Opinion: Did F1's new gadgets add to the show?
- Published on Mar 27th, 2011 by Craig Normansell
With every pre-season there's always that feeling of new hope and beginnings for every team involved in Formula One. The introductions of Pirelli tyres and adjustable rear wings, with the return of KERS added to the mix, were meant to change the sport. With one race down, how did it all deliver?
Well, if it was a school report, it would read "could do better".
Let's start with the Pirelli tyres. Given the mandate by the FIA to reproduce the excitement of the Canadian race of last year, the Italian company went against a tyre company's usual strategy and have deliberately made an inferior product. Today, the extra stops (which idle what the FIA ultimately wanted) happened, varying from two stops for race winner Sebastian Vettel, three stops further down the field for Fernando Alonso and Mark Webber, and even a single stop for Sauber debutant Sergio Perez.
The verdict on the new Pirellis is that they work in adding more elements for the teams to worry about strategically. On tracks further along the calendar with more abrasive tarmac like Turkey, Canada and most probably India, we are in for some humdingers indeed.
Photo: Pirelli Media
The drivers aides are a another kettle of fish though. We in the Sett understand that F1 should be the pioneer of technology, some of which like KERS will eventually filter down to the cars we all drive - bar Badger editor Adam Milleneuve's Vespa!
It just seems a waste of a team's budget to develop technology to punch through dirty air caused by aerodynamics. Why power through the air when you could just reduce it, and costs, with simpler wings?
The opinion on KERS and DRS from Albert Park was twofold: firstly, DRS was in place on a track where it's effect would be minimal, especially heading into Turn 1. In Malaysia it will be different, and dare I say it, Bahrain may have been a better advert for the system.
Secondly, KERS still only seems to be like a way for leaders to pass backmarkers while in theory it should be a defence from DRS and cars on fresher tyres.
The Australia race was a good starter to the feast that should be 2011 and once teams and race control understand all that's new it should be very tasty indeed.
What did you think of the new technical additions and their role in today's Grand Prix? Get involved in some Badger banter using the comments box below.
Photo: Lotus Renault GP/Lorenzo Bellanca/LAT Photographic
Comments and Discussion
I don't like this DRS at all... actually, that's not strictly true. I like DRS, I don't like it's implementation. If it were allowed to be used at the drivers discretion whenever they chose (i.e to attack AND defend) then I'm all in favour of it. It is after all, a fairly elegant solution for reducing drag, and I don't believe the financial costs of it are all that high. I see the fact that it didn't have much of an effect on todays race as a good thing. If it turns Malaysia into a big game of mario kart, I will be less pleased.
KERS, I'm still not sure about. I like the idea of harvesting lost energy under breaking and using it as a hybrid power boost, but I don't like that it is limited as to how much power it can produce, and how often you can use it... that stifles innovation. On the other hand, if the teams were given free reign to develop it as they like, it would escalate into an arms race... Though you could say that the big teams have all that money and they are going to spend it regardless... be it on chasing an extra 0.1s on flexi front wings, complicated exhausts, or winglets on brake-ducts.... so they may as well spend it on KERS, which might at least be useful technology for road cars. Also, for what it's worth, they should try to encourage people to use the flywheel system that Williams have developed, not the version everyone else has... but that is another discussion entirely.
Braking, not breaking... It bugs me when people make that mistake, and it bugs me even more when I do it.
Massa was using Kers to defend from button. He was saving it over the lap and then using it all on the main straight to run away from button while he was using the DRS... from the graphics onscreen, it seemed button didn't cotton on, since he was using kers here there and anywhere.
Alonso made better use of it - he used both at the same time on his move (can't remember who he was overtaking!)
It just goes to show how clever the engineers are at defending the cars against over taken, KERS here, DRS, here. If we could listen to more team radio, Im sure we would have heard Smedly telling Massa where and when.
Indeed I imagine we would - more team radio!!
Seems to me DRS and KERs should really be either or. DRS is designed so drivers can't use it to defend but are free to use KERS (as did mass) to defend from a DRS overtake. Personally I'd say drop DRS and let teams develop KERS in whatever way they like with no limits. In a few seasons you might see teams are developing KERS to such an extent as to lower fuel loads etc. Obviously as always the FIA would then get involved with rules to stop things getting silly as they always do, but it should be up to the teams to drive KERS forward (no pun intended).
Massa*
With Horner's admission that they didn't run KERS yesterday, I think FOM should change the battery graphic so it's clearer which teams are running it or not. I'd like to see how many other people would prefer to see an empty battery than a full 'unused' battery when KERS isn't there.
I don't like the fact that DRS is an artificial racing construct (like success ballast). I like my racing pure and the same rules for everyone although you could argue it's just boosting the performance of the slipstream, much like the old IndyCar handford wing.
That said, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing the flap opening up when it was allowed everywhere. it was dramatic to watch and it was fun to see which drivers were aggressive with it *cough* Sutil *cough* and which drivers were scared of opening it till after the exit.
KERS in it's current implementation is just wrong. It should be unlimited in my opinion. There's a natural trade off of weight vs boost with the battery weight. Drivers should be allowed to save up more than a single lap's worth and spend it all at once. That would make overtaking far easier too - drivers could save it for 5 laps building up a big charge, then use it all in one lap for... er... a big charge. I don't think unlimited KERS would lead to massive costs either - they've done the hard work and "unlimited" would just mean more batteries.
So in summary, I'm not as against DRS as I was, but I don't think it's really needed if they implement unlimited KERS.
I see that every day in work! Working in insurance claims it bugs me when the notificaion team have put "the care in front suddently breaked" and you cannot edit it due to auditing rules!!!
As for DRS & KERS, i think DRS would have worked better on the back straight leading to the chicane that Jenosn cut rather then the start finish straight, and KERS just seems like a gimmick which wastes more money, then the time it gains!
I personally am reserving judgement until after Malaysia. The Australian track is not well-suited to either device. Sepang with its long straight-straights will be a much better indicator of whether DRS is of any use.
As for KERS, it worked well in 2009 for McLaren and Ferrari, they won races that they wouldn't have won had they not used the system (Raikkonen winning Spa for example). If Red Bull continue to gain pace through developments then KERS may be the only thing that helps the other teams keep them in sight - providing Newey's car continue to not run it.
Additionally, i don't really class tyres as "gadgets", they're more a necessity!
They did their job, they stopped people coming into the pits on lap 2 and then going to the end of the race. The only think i'd complain about is it's impossible to tell what compound of tyres a car is on from any angle other than the side, or in-cockpit. I'm surprised no one in the company thought of this, and proves even the cleverest boffins in the world are a bit thick.