What The Fans Needed?
by Craig Normansell with others, on Apr 27th, 2011The Scrutineering Bay is Badger's way of taking a hot topic of Grand Prix racing and getting people from the Sett involved to put their opinions across. From predicting races, arguing stewards decisions to just deciding who was/is/will be the best, anything is fair game!
With the Grand Prix world still alight with talk of the racing in China, we look at the effect of the 2011 rule changes and ask...
"Artificial overtaking - is it what F1 needed?"
This week, we have a variety of Badgers involved, including myself Craig Normansell, Jimmy Von Weeks, and up first, Benson Jammichello:
Overtaking in F1 is good, right? We all like some wheel-to-wheel action, especially at the front. In some seasons/races there's not been much, in others more and, on a number of rare occasions, a deluge. Such was the natural order of things. We all knew where we were.
Then (duh, duh, duuuuuuhhhhhhhh) came 2011. It no longer enough to witness a driver carefully stalk his prey, come up behind him and attempt to pass. Oh no, now we have two systems specifically designed to aid overtaking: a push-to-pass button in KERS and a Drag Reduction System (DRS) to improve top speeds. The latter is by far the most important because, while KERS can be used by both cars fighting for a position, the DRS system only activates for the driver behind creating, in essence, a mini-handicap system.
It's as if, after years of trying to allow cars to follow more closely, F1 threw up its hands and gave in, deliberately disadvantaging the car in front. No longer will we see brilliant defensive performances because, quite frankly, all the driver behind needs to do is engage all the systems and waft past, leaving only a gentle breeze where once was fury, noise and thunder.
That's not to say I won't enjoy it, or write about it, or talk about it, but it will always feel as though there's something missing, like a jigsaw incomplete, a book unfinished or a dog without its bark.
Up next is Jimmy:
It's been exciting, that's for sure, but from the more 'hardcore' fan's point of view the changes seem to have been interpreted as a negative, based largely on the fact that it takes the purity out of the sport.
But then it really depends how you view - or whether you accept the mere existence of - 'purity' in F1. I would suggest that the addition of these devices really makes no difference to that, as ultimately F1 is an artificial sport anyway. In a series where the cars are up to five seconds per-lap apart on pace it can be nothing but artificial. Does the best driver win the world championship every year? Did they in the past? No.
So even without DRS and KERS, is it really pure racing to watch a Red Bull pass a Hispania when you consider the massive difference in the cars? Where's the skill in that when the Red Bull is glued to the track whilst the Hispania is doing its level best to snap out of the driver's hands? If it was pure Sebastian Vettel wouldn't out-qualify Tonio Liuzzi by five plus seconds - the gap between them on pure talent is nowhere near that big. Realistically, you'd need towatch Formula 2 to get genuinely pure racing - not that I'm really recommending that.
So yes - after all that ranting, I'll say that this is what F1 needed. In an already-artificial sport, what's the harm in chucking a few more artificial additions in if they make the racing more exciting? China was mega -undeniably so - and ultimately don't we watch grand prix racing to be entertained?
A bit of an off-topic rant by Jimmy there, but he does hold a valid point: why not add more to an already artificial sport?
Finally, I make my point:
My answer is pretty simple: all the new regulations are exactly what F1 needed. The inclusion of DRS, KERS and Pirelli, to me, seemed to be a bit too much too soon, but it has all been clicking since the first time the red lights went out.
DRS gets special praise from me as it is the reverse to what aerodynamics stands for in Formula One. Since the ‘60’s the wing has been used to produce grip, and that’s always been the way it’s worked. Now, it’s a way of finding speed as well. I originally thought the banning of the F-Duct, which was the same in principle, was a bad move. DRS means all the teams are in the same boat with the technology. In essence, it’s turning the “devil” of good racing against itself.
Pirelli and KERS have helped, but in the age of modern electronics and fancy gizmos making the cars as fast as possible, it’s refreshing to see the FIA do something that counteracts this directly. With tyres and “boosts” the hot topics at the moment, you could be mistaken for it being the mid-eighties again. Now that would be something.
For all we say about the raft of new technology in Formula One this year, they are here to stay. If they keep bringing us exciting races, who are we to say they are bad for the sport?





















Comments and Discussion
I'm pretty much in the Normansell camp pn this one - but I blogged about some of the interesting strategies from the the Chinese Grand Prix and have some additional thoughts here: http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/a-great-piece-of-fine-china/
I think it's great that we now have great racing and that teams have to think and adapt quickly in order to make the most of what they have. I'm very encouraged by what I have seen so far this year...
For me, the only 'artificial' ovdertaking in F1 is a team orders pass. All the others require a driver with the help of his/her team to put a car behind another car with the tools and ability all in place to make the pass and make it stick. And there has to be nothing more frustrating than the performance drop off that cars have suffered behind one another over the 'front wing' years. Bring it on.
Are the Pirelli tyres good? Yes. Is KERS good? Yes. Is DRS good Yes. Is all three too much YES! I agree the spectacle is great but iut's a little too easy to get past. Ditch the DRS now and KERS at the end of 2012 when turbos come back and stick with this rubber that make the race so much fun.
Regarding what Jimmy said, I would recommend F2. On the weekend of the Chinese GP I watched my first race in that series and it was really good. Plenty of overtaking and crashes into the gravel. At that point I was so impressed I wondered how F1 could match it. And then I saw the Chinese GP race, and saw it be matched. There weren't even any crashes and I loved that race. Of course, I'm more invested in the drivers and teams of F1, so I care about the race more. But F2 is worth watching too.
The DRS is completely asymmetric in the sense that it is available to
the pursuing driver only. In comparison, the tyre compounds and KERS
are, in principle, available to both pursuing and defending
drivers. So the DRS introduces an additional element of unfairness
into the racing.
Also, the DRS is regulated by Race Control, since it decides where and
when it can be used. In comparison, tyre degradation and strategy as
well as KERS use lie exclusively in the hands of the teams and
drivers. In other words, the DRS represents an external interference
on the natural course of the race.
So that's why I dislike DRS and also why I think it should be
scrapped.
I agree with Willi. Instead of DRS they could just have a system to apply the breaks to the car in front on specific portions of the track if the car behind was close. That seems silly but it is the same as DRS as far as I am concerned.
I share views with Benson and Willi.
DRS is one step too far being that when we saw it used in China it virtually guaranteed an overtake with the driver in front powerless to do anything about it.
Yes, the racing is good for the most part, but i hated all the occassions where the wing-flap was deployed and the car behind fired past.
The reason why China was special was 100% to do with the magnificent tyres that Pirelli have provided.
KERS isn't essential either but i can understand the need for its inclusion being that it could be developed for use elsewhere in the automotive industry. It adds enough of a variable for potential overtaking, and everyone's got the tools at their disposal to deploy how they wish.
DRS is a needless and pointless gimmick and urinates on the cake.
I don't think the DRS does always guarantee an overtake. In China, it seemed to merely allow the car to run closer, to then allow the natural slipstream to take over and the car behind to have a chance to pull alongside. Look at Hamilton for example - hardly any of his overtakes were cruise past with DRS - the DRS negated the dirty air effect from the car in front enough for him to get close, and then follow up with a good proper move elsewhere. Which is how it should be.
Kers has no place in any form of racing or automotive environment. it's a complete waste of space, time, effort and fuel. It's only worth having if the vehicle itself is fully electric and thus already has the battery on-board. Anything else is wasting fuel due to the penalty of carrying the weight around
Dave, it's nice to hear someone agrees with me!
Also, urinating on a cake? Really?!
Yes, the lovely Pirelli cake. Each slice is sweet and satisfying, yet you don't quite know what to expect.
I really detest DRS in the races (it's fine in quali though) because it's artificial.
It's the equivalent of making football goals bigger if one team let's a goal in, to make it easier for them to score.
What's next, success ballast? Less fuel for the previous race winner to make them run out? Water the tracks but only let the last 10 on the grid use wet tyres? No wait, I hope Bernie doesn't see that last idea!
The current race implementation of DRS should have no place in F1. The end.