Jenson Button has mixed feelings about how the Drag Reduction System has contributed to overtaking in 2011.
Asked in today’s press conference why there has been much more overtaking this year he said: “I think the tyres have played a big part, and KERS.
“I don’t think we can forget about KERS. I think it’s played a big part in overtaking. Obviously we all have it, but it’s how you use it on the circuit.
“I think DRS has obviously made a couple of boring moves, but I think it’s helped tremendously. I think the good outweighs the bad, with DRS.
“The last race – it was very very difficult to overtake with DRS, for me it was impossible but it put you in an easier position to challenge later on in the lap.
“I think the changes that have been made have been great and I think we’ve just got to watch the races back and see the fights and the overtaking moves. It’s that we’re taking more risks this year, it’s a different situation than we’ve found before.
“There’s a lot of great overtaking and I think Formula 1 is in a great place. I keep saying it but it’s the truth.”
Fernando Alonso believes the new tyres are the main cause of the increase in overtaking this year.
He said: “Even without KERS or DRS, with these current tyres we would see plenty of overtaking.
“Obviously the DRS is an extra help, allowing you to overtake maybe even when you have two cars with tyres in similar condition, but that would only happen about once per race. But with these tyres you get at least ten or fifteen passing moves per race.”
2011 Hungarian Grand Prix
Image © Renault/LAT
bosyber (@bosyber)
28th July 2011, 18:17
That’s a nice way to put it Button.
unocv12
29th July 2011, 8:53
I agree. WIth you and Button.
f1geordie
28th July 2011, 18:32
I really hope Pirelli dont get pressurised into adjusting their tires for next year to be more durable, where they were for the first half of the season was fantastic. Found it really cheap that other italian tire manufacturers were taking the mick in adverts about their durability. They could have made them a bridgestone but instead followed the FIA and made them exciting and a crucial part to racing in F1.
BasCB (@bascb)
28th July 2011, 19:41
Same here on Pirelli. I hope they get a lot of positive feedback. As well from Paul Hembrey asking on Twitter how people feel about reintroducing qualifying tyres.
I think they do an amazing job, and I think its great if they keep developing but have relatively short tyre life times. Maybe they could enen have a bigger difference between the compounds.
Cluffy_Wedge
28th July 2011, 21:56
I thought they were trying to get back to there being competition between 2 and 3 stops, rather than everyone on 4?
xbx-117 (@xbx-117)
28th July 2011, 18:34
That title is incredibly misleading.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th July 2011, 18:35
As you haven’t bothered to say why you think it is misleading all I can do is explain why it isn’t: It uses two direct quotes from him which are balanced to show both sides of what he’s saying.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
28th July 2011, 18:41
I’d put it the other way round: “DRS produces ‘boring moves’ but ‘helps tremendously'”
Otherwise it sounds as if it’s more boring than helpful.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th July 2011, 19:01
“Otherwise it sounds as if it’s more boring than helpful.”
I don’t agree at all, there’s no weight given to either statement in the headline. You can’t make a reasonable judgement on that until you’ve read the article.
Your suggestion wouldn’t fit in the headline box (the current one is already a solid fit) and it would also involve editing the quote – which is not out of the question, but I prefer to keep them original where possible for obvious reasons.
Hallard
28th July 2011, 20:47
Yeah, Keith…we’re gonna need you to put the entire body of text from the article in the headline next time, ok? That way it wont be misleading. ;)
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th July 2011, 21:23
Yeah that’s pretty much what it boils down to! :-)
Shimks
29th July 2011, 0:11
I was misled too, I must say. The title reads negatively for me because you have the “but” in there. It read as if the second point outweighs the first.
“Button: DRS – Good Outweighs Bad” would have been clearer.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
29th July 2011, 0:37
I was making a constructive criticism, btw, as I’d read the whole article before reading xbx’s comment.
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
29th July 2011, 16:15
How about you just don’t use headlines, then people actually have to read the article to know what it’s about! :P
xbx-117 (@xbx-117)
28th July 2011, 18:51
As Fer no.65 said, it makes it sound like its more boring than helpful while Button said it has produced a couple boring moves but helped tremendously. Button is talking about it in a more positive manner, while the headline has it in a more neutral (as you intended), almost negative manner.
I don’t mean any of this as a slight to you, I just feel this title misrepresents what Button said, in my opinion.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th July 2011, 19:05
Not entirely – he’s said both positive and negative things and that is reflected in the headline.
You said it was “incredibly misleading”. I write for a living, you can’t expect me to be happy with that kind of criticism accompanied by no explanation whatsoever.
xbx-117 (@xbx-117)
28th July 2011, 19:24
My apologies then, regardless of how you took it, I honestly meant no slight against you. When I made the comment, the inconsistencies between the headline and what was said were obvious to me, so I felt no need to elaborate any further. I was just pointing out, as far I was concerned, the obvious.
Button does point out both a positive and a negative regarding the DRS, but while he says “a couple boring moves” as a negative, he says “its helped tremendously” as a positive. In my eyes, “tremendous” is more positive than “a couple boring moves” is negative. At this point though, we are simply going in circles (insert NASCAR reference).
If you feel differently that is your right, and also this is your website, and I have never really seen an incongruity between your headlines and articles before. I just noticed this one, and felt somewhat miffed when what I read wasn’t what I expected after seeing the headline. Maybe that’s partially my fault. Still, at the end of the day, its one article.
George (@george)
28th July 2011, 22:09
I felt the same way when I read it xbx, the title makes it sound as though Button says all the DRS moves were boring, which is quite a stretch from ‘a couple’.
I hate to use the word bias as it’s treated as a dirty word around here now, but Keith has made his position on DRS clear in the past and I think that has influenced this headline.
Not that it really matters, it just gets under my skin a little since I agree with what Button said but not with the headline.
oweng (@oweng)
28th July 2011, 22:49
To be fair to the original commentor (if that’s a word!), I thought the same. The headline suggests to me that Button’s opinion is along the lines of DRS has helped things a bit, but the moves it has created are boring.
Whereas in the article, Button’s opinion seems to be the other way round – largely positive with only a very slight negative.
It’s no big deal and I’m sure xbx-117 doesn’t need me sticking up for them! But that’s just the way it reads to me.
John H
28th July 2011, 23:52
‘Helped tremedously’ is really the quote here isn’t it?
BasCB (@bascb)
29th July 2011, 12:44
I agree with Keith about it having both, just as what Button said.
Yes, he did say it helped tremendously, but he also thinks the moves are boring.
I read that as saying he is supportive of why its been put in there, but feels its not really a good thing.
matt90 (@matt90)
28th July 2011, 22:31
I don’t agree. But I do think ‘some’ boring moves might be better. But only if you’re being incredibly picky.
David
29th July 2011, 3:32
Sorry Keith, but I’m definitely with everyone else here. It’s pretty misleading.
As someone else said: “‘Helped tremedously’ is really the quote here isn’t it?”
TED BELL
28th July 2011, 19:02
Perhaps the single most stupid new rule in all of Formula One. The DRS. Problem is the way it is being used. Having a zone where it will only work and then this area of being close enough for it to be allowed is really a poorly thought out decision. I fully understand what its purpose is and how it is supposed to improve racing.
I think the whole thing needs to be changed. If the concept is to allow a moveable wing shape to reduce drag so a car can catch up to and possible pass, then let the thing be used by a driver whenever and where ever HE fills it best be used. Just look at friday practice all of the drivers are already doing this. Watch Alonso and how he uses it. Always at a point or place where the DRS actually benefits the performance of the car.
This DRS and the zone idea are amongst the more dumb ideas that F1 is faced with in 2011. I add to the list the Pirelli tires situation ( tires that last only ten laps and then the teams have barely enough of then for a race weekend ) and then the Blown diffuser issue. Having the exhaust be used to make the car stick to the ground. There must be a better way to be seeking the advantage needed to be competitive.
I sure many of you are intrigued by the sillyness of the Pirelli issue and want to believe that this is such a great thing for F1. It is my belief that most designers would rather see tire stability and build a car around that factor than dealing with some of these less than great issues that have come into the 2011 championship.
Protest these matters and let F1 know you want better rules and better competition in the future.
George (@george)
28th July 2011, 22:19
The whole point of the DRS is to remove the penalty of losing downforce in corners, if anyone can use it all the time then the car in front will always be able to open it earlier, simply leaving the following driver at a further disadvantage.
If you haven’t noticed, all the drivers are saying that it’s the tyres that are making this season so exciting on-track.
So you dont like to see innovation in design either? Blown diffusers have nothing to do with the rules except the fact that they aren’t(weren’t) banned.
Most designers would like to see the rules relaxed completely, as Sam Michael said last weekend he’d like to have active suspension back, it’s the FIA’s job to rein them in.
I hope those quotes work, I’ve lost my buttons
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
29th July 2011, 2:01
I really like the way you can see DRS working from outside the car, not relying on an onboard shot (of “no-hands” F-duct driving!) or TV caption for KERS.
But I agree they should open it up and let the drivers use it anywhere – as you say they use it throughout practice, although the red mist may descend in a race… and they can still turn it off in the rain or the Monaco tunnel.
I wish we had tyres that would let the drivers go for it, slide the cars a bit and really race, instead of “looking after the tyres”.
Lambert
28th July 2011, 19:35
@ kieth
in a comment you said “Not entirely – he’s said both positive and negative things and that is reflected in the headline.”
however, he is more positive about DRS than the title shows. the title shows positive and negative, with no real bias towards either, however button IS biased in favour of the DRS. hence: “I think the good outweighs the bad, with DRS”
F1 98
28th July 2011, 20:25
Personaly I like the drs but the gap of the flap of the rear wing opened
Should be reduce next season
Gridlock
28th July 2011, 20:41
Broken record here, but germane: DRS in 2011 cannot be considered an experiment unless we get a race without it, to identify just what KERS and Pirelli etc are providing. There’s no point running a system designed to eradicate a problem that might not exist any more.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
28th July 2011, 20:51
I’ve often thought that DRS would have been perfect for last year. Think Hamilton and Webber coming back through the field in Australia, only to stop dead at a Ferrari road block. Bahrain as well would have been a little more interesting! We wouldn’t have had Monza though, nor the F-Duct in the first place for Button run a steep wing!
daykind
28th July 2011, 21:51
I’m not a fan of DRS, Turkey and Canada put me off, but it’s been ok in Britain and Germany.
BS
29th July 2011, 0:31
Totally agree, DRS is nice only if it’s rendered almost useless. I have a feeling this compulsive need to increase overtaking has resulted in a pretty pathetic solution. KERS and the new tires seem to work perfectly and at least it offers the same conditions for all drivers, not just trailing ones.
Since when is quantity the prime factor overtakes are measured by anyway. Tension in a race is much more enjoyable then predictable overtakes.
Martin Brundle called it correctly when Alonso overtook Webber early in the German Grand Prix. In wonder that Alonso managed to pass outside of a DRS zone, he called it a ‘pure overtake’. Summed it up. :)
Fixy (@)
29th July 2011, 15:02
FIA should look into this and try to copy the DRS “properties” from the circuits on which it was good onto the circuits on which it was bad.
LE Greys
28th July 2011, 22:47
I’m no fan of DRS either. I reckon it is entirely artificial as a way of spicing up racing. Throughout this season, we keep seeing Noah’s Ark finishes, with the cars in pairs going down the order. There is more variability at the front, but not lower down, because it is too easy to pass an out-of-place driver, so people don’t get held up so much, which shakes up the order.
Thing is, I would get rid of the parc-feme rules, reintroduce the Sunday morning warm-up and remove the restriction on numbers of engines. That produced a lot more variability in finishing order, because there were far more retirements from mechanical problems. It also pushes up costs, but that cannot be helped. How long is a race? 200 miles in 2 hours. Pushing the cars to last longer than this inevitably means that more of them do so, so the order is less likely to change. The warm-up would also allow a little more testing time each race.
Odd how more failures make things more interesting, but “All he has to do is keep going.” used to be a regular comment. Not any more. It’s more interesting if you cannot be certain they will finish the race.
Matty
29th July 2011, 0:53
I love DRS. I feel furyious when he says there’s a couple boring moves. I’ve watched him in more than a couple boring F1 races over the years. But I,m really happy for all F1 viewers now who get to enjoy proper racing.
Malibu_ GP
29th July 2011, 1:26
The headline and the overall message in the article do seem to be at odds. The shortened headline just previously submitted works much better at conveying the sentiment of the person quoted. Sarcastically stating that Keith should put the entire body of text in the headline of the article doesn’t address the fundamental issue. Which is: The headline was not quite perfect in accurately describing what Jense meant. I’m quite sure (or at least I hope) that Keith in his pursuit of making this site as great as it can be, understands Our motivation in mentioning this…
Malibu_ GP
29th July 2011, 1:56
Or at least Mine. ;)
Wooolfy
29th July 2011, 1:59
@ Matty, I totally agree with you. I’m new to F1 2-3 yrs and absolutely enjoy the formula today: DRS, tyres and KERS. I hated the processional races of old and embrace the fact that with some risk, overtaking is more possible this year. The challenge to the FIA is finding the perfect DRS zone(Length and location(s)) at each event to strenghten DRS by making overtaking more possible but not too easy.
Tom
29th July 2011, 8:48
Way to twist Button’s words, Keith. Have you been learning from Rupert Murdoch?
You make it sound like Button doesn’t like DRS overall, when he clearly said different. Perhaps Sky will hire you, Keith.
Patrickl
29th July 2011, 9:46
The tyres create the boring “overtakes”. Indeed DRS makes matters worse in that situation, but they are not the cause of it.
In a normal racing situation, with both cars on the same condition tyres, DRS has created good overtaking opportunities. As has KERS.
Tricky
29th July 2011, 12:59
Poor old DRS. When we have no DRS passes its useless, and when we have some it is making things too easy.
In Germany it looked to me like there were more overtakes on the pit straight than in the DRS zone. Probably the DRS was still helping, it put the second car in very close before the chicane, and the fact that the first car had to be so defensive compromised it for the last corners. But the second car still had to make the pass on the pit straight, and make it stick.
And having 2 overtaking zones make KERS more effective, the car in front cannot push to defend twice…
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
29th July 2011, 17:33
Button put it well, I don’t think anyone could argue that it has created both good (China) and bad (Turkey) races. Most of the time it’s presence is a good thing
Jeffrey Powell
29th July 2011, 20:29
Making it possible for a faster car to overtake using the DRS system was surely done to negate to some degree the ‘Aero Block’ when the following car got to close. Because the current F1 cars are virtually impossible to pass even by a much faster car on most circuits I think it was a fair compromise. I for one would like to see a large reduction in the aero effect but that’s not going to happen so we are left with DRS. But why if we have an answer to the lack of overtaking do we need these non racing tyres. The reason the cars ARE so reliable this year is because the tyres are dictating the pace ‘SLOW’.Of course all the drivers are saying how much fun it is because they don’t want to rock the boat, to me it seems to much like a contrived video game.