If you interpreted my post as having a condescending tone then know that it was not my intention.
Overtaking being difficult has been a part of F1 for a long time now, perhaps mainly as a side effect of the aero dependency, but it's been a part of the challenge. Quality over quantity, you could say. Taking that away takes away some of the novelty of an overtake. The struggle to keep up with a car you're trying to pass, timing of when to get into the turbulent air and when to back off, and whatnot are parts of the show. I believe that right now we have a good balance of quality and quantity, even though I don't particulsrly like bubblegum tyres or the occasions where DRS makes things too easy.
The point I'm trying to make is just that it's currently fine, desire the nonstop complaining, and that people need to look back even just a decade ago to how bad it can really be. Too much complaining about it and then passing gets too easy and we lose the intensity of a battle. To some extent we may have already lost that. Think about Schumacher chasing Alonso in the closing laps of Turkey 2006. Would that have been as interesting of a battle of instead of edging closer and closer in the final laps he simply flew past with DRS several laps earlier and won?
I agree that quality over quantity is the correct approach for overtaking, but I don't think you need turbulent air to achieve that. The guys in the 50s and 60d weren't exactly swapping positions like Pokemon cards.
Also, as pointed put earlier in either this thread, or one of the other F1 threads, WEC cars currently produce more downforce than an F1 car, yet they don't have nearly as much trouble following closely, in traffic. So less downforce, or more downforce, I think it's fair to say there are better ways to skin the cat than the current approach in F1.
My issue with most of the overtaking in F1 right now is that it is very difficult to get withing attacking range (about 1.5 seconds), but then once you are within that range, the overtake itself is very simple because of DRS or differences in tire wear.
A defending driver doesn't really have to defend thier position with car placement, they just have to follow the racing line and create dirty air. On the straights, the overspeed due to DRS is usually so great that a defensive move is futile. That's not the case on all tracks, but I think it's fair to say that happens on most tracks.
For some perspective on the complaining, I can think of 2 videos I came across a while back while on a YouTube rampage.
One video was of a quirky British journalist, in Monaco, presenting various opinions on the introduction of wings in F1. Some were for it, as the data showed it produced faster lap times. Others were against it, as they felt it would reduce the ability to race closely, and would make the cars much more fragile, which would take away from the show. The alternative at the time was to pursue AWD technology for enhanced mechanical grip. Of course, that didn't end up happening, and now we are where we are.
The second video I'm thinking of was a race broadcast, can't remember what race, but James Hunt was doing colour commentary, and went off on a rant about how F1 needs to forget about being cutting edge technology, forget about having roadcar relevance, and focus purely on being entertainment and a sport. Certainly you wouldn't label James Hunt a keyboard warrior?
To me, that just goes to show that there has always been very strong debate about what F1 should and should not be - but like what's been mentioned already, today we just have more access to more opinions, so perhaps the complaining seems more overwhelming. However that does not mean that it just started in the last couple of years.
