Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Spa-Francorchamps, 2013

Raikkonen has doubts over Lotus pace at Monza

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Spa-Francorchamps, 2013In the round-up: Kimi Raikkonen points out Lotus have not done as well on low-downforce tracks such as Monza, scene of next week’s race.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Kimi Raikkonen on the 2013 Italian Grand Prix (Lotus)

“Low downforce has not always been the best for our car, but the factory has been working hard to get more speed and stability for us with some changes to the car.”

Lotus: money not issue for Raikkonen (Autosport)

“Lotus says that proving it can deliver a strong car next year, rather than giving reassurances on money, is the key to it securing Kimi Raikkonen for the 2014 Formula 1 season.”

Rookie diary – Caterham?s Giedo van der Garde (F1)

“The race in Canada was tough. I made a mistake there that I apologised for immediately and I?ve made sure that I used what happened there positively so I can keep improving.”

Shell: it’s time to separate the sponsor from the sport (Greenpeace)

“Join us in sending a message to Shell that the Arctic is not its test track. Tell Shell that you can love F1 and polar bears, too.”

Roebuck?s legends: Monaco 1972 (MotorSport)

“Drenched through, teeth chattering, I kept a shaky lap chart, routinely checking on the BRM?s lead, and assuming that Ickx was saving his attack for the late stages; back then, there was no question of halting the race early ?ǣ indeed there was not even the ??two-hour? rule, at which point races are now automatically ended. No, it was 80 laps, and it would take as long as it took.”


Comment of the day

There were loads of interesting responses to yesterday’s articleon DRS> Here are two very different views:

You know what almost killed my passion for F1? Multi-billion dollar parades.

DRS does one thing and it does it well: it eliminates (part of) the negative effects that a front-running car has on the downforce available to an approaching car. If it were nothing more than a gimmick, we?d see car B overtake car A in the first DRS zone, car A overtaking car B again in the second DRS zone, et cetera. Which is something that rarely happens.

So what DRS does, is save a faster car ? this part is essential! ? approaching a slower opponent from being held up. The opposite happened all the time in the not too distant past; anyone remember the Trulli trains or Ferrari?s 2010 Abu Dhabi debacle?

DRS is an artificial measure, of course, but it?s something that the FIA had to create because the teams couldn?t agree on a more thourough solution to the problem of turbulent air. The original proposal for 2014 was to exchange parts of the aerodynamic advantages gained from wings for underbody aero.

I am very happy with DRS ? as well as with Pirelli?s high-degradation tyres as a matter of fact ? but I do agree that DRS should (have) be(en) a stop-gap measure until the problem of turbulent air disturbing the airflow over the following car is fixed in a more thorough manner.

Not just DRS, the whole sport in general. Going to a live race is not an option, it?s a waste of far too much time, money and energy to be enjoyable. Watching on TV has become a juggle of HD BBC coverage with a coverage team that I?m not overly keen on, or a Sky Go stream which often crawls to a JPEG slideshow.

The racing isn?t all that great, the cars are irrelevant and ever-converging, the drivers are little more than mannequins with pull-string voiceboxes, the tracks are becoming increasingly vast and grey, in places with no real right to be holding such an event, and the politics becomes the main story most weekend.

But all of this is OK, because there are tens and dozens and scores of cheaper, better, more interesting motor racing series out there with a myriad of different and wonderful cars and drivers with personalities. And they?re all racing. Side by side, nose to tail. All the time. From lights to flag.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Liedra and Fritz Oosthuizen!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Miguel Angel Guerra, who had one of the shortest ever F1 careers, turns 60 today.

Guerra failed to qualify in three races for Osella at the start of 1981. He made it onto the grid at Imola but tangled with Eliseo Salazar on the first lap and crashed, injuring his ankle. He subsequently returned to racing in his native Argentina.

Image ?? Lotus/LAT

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 62 comments on “Raikkonen has doubts over Lotus pace at Monza”

    1. Mclaren (@ahmej010gmail-com)
      31st August 2013, 0:16

      I share Kimi’s doubts; this is a Mercedes weekend. Ferrari will be competitive as they have been all year long on low downforce circuits. I expect Lewis to leave monza sub 50 points behind Vettel and for the two to fight it out over the remaining 7 rounds. I had a feeling at the start of the season that this is a Hamilton year, and i still stick to that gut feeling.

      1. I don’t think you can discount Red Bull now having seen Spa and Canada. They seem to have a very efficient low-downforce package themselves…

        1. @vettel1
          You cannot compare Spa and Montreal to the Monza. For granted, those two tracks require low downforce, but Monza is on a whole other planet in that aspect.

          1. @kingshark Yet since 2010, cars that performed well on Montreal and Spa also did well similarly well at Monza, like McLaren in 2010 winning both Montreal and Spa and finishing second in Monza, also Ferrari doing well on all three expect maybe Spa; 2011 with Red Bull only just missing on that Montreal victory, and in 2012 we had McLaren winning all three.

            I see no reason to believe why Red Bull will not be fighting for victory in Monza.

            1. @guilherme

              Yet since 2010, cars that performed well on Montreal and Spa also did well similarly well at Monza.

              How so? Ferrari never finished on the podium in Spa, yet had racing winning pace at all the Monza and Montreal races bar Italy 2011. For the rest, you make some good points.

              I see no reason to believe why Red Bull will not be fighting for victory in Monza.

              I never said they wouldn’t. ;-)

          2. @kingshark absolutely Monza has unique track characteristics; after all, it’s easily the fastest track on the calendar!

            However, @guilherme raises some very good points: it is the tendency that cars which are fast at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve and Spa tend to also be fast at Monza (particularly regarding the due to their similarities).

            Also, ultimate top speed isn’t a necessity as 2011 proved. Vettel was stone dead last in the speed traps in 2011 (13.6mph slower than the fastest car) yet qualified nearly half a second ahead and won by nearly 10 seconds.

            Now I know 2011 was unique in a way in that because the RB7’s EBD was so effective that they would just decimate everybody through the corners but they don’t need to be that extreme this time round. They can run extremely skinny wings as they tried in practice for Belgium and then rely on the efficiency of their diffuser to make up the time through the corners. So although by no means am I expecting them to be anything like as competitive as they were in 2011 but they definitely shouldn’t be discounted!

      2. The thing I find very discomforting is that no matter what happens Vettel seems to get away with a podium . That’s a bad day in office for him I suppose . Really itching my neck :-P (you can’t blame me for wishing for a closer season) . Perhaps, that is a testament to his talents . RBR may be the fastest but he still drags it to the podium every single time . I just feel it might change in Monza .For that every one has to come to the party and attack Vettel . Lewis ,Alonso,Kimi, Rosberg. Let’s see what happens .

        1. I just feel it might change in Monza .For that every one has to come to the party and attack Vettel . Lewis ,Alonso,Kimi, Rosberg. Let’s see what happens .

          Vettel DNF and ALonso win. You heard it here first ;)

      3. “Ferrari will be competitive as they have been all year long on low downforce circuits.”

        They have been really strong on high down force tracks like Barcelona and Sepang too. They’ve had a strong car all year their drivers have just failed to get deliver.

        Vettel on the other hand has only had the best package at Bahrain, Montreal and Spa yet he’s got nearly a two race lead!

        1. Yeah, second in the drivers championship is really failing to deliver… 9th to 2nd is failing to deliver…

          You may not be a fan of Alonso but he is definitely one of the best on the grid and he proves it race after race. Considering the superiority of the Red Bull, Alonso has not failed to deliver at all.

          1. Alonso failed to deliver in qualifying numerous times. Sure, he has superb race craft, but he doesn’t always extract everything from his car during qualifying.

            1. Considering his teammate is Massa, sometimes I wonder if Ferrari is that great.

          2. @Gaz –

            Considering the superiority of the Red Bull

            Alonso hasn’t “failed to deliver” in the races, but had Alonso won in Sepang rather than crash out, he’d be 14 points behind, not 46. The RBR hasn’t been that much superior.

            1. @david-a
              Do you really think that Alonso would have won in Sepang without his crash? The Malaysian GP was cold and wet, those are conditions in which Ferrari always struggle, and Red Bull and Mercedes excel. At best, he would have finished 3rd.

            2. @kingshark

              I believe he had a good chance. He was 2nd at the end of lap 1, and while the race started cold and damp, it got better as the race went on. Massa, who lost 5 places on lap 1, finished only 20s behind Vettel, too.

            3. This.. If anything Alonso was caught out by Vettel braking early to get a good exit. But in all probability he just braked a fraction late as he was wrestling the car between other cars (checking not to touch anyone sideways) and had less grip available with the wet conditions.

              They could have still had a good points finish with a instant wing change, but it was beast to see Alonso repassing despite basically having no front wing! A shame he didn’t win there to close up the title race. Everyone is relying on a Vettel/Red Bull error now to even it up – they just have to not make any mistakes to take the title.

      4. If RED BULL somehow aren’t in the fight this weekend, which I do not expect to happened… Then we might see “Hamilton- Rosberg- Alonso pole/win battle” like last year, only that time Alonso’s car cost him a POSSIBLE POLE POSITION… But, I think RED BULL are going to be better than last year… Last year they finished 22nd and 23rd I think? Right? Were they 22nd and 23rd..?

        1. @krichelle 20th and 22nd, but both retired so that stat is pretty much useless. What is useful though is their positions before their retirements: Vettel was running 6th just under 2 seconds behind Räikkönen and gaining. Räikkönen was in turn very close to Massa towards the end, so potentially he could’ve finished 4th (although perhaps unlikely) and would have had he not had the penalty and obviously the failure (although we must bear in mind that Button retired from a strong second position). Webber was running 8th and looking unlikely to gain on any ahead of him before his spin so potentially – had there been no failures or penalties and had Button not retired – they were on for a 5-9.

          It almost guaranteed they’re going to be better this year though as the car is clearly better this year!

          (select Hamilton, Button, Massa, Alonso, Räikkönen, Perez, Vettel and Webber to see the gaps between each before retirements).

          1. @Max Jacobson Hmm… If they were 6th and 8th last year, then this year their is better compared to last year.. Then they might even threaten the top 3… But that is what we expect from them, never ever erase RED BULL from a race win at ANY CIRCUIT. hahaha

            1. @krichelle not when they have a car this consistent anyway haha! IIRC they’ve only been off the twice once the entire season (in Spain and in China, and they were under a second away)!

          2. @dizzy-a
            Massa’s pace was terrible in the first half of the race, but got better time went on and the track became rubber’d in. Ironically enough, that was the exact same situation with Alonso in Canada, he was very slow on a green circuit early on, but became quicker and quicker as the race progressed.

            With Ferrari’s usual tyre heating problems, and the Malaysian track wet and green early on in the race, com to the first 20-25 laps, Alonso would probably have been behind both Red Bulls and both Mercedes.

            While for granted his pace would have improved throughout the latter stages of the race, but don’t act as if he had any significant chances beating the Red Bulls in those conditions, the Ferrari is simply not suited for that.

            1. @kingshark
              Massa’s first stint was stymied by his start, which unlike Alonso’s was poor. That got him stuck behind Button. Also, Massa switched away from his inters on lap 5, which was too early (the only other person to do the same was Vettel, whose 3.5s advantage turned into a 2s deficit, as his teammate pitted 2 laps later). Otherwise his pace throughout even the first dry tyre stint saw him remain roughly the same distance from the leader, something he did in the next two stints. In the final stint, Massa was lapping faster than either Red Bull.

              After being second in the opening laps, and with superior pace to his teammate, Alonso would have been capable of victory. This would have transformed how daunting the points margin would seem now.

    2. Some comments about present-day F1 can sure get overdramatic. Things may not be ideal (were they ever?) but we still see good racing, unexpected results, and the best pilots and teams rising to the top. There have always been boring races, dominant teams and drivers, and a certain degree of unfairness. It’s just the way it is.

      1. Been a fan since the mid-60s when I was just a youngster and what you say is true. F1 will never be totally fair or ideal and it is ever changing. I’m still enjoying the ride…

    3. I thought I’d seen it all during last year’s silly season. Boy, was I wrong about that. This year feels like a poker game, with everyone feeling sure that they’ve got the best hand and just waiting for someone to put their cards down so they can finally reveal their own with a flourish and a triumphant “Ha!”.

      I have no idea who Tancredi Palmeri is, but his Tweet simply highlights the absurdity of the situation: all it takes is a few well-chosen comments whispered in the right ear, and you can easily turn the tide of public opinion and hopefully lure the other teams into making a false step.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys

        Looking at his Twitter feed, I find it hard to imagine he works for CNN in any form. Random unsourced sports rumors and hinting at internet memes isn’t the kind of Twitter feed I’d personally go to for reliable F1 information, so it seems this year’s silly season is relying on poaching and wanting to have the scoop more than ever..

        It seems like there is much more at stake with Webber leaving, Lotus’ payment problems being a source of inspiration and Alonso’s manager talking to Red Bull (regardless of about whom). And with Eddie Jordan’s star rising for correctly predicting Nico Rosberg’s team mate twice, everyone wants some of the fame. Who needs information when you can get twitter followers?

    4. My DRS feelings lie more with the first opinion in the COTD than the second, but I salute this bit of writing in the second:

      The racing isn’t all that great, the cars are irrelevant and ever-converging, the drivers are little more than mannequins with pull-string voiceboxes, the tracks are becoming increasingly vast and grey, in places with no real right to be holding such an event, and the politics becomes the main story most weekend.

      I salute you @Ajokay ! LOL! I cannot agree with all of it, but I definitely agree with most of the sentiment.

      1. I dont understand what your point is, what else do you expect drivers to do or say? At the end of the day people need to realise that they are professional sportsmen or women; not actors.

        1. It’s not the drivers’ fault. It is the corporate speak that is expected of drivers at every level that makes them sound like automatons. This is one reason why people like Kimi Raikkonen so much, he resists the excessive corporate dog and pony show that attempts to put sponsor products above the racing and natural individual driver personality. The way the quoted poster wrote their description struck me as funny and true to a certain extent.

          Hey, it is what it is, without sponsors racing on only your own money is an extremely difficult proposition. I appreciate the racing sponsors. But, there are better ways for sponsors to get their message across than to have the poor driver up there saying stuff like ; “The ExLax – Fred’s Fill Dirt & Croissants – Timex Takes A Lickin’ & Keeps On Tickin’ – Everything’s Better When It Sits On A Ritz – Sip A Saspirilla Soda – Special really ran great today…”

    5. I tend to agree with the more positive view in COTD. DRS can work effectively as a stop-gap solution, but only if they nail all of the circuits right, regarding the length and location of the zones. So far it has been hit and miss=not good enough IMO.

      I so thoroughly disagree with the negative view, that I shall break it up into points for the answer:

      “Going to a live race is not an option, it’s a waste of far too much time, money and energy to be enjoyable”- Really? When I last went to a race I found it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Not cheap but going to any other major sporting event ain’t cheap either. And how is it more time wasting than any other vacation might I ask? If you prefer lying on the beach on your vacation doing absolutely nothing at all, that’s fine but it’s not a vacation I could enjoy, and I’m surely not unique in that regard.

      “Watching on TV has become a juggle of HD BBC coverage with a coverage team that I’m not overly keen on, or a Sky Go stream which often crawls to a JPEG slideshow.” Well again that’s a matter of personal preference. Don’t have any problem with the BBC crew or with my internet connection speed

      “The racing isn’t all that great” It’s a human tendency to look back on the past with rose-tinted spectacles but most of the times I watch old races from the 80’s and the 90’s I’m bored 90% of the time

      “the cars are irrelevant and ever-converging” Relevant? What they’re supposed to be relevant to? Your average daily driver? You can look out of your window then. F1 should be a break from your everyday life and I don’t want it to be relevant at all, ever. That’s why the part about the convergence is spot-on. This should indeed be addressed ASAP because a spec-series called F1 would not be F1 at all.

      “the drivers are little more than mannequins with pull-string voiceboxes” Again correct, but how is that different to every other field of public life nowadays? Political correctness is the plague of the modern world

      ” the tracks are becoming increasingly vast and grey, in places with no real right to be holding such an event” Really? Just this summer we heard that Austria is returning and Mexico as well, and less than a year after the USA held a great GP on a magnificent new track. We’ve also heard that it’s goodbye to the Valencian container port, India is taking at least a sabbatical and Korea on its last legs. So, entirely wrong IMO

      ” and the politics becomes the main story most weekend.” That’s an exaggeration surely?

      ” there are tens and dozens and scores of cheaper, better, more interesting motor racing series out there with a myriad of different and wonderful cars and drivers with personalities. And they’re all racing. Side by side, nose to tail. All the time. From lights to flag”. Maybe but I’m not sure what those other supposedly great series you talk about are. DTM? I have a replacement abb. for this sleeping pill of a series: ETS=extremely tedious snooze-fest. Indycar? I like it, but the cars are ugly as hell, and the endless cautions and commercials make you wanna switch channels. Le Mans? Never liked endurance “racing”. As far as I see it’s only a very fast automotive engineering exercise, with drivers driving well within their limits and crashing nonetheless because of huge speed disparities. Nascar? Well the drivers there certainly “have at it” but half of them aren’t any good and I can’t fathom how it’s possible to sit thru a full 3-4 hours NASCAR race on an oval and stay awake/sane. WTCC? Slow and pathetic in every way. WRC? A pale shadow of what it once was. You can see where I’m going with this. Heard the BTCC and V8 Supercars are good, but can’t watch any of those live, where I am.

      1. Absolutely agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I just don’t see what benefit being negative all the time brings. Sure F1 isn’t perfect but has it ever been perfect? I don’t think so.

        There is so much to love about F1 that is vastly outweighs the negatives in my view.

      2. @montreal95, regarding your lack of rose tinted spectacles, I think it is a very different experience watching a race that happened 20-30 years ago, to watching a live race where you know (of) the drivers, the cars, the teams and the standings just as fans were 20-30 years ago when they watched those same races live, what nowadays looks like a ridiculously large lead today looked like the prelude to a cloud of oil-smoke and engine debris to the fans of the day. It is always more exciting when you are invested in the result and if the race was still boring you could console yourself by pondering the different engineering on display.

        1. @hohum Agree entirely. I’d started watching F1 in 1994 at the age of ten. Many races from the nineties that I remember them as exciting, when I re-watch them now, aren’t very exciting at all. I think its to do with the changing perception as you grow up/age, as well as the obvious excitement of watching the race as it happens. But objectively I cannot call a race when P2 is 30 sec behind the leader at the flag, and the P3 over a minute behind(not that uncommon) exciting, exceptional circumstances aside. Although I admit the sound of the V12 Ferraris can make you forget all else, even watching on TV :) I can only dream about what it was like standing on the grass bank of Kemmel straight with it going by a few meters away

      3. @montreal95 agreed on most accounts: I am absolutely a fan of modern F1 and the closeness of the grid does make for very exciting races. However, I do feel drivers get off to easily due to the vast expanses of Tarmac bordering the track. I also feel the regulations are narrowing car design far too much – most cars look exactly the same these days. I’d trade variety in design for a bit less competitiveness.

        On other racing series, I agree in most cases: DTM isn’t exactly stellar most of the time, NASCAR is frankly awful, Indy Car has far too many crashes for my liking, WTCC I’ve never been particularly interested in and although I love the technology and cars in the Le Mans series, it isn’t something that makes for fantastic spectatorship. However, when they aren’t crashing I do like watching FR3.5 and GP2 (especially considering they are the new generation of F1 drivers) and Moto GP often produces great racing – although the bikes look nowhere near as impressive on track as a car IMO.

        On the topic of DRS though, I hate the thing. The idea should be that all drivers and teams have equal opportunities to be fastest, but DRS removes that aspect by giving one driver an unfair advantage over the other. It’d be fine if it was like FR3.5’s DRS I think or if they had solely more powerful KERS and I don’t mind the tyres (although I’d prefer if the maximum was always 2 stops) but as it stands I think they’d be much better getting rid of it than keeping it. DRS overtakes are never exciting.

        1. @vettel1 DRS overtake can never be exciting. DRS-assisted overtake however can be. See the difference? DRS should not be a free-overtake device, rather it should cancel the effects of the aero turbulence and make the overtake possible but not effort-less. Can it be done? It was proved by quite a few races that the answer is yes. For that, the length and the location of the zone must be spot-on, as well as the location of the detection point.

          Your concerns about the tarmac run-offs and narrow car designs are spot-on. I’d actually mentioned the second point in my reply above as well as a few others points I’m dissatisfied with. Nowadays F1 is not perfect by any means, but then it never was.

          Mostly agree with your thoughts on other series, though I deliberately didn’t include junior championships in my post above as that’s exactly what they are:junior. F1’s junior feeder series cannot replace F1 in my affections, no matter what. Lastly, I advise you to watch NASCAR races on road courses. Only happens twice a year but it’s great entertainment!

          1. @montreal95 I could definitely see it working if it was GPS activated – that way if a driver is within say 10m of the car ahead it’ll deactivate hence negating the dirty air effect only. Zone length is just too difficult to calibrate though due to the differences between cars IMO!

            1. This actually a very sensible and technically feasible solution (not with GPS though as it has a meter or so tolerance but certainly cars can be equipped in a way that in close proximity opening the flap will be allowed.

            2. @vettel1 While I’m not opposed to your idea of distance measurement driven DRS I don’t think it’s needed as it’s not that difficult to calculate the length of the zone. It doesn’t have to be millimeter precise. The difference in F1 cars aerodynamic wake is negligible nowadays, and only significant at the extremes of the setup range(think Monaco VS Monza, maybe Spa). This is not the seventies anymore, as we both agreed, car designs are converging(=too restrictive)

              What I want those who decide the DRS for each race to do is use the gray matter between their ears, use logic, pure and simple. I mean, that zone in Shanghai was ridiculous. Everyone could see that, without complex calculations, even before the race started, so why couldn’t they? And this is only one of their many brainfades. Just eliminate those first, then think about more complex solutions IMO

            3. @montreal95 even though the cars are converging, there are still clear set-up differences between them and development directions. For example, Red Bull are usually plum last in the speed traps – often a good 15-20km/h behind the fastest cars. So that would make an overtake painfully easy with DRS and is a situation where I’d say it weren’t really necessary at all in fact. That’s my problem with a DRS zone length: the benefits the different cars will gain varies too significantly to make it viable in the long term IMO.

              Absolutely they could improve the situation however by removing these idiotic placements: they should be in unconventional areas for overtaking, not in places that overtaking happens regardless. Which is why I’d also be circuit selective: Spa for example doesn’t need DRS and I’d say Monza or Canada neither.

              I still maintain that a proximity solution would work best though and wouldn’t necessarily have to be overly complex: the cars already carry significant amounts of data transmitters, so a kind of “proximity scan” could work for deactivating it in combination with just the regular detection zones. So you’d still likely see a lot of overtaking happening in the “DRS zone” but it’d be significantly less boring to watch!

      4. Never liked endurance “racing”. As far as I see it’s only a very fast automotive engineering exercise, with drivers driving well within their limits

        I find this a bit laughable to be honest.

    6. I agree in principle with DRS, it’s a simple solution to F1’s lack of overtaking problem but it’s been poorly implemented. The idea behind DRS is to allow the following driver to get close enough to have a go but more often than not it’s either too effective or not effective enough.

      There are far too many variables to get it right before the race weekend has started, the FIA needs to rethink how it decides on the length of the zones. Perhaps during FP1 ask all the teams to perform several runs in the DRS zones with it enabled and without and adjust the length of each zone based on data from speed traps.

      While it might not be a perfect solution it would likely reduce the number of races where cars are overtaking halfway down the straight or are unable to get anywhere close to overtaking.

    7. Im firmly on the Anti-DRS side.

      I frankly can’t see how anybody could like the stupid gimmick as all it does is produce skill-less, boring, unexciting & easy motorway drive-by passes.
      There is nothing at all fun, interesting or even remotely exciting about any DRS pass, There all dead boring to watch as a fan of racing.

      I want to see battles, I want to see drivers having to EARN an overtake via skill on the brakes, I want to see real wheel to wheel racing without having to think about 1 second gaps, detection points & FIA-determined overtaking zones.

      Watching drivers intentionally slow down or intentionally let another car past because they don’t want to be infront at the detection line because of the Dumb racing solution is a complete joke & makes a mockery of F1 & racing in general.

      Watching a car infront be left utterly defenceless in the drs zone is equally a joke. A slower car punching above his weight & been able to defend that position is a part of racing, its a skill yet now its impossible because of a stupid gimmick.

      DRS may produce 50+ ‘passes’ every race, yet whats the point in bragging about the # of passes is all of those passes are too easy, boring to watch & completely lack excitement?

      DRS (And Pirelli tyres for that matter) have already killed most my love for F1, Im so dis-satisfied with these stupid gimmicks that I no longer follow the sport as closely as i once did, I no longer watch every race live & am no longer excited about the next race.

      Looking at the rapidly declining tv ratings world-wide since these gimmicks were introduced in 2011, seems im not the only one turning off!

      1. So, you want another season like 2011, then? It’s a cold comfort to say drivers have to earn a position when no-one can compete for the lead.

        1. So, you want another season like 2011, then?

          We had both DRS & Pirelli tyres in 2011.

          Regarding been able to compete for the lead, So what if there isn’t a battle for the lead. If you want to see constant action & constant lead changes go watch a nascar plate race or something.

          F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, A technical challenge where each constructor designs & builds there own cars & where the best drivers race them.
          If a team manages to build a dominant car then it should be upto the other teams to do a better job, The field should not be artificially kept close just because fans don’t like the team or driver that does the best job.

          In 2011 Red Bull did the best job designing there car & Vettel did the best job at driving it to its maximum potential, They won both championships fairly easily & should be applauded for doing an outstanding job. I’ve no issue with there dominance even though Im not a fan of that team or driver.

          If other teams are incapable of doing as good a job & are unable to catch whatever team is winning then frankly they don’t deserve to win & should not be handed advantages be it with the FIA banning tech the winning car uses to build its advantage or via stupid gimmicks like DRS or comedy tyres to prevent that team been able to use its cars full potential.

          Back when Schumacher & Ferrari were ‘dominating’ I had no problem with that either, They were doing a better job & Michael was clearly the best driver on the grid, They deserve every bit of success they had in that time.
          It should be upto the other teams to catch them & if they are unable to then tough luck.

      2. I want to see drivers having to EARN an overtake via skill on the brakes

        Then they should go back to using iron brakes, the material they using now gives close to zero play room in out braking – meaning if two drivers have same amount of grip they both will brake literally at the same time with no concern for overheating what so ever.

        But it’s the same principle across the whole car, there are now so many sensors on the car, most of performances are mapped and optimized which leaves no room for uncertainties and as a result such narrow gap that it is very hard to squeeze car in that gap.

        I with karting was promoted more, but then again it would turn in “F1” too if money were at stake.

        1. LotsOfControl (@for-unlawful-carnal-knowledge)
          31st August 2013, 9:47


        2. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past with back to back tests that the only difference iron or steel brakes would make would be to the cooling requirements.
          The actual stopping power would not significantly change to make it easier to pass another driver on the brakes – there is also the mechanical grip aspect, since that dictates how easily the driver can stop the car and the cornering speed through the corners (which in turn shortens the baking zones since the drivers do not need to scrub off as much speed as they did in the past).

      3. Watching a car infront be left utterly defenceless in the drs zone is equally a joke. A slower car punching above his weight & been able to defend that position is a part of racing, its a skill yet now its impossible because of a stupid gimmick.

        @PeterGH : Rightly said. Lewis tried to do it twice to Alonso, but failed miserably…

      4. It isn’t that the driver in front is “helpless” – he’s not. All he has to do is driver a little harder to ensure at least a one second gap and there will be no DRS in that zone! If he is being followed by a faster car at 1 second even without DRS, he is going to be easy meat. So in that context, drive harder and faster and you will NEVER be overtaken in that manner. :)

        Far more annoying to me, is the lack of ‘fight’ knowing that the tyres are finished so you might as well yield anyway.. :(

    8. I would like to thank @keithcollantine for giving space to both viewpoints (on the DRS issue!) on his round-up page. A practice, which I believe should be continued for every single debate that we have on this site!

      1. Fully agreed, I think it’s great how @keithcollantine always gives both sides of the story – very professional.

    9. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      31st August 2013, 9:47

      I should hope it’s not at all about money for Kimi.
      Professional athletes in today’s sports are VASTLY overpaid.

      He should be racing for the love of racing. Not for the money.

    10. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall)
      31st August 2013, 12:54

      I’m glad that greenpeace are openly attacking Shell and separating that from F1, could’ve come across the wrong way quite easily.

    11. Michael Brown (@)
      31st August 2013, 18:48

      So I’m guessing the underbody aero changes were scrapped?

      1. Yes, They were scrapped purely because the teams believe that DRS is working so there is now zero need to do anything else according to them.
        Same reason Abu Dhabi & other circuits ditched proposed changes, DRS is ‘working’.

        As long as DRS is around ruining the races & devaluing overtaking to the point where there is zero excitement is watching cars pass one another, We will not see any serious changes to cars or circuits.

        I don’t see how they can retain DRS considering how everything I have seen both here & elsewhere clearly shows that a majority of fans don’t like it.

        1. ‘working’, i.e. cheaper.

          The teams have already invested in making DRS work, and the cost of redoing under-body aero would be more than simply keeping this as is. However, surely they could just use some of their vast aero budget.

          1. Michael Brown (@)
            2nd September 2013, 9:37

            Well that doesn’t give me much hope.

            2009 forced teams to rethink their aero. I think there needs to be another big change to aero to make it easier for cars to overtake while keeping downforce. Underbody seems to be the way to go, but this gets shot down by teams with the cost excuse.

    12. I’ve found huge hints that Kimi has signed with Ferrari.

    Comments are closed.