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

[S griffin]

DRS should never been introduced in the first place, it's got rid of the skill of overtaking. They should have reduced downforce sooner, rather than go for this sticky plaster solution. I have no problem with tyre changes, but they should be up to the driver and team what tyre they run. After all, they are done so quickly these days, they would happen anyway even if they weren't compulsory

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Casper

Anything that interferes with the racing after the flag drops and is not initiated by the driver is in fact an enhancer and should not be there and that includes tyre pit stops and DRS.

Would that also extend to banning re-fuelling etc? Why should a team not be able to run on minimal fuel and fill up as required?

Originally Posted by Casper

This should be the pinnacle of car design and driver skill but that is not happening and never will. The pinnacle of motor sport? I don't think so.

I read this a lot, and wonder why the 'pinnacle' is considered to be car design / motor sport. This seems elitist, in that F1 is 'better' than all other car design and motor sport forms.

Many factors of car design exist outside of motor sport, and motor sport contains many disciplines other than formula racing.

When considering what is right for F1, I think it beneficial to remember that it is merely the pinnacle of open-wheeled single-seater motorsport only. As a result, it is entirely conceivable that other car design may be superior, and that other forms of motor sport may be more advanced. It is because it is open-wheeled that solutions such as DRS are required.

[Casper]

By saying enhancements I mean regulated & compulsory enhancements, the pitstop if voluntary should be a GREATER time than the lap speed to discourage clever teams trying to use tactical pit stops. It will never happen and I accept that others would not agree with the concept but if they are going to regulate for better racing then make the pit stop longer than the lap time which of course would have to be some sort of average. Let's be honest about artificial enhancements, they are going to use them so the enhancement should add a chance of creating a situation that the teams have very little control over and sending the car back out at a time not of the teams choosing will create a bit more uncertainty and drama to the whole thing.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Would that also extend to banning re-fuelling etc? Why should a team not be able to run on minimal fuel and fill up as required?

Let's not even go there. In race refuelling should never return. All it did was make more place changes happen in the pits rather than on the race track. And the other thing is now it's banned is that teams and drivers can choose when to pit, instead of having it dictated by when they need to refuel.

But the most justifiable reason it's banned is safety. The risk of something going wrong during refuelling was too much. And I'm not talking about drivers, but mechanics who aren't paid as much. We were lucky we didn't have anyone seriously injured during the refuelling era

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Let's not even go there. In race refuelling should never return. All it did was make more place changes happen in the pits rather than on the race track. And the other thing is now it's banned is that teams and drivers can choose when to pit, instead of having it dictated by when they need to refuel.

But the most justifiable reason it's banned is safety. The risk of something going wrong during refuelling was too much. And I'm not talking about drivers, but mechanics who aren't paid as much. We were lucky we didn't have anyone seriously injured during the refuelling era

I don't disagree as such with the safety aspect, but if the frenzy to pit as quickly as possible was removed, safety would be enhanced. As you know, I watch endurance racing where fuel stops obviously take place routinely and even with less experienced crews, safety issues are pretty rare. If we could be less worried about having to do a pitstop in what are insanely stupid times, I think that would be an improvement. You see nothing worth watching in a sub 3 second pit stop.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Let's not even go there. In race refuelling should never return. All it did was make more place changes happen in the pits rather than on the race track. And the other thing is now it's banned is that teams and drivers can choose when to pit, instead of having it dictated by when they need to refuel.

But the most justifiable reason it's banned is safety. The risk of something going wrong during refuelling was too much. And I'm not talking about drivers, but mechanics who aren't paid as much. We were lucky we didn't have anyone seriously injured during the refuelling era

IndyCar has refuelling and it works perfectly.

[BTCC frog]

I think it is difficult to really know what refuelling would be like today, given that the tyres were better then than they are now. At the time, refuelling played a big part in the sport and the tyres were less relevant, while now the tyres are the central part of the sport and refuelling obviously doesn’t play a part at all. I suspect if refuelling was brought back, the teams would just base their strategy around the refuelling and the drivers would just have to adjust their tyre-saving to that, so if it were reintroduced it would be a similar story to before. So I have simply compared F1 which is ‘all about the tyres’ with F1 which is ‘all about the fuel.’

Firstly, I believe the strategies are more exciting when it is about tyres. With fuel, the key thing that is used is the overcut, because the driver who has just pitted is slower than the driver about to pit. With tyres it is the undercut, as the driver who has just pitted has new tyres and is faster. And as drivers only have a set amount of fuel in the car at any one time, that means they are effectively forced into pitting on the lap they are (or earlier, which is slower), whereas with tyres an early pitstop can be made out of choice. This means that strategy is far more likely to be changed at short notice with tyres as the main thing instead of fuel, so I prefer this. Another thing is that a driver on maximum attack would wear out their tyres a lot more quickly than a driver driving conservatively so would pit much earlier, but probably would only use enough fuel for a handful fewer laps. This also means that strategy can change more during the race, which I like. I think with tyres, strategy is far more likely to have to be made up on the spot than with refuelling, which I think is more exciting and forces teams to be more reactive.

Also, I think it is more likely that there will still be question marks over who is going to win at the end of a race without refuelling. At the end of a race, every driver will have approximately the same amount of fuel, whereas their tyres can be in very varied condition. So I think the chance of late drama is more with tyre F1 than with fuel F1. And teams have more understanding of their opponents’ strategies, as they would generally know approximately what lap the pitstop would happen based on how long the refuelling rig was in (something that you cannot really stop them knowing), with the exception being when there was a problem. And as computers become more advanced, this would be even more accurate than it had been before. So I don’t think this is the case. With tyres, on the other hand, drivers can eke out a strategy far longer than a rival team was expecting. And sometimes the track conditions are just different to what was expected, with doesn’t apply to refuelling.

And I also just generally think that the individual races in the 10s were more exciting than in the 00s. So there is my reasoning for thinking F1 is better off without refuelling. But it seems from most fan surveys that the majority disagree with me.

However, I think the differing strategies are one of the most exciting parts of F1, watching a number of different teams go for different things and then the drivers having to make their team's strategy work (which would be much better without DRS as the driver defending would have more of a role to play), and so I would be disappointed if most races became no-stop races, with just a few drivers trying one-stops.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by S griffin

DRS should never been introduced in the first place, it's got rid of the skill of overtaking.

Official DRS was introduced in exchange for 'banning' those dangerous F-ducts pseudo-DRS which were free to use anywhere in the lap but often required taking a hand off the steering wheel (albeit the originator McLaren used the driver's knee as the actuator which was a little more elegant).

Would you have instead have proposed a straight ban on F-ducts, which no replacement drag reduction mechanism?

As always, it is not something the regulators dreamt up one day but rather it is in response to what the competitors were doing. Just as the standardised pressurised refuelling rigs were reintroduced in response to competitors making their own pressurised refuelling rigs of varying levels of safety.

[GingerPixel]

My overly simplist view is to bin it. Too many races have become games of "DRS chicken".

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

My overly simplist view is to bin it. Too many races have become games of "DRS chicken".

I'm with you. I think it has made too many races utterly farcical and has massively reduced the spectacle of racing drivers practicing their craft.

[S griffin]

I think a lot of F1 fans feel that. We should never have needed it, a close battle for position is good enough, even if no overtaking happens. Passing should be about quality not quantity. It's means more if it's down to driver skill