2018 Mexico Grand Prix - Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, 26-28 October

[Just_a_fan]

There is basically one way, strategically, to win a race. Strategies will come together and everyone will do the same thing. It's what always happens.

Refuelling isn't a panacea, it's just an added, and unnecessary, risk to the pit crews.

You want "better" racing? Figure out a way to allow multiple lines around circuits. Adding banking to key corners, for example, allows differing lines in to, through and out of the corner.

[NathanOlder]

At this rate it will end up like the WRX , having a joker lap passing through a longer part of the track.

Its basically all fake things added to help improve the show, like DRS and it seems most hate DRS, I for one think its a good thing and I'm also glad its going to be stronger next year.

[Just_a_fan]

It's not about having gimmicks as you suggest. It's about being able to take different lines without time penalty. F1 cars can't follow closely in high speed corners because of the very nature of F1 cars today. So you either change the cars - make them much lower in downforce for example - or you make the tracks allow for closer racing. DRS exists because the cars can't follow closely enough to get in to the tow naturally. It's a sticking plaster.

Make the corners that matter slightly banked and you can either run around on the banking, or take the "normal" line. If both give the same lap time there is no artificial benefit like with DRS. What there is, is a chance for drivers to use their skill to use the track to their advantage.

[NathanOlder]

It's not about having gimmicks as you suggest. It's about being able to take different lines without time penalty. F1 cars can't follow closely in high speed corners because of the very nature of F1 cars today. So you either change the cars - make them much lower in downforce for example - or you make the tracks allow for closer racing. DRS exists because the cars can't follow closely enough to get in to the tow naturally. It's a sticking plaster.

Make the corners that matter slightly banked and you can either run around on the banking, or take the "normal" line. If both give the same lap time there is no artificial benefit like with DRS. What there is, is a chance for drivers to use their skill to use the track to their advantage.

I can't see how that can be done, would have to make every run off area banked as well to make it safe.

[Just_a_fan]

Depends how much banking is required to make it work. If it's only 5 degrees, then banking run off would be easy. If it's 30 degrees, then yes, it's probably a no-go. Although Indy et al race on banked tracks without run off areas...

[NathanOlder]

Are you referring to Ovals ?

[Big Tea]

Depends how much banking is required to make it work. If it's only 5 degrees, then banking run off would be easy. If it's 30 degrees, then yes, it's probably a no-go. Although Indy et al race on banked tracks without run off areas...

Not disagreeing with you, but if the track is banked, then surely it is giving the same advantage to both cars?

[NathanOlder]

I guess he would mean that the outside line would be banked or banked more than the inside.

[Just_a_fan]

The idea is to have two lines that allow both cars to maximize lap time. Go wide on a current track, you lose time. You go wide because you can't follow close on line. It's just an idea. It's something different to the same old stuff we've had before.

[henry]

The idea is to have two lines that allow both cars to maximize lap time. Go wide on a current track, you lose time. You go wide because you can't follow close on line. It's just an idea. It's something different to the same old stuff we've had before.

I think they tried some of this at Sepang. A banked corner onto the last straight and adverse camber on the corner before the finish. I seem to remember it had only a small benefit.

I think a problem with such attempts is the “rubbering in” process. Unless the differing lines both,or all, get rubbered in to the same extent there’s always going to be one that’s better and the likelihood is the other will get marbled and fall even further behind.

Thermal degradation tyres, as opposed to mechanical war, have improved matters a bit. But once a race is underway the difference between the “normal” line and the rest of the track gets worse and worse. See Hamilton vs Verstappen at COTA.

The only way I can see to improve this is rock hard tyres. 12 sets per season not 12 per race weekend. That, however, does away with pit stops, the TV directors’ favourite. It also negates the value of Friday practise sessions and the speculation that follows. The aero would still be a problem but at least cars could run two abreast through corners.

[Big Tea]

Would it be heresy to suggest that maybe more low speed corners and complexes could help?

[siskue2005]

There is basically one way, strategically, to win a race. Strategies will come together and everyone will do the same thing. It's what always happens.

Refuelling isn't a panacea, it's just an added, and unnecessary, risk to the pit crews.

You want "better" racing? Figure out a way to allow multiple lines around circuits. Adding banking to key corners, for example, allows differing lines in to, through and out of the corner.

ok i agree

[strad]

It's not just a matter of banking. We need wider tracks and corners to allow a second line. I don't see the runoff needing to be changed at all. Or make the cars narrower.

[komninosm]

cars will get shorter and indirectly also would make it easy to overtake

That seems to be a non sequitur. Just because they're slightly shorter, doesn't mean they can overtake more.

https://www.racefans.net/2018/03/02/ham ... vertaking/
just quoting the 5 times WDC on overtaking better with lighter cars

The refuelling era was as dull a period as any today.

ok but can u point the finger for dull races on the refuelling alone?
no u cant, coz the refuelling era didnot start from 2001, it started 1994....we had great races up until 2000 and from 2001 onwards it went downhill. this happened due to raising the front wing height and lowering of rear wing...which meant over reliance on aero grip rather than mechanical grip PLUS the domination of Ferrari and Schumacher made it a snooze fest (this has nothing to do with the refuelling)

There was nothing to prove that refuelling was the culprit for the snooze fest, just an innocent bystander....image those years without the refueling ....Schumacher would have been stuck behind Alonso in Magny cours 2004 after a failed undercut attempt at lap 5, and saving tyres and fuel for the rest of the GP behind the world champion

Best post here.
Thanks for pointing out the Hamilton post.
And dispelling the refueling = dull illusion and also starting from before 2000, way before.
People here are just using whatever stats favor their bias and not looking at the whole thing or that correlation does not equal causation.

[Just_a_fan]

People here are just using whatever stats favor their bias and not looking at the whole thing or that correlation does not equal causation.

No. People here, at least some, have long memories.

The "great races" occur when you have drivers of similar ability in simple cars of similar ability. That's why the junior formulae - which never have refuelling - are generally exciting. The cars are similar because they are spec series and the racing is good because they can follow. Back when we had refuelling in F1, the cars were simpler, aero allowed following, and the great races were between drivers of similar ability in similar cars. Refuelling didn't make it good, the other stuff did.

Refuelling will not make F1 "better" - thinking it will is an example of your correlation / causation point, actually. Refuelling will make pit stops more dangerous and longer. Longer pitstops will generally mean teams choose to minimise number of stops. Indeed, teams will choose to minimize stops anyway as they are a high risk few seconds where races can be lost by errors/failures. That's why they tend to go with one stop races unless forced by the tyres/incidents to do otherwise.

You want to make racing "better"? Make the aero simpler and the cars simpler. Allow the cars to follow and you'll have great racing. Sure, the cars will be slower and lap records won't be broken but the racing will be closer.

You don't need to add the artificial excitement, but very real danger, of refuelling to make F1 better. To think so is to be guilty of your own view of others as stated by you above.