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

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Indeed, it is strange! Off topic, but I wonder what the equivalent will be in 2043. Perhaps the complaints of F1 being too predictable will be answered with an excess of gimmicks and we will be complaining that it has become too random.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8U2vYtlhmk

Loadsa gimmicks!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Obviously DRS was only ever designed as a sticking plaster until the cars became better at following each other.

Was it?

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8U2vYtlhmk

Loadsa gimmicks!

I always enjoyed that game. That is basically F1 now! I would like to see some Mario Kart banana throwing. That would sure get Max riled if it happened to him. I can imagine him complaining quite vociferously that he can get overtakes done without resorting to that.

[S griffin]

Certainly that game is one of the best atm. But F1 needs to go back to sensible things in place. What’s fun on a video game is not necessarily fun in real life. We all enjoy entertainment, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of sporting fairness

Btw hopefully we will hear less of Max soon. He’s getting too much into his own head

[Born Racer]

He's a bit of a panto villain. "He ran into me". "Oh no he didn't. "He didn't leave me enough space". "Oh yes he did".

[Richard C]

Hold on and prepare for what I expect will be an unpopular set of opinions for this thread.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think the art of outbraking another car into a corner certainly now is becoming a lost art. There are more ways to overtake than out braking, you can pass in a traction zone on the exit of a corner, but a Dan dare outbraking move is I think what a lot of fans think of when they say they want to see more overtaking.

I am not sure I get the full point you are making. Is it that F1 drivers these days just don't know how to overtake cars in front of them or that they do, but they are too lazy to "do it the hard way"? You mention there are lots of ways to overtake. You call out accelerating out of a corner or out braking someone on entry into a corner. Both imply maximizing traction in a way that your opponent is unable to do. Being able to best your opponent is driven by two scenarios (putting aside outside influences such as actions of a third driver). (1) your car is better than his at that moment (2) your a better driver than he is at that moment.

While there is clearly still a disparity in performance between cars and drivers, I think when it comes to the front of the grid, the disparities are small enough that it makes passing exceedingly difficult. You call out "last of the late brakers" DR. I do think he seems to excel at that, but that ONLY works if you are right upon your opponent as you enter the braking zone and the other guy has left the door open. I expect even DR would say that even if he was particularly good at it, it only worked in specific scenarios.

In short, I think the drivers are doing about as well as they can given the situation. That it IS as hard as they say it is. So lets then move onto what might happen is you just removed DRS...

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Obviously DRS was only ever designed as a sticking plaster until the cars became better at following each other. But I don’t know if it was intended to stay for 13 years.

That is a good question. I do think they were hopeful that they could reduce (and eventually remove) the need for it.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And I think the problem now is that everything is now being designed around DRS. The cars are designed expecting to be able to use DRS, as are the tracks. And the drivers are now becoming so used to racing with DRS that when it is slightly difficult to overtake they complain.

See my comments above. As to "slightly difficult" do you think they "could" pass, but are just being lazy about it? I would love to see someone tell them that passing is "slightly difficult"!

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

The longer it goes on, the more difficult it will be to scrap DRS, so I think it needs to go at the end of this season. It is easier to then fix those problems when DRS is already gone than to expect to be able to fix them and then scrap DRS, and I think we would accept a year or two of overtaking being very difficult if, in the long term, we could have proper racing again where it is easy to get close but difficult to actually make an overtake.

So to a degree I agree with you that while F1 keeps DRS the incentive to replace is to reduced because like it or not, it broadly works. But should it be a revolution or evolution to remove DRS?

Your proposal however in short might be summarized as "Necessity is the mother of invention". You effectively want to teach F1 to swim by throwing it into the deep end. You surmise that they will figure it out in a season or two. What if it doesn't? What if F1 can't learn to swim that way?

What happens when we have a season or two of VERY boring races and no end in sight? Is there also some level of increased openness of technical regulations to allow for new solutions to appear? How does this work in a cost capped environment? (Teams would have zero interest in this level of financial disruption and unpredictability of performance) And if those solutions exists, why are teams not implementing those TODAY to improve their ability to pass in non-DRS zones? As you say... "13 years". Are ALL of the teams so technically incapable that they haven't figure out a solution yet? Or maybe the problem really is that hard to solve. I expect they will fight hard before someone pushes them into the deep end of the pool as the KNOW they will not be able to swim that quickly.

I would liken your idea to what Elon Musk has done with Twitter. He basically decided it was broken (and it was). But instead of finding a solution and then evolving towards that solution over time, he decided instead to burn it to the ground to force change quickly. It might work in the end (or not), but in the interim, Twitter is an absolute cluster with no guarantee that it will come out the other end.

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And I agree with the many people that say push to pass is better, but for me it is a completely different concept to DRS. I would be happy for it to be added as a replacement, but equally happy if DRS was scrapped with no replacement.

Personally I think the answer is as you say. Push to Pass. I think they should implement a P2P system while they keep DRS. Then as they tweak the P2P system (it's unlikely to be exactly perfect right out of the box), they can shrink the DRS usage over a few seasons. Then once the new P2P solution is showing it can work, they can remove DRS.

I will say that I also think P2P is just as arbitrary as DRS and people will complain about P2P just as much as they do about DRS. What should make it less arbitrary is to place the controls into the hands of the drivers. Right now the usage is very prescriptive. zones of usage, rules on when within the zones, etc. I think even DRS might be more well received if "when" was more of a driver strategy issues vs. "if conditions A, B and C are met then you can use it". I also think active aero like DRS (or something similar to it) could be part of a P2P system. Overall, success of anything (DRS, P2P, Active aero, etc.) that is used to resolve the challenge of near parity in performance should be about "skillful" instead of "robotic" or "procedural" usage/application.

Richard

[Born Racer]

I take on board your points about P2P, Richard. One of the arguments in its favour is it's also Push to Defend, which you cannot level at DRS. You often have no comeback if you don't have DRS, whereas P2P can help set up a move.

It brings its own host of issues, though, such as knowing who is using how much of it and when and also the fact that if you're in more wheel to wheel battles, you may be at a disadvantage in the sense that you have to use more of it and will be lacking some in some of your battles if you use it up too early.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I take on board your points about P2P, Richard. One of the arguments in its favour is it's also Push to Defend, which you cannot level at DRS. You often have no comeback if you don't have DRS, whereas P2P can help set up a move.

It brings its own host of issues, though, such as knowing who is using how much of it and when and also the fact that if you're in more wheel to wheel battles, you may be at a disadvantage in the sense that you have to use more of it and will be lacking some in some of your battles if you use it up too early.

But everything there can be said about burning up your tires too soon as well, or previous eras burning up the engine or gearbox pushing harder to get around someone. F1 has always had something be limiting and easy to abuse/destroy, it's just now the tires being designed to a spec rather than engines turned to 11 and pushing turning them up to 12 or 15 and often resulting in spectacular oil clouds.

I am torn about knowing the amount of P2P left in Indy, I get both the not knowing how much and knowing if someone is on the button. It was impactful in the race this weekend at Barber and Romain burned most of his on a couple laps to build a gap and not get overcut, he then couldn't defend from Scotty Mac and got passed. And Penske's guys could tell him Romain couldn't defend

[Richard C]

Agree with both posts above about P2P. I don't follow Indycar, so I don't know the particulars. I do hope that if an existing series has worked out the kinks on what works and doesn't that F1 is smart enough to look at how others make it work and replicate their success.

Richard

[Aysedasi]

My view is very simple. Do away with DRS and don't replace it. At least try it in some of the sprints. See what happens. We've become totally paranoid now about drivers needing something artificial to allow them to race.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They need to shrink the front and rear wings by about 50% and try and recoup that lost DF by increasing the underbody aero somehow. My amateur aero designer brain also says they need to lower the front wing by 30-50mm so that the wing is in less dirty air (cleaner air is nearer the ground - correct?).

Teams have raised the front wing in order to improve the airflow towards the underbody.

I personally advocate the introduction of a downforce limit and then to allow any kind of aerodynamics, including active aero.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Teams have raised the front wing in order to improve the airflow towards the underbody.

I personally advocate the introduction of a downforce limit and then to allow any kind of aerodynamics, including active aero.

This implies that they have prioritised overall downforce generation over the ability to follow another car. Raising the front wing makes sense if you never have to follow in dirty air as this does indeed give more airflow to the floor, but when following another car the front wing is in dirtier air.

[NaBUru38]

Just drop the 1-second rule, and instead limit the number of activations to one every 5 laps or so.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Just drop the 1-second rule, and instead limit the number of activations to one every 5 laps or so.

What would you hope to see there?

I imagine the DRS could be effective even if a car is following more than a second behind, rendering the number of cheap passes even higher.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

This implies that they have prioritised overall downforce generation over the ability to follow another car. Raising the front wing makes sense if you never have to follow in dirty air as this does indeed give more airflow to the floor, but when following another car the front wing is in dirtier air.

It makes a lot of sense to prioritise overall downforce, because most part of the race and all of qualifying is done in free air.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They need to shrink the front and rear wings by about 50% and try and recoup that lost DF by increasing the underbody aero somehow. My amateur aero designer brain also says they need to lower the front wing by 30-50mm so that the wing is in less dirty air (cleaner air is nearer the ground - correct?).

I have a revolutionary idea: just ban front wings altogether!

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I have a revolutionary idea: just ban front wings altogether!

Slicks and tube chassis only, F1 presented by Formula Vee.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I have a revolutionary idea: just ban front wings altogether!

Now you're talking. Lots of power - tough to control. Not space-age sophisticated, but inspiring.

Actually, you would get some pretty sophisticated developments to claw back downforce and grip.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I take on board your points about P2P, Richard. One of the arguments in its favour is it's also Push to Defend, which you cannot level at DRS. You often have no comeback if you don't have DRS, whereas P2P can help set up a move.

It brings its own host of issues, though, such as knowing who is using how much of it and when and also the fact that if you're in more wheel to wheel battles, you may be at a disadvantage in the sense that you have to use more of it and will be lacking some in some of your battles if you use it up too early.

This is exactly why I think push-to-pass is far superior to DRS, although I wouldn't call it that. I have an idea that if a driver is in the lead of the race, they should theoretically be able to win it if they were to drive perfectly for the entire race, as Gilles Villeneuve did in Jarama 1981. If you get a good exit out of every corner and defend in all the right places, unless your car has horrendous straightline speed, you should be able to win. We see that quite often in BTCC when someone like Jason Plato will put absolutely everything into defending the lead of the race despite being considerably slower than those behind, and sometimes was successful. Unfortunately, with DRS, that is just not the case because if Kevin Magnussen had driven perfectly in the Brazil sprint last year, Verstappen would still have breezed past on the straight with DRS. Push-to-pass is far more tactical and if Magnussen used it to defend at the right times, he could have fended off Verstappen. Ultimately, I don't think push-to-pass would have a huge effect on the racing, but it would be interesting to see drivers sometimes saving it up well and then going for an attack towards the end. But as a concept I see it as totally different to DRS.


And in terms of 'slightly difficult to overtake,' I just think that drivers are now far less likely to take a risk and try a difficult overtake because they are so used to racing with DRS and not having to take much of a risk to get it done, and the longer we go on with it still in place (and crucially being in place in junior formulae), the worse that will get. I am probably being too harsh on the drivers in general, but I think it does have a small effect.

It is not quite the same, but in Jeddah we had an example of Verstappen considering a dive down the inside of someone, then deciding not to because he knew he would be able to easily get them down the straight instead with DRS.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

And in terms of 'slightly difficult to overtake,' I just think that drivers are now far less likely to take a risk and try a difficult overtake because they are so used to racing with DRS and not having to take much of a risk to get it done, and the longer we go on with it still in place (and crucially being in place in junior formulae), the worse that will get. I am probably being too harsh on the drivers in general, but I think it does have a small effect.

It is not quite the same, but in Jeddah we had an example of Verstappen considering a dive down the inside of someone, then deciding not to because he knew he would be able to easily get them down the straight instead with DRS.

Ok, I get your point. I think your last comment is the situation I feel really describes it. If a driver knows he can make a safer DRS pass within the next lap or so (and waiting a lap or so is not going to be particularly detrimental) then yes, they will not take a risky attempt if they know a successful execution is just a few corners away.

But what about when DRS doesn't solve the problem? While I think DRS trains are maybe less of a thing these days, I think they can still exist. And in a way that is showing us what it might look like if there is no DRS. Drivers have already employed the "easy button", but it's not working. They are stuck behind someone, someone is stuck behind them, and so on. So all they have left is legacy strategies for passing. And in many (most?) that also doesn't work. It may take a many laps to be resolved, or maybe not resolved at all! I think the times when it does work is when there is an underlying difference in performance anyhow (car/driver is better than the leading car/driver)

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

My view is very simple. Do away with DRS and don't replace it. At least try it in some of the sprints. See what happens. We've become totally paranoid now about drivers needing something artificial to allow them to race.

I was out of town all this past weekend so I have not yet watched the race ( I am not sure I will as reports say it was a snoozer.). So my comments regarding the race are only based upon what I have read here and elsewhere. But there is also reports that claim part of the reasoning for the lack of interesting on track action was DRS zone reduction and difficulty in passing.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...olff/10463556/

Toto's comments might be a bit of sour grapes, but I find some comments in the article interesting

Even if you are within 0.2 of a second, it is very difficult to overtake, nearly impossible to overtake, unless the other driver makes a mistake.

Azerbaijan GP race winner Sergio Perez said: “I feel these cars are generating a bit more downforce, and by generating that little more downforce, the car behind struggles a little bit more to follow.

“In my opinion, it wasn’t the right thing to shorten up the DRS, because it's getting harder to overtake than last year already in itself, so it's something we should review.”

This is the race winner complaining!

To my point I made earlier. Are we saying drivers are actively choosing to NOT pass in situations where DRS is not working for them? Drivers are actively giving up positions because it is not easy enough? If the answer to that is "no" then how do we think just dropping DRS is going to have significantly different results then what we are seeing in races in which DRS (as configured for that race) does NOT help much. Is there any logic that says it will be anything but worse than today?

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

At least try it in some of the sprints. See what happens.

I am a bit too hash on my post above (prior page). I do think they should pick a strategic sprint or two and try no DRS just to get a hard data point. The problem is that people are not liking the ongoing tweaks to sprint racing as it is. So this will be something else for teams/drivers to complain about.

Richard

[Aysedasi]

Let's face it, someone will complain about any change - to anything.....

[S griffin]

As BTCC Frog points out, the tension has been ruined by DRS. It used to be so much better when there was no guarantee the car behind would get in front. The quantity of overtakes may have increased, but it's at the expense of the quality of the racing

Villenueve at Jarama, Senna vs Mansell at Monaco and Alonso vs Schumi at Imola is proof you don't need overtaking to get you on the edge of your seat

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I imagine the DRS could be effective even if a car is following more than a second behind, rendering the number of cheap passes even higher.

The 1-second rule is unfair. The leader may get no chances of using the DRS, while other drivers may use it dozens of times.

Also, DRS is ineffective in pelotons, where all drivers except the first one use it.

My proposal is fair: every driver gets the same number of activations. And it could be used to attack or defend. Just like in IndyCar.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

The 1-second rule is unfair. The leader may get no chances of using the DRS, while other drivers may use it dozens of times.

You realise the whole point of DRS is that the car in front doesn't get it?