The overtaking verdict F1 fans won't want to hear

'Wasn't it a massive shame when Charles Leclerc blasted past Ferrari team-mate Sebastian Vettel to take the lead of the Bahrain Grand Prix? The way he lined up a four-time world champion on the long run down the start-finish straight and moved ahead with a textbook piece of judgement and aggression on the brakes... It just isn't real racing.'

If Formula 1 fans and drivers who hate the championship's drag-reduction system as much as they claim were consistent, that would have been their view last Sunday. They would have dismissed Leclerc's excellent pass on Vettel last weekend as just another example of the DRS making overtaking easy in F1. Instead, the role of a much-maligned overtaking aid in setting up what should have been a race-winning pass was conveniently ignored.

As much as many fans will not like this, one of the main reasons the Bahrain GP was so entertaining was the use of the DRS. The addition of a third DRS zone at the Sakhir circuit drew scorn from some drivers as a step too far, but it did not ruin the racing at all. It helped it.

This went beyond Leclerc's pass, but it is the best example. It would not have been possible without the DRS. But Leclerc still required serious skill to execute the pass, and watching him drive his car deep into the corner, not even attempting to make the apex as he extended his braking zone to avoid locking up, was quality racecraft.

It is a different type of racing to that seen in previous decades, but it doesn't mean every DRS-assisted pass is illegitimate. Yet this is the same system Lewis Hamilton described as a "Band-Aid" for bad racing and that Red Bull driver Max Verstappen wants gone.

Hating that it is necessary is fine, but calling for it to go is one of the great delusions of modern F1. The DRS is not part of F1 because it is a merited technology. It is a necessary evil in an ultra-high-speed, aerodynamic-dependent formula.

F1 is working hard on reducing the 'dirty air' thrown out by the cars that makes it so difficult for them to follow one another. The claim is the impact will be five times less for 2021, while the interim step introduced this year has split opinion. After a tricky opening race for the new aero rules in Australia, drivers seemed slightly more encouraged that it has genuinely made it a bit easier to follow on more normal race tracks.

There is an additional element that would complement bigger aero changes for 2021, too.

F1 wants to change the way the clever tech in its V6 turbo-hybrid engines is utilised from 2021, so that drivers have more control about how to save and deploy electrical energy for extra power.

It's sort of a version of IndyCar's push-to-pass system with a splash of Formula E's 'Attack Mode', giving drivers a boost wherever they decide to use it and doing so with technology that already exists. It is a valid solution, but just as artificial as the DRS.

What it could offer is a balance that has always been difficult to strike with the current solution. Ex-F1 driver turned IndyCar racer Marcus Ericsson questioned the validity of the third DRS zone ahead of the Bahrain race. He compared the mentality that the system instils in drivers with how he has found the racing in IndyCar using push-to-pass.

There are many examples of DRS passes being made in a straight line with very little challenge involved. But without those frustrating moments, we probably wouldn't have the big moves like Leclerc on Vettel

"One of the great things I've found in IndyCar so far is the fact we don't have DRS, [which] means there is so much more proper fights on track - wheel-to-wheel and corner-to-corner," Ericsson wrote.

"You don't 'wait' for a DRS zone to overtake, you just go for it when you get the chance. DRS might produce more overtaking, but is it really producing more proper fights on track, which I believe is what we want to see?

"I just know that from a driver perspective you have to be more aggressive and go for it more when you get the chance, anywhere on the track. Instead of waiting to get to a DRS zone and do the pass there the 'safe' way."

A blend of better aero rules and an F1 variation of push-to-pass or Attack Mode (or whatever overtaking aid you want to compare it to) could provide a better balance between improving the ability to overtake and deterring drivers from having to try something risky. That means F1 has genuine hope for the future.

But that does not mean the DRS is any less valid in the present. The problem is, critics seem to permanently blend the reality of overtaking being made 'possible' with the interpretation that it is 'easy'.

Yes, sometimes it is too powerful. There are many examples of passes being made in a straight line with very little challenge involved. But without those frustrating moments, we probably wouldn't have the big moves like Leclerc on Vettel.

Should F1 become a racing series that allows its cars to follow closely and race hard, regularly, then the DRS can go. Until then, what else can F1 have that's any better - especially while the Pirelli tyres seem too easy to overheat when drivers are in battle?

If there is an alternative it is likely to be no less gimmicky, because the reality is that F1 needs something like that. Under the current rules, if every team builds the fastest car it can it will have all sorts of wings and flicks and turning vanes, and other crazy elements that produce as much downforce as possible. The cars will be ultra-fast through the corners and have very short braking distances. That is the very opposite of what is required for drivers to be able to follow and overtake.

If F1 ever moves beyond needing an overtaking aid it would be much stronger for it. Then the DRS could be left as an unloved footnote in the championship's history.

Until then, much as this is a verdict many fans will not agree with, maybe F1 needs to cut it some slack. The DRS has never been perfect, but it has been vital in preventing F1 from regularly suffering from a spate of stale and monotonous races.

Who knows what damage that state of affairs would have done.