Double-DRS?

TenEightyOne · May 21, 2011

Charlie Whiting is considering using two DRS zones in races from Montreal onwards... at least according to this article on Formula1.com.

I always remember the words of Pat Symonds, roughly paraphrased as "An overtake should be like scoring a goal in football, not a 'try' in rugby".

Right now they're like pots in snooker

EDIT: Snooker's like pool... a bit...

prisonermonkeys · May 21, 2011

Not considering. Confirmed.

And there's no reason why this thread couldn't go in here. The search function isn't just there to look pretty.

TenEightyOne · May 21, 2011

interludes
Not considering. Confirmed.

The article you linked is more or less lifted from the original at F1's official site... and I fail to see how it confirms that they're not considering it?

The final confirmation will come with the software test, for now it's only highly likely.

EDIT: Reading it again I wonder if you erred in using the full stop and instead intended to use a comma? That reverses the meaning of your phrase of course.

interludes
And there's no reason why this thread couldn't go in here. The search function isn't just there to look pretty.

Thank you, I saw the thread but this is a greater development of the system and goes to a greater change of F1 - that thread is a yes/no DRS poll that's been dead for some time. I felt a separate thread was worthy for this development - but you're the boss. My apologies once again.

prisonermonkeys · May 21, 2011

TenEightyOne
The article you linked is more or less lifted from the original at F1's official site... and I fail to see how it confirms that they're not considering it?

Read Charlie Whiting's quotes:

"The DRS zone will be on the last straight and the pits straight," said Whiting when asked by AUTOSPORT to confirm where the two zones will be in Canada. "There will be one detection zone. The initial detection will be after Turn 10, then they can have another go [on the main straight]."

Although the FIA has allocated single overtaking zones so far this season, Whiting revealed that the technology had only become available to run multiple sectors ahead of the Turkish Grand Prix.

However, he considered the software to be too new to use it for the race at Istanbul Park.

"We only had the software available to us in Turkey," said Whiting. "I thought it was too new [to use it there] I wanted to make sure there were no bugs in it.

"We don't think there's anywhere suitable here because they have to be consecutive straights. It becomes more complicated the further apart they are because there's more likelihood of a change in position of the drivers. So the first realistic opportunity we felt was Montreal. In Valencia, currently, it will be between Turns 10 and 12 and between 14 and 17."

TenEightyOne
EDIT: Reading it again I wonder if you erred in using the full stop and instead intended to use a comma? That reverses the meaning of your phrase of course.

I'm an English teacher. Proper grammar is pretty much in my job description. It was always intended to be a full stop, and not a comma. Please stop trying to change the meaning of my posts.

TenEightyOne
Thank you, I saw the thread but this is a greater development of the system and goes to a greater change of F1 - that thread is a yes/no DRS poll that's been dead for some time. I felt a separate thread was worthy for this development

The moderators have no problem with old threads being revived, provided that you add something substantial or meaningful to it. In fact, they generally prefer it to new threads being created.

TenEightyOne
but you're the boss.

No, I'm not. I'm not a moderator. I was, but I gave up my powers when I started having to spend more time moderating than I was posting. Coming onto the forums felt like a bit of a chore; it stopped being fun. Since I only signed up for three months when the initial offer was made, I turned Jordan down when he asked if I wished to continue.

TenEightyOne · May 21, 2011

Having also taught English at a high level I would argue that using a full-stop separates your points.

Therefore "Not considering. Confirmed" would imply that it's confirmed that something is not being considered. "Not considering, confirmed" would imply that "considering" could be replaced with "confirmed".

Maybe it's a transatlantic difference, I just don't know... but now I see that you were offering confirmation in your links rather than attempting to disprove.

News that DRS may be used twice in a race is still, in my humble opinion, completely different from a poll that shows whether or not forum users think DRS should be introduced.

prisonermonkeys · May 21, 2011

TenEightyOne
News that DRS may be used twice in a race is still completely different from a poll that shows whether or not forum users think DRS should be introduced.

The addition of a second DRS zone is little more than an evolution of the existing model. It's not something totally revolutionary.

daan · May 21, 2011

So, instead of a thread discussing DRS with a double zone, we have a discussion about grammar and where the thread should go.

I think this is fine where it is. The other thread is asking a specific question about DRS, and this is about a development of the DRS system.

Peter. · May 21, 2011

Are you kidding me? Now every overtake on track will be artificial and not down to driver skill. :grumpy:

Stevisiov · May 21, 2011

Peter.
Are you kidding me? Now every overtake on track will be artificial and not down to driver skill.

Ardius · May 21, 2011

See, if they had decided to let the defending car use it in the second zone, maybe I would be ok with that. But to allow the attacking car to use DRS twice, even considering they might be ahead already in the second zone...is rediculous.

I hope that such extremes show how terrible DRS-boosted overtaking is and maybe, just maybe, everyone comes to their senses and actually tries again to fix the actual problem - front downforce loss following other cars in corners. The teams seem to think DRS and terrible tyres have solved everything and everyone is happy now...I fear they have become blinded in minor successes. Did anyone like the idea of DRS other than as a temporary measure? Does anyone like the idea of it becoming permanent?

Louie_Schumii · May 22, 2011

Ardius
See, if they had decided to let the defending car use it in the second zone, maybe I would be ok with that. But to allow the attacking car to use DRS twice, even considering they might be ahead already in the second zone...is rediculous.

I hope that such extremes show how terrible DRS-boosted overtaking is and maybe, just maybe, everyone comes to their senses and actually tries again to fix the actual problem - front downforce loss following other cars in corners. The teams seem to think DRS and terrible tyres have solved everything and everyone is happy now...I fear they have become blinded in minor successes. Did anyone like the idea of DRS other than as a temporary measure? Does anyone like the idea of it becoming permanent?

Will ground effect and/or fan car technology fix this front end downforce loss? Like, get rid of the front and rear wing completely so the cars don't rely on those devices to generate [some of the] grip?

Ardius · May 22, 2011

Ground effects can be used to fix that problem, yes. That was the plan with the 2013 regulations which the teams now want to scrap - much smaller and simpler front wings and more ground effects-reliant cars. With smaller or no front wings, the problem would be solved without having to rely on artificial rules to help. So instead the downforce would be generated by the floor of the car, which doesn't rely on the air flow so much as a front wing does. Or at least, isn't affected by "dirty air" like a front wing is.
The DRS was originally (at least as I understood it) a temporary measure till 2013 when it would no longer be needed. But now the teams want to scrap ground effects and continue with DRS. It seems they have got so caught up in the praise for the racing this year, they think its done the trick...when it has only masked the problem and given us relatively straight-forward battles for position. So much so that they don't see the gain in spending the money and time developing ground effects when they lack the experience with it (and so potentially could screw it up).

Its a shame that drivers can't drive defensive much nowadays it seems, which is what makes overtaking/battling for position fun. Simply placing the driver behind in front isn't the enjoyable bit, its simply a statistic.

Its times like this when FOTA should be asking the fans what they think, but alas, they only ask when they have already decided what they are doing. Perhaps the teams might not be so quick to drop ground effects (or the turbo engines) if they realised the fans don't like the racing DRS is producing. I don't feel they do realise anyway, considering they seem to want to continue the current rules only with more restrictions...which is very disappointing and not really much of a display of driving the sport forwards.

Seismica · May 22, 2011

This is kind of a joke... one DRS zone is ok, but two just takes it too far.

I'm in favour of DRS in general, but two DRS zones would make it too easy. In past races it has at least allowed the lead driver a chance to defend their position (With the exception of Turkey).

Maybe it would be doable on circuits where the straights are in different parts of the track, but if they are straight after one another....

IceMan PJN · May 23, 2011

Seismica
This is kind of a joke... one DRS zone is ok, but two just takes it too far.

I'm in favour of DRS in general, but two DRS zones would make it too easy.

I dunno. The DRS zone at Catalunya was worthless. By the time the trailing car using DRS is able to start passing the lead car, they reach the braking zone for the first corner and nobody actually gains a position. Lewis Hamilton, perhaps the current King of Overtaking, tried lap after lap to take the lead from Vettel but had to back off every single time.

Ardius · May 23, 2011

IceMan PJN
I dunno. The DRS zone at Catalunya was worthless. By the time the trailing car using DRS is able to start passing the lead car, they reach the braking zone for the first corner and nobody actually gains a position. Lewis Hamilton, perhaps the current King of Overtaking, tried lap after lap to take the lead from Vettel but had to back off every single time.

That wasn't because of the length of DRS but because of the placement. If it was placed at the start of the straight rather than the end, it would have worked a lot better.
It also doesn't help that its placed after a corner which "concertina's" the cars, in other words, a corner where cars can build up a gap and the car behind doesn't stay close, just like Australia. Compare it with Turkey, where the cars could run close through the corner and Malaysia and China where the lengths of the straights negated any concertina effect.
The corner combination of the chicane into the last corner which only allows one line creates a natural gap onto the straight meaning Hamilton couldn't keep the gap down enough for DRS to get him alongside.

The problem with Canada is that the corners there allow the cars to stay close (as we already get overtaking at Montreal anyway on the straights).

TenEightyOne · May 23, 2011

Ardius
That wasn't because of the length of DRS but because of the placement.

Yup, the chicane before the final turn at Catlunya has an elevation change, a side-to-side weight transfer and a steer-while-deccelarating profile. It's very difficult to stay close to another car through there when you're in their 'wash'.

I guess the FIA are definitely still learning - but it baffles me that with all the simulation tech available they couldn't have investigated it better before the race.

Double-DRS?

TenEightyOne

prisonermonkeys

Be Fearless

TenEightyOne

prisonermonkeys

Be Fearless

TenEightyOne

prisonermonkeys

Be Fearless

daan

Salut Gilles

Peter.

Stevisiov

GTP_Sigma

Ardius

Louie_Schumii

Ardius

Seismica

IceMan PJN

Ardius

TenEightyOne

Similar threads

Latest Posts