Exactly!turbof1 wrote:The hyping around overtaking always has annoyed me. It's not overtaling itself that makes the show, but fights for the positions are.
Something like an Alonso defending his position that hard in an inferior car it forces Vettel to cut the corner. Something like Hamilton battling it out with Rosberg for several corners.
Sensation comes from Tension, not from the cold breeze blown in your face because somebody flies by with DRS. Somebody mentioned Hungary 2015; I believe that was the race were Schumacher closed the gap to Alonso in the final stages and tried literally everything to find a place to get past Alonso. It made the whole race with barely a single overtake completely worthwhile.
If teams are not required to qualify on race fuel, every team will qualify on minimum fuel. qualifying results will continue to be about as predictable as they are currently. Then at race time the faster cars run away in the front, followed by the General order to which we have all become accustomed.Shooty81 wrote:Why should qualifying be done on race fuel?
Actually, the lighter midfield car will just disappear into a pitstop after three laps, without any overtaking (it will still be quick at the beginning of the race, because it is lighter).
This just does not help. And also we would know the strategies. It's been quite precise by calculation the delta times between Q2 runs without racefuel and Q3 runs on racefuel.
Qualifying need to be done without racefuel, then we can see overtaking and different strategies.
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?f1316 wrote:This really aggravates me:
Michelin Renault benefit story is not about tyres but about the mass damper system that was developed by Michelin and deployed on Renault.Oh and the comment about only Renault benefitting from Michelin is just as much rubbish. Mclaren and Williams were both very competitive in that era.
...while you make a solid argument that refueling was not solely to blame for the lack of overtaking, I still believe it would merely add another strategic angle, thus further reducing on-track action.
Some years ago everybody was complaining that there was no passing on the track because the teams prefer to wait for the long refuelling pit stops to pass the other cars (remember the boooooooring very, very boring, Schumacher/Ferrari victories).
...Martin brundle who recently rejected the idea of refuelling for fear it would mean less on track overtakes - bemoaning the fact that drivers were not pushing the tyres or defending hard.
Or maybe, just maybe, refueling has absolutely nothing to do with overtaking?f1fanatic.co.uk wrote: The Williams duo led the field early on but Hamilton jumped ahead of the pair of them as they made their first pit stops. Team mate Nico Rosberg remained stuck in fourth place however, until a rain shower helped him catch and pass the two FW37s.
So, perhaps all of this means the outcome of a race largely decides whether we enjoy it or not, and on-track action ranks a distant second?BBC wrote:Lewis Hamilton wins British GP brilliantly after late rain
Lewis Hamilton battled through a bad start and late-race rain to win an action-packed British Grand Prix
The race outcome was not different from all other races this year except Malaysia. Hamilton took a gamble or used his wisdom and as a result he changed tires at the very best moment. So did Vettel. However, while watching last year's race I was quite disappointed to see Hamilton pass both Williams drivers with a pit stop instead of an on-track pass.bhall II wrote:If that's what you've taken from it, then I suppose that's fair enough. For me, it just further exemplifies the absence of any connection between refueling and overtaking, which runs contrary to what's typically the prime argument against refueling.
I also think it's kinda funny that a race in which the vast majority of finishing positions were decided by little more than pit strategy alone has nonetheless been lauded as one of the best races of the year and its winner hailed "brilliant" because his tires wore out at a particularly advantageous juncture.
So, perhaps all of this means the outcome of a race largely decides whether we enjoy it or not, and on-track action ranks a distant second?BBC wrote:Lewis Hamilton wins British GP brilliantly after late rain
Lewis Hamilton battled through a bad start and late-race rain to win an action-packed British Grand Prix