.

wasnt very clear on that....was too busy ranting! sorry.

but yeah regardless, your point stands...how much does FOM really care about those who attend live.

[Richard C]

All good points above. I tend to think that DRS was an easy "fix" (if you can call it a fix) to the lack of passing. I think any benefit to spectating along the something like the main straight was an unintended, but likely positive benefit.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but yeah regardless, your point stands...how much does FOM really care about those who attend live.

Probably just enough to prevent the stands from looking empty on TV. But that can be somewhat addressed by ensuring that the TV director (controlled by FOM right?) knows not to show much in the way of empty stands during the event.

Richard

[Taxi645]

I'll skip the Verstappen bit, for obvious reasons.

3 stage DRS would work like this:

The DRS mechanism allows for three levels of effectiveness of the DRS:

1: zero to almost no DRS effect (Baku/Mexico)
2: between one and three, roughly half the effectiveness of the current implementation (Canada, Spa, Austria, etc, etc)
3: equal to the current setting for tracks which are though enough for overtaking already (Monaco, Hungary, etc, etc)

The FIA would decide which of the three would be appropriate for each circuit.

But I agree with most of you, as mentioned in the first post, that tweaking of the start and therefore length of the activation zone, would be much easier.

I think the current implementation of the activation zones is a result of a flawed logic that overtaking MUST be provided (and thus easy) to have a good race, so the activation zones are maxed out in length on the available straight to do just that. Where as in reality, what makes good racing is good battles for position, which may or may not work the first time round and where race craft becomes much more of a deciding factor again.

To do that the length of the activation zones should be looked at for each track and the ones where we see too many "blast by passes" would see a revision of their length. This could be anything from 0 to 500m reduction in length. The goal being that when someone makes a move the cars will on average be alongside at the end of the straight rather that one be four car lengths passed. This finetuning would take a bit of work, but would very easy with the technology already available.


I'll admit straight away, like Richard says, that far more factors are involved, like differences in PU output, aero setting, differences in battery deployment. However in general I reckon that stating that on some tracks the activation zones are too long based on flawed logic and that tuning their length on certain tracks would be to the benefit of racing would be quite easily to hold up.


PS. again I would also prefer for there to be no need for DRS, but they are not listening.

[Sodemo]

The lack of overtaking is chiefly down to two factors;

1) design of the cars
2) design of the tracks

Since I don't want to see classic tracks torn up, in my view that means the cars need to be the thing that changes.

Having said that, the design of some of the newer circuits is appalling, both in terms of simply offering a "good layout" and also for promoting overtaking. I think they offer us a view that the circuit layout is very much a secondary consideration when building a track. As long as they can have their massive hotels and VIP areas, they don't care if the track has any kind of flow or is a challenge to drive.

The cars themselves, well what can I say that hasn't been said a thousand times. Less aero, more mechanical grip. I really don't know what they are thinking with the 2017 rules and increasing the aero. I think if they reduced the aero slightly (from currently levels) and just gave us the wider tyres, wider track cars, it would be a good step. What happened to the notion of underbody aero? Was that scrapped?

[Number4]

Get rid of the DRS zones, put a switch from an old Cessna on the dash, let the drivers choose flaps 0/5/10/15/20 degrees whenever they want.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The lack of overtaking is chiefly down to two factors;

1) design of the cars
2) design of the tracks

Since I don't want to see classic tracks torn up, in my view that means the cars need to be the thing that changes.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Number4

Get rid of the DRS zones, put a switch from an old Cessna on the dash, let the drivers choose flaps 0/5/10/15/20 degrees whenever they want.

Active aero could be a real differentiator for F1. But we would have to make sure it doesn't turn into DRS on steroids (artificial).

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

... I think any benefit to spectating along the something like the main straight was an unintended, but likely positive benefit.

no doubt thats far closer to the truth then the conspiracy i was putting together in that rant lol.

anyways back on topic, along the lines of what could actually be done with active aero, as number4 suggested, would DRS be less ridiculous if its use was allowed at any point on the track?

would both the lead and following driver both using it at the same time just cancel each other out in effect?

if the radio ban was still in effect and drivers had to make these decisions for themselves in real time then i would like to see that.

[S griffin]

I love seeing cars battling for position without the need to use it

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anyways back on topic, along the lines of what could actually be done with active aero, as number4 suggested, would DRS be less ridiculous if its use was allowed at any point on the track?

IMHO, yes (less ridiculous). It would just be straight up active aero at that point. But your next question get to the heart of the problem with that idea...

Originally Posted by chillibowl

would both the lead and following driver both using it at the same time just cancel each other out in effect?

I think yes... as it seems to be that way now if you have a train of cars all within DRS activation of each other. Only the person at the front who is out of range of whoever is in front of him is at an disadvantage. For everyone else, it seems DRS has no real impact.

I personally think the core of why it seems "manufactured" is the fact that it is designed to give one car an advantage over another in a way that the "looser" has really done nothing wrong. The leader can't deploy, the follower can. The problem is... that is exactly why it works.

But it is at it's core trying to bring back the natural concept of "slipstreaming". Which based upon my argument above, is "not fair" (I think true slipstreaming is just fine!) Real slipstreaming is a more natural scenario vs. an artificial version via DRS. I also wonder if we have selective memory on some aspects of when and why slipstreaming works. It still works in some sports such as oval racing (which I really don't follow). I expect that is because you are able to follow a car for a much longer period of time and eventually make it work. While the straights in F1 have gotten shorter over time, so you have to have a huge advantage to make it work in a shorter distance (i.e. DRS).

This is very much before my time as an F1 fan, but today something like the Kimmel straight at Spa is very long, but just look at the older 14-15KM long Spa circuit. Very long straights in which I suspect real slipstreaming (even with today's cars minus DRS) could take place. I have copied some text from the Spa wikipedia page about racing at the older circuit with a few bold highlights from myself...

Spa was the fastest road circuit in Europe at the time, and it had a nasty reputation for being dangerous and very fast- it was a circuit known to be one for the brave, and most drivers were frightened of it. The old Spa circuit was unique in that speeds were consistently high with hardly any let-up at all for 3–4 minutes. This made it an extraordinarily difficult mental challenge, because most of the corners were taken at 180+ mph and were not quite flat- every corner was as important as the one before it. If a driver lifted just that little bit more, then whole seconds, not tenths- would be lost. Even the slightest error of any kind was punished very harshly in more ways than one. But this reality also worked inversely- huge advantages could be gained if a driver came out of a corner slightly faster.

Back to active aero... I am a fan of the concept, but only if "done right", which is hard to do. Remember the driver adjustable front wing stuff from 2009 (pre DRS) that really didn't seem to do much and was eventually abandoned?

Richard

[Number4]

The '69 Porsche 908 had suspension activated ailerons.
http://flatsixes.com/porsche-motorsp...ated-ailerons/

Video of rear wing on a lap of Laguna Seca.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1bLhVcNnc

[wolfhound]

It appears more than DRS is needed if we are to see more overtaking in F1. This year there were about 1/2 the number compared to last year 435 V's 866. At Sochi there there was only 1 recorded in the whole race which was the lowest number of passes in the season.

Daniel Ricciardo was the best overtaker with 43 in total along with Verstappen's 22 makes Red Bull the best team.

The most passes on the first lap over the season 36 by......... Lance Stroll!

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/133451

[E.B]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It appears more than DRS is needed if we are to see more overtaking in F1. This year there were about 1/2 the number compared to last year 435 V's 866. At Sochi there there was only 1 recorded in the whole race which was the lowest number of passes in the season.

Daniel Ricciardo was the best overtaker with 43 in total along with Verstappen's 22 makes Red Bull the best team.

The most passes on the first lap over the season 36 by......... Lance Stroll!

Clearly the Stroll first lap passes stat is one of those anomalies of statistics. Had he not been so awful at qualifying he would not have been in a situation of having slower cars he was easily able to pass.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Agreed how many were genuine passes for position and how many were other people having accidents and incidents?

Also remember in terms of the thread title. There is no DRS in the first lap.

[S griffin]

Shows that the new rules delivered as most expected, less overtaking. Why could everyone but the FIA see that was gonna happen?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Shows that the new rules delivered as most expected, less overtaking. Why could everyone but the FIA see that was gonna happen?

Because the people in charge of these decisions don't have "racing's" best interests at heart.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The most passes on the first lap over the season 36 by......... Lance Stroll!

Sounds impressive the way that it's written, but drill down into the figures it means that on average he passed 1.8 cars at the start. However, the article doesn't mention whether those places were re-taken in subsequent laps.

Blooming marvellous what you can do with figures and stats!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Sounds impressive the way that it's written, but drill down into the figures it means that on average he passed 1.8 cars at the start. However, the article doesn't mention whether those places were re-taken in subsequent laps.

Blooming marvellous what you can do with figures and stats!

Yeah but 1.8 is a lot. The net has to be 0, since the whole grid can't move up. So anything that is positive means he's done well. To be positive by almost 2 cars every start is impressive.