Formula 1 today

Was it a good move? Not really—it put driver safety at risk and just fueled the tire wars from manufacturers trying to dodge a single supplier...

Fine, let’s just skip the whole engine and chassis war then!!!! Why not have a tire war instead? Variety is actually a good thing—one brand dominates one track while another takes the next. And if we get lucky, maybe we'll see more than just two manufacturers involved. That isn't a "war," it's just competition. 🙂

It’s a proven fact—the championship loses its edge when one tire brand starts dominating everything else...

urbanmoose3, don't the brakes just work on an on/off basis? Like, there’s no real way to modulate them—it's just point A to point B? I feel like I've heard that a few times before. %)

Personally, though, I'm really digging the idea from Mosley and Bernie about capping fuel at maybe 300 gallons per car for a race (that's the ballpark figure they were tossing around)—but leaving everything else up in the air 😁 so there wouldn't be any limits on cylinder count, displacement, or whatever other technical nonsense... just focusing on cutting down consumption. They're pulling about 75 gallons per 62 miles right now, right? That could actually be pretty cool 😁

Mosley is just throwing out wild ideas left and right... He actually suggested in his latest ESPN.com column that drivers should switch cars every single race—though, apparently, the top performers would get the perk of "reserving" their preferred ride for the second half of the season 🙄

Charles Gray6 said:urbanmoose3, don't brakes just work on an on/off basis? Like, there's no such thing as modulation, it's just a single braking point? I've heard that quite a few times. %)

From what I gather, that isn't exactly right. If you actually pay attention to the races, you'll see those telemetry graphics showing how drivers manage both the throttle and the brakes. It’s incredibly clear there that they are modulating the pressure. They’ll slam on the brakes hard before the corner, but as they approach the apex and begin to turn, they gradually ease off the pedal while simultaneously feeding in the gas.

I was just looking through some stuff on ESPN.com regarding this very topic...

"NASCAR previously allowed anti-skid braking systems (which would reduce the brake pressure to allow the wheel to turn again and then continue to slow it at the maximum possible rate) but these were banned in the 1990s. Braking therefore remains one of the sternest tests of a NASCAR driver's skill."

ah, shoot, thanks man 😁

NP 😉

dmj said:All those factors play a part, sure, but refueling is the real game-changer. If you took that away, drivers would be forced to overtake through pure skill rather than just playing pit stop strategy. Car construction and all those technical specs would also have to evolve significantly to allow for more passing, because every team would be fighting for every inch. A lot of old-school fans claim NASCAR lost its spark after that one legend passed away, but let's be real: that was exactly when refueling was introduced, which actually had a much bigger impact on the racing quality.

Fuel doesn't really matter that much if the aerodynamics prevent them from even getting close in the corners. In that case, they aren't catching up regardless of whether the tank is full or empty.
The only thing actually stopping them from driving bumper-to-bumper for the whole race is the pit stops and the refueling strategy!!

James Roberts87 said:Fuel weight isn't even the main issue here; if his aerodynamics are so poor that he can't even get close to the car ahead in the corners, then he’s stuck—it doesn't matter if the tank is full or empty.
The only thing stopping them from just drafting one another for the entire race is the pit stop strategy and those refueling windows!!

I don't think he was implying that specific kind of impact... he was making a perfectly clear point that without the ability to refuel, anyone looking to climb the standings would be forced to actually overtake on the track. That's the heart of it. Right now, you have one driver just tailing the other, waiting patiently for him to dive into the pits, banking on two blistering laps while the leader is servicing the car, and then popping out right in front of him.

urbanmoose3 said:I don't think he meant it in that sense... he was just making the point that if you didn't have constant pit stop strategy shifts, anyone actually wanting to move up the order would be forced to overtake on the track. That’s the whole issue. One driver just tucks in behind the other, waits for them to hit the pits, hammers out two blistering laps, and then emerges right in front of them after the cycle finishes..

Michael Schumacher Indianapolis Motor Speedway 2006

urbanmoose3 said:I don't think he meant influence in that sense. He was just pointing out that if you stop refueling, drivers who want to move up the standings will be forced to overtake on the track. That's the point. One driver stays tucked in behind the other, waits for them to pit, sets two blistering laps, and comes out ahead.

It’s the same argument again. How is anyone supposed to pass him when it's obvious that on high-downforce tracks—where the cars are pretty much equal—you can't stay close through the corners because of all the turbulence he creates? So how does he actually get overtaken on track?
Look at the last race. Kimi Räikkönen was trailing Fernando Alonso, with Michael Schumacher right behind them. Those two were right on the edge of spinning out in the turns, yet they still couldn't get close enough. Banning refueling isn't going to fix that issue.

James Roberts87 said:It’s the same old argument, isn't it? How exactly is he supposed to make a move when it’s blindingly obvious that on high-downforce tracks—where the cars are even remotely matched—you just can't stay on someone's tail through the corners because of all that dirty air turbulence? If he can't close the gap in the turns, how is he ever going to find an opening on the straights?
If you actually watched the last race, you saw Kimi Räikkönen tucked right behind Fernando Alonso, with Michael Schumacher right on their bumpers. Those two trailing behind were practically dancing on the edge of losing control through those bends, yet they still couldn't get close enough to mount a challenge. So, tell me, how is banning mid-race refueling supposed to fix any of that?

If they actually made a concerted effort to pass, they would... For Schumacher, it was clearly safer to just sit behind Kimi and wait for the pit window, which is exactly what he ended up doing. And honestly, your claim that there are only three overtakes in the entire season is just plain wrong. Most drivers would much rather play it safe and wait for the pits than take a massive gamble on a risky overtake...

Look, I’ll concede that aerodynamics make things difficult, but I still maintain we’d see far more overtaking if refueling weren't part of the equation. The real solution would be to scrap refueling entirely and dial back the aerodynamic grip a bit. Now *that* is how you put on a show.

James Roberts87 said:Fuel weight doesn't really make that much of a difference

Well, what do you say to the fact that McLaren is faster with a full tank than an empty one?
😁

loneangler6 said:What do you think about the fact that McLaren is faster with a full tank than when they're running light?
😁

And it’s pretty obvious they have some design issues to sort out.😁

loneangler6 said:So what do you think about the fact that McLaren is faster with a full tank than they are when it's empty?
😁

Inertia!
Either that, or they’re just lightyears ahead of everyone else.

James Roberts87 said:Fuel doesn't even matter that much, right? His aero just won't let anyone get close enough in the corners anyway. He’s stuck like that whether the tank is full or empty.
And honestly, isn't it just those pit stops and refueling that keeps them from just following each other in a single file line for the whole race?

The big difference back then? Those 80s cars were constantly shifting weight mid-race as the fuel tanks drained out. Crazy, right?
So, the big call was basically whether to go with a setup that favors a heavier car for a killer start, or just play it safe? It’s always such a gamble. You've got some drivers hitting their stride right at the finish line while others just fall off, right?
Tire wear? Totally depends on how you set up the car and how you drive, right?
Even when the cars were neck and neck, overtaking was still such a grind, right? But with these factors in play, there were way more openings to make a move—plus, having no mandatory pit stops just gave everyone more reason to go for it.
Plus, you could end up forcing someone to push way harder than they actually wanted to, right? Then you just burn through those tires way too early.

Lauda was always such a beast at making moves from behind in the second half of a race, wasn't he? Same goes for Prost later on.
Senna crushed so many legendary races back in the day, just totally shutting down any fast cars trying to catch him. Is that even possible anymore? Not a chance.
Could Alessi pull off a one-stop strategy? He’s been looking so fast lately, he might just skip the pit stop entirely while everyone else is swapping tires. Who knows?

👋 Honestly, if there’s one silver lining to this whole forum meltdown, it’s this.
You hit the nail on the head, steelviper43. I was trying to get this point across too—how much weight distribution and balance settings actually mattered depending on the phase of the race and how a driver likes to handle their car. Most of these younger Formula 1 fans who didn't live through the pre-1994 era or deal with mid-race refueling probably have zero clue what I'm talking about... it’s practically alien to them. But back then, that stuff was huge for keeping races interesting...

It seems we have two absolute titans of industry among us here.. 🙏 🙏 🙏

Seriously, hats off to you both.. 🙏