Maybe I am a tad biased here, but I thought the double DRS was wholly unsuccessful in Canada nine days ago. Michael Schumacher, who had shot up to second following a succession of superb strategic decisions, was denied a podium in the closing stages by both Jenson Button and Mark Webber. I would not go as far as saying robbed, because the Mercedes remains inferior to the Mclaren and Red Bull, but Schumacher was driving beautifully throughout the Grand Prix. Of course, for sentimental reasons it would have been wonderful to see the 42 year old return to the podium, but it was not to be.
Like race winner Button, Schumacher was always on the right tyre throughout the race. His decision to pit for intermediates after the race was restarted, along with being one of the first to opt for slicks, propelled him to an unexpected second place. In dry conditions, the Mercedes is still lacking outright pace and was duly caught by the charging Webber and Button. However, those eagle-eyed viewers will have noticed that Michael was doing a stirling job, quicker than Webber for most of the lap. Nevertheless, Webber was able to stay within the one second DRS activation zone into the hairpin following a safety car period and Schumacher was a sitting duck.
The traction of the Mercedes out of the hairpin meant that without DRS, I could not envisage how the Red Bull would get ahead. I am convinced Jenson would have passed them both and gone onto victory regardless but it appeared that Mark was struggling on the drying track. Here is another footnote: in the wet, without DRS, Schumacher was comfortably one of the most savvy drivers out there and showed, for the first time, he had lost none of his race cars and was pulling off overtakes we had not seen since his pomp.
All of a sudden, with a dry track, he was usurped because of the double-DRS down the back and pit straight. We saw the negative aspect of DRS in Turkey, whereby overtaking was simply too easy, but this was far worse. How can a guy, who is faster around 2/3s of the circuit than the driver behind, be passed by that same driver because he has opened a flap in his rear wing? It was just bizarre.
I fully appreciate that DRS is a work in progress but in truth it is an unnecessary evil. The introduction of the Pirelli tyres has been a revelation, while the return of KERS has been far more successful than when it was first used in 2009. Yes, KERS is essentially a power boost button but it encourages the drivers to execute it decisively. For example, Lewis Hamilton caught and passed Sebastian Vettel at Turn 7 in Shanghai by saving his KERS before deploying it to optimum effect. This is supreme driver management on Lewis' behalf.
Likewise with the Pirellis, it is all about being on the right tyre at the right time, such is their durability. Track position does retain its importance but as we saw in the Chinese Grand Prix, those with old, worn out tyres are powerless to resist those behind. After finishing the race third, qualifying 17th did not seem such a bad idea for Webber. Maybe it was a freak result, but having spent the majority of the race on the faster option tyre, his pace was always going to be superior to those on primes. In fact, it was electrifying. I thought his aggressive strategy would only be good enough for the top 10 so I was pleasantly surprised.
Although his performance was dictated by strategy, his comeback through the field was exhilarating because he was overtaking people and after all, isn't that what we want to see? It is ironic that, despite wanting more overtakes we remain unhappy over the manner of them. This leads me to the innovation of the DRS and whether or not it is really required. The Chinese Grand Prix is yet again a reference point. The key passes in that race, particularly from Hamilton, were not executed in the DRS zone. Moreover, I can only recall one overtake from Webber occurring in the DRS zone.
My point is that I do not think we need DRS. F1 is not just about incessant speed; if you want to see that, watch drag racing or aeroplanes take off from Heathrow. What I tune in to watch every other Sunday is racing. The inclusion of DRS into F1 does not comply to my definition of racing by any means. It just enables the driver behind to gain additional speed in order to perform an overtaking manoeuvre. If he is that skilled, and more importantly faster, why does he need such an aid?
The abnormal manner in which DRS works reminds me very much of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in 2010. Fernando Alonso was fighting for the championship and had to pass Vitaly Petrov's Renault, not to mention Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica if he was to win his third title. As we know, he could not get close enough to the Renault down the straight to pass. Who's fault is that? Certainly not the Renault engineers and design team, who had designed one of the best F-ducts of the season. So, say DRS was in place for that Grand Prix, Alonso would have probably passed all three and finished fourth to take the championship. How much criticism would F1 have come under then? He would have won title because he pressed a button down the back straight to get ahead of those in his path. There is no skill in that whatsoever. Blame the track designers and the Ferrari strategists for Alonso's downfall that evening.
We saw a fabulous motor race in Montreal nine days ago but the activation of DRS tinged it somewhat. Sentimental reasons aside, Schumacher deserved a podium that afternoon for his supreme driving. in the wet conditions, he looked unparalleled and back to his best: racing hard and flying past those ahead in devastating fashion. For a man who has been in F1 since 1991, I would love to ask him what he thinks of such a gimmick. After its success in Canada, we will see another double DRS zone in Valencia this weekend. Yet after some fascinating races thus far, do we even need DRS anymore?
Josh.
No comments:
Post a Comment