Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2017

F1 to consider DRS changes after Chinese GP

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula One will evaluate whether its Drag Reduction System needs to be changed to increase overtaking after the second race of the year in China.

An increase in downforce on this years cars has been predicted to make overtaking more difficult. The FIA had previously indicated DRS zones could be changed to help facilitate overtaking.

Interactive: Compare the F1 cars of 2017
However Albert Park, which hosts of this weekends season-opening race, has little room for either of its two DRS zones to be extended.

F1 Fanatic understands a decision has already been taken to look into the matter more closely following the second race of the year in early April. The FIA wishes to fully understand how this year’s aerodynamic changes have affected the role of DRS before taking any action.

Teams have warned drivers may not gain as great a benefit from DRS as they used to due to the high levels of drag created by the new cars.

“We need to learn about the overtaking because this car is fundamentally different from an aerodynamic point of view,” said Mercedes engineering director Aldo Costa.

“They have not been particularly studied for the overtaking improvement. So we need to see how it would be [for] that.”

“The DRS effect will be smaller so probably the FIA will have to increase the [DRS zone] distance, probably, to make it as effective or even more effective. So we have to discover altogether, little by little, where we are in terms of racing.”

“The cars they are great from the aerodynamic development point of view, they have got much more performance, they will be much faster. They look nicer, they look more aggressive, more modern.”

“In terms of racing, we will have to learn as an F1 community about it.”

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

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 2017 Australian Grand Prix, 2017 Chinese Grand Prix, 2017 F1 seasonTags ,

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

  • 99 comments on “F1 to consider DRS changes after Chinese GP”

    1. Why does changing DRS automatically means maging it more effective? With the wider rear wings, I expect DRS to have more effect so the DRS zones could just as well be made shorter (I live in a dreamworld).

      1. @matthijs It’s because the increase in downforce is also coming from other areas – particularly the front wing (which is hugely powerful, particularly with the rake angles teams are using to get it close to the ground), the structures in front of the sidepods and the diffuser.

        1. @keithcollantine if the front wing is the main problem that makes overtaking hard, why does FIA keep insisting on having an enormous front wing? Would making it narrower make overtaking more natural, thus making DRS unnecessary? Sorry for the lots of questions.

          1. The front wings are the size they are to balance the huge rear wings. That’s the reason they made the rear wings smaller in 2009, and why the new regs are a backwards step for the racing.

            1. This season is a HUGE step in the right direction for F1.
              how anyone could like those incredably ugly high and narrow F3like
              rear wings of recent years, so totally unworthy of F1, is Beyond me.
              But please lets get ground effect back in some form so that complicated (fishgill like)
              front wing could be replaced by a smaller and simpler twoplane retro frontwing.
              But the rear wing must stay low and wide !!!

          2. Andrew Purkis
            21st March 2017, 17:09

            always thought that they should dispense with the front wing alltogether if the wake was the issue in overtaking
            like in the in the ground effect cars in the early 80s

            1. Ask Mark Webber why a car with a perfectly flat bottom should have a front wing…. :)

              Short version: Keeps the car from turning into a wing.

              I’m all in favor of mild ground effects (IndyCar has a couple hollowed out regions under the car that contribute downforce), but of course, if you say ground effects around F1 people, they assume you mean skirts, fans, and ungodly collisions when the ground effects fail.

          3. knoxploration
            21st March 2017, 17:53

            Because they’re idiots who don’t listen to anybody with any common sense.

          4. @omarr-pepper, the thing is, whilst people focus on the front wing simply because they can see it, computational fluid dynamics studies have shown that the bigger problems in the past have been down to stalling of the front of the floor of the car.

        2. @keithcollantine Yes I understand that (with increased downforce) following a car might be even harder, meaning that the gap between drivers at the beginning of the straight might be larger. But if DRS is more effective, the gap will be closed faster.

          1. No because the extra drag is from other areas of the car which DRS does not negate. If all the extra drag was from the rear wing only then would it be more effective. DRS on its own may be stronger but the increased drag from other areas results in a net loss for gow effective DRS is.

            1. Thanks for this explanation!
              By the way, one would expect the new cars to run flatter rear wings, which may also reduce the effectiveness of DRS.

            2. Markp is right – a lot of the extra drag is coming from the tyres, hence the ‘drag reduction’ aspect of DRS is not as effective as it used to be, because it only affects the rear wing (and other bits if your car is very cleverly designed)

          2. @matthijs ”(with increased downforce) following a car might be even harder” – Again, the real problem is how the downforce is implemented, not the amount of it.

        3. My (rudimentary) understanding is that increases in downforce at the front end come with less drag penalty than at the rear. An increase in downforce increases the drag coefficient, but not the frontal area. Increasing downforce at the rear wing (by increasing angle of attack, width or both) increases drag coefficient and frontal area, so proportionately overall drag is rear-biased, which DRS should mitigate. Bear in mind also that the new bargeboards and swept front wings will actually increase aerodynamic efficiency by increasing downforce more than drag, but the effect of this works mostly on the front wing, underfloor and diffuser. But I might be wrong.

        4. They need to add a DRS flap to the front wing too. Obviously.

    2. And less DRS effect is bad because…?

      1. exactly, please someone explain it to me as well.

        and if the cars have more drag, the slipstream effect will be greater, don’t really understand where this problem is coming from.

          1. Keith, you might remember some years ago, before there was DRS, there was extensive discussion on this website on how to make overtaking easier. Remember the infamous “Trulli train”?

            If you don’t have DRS you will need something else to prevent faster drivers getting boxed in behind slower drivers for lap after lap, which is a consequence of different pit stop strategies. Alternatively, make pit stops voluntary so the faster guys can head off into the blue without stopping. But then most races would be boringly predictable…

            Perhaps you could re-open the discussion on alternatives to DRS. I remember my idea was the driver coming up behind could “tag” the driver in front if he got close enough, triggering a rev reduction device. (Note: I think DRS is a better plan.)

        1. Not nessecarily. All the wings and turning vanes create turbulence and lots of little pockets of drag. Not one big neat vacuum like you get in sportscars or NASCAR. The perfect example is when Ducati in added wings to its MotoGP bikes. They became near impossible to slip stream.

          I’m not defending DRS. I’d also like to see it go, but if F1 really wants easier overtaking the cars need less complex front wings, bigger diffusers and, most importantly, ground effects needs to come back.

          1. @btcamp

            the Ducati example isn’t comparable. what they did was to redirect air flows, but the general structure of the bike is the same I assume.

            The new cars are bigger, you have a larger object plunging trough the air, so in theory the slipstream effect should be bigger.

            Nevertheless, DRS should be bolted shut.

            1. @johnmilk Look at the mess of air coming off the diffusers of these things in the CFD…

              https://twitter.com/ScarbsTech/status/843573801837367296

              That’s why the cars can’t follow each other.

            2. @optimaximal the problem of cars following each-other due to complex aero manifest itself mainly in the corners, where the wings don’t work as well and therefore drivers start losing front grip, and then struggle to follow the car in front. That is what those images represent. This is also why I think the problem is with the front wings, by simplifying them they should all struggle more or less the same, regardless of driving in clean or dirty air.

              that same “dirty” air is responsible for the slipstream effect, in a straight line, if a car is following another, the more air the car in front disturbs, the better, as it reduces the resistance of the car behind to go trough it. In the situation the aero devices of the car don’t work as well, but there is no need from them to work in that situation

              with that said, the image that you shared doesn’t seem very accurate, especially in the rear wing, the lines should manifest the same trajectory as we see with spray on wet wheather conditions

              mind you I’m no aerodynamicist, but that is my understanding of how flow behaves

          2. As long as F1 cars have open wheels the airflow coming off the F1 car will be a lot more turbulent than a sportscar. Open exposed tires generate a lot of aerodynamic lift and drag which also means more dirty air and turbulence. You could take all the wings off of an f1 car and it would still give more turbulent aero than lmp car.

            Ground effects is not a magic bullet on its own. And current cars already have a lot more ground effects than the previous year’s cars. Ground effect just means that a wing or floor of the car is close enough to the ground to get a benefit from it. But what it also means that the ground clearence of all those aero parts and the floor must be closer to the ground to be operating at their peak effectiveness. We are talking about millimeters here.

            So when following another car the car with lots of ground effect aero will be driving through the turbulent air coming off from the car in front. This means the air is less dense, more turbulent and the air itself is not stationary. As car goes through the air some of the air is pushed forward by the car. So in other terms the airspeed of the car following is slower than the car in front. This means loss of downforce. But it also means the ground clearence of the car following will be higher because there is less downforce pushing the car to the ground (compressing the springs and tires). This in return makes the ground effect smaller which again means the car will be little higher.

            Ground effect alone in a big way won’t help overtaking. You probably want some kind of active suspension to go with it so the loss of downforce is smaller when following other car.

        2. It might be the size/shape of the wing and what other aero surfaces are doing means you’re not able to separate the airflow as effectively and create the drag reduction.

          But to give a slightly different example: say you’re running behind another car in a 120 degree turn onto the main straight. Your car is going to be losing downforce through the corner, meaning the car in front is able to put some ground between you. You are further away which reduces the slipstreaming effect, and unless you can get alongside or actually ahead, you have less downforce behind with which to brake and load the front tires. It’s not as simple as it sees.

      2. @strontium no one knows…

        When I read the tittle of the news I was so happy because I thought they were thinking of scraping the thing altogether!

        1. Roll of Duct Tape, problem solved…

      3. @strontium – it’s bad for the big teams because it takes away a means by which they can regain their “rightful” position after driver or team error.

        This is my gripe: DRS assumes that one car has the right to be in front of another based on outright speed. But how did the faster car get there in the first place? DRS minimizes the errors of the bigger teams and that’s why we still have it.

        1. And yet you can also trigger DRS when coming up behind a lapped car.

          1. i’ve always thought it was dumb to get it from a lapped car. though the whole thing is pretty dumb anyway – not the original idea, but the way it has been implemented and maintained. i was incredulous that we had it at spa and canada and then they added extra zones! i would say it has worked well at barcelona and singapore, but i can’t think of many other places.

            it’s slightly ridiculous that one of the joys i take from a wet race is that the DRS is switched off.

        2. @asherway CotY. Lately I’m reading great things on this website.
          In f1 and life in general people do what’s in their best business, currently as f1 stands anything that is introduced changed or removed is on the best interest of Mercedes and Redbull and also Ferrari. Remember when Horner wanted to get rid of refuelling? He claimed it was because it’s cheaper, which is good for smaller teams, when all he was thinking about was Massa in Singapore 2008. More aero, better for RB Merc and Ferrari, more drag better for Mercedes, better tyres, better for Mercedes Ferrari and RB, It’s a simple logic. Why we have DRS “DRS minimizes the errors of the bigger teams and that’s why we still have it.” Look at Abu dhabi 2010 and many other races, cars get stuck behind other cars, instead of taking it as racing, the top teams make up rules to lower the chances of losing races from mistakes or unpredictable factors. RB doesn’t want another Monaco 2017, nor does Mercedes want another Monaco 2016.
          Fans understanding that when the teams are the ones that scribble the rules vote or veto using the power of their satellite teams, fans understanding the true concept and joy and reward that comes from actual racing is great, it’s never too late. Out with DRS, we may end up with little to no action and cars trying to one stop at every race but it’s real. Solve close racing by reducing the impact of aero, and then let them free.

        3. @asherway, that’s a valid criticism of DRS, since the car behind becomes different in shape than the car in front – and therefore is artificial, gimmicky, and unnatural.

          But all it really does is swing the balance between slipstreaming and dirty-air cornering a bit more in favor of the driver behind. After all, some oval racing results in the leader never being able to open a gap due to slip-streaming – which produces damn exciting finishes but was never really fair for the guy with the fastest car by himself. I hate that too – and it seems totally artificial.

          That of course is not an F1 problem at the moment, but I’m just making the point that the driver ahead is never going to be in the same situation as the driver behind – gimmicks added or not.

        4. @asherway I completely agree with you

      4. It’s Sunday, must be an F1 parade.

        If you sort the cars out fastest to slowest on Saturday, why is everyone surprised at a lack of passing on Sunday? (Not my quote, but I can’t find who said it)

        1. I think that the qualify maybe should be only 1 hot lap. This would mix the grid for sure.

    3. Change it back to free use in practice and qualifying. That was a display of skill.

        1. @mateuss @offdutyrockstar I liked that more too but as it was dropped on safety grounds I don’t see it changing.

      1. @mateuss That was challenging and a justifiable usage of DRS, free for all. On the other hand the greater cars area were able to use it for longer than the bad cars stretching the field. It was danger and the fact it was fruitless from the perspective of close racing that they took free use DRS away from qualifying. Why not just bin DRS. Now seriously the most effective usage of DRS for racing is to give it to everyone everywhere, but not to the race leader.

    4. Great. dissapointment. Okay, it is good to evaluate effect on overtaking after a few races, that is progress. But I think if increasing DRS length is needed, it should only be done on the condition they will work to fix it more effectively, set up that research group Brawn was talking about.

      I can sort of accept grudgingly that right now it is too late to ‘fix’ it in season, and sure, better to work with situation, see if you can tweak something (ie. length of DRS zone). But, they were supposed to do that when DRS got introduced, vary length etc., and never really did that. And they resolutely resisted working to fix the actual problem once DRS was there. Again, I can only hope Brawn is the factor that makes it a different outcome this time.

    5. So basically they have no idea how the DRS is going to work this year, so they’re going to use the first few races as test races and see if it needs to be altered at all?

      1. Let me guess instead of getting the DRS within a second, they might change it to 1.5 or even 2 if the cars are really that hard to follow. I don’t think Aldo meant to say the speed difference was going to decrease but rather the effectiveness of running DRS behind another car.

    6. I guess it is ok that they want to look into it (they should have toned it down for quite a few tracks in the past where it made overtaking far too easy IMO). Let us hope they take the time to really look at the effects though, and make it a preparation for the more important discussion, of how to ditch it completely for the future!

    7. Why not just open the regulations and make DRS free to use for an X amount of seconds each 2-3-4 laps (depending on the track). This makes DRS use much more tactical, as you will never have enough seconds to cover all straights.

      Now, you can overcomplicate this by giving the attacking driver bonus seconds each time he is within 1 second (at certain sector times) of the driver ahead. So DRS will still help you get closer to thy enemy.

      I agree, it’s not pretty, but I think it’s more fair than it is now.

      1. Go the Indycar route. Allow the drivers to employ DRS a specified number of times (say 8) each race whenever/wherever they want. Use it to attack, defend whatever, but only a set number of times and then that’s it. This puts the control with the drivers and allows the driver’s skill and judgment to show.
        That said, I would urge the FIA to stop messing with the rules within the season unless there is some safety issue.

        1. This this this x 1000!!!!! DRS on its own is cool. Why block a cool, cheap innovation that doesn’t look horrible?

          Give the drivers a limited amount each and you suddenly add a whole new tactical element to battles.

          1. DRS simply shouldn’t be needed at all and all they have to do is get to a good ratio of mechanical grip to aero. That way, no issue at all with easy push-button passes.

            1. The problem is that they need to get rid of 90% of the aero for that to happen, its a drastic change.

          2. That would actually be a bad idea, as drivers will be punished twice after a puncture or any other reason for major time loss. That’s why I believe an X amount of seconds for each 2-4 laps will benefit the sport more.

        2. IndyCar changed the push-to-pass regulation this year. You get to use it for X number of seconds per race– so now you can cancel a push-to-pass use before the 8(?) seconds are up.

            1. @robbie Says i.
              If you want “mechanical grip” to actually matter to a point where drs aint needed like in motogp as an example.

        3. @american f1 @petebaldwin – I agree that this is the most reasonable solution if they’re going to keep DRS. My only change would be that leading the race eats into your available DRS time/uses. For example, for each five laps led, your remaining uses reduces by 1 (i.e. 15 laps led = three fewer DRS deployments). Or each lap led takes a tenth of a second out of your total deployment time. Or something like that.

          I realize it would add a complication but that way the lead driver with clean air cannot sit there and save all his DRS for the end. Everyone’s DRS deployments get used. Just a thought.

    8. Unless air decides to start moving in a different way all of a sudden, I can’t see any possibility that following close will be anything other than even harder than in 2016… and the changes to the tyres look like they’ve eliminated the only other variable, aside from DRS, that would permit a car to have any chance at all of overtaking a similarly equipped rival.

      So I’m at least grateful that the cars will be four or five seconds per lap quicker, as it’ll mean I’ll have to spend around five fewer minutes of my Sundays watching very fast, very boring processions.

      1. I suspect your opinion is the right one.

        1. I suspect that if that is the case then Liberty and Brawn will tweek that. At least they’ve got the cars and tires now to then diminish aero, as Brawn already knows to do.

      2. Just don’t watch any of it.

    9. So I guess the key note here is, enjoy the first 2 races of tame DRS while you can!

      I always actually thought it was fine in Melbourne, anyway. The s/f straight and second straight are the perfect length for a DRS zone (if you must have them).

      I just find the one in China down the 1km straight completely offensive!

      1. True. I hope the rule makers will finally see that a less powerful DRS is actually a good thing (at most tracks).

    10. I almost got excited for a moment and interpreted that as ‘perhaps they’ll bin DRS after the first 2 races..!’, but alas..

      1. They cant bin a thing thats the core of the cardesigns just two races in. They will look into the DRS zones thats all.

    11. I read the headline and did a fistpump. I read the article and I groaned. More DRS, not less? They will never learn.

      1. Yes they will (learn). Let’s not give up. First of all they may see after a few races that they don’t need to ‘strengthen’ DRS, and secondly Brawn has only just begun to have his say, and going by what he has said already, he will be urging F1 to head toward a good mechanical to aero grip ratio and the eventual removal of DRS. That’s not going to happen this year as the cars have been designed already and they can’t just take DRS away, but under Brawn, and starting next year, if aero is still too powerful look for wings to be clipped somewhat next year…possibly tires even grippier…and the decrease and eventual elimination of the ‘need’ for DRS over the next two to three years.

        1. Yeah, I saw your remark elsewhere about Brawn and the sweet spot between mechanical and aerodynamic grip and I agree. With Brawn we are looking at going in the right direction, and I too am confident it will get better. This though still sounds like old-school dumb F1.

    12. I read the headline and thought ‘wow ross brawn stepping in already!’

      Then I realised that they are thinking of making it MORE powerful…

      Sad times, sad times indeed

      Well at least the cars will be mighty fast like they should be

      1. Actually the way I see it thank goodness Brawn is now present. They’ll run a few races and see how the product is on the track, and Brawn’s input will no doubt be quite potent given his new role, and he has already stated they need to gradually move away from DRS as he has never liked it.

        I see it this way…firstly we all have to see the product on the track as obviously even F1 insiders don’t know exactly what to expect from these cars once racing in anger.

        I’m not convinced that they will use all the downforce they will have access to, especially since they now have tires they can lean on. I’ve been surprised at the number of times aero has been mentioned as being some sort of ruiner of the racing without mentioning the sturdier tires at the same time. I think both should always be included in the discussions together as the tires are far newer to F1 than aero is and should make a huge difference. They’ve always been able to run more aero if they wanted but higher speed tracks just don’t warrant it. Perhaps at Monza they’ll only use 5% more downforce than last year, for all we know.

        I’ll go out on a limb and predict that teams will use less downforce than has been fear mongered, and that the front tires will be sturdy and stable when behind a car in dirty air and so the racing will indeed be closer.

        They are so close to a good mechanical grip to aero grip ratio that Brawn can taste it. If they decide after a few races to increase DRS that will only be imho for this year because the regs were set before Brawn had a say. But I think he will be voting against more DRS and instead will start to advocate immediately (I’m sure he has already) for less aero, the maintenance of the tires, and a moving away from DRS altogether.

        1. But Ross is part of the Liberty Media set up, isn’t he? Surely DRS and the size of the wings et al is set by the FIA, isn’t it?

          1. For sure I couldn’t possibly know the details but I would suggest Liberty nor Brawn have had much say in the current regs, but nonetheless the changes are heading F1 in the right direction. I think Liberty has now taken on Brawn because they know what needs to be fixed and they know they need someone who can orchestrate F1 and it’s needed direction in a focussed and thoughtful manner.

            If you are suggesting FIA dictates to F1 that it must use DRS or must use bigger and bigger wings, I can’t speak to that but I don’t think that is how it works. I’m assuming (for what that’s worth) that the FIA is just as interested as Liberty and Brawn in getting to the point of a better product on the track and a healthier F1 overall, that sees an increase in audience not a decrease. And Brawn has already indicated that in his opinion that centres around a good mechanical to aero grip ratio and no DRS. He also implies that the teams should be given time for any changes going forward vs. knee-jerk reactions.

            I think if FIA dictates things like aero and DRS then Brawn would have either tried to work there to affect changes, or would have just stayed retired, but wouldn’t have bothered taking a position with Liberty if his opinions would only be overshadowed by the FIA.

            1. I hope you’re right. But I can quite imagine the bureaucrats of the FIA taking offence at the interference of Brawn in the administration of ‘their’ sport and refusing to have anything to do with him or his recommendations.
              With Todt’s strenuous claims recently that the FIA is not aware of and not interested in the money arrangements between the Commercial Rights Holder and the teams, he seemed to be placing a firm divide between those people who are responsible for the success or otherwise of the sport and those who administer it. A sort of “You deal with your side, we’ll deal with ours” type of attitude.
              I hope that Brawn’s attempt to influence reform of the regulations on behalf of Liberty don’t generate an instant digging-in-of-heels reaction from the FIA.

            2. Possible I guess but I’d be really surprised if there was angst between the FIA and Brawn. As to FIA not wanting to interfere on the money distribution side, I get that, and for the same reason I don’t see why they would interfere with the new regime trying to improve the product of F1. If anything Todt and Brawn have already teamed up together for huge success in the MS/ Ferrari era, so as I say I don’t see why there would be any angst whatsoever.

    13. That headline got me excited because I hoped it would be changed to a push-to-pass system where each driver got like 10 or 15 uses per race, no matter if they are in a DRS window behind another car.

      *sigh*

    14. It might not be the story I wanted, no DRS would suit me, but who do the FIA think they are? Don’t they know that they should be randomly messing with the rules without any forethought or sense? What happened to the good old days where decisions would be made, changes implemented, withdrawn, fudged and implemented again without taking any time to look at how changes to the regulations would effect the real world? How dare they think of looking at whats in front of them before making decisions… things aint like they used to be!

    15. No more mid-season rule changes please F1/FIA. Would be nice to know you are planning a strategy rather than knee-jerk reactions to the rules.

      Thanks!

      1. I expressed exactly the same point of view on Hamilton’s comments that cars may be more difficult to pass this season. Knee-jerk reactions and quick-fixes we do not need.

      2. Michael Brown (@)
        21st March 2017, 14:47

        The only knee-jerk reaction I approved of is the removal of knockout qualifying

    16. Estaban de los Casas
      21st March 2017, 14:42

      New cars
      New challenges
      New rules
      No DRS

      Allow the drivers to race. It is what they want and most of all, it is what fans want to see. The time has come for a new kind of Formula One.

      For all of you who therorize what will happen when racing this new generation of race car, what do any of you really know ? Its nothing but speculation.

    17. For a second i also thought they were going to ditch DRS, but when I read the article I instantly reminded of the dark age of F1 (Ecclestone’s era of knee jerk reaction rule changes). It’s hard to cope with these news just after having read a dozen times that Ross Brawn want to get rid of them! I think this is a post Bernie Ecllestone side effect!

    18. Please Formula 1, put this DRS to trash.
      The greatest races of the Formula 1 History didn’t need this crap. F1, by essence, is not a show, we don’t care about artificial overtakes, we want toe-to-toe overtakes, late braking. Drivers who are able to defend from an attack. All about skills. And remove this asphalt outside the track.

    19. Get rid of DRS completely and go back to the early days of KERS were drivers had control of their electrical deployment and had only X amount of seconds of electrical boost per lap. It was great watching drivers use it strategically to attack and defend without the opposition knowing.

      1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
        21st March 2017, 19:26

        Or just give x amount of seconds of DRS to the same end, and abandon the within 1 second of the car ahead nonsense

      2. The drivers do have control of their electrical deployment and its far more powerfull than the KERS ever was.

    20. Something just clicked for me based on the picture for this article.

      Formula 1 paintball.

      A small cannon is added to the nose of each car, and each driver is allocated 12 shots per race which he can use at any time during the race after the first two laps.

      Should a driver successfully hit another driver, he can use an unrestricted DRS system for the next full lap.

      The Dulux Deerhunter Trophy will be awarded at the end of the season to the driver with the most “kills”.

      1. Tommy Scragend
        21st March 2017, 18:43

        So that’s what the hole on the Red Bull nose is for.

        Newey ahead of the game again 😀

        1. Its not a hole, that would be illegal ;)

    21. ”An increase in downforce on this years cars has been predicted to make overtaking more difficult.”
      – Again, the real problem is how the downforce is implemented, not the amount of it.

    22. The FIA wishes to fully understand how this year’s aerodynamic changes have affected the role of DRS before taking any action.

      Did I read that right?

      Usually they introduce a gimmick first (cf. elimination qualifying) and start the quest to ‘fully understand how it works’ afterwards.

      1. Sounds like they’ve already been listening to Brawn about careful and well thought out decisions that the teams have time to adjust to, as opposed to the knee-jerk kinds of changes. Brawn has talked about careful consideration of what F1 wants to be, and careful decisions as to how to get there that make sense and that everyone is on board with.

      2. @paeschli Elimination qualifying was cooked up by Ecclestone, not the FIA.

    23. Just. Get. Rid. Of. It.

    24. Here’s a change, get rid of it.

    25. I too have the same feeling of so many of you that DSR is just not racing, however for now if we must have silly gimmicks due to politics then at least put some strategy behind it. Abolish the 1 second rule which would open up more zones and allow drivers to use DRS to either attack or defend. I would propose giving each driver a certain amount of DRS time to manage for each race & for either purpose (attack or defend). An additional option would be to time weight each purpose based on your qualifying position which would see a driver further up the grid having slightly less attach time..

      I guess we can have a better sort of gimmick than current one we have ;)

    26. How difficult is it to implement some type of active aero? So instead of DRS, the following car can gain x amount of downforce since it’s lost in the wake of the car in front…

    27. Just remove it. It’s a gimmick that real F1 fans don’t want anyway.

    28. Get rid of it and return Formula One to Formula One. Is this category the pinnacle of motorsport?

      A driver must engineer an overtake and not be rewarded for being the car behind. The worse thing ever introduced in the history of Formula One.

      1. A driver must engineer an overtake and not be rewarded for being the car behind.

        I think that’s pretty pithy and succinct, not a lot wrong with that at all. Well said.

      2. Tony Mansell
        22nd March 2017, 9:47

        accidental and Freudian use of ‘engineer’

    29. Tony Mansell
      22nd March 2017, 9:45

      Im going to stick my neck out and say it will actually be fine. The tyres wont break up so they will be able to follow and they do give significantly more grip. Its always been hard to overtake, its a myth to suggest otherwise. We were lucky in the 80s we had fearless characters like Mansell & Senna but mostly they trundled around and we watched from a long distance camera with commentary down a telephone. Its just the youtube generation want every game to finish 6-5. Well sorry snowflakes sometimes you get a 0-0.

      The rise of social media hasn’t helped. RUbbish races just used to get a shrug shoulder and you’d go and do some gardening. Now theres ‘fury’. The flames are intensified by media scrutiny which outside specialist publications never existed 20 years ago. Its a fantasy world. Its wanting it to be Xmas every day.

      Id much rather we got the cars moving about on the corners, drifting round 130r is easily as amazing as some guy passing a Sauber.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.