“No point” reviving F1’s original DRS rules

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA race director Charlie Whiting says there is “no point” in reverting to Formula 1’s original DRS rules, which allowed drivers to use it at any point on the track during qualifying.

What they say

Drivers were allowed to activate DRS in the high-speed Abbey and Farm corners at Silverstone, which prompted questions to Whiting whether they should be given much freer use of DRS:

I don’t think there’s any point. All you’re doing is creating faster lap times, nothing else. I think the whole principle of DRS was to help overtaking. To allow them to use it in places they can use it in the race seems entirely logical to me. So I wouldn’t be in favour of going back.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Motorsport at the Olympics? Tristan is fully in favour:

Driving on the limit requires the best split second decision making along side incredible intuition with a combination of a forceful hand and the lightest touch. And to do that in concert with the psychology of a race really is an amazing sporting endeavour. I really hope it takes off and the government gets behind supporting their best drivers to push Motorsport competition to new heights.
Tristan (@skipgamer)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Wizardofoz, Icemangrins, Bill Niehoff and Gruntr18!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

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.

33 comments on ““No point” reviving F1’s original DRS rules”

  1. Very interesting article about the RBR cars that highlights their dilemma.

    I suspect both drivers (with their engineers) are running slightly different methods to try to eke out that last 10th which may explain the differences in their times as it seems that Dan gets it wrong when trying to gain an advantage.

    It backs up what’s been said about their current PU and in some ways supports their decision to move on as its apparent after 5 years, they just can’t get what they need to be truly competitive at the very front.

    One wonders though whether ultimately with the quest for power that they’ll end up with an ultra powerful hand grenade in the back as was the case in the old turbo era.

    1. One wonders though whether ultimately with the quest for power that they’ll end up with an ultra powerful hand grenade in the back as was the case in the old turbo era.

      @dbradock – Newey’s philosophy is that one can make a fast car reliable, and not the other way around, so that might be an acceptable starting point – a fast but periodically unreliable engine.

    2. @dbradock: As @phylyp says, fast and unreliable may be an acceptable starting point. But given the penalties for unreliability, both in terms of the rules and of not finishing races, they’d have to make it reliable pretty quickly.

    3. To be honest it feels more like them looking for excuses. We heard the same from McLaren in the past. So now they got a better engine and they should be picking up the podiums right?

  2. I don’t think there’s any point. All you’re doing is creating faster lap times, nothing else. I think the whole principle of DRS was to help overtaking. To allow them to use it in places they can use it in the race seems entirely logical to me. So I wouldn’t be in favour of going back.

    The whole principle of auto racing is being faster. DRS is a fit tool for that. Actually, allowance to use it any time is better than helping (!) a professional seasoned F1 driver at overtaking.

    1. Sush meerkat
      18th July 2018, 9:31

      I have a feeling that allowing free use of DRS would greatly help out Red Bull in qualifying, not at every track mind you

      1. I have the very same feeling! And tbh I find that prospect interesting.

    2. Sergey Martyn
      18th July 2018, 15:40

      FIA football World Cup just ended and I’ve visited few matches.
      What puzzled me most – too many of the fans while cheering, stomping, booing etc. didn’t have an idea about the rules – they asked their neighbours – why there is penalty, why there is extra times etc.
      If even the football rules are an abracadabra to general public why FIA or Liberty Media think someone will pay hefty amounts of money for live stream data to calculate whether someone has the right to use DRS on a particular straight or when he has to change the tyres? Current DRS and tyres rules are the most stupid features in F1 – imagine if in the field athletics the runners start with some devices that slow them down but if you’re second you can throw them out. Or your running shoes have to be changed after 5 000 m in a 10 000 m stint.

  3. The tweet about car swaps in FE – for me, those car swaps were the one thing that broke my immersion of the race – seeing the driver jump out, run to the next car, hop in and be belted up. Glad to see it gone.

    1. Same here. And if I recall correctly it was Elon Musk’s main stated objection to FE and the reason he was not interested in Tesla participating in the series. Not having a car and battery that do an entire race.

      1. @bullmello, I think that it is more likely that Musk is worried about how much money Tesla has been continually burning through (losses of $710 million in the last quarter alone) – focussing on Formula E is probably a low priority when keeping Tesla alive is his current focus.

        1. I thought badmouthing cave divers was his current focus…

  4. I fully agree with Charlie. BTW, reverting to the original approach of unlimited DRS usage in practice and qualifying sessions wouldn’t automatically lead to faster lap times due to gear ratios, for example, as well as wing-levels.
    – From the Reuters-article: ”COTA is the country’s only purpose-built Formula One facility.” – Indianapolis as well, though.

    1. No. Indianapolis was partially purpose-built for oval racing. Only the infield section (which does not entail the complete circuit) was purpose-built for F1.

  5. So, @keithcollantine are you being a good boy and only writing what you are told in the post-Bernie era?

    1. LOL, @bullmello

      I found that quote quite amusing as I recall Bernie using press access to F1 to reward/punish journos.

      1. The quote, I think, referred to the James Hunt era. James retired from F1 18 months before Bernie got the media rights to F1 ;)

    2. What makes you think Bernie is still not really in charge…. ;-)

  6. With this new generation of cars, they could very well take 130R flat with DRS. In which case, there is an option of having a zone between Spoon and the chicane (not that I think it’s necessary). Although I doubt they would risk it, given the proximity of the barriers, and the chance of a spectacular, albeit, dangerous crash.

    1. @mashiat – apart from pragmatic reasons like you mentioned, there’s an emotional reason why they’ll likely tread cautiously at Suzuka, it being the circuit that offered up F1’s most recent fatality.

      In general, I’m supportive of opening up DRS zones in corners like Silverstone, there is a balancing act involved that wasn’t required on pure straights with DRS. I’m also pleasantly surprised that the quest for safety hasn’t prevented the FIA from looking at DRS use in such a manner, that seems to be a nice balancing act on their part.

    2. @mashiat Yes, but then, on the other hand, it wasn’t possible for everyone with Abbey even with the current downforce and grip-levels, so I doubt it’d be any different with 130R especially since it’s an even tighter ‘flat-out’ corner than Abbey.

      1. @jerejj I’m not sure 130R is tighter, but it is taken at a much higher speed so it definitely is more of a challenge. I think one of the reasons teams couldn’t use DRS through Abbey was that they were using low downforce setups. Suzuka should mean that teams use a higher-downforce setup, so more might be able to do it. I remember Vettel doing 130R with DRS open in 2011, and even the worst 2018 cars should have more downforce than that (maybe not Williams).

        1. @mashiat At least, it both looks and feels (when driving through it) tighter compared to Abbey.

    3. I think they should be trying to get rid of DRS altogether rather than extending its use. Not with the current car design though of course but as an aim.

  7. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
    18th July 2018, 8:29

    Stick Kubica in the Renault!

  8. Sush meerkat
    18th July 2018, 9:35

    I think it’s great that Sauber are giving Giovinazzi another chance of crashing during FP1

    1. I’m just relieved they’re not favouring Ericsson and benching for FP1.

      1. Sush meerkat
        18th July 2018, 11:47

        Do you mean benching CharlieBoy?

        Yeah me too, it looks like they are letting Antonio practise on a track not suited to the car anyway.

        1. My bad – yes, I’m glad they’re not benching Charles, seeing Ericsson’s sponsor ties.

  9. I think the biggest issue with letting them use DRS everywhere is that all your really doing is giving the top teams a bigger advantage than they already had (Especially for qualifying) as they tend to have the most downforce so will in theory be able to use it where the mid-field teams can’t.

    People already complain about the gap between the top 3 & the rest been too big, Would be even bigger if you had the top 3 running DRS through places other’s simply can’t, As well as the advantage from been able to open it sooner & close it a bit later.

    1. +1. Couldn’t agree more.

  10. DRS was ,is and always will be a bad idea : let’s reward the car and driver for not doing well by giving them a helping hand. What kind of sport does such a thing ?
    If you feel that you really do need to help a car and driver then you must put in some sort of balance and defense like Indycar does with it’s “push to pass “. “Push to pass “‘can be used to pass or defend and because it has time and use limits it involves strategy and race craft . It must be used wisely to best help the driver over the course of the race and if used wisely it will NEVER result in a superior result for the lesser of any two competitors -unlike DRS .Without a counter balance you get the type of situation we saw with Hamilton and Rosberg where on the last lap a 2nd place car can use DRS to pass the 1st place car and take the win because the car that was passed can’t defend and never gets a chance to use DRS to re-pass ( so to speak ) .Do you call that fair and competitive sport ?
    DRS is another example of the failings in F1 and why Porsche and other manufacturers will stay away from the circuit . The best cars ,the best tracks but, the worst rules ( and the worst application of rules ).
    Lets try these ideas : no DRS and car designs that permit cars to follow closely without destroying tires in a lap or two .

  11. Ben (@scuderia29)
    18th July 2018, 23:18

    That photo of Leclerc and Bianchi is really deep when you think about it, leclerc taking the path in f1 towards ferrari, trying to finish what Jules started and never had chance to complete, I’m sure Jules is still behind him

Comments are closed.