FIA considering DRS ban at Eau Rouge at Spa

2011 Belgian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Alonso climbs Eau Rouge in 2010

The FIA may ban drivers from using the Drag Reduction System at Eau Rouge at all times during the Belgian Grand Prix.

Race director Charlie Whiting confirmed to F1 Fanatic the step is being considered solely for the famous corner and not any other points on the Spa-Francorchamps circuit.

Eau Rouge is taken flat out in dry conditions and last year some drivers were using their F-ducts to carry more speed through it, which required some of them to tackle it with one hand off the wheel.

There are concerns drivers may suffer a high-speed crash if they attempt to take Eau Rouge using DRS.

Rubens Barrichello voiced this concern before the season began, saying Eau Rouge could be “too loose” if it was tackled with DRS.

“We’re going to see crashes going on,” he said. “And that’s not the purpose.

“You’re going to gamble. I mean, last year we had to raise the knee to make it work, and I went through Eau Rouge with one leg, and that’s not the purpose.”

Mercedes expect drivers will use DRS over 63% of the lap at Spa-Francorchamps, more than any other circuit bar Monza.

The FIA has only banned the use of DRS at one other corner previously, in the tunnel during the Monaco Grand Prix weekend.

A final decision on whether the ban will happen is expected tomorrow.

2011 Belgian Grand Prix

    Browse all 2011 Belgian Grand Prix articles

    Image © Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    90 comments on “FIA considering DRS ban at Eau Rouge at Spa”

    1. How does the DRS effect compare to the F-Duct from 2010? As far as I’m aware people were stalling the rear wing before they even hit Eau Rouge/Radillon and we didn’t see any accidents at that part of the course. I believe the only issue last year was that drivers were taking the sequence one-handed.

      1. The drag reduction effect of DRS is considerably stronger.

        1. I have a better question.

          How much downforce does 2011 rear wing with DRS activated generate compared to say a 1995 rear wing?

          1. A DRS-activated wing produces far less than a 1995 wing…given that a 1995 rear wing produces more downforce than a 2011 rear wing anyway.

            1. Why do you assume a 1995 wing would have had more downforce than a 2011 wing?

              The 2011 wing is smaller, certainly, but 16 years of aerodynamic development should mean more downforce per unit of wing area.

            2. I thought in the 90’s eau rouge was still a challenge, suggesting that the rear downforce of cars then was much lower than now.

              Although safety should always be a concern, a lot of drivers express disappointment that eau rouge is so easy now. This seems like the perfect way to restore the challenge. The current safety of the cars and I imagine the high quality of crash protection on such a notorious corner would make it okay. It would be a shame to keep the corner castrated because the drivers are scared of it when it must have been revised for safety since it was last a challenge anyway.

      2. I think its comparable to the McLaren F ducts, but it might be a bit better even.

        Personally I am all for letting them try it out and see Vettel do a lap over a second in front of everyone else for the thrill.

        But I expect it will happen, just like they did for the Monaco tunnel (which made a bit more sense, as its enclosed and would be troublesome to clean up and get a chopper to).

        1. Yes, I have that feeling as well, they always have to go and spoil the fun.

      3. I expect the Merc teams to be pretty quick around this track. They have really good top speeds, so this track might just suit them perfectly.

    2. eau rouge & no drs – flat.
      eau rouge & drs – test of skill / kahoonas

      i know which i’d prefer to see….

      1. Of cours we’d probably all see the latter of the two, but with that comes the risk of a very very big accident. Would you be prepared to see a driver injured, possibly killed just to see who has the biggest balls?

        1. scorpion760 (@)
          22nd August 2011, 12:41

          You can have a big accident at any corner on any track. They might as well stop racing now and sit on PS3 consoles while we watch yawn.

          1. but only if they’ve modelled the safety car correctly :)

        2. of course not, however some of the ‘classic’ corners are being neutered by current aero tech. eau rouge used to be a test of skill. it’s now flat – and may still be with drs enabled. the 190r at suzuka is flat. it didn’t used to be.
          i’m just concerned that the yardsticks we used to have are a bit shorter.

          1. It’s 130R ;)

            I thought it had been changed a couple of years back to make it a bit tighter so it’s not flat any more?

            Certainly it’s a sight harder in GT5 than it was in GT4. ;)

        3. Would you be prepared to see a driver injured, possibly killed just to see who has the biggest balls?

          But if safety has been improved over the last 12 years, then there’s a lower chance of people being injured or killed than in these accidents where the drivers walked away unharmed?

      2. we’d see the red bulls easily take eau rogue flat with DRS open though. not a good prospect for me.

        also i fear mclaren will suffer at spa because their top speed with DRS open is quite slow. and during qualy, the whole track is basically DRS territory.

        1. I guess that is one of the points McLaren has been working on and got more or less right in the past 2 races actually

    3. I think it would be a great idea for it to be banned at eau rouge. Much like it was while going through the tunnel in monaco.
      No use in waiting for an accident before taking action. Besides, it’s not really going to change much.

      Kudos to the FIA if they ban it for eau rouge

      1. The drivers should man up. If they don’t think they can make it through Eau Rouge with the DRS open, then they shouldn’t use it. Safety standards in the sport are so high that if someone were to go off, they’d be very protected.

        1. Absolutely agree PM. Drivers are not forced to use it. Driving at the limit is what racing is all about. Yes there’s risk, but with risk, and challenge, comes the difference between great drivers and merely good. FIA shouldn’t ban different aspects of tech here and there to improve safety, instead, it should look at corner width, levels of protection inside the car (though it already does all that).

        2. We have the words of Rubens, what do guys like Seb, Lewis and Fernando think about that? I think we will find conflicting perspectives…

          But if FIA is there to protect the show and nobody wants to risk a death or even a serious wound to, eventually, harm F1’s popularity so I understand their move.

          1. But I simply don’t see a crash at Eau Rouge with 2011’s safety standards injuring anyone, nevermind killing anyone. It was safe enough in 1999 for people to crash, and is supposed to be safer now with tarmac run-off.

            And it’s not even like crashing is guaranteed or likely to block the track, as was the case with Monaco’s tunnel.

            1. Its notoriety seems to have been built up, so that any prospect of crashing there suggests ‘death.’ Did Rubens have any concerns when he raced with low downforce 10 years ago? I doubt it. Perhaps it’s time for him to move on from F1 if he’s too scared. Of course I believe it’s probably about time for him to move on anyway, but that’s not the point. And it isn’t only car safety that has improved noticeably. Remember Perez at Monaco? I’m sure eau rouge has advanced enough barriers- otherwise spa wouldn’t be allowed the host F1. Does Rubens fear a punctured tyre every time he goes through eau rouge? That would be just as bad. Sure, a crash may be more likely with DRS, but that’s true of using DRS on any corner.

        3. Agreed. The reason williams want it banned is because they stand to gain time if it is. The top 3 could probably easily take that corner with DRS on, while teams will less downforce probably cant.

        4. Many will try to use it to have a performance advantage even if they feel they’ll go off, or maybe some team member will tell them to use it. By banning it, safety for all drivers is much easier to achieve.

        5. streetfightingman
          22nd August 2011, 17:18

          100% agree.

          Or might as well go ahead and ban all corners that aren’t 100% throttle. No?

          1. Yeah, ban throttles while your at it.

    4. scorpion760 (@)
      22nd August 2011, 12:39

      They might as well stick a robot in the car next, last time I looked drivers were paid to race and think for themselves.

      If they think it’s safe after a few laps of increasing speed then what’s the problem.

      They could sit on the pit wall next with RC units and call it RC F1 just in case one of them crashes.

    5. Oh come on. When DRS came out, the first thing I thought was : great, let’s see who has the guts to use it in Eau rouge on its flying lap!a bit like before, when it was all about applying the right amount of throttle up there.

      I know safety comes first but sometimes we should maybe let the drivers decide whether they are ready to make the gamble. Getting it wrong will probably cost them a place on the grid (if the car is fully wrecked) so the price will be high!

      1. same here Tango.

        1. I quite frankly think this is just plain silly. It’s not a ‘gamble’, it’s a test of driver skill. Driving in the rain is a ‘gamble’, too, then. If Barrichello doesn’t want to use the DRS at Eau Rouge, he’s not obliged to…

    6. As was the case at Monaco, to me this seems tantamount to an admission that the run-off at the corner is inadequate:

      If DRS is unsafe for Monaco, then Monaco is unsafe for F1

      1. I agree. And as we saw in 2007 with Kubica’s crash. F1 cars these days are so safe that even hitting a concrete wall flat-out is survivable.

        1. True, but I still wouldn’t like seeing a repeat of that one anytime soon.

          1. Nor would I.

      2. Hadn’t thought of that. That raises the question – is there room for more run off? And, would it upset people changing that part of such a classic track?

      3. It is such a fast corner that no amount of run-off (in terms of amount that can realistically be given) can make the corner ‘safe’ in terms of what the FIA expect from modern tracks, same as Monaco. But then the chicane in Monaco didn’t have 200m of run-off the FIA would normally like despite the high approach speed, and cars are allowed to drive towards that. And when somebody does crash there, the incredible advances in crash-barriers do their job.

    7. This is the reason why I hate DRS…
      I mean, I agree to ban DRS at Eau Rouge, because of danger…but at the end the decision to take Eau Rouge with or without DRS activated is of the driver…just as taking it flat or not, just as going through Lesmos quicker or slower, just as breaking earlier or later before other bends. I know that Eau Rouge is somehow particular, but there are dozens of other bends you would’n like to crash in, and as a driver you’re asked to show your skills, to show your beavery. Just there! This makes the difference between the drivers. The good and the less good.
      I would definitely cut DRS from F1.
      It is clear that in this case

      1. Agreed David B…I haven’t been a fan of gadgets like this one from the getgo, and now with this debate going on I wish they would ban DRS all together. Seems in the extreme cases if it isn’t too dangerous it promotes passes that make the one being passed look like he’s standing still. Not my cup of tea and gives me more reason than ever to state that imho they need to stick with grippy tires, less downforce through wing limitations ie. less aero dependancy, less gadgets, more stability in the rules, and let the drivers duke it out on the track so that we know we are seeing driver vs. driver, not gadget vs. gadget…

        While I appreciate RB’s concerns about safety, I think he comes off sounding silly in that nobody is suddenly putting a gun to anyone’s head to go so fast they will crash…what happend to the driver making that decision, as many are saying here? What about all the other high speed corners that could see crashes?

        Too many variables for my liking…simplify and stop the aero dependancy.

      2. I appreciate your point of view and accept that DRS and the resulting mid season tinkering pollutes the purity of F1 but I can understand their concern with Eau Rouge. It is a unique sequence in F1, the approach from La Source is downhill and they arrive at the bottom of Eau Rouge already in 7th gear and approaching 200 mph. At this point the car compresses momentarily and then bounces back which, makes the car go light momentarily. The car then climbs the uphill chicane which then levels out for the run down to Les Coombes. As the car levels over the crest it again goes light momentarily. I believe these “light” moments could be amplified with DRS engaged making the car a real handful, especially as tyre grip fades. A spin into the wall at such speeds whilst likely to be survivable would not be pleasant at all and the car would be completely destroyed. They would probably have to right off the chassis. It makes as much economic sense as safety sense to get the drivers to leave the wing in place just for those few seconds.

        1. The problem is exactly that “DRS yes – DRS no” can jeopardize some of the best corners in F1 tracks.

        2. Logical, coefficient…well summed up as to why they should leave the wing in place for these ‘light’ moments of Eau Rouge.

          My thing is just that it’s a gadget and if it can actually be dangerous at times, never mind the fact that often enough this device means big speed differences between two cars coming up to a corner before which DRS was allowed, tells me they should just ban it altogether.

          Controversy and phoney passes equals banning it and simplifying, says me…

          1. When DRS was first introduced I found it quite enjoyable if a little artificial. However, as time has gone by I’ve grown tired of the device: it either makes overtakes a walk in the park or doesn’t work at all; there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for it which is where it should be in my opinion.

            If it’s kept in the regs it should only give enough advantage to the pursuing driver to just about feel he might be able to have a go under braking, not breeze past half way down the straight. The speed advantage of the overtaking car has been so great that it’s looked a bit like whacky races at times. Other times it’s done nothing.

            I also feel that the driver that gets overtaken should be able to immediately deploy DRS to have a go back. This would require lifting the in race restrictions of the device.

            I think we’ll see the device around for a while though because the word on the street is that Pirelli tyre compounds which have contributed so much to the overtaking are set to become more conservative and durable in the wake of a derogatory ad campaign by a rival tyre manufacturer that pokes fun at the Pirelli’s lack of durability.

            Maybe we need to go back to basics and reduce the scope for developing the aero platform even further and move the emphasis back towards mechanical grip by increasing the track width of the cars or something. That said, I’m not sure I’d like to see the giant tyres return.

            1. I think we’ll see the device around for a while though because the word on the street is that Pirelli tyre compounds which have contributed so much to the overtaking are set to become more conservative and durable in the wake of a derogatory ad campaign by a rival tyre manufacturer that pokes fun at the Pirelli’s lack of durability.

              Isn’t this just one tyre manufacturer in Italy who’ve run a couple of newspaper ads? Let’s not blow it out of proportion.

              The teams are getting more life out of the tyres but that’s partly to be expected as they gain more experience of them.

    8. Unlike the Monaco ban, I think that an Eau Rouge ban would be beneficial.

      My thoughts on the Monaco ban were that if the drivers can’t hack the increased risk of using DRS in the tunnel then they shouldn’t use it. The fact is that the tunnel is an area where (in my opinion) most of the cars should be able to use it because its relatively low speed and less reliant on aerodynamics.

      However, somewhere like Eau Rouge is incredibly high speed and aerodynamically demanding. Some teams simply won’t be able to use DRS. The gains that can be made there are huge.

      Now I must stress that in terms of this being F1, those teams that have invested money in the technology should be able to use DRS there. But in terms of the result and the interest in qualifying, it’ll be better for the viewer if they can’t use it there. And if the DRS is about anything its about increasing the enjoyment of the viewer…

      1. Just speaking for myself and not arguing with you, DRS does not increase the enjoyment…it might be there to promote passing in a formula that insists on remaining so aero dependant that a faster car can barely get by a slower one once in it’s dirty air, but to me seeing a car pass another using DRS is to me simply seeing a car get past because it had a device, not because the driver was racing by the seat of his pants and outskilled or outrisked his competitor. DRS just dumbs down the passing for me, and the fact that now it can also be dangerous at times means they should ban it and make the car less aero dependant while they have stickier tires now.

        1. Well regardless of what the actual effect of the DRS is, I believe it was introduced primarily as a response to those fans who wanted more overtaking. For that reason its there to improve the show.

          For what its worth I do agree with you, but for its purpose to be achieved I actually think that getting rid of the DRS for Eau Rouge is a good idea.

    9. I could understand the part-ban at Monaco – the tunnel is pretty dangerous and most crashes in there would bring out a red flag.

      But Eau Rouge has some run off, everyone takes it flat anyway and I honestly don’t see it as dangerous enough to warrent this. If a driver thinks he can’t make it with the DRS open, then he won’t open it!

    10. Absolutely they should do what is safe. F1 is dangerous and freak accidents can happen anywhere and anytime, but if you can foresee it you should prevent it before it happens. Too often nothing is done about a safety problem until an accident happens, even when it can be foreseen (remember Burti just before Blanchimont in 2001? In the commentary Brundle was talking about how he had looked at the naked tyre wall earlier in the week while walking the track and was worried by it then.)

    11. Keith – never mind a picture of ‘Nando, this is a heaven sent opportunity to put up a picture of JV – or Zonta – or both if possible! Remember their synchronised shunts of a few years ago? Quality Cohones!

      1. i think that was more a case of stupidity than balls.

    12. Let the drivers work it out for themselves.

      If it’s too dangerous to use it then they can decide.

      1. That would require a degree of personal responsibility and as such it’s never going to happen.

    13. its a pretty general thing that we complain about, driver skill not being pushed enough these days relative to the past.

      its ridiculous to think these drivers are not good enough to decide wether or not they will be able to use DRS up eau rouge.

      Its not a test about who has balls. its a test of who has the best car, the most driver skill, and who is able to accept that the package they have and judge wether or not its going to be good enough to use the DRS or not.

      I dont understand some peoples points, that drivers in slower cars will try to risk using the DRS, which could lead to a crash. I dont feel the same, as they are slower over the lap anyway, slower in a few turns. However they dont arrive at those turns and bin it to try to match the faster cars…

    14. As many good reasons as there are for this, I just don’t like the idea of stepping in to “save drivers from themselves”. If you open the DRS and go off, that’s the risk you chose to take. Blaming it on having to do it for laptime is a poor excuse – what’s more important, a tenth or your health? If a driver chooses the former, that’s their business.

      On the other hand, I have always been a critic of allowing full DRS in qualifying because it gives the advantage to cars that have better downforce already, thus spreading the gap. So on balance I don’t mind this idea, but I don’t like it either.

      1. It’s a difficult judgement. I too think we could leave it up to the drivers.

        If we get a big shunt at Eau Rouge, there’ll probably be loads of people pointing fingers for not having thought of this.

        On the other hand, no one is stopping drivers from opening their DRS early when exiting a corner. That can potentially be dangerous aswell and we leave that up to the sanity of the drivers. Cars with more downforce can open their DRS earlier aswell, but we haven’t seen a spin-o-rama because of that.

    15. I think the danger from DRS comes from being able to switch it on and off during a corner; if partway through the corner a driver feels he doesn’t need all that downforce anymore, he might open the rear wing and could be caught out if he misjudged it.

      The difference with general driver skill and judging DRS, in my opinion, is that you can go a little easier on the throttle, for example, but DRS open or closed is a big step.

      The above argument does not imply that I’m in favour of the ban, however. In race conditions, with varying fuel loads and tyre degradation, the car is continually changing and you have to maximize every lap, which might be tricky. In qualifying, however, for that single lap on new tyres and low fuel (hence a predictably-handling car), I think the choice should be left to the drivers.

    16. why are they complicating things? Spa have a lot of straight lines use the DRS zone in other place. periot

      1. This is a case of being open during the quali. No DRS will be open during the race in eaur rouge.

    17. As far as I can see, the problem with DRS is not that downforce is decreased ubt instead that the ratio of downforce produced across the car is shifted towards the front, causing instability and oversteer.

      Having said that I would still very much like to see drivers finding Eau Rouge a true challenge again. It may still be an intense corner physically and mentally, but is less of a challenge to drive. Hopefully we won’t see any accidents, the only real DRS incident I remember being Adrian Sutil’s spin in Austrailia. I’ve watched a few races at spa and been around it on track days and all I can say is that if you end up on the runoff at either the left or on your right at the top of the corner you are going to have a crash. A quick search of youtube can confirm this for anyone interested.

      Let’s hope they test it out, giving the drivers themselves the oppertunity to make an informed decision because at the end of the day, they are the ones who would be affected by the ban, not the spectators.

      1. I think you’re right – it’s not about reduced downforce per se, but the change in the front/rear distribution of the downforce and the knock-on effects on handling.

        If there are going to be concerns about the safety of DRS on long, fast corners does this mean we’re likely to see similar restrictions on Curve Grande at Monza, 130R at Suzuka or the run up to the finish line at Interlagos? I suppose a case can be made for Eau Rouge on the grounds that, although its now easily flat, it does require high speed direction changes (left/right/left). If taken (fully or partially) with the DRS open then the potential is certainly there for a big accident.

        That said, I’d quite like it to be left to driver discretion as a matter of skill and bravery. They’re meant to be the best in the world and they’re paid accordingly, so why not let them prove it?

    18. I think it’s a bit thick to be honest if they do it. If the car doesn’t have enough grip or downforce to take the corner with DRS then that’s where the driver should use some judgement and don’t press the button. At the end of the day it’ll be whether the driver overcooked things rather than DRS if there’s a crash in my mind.

    19. Don’t ban it.
      If the driver’s feel it is unsafe, they have the option to not use it if they don’t wish, if someone can take that corner with DRS enabled, they should be able to.

      The drivers advocating the ban are effectively asking for the advantage gained by being more confident to be eliminated so that they can remain competitive without any risk.

    20. Question: Do you think this will favour McLaren?

      1. It could because their DRS is not one for the straight line speed but for the stability when braking.

      2. It seems Red Bull can deploy it anywhere due to the amount of down-force applied on the car and this may disadvantage them as they can possibly make it work through Eau Rouge.

    21. Eau Rouge has long been held up as an example of the perfect corner, a representation of everything that Formula 1 is.

      Sadly, however, the challenge has long since faded away. The advent of aerodynamics has meant that drivers simply have to keep their foot down and they will drive straight through. But the DRS removes aerodynamic downforce, which would make Eau Rouge much harder.

      And now the FIA has to go and ban it. Thanks, guys.

    22. I was in favour of the ban at Monaco, because the change in light levels and the difficulty of clearing a crashed car from an enclosed tunnel are very unusual factors (and the open wing wasn’t going to make a huge difference at that point of the track anyway). But Spa… I really don’t understand.

      F1 performance in the 60s and 70s were shaped to some extent by the element of driver bravery, i.e. how close to the limit a driver was prepared to get, and for how long – in the knowledge that any small mistake would almost inevitably result in a broken car or worse. I’m not saying that F1 doesn’t require courage and confidence now, but with today’s hugely increased safety factors and runoff areas, many of the best drivers will now lap within a tenth of what their car is capable of, all day long.

      Until 2007/8, when aerodynamic advances meant that Eau Rouge became flat for most cars, the corner was one of the last that acted as a true test of bravery and confidence. The drivers loved it for that very reason. It would be a real shame to nanny the drivers to the extent of making a special rule change to neuter of the best corners in Formula 1.

    23. It’s not a matter of overhaul down force. It’s a matter of balance change from the rear of the car to the front of the car.

    24. I’d ban the DRS at Spa altogether. I don’t think it’s really needed over there!

    25. I was in support of the ban in the tunnel at Monaco, however, I don’t really think it’s necessary at eau rouge. You will be able to open the DRS long before entering eau rouge so you aren’t going to have a sudden dump of aero half way through and as long as they know what the aero is going to be going through there then they can feel their way through it. It is actually down to driver skill in this case.

      I also think that eau rouge is nowhere near as dangerous as the tunnel. I agree that it’s not the best place to go flying off the track at high speed as shown by the two BAR’s a few years ago but there is plenty of bouncing and spinning room without anything nasty happening – the most dangerous impacts now are spearing at 90 degrees into a wall and that’s not going to happen on that corner – you will almost always loose grip at the same point (going over the brow of the hill) and it will end up in a spinning deflection off the angled wall.

      It would have been nice to see them balancing the cars through eau rouge… But there you go.

    26. So what the FIA is saying is that they dont trust the most talented drivers on the planet to decide whether or not its safe to deploy DRS in free practice or qualifying.

      1. In their own cars, which they probably know better than the back of their hands. Which they probably know better than their own children.

    27. It will give a too large of an advantage to people in SPA.

    28. I totally supported the ban on DRS in the tunnel at Monaco – because if you give the drivers a tool, they will use it. No exceptions. It’s not about who has the biggest plums, it’s about being a racing driver and wanting to be the fastest.

      But around Eau Rouge? It’s simply not the corner it was. In fact, I’d suggest that Turn 8 at Istanbul, the four-apexed left hander, is more challenging; Copse Corner at Silverstone similar in terms of changing direction at very high speed and hoping you have “enough” downforce. Pouhon even, later in the lap at Spa. So why the paranoia about Eau Rouge?

      1. I believe it’s a question of run off areas…At Eau Rouge they are really quick and with a very little run off area…

    29. That fearsome corner again. I love Eau Rouge.

      Barriers are inexplicably close to the track even now after the run-off has been extended in 2002. The ones on the top of the hill have not been moved, and are the site of some ferocious crashes – Villeneuve, Zonta and Webber on an F3000 weekend come to my mind.

      Let’s assume a restriction-free environment which I usually advocate. The problem is everybody would at least try to take it flat out with DRS on, but one can simply cannot make a mistake in Raidillion, otherwise he flies off the track almost literally at 300 kph or so. Maybe some simulation would help.

      1. thats what simulators are for.

        1. Exactly: the teams and drivers should be the ones to figure out if they can do it or not. Although as I saw BasCB say on the first page, it might lead to Vettel leading the field by a second, so be it – finally a cool pole by him. Oh, well, won’t be happening.

    30. doesnt make any sense.

      in most corners, you dcannot go flat because you would most probably crash. so….you lift off and sometimes brake to make the corner. its the drivers decision how much to brake or how mouch to lift off. its part of their skill to be on the limit.

      same applies to the DRS. it should be their judgement whether or not to risk opening the DRS. if a driver feels he can manage i say let him. think of DRS as another means of controlling the car. i feel the FIA is becoming to health and safety for my taste. its like banning drivers from going flat out in a corner because they might crash. how far is this going to go? next year we are probably going to have speed limits and speed cameras at this rate.

    31. Ask Villenueve and Zonta – they know that corner well, as pointed out in a recent article on this site.

    32. We are talking about the best drivers in world. If they cannot manage a DRS button safely, maybe they should hand back their licenses. They aren’t forced to use it anywhere. They choose to press the button when allowed to do so.

      1. This is F1. Not Death Race 2000.

        They don’t know the cars as well as the engineers and people that build the cars do.

        Remember that the DRS button cuts the down-force like an on-off switch. It doesn’t do it in a progressive manner.

        The other problem that F1 has, is that it can’t be seen, as a global sport, to be risking the lives of people when their attention has been drawn to a particular problem beforehand.

        Sometimes you just have to pay the price of being popular.

      2. We are talking about the best drivers in world.


    33. i think this decision will be in favor of Ferrari & Mclaren because:
      1-the advantage that red bull have from the DRS will disappear
      2-the engine&Kers of both Ferrari& Mclaren are more powerful

    34. If it were up to me, I would ban DRS all together. It’s got nothing to do with driver quality.

    35. I said it when this was raised at Monaco and I’ll say it again now: Do the FIA think the drivers are complete idiots? All season long we have seen drivers either not using DRS where they need all of the downforce the car can offer or waiting until they have enough grip on the exit of a corner before deploying DRS, so why do the FIA assume that it will be any different with Eau Rouge?

      If a driver isn’t comfortable deployong DRS through Eau Rouge (as Rubens indicated above) then he won’t, if he is comfortable he will and will gain an advantage…it is that simple.

    36. Do the FIA think the drivers are complete idiots?

      One or two, maybe.

      Chances are that it’s probably quicker to go through Radillion with the DRS inactive anyway.

    37. Am I the only one who thinks Rubens must have some incredible dirt virtually everyone in the press? Like he threw an F1 Press Party, got everyone hookers, and rigged the place with cameras?

      How else could one explain the fact that nobody comes out and calls him a pussy for repeatedly whining about safety every 3.3 races (on average)?

    38. I don’t understand why DRS has to be activated in such an odd way, using one knee or having to drive just with one hand. Do you guys know if any team has a DRS button on the steering wheel.

      1. They do use a button on the steering wheel:

        Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons – and what they all do

        You’re thinking of the F-duct.

    Comments are closed.