komninosm wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:30 am
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.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."