DRS has ruined the art of overtaking – Montoya

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Kevin Magnussen, McLaren, Shanghai International Circuit, 2014In the round-up: Juan Pablo Montoya criticises Formula One’s Drag Reduction System, saying it is spoils the “art” of overtaking.


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

Montoya interview – part 3/5: “You had to risk a lot…” (Peter Windsor via YouTube)

Ayrton Senna to be remembered in Imola 20 years after his death (The Guardian)

“Five days of events to mark Senna’s death will commence on Wednesday, for the last man to die in a grand prix is remembered like no other.”

Bernie Ecclestone handed £300m by ex-wife (The Telegraph)

“Documents show that since his divorce in 2009 he has received half a billion dollars (£300m) from his ex-wife’s trust fund. In a highly unusual divorce settlement, rather than Mr Ecclestone paying Slavica Ecclestone a good chunk of his fortune, she appears to be paying him at the rate of $100m (£60m) a year.”


Comment of the day

There was no shortage of amusing suggestions for yesterday’s Caption Competition. Among the best were those from Gridlock, RV and Theo Parkinson.

And my favourite was this one from @Robbie:

Lewis Hamilton, Fernando Alonso, Shanghai, 2014

Hamilton: So much for capping costs… mine’s unique and you’ve got two!

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to El Gordo!

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

Happy birthday to Red Bull motorsport director Helmut Marko who is 71 today. Though best known for helping drivers like Sebastian Vettel into Formula One, Marko’s own motor racing successes include victory in the 1971 Le Mans 24 Hours driving the first of the iconic Martini-liveried Porsches.

Image © McLaren/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 Uncategorized

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

  • 161 comments on “DRS has ruined the art of overtaking – Montoya”

    1. Aero has ruined overtaking. DRS is a pathetic attempt to allow cars to pass each other, because the FIA doesn’t have the brains to come up with a solution that reduces the dependency of aerodynamics.

      1. Luth (@soulofaetherym)
        27th April 2014, 1:04

        And then when aero gets taken away, people cry because the cars are too slow or the g-forces too weak.

        1. Or you could reintroduce underbody tunnels and have them handle a larger percentage of the downforce. It has worked in CART/Champcar/Indycar for the past 20 years.

        2. petebaldwin (@)
          27th April 2014, 1:22

          @soulofaetherym – spot on. The FIA get a lot wrong but even when they get something right (ie reducing downforce for this year), they get slated anyway.

          There is no solution that will make the cars safer and faster whilst improving the show. To improve overtaking, you have to reduce aero dependancy. In doing so, the cars will be slower. Simple as that.

          1. Agreed.

          2. Not all aerodynamics are equal when it comes to dirty wake though, and it’s the dirty wake that has killed overtaking, not aerodynamic downforce. The original 2013 formula (that was pushed back to 2014) was supposed to have much more drastically cut the aero they currently have and brought back ground effects, which theoretically would have maintened similar levels of downforce with a much cleaner wake, allowing cars to follow more closely. I can’t remember if it was scrapped for cost reasons, potential safety issues, or both. I’m sure someone better informed than I am will chime in here.

            1. It was scrapped for cost reasons. The teams said it was too much to take on at once considering they already had all the other changes to deal with. They claimed that ground efcects and shaping the bottom of the car would bring on another spending war on the aero side.

            2. All this talk of the dirty wake behind the cars reminds me of the “downwash rear wing” solution the FIA came up with before deciding on the 2009-2013 rules.


            3. @geemac What they ended up introducing in 2009 was basically the opposite of that – a wide neutral zone in the middle of the front wing plus a narrow rear wing. It only worked so far as it reduced downforce, and as the controversial double diffuser was then ruled legal in 2009 the benefit was swiftly negated.

            4. when someone uses the term spending war, they mean, we don’t want things to change, we are happy with the way they are. I am sure if you let Marussia or Caterham the ability to run ground effects they would turn over something with in two races.

              It’s not aero that’s stagnating the racing, its reality shining in on the spectacle. If you want closer racing, you need something like the SUCCESS balast system that SuperGT runs. A real shame btw, that SuperGT has to run 2 liter 4 bangers now, that HSV v8 was supreme, and sounded 100x better than what F1 offers this year (formula nippon engine).

            5. *ballast.

              It’s the rules that make things predictable and safe. You open the door for more creative opportunities and you open the door for more winners. Lets see the invisible hand in F1, not the iron fist of the FIA. People who want closer racing need to seriously consider a weight penalty system, otherwise forget about it :) seriously.

        3. People don’t have a habit to think too much, but they sure like moaning. Usually people who are not directly involved in creative thinking or problem solving, will lack a habit of not-so-abstract thinking which requires you to realize that one or a few parameters you demand, will automatically make it impossible to for the final product to be what you want at the same time.

          1. I think there is much that can be done through the right combination of tires, a reduction in aero, and perhaps some ground effects that has been considered/discussed recently even by the FIA.

            Personally I would swap any day a little speed, not that I believe much has to be sacrificed in that regard anyway, for closer racing and a permanent removal of DRS.

            I reject the notion that less aero equals slower cars. Less aero equals less drag on the straights and more speed and fuel economy, and the slower cornering can be made up with good tires and ground effects.

            I now have a story like some others have posted about non-viewers of F1. I was up in Northern Ontario for Easter and watched the Chinese race with my two brother-in-laws who are not racing fans. I was filling them in on some of the more interesting stats such as power unit info, using a third less fuel now, the money the top teams spend etc etc. Everythng they said was oh wow…didn’t know that…oh is that right…no kidding…then I pointed out the opening rear wing to help them pass, and it was…oh…and their interest was gone…knowing that really took something off the impressive things I had pointed out.

          2. @trotter, the conflicting demands/results equation you attribute to the “moaners” is no better thought out by the regulators of F1, eg. a DRS for use on the straights to compensate for the turbulence induced lack of grip in the corners experienced by a car close behind is to a large degree undone by the introduction of tyres that not only suffer a lack of grip in those circumstances but wear-out so rapidly in those circumstances that for most of a race the teams/drivers prefer to keep 2 seconds behind the car ahead, a distance even DRS cannot compensate for.

            @robbie, +1

            1. @hohum : “…the conflicting demands/results equation you attribute to the “moaners” is no better thought out by the regulators of F1…”

              Who do you think these maleficent regulators are, and why do you suggest that they are either incompetent, or simply malicious?

            2. I think you misunderstand the 2 second gap problem. Kind of in the same way most people moan about DRS. The reason they back off 2 seconds is because the driver can’t execute a successful overtake. They drive up to the next cars gearbox and suddenly its like they hit a fall and can’t get past. This is where a drivers skill comes into play. Its not DRS’s fault, tires, or whatever regulation you want to blame. Some drivers just suck at overtaking. They can be blistering fast on a clear track, but can’t handle another car in front of them. Rosberg was a perfect example of this. Everything was in his favor and he failed because his weakness was exposed. DRS is necessary unless you want the cars to go slower. I hear the word “artificial” a lot. What about the artificial advantage being given to the leading car? 9 times out of 10 the car being passed is slower. They will eventually get passed. The question is are we going to allow them to wreck other drivers races/tires due to their artificial dirty air advantage or giving the trailing car a fighting chance? Montoya is wrong! Passing is both an art and a science. You can’t leave the science out and try to romanticize it in a skewed manner. Maybe going from F1 to NASCAR has distorted things for him.

      2. I think a lot of fans think that with the rule changes to aero & tyres, and
        particularly with this years engines, that the need for DRS has gone.

        There have been many passes between team mates outside the DRS zones, wheel to wheel for consecutive corners, and despite the option one has to wait for DRS.

        If there is any complaint I have it is the FIA not removing their old sticking plaster
        solutions when they become outdated.

        * DRS

        * Top 10 running on quail tyres

        * Mandatory pit stop (prime + option rule);

        I’d love to see them run Suzuka without any DRS zones this year and see how
        it works. Even better let them also just use the best tyre for their car and leave complete strategy freedom.

      3. Back to the seventies, mechanical grip, big tires and ground effect the old fashion way. And much lighter cars. More skill required from the drivers.

      4. @ivz shall we go back karting?

    2. i have to remember not to go on any social network and f1 website on may 1st. i don’t want to be disrespectful, but the 20th anniversary of sennas death taking over any of them is going to be very annoying.

      1. How would it be annoying?

        1. In that people like Jim Clark, Francois Cevert (sorry, American keyboard), Jochen Rindt, Ronnie Peterson, and Gilles Villeneuve aren’t getting as much love, perhaps, among other things.

          And then there’s Dan Wheldon, and perhaps Simoncelli.

          1. +1
            thank you.

          2. How on God’s earth is that an issue? Man, Westerners get hung up on the smallest of issues. Senna was better than all of them and a bigger icon, and his post-death status reflects it justly.

            Nobody’s gonna miss you on the first. The lack of your petty thinking will in fact be a boon for many people for 24 hours.

            1. So you are saying the other drivers’ death is not as tragic as Senna’s because they weren’t better? Or that because they achieved less?

            2. There are so many things wrong with that statement Himmat…

            3. I was answering a question and I guess somehow managed to imply that I’m also annoyed by people remembering Senna’s death.

              I’m not annoyed byit, which is why I used the word perhaps as I’m not in the position of somebody annoyed by it, I was only in the position to guess. I should’ve written my position a bit clearer.

              Regarding the westerners part: Australia’s northern border is further south of the equator than me but unless your country’s capital is Dili chances are you live further west than I do

            4. Senna was better than all of them

              Including Jim Clark? Many people would find that highly debatable.

          3. @davidnotcoulthard I’m not sure it’s feasible for every single racing driver in every category who has been killed to receive the same level of coverage. Or are you arguing that none should receive it?

          4. @davidnotcoulthard maybe you should mention Roland Ratzenberger as well.

            In fact Senna being the star he was, I see no surprise in it, maybe it’s wrong but I was not expecting anything different.

            1. @jcost facepalm…

              Everybody else, I was jyst ansering a question, something like “I can’t believe Ayrton gets all the limelight yet my favourite WDC’s Ferrari-driving father doesn’t” from some older and less casual fans could be a (perfectly fine) reason to be a bit annoyed about newer fans talking only about Senna.

              As for myself, as long as it’s in the round-up I’ll treat deaths of great racers with respect.

      2. thanks for letting us all know

      3. One thing I am not getting is the recent sanctification of Senna. I was at Imola on the 5th anniversary and there was nothing. Nothing seemed to be mentioned at the 10th or 15th anniversaries. He was not a pleasant character in my eyes although he made a great villiain. Running people off the road, pushing track marshals away whenever he got out of the car having deemed them to close to his highness, whining and complaining for rules to be changed in his favor. Maybe it was the fact that there was no internet and what little info I received was from his actions on and around the track.

        1. Yeah there is an awful lot you are missing about the man, for sure. And don’t forget he is revered to god-like status in Brazil.

          1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
            28th April 2014, 7:00

            you are implying that because he is revered to god-like status in brazil everybody should care? are you alright? i dont care what status a person has in any part of the world: that is not a criteria for me to judge or admire a person! nobody cares how they adore him down there!

      4. It’s like not every dead pop star getting the same attention as say, Elvis. Odd how that works …

    3. i don´t get why the livery change: if it´s a sauber, driven by a sauber asociated driver in a sauber test, the livery should either be the livery of the 2012 sauber or the livery of the current sauber! why the different livery, that´s not a sauber. who knows what that is…
      no identity!

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        27th April 2014, 1:24

        To be fair, the Sauber livery doesn’t exactly give them much of an identity. Grey and dull…

      2. petebaldwin (@)
        27th April 2014, 1:24

        To be fair, the Sauber livery doesn’t exactly give them much of an identity. Grey and dull…

      3. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        27th April 2014, 3:43

        Money? They would paint that Sauber as a rainbow if money gets in!

      4. It looks better than the current Sauber which is not saying much.

    4. Montoya was one of those few select talents who just had “it” when it came down to wheel on wheel racing, so I’m not surprised to see him criticizing a system which essentially takes the talent and art of overtaking away.

      I’ll forever despise DRS after Schumi’s lost podium at Canada 2011.

      1. Merc engine vs Ferrari/Reno engine is pretty much like having DRS :P Engine advantage (or perhaps the engine freeze thats preventing ferrari from bettering their own engine) alone makes overtaking easypeasy.

        1. Its something completely different IMO @joshua-mesh. Ferrari had all the opportuny, money, and most likely the knowledge to do just as good a job as Mercedes did, and then they would have been on top.

          With DRS its not equal chances, its giving the advantage to the following car by default, just because he is behind.

      2. If you with “it” mean a tendency to crash into anything and anyone, I agree…

        1. @losd lol, that fits with my memory of JPM in Formula 1…

        2. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          27th April 2014, 10:11

          So, Maldonado must have a strong case of “it”.

        3. @dragoll @losd

          If you with “it” mean a tendency to crash into anything and anyone, I agree…

          Montoya had 8 consecutive podium finishes in 2003, so much for poor consistency huh? ;)
          He even challenged Schumacher for the WDC with roughly equal cars that season, and if it wasn’t for his hydraulic problem when leading in Japan, he’d have tied Michael on points in 03, only losing out due countback.

          You can’t even begin to compare Montoya to Maldonado.

          1. +1

            Don’t even say Maldonado and Montoya in the same sentence.

            In his few seasons in F1, Montoya made a huge impact. He was up to pace straight away, and he was absolutely as good at overtaking as Lewis Hamilton is today, given the proper equipment.

      3. @kingshark Personally I despised DRS the first time I saw it in action. Also, don’t forget MS had the luxury of DRS’ing somebody earlier in the race, and DRS in general formed the order of the drivers well before MS lost out on that podium in Canada. That said, I haven’t been anywhere near as passionate about any one driver since JV left, and if it was him losing out to DRS near a race’s end I’m sure I’d also feel burned.

        1. No, the race had run in wet conditions and Schumi had only passed Heidfeld with the DRS.

      4. Michael Brown
        28th April 2014, 4:04


        I’ll forever despise DRS after Schumi’s lost podium at Canada 2011.

        That was the only thing the kept me from giving the race a 10/10

    5. I’d love love love love to see what Picasso would have made with Photoshop, it’s just another tool to get the job done.

      Everyone has it, so it’s just a question of how well you can make use of it. Another avenue of development for cars to distinguish themselves.

      1. Well, not everyone has it and that’s the issue here.

        1. Bingo! So why not let everyone have it and get rid of the artificial implementation we now have?

      2. Photoshop can make the worst photographer great. No need for skill if you can use the program. And with Picasso being a painter Photoshop wouldn’t have helped him much.

        1. That’s simply not true. Photoshop can’t improve composition – the most crucial part of any photo – unless you cut everything apart and piece it back together, and even that requires an appreciation of the art of composition and the boundaries of taste. There’s a little bit more to it that ‘rule of thirds’, and there are plenty of poor photographers who have made their efforts look worse with it.

          1. With Photoshop you can make a porkchop look like a centerfold. You can take any pic and post production manipulate it any way you want to create your composition. The trick is to get it with the camera for sure.

            1. No. If you really believe that, take a pencil and start sketching. Hey, everybody has a pencil laying around, that must mean everybody can draw right?
              A good photo editor can make a bad photo better but it won’t make it a good photo. A bad photo is a bad photo no matter what you do to it.

            2. SubsailorFl said on 27th April 2014, 10:44
              With Photoshop you can make a porkchop look like a centerfold. You can take any pic and post production manipulate it any way you want to create your composition.

              You’ve obviously NEVER used Photoshop then, let alone mastered it, b/c this statement is so patently false that it deserves derision.

              Photoshop is, like another reader stated, a “tool” – albeit an incredibly complex and powerful one. And even with weeks of dedicated training/learning/practice, one will not be capable of transforming a “porkchop” into a “centerfold” with Photoshop, for that is something only God himself can do.

          2. @dafffid Actually cropping can help you composition…

            My experience tells me a good photo must combine well few things: light, framing/composition and focus. In my book, Photoshop can give you a hand in all those fields but the great news is that better resolution screens are common place theses days and PS is easily spotted unless you use it pretty lightly (and I’m ok with light use of that technology :) )

        2. [Photoshop can make the worst photographer great.]

          Not if you don’t have a great composition. You might make the lousy pic even jarringly bad.

          You can have the best guitar in the world but if you ain’t got the chops and groove, best of luck.

    6. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      27th April 2014, 0:58

      DRS has been pretty mild this year so far, if anything, it’s not been quite effective enough (which is a good thing), considering the changes made to it.

      Although at Spa all the Anti-DRS people will be calling for its head once again, and it’ll be back again next year.

      So, while it has been made abundantly clear that Formula 1 gives stuff-all about what the fans actually want, in the meantime we may just have to rely on common sense prevailing from these strategy group meetings, or what ever it is that decides these things, for the removal of DRS.

      But if history tells us anything, it’s that these ‘solutions’ are only going to get more and more ridiculous.

    7. I agree with Montoya.

      Overtaking used to be a skill & drivers like Montoya who were real racers stood out above the rest because they could overtake while others simply believed it was impossible.

      Now thanks to DRS everyone can pass so nobody really stands out anymore.

      Hamilton no longer has to throw a late braking move up the inside tyres locked, He simply has to wait for the DRS zone push his button & be past with little drama.

      DRS may well have generated a lot more passing, It has not however made things more entertaining because the passing it generates is more often than not utterly boring & skill-less.

      I’d much rather have 1 truly exciting, hard fought for real overtake than 10 easy push of a button DRS drive-by’s.

      One of the most memorable overtakes of recent years, Webber on Alonso at Eau Rouge 2011 was undone thanks to DRS the next lap in a really easy pass half way down the straght. Whats the point in putting it all on the line in a high-risk overtake if its un-done in a skill-less button push a lap later?

      DRS has thankfully been a bit less effective this year but it has still produced some boringly easy highway passes & every one of those takes away a chunk of interest/excitement for me.

      Ban it & lets get back to some proper racing with some real overtaking!

      1. I tend to disagree with the Monster on this. Those passes of his on Schumi do stand the test of time, and a couple or three great moves per race would be better than 20 pit-straight drive-bys, but they’re interviewing one of the great overtakers in F1 history and can only mention one move in 2001 and another in 2004?

        I know he made more great moves than that, but I think people who knock DRS need to really think just how infrequent overtaking could be in F1 prior to DRS. Remember the Trulli train? So many races were pure processions broken only by pit-stop “action”.

        Beside that, even Montoya the purist thought the [DRS assisted] race between Hamilton and Rosberg at Bahrain was “pretty good” (I thought it was fantastic).

        In my view DRS has been on the whole positive, and it’s getting better year on year.

        1. So many races were pure processions broken only by pit-stop “action”

          That led to more strategic racing. Overtaking was an issue from about 1998 onwards, as I remember magazines counting overtakes as early as 1998, finding that the amount of overtakes had decreased a bit between 1997 and 1998 even.

          Even if we were to get rid of DRS, we are likely to see more overtaking than 2004, since the fuel strategies have been eliminated in their 1994-2009 form.

          DRS is asolution to the problems of overtaking in F1, but it’s treating a symptom (a lack of overtakes), rather than treating the problem; the dirty air cars create. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be treated for stomach pain than ‘not eating as much as usual’.

        2. DRS is a solution to processional racing in the same way that hyperinflation is a solution to poverty.

          You get more, but it’s worth nothing.

        3. 2010 had the most overtakes since 1989. With refueling banned, thinga were going in a positive direction before DRS.

        4. It’s better this year only because it’s less effective. With last years DRS Rosberg would have breezed past Hamilton at Bahrain. He still should’ve got past him but with the DRS being less effective it was more difficult and instead we got a long battle for the lead. Question is, how many battles did we lose out on during 2011-2013? Too many, because DRS snuffed them out. The sooner it’s gone the better.

      2. So well said PeterG…especially that reminder that a great and memorable non-DRS pass can be easily undone with DRS shortly after.

        Even fans of DRS have to admit those passes are not just unmemorable, they are easily predicted and immediately forgotten.

        1. @robbie – Even fans of DRS have to admit those passes are not just unmemorable, they are easily predicted and immediately forgotten.

          Unmemorable passes are – by their very nature – unmemorable, regardless of whether they were achieved with DRS or without.

          Memorable passes are – by their very nature – memorable, and that they may later be “undone” makes them no less spectacular (or memorable) in the moment.

          It’s logically fallacious to claim that a spectacular pass is somehow rendered unremarkable or mundane just because it occurred under DRS. Either the overtake was memorable – or it was not.

    8. And a Happy birthday to Dr. Helmut Marko. Though his character is a point of contention, he has undeniably been very successful at talent spotting thus far, and long may that trend continue!

      1. It’s still disputable how good Vettel actually is, and how much it was actually a car being a beast.
        Only teammates Vettel had were Webber and few casualties in the Torro Rosso days.
        Then we come to the question, how good actually Webber was? He was bothered by Webber quite seriously in 2010 and 2012. It was the same Webber who managed to beat DC only once in three years. And that was when Webber was much younger and in much better years, compared to DC who was almost retired. And that DC is the guy who was kicked out of McLaren because he scored less 50% of Kimi’s points, two years in a row. DC only bettering Kimi in Kimi’s first year in McLaren where Kimi had 10 retirements compared to DC’s 4.

        So when you look at it that way, it’s no surprise that many would find Vettel pretty unspectacular. In what could have been a car 2 seconds quicker than opposition, he was managing to pull it at around 0.5-1 sec faster than the opposition, while his snail teammate was even sometimes managing some wins with it.

        His only teammate with some F1 experience was Webber, who managed to get himself beaten by drivers like DC and Heitfeld who were always playing a second fiddle to their teammates. And that Webber, in his twilight years was still challenging Vettel for the title in 2010 and most of 2012.

        I can’t shake the feeling that Vettel is very good driver, at the level of the likes of DC and Heitfeld, who managed to be in the right place at the right time.

        What he did right was to not waste opportunities he was given, but that’s about that.

        1. It’s still disputable how good Vettel actually is, and how much it was actually a car being a beast.

          Yes, Jim Clark’s Lotuses was slower than a Fiat Panda.

          Oh, wait…….

        2. Except that in 2010, Vettel got the brunt of mechanical issues (Retiring from the lead at Australia and Korea, and losing the win at Bahrain as well) and in 2012 Webber was over a 100 points behind so saying that he challenged Vettel for ‘most of 2012’ is quite an exaggeration.

        3. Webber was also Rosbergs teammate once, won quali 12:6 and points 7:4.

          However, thing with those cross-comparisons, as much as I like them myself, is, drivers tend to have differently strong seasons (especially across different regs or different tyre-manufacterers, e.g. Ham was mighty on the Bridgestone-wets, Alo on the Michelin-slicks, Vettel with BD), and, furthermore, if you make a chain of cross-comparisons, it will sooner or later contradict itself.

          1. I agree, you can’t do direct comparison for the literal speed, but my point is that Webber was being beaten by his teammates more often than not, and none of those teammates were champions or went on to become champions. So it really leaves room for doubt. It’s not like when people are comparing Alonso and Hamilton who came equal head to head, yet, had an obvious pace over their teammates, consistently throughout their careers. Only Vettel is a champion but that’s my point. How good a benchmark is Webber when most of his average teammates had a measure of him. Some were so bad that I had to look them up. Pizzonia, Klien etc. And Vettel had him when he was at the end of his career.

            I absolutely agree about the regulations, but that can’t last. You adapt sooner or later if you are really worth your reputation. Webber got beaten more often than not in many different regulations.

            I think people want to believe that Vettel is at least as half as good as his results suggest, because if they didn’t, they’d have to question many preconceptions they have about F1. Sorry to break it to you all, but Vettel might as well be just as good as Heitfeld and DC and not much better.

            1. Well, Vettel had the upper hand to his teammates through his career, too. ;)

              Furthermore, that McLaren-season Alo and Ham spend together was a season that most of all showed their weaknesses. With a car easily good enough for a championship several races before the end of the season, they basically shot each other (and through that, the team) in the knee, resulting in a championship that was more lost than not won. Also I think this was probably Alonsos worst season, he did not only not feel at home with the team, he felt like he was heavily politically wronged (which, given the then Dennis-Hamilton-connection, might actually be true). But even with all that happening they could have won that year, if not for them also adding personal mistakes to that.

              However, I agree having Alo and Vettel race each other within the same team (and not a team that´s the territory of one of them and not to the other) would be interesting.

            2. Sorry to break it to you all, but Vettel might as well be just as good as Heitfeld and DC and not much better.

              You mean the DC that won as many races in his career driving WDC potential Williams/Mclarens as Vettel did last season?

        4. it’s no surprise that many would find Vettel pretty unspectacular

          Yes it is.

          It’s still disputable how good Vettel actually is

          I can’t shake the feeling that Vettel is very good driver

          There’s your answer.

        5. Which hat did you pull you numbers out of?

        6. I wish at least one person who replied to me actually tried to say something worth replying. You brought exactly 0 to the conversation. And Jacobson, I’ve pulled them out of the hat called official F1 data.

          1. Well your “official” F1 data is fundamentally skewed, as there is no way to validate your claim of the Red Bull being 2s faster per lap because the only frequent drivers of the cars were indeed Vettel and Webber. Therefore, they are your sole baseline.

            Alonso has never driven the RB6-9 lineage of cars, so you simply cannot make an objective claim like you proclaim to have done. All we can conclude is that the car – driven by Sebastian Vettel – was closer to 0.5s faster (this applying generally to the RB9 in qualifying trim, the races carry a greater element of uncertainty).

            And we can also reasonably conclude the the W05 weilds a greater performance advantage than any of the Red Bull cars ever have.

            1. To summarise, your “2s” figure is entirely abstract.

            2. I’m glad that you didn’t try to discredit the fact that Webber never had a top-line teammate, and even those good-but-not-great teammates, more often than not had a measure of him. You can’t deny that.

              What I said of RB speed was hypothetical and is given as an example. It clearly states that neither driver is really known quantity and therefor you can’t know how good the car actually was. The same way that McLaren doesn’t have a clue if Button is in his periodic wilderness period or the car just can’t go any faster. Only drivers I’d trust when it comes to really getting the maximum out of every car are Hamilton and Alonso. Manu say that Hulkenberg is also one of the rare few to posses this talent. Can’t say for now for sure, but he’s definitely a great potential.

              You don’t have to be so hurt over Vettel’s lack of credibility. The truth is, for better or worse, that the only half-decent teammate he had was Webber, and the truth is that Webber never really managed to really show he is on another level compared to his good-but-not-great teammates.

            3. I’m glad that you didn’t try to discredit the fact that Webber never had a top-line teammate, and even those good-but-not-great teammates, more often than not had a measure of him. You can’t deny that.

              2002-2008, Webber was beaten twice in those 7 seasons- by 4 points by Heidfeld, 2005 (where they didn’t get to finish the season together), and by 4 points by Coulthard in 2007 (with more costly retirements, e.g Japan), and beat the same guy in 2008 by 13 points.

              Only drivers I’d trust when it comes to really getting the maximum out of every car are Hamilton and Alonso.

              One of your earlier points seemed to be about Vettel being “troubled” by Webber in a season where he beat him by 100 points, and a season in which he had numerous mechanical problems from the lead. By that logic, surely LH was “troubled”, by Button and Rosberg, and Alonso “troubled” by Trulli. So by the standard you used for Vettel, you could say they didn’t get the maximum out of those cars.

            4. What I said of RB speed was hypothetical

              So therefore not official F1 data? That is a glaring contradiction you have just made. Also, by the very fact the figure is hypothetical I am well within my premise to disregard it entirely.

              you can’t know how good the car actually was.

              So, therefore, your argument is founded on invalid reasoning, as it is non-verifiable. I could equally argue – with just as much validity as yourself – that the car was deceptively quick, and Vettel flattered its abilities.

              You don’t have to be so hurt over Vettel’s lack of credibility.

              I cry myself to sleep every night, truly. The opinions of anonymous online commenters and their unquestionable righteousness are absolute truths, and I indeed must respect the fact that Vettel lacks credibility. Thank you dearly for the enlightenment and consolation following such.

          2. The conversation didn’t have much going for it when you started it with a flawed premise and then seemingly contradicted yourself.

        7. His only teammate with some F1 experience was Webber, who managed to get himself beaten by drivers like DC and Heitfeld who were always playing a second fiddle to their teammates. And that Webber, in his twilight years was still challenging Vettel for the title in 2010 and most of 2012.

          Ah, yes, Nick Heidfeld, who scored 28 points to Webber’s 27 when he left Williams, that was a decisive victory, especially since Frank Williams kept Mark and let Nick go (Mark went on to score 9 more points, while Pizza boy scored 2). Webber scored 7 points to Rosberg’s 4 in 2006, in a generally terrible year for Williams, where his best result was 6th and Rosberg’s 7th (even finishing in that order at the season opener).

          Moving on to Red Bull, DC scored 14 points to Mark’s 10, but Mark had a best finish of 3rd, while DC managed 4th. Sure, the 2007 European GP was a little crazy, but the Japanese Grand Prix saw Vettel crashing Webber out of a potential podium, which would have changed the stats drastically.

          2008 saw Mark scoring 21 points to DC’s 8. Sure, DC had a couple of rather unlucky races here, but never was in a top position while retiring. Though I do have to say DC managed 3rd, while Mark’s best finish was 4th.

          I think the hat you pulled your facts from was the ‘convenient facts that support my argument’ one. Webber ended seasons behind a driver that dominated the 1999 F3000 season and was slated for greatness until Raikkonen ‘stole’ his McLaren seat and later showed his worth at BMW Sauber. He beat Rosberg, who was in his rookie year, so that doesn’t count for much. But painting DC as a number two driver is doing him short. He was never WDC material, but he held his own to Hill in ’95 (when not crashing) and out-scored Hakkinen at McLaren in 1997 and 2001 by broad margins. I’m not reading anything about Hakkinen being a second rate WDC in your post.

        8. Rodney Trotter?

      2. @vettel1
        I remember myself writing a nice article about Marko (a really nice one not by my standard) but i couldn’t find it because the oldest activity that i was able to find was something like 1 year 1 month ago and it was written before that date
        Despite i’m a general in the anti-Red Bull army, i really respect Helmut Marko (that doesn’t mean that i like him), Marko is one of few drivers in the world having an honorable academic level, he is a doctor in law and that was the reason why he didn’t start a proper racing career he wanted to finish his study first. He didn’t enjoy much success in F1, he participated in a few races and never scored a point. On the other hand he was a successful endurance driver, back in those years endurance racing was not that far from F1 like nowadays because big Manufacturer like Ferrari, Porsche,Ford….were involved in it while F1 was for small teams that were mounting rear small engines and were focused on aero,suspension,chassis… Enzo used to call them “les garagistes”. Marko won the 1971 24 hours Le Mans, he was caught by Enzo Ferrari’s eyes in the historic 1972 targa florio race when he made a superb comeback beating the Ferrari 312 driving an Alpha Romeo 33. He was destined to be the man of the revolution in Ferrari instead of Lauda but unfortunately form him his accident in the 1972 France GP finished his career. He started managing the career of racing drivers, he managed i think Berger. He the man behind RBR involvement in F1 and then their Junior drivers program. Marko was also a school friend of the great Jochen Rindt

        1. @tifoso1989 there’s a couple of snippets of information there that I wasn’t aware of, thanks for the insight!

          i really respect Helmut Marko (that doesn’t mean that i like him)

          That’s a good standard to uphold. If a person’s achievements merit it they absolutely should be respected – a code of conduct trotter has apparently violated.

    9. @keithcollantine Thanks for the caption win.

      1. @robbie That was good, I liked that one!

    10. I’m a JPM fan, and I am not a fan of the current DRS system (either let everyone use it anytime they want or let nobody use it at all!). So this may sound strange, but I really wish JPM would stop criticizing F1 from the outside now. There is enough negativity on F1 and we don’t need respected vioces piling on.

      1. @daved, unfortunately drivers on the inside have to toe the company line, it is only drivers on the outside that can speak their mind. Maybe if those on the inside were allowed to speak their mind we would have fewer stupid ideas introduced into F1.

        1. @hohum Agreed, to a point. If the voices on the inside would have the courage to speak up, then perhaps we would not have some of the gimmicks we have today. Of course, the worst of them all, double points, came and nobody on the inside even seemed intelligent enough to think we’d care. And even worse, when we said we did care in overwhelming (almost universal majority) said we hated it, they ignored us as if we hadn’t even said anything.

          But I digress. What I’m really referring to is the negative tone that permeates so much of F1 for no reason today. We allow Vettel, Horner, Newey, Mallya, etc, etc..and worst of all Bernie to publicly whine about the noise in F1 and JPM and JV from the outside doing the same. Not helpful.

          Yet as Joe Saward points out, nobody in F1 seems to be intelligent enough to jump on the positives that could be boasted about: Cars with reduced downforce, one third less fuel and totally new power trains going nearly as fast as they have in years past! Lewis completed 56 laps in China only 26 seconds slower than the 2013 race time using only about 95kg of fuel compared to over 140kg in 2013! And he wasn’t even trying to push. That is an incredible achievement. The work that Merc has done will clearly be transferred to road cars with the split turbo/compressor setup as well as other tech that is coming out of these new engines. But who is talking about that? Who is taking credit for what is not only good in F1 today, but actually spectacular!

          If you want to fix F1, go to the root of the issue that causes the need for the silly DRS rules: passing. I’ve discussed/debated this on here with @robbie and @vettel1 and others before.
          Why not reduce the dependence on the wings and go much harder towards ground effects shaping the undertray of the car itself? Why not fix the financial issues that are killing half the teams?

          Joe’s blog makes for a good read. Here is the post he put up on the subject…worth looking at. He delves into the true threats to F1: the cost structure that will drive half the teams out if not addressed. Forget the noise issue…it’s a distraction. When there are only 6 teams left, then the sport will be greatly diminished.

          1. @daved, minor emphasise excepted, I think we are in general agreement.

          2. @daved I’m with you in general, certainly wrt passing, and the only issue I have with your comment is when you say “we allow…” referring to those within and outside of F1 talking negatively. I think everyone should be allowed their opinion, and there are only negative opinions because some people are finding negative things about F1’s current format. But that can be healthy too. And taken constructively with a goal toward change. And in F1 one of the constants is change. That’s how we are where we are. I would rather hear negative opinions, which, after all are just that, and they can be debated and are food for thought, than hear that only one side of the story is “allowed”.

            So I don’t know how one would disallow opinions, other than through communist/dictatorial type means of course, and I don’t wish to see anyone try, and I’m not even clear on how badly F1 feels it needs ‘help’ if even BE and LdM who you would think are amongst those that stand to lose the most from negativity are the most guilty.

            I think many of us have already got some fairly similar ideas as to how things could be tweaked, and those may come…there are certainly seemingly no end to things that are up for consideration if not implementation by F1, and I think the bottom line on those will be their bottom line. When whatever direction F1 takes hurts their bottom line, that’s when action will be taken.

            I don’t think it is the case that ‘nobody’ on the inside is accenting the positive, and for now it is what it is. People’s opinions are all fair game right now, and it must be remembered that we are still just barely into this new chapter, so some things may even work themselves out as teams get closer to each other and I think F1 certainly should be allowed to see some races through to see what the final outcome of their current direction is, so that they can then go from there. There really is no choice anyway. They’re not about to make drastic changes, and I wouldn’t want to see them try while they are still on such a learning curve, and the negative aspects will either get better or worse or stay and as always the discussion will go on.

            As to the positive aspects…they are there and can be built upon, and millions upon millions are still watching, and realistically “Everything is roses and kittens” is not the headline that sells newspapers, nor would people be being honest with themselves or others if their own allowed opinion didn’t jive with that. I just like to see opinions backed with a good argument for said opinion, positive or negative, and not just “no you are wrong because I said so and I am right.” eg. JPM has decried DRS and has said why, so I hope that is one more nail in it’s coffin, not that I expect any ONE man’s opinion to do that. The double points? Yeah that one seems to have stuck against all odds, for now, and so maybe that is a sign that indeed the bottom line is hurting from the early WDC wins of SV and F1 is desperate to solve that, even if the solution isn’t the right one. It’s certainly cheap and easy to instigate but I hope it becomes impotent this year and then goes away with the next set of tweaks.

            1. @robbie You’re correct, I used a poor choice of words: allow. I meant it more in terms of the saying “we’re allowing ourselves to be so negative”. Not as in we have some “police force and/or policies” to actually force happy thoughts on everyone. LOL
              Of course, I could always just quote that “beautiful human being”…Oddball.
              “Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves. Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ Great movie.

            2. @robbie actually I see @magillagorilla said it better than I did a couple of comments down below.

        2. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          27th April 2014, 6:25

          I was really hoping to hear what Mark Webber really thought of the whole Pirelli/DRS/Politics/Vettel situation once he’d gotten out, but he’s been very quiet.

          I just thought that since he was the most vocal about these issues whilst he was in the inside, that once he retired he’d really let loose with info. But I suppose he can’t since he still partnered with Red Bull.

          1. @tophercheese21 Mark is still supported by Red Bull, so it could be some of his pay is made by them and he cannot speak on some matters as open as he’d like.

            That being said, Mark doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to talk foul years after the fact. I’ve only read him say bad things about Pizzonia years after, but I think that was more of a reply to statements Pizza Boy himself made.

          2. @daved Fair comment. Btw, I don’t need to open the link to know well of your Donald Sutherland reference. “Drinkin some wine, eatin some cheese, catchin some rays…”

            1. @robbie You’re obviously a man of discerning taste :)

    11. What I find funny is that JPM says all this whimsical crap that the nostalgia fans run away with and clamor too. However, in saying this he acts as if drivers no days have it easy, you know the same drivers that make their way up the ranks with out DRS assistance and have to learn the art of overtaking. Or how about the 5 champions that are currently on the grid that all won a championship prior to DRS and raced many races without DRS. The usually same people who are mad that the cars no longer look like they did from 200-2006, or the fact the V10s are gone or even worse the ones that are still sore about the V12s being no longer. These people are the ones that can’t be bothered to change with the sport they supposedly love. It’s not the DRS comment that gets me it’s the electronics part that irritates me about JPM, instead of realizing that these cars (along with LMP) are the forerunners of road-going technology he rather not understand it and bash it.

      Overall the point is this, an outside racer reflecting on the current state of affairs due to participating in an era nearly a decade ago as if the same thing is asinine. People willing to praise it rather than say, well it’s not the same sport as you remember it and there were a fair share of issues during the time he was in it as well, is also asinine. I agree DRS should be changed or diminished all together, but having a go at ERS/KERS or mgu-k and mgu-h when you don’t understand the technology is the biggest foul.

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        27th April 2014, 6:26

        Easy COTD.

        Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        1. Thank goodness JPM has the freedom to express his opinion, which can only come from his experience, and we have the freedom to debate it. Unfortunately his opinion won’t change anything, and those currently within F1 have pushed DRS and double points through. That to me is a far bigger foul.

      2. Extraordinarily confused comment. All that bluster criticising Montoya for stating the obvious fact that DRS takes the skill out of overtaking, only to eventually agree with him.

    12. You want to tell us how DRS is being integrated into modern vehicles?

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        27th April 2014, 6:27

        McLaren P1.
        Porsche 918

        1. The last time I watched a race F1 cars were dumping the downforce on the straight to speed up not adding wing

          From McLaren P1

          Airflow is optimised around the body through the use of an active wing and underbody devices. The adjustable rear wing can extend from the bodywork by 120mm on road, up to 300mm on the race track, maximising the levels of downforce.

          And you’re right about the Porsche. It seems to work more in line with what F1 DRS does as an uncontrolled driver aid.

          1. And we can also agree that that technology used on those cars will never benefit your average driver and road car only the very few people who get to drive those cars which are used well above normal road speeds and are suitable for the track.

            1. And we can also agree that that technology used on those cars will never benefit your average driver and road car

              Lots of cars which are only slightly sporty have spoilers (often retractable). And other cars have devices which manage airflow like the Focus, which sometimes closes the grille to aid airflow. Active aero is filtering down to a lot more cars.

        2. Is the active grill on a ford a type of drs. Even if its to do with cooling not downforce

          1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
            27th April 2014, 10:44

            Well it will have aerodynamic properties, so yes it could be considered as active aero.

            Also, the Ferrari F12.
            The Mclaren 12C has a reverse of DRS in the form of an aero brake that raises under heavy braking, so that can also be considered active aero.

          2. Electric window or manual handcranks would meet that standard. Many moons ago I had a Dodge Colt that had traction control and regenerative braking cleverly disguised as an A/C unit.

        3. DRS is a ridiculously simple concept which takes no real development, particularly if a car has a wing which is already retractable so has some movement already integrated. DRS can indeed be incorporated into modern vehicles, but F1 shouldn’t be praised for it, as it isn’t a real development- it is a rule change.

          1. @matt90 +1 – the biggest problem for DRS being classed as active aerodynamics is the restrictions imposed on its usage. It is only available for a very small portion of the lap, and even then only available to certain drivers in certain circumstances.

            So it leans much more heavily in the category of gimmickry than genuinely transferable technology, also due to a fact you have already pointed out in that it is a simplistic concept. To which I would like to add that very few cars run permanent rear wing set-ups akin to Formula One cars, but many do run air intake altering apparatus and “air brake”-type wings.

      2. I would class that as “active aerodynamics”, which are expressly banned in F1. I would like active aero (like the Pagani Huayra’s stabiliser fins) to enter the sport as it would be an interesting tech element, but I wouldn’t like the continuation of the abysmal overtaking aid.

    13. “The usually same people who are mad that the cars no longer look like they did from 200-2006, or the fact the V10s are gone or even worse the ones that are still sore about the V12s being no longer. These people are the ones that can’t be bothered to change with the sport they supposedly love.”

      It isn’t the sport that he loved anymore. That’s the point he’s making. All these things that are cutting edge tech actually negate the skill required to sit in the seat. It’s the car designers competing moreso than the drivers. Can a driver actually blow his cars engine if he tried anymore? Whether we like it onr not the idea that F1 will lead with cutting edge technology is/will kill the Formula eventually. Why do you need the best drivers or have skills when the cars won’t let you drive them badly? As stated above DRS if it remains should be available to all drivers to operate as they see fit. Then along with late braking we’ll see how late a driver waits to return downforce to his car going into a turn and how quicly he gets rid of it coming on to a straight. But really F1 could use to get rid of alot of the fancy aero and maximize power for a given displacement with no fuel restrictions/limitations which would create an economy run. And give them tires that will last longer, not necessarily the whole race. The money they saved could be put towards a few more engines for the season. I personally like the energy recovery systems and find them a great idea. That is good tech for F1 and they are very easy to understand.

      1. Why would you want a driver to blow his engine? That’s ridiculous.
        2014 cars are almost matching the laptimes of 2013 cars and they are doing it with less fuel, smaller engines and less downforce. And they are only 4 races in with more development to come. 2014 China, counting all 56 laps, ended only about 20 seconds slower than last year. I find that mind blowing. I don’t understand why there are still people complaining. These new cars are insanely good.

    14. It really annoys me how many tributes there are to Senna, when everyone forgets Ratzenberger. Yes, Senna was one of the greatest drivers in history, but he died having proved that, while Roland died before he got a chance to show what he could do.
      That’s the greater tragedy- that a young driver only over got to drive for a team which really wasn’t going anywhere and that he is forgotten simply because someone more famous happened to die the next day.

      1. Roland wasn’t that young anymore, he was 33 when it happened. Still, he had some nice results in other series (finishing 5th at Le Mans in 1993) and I do wonder how he would have fared in F1.

        It’s the human condition; the more people some has touched, the more are affected by their death. More people remember Gilles Villeneuve, even though Riccardo Paletti died just 5 weeks after him.

        That being said, Roland has been on a lot of people’s minds on F1 sites I frequent, which is a good development. I don’t think he’s forgotten, just underrepresented.

      2. Changed my avatar for that same reason :)

        But too be honest, I don’t want Roland to change into Roland “all you people are remembering Senna but not Ratzenberger, you hypocrites!” Ratzenberger.

    15. I disagree with Montoya. It has ruined the art of defending. Hülkenberg in Korea however showed us both wrong though.

      1. Hamilton didn’t do a bad job in Bahrain, either @ardenflo

        1. @craig-o Agreed. There of course are more examples. Just shame their are not with many.

      2. If drs was’ nt there ‘ there would be a driver behind fighting for 2 or 3 laps to try and get past ‘with drs the driver being overtaken is powerless to do anything .Drs was designed because the fia have cocked up the rules and don’t have the brain power to return to racing again .Drs has ruined the skill of overtaking .senna wouldn’t race with crap we got now

    16. I think DRS was a good idea, but they failed implementing it properly. Banning refuelling increased the number of overtakes already significantly in 2010 and DRS was supposed to level the aero playing field of the car that follows. However it is overused and not calibrated properly (too many zones that are too long) and in combination with the gimmicky tires it made overtaking too easy.

      1. I’d like to see a table that shows that banning refueling on it’s own has raised overtakes. Has Keith made on up somewhere on here?

        1. There is a website called ClipTheApex which lists overtaking stats going back to the early 80s.

          It shows the amount of on-track overtaking plummet from the very 1st race refueling was introduced (1994 Brazilian Gp) & then shoot back upto Pre-refueling levels as soon as it was banned in 2010.
          Going by the stats the 2010 season featured more on-track overtaking than any season since 1989 & a massive increase over any race which featured refueling.

    17. What’s that paint job all about on the Sauber? Have they got new sponsors?

    18. It’s only Bernie Ecclestone who can pull off a divorce by getting paid instead of other way around :)

      1. indeed

    19. “Documents show that since his divorce in 2009 he has received half a billion dollars (£300m) from his ex-wife’s trust fund. In a highly unusual divorce settlement, rather than Mr Ecclestone paying Slavica Ecclestone a good chunk of his fortune, she appears to be paying him at the rate of $100m (£60m) a year.”

      As much as grief is regarded as a negative personality-trait, one has to admit Bernie is a genious in his own way. I don´t believe any man could have ever gotten more out of that divorce.
      Anyone else wants to have a shot at marrying and divorcing Slavica, so we have a comparison?

      1. @crammond
        The man is genius in making money, i just believe that it has something to do with his DNA

    20. Engine homologation has also ruined overtaking this year. Rosberg’s Mercedes passing was .9 seconds of a second behind Vettel’s Redbull at the start of the long straight in China, and by the end of the straight. had passed the Redbull (with artificial crap DRS thrown in for good measure). on the next straight Vettel even with DRS and .2 seconds behind, could not get past the Mercedes. We are back to a 2 -tier racing series like in the 80s when there was turbos, and the NA championship.

      1. With the exception that everybody has more or less the same engine. The only difference is who build a better one.

    21. I wonder of there’ll be any public remembrance for Roland Ratzenbetger? Given all the fuss around Senna’s death, you’d certainly hope so.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        27th April 2014, 15:52

        Sky F1 have a program on Wed’s, 8PM I think, called Remembering Roland… during ‘Senna’ week…

    22. The issue with DRS is that the FIA/FOM/whoeverthehellmakesthesedecisions seem to think that cars constantly swapping places instantly equals excitement. I wish someone would tell them that it does not. What does create excitement is the right cars (e.g. two people fighting for the championship, a podium or a point) swapping places at the right time (at the end of a race, the start, a moment of strategic importance, after lining it up for a few laps) and in the right manner (the skill of the driver).

    23. What killed overtaking is a large number of factors, not just one or two. No one has mentioned braking. One of the most astonishing sights in a live F1 race is the braking power. It is very difficult to out brake when everyone has the same setup. On steel brakes, (a la Indy car) they have to be temperature managed bringing some skill back into the braking zone, which would be almost double the present lengths providing increased overtaking possibilities…

      But, steel brakes, modified aero, engine limits rules upon more rules and we’re heading for a spec type series. Be careful what you wish for..

      1. The major issue with that is it’s a significant technological downgrade, and I don’t think F1 could do that whilst retaining it’s technologically advanced image.

        Nor would the purists among us want it.

    24. From the Guardian:

      Back to Hamilton, who said recently: “Sebastian Vettel always runs over the astroturf and over the kerb a little more than he should, going beyond the white line, which you’re not actually allowed to do but they let you get away with it.

      “In Senna’s day, if he went one foot over that kerb, it would be grass and he would spin, and be penalised. He would be right on the limit, rather than over the limit, and I respect that style of driving more.

      “Now you can go beyond and get back because modern tracks have run-off areas. They used to be gravel. Hit that, and your car was damaged or stuck. Now you can push beyond, go wide and come back on.

      Exactly, it would be so much more exciting if modern tracks would clearly define track limits. This is one of the (many) reasons why I love Zandvoort: every mistake has a consequence. It separates the good from the great. One of the best corners to watch at Zandvoort is ‘Scheivlak’, which is the long right-hander at the far side of the circuit. You can very clearly see which driver has absolute confidence in his car and which driver doesn’t. At the modern tarmac palaces, there is no difference, because every driver is driving on the limit, as none of them ever get bit by the fact that they are driving beyond their personal limit.

      1. I don’t understand why he portrays Vettel as the miscreant there and not the circuit designers though @andae23.

        1. @vettel1 Yeah, I thought that was a bit.. grumpy too. No idea why he singles out Vettel here, because they all do it. Nonetheless, my point still stands :)

          1. Of course, but then again, I do like the safety improvements to tracks – I just simply think they have gone too far. A simple strip of grass bordering the track would be a perfectly sufficient deterent without the safety risks posed on the Zandvoort circuit @andae23 :)

        2. Cause Vettel is the most extreme in that. Brundle lauds him for it (using every inch of the “track”), but probably it shouldn’t be allowed so much since he’s actually off track sometimes too.

        3. I suppose he is most prolific during qualifying and often in competition with Hamilton, which might explain it.

          1. @patrickl @matt90 the main gripe is with the tracks though, so that should be the focus of his decision and not Vettel for exploiting that to his advantage.

            1. The way I read, he feels that drivers shouldn’t be running off track to gain an advantage. Just stay within the lines or, if you can’t behave, be penalized.

              Turning the track back into a potentially dangerous place for the drivers is not going to happen. Stopping drivers who are cheating by abusing the current situation (of which Vettel is the most obvious example) could also be achieved through more stringent policing from the stewards.

            2. I don’t know. Pointing out that the current attitude allows certain drivers to consistently abuse the limits more than their competitors (who more frequently try to respect those limits) seems like a reasonable point. If there’s a discrepancy on how much different drivers feel that they push it, then it is also part of the problem.

            3. Yes, though it is a separate point from which he goes on to discuss @matt90. Though perhaps that was the intention.

              As has been said though, that’s not Vettel’s fault: if the enforcement of the regulations allows for it, and it gains you an advantage, you will do it as a competitor.

    25. Totally agree with JPM. DRS does reduce the true skill of a racer’s instinct, in fact it makes him lazy and in his head ‘I’m getting closer, next lap I’ll take him, better not risk damaging my car’.

    26. As a Photoshop user, I strongly disagree with what JPM is saying. Photoshop offers possibilities traditional art doesn’t, so just imagine combining the two. The same with DRS. It’s nothing but a tool. It’s a matter of how you use what you have to your advantage.

    Comments are closed.